 |
|
|
When you have developed your faith to such an extent that you can stand on the promises of God, then you won't need medicine. That's the reason I don't take medicine.
-- Frederick Price, Faith, Foolishness, p. 88
|
|
| |
by Nathan Dubois
The question has been raised with the intent of learning the difference between Full Preterism and Idealism. The Full Preterism being discussed is more directly aimed at the Reformed Full Preterist interpretation. In this stage of Full Preterism, which I have recently come out of, there is the tendency to hold onto Reformed soteriology in the face of Full Preterists who would take the view all the way to Universalism. I was one of those preterists. It was clear to me that Universalism was not correct according to Romans, but it was also abundantly clear that Full Preterism was crumbling from beneath me in the light of Consistent Cessationism.
In order to battle the Universalist logical conclusions of Consistent Cessationist Full Preterism, many Cessationist believers are giving ground to the idea that all Biblical offices, gifts, and patterns still continue in a milder, less structured sort of way. For instance, there are no teachers and preachers, but there are still elders that teach. There is also the debate that the gifts of the Spirit are not applicable because they were in part, but the Spirit still moves people to Christ as He did in the transition period. In fact, the Spirit always moved the elect to God and the truth even before the New testament time frame.
Basically, some of the Idealist understandings I hold to are also being grasped by those Full Preterists who were close to “throwing out the baby with the bath water” because they were consistently following the logical conclusions to Full Preterism. However, rather than give in to Universalism, because Universalism is clearly against scripture, they grabbed back (or just held on tighter to) their Reformed soteriology while maintaining a Full Preterist position, creating a very inconsistent version of Full Preterism and back tracking on many of the leanings they were headed toward when following the Full Preterist logic.
I was in exactly this same boat. There are some basic logical conclusions to Full Preterism that cannot be ignored. Some may try to excuse or wiggle out of the conclusions by going back to their incorrect denominational mindset, but none the less, these conclusions are the only logical answer to many questions in the Full preterist framework. I will address these in this study but first I want to lay down a few rules that show the weakness of Full Preterism.
1. If the same punishment is declared for (2) agencies in scripture, then the SAME RESULT must ensue for both agencies.
2. If something arrived for a “special purpose,” and did not exist in the actions of God on earth prior to that point, then they MUST CEASE when the purpose for their existence is taken away or completed. If they DO NOT cease, they were always in existence, and were only being revealed in a new way during that “special purpose” timeframe, which then consistently allows them to continue afterward.
3. Scripture continues to interpret scripture. Like Matthew parallels Luke concerning the same judgment, so other passages parallel each other when talking of the same event.
4. God’s attributes come into play for everything. God does not change and His character does not change. Just because God acted in time, those actions did not benefit, make different, cause change to, or halt His ways. He is the same today as He was in Genesis.
5. Man and God MUST be viewed differently. Just because man and the nature of humanity follows a pattern, does not mean God follows that same pattern in respect to HIS nature. Until made perfect in Christ, man is always finite, the ways of nature are always finite. God has always been infinite. His ways and His holiness always was. “I AM” is about the most literal description for God I can think of.
6. All attributes of God apply to Christ.
Most of what I wrote above will be easily agreed to by the Reformed Full Preterist. There are maybe a couple they would dispute because they know why I say it and know where I am heading. It doesn’t make the logic any less true. Examples for each rule will be contrasted in this explanation of the (2) views that I am going to discuss (FP vs. PI).
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:
This introduction to what I am going to write is by no means meant to insult or enrage anyone. I have been asked to address the difference between Full Preterism and Preterist Idealism. I am writing from personal experience, 8 years worth, of being an active participant in the Full Preterist circle. I am writing about views I held and tendencies I saw in myself and others. This does not mean I think myself better than others. This does not mean I think I am further evolved or wiser. It simply means I have been granted a different perspective on Preterism. I saw the tendencies and I turned away from them. I could find no consistent, satisfactory, alternative answers to the questions raised against the logical conclusions of Full Preterism.
Further more, the Bible was being viewed as a book that I needed to pick apart and decide what applied and what didn’t apply. What ceased in AD 70 and what did not. With those cessations, what can I continue to do or not do as a member of the Kingdom.
Lastly, I came up with an important conclusion. Any theology that breeds an attempt to define love as anything other than “self sacrifice,” is a VERY WRONG theology. this led to the most inconsistent application of Full Preterism that I have seen yet. It is the biggest factor in my embrace of Idealism over Full Preterism and I will discuss that in length throughout this work I am embarking on.
FULL PRETERISMS ACHILLES HEEL (Part 2)
I had spent all my time in Full Preterism, when defending against Universalism, using the Romans 1-5 passages which declare that it is only "those that are his at His coming" or those "in Christ" who are declared to be saved. I still believe this is absolutely true. Reformed Preterists all agree there is an element of the "all" that refers only to the elect. "All in Christ" or "all His children" is the proper context of the Romans passages. What has not been answered, and cannot be answered with satisfaction is the element of the lake of fire, leading us to the first inconsistency of Full Preterism.
1. If the same punishment is declared for (2) agencies in scripture, then the SAME RESULT must ensue for both agencies.
For these issues I will go right to the source and use some quotes with links for those who have argued the positions being addressed.
Rev 20:10 The Devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 11 Then I saw a great white throne and One seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from His presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life, and the dead were judged according to their works by what was written in the books. 13 Then the sea gave up its dead, and Death and Hades gave up their dead; all were judged according to their works. 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
The Reformed Full Preterist view declares the Devil was a literal angel who was the accuser of the elect and he is now in the lake of fire. Being in the lake of fire, as far as the devil is concerned, means to the FP that he is no longer able to tempt, accuse, perform. He is every bit as irrelevant to us today and unable to affect situations today as the souls of "anyone not found written in the book of life." This would be consistent, and they declare it. Hades also meets the same fate and they are every bit as consistent with Hades, a place they consider a literal spiritual holding for the saints prior to AD 70 which, because thrown into the lake of fire, is no longer used or relevant.
Where the consistency goes right out the window is where death is addressed. For the Devil, Beast, False Prophet, Hades, and more importantly to the non-Universalist FP, the souls of the saved, they are all in eternal torment unable to reach out from beyond the grave to affect mankind today. Evil is explained by the wickedness in mankind.
The laws of logic get tossed right out the window when death, who "were thrown into the lake of fire" is still able to continue to this day, defeated only "in Christ." The FP applies an application of the lake of fire where it DEFEATS death for the saved, but does not DESTROY death or its power ultimately for anyone else. All humankind are affected by death, which suffered the same penalty as the souls, Hades, the Devil, etc, yet its power and its reach is unaffected like the others.
I repeat: The SAME RESULT must ensue for all agencies receiving the same punishment!
Here is an exerpt from Sam Frost concerning death.
"In Greek, it is "the Death" and "the second one, the Death". The First Death came through Adam and is equal to "the condemnation" (Rom 5). So, why would we not think that since the Tree of Life is now manifest in God's People, that the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil ceased? Man has two trees to eat from. Following the pattern, the eternal reality of creation is seen also in the Age to Come new heavens and new earth. You have two Trees. Dismiss the Tree of Life (fail to submit to the King of all the Earth and who is King over all the kingdoms of the world), and is there not to be any condemnation? The new covenant is not a condemnation-less covenant! No universalist can get around the FACT of The Second One, The Death." Dennis says this is "redefinition". In what way he never explains. He just makes the charge and moves on, parading the universalists as the most consistent FP system!...If the death is still around, then so is your condemnation. With the destruction of the Death, the condemnation in Adam was effectively removed. Dennis asks how can this be for the believer, but not for the wicked. This is answered by replacing the First Death with a new heavens and new earth Death, the Second one. Had this not been revealed to us, and had this verdict of God's court been uttered, then universalism can make a case. As such, it cannot. The Second Death prevents universalism from being true. It is like God saying, "the Gospel is going to the world, to being healing to nations and reveal my son, Jesus. But, not every one is going to see my glory. Some will refuse it, and for them, I have decreed a Second Death for those who reject the New Tree of Life." Pretty simple to me..."
This answer is by no means satisfactory for one reason, which Sam Frost himself brings to light. "The First Death came through Adam and is equal to "the condemnation" (Rom 5)...If the death is still around, then so is your condemnation. With the destruction of the Death, the condemnation in Adam was effectively removed." No matter how much explaining away he does about the second death, he gave his own arguments right back to the Universalist. He declares that the first death is the death that brought condemnation under Adam. The Reformed Preterist believes that the sin and condemnation under Adam continue for those who are not saved, and explain the evil that is still in the world, even with an irrelevant suffering Devil who is in the lake!
The "condemnation" from Adam MUST continue for men to be considered guilty today! It was condemnation under the first Adam that condemned men, brought the law, made the need for a redeemer in the first place! To remove this condemnation from the world, as they do the devil and the souls of the dead in the lake of fire, they must declare that men are no longer condemned! Instead, Sam entirely eliminates the sin brought by Adam (leading to the "first death"), and creates a new sin leading to condemnation of the "second death" for those not in Christ. In other words, the problem brought into the world through Adam was NOT conquered by Christ, the wheel was simply reinvented. Not only is Romans 1-5 the undeniable proof that only those "in Christ" are saved, but it is also the biggest part of scripture used to show WHY we need a savior!!! Because under Adam all men are condemned!
Full Preterism has taken a new twist, the entire book to the Romans has become irrelevant in Sam's new law and new death scenario. I will deal with the idea of a "new law" or a "new death" later. The idea that the spiritual came after the natural occurrence is backward but I cannot address that here in this step. Even though both "new" things go against the fabric of Reformed thinking. But the point over all is even if a "new death' or "new law" were NOT created, we have different results from the same judgment.
The issue here is the consistency in the approach. The devil is gone and inactive, irrelevant and being tormented, and so is death. The same punishment for both MUST produce the same results. Do I really need to do a study on Romans to show that the death from Adam is still going on today? Do I need to state anymore that the only way for Full Preterism to answer the devil and death problem is to invent a "new law" that humans break after AD 70, and a "new death" to explain the lake of fire that Universalists get wrong? Reformed Full Preterism must either depart from the Reformed grounding, lead to a Universalist approach, or lead to an Idealist approach.
So what is the Idealist approach that makes the view of this different? Idealism sees the lake of fire as the hyperbole to show the utter defeat of the devil, the grave, the false prophet, the beast, and the souls of those not found in the book., as being defeated only IN CHRIST. The events of AD 70 are the same as those of 4000 B.C. When Abraham was called from Ur, when the Israelites were lead from Egypt, when the Christians fled to Pella, when we die to the “old man” and enter into Christ. The prophecies of Revelation 20 are hyperbole to tell this story.
The devil is not dead or gone, he is utterly defeated by Christ, and those “in Christ” share this victory over him. He is in the “lake of fire” (under His feet!) Death is not gone and reinvented as the “lake of fire.” Death is utterly defeated by Christ, and those “in Christ” share the victory over it, and never die. Those outside of Christ still die. They suffer that utter defeat of a rebellious heart against God, eternally.
Idealism sees that the stories of the Exodus and AD 70 are pointing to a higher spiritual truth. The truth that Christ came to REVEAL in His time on earth.
“John 14:6 Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”
Where Full Preterism fails this truth is to put it in time. Christ is eternal, he did not become the way, the truth or the life because of any act performed in finite time. He is eternal. He was such when he declared He was. We was such from the beginning. The events that occurred become the fulfillment of something that was always true “in Christ.” In doing so, and making the eternal a matter of time, they run into the forced and unavoidable inconsistencies as shown above.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created. 4 In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.
5 That light SHINES in the darkness, yet the darkness did not overcome it.
God Bless
Nate
------
Nathan Dubois is a columnist for PlanetPreterist.com.
View Nathan Dubois archives
Note: Opinions presented on PlanetPreterist.com or by PlanetPreterist.com columnists may not necessarily reflect the position of PlanetPreterist.com, or reflect the beliefs, doctrine or theological position of all other preterists. We encourage all readers to first and foremost carefully analyze all articles in the light of God's Word.
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Hades & Death (Score: 1)
 by Kyle Peterson (peterson.kyle@gmail.com) on Thursday, May 24 @ 18:29:03 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | The laws of logic get tossed right out the window when death, who "were thrown into the lake of fire" is still able to continue to this day, defeated only "in Christ." The FP applies an application of the lake of fire where it DEFEATS death for the saved, but does not DESTROY death or its power ultimately for anyone else.
1) I've heard the term Hades referred to as death, so perhaps the phrase "death and Hades" is simply encompassing the holding tank which existed prior to 70AD.
2) Maybe we need to read Revelation as poetry and consider that death, hades, Satan, the Beast, the antichrist and the condemned were destroyed in a lake of fire but only as they effected God's people? So when you mention death only being destroyed as it relates to the saved, then perhaps hades and satan are simply destroyed/removed from the lives of the saved as well, yet they still hold effect on the unsaved?
I'm not endorsing anything here, just some thoughts. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by TheIdealNate on Friday, May 25 @ 01:23:59 PDT
- by TheIdealNate on Friday, May 25 @ 07:34:40 PDT
- by MichaelB on Friday, May 25 @ 16:13:57 PDT
- by Ransom on Friday, May 25 @ 17:17:11 PDT
Re: Full Preterism vs. Idealism Part 1&2 (Score: 1)
 by Virgil on Thursday, May 24 @ 18:50:41 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | In order to battle the Universalist logical conclusions of Consistent Cessationist Full Preterism, many Cessationist believers are giving ground to the idea that all Biblical offices, gifts, and patterns still continue in a milder, less structured sort of way.
Nate, why is it so absolutely necessary to battle the logical conclusions you are being led to by your studies? You are making it sound like Universalism got you backed into a corner and preterist idealism is something awkward you had to come up with in order to avoid the obvious and logical conclusions of your studies?
How about not taking either side and opening your arms wide enough to welcome both universalism and limited atonement? :) I know I sleep much better at night not worrying about whether universalism is right or wrong. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by KingNeb on Thursday, May 24 @ 21:56:11 PDT
- by TheIdealNate on Friday, May 25 @ 01:29:36 PDT
- by Virgil on Friday, May 25 @ 06:06:37 PDT
- by TheIdealNate on Friday, May 25 @ 07:07:13 PDT
- by vento on Friday, May 25 @ 12:24:19 PDT
- by MichaelB on Friday, May 25 @ 16:02:30 PDT
- by TheIdealNate on Friday, May 25 @ 17:03:31 PDT
- by flannery0 on Friday, May 25 @ 07:10:43 PDT
- by PreteristArchive on Friday, May 25 @ 08:39:28 PDT
- by Ed on Friday, May 25 @ 09:24:32 PDT
- by PreteristArchive on Friday, May 25 @ 13:01:00 PDT
- by MiddleKnowledge on Friday, May 25 @ 13:36:09 PDT
- by MichaelB on Friday, May 25 @ 15:56:13 PDT
- by PeytonLucy on Friday, May 25 @ 05:44:44 PDT
- by Virgil on Friday, May 25 @ 05:48:52 PDT
- by Jer on Friday, May 25 @ 07:20:08 PDT
- by PeytonLucy on Friday, May 25 @ 07:38:08 PDT
Re: Full Preterism vs. Idealism Part 1&2 (Score: 1)
 by Starlight on Friday, May 25 @ 06:07:07 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Nate,
I’m not reformed, nor do I like any kind of labels. I’m just a seeker of Biblical truths.
Why the necessity of developing a new name (Idealist) as I thought Full Preterist were all over the spectrum of understandings. I also assume that Idealist will have folks all over the spectrum of understanding. Some Full Preterist have a screwed up theology; so how do you propose to keep Idealism pure theologically?
I sometimes think we that are into the Full Preterist contemporary movement imagine we have to form some new church so that we may be pure. Why not recognize the limitations of all believers and use Christ redeeming power to live in harmony where God has placed us. Is there a necessity of continuing to divide the camp in the name of a more pure theology?
I don’t have eight years of Full Preterism but only a little over a year but I have come to recognize that I’m not embracing as radical a theology as I first believed. We are just another cog in the wheel of believers and we have a higher calling which is to participate as part of the body of Christ. No need to redefine and create new labels, we have one already and it is Christian.
Now I do not have a problem with your exploration of a consistent understanding of scriptures from Genesis to Revelation, in fact I applaud that effort and see much that I agree with.
Blessings
Norm
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Full Preterism vs. Idealism Part 1&2 (Score: 1)
 by Ed on Friday, May 25 @ 06:39:59 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | I agree with Virgil in his comments above. Why is it we humans feel the need to define, dogmatize, and destroy? I'm as guilty as anyone in doing it, but it would seem that Nate's ideas here (which I am familiar with but have not had time to read the article) are simply his suggestions to how we understand this whole preterist movement in light of the history of Christendom.
I have struggled with this myself, and corresponded with Todd Dennis about Idealism. I see many good things about looking at it with an open mind. However, do we need to label it? Do we need to attack another position or invent a new one to defend against another?
When I corresponded with Todd, he assumed at first that I was rejecting Absolute Grace. When I told him that I wasn't, the discussion ended (sad to say). I'm sure that he was as busy as I was - I don't believe he ended it as some sort of shunning - and we didn't have the time to continue the discussion. But, my reasons for looking further was because I was not satisfied with the "it's all about Israel" thing that FP can potentially lead to. Don't get me wrong, I believe that the whole redemption thing was about Israel, but post-Parousia there is still something there for the rest of the world.
Anyway, I'm getting long winded and I'm at work. I just want to say that, as long as we can try our best to keep it civil, and be objective, I think these discussions are healthy. They help point us in a positive direction.
ed
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by TheIdealNate on Friday, May 25 @ 07:12:15 PDT
- by Ed on Friday, May 25 @ 08:59:19 PDT
- by MichaelB on Friday, May 25 @ 15:57:39 PDT
Re: Liddel vs Rampage? (Score: 1)
by Jhedges on Friday, May 25 @ 10:26:42 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Is Fp represented by Liddel or Rampage? And will the fight Saturday night solve this current dilemma! kidding..
Nate great article just had a question for you,you said,
"Where Full Preterism fails this truth is to put it in time. Christ is eternal, he did not become the way, the truth or the life because of any act performed in finite time. "
My question about the above statement is concerning the cross. The event of the cross happened at a period in history ie approx 33 ad.
There was no way into heaven before 70 ad. The book of Hebrews notes that all of them died without receiving the promise. So does the cross have a "time"effect? Or was it out of time and just a outward show?
Thanks bro.
P.S.
Rampage wins 1st round last minute by K.O. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by MiddleKnowledge on Friday, May 25 @ 10:41:56 PDT
- by flannery0 on Friday, May 25 @ 13:19:24 PDT
- by MiddleKnowledge on Friday, May 25 @ 13:23:22 PDT
- by flannery0 on Friday, May 25 @ 13:40:22 PDT
- by MiddleKnowledge on Friday, May 25 @ 13:42:58 PDT
- by TheIdealNate on Thursday, June 28 @ 00:20:06 PDT
- by tom-g on Thursday, June 28 @ 06:37:56 PDT
- by flannery0 on Friday, May 25 @ 13:56:54 PDT
- by MiddleKnowledge on Friday, May 25 @ 14:35:08 PDT
- by davo on Friday, May 25 @ 19:05:59 PDT
- by TheIdealNate on Friday, May 25 @ 16:56:39 PDT
- by davo on Friday, May 25 @ 19:17:18 PDT
- by PreteristArchive on Friday, May 25 @ 17:51:14 PDT
- by davo on Friday, May 25 @ 19:29:29 PDT
Idealism = Relativism (Score: 1)
by MichaelB on Friday, May 25 @ 12:57:31 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | From Sam:
Mike, he didn't deal with anything. I would be glad to debate this on a private (with select few invited) Yahoo group if he is willing, and if you could set it up. His arguments can easily, easily be dismantled. - Sam
Nate we still haven't heard back are you up for this?
Below are just my quick observations so far. MB.
Nate writes:
Where the consistency goes right out the window is where death is addressed. For the Devil, Beast, False Prophet, Hades, and more importantly to the non-Universalist FP, the souls of the saved, they are all in eternal torment unable to reach out from beyond the grave to affect mankind today. Evil is explained by the wickedness in mankind. The laws of logic get tossed right out the window when death, who "were thrown into the lake of fire" is still able to continue to this day, defeated only "in Christ." The FP applies an application of the lake of fire where it DEFEATS death for the saved, but does not DESTROY death or its power ultimately for anyone else.
A) So I am curious, since Hades was thrown in the lake of fire Nate, yet before AD70 you agree that Hades applied to Christians too - so does Hades still apply to Christians? If not there goes your "consistency". Oh, I know, you think it just means "grave" so shouldn't the grave still have power over all Christians? Is that your position? Are you being "consistent" Nate?
B) The scripture says "the death" was thrown into the lake of fire. The death singular. Separation was thrown into the lake of fire. The gate that blocked all men from God. "Behold I have the keys to death and hades". Jesus opened the gates. Hence there are no gates to the NJ. The gate is gone. That does not make anyone outside the garden (NJ) any less "separated".
C) Exactly what laws of logic got tossed out? Please state the law of logic that was violated. The fallacy that was comitted? I don't see one. I submit that you don't know the rules of logic.
D) Do you - Nate - belong to both ages? You say the devil still affects you.
"So I see Revelation 20 as unfolding over these past few years in me. I have had that time of bondage and temptation by Satan".
So my question is this. Is the devil in the age to come? Todd doesn't seem to think so. Are you in the age to come? Or are you in both ages?
"the Death", "the Sin" & "the Devil" - Externally Defeated For All "in AD70" showing Internal Spiritual Defeat on Behalf of Redeemed
Are you saying that even after the devil was thrown into the lake that even those at AD70 that were alive at the time that were Christians still had to contend with the devil i.e. there was really no defeat at all? Curious?
So you are going to embark on telling us what to believe - yet you say this below in another article...
Nate writes:
Some have asked me what Revelation 20 means, and to this I can only ask them to define it how they will. I personally see it this way. In the love story written about God and me, I have seen myself grow in different areas....That in Him I am no longer enslaved to “ologies” and “isms”... as through these words I flee to it again and leave my “ism” behind. I am a walking example of Revelation 20. The dates I cannot give, the situations I cannot point to exactly...
Curious - isn't Idealism an "ism"?
And if you can only "define it as to what it means to you" and we are welcome to "define it how we will" then why are you forcing this Idealism (your new ism - which you deny having) on others? Isn't the truth subjective in your view? So how do I know what you are saying is going to be true? So why should we listen to you? My truth is as good as yours right?
If we can use any hermeneutic that we want to use on the scriptures are you going to allow me to use that hermeneutic that you use on the bible, on your ar
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by MichaelB on Friday, May 25 @ 16:05:58 PDT
- by TheIdealNate on Friday, May 25 @ 17:18:53 PDT
- by TheIdealNate on Friday, May 25 @ 19:08:40 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, May 27 @ 12:27:42 PDT
- by TheIdealNate on Sunday, May 27 @ 14:21:05 PDT
- by KingNeb on Sunday, May 27 @ 12:18:45 PDT
- by MichaelB on Sunday, May 27 @ 12:43:33 PDT
- by TheIdealNate on Thursday, June 28 @ 00:17:47 PDT
Re: Full Preterism vs. Idealism Part 1&2 (Score: 1)
 by davo on Saturday, May 26 @ 11:58:56 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) |
I had spent all my time in Full Preterism, when defending against Universalism, using the Romans 1-5 passages which declare that it is only "those that are his at His coming" or those "in Christ" who are declared to be saved. I still believe this is absolutely true. Reformed Preterists all agree there is an element of the "all" that refers only to the elect. "All in Christ" or "all His children" is the proper context of the Romans passages. What has not been answered, and cannot be answered with satisfaction is… Hi Nate… what I likewise think has NOT been fully or properly answered by you good folk who object to the more inclusive position is a fresh understanding of what "being saved" actually means – as in coming into the service of God, as opposed to the assumption that "being saved" means getting to heaven when you die – and thus the qualifying/disqualifying criteria that being or not being "in Christ" is said to mean and be. IOW, there is an evangelical traditionalism that has wrongly high-jacked these terms of "in Christ" and "saved". Pantelism for example has addressed some of these points; but apart from blatant dismissal through irrelevant appeals to "universalism" most preterist folk have just not provided a reasonable refuting rationale – at least not so far, and PI is a case in point, again, IMO.
Sam entirely eliminates the sin brought by Adam (leading to the "first death"), and creates a new sin leading to condemnation of the "second death" for those not in Christ. In other words, the problem brought into the world through Adam was NOT conquered by Christ, the wheel was simply reinvented. … Full Preterism has taken a new twist, the entire book to the Romans has become irrelevant in Sam's new law and new death scenario. Certainly I think there is some truth in what you point out here, but your own rolling [endless] lake of fire is equally inconsistent, prêteristically speaking.
Where Full Preterism fails this truth is to put it in time. Christ is eternal, he did not become the way, the truth or the life because of any act performed in finite time. He is eternal. Nate HOW on earth can you be saying this??? One does NOT negate the other but rather confirms it. There was a lonely little Jew [Mt 27:46] in the backside of the Roman empire [Palestine] who died abandoned [Mt 26:31] on a criminal's cross, YET this one historical event IN TIME secured for time immemorial the covenantal restoration of man – something infinite that changed the finite – this was no failure of truth.
There was a man who stuffed things up for mankind "globally" – and did so "covenantally" – humanity was covenantally DEAD in the first Adam. There was a man who stitched things up for mankind "globally" – and did so "covenantally" – humanity was covenantally MADE ALIVE in the LAST Adam. This WAS global YET nonetheless covenantal; not either/or but BOTH [Tim :)].
IF the original death be "the death" that came to ALL men [Rom 3:23] through the first Adam [1Cor 15:22a] – and that death was "the death" that was destroyed through Israel's AD70 lake of fire; along with its powerful appendages of the sin and the law and the devil [1Cor 5:56; Rev 20:10]; THEN "the death" that Adam's sin passed onto ALL men IS GONE, i.e., redemption has been realised and reconciliation established through the sacrifice of the last Adam [Heb 9:26; 1Cor 15:22b] – like how do prêterist folk NOT see this consistency?
davo
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by TheIdealNate on Saturday, May 26 @ 18:45:46 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, May 27 @ 10:46:39 PDT
- by Fredrico on Saturday, May 26 @ 20:42:01 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, May 27 @ 10:47:31 PDT
Condemnation removed (Score: 1)
by Barry on Sunday, May 27 @ 08:26:32 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | (Having read just about everything here)
The obvious problem still exists with most of the views presented here.
Unless there is a complete and utter removal of condemnation then there was no completed salvation and no fulfilled redemption for the saved in AD 70.
The conclusion which should be drawn for the above comments (most) is that completed salvation a postmortem experience.
The salvation for the here and now that occurred in the first-fruits in AD 70 was then only a token of what they would permanently receive upon death.
The hold fast firm until the end (of the age) to enter that prophesied rest was only a token rest until they died if they held fast firm once again until mortem.
As long as they could once again break covenant prior to mortem then their salvation and their redemption was never fulfilled while alive.
So then the salvation promised them "at the revelation of Jesus Christ" was a broken promise. Or at best only a token application until mortem.
So then we would have to conclude that it did not really come at the revelation of Jesus Christ but only when they died.
Unless you have a fulfilled covenant in Christ and an age changing condition applicable down to the human level then you do not have the "historical" salvation and historical fulfilled redemption that the scriptures plainly speak of time and time again.
Sin was brought into the world through one man.
Now you must determine what "world" that was.
If not a global world then there was no condemnation in Adam for the Gentle world and so then redemption applied only a specific ethnicity with a specific territory.
The "sin" that spread to all men as all men sinned is a spreading through the one act of disobedience and not of its own individual authority.
IMHO what is being missed is the "historical" implication of Revelation.
Revelation speaks of both historical permanency and historical ongoing efficacy.
The in and out that exists with Revelation is one that is clearly speaking of the then covenantal implication that were still being resolved. The “outside” was still within a covenantal determination related to the still valid old covenant. The liar that was still then outside was promoting the same lie as we see in the early chapters.
Once fulfillment occurred then the “going out” is rendered impossible (Rev. 4:12) within the historical ongoing efficacy.
Blessings Barry |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by davo on Sunday, May 27 @ 10:44:12 PDT
- by Barry on Sunday, May 27 @ 15:18:50 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, May 27 @ 20:23:59 PDT
- by Fredrico on Sunday, May 27 @ 20:38:46 PDT
- by Barry on Sunday, May 27 @ 21:06:50 PDT
- by davo on Sunday, May 27 @ 23:36:55 PDT
| 
|
