On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby maintenanceman » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:45 am

davo said

"Spiritual maturity into the grace of God is not marked by who you exclude, or the groups you exclude, or the life styles you exclude. The mark of spiritual maturity into the grace of God is marked by the circle that gets wider and wider, embracing more and more in understanding, that in no matter what a man does he cannot escape the incredible mercy of God."

That statement is so true... Thanks for sharing!
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1514
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby qaz » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:37 pm

davo wrote:You’re not taking into account context… “pleasing God” was relative to their service as faithful believing servants; something fleshly Israel failed to do.


Duly noted, and I’ll raise you one… Isa 43:19Behold, I will do a new thing, now it shall spring forth; shall you not know it?” God did a new thing in Christ… He abolished “the sin” that separated Him from his creation. All religianity seeks to do is rebuild that which is destroyed… and to no good end!

WELL YES exactly… and again He did something about it! You see, this is the schizophrenia of evangelicalism… it says it believes one thing and then practices the exact opposite.

Spiritual maturity into the grace of God is not marked by who you exclude, or the groups you exclude, or the life styles you exclude. The mark of spiritual maturity into the grace of God is marked by the circle that gets wider and wider, embracing more and more in understanding, that in no matter what a man does he cannot escape the incredible mercy of God.

It is little wonder that folk grow up struggling with any inner faith when we in our religiosity have learnt go around saying things like: “God loves you!” – to which a respondent might ask… “How much does he love me?” – “Unconditionally!” we will say… “He has grace for your life!” “What kind of grace?” they will query – “Undeserved and unmerited favour, it's all yours!” “Well I'm not so sure I can believe all this” is their response – and what is our religious rejoinder… “then you'll burn in Hell forever!” Talk about a toxic and schizophrenic message. The power and mercy of God's grace is NOT limited to man's ability to comprehend it, or the lack thereof!

I have a sneaking suspicion there hasn’t been a person born who has then come to stand in His Presence that hasn’t then duly “repented”.


What do you think of Jesus warning people about the dangers of going to Gehenna? Like I said in my last post, Gehenna was understood among 1st century Jews as a place of post-mortem punishment.

How do you explain Hebrews 9:27?

Hebrews 9
27Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment, 28so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him.

...and Hebrews 10?

Hebrews 10
26 If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins 27but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.

There is of course my website… pantelism.com ;) and of course on prêterism DKP is always a good read. But for the pièce de résistance on ‘covenant eschatology’ (aka prêterism) go to Max King’s opus magnum… ‘The Cross and the Parousia of Christ’ –– it is wordy and a hard slog but more than worth it.

I’m an ‘inclusionist’ as opposed to a ‘universalist’ as in I reject the typical universalist rationales around “hell” and “the lake of fire” which for the most part are no different in essence than that held by infernalists; the only real difference between the two is the amount of torturous time said to be spent therein. I also don’t buy into the philosophical type arguments lots of universalists’ often favour… I find them weak and unconvincing. IOW, I came to inclusion via biblical eschatology NOT philosophy.

Becoming an inclusive prêterist (a pantelist) was as natural as moving from partial to full prêterism, that is, it was IMO the most natural and logical progression to take when taking prêterism to it most obvious logical conclusion, that is, I found prêterism to be inherently inclusive and as such the pantelism extrapolated to be more exegetically and “prêteristically consistent”.

Example… prêterism maintains that “the last enemy to be destroyed is death” – I agree! (BTW… this “death” was the death of Adam i.e., relational [spiritual] separation from God; that which Jesus rectified). LOGIC however dictates that IF this is so then by obvious extension GOD HAS NO MORE ENEMIES because there can be nothing more AFTER “the last” has been dealt with – that’s pretty simple AND pretty INCLUSIVE. There are of course other texts that feed into this pantelistic rationale.

I encountered a lot of heat and opposition from both Arminian (DKP) and Calvinist (Frost) prêterists… but the best they could do at the time (early to mid-2000s) was rail against my conclusions with pejorative name-slinging like “universalist!” But apart from disagree they couldn’t (can’t) refute said conclusions.


I hope you don't mind, but for consistency sake, I'm going to continue using one term -- "universalists"/"universalism" -- to describe people who believe that everyone will be saved and their soteriology.

Now, with that out of the way...

I read The Cross and the Parousia of Christ a couple years ago. In terms of soteriology, what I took away from the book is that if King is right regarding eschatology, then universalism is probably false.

King:
The problem in Paul's "all men motif concerning death in Adam and life in Christ" is due largely to one's failure to read Paul within the framework of problems and issues that were peculiar to his time in connection with his mission to the Gentiles. In his own words he was an apostle to the Gentiles, but more than this he was keenly aware of the ultimate design of his Gentile ministry in bringing about the salvation of all Israel (Rom 9-11). Only when the complexity and centrality of the Jew-Gentile relationship are recognized in the Pauline writings is it possible to capture the original thought and intention of Paul, and to identify the source and the nature of the problems that he addresses. This is the case concerning his frequent usage of "all" or "all men," which is found most often in passages where Paul is dealing with problems between Jews and Gentiles on a community level rather than an individual level. This is apparent, for example, in Romans 3, where the all who are under sin (v.9), or the all who have sinned and come short of the glory of God is a reference not (v.23) is a reference not to individuals per se, but to the broader category of Jews and Gentiles. Likewise, in his Galatian letter, the Jew-Gentile community category is the focus of Paul's contention that "the scripture hath concluded all" (Jew and Gentile alike) "the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (3:26). There is a balanced parallelism in Paul's usage of "all" in the above passages. But he is not teaching universal salvation from the viewpoint of all individuals.

We have had occasion to observe that in affirming that "all Israel" would be saved, following the coming in of the fullness of the Gentiles (Rom 11), Paul was not referring to every individual Jew from Moses to Christ, but to Israel as a community -- the covenant people of God. There is room in this community or corporate concept for individual accountability and judgment.

The same applies to the coming in of the fullness of the Gentiles. The term "fullness" does not require the inclusion of every Gentile. Neither was the prophecy that a root of Jesse "shall rise to reign over the Gentiles," and that "in him shall the Gentiles trust" (Rom 15:12), spoken in terms of every individual Gentile, for it is clear that every Gentile has not trusted in Christ. But who would deny that this prophecy has not been fulfilled from the viewpoint of its application to the Gentiles as a people or community, who were in times past alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel?

Perhaps the clearest passage illustrating our case is Rom 11:30-32, where Paul concludes his argument for Israel's futuristic salvation in saying to the Gentiles, "For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." If we can see in this text that Paul, in his reference to "all," is not thinking in terms of the fate of individual persons (which would amount to unconditional universalism) but in terms of all communities composing mankind (which means mercy for persons of all communities, Jews and Gentiles indiscriminately, why should it be so difficult to see this community perspective as the fundamental thrust of Paul's "all men" motif in the Corinthian controversy?

The reason that it is not seen, as we have suggested already, is that we are accustomed to reading Paul in 1 Cor 15 as though he were dealing with the problem of the denial of the resurrection of individuals from biological death. Hence, on the basis of this assumption, numerous exegetical problems are encountered at various points along Paul's line of argumentation.

In view of the above assumption, verse 22 is particularly difficult. "All made alive in Christ" must be interpreted as being exclusive of "soteriological life" in order not to embrace universalism. All should know, however, that soteriological life is the subject of "life in Christ" in 1 Cor 15. Are we left dangling, then, between accepting universalism or rejecting soteriological life as the subject of "life in Christ?"

It is apparent, in our opinion, that the understanding of death in v.12 as referring to sin-death and the dead as referring to historical Israel, blends into Paul's "all men" motif in verses 20-22 in the same fashion that we have just observed in other texts where the Jew-Gentile relationship is the focus of Paul's "all men" motif.

From this viewpoint, the main thrust of Paul's argument in 1 Cor 15:20-22 (as in Romans 3:9-23; 5:12-21; 11:30-32; Gal 3:23-29) is that, "For as in Adam all die" (meaning sin-death for Jews and Gentiles alike for all have sinned, Rom 3:9; 11:32; Gal 3:22), "even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (meaning soteriological life for Jews and Gentiles alike, for in Christ there is "no difference" in receiving life, Rom 3:29, 10:12, Gal 3:26-29, even as in Adam there is "no difference" in falling under sin-death). In this framework for Paul's "all men" motif there is room for the judgment of God to be operative on the individual level (some saved, some lost) without rejecting or disturbing the balanced parallelism within verses 21 and 22, which is operative on the broader base of communities rather than individuals. Therefore, in relation to verses 21 and 22, Paul's aim was not to establish resurrection to soteriological life for this person or that person but for all classes or groups of persons. Nor were those at Corinth who denied the resurrection of the dead interested in excluding this person or that person from soteriological life. Rather, they were claiming that all who belong to a certain community were excluded from soteriological life precisely by reason of belonging to that community.


The whole reason universalists are able to use verses like 1 Cor 15:22-28 and Philippians 2:9-11 to support their soteriology is because these verses suggest there will be a time when everyone, every individual, will do what God wants. But since AD 70 every individual clearly has not done what God wants.
qaz
 
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby jeff@dgjc.org » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:01 pm

King again quoted
Perhaps the clearest passage illustrating our case is Rom 11:30-32, where Paul concludes his argument for Israel's futuristic salvation in saying to the Gentiles, "For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all." If we can see in this text that Paul, in his reference to "all," is not thinking in terms of the fate of individual persons (which would amount to unconditional universalism)....

I believe that Romans 11:32 is the grand conclusion of grace theology in Paul magnum opus and is without a doubt teaching unconditional universalism for each individual. This verse is the center piece of my new book at http://www.dgjc.org/optimism and is fully exegeted here http://www.dgjc.org/optimism/romans-11-32-36.

Now I plan to buy King's book, but I can tell we see the main point quite differently! :(
User avatar
jeff@dgjc.org
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:18 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby steve7150 » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:51 pm

One question I am researching along these lines is whether the White horse in Revelation 6 is the same event as the White horse in Revelation 19. One could try to understand Revelation as a prophesy of events and judgments, concerning Jerusalem or otherwise, beginning with the White horse in Revelation 6. John then returns to the same white horse in Revelation 19 to communicate that these events he just described in the body of the book are now beginning. This literary device would be called a framing-effect. I've tried to understand it that way, but after some effort it seems too cumbersome.




Have you ever considered the possibility of an Historicist approach with different beasts at different times? For example perhaps Nero was the first beast, the RCC the second, Islam as the third?
steve7150
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby jeff@dgjc.org » Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:42 pm

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. However, I have little to share about what they may be in detail. I am not sure. More important to me is that regarding the 1st Beast out of Thalassa, the sea, and the 2nd Beast out of the Earth, I think the first Beast is a fallen angel whereas the 2nd Beast is a human being. You would have to read my ebook and especially the appendix to follow my arguments.

I take a slightly different angle than many universalists, in that my understanding of the judgments assigned to fallen angels helps to properly understand passages like Matthew 25 and Revelation 20. If you cannot read my whole book, you might find this article interesting, http://www.dgjc.org/optimism/fallen-angels-at-the-great-white-throne-judgment.
User avatar
jeff@dgjc.org
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:18 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby Geoffrey » Thu Dec 03, 2015 9:22 pm

qaz wrote:By the time of Jesus' ministry, Gehenna was understood to be a place of post-mortem punishment, not the literal valley south of Jerusalem.


Please provide a quote from a text written no later than A. D. 30 that presents Gehenna as a place of post-mortem punishment. The earliest I have ever seen the Greek word "gehenna" used for post-mortem punishments was possibly by Justin Martyr in the second half of the 2nd century, and definitely by Clement of Alexandria (who was a universalist) in the late 2nd century.

I would like to emphasize in the kindest way possible that I am not interested in a quote from a modern writer asserting what Jesus's contemporaries supposedly believed about Gehenna. I am interested only in texts unambiguously written no later than A. D. 30. (To be fair, I must admit that I have been asking for this for years, and no one has ever been able to provide me with such a text.)
Nicean Universalism
http://niceanuniversalism.freeforums.net/
a new message board discussing Christian universalism
Geoffrey
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby steve7150 » Fri Dec 04, 2015 4:13 am

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.
steve7150
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:05 am

qaz wrote:I hope you don't mind, but for consistency sake, I'm going to continue using one term -- "universalists"/"universalism" -- to describe people who believe that everyone will be saved and their soteriology.

“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…
Example… prêterism maintains that “the last enemy to be destroyed is death” – I agree! … LOGIC however dictates that IF this is so then by obvious extension GOD HAS NO MORE ENEMIES because there can be nothing more AFTER “the last” has been dealt with – that’s pretty simple AND pretty INCLUSIVE. There are of course other texts that feed into this pantelistic rationale.

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.

qaz wrote:What do you think of Jesus warning people about the dangers of going to Gehenna? Like I said in my last post, Gehenna was understood among 1st century Jews as a place of post-mortem punishment.

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:
I would argue, therefore, that when Jesus speaks of unrighteous Jews being thrown into the “Gehenna of fire”, what he has in mind is not eternal punishment in a post mortem “hell”, as traditionally understood, but judgment on Israel in the manner presupposed by Isaiah and Jeremiah and described by the historian Josephus. Whether the city’s rubbish was burnt in the Valley of Hinnom is not greatly significant: the allusion is literary, not topographical.


qaz wrote:How do you explain Hebrews 9:27?

Hebrews 9
27Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment, 28so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him.

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 articlethe” 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:
Heb 9:27-28 And as it is appointed for those men (the high priests) to die once (ceremonially), but after this the judgment (acceptance-acquittal), so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those (pre-parousia saints) who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

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!

qaz wrote:...and Hebrews 10?

Hebrews 10
26 If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins 27but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.

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.

qaz wrote:I read The Cross and the Parousia of Christ a couple years ago. In terms of soteriology, what I took away from the book is that if King is right regarding eschatology, then universalism is probably false.

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.”

qaz wrote:The whole reason universalists are able to use verses like 1 Cor 15:22-28 and Philippians 2:9-11 to support their soteriology is because these verses suggest there will be a time when everyone, every individual, will do what God wants. But since AD 70 every individual clearly has not done what God wants.

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.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby qaz » Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:48 pm

davo wrote:“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…
Example… prêterism maintains that “the last enemy to be destroyed is death” – I agree! … LOGIC however dictates that IF this is so then by obvious extension GOD HAS NO MORE ENEMIES because there can be nothing more AFTER “the last” has been dealt with – that’s pretty simple AND pretty INCLUSIVE. There are of course other texts that feed into this pantelistic rationale.

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.


Sure, I'll deal with it.

If
    all scripture has been fulfilled, which includes prophesy that will everyone will submit to God, and God will have no more enemies
and
    people who sin are not submitting to God; they are enemies of God
and
    there are still people who sin
then we can conclude
    the prophesies about God being all in all, and every knee bowing and every tongue confessing do not refer to every individual

The verses are not meant to be taken literally. If they were, there would be no sinners post-AD70.

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:
I would argue, therefore, that when Jesus speaks of unrighteous Jews being thrown into the “Gehenna of fire”, what he has in mind is not eternal punishment in a post mortem “hell”, as traditionally understood, but judgment on Israel in the manner presupposed by Isaiah and Jeremiah and described by the historian Josephus. Whether the city’s rubbish was burnt in the Valley of Hinnom is not greatly significant: the allusion is literary, not topographical.


Matthew 10:28
And 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 Gehenna.

How does that statement make sense if Gehenna is not a place of post-mortem punishment?

The Talmud clearly describes Gehenna as a place of post-portem punishment. The "godfather" of the Talmud is Hillel, who died before Christ's ministry. Also, there is the Book of Enoch (although I recently read through some -- not all -- of the Gehenna verses in Enoch and it sounds like Enoch's author could have been describing a place on Earth). 4 Ezra mentions Gehenna too (though I haven't read it, so I can't yet say if the Gehenna verses are about post-portem punishment).

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 articlethe” 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:
Heb 9:27-28 And as it is appointed for those men (the high priests) to die once (ceremonially), but after this the judgment (acceptance-acquittal), so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those (pre-parousia saints) who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

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!


If what you're saying is true, that's very interesting and could have big implications. I have always considered Hebrews 9:27 to be about every individual, so reading your case that it's about specific individuals has left me kind of stunned. Your argument hinges on the idea that the people/humans/men mentioned in Hebrews 9:27 are the chief priests mentioned in Hebrews 9:25. Gramatically, you have have a decent case. But what would the Hebraist's point be in saying the chief priests die once? You put "ceremonially" in parentheses after "die once". Is it related to that? I understand what you think the verse means gramatically, now I'm wondering what you think the verse means didactically.

qaz wrote: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.”


What are some of those texts?

qaz wrote: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.


What are your thoughts on 1 John 5:18 (and the preceding verses about sin unto death)?
qaz
 
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby Geoffrey » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:34 pm

qaz wrote:The Talmud clearly describes Gehenna as a place of post-portem punishment. The "godfather" of the Talmud is Hillel, who died before Christ's ministry.


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

qaz wrote:Also, there is the Book of Enoch (although I recently read through some -- not all -- of the Gehenna verses in Enoch and it sounds like Enoch's author could have been describing a place on Earth).


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.

qaz wrote:4 Ezra mentions Gehenna too (though I haven't read it, so I can't yet say if the Gehenna verses are about post-portem punishment).


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.
Nicean Universalism
http://niceanuniversalism.freeforums.net/
a new message board discussing Christian universalism
Geoffrey
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Sat Dec 05, 2015 3:26 am

qaz wrote:…and
    people who sin are not submitting to God; they are enemies of God

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.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sat Dec 05, 2015 5:46 am

DaveB wrote:That $28 price tag on King's book has discouraged me, but I'd like to read (study) it so will look around for a used copy.

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.

Image
Eastern Anglo-Catholic / Holy Fool; Inclusivism / Purgatorial Conditionalism / Nicene Creed / ACNA; Theosis; Zombie Apocalypse;
Contemplation (Mindfulness, Fox Golden Key, Yoga); Healing (Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Kampo, Bruno Gröning, Johrei, Charismatic, Čhaŋnúŋpa);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby DaveB » Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:03 am

Holy Fool, Batman! That's a good idea! :D
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. :lol:
(for those that might not know, the painting RK attached to his posting above is titled "The Holy Fool")
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.
User avatar
DaveB
 
Posts: 4426
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:33 am

DaveB wrote:Holy Fool, Batman! That's a good idea! :D
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. :lol:
(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. :lol:

Image
Eastern Anglo-Catholic / Holy Fool; Inclusivism / Purgatorial Conditionalism / Nicene Creed / ACNA; Theosis; Zombie Apocalypse;
Contemplation (Mindfulness, Fox Golden Key, Yoga); Healing (Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Kampo, Bruno Gröning, Johrei, Charismatic, Čhaŋnúŋpa);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby qaz » Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:56 am

davo wrote: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.


I hope you go back and address everything else I said in my last post. You may feel like you're hitting your head against a wall, but I truly feel like this conversation has been enlightening for me. It, at the very least, has caused me to re-evauate my beliefs.
qaz
 
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:10 am

qaz wrote:You may feel like you're hitting your head against a wall,


Eastern Anglo-Catholic / Holy Fool; Inclusivism / Purgatorial Conditionalism / Nicene Creed / ACNA; Theosis; Zombie Apocalypse;
Contemplation (Mindfulness, Fox Golden Key, Yoga); Healing (Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Kampo, Bruno Gröning, Johrei, Charismatic, Čhaŋnúŋpa);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby qaz » Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:42 pm

One more question for Davo...

Revelation 22
14Blessed are they who wash their robes so as to have the right to the tree of life and enter the city through its gates. 15Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the unchaste, the murderers, the idol-worshipers, and all who love and practice deceit.

Thoughts?
qaz
 
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Tue Dec 08, 2015 9:49 pm

Qaz… I have some thoughts (a little dated) HERE.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby Paidion » Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:55 pm

Image
Image
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 81st year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:04 pm

Image
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby Paidion » Fri Dec 11, 2015 6:06 pm

So you like it, do you Davo?

To put it into words:

"There is no need for repentance since 70 A.D. since the judgment took place at that time."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 81st year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby maintenanceman » Fri Dec 11, 2015 6:45 pm

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!!
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1514
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby maintenanceman » Fri Dec 11, 2015 6:58 pm

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.
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1514
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:44 pm

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

All good Chad! :D

Paidion wrote:So you like it, do you Davo?

To put it into words:

"There is no need for repentance since 70 A.D. since the judgment took place at that time."

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”. :roll:
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby jeff@dgjc.org » Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:09 am

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.
User avatar
jeff@dgjc.org
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:18 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:08 am

jeff@dgjc.org wrote:…but a denial a remaining sin and God's loving and just response to mankind's sin.

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.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby jeff@dgjc.org » Tue Dec 15, 2015 4:04 pm

Here is a quote from yourself...
As I understand it from an “inclusive prêterist” perspective, aka pantelism… I would say the exact opposite to be true. In fact it was 1Cor 15 that that led me as a full prêterist to see the all-inclusive nature of God’s grace – TO ALL. I’m not making a case for “universalism” per se but rather “inclusion” – similar but with significant differences that foster different conclusions and assumptions that to my mind negate and quash a lot of unnecessary and manufactured doctrinal contradictions.

IF as Pantelism contends – in the AD70 Parousia of Christ the LAST enemy to be destroyed was “the death” (1Cor 15:26); and IF along with “the death” its paralysing venom of “the sin” duly empowered by the “the law” all suffered demise (1Cor 15:56); and further… IF God having reconciled all things in heaven and on earth to Himself through the blood of Christ’s cross (Col 1:20); THEN regardless of what you or I or anybody else thinks or reasons – God has no more enemies.

Now even if in the ignorance or arrogance of some men’s feeble minds they consider themselves enemies of God, from HIS perspective they are not (Col 1:21), period. The logic is clear-cut – IF from the pantelist perspective “the last enemy” to be destroyed was “the death” aka *spiritual separation* (that which the first Adam wrought was that which the last Adam rectified), then a consistent prêterism must dictate that there can be NO MORE ENEMIES thereafter; therefore God has no more enemies, period! And thus… IF God has made peace, and the Scriptures testify He has, THEN who are we to question His gracious will?

Needless to say I became the bane of existence in prêt circles being duly labelled “a dirty universalist!!” – lol.


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.
User avatar
jeff@dgjc.org
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:18 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:57 pm

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

jeff@dgjc.org wrote: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.

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 :o BUT “to one another”… thus allowing His healing restoration to flow.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby jeff@dgjc.org » Tue Dec 15, 2015 7:59 pm

IF there is yet MORE price to be paid for sin postmortem... THEN what need of Christ’s Cross was there in the first place.

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.

you’ve just denuded the point and power of Christ’s Cross! Can you not see that?

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.
User avatar
jeff@dgjc.org
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:18 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:56 pm

jeff@dgjc.org wrote:
IF there is yet MORE price to be paid for sin postmortem... THEN what need of Christ’s Cross was there in the first place.

Certainly there is no more price to be paid. Hades still exists to punish…

With all due respect Jeff this is shaky semantic equivocation at best. So let me rephrase…

IF there is yet MORE punishment to be paid for sin postmortem... THEN what need of Christ’s Cross was there in the first place :!:

And then there’s this from Paul…
Rom 6:7 For he who has died has been freed from sin.

Plain and simple! Now again any attempt to deflect away from this by claiming this ONLY applies to those “in Christ” THEN I’d simply challenge the consistency of your Universalist by asking… do you believe humanity is “in Christ”? QED… “death” is the end of sin and thus by logical extension any associated punishment.

jeff@dgjc.org wrote:If you object to post-mortem punishment then you should also object to pre-mortem punishment.

WHY :?: You cannot just presume that and then provide no rational reason nor argument for saying such.

jeff@dgjc.org wrote:…and the commencement of glorious sinless eternity begins with the realized salvation of all mankind.

This is the problem with “universalism”… you have an INCOMPLETE salvation, always waiting, waiting, waiting for salvation to be “realized” as though Jesus never really quite got it finished. :roll: NO!! It is finished!!

jeff@dgjc.org wrote: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.

It remains as part of his ministry to the unbelieving.” You are just making this stuff up. :shock: What texts of scripture say this :?:
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby jeff@dgjc.org » Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:23 am

do you believe humanity is “in Christ”?

Yes I do. In fact I believe humanity has always been in Christ since day 1. The perfect holiness of God the Father can withstand no sin. And so all of creation itself since the fall is hidden in Christ for the Godhead to demonstrate their amazing grace. I've written more about that here http://www.dgjc.org/dgjc/in-doctrine. Of course that does not make unbelievers Christians. Christians are those who believe and trust that their sins are hidden in Christ. Non-Christians are in the most pitied condition, fully forgiven and protected by Christ, but not believing the good news.

WHY :?: You cannot just presume that and then provide no rational reason nor argument for saying such.

I thought the rational was obvious. You say post-mortem punishment is unjust. Yet do you agree that God's punishes both the believing and the unbelieving while they are alive? Has God punished anyone in the history of the world? Cain? The flood? Anaias and Saphyra? Herod? Why is that not unjust then also? What changed? Nothing changed. God's love for all mankind is constant whether we are dead or alive, as well as across both the old and new covenant.

“It remains as part of his ministry to the unbelieving.” You are just making this stuff up. :shock: What texts of scripture say this :?:

2 Peter 2 highlights that false teachers, even though they are bought (redeemed and loved by Christ) will be judged, just as some fallen angels are held for judgment in Tartarus. Blackest darkness is reserved for these wicked false teachers. All this is prophesied as future, after the cross. Though of course you may say is was at completed at 70AD. And there we would have a big difference. What would you say? 1 Peter 4:5 also makes it plain that God still judges the living and the dead.

You are incredulous that I believe there is post-mortem punishment? I guess we will find out soon enough.

This is the problem with “universalism”… you have an INCOMPLETE salvation, always waiting, waiting, waiting for salvation to be “realized” as though Jesus never really quite got it finished. :roll: NO!! It is finished!!

Our legal justification is finished. The complete proof that God's love extends to the depth of his enemies hatred is finished. However, the complete removal of my sin and your sin is not finished. You and I are both still waiting for that.

It almost sounds like you are scoffing like those in 2 Peter 3. Though you likely say that coming was all fulfilled at 70AD. I will certainly agree that 70AD was certainly the fulfillment of judgment and destruction of wicked men. However, the promise and description of the Millennial Kingdom have convinced me that the GWT judgment remains yet future for humanity. Thus there remains yet future judgment and destruction of wicked men until Christ has completed the display of his grace. In fact I even believe that he has promised to return physically on this earth as reigning King and sin will still remain within humanity at that point for further display of his amazing grace until the GWT.
User avatar
jeff@dgjc.org
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:18 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:35 pm

Certainly Jeff we come from polar-ends of the eschatological rainbow, and that’s all good, but this may explain why you keep putting words in my mouth that I didn’t actually say and then proceed with all manner of argument against what I allegedly said as a means of NOT dealing with what I actually have said, such as…

jeff@dgjc.org wrote:You say post-mortem punishment is unjust.

I mention nothing about the just or unjust-ness of “post-mortem punishment” – I merely challenge the validity of claiming “postmortem punishment” according to Scriptural evidence… so far you haven’t made your case. Certainly IF I were God there would be a settling of the books in terms of punishment, much punishment (good thing I’m not God)… but that’s my limited human understanding colouring my expectations; I suspect all our expectations will be blown out of the water, so to speak.

jeff@dgjc.org wrote: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.

So, according to your theology “All are already justified in Christ” – what Scriptural evidence does your position provide showing that once “justified” postmortem punishment STILL prevails? What does THAT say about the so-called ‘justifying power of Christ’ as per your position? (again denuding the Cross of its power)

jeff@dgjc.org wrote:However, the complete removal of my sin and your sin is not finished. You and I are both still waiting for that.

You can leave me out of that and I’ll let you own that one totally for yourself. There is “no sin” (the offence thereof) separating me from God. The ONLY separation my own errant actions bring is that of between me and my fellows, whoever they might be. It is however in my best interests to learn to enact the freedom that “the reconciliation” has wrought. I can best do this by imbibing of the principled truths of Scripture as per Jas 1:21 which works healing deliverance toward myself and others as per Jas 5:16 etc.

jeff@dgjc.org wrote:Thus there remains yet future judgment and destruction of wicked men until Christ has completed the display of his grace.

Again, your theology has “the display of his grace” equating to a “future judgment and destruction of wicked men:shock: lol… I’m not you can see it but this above is a MASSIVE contradiction in and of itself!

What you interpret as “mocking” is simply my nudging attempts to open your eyes to the rabid inconsistencies of your position.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby Paidion » Wed Dec 16, 2015 8:49 pm

Davo, you wrote:So Paidion… what you’re really saying is the ONLY reason you “repent” is due to some expectant a future judgment


Nope. I wasn't making a statement of my own in any way. I was only interpreting the two cartoons that I posted, according to the contrary messages that the sign-holders were giving.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 81st year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 4279
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby jeff@dgjc.org » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:27 am

Again, your theology has “the display of his grace” equating to a “future judgment and destruction of wicked men” :shock: lol… I’m not you can see it but this above is a MASSIVE contradiction in and of itself!

Do you then believe those drowned in the flood where eternally damned and outside of God's grace?
Do you also believe Anias and Saphyra where eternally damned and outside of God's grace?
User avatar
jeff@dgjc.org
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:18 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Thu Dec 17, 2015 5:22 am

Like the ancient’s of the flood Ananias Sapphira paid the temporal price for their really bad choice i.e., the loss of their lives, period. That does not IMO equate to being “damned” temporarily or endlessly beyond THIS LIFE… their untimely deaths WAS the “judgement” they suffered.

Again… according to your theology “All are already justified in Christ” – what Scriptural evidence does your position provide showing that ONCE **justified in Christ** postmortem punishment STILL prevails? – what texts, NOT arguments BUT texts?
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby qaz » Thu Dec 17, 2015 6:04 pm

davo wrote: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 :o BUT “to one another”… thus allowing His healing restoration to flow.


Revelation 22
14Blessed are those who do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

You believe God's kingdom came in AD 70, right? There clearly is a difference between Christians and non-Christians, even after AD 70. Christians are part of God's kingdom, non-Christians are not. Just what exactly do you think it means that those who do his commandments may have the right to the tree of life and enter the city's gates?


Again… according to your theology “All are already justified in Christ” – what Scriptural evidence does your position provide showing that ONCE **justified in Christ** postmortem punishment STILL prevails? – what texts, NOT arguments BUT texts?


Hebrews 6
4For concerning those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, 6and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify the Son of God for themselves again, and put him to open shame.

Hebrews 10
26For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more a sacrifice for sins, 27but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which will devour the adversaries.

I think the Hebraist is clearly talking about people who had been justified in Christ...
qaz
 
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Thu Dec 17, 2015 10:03 pm

qaz wrote:Just what exactly do you think it means that those who do his commandments may have the right to the tree of life and enter the city's gates?

In the context of ‘The Revelation’ – thus the last days period of the OC… those who “overcame” imbibed of the rewards in the parousia associated with faithfulness and or martyrdom.

qaz wrote:
Again… according to your theology “All are already justified in Christ” – what Scriptural evidence does your position provide showing that ONCE **justified in Christ** postmortem punishment STILL prevails? – what texts, NOT arguments BUT texts?


Hebrews 6
4For concerning those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, 6and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; seeing they crucify the Son of God for themselves again, and put him to open shame.

Hebrews 10
26For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more a sacrifice for sins, 27but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which will devour the adversaries.

I think the Hebraist is clearly talking about people who had been justified in Christ...

The key point upon which my question is asked, that being relative to *the justified* does… postmortem punishment STILL prevails?”
This cannot be avoided and needs answering :!:
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby jeff@dgjc.org » Fri Dec 18, 2015 3:53 am

Luke 16 - a man is punished in Hades after he died and was buried, before the cross.
Revelation 20:4-6 - the wicked dead remain not resurrected in Hades, after the cross, yet future from 2016.
Revelation 20:13-14 - the wicked dead are extracted from Hades, after the cross, at the commencement of glorious eternity.
User avatar
jeff@dgjc.org
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:18 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby maintenanceman » Fri Dec 18, 2015 6:25 pm

Hi jeff@dgjc.org

The Lazarus story is about Israel, about a people about to be judged. The use of 'Father Abraham' and the ending of 'let them look to Moses and the Prophets for they will not believe one raised from the dead' is obviously a parable for the ones Christ came for.... notably the stubborn Israelites. (I can't help but think Dickens might have had this scripture in mind when working on his famous work.)

Johns Revelation is just that, the revelation of what Christ did. Not what he was going to do. Through Israel all have been reconciled. The Redeemer has arrived. God has done what the prophets have for ever been prophesying about.

I thought that since this thread is a bit old, I would quote Mr. Beck's original post.

Hope you enjoy.

Richard Beck wrote:What follows is a post coming out on my blog this week. I post it here as it has to do with the doctrine of hell, but I'm also pondering how UR might be integrated with a preterist account.

///

When it comes to eschatology my faith tradition, the Churches of Christ, has leaned heavily toward preterism.

According to preterism almost all end-times prophecy in the bible is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

I say "almost all" end-times prophecy as there is some diversity among the various preterist positions. A lot of this diversity has to do with the relationship between the book of Revelation and Jesus's apocalyptic discourses in the gospels.

Just about everyone agrees that Jesus's apocalyptic discourses in the synoptic gospels--sometimes called the Olivet Discourse or the "Little Apocalypse"--are discussing the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. These discourses can be found in Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke 21.

In light of Jesus's prophecies in the synoptics, the question is how the vision of Babylon in the book of Revelation relates, if at all, to the destruction of Jerusalem. Most preterists want the book of Revelation to be discussing the fall of Jerusalem. But to pull that off you have to get the dating of Revelation prior to AD 70. Most scholars don't think that's possible, putting the writing of Revelation in the AD 90s. And if that's the case then the Babylon of Revelation can't be Jerusalem and is more likely a vision of Rome.

Another aspect of the book of Revelation is the vision of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22. Most Christians read that text as being about the future, about heaven and the Final Judgment.

All that to say, some preterists--in a view called partial preterism--believe just about every "end times" prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 except for what is discussed in the book of Revelation, the fall of Rome and the Final Judgment. Thus according to this view, since the fall of Rome occurred in AD 476, the only "end times" event remaining is the Second Coming of Christ and the Final Judgment. Everything else in the bible, eschatologically speaking, has already happened. Only one event remains, the Second Coming. Which can happen at any moment and will happen "in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye" (1 Cor. 15.52). No rapture, tribulation, or thousand year reign. All that stuff has already occurred, fulfilled in the events surrounding either the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or the fall or Rome. The only thing left in salvation history is the unpredictable "flash event" of the Second Coming.

That's partial preterism, and it represents what most people in the Churches of Christ have believed. But there is an even more extreme view called full preterism, a view that has rattled around within the Churches of Christ since the 1970s.

Full preterism contends that every "end times" prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70. And this includes the Second Coming and the Final Judgment. This view is sometimes also called "realized eschatology" as it contends that every aspect of biblical eschatology has already been fulfilled or "realized."

The key interpretive move to make this view work is to read every eschatological text in the bible (Revelation included) through Jesus's Olivet Discourse, which, again, most agree is focused on the events of AD 70.

For example, consider the "Second Coming." To start, note how the Olivet Discourse is kicked off by Jesus predicting the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple:

Matthew 24.1-2
Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”


So the event being prophesied about is AD 70, the destruction of the temple. And hearing this the disciples ask a question about the timing of Jesus's "second coming":

Matthew 24.3
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”


The association here is pretty clear. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 is described as the second "coming" of Jesus and as the "end of the age." That AD 70 is indeed being described as the "second coming" of Jesus is made more clear later in the discourse:

Matthew 24.30-31
“Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."


So in the Olivet Discourse the "Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with great power and great glory"--what many would describe as "the Second Coming"--is associated with the events of AD 70.

All that to say, according to a full preterist eschatology the Second Coming of Jesus has already happened. Just as Jesus prophesied that it would happen in AD 70.

(One might ask here about Revelation 21-22. A full preterist reading of Revelation 21-22 argues that the "New Jerusalem" coming to earth is not heaven but the church. The church--as the New Jerusalem and new temple on earth--replaces the former Jerusalem and temple destroyed in AD 70. So again, the New Jerusalem prophecies of Revelation 21-22 have already been fulfilled.)

Okay, so that's the Second Coming. What about Final Judgment?

Again, when we turn to the Olivet Discourse we find Jesus saying this:

Luke 21.20-22
“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written."


Notice how the events of AD 70 are described as "the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written." Now if you read that phrase literally--"in fulfillment of all that has been written"--then every mention of hell, eternal judgment or "the lake of fire" in the bible is referring to AD 70.

Simply, when the bible speaks of hell it's talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.

In short, just like the Second Coming, Final Judgment also occurred in AD 70.

Now you might be asking, if the Second Coming and Final Judgment have already occurred what, according to full preterism, is going to happen to us when we die and what happens to the earth?

Well, answers vary. Regarding the fate of the earth a common answer is that the earth just goes on according to the physical laws governing it. Our biological fate on the planet is just that, our biological fate. No supernatural event in our future is going to disrupt those processes.

Incidentally, while preterism hasn't been theologically linked to creation care, I think there's something to explore here. That is, preterism is better than the notion that creation is going to be destroyed by God in a cataclysmic act of destruction. Creation might get destroyed, but according to preterism that would be our doing, not God's. The assumption here being that God's command to care for the earth, for as long as it lasts, remains very much in effect. And the longer we care for the earth the longer we might last upon it. According to preterism, it's all in our hands. It lasts as long as it lasts.

Turning to our fate after death.

Upon our death, according to most preterists, you simply go to heaven or hell. There is no "holding area" (e.g., Hades) where the dead must await a coming Judgment Day. Again, in Christ God's Judgment has already occurred. That is, in Christ the kingdom/church has been established upon the earth and your "eternal fate" at death is dependent upon your relation to that kingdom. Are you in or out? Heaven and hell, in this sense, is already a reality upon the earth. And the kingdom of heaven on earth marks the boundary.

Basically, according to full preterism, every significant event in relation to salvation history has already occurred. God's kingdom has been established upon earth and Christ has won the victory over sin and death. The biblical story of salvation history has reached The End.

There is nothing in human history, now or in the future, that we are "waiting on." All that is left is your decision in relation to the inauguration of the kingdom. Repent and believe the Good News, the Kingdom of God is in your midst.

So that's full preterism.

Let me move to conclude my making a scholarly observation and then get to the point of why I'm sharing of all this.

First, while you might find the preterist view weird, biblical scholars have long recognized that this view is grounded in the biblical witness. Most NT scholars would argue that the first century Christians really did think that the Second Coming of Jesus and the Final Judgment was going to happen in their lifetime. And the theological cataclysm of AD 70 seemed like a good fit for the timing of that event. For the earliest Christians, centered as they were in Jerusalem, the events of AD 70 did seem like "the end of the world" and "the end of the age."

And yet, in the wake of those events many Christians didn't see "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory." So the parousia of Jesus was pushed into the future. Christian eschatology was created to explain the "delayed parousia" of Jesus who failed to materialize in the clouds, as he had predicted, in AD 70.

What this means is that in the pages of the NT we have a mixed and matched eschatology. On the one hand you have early texts that seem to expect the Second Coming of Jesus in the lifetimes of the first century Christians, perhaps in conjunction with the destruction of Jerusalem. On the other hand you have later texts, written after AD 70, that push the Second Coming into the future in response to the delayed parousia.

That's how you see the situation as a NT scholar. Which is to say, there are texts, like the Olivet Discourse, in the NT that really do point to the Second Coming and the Final Judgement as occurring in AD 70. So the preterists aren't totally crazy. The early Christians really believed that. What the preterists are doing is taking all the "delayed parousia" material from the later NT texts and forcing them to harmonize with the AD 70 expectation material.

That is to say, according to the preterist account, there was no mistake about the AD 70 parousia, Jesus really did come back in judgment at that time. The "Son of Man coming on the clouds" stuff was poetic imagery for events that really took place. In short, preterism is a way of harmonizing the mixed eschatological witness of the NT by reading everything through the earliest Christian expectations regarding the Second Coming of Jesus by claiming that those Christians were correct and that those expectations really were fulfilled.

Of course, such a harmonization creates its own suite of historical, textual and theological problems. But that can be discussed at another time.

I bring all this up for a different reason.

Specifically, as debates about hell continue to rage among Christians more and more I've seen people discuss how, when Jesus discusses Gehenna, hell and judgment, that Jesus is really discussing the destruction of Jerusalem.

And I think that's right. The Olivet Discourse makes that point clear.

But if that's so then the question becomes, if that's what Jesus meant what about the other NT writers?

We're back to the mixed and matched eschatological witness of the NT, those who expected final judgment in AD 70 and those who, in light of the delayed parousia, pushed "hell" into the future.

How, in our debates about hell, are we to deal with that disjoint? The disjoint between Jesus's this-worldly hell of AD 70 versus the other-worldly hell in the future?

Scholars, of course, know how to do deal with this disjoint. They just leave it as a disjoint and claim that the NT doesn't have a consistent or coherent eschatology. Eschatology was a "work in progress" as the coming of Jesus was indefinitely delayed.

But I can't see that view being something most Christians will be able stomach. Such a view is too disruptive of doctrines regarding biblical inspiration as it asks us to believe that some early biblical writers were "wrong" in expecting Jesus to come in their lifetime.

Thus, for most Christians the push will be toward harmonization, to get all the eschatological texts to "agree."

That may be a fool's errand, but that seems to be where most Christians are. Which brings me to my point.

If 1) we increasing start seeing Jesus's teachings regarding hell as being about the Destruction of Jerusalem (and I think a good case can be made for that), and 2) our view of Scripture pushes us to harmonize the eschatological texts of the New Testament, then I think 3) we start moving toward preterism.

That is, if Final Judgment occurred in AD 70, as Jesus predicted, then we also have to consider the Second Coming as having occurred at the same time. Both events are tied up together in the Olivet Discourse.

You can't point to AD 70 as your definition of hell without AD 70 also being your definition of the Second Coming.

And if that's the case, is preterism--this weird and fringe view espoused by nutty Christians--poised to become more prevalent in discussions about heaven, hell and Christian eschatology?
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1514
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:40 pm

You can't point to AD 70 as your definition of hell without AD 70 also being your definition of the Second Coming.

    Band on the money he got that right!
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:25 pm

jeff@dgjc.org wrote:Luke 16 - a man is punished in Hades after he died and was buried, before the cross.

Lk 16 is a parable and NOT a theological breakdown of postmortem existence pre-cross.

jeff@dgjc.org wrote:Revelation 20:4-6 - the wicked dead remain not resurrected in Hades, after the cross, yet future from 2016.

Rev 20:4-6 says NONE of that.

jeff@dgjc.org wrote:Revelation 20:13-14 - the wicked dead are extracted from Hades, after the cross, at the commencement of glorious eternity.

So the logic you’re running with has the bulk of humanity suffering torturous torments in hades until as you put it “the commencement of glorious eternity” – so the longer the Parousia is delayed, delayed,delayed the longer God gets to “minister” (cough) anguish and pain upon *the justified* no less, because according to you postmortem punishment still prevails. WHAT A MESS! :oops:
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby jeff@dgjc.org » Sat Dec 19, 2015 5:01 am

So the logic you’re running with has the bulk of humanity suffering torturous torments in hades until as you put it “the commencement of glorious eternity”

No. I understand there to be punishment in Hades, governed by Christ's loving hand. I never said it was torturous torments for the entire time. Though of course the the Rich man described it as agony. Just because I agree with some of the non-preterist and partial-preterist camp, please do not assume I have bought their whole party line. In the case of the punishments in Hades I Peter 3:18 - 4:6 points to post-mortem salvation as well.

Here are some questions I would have for you...

1. You seem angry in the discussion, simply declaring that Luke 16 is a parable without any consideration to the arguments that is it not a parable. For example Revelation 20 explains that people are removed from Hades. Is that then also a parable?

2. How you explain Revelation 20:4-5?

3. How do you explain 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18?

4. Do you believe Jesus physically ascended in Acts 1? Physically descended in 70AD?

5. What is the beginning and end of the 1000 years in your model of understanding?

Just for the record, I also believe that Jesus 'came' in judgment in 70 AD, but I also believe his second coming physically is still future.
Last edited by jeff@dgjc.org on Sat Dec 19, 2015 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jeff@dgjc.org
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:18 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:44 am

I’m not “angry” though a little peeved… you clearly and blatantly say “All are already justified in Christ.” I know what Paul CLEARLY says about the *justified* being *glorified* -- I simply want you to give the scripture that says “the justified” experience post-mortem punishment in hades -- which is what you allege. I’m not interested in cryptic interpretations, plain text would do.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby maintenanceman » Sat Dec 19, 2015 3:02 pm

jeff@dgjc.org wrote:
3. How do you explain 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18?

Hi Jeff,

What do you think these verses mean?

Thanks
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1514
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby jeff@dgjc.org » Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:44 am

Seems a little unfair to so easily reject my understanding and then not answer my question. Oh well I am over it already.

I do agree that Christ 'came' in judgment upon Jerusalem in 70ad to punish the unbelieving Jews who crucified the Messiah, as Christ prophesied in Scripture.

However, I do not believe that was his second coming in the flesh. I understand passages like Acts 1:11, Revelation 20:4, and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 to be speaking about the return of Christ as reigning king in the flesh, at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom on this earth.

Some of my understanding might sound like Scofield dispensationalism, however, that is not where I am coming from. I best fit into what Millard Erickson calls historical dispensationalism. This view recognizes the 70ad judgment, acknowledges a future Millennial reign, but skips some of the curious Scofieldisms. Erickson would propose that the rapture at the return of Christ does not take Christians up into Heaven, but we meet him in the air and then descend to reign with him during the 1,000 years.

Erickson's book, "A Basic Guide to Eschatology" is a good read even if you find you do not agree with him. He is not a restorationist, but that does not detract from his good observations.

Ok, now how do you explain 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18?
User avatar
jeff@dgjc.org
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:18 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby davo » Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:10 pm

Jeff it also “seems a little unfair” that you demand answers to questions and for the most part get them, but then refuse to answer a basic question based off what you have clearly stated; so let me repeat…
I simply want you to give the scripture/s that says *the justified* experience post-mortem punishment in hades -- which is what you allege. I’m not interested in cryptic interpretations, plain text would do.

Apologies IF I’ve missed the scripture/s plainly stating this… point me to where you are on this.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1924
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby jeff@dgjc.org » Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:25 pm

Forgive me if I sounded impatient. I thought I already answered that earlier.

do you believe humanity is “in Christ”?


Yes I do. In fact I believe humanity has always been in Christ since day 1. The perfect holiness of God the Father can withstand no sin. And so all of creation itself since the fall is hidden in Christ for the Godhead to demonstrate their amazing grace. I've written more about that here http://www.dgjc.org/dgjc/in-doctrine. Of course that does not make unbelievers Christians. Christians are those who believe and trust that their sins are hidden in Christ. Non-Christians are in the most pitied condition, fully forgiven and protected by Christ, but not believing the good news.


Did you read my article?
User avatar
jeff@dgjc.org
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:18 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby maintenanceman » Sun Dec 20, 2015 4:10 pm

Hi Jeff,
I'll be your huckleberry... Oh I think Randy covered that in another thread.

No, honestly, I'll put my 2 cents worth in as a bit how I see that scripture. I will admit there are many out there who have a much solider grasp of the topic than me :D :D

Jeff you said,
"I do agree that Christ 'came' in judgment upon Jerusalem in 70ad to punish the unbelieving Jews who crucified the Messiah, as Christ prophesied in Scripture."

So the first question is how many times (in scripture) does it say Christ will return?

If we look at:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

We see that whatever they are expecting is not an fleshly earth changing event. So Paul's is not saying look out the door and see for yourself, for if they were expecting an apocalypse in the fleshly sense, he could very well have said just that.

Matthew 16:27-28 "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

I take this as Jesus talking about his second coming and he obviously speaks of some who are standing right there will be alive when this 'return' happens.

So if we believe these Mathew verses, we will have to adjust our lenses (way we look at scripture) to figure out what 1 thes 4:13-18 is speaking of.

We see in:

1 Thessalonians 5:1-4 But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. 2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. 3 For when they say, "Peace and safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. 4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief.

So stuff is happening and things are getting close. But what ever is going on, they are having to ask questions... (did it happen, is it happening?)

Matthew 17:10-12 And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" 11 Jesus answered and said to them, "Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 "But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands." 13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.

So now we come to our text. You have already said you agree that Christ 'came' in judgment upon Jerusalem in 70ad to punish the unbelieving Jews who crucified the Messiah, as Christ prophesied in Scripture."

I will also assume you are talking about Matthew chpt 24, in regards to that.

There is an interesting comparison I found that compares our Mat verses with our 1 thes verses:

1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first (resurrection). 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.


A comparison between 1 Thessalonians 4-5 and Matthew 24 is fascinating.
1. Christ Himself Returns Matt. 24:30 I Thess. 4:16
2. From Heaven Matt. 24:30 I Thess. 4:16
3. With a Shout Matt. 24:30 (in power) I Thess. 4:16
4. Accompanied by Angels Matt. 24:31 I Thess. 4:16
5. With Trumpet of God Matt. 24:31 I Thess. 4:16
6. Believers Gathered Matt. 24:31 I Thess. 4:17
7. In Clouds Matt. 24:30 I Thess. 4:17
8. Time Unknown Matt. 24:36 I Thess. 5:1-2
9. Will Come as a Thief Matt. 24:43 I Thess. 5:2,4
10. Believers Unaware of Impending Judgment Matt. 24:37-39 I Thess. 5:3
11. Judgment Comes as Travail upon Expectant Mother Matt. 24:8 I Thess. 5:3
12. Believers to Watch Matt. 24:42 I Thess. 5:4
13. Warning Against Drunkenness Matt. 24:49 I Thess. 5:7

So I would say whatever Paul is saying, he is merely re telling what the lord said through the Olivet discourse.

The reform preacher R C Sproul even says:

Dr. R.C. Sproul and other scholars propose a third way of interpreting Matthew 24:1–35, which argues that “the substance of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in AD 70” (The Last Days According to Jesus, p. 158). Our studies to come will advocate this approach. The main advantage of this view is that it takes seriously the time-frame references found in the Olivet Discourse. It also focuses on the context of the discourse — our Lord’s prediction of the fall of the temple (Matt. 24:2) — providing a coherent answer to the question as to when these things will take place (v. 3), that is, when Jerusalem and its temple will be destroyed

I think, just as Paul all along taught the gentile churches, we are talking about an age ending and a new one unfolding, in the spiritual sense.

Just a humble thought. :D
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 1514
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sun Dec 20, 2015 4:24 pm

maintenanceman wrote:Hi Jeff,
I'll be your huckleberry... Oh I think Randy covered that in another thread.

You are right - I did. But I'll refresh everyone's memory :!: :!: :lol:



Eastern Anglo-Catholic / Holy Fool; Inclusivism / Purgatorial Conditionalism / Nicene Creed / ACNA; Theosis; Zombie Apocalypse;
Contemplation (Mindfulness, Fox Golden Key, Yoga); Healing (Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Kampo, Bruno Gröning, Johrei, Charismatic, Čhaŋnúŋpa);
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, Zombies, P-Zombies, Nerds and Geeks

Re: On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Postby jeff@dgjc.org » Sun Dec 20, 2015 4:46 pm

Thanks @maintenanceman

Yes I agree with much of that without having the time right now to debate the details. However, it seems to me that it is too difficult to compress all these prophetic passages to 70ad. To be sure Revelation is John's contribution to the Olivet Discourse, but he also contributes more detail and I think more future. That is why I fall into the partial preterist line of thinking. The passages that I find too difficult to find fulfillment in 70ad include ...

Job 19:25
Acts 1
1 Thess 4:16-17
parts of Matt 24
Revelation 20:4-5

It should be noted that Sproul has also said he believes in multiple parousiasi, while still looking for a return of Christ in the flesh.

Also regarding the justification of those punished in Hades, the heart of my conclusion is that I believe all mankind was justified at the cross. I understand that faith does not cause justification, but receives our justification. I think I may have pointed you to the wrong article. Check this one if still interested. http://www.dgjc.org/dgjc/justified.
User avatar
jeff@dgjc.org
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 4:18 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

PreviousNext

Return to Dr. Richard Beck

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron