I made my case with Paul’s letter to the Ephesians in the previous letter, and so there is no need to go through that again. I stand by what was written. Roderick Edwards did not deal with the argument at all. In typical fashion he brings up Roman Catholics, the plethora of denominations, and then asks “what is the true church?” Well, as a student of Reformed theology, Martin Luther (who he loves to quote for some strange reason) defined the church as invisible. The Westminster Confession of Faith accepts this definition. There is no “true church” in terms of denominations. There is only “one church”. By appealing to the infighting among denominations is a fallacy. It reasons from the parts and states that there is no whole. Roman Catholics use this argument quite a bit. By the way, I am an ecumenicist and believe that Roman Catholics are just as much saved as Roderick is. Same for the Greek Orthodox brothers and sisters. They confess “Jesus is Lord” as defined by the Bible. Error in their doctrines on various points does not discount one from the one, holy, catholic church. For more of this view, read N.T. Wright for starters (he’s Anglican). He is one of the leading ecumenicists of the day.

There was one response from . He wrote, WHERE is Christ's "body" today, Mr. Frost? Is it not in heaven, the saints enjoying the immediate Presence of the Saviour? Christ promised "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the END OF THE AGE". He was with THEM, via His Spirit, uniquely and historically. Now He is wed to His Church IN HEAVEN, and governs His KINGDOM from His heavenly throne. WE are citizens of His KINGDOM, NOT His Church ("Body", "Bride", etc.). Yes, it is true that Christ's "Body" does not cease to exist in the "age to come" - because IT EXISTS ETERNALLY, IN HEAVEN. You have proven nothing concerning the existence of "the church" in THIS material, physical realm. Notice here that the implications is that Jesus is no longer “with us.” He is now “in heaven.” We are here on “earth.” What Paul (and John) combines, this person separates. John saw the Bride “coming down” from heaven to “dwell” with men (Rev 21.2, 3). It is clear that John’s vision is a parallel of Ezekiel’s (40-48) Temple vision. Ezekiel pictures this Temple on earth, not in heaven. People still die (44.25). It is also clear that Revelation 21,22 and Ezekiel 40-48 is what Jews correctly regarded as “the age to come.” Whereas this person has the “body” in heaven and not on earth, John and Ezekiel agree that the Temple/Body/Wife of the Lamb exists on earth. Revelation 21,22 is the age to come described for us. It is the “household of God” as Paul called it. Again, this person wrote, The Church continues to exist, eternally, in a glorified state in HEAVEN. Nothing in these comments and Scriptures substantiates the idea that there is an earthly "church" continuing forever here, below. This is in direct contradiction to the Bible.

In keeping with the preterist framework (that we are living in the age to come), Zechariah 14 envisions a time when Jerusalem will be destroyed (vv.1-3), but a “remnant” will remain. Then the Lord would fight against the nations and the “day of the Lord” would occur. In vv.6-11,14 the language is parallel to Ezekiel’s and John’s descriptions. These things describe the “age to come” after the “day of the Lord” and the destruction of Jerusalem/Babylon, same as John. It is clearly a kingdom having “come down” from heaven to “dwell on earth”. Zechariah then goes on to describe the existence of “nations” who “go up” to celebrate the Festival of Booths (vv.16,17) and the “families of the land who do not go up” to celebrate this feast shall be “struck” by the Lord (v.18). In preterist hermeneutics, this denotes, in the age to come, the existence of “nations” (peoples), some of which acknowledge that God is king (v.9), and some who don’t. The ones who don’t are cursed and plagued, whereas the ones that do “enter in” through the “gates” (v.10). This is the same picture John sees in terms of the New Jerusalem Wife of the Lamb (the church). By coming to Christ (our “booth”), we enter in through the gates of salvation/Jerusalem. This “living waters” imagery (also in Ezekiel’s vision, ch. 47) increases in size. The church has been increasing in size as a result since we were set free from “death.” This increase is on earth.

What is strange is that this person quotes Hebrews (For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.) and then states that the “body” is not on earth, but in heaven. Okay. Well, the verse “I shall be their God and they my people” is the basis of Ezekiel’s temple (43.7; 37.26,27) and John’s (Revelation 21.3). The “age to come” was the age in which the “new covenant” would no longer be in transition, for the “old” had vanished. But, the new covenant clearly defines the new age people of God on earth. If it were not on earth, then this person’s argument fails miserably. What need would there be for pointing out that “teachers” in the “age to come” are not necessary if the church is “in heaven” in perfect bliss during this time? Secondly, who is the writer of Hebrews addressing here? From this person’s analysis, he is addressing us on earth! That is, this person argues that there are “no teachers” today because of the new covenant. But, that means I am in the new covenant while on earth, following its directives to not have teachers! But, the new covenant community is the church! They shall be my people. Clearly, not everyone is included in this “my people” group according to John, Ezekiel and Zechariah. BUT, further, the “my people” that the new covenant entails is the wife of the Lamb/New Jerusalem people! However, this person says that the Wife is in “heaven” and not “on earth!” Then why am I listening to new covenant advice for new covenant people to have no teachers when I live hear on earth?!

The Bible teaches that in the age to come there will be an increasing amount of people (“my people”) who recognize that “God is king” through Christ. Paul quotes the “my people” verse from Ezekiel and Jeremiah in II Corinthians 6.16 where he is applying this to God’s people in Corinth, on earth. Apparently, Paul had no problem in viewing the church as the “temple of the Lord” and being on earth at the same time. The Gentile congregations were “already” living out the fullness of the new covenant directives on earth. In short, if there is no “people of God” on earth today (the church), then there is no new covenant.

I spent too much time on what is otherwise, gladly, a minority position within preterism. The Bible teaches the existence of the church on earth in the age to come. The question is now, what does it do? What does it look like? Are there any leaders in it?

I wrote that “elders and deacons” are leaders within the “household of God” from the letter of Timothy. I made it plain that I do not call myself a “pastor” in the sense of the transitional pastors God gave the church. Those offices, in that capacity, ceased. Mr. Edwards agreed with my statement to that effect. Read carefully his quotation of my article, and then his response:

“Simply put, because there are no more inspired teachers (supra-normal) does not mean there are no more people who teach remedial math, science, or theology called “teachers” (normal). Just because there are no more inspired prophets does not mean that we cease speaking the ‘word of God’ to the nations. Just because there are no more inspired apostles, does not mean that we no longer plant churches (trans-cultural missions). And, just because there are no more pastors, does not mean that we no longer shepherd (care for, comfort, bear the burdens of, counsel, instruct) the church."

Agreed!, but who should be taking care of that body of believers? (call it the Church or the Kingdom if you like) In some respects, perhaps I’m not really advocating the non-necessity of pastors but rather that we ALL should be pastors. If as defined by the writer himself, the duties of pastoring is to “care for, comfort, bear the burdens of, counsel, and instruct” our fellow brothers and sisters, then tell me which of us SHOULDN’T be doing this? Now, notice what is being agreed to. Perhaps he is not really arguing for the non-necessity of pastors. He is arguing that we should all be pastors! Let’s all give up our jobs, labor in the Scriptures full-time, learn the biblical languages, keep up with current theological issues, do hospital visitation, nursing home visitation, marriage counseling, marriages, pay the bills that our meetings require all on a full time basis! Let’s all rule well in the church, and let’s all be worthy of double-honor as Paul describes elders. In short, let’s all be overseers and elders. Roderick’s main problem is that his dream sounds pious enough: (“we don’t need teachers, just Jesus. We don’t need elders, just Jesus” and “let’s all be pastors”) but is not real. The Bible deals with the real. Paul recognized that the “widows” and “orphans” for example could not “rule well” in managing day to day affairs of the congregation. He singled out certain individuals who had a desire to “be an elder”. Clearly, not everyone has this desire.

An elder is one who is equal among equals. There is one Chief Shepherd, one body. There are several elders/deacons. These men serve the body and the Chief. Notice the viciousness of Roderick’s “parable”: The picture is of a few sheep that see the Chief Shepherd coming over the horizon, returning once again. Indeed, even the “under shepherds” say the Chief Shepherd has returned. But as the few sheep begin to move towards the Chief Shepherd, the “under shepherds” say: “Not so fast. You can’t simply leave my pasture, my barns, my straw and go to the Chief Shepherd!” And if those sheep continue towards the Chief Shepherd, these “under shepherds” would pursue them, not to restore them but to destroy them lest any of the 99 think they should also go towards the Chief Shepherd. See, I am what he would call an “under-shepherd”, and I do not seek to point folks to Christ, but rather keep them from Him. I do not seek restoration, but destruction. I want to destroy souls, not help them. Let me ask the reader something. Who is really seeking to “destroy” something here? I don’t think Mr. Edwards seeks to “destroy” souls, but I do think he advocates rebellion in terms of pietistic rhetoric. See, I like Methodists, Baptists, Roman Catholics, Church of Christ folks (I strongly admire Don Preston, Ed Stevens, Jack Scott and William Bell). I am a Calvinist. I like to bring folks together to see that we are all at one table, with one Lord, and one King. I hate division. I want to bring families together and help facilitate an atmosphere that does this. A church setting does this. God puts you with people you normally would never be with in the first place. But, with all these differences, Paul instructs the new covenant community to work it out together in praise and worship and in service. You cannot ever learn love if you cannot dwell with those who think differently from you. The new covenant community of God’s people is the perfect place to learn and mature. An elder should be completely and entirely devoted to this “noble task” as Paul called it.

Some of the comments from the article I wrote are downright funny. It is as if I rule as a despot over people! As members of our congregation, I have encouraged them to read these exchanges. I have nothing to “hide” here. Because of the wonderful things God has been doing in terms of answered prayers in our little congregations midst, these arguments come off as completely inane. I get up every morning, put on my holy ring, and have a slave (church member) roll out red-carpet so that my holy feet will not touch the common places. At the slave meetings (Sundays and Wednesdays) I thunder down warnings against those who would dare disagree with my holy word (the sermon). I demand all of their money (offering). I rule them with an iron fist and I do not allow them to read books. I keep them only focused on my favorite subject: me. I am Jesus to them. I am God’s Representative! Hear me roar!

Well, that’s a little sarcasm (which, folks, by the way, is a rhetorical device of communication, not a personal attack. Lighten up). I think that much of this has been misread, but I have not seen anything even remotely close to suggesting that there is no more church today, no more leaders, no more regularly called meetings of worship and praise. The preterist message will fall flat on its face if you tell 40 million Christians that “preterism leads to no church, no leaders, no more Sunday worship services”. The preterist message will flourish if you serve God’s people and the “churched” and become as one “churched”. That’s the message of love and service. The whole “pews and pulpits are Romish” argument is absurd and destructive (and yes, I have read the House Church movement books thoroughly. I spoke at a John Zens conference and we discussed Frank Viola and the gang).