You are hereFull Preterism vs. Idealism Part 3: FULL PRETERISMS

Full Preterism vs. Idealism Part 3: FULL PRETERISMS

  • 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 TheIdealNate - Posted on 27 May 2007

by Nathan Dubois
So that the points to the Full Preterism vs. Idealism discussion do not get side tracked, I want to say that this is not a debate about Universalists, Universalism, coined phrases, or peoples character. This study is a direct attempt to answer the questions I was personally asked concerning the difference between Full Preterism and Idealism, and to show why I believe Full Preterism falls short of the mark. The fact that I am discussing that Full Preterism, in it's logical conclusions, leads to Universalism is simply why I wrote Part 2. The logic used to describe the irrelevance of death and the devil for all, yet still keep condemnation going for anyone not in Christ by creating a "new death" and "new law" which men break, is faulty and lacking.So that the points to the Full Preterism vs. Idealism discussion do not get side tracked, I want to say that this is not a debate about Universalists, Universalism, coined phrases, or peoples character. This study is a direct attempt to answer the questions I was personally asked concerning the difference between Full Preterism and Idealism, and to show why I believe Full Preterism falls short of the mark. The fact that I am discussing that Full Preterism, in it's logical conclusions, leads to Universalism is simply why I wrote Part 2. The logic used to describe the irrelevance of death and the devil for all, yet still keep condemnation going for anyone not in Christ by creating a "new death" and "new law" which men break, is faulty and lacking.In doing so, Full Preterism creates a "new condemnation." Putting the truth of these spiritual facts into time lines, produces a logical beginning and end to these facts. In Adam all died, and now that AD 70 has occurred, all men are no longer in Adam. That condemnation has been put away. Now they are just simply outside the Covenant and "naked." Here is some language used by Michael Bennett, a friend of mine who is a Full Preterist, to describe why men are still condemned even after the condemnation of Adam was put away.

"There is a difference between the garden and the New Jerusalem...The garden they were naked and no knowledge of good and evil. Ate and had knowledge, and got the boot. Could not partake in tree. Now naked people (those without a covenant / and know good and evil it has all been revealed) can clothe themselves (with Christ) and come into the city to partake in the tree that allows you to "live forever."

This idea of a difference between the garden and the New Jerusalem is one part of the problem. However, this explanation falls in perfect logic with what I had posted from Sam Frost in Part 2.

"If the death is still around, then so is your condemnation. With the destruction of the Death, the condemnation in Adam was effectively removed. Dennis asks how can this be for the believer, but not for the wicked. This is answered by replacing the First Death with a new heavens and new earth Death, the Second one."

The logic of this Full Preterist thinking creates a new version of condemnation NEVER ONCE addressed in scripture by Christ, the Apostles, or anyone else for that matter. The reason this Part 3 is called a "...New Gospel" is because they have created new scenarios that do not come from scripture, but from their own logical conclusions of what they believe their time line driven theology leads to. The first death was brought on by Adam, the second death was brought on by Christ! People are released from the first condemnation of Adam, only to be innocently condemned to eternal torment, not because they are guilty of sin under Adam, but because they are born outside of the New Covenant.

As a friend has put it: "'I came not to condemn the world' - and then He signs a bill making a new law of condemnation.'"

The language has also been used by calling the law that now condemns men, since the law of Moses has been put away, the "law of Christ." This assumes Christ came to enact a law not previously enacted before. Full Preterism uses this to describe the commandments which men break today. By this the "new heavens and new earth Death" becomes enacted as well. Here is another Full Preterist explanation of this type of logic to explain the condemnation of today.

"People didn't transgress Adam's law yet still guilty in him...Death reigned from Adam to Moses even though sin was not held in account. Yet Sodom was destroyed...Even if none of these apply today, is there something called the 'law of Christ.'"

Once again, making a difference between Adam's law and the law of Christ creates a problem. A claim was made that they are seeing the whole story, so their conclusions are valid. However, they are inventing a new story because the old one passed away and became irrelevant. The Full Preterist focus on time line driven theology, and not Christ revealing theology, places dates as to when old sin and new sin started and stopped. Old condemnation and old laws stopped and new condemnation and new laws begin. This is only logical when looking at things strictly chronologically. When looking at things as all pointing to Christ and all being a part of the same story that ends in eternal life for those in Christ, and condemnation for those still in Adam, the focus becomes so much more clear, and the need to create new scenarios by which men are condemned is simply silliness, and maybe worse.

So to get to the point of why a "new heavens and new earth death" or a new reason outside of the old Adam is NOT needed for mankind to be condemned, is because nothing that occurred in AD 70 is new at all. This is where we get to the explanation of what Idealism truly is vs. the typical Full Preterist interpretation. This is also where I jumble together my other points of logic that are missing from the Full Preterist reasoning. It is the lack of these understandings that make the Full Preterist system lead to an inventing of new doctrine of sin, law, and death in today's world.

4. God’s attributes come into play for everything. God does not change and His character does not change. Just because God acted in time, those actions did not benefit, make different, cause change to, or halt His ways. He is the same today as He was in Genesis.

The law of Moses was a shadow of the true law. It represented the real law that was Christ. the law was a revelatory instrument used by God to show mankind His holiness, and our unworthiness. It pointed not only to our need for Christ, but was the tool by which mankind saw Christ revealed incarnate, when He fulfilled it's external works.

The law was made by Christ:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.
Hebrews 1:10 And: In the beginning, Lord, You established the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands; 11 they will perish, but You remain. They will all wear out like clothing; 12 You will roll them up like a cloak, and they will be changed like a robe. But You are the same, and Your years will never end.
Matthew 24:34 I assure you: This generation will certainly not pass away until all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.

Christ's words did not replace the law, they were the fullness of it. The shadow was that which Moses received on Sinai, but the reality is the fullness of the law was found only in Christ. His commandments to love God and your neighbor are not new, they are the same. So the only way to fulfill the law, whether it be the law of Moses, or the law of Christ (because they are the same) is to be in Christ.

Matthew 22:36 "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 He said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and most important commandment. 39 The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments."
Galatians 5:13 For you are called to freedom, brothers; only don't use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but serve one another through love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in one statement: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Galatians 6:2 Carry one another's burdens; in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

These laws are one and the same. A "shadow" assumes something is casting the shadow. Removing the shadow, or better yet, shedding full light on the thing which casts it, does not change what it truly is, it reveals it. A "copy" assumes there is something to be copied. The thing which is copied is not changed or done away with because the copy of it is removed, it is either hidden away without even a copy to interpret it, or the source is revealed in it's fullness. In this case the source, which is Christ, is revealed by those who are transformed by the spirit. Paul speaks of the ministry of the law as a veil, and he gives the one way by which the veil is removed.

2 Corinthians 3:13 not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel could not look at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were closed. For to this day, at the reading of the old covenant, the same veil remains; it is not lifted, because it is set aside only in Christ. 15 However, to this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 We all, with unveiled faces, are reflecting the glory of the Lord and are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory; this is from the Lord who is the Spirit.

Being "in Christ" removes the veil, it removes that which blocks us from seeing the realities that the shadow interpreted. When it is removed by the Spirit we receive freedom. Many people will claim that Full Preterism believes this anyway. As I have shown by the comments posted earlier, this is simply not the case. Full Preterists claim that AD 70, which is when the law of Moses was removed, removed the veil. But the law of Moses is just a temporal shadow.

So if the law was a shadow on this earth that represented Gods holiness, and with mans inability to comprehend and live up to God's holiness, it was a hinderance:

John 12:37 Even though He had performed so many signs in their presence, they did not believe in Him. 38 But this was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet, who said: Lord, who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 39 This is why they were unable to believe, because Isaiah also said: 40 He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes or understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I would heal them.

1 Corinthians 2:7 On the contrary, we speak God's hidden wisdom in a mystery, which God predestined before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age knew it, for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written: What no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and what has never come into a man's heart, is what God has prepared for those who love Him. 10 Now God has revealed them to us by the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the deep things of God.... 13 We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. 14 But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God's Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated spiritually. 15 The spiritual person, however, can evaluate everything, yet he himself cannot be evaluated by anyone. 16 For: who has known the Lord's mind, that he may instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:4 Regarding them: the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

So if the shadow law caused a veil to be on men when the law is read, it can be safely said that the law of Christ is also blinding to those who do not have the Spirit. It is confusing and foolishness.

2 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not welcome what comes from God's Spirit, because it is foolishness to him; he is not able to know it since it is evaluated spiritually.

So what kept men from God. What stood in the way of God and man. The law of Moses? By no means. If so Paul would have taught that it was in the destruction of Judaism that would remove the veil. Instead Paul said it was the Spirit that removes the veil. Removing the physical symbols of Judaism does not change the heart of Judaizers. It only reveals the defeat that their zealousness of the law brings.

Now again we go back to Romans. Whether before or after AD 70, whether with the physical law of Moses standing on the Mount or without, the Spirit is what frees men to turn to Christ, and remove the veil.
Romans 2:28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, and true circumcision is not something visible in the flesh. 29 On the contrary, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart--by the Spirit, not the letter. His praise is not from men but from God.
Romans 8:1 Therefore, no condemnation now exists for those in Christ Jesus, 2 because the Spirit's law of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

Full Preterism must either submit to the idea that the law is still in existence for everyone who is not in Christ, or submit to Universalist interpretations. The law of Christ is the reality of the shadow law of Moses. Removing the law of Moses, a copy, a shadow, does not remove the veil. Only the Spirit removes the veil. This is still ongoing because the law of Christ (the thing the law of Moses stood for, represented) is still ongoing.

It was THIS VERY SAME LAW that Adam broke in the garden. Even before the law of Moses existed on earth, there was a veil keeping men away from God because mankind (represented through the person Adam) broke the eternal law. Eating the apple was breaking the same eternal law that taking "the name of the Lord your God in vain" does. It is the breaking of this very same eternal law that condemns mankind today. Only in Christ is this condemnation removed. And being in Christ can only be individually experienced.

Being in Christ is not a corporate event, it is a personal event. Therefore, if AD 70 represented this change, because it only removed the representative of the true, then the true fulfillment is personally experienced each time someone enters into Christ. This is NOT application. AD 70, the removal of the fake/ copy, did not make true the reality, it only represents it. Reveals it.

The same is true for the garden of Eden scenario that was mentioned by Mike. Yes, the garden IS the same as the New Jerusalem in that it was a copy for it. The garden was physical, the physical is not the true. So what did the garden represent? The garden was the shadow, the physical representation of mankind dwelling with God. However, mankind can only dwell with God in Spirit and in truth. It was due to the breaking of the law that Adam was expelled and no longer able to enter. Covenant with God absent from sin. This is the same as the New Jerusalem, only with unveiled eyes we see that the spiritual reality of the New Jerusalem is what Eden was all about in the first place. Eden, Canaan, Old Jerusalem. All pointing to the New Jerusalem. Not different in character, just one a copy of the other. The law of Moses did not have a different character form the law of Christ, it was just a temporal representative, and therefore not sufficient. That is why Paul could call it "holy" and a "curse" at the same time. So the bringing in of the saints into the New Jerusalem is restoration into the true Eden.

Here is a link to a study on the eternal aspect of the covenant.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1769_gill_divinity.html#The_Abro

This is why Full Preterism is a "new gospel." It dishonors the eternal standing of the law and makes two different laws and two different condemnations. It dishonors the eternal standing of the covenant, failing to see that the one enacted on earth was only a copy of the true one made with Adam. The condemnation that came through Adam came from sin. Sin repelled Adam from the covenant, Christ restores it for each person that enters Him. Sin is the same disease today that it was for Adam, reaping the same condemnation and having the same cure. Time lines do not do the truth of the Gospel justice, and it eliminates the personal aspect of the fullness in Christ.

The gospel does just fine with it's own telling. It does not need me scrubbing through scripture to see what was done away with and what is left so that I can reach conclusions, none of which found in scripture, to explain it.

God Bless
Nate

dwhochner's picture

Nate and Tim,

I've been reading some of your posts about CG and I think both sides made some good points but is there something in the middle? I've been trying to figure out if the Bible itself do apply for us or not and maybe you guys know something. Let me share with my views where I stand at this point.

1. Adam was the first covenant man in Gen. 1-2 even though there were some "pre-Adamites"/"non-Adamites" at that time but the Bible seems doesn't mentioned about them.

2. Adam broke God's covenant (Hosea 6:7) and sin/law/death entered the covenant world.

3. Tim Martin did a great job about the flood of Noah which it was a local.

4.The new covenant was for the house of Judah ("Jews") and the house of Israel ("Gentiles", depending on the context). It began at the Pentecost and end at the destruction of Jerusalem.

5. Christ's ruling last for 40 years and gave all things back to his Father (1 Cor. 15:23-28). Christ died and raised from the dead for his brethren/people. The law/sin/death/Satan all abolished at 70 AD. All Israel saved.

In conclusion, it seems to me that Christ died only for the elect/Adamites/Israelites, not for non-elect/non-Adamites/non-Israelites. The Bible talks about the covenant/chosen people to whom Christ redeemed. Christ abolished the law/sin/death in 70 AD and they MAY not applied to us or post-parousia. Those who rejected Christ perished and those who believed him received eternal life (on earth, not about after death) before the destruction of Jerusalem. This one is where I am lending to BUT if Christ's death also for non-Adamites/non-Israelites, then the universaism may make sense.

I may be wrong and I am open to correction.

Starlight's picture

I don’t recall you posting here before but welcome if you are new. Let us know your name it you don’t mind.

I’ll get right to the point. You stated. …“there were some "pre-Adamites"/"non-Adamites" at that time but the Bible seems doesn't mentioned about them”.

You need to flesh this conclusion out some so that we can determine how you arrived at this position.

You stated…”sin/law/death entered the covenant world”

Didn’t just sin and death enter through Adam and Law entered through Moses.
(Rom 5:14 NIV) Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, …. 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase.

You stated…”The new covenant was for the house of Judah ("Jews") and the house of Israel ("Gentiles", depending on the context).”

How have you determined that the Gentiles were exclusively the house of Israel? What about the Romans, Germans, Celts, Ethiopians ect. Were they outside the Adamite lineage? Would the Roman Centurion be outside the lineage? How about those who converted to Judaism?

You stated…“Christ's ruling last for 40 years and gave all things back to his Father”

Again a pretty unorthodox position, have you debated this idea before.

You stated….” In conclusion, it seems to me that Christ died only for the elect/Adamites/Israelites, not for non-elect/non-Adamites/non-Israelites.”

If your conclusions are true then the rest of us just as well join the atheist crowd without God and with no hope. It would certainly be a waste of time to spend any more time studying scripture if that is the final determination.

I think you need to hang around PP longer and “test” your ideas under the fire of debate and examination. Nothing better to help you determine whether these things you believe are true are not. One of the most dangerous things you can do is going off half cocked and think you have it all figured out without serious cross examination. This is for your own benefit. So continue to put your ideas out there and let them be tested, respond and debate the points brought to bear on your methodology and conclusions. You will have to be persistent and not shy.

It seems to me that you have developed some pretty controversial positions which oppose conventional theology. Now this is a site where you can test the waters with your ideas but you need to be ready to defend them properly. You also need to be ready to go back to the drawing board if better light is shed upon the subject. It looks like you are open to that determination according to your final statement.

Blessings

Norm

dwhochner's picture

Starlight,

Do you think Christ is still the King and ruling today? If so, what about 1 Cor. 15:23-38?

As I said, it "seems" to me about to whom Christ died for. I am just being honest. I have ruled out eternal torment ("hell") but that leave me either annihilation or universal salvation.

The ancient Hebrew and Greek terms used for "everlasting" and "forever" in scripture do not refer to an unending duration or length of time. They are words that refer to the qualitative concept of certainty and consummation.

Lastly, the Bible also says that the gospel was preached to all "nations" before that generation ended. Why are we still preaching the gospel today? Can you show me where in the Bible that is still ongoing?

Thanks,
Donald

dwhochner's picture

Starlight,

I will try to answer your questions as best as I can.

About "pre-Adamites"/"non-Adamites", the Bible simply does not account for any people in history other than "the generations of Adam" (Genesis 5:1).

You stated.."Didn’t just sin and death enter through Adam and Law entered through Moses. (Rom 5:14 NIV) Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, …. 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase."

Have you overlooked this verse about why "the law" was added? What is "sin"? It is transgression of the law. The Bible also says but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

You stated..."How have you determined that the Gentiles were exclusively the house of Israel? What about the Romans, Germans, Celts, Ethiopians ect. Were they outside the Adamite lineage? Would the Roman Centurion be outside the lineage? How about those who converted to Judaism?"

Please notice that Luke had already pointed out that "devout Jews" and "men of Israel" came from every nation (gentile) under heaven" (Acts 2:5-9) to celebrate Pentecost and heard the apostles' preaching.

These "men of Israel" are said to be "Partheans, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamians, Cappodocians, Pontusians, Asians, Phrygians, Pamphylians, Egyptians, Lybians, Cyrenians, and ROMANS" (Acts 2:8-11).

This shows that Israelites who were born outside of Judea were called by the name of the gentile region where they were "born" (2:8). The apostles were not preaching to anyone other than these Israelites.

This is why the eunuch was called an "Ethiopian" and Cornelius was a "Roman." Israelites were scattered all over the world and were called by the name of the place of their birth. The gospel went to the "world" only to reach these scattered Israelites because they were the only ones to whom the convenants and promises were given (Romans 9:3-5).

Even the apostle Paul was both an "Hebrew" and a "Roman" because he was born in Tarsus, but was a pure blood descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (through Benjamin). Even the Law makes it clear that the Messiah "redeemer" had to be a blood relative of his own people. That's why the scriptures say that Jesus "partook of the flesh and blood of his brethren so that he could help the DESCENDANT OF ABRAHAM" (Hebrews 2:14-17). Jesus never made any claim other than to be the savior of "Israel" (Matthew 15:24).

To be continue in next post...

dwhochner's picture

Let me add what someone wrote:

First of all, the circumcised "Jews" at the time of Christ did have some representatives from all 12 tribes. We know this because James was an apostle "to the circumcised" (Galatians 2:9-11) and he preached to "the 12tribes of the Diaspora" (James 1:1) as did Peter (1 Peter 1:1). The 12 apostles also were selected from each tribe (Matthew 19:28)

However, you must not confuse the "circumcised" Jewish remnant with the "uncircumcised" remnant to which Paul was sent. Notice that Paul is "the apostle to the uncircumcised" (Romans 15:15-16) because there were also "Greeks" who were scattered Israelites who become "strangers" on account of the Assyrian captivity (Hosea 8:8).

Now, this is the reason you have two groups identified in Revelation 7. The 144,000 represent the complete group of circumcised Jewish converts that were being converted by the Twelve who went "to the circumcision" (Galatians 2:9-11).

On the other hand, the reference to "the great multitude of nations" in Revelation 7 is referring to the uncircumcised converts to whom Paul was sent (Galatians 2:9-11). When you compare the "multitude of nations" with Genesis 17:4 and the "fullness of nations" with Genesis 48:19, you can see that this language comes from the blessing given to the specific "nations" that were descended from Jacob and were eligible for salvation through the "new covenant" made with both "houses" of Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Now you see the genius of Paul's gospel to Jews and Greeks (Romans 1:16-17). Paul was able to get all the believing descendants of Abraham saved because God had both prescribed "circumcision" for his descendants (corresponding to the Jewish Christians) and "reckoned Abraham's faith as righteousness" (corresponding to the uncircumcised gentile Christians). Do you see how both groups are "saved", but they are still physical descendants of Abraham?

Jhedges's picture

He was just asking !

JL's picture

Hey John,

I saw your name in the credits for Pinky and the Brain. Is that you?

Narf!

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Jhedges's picture

Rampage beat Chuck so,,Ful Pret wins!! muhahaha

MiddleKnowledge's picture

John,

Do you realize that your analogy illustrates the corporate nature of our world? Subjectively, the only ones involved in the fight were Rampage and Chuck.

But is that true? What about all those who bet one one side or the other? Did they win or lose? Yes they did. Rampage and Chuck are "corporate" heads who fight, not for themselves alone, but for a corporate body.

There is no escaping the corporate nature of human life. If there is a corporate nature to human life, then there is objectivity to the gospel (one side wins and the other side loses). To reduce the gospel to mere individualism is to deny the biblical presentation of the gospel.

The statement from the above article:

"And being in Christ can only be individually experienced. Being in Christ is not a corporate event, it is a personal event."

is patently false.

God did not marry an innumerable number of individual wives. He married (past tense) one bride, the body made up of those who believe.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

flannery0's picture

"The statement from the above article:

"And being in Christ can only be individually experienced. Being in Christ is not a corporate event, it is a personal event."

is patently false.

God did not marry an innumerable number of individual wives. He married (past tense) one bride, the body made up of those who believe."

HUGE!!!

And I would add that communion with Christ is inseparable, and cannot be experienced apart from, communion with His people, *within* our oneness in Him.

I have a lot of issues with the "idealist" paradigm, mostly involving its removal of redemption from history, but what you have pointed out is an equally significant problem: that it *individualizes* one's understanding, and thereby one's experience, of redemption.

Tami

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Tami,

It is not my intent above to deny the individual experience of salvation, but to deny the denial of the corporate dimension of salvation. Does that make sense?

I suspect that a key error here is that Pret-idealism pits things against each other that are complementary. Time is pitted against eternity. The visible is pitted against the invisible. The letter is pitted against the spirit. Objective experience is pitted against subjective experience. It is as if we have to denigrate the first side in order to "save" the other.

None of this is necessary. I would argue that setting the issues this way is extremely destructive if followed out to the logical end.

What is interesting is that the other extreme (which pret-idealists are in reaction against) follow the same method, yet in reverse. As demonstrated in earlier comments to other articles here, the pret-idealist and comprehensive grace advocate agree on the dichotomy by saying that if salvation is objective, it is not subjective just as the Pret-idealist claims that if it is subjective it is not objective. Pret-idealism and Comprehensive Grace follow an identical methodology. One denies the objective, the other denies the subjective. That is why they agree with each other saying "Full-preterism leads logically to universalism." Only if we have to pit the objective against the subjective (which both above-named views do).

Isn't it interesting that they are bosom buddies on that point? I seem to remember C.S. Lewis say that errors appear in the world in united pairs of complete opposites. Pret-idealism/ Comprehensive Grace looks like a great example of Lewis' insight.

Back to the matter at hand. Does the Bible teach a corporate event related to salvation?

"God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect." Hebrews 11:40 NIV.

I cannot understand how anyone can deny that salvation is accomplished in history, corporately. There is more that can and should be said about salvation, but never to the exclusion of what Scripture clearly states. The fall took place in history, so too, redemption is accomplished in history.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

davo's picture

MiddleKnowledge: Pret-idealism and Comprehensive Grace follow an identical methodology. One denies the objective, the other denies the subjective. That is why they agree with each other saying "Full-preterism leads logically to universalism."

Tim, it's a shame that you say this, for certainly that is how you have interpreting previous interactions with us more inclusive crowd; but nowhere have any of us claimed your broad brush statement above, that is more the charge of those who have an issue with preterism. Again, that is your "subjective" reading of it.

I know we come from differing sides of the fence on post mortem – where I reject any notion that the bible dictates a supposed annihilation or endless conscious torment of those who die having not experienced a confessing faith in Christ; but rather understand such "redemptive salvation" as pertinent to those called into God's priestly service, of which there are countless texts pointing in that direction. Anyway, apart from that, I pretty much agree with the sentiments in your posts above.

davo – pantelism.com –

flannery0's picture

Hi Tim,

Yes, perfect sense.

Of course we are individuals, and experience things as individuals. My point is that the experience of our salvation is *inseparable* from our communion/community experience in Christ. (In fact, that is why the "heaven now" view can be such a hard sell: we have a long way to go toward realizing in a tangible way the communion which was designed and commanded by Christ which results in the experience of heaven.) So yes, I think you hit it on the head when you stress that there are dichotomies being demanded, which are not required.

And I also have not heard the idealists address the fact that their denial of a historical redemption also forces them to deny a historical fall.

LOTS of questions.

Tami

TheIdealNate's picture

Tami,
"And I also have not heard the idealists address the fact that their denial of a historical redemption also forces them to deny a historical fall. "

Tami...for MAN ALONE, first the natural, then the spiritual. For God...ALWAYS SPIRITUAL with physical manifestations of Himself. So the question above can easily be answered that way. I plan to touch on it in Part 5. Man and his fall HAD to start in time, cause finite beings is what we are, for God, His Holiness and character never started or stops in time.

(Part 5 may take a while because I am deploying for 3 weeks on Saturday).

God Bless
Nate

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

flannery0's picture

Yeah, I have a lot of questions, and a lot of problems with "pret-idealism". But I just saw this morning a post on another public forum slandering (Yes, *slandering*) Todd Dennis, and so I wanted to clarify something:

Todd and I disagree on some things, which we have discussed. However, he is a dear friend of mine, and a brother in Christ. He of all people may not appreciate this post, because he has wisely counseled me on more than one occasion to not respond to the mockers, the adversaries, and those who go about seeking to devour God's people.

But I feel it is important to clarify that I have far more in common with my brother, Todd, though we may disagree on some doctrinal points, than I do with someone who by merely verbal assent holds some of the same doctrinal positions which I do, and yet goes about attacking the character of Christians and sowing discord among brothers.

Mercy *triumphs* over judgment. Mercy is the glory of the Kingdom of Christ. And mercy is what displays the character of the Kingdom to the world. And Todd is one of the most merciful people I have ever met.

Tami

Starlight's picture

Tami,

Very good points.

I got to set in live at Carlsbad and watch Todd develop his presentation culminating in his third lecture which blew my mind. I was extremely impressed with Todd’s spiritual manner even though I disagree with some of his separatist leanings.

I knew we were about to be slammed after the end of that third lecture. I have come to the conclusion that Todd has packaged a presentation against full preterism that was designed to fatally damage it. I just believe he is basically throwing the baby out with the bath water though.

Having come to that recognition though, we “must” debate these things in brotherly love, but debate we must. Any debate can get out of hand and unfortunately usually does and it is always good to have reminders such as you have given for us to remain charitable to each other.

Blessings

Norm

MichaelB's picture

John in the Idealistic interpretation - Rampage beating Chuck was the re-FULFILLMENT of Satans head being crushed. Hey - why not? That interpretation is as good as any right? =)

TheIdealNate's picture

Hey...I thought I was the rampage fan??

:)

God Bless
Nate

In the Eternal Christ,
Nate

Jhedges's picture

Well to be fair, I did post who I thought would win :)

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Mike,

Not to get too picky about anything you say, but you can't have "re-FULFILLMENT" unless there is already fulfillment in history.

Perhaps it would be better to say it this way for that alternative interpretation: "Rampage beating Chuck was a shadow of the eternal head-crushing." Is there ever fulfillment in history with pret-idealism?

Lots of questions.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

MichaelB's picture

Good point !!!

I don't even think they call it PRET-Idealism anymore...just Idealism.

MichaelB's picture

Nate the irony is that you are telling people that they NEED to read the bible SUBJECTIVELY. Don't you get the irony bro? Are you CERTAIN that we should ALL read it subjectively? This is like saying "the truth is relative". Well when someone says that shouldn't we ask "Even that statement?" Your theology is flawed from the get go.

You may persuade some people but persuasion is NOT proof. For instance the doctor may prove that you have a tumor with an x-ray. But you may not be persuaded. You may say "no way, I feel just fine". Your hermeneutic Nate, is just like the deconstructionist that says "words have no definite meaning". All the while he expects us to UNDERSTAND his sentence DEFINITELY.

Nate - we have pointed out numerous contradictions, inconsistencies, and faulty logic in your theology, but you seem unwilling to answer.

Things like:

If the true meaning of the 1000 year reign was not "in time" then "the rest of the dead" never come to life because the 1000 years NEVER ENDED and we are told that they come to life "when the 1000 years are finished".

You call us inconsistent, but in reality it is you that says that the devil still harasses Christians. Do you feel the same about Hades? It is you that is not consistent Nate.

Did 1st century Christians that lived through AD 70 had anything change for them? Was the devil NOT REALLY conquered for them, and they still dealt with Satan after AD70 - even though Paul in Romans said Satan would be crushed "soon"? Say goodbye to all the time-texts I guess, they are meaningless in your theology.

I could go on and on like this. You are not willing to answer. But then you take quotes from here or there, from me, or Sam, and use them in an article. Why won't you debate us and let's see just who's theology is more "consistent" and more "logical".

Nate writes:
The law of Moses was a shadow of the true law. It represented the real law which is Christ. The Mosaic law was a revelatory instrument used by God to show mankind His holiness and our unworthiness. It pointed not only to our need for Christ, but was the tool by which mankind saw Christ revealed incarnate, as He fulfilled its external works.

Nate how is this different than what Sam and I have been saying? What you FAIL to understand is that what was "REVEALED" was the TRUE LAW. Both for RIGHTEOUSNESS and CONDEMNATION. Hence the SHADOW is not needed anymore to condemn men. Romans makes it clear that Christ REVEALED both RIGHTEOUSNESS in Him and CONDEMNATION without him. No more SHADOWS needed.

Adam didn't start in the garden. God PUT him in the garden.

Genesis 2
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

Genesis 3
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

This (below) is enough to condemn any man - it has been REVEALED - man knows good and evil, and starts OUTSIDE THE GARDEN. There is nothing "new" about it. Adam did not begin in the garden (see above).

Matthew 5
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.

1 Timothy 1
5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 15To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.

1 John 3
23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

Revelation 21
8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." 25On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

So how does man get in?

Revelation 22
14"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

There is nothing inconsistent about this. We find the SAME THING / EXACT SAME IMAGERY in the OT where In Isaiah 65/66 Zechariah 14, Isaiah 26 etc etc. where John the apostle got his imagery from, are talking about the NH and NE and the NJ.

Isaiah 9
Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.

Application of the bible to our lives IS NOT the fulfillment. As the reformers said "one fulfillment many applications". You violate the Grammatico-Historical hermeneutic with every subjective whim that you have, and I am quite sure that the apostles would be pleased if you would grant them the SAME hermeneutical courtesy that you expect everyone to use when they read your articles.

Nate - You have turned into a "lucky dipper". Just close your eyes and point to a scripture and tell us how this is the true fulfillment.

LOL - Geesh. That is some great hermeneutic you got there Nate

Nate you and Todd think that you invented this idea of "revealed" truth etc. when the reformers have been teaching it from the beginning. This is covenant theology at its finest. The reformers described it as a budding flower. Same flower, but we have it clearer then those before us did. You however seem to want to go back to the unclear for unbelievers, and put ALL Christians still in the "that which is in part" scenario of the transition period. In your view NOTHING is conquered for the Christian past or present as seen in my examples above & in regards to your theology and Satan etc.

lsthomp's picture

Michael, I would love to see you respond to this comment that Nate makes. This is a very valid comment if you only view things in a external since rather than seeing the external as a revealing of the internal.

"Full Preterism must either submit to the idea that the law is still in existence for everyone who is not in Christ, or submit to Universalist interpretations. The law of Christ is the reality of the shadow law of Moses. Removing the law of Moses, a copy, a shadow, does not remove the veil. Only the Spirit removes the veil. This is still ongoing because the law of Christ (the thing the law of Moses stood for, represented) is still ongoing."

BTW, Why do you HATE Pret-Idealist so much? You twist everything that is said and attack and word.

DUDE, CHILL OUT! Its not the end of the world.

MichaelB's picture

Sam Frost will be adressing these articles (and your question) when Nate is finished, since these guys are unwilling to debate it. I don't have a working Computer at home right now so I have to keep this brief.

Quote:
Full Preterism must either submit to the idea that the law is still in existence for everyone who is not in Christ, or submit to Universalist interpretations. The law of Christ is the reality of the shadow law of Moses. Removing the law of Moses, a copy, a shadow, does not remove the veil.

I say "Amen". This is what Sam and I have been saying. Accept I think the veil is removed and Christ has REVEALED both justice outside of Him and righteousness and mercy through Him. But the quote above is NOT the crux of the debate.

Under a New Covenant where Christ said "in order for there to be a change in Preisthood there must be a change of the law". Then the "new commandments" which really "are not new" are "new" none the less.

7Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.

12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.

MichaelB's picture

Scott writes:
BTW, Why do you HATE Pret-Idealist so much? You twist everything that is said and attack and word.

P.S. how can you "twist" something that is "subjective" -- subjectivity by nature is supposed to be pliable =)

There is the "CRUX" of the debate =)

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