Thus, after talking with the supposed antagonist of mine, I found that we had a shared definition of “church”. I have been laboring in this particular area of research (ecclesiology) for several years, long before I accepted the call to oversee a congregation in Florida. I accepted that call on the basis of my preterist ecclesiology. I did not re-work my position in order to justify my situation. I want that clearly stated. Rather, my position on the continuity of the church in the “age to come” justified my accepting the call, selling my business (which was successful), accepting a cut in pay, and moving my family from Orlando to Tampa. It was a sacrifice I made because of the position I held to: the continuity of the church in the age to come. It was hardly a whim. I guess that is why I take great offense at “some” that regard the church today as little more than a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites or little old biddies with nothing better to do than complain. Or, worse, the position of a few within our ranks that say audaciously that there is no church at all today. I want to make it known that Roderick Edwards does not agree with that position. And, therefore, it is from this basis he and I were able to reconcile and clear the air. With that being said, then the next question becomes obvious: if the church continues into the age to come on earth, then what does it look like? How does it function? What does it do? How does it act? How is it governed? I pointed out to Roderick that we have a massive amount of Scripture concerning our case for the first century church and the parousia of Christ, but it appears that we have hardly anything describing the age to come people of God. In Roderick’s terms, is all that we have “guesswork”? For the Open Theists (really just Arminian wolves in post-modern clothing stitched with Christian vocabulary), guesswork is not so bad. The future is an “open” possibility for both man and God. Post-modernism is an escape from certainty. Calvinism provided certainty, but at the expense of “freewill.” Post-modern man assumes “freewill” at the expense of God’s sovereignty. We will “limit” God, but we dare not limit Almighty and Free Man. I have noticed that the “no church” today folks must go in this direction in order to bolster their claim. The Scriptural texts are not to be read with an authoritative interpretation, but as a “text” that is subject to communal ideas, entirely freed by the constraints of logic, certainty and objectivity. Indeed, many Open Theists have denied the inerrancy of Scripture. In short, biblical interpretation is mere “guesswork”. The communities that pool their shared presuppositions together only do so for the sake of convenience. There is no absolute way to read the Scriptures. Hence, since there is so much variegation in the so called church (there is no “church” only “churches” or “social reinforcements”), it is best to describe these entities for what they are and do away with the notion of the single One Church (the post-modernists have no One when they encounter the philosophical problem of the one and the many).

Christianity solves this by stating the Triune God. He is one and he is many. The One Essence absorbs and defines the Many Persons (Three). Same with the Church. It is One and it is Many, since it was made in the “image of Christ.” He, too, was One (as the Son, he is of the same single Essence of God), and Many (two Natures, human and divine). “I (one person) and the Father (another person) are one.” The Bible is replete with this type of logical distinction. “For this reason a man and a woman shall become one flesh.” How can something be one and many at the same time? That is the question for those of you, who like Roderick and myself, believe in the continuity of the Church in the Age to Come. It’s not a new question at all. But, it is one in which I can begin a much better dialogue with Roderick.

As a preterist, and as a Christian for all of my life, I am not afraid of change. Being a preterist simply states that plainly. If the Bible says something, then regardless of what has been said in this matter for 2,000 years, I will go with the Bible. Regardless of the title “heretic” I will go with the Bible. I have demonstrated that in my life. I have suffered, not to the point of blood, reproach by brothers and sisters. I have suffered being called vile names. This should tell you that if the Bible says “no church” today, then I would also say with one loud amen “no church.” But, I am not convinced from Scripture.

For those of us as Preterists that do accept the continuity of the Church today, then we must define it. We must define it in terms of the completed edifice (Eph 4.13), in terms of the One, but also in terms of the many. There is “one body” with “many members.” I think that by starting at the very beginning, as Roderick and I have done, we might see that we can come together and, in light of the consummated Gospel, forge a biblical definition of the body of Christ that needs to be affirmed in a hurting world looking for a “family” that manifests the “love of God in Christ for all generations” (Eph 3.21).