The first sign of trouble appeared when John Paul II died. I wrote a column on John Paul, expressing my positive view of John Paul, talking about all the positive things he's done, especially his crucial role in the defeat of Communism. At last, because of his death, Christianity was plastered all over the News, being at the forefront of world's experience. Indeed, I made the point that because of the Catholic Church, Christianity is having a great comeback. To my dismay, this was borderline blasphemy to many of my protestant friends. John Paul II was not a godly man, or a good pope - instead, he was most likely a pedophile himself and at best a "dubious moral authority" who has on his hands "the blood of millions of people" and "accursed man" who "brings people closer to hell."

Soon after, I wrote a series of three columns on Calvinism, discussing the reasons for which I perceive Calvinism to be wrong in light of Preterist theology. I concluded then, as I still believe, that the events of AD 70 had a much more ecumenical effect than initially thought. I have concluded that AD 70 brought about a comprehensive reconciliation between God and the world. It is quite clear to me that the general thread of the Scripture revolves around God's furious pursuit of mankind, and His effort to reconcile and redeem the entire creation back to Himself. Despite the inclusive language of Revelation, many Preterists continue to play word games, most likely because tradition and preconceptions do not allow them to be flexible enough to perceive that "all" mean "all." This caused a violent reaction from quite a few individuals, especially from some who are Calvinists and seem to be self-appointed leaders of Preterism. My conclusions outlined below are outright heretical and dangerous. Indeed, these conclusions prove, they say, that I am a universalist, a liberal, a wolf, a liar, dishonest, eastern mystic (I don't even know what that means).

It is clear to me that AD70 had a much more comprehensive effect on the world's relationship with God and the world's reconciliation with God. Of course, as I have stated several times already, I see a clear difference between salvation and redemption. For example, Christ's sacrifice had been already paid once, for all people. As a result, they all have been redeemed yet not all have been made aware of the reality of redemption. Hebrews 9 makes this clear: ...so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him." In the Hebrews' author's mind, Christ had redeemed the world (to put away sin) and will appear a second time to bring salvation to those who eagerly await Him.

There is a very close parallel between Christ's redemption of the world and Israel's redemption from Egypt. All Israel made it into the Promised land, just as the entire world (all) made it into God's presence. And so, redemption is quite comprehensive in nature. Not all Jews that made it into the Promised land were "saved" or lived in covenant with God, yet all of them enjoyed the benefits of the promised land, just as non-believers today are not living in covenant with God, are lost, yet still enjoy the benefits of the blessings poured on the new Israel of God, us, the believers.

Furthermore, Paul himself seems to make a difference between salvation and reconciliation. In 2 Cor. 5, Paul writes: "Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation." (2 Cor. 5:18,19).

Paul again writes in Col 1: ""...through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."(Col. 1:20). There is little doubt that God did reconcile all things on earth and things in heaven to Himself, yet as I have illustrated earlier, not all live in covenant with God, proving that salvation and reconciliation are in fact two different concepts. It is clear to me that all have been redeemed, all have been reconciled -- it is not however as clear that all have been/are being saved. There is without doubt in my mind a comprehensive aspect to both redemption and reconciliation, while salvation seems to have a limited scope, notwithstanding the historical, first-century context; so only outright dishonesty would lead anyone to conclude that I am in fact teaching universalism.

Now folks, I have been blessed in such a way that I depend on no one but God for financial support, so there are no ulterior motives that affect my theology. I am not afraid to speak openly concerning my beliefs, which is why I have been so open to discussing Catholicism, Universalism, Calvinism, or you name it. What bothers me is the continuous barrage of personal attacks and name-calling from those who profess to be Christians. The bottom line is this: if I was a universalist, I would readily admit it. The same goes for anti-semitism, Catholicism, or whatever other labels are being in print right now. Preterism in general is a very conservative environment, so it appears that those practicing the politics of personal destruction have picked up on the fact that the word "universalism" creates an optimal gut-reaction in most Preterist circles, so it is the choice word for name-calling at the present time.

For the past several months I have been called a universalist by several people whom I have never met, and never discussed any of my beliefs with. None of these individuals took even five minutes to ask me directly what my soteriology is, yet they made the time to make unfounded public accusations. Ultimately, I believe the sour attitude goes down to the fact that I refuse to condemn the universalists, Catholics, Greek Orthodox and others that do not fit their predetermined profile. Indeed, this is the "if you are not with us, you are against us" attitude.

In a recent e-mail exchange with one of these individuals, I was told "You defend their (universalists) ideas all the time and claim "comprehensive reconciliation" yet YOU NEVER define what you believe. Truly, the problem seems to be not as much with what I believe, but with the fact that I respect those who differ from me in their theology. Of course, anyone willing to take the time would find out where I stand either by asking me, or by reading my columns on this website. In essence, the fact that I am willing to discuss universalism with universalists seem to make me one of them. Perhaps I am also a catholic, a liberal, a Buddhist, a homosexual, and a seventh day Adventist since I have had countless conversations with people from these circles, and wrote research papers and spent extensive time on studying the subjects.

The accuser in question continued with "As for universalism, any teaching that says all men are reconciled to God is universalism. So maybe you can stop being dishonest, and tell people what you DO believe. Instead of by making us guess with your defences, insinuations, and attacks on what WE believe. Of course, it would be almost impossible to reason with this kind of logic since the term "comprehensive reconciliation" had already been found guilty of a capital offense and I have already been found to be dishonest.

So, for those who are so adamant to speak against Universalism, their attitude speaks volumes of what's in their hearts. Some of the nicest people I know are universalists. They are patient, generous, loving and not quick to judge when I express disagreement with their position. On the other hand, the "accusers" here seem to me to profess self-righteousness and seem to be bent on spreading destruction and separation, things which are condemned by the Scriptures.