The Evangelical Universalist Forum

On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

I do believe Revelation covers a larger part of history and that the Millenial Kingdom and GWT are still future. So yes I do believe the 1st and 2nd white horse are separate events

Yes and how these horses are viewed is connected to ones eschatology. Some believe the white horse is the Papacy, the red horse is Communism, the black horse is Capitalism and the pale green horse is Islam.

“Houston we have a problem”. Your approach in dealing with what I’m postulating is NOT “consistent” BUT convenient. To be sure, my inclusive prêterist position of pantelism is in the paddock next door to universalism, BUT IF you cannot deal with the pantelist rationale for looking through your anti-universalist glasses, which seems apparent, then you will keep reading over my responses without giving due diligent simply skipping merrily ahead to your next question on your list… THAT won’t work qaz.

For example: IF you are a consistent prêterist, i.e., a full prêterist (are you?) THEN you need to answer from the full prêterist rationale the argument I raised from 1Cor 15:26 and not just blindly skip past it as though it isn’t there… it is there and glaringly so! So let me repeat it for you…

You need to deal with this qaz and not just brush it aside as universalism; it’s not universalism it’s preteristic… show some consistency.

To the first part of your question… Jesus’ warning about ‘Gehenna’ would have been understood by his audience (remember the prêterist hermeneutic of ‘audience relevance’) as a reference to death and destruction as typified by Jerusalem’s rubbish-heap off the southwest wall of the City, in the Valley of Hinnom… forever smouldering and endlessly crawling with “worms” (maggots).

As to your 2nd point where you state… “Gehenna was understood among 1st century Jews as a place of post-mortem punishment” I find that extremely questionable and point you HERE:

Again… taking a consistent prêteristic approach AND sticking with the Gk. text and so not just reading right over the text, consider this…

“Traditionally” verses 27-28 have been rendered as given above. Accordingly, this translation is mostly understood to assert a post death individual judgment, but is this what is really being said? – the Pantelistic view does not believe so. Read in the larger context of verses 23-28 the focus of this passage is in accordance with the perpetual sacrificial ministry of the high priests, typifying and in contradistinction to Jesus’ once for all atoning death. The conventional reading does not reflect the true intent of the passage, nor the flavour of Hebrews as a whole i.e., the “better priesthood” or “better sacrifice” etc. Between the words “it is appointed for” and “men to die once” is the Greek definite article “the” and correctly parsed reads “those” (tois – τοις). This word is used again in the very next verse concerning “those who eagerly wait for Him…” – so it should rightly read:

Read in this fashion gives those two little words as and so their proper and essential contextual meaning and application. It was in this foreshadowing ministration of the Old Testament priesthood of those men that the pattern was laid for Israel’s Messiah to come and perform the ultimate sacrifice, of Himself, “to put away sin” by His better and more perfect offering, that now sees all redemptive and prophetic history sealed – for the Great High Priest has returned!

Again, try taking “fulfilment” into consideration when reading this instead of reading yourself back into the text. IF they didn’t remain faithful to the end (AD70) they would duly “perish” i.e., they too would be “drawn back to perdition” that is, ‘destruction’ as per verse 39.

King definitely wrote from a non (I wouldn’t say anti) universalistic approach… AND HE WAS RIGHT. Paul’s “universalism” (for sake of a better word) centred around the “community” of ‘corporate’ Israel – not the individual. Having said that, King speaking of the “all in Adam/Christ motif” argues (rightly IMO) against a nominal universalist understanding, challenging this according to his corporate/community view etc, with which again I agree. Which is WHY qaz I as a pantelist haven’t raised the “all in Adam/Christ motif” universalist-type argument. Like I stated above when it comes to INCLUSION (as distinct from universalism)… “There are of course other texts that feed into this pantelistic rationale.”

SO you conclude that any such individual CANNOT be ‘in God’ as in God being “all in all” (regardless of timeframes) and this basically your OWN judgment as per “works” i.e., having “not done what God wants”. Well consider this: how could you claim to have “Christ within…” and yet in all probability possess in your life any number of errant works/sins/poor behaviour/impure thoughts etc and yet somehow judge others as being less ‘in God’ than yourself? IOW, can you draw THAT boundary, OR has God “in Christ” already done it? I would suggest it is the latter.

None of the Talmud was written before A. D. 200.

As far as I know, the Book of Enoch does not use the word Gehenna. Please give us chapter and verse references to any mention of the word Gehenna in the Book of Enoch.

4 Ezra was written in the late 1st century A. D., or in the 2nd century A. D.

We see that of the three references you gave, two of them were written long after A. D. 30, and one of them does not mention Gehenna. I have never seen any proof at all of the word Gehenna being used before A. D. 30 to refer to post-mortem torments.

Your absolutist reasoning isn’t too consistent and certainly not so helpful to your cause… consider the implications of your logic:

Do YOU sin? If yes, is this not indicative that YOU “who sin are not submitting to God” QED… YOU are an enemy of God! THAT at least IF you are consistent is the outcome of your position. What then does that do for any claim to being “in Christ” – can such be even possible according to your position??

Again qaz, putting it simply… as a prêterist, so assuming you believe Paul’s “the last enemy” was “destroyed” as per Christ’s parousia… HOW is it you say there are yet MORE enemies PAST this death and this event? IOW… can you explain what “the last enemy to be destroyed is death” means to you IF it doesn’t mean the total desolation of that which to that point had separated man from God.

If you are in the US, see if you can obtain a copy, from you local library, inter-library loan program. Or see an equivalent program, in a foreign country.

Holy Fool, Batman! That’s a good idea! :smiley:
Embarrassingly though, I still owe the Jackson County Interlibrary loan system $5 for the last search they did for me. So I’ll have to go there and pay the fine AND get the scolding from the 203 year-old mumblecrust that is in charge of dressings-down. Not a big deal: after my morning affirmations (“I am good, and I am worthwhile, and doggone it, people LIKE me!”) I should be up for it. :laughing:
(for those that might not know, the painting RK attached to his posting above is titled “The Holy Fool”)

I don’t know Dave. I have had the Carol Stream, Illinois library do many searches for me, over the years. They never charged me a fee. It’s looks like yours has found an additional way to capitalize. :laughing:

Qaz… I have some thoughts (a little dated) HERE.


So you like it, do you Davo?

To put it into words:

[size=150]“There is no need for repentance since 70 A.D. since the judgment took place at that time.”[/size]

If I can respectfully reply using davo’s own words:

"Certainly by its very nature much of Scripture is Israel-centric or specific. This however in no way negates its value for believers post Parousia in applying its truths and principles beyond the firstfruits time frame or “age” for this reason: Israel was the redemptive microcosm for what God was outworking redemptively ON BEHALF OF the whole creation – macrocosm. Thus explaining the above…

God predestined-called-elected historic Israel; out of Israel He chose a remnant; through this remnant came the Christ (Messiah); through Christ God called a remnant (the NT firstfruit saints); through this remnant God delivered (saved) all Israel; and in redeemed Israel the whole world obtained the reconciliation.

So then, God’s unilateral covenant with the Gentile Abram that “in you ALL families of the earth would be blessed” Gen 12:3 found fruition in the Seed – Christ, and thus through Christ’s Body – the firstfruit believers, was ministered the redemptive plan and purpose of God for and ON BEHALF OF humanity, ALL humanity. This is how that which had a fixed “this generation” fulfilment, purpose and reality extends through the Parousia embracing all."

Sorry davo, if I stole ur thunder, but by golly, what you said on that other post was so, so, so, true!!

If I may reply using my own words:

Repentance is always necessary, and nothing that happened via the preterist view negated the fact that individuals needed to understand sin and thus repentance was and still is a necessary part of the Christian walk.

All good Chad! :smiley:

So Paidion… what you’re really saying is the ONLY reason you “repent” is due to some expectant a future judgment; NOT because it might simply be the right thing to do. That sounds just as your moniker “paidion” παιδίον might suggest… the reasoning of “a little child”. :unamused:

Switching subjects a bit here is another Scripture relevant to the discussion,

1 Corinthians 15:55, "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?”

There is a textual variant here where many English translations miss the emphasis on Hades. The proper translation is important because it reinforces the hope that the gates of Hades will be defeated as is explicitly shown in Revelation 20:13.

A.E. Knoch tries to use this verse to show that the Lake of Fire will be emptied, because he understood as many Universalists that human beings will be punished in the Lake of Fire. If humans are punished in the LOF, then we need to understand how they will be removed. However, I still think the better model is that the LOF is reserved solely for the damnation of Satan and his fallen angel following, the goats on Jesus’ left.

Unbelieving humans beings, however, are punished in the temporal fires of Hades. 1 Corinthians 15:55 and numerous other Scripture warn of this punishment, but the greater hope that salvation is promised even for those suffering there.

Though I am intrigued The preterist position that Hades has already been emptied, I just cannot follow the arguments from Scripture. There seems to be a joy that salvation is completed at the cross, which it is, but a denial a remaining sin and God’s loving and just response to mankind’s sin. The victory is won, but there are still skirmishes to be fought.

So Jeff… apart from just asserting and attributing said (bogus IMO) claim to prêterism, can you please source some prêterist material/s making such a contention? I think your… “I just cannot follow the arguments” is probably a more accurate reflection.

Here is a quote from yourself…

I understood you to say that the cross was the fulcrum point before which God had enemies, and after which he did not.

My understanding is in total agreement with your point that God is no man’s enemy for his part. He unconditionally loves his people regardless of their belief or unbelief. However, I don’t believe this gracious attitude of God started at AD33, but from before the creation of the world. Thus AD33 did not change God’s loving forgiveness and discipline toward unbelieving mankind. Furthermore, there is just as much sin within an individual human and all humanity now as there was before the cross. The cross did not remove the existence of sin… yet. So the grace of God is leading, guiding, and disciplining sinful man both before and after the cross is similar ways.

However, since the cross we have the undeniable testimony of God’s love for sinful man. The cross occurred in time (though Christ was slain from creation) in God’s courtroom to settle the legal matter of our justification. All mankind has a righteous legal standing before God as if we have never sinned. Yet we still sin. The cross also shows us that God’s plan of redemption is marching toward a destination.

I apologize if I mis-understood your statement above.

My point was that all mankind continues to sin and that God continues to graciously discipline now, just as he did before the cross. Since I am not a preterist I also believe there is a time line mentioned in Scripture still future, leading to the GWT Judgment and the commencement of glory when all sin is finally removed.

Yes ok, so you have misunderstood me as that quote isn’t saying anything like what you were describing.

The cross did not remove the existence of sin… yet.” Correct… “death” however takes care of that on all levels! (Rom 6:7). IF there is yet MORE price to be paid for sin postmortem, which in due course said payment rectifies, THEN what need of Christ’s Cross was there in the first place IF some alleged future rectifying by man settles said problem – you’ve just denuded the point and power of Christ’s Cross! Can you not see that?

What the singular Cross-Parousia event established on-behalf-of humanity WAS the permanent removal of the condition of sin in terms of “guilt” as it stood over and against humanity experienced in terms of separation from God… THAT separation is gone, ALL is reconciled, God is at peace with His creation. When man “wakes up” to this reality he catches up to this reality – hence the validity of the post-parousia gospel.

Again, it is the sin condition that God dealt with in Christ (Jn 1:29) NOT our ability to “miss and or fall short of the mark” i.e., sin – we will all do that till the day we step through death’s doorway into God’s blessedness beyond.

Paul in Romans said… “for by the law is the knowledge of sin” – by this he meant the condition of sin (the noun), not the verb; he deals with that here: “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!” The removal of the “condition” in terms of “guilt” (noun) does not mean one cannot practice wrongdoing. This is why James exhorts the brethren to “confess your sins” (ἁμαρτίας) NOT to God :astonished: BUT “to one another”… thus allowing His healing restoration to flow.

Certainly there is no more price to be paid. Hades still exists to punish the unbelieving wicked dead, but this punishment certainly does not pay any price toward their justification. All are already justified in Christ. If you object to post-mortem punishment then you should also object to pre-mortem punishment.

I do not think that post-mortem punishment denudes the cross of one thing.

Rather Christ for the further ultimate demonstration of his gracious patience with sinful man allows remaining sin and wickedness in his creation even after the glorious display of the cross. It is almost impossible to imagine that Christ would not have removed all sin from creation at the cross. Certainly he removed all condemnation for sin, but he has not yet removed sin. That we are painfully aware of.

However, now the grace of God is further magnified to the highest, even to the amazement of the righteous angels as they witness the patience of God as unbelieving mankind disregards EVEN the crucified and risen Son of God!!! Perhaps one might excuse an unbeliever who never heard of God (yet creation’s witness allows for no excuse there either) but to spurn the crucified and risen Lord??? Imagine the indignation of the righteous angels as they would be willing to destroy sinners today with eternal agonizing pain for our zero and half-hearted efforts to kiss the Son. YET the loving grace of God holds them back and will ALWAYS hold them back till he has accomplished the display of his grace in history and the commencement of glorious sinless eternity begins with the realized salvation of all mankind. His grace is and will be praised to the highest!

So post-mortem punishment remains as long as the display of God’s grace allows for unbelief. It remains as part of his ministry to the unbelieving.