How many assumptions and deductions can you find on this forum post because of a invented 70AD line. This is the dispensational line that Preterist draw to make things end and begin? This particular post is sorta like a WHERE'S WALDO cartoon. Presuppositions and bias can be blinding at times when one can't see past the end of his nose. Preterists don't even see the mountain of assumptions that are piled up in their system. Preterist logic often goes like this. . . "If this occurred, and this and this occurred, it means this or that". Yet, the bible never says "this or that" occured. There are many dangers in writing assumptions into the bible.
Barry wrote:
29 Mar 2008 18:12:33
Hi Duncan
Quote:
It is interesting, I went to the Presence website and read the piece; I then checked out some of what they are preaching over there. The following is from the article "Grace Upon All" by David Timm
"This dying and resurrection process was completed when the resurrection of the just and the unjust took place at Christ’s second coming. The church members (elect, called out) did not lose their soul through wrath because they were completely separated from the old when the judgment took place and thus their spirit, soul, and body were saved. They were delivered from wrath.
On the other hand, the unbelievers lost their soul and only had their spirit saved (1Cor 5:5). Their soul, which is their old covenant identity, died in its sins because “the soul that sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4). This is why Paul was able to say that “if you live according to the flesh you are about to die” (Romans 8:13) even though many unbelievers lived physically through the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD."
"I believe that the last Adam (Christ) reversed all the spiritual separation (Col 1:20; Acts 3:21; Isa 25:7) that was brought by the first Adam. This means that God the Father sees humanity through Christ's righteousness. Reconciliation is all about what God has done, and it has nothing to do with what we have done...not even our faith. I personally believe that when each person stands before God and sees Him for who He really is and what He has done they will greatly desire to worship and obey Him."
So losing one's soul is just losing one's old covenant identity; everyone's spirit is saved....
End quote.
I've been announcing that same or similar concept for several years here at Planet Preterist. I think that David did a great job there.
Since the old covenant creature "perishes" and is "destroyed" as the old covenant passes away at the ending of types and figures, then it does remain a quite consistent view IMO.
"Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand"
"And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father"
It does indeed respect and uphold the time restraints that preterists do otherwise usually abide by.
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mat 16:25 For whosoever will save his life {soul} shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life {soul} for my sake shall find it.
Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, {of the old economy} and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul {that was attached to that economy}?
Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
{at the end of the age}
IMO this principle remains consistent throughout the scriptures. It is definitely a different way of looking at the scriptures as per what we were taught.
Perhaps a closer look might be prudent.
Just a thought,
Barry
PS, Did I see someone use the "U" word? :)
Duncan wrote:
29 Mar 2008 19:48:10
Barry,
I have looked at preterist universalism (or whatever name people want to call it) and find it just plain wrong. I see in the new heaven and new earth of Revelation a picture of the New Jerusalem bride (Rev. 21:1-2). Some are part of the "city" and some are outside it (Rev. 22:14-15). There is no more spiritual death for those inside the city; they have access to the tree of life (Rev. 21:1-4). Those outside the city do not have access to the tree of life.
Consider how Revelation ends:
"If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book." Rev. 22:19
This is not an idle threat. It is not a threat that ends at AD 70 (i.e. someone having their access to the tree of life taken away but then given back at AD 70).
Duncan
Virgil wrote:
29 Mar 2008 20:42:32
Those outside the city do not have access to the tree of life.
Duncan, how so? The gates of the city are wide open.
Duncan wrote:
29 Mar 2008 21:10:58
Virgil,
Yes, Of course the gates of the city are open wide (Rev. 21:25) and those who come to the Lord do come into the city. This is the kingdom message we should be preaching today. My point is that Revelation gives no indication whatsoever that everyone will come into the city (as universalists would maintain).
"But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life." Rev. 21:27
Again, Revelation leaves us with a post AD 70 picture of some who are part of the New Jerusalem bride and some who aren't. It doesn't show everybody as being part of the "city" or give any indication that everyone will become part of the city.
Rich wrote:
29 Mar 2008 21:11:46
"Duncan, how so? The gates of the city are wide open."
The gates are open but the people are on the "outside" verses others who are on the "inside". Those on the inside are partakes of the tree of life (Christ), those on the outside are not. Thus, those who are not, do not have life. If one doesn't have life, he is still dead.
Barry wrote:
29 Mar 2008 21:34:53
Hi Duncan,
thanks for the response.
Duncan, why take this out of its end of age setting?
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I WILL COME UNTO THEE QUICKLY, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
Rev 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; TO HIM THAT OVERCOMTH WILL I GIVE TO EAT OF THE TREE OF LIFE, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
This is not referencing post end of age but who of that age would eat from the tree of life. Those who did overcome that world. That world which did pass away.
Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.
Rev 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; TO HIM THT OVERCOMETH WILL I GIVE OF THE HIDDEN MANNA, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a NEW NAME written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth [it].
Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into GREAT TRIBULATION, except they repent of their deeds.
Rev 2:23 And I will kill her children with death;
{that's the second death of those old covenant whormongers in the end of the age}
and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Rev 2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
Rev 2:25 But that which ye have [already] HOLD FAST TILL I COME.
Rev 2:26 And HE THAT OVERCOMETH,
{that world)
and keepeth my works UNTO THE END, {of the age of course} TO HIM will I give power over the nations:
Rev 3:5 HE THAT OVERCOMETH, {that world} THE SAME shall be clothed in white raiment; and I WILL NOT BLOT OUT HIS NAME OUT OF THE BOOD OF LIFE, but I WILL CONFESS HIS NAME BEFORE MY FATHER, and before his angels.
This is the same time frame same context, same setting as in Mark 8:38-38 Same in Matt 10:32-39
Rev 3:11 Behold, I COME QICKLY: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
Rev 3:12 HIM THAT OVERCOMETH WILL I MAKE A PILLAR in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and THE NAME OF THE CITY OF MY GOD, [which is] NEW JERUSALEM, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my NEW NAME.
Rev 3:21 TO HIM THAT OVERCOMETH WILL I GRANT to sit with me in my throne, EVEN AS I ALSO OVERCAME, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
We saw the same thing in Matthew 16 and Mark 8. "Take up your cross and follow me."
Die to this life, die to this age.
That is exactly what Paul was doing in Philippians chapter 3.
Rev 21:7 HE THAT OVERCOMETH SHALL INHERIT ALL THINGS; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
We know who the liars are who perished in the end of the age in the second death. Those who say they are Jews and are not.
We know who these whoremongers are.
We know who these murderers are.
Rev 18:24 And in her was found THE BLOOD OF THE PROPHETS, AND THE SAINTS, and of ALL THAT WERE SLAIN UPON THE EATH.
Same as Matthew chapter 23.
We are not the inheritors we are the benefactors. The benefactors do not overcome that world.
There are substantial differences between the two.
Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto THEM THAT ARE WITHOUT, all [these] things are done in parables:
Mar 4:12 That SEEING THEY MAY NOT SEE, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and NOT UNDERSTAND; lest AT ANY TIME THEY SHOULD BE CONVERTED, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.
The old never got into the new. They were in general terms held "outside" or "without".
IE "be unjust still", "be filthy still"
This is all saying the same things not different things.
Blessings Barry
Virgil wrote:
29 Mar 2008 21:42:56
My point is that Revelation gives no indication whatsoever that everyone will come into the city (as universalists would maintain)
Duncan, Revelation gives no indication that they won't either. It's not about coming into the city or staying outside; it's about a remaking of the old world order. I already pointed this out in a previous conversation. The separation is not about who goes "to heave" or who goes to hell. The description of those outside the city is how Jews viewed gentiles, i.e. dogs, sorcerers, idolaters, liars, etc.
The contrast and the re-making of Jerusalem in Revelation into a new kind of Jerusalem has NOTHING to do with heaven and hell; it rather is a message of hope and reconciliation for all humanity, not just a chosen few. The New Jerusalem described in Revelation has all the characteristics of the garden of Eden: a tree of life, rivers, light, and most importantly, the presence of God. Man has been restored to this garden and city, to the presence of God.
Virgil wrote:
29 Mar 2008 21:53:32
Actually Barry is making a good point supporting what I posted right after him: those outside of the city (New Jerusalem) are not "people who are not saved" or "people going to hell." They are likely unbelieving Jews. The roles have shifted: God's presence and healing is given to all the nations and all people, through the tree of life, namely Christ.
Duncan wrote:
29 Mar 2008 22:23:24
Not buying it guys. I stand by what I wrote. If universalism were true it would make no sense for John to show some who are not part of the city. If he were teaching universalism one would at least expect John to make some comment about how those outside were about to come in. There is just nothing universalist about the end of Revelation. I might add there is nothing universalist about the time of the Parousia. Consider what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians:
"So that we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure, which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes in that Day to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe…" 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10
Barry wrote:
29 Mar 2008 22:41:03
Hi again Duncan
IMO you missed the point Duncan.
Revelation need not say anything about them coming in after the end of the age.
Because Revelation is about the NEW Jerusalem and not the OLD.
The old never got in.
This is the emphasis throughout both Revelation and Thessalonians and Galatians, and the Gospels and...
The old is "replaced". That is the point. There was no life in the old so it could not have a place in the new.
You are combining your OWN thoughts as to what Universalism is or means and what I have said. The two are not compatible.
Then you appeal to verses that claim exactly what I claim as prof against universalism. But unfortunately it is not the point.
Look at your preterist time frame in 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10.
"when He comes in that Day"
The old does not make it into the New. And the old Jerusalem cannot be a part of the New.
Rev 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine NO MORE AT ALL IN THEE; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall BE HEARD NO MORE AT ALL IN THEE: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.
Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
There was not "life" in the old therefore the old could not have any eternal benefit toward humanity.
This is not talking about going to heaven.
Blessings Barry
Ed Burley wrote:
29 Mar 2008 22:42:38
Duncan, John wasn't teaching universalism.
What John was teaching is that those who THOUGHT they were "keeping the covenant" by rejecting Jesus, were actually "outside the city." This phrase, outside the city, was a common phrase to those Jews, as that is how they viewed gentiles - dirty, filthy, wretched, pig-like. John was explaining to the covenant faithful that those Jews, "who claimed they were but were not," were now outside of the city, i.e., outside the covenant, rejected by God.
Those restored to the garden (new Jerusalem) were those who were renewed themselves, by faith in Jesus, and baptism for the remission of sins. Those who were "of the devil" found themselves outside the city, rejected by God, and eventually destroyed. The city was a Whore, the Mother of All Whores in fact. She had lifted up her skirts to false gods. She was a city filled with every kind of abomination - lying (like her father, the devil), sexual immorality, murder, etc. - and this caused the desolation that was to come (and did in AD70).
Since there was ONE covenant (as Tim and JL point out in their book) that began in Genesis, and was restored (resurrected) in AD70, there was only ONE foundation laid that could be laid, the Lord Jesus Christ. Some built on that foundation with wood, hay and straw (works of the law), while others built with gold, silver and precious stone (faith in Christ, and good works from that faith). When the fire came (the judgment of Jerusalem), those who built with faith were untouched, while those who built with works saw those works burned up, "yet their souls were saved, as through fire." And so, ALL Israel was saved, as God promised.
Now, if you want to call God's faithfulness to the covenant "universalism" feel free. It isn't. However, the next question in the process (and the question that each of us may have a different answer for) is, "what of those who were NOT part of the covenant people, and therefore not under the law?" The way we answer that question determines, I think, where we lie on the continuum of soteriology.
ed
Virgil wrote:
30 Mar 2008 00:02:45
Duncan, Revelation is not about "universalism." When you think "universalism" you think heaven and hell; the book of Revelation has nothing to do with post-mortem destination of people's souls, so it has nothing to do with what you call universalism.
By the same token, the message of Revelation is quite universal in nature. It's an all-encompassing message which has an effect on all creation, a promise fulfilled for all humanity.
norm wrote:
30 Mar 2008 09:07:58
Duncan,
I’m with you on this, there is nothing in these two chapters I see indicating or supporting an all being included in the City and in fact these sections disprove it and provide a glimpse of Life in Christ (the City) after AD70 of being exclusionary. The Healing of the Nations no where infers that all people accept the healing. There may not be a Hell but there sure is a Heavenly City and those who partake are clearly those who enter in.
21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth HAD PASSED AWAY, AND THE SEA WAS NO MORE.
2 And I SAW THE HOLY CITY, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, …
"SEE, THE HOME OF GOD IS AMONG MORTALS. He will dwell with them as their God; THEY WILL BE HIS PEOPLES, AND GOD HIMSELF WILL BE WITH THEM;
… DEATH WILL BE NO MORE; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, FOR THE FIRST THINGS HAVE PASSED AWAY." … 7 Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and THEY WILL BE MY CHILDREN.
22:2 through the middle of the street OF THE CITY. On either side of the river IS THE TREE OF LIFE with its twelve kinds of fruit, producing its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree are FOR THE HEALING OF THE NATIONS.
14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that THEY WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE TREE OF LIFE AND MAY ENTER THE CITY BY THE GATES.
15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
Blessings
Norm
Barry wrote:
30 Mar 2008 09:56:59
Hi Norm, and everyone
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
Is "the rest of the dead" the "first resurrection" or does the "rest of the dead" follow after the first resurrection?
Can you place them in there "proper" "western thinking" sequence?
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Rev 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Norm or anyone, how many lake of fire judgments do you count?
What I actually mean by that is do you see any repetition here at all?
I Do!
So then also this question:
Do you really think that Revelation chapter 21 is following a strict "post end of age" time sequence?
Not only do I not see that I see the exact opposite! And very clearly and evidently.
Here is the beginning of the chapter:
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Now that is a clear past tense! But the next verse is not at all. The next verse backs up to reiterate previous points.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, COMING DOWN FROM GOD OUT OF HEAVEN, PREPARED as a bride adorned FOR HER HUSBAND.
Now the implication of that:
Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Now John backs up again to reiterate previous points:
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
The proper tense here is "I am making everything new". This particular point is not post fulfillment at all. It is what he is THEN doing.
Throughout the chapter John is not trying to keep a single time frame here. He constantly reiterates previous points that are important to how this New Jerusalem is "formed" and "who" mades it up.
That being those who "overcame" that world. Which IMO my pervious post has ample evidence to prove.
This particular point is so very consistent throughout revelation that it would be unwarranted contextually to dismiss it.
We know what "old" ones he is talking about who never got in, IN THAT they did not overcome that world.
IN THAT the unjust are unjust still and the filthy are filthy still. That being those old ones "outside" were were kept blind.
If you are looking to say that the old ones are thus not permitted to enter thereafter then you must answer to the fact that they have already been destroyed in the lake of fire. They are as "old" ones already judged by the law. Thus they are found to be Liars, and whore mongers, and murders and so on and have already been judged by the law which then passes away. For death itself has been cast into the lake of fire. This too has already happend.
Blessings
Barry
davo wrote:
30 Mar 2008 11:06:21
Duncan: I have looked at preterist universalism (or whatever name people want to call it) and find it just plain wrong. … My point is that Revelation gives no indication whatsoever that everyone will come into the city (as universalists would maintain).
Duncan… IF it is really true –- that you have "looked at preterist universalism" and thus "find it just plain wrong", then WHY is it that are you bring that up here as some objection to what the likes of Barry, myself, Ed, Amie or Paige etc have been saying here on PP for so long?? Although we might have slight variations on how we might respectively describe some things, none of us here are saying what you are claiming your understanding of universalism says, i.e., "that everyone will come into the city". Typically we say that coming into the City is coming into covenant and coming into covenant is coming into God's priestly service –- it has as Virgil rightly pointed out "NOTHING to do with heaven and hell" … "the book of Revelation has nothing to do with post-mortem destination of people's souls, so it has nothing to do with what you call universalism". Now Duncan, Virgil may not exactly agree with some of mine, Barry's, Ed's, Paige’s or Amie's inclusive conclusions etc, BUT, he is at least being prêteristically consistent on this point –- something that most prêterists amazingly do not do.
Duncan: If he [John] were teaching universalism one would at least expect John to make some comment about how those outside were about to come in.
Well Duncan, leaving your perception/s of universalism aside, the apostle John does "make some comment about how those outside were about to come in"…
Rev 21:22-27 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
Rev 5:9-10 And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and have made us kings and priests to our God; and we shall reign [Rom 5:17] on the earth."
The saved are those redeemed ones called out from humanity –- "the nations"; on whose behalf "those who are saved" redemptively represent -- and are the light thereof; that "the nations" outside might walk "in its light" that emanates OUT FROM the City of God. These saved ones then are God's kingdom priests unto God's reconciled world, maintaining in witness, worship and works the ministration of God's blessing; whereupon certain ones, they being, "the glory and the honor of the nations" would likewise join these "kings of the earth" in their priestly duty and service; thus being "saved to serve".
IOW, it was in God's redemptive workings that "some" were chosen, i.e., those "inside" the City, to serve those "outside" i.e., the nations. So as you can see, in spite of this persistent objection as per your thoughts and those reflected above by Norm where he typically objects to "all being included in the City", THAT IS NOT our position. Thus the "universalism" you guys keep objecting to is not what we are advocating.
norm wrote:
30 Mar 2008 11:26:42
Barry,
Paul clearly states in Romans that rebellious Jews could have a change of heart and come in.
(Rom 11:23 NRSV) And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
Barry Rev 21:1 is clearly a vision of Post Parousia. There can be no mistaking the language starting there and found throughout these last two chapters. Chapter 20’s judgment is pre that event and you can’t mix the before with the conclusion. I’m not debating the judgment scene and its timing, what I am proposing is that Chp 21 and 22 clearly stipulate a vision of the City’s future post Parousia.
I’m not into a discussion of ECT or what God does with those who refuse City life (Christ) as He is the Potter and we are the Clay. I personally believe though that an eternal presence with God if refused while in the body does not provide a presence post mortem.
Barry brother in your examination of Rev 21 you have simply ignored the clear statements of timing and purpose. Did you not notice in my post that the City only came down after the first H & E had passed away? So you see everything related to the City in these two Chapters is City life after the end has been consummated. The discussion of City Life is completely a Post 70 AD discussion. I don’t think the scriptures could be any clearer than that in these two chapters.
Norm
davo wrote:
30 Mar 2008 11:59:55
Norm: I personally believe though that an eternal presence with God if refused while in the body does not provide a presence post mortem.
But Norm, your problem is at least three-fold:
1] you can quibble over whether Rev 21-22 is pre or post Parousia, but ALL of your underlying assumptions are ALL based purely on pre or post mortem; something entirely different.
2] it's fine to "personally believe" as you do above, but the lack of ANY textual warrant for such "belief" is evidence that such a belief is actually bereft of any biblical credence. IOW, IF there were some verse/s saying as much then you'd have trotted it out a long time ago.
3] you know full well that Jesus' so-called "hell" passages when approached from a consistent prêteristic perspective ARE referencing the end of the Mosaic age, and thus speak of the DoJ i.e., Revelation's LoF 2nd Death.
Duncan wrote:
30 Mar 2008 12:08:58
What exactly does it mean to be cast into the lake of fire?
And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. Rev. 20:15
PS
Tim and JL your work was brought up in this. Are you guys on the preterist univeralist (by whatever name) bandwagon now?
"Since there was ONE covenant (as Tim and JL point out in their book) that began in Genesis, and was restored (resurrected) in AD70, there was only ONE foundation laid that could be laid, the Lord Jesus Christ. Some built on that foundation with wood, hay and straw (works of the law), while others built with gold, silver and precious stone (faith in Christ, and good works from that faith). When the fire came (the judgment of Jerusalem), those who built with faith were untouched, while those who built with works saw those works burned up, "yet their souls were saved, as through fire." And so, ALL Israel was saved, as God promised."
Barry wrote:
30 Mar 2008 12:27:30
Hi Norm and everyone.
Quote:
Did you not notice in my post that the City only came down after the first H & E had passed away? So you see everything related to the City in these two Chapters is City life after the end has been consummated.
End quote.
This is the problem as I see it:
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
1) The correct tense is "I am making everything new". So then you have the New Jerusalem in the new age "making everything new" instead of everything being new through the formation of the New Jerusalem and the passing away of the old.
This is a big problem. Very big.
If everything is still being made new then the old is still there and has not passed away.
Therefore your point on "city life" is then of a continual passing away of the old in a still making everything new.
Rather it is just as I have stated. John is dealing with the issues by stepping back and forth between the "implication" of the fulfillment and WHO and SO WHAT would constitute the BRIDE the "new" in COMPARING old with new.
Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Rev 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
2) SO THEN:
"He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."
He is thus reiterating what he has been saying from the very beginning of Revelation. This is "who" becomes the NJ as a matter of "formation".
OTHERWISE you must have the very ones who did overcame that world overcome again! For this is not a post-mortem point as such but and end of the age point. Their obedience is then still unfulfilled and their task is still not completed.
There is absolutely nothing in scripture to support such a concept.
They were to hold fast firm until the end. "His reward was with him".
If you wish to address the idea that they did overcome the world but there is a new overcoming for everybody else then this is going to give you a lot of problems in scripture. But I would be very willing to address this at length if it would be beneficial.
Rev 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name.
Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Unless one wishes to promote multiple "comings" and thus multiple "rewarding" then this point is untenable.
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
3) John is simply reiterating what he has said in Chapter 20. The old does not get into the new.
Otherwise we sever this from everything else that he has said from the very beginning of Revelation.
It is like saying:
I see this beautiful new city and it is like this and like that and this and that are the new order.
The old does not get into it and cannot be a part of it for it is old.
And it's purpose does this and that.
He who overcomes shall inherit this.
The dogs and whoremongers that I've been telling you about do not inherit this because they are of the old.
Now we already know from the previous chapter and other areas that John speaks like this.
This is not anything new to John's way of communicating. He does it often.
Blessings Barry
Ed Burley wrote:
30 Mar 2008 12:52:01
Duncan,
Look, stop trying to bring people into this through your false accusations. Did you read Tim and JL's work? Then you'll know good and well that neither one of them believe in universalism. So, stop trying to bait the hook.
This is old information. It's the same old blah, blah, blah, name-calling that drives people away from PP (see a recent blog by Jeremy Lyle). I'm sick of it. These issues have been dealt with numerous times at this site, and you are NOT a new guy. You are simply stirring the pot - trolling, so to speak.
Look, if you don't want to go to Transmillennial Conference - don't go! If you don't like McLaren - don't go see him. Instead, you feel it necessary to SAVE everyone from what you perceive as false doctrine.
I'm getting quite sick of this kind of exchange myself. If you are really interested, Duncan, you can go back and read some of the stuff already posted. Of course, that won't allow you to come here and make accusations against others that are false. What, does it give you a sense of power?
I'm done. And, I'd encourage Davo and Barry to stop as well. I, of course, can't stop them, but it's fruitless. Either Duncan can't read, or he's just flaming. Either way, I'm done.
ed
Barry wrote:
30 Mar 2008 12:54:25
Hi Duncan,
Quote:
What exactly does it mean to be cast into the lake of fire?
And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. Rev. 20:15
End quote.
Perhaps this might introduce the topic just a little from my perspective.
The lake of fire is the second death.
To the Jews who headed up the old economy this related particularly to them. It is thus connected to the end of the history of eschatology but headed up in the Jews.
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Rev 18:23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.
Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
The lake of fire is the end of the old economy as headed up in the Jews. One need only crush the head. And this is what the synagogue of Satan got.
2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
2Jo 1:8 Look to yourselves, that WE LOSE NOT THOSE THINGS WHICH WE HAVE WROUGHT, but that WE RECEIVE A FULL REWARD.
Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but [are] the synagogue of Satan.
Rev 2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast [some] of you into prison, THAT YOU MAY BE TRIED; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
Rev 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that OVERCOMETH SHALL NOT BE HURT BY THE SECOND DEATH.
Mar 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
Mar 8:34 And when he had called the people [unto him] with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mar 8:35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
Mar 8:36 For WHAT SHALL IT PROFIT A MAN, IF HE SHALL GAIN THE WHOLE WORLD AND LOSE HIS OWN SOUL?
Mar 8:37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Mar 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, WHEN HE COMETH IN THE GLORY OF HIS FATHER WITH THE HOLY ANGELS.
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Rev 3:21 To HIM THAT OVERCOMETH will I grant to sit with me in my throne, EVEN AS I OVERCAME, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
This exactly parallels both the soteriological point of Mark chapter 8 and its clear time restraint and time frame.
The second death is the end of the old.
Blessings Barry
PS, No to my knowledge neither brother Tim nor brother JL are advocates of common grace or comprehensive grace.
davo wrote:
30 Mar 2008 13:32:31
Duncan: …while those who built with works saw those works burned up, "yet their souls were saved, as through fire." And so, ALL Israel was saved, as God promised."
Duncan… Ed's quoting of Paul here is in a similar vein to Paul's "…deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." 1Cor 5:5. IF as a so-called "prêterist" you want to still perpetuate "Satan" post Parousia, then you need to be prepared to fully jettison prêterism and join the other futurist/idealist crowd who do the same by holding onto "the last enemy" the death, and its counterparts the sin and the law. This way you'll be able to keep all of the above for those you ascribe worthy of being handed back over to Satan, again -- you know, the Transmillites etc ;).
Virgil wrote:
30 Mar 2008 15:06:05
Ed, you need to be more patient with folks like Rich and Duncan. They see things differently than you so they will continue to ask questions as long as they need to have them answered. We don't need to shut them down...otherwise the whole point of conversation is gone;
I don't mind answering the same questions 500 times as long as people are honestly looking to find answers.
davo wrote:
30 Mar 2008 15:23:36
You are of course right Virgil, however, the continual cavalier dismissal of our arguments by attaching the label "Universalism" to our propositions without any attempt at addressing our specific claims [which the continual trotting out of the same bogus objections is indicative of] cannot be considered a serious rebuttal.
Duncan wrote:
30 Mar 2008 15:26:04
Ed,
Yeah, I get a great sense of power out of all the false accustations I make. Come on, you are the one who is flaming. I asked an honest question. In making your case you brought up Tim and JL's book. I have not yet read the book so I don't know what conclusions they came to on this issue.
Duncan
middleknowledge wrote:
30 Mar 2008 16:46:46
"Tim and JL your work was brought up in this. Are you guys on the preterist univeralist (by whatever name) bandwagon now?"
Nope,
My personal criticism of the view is laid out in the book. Still waiting to hear feedback from "comprehensive grace" advocates about our case against it.
I believe the fall was historical. That would mean the original created order is what is redeemed. It is a "made-new" heaven and "made-new" earth (kainos in Greek). The gospel was first taught in the Garden of Eden, to Adam, before the fall. Covenant relationship is always conditional and relational. That is how God set it up in the beginning -- which God pronounced "very good."
Covenant Creation is not global or universal, and so you can't really (consistently) get to universalist conclusions at the end.
Blessings,
Tim Martin
Tami wrote:
30 Mar 2008 17:10:31
"Covenant Creation is not global or universal, and so you can't really (consistently) get to universalist conclusions at the end."
That really is the bottom line. Thanks.
There is however an epidemic inconsistency amongst preterists who globalize the new creation (consistent with their view of the Genesis creation) and yet deny universal salvation.
Tami
Virgil wrote:
30 Mar 2008 17:47:33
You are of course right Virgil, however, the continual cavalier dismissal of our arguments by attaching the label "Universalism" to our propositions without any attempt at addressing our specific claims [which the continual trotting out of the same bogus objections is indicative of] cannot be considered a serious rebuttal.
Davo, I know...I understand what you are saying, but you guys need to take it easy and help folks understand where you are coming from. It will take a huge effort to help traditional believers get over the idea that Revelation is about "the end of the world." If that is not hard enough, it will be even more difficult to help folks understand that Revelation has nothing to do with what happens after death.
These are nearly insurmountable tasks, so don't be surprised when folks have strong objections.
Duncan wrote:
30 Mar 2008 17:52:52
I have come to the conclusion that there is not much point having a discussion with a preterist universalist (or whatever they want to be called). The reason is simple: any Scripture one brings up they will simply redefine the terms. I know the following would not be agreed on by all of these people, but the examples give an idea of what I am talking about.
Any Scripture that talks of the the death of the soul, well that simply relates to the death of the old covenant identity.
The lake of fire: that is not eternal separation from God; it is the buring up of the things of the old covenant. Even if one went through it, their spirit was saved.
Those outside the New Jerusalem somehow have access to the tree and water of life. I guess that means that now everyone is in the Lamb's Book of Life, as that is the only way one gets into the city Rev. 21:27. Or maybe one does not have to be in the city one can phone in an order some of the water of life and have it delivered in the suburbs.
Some would attempt to get around the fact that Revelation shows some being part of the New Jerusalem bride and some not being part of her by saying that is talking about a pre AD 70 condition not a post AD 70 condition. If everyone was to become part of the New Jerusalem why would Revelation not show that?
Now don't get me wrong the gates of the New Jerusalem are open today, and we should be inviting people to come in by coming to the Lord. I just see no indication that everybody has eternal life today.
Revelation 14:13 says "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on [following the AD 70 fall of Babylon v. 8]. Yes says the Spirit that they may rest from their labors, and their works follow them."
It is everyone who dies in the Lord after the fall of Babylon that is blessed, not everyone who dies from that time. Now that will probably get redefined by the preterist universalists (PU for short) by saying "well everyone dies in the Lord from now on"
OK I have had enough.
Duncan
Virgil wrote:
30 Mar 2008 20:00:50
Duncan, I am certainly not a "preterist universalist" nor am I saying what you are saying I am saying. Like I encouraged Ed, I will encourage you also to not bring assumptions to the table and carefully consider what I am suggesting.
Please consider conversation and exchange before you assume you understand what some of those guys are saying too :)
Steve wrote:
30 Mar 2008 20:01:51
"(PU for short)"
I'm sorry, but you guys have to see the humor in that!
Duncan wrote:
30 Mar 2008 20:17:39
Virgil,
I do apologize if I misconstrued what you are saying. Can you give a summary to help me be more clear on what you are saying?
Steve,
Glad somebody thought that was funny ;- )
davo wrote:
30 Mar 2008 23:49:10
Virgil: Davo, I know...I understand what you are saying, but you guys need to take it easy and help folks understand where you are coming from.
Yeah ok Virgil, but how can Duncan with any degree honesty say: "I have looked at preterist universalism (or whatever name people want to call it) and find it just plain wrong. … My point is that Revelation gives no indication whatsoever that everyone will come into the city (as universalists would maintain)." -- and then when having had this misconception challenged and then clarified in my FIRST post on this blog, then deliberately misrepresent our position once again by claiming: "Those outside the New Jerusalem somehow have access to the tree and water of life. I guess that means that now everyone is in the Lamb's Book of Life, as that is the only way one gets into the city Rev. 21:27."
Like Duncan, did you actually READ my first post? Or did you just rush to your keyboard again -- pretty shoddy IMO.
Duncan… IF you go back and READ my first response again, ask yourself HONESTLY, can you keep making this claim -- especially since you've said you've looked into these things; judging by the evidence thus far THAT seems like a rather spurious claim to make.
norm wrote:
31 Mar 2008 00:51:36
Davo, you may be right that we are lumping you all together under one Comprehensive Grace Understanding when in essence none of you agree with each other either. That is why your message is a convoluted mess and no one can get a grip on it.
Some Comprehensive Grace proponents do actually believe that all people now are City dwellers. I recently attended a Presence seminar here in Houston hosted by Tim and Doug King and their message sure sounded like all people are now in the City. But of course if you guys can’t even agree what City life is and when it begins you might begin to see why you come across as confusing. Each one of you guys has your own little twist and nuance that you use to keep people from pinning you down because none of you actually agree with each other. So when we pin one down the other pops up and says oh no I don’t believe that way so you can’t pin it on me.
No one is going to take such a mess as serious the way you all explain it in a dozen different flavors. Here is the link if you want to listen to all the lectures at the recent conference I attended.
Norm
davo wrote:
31 Mar 2008 01:32:28
middleknowledge: My personal criticism of the view is laid out in the book. Still waiting to hear feedback from "comprehensive grace" advocates about our case against it.
Tim & Jeff… with regards to 'Pantelism' and 'Comprehensive Grace' you've done no more in your book than present a shallow and weak claim. You've done nothing more than Duncan and Norm have here -- made certain unproven claims against 'Universalism' AND THEN just labelled Pantelism and Comprehensive Grace along with that. THAT is no critque.
Your approach in combating our position is to argue against a broad-brush universalism and ignore completely, previously stated positions of Pantelism that show the inclusive nature of God's redemption, again, relative to Israel, and then in consequence, the reconciliation of the wider world of mankind. In limiting the restorative work of God in Christ you assert:
The fundamental mistake of universal views of salvation is this dispensational view of the spiritual world… Universalism merely applies a dispensational "global" hermeneutic to salvation. p. 391
This is such lame crock – making meaningless blanket statements that are supposedly making a case when all that is being said is that which you need to say in order to criticize a position you disagree with but are unable to bring any rational argument against. Your supposed "spiritual dispensationalism" as you present it is totally forced – it is based on a manufactured false dichotomy i.e., "a straw man". The applying of your invented "spiritual dispensationalism" to 'Comprehensive Grace' and 'Pantelism' is a long shot that stretches credulity, geared more at guilt by association than dealing with the rational positions we have laid out quite clearly over quite some time here on PP. Your contrived argument makes the forced assertion that anything "global" must needs be "dispensational" – and then claims "inconsistency". The "problem" however is a totally manufactured one to suit their position. And yet amazingly enough when consistency demands applying their own limitarian standard to "sin" then all of a sudden all bets are magically off and "all" now indeed does become global as touching "all men" – so much for consistency.
Like I pointed out previously…. continual cavalier dismissal of our arguments by attaching the label "Universalism" to our propositions without any attempt at addressing our specific claims [which the continual trotting out of the same bogus objections is indicative of] cannot be considered a serious rebuttal.
davo wrote:
31 Mar 2008 01:45:59
Norm: Each one of you guys has your own little twist and nuance that you use to keep people from pinning you down because none of you actually agree with each other. So when we pin one down the other pops up and says oh no I don’t believe that way so you can’t pin it on me.
Crap Norm!!… you haven't pinned anyone down at all. AND you can't produce ANY quotes saying what you claim above. The truth is, you don't need to go off to Houston or where-ever -- IF you simply dealt with what's been presented here on PP that would be a great start. But your form on this blog is typical Norm -- I laid out my case and you like Duncan TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY ignored it and read right past it to make your baseless claims. YOU are being fully dishonest and simply using our respective differing approaches to justify your own dismissal of that which you don't like. IMO a very weak effort.
Paige wrote:
31 Mar 2008 01:47:35
Norm,
I almost thought I was reading someone other than you on that last post; and also thought the subject matter you were referring to was something a little more near and dear to your heart...
Had to read it twice before I finally got the joke. Good one! ;)
Paige
middleknowledge wrote:
31 Mar 2008 01:50:38
Davo,
I'm sorry to hear that you did not enjoy that section!! Thanks for the substantial feedback on that part.
Blessings,
Tim Martin
davo wrote:
31 Mar 2008 06:58:58
Tim… it was more a case of frustration at yours and Jeff's sweeping assessment "according to universalism" WHEN considering the amount of time we have dialogued on these things here. Either way I perhaps shouldn't be so surprised considering what both Duncan and Norm have trotted out above in spite of the fact that I've clearly stated otherwise to their claims. THIS however is what happens when you guys jettison the consistency of the prêteristic hermeneutic with regards to soteriology, and only apply such to eschatology.
blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=1763
