You are hereFull Preterism vs. Idealism Part 4: Full Preterism's Single Dimension Focus

Full Preterism vs. Idealism Part 4: Full Preterism's Single Dimension Focus

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

By TheIdealNate - Posted on 04 June 2007

by Nathan Dubois
The focus on strict time line theology has led many to miss important personal elements of the walk with Christ. Constantly bringing the kingdom into the realm of time, by establishing it's beginning in time, while explaining it's location as being one in time, has left out what the kingdom really is.The focus on strict time line theology has led many to miss important personal elements of the walk with Christ. Constantly bringing the kingdom into the realm of time, by establishing it's beginning in time, while explaining it's location as being one in time, has left out what the kingdom really is.In Full Preterism you have study after study about how the kingdom "came down" and whether or not the kingdom is "inside you" or "among you." The constant temporal focus of the kingdom has kept Full Preterism in the blind to both the individual and eternal dimensions of the kingdom. Over and over again there is a debate on when the kingdom arrived temporal and where the kingdom is temporal.

In a study by a Partial Preterist we can see what he considers the three important questions when discussing the kingdom:

"The problem comes when so many modern Christians are confused as to the nature and timing of the Kingdom. How are we to seek what we don't understand? When is this Kingdom!? Where is this Kingdom!? What is the Kingdom!?...Ever since that time, Jesus has been reigning over his Kingdom. First Corinthians 15:25 states, "For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death." Jesus, our victorious King, is in the process of conquering his enemies on the earth..."To better understand this interesting passage we must realize that the events in the book of Revelation were to happen in the first century...we again we see that the Kingdom of Christ began in the first century, is a present reality, and will consummate in the future. Let us be encouraged that our Lord is on the throne and that he is putting all of his enemies under his feet!"

This is a good charge by a Partial Preterist and a good example of how Full Preterism must leave consistency or give in to another form of theology. If death is destroyed then Christ must have handed the kingdom over to His Father and He is also subjected to Him. If the kingdom is a "when" and a "where," and death is defeated, then the kingdom is handed over and He is no longer in charge! The Full Preterist could go the Partial Preterist route and declare that the kingdom is to be consummated at some end of time, (or) it could go the Universalist route and declare that the kingdom is completely consummated and the Father is in charge because there is nothing left for the Son to do, or it could go the Idealist route, and see the kingdom for what it is -- an everlasting throne and habitation in the eternal realm.

Isaiah 9:7 The dominion will be vast, and its prosperity will never end. He will reign on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish and sustain it with justice and righteousness from now on and forever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will accomplish this.

There is never a time when the kingdom ends. He is always reigning over it from the right hand of the throne. Yet there is clearly a time when He hands it over to the Father. So which is it? Or is it both? Did Christ just have a 40 year reign from AD 30-70 or does He reign forever? Looking at a beginning and a handing over in a strict chronological view cannot consistently answer this question! Having a single dimension focus completely reduces the kingdom to something it is not. No matter how the Full Preterists declare it is a spiritual kingdom, Full Preterism puts temporal characteristics on it's nature.

This is noticeable in many FP writings on kingdom verses, such as "World without end" -- which is absolutely not talking about natural, chronological history, despite FP usage of this verse as a proof text that the world will exist forever.

The funny thing about the quotes above is though he declares he will discuss the "nature" of the kingdom, he never really does. He only goes into discussing it's length, which is still distorted by his timing. The reason to me is plain. Partial Preterism is time driven, (as Full Preterism is time driven, and neither one is able to correctly address the beginning (none), end (none), and true nature (spiritual and individual) of the kingdom. This is not only a sign of the incorrectness of the focus of both systems, but also of the ultimate bankruptcy of the theologies built upon that incorrect focus.

Looking at the kingdom with a microscope will either force the Full Preterist into seeing the eternal and individual dimensions of the kingdom, or their systematic approach will distort it and keep them blind and putting it into a box (wet, soggy, and torn apart after the flood rains come.

Christ had more in mind when He made this famous and theologically abused statement:

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

According to the historical focus of Full Preterism, the rules of logic supposedly dictate that the kingdom has a discernable beginning point. . This is assumed because no matter how much Christ said about it, they do not understand what the kingdom is! If we look at the descriptions Christ put on it, and the actions that make someone a part of it, we see that it transcends time.

Being a part of the kingdom had everything to do with the manifestation of the new heart by those who believed. Those who had faith (within) would act rightly (without). Those poor in spirit internally would be meek, give the shirt off their back as well as their coat, take the low seat in the house, carry their brothers burdens, and have ears to hear -- all evidences of a softened heart to the gospel. Those who lacked faith would contrarily manifest the fruits of the flesh. We know Christians by their love, so beware of those who claim the name of Christ yet manifest the opposite.

Long before "the kingdom came in AD 70" (which assumption I dispute), there were men who were every bit as much citizens and participants within it because of their faith. Many of the most recognizable names of such people were recorded in Hebrews. Abraham, Moses, and David were all "sons of the kingdom" long before it ever came to be manifested in the historical realm. Now I know the arguments that say that these fathers of faith were hanging out in a very heaven like spiritual realm called Hades until the earthly time line of AD 70 was concluded (a spiritual realm that is supposedly in the lake of fire suffering eternal torment, for that is what the lake of fire is), however this is also due to the incorrect view of taking God's eternal timelessness and making His realities subject to our time.

Here is another example of this mistaken presumptive approach from Michael Bennett.

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

This is how it is explained -- by not explaining it. It is new because he said FP based logic dictates it, even though it is old and eternal and the original. So what makes it new? It cannot be answered properly within the FP framework, because the proper answer obliterates the time line (anchor of the entire) theology. The biblical answer is "it is not new!"

Full Preterists, in order to maintain the integrity of their hermeneutic, choose to take the timeline-based answer (it is new) over the non timeline-based answer with which they also agree (it is not new). However, it is a plain contradiction to have something new that is eternal. It is claimed that it was eternal BEGINNING AT A CERTAIN POINT IN HISTORY, assuming that the rules of time and space on earth are precisely what governs the eternal realm as well.. as though God uses the 12 month based calendar. Though "logic" may dictate this, considering references such as '12 manner of fruit in their seasons' in Revelation, it is much better to reckon this type of communication as being a timeless God in a timeless realm utilizing what man knows (time and space) to get his point across. This principle is the foundation of a proper approach to prophecy, yet which ultimate meaning is completely lost with Full Preterism, as it takes the communication method as being the entirety of the message!

Instead, it is a much more faithful reading of scripture -- and one which provides great internal blessing for God's people -- to recognize that the kingdom is eternal; however, with the removal of the temporalizing veil, it is seen for the first time for what it truly is. It is new to those who are seeing it, as it is newly revealed. It is new in the same way my old car can be "new" to someone who just purchased it. Salvation is "eternal" but it is "new" to the person who just received it.

Here are just a few of a multitude of verses which demonstrate the hidden/revealed dynamic of the kingdom:


Mt 10:26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.

Mt 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

1 Cor. 2:7,10 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

2 Cor 4:4 In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

2 Cor 4:18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Ga 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Eph 3:9-10 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now, unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places, might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God

Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

And that which is being "revealed" ; "manifested" ; "seen"


Mt 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Mt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Lu 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Ro 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.

1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

2 Tim 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

1Pe 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1Pe 4:13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

The kingdom was being revealed in it's fullness by the eternal One from the very beginning. The failure to see the things on earth as a revelation of the eternal, instead making them into that which creates the spiritual, is the single biggest difference between the Full Preterist and the Idealist positions. Nothing done on earth started or stopped the things that are eternal (Law of Christ, Kingdom of God, the Word, Sabbath, etc). When Christ referred to the kingdom as something coming, when He gave the AD 70 parables to the disciples and multitudes, it was not to tell them that something NEW was being instituted, but to reveal to them the way it was always supposed to be, and the way it always is for those who "seek ye first the kingdom of God," just as Abel or Abraham did. They followed the law of Christ and were "sons of the kingdom" long before AD 70.

What Full Preterists have forgotten or simply not grasped -- and this is what helped me in my change -- is that AD 70 was a revelation of who Christ and the "sons of God" were.

When I presented that point of view in defiance of a literal rapture, but from a Full Preterist perspective, all my Full preterist friends were right on board. However, when I was hit over the head by the Spirit with the revelation that " it was ALL about revealing Himself and who we are in Him," and was about nothing else, then I was chastised for abandoning the time line theology.

Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is going to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation eagerly waits with anticipation for God's sons to be revealed.

All of the warnings to live right, maintain unity, etc. were given to that typological generation because they were about to be vindicated for the whole world to see. They would be revealed as the true sons of God. This is what the transition period and the war between the Jews and the Christian was all about. It is why it was a war where "vengeance is Mine," where "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal." The vindication was a revelation. All of it was a revelation of the eternal. They were not entering something new, they were being confirmed that they were a part of it already, and that they had been on the right side all along. Abraham never received this type of confirmation until his death, that is why it is said that he never entered the rest they did. However, once they had received that confirmation, then it as assured that Abraham had as well.

There is no question that many Full Preterists would agree wholeheartedly with much of this material, yet while still holding out hope to maintain their fundamentally chronological approach. However, by considering the eternal aspects simply the "applications" of the natural fulfillments, they miss out on how the very same eternal work is alive today, and operating in their lives, whether they recognize it or not. When the eternal starts to be applied and realized as eternal, and not as beginning in or being caused by AD 70, the attitude changes... as does the personal profitability of the study for our walk with Christ, and our victory in the midst of the perverse generation alive today.

One of the biggest attitude changers for me -- and what was one of the easiest reasons to grasp the fundamentally different approach with Idealism -- was the fact that realizing that the law of Christ and the kingdom are eternal in nature, yet are revealed in the process of time. This recognition allowed me to stop wasting time looking at what "time" it arrived and what ceased thereafter, instead freeing me to look at what the heck it actually is, and what it means for me today. Recognizing this intensely personal work of the Spirit is something very lacking in Full Preterist circles, and is actually mocked by many as being wimpy or subjective or "seeker sensitive." Other times, when Preterists start evolving into a deeper and more profound relationship with eternal things, they are called "Postmodern," "a cult," and (insert the name of your theological enemy here).

The Idealist standpoint chooses to look at the WHAT and not so much as the WHEN. It looks at the actual message meant to be conveyed by the chosen method, and not just at the method itself. Unfortunately, when in Full Preterist circles, the focus on the "when" completely distorts the "what" -- and declares that the "what" is not even for today, as it was fulfilled and terminated thousands of years ago!

This series of explanatory essays will be concluded with a summation, which will begin to "answer back" at the specific questions and responses from the first 4 parts. I will be TAD for 3 weeks so the summary will come in about 4 weeks. After that, I will add appendices to address whatever original questions arise.

God Bless

Barry's picture

Hi Nate

First of all Nate the "within you" (Luke 17:20)is "in your mists".
This is far more consistent contextually. The power of the kingdom was around them in Christ and in his miracles. This is the point he was making.
But anyway, more to the point:

The Idealist standpoint chooses to look at the WHAT and not so much as the WHEN. It looks at the actual message meant to be conveyed by the chosen method, and not just at the method itself. Unfortunately, when in Full Preterist circles, the focus on the "when" completely distorts the "what" -- and declares that the "what" is not even for today, as it was fulfilled and terminated thousands of years ago!
End Quote

Herein is the issue:

Your view seems to perpetuate the "enemies" so as to maintain circular motion.
The finality of the "revealing" is that God has no more enemies. They were all put down.

[This is an over simplification but my time is limited today]
The old economy is attached to the self defined "ego" of man (through the knowledge of good and evil).

In short, man makes himself an enemy of God. And then lives the life of this projected "ego". This is the old economy in its historical outworking.

The point of the "revealing" is to historically end this.

The "What" is that God has no enemies.

What you have done in essence is found another way to maintain the old economy (as a system of belief).

Now that Christ has handed over the kingdom to the Father, people can be "enemies" only in their "mind".
Their is still a continuing "reign" of Christ but not from an "enemy undermining" position. That position of reign ended and so is handed over in the sense of the historical work of fulfillment of all things written.

So then Nate, this is what I see. You still need your enemies. So that the "What" of the kingdom is not fully seen.

Eze 16:60 Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.
Eze 16:61 Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed, when thou shalt receive thy sisters, thine elder and thy younger: and I will give them unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant.
Eze 16:62 And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I [am] the LORD:
Eze 16:63 That thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I AM PACIFIED TOWARD THEE FOR ALL THAT THOUR HAST DONE, saith the Lord GOD.

The old covenant can be summed up as the historical outworking of making ourselves the enemies of God on an egocentric level. Historical Israel is the catalyst of course.

All the righteous blood recorded in the scriptures that was shed came upon the terminal generation of vipers. This is an historical outworking.

There is no more historical outworking of the old economy.
For is there was then we would by necessity need another "filling up" and an new or maintained eschatology.

The end of eschatology is the end of "enemies". Otherwise one must maintain a new "filling up" or a continuity of the old "filling up".

Blessings Barry.

we are all in this together

tom-g's picture

Hey Barry,

I am interested in your comments but they are too fragmented, or should I say too brief and cover too many points, for me to clearly understand what you are presenting.

Could you clarify your remarks for my benefit, maybe cut down the number of subjects you are covering?


Barry's picture

I’ll try my best bro.

We have to look at the scriptures combining together both the aspects of “revelation” and “history”.
There is a revealing being made or manifested. But it is taking place in history. In particular it is taking place in eschatological history.

For example this scripture here:
Hbr 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Hbr 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
Hbr 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Hbr 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Hbr 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

The assembling is the assembling out of the old covenant.
Sin willfully is staying with the old covenant.
No longer a sacrifice for sins is no longer the old covenant sacrifice.
Fearful looking for of judgment is the end of the old covenant age.
“Suppose ye” is the punishment of the old covenant creature from the old covenant perspective.

So then all of these things relate to the “revelation of Jesus Christ” on an historical level.
It cannot be separated from the “filling up” of Matt. 23:29-34.
This eschatological “filling up” is from the righteous blood of Able.

The point being that from this time if one wants to claim such things beyond fulfillment one must restart another eschatology with another filling up toward another consummation or appeal to the eschatology of the old covenant age.

However the consummation of the old age is a pacified God for all that they had done. (previous post).

So then we have an unfolding “revelation” and unfolding “revealing” that is historically consummated. And so “let us make man in our own image” reaches an eschatological conclusion. We are in God’s image and have no authority to define ourselves any other way. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil becomes the “law”. The law is fulfilled. Every tree that does not bear fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Egocentric man:
The old economy is one of the validity or authority given to “self-definition”. God is angry with self-defining man. Actually with man’s definition of who he is. And man is separated from God by being self-defined (through the knowledge of good and evil). “Your sins have separated from God”.

Self-definition means that we in our minds determine who we are. That is our worth our value our goodness, our evilness.
This is an “egocentric” position. It has nothing to do with being God centered because it has not real “faith” in what God has declared.
In the old economy this position was given authority.

The old covenant is attached to an egocentric personage. The law was not given to a righteous man but to sinners. To be under the law is to be a sinner. [This is no getting out of this. Where there was no law the conscience did its self defining work.] It is to establish worth through one’s own determination and effort.

Since the consummation of the ages has a historically “satisfied” God the ongoing self-defining is merely what takes place between the ears. This has its consequence. But the consequence is not the “second death”.

For the enemies are and have been put down.
We cannot have ongoing “enemies” with another filling up. If the age of eschatology has ended then eschatology has ended. The enemies are enemies in our minds.

This only touches on the subject from a few angles.
Perhaps it is a beginning.
Blessings Barry

we are all in this together

tom-g's picture

Hey Barry,

Thanks for your lengthy reply, I can appreciate the time involved in doing this.

I think I can begin to see what you are saying but, could I ask you to personalize it for me (and by extension all persons)?

I am not descended from the seed of Abraham according to the flesh. So for today, what is the bottom line for me? I know that I am in the body of Christ and yet I also know that I still suffer the sins of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. These are the enemies that have been destroyed?

I think you can see where I am coming from, could you elaborate on this?


Barry's picture

we can sit back and decide to understand what is written through our observation of the world around us or we can read what is written and then question either those observations or the conclusions of those observations.

The scriptures are clear that the old was about to pass away.
They claim the even the works therein would also pass away.
The lust of the flesh the lust of the eye and the pride of life alone with that world would pass away.

Now the question is, "what passed away?".

Are we willing to look at it or are we going to dismiss it?

This is the point:
We behave badly because we do not "see" the true reality of who we are and why we are here.

This is different from the old economy where there was no historical revelation to tell us who we are and why we are here.
The old economy is absent of the needed "revelation".
It left us to our own mental "devices" to try and make our way through our own potential. This was a very important lesson.

We may still think that we have authority over our own "image". But that is a false perception.
The gospel does not decide who we are. It explains who we are.

We may make ourselves enemies of God or each other in our own perceptions. The reality of God's unconditional love will not change by or through our own false perceptions.


we are all in this together

tom-g's picture

Thanks Barry,

I keep trying to understand what you are saying but, it still seems too abstract and generic. what was old that passed away?

Has no one since then been tempted by and given in to the lusts of the eye and flesh, and pride of life, or the love of money? Is this just a matter of our own personal false perception not a human failure over which no man has any human will or ability to control or eliminate?

Could you be more specific and personalize what you are saying?


Barry's picture

Let's go back to the beginning.

What would it have personally meant for Adam to function in the garden without the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam was an adult.
He had responsibilities.
He had relationships.
He had freedom to eat of any tree except one.
Now here is the question then.

Could Adam have been "tempted" to do anything unbecoming or inappropriate?
For example:
Was he as a human being, incapable of getting angry with Eve?
Was he incapable of procrastination?
Could he have unbecoming thoughts?
And so on and so on.

IMHO, we are approaching this from the wrong direction.
Adam was just as human as you and I and everyone else.

What he was given was the opportunity to enter fully into his own potential through the forbidden fruit. (Which would be a historical lesson for humanity).

So then we look back upon Adam as some sort of innocent child like being to explain our own perception of our own "sins" and our perception of "morality".

The issue at hand then is that Adam was not a moral being, but an ethical being.
For if he had no ethical decisions as a human being then he was not sentient. If if he was not sentient then he was not capable of naming the animals and taking care of the garden or reasoning with Eve.

Now we NEED our "sins" and we need our "morality" so that we can define ourselves for ourselves.

And we NEED others to be "sinners" and "immoral" so that we can "justify" ourselves to others.

There is an end of sins.
There is an end to self justification.
There is an end to the old economy.
There is a last Adam.
There is end to man having authority to self define.

Can we surrender ourselves to God?
I am yours God.
Only you will define me.
I surrender my ego self defining to you.
I am in your image and only you will define that image and reveal that image.
I surrender all ego attachments to any and all self difing desires.

God said, "very good".
Our views do not perpetuate God's declaration of "very good". They perpetuate our desire to self justify. To compare our "worth" with that of another.

Unconditional love does away with "sin". Love does not keep such an account.

The ethics of love and consequence always were present and always will be present.
They were present in the garden but with one condition. The opportunity for Adam to enter into a "self defining" position of independent human potential.

That opportunity is dealt with and removed in the last Adam.

The more we need our "sins" the more everything will stay the same.
The more we believe in fulfilled redemption and God's unconditional love the more we will release our ego attachment to independent human potential. This is the source of our "lusts" and "desires" because such lusts come from the desire to define ourselves.

A desire which is never fully filled because it always leaves us with something to prove to both ourselves and others.

We then become men of appearance with always something to prove.
The smarter one.
The richer one.
The most pious.
The more righteous.
The more blessed.
The more generous.
The better ethnic origin.
The superior gender.
The one with the greater faith.
The most humble one around.
And so on.
One big pile of dung. :)

We need our "sins" because our sins allow us to try and determine for ourselves who we are.

Ethics of love and consequence means that self-worth cannot be altered. Deeds cannot determine inherent value or identity.
This view put us in a position of seeing that "we are all in this together" where God is "ALL and in ALL".

This whole "well that means I can to whatever I want and get away with it because I'm going to heaven anyway" is a personal veil that still covers the truth for many. Such is not coming from a surrender to God but a desire to prove something about one's self from ego attachments to self defining.

Hope this made some sense bro.
Blessings Barry

we are all in this together

tom-g's picture

Hey Barry,

I really appreciate all of your answers. I'll take the time to try to digest what you have written.

At the moment I feel like the guy in one of the songs from Harry Bellafonte's Carnegie Hall album with the title "Man Piaba" One of the verses goes something like this: "It was clear as mud, but it covered the ground".


Barry's picture

I appreciate your time and interest Tom.

My view is that much of scripture deals with the "ego" orientation and so links with "image" and "identity".
And it deals with this on a covenant level.

For example:

Luk 9:22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.
Luk 9:23 And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come after me, let him DENY HIMSELF, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
Luk 9:24 For whosoever will save his life [SOUL] shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life [SOUL] for my sake, the same shall save it.
Luk 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world [OF THE OLD ECONOMY], and lose HIMSELF, or be cast away?
Luk 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and [in his] Father's, and of the holy angels.
Luk 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Mar 8:34 And when he had called the people [unto him] with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him DENY HIMSELF, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mar 8:35 For whosoever will save his life [SOUL] shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his [SOUL] for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
Mar 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world [OF THE OLD ECONOMY], and lose his own SOUL?
Mar 8:37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his SOUL?
Mar 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

How does (ie did) lose his soul?
Clearly Jesus is speaking of "soul" in reference to the "soul" of that "economy".

How did one deny himself?
Clearly Jesus is speaking of the "self" the "ego-self-image" of that economy.

Jesus is addressing the resulting problem of Adam's choice of "self-define". These are ego issues!

The knowledge of good and evil affected the "ego". Man began to define himself for himself through the knowledge of sin (the law of sin and death).

When we stand back a few steps from the scriptures and take a more encompassing look we see this EVERYWHERE.
Do good expecting nothing in return (ego).
Do your deeds in secret (ego).
"If any man thinks himself to be something..." (ego).
"You shall not steal" "you shall not covet"(The law exposed the self defined ego and made us "sinners").
"Man shall not live by bread alone" (ego).

It is unrelenting.

The problem is not a human condition as such ("very good").
The problem is not inherited sin through genetics.
The problem is "identity".
Without a historical "revelation" that "identity" could not be apprehended or lived.

And so we have the historic revealing of who we are through God's possibility not our own independent potential (self defined ego). This is the global meaning of full preterism.
For the first fruits in the unveiling of this revelation were looking into a mirror. And the conclusion of what they saw in the consummation of the old age is face to face!

Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man [The accomplished man OF THE OLD ECONOMY]to enter into the kingdom of God [God's new age].
Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? [IE who can enter into God's new age].
Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

So this remains the ongoing dichotomy of the scriptures. God's possibility from his identity over against man's possibility from his self defined ego.

The implications for us today is a surrendering to who we really are in the truth that God is all and in all.

Our attachment to being "sinners" is not a surrender.

Just a few thoughts. And of course these comments should be taken in view of my previous posts in this thread.
Blessings Barry

we are all in this together

Recent comments


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