You are herePart III: Does King’s Covenant Eschatology Lead to Universalism? Debate Concluded

Part III: Does King’s Covenant Eschatology Lead to Universalism? Debate Concluded

  • 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 Virgil - Posted on 14 July 2007

In this debate, Sam is supposed to be showing that there is no logical connection between Max’s King’s Universalism and Covenant Eschatology. For those that do not want to admit there is an elephant standing in the room, Sam’s performance will be a sufficient excuse to go on with life as before. But, for those who are interested in the truth, for those that have a genuine concern for protecting and preserving the pure word of the gospel from adulterous doctrines like Universalism, Sam’s antics will not wipe away the mountain of evidence standing before them. And I do not blush to call them antics, for it is clear that Sam has made no attempt to demonstrate that King’s Covenant Eschatology is not the source of his Universalism. He has played games with words and sentences, he has been clever and humorous, he has faulted my ability to express King’s position in perfect logic as taught at the University level (I doubt one in five thousand people could), but he has not set one particle of evidence before the reader demonstrating that King’s Universalism hales from some source other than Covenant Eschatology. What can you say about a man who admits his system leads to Universalism, yet will stand before the world and deny it is so? “Many would assume that the only result of such a theology is universal salvation for every man.  This would be true.” Personally, I feel sorry for Sam and for all that have come under King’s influence. Faced with massive evidence that they have bought into a false system, they must muster courage to admit they have been wrong – something most cannot do.

Universalism Via Antinomianism

The question to be decided by this debate is simple and straight forward: Does King’s Covenant Eschatology logically lead to Universalism? I think that a clear and direct connection has indeed been demonstrated. King is posting Universalistic articles on his site; his son is preaching a Universlistic gospel, as is Kevin Beck, the current president of Presence Ministries; Universalists 125 years ago used the “corporate body” concept to prop up their system; modern Universalists are using language and concepts taken directly from King. Only a man willfully blind could not see that a connection exists. Why attempt to deny it? What is to be gained from that? Tim King provides proof positive of the connection when he states “Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives under the rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world. Through the gift of Christ he dwells in a world of righteousness and life. The issue is cosmic and corporate, not individual and limited.” (Tim King, Comprehensive Grace, 2002) Put in logical form, King’s statement looks something like this:

 

Major Premise: The reign of sin and death over man was determined by the Mosaic law

Minor Premise: The Mosaic law was annulled at the eschaton, losing all men of its power; therefore,

Conclusion: All men are loosed of the power of sin and death (viz., universally reconciled to God).

If this is not in proper “form” it is nonetheless of perfect “substance” and represents the basis for King’s Universalism. As may be seen, King arrives at Universalism by taking away the law. Hence, the debate might also have been framed Does King’s Covenant Eschatology logically lead to Antinomianism? (Antinomianism means “no law.”) Those advocating Covenant Eschatology hold there is no law condemning man today.[1] For example, Sam Frost is on record stating “There is no law taking into account our sins.”[2] Larry Siegle, who jumped into the debate, is also on record saying the same. In response to the question “Does the moral law condemn men today? Is murder, adultery, theft still sinful and a cause of eternal judgment before God? Larry answered “No.” [3]

What could possibly lead someone to so tenuous a position as this? The reader must understand that it is the peculiar belief of King and those who learned under him that man could not be saved as long as law exists. Thus, Larry Siegle says “As long as the Law was in force there was no way to be restored to the presence of God… Paul knew that the "body of death" needed to be taken out of the way completely and the power of sin and death be broken.” [4] Max King affirms the same: “The defeat of sin is tied to the annulment of the old aeon of law”[5] This then becomes the basis of Tim King’s Universalism: “Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives under the rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world.” In other words, King’s is a system of Universalism via Antinomianism. Hence, they need to remove the law so the “resurrection” (justification) could come about. Some of the verses relied upon for their position included the following:

Rom. 4:15 – “Where no law is, there is no transgression.”

Rom. 5:13 – “Sin is not imputed where there is no law.”

I Cor. 15:56: “The strength of sin is the law.”

God’s Eternal Law

The basic assumption of King and those who follow him is that from Adam to Moses there was no law, and sin was not imputed (reckoned) against man by God. Sam says “In the world, before Jesus, the death and the sin ruled through the law given to Adam and later given to Moses. Even when there was no law, the death and the sin ruled because of the law given to Adam.” A little later he states “between Adam and Moses no sins were reckoned to one’s account.”[6] Thus, according to Frost, there was a time when the world was without law, and sin was not reckoned to man’s account. This is absurd. If sin was not put to man’s account from Adam to Moses, why did God flood the world and destroy Sodom? Were the Sodomites and those that perished in the deluge saved, because there was no law condemning them? I think we all know that they were not saved; indeed, Peter and Jude affirm they were not ( I Pet. 3:19,20; II Pet. 2:5; Jude 7). This is conclusive evidence that God in fact reckoned sin against man, and that Sam is wrong.

There has always been law and always will be. This law was not always expressed orally or in writing; it didn’t need to be. God equipped man with a conscience that told him right from wrong. Man is also equipped with reason and can judge what is right by the exercise moral and mental faculties. Does it take an express statement from God for man to know that copulating with beasts is wrong? That to kill another man is wrong? That to enslave and oppress is wrong? No, obviously not. Paul alludes to this when he says “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts.” (Rom. 2:14, 15)

All during the period from Adam to Moses men recognized, and God punished, sin. However, because of the hardness of man’s heart and darkness of his mind, man’s conception of sin was imperfect and much that is immoral became accepted practice. Men made slaves of other men; men took multiple wives; men lived by piracy, war, robbery, and oppression. Men did not impute sin to themselves where there was no divine law expressly condemning their acts. That is the meaning of Romans 5:13. Most, including Sam and King, assume that it means that God did not impute sin to man before the law of Moses, but this wrong. The destruction of Sodom shows this. No, it is man that did not reckon, impute, or take account of his own sin without the written law. Oh, they imputed (reckoned) some sin to themselves, but not all. Man’s conscience became corrupt; idolatry, fornication, and homosexuality were acceptable among Pagan man and not viewed as sinful. Paul expresses this, saying, “who being past feeling [callused, hardened] have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.” (Eph. 4:19) Hence, the Mosaic law entered to teach man his sin (not “the sin” as Sam would have it). The Mosaic law did not create sin; it merely codified the sin that existed in man from the time of the fall, so man could know sin and the judgment of death it brings down from God. Thus, the notion that there was a “gap” from Adam to Moses when there was no law and God did not reckon sin is wrong - and is part of the architecture which allows Universalists to revive that same sinless period post AD70 when that law was purportedly removed.

The Law of Sin and Death

The penalty of sin is death. The law of sin and death is annexed to every commandment of God. “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Gen. 2:17) “The wages of sin is death.” (Rom. 6:23) “Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” (Rom. 5:12) Thus, death did not pass upon all men because God imputed to them Adam’s sin, but reckoned (imputed) against them their own sin. (Parenthetically, this is why virtually all translations leave the article un-translated in Romans. Sam wants the text to make specific reference to “the sin” of Adam, but all translators are agreed that it is not Adam’s sin that is in view, but sin in general. Hence, they leave the article un-translated to show that it is not Adam’s sin or any other specific sin that reigned in death, but your sin, my sin, and sin in general. Young translated the article either from doctrinal prejudice, or (more probably) because the purpose of his “translation” was to preserve the peculiarities of Greek structure, rather than produce a grammatically correct translation. In two thousand years of Christianity, there may never have been another translation that renders Romans “the sin” and “the death.”)

The law of sin and death has always existed and always will. It is this law that Christ died to redeem man from. Christ did not die to redeem men from the law of Moses (the Gentiles were never under that law, nor was any man from Adam to Moses, nor is any man today). No; Christ died to save man from the law of sin and death. The law of sin and death was subsumed by and underlay the Mosaic law, just as it underlies the moral law today, but ultimately it was not the Mosaic law that condemned man. This is another huge misinterpretation of King and his followers. They assume that the Mosaic law condemned all men and hence that its removal was necessary for man to be justified (see below). But, this is mistaken. It is the law of sin and death that imperiled man, not Moses. Thus, Paul says “Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Rom. 8:2; cf. 7:23) He does not say “Christ hath made me free from the law of Moses,” but “Christ hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” When Paul says “the strength of sin is the law” (I Cor. 15:56), again it is not the law of Moses he has in view (except perhaps incidentally), but the law of sin and death. He calls the law of Moses “the ministration of death written and engraven in stones” (II Cor. 3:7), not because it created the law of sin and death, but because it was superadded to it. The Mosaic law was invested with no especial power of sin and death that is not present in the moral law binding upon all men today. Neither the Mosaic law, moral law, or law of sin and death provided for forgiveness. That comes only in Christ. Annulment of the Mosaic law was soteriologically irrelevant; it changed nothing for man before God.

The Moral Law

The law of Moses was superadded to the moral law of God. Underlying the moral law was the law of sin and death. The law of Moses also included the ceremonial law, consisting in types and shadows that pointed to Christ. Thus, where the moral law condemned, the ceremonial law offered man the hope of redemption. The ceremonial law has been removed, but not the moral. The moral law still convicts man of sin. To commit adultery was sinful before Moses (see Gen. 20:6; 39:9), and is still every bit as unlawful today (“whoremongers and adulterers God will judge”- Heb. 13:4). This is why we have a guilty conscience when we do wrong – God’s eternal law of right and wrong is impressed upon our hearts. But not according to Larry Siegle who affirms that there is no distinction between the moral and ceremonial law (“The NT does not make a distinction between a "moral" and "ceremonial" law”). Siegle also maintains that all law was done away in AD 70: “It is not "moral law" that separates a person from God today…It is not any one moral violation that condemns them (murder, adultery, etc).” In other words, Larry Siegle has it that the moral law vanished with the law of Moses, and there is no act of sin or crime man can commit that condemns him before God. Antinomianism!

Sam also denies the distinction between the moral and ceremonial law exists. He says it was “theologically foreign to Paul. It [is] a man-made theology to "get around" applying all of the Law, yet forcing some of the Law on parishioners.” Apparently, it is alright with Sam if parishioners commit adultery, fornication, lie, steal and cheat. We wouldn’t want to force the moral law upon them, seeing this is a “man-made theology” now that the law of Moses is removed. Remember, Sam says “There is no law taking into account our sins.”[7] What basis the church has to put immoral persons out of its fellowship I confess I do not understand, if “there is no law taking into account our sins.” I know some homosexuals who argue that condemnation of homosexual sodomy was merely part of the Mosaic law and its object lessons against adopting Pagan customs, embodied also in the laws against mixing wool and linen, and sowing a field with diverse seeds, etc, and is permissible today because the law has passed away. They would be very happy with Sam and Larry’s position that there is no distinction between the moral and ceremonial law and that all law has been removed. These homosexuals would happily fill our pews and we would have no way to remove them. I think most people’s common sense will tell them Sam and Larry are wrong. Yet, they go along posting this irresponsible material all over the internet where millions of people have access to it and are led astray. (Virgil take note!)[8]

King’s Compromise of the Cross and Bifurcated Redemption

Beginning with the premise that man’s condemnation resided in the Mosaic law, King and his followers believe that it was necessary for the law to be removed for man to be redeemed! This is dangerous ground we now tread upon, for it strikes at the very efficacy of the cross. King says “The defeat of sin is tied to the annulment of the old aeon of law”[9] Larry Seigle says “You cannot see what the Mosaic Law had to do with deliverance from sin-death in the very same sense that people in general cannot see how the destruction of Jerusalem had anything to do with the coming of the Lord, the resurrection of the dead or the judgment… Nullification of the Mosaic Law represented what humanity needed most--deliverance from a system of Law that COULD NOT SAVE.” Did you catch that? Nullification of the Mosaic law is what man needed most! Man is delivered from sin and death by annulment of the Mosaic law! Serious stuff, indeed!

 

One must stop and ask at this point: If all that was necessary to acquit man of sin is annulment of the law, then what did Jesus die for? Didn’t Jesus’ cross triumph over the law and its sentence of death upon all that sin? (Col. 2:15) If Jesus’ cross did triumph over the law, how is it possible that it was necessary for the law to be removed for man to be redeemed? Did he triumph over the law or not? Sam asks: “If the death is defeated at the cross, according to Simmons, then why is Paul still looking forward to its defeat at the parousia of Christ?” The reason death is not defeated until the eschaton is not because the law needed to be removed, but because Christ needed to carry his blood within the Holy of Holies. When that was accomplished, Christ would emerge from the heavenly temple, and come for his church. (Heb. 9:24-28) The temple was destroyed at this time, naturally, but this was not to redeem man from its power, but as a sign that that system was annulled and repudiated by God. Moreover, death is not defeated until the eschaton because it was the “last enemy” (I Cor. 15:26); the resurrection would follow Christ’s vengeance upon his enemies among the Romans and Jews. When Paul says “the strength of sin is the law” he then says “but thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (I Cor. 15:57) He refers to the cross, not the annulment of the law. It is a complete misreading of scripture to divide man’s redemption between the cross and annulment of the law.

What does this mean? It means that in addition to the false gospel of Universalism, King is preaching a bifurcated redemption in which the cross is ineffectual to save man alone, but stands helpless until the law is removed. This is dangerous ground! Paul pronounced a curse upon anyone adding to the gospel the need to keep the law. (Gal. 1:8, 9) What would he say about someone adding to the gospel the need to annul the law in order for man to be saved? Paul said “God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Gal. 6:14) King, Sam, and Larry have Paul saying “God forbid I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ (but especially nullification of the Mosaic law!)”

Dear reader, let us be very clear that annulment of the Mosaic law was a complete irrelevancy in terms of man’s salvation. It was not the Mosaic law that Christ died to save man from, but the law of sin and death. Hence, if there was any law that needed nullification to save man, it was this, not Moses’ law. But the law of sin and death has not been annulled; it, along with the moral law, is still wholly effectual and condemns every transgression and disobedience before God. No. It is not the annulment of law, but the satisfaction of its legal penalty that Christ died to remit. Man was in bondage to the law of sin and death; he owed a debt he could not pay except at price of his soul. Thus, Jesus took our place to redeem us from the law’s demand. The book of Hebrews turns upon the hinge of the law’s removal. Which law? The moral law, or the priestly and ceremonial? The priestly and ceremonial to be sure! Where does the Hebrew writer place salvation, in the removal of the old law, or the cross? The cross to be sure! “But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Heb. 9:26) Put away sin how? By annulment of the law? No, no, no, by his sacrifice. Let no man pollute the gospel by appending to man’s redemption the need to annul the law!

Covenant Eschatology and Purported Resurrection

by Annulment of the Mosaic Law

 

The bed-rock foundation of King’s Covenant Eschatology is that the resurrection consisted in the annulment of the Mosaic law.[10] It should be obvious by now that King is sorely mistaken in his estimation that the law of Moses was “the state and power of death to be destroyed by the reign of Christ”[11] and that the resurrection consisted in annulment of the law (“the primary application of the resurrection is applied to the death of Judaism, and to the rise of Christianity.”[12])  First, it was not the Mosaic law that was mankind’s problem, but the moral law and the law of sin and death. Second, the priestly and ceremonial law has been done away, but the moral law and law of sin and death remain. How could removal of the ceremonial law then affect a resurrection (justification)? Third, it is Jesus’ cross and resurrection that justify man, not annulment of the law. Hence, King is seriously amiss in his doctrine. The very premise upon which his whole system is founded is seen to be wrong, a mere phantom that has no basis in fact.

But let us ignore all this and let us assume with King that the Mosaic law condemned all mankind and that in its removal man is made just before the throne. What is the result if not Universalism? I give the reader our syllogisms again. Sam says there are in “bad form” but I think the reader is sufficiently intelligent to understand their “substance” and that they represent accurately King’s position:

Syllogism No. 1

Major Premise: The power of sin and death over mankind resided in the Mosaic law.

Minor Premise: The Mosaic law was done away for all men for all time in A.D. 70. Therefore,

Conclusion: All men are freed from the power of sin and death.

Sam says I add a subject in the conclusion that is not in the premises. I believe he is mistaken in this. What does the conclusion contain that is not in the premises? Only one word! “Freed.” I think Sam was mistaken. Sam apparently was not sure either, because he continues “But, even if we grant that somehow Simmons may salvage some rationale for this mess, he still is factually false in the first premise: Max King and Samuel Frost do not teach that the Mosaic Law determined the reign of the Sin and the Death!” I find this statement astonishing. Sam’s use of “determined” here means “originate.” Sam says King and Frost do not teach that the reign of sin and death originated with Moses. That is true. No one said they did. The term “determine” comes from Tim King when he says “Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives under the rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world.” King uses “determine” not to mean originate as Sam supposes, but in the sense of fixed, settled, or defined. It is Sam who misunderstands King, not Simmons.

But that is not what the premise of this syllogism states. Sam used the word “determined.” I do not. The premise states that the power of sin and death over mankind resided in the Mosaic law (per King). This is clearly – obviously, indisputably - King’s position. “One must look to the Jewish system as the state and power of death to be destroyed by the reign of Christ.”[13] In our last article we said that Sam MUST deal with this premise if he is to extricate Covenant Eschatology from Universalism. Sam’s way of dealing with it was to accuse us of adding something to the conclusion not in the premise (he did, we didn’t), misrepresent King’s use of “determined”, and then ignore the charge. It should be obvious that if Sam could refute the charge he would have. But since he couldn’t he resorted to bluff and bluster to distract the reader and save face – something more important than the truth by some men’s estimation. Here is the second syllogism.

Syllogism No. 2

Major Premise: The resurrection consisted in the removal of legal condemnation.

Minor Premise: Legal condemnation exists today despite annulment of the Mosaic law. Therefore,

Conclusion: There was no spiritual resurrection based upon annulment of the Mosaic law.

Sam claims this is in “bad form” but anyone with average intelligence will recognize immediately the validity of the argument and Sam’s need to address it. But, then it is always easier to get out of court on a technicality than to answer a charge. If the resurrection consisted in removal of condemnation under law, and if it is shown that legal condemnation still exists despite removal of the Mosaic law, then removal of the Mosaic law could not have affected man’s resurrection, because the condemnation still exists. The importance of this lies in showing, not only that Covenant Eschatology is based upon false premises (the Mosaic law was the ultimate source of man’s condemnation, whose annulment affected man’s resurrection), but that it cannot extricate itself from Universalism without overthrowing its very foundations.

In order to avoid Universalism, mankind must be subject to condemnation of sin under law, since without law, there is no sin, and all are just. Sam does this by saying men are still born into in the prison of imputed Adamic death, only some will escape. But, if this saves Sam from Universalism, it shows there was no “resurrection;” the “effect” of “the sin” and “the death” still exists! The resurrection is based upon the destruction of death, but Sam positively affirms its effect still exists! How then can there be a resurrection? If there was, it most certainly was not because Adamic death was taken away, for Sam affirms it is still here. Hopeless contradiction. Most other proponents of Covenant Eschatology would attempt to avoid Universalism by conceding that all men come under condemnation of the moral law. But if this exculpates the system from Universalism, it shows no resurrection occurred by removal of the Mosaic law, for man is still condemned. Thus, either way they turn, Covenant Eschatology is doomed. It is too bad Sam did not deal with this in an intelligent way; it would have been nice to see the argument tested in the crucible of debate. His unwillingness to address the issue can only be interpreted as defeat. Perhaps some other brave soul will take up the gauntlet and prove us wrong.

Which Death was Destroyed in AD 70?

The issue of which death was destroyed in AD 70 is central to the debate over Universalism and Covenant Eschatology. Sam argues that imputed Adamic death was destroyed (but not really, only in cause, not effect!). King argues that it was “sin-death” as embodied in the Mosaic law that was destroyed. (“The dissolution of [the Jewish] body ended the reign of death.”)[14] King does not define “sin-death,” but I take him to mean juridical death. That is, the sentence of death pronounced upon all that sin. If juridical death was destroyed in AD 70, then, clearly, all men are justified and made heirs of eternal life, for without the sentence of juridical death, there is nothing to condemn men to hell. It is as if the whole race were arraigned before the court of heaven upon an indictment reciting these two laws (Mosaic/imputed Adamic death).  The annulment of those laws ipso facto destroys the indictment, as there is no longer any law to base an accusation upon.  Hence, all men stand acquitted.  In the words of Sam Frost: “There is no law taking into account our sins.” Since both the King approach and the Frost/four-point Calvinist[15] approach cannot be right, and since the Universalism inherent in their views is plainly wrong, the question remains which death was destroyed?  The answer is elementary: Hadean death. 

There are five kinds of death that can be identified in the Bible.  These are:  1) Moral/spiritual; 2) legal/juridical; 3) physical; 4) Hadean; 5) eternal/second death.  All of these exist today except Hadean death.  Moral and spiritual death speak to man’s fallen nature, inherited by physical descent from Adam.  Legal and juridical death are terms used to describe the sentence of death passed upon all who sin.  Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.  The moral faculty of faith tied to man’s conscience requires that he obey its dictates.  Where he acts in violation of his conscience or the command of God, he is guilty of sin and comes under juridical death, just like Adam.  Physical death requires no explanation.  Eternal death is the penalty for sin announced in the garden.  All who are guilty of sin and fail to obtain the salvation that is freely offered in Jesus will suffer the second, eternal death.  Only Hadean death was destroyed in A.D. 70.  This is confirmed by the very context of the passage (Rev. 20:11-15), which shows death and Hades cast into the lake of fire together. Paul is to the same effect: “Then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.  O death, where is thy sting, O Hades, where is thy victory?”  (I Cor. 15:54, 55)  It was Hadean death that was destroyed at the eschaton, and none else. Anything else will produce Universalism.

Some will ask what about juridical death?  Wasn’t that destroyed at the eschaton?  No, it was not.  As long as mankind endures, he will be carnal, sold under sin, and therefore subject to juridical death for the sins of his flesh under the moral law.  If he has not obeyed the gospel at the time of physical death, there is only one decree announced: eternal death.  Thus, all forms of death but Hadean remain today.  Hadean death alone as passed from existence and is no more. 

What about Revelation 21:4? 

Revelation 21:4 describes the holy city, new Jerusalem (the church) saying: “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”  This passage is adapted from Isaiah, where it describes the return of the captivity to Judah, but ultimately looks beyond the captivity’s return unto the kingdom of the Messiah.  (Isa. 35:9, 10; 65:19-25)  When Revelation says there will be no more death, this should not be taken in an absolute sense.  This is clear from the fact that it also says there will be no more sorrow, crying, or pain.  Since these are still a very real and permanent part of human existence this side of eternity, it seems clear that the statement is intended to be understood in a relative sense.  The trials and tribulations of the eschaton were over; death, sorrow, and crying associated with the persecution were past. That this is the intended meaning is also seen from Rev. 7:16, 17 where similar language is used to describe those that came through the great tribulation.  It is often assumed that the image is of the saints in heaven, but the better view is that it speaks to the church triumphant upon earth: 

They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

It is true, of course, that inside the city believers have access to the tree of life and, therefore, juridical death will not touch those that remain in covenant relation with God.  (We believe in the possibility of apostasy; hence “no more death” must be taken in a relative sense for this reason also.) But this does not seem to be the prophet’s meaning.  Again, the fact that sorrow and crying remain part of human existence requires the language be understood in context of the persecutions of Nero that were past.  Foy E. Wallace Jr. puts it this way: 

This passage was the fulfillment of the promise in chapter 7:14-17 which was vouchsafed by Christ himself that the faithful through tribulation would become recipients of the blessings signified in the symbolic phrases of these two texts.  The same figures of speech are employed by Isaiah in the descriptions of the blessings that should come upon Israel when freed from exile and returned to their land…no more death referred to the martyrdom of the saints as chapter 2:10; neither sorrow nor crying referred to the sorrows of persecution; and neither any more pain was just another phrase for no more tribulation.[16]

Again, let it be emphasized that the termination of any other death than Hadean death will result only in Universalism (unless you want to try in vain to divorce the cause and effect, like Sam).

Conclusion

 

There is an elephant standing in the room. Sam would persuade you that you are simply seeing things and that life should go on as before. Hopefully you have not been persuaded to follow his perilous course, but will reject Covenant Eschatology – man made doctrine leading logically to Universalism and Antinomianism, which pollutes and imperils the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[1] Those that admit law exists are faced with an indissoluble quandary: if law exists, there cannot have been a resurrection upon the basis that the law was removed. See discussion, below.

[2] Samuel M. Frost, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead (Truth Voice Pub. 2004), p.157.

[3] Lest it seem like I am picking on these men, I encourage you, reader, to see for yourself how many comments exist among Preterist writers, which either agree with this principle outright, or at the very least encourage such thinking. My attempt to point out these paths are something that every gospel-loving full Preterist should consider themselves responsible for, in that a tsunami of Universalism and Antinomianism has hit the movement, and nobody seems to care, except to deny it and pretend that everything is just fine.

Ward Fenley on Law: http://www.eschatology.com/theonomy.html David Curtis on Law: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/curtis-david_p_12.html Virgil Vaduva on Law: http://planetpreterist.com/news-1000.html

[4] According to Siegle, the “body of death” is mankind under the Mosaic law: “This is why Paul cried out for deliverance from the Mosaic "body of death" (Rom. 7:24).” Siegle; from a comment posted on PlanetPreterist.

[5] Max R. King, The Cross and the Parousia of Christ, p. 644.

[6] Samuel M. Frost, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection (Truth Voice, 2004), p.156.

[7] Samuel M. Frost, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead (Truth Voice Pub. 2004), p.157.

[8] I withdrew my name as a formal columnist at PlanetPreterist from a conviction that there is too much irresponsible material posted that imperils the souls of others, and I did not want to seem to endorse this editorial policy. I encourage Virgil to take a more conservative stance toward what he allows posted on his site. We cannot wash our hands and plead “free speech” and academic discussion where souls are in the balance – at least not in a public forum open to millions of people world-wide. I chose to post this debate here because this site has strong ties to King and therefore represented the most suitable forum for reaching those impacted by King’s fallacious doctrines.

[9] Max R. King, The Cross and the Parousia of Christ, p. 644.

[10] Imputed Adamic death does not enter into King’s scheme; before he turned Universalist, King was Arminian, not Calvinist; King does not teach imputed Adamic death.

[11] Max R. King, The Spirit of Prophecy (Warren, OH, 1971), pp. 144.

[12]    Max King, The Spirit of Prophecy (Warren OH, 1971 ed.), p. 204.

[13] Max R. King, The Spirit of Prophecy (Warren, OH, 1971), pp. 144.

[14] Max R. King, The Spirit of Prophecy (1971), p. 356; cf. The Cross and Parousia of Christ, p. 257.

[15] In fairness to our Reformed friends, it should be noted that Sam’s views are atypical and do not represent the views of standard, conservative Reformed Preterists.

[16] Foy E. Wallace Jr., The Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth, 1966), pp. 429, 430.

davo's picture

The law of Moses also included the ceremonial law, consisting in types and shadows that pointed to Christ. Thus, where the moral law condemned, the ceremonial law offered man the hope of redemption. The ceremonial law has been removed, but not the moral. The moral law still convicts man of sin. … But not according to Larry Siegle who affirms that there is no distinction between the moral and ceremonial law (“The NT does not make a distinction between a "moral" and "ceremonial" law”).Larry is right, there is NO arbitrary distinction that your whole argument needs to survive. Christ's abolition of the Law was by no means to abrogate the law, but rather to fulfill it – what was abrogated was Israel's use of the law as their means for righteousness – something the law was NEVER designed to do, nor could do. God's Law was specifically given to preserve LIFE for Israel, but something which Israel in her self-centred piety turned to and trusted in of her own volition for her own righteousness:

Duet 6:24-25 And the LORD commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day. THEN IT WILL BE RIGHTEOUSNESS FOR US, IF WE are careful to observe all these commandments before the LORD our God, as He has commanded us.’

The Lord NEVER said the law would be their righteousness, that was their misguided imposition – the same "self-righteousness" that Paul in the NT confronts endlessly throughout his epistles. God and God alone was Israel's righteousness [Jer 23:6; 33:16]. The whole law's function according to Paul was to lead Israel to Christ, the LIFE giver/preserver [Jn 11:25; 14:6] – this was the Gospel's TRUE message "Your God Reigns!!" Isa 52:7 – and He did through Christ [Col 1:19; 2:9].

Now nowhere in the Scriptures is the Law arbitrarily broken up or down into such declared subcategories of "the moral law" – "the ceremonial law" or "the sacrificial law", NOWHERE. These were ALL aspects and functions of the ONE INDIVISIBLE LAW OF GOD for Israel. These were all vital elements of it. Once you start carving up where Scripture does not, you start down that spiral process that contravenes your cherished maxim – "Where Scripture speaks, we speak; where Scripture is silent, we are silent" – interesting that such an imposition of bifurcating "the law" could be advocated by a CoC adherent? [correct me if I'm wrong on that] The end result no matter which way you slice and dice it in degrees will ALWAYS end up with righteousness according to works.

Even James is most emphatic on this – to err in one jot or tittle IS the break the whole [Jas 2:10]. Paul likewise makes it abundantly clear that the 'ministration of death' was a unified whole – listing ONE aspect included the WHOLE:

2Cor 3:3, 6-7 …clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. … who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away…

So we have "ink" – "letter" – "stone" – ALL facets of the ONE INDIVISIBLE LAW OF GOD used in describing the workings and requirements of Yahweh among His people; of which NOW these living epistles through the Spirit, carried the ministration of "the life" as opposed to that of "the death".

Even Paul FOLLOWED and OBEYED various elements of the law [Act 18:18; 21:18, 23-24] – not that doing so carried any redeeming virtue, he knew it didn't – but Paul, understanding his Hebrew heritage and culture had NO compunction in following what for him would be quite kosher, and in all likelihood gain acceptance with those to whom he was seeking to reach, i.e., his brethren – of which we know elsewhere, desired of them that "some might be saved" from the forth coming AD66-70 "wrath" [Rom 9:2-3; 10:1] [remember prêteristic audience relevance – and actually try reading King thoroughly on this].

There is simply NO arbitrary segregating of the law into these separate modes of "moral" – "civil" – "ceremonial" edicts and statutes that YOUR whole argument revolves around – and THAT is the only reason you posit such tripe – for argument's sake; one NOT substantiated from Scripture, from tradition yes – but Scripture NO.

NO. The Law consisting of ink, letter and stone was THE LAW in-toto. ALL pointed ultimately to Christ and ALL were ultimately fulfilled, complete and finished in Him.

davo – pantelism.com –

tom-g's picture

Hey Davo,

I would publicly like to pursue this argument with you, not inclusively in one post but, point by point in several.

My first would be a clarification of:
"NO. The Law consisting of ink, letter and stone was THE LAW in-toto. ALL pointed ultimately to Christ and ALL were ultimately fulfilled, complete and finished in Him."

Me first comment for clarification of this is: WHEN, chronologically in the scripture narrative?

Tom

davo's picture

The question to be decided by this debate is simple and straight forward: Does King’s Covenant Eschatology logically lead to Universalism? I think that a clear and direct connection has indeed been demonstrated. King is posting Universalistic articles on his site…What a load of baloney Kurt – which "articles"? Now not knowing exactly how long you have been studying[??] King's book [CP], but judging by your numerous quotes, and might I say the misapplications of said quotes – how has it been that ONLY till recent times have YOU yourself have come to the realisation of these "apparent" universalistic conclusions? How is it that upon years of continual reading of the CP that it has not been until now you have been so appalled and so now forthrightly reject King's so-called most obvious and pernicious universalism – quite apart from the printed fact that King's blatant denials of such throughout his CP book; such refutations as has been adequately demonstrated by others providing such accuracy of quotes and in context etc.

Is there an ulterior motive underlying all this?

davo

tom-g's picture

Hey Davo,

I don't know what all of this has been about, but an illustration might help.

In the myth of the scorpion and the frog, the frog asks the scorpion why he stung him because they both would die, the scorpion answered because I am a scorpion.

If man were to ask God for what reason was he condemned, God's answer would be, because you are a man.

God's answer would be the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, from the beginning of the creation world without end.

Regards,
Tom

davo's picture

tom-g: I don't know what all of this has been about...

hmmm, I'm inclined to agree.

davo

Theolog's picture

Hate to see such discord over such a simple thing.

There was death before the Law of sin and death was given to Israel, Not the Nations. Gentiles were under the "General Revelation" and were also held accountable to God. The general revelation is something that really scares the legalist evangelical church.

MATTHEW 5:17-18 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished

CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW ROMANS 10:3,4 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
THE LAW THAT WAS WRITTEN IN STONE FADED AWAY 2 CORINTHIANS 3:7-11 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

Obveously the Kingdom Of God is a lawful kingdom.

Taking the idea that anyone that messes with the "Law of Moses" is "antinomian" is absurd and childish and shows a stagnant level of traditional theology and you need to reform.

We have a New covenant with a completely new approach to Law. a New high priest, a New priesthood, a New Jerusalem, One sacrifice for all sin, And best of all God is our King. God is our teacher. It's a done deal.

The New Law is "Christ in us" You will know if they really are in Christ by their Love for one another.

Of course my words of wisdom are wasted on a group that wants to be "The Teacher"

Ecclesia reformata semper reformanada

OSTRALOA's picture

For Sam & Kurt,

It seems you two ended bitterly which is too bad in that you two are tops. I am sure the universalists and the annihilationists are pleased at this having the two best in preterist scholarship at each others throats. I was afraid of that when this started.

Well, Sam's depth was good and Kurt had good points. The only thing thing that concerns me in Sam is unwillingness to respond to my questions about the the reality of Hades pre-70 A.D. and it's implications. Sam, do you or do you not believe that it existed? Kurt was clear, you were not. I realize it was not the central issue, but it needs dealt with. I also asked if you see Christ's "physical" descent during the three days and three nights into paradise and you did not respond. We already know Kurt's view. Sam, where's your answer??

For Christ & Kingdom,

Paul Anderson
Planalmira, Brazil

Sam's picture

Paul,

Simmons equates "the death" with "the hades" which are clearly regarded in Scripture as two different things. Having said that, I hold with Josephus concerning the nature of Hades (Sheol). It was a "holding tank" for all the dead from Adam to the Parousia of Christ. It, like "the death" has been entirely "destroyed." Kurt cannot grasp this point because for him, this means, salvation for all.

Sam

Believability's picture

My comments regarding the relationship between "the Law" (ceremonial) and "the Law" (moral) should be considered in the context of what was being discussed at the time.

My point was (and continues to be) that the issue of COVENANT is at the very heart of our understanding of the Scriptures (in general) and Eschatology (in particular). The apostle Paul throughout his inspired writings makes no distinction between the various elements of "the Law" (whether "moral" or "ceremonial"). Seventh-Day Adventists have always argued that the "moral" law did not pass away (as identified with the ten commandments) in contradistinction to the "ceremonial" law (animal sacrifices, observance of feast days, the Levitical Priesthood etc). Paul (and other inspired writers) makes no distinction between the these two aspects that WE tend to separate. "The Law" is a package deal in that it REPRESENTED a system that could not give life because it DEMONSTRATED the inability of man to keep the commandments and thus justify himself and be saved apart from the intervention of God through the death of Christ on the Cross and the applied meaning of that death at His Parousia.

People are lost BECAUSE they are not in covenant relationship with God. Do people murder other people? Yes. It murder as defined in the Scriptures a "sin"? Yes. Do people commit adultery today? Yes. Is adultery as defined in the Scriptures a "sin"? Yes.

Are their "moral absolutes" today? Yes. Christians are bound by the terms of the COVENANT under which they live, which certainly includes counsel regarding what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behavior. However, are people of the world bound by the same terms of the COVENANT as are believers? No.

Within the churches of Christ we taught that people (outside the COVENANT) were committing "sin" because they used mechanical instruments in worship, or partook of the Lord's Supper on some day other than "the first day of (every) week." My point to Kurt was that those OUTSIDE THE COVENANT were never given instructions about mechanical instruments or the Lord's Supper etc etc and therefore we not amenable to any such "law."

Further, my point is that we act surprised when unbelievers act like unbelievers. The COVENANT is such that God "writes His laws upon the hearts" of those who embrace the wonders of the gospel. People are lost because they (like the Jewish nation) have rejected the only means or provision through which they could be saved (entering into a COVENANT relationship with Jesus Christ). It is no one specific "sin" (murder, theft, lying, or adultery) that forms the basis of alienation from God, it is the reject of Jesus Christ that causes them to be "condemned already." If we have the Son we have life, if we do not have the Son we do not have life--it is as plain and simple as that.

I have never denied that those "moral absolutes" that are based in the very nature and character of God are no longer binding. However, obedience that brings us into line with these qualities arises from RELATIONSHIP with God and not as the result of a new list of "do this" or "don't do that" from God. At the point of our resurrection (new birth, conversion etc) our nature is transformed and we are restored to "the image and likeness of God" (which was the original intent of God from the beginning).

Kurt never proved that "the Law" mentioned in I Cor. 15:56 is anything more, anything less, or anything else than that which formed the basis for Paul's line of argumentation in the book of Romans.

COVENANT ESCHATOLOGY is not the universal villain he would like for it to be. Sam did a good job of outlining the covenantal aspect of the relationship of sin and death and how Christ defeated it through the redemptive process.

If the "law of sin and death" has not been defeated then humanity is now no better off then they were from the time of the fall onward.

If the "law of sin and death" has not been defeated then the blood of Jesus was shed in vain, and we are "yet in our sins"

If the "law of sin and death" has not been defeated then the coming of the Lord in A.D. 70 accomplished nothing of value.

If the "law of sin and death" has not been defeated then there is no resurrection of the dead (because the defeat of sin and death was the WHOLE point Paul was making in his discussion with the Corinthians and elsewhere).

Some have commented (graciously) that I should write a book. One of the reasons I write selectively and rarely is because of people such as Kurt whose whole purpose in life is that of twisting the words of others and taking comments out of context. To say that I advocate "lawlessness" is a gross misrepresentation of the truth and I have told him as much in private correspondence.

The "collective" body viewpoint is merely one element of preterism and takes nothing away from the concept that at the A.D. 70 coming of the Lord the "dead ones" were released from Hades, judged and received their eternal rewards.

My views on this subject are consistent and can be verified by looking at the Preterist Archive dating back to approximately 2002-03 when we were discussing the collective body view on the PreteristCosmos site. I stand by my comments made then and I stand by the comments made now.

Although some have accused preterism as being the place where anybody advocating virtually any "strange position" could find a home perhaps has some merit but not for the reasons some might believe. Whenever there is a paradigm shift in the life of a person it creates the possibility of ending up with extreme positions in other areas. Why? Because one aspect of theology often affects other areas of theology. A implies B which implies C etc.

Those who embrace a universal salvation paradigm may have BEGUN with certain aspects of Covenant Eschatology but certainly it has not be proved that there is a "cause" and "effect" relationship or that Covenant Eschatology IMPLIES universalism. Kurt begins his argumentation with a false premise that leads him to a false conclusion--plain and simple.

MP: All yellow cars are Fords.
MP: My car is yellow.
Con: Therefore, my car is a Ford.

The construction of the above is VALID but it is not SOUND. Why? Because it has not been proved that EVERY yellow car is a Ford.

MP: The collective body view leads to universalism.
MP: Larry believes in the collective body view.
Con. Therefore, Larry is a universalist.

The major premise has to be proved in order for the conclusion to logically follow. Have some who believe in the collective body view embraced universalism? Yes. Does this prove that EVERYONE who takes that viewpoint will? No.

Whatever positive arguments Kurt has made are undermined by his insistence on proving that which cannot be proved. In addition, nothing Max King as written (to this point) either EXPLICITLY or IMPLICITLY says that He accepts universalism as a consequence of his collective body view.

With regard to the PlanetPreterist editorial posting policy, I believe Virgil is fair in his administration of the website and that not everything here NEEDS to agree with everything else. Otherwise, why post at all? It is the action of honest students of the word seeking to discover the rich truth and blessings that cause us to invest our time and energy in adding value to comments made by others. I do not take offense with those who disagree with me (although I cannot imagine WHY anyone would do so :-).

My sincere thanks to all who remain an encouragement to me to continue study of the word of God. Kurt and Sam, my thanks to both of you for sharing what is on your hearts with all of us. I was amazed at the depth of the material Sam posted--I have much respect for his scholarship and the same could be said for Kurt.

Larry Siegle
Walnut Creek, CA

Starlight's picture

I would like to explore an aspect of Kurt’s understanding of scripture and specifically his understanding of Paul’s concept of grace.

Kurt states … “Thus, the notion that there was a “gap” from Adam to Moses when there was no law and God did not reckon sin is wrong - and is part of the architecture which allows Universalists to revive that same sinless period post AD70 when that law was purportedly removed.”

A purposeful reading of Paul’s NT writings illustrates the concept of Grace which he declares produces freedom for the believer. Well this freedom is there for those who enter into the Rest (Heb 4). The Sabbath rest is illustrated for us in OT language as restrictive of any form of works barring penalty of death. Those who are caught working are to be killed. Now this is an illustration for believers to understand that entering into the “rest” which Paul declares as freedom means those who continue to strive for a works method of redemption in any material way are to be reminded of the OT penalty. So Kurt equating works method after AD70 for those who enter the rest is clearly against scriptural precedent. Paul explains this freedom “rest” as a gift that is not dependant upon man’s effort but upon Christ.
(Rom 3:20 YLT) wherefore by works of law shall no flesh be declared righteous before Him, for through law is a knowledge of sin. 21 And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets, 22 AND THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD [is] THROUGH THE FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST TO ALL, and UPON ALL THOSE BELIEVING, -- for there is no difference, 23 for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God – 24 being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that [is] in Christ Jesus,

Now we must understand that Kurt is going to classify you as a Universalist or Antinomianist if you use the word grace more than once so I do so now at the peril of forever being classified by Kurt. Now as we explore the scripture keep in your mind how you think Kurt would classify Paul if he were debating Kurt today.

As we examine Paul’s writings in context we see Paul defending many of the same charges against him by the Judizers that Larry and Sam must defend against Kurt. Just take a look at some of Paul’s attempts to fend off the Judizer wolves.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?
2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? … 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. … 13 Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness.
14 FOR SIN SHALL NOT BE YOUR MASTER, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT UNDER LAW, BUT UNDER GRACE.
15 WHAT THEN? SHALL WE SIN BECAUSE WE ARE NOT UNDER LAW BUT UNDER GRACE? BY NO MEANS!
but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone."

Rom 10:2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.

10:5 Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."

If this verse is not the personification of Kurt’s approach I would like to know what is. Kurt is wrapped up in seeking and living a law in the midst of grace.

11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace …. as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."

I can’t help but think of Kurt when it comes to Paul’s corrective instruction to the Galatians. The shame is that Preterism is a freeing understanding of God and Christ and as one studies it they should start to pickup up the freeing nature of the gospel but Kurt has been adhering to a Judizing legalism for as he states over 26 years.

(Gal 1:6 NIV) I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

2:4 This matter arose because some FALSE BROTHERS HAD INFILTRATED OUR RANKS TO SPY ON THE FREEDOM WE HAVE IN CHRIST JESUS AND TO MAKE US SLAVES.

Gal 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. "If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! ... 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? … 10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."… 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."

(Gal 4:26 NIV) But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother…. 30 But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."

5:1 IT IS FOR FREEDOM THAT CHRIST HAS SET US FREE. STAND FIRM, THEN AND DO NOT LET YOURSELVES BE BURDENED AGAIN BYA YOKE OF SLAVERY.

4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace…. 13 You, my brothers, WERE CALLED TO BE FREE. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature ; rather, serve one another in love.

Kurt appears to have a problem with Paul’s continual usage of what he would like to classify as Universalism or Antinomianism or today’s grace adherents. Paul constantly impresses the idea that he was being accused of preaching a grace that was confused with rampant sin just as Kurt is accusing many others here as well. If Kurt has problems with the description of grace that is understood by many then he undoubtedly has problems with Paul’s or just doesn’t understand the grace concept well enough.

As I have stated before, the concept of separating grace from works is indeed a daunting challenge for many of us. It has been the origin of constant friction ever since Christ came to remove the works mentality. Kurt’s approach and understanding of salvation by works would most definitely fall under condemnation by Paul. The recognition that Kurt is preaching a Judizing form of hybrid salvation is also the most definite illustration of his inability to comprehend Paul’s position of grace. Because of this lack of understanding we must conclude that Kurt is not in position to properly render a judgment upon others that adhere to Paul’s grace by faith understanding.

The problem arises from not correctly understanding the concept through the eyes of Paul but instead viewing it through the eyes of the pharisaical methodology. Kurt’s continuing to demonize and classify Paul’s grace concepts is just one of many of his mistaken concepts which all derive from an attempt to keep one foot in the old world of futurism and partial Preterism and Judizing legalism.

Lastly, Kurt stated in another post … “The corporate aspect of King's system is not the central issue. It is his spiritualization of the resurrection and his premise that the law had to be removed for man to be redeemed that is the source of so much error.”

Here I happen to agree with Kurt, but it is not in the manner that he desires as I believe that Kurt has a limited concept of the spiritual nature of scripture and like our futurist friends cannot understand preterist revealed spiritual language.

Gal 5:16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature… But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

Kurt, anyone can proof text a subject and you have proven yourself adept at proof texting a legalistic approach to Christ but it fails to provide the freedom that Paul puts forth.

The bottom line is that Paul’s teaching of the concept of grace is straightforward and comprehendible and is much more intune with Sam’s and Larry understanding of the removal of “sin” than it is supportive of Kurt’s works rendition. When we analyze Kurt and Sam’s debate we need to take into consideration which one fits Paul’s illustration better. I’m afraid in that determination that Kurt has been driven out of the camp and his errors need to be illustrated for all to recognize so that the blessed freedom of Christ is fully recognized by believers. Kurt’s own words should be used to classify his brand of works and how he should be dealt with. I’ll simply insert Judizer in place of Universalism in one of Kurt’s post.

“I don't know why Virgil allows your sort of irresponsible material to be posted on his site. I am sure God does not look favorably upon his providing a forum for these sorts of errors to be broadcast to unsuspecting souls. Virgil, Preterism is being assailed by (Judizers), and your site is one of the leading causes by providing an uncensored forum for these errors to be published. What will you say on judgment day? "Sorry, Lord, for all those souls lost because of my site? I am not responsible, I posted a disclaimer?"

Yes Virgil why do you continue to allow Judizing legalist to lead others away from the freedom that we have in Christ?

Norm

Malachi's picture

Norman,

You have been a preterist for something like 2 or 3 years. I have a preterist for something like 26 years. That is better than eight times as long as you. You are a great guy in person; why when you get on line do you become another person, trying to look informed and important, commenting upon what you do not understand, making offensive and unnecessary remarks, parading about in public your ignorance? Since you are so informed and so smart, why don't you take up the proposition Sam could not uphold and I will debate it with you? If not, then perhaps you should refrain from talking about subjects you do not understand, for with every post you only betray your ignorance. I say this as a friend who is offended with your offensive and idiotic comments.
Blessings,

Starlight's picture

Kurt,

Look I appreciate your knowledge and your experience but I don’t think one has to become certified to plunge into discussions here on PP. As far as looking foolish and ignorant I’ll just have to deal with those consequences. And yes you are a great guy in person so why do you have to become so aggressive and demeaning in your remarks as well. Maybe we should all tone down our feelings a little bit don’t you think. Kurt where do you think those feelings comes from? They come from commitment to what one believes just as your condemnation of others point of views comes from your own commitment as well. You believe that you understand better than many of us here well some of us believe that you do not understand better. Does 26 years entitle you to be wrong on subjects and not be pointed out?

As far as debating the proposition that you put forth I have no inclination to debate a point that is moot in essence. I happen to agree with you that many forms of Universalism do derive their foundational positions from an understanding of the corporate body concepts although I believe Sam and Larry made it clear that it would not be a proper understanding. They have illustrated that it is misunderstood by universalist and misapplied contextually similar to your lack of understanding the concept as well. In the end a misapplication of scripture is wrong no matter how it arrived at.

The reason I posted my response was to illustrate a theme that Paul consistently upholds throughout the scriptures which in my opinion show an inconsistency in your methodology and you should have responded to my points instead of taking them personal. Also as far as experience goes I have several years of life experience over you being involved in the body of Christ for nearly 40 years. I have not been dormant all these years Kurt and most likely could teach you a thing or two and I especially have a keen eye for inconsistency and misrepresentations of scripture. In other words one doesn’t have to be an expert to recognize problems but experience is helpful. It’s kind of like your response to Sam chiding you about your misapplication of syllogisms properly. You stated that being perfect in your presentation was not as important as what your point actually was. So taking my imperfect presentation Kurt why don’t you just respond to my points and implications just as you have asked Sam to do with you.

You expect me and others to sit idly by while you berate and condemn us and not become upset. Well take a look at my post and you will see a similar manner as in your posting. I utilized that style just to illustrate to you that two can play your game and its never fun being on the receiving end of that approach. I do take your words to heart concerning that approach and will try to refrain from it as best as possible but Kurt you and I both know that debating is not clean and pretty. Maybe we should all step back for a while and let things cool down and recognize what we have done.

Norman

Malachi's picture

Your comments that I am Judaizing are ridiculous. You don't know what you are talking about. I am binding no law on any one that God does not enjoin upon us. Maintaining that the moral law against adultery, sodomy, fornication, murder, and theft are still binding has nothing to do with Judaizing. Your charge that it does only shows your ignorance. Paul, who absolutely condemned the Judaizers of his day, also absolutely enjoined moral purity upon the church (within the limits of man's fallenness). If your accusations were not so many and so absurd, I would not be so hard on you. You seem to be addicted to posting comments that add nothing helpful or constructive to the issue at hand, but only make for further divisiveness and confusion; they seem to be prompted more from a desire to see your name in print, than to say anything helpful. You would be doing everyone a favor to wait until you have something meaningful to say, rather than just running off at the mouth.

Said with Christian love for someone I care much about.

Starlight's picture

Kurt,

Kurt, I think most people here follow what my intent was meant by Judaizer. It may not correspond to what you infer which may only be a ceremonial adherent of the law. My implication is to be more precise, one who still adheres to a Pharisaical Law or works mentality. This is clearly the implication of the totality of the verses that I listed from Paul and their implication. Yes he may be addressing in some specific verses the following of customs, new moon celebrations and the implementing of circumcision but the totality of his message is one who returns to the old legalistic ways and depend upon them for their salvation. The verses I listed clearly show Paul has to explain the complexity of grace to people. In Romans it is more extensive and in Galatians it is a refresher correction. If there wasn’t a need for Paul to differentiate dramatically between the two corresponding approaches then I don’t believe he would have spent so much time concerning himself with those issues. After all it should be a natural transition to move from the Law to Grace but apparently it isn’t nor was it.

Kurt you’re responding as if you believe no one else understands this debate and that it is too complex for those of us that have just recently come to Preterism. I grant you that it is a complex issue and is not easily discernable but if one puts their mind to the task they can. You have chided me concerning my knowledge and understanding and I will take to heart some of what you state as good advice and try to adapt accordingly but I don’t think you understand the crash course that I have put and am still putting myself through in getting up to speed on the subjects that arise. I’m involved with Preterism as much as 40 to 50 hours a week and have been for over a year and 8 months and that equates to over 3000 hours during that period of time. Most people cannot contribute that much time to this unless they are retired or sponsored full time. I own my own business and have flexibility to monitor the discussions here at PP at my leisure and respond accordingly. The reason I do so is that I have a passion for learning and I find the study of scripture processed through the eyes of Preterism as a worthy Endeavour.

You mentioned that I seem to cause divisiveness and stir up the pot here at PP and insert myself too often. I don’t disagree completely with that observation and have questioned myself if I should pull back and back off. But that is the way that I learn and I find that many people are afraid to ask difficult or new questions because they don’t want to rock the boat. But I also find that they usually never get their questions answered if they don’t ask or stir up debate to get to the bottom of things. In fact that is the essence of Planet Preterist as it encourages this kind of intercourse of the minds and is what produces learning amongst us all. Now I realize that you are uncomfortable with that format and would prefer a more controlled climate but I vehemently disagree. We have left our religious discussion to the Academicians and religious minds in the past and that is why we never heard about Preterism until 35 years ago. It was a rare bird such as my grandfather who would challenge the status quo and go where others dared not. So don’t talk to me about keeping a lid on my mind, as I recognize that as an intimidation factor that many in the religious world like to impart upon others.

Also Kurt did you not read the scriptures in my original post showing how Paul had to illustrate to his audience that yes indeed they were to be living lives of purity

But don’t despair, Grace is a hard concept for us raised in the CofC to understand. I have been exploring that issue now for going on nearly 40 years. Nearly a millennium in Biblical parlance. But my 3000 plus hours of recent time investment is rendering a more complete understanding than I was able to dig out in previous studies. And I owe it all to Preterism.

I’ll leave you with a Galatians quote again.

3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? … 10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."… 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."

And Kurt, I take your correction towards me as a gesture of brotherly love and I do appreciate your rebuke but I do think you are mistaken somewhat.

Norm

tom-g's picture

Hey Norm,

Our late president Reagan was noted for his famous one liner; "Ain't that boy something"

When reading your postmodernist comments I think: "Ain't that boy something." (aka ATBS)

To castigate Kurt because of your admitted spiritualized private interpretation of scripture ([Kurt]"cannot understand preterist revealed spiritual language") would be funny if it were not so serious.

Again I think ATBS.

Tom

Starlight's picture

Back at you Tom <;-)

So I take it you are comfortable wearing the Judizer leagalist label as well?

Norm

tom-g's picture

Hey Norm,

I consider the source and recognize an untutored scriptural postmodernist and ignore it.

Regards,
tom

davo's picture

Believability: It is no one specific "sin" (murder, theft, lying, or adultery) that forms the basis of alienation from God, it is the reject of Jesus Christ that causes them to be "condemned already."

Larry, how is this in reality ANY different from the Kurt's professed universalism of the young – he simply applies it to the puerile according to his schema of inability, YET you on the other hand simply make the "rejection of Jesus Christ the touchstone for "the condemnation" – but IF one rejects NOT Jesus Christ, for whatever myriad of possible reasons [one of which can be as per Kurt's flawed rationale], then according to your own program of things, THEY TOO are duly "universally saved". Where then is your own consistency??

Believability: If the "law of sin and death" has not been defeated then humanity is now no better off then they were from the time of the fall onward.

If the "law of sin and death" has not been defeated then the blood of Jesus was shed in vain, and we are "yet in our sins"

If the "law of sin and death" has not been defeated then the coming of the Lord in A.D. 70 accomplished nothing of value.

If the "law of sin and death" has not been defeated then there is no resurrection of the dead (because the defeat of sin and death was the WHOLE point Paul was making in his discussion with the Corinthians and elsewhere).

And one can also logically, prêteristically and so consistently rightly add to this list that IF the LAW then, which Christ came to fulfill, and of which HE declared "it is finished!!" HAS NOT been duly dealt with, THEN that does indeed explain the need for the maintenance of "the wrath" that you Partialists STILL say remains for SIN post mortem – even though Paul tells us explicitly that "the wages of sin is death" itself, AND NOT some supposed post mortem calamity. And further, Paul makes it EVEN MORE abundantly clear in saying "THE LAW WORKETH WRATH" – which by obvious and logical deduction means that MORE wrath equates to STILL more LAW, and THIS, even though Isaiah prophetically tells us the Father was fittingly "satisfied" [Isa 52:11] with the travail that wrought redemption – – all of which totally contradicts and brings to naught the neat little prêteristic scenario you presented above that we like to point out to futurists, i.e., that if "heaven and earth remains" then likewise the LAW remains and we ALL STILL under it with no remedy, and miserably so – as per our favourite Mt 5:18.

Now if you were Sam you might answer "William dog foe but running no turn start water monkey river balloon" – but what say you Larry, where is there consistency??

davo

lsthomp's picture

The problem is that the context of the passing of the law of sin and death is taking out of the context of that which is fulfilled and consumated in Christ by being born again and placing it in the realms of 70ad. This is false.

If you place the removal of sin and death in 70ad, then anything post 70ad vanishes away thus removing the judgment and condemnation. This is the mistaken premise of seeing only the historical and natural things, rather than seeing that which it points to. A process within the heart of being transformed into Christ's likeness.

davo's picture

With all due respect lsthomp, I think you are not really seeing the whole picture – for starters, there is and can be NO inner transformation apart from the literal historical event of Calvary. Secondly, Christ's AD70 Parousia was the CONSUMMATING event of that great DECISIVE event of the Cross. In other words – the Cross-Parousia event WAS the ONE INDISIBLE REDEMPTIVE EVENT of God that occurred in history, sealing forever the covenantal relationship between God and man. You cannot have one without or apart from the other.

So it is NOT a case of either/or that the likes of Preterist-Idealism wrongly proposes, BUT BOTH WORKING TOGETHER. How was it that a single lonely little Jew in the backside of the Roman Empire CHANGED THE WORLD? Well historically AND covenantally He did.

You see your "historical and natural things" all pointed towards and were fulfilled in the realm of God that transcends, but does NOT negate the realm of man; a realm that BECAUSE OF CHRIST reaches beyond our knowing, yet IS for our blessing – even now in this life.

davo – pantelism.com –

…the power and mercy of God's grace is NOT limited to man's ability to comprehend it.…

Malachi's picture

Larry,

Of course "the law of sin and death" was defeated at the cross! But, it has not been annulled nor has it been removed from the cosmos. It is still here and convicts every transgression and disobedience of man. There was no power of sin and death in the law of Moses that is not present in the moral law and law of sin and death that bind men today. Annulment of the Mosaic law affected no change in man's position before the throne of God. However, we do have the opportunity for forgiveness by the blood of Christ.

As to twisting your statements, that is unfair. You said murder and adultery do not condemn man before God. I did not twist this, I merely repeated it. I think you now realize you spoke unadvisedly. However, it is unfair to vilify me for catching you in your error. I did not do it out of uncharitable motives: I did it because it demonstrates the very heart and soul of the issue before us: King's system is bound up in endless error and contradiction, spawning the sort of statements and conclusions you made (but now repent of). King preaches that man could not be saved as long as the law was present. But the cross triumphed over the law, hence King's most fundamental proposition is found untrue. Moreover, if law is still present today convicting men (and Christians)of transgression, then removal of the ceremonial law could not have brought about the "resurrection" King's system claims.

Sam has clearly not carried the debate. He has failed to prove King's covenant eschatology is unconnected to his Universalism. I renew the challenge: Anyone who feels they can clear King's system of error let him draw up the proposition for debate and I will humbly reply.

Believability's picture

I am smart enough (and know my own limitations) that it is never good to affirm or try to prove a negative, i.e. "King's system DOES NOT teach universalism."

Personally, I do not believe that either view (collective) or (individual) as it pertains to resurrection makes the vast difference with regard to leading one into universalism.

Was the valley of dry bones collective, or individual?

Just a thought...

Larry Siegle
Walnut Creek, CA

Malachi's picture

Larry,

The corporate aspect of King's system is not the central issue. It is his spiritualization of the resurrection and his premise that the law had to be removed for man to be redeemed that is the source of so much error.

chrisliv's picture

Larry,

You said, "Within the churches of Christ we taught that people (outside the COVENANT) were committing "sin" because they used mechanical instruments in worship..."

I'm curious where, in the Bible, that the Church of Christ denomination adherents get the idea that mechanical instruments in worship are to be considered "committing sin" as the Bible clearly gives a positive example of instruments in worship at Psalm 150:

1 ¶ Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
2 Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Believability's picture

I do not want to start a church of Christ debate. However, the concept is this:

Bible authority is established by:
Direct Statement (Command)
Approved Account of Action (Example)
Implication (Necessary inference).

Since the NT is "silent" about the use of mechanical instruments in the NT it is therefore not authorized in worship. There is great emphasis placed upon "silence" excluding what is not mentioned. For example, if you went to McDonalds at the drive through window and told them, "I want a Big Mac and fries" you would not have to tell them everything on the menu that you did not want because you said what you wanted and the law of silence implies that you did not want anything other than what you ordered. Noah used gopher wood in the building of the Ark. Any other kind of wood would not have been authorized. This is the hermeneutic concept.

The verse from Psalms was in the OT, none of which is binding or approved for Christians since they live under the NT today.

It was meant to be for the sake of illustration and not to begin any sort of doctrinal study. Good question, though. I preached within the churches of Christ for 13-years prior to leaving the full-time ministry in 1999. I used the example because I knew Kurt could relate to what I was trying to say. Had he been a Baptist or some other denomination I would have used something related to their group. Make sense?

Larry Siegle
Walnut Creek, CA

chrisliv's picture

Wow,

To ignore the positive example given in Psalm 150 and then to argue from NT "silence" while deducing and declaring that others are "committing sin" should they dare use musical instruments in worship is so lame.

Larry, when you say, "The verse from Psalms was in the OT, none of which is binding or approved for Christians since they live under the NT today," I think you're being shortsighted.

The NT doesn't bother to reinterate or re-write a lot of good concepts from the OT, yet we see how the OT scriptures are made available to those under the NT for importing good doctrine, like at 1Timothy 5, regarding ruling elders:

17 ¶ Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the (OT) Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

So, your McDonalds argument fails, as you see the NT ordering right off the OT menu.

It is logically foolish to interpret the positive example of musical instruments in worship at Psalm 150 as a prohibition against musical instruments beginning in the 1st Century AD.

150:1 ¶ Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
2 Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.
3 Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.
4 Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
5 Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

Believability's picture

Please do not mistake what I am saying. I am not arguing this position. I was quoting the church of Christ approach to the hermeneutic involved. I am not longer associated with the the churches of Christ having joined the ranks of an eschatological outcast.

Larry Siegle
Walnut Creek, CA

JL's picture

Larry,

I hear you. When I was an old earth-futurist, I had less trouble in the CoC than after I turned preterist. Kurt's the first in the CoC to call old-earth creationism outright heresy. Error yes, but condemned to Hell, no.

Preterism is differnt in that regard. The animosity by people who claim to have no creed, is dreadful.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

chrisliv's picture

OK,

You were using it as an example.

It just seemed like a terribly arrogant accusation and denial of the positive model and the affirmative declarative statements to go ahead and use numerous musical instruments in worship, at Psalm 150, to suddenly argue from supposed "silence" that there is a mysterious biblical prohibition against worshipping God using musical instruments.

Maybe now that you're out of that group you'll consider buying a guitar, or something.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Starlight's picture

Chris,

Many of us that still reside in the CofC have fully recognized your correct assessment. Others still hang on to tradition for the sake and love of their tradition even when it was determined by a fallacious method. Case in point with Kurt hanging on to a works mentality even though Paul wrote extensively against his brand of works. The biggest argument against Kurt is he is in direct conflict with Paul's theme of grace and would have come under condemnation from Paul for not fully recognizing Christ gift of grace. Kurt is simply a Judaizer dressed up in a modern evangelical wardrobe.

Like JL, I have been an Old Earth adherent for years in the CofC and really never encountered such staunch opposition until I ran into Kurt here in the Preterist circles. Kurt thinks that it originated because of covenant eschatology just like universalism.

According to Kurt everything bad in Preterism is due to covenant eschatology even those postions which predate it.

Norm

chrisliv's picture

Hey,

Thanks Norm, for the added info.

I don't know the background and history of most here at PP.

I'm not sure yet if certain terms equated with Preterism, like Covenant Eschatology, are really a deviant form of Preterism or if these terms and titles are just tarred with the same negative brush because certain people use that term and hold other views that certain other people want to condemn.

I always thought Realized Eschatology and Covenant Eschatology were just a fancy way to describe Preterism. But I'm starting to wonder if Covenant Eschatology, in particular, might have some extra baggage implied in it. But, if it is only Tim King's ministry that has tarnished that title by his other views, I suppose that's not really enough to ruin the idea of "Covenant Eschatology," as long as were talking about the New Covenant, which is primarily expressed in the Sermon on the Mount.

I mean, if I'm not mistaken, Don Preston (CoC), who I respect as about the best apologist for the Preterist position, uses the term Covenant Eschatology without any unusual baggage.

I'll just lay back and watch a while longer. I don't know Kurt, or if he really is in conflict with the concept of Grace. But his position expressed in the recent debate with Frost has been pretty even handed and reasonable, I think. So, he deserves the credit for that. But I do know that Kurt's articles do seem to get a favorable status on a website operated by a guy that is obsessive and compulsive, in a seeming fascistic effort to control people.

So, I don't advocate Universalism or Judaizing.

I'm for Righteousness and against Wickedness.

Is that wrong...

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

Sam's picture

Kurt,

And again, "In fairness to our Reformed friends, it should be noted that Sam’s views are atypical and do not represent the views of standard, conservative Reformed Preterists." This is a lie and you no it. You continue in this paper to say I am a "four point" Calvinist. You lie and you know it. That makes you a LIAR.

Sam

Malachi's picture

Sam,
I am sorry this debate has left you so bitter. I hope we can move on and be friends. However, it is unfair to call me a liar. Four Point Calvinism is Calvinism without the L of limited atonement. When you make statements, saying, "the possibility and means for attaining Eternal Life with the Father is now available to all men” that makes you a Four Point Calvinist. If you did not mean what you said, then I suppose you ought to clarify yourself or retract your statement. But calling me a liar is unworthy of a man of your caliber.

Blessings,

MichaelB's picture

"the possibility and means for attaining Eternal Life with the Father is now available to all men”

Kurt if a bridge is built from San Diego to Coronado that does not mean that all cross it.

If there is blood over the new covenant door that does not mean that all go in.

If the gate to the city is open that does not mean that all go in.

Kurt - suggestion - do some research on "the well meant offer" Sam's statement above says nothing about the scope of the atonement.

Sam is a Clarkian Calvinist (see all his other work). Most 5 pointers from the Vantilian school would consider Clark a "hyper" Calvinist because of the denial of the "well meant offer". But either way - there are plenty of 5 point Calvinist's who don't deny the "well meant offer". While I would agree that the particular statement in question did not sound very "Clarkian" - it is still within the 5 point scope (I would be happy to point you to articles to show this).

If all men would adhere to commands repent and believe then the atonement would be proven to be for them.

The command (in the Clarkian view) or offer (in the Vantillian view)does not negate the responsibility of all men to repent / believe. Whether it is a "command" that they can not do, or an " sincere offer" that they can not do.

I am quite certain that Sam does not deny the L - limited atonement. As I stated above - the scope of the atonement is not in view here.

For research on it you may want to study do a (web search on)...

The well meant offer
Supralapsarian, Infralapsarian

Peace,
MB

Sam's picture

Kurt,

I no longer wish to debate. You have not dealt with any point. Your logic is bad, as you admit, but you don't care: your "substance" is true.

You are wrong about the translation point: but you don't care about that, either.

You are wrong about the five points I brought up in exegesis.

You are wrong about Max King's foundational understanding rooted in Adam

You were wrong to say that my first paper "had nothing to do with" covenant eschatology.

I no longer wish to debate a position that is clearly, clearly in my mind unable to be defended except with falsehoods and one liners.

Samuel M. Frost
www.thereignofchrist.com

tom-g's picture

Dear Kurt,

With your permission I would like to propose a correct syllogism incorporating your major points.
A syllogism in its perfevt first form is the most easily understood. A perfect first form takes the following:
MP
SM
SP

MAJOR PREMISE:
(M)The time of the loosing of all men from the power of the reign of sin and death through the Mosiac Law was (P)at the time of the Eschaton.
Minor Premise:
(S)The time of the universal reconciliation of all men to God was (M)at the time of the loosing of all men from the power of the reign of sin and death through the Mosiac Law.
CONCLUSION:
Therefore (S)The time of the universal reconciliation of all men to God was (P)at the time of the Eschaton.

I would hope this syllogism presents your charge properly and is of some help to you.

Tom

Malachi's picture

Thanks Tom. But the issue is not the proper "form" of the syllogisms. Sam could not deal with them intelligently, and so dealt with them the only way he could: bluff and bluster. His accusation that the first syllogism contained something in the conclusion not in the premises was ridiculous and wrong. If the second syllogism was not in proper form, it was nevertheless completely obvious to all the point I was reaching after. I think my last article corrected the supposed deficiency in form. Sam should refute it if he can, now that the technical objection of "bad form" is removed.

In the end, the debate should have made one thing clear: King's Covenant Eschatology is hopelessly bound up in error and contradiction; it has led to Universalism, Antinomianism, and all sorts of ridiculous notions such as believers are in "heaven now", have their "incorruptible bodies now" and has even inspired some to reinterpret the creation and flood accounts of Genesis in "covenantal" terms. In fact, it seems that just about every speculative and spurious doctrine floating about Preterism finds its sources in King and Covenant Eschatology. If anything good comes out of this debate, I hope that it will a time of introspection and "house cleaning" for the movement.

Blessings, brother.

KingNeb's picture

Simmons, who can’t really deal with Sam’s arguments but rather make things up, originally stated:

"Sam’s first article made an elaborate case based upon Sam’s very unique translation of Romans five and “the sin” and “the death.” The reader must know that not one translation in Christendom agrees with Sam. His argument is like the Jehovah Witnesses’ argument about the Word being “a god.” Not a single translation in print agrees with the Jehovah Witnesses, so they created their own, and so does Frost."

Simmons has been proven wrong with quotes from the Young’s Literal. Now, you would expect a grown, Christian man to accept the correction and move on, but he doesn’t. Now he says:

“…death did not pass upon all men because God imputed to them Adam’s sin, but reckoned (imputed) against them their own sin. (Parenthetically, this is why virtually all translations leave the article un-translated in Romans. Sam wants the text to make specific reference to “the sin” of Adam, but all translators are agreed that it is not Adam’s sin that is in view, but sin in general. Hence, they leave the article un-translated to show that it is not Adam’s sin or any other specific sin that reigned in death, but your sin, my sin, and sin in general. Young translated the article either from doctrinal prejudice, or (more probably) because the purpose of his “translation” was to preserve the peculiarities of Greek structure, rather than produce a grammatically correct translation. In two thousand years of Christianity, there may never have been another translation that renders Romans “the sin” and “the death.”)”

Simmons tries to skirt around the error he made in stating that “not one translation in Christendom agrees with Sam” by questioning Young’s motives. Folks, regardless of WHY Young did it, it is plain he did it and Simmons is wrong.

What Simmons really means to say is, “no translator that would agree with my interpretation would translate it that way.”

Furthermore, upon a little research of mine, it turns out that Simmons is yet wrong again in stating that “there may never have been another translation that renders Romans “the sin” and “the death”.

Luther’s 1545 German Bible:

Romans 5:12-21 12 Derhalben, wie durch einen Menschen die Sünde ist kommen in die Welt und der Tod durch die Sünde, und ist also der Tod zu allen Menschen durchgedrungen, dieweil sie alle gesündiget haben; 13 (denn die Sünde war wohl in der Welt bis auf das Gesetz; aber wo kein Gesetz ist, da achtet man der Sünde nicht, 14 sondern der Tod herrschte von Adam an bis auf Mose, auch über die, die nicht gesündiget haben mit gleicher Übertretung wie Adam, welcher ist ein Bild des, der zukünftig war. 15 Aber nicht hält sich's mit der Gabe wie mit der Sünde. Denn so an eines Sünde viele gestorben sind, so ist viel mehr GOttes Gnade und Gabe vielen reichlich widerfahren durch die Gnade des einigen Menschen, JEsu Christi. 16 Und nicht ist die Gabe allein über eine Sünde wie durch des einigen Sünders einige Sünde alles Verderben. Denn das Urteil ist kommen aus einer Sünde zur Verdammnis; die Gabe aber hilft auch aus vielen Sünden zur Gerechtigkeit. 17 Denn so um des einigen Sünde willen der Tod geherrschet hat durch den einen, viel mehr werden die, so da empfangen die Fülle der Gnade und der Gabe zur Gerechtigkeit, herrschen im Leben durch einen, JEsum Christum): 18 wie nun durch eines Sünde die Verdammnis über alle Menschen kommen ist, also ist auch durch eines Gerechtigkeit die Rechtfertigung des Lebens über alle Menschen kommen. 19 Denn gleichwie durch eines Menschen Ungehorsam viel Sünder worden sind, also auch durch eines Gehorsam werden viel Gerechte. 20 Das Gesetz aber ist neben einkommen, auf daß die Sünde mächtiger würde. Wo aber die Sünde mächtig worden ist, da ist doch die Gnade viel mächtiger worden, 21 auf daß, gleichwie die Sünde geherrschet hat zu dem Tode, also auch herrsche die Gnade durch die Gerechtigkeit zum ewigen Leben durch JEsum Christum, unsern HErrn.

Luther has “the sin” and “the death” throughout.

What will Simmons tell us about Luther now…that Luther had “bad German”?

Friends, hopefully you are not merely reading Kurt (and Sam) without doing your own homework – verifying quotes, getting into the text yourself, and so on. This one little issue ought to be enough to make you go and locate the exact context of every quote Kurt has pulled from Sam and Max. I have. And it is very evident within the original contexts, what Sam and Max meant by what they said – regardless of how men like Kurt and Roderick want to twist the words.

Kurt is blatantly wrong here on something so simple – something any ole’ pew sitting person could verify if they wanted to.

It’s slop.

thereignofchrist.com

Malachi's picture

Neb,
Your charges are frivolous and unworthy the dignity of response. You act as if because one or two translations can be found out of the thousands and thousands made over the centuries that Sam's whole position is wondrously validated. Let there be a hundred translations produced! They would stil be a tiny minority and still have no bearing upon the question at hand. The issue here is not Sam's idea and the translation it causes him to produce is valid, but whether King's covenant eschatology leads to Universalism. The whole question of translation nothing to say about the issue in debate at all. Your focus on this "non-issue" is but a tactic to divert from the crux at hand. The facts are plain: King is preaching Universalism; King's Universalism is founded in his Covenant Eschatology; Sam admits HIS (Sam's) system leads to Universalism, but he attempts to salvage it by saying "the death" is still here "in effect" (an impossibility if it has been banished from the cosmos as Sam says). But if "the death" is still here, then were was no "resurrection" as asserted by Covenant Eschatology. Thus, at every turn Covenant Eschatology is bound up in error of the worst kind.

Those are the issues, sir, not whether a translation or so can be found that follow Sam.

chrisliv's picture

Hey,

Outstanding counter to Frost's charge.

I was really shocked at the simplistic and ridiculous assertions Frost made in response to some of my comments at his thread and charges against you.

I almost thought Frost was being facetious or baiting with such a un-sensible Universalist position so as to counter any takers, as I think I've seen him do here, on occassion.

So, I guess I'm I clear now; Sam Frost is not just a Calvinist, but is actually promoting Universalism, while also suggesting it has something to do with Preterism?

Gee, see what four master degrees and all-but-dissertation (ABD) doctorate in theology will get you.

Preterism certainly does not imply Univeraslism, any more than it implies Cessation (of the power or gifts of the Holy Spirit), post-70 AD.

Although, some Preterists do try to say that all kinds of silly things changed after 70 AD. So, maybe the Preterist position does initially attract people who want to dump their pet positions into it because they can't seem to find a home for it anywhere else, like that obsessive guy who says even The Church ceased after 70 AD.

Do some Preterists hold to Universalism or Cessationism? Sure.

But there are, and have been, Univeralists and Cessationists who have never even heard of Preterism.

You're right, of course: Antinomiams do not require Preterism, just like Preterism doesn't require Antinomianism (except maybe in the limited-sense of the Mosaic Law as it applied to Jews).

I have even seen a Preterist who is a Modalist. Of course, that doesn't mean Preterism logically lead to Modalism.

I didn't previously know the branded label of "Covenant Eschatology" is a form of Preterism that now includes or has promoters of Univeralism as one of its themes. It's too bad, because it's a catchy title.

I've always liked the phrase "Realized Eschatology" best, anyway.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

davo's picture

chrisliv: I've always liked the phrase "Realized Eschatology" best, anyway.On this site are various articles related to the message of fulfilled prophecy and fulfilled grace also known as covenant or realised eschatology and realised redemption – both these together being the essence of Pantelism.LOL -- Shucks Chris, the above is from the front page of my website -- now you might have to dump "Realized Eschatology" too -- although I do spell it according to 'the Queens English' ;)

davo – pantelism.com –

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

It's getting a little tricky with some of the titles, who is defending them, and for what reasons.

So, within my own little brand of "Realized Eschatology" the wicked or the Christ-rejecting do not receive pie-in-the sky after they die (like Universalism claims), as they wouldn't like Heaven even if they were permitted in.

But I don't know, from a subjective point of view, if God will actually torture the souls of the wicked for all eternity like in the sterotypical depictions of Dante. Maybe the eternal punishment of the wicked souls is annihilation, as even ancient Israel had no prisons.

"The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy." Psalm 145:20

I think it's good to warn people that there will be a great loss for the wicked and the Christ-rejecting while in their earthly existence, and beyond.

I think Sam Frost is one, who, like me, denies that Preterism necessarily leads to Univeraslism. But he seems to have chosen to defend Tim King's brand of Preterism, which sounds like it does traffic in Universalism, or maybe King's Universalism traffics in Preterism, I'm not really sure as I haven't seen a whole bunch by the King's, except a few articles and their slick minimalist website.

But, with all the drama between Sam and Kurt, I think Kurt has presented the better case, from both scripture and logic.

Yes, Sam did get his one point for finding one English translation that literally includes the choppy Greek article. But points like that aren't worth bragging on about.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

davo's picture

Chrisliv: …the wicked or the Christ-rejecting … they wouldn't like Heaven even if they were permitted in.

I guess that might be one of those subjective assumptions we can all have.

Chrisliv: Maybe the eternal punishment of the wicked souls is annihilation, as even ancient Israel had no prisons.

"The LORD preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy." Psalm 145:20

For post mortem annihilation to be a present reality [kind of a funny contradiction ;)] in its strictest sense, it would have to have been an imposition by God post-Parousia and post redemptive fullness, of something different and something new; for we know that prior to Hades being destroyed in the Parousia, wherein were ALL the departed were, and thus out of which ALL were raised. Jesus for example noted the death of a certain rich man, who THEN in Hades "looked up…" – no pre-Parousia annihilation. As per the life/death cycle under the old covenant as recorded in the OT, no POST MORTEM annihilationism there either: Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it. Eccl 12:7.

Thus ALL "destructive" type passages favoured by some as purporting post mortem non existence in reality simply speak of the total devastation and cessation that comes on one's earthly life – and that in the biblical context usually due to a specific Divine judgment. Thus the condemnation falls WHERE the offense falls – in this life. So your problem then becomes – on the BASIS the WHAT Scriptures can/do you argue for "annihilationism" POST PAROUSIA?

Again, from what I see in the bible, "annihilation" is wholly and solely relative to the cessation of human existence as it pertains to this life ONLY – thus far I have found NO text/s indicating otherwise as touching annihilation beyond the grave, PRE OR POST Parousia. So for sake of being redundant – from my perspective of pantelism I believe in annihilationism as it touches physicality in THIS LIFE alone. Thus "eternal destruction" speaks of the TOTALLITY and qualitative nature of said destruction. In other words, the likes of Sodom and Gomorrah were TOTALLY consumed, but are NOT STILL being consumed. The ONLY "ongoing-ness" of the "eternal fire" that Jude spoke of was its perpetual and historic example of judgment.

Chrisliv: I think it's good to warn people that there will be a great loss for the wicked and the Christ-rejecting while in their earthly existence, and beyond.

Again, based on what? Why not tell folk what you DO know for sure – the blessedness of life in Christ NOW – surely that IS a reality you can share, as opposed to spurious and nebulous threats??? Threats which do little but close people's hearts and ears. Once people feel they have been denied Heaven in their minds by a so-called "gospel" – something said to be "good news" – why would they be motivated to seek after or even believe in the One presented to them as being forever angry at them for their doubting such a message? –– "JESUS IS THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD!!" – we have the greatest story ever told – BUT WE DON'T REALLY BELIEVE IT – we caveat it away with religiosity.

davo

chrisliv's picture

Well, Davo,

I wasn't trying to convince anyone.

But your supposition is completely anti-biblical when you say:

"Thus the condemnation falls WHERE the offense falls – in this life."

The Bible is full of questions to God about why the wicked prosper "in this life" without any seeming punishment.

Psalm 73:

3 For I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.
4 For there are no bands in their death: but their strength is firm.
5 They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men.
6 Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment.
7 Their eyes stand out with fatness: they have more than heart could wish.
8 They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression: they speak loftily.
9 They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth.
10 Therefore his people return hither: and waters of a full cup are wrung out to them.
11 And they say, How doth God know? and is there knowledge in the most High?
12 Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.
13 Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency.
14 For all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning.
15 ¶ If I say, I will speak thus; behold, I should offend against the generation of thy children.
16 When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me;
17 Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end...

So, as you see, the Bible does indicate that the wicked will suffer a loss, which will occur beyond "this life" as much or more than in it.

I could ask the same thing as David: Why, God, do the instigators of the most heinous events of mass-murder perpetrated against mostly poor and defenseless people usually live a long life, with fat State pensions, and historic mentions as a great statesman as droves of people file by at their State funerals?

"When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever." Psalm 92:7

Not "in this life."

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

davo's picture

Chrisliv: So, as you see, the Bible does indicate that the wicked will suffer a loss, which will occur beyond "this life" as much or more than in it.

Chris, I think you need to again look at what I actually wrote in the context of YOUR initial response; you were the one you said: "…the eternal punishment of the wicked souls is annihilation". You basically did what many here do when they cannot reasonably respond to consistent logic; you simply ignored the bulk of my post and created a sideshow diversion. NOWHERE did I refer to the issue of post mortem loss for the wicked – that was your diversionary tactic – I simply pointed out that "I believe" on biblical grounds that "annihilation" primarily speaks to the LOSS of temporal life, i.e., THIS LIFE.

Now as for what loss may await ANYONE post mortem then IF you have the verse saying "thus and so" – then stop beating around the bush and simply PRODUCE IT!!. The Psalm you quoted certainly didn't say what you were trying to allude to.

Where the bible, in particular the NT speaks of "loss" it does so in the context of "rewards" OR consequently THEIR LOSS – but NONE of these references speak of post mortem calamity as BEING that loss; but rather LOSS OF REWARD/S. And Jesus makes THREE things very plain about this – 1] that rewards were relative to the Parousia – 2] that rewards were relative to WORKS – 3] that one DID NOT have to be DEAD i.e., post mortem, to receive one's reward/s. Now you can argue all you like, bet them's the biblical facts – you shouldn't need me to show you the relevant verses demonstrating such.

Chrisliv: The Bible is full of questions to God about why the wicked prosper "in this life" without any seeming punishment. … I could ask the same thing as David: Why, God, do the instigators of the most heinous events of mass-murder perpetrated against mostly poor and defenseless people usually live a long life…

I guess if I was a card-holdin' feral Calvinist I might answer: "who indeed are you O man that you reply against God!? – next you'll be telling me "God is not just". As for your "without any seeming punishment" – see how sentimentally subjective your estimations have become.

davo

chrisliv's picture

Well,

Like I said, I'm not arguing or trying to convince anyone on the point. It is just an my off-hand idea that I think could be argued quite easily.

But it's nice that you agree with me, and the Bible, that the wicked do suffer loss.

It's interesting that you are now arguing FOR the wicked suffering loss due to their refusal to accept Christ Jesus as LORD, since you are the Universalist/Pantelist.

My work here is done.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

davo's picture

Chris your work is always done when digging deeper suits you not. Your ascribing these words to me that "the wicked do suffer loss" is just more evidence of your shallow dishonesty – this is what I plainly said: "NOWHERE did I refer to the issue of post mortem loss for the wicked – that was your diversionary tactic…." I DID put "loss" in the context of the Parousia, AND that NOT restricted to "the wicked" alone – any honest reader of my post can see that.

Further, I wasn't "trying to convince" anyone else of my position on "annihilationism" either – but simply spelling out clearly "how I view such" – and I did THAT because YOU brought it up in the first place.

And as for some people's "refusal to accept Christ Jesus as LORD" – what does that mean? There are a whole bunch of folk in your land that refuse to accept, acknowledge, confess or even believe in George W. Bush – does that stop him being head honcho, and does he feel any the less that such ones dislike him – hardly. Now I have no idea what recompense of reward there might in believing in Georg Dubya, but he ain't Lord – Jesus IS; of whom there IS great recompense of reward in accepting, acknowledging, confessing and believing that He alone is Lord – such are the blessings the inclusiveness of Pantelism is all about, and these pertinent to THIS LIFE, while not that to come.

davo

chrisliv's picture

Davo,

You're funny.

Even when I pin you down to agreeing that the wicked suffer loss in any sense or time, you want to retract your own comments.

Is understanding what it means for people "refuse to accept Christ Jesus as LORD" really that hard for you, Davo?

I will supply you with the answer to your question:

It is simply rejection of God's Plan of Salavation and of God Himself as outlined below from the Bible in both the OT and the NT.

Davo, it seems clear that what you are promoting is that people can go on living a life of wickedness, while continually rejecting Christ as LORD and as their Salvation in their physical lifetime, but then live happily ever after for all eternity with God in Heaven.

So, why do you even bother to promote the Bible anymore, Davo?

Why not just promote, "Eat, drink, and be merry..." for tomorrow everybody (in your system) supposedly goes to Heaven, anyway?

Aren't you promoting the "Smiling Buddha" concept?

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

-----------------------------------------------

Isaiah 45:

22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
24 Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

Philippians 2:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

1John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

2John 7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

tom-g's picture

Hey Davo,

I have been following your conversations here and in other posts. I have also gone to your website to read your articles. I am trying to clearly understand what you are saying, not to agree or disagree, just to clearly understand. So, if you would, agree or correct my understanding in the following.

You continually point out there is a difference between Pantelism and orthodox Universalism(?).

1) Pantelism says that all prophecy has been fulfilled concerning the Kingdom of God (Preterism).
2)The KOG on earth is a fact and has been since 70 AD.
3)Christ Jesus rules and reigns over the whole KOG.
4)The KOG encompasses the whole earth and all men regardless of whether they acknowledge Christ as Lord.
5) Those who acknowledge Christ as Lord receive a great reward and those who do not suffer a great loss all of this in this life only. Not in post mortem.
6) Post mortem all those who acknowledged Christ and all those who rejected Christ will equally be in the presence of God for eternity without distinction of reward or punishment based upon their pre mortem life.

This, without agreeing or disagreeing is what I understand is the Pantelism you are teaching. It would help if you could refer by number, and change, add or subtract any corrections you deem necessary.

Thanks,
Tom

davo's picture

tom-g: You continually point out there is a difference between Pantelism and orthodox Universalism(?).

Yes Tom there is a huge difference. "Orthodox Universalism" believes you can have a connection to God in whatever form YOU please, be that through Budda, through Mohamed or through Krishna… etc, etc; through whatever other "man-made means or religion" on the face of the earth. But Pantelism in agreement with the bible says that Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man. Now because this is true there need not be any fear in looking at and so falling for the likes Budda, Mohamed, Krishna… or whatever or whoever else, IF for whatever reason someone might feel the need to so – there is simply no need be in fear of these things. Why? – because there is absolutely NO trading Jesus for Budda or Mohamed or anybody else AS OUR MEDIATOR. Krishna NEVER claimed to be a mediator; why would I change to Budda as my mediator, to something he NEVER claimed to be – this goes for ALL man-made religious philosophies.

Why would I become a Moslem or any other thing when no other religious leader other than Jesus Christ EVER claimed to be here to redeem the world? – this was and is Jesus' unique message. Paul's Gospel rightly declared that "Jesus IS the Saviour of the world" – I choose to believe Paul without feeling the need to whittle away God's grace to suit my own precious dogmas – which IS exactly what Universalism's antithesis Partialism does. Pantelism on the other hand is more prêteristically consistent in its inclusive approach to the scope of God's redemptive grace upon ALL humanity, and yet understands that the salvific priestly call to Godly service as exclusive to only certain ones – this IS the striking difference in this whole Partialist—Universalist debate, and the very thing EVERYBODY HERE IS MISSING.

As old covenant Israel was once God's priestly representatives in God's world pre Cross-Parousia, SO NOW is new covenant Israel God's priestly ambassadors in God's world post Cross-Parousia.

Now to your questions –– some of our respective "terms" may varying in meaning as "we" perceive them to be, so hopefully we can give a bit of latitude around some of these things.

1) Pantelism says that all prophecy has been fulfilled concerning the Kingdom of God (Preterism).
[1] Correct

2)The KOG on earth is a fact and has been since 70 AD.
[2] YES. Pantelism also understands the KOG as "the reign of God" and so although generically over all, the KOG finds and has varying focuses within the story of mankind to lesser and greater degrees – for example, in the story of Israel, in which case the KOG is not just restricted to the AD30-70 era etc.

3)Christ Jesus rules and reigns over the whole KOG.
[3] YES. Having volitionally subjugated Himself to the Father that the Father might be "all in all" Christ himself no less reigns WITH the Father "in the kingdom of Christ AND God" Eph 5:5.

4)The KOG encompasses the whole earth and all men regardless of whether they acknowledge Christ as Lord.
[4] YES. Psa 24:1; Rev 11:15 5) Those who acknowledge Christ as Lord receive a great reward and those who do not suffer a great loss all of this in this life only. Not in post mortem.
[5] There IS obvious loss in this life for those outside of knowing what we believers call "the peace that passes all understanding" – truly something only found through faith in Christ alone. Now many carnally minded believers in looking at the so-called "success" of those they consider to be the "Christ-rejecting wicked" might suppose these wicked lack for nothing – I guess I would simply challenge themselves to consider the true value of their own inner lives PRIOR to coming to Christ and what they have gained since – and thus assess the "real wealth and worth" of any "apparent success" that they accordingly apply to the ascribed "wicked".

Now how "reward" and or "loss" might translate post mortem the bible does NOT specifically tells us. Where Jesus DOES mention "loss" it is loss of "rewards" – and this "loss" is SPECIFICALLY in relation to one's WORKS. So as I see it – "loss" is NOT presented in the bible in the framework of post mortem destinies BUT relative to WORKS – be they righteous or unrighteous – or as Jesus said – those who have "done good" or those who have "done evil" etc.

And this is an important SCRIPTURAL point to remember on this: Jesus in speaking of rewards or their loss did so in the context of the Parousia – in other words, biological death i.e., "going to heaven" was not a necessity to experiencing this "loss" or "reward". So what about post mortem reward/loss"? – well that leads to your next question.

6) Post mortem all those who acknowledged Christ and all those who rejected Christ will equally be in the presence of God for eternity without distinction of reward or punishment based upon their pre mortem life.
[6] I'm convinced scripturally that there is no separation from God for anyone post mortem BECAUSE OF CHRIST'S FAITHFULLNESS. I am not convinced scripturally that that means, as you would say, "without distinction". We know that Jesus told his apostles that "you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" – that is a definite distinction and privileged position [reward] beyond another. And certainly John in Revelation speaking regarding the times of the Parousia uses such language as "to him who overcomes will I give…" etc. But again such doesn't need to be restricted to post mortem – as John himself said elsewhere: "For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith." 1Jn 5:4.

Pantelism then is not so much in opposition to the possibility of some potential penalty post mortem post Parousia, BUT ONLY IN THIS SENSE – that though corporate humanity has been fully reconciled in Christ to God, such "MAY" not preclude [though not necessarily require] some degree of permanent LOSS on an individual basis, or what has been called by some a paena damni, which is, "a loss of the highest spiritual blessedness hereafter" i.e., loss of rewards [however that may be]. Again this is far more opinion than Scripture as the Bible IS NOT that clear on this. Either way I reiterate, Scripturally speaking – that judgments made were in relation to works performed and thus directly associated with rewards given – WORKS are NEVER used in the bible as an indicator of post mortem destinies relative to either endless torture or annihilation.

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