You are hereObservations

Observations

  • 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 28 November 2006

by Samuel Frost
I have recently come out of a certain e-mail group, mostly Reformed, that has left me feeling quite depressed. The last few nights have been restless and sleepless. The issues revolved around the alleged support that Planet Preterist has given to the Emergent Church movement. A call was issued by one brother to separate from those who are "complicit" with Planet Preterist. Basically, this means that anyone who is a columnist, who supports, or who speaks at Truth Voice conferences is in "complicity with error" and helps "prop up" a known promoter of a "false gospel." I have recently come out of a certain e-mail group, mostly Reformed, that has left me feeling quite depressed. The last few nights have been restless and sleepless. The issues revolved around the alleged support that Planet Preterist has given to the Emergent Church movement. A call was issued by one brother to separate from those who are "complicit" with Planet Preterist. Basically, this means that anyone who is a columnist, who supports, or who speaks at Truth Voice conferences is in "complicity with error" and helps "prop up" a known promoter of a "false gospel." What this also means is that anyone who associates with a person that does one or all of these three things is in complicity with error and might as well be a promoter of a false gospel. Let me put this in plain terms: since I, Samuel Frost, write articles for Planet Preterist and speak at Truth Voice conferences (like the one coming up in April), then I am also promoting a false gospel because Planet Preterist promotes a false gospel. And, if anyone continues to support or write for or with me and Reign of Christ Ministries, then they too are in league with promoting a false gospel. Get that? You read it correctly. You can pick your jaw up from the floor now.

Click here to read the entire article

JL's picture

I had considered providing this link to Roderick's web site to show his general animosity to the Church of Christ when I first posted above.

But I didn't and Roderick quickly blocked it anyway. Several people have asked about it so here's Google's cached version.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

JL's picture

Roderick says he didn't block the article because of my post but, "Rather, [he] unpublished THAT article along with many others as part of the REFOCUSING of TKC away from the Preterist Movement."

So I guess the timing was merely coincidental. I may have also been presumptuous to think that he blocked of my account because of my posting here when that was probably also due to Roderick's "REFOCUSING of TKC away from the Preterist Movement."

Sorry for my error and any misunderstanding.

JL

PS. Roderick promised a future article trashing the Church of Christ.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

JL's picture

Roderick said:

As for the blocking of your account (along with probably 10 other people at that same time) - I'm just helping you not to be double-minded. If you aren't going to speak out against the direction that Virgil & others are taking the preterist view, I wanted to make sure you were comfortable & focused on his AGENDA, that way yo ucan better assist him in its promotion & advancement.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Mick's picture

Sam,

Thank you for you thoughtful and insightful article. I appreciate your scholarship and I love your heart, which is revealed in your article.

In your article you say, “Man was born "dead", lived on earth as "dead", physically died "dead", and resided in the Hades as dead…”
If man was born dead under the old covenantal system how can Paul say, “Romans 7.9 (ESV) 9I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.”

I would propose that it was possible to be born alive under the “The reign of the Death” until the awareness of the law brought the sin and the death. This makes the concept of being born again even more meaningful, since even under the reign of death people could experience life. As a result, Jesus and the NT speaker’s audiences would be familiar with the idea of being alive before God, at some point in there life, and needing to be reborn to reacquire that life that was lost. Once the law was removed with the Parousia of the messiah then the reign of the life was ushered in allowing a person to experience the holy righteous and good commandment (Romans 7.12) without having to experience the death.

I look forward to you helping my understanding

Mick

Mickey E. Denen

Sam's picture

Mick,

Good question. I understand, along with N.T. Wright and others, that Paul's Romans 7 argument is nothing more than an "extended argument" that develops what he has already stated beginning in Romans 5.12. Paul is Man (Adam), made "alive" apart from the law. The law came, though, and he "died" (this proves the covenantal aspect of this phrase because Adam did not drop dead to the ground). It was the law in the Garden that "the Sin" seized opportunity to put Adam to death. This is also Israel. Israel was once "alive" a part from the giving of the Law under Moses. It was the Law that brought about Israel's exile (as it did Adam's). I do not see that Paul is speaking as a little baby here, or as an adult. The term "alive apart from the Law" merely means, "not having knowledge of the law" as he so plainly states. But, this hardly makes him salvifically "alive." Remember, the Death "reigned over those who did not sin after the likeness of Adam." And, "where there is no Torah, there is no account of sin." This hardly means that Sodom and Gomorrah was without sin! They did not have the knowledge of sin, but were still under the domain of the Death and the Sin. When this is fully seen in the larger argument Paul has laid out (that ALL are under condemnation from womb to tomb), the need for the Grace becomes all the more crucial. For, without it, "no one is righteous...no, not one."

Sam

Mick's picture

Sam,
Thank you for your help. It would be easy for me to think Sam Frost and N.T. Wright understand it that way it must be correct.

As a follow up question though, you said, 'The term "alive apart from the Law" merely means, "not having knowledge of the law"' This reminds me of the experience of the "revival" during Nehemiah's time.

Nehemiah 8:1-3 (ESV) 1And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the Water Gate. And they told Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses that the Lord had commanded Israel. 2So Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could understand what they heard, on the first day of the seventh month. 3And he read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women and those who could understand. And the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law.

I have always understood those who could understand where young children (not men or women) who were present and could understand the words and meaning of the "Book of the Law of Moses." Since "all of the people were gathered..." I imagine there were likely nursing infants and possibly toddlers who were present that were not able to understand the "Book of the Law of Moses." (Especially since there were not a group of teens or older women available to watch these children while Ezra read. ;-o)

What would the status of these be? They were unable to understand. Are they alive in the same since that Paul was "alive apart from the law?" Were they in the situation of no Torah and no account of sin? If not "salfically alive" and not talking about a physical sense, which I agree is not the case, in what sense was Paul alive?

Mick

Mickey E. Denen

chef's picture

Hi Mick,

This may seem off point, but for me I’m seeing a direct correlation:

Rom 2:14-16
14 For when Gentiles who-do-not-have-the-Law do

*****instinctively**** the things of the Law,

these, not having the Law, ****are a law to

themselves****,

15 in that they show the work of the Law ***written

in their hearts****, their conscience bearing witness,

and their thoughts alternately accusing or else

defending them

I used to be a strict legalist (as most Sabbaterians are) and always believed that the Law here was the "Ten Commandment” and some of laws found in the “Law of Moses" ,.

It was not until Sam's post that I had an "Ohhhhh" moment. Though Sam did necessarily write this per se, it occurred to me that indeed, when Adam chose to eat, he was actually responding to the “Law of Sin” (the temptation within us all) thus giving “the Death “ Jurisdiction.

These are all new thoughts for me. I just had to write them down. Your exchange with Sam has generated stimuli for me ole brain.

Also, I can NOW be better Preterist-apologist to the Sabbath keeping world. Many of our Sabbath keeping brethren believe that Protestants (and Catholics) are anti-nomos. This is because of their basic exegetical construct:

****REPENT and be baptized****.

“Believing the gospel” meant (and means to them) to repent of Sin. They define Sin by John’s Statement in I John:

****1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for ****sin is the transgression of the law.

In order to repent one must turn from the action of sinning; thus if one is a murderer, one must stop murdering, the same for the adultery, the same and especially true for Sabbath breaking. Sabbath keeping is the apex of one’s testimony of conversion.

Now I believe that what is to be repented of is this: the breaking of the commandment “…do not eat thereof…”.
In my logic now, the Romans citation above demonstrates that “The Law” (torah) being spoken of is the instruction “…not to eat thereof,,,”. That command is written into the hearts and conscious of Jew and Gentile alike. Because, as Sam puts it, “the Death” had jurisdiction up until (??) 33 AD or 70 AD (debatable), but now life (grace) has Jurisdiction, thus nullifying condemnation.

I will hopefully develop these thoughts farther and build better propositions for my legalist friends.

Peace and Blessings.

Chef Tony

Chef Tony

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Tony,

Do your friends believe in a physical death penalty to go along with their physical sabbath rest?

I don't mean to be sarcastic or critical. Just curious. I have a history that may be similar to yours. I now wonder how Sabbatarians keep the law but tend to drop the explicit punishments for sabbath breaking (which are part of the same law). In other words, who is really anti-nomos? And by what standard do we pick and choose which parts of the law are to be obeyed and which are not?

Do you see any implications from preterism on the Sabbath question?

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

chef's picture

Hi Tim!

It is always a pleasure to read you material. I still refer to your book which you sent me some time back, a case for Christian Science I believe.

You asked “Do your friends believe in a physical death penalty to go along with their physical Sabbath rest?”

No. Not during the so called “church age” anyway (most are pre-mill, dispensationalist). Some quote Hebrews too, “…there was a change in the law…” (which contradicts Matt 5:18).

You also asked: “Do you see any implications from Preterism on the Sabbath question?”

I’m not sure what you’re asking. Implications; I myself do believe in keeping the Sabbath, which is for me the same as being in the New Jerusalem, inside the gates; being in the body of Christ is entering into the eternal reality.

I do still fellowship on Saturday though, but not by commandment, but rather for culture and familiarity. I still find it advantageous to celebrate Passover, days of unleavened bread, Pentecost, Feast of Tabernacles. There can be some rich liturgy associated in such things. But I am a fish out of water. Being a Preterist is heretical, but they are gracious to tolerate me. The particular fellowship group which we attend has open bible study, I’m always stirring up the pot, if you know what I mean.

In Love,
Chef Tony

PS: I’m trying to remember if I sent you and offering for that wonderful book. Do you still have my email? Kontoya@earthlink.net Please let me know. Thanks.

Chef Tony

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Tony,

You said:

"I myself do believe in keeping the Sabbath, which is for me the same as being in the New Jerusalem, inside the gates; being in the body of Christ is entering into the eternal reality."

That is precisely my understanding as well. As Hebrews 4 says, there remains a sabbath-rest for God's people. We enter that rest through faith: it is our position of rest in Christ for salvation. I also believe it is typified every time we take a physical rest from our work in common life. Our experience in creation points to these covenant realities.

Of course, if the sabbath is typical of our salvation today, then the physical death penalty in the law is typical of another death for those who refuse to rest in Christ today. We see that outside the gates.

I believe all the Law goes through this covenant transition. Sabbath is a great example to see how that works.

One more thing. IMO, even Acts shows the day of gathering for God's people to worship as a body does not have to be on any particular day of the week. We could gather every day if we want. There is total freedom in Christ - 1st day, 6th day or any/all in between.

Take care, I'll drop you a line.

Tim Martin
www.truthinlivin.org

DavidF's picture

Tim Martin: “Of course, if the sabbath is typical of our salvation today, then the physical death penalty in the law is typical of another death for those who refuse to rest in Christ today. We see that outside the gates.”

That’s very good Tim. I also came to this view of the Sabbath day, but not from a Preterist consideration. Several NT passages kept showing up in my studies and gave me the deeper security of being at rest (Sabbath) every day in Christ.

Matt. 11:28 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Matt. 12:6 “I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath [Lord of rest]."

Ro.14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.

Col.2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Absolutely, David!

All of these passages have a clear connection to the Sabbath issue. Thanks for pointing them out.

IMO, the NT "shadow" statements regarding the law have monumental implications for our theological understanding of the entire Bible.

Blessings,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Mick's picture

Sam
After I read the above post again, I began to worry the first line may have sounded sarcastic. I have the greatest respect for both you and Mr. Wright, that is why it would be easy for me not to question you further.
Mick

Mickey E. Denen

Starlight's picture

Sam, said.

“I would rather side with those who let me proclaim my own views with thoughtful criticism than with others who let me proclaim my views only on the pretext that I "side" with them or else.”

“I am a preterist. I believe in doctrinal changes. I believe in paradigms shifts. I believe in following the Truth against the Majority.
I am a "heretic" according to the Council of Nicea and the Westminster Confession of Faith.
So be it”

Or in other famous words,
“give me liberty or give me death”

But not sin death :=)

The end of the reign of sin death is just too good to be true.
There is something in us that declares that we are not worthy of such good things.
It eats at us and we beat ourselves because of our sin.
Hoping to free ourselves from that wretched man that I am.

But I tell you a mystery, we shall all be changed!

Thanks be to God!
He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Also thanks to you Sam for this work.
I have been blessed tremendously by your “heart poured” rendition.

Blessings in Christ “brother”

Norm

Ivan's picture

Many thanks for your article, Sam. One point puzzles me: I am wondering if too much is being made of the presence of the definite article in front of "death" and "life" given that it is common in Greek for abstract nouns to have the definite article without intending a reference to some particular and without the need for the definite article to be translated.

Sam's picture

Ivan,

The Greek article is used for definite-ness, or to contrast (specific-ness). It is not just something with abstract nouns. It has the force of personifying things. That Paul is using it in this sense (5.12-8.1-ff) is plain enough. It is a very speicific "sin" (Adam's) and a very speicific transgression (Adam's) and a very specific "death" (Adam's). Paul is making this plain enough, I believe. One of the best treatments of the article is Wallace's Greek Grammar and Beyond. I stand behind that fully.

Sam

Virgil's picture

Sam is pretty set on that article - like you, I am not so sure it is needed to make the argument, but he seems to think that it adds strength to the argument. In my opinion it does help with personalizing death and putting it into perspective, but it is really hard to imagine how the Greek mind would imagine "death" in the context of their culture.

Jer's picture

Virgil: t. In my opinion it does help with personalizing death and putting it into perspective...

Jer: Also, Paul personifies death by addressing it with the vocative case, Θάνατε.

Virgil: ...it is really hard to imagine how the Greek mind would imagine "death" in the context of their culture.

Jer: Θάνατος was the son of Night and Darkness, a god, although somewhat dimwitted at times. Check out the story of Sisyphus :)

Virgil's picture

Θάνατος was the son of Night and Darkness, a god, although somewhat dimwitted at times. Check out the story of Sisyphus :)

Wikipedia, here I come...I think I've already covered it but I need to refresh my memory. Do you see any Biblical parallels in Sisyphus' story?

Jer's picture

I don't. What about you?

Virgil's picture

Not necessarily, I was just asking; however it is interesting to read those mythological stories of Thanatos and then read Paul's proclamation in 1 Cor. 15:55: ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ νῖκος; ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον;

Somehow words jump off the page in a different and new way. Cool stuff :)

Jer's picture

...or in Rev. 6:8 Death is riding on a horse and Hades, also a Greek god and Zeus' brother, followed him.

There's so much we miss when we look at the bible through a purely "theological" lens. For example, how does knowledge about 1st century Mediterranean patron-client relationships affect our understanding of "grace" (i.e., favor)? How do we see Jesus' role as μεσίτης (broker, see L&N especially) of a new covenant (or contract) in this patron-client context? Separating the theology of the bible from the social world of its writers leads us to some questionable doctrines of grace, IMHO. Ok. Back on topic ;)

Virgil's picture

It sounds like you have another great article coming up; I am looking forward to it :)

Honestly, I really wish more seminaries would teach cultural classes as opposed to theology-only education, which like you pointed out really manipulates and massages the Bible into whatever meaning we are predisposed to accept.

Jer's picture

I probably won't have time for an article in the near future. There's been a lot written on the subject though. Check out Malina's The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, deSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture and Neyrey's The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Be sure to flip through the bibliographies and google "The Context Group" for more sources. There's a lot out there.

davo's picture

Excellent article Sam. Though I might personally come to some differing conclusions than yourself on some of the things you touched on, it is great to have an open forum where such things can be shared in a preteristic framework [thanks PP].

davo

MichaelB's picture

Wow Sam, what an amazing article. I was very blessed by it. I love ya Sam !!! =) Thanks for EVERYTHING. Virgil, thanks for putting me on the payroll - HAHA - Just Mess'n.

MichaelB's picture

I would share a "cheeseburger" with you guys anytime. Enjoy =)

Virgil's picture

Dude...my kids love that song!! I am not sure I would "share" one with you, but you can have your own I guess...tehehe

JL's picture

Kids? I love that song.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Mick's picture

me too

Mickey E. Denen

Basementman's picture

Sam,
Ditto, Amen and Ditto. I enjoy reading your writings. I read Planet Preterist mostly everyday quietly in the background. This is the first time I even signed in to comment. I just want to let you know there are many like me in the the background just soaking up what you write and learning from it. Thanks Virgil for letting us come on without having to sign in and for having guys like Sam, Tim Martin and others. BY the way Virgil, though theologically I am more like Sam I also enjoy many of the things you write.

Tony Pomales

Missina's picture

I'm just going to tack a small comment onto this one here while Tony has brought it up, as I haven't really introduced myself. I too have been reading PP for a while (3 years or so), and it wasn't until recently the site actually let me sign up with an account. But I have learned so much from the diversity, debate, and conversation that takes place on here, and in a lot of ways I have come to admire and respect the columnists for the significant influence they have had on my life and faith over the years. So hey, as small as a thank you is, it's sincere and hopefully translates some of the appreciation I have for this site and the people who make it worth my time to continue reading here. As Tony put it... in the background just soaking it all up. :)
-Missina

Virgil's picture

Missina - I always appreciate your comments and am very glad to see you here. :)

leslie's picture

My question is..., If Missna has been reading PP for 3 years, Why "it wasn't until recently that the site 'actually' let me sign up?"

I am not looking for 'a' 'consperisy', as I never had a promblem (OK I had a few problems, but that was me needing more "Computers for Dummies training",thanks for getting me back 'online' Virgil the many times 'I' messed up)getting set up.

Brother Les

Virgil's picture

Well, I would be curious to know what Missina's problems were. Most of the time it ends up being a user issue (it's always easier to blame it on you guys)

Welcome to the world of IT :)

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Soooo...

You're saying IT a splitting image of theology? Would that be an Arminian or Calvinist statement?

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Virgil's picture

Tony, I appreciate your kind comments - the goal of Planet Preterist was never to get people to agree with me (or us) but to create an environment where people from all backgrounds cam come together and learn from each other, while displaying respect for each other and for our differences.

- virgil

Batman's picture

Oh no! I feel a group hug coming on.;-)

--Batman

--Batman

Virgil's picture

Aww...God forbid we show some compassion for each other or show a teardrop peeking from behind an eyelid. :) Maybe us "Christians" could actually learn something from those lost evil people out there that know nothing of love and are corrupt and lost beyond any hope:

Batman's picture

Hey Virgil,

I always wanted to know what Jesus looked like in glasses! Thanks for the hug.

--Batman

--Batman

Virgil's picture

Any time! :)

leslie's picture

Would 'Calvin' OK, public Hugging? :) (or smilely faces)

Brother Les

Brother Les

chrisliv's picture

Well, Sam,

It's just manipulation, by holding themselves hostage from guys like you, as they demand a ransom of your behavior.

Why did you lose sleep?

It sounds like JL may be onto something, about it being a power struggle between semi-Preterist circles.

Are you going to be blackmailed?

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

JL's picture

Well Chris, I obviously pushed someones button. I got this response in my personal email.

jlv account changes
From: contact@thekingdomcome.com
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:28:49 -0600

Hello jlv, Your account on The Kingdom Come has been blocked.

One less dead website to frequent. What will I do with all the extra time.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

Admittedly, I pop over there once in a while, just to see how the preoccupation with Virgil is going. It has gotten a lot more covert, which is a good thing. Although the swearing-off of the Preterist topic seems to show pockets relapse.

You must know far better than I where all there lines are drawn within the many circles.

Of course, I'm an odd enough duck on the trail, and have no allegiances to be used as social leverage against me.

And, you seem to be taking your "blocking" quite well.

I trust Sam will do the same. Although, all of those Masters degrees and that ABD doctorate may get the best of him.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

davo's picture

Hey I think you've done pretty good; I made at most two comments over there in an attempt at some dialogue before this message came up on the screen: "Davo & ed (infinitegrace) have had their roles changed to read-only..." -- and then the dude himself has the audacity to whinge about being blocked -- "Pot, meet Kettle".

mazuur's picture

"The reign of the Death brought about death (separation) in a covenantal sense (but a very real, ontological sense). This set into motion a law, if you will: all that are born in the world are born separated from God. The reign of the Death meant that all that are born in the world are separated from God and nothing can be done about that situation. Man was born "dead", lived on earth as "dead", physically died "dead", and resided in the Hades as dead. Nothing he could do, or did do, could eradicate the tyrannical hold and rule of the Death. He was "dead" (under the Death's reign) from womb to tomb and beyond. Now, however, "the Death" no longer has this tyrannical power. Now, a man is born "dead", but has faith in the Cross and is "made alive" in the presence of God (call it being "born again"). This is not possible for any man if the Death still reigns. Being born again or regenerated by the Spirit was impossible while the Death reigned. Now that the Death's reign is completely swallowed up for all mankind, God can call those "outside" to come "inside". "

Sam, is it possible since "the death" was reigning in the world that those who were born and died, but never sinned (a baby who lived for 5 days) were, at the resurrection (AD70), resurrected unto life? And now the babies who live and die after 5 days can immediately be called into God's presence.

If Christ came to do away with the reign of death (doing away with what kept man separated from God), and could now call those "outside" to come "inside", could He not now call the baby who never sinned to come in?

It's just like those in OT times who placed their faith in God (Abraham), yet they still looked to the Heavenly City which they received in AD70. Prior to AD 70, since death was still reigning, Abraham had to dwell in Hades Paradise waiting for the Resurrection (the defeat of the reign of "the death").

Am I making sense?

At the minimum, babies today who have never sinned, since Jesus has done way with the "reign of death" as you say, they should be able to enter His presence upon death. yes?

Unless, you are still holding onto some "sin nature" thing too.

mazuur

By the way, excellent article!

-Rich

Virgil's picture

Unless, you are still holding onto some "sin nature" thing too.

He is :)

By the way, good to see you back here...

mazuur's picture

Was watching Sam's site (have his RSS feed into my browser) and read his new article. I just figured if I wanted to be able to ask him a question concerning this article and have him respond, this would be the place.

I agree with Sam's point and have often thought about it myself.

But, there is a difference between disagreeing with others theologically and disagreeing with them morally. I wonder if Sam would have the same opinion if the topic were say adultery?

Let's say PP suddenly started promoting a "Church" were the congregation had some out-there doctrine that says since we are in the new heaven and earth, and since sin has been done away with, we can not sin anymore, thus it is ok to practice adultery (because it is no longer sinful in the new covenant). Let's say that the leader of this "Church" even actively encourages the practice openly. Would Sam suddenly say they are "outside"? Would Sam go to that Church and speak and promote the leader's "books"? Would Sam want to do anything that would created credibility for this "teacher", which only results in him selling more books which is going to influence more people into such a doctrine?

You see this is where I depart. It is one thing to disagree about whether or not we are "predestined". It is another thing to take something God has clearly declared detestable and to not only teach that it is not detestable, but acceptable in God eyes.

But, just because I separate myself from said person/Church, doesn't mean I say they are going to hell. In fact, I don't entertain any such ideas. That is for God to decide not me. I only know God calls us to be Holy and makes it clear that we are to separate ourselves from such people who practice such behavior. Of course that does mean I never speak to them if I come across them somewhere. I am still to love them and show them respect. But I certainly am not going to "run with the pack" so to speak.

Rich

-Rich

davo's picture

mazuur: Let's say PP suddenly started promoting a "Church" were the congregation had some out-there doctrine that says since we are in the new heaven and earth, and since sin has been done away with, we can not sin anymore, thus it is ok to practice adultery (because it is no longer sinful in the new covenant).

Hey Rich, if ever you wanted to start such a "close fellowship" I have the ideal verse to sanction it: But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none. 1Cor 7:29 LOL ROFL ;)

davo

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