Sin destroyed in AD70; sin was NOT! Nor will it ever according to FP Jack Scott. So sin wasn't destroyed in AD70. Either it is or it isn't. None of this "the sin" was, but sin wasn't.
Jack Scott "The realization of all New Cov. redemptive hopes are when His enemies are defeated. The last enemy is death, therefore the New Cov. redemptive hopes will only be realized and empowered when death is overcome in life, i.e., RESURRECTION! This point cannot be missed, Paul's resurrection, whatever and whenever it is, is the overthrow of death - the last enemy, which is when the blessings of the New Cov. are realized."
If resurrection is something only realized at physical death or some other future time as advocated by many preterists, then that is "when" in their scheme "death" is finally overcome. The concomitant disastrous implication is that this is when, and only when, the New Cov. is realized (MEANING 70AD). Such has led some at least, like those mentioned earlier to suggest, consistently, that we do not yet have life only the hope of it.
Excuse me, but I can only reject such a view as strongly as I know how. I don't reject the men who mistakenly hold to it - I love them, but the implications of their doctrine are contradictory to every tenant of fulfilled redemption."
planetpreterist.com/news-5211.html
Jack misses the idea of the down payment of the inheritance until the redemption. Full Preterists are in trouble with this one. It locks them in only on a ad70 resurrection.
Comments from JohnM . . .
My cursory recovery of your comments is that you appear to be laboring extensively to avoid saying something like "Sin dwelleth in me" because, you think, it appears that this would somehow be an admission that Christ's victory is not yet complete. This springs of course from the principle that you do not want to ever deny the fullness of Christ's victory.
1) Should a covenantal Christian (while living in a body of flesh in the year 2007) be encouraged to overcome sin and temptation?
2) Is there indwelling sin in the flesh of a covenantal Christian? (If, perhaps, one says that sin still dwells in the flesh then how are we to understand the reach of Christ's fulfilled victory over sin and death? If, perhaps, one says that there is now no indwelling sin in the flesh, then are covenantal Christians supposed to view sin as a "mirage" empty of all reality?)
I say that sin does, yes, dwell in the flesh. Even after the Parousia. And I conclude that this sin does not spring from the "law of Moses". And I submit that all of this is not in the least bit inconsistent with Christ's victory over Sin and Death.
This is a huge point. How can you say that there is sin if the last enemy has been destroyed? In other words, Full Pret is not just universalistic through the removal of sin. Oh, but wait. . . it wasn't SIN that was destroyed . . it was "THE" sin!
Jack Scott's Response. . .
"Thanks for taking the time to enlarge you comments. I think my understanding of what you said will be prove to be a fast-track course on your covenant perspective. My cursory recovery of your comments is that you appear to be laboring extensively to avoid saying something like "Sin dwelleth in me" because, you think, it appears that this would somehow be an admission that Christ's victory. " I do not believe the idea of being freed from this biological body (physical death and entrance into "heaven") insures us of living a sinless existence. "
Jack "I believe that the Bible distinguishes between "sin" and "the sin". These human frailty issues, which the Bible assures us we will never fully overcome." "I am convinced that our translators did not serve us well here in removing Paul's intentional use of the definite article." "
" I do not believe that a "covenantal Christian in the year 2007" can live in a "body of flesh."
NONSENSE! This ties into how the Christianity of the New Testament ceased in AD70 because Paul asked to be delivered from it. . EVEN AFTER saying in Romans 7 that he had already been delivered from the law! This FP fantasy is based upon a complete misrepresentation of the appearance of the definite article in Greek. Just because in some places it says "Jesus" and in others it says "the Jesus" doesn't mean there are TWO of them.
There are many other places in the near vicinity of these verses where the definite article is used for more mundane things, and which is not included in English because it is clunky -- not because the translators were Futurists or wrong, or whatever other conspiratorial reason one can think of why the English doesn't say what they want it to say -- all to support a huge overthrow of accepted Christianity.
For some reason, people such as Jack or Sam just don't seem to get how big their changes to Christianity are! They don't hold back for a second.. but rush on, and change accepted and biblical Christianity with nary a thought Just dismissively waving their hands "oh, that was fulfilled in ad70" or saying "as Preterists we understand that.." (the Bible shouldn't be read as written, but must be filtered through the "AD70 lens").. focusing on "the sin" when they should be focusing on SIN. The fact is, if it is about TODAY they are uninterested. They LOVE yesterday.
This is sick sick stuff. I mean like satanic sick. Full Preterism is a host of the devil to fight Christianity and Christ. Hence all the evil that swirls around it. The rebellion, the bitterness, all the fruits of the flesh which we are shown by Paul in warning against this very thing. The people are innocent victims of it... but in reality
are to blame for not testing spirits better.
