Christian Unity

July 5, 2012 by Samuel Frost

25 Comments 25 Comments

Listen to our High Priest, Yeshua:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, ²¹ that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. ²² I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: ²³ I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-23).

And, hear the words of our Apostle, Paul:

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (1 Corinthians 1:10).

Notice that in John, Jesus is not praying for the disciples alone, but also for “those who will believe in me through their message”. That “all of them” stands for the whole church, then and now. To limit this prayer to that generation would be wrong.

Let us hear Paul again: “For this reason I kneel before the Father, ¹⁵ from whom his whole family {15 Or whom all fatherhood} in heaven and on earth derives its name. ¹⁶ I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, ¹⁷ so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, ¹⁸ may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, ¹⁹ and to know this love that surpasses knowledge– that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. ²⁰ Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, ²¹ to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.” (Epheians 3:14-21).

Notice the word, “all generations.” Plural. “All”. Paul is not praying for his own generation only, but for all the generations in which there will be believers on their message. These prayers cannot be limited or “fulfilled” by the time of AD 70 as the hyperpreterist contends. The words forbid it.

Finally, “He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) ¹¹ It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, ¹² to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up ¹³ until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. ¹⁴ Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. ¹⁵ Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. ¹⁶ From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work.” (Ephesians 4:10-16).

This cannot be limited to AD 70, but is to include “all generation” and “all those who believe in their (the Disciples’) message.” It culminates in the visible display of the united Church of Christ, the people of God from all nations, languages, peoples and tribes. This is the call to the nations announced by the Prophets which Jesus came to fulfill (Matthew 5:18-ff). I will be writing an article shortly on that passage, which Full Preterists like to use, substituting “heaven and earth” there for “old covenant temple.” Stay tuned.

Nonetheless, we can account for the nature of the divisions and denominations and splits within the history of the Church. Paul said it would happen. We live “in the world”, yet it is this very world that is to come to believe in their message, so that those called out of the world (ekklesiai) will come to the unity of faith, where speak and think the same thing to the glory of God the Father. We are called to unite the world in peace, teaching them to beat their swords into plowshares. And, as a church-as-yet-perfected, we bring in our own swords! The Church is the place where the pruning hook is beaten into a plowshare – iron sharpens iron. So, it’s not always a pretty picture. When the righteous sin, it’s ugly. But, our condemnation is removed in Jesus. The very plowing of the wicked is evil (Proverbs 21:4). Their condemnation remains. The point is, the church is the place where the wicked bring in their hooks, knives, guns and swords – in order to learn war no more (Isaiah 2:1-ff). It it is in transition from glory (the glory of original Adam) to glory (the glory of the Last Adam), we can expect a little bloodshed along the way. The Full Preterist, on the other hand, cannot account for this. Instead, he berates the institutional church and points out its flaws, weaknesses, sins and hypocrisies. It’s doctrinal “inconsistencies”. Yet, he beleives that Ephesians is fulfilled! Since, on one hand, the church is in a mess (in his view), and since, on the other hand, the church is finished and perfect, then the only way to describe what Paul had in mind is in esoteric terms of an invisible unity and perfection that is entirely imperceptible to the world! But, this goes against the prayer of Jesus: “May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know.” Invisible unity is pointless to a world that is in desparate need for real, tangible cessation of war and bloodshed, prejudice and racial bigotry, male and female rivalry, sexual and psychological disharmony, economic and unjust oppression. Christianity has an answer to all of man’s problems in the world. It’s what the world is called to: harmony, peace on earth, good will to men. WE should be leading the way (and in a way, we have been and are).

One last point. This harmony and unity is rooted in their message, the message of the Bible. True unity is rooted in doctrine. Yes, we must tolerate and have patience, but always with a view towards conversion to the Truth of doctrine. I learn from you, you learn from me. We must also be aware that in this aspect of tolerance is intolerance of pernicious heresy and false doctrine. Not easy. We see through a glass darkly. But, we will…we are getting there.

Glenn Bradfield

As always a good word, Thanks, Glenn
thomas greenlee

Sam,

I have always defined myself as a full preterist and yet I do not recognize myself in any of the generalized characterizations that you have chosen to single out and claim are the doctrines of full preterism.

I have always loved the scriptures you have quoted and consider them as absolute proof of full preterism when those scriptures are understood as they are written and not altered or added to for some eisegetic reasons.

I can understand if you choose not to allow and delete my response. However, if you are sincere in your opposition to full preterism according to your explanation of these scriptures, then I would be pleased to explain the full preterist answer to your criticisms as they are expressed in this article.

thanks Sam,
Tom
Samuel Frost

Tom, I would love to hear your explanation as to how, today, the church is in complete unity with no doctrinal divisions today, and how, today, we all speak and think the same things.
- Jason Bradfield
  
  Simple, Sam. Redefine the church, centered around a small core set of hyperpreterist beliefs.
  
  That’s where all this is headed. And it should.
Thomas Greenlee

Thanks for your response Sam. Since all truth is propositional, I will respond to any scriptural proposition that you choose as it is written in the scripture, and contained in your article. I will not attempt to address that proposition from a subjective systematic theological interpretation, but simply as an objective exegesis of that proposition, grammatically and logically. I am led to believe that you will accept and agree to those criteria as the correct means of understanding the truth of what the word of God says. This approach is in compliance with the first of the three laws of reason, the “Law of Identity” i.e., proposition A is proposition A and is not proposition non A.

With that criteria, which scriptural proposition contained in your article are you under the impression is a contradiction of the full preterist understanding that all of the promises in these scriptures have already come to pass?

Thanks Sam,
Tom
Samuel Frost

Tom, I think it is obvious, don’t you? Let me explain, again: “I would love to hear your explanation as to how, today, the church is in complete unity with no doctrinal divisions today, and how, today, we all speak and think the same things.”
thomas greenlee

Sam, since your request is not based upon a scriptural proposition, there is no restriction upon what you think or can mentally devise, even the scripturally unsound scenario you have challenged me with through your alteration and addition to the scripture.

Impossible as it might seem, you and I are proof that the scriptural promise has come to pass. We both believe that our savior Jesus, the only begotten son of God, was the Christ who came in the flesh. We both believe that all scripture was given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. All Christians believe these things, as your WCF also confirms.

The faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints will not at some time in the future be altered to some other faith, nor will it be augmented to require future miracles of God or the necessity of seeing it to believe it. By grace through faith the Church, the body of Christ is now and has always been pure and blameless without spot or wrinkle.

The scenario you have created is a scripturally unsound scenario that can not be scripturally defended even by your own theology.

Thanks Sam,
Tom
Samuel Frost

Tom, your assertion is false. We are NOT in agreement. I don’t see in the passages I cited that ALL that is required for speaking the same thing and having the same mind is ONLY in believing:
1. Scripture is inspired.
2. Jesus came in the flesh.

There is plenty more doctrine in Scripture that you and I are sharply “with divisions.” Paul’s words are plain: “so that there may be no divisions among you.” NO divisions.

But, let us take the doctrine of the continuing, incarnate Christ, the man. I believe the Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus we are told about in propositional form, currently resides in his human body in heaven. I believe (and have demonstrated elsewhere) that the Bible clearly teaches this (and it is affirmed by the councils, creeds, and confessions). I also believe that God knows the number of “all” his people, so that such number “cannot be either increased nor diminished” (WCF). In other words, this requires an end to history.

Just on these two FUNDAMENTAL points, Tom, you and I are “divided” sharply in that I believe I denial of them is tantamount to heresy.
thomas greenlee

Sam, you have gone far astray from the content of your article. So far you have not demonstrated any of the propositions that you claim in your article are a contradiction to the full preterist understanding that the doctrine contained in the proposition has already come to pass.

The gospel of John text must certainly be affirmed that the doctrine applied first of all to that generation and continues for all Christians. That being the case, that text has come to pass as our Lord prayed. Which BTW, you also must affirm that a prayer is not a proposition.

The Ephesians 3:13-21 text again must certainly be affirmed that the doctrine came to pass when first applied to that generation and continues to apply to all Christians today and has thus already came to pass exactly as Paul explained. BTW, this same text would be a contradiction of one of the things you have said you believe in your latest comment.

The Ephesians 4:10-16 text founded upon the Lord saying when he ascended up on high that he gave gifts unto men must certainly be affirmed that it has come to pass in the first century and continues for us today exactly as he said. If we today have the scripture inspired of God for that purpose and all of us have not yet come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, then what is lacking for us to come to a unity of the faith? New divine revelation?

Finally, the 1 CR 1:10 text occasioned by the information given to Paul by the house of Cloe that there were contentions in Corinth is very clear what the definition of what those contentions were and that Paul was teaching them those contentions were false. Certainly it must be affirmed that those contentions no longer exist for Christians and so that doctrine has come to pass. (as a note: Paul’s comment in Romans 16:17ff is very instructive on this doctrine) Upon examination of the scriptures you quote in your article none of them have been shown to contradict a full preterist interpretation as you claim.

As for your other points in your last comment, I understand them to be founded upon the most eqregious ambiguity that then through invalid logical processes produce false man made eisegetic doctrines. If you have scriptural propositions that logically demonstrate your belief I am certain even those differences can be resolved according to the truth of the scriptures.

Thanks Sam,
Tom
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com QuantumGreg

Thomas wrote, “Impossible as it might seem, you and I are proof that the scriptural promise has come to pass. We both believe that our savior Jesus, the only begotten son of God, was the Christ who came in the flesh. We both believe that all scripture was given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. All Christians believe these things, as your WCF also confirms.”

Thomas, when Paul wrote, the things you mention above were already believed. So what was he looking forward to for “all generations” (future to him)? There was a goal Paul had in mind. Obviously when Paul wrote, it wasn’t yet fulfilled. So, you are going to say post-AD70, there is no need for pastors, teachers, prophets, apostles or evangelists either? If this was fulfilled by AD70, then there should be NO NEED for a pastor, a teacher, a prophet, an apostle nor an evangelist. Do these people exist out of ignorance? What the heck is God doing calling people to these offices today? Are all their “callings” their own imagination in their ignorance of your full preterism doctrine?
thomas greenlee

QuantumGreg,

I don’t think I clearly understand your question, but as I do understand it, my reply would be that the text came to pass when the Lord ascended up on high and gave those gifts to men. The purpose for the Lord giving those gifts was for the benefit of his church as the text explains. There is no time limiting qualification in the text, thus the gifts he gave for his church have no time limiting qualification on them.

I hesitate to think you believe that those gifts were not in existence in the apostolic church and thus did not come to pass at that time. If you believe the church is no longer on earth then you would obviously have an ending of the gifts the Lord gave. As a full preterist, I obviously believe the church is still on earth and according to Sam’s quote of Ephesians 3:21, the church will continue here on earth forever and ever Amen.

I do not understand the application of your use of the term ignorance. But, you are obviously more knowledgeable about your own doctrines than you are of the scriptural doctrines of full preterism for which the term ignorance has no application.

Thanks QuantumGreg,
Tom
Samuel Frost

Tom, on one hand you state, “There is no time limiting qualification in the text” (Eph. 4). Then, you earlier wrote, “The Ephesians 4:10-16 text founded upon the Lord saying when he ascended up on high that he gave gifts unto men must certainly be affirmed that it has come to pass in the first century and continues for us today exactly as he said.” “It has come to pass in the first century” is a contradiction to “there is no time limiting qualification”! There either is, or isn’t. IF Ephesians 4 has “come to pass in the first century”, Greg’s point is made.

WHAT was going on the first century: God was “building” and “fitting together” his new temple, the people of God. If he is STILL building and fitting today, then my point stands: he is not finished building the temple (church) to be conformed to the Temple (Jesus Christ), so that they are “one”. IF HE HAS finished this process, then, again, you are left with an esoteric definition of “unity” that is rooted in a minimalistic approach: we believe in inerrancy and that Jesus was flesh – the bare minimum – as for the rest of our doctrinal “divisions”, well, Paul was never really concerned about that, nor eve had such an idea in mind where, literally, there would ever be a time when Christians never disagreed about anything ever again. I think Paul did. You don’t. I think we are heading towards that (future), you think it’s a done deal. Obviously, we are not “one” and there “divisions” amongst us, Tom.
thomas greenlee

Sam,

If there were men in the church in the first century that had the gifts that Jesus said he gave to men then the scriptural promise came to pass exactly as he said when he ascended up on high. If the promise made by our Lord when he ascended up on high has not yet come to pass then there have never yet been any men with the gifts the Lord said he gave men. To deny the first century church came to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God exactly as the holy Spirit inspired Paul to write, is to involve the holy Spirit inspired scripture in a grammatical and logical contradiction.

Sam, I have difficulty following your seeming internal contradictions. Are you being sarcastic or are you saying the holy Spirit never inspiried Paul to ever really be concerned about doctrinal divisions, nor did the holy Spirit ever have such an idea in mind where, literally, there would ever be a time when Christians never disagreed about anything ever again. If you are saying the holy Spirit never inspired Paul to have such an idea then he never inspired Paul to write that idea. If Paul never wrote such an idea then your doctrine that Christians will eventually be united doctrinally speaking and thinking the same thing is not scriptural and your challenge to me to explain how your doctrine that is not scriptural is true today is spurious to say the least.

If on the other hand, Paul did expect the church to be unified in the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, then his inspired use of the first person singular and plural pronoun as the subject of that knowledge and unity grammatically and logically demonstrates that the church of the first century would come to that knowledge and unity.

Tom
Samuel Frost

Tom, no, I just think we are speaking WAY past each other. The “knowledge of the son of God” encompasses ALL knowledge that we are to know (to be distinguished from omniscience, which, as an incommunicable attribute to creatures cannot and will not ever be known). We are speaking of the FULL (without error) knowledge of the son (“the man, Christ Jesus”) as he knows as MAN. We shall know FULLY this same knowledge, with the other saints. And, if this knowledge is to be known (which it is), and it is to be known by ALL the saints (which it shall be), then it follows that we WILL NOT HAVE ANY DIVISIONS AMONG US AT ALL. NO DISAGREEMENTS, since the property of that knowledge is TRUTH, which cannot change, and is constant, for eternity. The trinitarian distinctions throw off FPs between his Being and the Persons, and in the nature of one of the Persons being Divine (sharing all the attributes of the Godhead) and MAN (sharing all the attributes of man, elevating them to glorified status in terms of Psalm 8). The Trinity is the basis of theology. The one and the many.
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com QuantumGreg

So, Thomas, are there such things as pastors, teachers, prophets, apostles & evangelists today?
thomas greenlee

Sam,

I agree we are talking way past each other. I agree the property of the knowledge of the Son of God is truth, and that truth is revealed in the inerrant written word of God which cannot change and is constant for eternity. Therefore the unity and the knowledge of the Son of God exists in the church, the body of Christ today and has existed since the end of the written revelation of the word of God. Unless you believe some generation in the future will receive new divinely revealed truth that has never been given to the church until that future time, the church is united in the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God today and has been since the first century when God purged the church of all divisions and lack of knowledge of his Son and thus creating what Peter described as a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness as our beloved brother Paul speaks of in all his letters.

QuantumGreg,
My response to Sam should answer your question. However, simply put: Divinely inspired through the power of the holy Spirit NO! Uninspired with the spirit of the Lord dwelling witin us, as are all of we, YES!

Thanks,
Tom
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com QuantumGreg

I have nothing further to say here, friend. You have used high-sounding words and yet still proved your utter confusion yourself. Another reason I’m no longer a full preterist. Nothing personal, of course. I am so thankful Father has shown me FP’s bankruptcy in fundamental doctrinal issues. Sheesh.
thomas greenlee

Thanks QuantumGreg for your interaction. I am pleased that you have not been able to refute any of my explanations of the scriptural propositions under examination that our Lord inspired Paul to write. I am only sorry that you have chosen to deny the blessings for yourself and separate yourself from being a part of all of these things that Paul said applied to all of we christians.

Tom
Samuel Frost

but, tom, you have demonstrated nothing. Just posturing. The ministry was given ‘in order to’ (Eph. 4.12)….UNTIL….” If we have reached the goal, there is no more need for the ministry. That’s why the ministry is there: to reach the goal. Pretty basic stuff.
thomas greenlee

Hi Sam, I just finished a few hours ago listening to your radio program.

I don’t know about you but I consider pastoring, nurturing and edifying the church as well as taking the gospel message of our Lord out to the unsaved world as mighty important ministries, as our Lord thought also when he gave these gifts to men.

You say I have demonstrated nothing, that I am just posturing. But, unless you have somehow conjured up a new means of defining the first person singular and plural pronouns I will stay with the universal grammatical law that they are defined by their antecedent and agree with that antecedent in gender and number. The singular pronoun always has the speaker as its antecedent and the plural always includes the speaker while the inclusive adjective “All” extends WE to include the audience of the speaker. You made this very point in your article with the application of “all” to generations plural. Not only was the prayer that his apostles would be in him as he was in the father, but ALL of that generation and all generations would be in him also.

How you now deny that the Ephesian audience was being told by Paul that WE “All” would arrive at the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God is unknown to me. It certainly is not demonstrably derived, according to the rules of grammar amd logic, nor from this text.

Tom
Samuel Frost

Tom, that’s not a “universal” rule. It’s a grammatical rule. However, when you bring an extreme idea of limiting pronouns to “them only”, that’s not grammar, that’s something else. “Love your enemies”. Spoken “only” to the Disciples? Not to us? Therefore, I don’t have to obey, “thou shalt not steal” because that was “only” spoken to ancient Israelites, right? Right. Hermeneutics also recognizes expansion of those addressed. Paul was not writing solely to his own generation. The doctrine of inspiration ALSO includes the idea that God is the ultimate author, writing to all the churches in all generations. The Bible simply cannot be contained to the original audience. And, since we know that Paul circulated his letters, we know that he intended not only his original audience to read them, but also the coming generations in the “Ages to come”. This extreme use of the principle of “original audience relevance” would render the Bible entirely unprofitable to the succeeding generations. Plus, take Paul’s injunction to Timothy: Scripture is godbreathed for reproof and correction….to whom? How could he say this, based on the OT Scriptures, that THEY were able to “reprove” and “correct” people in Timothy’s generation? Couldn’t Timothy simply respond and say, “well, now, Paul, those Scriptures were written to Israel in that time, and in that time only, and have nothing to say to me, since I don’t live in that time!”….Come on, Tom….you gotta do better than that…..
thomas greenlee

Sam,

I knew that when we relied upon the univeral rules of grammar and logic that we would be able to resolve our differences. Now that you agree the rule for defining pronouns is correct and applies to the original Greek text.

Give up your doctrines that contradict those universal grammatical rules and let us agree that Paul’s words to the Ephesians applied also to Paul and to the Ephesians as well as to the church of all ages.

It is you who deny that Paul’s words also apply to himself and to the Ephesian church to whom he was speaking, in contradiction of the rules of grammar that govern the first person pronoun singular and plural. It is you who claim that that this text has never come to pass for the church for 2000 years and will only come to pass at some vague time in the future and have its application only for a particular generation of the church at that time. How this will come to pass you don’t say, it just will because your doctrines require it.

It is you who has invented these unscriptural doctrines that Biblical full preterism has to wade through and correct by relying on the only proven objective means to demonstrate truth, the axioms and rules of grammar and logic.

It is Biblical full preterism that says the founding of the church, the body of Christ upon the unified rock of the confession of Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the only begotten Son of God, came to pass 2000 years ago. And that same church, the body of Christ continues and will continue forever and ever, upon that same unified confession of the faith and the unified knowledge that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.

Al of your other ramblings and invented theories of full preterism are false and have no application to the doctrines of Biblical full preterism.

Tom
Samuel Frost

Tom, and once again, you have said nothing, and have not interacted with a single argument I have put forth. You just pontificate.
Samuel Frost

Answer this simple question: is the bible limited to those it was written to. If not, how do you apply it to yourself, 2000 years removed?
thomas greenlee

Sam,

I have repeatedly answered your arguments. I have stated that all truth is propositional. Thus biblical full preterism is propositional preterism. All propositions that have as their subject the church the body of Christ apply to me. All propositions that have as their subject the truth of the gospel of Christ apply to me.

You began this post with a quote from John 17. The Lord’s prayer applied to all those at that time and to me today and to all who have believed the gospel that the apostles preached. All members of his church were then and are today one with each other and one in him as he was one in his father. John 17:23 is a true biblical preterist proposition that applied to that generation and applies to me today. The Ephesians 3:14-21 text is a true biblical preterist text and applied to that generation and applies to me today. The Ephesian 4:10-13 text is a biblical preterist text that applied to that generation and applies to me today. The admonition of 1 Cr. 1:10 is a biblical preterist admonition that applied to that generation and applies to me today.

Somehow or another your questions to me seem to be operating upon the mistaken idea that Biblical full preterist propositional doctrines claim that the church founded by our Lord is not the same church today and forever and ever and your mistaken idea that the things that were said to be true of the church then are not still true of the church today.

By departing from demonstrably interpreting propositional truth, you seem to be garbling up together without distinction the church, the world snd Israel.

I hope this helps you and at least keeps you from making false claims against Biblical full preterism that I have expressed in my comments. It is your false doctrine that denies the things pertaining to the church have never been true, are not now true, and will only be true of a special generation at some ambiguous time in the future.

Tom

Share with your friends!