You are hereDebate with Kurt Simmons, Part 1

Debate with Kurt Simmons, Part 1

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Sam - Posted on 29 June 2007

by Samuel Frost
When I initially finished this piece, the debate with Kurt Simmons was not in the forefront. Recently, however, it has come to the forefront. The basic charge is laid out that the "corporate view" necessarily leads to Universalism. Now, I am a student of Logic proper, and I use the term "necessarily" in the logical sense. That is, like math, 4 necessarily follows 2+2. What Simmons alleges is that Max King's view as outlined in The Cross and the Parousia necessarily leads to Universalism, even though Universalism is explicitly denied in that book.When I initially finished this piece, the debate with Kurt Simmons was not in the forefront. Recently, however, it has come to the forefront. The basic charge is laid out that the "corporate view" necessarily leads to Universalism. Now, I am a student of Logic proper, and I use the term "necessarily" in the logical sense. That is, like math, 4 necessarily follows 2+2. What Simmons alleges is that Max King's view as outlined in The Cross and the Parousia necessarily leads to Universalism, even though Universalism is explicitly denied in that book.Now, it is true that King may have changed his views. I believe that he has changed his understanding of "all" in passages like Rom 5.18; I Co 15.22 and "all Israel shall be saved." I believe, also, that passages like "every knee shall bow to the glory of the Father" are taken quite literally. However, on pages 485-486 in King's book, he decidedly rejects Universalism and shows convincingly that it is the biological definition of death that leads to Universalism.

Now, King may have changed his views on such passages, but the point to notice is that his view of covenant eschatology and corporate identity between Adam and Christ is not affected in the least. It is not the point of contention that Simmons is making it out to be. In other words, Beck, King and Tim King may in fact be Universalists, but they did not get there because of the corporate view. They allegedly got there through another route, most notably upon a reflection of the grace of God, who God casts out and who he keeps in, and upon what basis does he do so. This hardly has anything to do with the corporate view and it is Simmons' full responsibility to show that the corporate view necessarily leads to Universalism. If he merely argues that some who have come to accept the universalist concept also accept the corporate view, then he has merely argued ad hominem. Or, more logically, propter hoc. That is "after this, therefore because of this", which every logician will tell you is a fallacy. No, what Simmons must prove is that it is no mere coincidence that some who hold to the corporate view have also come to accept the universalistic view because it is the necessary, logical step. That it is, in fact, the corporate view itself that leads to universalism. Finally, he must also show not from his own exegesis, but from the exegesis of King and myself (who he has consistently lumped together) that we lead to Universalism.

Now, with the above being said, this first part will deal with the framework of Full Preterism. My second part will then deal with the corporate view which I fit into this framework. It is the framework, however, that dictates to me that the swallowing up of "the Death" for "all peoples" does not, and cannot, lead to Universalism.

http://thereignofchrist.com/...

mazuur's picture

ok Sam I need some help.

I am in Genesis 4 verses 11-16. Is this not a repeat. Like Adam, Cain sinned and 1) the ground is curse for him vs. 11-12, 2) like Adam, Cain is banished from the Presence of God vs. 16.

That is too strange.

Also, if Cain, because of Adam, was already banished from the Presence of God, how can it be said in 4:16 that he is banished from God's presence? Surely one can't be banished twice.

I am really starting to find many things in Genesis that before I never considered.

-Rich

-Rich

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Rich,

I would be very interested to hear Sam's explanation of what's going on there.

You might want to look at Genesis 3:14-19 as a parallel text to Isaiah 65:23-25. In Genesis the order of the curse is 1) serpent, 2)woman, 3)man. Isaiah references each of these entities and alludes to their curse, but in the opposite order. 1) no more toil in vain [Man's curse] 2)no more bearing children for/in suffering [Woman's curse] 3) dust will be the serpent's food [continued subjugation of the serpent].

I take the banishment of Cain from the presence of God as a death sentence, similar to the idea that Gen. 3:15-19 IS God's death sentence promised in 2:17. Cain is (spiritually) dead, and his progeny after him. That is why there are no life-spans recorded in his genealogy.

As to your question about being banished twice from the presence of God, I think the writer of Genesis alludes to the grace of God upon Adam and Eve, due to the sacrifice offered to them (clothing of animal skins 3:21).

What we are supposed to get from this story is that even though Adam and Eve had been banished from the garden, and the tree of life, God graciously remained with them as they went "east of Eden." That is why Cain, before he "fell" was still in the presence of God with Adam and Eve. God's grace remained with them, and they enjoyed covenant life, though eternal life was no longer within their reach because of "the death."

God's presence remained with Adam and Eve outside the garden. It was not completely "localized" in the Garden. We see a similar thought with Moses and the burning Bush. God's presence was with him there in the wilderness, though he was far from the promised land. Stephen made a big deal about the presence of God with his people apart from "the land" in Acts 7:1-50. It is a veritable laundry list of how God is with his people no matter where they find themselves (Abraham in Haran, Joseph and Israel in Egypt, Moses in Midian, the tabernacle in the wilderness, etc.)

Stephen's speech greatly upset the Judaizers who viewed "the land" as the limited dwelling place of God with man. (They were upset with Stephen because he "never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law" Acts 7:13-14). Genesis 4 shows that God's presence remains God's people wherever they may be, even under the old Covenant. That is why the "fall" of Cain led to his death sentence (banishment from the presence of God).

That is how I would answer your question. I'll eagerly wait to see the way Sam would handle that.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

mazuur's picture

Hey Tim,

btw thanks for your post here. Excellent stuff as usual. I am really looking forward to your book.

Thanks,
Rich

-Rich

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Rich,

Check your Private Messages.

I believe the new book will far exceed your wildest expectations. I wish it was out already, especially given Sam and Kurt's "debate." But quality material takes time. You won't be disappointed.

The end is near.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

mazuur's picture

Tim,

Email me at rich@richduncan.com

Rich

-Rich

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Rich,

I tried. For some reason the e-mail bounced.

Hit me with one:

JVHSA@Jeffersonvalley.net

Thanks,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

tom-g's picture

Hey Tim,

What's going on here? You have repeatedly and vehemently avowed yourself to be consistently a preterist and not a futurist. And yet here you are as a futurist of the worst kind.

You say: "You might want to look at Genesis 3:14-19 as a parallel text to Isaiah 65:23-25. In Genesis the order of the curse is 1) serpent, 2)woman, 3)man. Isaiah references each of these entities and alludes to their curse, but in the opposite order. 1) no more toil in vain [Man's curse] 2)no more bearing children for/in suffering [Woman's curse] 3) dust will be the serpent's food [continued subjugation of the serpent]."

When, being a consistent preterist, did the curse of the woman cease? Are you saying that women no longer suffer in child birth?

When, being a consistent preterist, did the curse of the man cease? Are you saying man no longer toils by the sweat of his brow in the dust of the ground to earn a living?

The end of these curses can not be in the future that would make you a dispensational futurist. But if the curses still remain then you can not be a consistent preterist.

What gives here Tim?
Tom

KingNeb's picture

Rich,

Sam briefly touched upon that here:

http://thereignofchrist.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40...

Sam may elaborate on it more here.

thereignofchrist.com

mazuur's picture

Jason,

This is Sam's answer, "was further banishment from God’s presence."?

How can one be banished "further" from the Presence of God? God is everywhere, thus one is either out of his presence or not, which is language referring to relationship. This is no further.

"Eden, even though closed to the public, was the “presence” or “face” of the Lord. It was a tabernacle/temple of the presence of God. This would mean that Abel’s and Cain’s sacrifices were offered outside the east side of the Garden. They could not enter into it. Cain’s banishment, then, is an exile from the temple into the wilderness. Cain settles in Nod, east of Eden’s east gate."

Sam is so close to seeing it it isn't funny, but he will not allow himself to. He even states that the Garden was the Presence of God, and he knows the presence of God has nothing to do with physical location. Man, he's so close. He is basically saying it without realizing it. If he would just read his own words. One day he is going to repeat the words of David Chilton.

Notice he is saying the Garden was God's temple. The whole point of Christ coming was to restore what was lost in the Garden. Rev 21-22 tells and shows us through the descriptive language of Rivers, Trees, a City with Gates etc., just like Genesis with the Garden, that it is all metaphorical language. All of Revelation 21-22 descriptive terms are exactly like Genesis'. It's all metaphor describing being in or out of the Presence of God.

I for the live of me can not understand how a Preterist can hold Genesis to be literal (physical) and Rev 21-22 not. They are the same.

How can you or Sam insist on a literal physical Garden, yet understand that the Tree of Life that was in the Garden was Christ, thus not a real tree? The fact that Genesis tells us the Tree of Life (which is Christ) was in the Garden tells us the Garden isn't any more real (physical) than the Tree.

-Rich

-Rich

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Hey Rich,

Check out this little gem out:

http://preteristarchive.com/CriticalArticles/geisler-norman_07-01.html

Look under the section "Spiritualizing." The "Conclusion" is also very interesting, especially when Geisler calls 1st century Jerusalem "a small city."

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

KingNeb's picture

Rich,

Please explain to me how you all of a sudden went from "ok Sam I need some help" to Sam is inconsistent?

What is Sam so close to seeing considering that you started this discussion admitting to your own difficulty in seeing how it fits?

Was this an honest inquiry or some set-up?

Furthermore, in all that you typed, you still don't answer your own original question.

You said, "Also, if Cain, because of Adam, was already banished from the Presence of God, how can it be said in 4:16 that he is banished from God's presence? Surely one can't be banished twice."

So, are you now concluding that Cain was not effected by Adam's banishment?

thereignofchrist.com

mazuur's picture

Jason,

"Please explain to me how you all of a sudden went from "ok Sam I need some help" to Sam is inconsistent?"

So you're asking that since I have a problem with a few verses here and there that I understand nothing at all? I guess since Sam is just now coming to a whole new understanding of Romans 5-8, that prior to that he didn't understand anything in the entire NT. Sheeesh Jason, you can do much better than that. In fact, that was a real effort in trying to take jabs at me. What is also interesting is suddenly because I disagree with what Sam said concerning that passage, you suddenly feel the need to take jabs at me.

"So, are you now concluding that Cain was not effected by Adam's banishment?"

I haven't concluded a thing yet. But, it is clear to me that Sam's understanding is wrong. Tim sure seemed to have a excellent position. Perhaps his is correct. At least his maintains a covenant perspective, which is what Sam's suddenly looses. Which is strange after all his talk about things being covenantal.

So, no it was not a set up at all. I was truly asking what Sam's understanding was. But, now it's clear to me that for one to disagree means Jason suddenly goes on the offensive posting comments meant to ridicule. Gee Jason, I am sorry I disagree with Sammy. I'll be sure not to let that happen again.

-Rich

-Rich

KingNeb's picture

taking jabs seems to be the order of the day, Rich.

I'm not the one constantly pointing out how inconsistent and wrong he his.

I'm not the one questioning his motives or possible "subconscious" blocks, as many have done here.

Sam nor I have ANY problem whatsoever of being shown that we are wrong. But there is a HUGE difference between merely asserting that we are wrong versus actually demonstrating it exegetically in such a way that it passes all tests of logic and sound hermeneutics.

And i simply questioned how you went from "Sam i need some help" to "hey, Sam is clearly wrong and inconsistent here."

heck, maybe within the time span of a day, you've done a ton of thinking and made the connections. That's fine. So lay it out here. But nothing of what you said (going on about physical trees versus spiritual trees, and so on) answered your own original question.

So, i'll ask again: are you now concluding that Cain was not effected by Adam's banishment?

thereignofchrist.com

Starlight's picture

Rich,

I agree that Sam is getting close; he’s way too brilliant to continue to hold an inconsistency.

Unfortunately when we get to Genesis I see Sam taking on some of Kurt’s baggage. I discussed similar topics with Kurt when I first came to PP last August and the Revelation/Genesis correlation was an amazing trip for Kurt. There is nothing mysterious about why this is so as we all know that some concepts challenge our overall biblical paradigm and thus threaten our worldview system. We can see what it has done to Kurt and to a similar yet lesser degree is what inhibits Sam concerning Genesis questions. Our personal and community baggage end up becoming stumbling blocks in seeing clearly as we perceive the ostracizing by our own community and may subconsciously not allow ourselves to get too far out of the main stream of thought. Thus becoming a preterist is a step that some can courageously take but a covenantal application to the flood would be the proverbial “Bridge to Far”.

Unfortunately we also have the intransigence factor as well which we all suffer from. Our futurist friends demonstrate this aspect all day long to us when they continue to misunderstand and misapply the NT time statements concerning Christ coming.

I don’t know where Sam is going to eventually end up as he is most definitely his own man and will not be badgered into a compromise that he does not see. That is why we have to be careful with our attitudes towards Kurt and Sam as they hold these convictions and do so out of their honor to Christ/God and will have to come to the covenantal understanding themselves.

It’s obvious from the discussion so far though that Sam is head and shoulders above Kurt at this point in acknowledging a covenantal understanding. I thought Sam did a masterful job in so much of his recent retort and he surely blessed me with his renderings. Even though I believe I have a clearer insight into certain specific covenantal points at this time it is obvious to me of Sam’s great biblical talent. He truly blesses us with that God given ability and his hard work in training is there for us all to benefit from.

Blessings

Norm

KingNeb's picture

if 'the Revelation' does have global significance, than there is no "inconsistency".

in revelation, i read that ALL kingdoms have become the kingdom of our Lord.

Sounds global to me.

thereignofchrist.com

Starlight's picture

Jason,

It wasn't a true global or even at all for the Gentiles until Christ and the revelation to Peter and Paul as their messenger. Up until then it was addressed to the Jews just as Christ stated.
(Mat 15:24 NRSV) … "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Here is Paul’s explanation on how the Gentiles became included in the story.

(Eph 2:12 NRSV) remember that you (Gentiles) were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the COVENANTS OF PROMISE, having no hope and without God in the world.

Eph 3:1 This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- for surely you have already heard of the commission of God's grace that was given me for you, and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words, a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ.

“In former generations THIS MYSTERY was NOT MADE KNOWN to HUMANKIND, as it HAS NOW BEEN REVEALED to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:
that is, THE GENTILES HAVE BEOME FELLOW HEIRS, members of the same body, and SHARERES IN THE PROMISE IN CHRIST JESUS THROUGH THE GOSPEL.”

I don’t know how I could make it any more explicit than Paul does concerning the exclusion of the Gentile involvement in the “covenants”. The Gentiles are not part and parcel of the story of redemption until the mystery concerning them is revealed to Peter and Paul.

Jason this is why many of us reject as unfounded scripturally a global all encompassing flood in Genesis. We recognize the covenantal aspect of its application and the Gentiles are not the focus of this “covenantal” cleansing. They are not brought into the picture until their time and their mystery is revealed in the fullness of time.
This is when the totality of mankind is brought into the picture.

That is why we recognize that the Old Heavens and Earth that passed away was directed toward the Jewish system just as Peter declares in 2 Pet 3:5-7 but if we pay attention to Peter there he spells out to us that the Old Heavens and Earth perishing is in like manner to Noah’s “world” perishing. We preterist know without a doubt that it wasn’t a physical global world that perished but a specific Covenantal one which became replaced by the all encompassing New Heavens and Earth which never ends. Noah’s world was also a covenantal world belonging specifically to the “seed” line derived through Seth’s lineage and like Hebrews 1:10 states “they shall all be rolled up and discarded” There was no rolling up of any Gentile world discussed concerning Noah.

Concerning taking jabs at Sam, yes you could say I did in the sense of pointing out subconsciously what happens to “all” of us at times. We are all subject to this and I am included as I’m sure I have my dogmatic blind sides as well. This is a discussion forum where we discuss the issues that cause these blind sides and we need to recognize and not ignore the import of our assumptions in recognizing contributing factors. As I stated in my post Sam is high on the list of importance to me in the Preterist universe and I honor his contributions.

Blessings

Norm

KingNeb's picture

"We recognize the covenantal aspect of its application and the Gentiles are not the focus of this “covenantal” cleansing."

Norm,

Was Noah an Israelite or a Gentile?

thereignofchrist.com

Starlight's picture

Jason,... "Was Noah an Israelite or a Gentile?"

Was Noah part of the "covenants of the promise"?

KingNeb's picture

"Was Noah part of the "covenants of the promise"?"

yes, but what does that have to do with my question and what appears to be your underlining assumption that "covenants of the promise" are strictly limited to Israel?

Adam was not an Israelite. Abel was not an Israelite. Noah was not an Israelite.

So please explain to how you limit the Flood to 'Israel'.

thereignofchrist.com

Starlight's picture

Jason,

Where did you get any idea that I was limiting the discussion to only Jacobs’s descendants?

You just changed course in midstream on me here so I’m trying to get you back on course.

I’m talking “seed” line from Adam to Christ; this is who Paul is discussing as those who would be included in the “covenants of the promise”.

Lk 3:23 Now Jesus himself was….
the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

Go back and reread my first post that you responded to, the one detailing all the scriptural references that you imply no one utilizes in logical and hermeneutical methodology.

I would like to see you deal with the implications that I laid out there in a logical and hermeneutical manner.

Norm

Starlight's picture

Make that the second response, or two post back.

mazuur's picture

Norm,

I agree. I love Sam's works. I read and listen to his stuff constantly. I have so much of his stuff loaded on my iPod it isn't funny. I have a 40 minute trip to and from work everyday that I spend listening to his lectures.

I see Sam being just like David Chilton. Brilliant, for sure. I wish David could have been with us longer after becoming of Full Preterist. He would have put out some great stuff. But God has given us Sam, so all is not lost, even though he still hasn't placed his covenant understanding in Genesis yet. But I believe it's coming. And then, like Chilton, he'll look back at the stuff he wrote prior and say something along the same lines as David. The following are David's words concerning his book Paradise Restored,

"As a whole, that is virtually a complete expression of the Full Preterist position! (If someone had pointed that out to me in 1985, I don't know what I would've done!) All of Chapter 13 ("The Last Days") should have pushed me into Full Preterism all by myself! I don't know why it didn't!"

-Rich

-Rich

OSTRALOA's picture

Sam,

I would like to thank you from down here in Brazil for your excellent article you posted on your website.

Misguided assumptions and opinions of man suggest that that the covenantal view excludes any relevancy to what happens to the individual at biological death. Yet biological death is not all she wrote. Obviously there is the covenental importance to the anastasis as well in A.D. 70.

Yet the annihilationst would have us believe the reprobate all go into the wild blue yonder of annihilationism. This is unsriptural as I believe you could show too. Universalism is related to annihilationism in many ways in it's errors.

I would like to see the universalist and the annihilationists leaners and advocates out there in preterism to challenge you to debate or vice versa. Just look where Todd has fallen off too unfortunately. I think following this debate you should challenge their spokesman and put these two unblblical positions to rest in preterism for good. The Lord might just use you to save what's left of the face of preterist scholarship. Blessings.

For Christ & Kingdom,

Paul Anderson
Planalmira, Brazil

flannery0's picture

a question about this:

" Everything that follows this story is to be seen in light of this story. From Noah to Abraham to Moses to Christ, all of these stories illustrate these opening scenes of Genesis. They are all patterned after the Exile and Promised Restoration motifs. Abraham "goes down" to Egypt, and so does Jacob. Moses leads them "out of" Egypt and "into" a land much like the description of Eden. They break God's laws and are "exiled". Jesus goes "down to" Egypt and crosses the Jordan. David did, too. David "ascends" a "second time" to the throne of Jerusalem and as a result, "unites Judah and Israel", and then comes the glory of Solomon. All of these stories have the same patterns to them. They each illustrate the Story to Come, the one Story that will end all stories and wrap them up into one. It is within this framework that we must read Paul."

Every one of these examples is 'covenantally' contextualized: that is, every one of them applies only to Israel....except one apparently: Noah's flood. That one was global, universal, 'planetary'. So, when you write, "it is within this framework that we must read Paul": which framework? The global one, like Noah, or the covenantal one, like in all the other examples you gave?

Tami

KingNeb's picture

Noah was not an Israelite. Nor was Adam.

thereignofchrist.com

Starlight's picture

Jason,

Noah and Adam were both covenantal men.

Hos 6: 7 Like Adam, they have broken the covenant—

Gen 9: 8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you.

Here is the first and primary covenantal promise.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Here is Paul’s understanding of the covenants and the promise.

Eph 2:12 remember that at that time you (Gentiles) were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and FOEIGNERS TO THE “COVENANTS” OF THE “PROMISE,

The question remains whether we accept Gen 3:15 as the primary originating promise of scripture or does the promise to Abraham or Jacob overshadow Gen 3:15.

1 Cor 15:45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL " The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

It appears Paul looks from Adam to Christ for the covenantal story.

Norm

tom-g's picture

Norm,

You repeatedly bring up the concept of a covenant. However, your use of this idea is so ambiguous that it loses any meaning. Especially since you are not settled upon what you perceive to be "THE" covenant.

Given, for the sake of discussion that both Adam and Noah were "covenant" men. The question becomes: "Were they both covenant men of the same covenant?" Your examples say that they were not.

The covenant made with Noah in Gen. 9 is a renewal of the covenant made with man in 1:26-28. The reason it was necessary to renew this covenant with Noah is because God had destroyed every man that was a part of this original covenant with the global flood, except the 8 in the ark. The renewal of the original covenant with Noah, was made with all mankind and the whole earth, as the symbol a rainbow proves, since the rainbow is a global occurrence and not restricted to just a small regional area of the earth.

Gen, 3:15, contrary to your continued assumption, was not a covenant made with man (Adam and Eve) but with the serpent (Satan). And again the covenant with Satan was a universal covenant inclusive of all men not just Adam and Eve. (The seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent when combined equals all men)

Regards,
Tom

Starlight's picture

Tom,

I like to repeat a theme to ensure that it is picked upon eventually, especially ones that contextually may be habitually and continuously overlooked by preterist. Also I post my responses in the expectation that new folks are reading these exchanges and may not be as aware of the repetitious manner and it may benefit others.

The reason that you may consider my understanding ambiguous is that Paul has defined the discussion as “the Covenants of the Promise” not singular covenant.

(Eph 2:12 NRSV) remember that you (Gentiles) were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the COVENANTS OF PROMISE, having no hope and without God in the world.

I’m not sure that you are picking up that this was a plural “covenants” not the singular covenant, there is a big difference. Paul is implying here that the Gentiles have never been a part of any of the past “covenants” and this would include Adam’s and Noah’s. It appears that you have relegated the Gen 3:15 promise of redemption to second tier status behind the later ones, again I believe a major misapplication.

Also concerning your understanding that God destroyed everyman that was a part of the original covenant I believe you are correct to a point. If you remember though Paul declares that the Gentiles were not partakers of the “covenants” and therefore they were never under condemnation for breaking covenant with the Promise. Therefore the condemnation did not fall upon the Gentile world. If you notice in Gen 6 we have the called “promised seed line of Seth” is the ones who broke covenant and intermarried with wickedness breaking the called covenantal sanctity of the “seed” line. If you remember there were severe consequences for only the seed line for intermarrying such as Solomon did with foreign wives. There are many passages detailing the “seed” lines need to remain pure throughout OT scriptures without intermarrying even before the promise was given to Jacob. Gen 27, 28 before and also Ezra 9 after God’s promise to Jacob.

You need to be aware of biblical patterns and one of those patterns is that the OT scriptures are dealing with the “seed” line for redemptive purposes. This is why when Cain is banished from the presence of God he and his progeny are no longer part of the called lineage. That is obvious from two perspectives. First is that Cain’s genealogy has no long lives associated with him nor his off spring? This indicates that contrasted to Seth’s lineage which is designated with long life spans they are without hope just as Paul states in Eph 2. “Having no hope and without God in the world”.

The second reason is that the promise will not be fulfilled through them and therefore they are not under the flood curse which is to purify the called “seed” lineage. So the question begs where did the Gentiles arise and when. I believe in Hebrew history they arose from scripture starting with Cain, then Noah’s two other sons Ham, and Japheth; Abraham’s son Ishmael and Isaac’s son Esau just to name a few. Everyone who is a student of the scriptures knows that these off shoots were never dealt with in the same manner as the called “seed” line was. Why, because they were not part of the “covenants of the promise”. This is why the story of Esau marrying outside the lineage was of little or no consequence and did not cause the same ruckus as it would have if Jacob had intermarried at this point. This is why also that the promise made in Gen 3:15 concerning the “seed” of Eve is of great magnitude for the redemptive story.

Gen 28:8 So when Esau saw that the Canaanite women did not please his father Isaac,
Esau went to Ishmael and took Mahalath daughter of Abraham's son Ishmael, and sister of Nebaioth, to be his wife in addition to the wives he had.

Tom your inclination to declare the rainbow as a global sign is way off base as it was a sign to the specific group that I have just spelled out for you. This is where you need to get your covenantal understanding of scripture straight. When you want to apply the Noahic flood as universal this is a major misunderstanding of the covenantal nature of the biblical story. Remember we have the non literal Heavens and Earth about to be destroyed in 2 Pet 3 and you are reading Genesis in the same manner as our futurist friends want to read 2 Pet 3; which is globally.
Let’s take another look at that global language in 2 Pet 3.

“5 They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless.

Tom do you think that the world of Noah’s day was global but the day of Peters was only local. You are simply imposing a futurist literal rendering to the language of Gen 6-9 instead of reading it as a trained preterist should which is covenantally due to our understanding of Heavens and Earth. Tom how global was the present Heavens and Earth that are about to expire in AD70? If you are going to be constant you need to equate the terminology of heavens and earth in a consistent manner as Peter does.

Finally; Tom said … “Gen, 3:15, contrary to your continued assumption, was not a covenant made with man (Adam and Eve) but with the serpent (Satan). And again the covenant with Satan was a universal covenant inclusive of all men not just Adam and Eve. (The seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent when combined equals all men)”

Tom again I think you believe differently than Paul does as he states that it was a mystery up until the present revelation to him how/that the Gentiles would be saved. Let’s read.

Eph 3:1 This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- for surely you have already heard of the commission of God's grace that was given me for you, and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words, a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ.
“In former generations THIS MYSTERY was NOT MADE KNOWN to HUMANKIND, as it HAS NOW BEEN REVEALED to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:
that is, THE GENTILES HAVE BEOME FELLOW HEIRS, members of the same body, and SHARERES IN THE PROMISE IN CHRIST JESUS THROUGH THE GOSPEL.”

In other words the Gentiles were foreigners to the “covenants of the promise” until Christ fulfilled the law as he said.
(Mat 15:24 NRSV) … "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

So then the mystery was revealed to Peter with Cornelius and with Paul as the Gentile messenger to them. So you might want to restate your last statement in a more theologically correct manner. This is why I am redundant Tom as there is a lot of misunderstanding out there.

Blessings

Norm

flannery0's picture

Not sure how that is relevant.

Were they or were they not in covenant relationship with God?

KingNeb's picture

You said, "Every one of these examples is 'covenantally' contextualized: that is, every one of them applies only to Israel."

Noah was not an Israelite, nor was Adam for that matter.

thereignofchrist.com

flannery0's picture

Sorry, I have no idea what your point is. My reference to Israel was simply to point out that the context was limited and exclusive, ie, covenantal. In fact I state that *directly*.

My question to Sam was whether we should read Paul in a global context or a covenantal context, since he used what he considers a global example, and also covnenantal examples, and stated they were all the "same story."

Then you responded by saying that Noah was not an Israelite, and I stated I don't know how that is relevant. I also asked you whether God was in a covenant relationship with Noah. And you didn't answer, but instead repeated that he was not an Israelite.

Oh well. :)

KingNeb's picture

Tami,

Do you believe that the flood "applied to Israel only"?

If not, why did you say, "Every one of these examples is 'covenantally' contextualized: that is, every one of them applies only to Israel....except one apparently: Noah's flood. That one was global, universal, 'planetary'."

It looks as though you are trying to point out an inconsistency in Sam because he understands the flood to be "global, universal, and planetary." This, in contrast to "only" applying to "Israel".

So, are you suggesting that the flood only applied to Israel?

thereignofchrist.com

mazuur's picture

"So, are you suggesting that the flood only applied to Israel?"

No, but is was covenantal (thus local), that is Tami's point. Sam seems to clearly see every example he gives as covenantal, then suddenly he changes to global. He is inconsistent. Someday he will see it I'm sure of it, just as someday he couldn't see "the sin" vs "sin", or Preterism vs futurism.

I mean just look back at how blind all of us were at one time. The scriptures state in Hebrews 1:2, "in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world."

It is clearly present tense, yet we just flat-out ignored what the text stated and insisted (argued) they (last days) were still future. That to me is amazing!

-Rich

-Rich

KingNeb's picture

Rich,

Merely suggesting Sam is "blind" doesn't prove anything...it begs the question.

Secondly, it seems as though "covenantal" has now become a synonym for "local". I think that is a mistake. There is nothing in the word "covenantal", in and of itself, that denotes anything about its reach.

thereignofchrist.com

flannery0's picture

Jason,

There is most certainly something in "covenantal" which suggests it is limited in scope, and does not apply universally.

Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Tami

PS Thanks, Rich, for affirming that my point was clearly communicated.

KingNeb's picture

Tami,

Simply having a person agree with your post does not necessarily equate that your point is valid or clear.

Muslims agree with each other on a ton of stuff that is just simply wrong and confused. ( ;

Again, i don't understand your point:

Why did you say, "Every one of these examples is 'covenantally' contextualized: that is, every one of them applies only to Israel....except one apparently: Noah's flood. That one was global, universal, 'planetary'."

It looks as though you are trying to point out an inconsistency in Sam because he understands the flood to be "global, universal, and planetary." This, in contrast to "only" applying to "Israel".

So, are you suggesting that the flood only applied to Israel? If not, then why make the comment about the "apparent" exception of Noah?

thereignofchrist.com

mazuur's picture

You're welcome.

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

Jason,

I think you're wrong.

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

Tami,

You have a sharp eye. Sam looks like he is getting close but not quite the whole banana.
Of course Kurt doesn't even know there is a banana ;-)

Blessings

Norm

flannery0's picture

from the article:

"Paul's reasoning is causal, and this is often missed. In 5.12 he used the phrase "so also" which is causal. The effect was that "the death passed to all" of whom Eve is the mother. Stick with Genesis 3 when reading Romans 5."

I have no problem with saying that the all to whom death passed (Romans 5) is the same all of whom Eve is the mother. The problem I have is with applying either to all mankind. Eve being the mother of "all the living" is not addressing the entire human race any more than Paul is addressing the entire human race in Romans 5.

This article is helpful in seeing the context of all in Romans 5:

http://eschatology.com/romans5.html

What is interesting is how many "Calvinists" would agree with above article, and yet inconsistently apply "all the living" in Genesis to the entire human race.

This is perhaps a small point, but it is foundational to many other points of this debate.

Tami

Sam's picture

Tami,

Show me a geneaology in the Bible that does not come from Eve.

Sam

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Sam,

Amazing, a full-preterist demanding a biological reading of Genesis 3! Who'd'a'thunk it? Your focus on biology is causing you to miss the big point of Genesis 3:15.

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

From that point on in the Bible, there are two covenant lines. There is the offspring of the woman and the offspring of the serpent. This is manifested very qickly with Cain and Abel. The seed of the serpent (covenantally speaking) rose up to kill the offspring of the woman. Then Seth was born "in the place of" Abel (Gen. 4:25). (Could this be prophetic of death, burial and resurrection?)

John applies the story of Cain and Abel to his current context in 1 John 3:11 ff. But notice how Jesus uses the idea of descent regarding the Pharisees and Judaizers in perfect harmony with Genesis 3:15. Jesus says:

"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44 NIV)

John does it, too:

"Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." (1 John 3:7-10 NIV)

All of this teaching (like Paul in Romans) is coming directly from Genesis 3.

The seed of the woman is the line of Seth to Noah to Abraham to Christ. She is the mother of covenant life. Do you really believe that Genesis 3 opens with covenant life and covenant death and ends with a reference to biological life? Didn't you just warn against arbitrarily switching definitions of life and death in close contexts in your response to Kurt? This is bizarre. Do you see the self-contradiciton forced upon you by your young-earth literalism in Genesis?

Preterism shows that the issue in biblical descent is covenant. There are two covenant lines from the fall onward. The offspring of the woman and the offspring of the serpent. The issue, which I believe you are missing in Genesis, is covenant. Eve is the mother of all living -- that is covenant life. The dead descend from the serpent.

Eve is prophetic of the Church, Just as Adam is prophetic of Jesus Christ. Please don't forget your preterist principles in understanding the big story of the Bible when you go to Genesis. It's one story from Genesis to Revelation.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Starlight's picture

Tim,

Thanks for reinforcing this understanding, Sam was doing a good job in dismantling Kurt's literalism until he hit the literal Genesis wall
on that point. Even us amateurs have figured out the prophetic covenental understanding of Genesis 3. It was a slam dunk when we recognized that Revelation 22 was reverting covenentaly to Genesis 3. Also John's usuage in the introductory material of his gospel account is a full recognition by him and the holy inspired spirit of the correct understanding of Genesis as well.

Blessings

Norm

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Norm,

From where I sit, here's how I see it. Perhaps I'm wrong. If I am, I'm sure someone will point it out.

Kurt demands a global eschaton in order to pre-emptively defend his global flood view which is central to his dogmatic young-earth creationism.

Sam demands a global "new heavens and new earth" where the curse is universally lifted from all men. This accords with his young-earth, literal, global interpretation of Genesis creation and also his commitment to a global flood which supposedly killed all men universally on planet earth.

The problem is, both Kurt's and Sam's attempt to preserve internal consistency between young-earth creationism and preterism clash.

Kurt's "global eschaton" view is not even worthy of a preterist response.

The weird thing about Sam's presentation is that he has to separate the defeat of "the death" for all mankind from the receiving of eternal life. In other words, the destruction of death is not synonymous with the attainment of eternal life.

I don't know how that can be defended in light of Revelation 21:4:

"He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

The context is clearly the reception of eternal life, because it is talking about the New Jerusalem in context. Sam separates the defeat of death from the reception of eternal life. This is crazy. He has to in order to maintain a universal defeat of "the death" and to counter universalist implications.

So what we have here is Kurt's attempt to merge preterism with a global methodology common to young-earth creationism warring against Sam's attempt to merge preterism with a global methodology common to young-earth creationism. Do you realize that both these guys are completely agreed in favor of a global flood and young-earth creationism? Isn't that weird?

Neither will give up the global methodology for a covenant context, relating redemption to a covenant world. They both sense that to start going down that path of a covenant context for these stories and covenant realities would have very bad implications for their deeply held young-earth creationist beliefs.

Therefore we have this attempt to globalize and universalize things related to redemption and the death, yet it must be done in a way that universalism is avoided at the same time. A tough predicament!

Wouldn't it be so much easier to say that the great tribulation occured within a covenant context? That redemption brings life to a covenant world? That the flood was a covenant judgment? I think it would be, but the implications for both Kurt and Sam are too horrible to bear.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

dwhochner's picture

Hi Tim,

Would you agree with this?:

1. All mankind (Universalism/Calvinism/Arminianism/Futurism):
a. Creation of the universe and the planet earth
b. All mankind came from Adam
b. Noah's flood was a global
d. The atonement of Christ for all mankind or the elect (all nations)
e. There will be "recreation" of the universe and the earth

2. God's covenant world only (Preterism)
a. Creation of the "heaven and earth" (covenant people and the promised land)
b. Adamic race only (not about non-Adamites)
c. Noah's flood was a local
d. The atonement of Christ was for the elect (covenant people only)
e. All were fulfilled in 70 AD, from the beginning (Genesis) and the end (Revelation) of God's covenant world.

So, #2 is more consistent with the scripture, IMHO.

flannery0's picture

"The weird thing about Sam's presentation is that he has to separate the defeat of "the death" for all mankind from the receiving of eternal life. In other words, the destruction of death is not synonymous with the attainment of eternal life."

EXACTLY.

"Kurt's "global eschaton" view is not even worthy of a preterist response."

Exactly again. But I think it is Kurt's "global eschaton" paradigm which is responsible for the "idealist" knee-jerk against full preterism. That reaction is not necessary however because "full-preterists" by and large do not subscribe to Kurt's view. The idealists are railing against a straw-man.

"Wouldn't it be so much easier to say that the great tribulation occurred within a covenant context? That redemption brings life to a covenant world? That the flood was a covenant judgment?"

Boy, it sure would!

Tami

Believability's picture

I understand you point about keeping it all in a "covenant" context but whether or not the earth was created according to the "young earth" paradigm or is much older that is traditionally believed has little to do with the outcome of how redemption is carried out.

For years I was prone to accept the existence of a "pre-adamite" race whose existence pre-dated the Genesis 1-3 creation account in order to better explain the beginnings of the cosmic rebellion in the spirit realm between God and Satan. The Genesis 1:2 verse that alluded to the fact that the "earth BECAME void" and was enshrouded in chaos seemed more logical at first glance. However, even setting all of that aside and merely focusing on the creation of Adam and Eve (which is identified as the "mother of all living") various problems arise from the limitation of this couple in being seen as the first "covenant man" and "covenant woman" recorded in Scripture. Further problems arise for those who take the Genesis account as metaphorical as opposed to literal (since Jesus specifically refers to them as actual historical persons in Matthew 19).

Keeping the discussion within the context of God's redemptive purpose (collectively) maintains the flow from the time of Genesis through the book of Revelation. Kurt who appears to see these end-time events outside the bounds of covenant misses the importance of how the SPECIFIC applies to the GENERAL in far greater ways, even as the local act of Jesus going to the Cross has implications that far exceed the simple act of one man being executed. He was not the first to die on a Cross, nor was he the last to do so. It was the redemptive significance of that event that transcends the local nature of what occurred.

Local floods and young earth arguments are for another day separate and distinct from the discussion at hand. It is difficult enough for both debaters to remain focused on the single proposition under consideration without further complicating the issue with other points that could be debated (IMHO).

What I appreciate most about Virgil is that he has made this venue available and that he allows all of us to voice our "collective" two cents into the discussion (which in the end will probably have little to do with the outcome).

In another posting I submitted extended quotes from the writings of Max King that should forever silence his critics as to his stance of preterist universalism (unless his view is modified in his new commentary on Romans 9-11 due to be released soon).

The collective body viewpoint does not detract with the reality of resurrection for individuals and their release from Hades. While I would contend that the Pauline arguments are directed toward the "community" (as a whole), this does not imply that the results of his argumentation had no effect on what actually occurred for the "individual." The collective body view and other applications (such as that of Ed Stevens) are not mutually exclusive from each other. Both viewpoints arrive at the same redemptive conclusion: The resurrection of the dead occurred with those events related to the destruction of Jerusalem and the consummation of the age in A.D. 70.

The reality is that believers today bask in the benefits of what Jesus accomplished whether we accept the collective concept or not. Death has been defeated and Hades emptied. Those who are "righteous" have been ushered back into the presence of Almighty God and redemption is complete.

This discussion is to determine if the collective viewpoint implies universalism as some would contend that. I believe the view may be open to misunderstanding, however, the principles when properly applied do not support that contention. A+B=C logic is under consideration here.

I am excited to see both debaters work their way through the material so that I can correct both of them when they miss the point (Just Kidding).

If some of you come to Ardmore this week for the Preterist Pilgrim Weekend I would love to sit down with you and talk about some of these other concepts. Very interesting to me.

Larry Siegle
Walnut Creek, CA

Starlight's picture

Larry,

I think what you are seeing here in these post is an ongoing discussion that has existed for years between Sam and Tim. I’ve been an Old Earth adherent for many years and came into Preterism just last year because of Tim Martins work on OE issues especially the flood. I was never comfortable with the scientific approach to OE that those like Hugh Ross espouse but I easily recognized the complete fallacy of the YEC movement which is heavily invested in the dispensationalist understanding of the physical/biological death as a result of the curse.

Tim’s work is about to culminate in an extensive preterist book that examines Genesis to Revelation from the preterist covenantal understanding.
This is why Tim and Tami responded to what is perceived as a covenantal flaw in Sam’s handling of Genesis 3. Sam adheres to covenant except in portions of early Genesis which many of us believe is a mistake and weakens his total approach. As I stated earlier one of the reasons I was attracted to Preterism was because I immediately recognized the hermeneutical approach to Revelation also rectifies many issues in early Genesis. I have not been disappointed in the Preterist approach to illuminate Genesis as well.

I also have been struggling with the notion of pre Adamites especially when I read the ancient Jewish work of Jubilees which tends to reinforce the Jewish concept of this notion. But I am still not sure that we have identified what the true classification of the Genre of Genesis should be. We see John use Genesis extensively in his Gospel account of the beginning of Christ first week and heavily utilize the darkness and light motif taken from Genesis 1. We also see the complete incorporation straight from Genesis 3 of the Tree of Life and removal of the curse with out the appearance of contemporary definitional change or explanation. So the bottom line of Genesis is it appears to be a mixed genre bag which is more about prophecy than anything else. Trying to fit Genesis into the world that we can physically measure and examine is a tough row to hoe and has broken many a one who has tried to fit it into countless different paradigms. It reminds me of the guy who spent his life attempting to figure out who the author of Hebrews was; well the bottom line is he went crazy in the process ;-)

I’m just trying to fill you in on a little of the background arguments that are an ongoing process here at PP and tend to pop up often.

By the way last years Ardmore conference was my very first preterist conference and I most definitely remember your presentations there. I’m a huge fan of Don’s and have many of his recent books. I would love to attend this year but it may not work out as it’s a long drive from the Houston area. If something happens that I get to go I will introduce myself.

Blessings

Norm Voss
PS. Larry if you want to know a little about my background you can visit my business web site athttp://www.newdimcomputers.com/
and at our church website at http://www.firstcolonychurch.org/elders.asp also you might find this posting on Kurt’s website interesting as it is about my grandfather http://www.preteristcentral.com/pret-tombstone.htm I also supplied Kurt with the article and book on this article he has posted.
Early Preterist Author from the Church of Christ
1956 Ulrich Beeson The Revelation
Mr. Beeson and My Grandfather were aquainted with each other and both became preterist.

Sam's picture

Read the article. Disagree with it. You have to prove that there are some humans who did not come from Adam and Eve. Now, ofcourse, you may not take this couple as real human beings. I do. Jesus came from Adam (Luke 1). So did you.

Sam

JohnRiffe's picture

From: http://prophecyandhistory.com/?q=node/146

I respectfully request that a debate regarding the Resurrection take into account all verses pertaining to the Resurrection that Paul was yearning to attain, especially these below:

Here are the Words of holy men of God as they were moved by His Spirit:

Hebrews 9:27 ~ penned in around 62AD
It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the Judgment.

Romans 8:11-13 ~ penned around 56AD
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall [future to 56AD] also quicken your MORTAL BODIES [PLURAL, Greek="soma"] by his Spirit that dwelleth in you [plural].
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live [present, 56AD] after the flesh, ye shall [future to 56AD] die: but if ye through the Spirit do [present, 56AD] mortify the deeds of the body [soma], ye shall [future to 56AD] live.

Romans 8:22-23 ~ penned around 56AD
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth [present, 56AD] in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan [present, 56AD] within ourselves, waiting [present, 56AD] for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body [soma].

Matthew 10:28
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Mark 9:43-48
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

John 5:28-29
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the Resurrection of Life; and they that have done evil, unto the Resurrection of Damnation.

Daniel 12:2
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Acts 24:15 ~ Paul, around 58AD, after being arrested in Jerusalem
there shall [future tense] be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

Philippians 3:10-14 ~ penned between 57-63AD
The fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the Resurrection from the dead.
12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. 13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind [adherence to the Law of Moses] and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, 14 I press toward the goal for the prize of the UPward CALL of God in Christ Jesus.
NKJV

1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 ~ penned around 51AD
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus WILL [future to 51AD] God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall [future to 51AD] not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall [future to 51AD] descend from heaven with a SHOUT, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall [future to 51AD] RISE FIRST 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught UP together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.

Revelation 20:5-6 ~ penned around 63AD
This is the FIRST RESURRECTION. 6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the FIRST RESURRECTION: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall [future to 63AD] be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Revelation 20:11-15
And I saw a great white throne, and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and Death and Hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And Death and Hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the Second Death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the Lake of Fire.

Matthew 25:31-46
31 When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him,
........ then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory:
32 And before Him shall be gathered all nations:
And He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And He shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand,
"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave, Me meat: I was thirsty, and ye, gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and ye, took Me in:
36 Naked, and ye, clothed Me: I was sick, and ye, visited Me: I was in prison, and ye, came unto Me."
37 Then shall the righteous, answer Him, saying,
"Lord, when saw we, Thee an hungred, and fed Thee? or thirsty, and gave Thee drink?
38 When saw we, Thee a stranger, and took Thee in? or naked, and clothed Thee?
39 Or when saw we, Thee sick, or in prison, and came unto Thee?"
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, ,
"Verily I say unto you,, Inasmuch as ye, have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye, have done it unto Me."
41 Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand,
"Depart from Me, ye, cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye, gave Me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye, gave Me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye, took Me not in: naked, and, ye, clothed Me not: sick, and in prison, and ye, visited Me not."
44 Then shall they also answer Him, saying,
"Lord, when saw we, Thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto Thee?"
45 Then shall He answer them, saying,
"Verily I say unto you,, Inasmuch as ye, did it not to one of the least of these, ye, did it not to Me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Revelation 20:4-6 ~ penned around 63AD
I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall [future to 63AD] be priests of God and of Christ, and shall [future to 63AD] reign with him a thousand years.

Revelation 1:1 ~ penned around 63AD
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass [future to 63AD];

Revelation 4:1
Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter [future to 63AD].

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43