You are hereThe Nature and Timing of Resurrection

The Nature and Timing of Resurrection

  • 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 Scotty - Posted on 02 February 2007

by Jack Scott
I appreciate so much the desire of Mr. Burk and others to wrestle with the issue of resurrection; it is the essence of covenant life. Not a facet of, or a building block in, it is the finished work of God in Christ. Therefore, if we misapply the timing of the resurrection it skews the wonderful effect of covenant life in Christ; or better perhaps, it evinces a skewed perception of the nature of covenant life.I appreciate so much the desire of Mr. Burk and others to wrestle with the issue of resurrection; it is the essence of covenant life. Not a facet of, or a building block in, it is the finished work of God in Christ. Therefore, if we misapply the timing of the resurrection it skews the wonderful effect of covenant life in Christ; or better perhaps, it evinces a skewed perception of the nature of covenant life.I agree whole heartedly with Sam's response(s) and would like to add a few thoughts of my own to the implications of any who hold to a view that resurrection and immortality are a yet future event realized at the point of biological death. I hope to point out that the consequences of this view have a serious negative impact on the very nature of God's redemptive work. I wish to underscore at the outset that I do not wish to attribute motives or intent with this review; I accept on the face of it that Mr. Burk and all others espousing similar positions have the best of intent.

Approximately 10 or 11 years ago I, Don Preston and a few others were among the first to hear Ed Stevens begin to share his views (questions at the time) concerning the nature of resurrection. Ed was very concerned, and expressed it, that if we did not find an explanation for resurrection that incorporated the physical body as the primary focus, then the scholars from among the "Reformed" camp would have nothing to do with us. We assured him at that time and times subsequent; that what the reformed community, or any other for that matter, thought of us was of no consequence to us. In those discussions I asked Ed some questions, the implications of which seemed very troubling to me as well as the others who were there. Ed admitted at the time that he wasn't sure how to answer those questions and that he would have to think about it. I have yet see in any writings of the proponents of this view any response to these concerns or those expressed by Sam in all of his spot on defenses.

The effects of this view, I believe, can only be described as a complete surrender of the whole paradigm of covenant eschatology/preterism. This fear was reinforced to me personally 2 years ago, the morning after the close of the Voice of Reason conference in Sparta, NC. Ron Wagner and I were having Breakfast with John Anderson and his wife and Lloyd Dale and his wife. Many issues were discussed and debated, but the discussion soon centered on the timing and nature of resurrection. Both Lloyd and John were espousing that resurrection life was not realized until physical death. To say I and Ron were shocked would be an understatement. Both Ron and I attempted to underscore the nature of covenant life and immortality being equal to resurrection. As it became obvious to all the implications of what these men were saying (both of whom I love), John's wife expressed her confusion and said "I thought I had life in Christ, are you telling me that we don't have it yet." Lloyd shook his head "no" and John responded "no we don't, we have the promise of it." Flabbergasted isn't a strong enough description of what I felt. I looked at her as did Ron and we assured her that in Christ she did have resurrected-immortal new covenant life.

I give this personal anecdote not to disparage these men, nor to encourage any negative treatment of them, but to demonstrate that the view they espouse is anything but classic preterism; it is futurism dressed up as preterism. I hope to demonstrate in what follows that it is in fact a denial of the consummation of the new covenant.

Allow me to highlight just a few points. One of the unassailable truths that preterism is based upon is that for the world, i.e. heaven and earth identified with the old covenant age to pass, all things foretold and promised within it must be fulfilled (Matt. 5:17-18). Jesus further stated that none of it could pass until all of it was fulfilled. This is the reasoning that has advanced the heart and soul of fulfilled redemption/preterism/covenant eschatology.

Now fast forward with me to Paul's discussion of resurrection in 1 Cor. 15. As he draws his argument to a conclusion he says: "for...this mortal must put on immortality" (15:53). Anticipating the question "when" he answers "so when...this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass (i.e. brought to fulfillment) the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.' 'O death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?' The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law" (15:54-56).

The obvious point of Paul's stated argument is to identify when these old covenant prophecies (Isa. 25:8 & Hos. 13:14) would be fulfilled, allowing as Christ predicted, the old heaven and earth to pass and the new to supplant it. Regardless of its nature, Paul's inspired answer, as Sam so capably showed, was within their lifetime, when the sting of death-Sin was removed by the victory of resurrection over the strength of sin-the Law.

These old cov. promises are not fulfilled until death is overcome with resurrection, i.e., mortality has put on immortality. The question rising from all of this is, "when then is the old cov. fulfilled; when is the promise of resurrected immortal life realized?" Hear the answer of the modern proponents of resurrection at physical death, "Not Yet! Not until you physically die!" The ENTIRE "last days" redemptive worked of God to bring covenantal, immortal life is now held hostage to the biological death of every living Christian; as well as the fulfillment of all old cov. promises. None can pass till all is fulfilled. At best the fulfillment of all redemptive promises is something that only happens at the death of each individual covenant believer. Clearly, Paul sees no such protracted delay taking place throughout the millennia to follow.

Briefly, let me address this very point and its implications from the vantage point of another new cov. fulfillment context: Hebrews 10:11-18. As will be shown, this is a companion of both 1 Cor 15 and Heb. 8. The writer's overall context: the superiority of the Priesthood, temple, sacrifice, atonement and covenant of Christ vs. the Mosaic; this is eschatology 101 among preterists. Concerning Christ's superior, one-time, priestly offering, that is the empowerment of the New Cov., the understood question of the whole context (chs. 9-10) is “when.” The answers: When the "promise of the eternal inheritance" comes with the New Cov. mediated by Christ (9:15); at the "appearing a second time apart from sin for salvation" by Christ (9:28); in a "very very little while" (10:37). What is commonly missed though, are the implications of 10:11-18. Again, Christ is superior, able to do what the old could not do. What is the one thing the old could not do? It could not provide immortal, covenantal, resurrected life. The Hebrew writer answers when this take place: "But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us...this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them...their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." So, what is the expectation of these two chapters? Nothing less than the realization of Jeremiah’s promises of the New Cov. (31:31-34); the removal of sin's guilt - the reception salvation (9:28), the essence of the eternal inheritance/promise (9:15; 10:36).

Yet, in this context there is an absolute, incontrovertible indicator as to when this process would be finished, i.e., the "When." Concerning the interim time of the writing, he pens "But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool" (10:12-13). When would all of these blessings be realized - the blessings which are the essence of Jeremiah's New Cov. prophecy? Answer: when His enemies are made His footstool!

I believe most reading this already see the implications. The "last days" are the days when Christ's work is defeating all enemies of man's redemptive hopes (Heb. 1:1ff.). The question, having so much relevance to Paul's treatment of resurrection is, "what is the last enemy?" His answer, therefore the ultimate answer to the Hebrews writer's "when will the New Cov. be realized?" is "For he must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be (lit. "being") destroyed is death" (15:25-26).

The realization of all New Cov. redemptive hopes are when His enemies are defeated. The last enemy is death, therefore the New Cov. redemptive hopes will only be realized and empowered when death is overcome in life, i.e., RESURRECTION! This point cannot be missed, Paul's resurrection, whatever and whenever it is, is the overthrow of death - the last enemy, which is when the blessings of the New Cov. are realized.

If resurrection is something only realized at physical death or some other future time as advocated by many preterists, then that is "when" in their scheme "death" is finally overcome. The concomitant disastrous implication is that this is when, and only when, the New Cov. is realized. Such has led some at least, like those mentioned earlier to suggest, consistently, that we do not yet have life only the hope of it.

Excuse me, but I can only reject such a view as strongly as I know how. I don't reject the men who mistakenly hold to it - I love them, but the implications of their doctrine are contradictory to every tenant of fulfilled redemption, and should be lovingly opposed.

As always, I will encourage, and only be involved in, a reasoned and loving examination of the issues at hand. It is my hope that this will contribute positively to the search of those who read these things. Thanks and God Bless.

Jack Scott

Trace's picture

I heard Jack's talk yesterday through the live telecast and it was clearly presented and reiterated here, thank you. I look forward to Part 2 of his talk this afternoon. I also understand Jack was the pastor at a preterist church in Ohio before moving to Montana... I wish he was still there! It's hard to find churches that teach covenant eschatology, here in Ohio, or anywhere for that matter.

"Jesus said to Peter, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!" - John 21:22

Malachi's picture

Hi Jack,

Great to see you around. Hope you make time to come to Carlsbad in March. It would be great to see you.

You must admit, however, that the immortality saints this side of eternity received at the eschaton (now at baptism) is merely legal and conditional. That is, we can lose this "immortality" by falling from grace, much as Adam did. So, plainly, there is a manner in which we must wait until death before we can claim our immortality is actual and unconditional. Any other position is to affirm the "impossibility of apostasy", which I don't think we want to do. This has always been my gripe with Sam. He wants to argue it is ours irrevocably now. But that is not true. :)

Virgil's picture

Kurt, I believe you are operating under the assumption that mankind has been created to be "immortal" - is that what you believe? If so, why? Do you believe that mankind is an "indestructible" being?

Malachi's picture

Hi Virg,

the immortality of the soul has nothing to do with the question before us. The issue is what is the nature of immortality imparted at the eschaton? Some argue that it is unconditional and we have "fullness" of resurrection life now. I argue that we have only legal (covenantal) and condition immortality now, that until we put off the body in death, we cannot experience fullness of resurrection. Indeed, it seems to me frivolous to say we are "in heaven now" as some do.

Barry's picture

Interesting point my brother but how would you explain the following please:

How do you explain that the first-fruits rested from their works?
Through death only or through the end of the age?

"Receiving the end of your faith the salvation of your souls"
What end is that? Death or end of the age?

Could a first-fruit who was changed at the end of the age lose their "crown of life" before they died?

Where is the hold fast firm beyond the end?
Blessings to you
Barry

we are all in this together

Starlight's picture

Barry,

It seems that we can all quote our favorite scriptures to indicate our position so I will throw out one as well.

(2 Pet 2:20 NIV) If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.

Maybe John Noe's suggestion fits this discussion best. the full reality of resurrection is a "both/and" proposition instead of an "either/or."

Blessings

Norm

Barry's picture

Norm, that would be my point.

What "world" is that in that context? The world that passed away in the end of the age is it not?
What did they overcome that would still need to be overcome after the end of the age once again?
Did those that overcome (until the end) have to overcome again (until they died)?

"both/and" proposition instead of an "either/or." wont work here because it in not historical. Preterism is historical. The end of the age is a time frame irrespective of one's own physical passing away.

Where is the hold fast firm beyond the end?
My view is that it is not there because it is not preterism.
Blessings to you brother Norm
Bary

PS, I really enjoy reading your comments here as I do brother Noe's.

we are all in this together

Starlight's picture

Barry,

Likewise to you, as I always appreciate your consistent view and spirit.

You will have to excuse me here as I’m still new to some of the concepts that are being thrown around and since I am enmeshed in the Genesis debate I have not set aside the time to focus upon what some call the universal issue. And since I am a relative novice in this particular debate I have to careful in overstating what I think I know.

I will tell you though Barry That John Noe seems to have hit the nail on the head for me with the idea that many are talking about the same concepts but are looking at it from a half empty or half full glass perspective.

The point that I gathered from Kurt was what many of us would naturally determine from reading the scriptures. That is before the AD70 event that those who did not finish the race missed out. But we would naturally consider the same for those after AD70 as well if they did not hold the faith until their earthly calling was over.

Now I would qualify that above statement to emphasize that as long as one “holds” to Christ that they are not in jeopardy from losing their reward. And I would consider the reward to be manifested in our earthly realm in many good fashions as scripture declares.

What I do have a problem with though is the idea that we are fostering an idea similar to the Calvinist of once saved always saved and over stating the ramifications as something that is not completely scriptural. But of course once saved always saved is true in the sense of Christ blood and atonement for us, but just as the pre AD70 group has to remain in the boat so do we.

Now if Kurt wants to add some form of works to the process I may have to digress from that view, as the Sabbath rest infers not our working but to depend upon Him for that day’s provision. I realize this is one of those discussions that could go on and on but I just wanted to clarify my thinking. To me the bottom line is very simple, either you place your trust in Christ and live in that expectation or you chose otherwise. It’s really not rocket science.

Blessings

Norm

Barry's picture

Hi Norm,
It is good that you are new to this particular study. It will give you a fresh perspective.
I'm also following your response to Ed as Ed has a somewhat similar view to my own.
[As for being dense I don't think so Bro. You catch on very fast indeed.]

This is the point:
If salvation is not historical then we do not have preterism and we do not have fulfillment.
It is either historical and salvation was fulfilled or it is not historical and fulfillment did not come.
There is no hold fast beyond the end. If you find it let me know :).

The constant and continual consistency of new testament scripture is to be delivered from the then "present evil age".
Overcome was always overcome that world.
Hold fast firm until the end was hold fast until the end of the age.
There is no deviation from this.

Those that did not transform were destroyed. Those that did not die physically died as old creatures because an old covenant creature could not (and did not historically) enter into the new age.

Destruction has both the outward manifestation in the valley of Judgment and the collective implication of a passing away.

For years I've been putting forth the historical argument of common grace and no one has yet put forth a reasonable rebuttal.
IMHO they cannot. Because fulfillment must be historical or it did not happen.

This means that salvation has be misunderstood.

If not then the first-fruits did not rest from their works.

There is an experiential salvation like experience that takes place between our ears when we believe in what God has done.
But either God has done it or he did not do it.

There are groups of people that lived through the end of the age both as destroyed and persevered. Otherwise it is not historical and it did not happen and those groups still exist as they did back then.

In short, there is a difference between an outworking of what has been done and the bringing in of these things.
New Testament scripture is dealing with the bringing in of these things and we are looking at the world around us and interpreting the outworking as if it is still being brought in.

We do this to maintain Christendom as we know it, wherein we can deem some worthy of heaven and some unworthy. Those that do this are of course always on the worthy side.

The old covenant man and the old economy personage are summed up in this: The egocentric man.
This is what Adam was allowed to bring in and give authority to.
Christ brought in the image of God and the God centered man identity.
The egocentric man as pertains to authority was historically destroyed in AD 70.

1Jo 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

1Jo 2:16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

This is the setting and context of the New Testament scriptures.

How can we possible understand it any differently?
It cannot be historical without it being comprehensive. The end of the age cannot pass away experientially in this day and time.
We can have a like experience and accept what God has done. This is outworking. Not a bringing in.

Sin has been put away. The Christ made and end of sins. Nothing separates us from God. We can believe that we are separated and be saved from our ignorance.
Barry

we are all in this together

Starlight's picture

Barry,

You stated…“If salvation is not historical then we do not have preterism and we do not have fulfillment.”

Barry, I recognize salvation came but my understanding was that it ushered in a new era and those that were found in Christ were “legally” changed at the “coming” and those that were “asleep” were released fully to rise to eternal life.

(1 Th 4:17 NIV) After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

Barry I read the above verse to indicate that after the coming those who were alive would continue to live and meet Christ in the Heavenly Realms at our departure from this earthly vessel just as those who were asleep had already done. (We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed--)

Barry…“There is no hold fast beyond the end”

It doesn’t say not to either, but it does in Rev 21 and 22 indicate that there will continue to be ongoing sinners that will not enter into the city and that there will be ongoing healing of the nations for each month. I do not believe that we can infer from those scriptures a different position although Ed seemed to indicate his conclusion was otherwise. I believe that would be pushing the scriptures found there beyond their intended message.

Barry…“ Hold fast firm until the end was hold fast until the end of the age.”

I do not deny that scripture points consistently to the end of the age, but scripture does not stop there. It is pointing to the Sabbath rest that we would experience through our trust in Christ. Remember that the Sabbath rest was beneficial only to those who trusted in God to supply their needs. Those that rebelled were under penalty of death and since we have a new Sabbath rest in place now there would be no benefit for those who do not trust in the provision of God. The Sabbath examples in Moses day are for an illustration for those even in the new Sabbath rest. “Heb 4:9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;” and of course the penalty is again death (spiritual) “(Exo 31:14 NIV) "'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people.” for not trusting Christ. I believe the Sabbath rest should be our model for the present age and it indeed was not one where men were devoid of responsibility for their actions.

Barry, I see that your solution to the scriptures is built upon some fairly consistent views, but I would challenge you that it needs some tweaking. Now don’t misunderstand me I myself am constantly searching the scriptures to see if these things are true and am making adjustments as I go. I have for many years recognized the problems with doing traditional church as we have inherited it and I am all for a dynamic changing approach for the “body” of believers. But I am also not fearful of tradition ways as a means to continue to minister to and encourage the present body. I still believe that God is in charge and He will change things in his timing. We are just along for the ride, and it is our responsibility to model the examples that have been set for us from scripture.

I truly appreciate you taking the time to write this lengthy response to me and believe me I truly appreciate your honest attempt to understand the scriptures as best you can.

I have to go now as I need to prepare for a class in the morning, maybe I’ll use some of our material from today, nah, I had better not they are not ready ;-)

Ed, I’ll try and respond to you later, but I’ve got a very heavy day tomorrow.

Blessings

Norm

Barry's picture

God is so very good Norm!!
Here we are discussing together. We have never met in person but we are communicating together over electronic pulses and innumerable wires that connect millions of people.

Were would we both be without this incredible blessing. Here we are touching each other’s lives as we both put forward our perspectives concerning the workings of God and His love for us.

We are so very blessed my brother.

And there does seem less accountability in this medium than there typically has been in other mediums. Pornography to the max, a haven for sick people who seek to use innocent children, a communication device for terrorists, an easy access to excessive gambling, oh the list goes on and on and on.

But here we are as brothers. No we don’t really know each other but there is something there. Yes, and not ashamed to say it; yes there is until now, until this moment an unspoken love. We may not speak of it often but it is undeniable. What connects is the Internet, but really what is touching us is the connection to the love of God. We recognize in this that we are members of one another and members in His love.

I wrote a bood for you Norm. Sorry bro! :)

Quote:
Barry,

You stated…“If salvation is not historical then we do not have preterism and we do not have fulfillment.”

Barry, I recognize salvation came but my understanding was that it ushered in a new era and those that were found in Christ were “legally” changed at the “coming” and those that were “asleep” were released fully to rise to eternal life.

(1 Th 4:17 NIV) After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

Barry I read the above verse to indicate that after the coming those who were alive would continue to live and meet Christ in the Heavenly Realms at our departure from this earthly vessel just as those who were asleep had already done. (We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed--)
End Quote.

1 Thess 4:17 is the totality of the gathering that is now fulfilled. The meeting in the air is completed and is not an ongoing event. Paul was explaining the process of the gathering in the consummation of the age. That meeting gathered both together. Those alive were gathered while alive just as much as those that had fallen asleep. The issue of “the air” that is the air around us is indicative of relationship not the sky and not post-mortem.

Quote:
Barry…“ Hold fast firm until the end was hold fast until the end of the age.”

I do not deny that scripture points consistently to the end of the age, but scripture does not stop there. It is pointing to the Sabbath rest that we would experience through our trust in Christ. Remember that the Sabbath rest was beneficial only to those who trusted in God to supply their needs. Those that rebelled were under penalty of death and since we have a new Sabbath rest in place now there would be no benefit for those who do not trust in the provision of God. The Sabbath examples in Moses day are for an illustration for those even in the new Sabbath rest. “Heb 4:9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;” and of course the penalty is again death (spiritual) “(Exo 31:14 NIV) "'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people.” for not trusting Christ. I believe the Sabbath rest should be our model for the present age and it indeed was not one where men were devoid of responsibility for their actions.
End Quote.

The last sentence is the nutshell. This is the basis of interpretation. It is the formula of interpretation. Can that formula work?
Was Adam devoid of responsibility prior to eating of the forbidden fruit? (rhetorical) No he was not!

This is the foundation of our problem. We cannot see responsibility outside of accountability. We cannot see stewardship outside of ownership. This is the foundation of the problem of interpretation. We fear a lack of responsibility if there is not accountability. We fear a lack of stewardship if there is no ownership.

Adam went after accountability and ownership. A righteousness of his OWN.

The end of the age is the move back to responsibility and stewardship. (If not could someone please explain how Adam did or did not have responsibility prior to eating of the forbidden fruit and how that worked out without the knowledge of good and evil).

Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him DENY HIMSELF [his egocentric self], and take up his cross [to die to that old man in transformation with me in preparation of the end of the age], and follow me.
Mat 16:25 For whosoever will save his life [the soul of the egocentric man] shall LOSE IT [at my coming in the end of the age]: and whosoever will lose his life [willingly transform from the egocentric soul to the soul of the new age] for my sake shall find it.
Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall GAIN THE WHOLE WORLD [that world prior to the passing of that world], and lose his own soul [the old covenant man cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven]? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then HE SHALL REWARD EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS [at the consummation of the HISTORY of eschatology].
Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be SOME STANDING HERE, which SHALL NOT TASTE OF DEATH, TILL they see the Son of man coming IN HIS KINGDOM [postmortem is clearly not prerequisite for ANY of this in any way].

Luk 18:20 Thou knowest THE COMMANDMENTS [given to self-righteous egocentric man], Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
Luk 18:21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven [the kingdom of heaven that was about to be]: and come, follow me.
Luk 18:23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
Luk 18:24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
Luk 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Luk 18:26 And they that heard [it] said, Who then can be saved?
Luk 18:27 And he said, The things which are IMPOSSIBLE WITH MEN [a righteousness of one’s own possession and potential] are possible with God.

1Cr 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none [as a possession according to the law];
1Cr 7:30 And they that weep, as though they wept not [for your true riches and reward] ; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not [for the things of that present age]; and they that buy, as though they possessed not [for the things of that present age];
1Cr 7:31 And they that use this world [of that present age], as not abusing [it]: for the FASHION OF THIS WORLD PASSETH AWAY [at the end of the age for the time was short, which has nothing to do with post-mortem].

2Cr 6:10 As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and [yet] possessing all things [in God as members of one another].

1Ti 6:17 Charge them that are rich IN THIS WORLD, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy;

Jam 1:8 A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways.
Jam 1:9 Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted:
Jam 1:10 BUT THE RICH, IN THAT HE IS MADE LOW: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away.
Jam 1:11 For the sun [the Christ Malachi 4:2] is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways [at the end of the age].
Jam 1:12 Blessed [is] the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, HE SHALL RECEIVE THE CROWN OF LIFE, [this is done irrespective of post-mortem, as post-mortem was never the prerequisite, and this could not be given up or lost in any way for it immediately became HISTORICAL in the consummation of the age] which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

Jam 5:1 Go to now, [ye] rich men, weep and howl FOR YOUR MISERIES THAT SHALL COME UPON [YOU].
Jam 5:2 Your riches ARE CORRUPTED, and your GARMENTS ARE MOTHEATEN.
Jam 5:3 Your gold and silver is CANKERED; and the rust of them shall be a witness against YOU, and SHALL EAT YOUR FLESH AS IT WERE FIRE [destroyed in the flesh (in its authority in the old economy) so be saved in the spirit at the end of the age]. Ye have heaped treasure together FOR THE LAST DAYS [consistency, consistency, consistency, as this is about the coming HISTORICAL consummation of THAT AGE]
Jam 5:4 Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the LORD OF SABAOTH [the Lord of the true Sabbath days rest which was about to be. This would not be dependant upon another or subsequent overcoming of the world that was about to be. Never ever, is anything of the sort inferred or implied, the contrary is clearly noted that it could not be taken away.]
Jam 5:5 Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth [as opposed to the coming kingdom of heaven], and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter.
Jam 5:6 Ye have condemned [and] killed the just; [and] he doth not resist you.
Jam 5:7 Be patient therefore, brethren, UNTO THE COMING OF THE LORD. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain.
Jam 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the COMING OF THE LORD DRAWETH NIGH.

Your comparison Norm in Hebrews chapters 3 and 4 would historically make the old age viable in the new. It would enable those who received the crown of life to revert to the old economy. How does one in actuality revert to what has passed away?
This is the nature of fulfillment. And this is what we are missing.
Otherwise those that are historically saved can become unsaved as long as they breathe and those that are historically destroyed in the second death have a second chance of undoing that death while they were still breathing.
Then we have taken “hold fast firm until the end” and made it something that scripture never, ever does.

Here is the point.
Whatever we do to make their salvation our salvation makes their salvation unfulfilled.
Those that overcame historically must once again overcome because WE MUST ALSO OVERCOME.
Whatever we do to make their condemnation our condemnation makes their condemnation unfulfilled.
But they died in their sins at the end of the age whether they stopped breathing or not.
For they were about to come to nothing at the end of the age, irrespective of postmortem.

1Cr 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet NOT THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD, nor of the PRINCES OF THIS WORLD, that COME TO NOUGHT [are coming to nothing]:
1Cr 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
1Cr 2:8 Which none of the PRINCES OF THIS WORLD knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Full preterism that relies on postmortem for the answer is postmortem futurism and is constantly inconsistent with scripture.
Partial preterism that relies on postmortem of the answer is constantly inconsistent with scripture.

Once they entered into this rest having brought in what they brought in it became a historical reality. The rest cannot be undone for it is fulfilled.
2Cr 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
2Cr 10:6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when YOUR obedience IS FULFILLED.

Quote:
Barry…“There is no hold fast beyond the end”

It doesn’t say not to either, but it does in Rev 21 and 22 indicate that there will continue to be ongoing sinners that will not enter into the city and that there will be ongoing healing of the nations for each month. I do not believe that we can infer from those scriptures a different position although Ed seemed to indicate his conclusion was otherwise. I believe that would be pushing the scriptures found there beyond their intended message.
End Quote.

Ed and I have similar views. Some of our conclusions are different and some things are merely expressed differently.
A careful reading of Rev. 21 and 22 will reveal that John is not poking into the new age itself but seeing the APPLIED MEANING of the New Jerusalem which was COMING DOWN FROM HEAVEN.

This is extremely evident in Chapter 22:

Rev 22:1 And HE SHEWED ME [in its applied meaning] a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.
Rev 22:3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
Rev 22:4 And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their foreheads.
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
Rev 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings [are] faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to SHEW unto his servants the things WHICH MUST SHORTLY BE DONE [IE fulfilled]
Rev 22:7 Behold, I COME QUICKLY: blessed [is] he that KEEPETH THE SAYINGS OF THE PROPHECY of this book.
Rev 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard [them]. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Rev 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which KEEP THE SAYINGS OF THIS BOOK: worship God.
Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, SEAL NOT THE SAYINGS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK: FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND.
Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, LET HIM BE UNJUST STILL: and he which is filthy, LET HIM BE FILTHY STILL: and he that is righteous, LET HIM BE RIGHTEOUS STILL: and he that is holy, LET HIM BE HOLY STILL.
Rev 22:12 And, behold, I COME QUICKLY; and MY REWARD [IS] WITH ME, to give every man according as his work shall be [at the end of the age].
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Rev 22:14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that THEY MAY HAVE RIGHT to the tree of life, and MAY ENTER in through the gates into the city.
Rev 22:15 FOR WITHOUT [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie [the lie passed away at the end of the age. This would be hard to deny as the lie was covenantal in Rev. 3:9, and the dogs are the Judaizers according to Paul and Peter] .
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to TESTIFY UNTO YOU THESE THINGS IN THE CHURCHES [Rev. 3:9]. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.
Rev 22:17 And the SPIRIT AND THE BRIDE SAY, COME. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, SURELY I COME QUICKLY. AMEN. EVEN SO, COME, LORD JESUS.
Rev 22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen.

The conclusion being:
Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; OR ELSE I WILL COME UNTO THEE QUICKLY, AND WILL REMOVE THY CANDLESTICK OUT OF HIS PLACE, except thou repent.

Rev 2:16 Repent; OR ELSE I WILL COME UNTO THEE QUICKLY, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; TO HIM THAT OVERCOMETH WILL I GIVE TO EAT OF THE HIDDEN MANNA, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth [it].

Rev 2:21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication [a converted Judaizer]; and she repented not.
Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery [apostate Israel] with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
Rev 2:23 And I WILL KILL HER CHILDREN WITH DEATH; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I WILL GIVE UNTO EVERY ONE OF YOU ACCORDING TO YOUR WORKS [at the end of the age].
Rev 2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
Rev 2:25 But that which ye have [already] HOLD FAST TILL I COME.
Rev 2:26 And HE THAT OVERCOMETH, AND KEEPETH MY WORKS UNTO THE END, to him will I give power over the nations:

I know it is very long Norm and I apologize for its length.
Please feel free question and critique these points.
I know your time is limited so I appolgize once again for making this so long.
Barry

we are all in this together

Starlight's picture

Barry,

I apologize for taking so long to respond to you, especially after recognizing your hard work and diligence in responding to me. I kind of got diverted this week ;), that tends to happen to us that are scatter brained. I really like your work Barry and can especially appreciate your ability to provide scriptural overhead for your positions. I will say that I thought you made a very strong presentation for the recognition of the plight of the apostate Jews. I do believe we have two consequences for the apostate Jews of that era; number one is a physical destruction similar to the Flood and the second is a spiritual destruction
(Dan 9:26 NRSV) …and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. ITS END SHALL COME WITH A FLOOD
(Dan 12:2 NIV) Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, OTHERS TO SHAME AND EVERLASTING CONTEMPT.

Of course the NT scriptures are constantly reinforcing these two results.

(Mat 23:36 NIV) I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation…. Look, your house is left to you desolate….24: 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
(Mat 24:51 NIV) He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(John 17:3 NIV) Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Barry when I looked at your scriptures I want to make sure I’m differentiating between the physical and the spiritual. I believe this argument goes as well for the believer and their preservation from the physical and their hope for the eternal. I believe we can if we are not careful apply the physical scriptures sometimes to the spiritual and vice versa as well. That is why even though your premise of a historical salvation is accurate the application of it in the New Jerusalem does not infer in my view to “all” but to those that clothe themselves in Christ. That is why my reference to the Sabbath rest does not infer working during the Sabbath rest but indeed “Resting in Christ”. That is why many who still infer a works mentality towards salvation are erring in my estimation. They just have not concluded the proper understanding towards “resting in Christ”. This is where your argument takes us in my thinking, it’s not with those without the City but it’s with those who have entered the City and are looking around for something to do to make sure they don’t get run out of town.

I’m again going to quote a couple of verses to reinforce what I believe scripture indicates concerning the capability of men to obtain salvation. Of course I accept that salvation is available to “all” but it still seems probable to me that men may not choose to.

(Mat 12:32 NRSV) Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, EITHER IN THIS AGE OR THE AGE TO COME..

(Rev 21:23 NIV) The city ….THE NATIONS WILL WALK BY ITS LIGHT, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On NO DAY WILL ITS GATES EVER BE SHUT, for there will be no night there. The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. NOTHING IMPURE WILL EVER INTER IT, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Barry, I’m not going to quote scriptures in detail at this point as I believe I can present my basic case with some selected scriptures which indicate my position. I know you assert that Rev 21 and 22 are concerning the present generation of believers that John was addressing and I agree but not completely. These two sections I listed seem to strongly infer that in the “age to come” that there is still distinctly unforgiveness. Also I think clearly this section of Rev 21 is stating that there will be an inability to enter it and I do not see the strong indicator that it is only presenting the first century elects position only.

Also just the rationality of the whole discussion seems illogical that only for a spec in time could a people be excluded from the spiritual city but afterwards they would have been in no danger of judgment. And as I stated earlier there was both the physical and spiritual judgment for them not just the physical. And another question which enters my mind is why would there be so much teaching about righteous behavior if in just a short while it would have been irrelevant to salvation. Why not eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we trust Christ and live.

I want to reiterate again my observation that you made a strong presentation and it has performed its duty to you in making me think about your proposition and its consequences. But I must let “my” overall knowledge of God’s plan and word weigh both sides in the balance and for this moment I must still come down on the side of freewill choice to enter the city or not, even for us today. There seems to be just too many conflicts with established scriptural beliefs for the balance to swing the other way.

Blessings

Norm

PS. Oh I almost forgot, the sleepers got to rise first, then those that remain so there was a time difference ;-)

Barry's picture

Norm, your answer was indeed very well thought out and presented. Taking the time to do so is much appreciated.

The basic problem that people such as you and I have in presenting our views is that much of the info we present touches on other topics. How we view those other topics influences greatly our overall view. So then it often becomes a discussion of the entire Bible LOL.

In any case allow me to try and break down a few points. This post will focus on Everlasting contempt but will not cover it entirely.
Everlasting contempt:
(Dan 12:2 NIV) Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, OTHERS TO SHAME AND EVERLASTING CONTEMPT.
(Mat 12:32 NRSV) Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, EITHER IN THIS AGE OR THE AGE TO COME.

These two scriptures touch on a topic that I have previously wrote on (even though that now needs to be edited and updated):
Jeremiah 23:
39) Therefore, behold, I, even I, will UTTERLY FORGET YOU, and I WILL FORSAKE YOU, and THE CITY THAT I GAVE YOU and your fathers, and CAST YOU OUT OF MY PRESENCE: [Covenantal rejection and termination at the consummation of BIBLICAL HISTORY.]
40) And I will bring an EVERLASTING REPROACH UPON YOU (historical), and A PERPETUAL SHAME [it becomes history in the CONSUMMATION of biblical eschatology], which SHALL NOT BE FORGOTTEN [in the perpetuity of the historical record].

2 Thessalonians 1:9
Who shall be punished with EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD [for what they were], and from the glory of his power. [In its HISTORICAL setting! What they were was to be shamed in what they were. They stood in an independent human glory. THAT GLORY would pass away and be shamed historically in perpetuity. THEY identified within THAT GLORY would, in THAT IDENTITY pass away and be shamed in perpetuity.]

Isaiah 66:
23) And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
24) And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me [such as the “generation of vipers”]: for THEIR WORM SHALL NOT DIE, neither shall THEIR FIRE BE QUENCHED; and THEY shall be AN ABHORRING unto all flesh.

The WORM and the FIRE are immortalized through the effect of the ongoing reproach! The ONLOOKERS immortalize the worm. An eternal historical, “Look what God did to these folks!” It is the ongoing SHAME that gives it its “unquenchable”-ness. The ongoing shame stands in the un-pass-ability of the historical record.
IT IS THIS LIFE HERE THAT IS IN QUESTION!

Revelation 14:
9) And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10) The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11) And the SMOKE OF THEIR TORMENT ASCENDETH UP FOREVER AND EVER: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

In the above verses the “smoke” is to be understood as the PERMANENT RECORD of their torment. That is the perpetuity of the shame of the permanent record. How they perished and why they perished and for what they perished for and for what glory they stood in when they perished, is brought into everlasting contempt.
This applied to not only those who filled up the measure but also to those who previously and so HISTORICALLY CONTRIBUTED to that measure. See Matt. 23:32-36.

IMPORTANT CONCLUSION:
To bring forth the contempt, that is the “everlasting contempt” to SUBSEQUENT GENERATIONS is to go BEYOND the history of biblical eschatology and so FORCES one of two conclusions:
THAT “generation of vipers” which FILLED UP THE MEASURE of wrath from the beginning of the history of biblical eschatology, TOOK ON ALSO the future contempt of future generations.
Or:
Each subsequent generation takes on their own contempt in accordance to what has already passed away, and so resurrection takes place in each subsequent generation.

To take the meaning of being raise up to contempt into the new age time frame is to claim that history is not behind us and can never be behind us, and that nothing was actually consummated.

Matthew 24:
34) Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, Till All Things Be Fulfilled.
35) Heaven and earth SHALL PASS AWAY, but MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY.
There is that which passed away and that which did not. However the judgment upon the then existing heavens and earth was consummated historically. That which did not pass away became historical. The record does not pass away.
See Heb. 11:2, 4, 5, 39. IE, “testimony”, “being dead still speaks”, record, “witness”. Also Melchizedek is said to be “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” because as priest his genealogy was NOT RECORDED HISTORICALLY. So powerful is the “record”, that not recording his genealogy as priest signified or was a “type” simply because it was not recorded.

Mark 3:
28) Verily I say unto you, ALL SINS SHALL BE FORGIVEN UNTO THE SONS OF MEN, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29) But he that shall BLASPHEME AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST HATH NEVER FORGIVENESS, but is in danger of ETERNAL DAMNATION [Judgment: The element of un-forgiveness is against the untransformed of the terminal generation for WHAT THEY WERE AT THAT TIME. What THEY WERE in the then existing age would be eternally shamed. To have forgiveness in this context would mean an UNDOING OF HISTORY, and so a God given glorification to the independent glory of man as recorded in the history of eschatology.]

In Isaiah 66:24 it is the ONLOOKERS that have immortalized the worm! The SHAME is immortalized. To claim in the literal sense that the worm is everlasting would be to miss the whole point of the verse. The worm is immortalized in its historical context.

What we must come to terms with is the perpetual shame involved in the permanent historical record. It immortalizes THE MOMENT and THE CORRUPTION. It immortalizes the “fire”, the “confusion”, the stupidity, the applied discipline, the destruction, the “smoke”, the “torment”, the unrest, and the “worm”. It creates an “unquenchable fire” of shame upon the disciplined for what they were when destroyed.

One of the reasons why we have had some difficulty in seeing this is because of a past biblical futurist mindset. We saw human history as ending. But since it goes on, we should be concluding that we need permanent records as a part of our ongoing learning and evolution. The consequence of having permanent records is like taking pictures and freezing the moment in a recorded historical permanency.

CONCLUSION of this point:
This is why through the literal eye there is a seeming contradiction between the finality of what is destroyed and the immortalizing of the destruction. They are BURNT UP with unquenchable fire and yet TORMENTED FOREVER! But the contradiction is no contradiction at all. The immortalizing of the finality is in the historical record! The PERMANENCY OF THE DESTRUCTION is never in question.

Matthew 3:12
Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will BURN UP the chaff with UNQUENCHABLE FIRE.

Acts 3:23
And it shall come to pass, that EVERY SOUL, which will not hear that prophet, SHALL BE DESTROYED from among the people.

Philippians 3:
18) (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ:
19) Whose END IS DESTRUCTION, whose God is their belly, and WHOSE GLORY is IN THEIR SHAME, who mind earthly things.)”

James 1:
10) But the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass HE SHALL PASS AWAY.
11) For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: SO ALSO SHALL THE RICH MAN FADE AWAY IN HIS WAYS.”

2 Peter 2:
12) But these, as NATURAL BRUTE BEASTS [the Old Covenant natural creature], made [This term means “BRED to be taken and destroyed”, IE. The Old Covenant natural creature was “bred” in genealogies to find its END at the END of the old system. They are focused on human potential and therefore a genealogy as pertains to human conception in the law.] to be taken and DESTROYED, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and SHALL UTTERLY PERISH IN THEIR OWN CORRUPTION;
13) AND SHALL RECEIVE the REWARD OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS…”
The corruption that they perished in, “utterly” we might add, was the ending of the old system, the ending of the old heavens and earth, and the works therein. This took place in the consummation of biblical history, which is for the most part the consummation of eschatology. It is the end of the age.

Either they were destroyed at the end of the age or they were not. Since they utterly perished in their OWN CORRUPTION and since THAT CORRUPTION PERISHED at the end of the age we are forced into a historical application. If we place the destruction of those (unbelieving) who lived through the end at their post-mortem then we have misunderstood consummation. This misunderstanding is formulated around pervious ideas we had as biblical futurists.

This in my view connects with the point you have made here:
Quote:
These two sections I listed seem to strongly infer that in the “age to come” that there is still distinctly unforgiveness. Also I think clearly this section of Rev 21 is stating that there will be an inability to enter it and I do not see the strong indicator that it is only presenting the first century elects position only.

Also just the rationality of the whole discussion seems illogical that only for a spec in time could a people be excluded from the spiritual city but afterwards they would have been in no danger of judgment.
End quote.

Yes, but that inability is historical. We have no indication that John is looking into the new age but every indication that he is explaining its historical applied meaning.
We know what the “lie” was.
We know who the “dogs” were.
We know who the “murders” are.
We know who the “fornicators” are.
We are not ignorant of whom he is referring too.

Revelation is not telling us things that contortic the other new testament authors. Such as Peter.

2Pe 2:12 But THESE, as natural brute beasts, MADE TO BE TAKEN AND DESTROYED, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and SHALL UTTERLY PERISH in THEIR own CORRUPTION;
2Pe 2:13 And SHALL RECEIVE the reward of unrighteousness, [as] they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots [they are] and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
2Pe 2:14 Having eyes full of ADULTERY, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
2Pe 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam [the son] of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
2Pe 2:16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
2Pe 2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to WHOM THE MIST OF DARKNESS IS RESERVED FOR EVER.
2Pe 2:18 For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of CORRUPTION: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of THE WORLD through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter END is worse with them than the beginning.
2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The DOG [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come IN THE LAST DAYS scoffers, walking after THEIR OWN LUSTS,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, WHERE IS THE PROMISE OF HIS COMING? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, WHICH ARE NOW, BY THE SAME WORD ARE KEPT IN STORE, RESERVED UNTO FIRE AGAINST THE DAY OF JUDGMENT AND PERDITION OF UNGODLY MEN.
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief IN THE NIGHT; in the which the HEAVENS SHALL PASS AWAY with a great noise, and THE ELEMENTS SHALL MELT with fervent heat, the EARTH ALSO and THE WORKS THAT ARE THEREIN SHALL BE BURNED UP.
2Pe 3:11 [Seeing] then [that] ALL THESE THINGS shall be DISSOLVED, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the HEAVENS BEING ON FIRE SHALL BE DISSOLVED, and the ELEMENTS SHALL MELT with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be FOUND OF HIM in peace, without spot, and blameless.
2Pe 3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [IS] SALVATION; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, BEWARE LEST YE ALSO, BEING LED AWAY WITH THE ERROR OF THE WICKED, FALL FROM YOUR OWN STEDFASTNESS. [In the “PRETERIST POSTMORTEM FUTURISM” approach this warning MUST ALSO be attributed toward the “righteous” who lived through the end of the age but are still breathing. As long as they are breathing they can return to the corruption that has already passed away. Something is definitely wrong here!]
2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and [in] the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him [be] glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Or John himself elsewhere:

1Jo 2:15 Love not THE WORLD, neither THE THINGS [that are] IN THE WORLD. If any man love THE WORLD, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jo 2:16 For ALL that [is] IN THE WORLD, the LUST OF THE FLESH, and the LUST OF THE EYES, and THE PRIDE OF LIFE, is not of the Father, but is OF THE WORLD.
1Jo 2:17 And the WORLD PASSETH AWAY, AND the LUST THEREOF: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
1Jo 2:18 Little children, IT IS THE LAST TIME: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that IT IS THE LAST TIME.
1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be MADE MANIFEST that they were not all of us. [When was it made manifest? At the end of the age!]
1Jo 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1Jo 2:21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that NO LIE is of the truth.
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

CONCLUSION:
Unless we conclude a comprehensive or “cosmic” change between the ages, we cannot piece together the scriptures. We will be unable to see the historic conclusion to the old age. And so will carry the presidents of the old into the new. And so will conclude that little has been done and Adam is still in charge on a cosmic and a comprehensive level. And that Adam’s immortal works are “very good”.

Norm, you said:
“PS. Oh I almost forgot, the sleepers got to rise first, then those that remain so there was a time difference ;-)”
Yes, but did that time difference extend beyond the consummation of the age?

Blessings to you my bother.
Barry

we are all in this together

Starlight's picture

Barry,

It seems to me there is a subtle difference between the points that Universals are making that is causing the division. The discussion has risen above my level of competence and I’m going to need to go back to school ;-) Now some may say that you have schooled me already and I would not disagree that I have picked up some ideas from this discussion. I have made the mistaken assumption that I did not need to immediately delve into this subject as I have been primarily concerned with the Preterist implications for Genesis. As it turns out I assumed wrongly. This discussion has reinforced that everything is linked together from Gen 1 to Rev 22. I can discuss my instincts all day long and they have been helpful to me as I do believe they are guided by a firm foundation. That is why I was able to easily recognize the futurist problems and come to Preterism in the first place. But this discussion is not so easy and I have a responsibility to myself and to the others on this forum to inform myself more about these particular subjects before I continue in a discussion that I’m still quite amateurish.

Barry you may have noticed my previous discussion with Davo; and that is where I reside as far as I understand the situation at present. I believe I made a fairly strong case but there is need for more study so I’m going to head for the books and may rejoin at a later time in the future.

Blessings

Norm

PS. You said "Yes, but did that time difference extend beyond the consummation of the age?" Yes I believe it did ;-)

Barry's picture

Hi Norm,
You have been a blessing to me.
There is no pressure to agree with me and no need to come to any conclusions on these matters.

The subject has been opened and so feel free to get back to me on any thoughts or questions or points that you may have about these matters.

In any case common grace or "fulfilled grace" is much like preterism. It is a filter that changes a lot of how we view the scriptures.
Much like Preterism it will not go away.

The Scriptural consistency within the framework of fulfillment is a very good indication that this view will continue to attract both attention and adherents.

It will still be here when you want to take another look.
Love ya,
Barry

we are all in this together

davo's picture

G'day Norm, I know Barry will indeed answer for himself; I just wanted to chip in with a few observations based on one or two things you raised.

Starlight: That is why many who still infer a works mentality towards salvation are erring in my estimation…

And another question which enters my mind is why would there be so much teaching about righteous behavior if in just a short while it would have been irrelevant to salvation.

Norm, aren't you doing exactly in your second statement what you say others err in your first statement??? IF the way I live is the determining factor concerning "where I go" after I die, then what use is the Cross and Resurrection of Christ?

Starlight: Why not eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we trust Christ and live.

That's the very attitude that those who claim "one can never lose one's salvation" fosters – knowing that repentance is around any corner one turns often makes light of the grace that can never let you go. This IMO is definitely more an issue for those that believe than do otherwise. Besides which Norm, there are plenty of "professing Christians" out there whose main motivating factor for "living right" is the fear of NOT going to Heaven when they die, BUT what does that really say about one's walk with God? Surely a changed and appreciable heart towards God would want to do no less than honour Him in NOT living with such wantonness.

What a freedom it is to know that you can do no wrong that will disenfranchise you from God, YET still choose to do the better thing anyway [1Cor 6:12; 10:23]. Truly, it is coming into the revelation of redemption – that it is already ours irrespective of belief, that truly brings a salvation to be experienced; a salvation that in turn is the very essence of belief in Christ. Which initially might sound confusing, but not so when you consider that there is a difference between the two.

Starlight: But I must let “my” overall knowledge of God’s plan and word weigh both sides in the balance and for this moment I must still come down on the side of freewill choice to enter the city or not, even for us today.

Leaving aside the "freewill choice" issue for a moment – what if you start to see or understand that "entering the City" is all about coming into God's priestly call of service – what I term as being "saved to serve" – as opposed to the more traditional assumption where such "entering" equals gaining Heaven beyond the grave.

davo

PS: "(Dan 9:26 NRSV) …and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. ITS END SHALL COME WITH A FLOOD" … this "flood" was it regional or global, metaphoric or literal??? ;)

Starlight's picture

Davo,

You are most certainly welcome to chip in, but now I have three of you to respond to and I still owe Ed a response ;-)

Davo said---“Norm, aren't you doing exactly in your second statement what you say others err in your first statement??? IF the way I live is the determining factor concerning "where I go" after I die, then what use is the Cross and Resurrection of Christ?”

I guess my question was why was the pre “coming” Christians so preoccupied with righteous living during that 40 year period. Were they still living a legalistic hybrid version of Grace? The question reflected my concern with the dichotomy of the before and after perspective of their instructions in the Biblical letters. How strange it seems that after the “coming” that they could breathe a sigh of relief that holding on was over for them. For some reason I believe we are missing something and I don’t think it is as easy to describe as we might like.

Shouldn’t we have the same instructions for righteous living that went into effect after the “Cross and Resurrection” for the first century saints. Was all this training in righteousness only pertinent to the pre 70AD crowd? Were they already entering the City during this time frame and just continued on residing there afterwards. Is living in “Christ Rest” a definition of trusting him and in so doing allowing his spirit to manifest itself in you in good works? Not out of obedience but out of love and devotion.

Davo said---“ Besides which Norm, there are plenty of "professing Christians" out there whose main motivating factor for "living right" is the fear of NOT going to Heaven when they die, BUT what does that really say about one's walk with God? Surely a changed and appreciable heart towards God would want to do no less than honour Him in NOT living with such wantonness.

I agree Davo that this is the case and we have an obligation to teach the life freeing power that one receives from Christ Grace rescue. I believe all that is required is to model the faith that the NT provides us of the Early Christians were to emulate. This although it sounds “workish” in reality is “Christ” living. We are constantly striving to teach others how to “rest in Christ” and allow him to flow from you. But one should not remain in agony over their salvation. If one chooses to they may decide not to continue to remain in Christ but only until they rebel against Christ would they loose his presence. In other words, (nothing can separate us from Christ) except our decision to refuse him.

I believe the reference “ shall come with a flood” is exactly that, a reference reminder of how one was once saved. It illustrated a historic salvation by coming on board as a means to escape.

Davo. I got to run now as I’m going to minister to the spirits in Prison.

Blessings

Norm

davo's picture

Starlight: I guess my question was why was the pre “coming” Christians so preoccupied with righteous living during that 40 year period. Were they still living a legalistic hybrid version of Grace?

Legalism certainly was an issue that Paul continually confronted, yet conforming to certain aspects of it was not foreign to him as Act 18:18; 21:23-24, 26; 24:18 shows.

Starlight: Shouldn’t we have the same instructions for righteous living that went into effect after the “Cross and Resurrection” for the first century saints. Was all this training in righteousness only pertinent to the pre 70AD crowd?

No I don't believe so, but you'd be hard pressed to think I was intimating any degree of wantonness from what I wrote previously. We "do right" [as per the Lord] for no other reason than it is simply the better thing to do, and from it others benefit.

Starlight: Is living in “Christ Rest” a definition of trusting him and in so doing allowing his spirit to manifest itself in you in good works? Not out of obedience but out of love and devotion.

I believe you are right Norm, and this is a "salvation" – that which brings deliverance and thus transformation in this life.

Starlight: This although it sounds “workish” in reality is “Christ” living. We are constantly striving to teach others how to “rest in Christ” and allow him to flow from you.

I couldn't agree more. I have no problem with this "work-ishness" for it is the works OF righteousness as opposed to the works FOR righteousness.

As to my comment about "the flood" – that was a little tongue-in-cheek based on recent discussions elsewhere here on PP :).

davo

Starlight's picture

Davo,

You have to be careful with your tongue in cheek references with me as my brain cells get short circuited before they can transfer from the tongue to the cheek.

My intent for this phrase “Were they still living a legalistic hybrid version of Grace?” was somewhat of a facetious implication recognizing the absurdity of that proposition being formulated by any NT writers. Since Christ grace was already in place and being implemented in the NC by the Apostles it obviously was not intended to be a mixing of the law and grace. We sometimes mistakenly think that although the consummation was enacted at AD70 that the implementation of the NC was waiting for that moment as well. In fact the implementation had already started and it demanded righteous living under this “new covenant of grace”.

(Rom 6:1 NRSV) What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it?

I believe we can infer that the NC grace was instituted and running at full steam ahead at this point. I believe it would be a mistake to affirm that the implementation of the rules of grace was changed at the “coming”.

It appears that there were those who actually wanted to institute a system that Universalism implies concerning comprehensive grace.

(Jude 1:4 NIV) For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, WHO CHANGE THE GRACE OF OUR GOD INTO A LICENSE FOR IMORALITY and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

(2 Pet 2:18 NIV) For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, THEY ENTICE PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST ESCAPING FROM THOSE WHO LIVE IN ERROR.

19 THEY PROMISE THEM FREEDOM, while they themselves are slaves of depravity--for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.

Davo, please understand that I realize that you are not promoting this pervasion but I’m afraid the natural consequences of the comprehensive grace paradigm would lead to this eventually. You may not intend it to happen but I discern it is a man contrived position that cannot replace the form of grace that was introduced by the Apostles during the introduction of the NC.

Believers were already entering the city by grace in the NC so therefore there were those that were kept outside because the city had walls. Would we now infer that God has removed the walls of the city to allow those rebellious “dogs” into it at the “coming”?
(Rev 21:27 NRSV) But NOTHING UNCLEAN WILL ENTER IT, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood,
The city was a done deal already in place, it didn’t pass away. It would be going against the Nature of God to infer that he has now permitted the new city to be changed into another “BABYLON” by allowing the unclean to enter it.

The proposition that “Universal comprehensive grace” replaces the NC grace that Paul and the Apostles taught must be rejected due to its dangerous eventual implications. It cannot be allowed to stand as a replacement for Christ version of grace through faith in Him.

Davo, please note that I am positing my conclusions that I have determined at this time to be correct. It does not imply any disregard for you or the others who adhere to this position. I indeed realize that we change positions at times and I may change my position again after a later investigation but for now I stand on my declaration above. I have enjoyed our dialogue and will respond further if desired.

Blessings

Norm

davo's picture

Starlight: It appears that there were those who actually wanted to institute a system that Universalism implies concerning comprehensive grace.

(Jude 1:4 NIV) For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, WHO CHANGE THE GRACE OF OUR GOD INTO A LICENSE FOR IMORALITY and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord…

Norm, I'm glad you said "appears", but appearances can be deceiving. It's one thing to state that Universalism might imply something, yet quite another to prove such. But for the record, what I've come to the conviction of is universalistic as in God's grace covers all, but I'm also universalistic in that I also believe that "all did sin" etc.

However, I think it is a bit of a stretch to link these "certain godless men" with the proposition that myself, Barry, Ed, Paige and others are putting forward. As I pointed out previously, to which you agreed – many a professing believer has decided to wander down certain dubious paths of unrighteousness; and I can guarantee that the bulk were not of the universalistic persuasion. So I doubt such was the case that Jude or the others spoke of, but rather such licentiousness sprang not from a superabundance of grace but from elsewhere.

Starlight: You may not intend it to happen but I discern it is a man contrived position that cannot replace the form of grace that was introduced by the Apostles during the introduction of the NC.

Norm I can only guess at this juncture that you are saying such more from your natural reservation [which I can understand] than from actual knowledge of the comprehensive position. No one is replacing "grace" – we are in fact promoting it more than others care to allow. I'm all for righteous living, and I think if you reread carefully how I wrote certain past comments you will see that.

Starlight: Believers were already entering the city by grace in the NC so therefore there were those that were kept outside because the city had walls. Would we now infer that God has removed the walls of the city to allow those rebellious “dogs” into it at the “coming”?

You would most definitely be wrong to infer that what we are positing is just that, it is not. Those outside were the Judaizers – those attempting to mix law and grace. Jesus, John and Paul made it clear as to who these idolatrously abominable, sexually immoral, murderous dogs, practicing liars, sorcerous and cowardly unbelieving ones were, i.e., "those outside". They were none other than those who clung or returned to their old covenant mode of existence, those who would die in their sins [Jn 8:24] not knowing in life the forgiveness that was theirs, thus they were "twice dead" [Jude 1:12]:

1] Dogs and sorcerers [Phil 3:2]. Evil workers and mutilators – those who promulgated law observance for righteousness.

2] Sexually immoral, murders, idolaters and liars [Mt 5:21-22, 28, 32; Col 3:5; 1Cor 10:14; 1Jn 2:22; 3:15]. According to Jesus, John and Paul none of these were restricted in their literalness.

3] Whoever loves OR practices a lie [Col 3:9; 1Tim 4:1-3]. Again, this was life under the old covenant, out of which some of Paul's audience was coming.

All these categories mentioned above were relative to life under the old covenant, indicative of "the works of the flesh" – life lived according to the law, yet never free from its condemnation, and worse, its self attendant self-righteousness in keeping Torah which these Judaizers were trusting in – having their show of righteousness yet rotten to the core [Rom 2:1]. All of which life according to the Spirit in the new covenant, railed – as is listed in Gal 5:18-21.

Summing up these Paul goes on to say:

1Cor 10:6-11 Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Yes, these described above were the Judaizers, those beholden to the old covenant for righteousness and so remaining outside the realm of God's full new covenant blessings in life.

Starlight: The proposition that “Universal comprehensive grace” replaces the NC grace that Paul and the Apostles taught must be rejected due to its dangerous eventual implications. It cannot be allowed to stand as a replacement for Christ version of grace through faith in Him.

Norm, I think after further examination you will find that there is NO replacing of grace, just the fullness of it coming to fruition in the Parousia.

davo

Starlight's picture

Davo,

I most certainly do not want to imply that you personally are espousing what those in the Jude Letter were. I can tell that you are sincere and are striving for truth. What I want to continue to emphasize is that without the measures of restrictions to grace that was laid out especially by Paul that we would see the natural abuse occur by those who do not want to adhere to those same principles that Paul outlines for us. Paul defines that grace as only available to those who accepted Christ and were not rebellious to Him/God. That is what I’m saying continues on.

I believe we may be drawing different conclusions though about who was allowed into the city (NC) pre “coming”.

(Eph 4:17 NIV) So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.

(Eph 2:11 NIV) Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)-- 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, EXCLUDED FROM CITIZENSHIP IN ISRAEL AND FOREIGNERS TO THE COVENANTS OF THE PROMISE, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. HIS PURPOSE WAS TO CREATE IN HIMSELF ONE NEW MAN OUT OF THE TWO, thus making peace,

Davo when I read these above scriptures it appears that the Gentiles are all those besides the Jews, it wasn’t just those scattered lost tribes of Israel. I understand Israel as set aside to bear the “seed” line until the NC was created and then “All” gentiles along with the Jews will be reconciled to God through Christ. I do not see where there are two sets of Gentiles being brought into the City, but only one. I am beginning to think this is where we “may” diverge in drawing our separate conclusions. I acknowledge my lesser knowledge on this subject and that is why I’m enjoying our discourse as I believe it is helping bring to focus some of the important issues involved. And this is definitely a subject that is going to require me to read and search to prove whether these things are true.

I appreciate your spirit in dealing with me and again I do not want to infer in any way that you or any of the others are adhering to what Jude was discussing. I’m only throwing that up as a signal to us that we need to be careful in how we handle grace. You see how easy it was even for the first century Christians to revert back to the natural man even under the strong teaching that they were going to be cast aside.

Blessings

Norm

davo's picture

Norm, let me say first off what a pleasure it is to converse with someone who thinks things through – there is more value in conversation than consensus, better communication in dialogue than debate. Yes we all like it when we all agree but it is refreshing to sharpen one another. And I am well aware of what you are "not saying" as far as Jude goes etc, and appreciate your thoughts there.

Starlight: I believe we may be drawing different conclusions though about who was allowed into the city (NC) pre “coming”.

You may be right Norm, and I wouldn't limit that to "pre" but "post" Parousia as well. Others who criticize our position as "universalism" but then leave it at that, seem to do so out of fear that exploring further will lead to certain obvious conclusions that do not sit well with other prior and precious doctrinal leanings.

Now you mentioned those who were "allowed into the city (NC)" – as I see it in my position of pantelism, the grace that you speak of and the behavioural righteousness that reflects such is that which those that are called into God's priestly service attain. In other words, not everybody is called into the new covenant i.e., "the City" BUT, and it is a huge "BUT" – we in Christendom have erred in assuming that those "not called" were/are destined to a post mortem calamity. What am I saying? We have interpreted "coming into covenant" or "coming into the City" as ultimately meaning "getting to Heaven when you die". THIS ASSUMPTION could not be further from the truth. We enter the covenant, we enter the City [by the calling of God] TO SERVE AS PRIESTS. We partake of and take from the Tree of Life that which ministers "healing to the nations" – those "outside". Some of those outside will in turn enter – but it is an entrance into priestly service – entrance is NOT about "fire insurance", the avoiding of some fiery end. The fiery end that Jesus' words spoke of was the end of the old covenant world as critically demonstrated in the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem. The amazing thing is that so many so-called preterists refuse to see this.

Starlight: …it appears that the Gentiles are all those besides the Jews, it wasn’t just those scattered lost tribes of Israel. I understand Israel as set aside to bear the “seed” line until the NC was created and then “All” gentiles along with the Jews will be reconciled to God through Christ.

I agree 100% – the Gentiles weren't "just those scattered lost tribes of Israel" – the Gentiles constituted more than just the northern tribes; scattered Israel became as it were representative of the Gentiles. Now it is your last statement above that from our "fulfilled redemption" position we take at face value without starting to whittle it away with caveats and qualifiers etc. In other words it was through Christ's faith[fullness] that all Israel was redeemed and thus reconciliation came to all humanity.

davo

Paige's picture

Hi Norm,

I appreciate your willingness to converse on this topic. I'm chiming in, but you don't have to consider me one that you will then "owe" a response to ;)

Those of us in the fulfilled realm have come to the realization that the NC age is one without an eschatalogical end, do you agree? The eschatalogical end spoken of in the scriptures deals entirely in and with the ending of the OC. The "ark" is indeed a type of Christ. Consider though, if you will... If Christ is the "ark" that one must still enter today (in order to escape the cataclysmic flood that was coming), then don't we have a problem of that door never being shut in order for the passing of the OC to occur?

All I'm asking is if you would consider that there indeed came a day for the inhabitants of the ark to disembark. What followed then, was countless numbers people who had never stepped on board, yet they too, were saved by that ark. I wonder if this can help us to see that we do not have to be counted in with the firstfruits spoken of throughout the entirety of the NT, in order to have received the benefit that came from their partaking of Christ, and ensuring that the whole harvest would indeed come in (all Israel) and be accepted by God.

Paul tells us in Romans that the Gentiles were being grafted in in order to provoke hardened and blinded Israel to jealousy. Paul looked forward to the day when the "fullness of the Gentiles has come in."(Rom.11:26) Does this fullness not speak to you of the shutting of the door of the ark? It does to me. The "flood" that was coming, was coming upon that generation. There came a time when the door was shut (70 AD). The old heavens and earth passed away. If the fullness of the Gentiles have not entered in, then I submit we are still in our sins. IOW, salvation has not come.

Norm, what really testifies to me of this truth is that we no longer look upon a world as divided into Jew and Gentile. That distinction has passed away when the OC passed (and this is regardless of how many people recognize this truth or not). What survived? The one new man of NC identity. As Barry says, we are all in this together (and that was the reality brought by Christ and His firstfruit, NT body).

Paige

Starlight's picture

Paige,

I’ll take a moment and try to respond to your request in a short response. And yes I do appreciate as well you guys willingness to discuss your views in an amiable manner. That is definitely the best way to learn from each other.

Paige said---“(in order to escape the cataclysmic flood that was coming), then don't we have a problem of that door never being shut in order for the passing of the OC to occur?”

Don’t we have in essence the need for each person to enter the “ark” as they are created in the NC creation? The reason being is the coming destruction of their spiritual souls without Christ. That is why they still need to step into the ark. Isn’t the NC just like the covenants before in that they were creations of God and require faith such as the Sons of God in Genesis beginning with Adam/Seth. Wasn’t even Adam required to tend the garden before the fall?

Paige---“Norm, what really testifies to me of this truth is that we no longer look upon a world as divided into Jew and Gentile”

I definitely agree with that statement as Paul does state that the Gentiles who were without hope had been granted access through Christ into the NC along with the Jews who lived by faith in Christ. So we have two humanities merged into the one new humanity in the New Covenant. And the Gentiles and Jews were entering the NC starting at Pentecost and continuing on to all generations. Now we know that they were waiting for the legality of the consummation to take place in AD70 but they were already enjoying the fruits of the NC earlier.

Blessings

Norm

Paige's picture

Norm,

You asked:
"Don’t we have in essence the need for each person to enter the “ark” as they are created in the NC creation? The reason being is the coming destruction of their spiritual souls without Christ."

Consider this...The OC soul/identity was ended when the OC passed away. So, even those who managed to live through the event, lost their OC identity. OC soul/identity came to its end. The reality was the OC identity was dead in trespasses and sin before God brought the OC to completion. (This is what it meant to be "in Adam", and this makes Jesus' statement "Let the dead bury the dead" make sense.)If people are still "in Adam", and dead, then the OC must not have passed, the trasition between the ages must not have taken place. Do you still believe that the 2 covenants are living in the same house today?(Gal. 4)

Does it help to put it this way? Those that died to the old man, and put on the new man were the only ones who made it through the end of the age and into the new age. There is no more old man to populate this new age. That is what the expression means when we say "immortalizing the first Adam". As long as people are "in Adam", Adam lives (covenantally).

Barry's picture

"As long as people are "in Adam", Adam lives (covenantally)."
Yes indeed! Good point Paige.
And the Christ is then less comprehensive than the first Man.
And so "let us make man in our image" remains Adam sovereign and not God sovereign.
Barry

we are all in this together

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Barry,

You make a very large assumption in universalizing the first man in a physical-literal sense.

Consult with Ed on that.

Of course, you've got big problems if Ed is right,

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Barry's picture

"You make a very large assumption in universalizing the first man"
I do not universalize the first man (Acts 17:30), I universalize history. Herein is where you may error.

In all accuracy the "first man" is a "type" (Rom. 5:12) of universalization. And not universalizing itself (Eph. 5:7).

This is where I argue. In the "type". For that is where people are at, at present.

Be careful my brother lest you argue in the "type" and loose what must be historical in the consummation of the age.

For the "end" is historical. And such an end speaks volumes.

Does this answer any of your points Tim. As your post is quite vague an so very diffcult to answer.

Your brother Barry

we are all in this together

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Ok.

Let's talk history.

Do you believe the old covenant existed before the fall?

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Barry's picture

Yes, in its POTENTIAL as the first man was from the dust of the earth as Paul has indicated.
Therefore eschatology begins with the making of Adam and not with the Fall.
Again, what is your point.
Barry

we are all in this together

Paige's picture

Tim,

Are you implying that the Gentiles were not "in Adam"?

Paige

MiddleKnowledge's picture

Paige,

I'm implying that Barry needs to consult with Ed, because their views about Adam appear to oppose each other from where I sit. This has been a recurring problem in my interraction with others over this issue.

Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org

Ed's picture

Norm, I am not sure that you owe me any response. I am at a loss to directly remember what you and I were discussing. If I shared something with you it was exactly that "a sharing." I don't expect an argument, or anything for that matter.

If you disagree, that is fine. Positions change, people change, God remains the same.

Feel free to engage Barry and Davo. For sure, you have your hands full. :)

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Starlight's picture

Ed,

I just felt since you had written a fairly lenghty response to me last Saturday that I should respond to it. But many of the points will most likley be addressed with Barry so I'll just respond to them for now. And no I'm not looking for an argument, I'm looking to understand the Universilist point of view and it's ramifications and how it is derived from scripture.

Blessings

Norm

Starlight's picture

Barry,

Guy this is a load ;-)

I don't have time today to digest it properly but I will examine it soon and respond as best I can.

I'll catch you later.

Norm

Ed's picture

Norm,
Consider this regarding your statements in this post.

Salvation was from the destruction at the end of the age (the Destruction of Jerusalem).

Those who "fell away" fell away into trusting in "the flesh," i.e., their ability to keep the Law, rather than in Christ's fulfillment of the Law (which was His death on a tree).

Post-Parousia our "trusting in Christ" is different. Pre-Parousia, they were trusting to avoid "destruction." Post-Parousia, we trust because of what God has done in Christ.

If the scripture says, "he who endures to the end shall be saved" the questions must be asked 1) what end?, and 2) saved from what?

If you answer in a consistently preterist manner, you will see exactly what Barry is talking about. And it isn't rocket science.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Starlight's picture

Ed,

Thanks for the response.

As I said I’m a little new to this discussion but I have been watching a lot of the dialogue going on and Ed I appreciate a lot of your points that you make.

Ed, are you stating that the physical destruction of Jerusalem was all that was at stake in the AD30 to 70 period?
I thought also “salvation” was another of the expectations of the believers, did they not also fall away from that “eternal life” or what the Jews called the “Hope of Israel”?

Why would we although not in jeopardy of a wrathful physical destruction not be in jeopardy of missing that “salvation”?
I realize I’m dense sometimes but I’m needing a little help here to grasp why rejecting Christ today would not infer rejecting his “salvation”.

Blessings

Norm

Ed's picture

Well Norm,
I guess that's where the Partial/Full argument stems from. A lot of people say they are Full Preterists, but hold on to an assumption that not all things were fulfilled in AD70.

I have seen some teach that because old covenant people of God suffered destruction in AD70, then the new covenant people must also suffer it in the end. That is partial preterism, or what should be called Futurism.

However, my view is that all humanity is God's children. He has promised to chastise His children. That's what He does - still. In fact, that's what AD70 was...a chastisement of Israel.

Those that trusted Christ for their chastisement (that's Peter's point - their chastisement was laid on him...). So, yes chastisement still comes.

The funny thing is that everyone applies universal principles to this Jesus thing. The Pantelists (like Davo, Barry, me, Paige) see that the redemption spoken of in scripture was for ISRAEL alone. They were His people that needed to be "purchased" and they were, by His blood. But then we see that, due to the ORDER that God set up, Israel's redemption meant LIFE FOR THE WORLD, the oikomene, the greater world at large (as opposed to KOSMOS, which was the old covenant world - which God redeemed).

Those who oppose our ideas due to this universalization principle actually universalize things themselves. They choose to make redemption apply to all humanity. This is where their idea that Pantelists teach "universal salvation," which we don't. Salvation was technically only for old covenant Israel (although Davo utilizes the concept of salvation within this New Age in a slightly different way).

That's why it is so difficult to debate with folks like MichaelB. Whenever we try to explain something, he places it within his paradigm (universalizing salvation) and it becomes confusing to him. On the other hand, if you understand that salvation was a particularist concept, only for old covenant Israel, who would believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; and that the destruction/perishing of old covenant Israel, which was what the Law required ("all who fail to keep the Law on any point are subject to the curse of the Law"). But their punishment was "the destruction of the flesh" which was what caused the Law to be a ministry of death. This means that once Israel's flesh was destroyed (or buried in baptism for those who trusted Christ), they were redeemed/saved. All Israel was saved, and this meant LIFE FOR THE WORLD.

What we experience now is LIFE, not salvation. And we experience as much LIFE as we choose. Because it is no longer about destruction/death/perishing, it is about a fulfilled reconciliation between God and His creation. He has done it...NO ONE can undo it.

And in case you haven't read some of my other posts, I believe that those who do not experience that LIFE made available through trusting in Christ in this life, will experience a form of chastisement post-mortem. Origen taught this, as well as most universalists through church history (until late 1800s when they joined the unitarians in denouncing Christ).

I hope I have explained this well enough. This isn't always the best place to make a point.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Starlight's picture

Ed,

I do appreciate your willingness to share your points, I always “try” to keep and open mind otherwise I would not have come to Christ, or Preterism or and Old earth and a Genesis Covenant point of view. But I must test what is said here with scriptures and be convinced in my own mind before I would accept something.

I like your partial/full argument but that position can be turned on its head, especially if the full view is a “bloated” view and overstates truth. Destruction or separation from God’s presence has indeed been removed for us. But as scripture infers nothing impure will enter in nor will one who does what is shameful or deceitful. The context there in Rev 21 seems to imply this is applied to the future city and not the past.

Rev 21:22 I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Also Ed it seems that in Ephesians 2 & 3 we have a fairly clean explanation that the Gentile believers who have been excluded in the past are now brought into this new one. It sounds like they were jumping on board the boat at the last minute to take hold of “salvation” which comes through Israel. They were not in any jeopardy of God’s wrath against the Jews, I suppose since they were not of Israel but they did want a piece of the “salvation” action.

Eph 3:10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.

But yes many do universalize some things which should not be but Christ did turn all of humanity into one and salvation appears to be for the Gentiles as well.

Eph 2: 15 His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

Ed you stated. “What we experience now is LIFE, not salvation.” Am I to infer from your statement that we do not inherit “eternal life” through our acceptance of Christ?

I again thank you for taking the time to explain to me your position and I will continue to monitor and study to see if these things are true.

Blessings

Norm

Ed's picture

Norm,
I'm going to try to address each of your questions here, without making it a full-fledged book. :)

Destruction or separation from God’s presence has indeed been removed for us. But as scripture infers nothing impure will enter in nor will one who does what is shameful or deceitful. The context there in Rev 21 seems to imply this is applied to the future city and not the past.

Okay, let's start with an understanding here (now this is my paradigm and if you don't accept it, then you indeed would not accept my position, but I must out of necessity share this paradigm with you). What we see in Rev 21 is the New Covenant Kingdom. It is the fulfillment of what Jerusalem was supposed to be - a city on a hill, a light to the world, salt of the earth, etc. It is NOT heaven. It is positing the old and the new covenants.

You see, the old covenant was clear in that if you didn't keep the covenant, you faced death and curses and uncleanness. Those who were outside the covenant (blotted out of the book of life) were put "outside of the city." This was a Curse.

In the New Jerusalem/Covenant, unbelieving Israel who thought they were keeping the Law, was who was "outside the city." They are the liars, dogs, sexually immoral, etc. We see this in 1 John "who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus (the Messiah) has come..."; and in Paul's epistle ("beware of the dogs, those who claim to be the circumcision (the Mark) but who are uncircumcised in heart; and in Romans 1, "though they knew God...giving up natural relations for unnatural ones." Those outside the city were those who were trusting in "their flesh" but were sinners due to be DEAD in trespasses and sins.

Also Ed it seems that in Ephesians 2 & 3 we have a fairly clean explanation that the Gentile believers who have been excluded in the past are now brought into this new one. It sounds like they were jumping on board the boat at the last minute to take hold of “salvation” which comes through Israel. They were not in any jeopardy of God’s wrath against the Jews, I suppose since they were not of Israel but they did want a piece of the “salvation” action.

Some of these "gentiles" were in fact Samaritans, i.e., the mixed race of the northern tribes of Israel and the people of Samaria. The woman at the well was just such a person. Those Samaritans thought they had the covenant (sort of like Protestants), while the Jews in Jerusalem thought they had the covenant due to having the Temple (sort of like the Romanists). Jesus states that from his time on, those who would worship the Father would do so in spirit and truth; i.e., not by sight but by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is probably true that some non-Israelite Gentiles were "grafted in" but if you read how often Jesus was preached in the synagogues all throughout the Middle East and Europe, you can see how the Israelites (Joseph) and the Jews (Judah) were being prepared to "be made one" under One Shepherd (that was the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah).

But grafting in non-Israelite Gentiles only goes to show that God's reach went well beyond Israel. Israel was simply God's kingdom of priests, who were to be a priesthood of believers for the rest of humanity. Old Covenant Israel failed. New Israel (Jesus and His Bride) did not.

But yes many do universalize some things which should not be but Christ did turn all of humanity into one and salvation appears to be for the Gentiles as well.

Ephesians is talking about the specific promise of the New Covenant, that the House of Israel (Gentiles due to their mixing with Samaritans) and the House of Judah being joined into One Body under One Head, the Great Shepherd.

Ed you stated. “What we experience now is LIFE, not salvation.” Am I to infer from your statement that we do not inherit “eternal life” through our acceptance of Christ?

The phrase "eternal life" is AIONIOS ZOE. AIONIOS means "pertaining to the age" and ZOE is life. As Israel was dead in her trespasses and sins, so as they put their faith in Christ, so they received LIFE in that old covenant age.

Eternal punishment is AIONIOS KOLASIS. This is punishment (the way a father punishes a child) pertaining to that age - the old covenant age.

We do not, in this New Age, receive "eternal life" but, as was promised, we are made alive due to their being no more DEATH, for Jesus fulfilled the Law and DEATH was destroyed at His coming ("for the LAST enemy to be destroyed is death...").

Now, I ask you. Did Jesus come again in AD70? If He did, did He keep His promise to destroy death. And we know from 1 Cor 15 that DEATH, SIN, and THE LAW were all inseparably linked.

So if the Law was fulfilled and then its structure destroyed; Death was conquered and destroyed; then we can rest in the promise that there would be "an end to sin" as well.

Hades was the place where the DEAD dwelt (that would be the old covenant) and it was thrown into the Lake of Fire (the destruction of Jerusalem).

Jesus has accomplished redemption of His Kingdom, and has reconciled all things to the Father. It is finished. There is no more to be done (although I do argue that the Mountain of the Lord's House - His Kingdom - is growing and will continue to grow for all time). It is our submission to His Rule (a very benevolent rule) that we do now, not salvation or inheriting eternal life, etc.

At least that's my take on it.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Starlight's picture

Ed,

After recieving Barrys latest response I would like to ask you to give me a little more time to review his work before I respond further. I want to honor you and Barry's time by not just throwing something up in a haphazard manner so bear with me as I do so.

Blessings

Norm

Starlight's picture

Ed, and Barry,

I'm enjoying our discussion and I will continue later. Right now I have to go to a wedding and check out the new wine. Or since I'm a teetotaler I'll observe the others checking out the new wine ;-)

I'll be back!

Blessings

Norm

Ed's picture

Hey enjoy my friend.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Barry's picture

Assume,
Enjoy bro.
Barry

we are all in this together

JohnRiffe's picture

Someone else has written, "Preterism is an interpretive system that is locked on the events of 66-70 A.D. It views this as the decisive eschatological event. The Second Coming, Resurrection of the Dead and Great Judgment are seen as having taken place in and around these years."

I agree with this statement. And I would be considered a Preterist for doing so. But I see an inconsistency is its author's system of thought as layed out in other places. Though he admits that the Last Day and its associated events began somewhere around 66-70AD, he continues to confuse the blessing of Eternal Life that was granted BEFORE these events with the Resurrection that was to come AFTER these events. But Jesus made a distinction between the two:

"Whoso eatheth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, hath Eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the Last Day." ~ Jesus, circa AD 28.

Jesus employs the present tense "hath" to describe what His obedient followers ALREADY HAD BEFORE the Last Day, ("Hath Eternal Life").
Jesus employs the future tense "I will" to describe what obedient followers WOULD RECEIVE AT the Last Day, ("I will raise him up").

The Scriptures that speak in past or present tense of what believers already had in Christ are talking about them already having "Eternal Life."
The Scriptures that speak in future tense of what believers would receive at the anticipated Resurrection are talking about "Being Raised Up."
But many Preterists gladly confuse the two: they like to equate John 6:54's "Eternal Life" with John 6:54's "Being Raised Up."
(As mainstream Christianity would put it, "They confuse Justification with Resurrection").

So when someone gladly and consistently and insistently and publically equates
A) all the Scriptures that describe what pre-Parousia Christians ALREADY HAD BEFORE the Last Day, ("Hath Eternal Life"),
with
B) all the Promised blessings that were TO BE GRANTED AT the Last Day, ("I will raise him up"),
he is only attempting to spread his confusion. (Why not just back up and quietly think again?)

IN SUMMARY:

IF we hold to a Preterism defined strictly in this wise: "Preterism is an interpretive system that is locked on the events of 66-70 A.D. It views this as the decisive eschatological event. The Second Coming, Resurrection of the Dead and Great Judgment are seen as having taken place in and around these years," that is, the Last Day occured in or about 66-70 A.D.

AND we agree with Jesus in John 6:54 that those who were regular partakers of the Lord's Supper already had Eternal Life
and were to receive Resurrection at the Last Day,

THEN we should agree that there is no honest way any of those Scriptures describing what Christians already had prior to the Parousia can be employed to describe the Resurrection for which those Christians yearned. Already received pre-Parousia blessings (Eternal Life) are distinct from anticipated post-Parousia blessings (Resurrection). "Eternal Life" and "The Resurrection of the Just" are not the same thing.

Scotty's picture

Hi John,
Thanks for the good questions. The substance of your questions or dilemma for my views relies heavily on the present vs. future tense verbs. I do not see this as a problem, unless it is a consistent, well-used problem. I assume that you are aware of the scholarly world's treatment of the NT's constant usage of the "already but not yet" grammatical tool. And, its not just resurrection and eternal life, it touches almost every major element of God's redemptive order. Grace is a present reality (Rom. 5:2), yet a future imminent hope (1 Pet. 1:5-7). Salvation is a present reality (Eph. 2:8-9), yet an imminent hope (Rom 13:11-12). Adoption, a present reality (Rom. 8:15), yet an imminent hope (8:19-23). The kingdom is a present reality (Col. 1:13), yet it is an immenent hope (Lk. 21:29-32). Viewed from the perspective of God's control of these issues it is entirely approproate to speak of them as a done deal, while at the same time speaking of them as not yet, but imminently to be, finished in light of the linear time line involved in fulfilling every "jot and tittle."

Again, as I commented to John Noe's post above, if you are suggesting the need to see and empahsize the effects of these issues beyond AD 70, or individually, beyond bilogical death, I agree. However, if you are suggesting multiple fulfillment's to these unique redemptive facets, I would not agree. Thanks so much.

Jack

JohnRiffe's picture

Jack,
The question in my post is really an invitation to rethink.

You lean on the scholarly world's usage of the "already, but not yet" approach to New Testament doctrines but come to markedly different conclusions, notably, about the timing and nature of resurrection. I agree that misunderstanding here skews understanding of covenant life.

Perhaps the following will help satisfy your question of my position,

1) "Has Eternal Life" = Resurrection of the Inner Man, the Soul.

2) "Will Raise Up" = Resurrection of the Outer Man, the Body.

"Whoso eatheth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, hath Eternal Life, and I will Raise Him Up at the Last Day." ~ Jesus, around AD 28, (John 6:54)

Jesus emphasizes man's soul and body in other places, as well:
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in Hell." (Matthew 10:28)

A fuller presentation is found at:
"Soul & Body: the 2 Parts of Resurrection"
http://tulsapreterists.org/node/51

JohnRiffe's picture

More briefly:

Those first Christians ALREADY had the resurrection of their souls, ("hath ETERNAL LIFE"),

BUT NOT YET did they have the resurrection of their bodies, not until Jesus' Return around 70AD, ("will RAISE UP at the Last Day").

"Whoso eatheth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the Last Day." ~ Jesus, around AD 28, (John 6:54)

Ed's picture

The BODY that was raised on the last day was the Body of Christ, not individual bodies.

This is posited in scripture with the body of Moses, the old covenant people, who were under the curse of the Law and walked according to the flesh.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

JohnRiffe's picture

And thank you for agreeing that the Resurrection of the Just, ("Being Raised up at the Last Day" circa 70AD), was something distinctly subsequent to being "born again/having eternal life/having spirituo-covenantal STANCE with God."

"Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hat eternal life; and I will raise him up at the Last Day."
~Jesus, around 28AD (John 6:54).

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