Preston really misses the mark in his book Elements will Melt. His comments below show that he sees the dangers of his own system but does not see the correct link between Universalism and Preterism due his own 70ad theory by making it the line that seperates the Old from the New rather than Christ. Maybe we should hold Preston responsible for not only the "implications of his doctrine", but also hold Preterists responsible for leading the way to the logical end of what they teach. Universalism. Preston sees Universalism as a dangerous error. Maybe he misses the fact that most Preterists placing ALL in the age to come, place ALL in the New Heavens and Earth, ALL in the New Covenant which does have the result of Universalism. So is Preston calling his own teaching a dangerous error? YEP, that is exactly what he calls his own view.
Don Prestons Quotes from Elements will Melt
First, I am not ascribing to all preterist universalists (hereafter PU), the logical implications of their doctrine. It is easy to take a position without fully understanding the implications of that doctrine. This is clear from 1 Corinthians 15. Some seemingly devout believers in Corinth took a position concerning “the dead ones,” but they did not think through their position. Therefore, Paul began by showing them the implications of their doctrine. Paul did not say that they believed what he presented. He said that if they believed what they taught, then, logically, their doctrine led to other conclusions that they themselves rejected. For Paul, to accept one was to lead to the other. He did not charge them with the implications of their doctrine. But, he held them accountable for leading the way to the logical end of what they taught.
Patently, the issue of universalism is currently a matter of widespread discussion in preterist circles. (I wonder why?)
I consider it a dangerous error to take the position that there is no such thing as sin today, and that all men, regardless of their faith in Christ or lack thereof, are destined to receive the
blessings of his atonement. (If the law of sin and death is defeated in 70ad, then what stands to condemn?, Saying this passes, logically means sin has been removed. Instead their must be a new law, and a new death in the Age to Come, or New Heavens and Earth in order to maintain this seperation. This also is a complete delusion and unscriptural.)
My point is that you cannot teach a doctrine without implications. And if the implications are dangerous, then the doctrine is dangerous. (SO IF PRETERISM HAS IMPLICATIONS RESULTING IN UNIVERSALISM, SHOULD IT NOT BE ALSO CONSIDERED DANGEROUS? LOL)
