A Preterist's New Heavens and Earth
Preterists say that the New Heavens and Earth is a post 70AD period. I kind of wonder if this might be what is they are referring to. It seems they are on their OWN deserted island on this one seeking to please their own egos.
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/preterists-new-heavens-and-earth.html
IT'S A PRETERIST LIFE
Are Preterist's living the dream OR are they just day dreaming? It would seem according to Preterists definitions we are living in the Age to Come, or New Heavens and Earth. It must be odd when one looks around and realizes that things NOW are no different than before 70AD.
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/its-preterist-live.html
Jeremy Lile: Future Judgment and Eternal Hell ARE NOW IN OUR PAST
Jeremy Lile "Of course as a preterist, we assume he recognizes the significance of AD 70. That is, the texts that were once held over for future judgment and eternal hell are now in our past. In light of this, I am puzzled by certain references that can only be categorized as “dual fulfillment” in some sense. "planetpreterist.com/news-5275.html
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/jeremy-lile.html
Dee Dee Warren: Yawn. Stretch. Oh yeah, that’s a good argument. Not!
Dee Dee Warren: article Yawn. Stretch. Oh yeah, that’s a good argument. Not!http://www.preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=372
Check out this article: middletownbiblechurch.org/proph/rom1620.htm - please go and read it completely without my interruption and then come back and read my commentary here.
In this verse believers have been given the wonderful promise that our war withLet’s look at the verse:
Satan will shortly come to a complete and final end, with Satan totally vanquished and with God’s saints sharing in the glorious victory. He’s the “God of peace” in the sense that He alone is able to bring an end to the war with Satan which will result in peace for the saints (”peace” in the sense of the end of war, freedom from conflict). Obviously God’s people enjoy God’s peace now (John 14:27), but in light of the promise in this verse, Paul was probably thinking of the ultimate peace that believers will gain through the defeat of Satan.
Romans 16:20 - The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
This author is suffering from some severe cognitive dissonance in claiming that the promise to believers “will shortly” come to pass when the promise was made thousands of years ago. Are God’s promises true? So with regards to the believers to whom the letter was originally written, did God (under this author’s argument) fulfill His promise? No. And further, the idea that God is the God of Peace is much more than the sense that He alone is able to bring an end to the war with Satan - He gives peace in the midst of war. Many martyrs died in complete peace. However, that statement is what call filler to make it seem like it bolsters his argument when it does nothing but state something about God that would be true in both the futurist and the preterist interpretations. What the author is doing is poisoning the well by implying that somehow the opposing argument robs God of His power of peace.
This promise is a direct reference to Genesis 3:15 where we are told that the seed of the woman (Christ) would bruise or crush the Serpent’s head (a fatal blow), and that Satan would bruise or crush Christ’s heel (Calvary’s cross).Meaning that satan was already crushed - yet still very active. So then obviously the “crushing of satan” does not require his utter demise each and every time it is referenced. Yes I do believe that will be the ultimate end of satan, but since there is already a proven verse that shows that satan was given the fatal blow at the cross but was still alive and kicking after the cross, we have Biblical warrant for noting that this does not necessarily have to refer to the eschatological consummation exclusively.
God will inflict a crushing blow upon the archenemy of our souls, and we will share in God’s victory over Satan.He already did, and we already are. Will there still be a final consummation? Yes. But that is not what that prophecy is referring to exclusively. How do I know? The passage says it was to be soon, and I believe it on its face. Is the idea of historical fulfillments and then greater consummative prophecies Biblical? Absolutely. Have some fun - the “virgin birth” prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day….. and then later in its consummation in Jesus. This author will not make any sense out of the New Testament unless he recognizes this. The Day of Consummation will be a day of typological recapitulation on a grand scale beyond our imaginations.
The ones who are “co-heirs” (Rom. 8:17) are also co-conquerors. He will be crushed “under your feet.” When the Israelites conquered enemy kings they would symbolize their great victory by putting their feet upon their necks (Joshua 10:24). God invites His saints to celebrate His victory over Satan. More filler that is true in any interpretation. How this is supposed to add anything at all to this dispute is beyond me. Does the author think that preterists would not agree with that statement?
When will this great defeat of Satan take place? It will happen “shortly, quickly, suddenly, soon.” Believers are encouraged by the fact that the battle, though difficult, will not be long. We can expect it to be soon. Satan’s time is short and his defeat is certain.Which is it? Soon or quickly? This author simply cannot escape the fact that it was temporally soon - to the original audience. There is nothing in the context to indicate that the event being spoken of is simply something that when it happens, it will span a short period of time, though it actually happening may not be until millennia have passed.
Prophetically we know that at the mid-point of the tribulation Satan will be cast out of the third heaven and execute his fury upon the earth, knowing that his time is short (Rev. 12:12). He knows his doom is impending. Three and a half years later he will be cast into the abyss at which time he will literally be “under the feet” of millennial saints. His final and ultimate doom is described in Revelation 20:10 (and compare Matthew 25:41).Ipse dixit. Satan was cast down in the earthly ministry of Christ (see John 12:30) and knew at that time his time was short to destroy the fledging Church. The early Church crushed his efforts, and the Gates of Hell did not prevail against them. It was the Church that assaulted satan, not the other way around, much to the surprise of satan.
When Paul wrote to the Romans, Satan, though defeated at Calvary, was still an active and formidable foe, as he still is today (1 Pet. 5:8-9; 1 John 4:4).Thank you Captain Obvious for proving my point. The defeat of satan does not require his complete disability. In fact, he was defeated before Calvary as Christ preached the Kingdom and bound the strong man - satan.
Believers of the first century, as well as believers today, are joyfully expecting the imminent return of Christ (Tit. 2:13; Rom. 13:11; 1 Cor. 1:7; etc.). We know that once this event takes place (which may be at any time), Satan’s defeat will soon follow. It is from the perspective of imminency that we may speak of Satan’s defeat as “soon.” Believers of any period of church history should be encouraged by the fact of Christ’s soon coming and Satan’s soon defeat!Orwell would be so proud. Let me once again quote one of my favourites:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a scornful tone, “it means just whatThe American Heritage Dictionary defines “imminence” as the quality or condition of being about to occur. Not could be about to occur. Not might be about to occur. But about to occur.
I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
I work in the legal profession as a legal assistant. Some of the cases I have worked on deal with the issue of insurance coverage for “collapse.” Florida Courts had defined collapse in the context of these particular insurance policies (other policies may differ) as substantial and material impairment of a building or any part thereof. What that means is that the building didn’t have to be in a heap of rubble in order for the collapse coverage to potentially apply (there were of course other issues and potential exclusions unique to each case). One of the big legal battles that kept getting waged was whether or not “imminence” was required, in other words, was the building about to fall down? Everyone understood what “about to” meant in that question. It didn’t mean “would the building fall down in two thousand years.” (if you are interested in how all that turned out, grab yourself a copy of Florida Southern 2nd and knock yourself out - or ask an attorney, which I am not) Many insurance policies changed their collapse coverage language to explicitly define collapse. I am sure that some futurist lawyer may find a way to poke a hole in it.
This Greek phrase “soon” or “shortly” is also found in Revelation 1:1 and 22:6—”the things which must shortly come to pass.”Yes, that same Chapter in Revelation in which the things were also “near” and “at hand.”
There are those today who believe that the tribulation period is not future butSilly us. We believe the timing statements, and don’t make “soon” mean “not soon” and “near” mean “far.” I know, its horrible.
has already been fulfilled in history at or around the time of the destruction
of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. They believe that most prophecy, including most of what
was predicted in the book of Revelation, was fulfilled at this time. Since it
says “these things must shortly come to pass” they reason that all these things
must have taken place in the first century.
But Romans 16:20 serves as an argument against such thinking. Obviously Satan is an active and dangerous foe today and he has not yet received his crushing and defeating blow, even though it has been nearly 2000 years since Paul promised that this would soon take place! And yet, from the perspective of believers both then and now, this event may be anticipated to take place “shortly.”This is a textbook example of circular reasoning. The author presumes his interpretation, offers little to nothing in the way of proof, and then gleefully points to his presumption as the proof. And does a remarkable leapfrog from John writing the apocalyptic book of Revelation to Paul writing the didactic book of Romans.
I wrote to, Gary DeMar, a very prominent author, anti-dispensationalist and defender of the view that says that most prophecies have been fulfilled in the past, in or around 70 A.D. I simply asked him when he believed Satan would be crushed in light of Romans 16:20. I also asked him if he thought this has already taken place in 70 A.D. Here is his response: The primary reference is the Roman Christians to whom Paul is writing (”your feet” not “their feet,” that is, not the feet of people who were not alive when Paul wrote his letter). The crushing is to take place “soon.” "Soon” means “soon.” Since nearly 2000 years have passed, whatever Paul was describing, it is history. Satan could refer to the apostate Jews who Revelation describes as a “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), the same ones that Jesus describes as being related to the Devil in John 8:44 (”ye are of your father the devil”). The Jews were the ones “who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out,” Paul writes. “They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved, with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost” (1 Thess. 2:14-16). This “wrath” might be Paul’s crushing mataphor. (5/21/01)Gary is absolutely correct and much more patient than he usually is. Then again, if he saw the silliness that was argued in the linked article, I doubt that patience would last in the face of such vapidity.
Ah, we move from the error of circularity to the error of poisoning the well. Let’s see if his argument implodes upon itself.Notice that DeMar, in seeking to understand “soon” literally, is forced to understand the verse in a very non-literal way. He says that “soon” means “soon” but then goes on to explain that Satan does not really mean Satan but it is merely a metaphor for the unbelieving Jews who will be crushed in 70 A.D. This is typical of the preterist position. By insisting that most prophecies find their fulfillment in the first century they are forced to understand most prophecies in a very non-literal way.
Notice that this author, in seeking to understand the “crushing” of satan in a literal way, is forced to understand the verse in a very non-literal way. He says that “satan” means “satan” but then goes on to explain that “soon” does not really mean “soon” but it is merely a metaphor for something that is certain. This is typical of the futurist position. By insisting that most prophecies are yet to be fulfilled, they are forced to understand God’s inspired timing statement for most prophecies in a very non-literal way.
Checkmate.
So does the Bible gives us warrant to interpret satan metaphorically?
Matthew 16:23 - But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Was Peter literally satan?
1 Thessalonians 2:18 - Therefore we wanted to come to you—even I, Paul, time and again—but Satan hindered us.
But who actually hindered them?
1 Thess 2:14 - “For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.”
Ezekiel 28:13-17 - You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: the sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold. The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes was prepared for you on the day you were created. You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. By the abundance of your trading you became filled with violence within, and you sinned; therefore I cast you as a profane thing out of the mountain of God; and I destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the fiery stones. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, that they might gaze at you.
This is the King of Tyre, metaphorically represented as satan.
Ouch.
Next?
Preterist Forum: The Universalist Smoking Gun??
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
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
Virgil Vaduva: Why is Universalism such a bad conclusion to preterist eschatology?
Virgil Vaduva: Why is Universalism such a bad conclusion to preterist eschatology IF that indeed ends up being the conclusion?
I see a problem with the way a lot of peoples thinking happens in this context, which is kind of backwards:
1. People know universalism to be false and really really bad and scary.
2. People learn about preterism.
3. They start asking questions about redemption, and universal reconciliation.
4. They back off the questions because the conclusions about those items were already reached. (see step 1)
Shouldn't it be more like this?
1.People know universalism to be false and really really bad and scary.
2. People learn about preterism.
3. They start asking questions about redemption, and universal reconciliation.
4. Theyback off ask the questions because the conclusions about those items were already not reached and they want to learn more and explore the possibilities offered by universal atonement. (no step 1)
planetpreterist.com/news-5448.html#38370
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/virgil-vaduva-why-is-universalism-such.html
I see a problem with the way a lot of peoples thinking happens in this context, which is kind of backwards:
1. People know universalism to be false and really really bad and scary.
2. People learn about preterism.
3. They start asking questions about redemption, and universal reconciliation.
4. They back off the questions because the conclusions about those items were already reached. (see step 1)
Shouldn't it be more like this?
1.
2. People learn about preterism.
3. They start asking questions about redemption, and universal reconciliation.
4. They
planetpreterist.com/news-5448.html#38370
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/virgil-vaduva-why-is-universalism-such.html
A DEAF EAR to their Own Logic and Assumptions
Don Preston is now giving listening advice!!! HAHA!!! This is pretty ironic because it seems to me that he can't read his own words and understand them for what they say. For Preston, listening means reading between the lines instead of understanding his thoughts based on what he actually writes. Don Preston Article: "Acts 2:38!! Acts 2:38!!"-- Listen Very Carefully!
"It does not matter whether the issue is personal relationships, business, politics or theology. The art of listening– really listening- is vital. You can improve your life, your relationships, and your understanding of God’s Word by becoming a better listener. If we become better listeners, we may discover that people are not threatening us after all, and we can begin understanding them- and God’s Word-- better. A better life will result."
eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=597&Itemid=61
Don Preston "I find it impossible to escape the conclusion that either the Great Trumpet of the Lord sounded in that first century generation or Jesus' promise failed and man still has no escape from sin, from separation from God. The Good News is, the Trumpet sounded and the final barriers between God and man were removed as God took away the last vestiges of "the law" which held the "power of sin." Man can now be fully justified and live in full assurance that "he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life" (John 5:24). Thank God for the sounding of the Great Trumpet!"
eschatology.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=584&Itemid=61
For many more quotes from Don Preston please see the link below. There are MANY. Can he hear his own words?
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/search/label/Pret-Don%20Preston
Lake of Fire REALLY is Roman Armies WHO Destroyed Death and Hades
Ed Burley: "Lake of Fire - I maintain that this LAKE of Fire references the destruction of Jerusalem based on Joel 2. You will see that the destructive army of Joel 2 has a fire that goes before them. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY the Roman army advancing on the old covenant city of Jerusalem, the Babylon of Revelation, the Mother of all Harlots (a harlot because she committed adultery with other gods). This is the allusion in scripture to God being "a consuming fire."""Back to the Lake of Fire, we see DEATH and HADES thrown into it. What does that mean? Well, Hades is the "place of the dead" while death is the condition of sinful man. IOW, Death and Hades had to do with THE LAW, which was the ministration of death, it brought death (remember Paul speaking of this in Romans 7?). The lake of fire being the Roman army destroyed DEATH and HADES, the Law, and all its accoutrements (priesthood, temple, holy things, ark of the covenant, the unholy city, etc.). This meant that DEATH was DEAD. The Law, that was the power of sin, was no longer effective in bringing covenant death to Israel. You see, the wages of sin was death. If Law was dealt with, then sin was dealt with, and death was destroyed ("The last enemy to be destroyed was death").
planetpreterist.com/news-5275.html#32371
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/lake-of-fire-really-is-roman-armies-who.html
Preterist Leaders Collide at Conference? Kurt Simmons "Disavowed" Don Preston on 1 Cor 15.
Norman Voss: Discussing the The Second Annual Carlsbad Eschatology Conference, March 13-15, 2008."Besides that the information which was presented on Sat. was a tremendous volume plus it was capped off by Kurt's final concluding presentation in which he disavowed Don Preston's debate material concerning 1 Cor 15 and the meaning of the removal of "the death". Bottom line is that Don believes Adam's death was spiritual thus his debate discussion in 1 Cor 15 was shaped by his understanding that it wasn't a biological discussion in 1 Cor 15 which his opponent Mac Deaver adheres to. Kurt said he agreed more with the partial preterist Deaver over the full preterist Preston.
planetpreterist.com/news-5457.html#38759
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/preterist-leaders-collide-kurt-simmons.html
Judgment in AD70 or at Death ?
Barry: At some point full preterists MUST begin to see that there view IS NOT biblical full preterism at all, but partial preterist post mortem idealism.
So there is a fouth problem. You cannot have all of these people judged in AD 70 and then have all those that lived through judged again when they die!!!! You just cannot do it! To be honest it is biblical absurd. It cannot be worked through. Please see my Futurist Full Preterism post.
When is the temple torn down? In AD 70 or when they died?
When did believers receive the crown of life? In AD 70 or when they died?
When was the conscience of the Gentiles judged? In the Parousia or when they died?
If judgment determined eternal destiny (which it did not) then all of the unbelieving whether dead or alive were sent to hell or were annihilated in the end of the age. You cannot have it happening twice!!! What people have thought of as eternal destiny from years of indoctrination, is not that at all but rather the conclusive matter of the authority of the "self defined ego" through the the precedence of types and figures. This was the comprehensive end of the world. When all were judged AGAINST THE DAY OF WRATH AND REVELATION OF THE RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT OF GOD. This ended the world!!!!!!! You cannot have the law passing way for only the believers. You cannot have the types and figures passing away only for the believers.
planetpreterist.com/news-5448.html#38510
RESPONSE
Norman Voss "The judgment is over and done with, I agree. Now all that is incumbent upon each individual man is whether to choose life that is offered freely or not. You can’t force it upon men as I believe we are free to choose. The crown of life is waiting there to be taken hold of for “ALL” men. "
planetpreterist.com/news-5448.html#38518
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/judgment-in-ad70-or-at-death.html
So there is a fouth problem. You cannot have all of these people judged in AD 70 and then have all those that lived through judged again when they die!!!! You just cannot do it! To be honest it is biblical absurd. It cannot be worked through. Please see my Futurist Full Preterism post.
When is the temple torn down? In AD 70 or when they died?
When did believers receive the crown of life? In AD 70 or when they died?
When was the conscience of the Gentiles judged? In the Parousia or when they died?
If judgment determined eternal destiny (which it did not) then all of the unbelieving whether dead or alive were sent to hell or were annihilated in the end of the age. You cannot have it happening twice!!! What people have thought of as eternal destiny from years of indoctrination, is not that at all but rather the conclusive matter of the authority of the "self defined ego" through the the precedence of types and figures. This was the comprehensive end of the world. When all were judged AGAINST THE DAY OF WRATH AND REVELATION OF THE RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT OF GOD. This ended the world!!!!!!! You cannot have the law passing way for only the believers. You cannot have the types and figures passing away only for the believers.
planetpreterist.com/news-5448.html#38510
RESPONSE
Norman Voss "The judgment is over and done with, I agree. Now all that is incumbent upon each individual man is whether to choose life that is offered freely or not. You can’t force it upon men as I believe we are free to choose. The crown of life is waiting there to be taken hold of for “ALL” men. "
planetpreterist.com/news-5448.html#38518
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/judgment-in-ad70-or-at-death.html
It is IMPOSSIBLE to take the judgment of the end of the age beyond the end of the age.
Barry: All preterist are faced with the clear "end" of the "flesh status" in AD 70. They are just not sure what to do with it. Usually it just gets ignored. In fact this whole article and what is now being written about it presumes that "universalism" means everyone is saved "to go to heaven". Preterists often run in circles because of the presumption of what they think salvation means. A bias that is read into scripture constantly. What the end of the age means is that the authority or dominion of the "self defined ego" is dissolved. That authority stood in the precedence of types and figures. It is IMPOSSIBLE to take the judgment of the end of the age beyond the end of the age. This end of the age judgment finished with the status of the flesh. It is impossible to take the "flesh status" beyond the end of the standing of types and figures. Without the status of types and figures there is no valid support for the "self defined ego". The "ego" can still self define, but it has no "status" and so no structural support.
planetpreterist.com/news-5455.html#38672
"So then "prêteristic" logic becomes abandoned in favor of a "partial preterism post mortem idealism". Such is however an incompatible and contradictory combination. It is impossible to maintain a post mortem salvation from hell or annihilation and an end of the age eschatology. One has to chose either prêteristic consistency or "post mortem futurism". To chose "post mortem futurism" is to abandon prêteristic consistency for something that scripture knows nothing about."
planetpreterist.com/news-5455.html#38632
planetpreterist.com/news-5455.html#38672
"So then "prêteristic" logic becomes abandoned in favor of a "partial preterism post mortem idealism". Such is however an incompatible and contradictory combination. It is impossible to maintain a post mortem salvation from hell or annihilation and an end of the age eschatology. One has to chose either prêteristic consistency or "post mortem futurism". To chose "post mortem futurism" is to abandon prêteristic consistency for something that scripture knows nothing about."
planetpreterist.com/news-5455.html#38632
Arrival in 70AD is DESTRUCTIVE
Mick: Tom Wright has never been a "full-preterist" but is a partial-preterist, based on what Tim King told me after he and Max met with Tom back in 2000(?). I suspect Tom's comments are directed at a view of full-preterism that indicates we have arrived and there is nothing else for us to do. I would find the view that we have arrived as destructive. I believe that full-preterism sees the events of AD 70 as the beginning of God's dwelling with men. The imagery of Rev 21 and 22 is to communicate how we must engage our cultures and bring healing. I believe that Tom Wright would agree with that but he perceive a future return of Jesus to set all things right and bring about God’s justice.planetpreterist.com/news-5458.html#38753
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/arrival-in-70ad-is-destructive.html
JL Vaughn: Flashback: Christians TODAY Added to New Covenant in AD70 ??
JL Vaughn: H&E refers to the covenant people. The covenant line of Seth was destroyed in the Flood, leaving the remnant line of Noah. Every time before AD 70, a remnant was kept from the old line. Every time before AD 70, the line was reduced narrower and narrower. In AD 70, the faithful people outside of the covenant line were added in. This is the "kainos" renewed covenant line. It is not the brand-spanking new "neos." It is the renewed "kainos." And it is not the covenant. It is the people.planetpreterist.com/news-5457.html#38780
So is Pella THE NEW JERUSALEM?
'Go for a Ride' in Preterism's Salvation VAN Ed Burley: The holy city was inhabited, not by fleshly/carnal Jews, but by the believing spiritual Jews, as well as the gentilic Israelites, and those gentiles who, by faith, had joined themselves to the Covenant. Those outside the holy city were relying on the old earth Jerusalem to protect them - and we know what happened to them. Those who fled to Pella were in the New Jerusalem, enduring to the end, and thus, they were saved.
planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=showreply&tid=38849&sid=5460&pid=38842&mode=&order=&thold=#38849
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-is-pella-new-jerusalem.html
planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=showreply&tid=38849&sid=5460&pid=38842&mode=&order=&thold=#38849
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/so-is-pella-new-jerusalem.html
Virgil Vaduva: Major HP Leader Openly Endorses Universalism
Virgil Vaduva: The same seems to be true for the creation as a whole. The covenant is made by God alone...for the reconciliation of all things. In a sense, the word "covenant" is misleading because it implies two parties being active participants in it. How about using the word "promise" instead?
God promised humanity redemption. He delivered. The "covenant" is universal, all encompassing.
planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=showreply&tid=38833&sid=5460&pid=38821&mode=&order=&thold=#38833
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/virgil-vaduva-major-hp-leader-openly.html
God promised humanity redemption. He delivered. The "covenant" is universal, all encompassing.
planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=showreply&tid=38833&sid=5460&pid=38821&mode=&order=&thold=#38833
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/virgil-vaduva-major-hp-leader-openly.html
Grandiose Illusions: There will NEVER be a Preterist Movement
Norman Voss: Preterist are under grandiose illusions if we think we are going to take over “church” any time soon. Our best bet is to be the leaven that mixes in the dough and let the Lord make the changes. If Preterist have their way then in about 50 years we are going to SIMPLY have Preterist denominations sprouting up afresh just like the futurist versions.
planetpreterist.com/news-5460.html#38852
planetpreterist.com/news-5460.html#38852
Kevin Beck: "a whole new world of love and grace"
Kevin Beck "Transmillennialism (A Trademarked name which is synonymous with hyper-preterism) seeks to commence an on-going inquiry into all areas of human pursuit in light of the reconciliation of God and humanity in Jesus Christ. This discussion invites all of humanity into a never-ending conversation and enactment of the creative love of God in Jesus Christ to make a whole new world of love and grace that is the Kingdom of God."
Song: Oh Jerusalem "Wash Thy Heart From Wickedness"
THIS IS THATTHAT IS THIS
O Jerusalem - Words and Music by Lauren Hill
"Focused on the shadow, with my back turned to the light
Too intelligent to see it's me in the way"
__________________________________________
Realizing that there's no place else to go
And there's nobody I know who can help here
Text book solutions are so improbable
Cuz everybody else is just as empty
Naked as the day that I was born, I tried to hide
Behind education and philosophy
Hopeless explanation to describe a situation
I can't see because the world's on top of me
Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me
From the body of this death
Freeing me from dust, and the superficial trust
Of an enemy that seeks to take my breath
Failing to connect, cuz I'm morally defect
By reason of the God inside my head
Causing me to see, only what pertains to me
Believing I'm alive when I'm still dead
Limited to earth, unable to find out my worth
Cuz I can't see past my own vanity
If I'm not included, then I just have to remove it
From my mind because it has to be insanity
Oh wretched man that I am, who will deliver me
From the body of this death
Can I even factor, that I've only been an actor
In this staged interpretation of this day
Focused on the shadow, with my back turned to the light
Too intelligent to see it's me in the way
What a paradox, having God trapped in a box
All this time professing to be spiritual
Naturally pretending, that I'm actually defending
God through my façade, only material
Oh Jerusalem, wash thy heart from wickedness
That thou may be saved from thy deception
How long, shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee, oh Jerusalem
Keeping thee from perfection
Submit to truth, leave the deception of thy youth
So we can walk in the council of authority
Forget the proof, a generation so aloof
Only following the steps of the majority
Trust in the Lord, with all thy heart
And lean not to thine own understanding in all thy ways
Acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths
Be not wise in thine own eyes that you can’t follow him
We judge and condemn, just as ignorant as them
Who religion tells us that we should ignore
Perpetrating we're in covenant with Him
Exposed by the very things that we adore
We grin and shake hands, then lay ambush for the man
Who has a different point of view than us
Infuriated cuz he doesn't understand
Bringing up those things we don't want to discuss
Why still do evil, we don't know how to do good
Walking on in darkness running from the light, ey
Led to believe, because we live in neighborhoods
Telling us what's going on will be alright
Oh so repressed, so convinced that I was blessed
When I played with my game of Monopoly
Oh to suggest, that my life is still a mess
To reveal the pride I'm hiding is what's stopping me
Oh Jerusalem, wash thy heart from wickedness
That thou may be saved from thy deception
How long, shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee, oh Jerusalem
Keeping them from perfection
Abide in me and I in you, as the branch cannot bare
Fruit of itself except in the vine
I am the vine, ye are the branches, He that live in me
And I in him, the same bring forth much fruit
But without me, you can do nothing, oh Jerusalem
You're traditions have deceived you
I've chosen you, you haven't chosen me
And whatsoever, you ask in my name he may give to you
But in vain they call my name, teaching doctrines just the same
Justified among themselves
But God knoweth the heart, what man esteems as smart
Is an abomination to Emmanuel
Just repent, turn from selfish motivation
So iniquity will not cause your demise
Make you a new heart and a new spirit for why would He die
Oh Jerusalem, please tell me why
I have no pleasure in the death of Him to die
Says the Lord God whereforth turn yourselves and live
It's not the talkers, but the walkers in His word
Are the only ones the Father will forgive
Oh Jerusalem, wash thy heart from wickedness
That thou may be saved from thy deception
How long, shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee, oh Jerusalem
Providing you no protection
Oh Jerusalem...
__________________________________________
"But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother." Galatians 4:23-26
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. “Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!" Matthew 23:37-38
"And in that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem"
Zechariah 14:8
"He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'"
Jesus in John 7:38
http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/2008/03/song-oh-jerusalem.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)