The argument is an endless one, based in a different perception and understanding of certain verses that mean one thing to one person and another thing to another- not to say that they mean different things, No scripture is given to any mans private interpretation, not to say that my interpretation is the correct one.

We attempt to interpret the scriptures* through the scriptures* with the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and those attempts are not thoughtless, imo, by anyone in the conversation.

Inconsistencies are what we hope to transcend- hence, conversation.

I don’t see how Eph 1:10 can be read without Eph 2:7, where Paul states there are ages to come. I think Ephesians 1 and 2 constitue a single integral expression of thought regarding the mystery of the gospel. We may be in the end of this age. The question could be in that case, “Are there further ages or not”.

A legitimate question, not really thoughtless, since Paul says there are ages to come, in Eph 2:7, which we can ignore, but we cannot eliminate- that would be thoughtless and inconsistent in my opinion.

The last adversary is death, and death has been subjected in the finished work of Christ, works finished from the foundation of the world…

But if we apply that too literally then why was the world that was before Noah destroyed? Why was the law instituted and then nullified? Why any of the procession of ages between creation and Christ if the manifestation of the work was not apart of the completion of the “administration suitable to the fulness of times”?

It is the scriptures that say, “But we do not yet see… all things subjected to Him.” it is not a random personal assumption by me regardless of whether or not we see that verse in the same way.

Where we disagree, IMO, is whether there is a scriptural hope stated that is not yet fulfilled…

“For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.”

The hope that Paul is speaking of is the setting free of all creation from futility into the “glorious liberty of the children of God”. It is well begun but there is more yet to hope for, more hope to see fully realized, and the “how and when” of that playing out is the disagreement. Part of that, in the historical view, is the “revelation of the sons of God” at “the resurrection of our bodies.”

Death will be swallowed up in immortality.

I wish more believers saw the completed work of Christ. I agree it was finished from the foundation of the world. This is the appeal, and the grace, of the Preterist view, which offers many wonderful insights into why we can rest assured that all is going according to plan. We just disagree on the details of the plan The full preterist is missing a couple cogs in the wheel of the ages(imo)- and Israel, as it was, was fully destroyed upon the cross- and fully renewed- as it is now, through the resurrection of Christ- not in 70 AD.

The work was finished from the foundation of the world because the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, and through that death resurrection became the fulfillment of the covenant among the children of God, Jew and Gentile. The Gentiles came in immediately, testifying that the old was destroyed and the new begun- in 33 AD.

The scepter was transferred on the day of Pentecost, when the ONE NEW MAN was anointed as the preisthood and the nation, the wall of partition having been razed in Christ. Now, ALL SUCH DIVISIONS are being subsumed through RESURRECTION(Romans 8). We, as believers are the “first-fruits of creation”(James 1:4) because we have received the resurrection(each in his own order).

“As IN ADAM ALL DIED, so also IN CHRIST SHALL ALL BE MADE ALIVE” is the only division left, and that will be destroyed as well as every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of the Father… as all things in heaven and earth are gathered together into one in Christ…until the last enemy is subjected and death is done away- fully swallowed up.

At least we can all agree that this hope will be fulfilled in time, as it has been fulfilled already in heaven through Christ.

“Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Ok… so this helps explain your belief mentioned elsewhere that there is yet more penalty and punishment to be paid for your sin (beyond what Calvary accomplished) postmortem via a ‘lake of fire’. This in my estimation undermines the veracity and completeness of the Cross in that your position suggests YOU/WE do in fact of our own effort and volition eventually secure one’s own exiting of the aforementioned torturous state of this ‘lake of fire’.

A further major problem to this notion is of course there are NO texts of Scripture suggesting such a scenario, i.e., yours is an assumption brought to and read into the text.

QUESTION: Knowing as you do, as in, you claim “He departs” from your life… HOW do you measure and manage the degree of personal “evil” you harbour that causes God to depart from your life.

HISTORY is the record… the only thing you’re missing to see it is an understanding of the prophetic language used in describing the event. Yahweh’s ‘Coming in judgment/s’ recorded in the OT use the same “cloud coming” apocalyptic language… they all “saw” it i.e., THEY experienced it, “even those who pierced him” including the high priest (Isa 19:1; Ezek 30:3; Mt 26:64; Rev 1:7).

I tuned up my eschatology for my about to be published book as a result of the discussion in this post. If anyone is interested that article is online at dgjc.org/optiomism/eschatology-is-the-study-of-future-good-news.

Thanks for any feedback.

That’s a very good presentation, Jeff! I’ll have to study it later, but the layout and visual is right on.

HISTORY is the record… the only thing you’re missing to see it is an understanding of the prophetic language used in describing the event. Yahweh’s ‘Coming in judgment/s’ recorded in the OT use the same “cloud coming” apocalyptic language… they all “saw” it i.e., THEY experienced it, “even those who pierced him” including the high priest (Isa 19:1; Ezek 30:3; Mt 26:64; Rev 1:7).

Paidion is not missing anything as he and I have dialogued with a very enthusiastic Full Preterist on another forum and there is not much we have not heard. Obviously we have different understandings of the scriptures and history relating to 70AD.

That’s all well and good because I don’t speak for all full prêterists being more in particular a pantelist myself. But that said… the OT Scriptures ARE clear as to the nature of God’s “comings” in judgment – why IGNORE these texts that show this and so help inform NT usage? Like it’s fine to disagree, no problem, but how about a bit of argumentation in favour of your view instead of just say so.

No doubt that is true, but again… how is it you refuse to see the likes of the texts mentioned as being an adequate guide to understanding NT usage?

Is God all in all? This depends upon one’s viewpoint. There are many who come from the point that if we do not have love, compassion, etc. etc. , then God is not in us or we are “without God”. However, I can see Davo’s point. For example, we all have physical bodies. We can use our bodies to for good, or we can use our bodies to perform evil acts. This does not take away the fact that we have a physical body. Our physical bodies are subject to certain laws that God has made, just as He has made all bodies subject to His laws, e.g. the earth orbits the sun, etc. etc… If one jumps off a cliff, the body is subject to the law of gravity, thus damage occurs. The same thing goes for our spiritual bodies. We all have one. It is only a matter off whether or not we use them for the true purpose for which they were given or for another purpose. In either case, we are subjected to the laws that govern all bodies.

In light of the present topic… HERE is an excellent article exploring differing views with regards to reading the prophetic (it’s not long). I might add… I agree wholeheartedly with the proposition given by the author, but unlike me he is NOT a pantelist, let alone a full prêterist.

Hi David, good article!

I have to say that I have been watching this exchange, and it is fascinating to me.

LLC said:

He makes a point that seems to come up time and time again. Somehow the notion amongst Christianity is that the second coming will somehow alter all the rules (laws) of physical creation. There is an emotional part of us that does not like pain from falling down, pain from disease, pain from loss etc… And we tend to emotionally take the view that what the preterist says can’t possibly be right because all those things will ultimately still exist.

It is a logic/emotion hurdle many are unwilling to explore. Is it possible that hurricanes and terrorists and disease and famine and drought all may be part of God’s plan to encourage us (mankind) to become overcomers?

Davo said

No one seems to be putting out detailed scriptural arguments refuting Davo’s position(s).

At some point, I personally had to admit to myself (after a bit of study) that the bible was a group of books written to/about a special group of people. It was through Israel that God did His miraculous work for all man kind. I realized Jesus was not my personal savior to be let into my heart, but the great reconciler and propitiation for sin. The sin of the world. And done through Israel, not a personal commitment. It (fulfilled eschatology), IMO is the only way that I myself could harmonize all scripture. I realize that Christ on the cross has done His atoning work.

No, I don’t have all the particulars down like some do, as I have many other Irons in the fire, but I know enough that for me, the full preterist position his hard to refute from a scriptural context.

A debate about Preterism is certainly useful. However, the subject of this forum post concerns the question of whether an Amillennial view of eschatology undermines Universal Reconciliation. I am still looking for more discussion on that point. Please respect the forum post titles or this website will simply become one giant gray swirl of argument.

IF I were a UR amillennialist I would simply point out the errant assumption driving Michael’s conclusions in the wrong direction and simply present the standard UR position of the (apparent) temporal nature of the LoF so many UR folk seem to hold… it’s NOT my position, but I fail to see HOW anyone embracing UR would see the amillennial position as a threat???

I think the threat is that the amill position is (-1) age compared to some other views. So it could threaten with the idea of no forgiveness in “the age to come.” For myself amill doubly threatened my view because I do not think human beings enter the LOF, but only the devil and his angels, so I am (-1) on that age as well. However, davo, since you hold a preterist position you are comfortable with the idea that “this age” is the Jewish age, and “the coming” is the age beyond the cross. That understanding breaks no rules of interpretation and easily answers the difficultly about amill that the author of the post raised. So on that point you and I share a happy agreement and hopefully we gave a good answer to the title of this post

First of all, YOU also brought up FULL PRETERISM in your article. Secondly, I am simply responding to where the thread was going. You don’t have to like it but it is was it is.

Good point. Forgive me, I meant no personal reprimand, but just trying to bring the post back to the title. Though my external article does branch out to an even larger discussion. I would greatly appreciate your careful response to the article if you have time. My email is jeff@dgjc.org. I know there can be a lot of passion on these point, so carry on as the Lord leads.

Signing off for a while as my wife and I head out to celebrate our 25th anniversary

Here are now three articles in my book that have been revised as a result of discussion in this post…

dgjc.org/optimism/revelation-20-10

dgjc.org/optiomism/eschatology-is-the-study-of-future-good-news

dgjc.org/optimism/eschatology-is-the-study-of-future-good-news-part-2-with-grudem-riddlebarger-chilton-summers-ewing

Thanks for the help,

Jeff

What you have expressed is not my belief. I disbelieve that wrongdoing can be “paid for” either by oneself or by anyone else.

To whom do you think Christ “paid” for our sins? God? Does God demand “payment”? Did Christ’s death “satisfy” Him, so that He can let you off the hook scott free? If you thought one of your sons had gone against the rules of the family, and your other (totally innocent) son had volunteered to be punished “in his place” would you feel justice had been served by punishing the innocent son?

Jesus died to provide enabling grace to overcome wrong doing. The reason He died is clear from the following passages:

I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

II Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Heb 9:26 …he has appeared once for all at the end of the age for the abolition of sin by the sacrifice of himself.

I have never expressed belief in “yet more penalty and punishment to be paid for your sin (beyond what Calvary accomplished) postmortem via a ‘lake of fire’.” Look at my signature statement again! I disbelieve that God punishes at all (in the sense of inflicting penalties). I do believe God will give post-mortem correction. Both fire and salt are purifying agents.

Light is fire to darkness. Love is fire to hate. Every hidden thing will be brought to light. Everything brought to light becomes light.

Hi Paidion… thanks for clarifying.

What space (if any) might your position give the lake of fire in your “post-mortem correction”

Fire is a purifying agent. Fire also consumes things. This fire of God may be a symbolic way of describing God’s correction of the unrighteous. God Himself consumes all the evil in a person, and purifies him.

For our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29)

I guess my query is… what is the “scriptural” basis (to show by text) for legitimately transposing said texts, the likes of Mk 9:49; 1Cor 3:13-15; Heb 12:29 etc, beyond the realm in which such were declared (i.e., to the here-and-now) to a “postmortem” reality of which the texts don’t actually suggest or indicate?