First off, we have a podcast here on RCM where we interviewed Mr. DeMar, and where he flatly stated that he, personally, did not believe that full preterism was a heresy. In my question on The Narrow Mind Gary said, ““And I’ve uh at full preterist conferences I’ve I’ve emphasized more the worldview aspects of it. I’m not just a preterist but I believe that eschatology is one aspect of a full orbed Christian worldview and I have found that a lot of full preterists seem to want to be johnny-one-note.” But, goes on to say, “All they want to talk about and often they get into a church and just like a Calvinist or anyone else might do this is all they want to say and I think that lends, lends to irritating people and [garbled] a church and so forth. And uh so, but on the questions that you and some others are are dealing with, PERSONALLY I DO NOT CONSIDER IT HERETICAL.“ Now, I never caught this before, but DeMar goes on to say, “…and of course you don’t deny the resurrection…” He was comparing SOME Full Preterist views over and against my own and a few others. But, I have to wonder at the time what he meant by “of course you don’t deny the resurrection.” Now, a common Full Preterist argument, as I used, was to say, “no, of course we do not deny the resurrection.” But, what is MEANT by “resurrection”? For DeMar, we know what is meant: the orthodox view. Was he under the impression that I was not that far out?Continuing from the Narrow Mind, “I continue to dialogue with some full preterists. But as you know some full preterists are getting off into uh some goofy things, to my mind…” Who are these “some”? Further, “I DO NOT CONSIDER ALL FULL PRETERISTS OF BEING HERETICS BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST THE CREEDS.” Notice that small, little important word, “all.” Does Gary mean to say here that some are? Which ones? The goofy ones?
Now, DeMar wrote in an article, “Defending the Indefensible” (2004?) in his debates with John MacArthur, “Using a debater’s trick, MacArthur begins his analysis of nondispensational eschatology by assessing full-preterism. Full-preterists believe that all the New Testament prophetic passages were fulfilled in A.D. 70. Thus, there is no future bodily return of Christ. The resurrection is also given a non-traditional interpretation. Of course, I have no problem with someone debating the merits of full-preterism or partial preterism. R.C. Sproul engages in a debate with full preterism in his The Last Days According to Jesus, and Ken Gentry has written extensively on the subject. I’ve had numerous discussion with full-preterist writers and have voiced my dissatisfaction with a number of their interpretations. While MacArthur admits that partial preterism is not heresy, he goes on to write that “it is clear that the hermeneutical approach taken by [partial] preterists is what laid the foundation for the hyper-preterist error.” The old slippery-slope argument.” This sounds familiar. DeMar’s interaction with Full Preterists is not an endorsement of Full Preterism. No more than my friendship with Dr. Kenneth Talbot was an endorsement of Full Preterism. Notice, too, that DeMar slams the “consistent” argument so often used by Full Preterists, “if this is fulfilled, then that is fulfilled.”
In what DeMar called an old debaters trick, he continues, “Preterists could make all dispensationalists look bad by pointing out that there are hyper-dispensationalists out there, and since they are heretical, their closest relativesActs 2 dispensationalistsare equally suspicious. One leads inevitably to the other. Furthermore, following MacArthur’s logic, dispensationalists could be turned into heretics by observing that Jehovah’s Witnesses and dispensationalists are premillennial. Premillennialism, therefore, leads to cultism.” The man knows logic. Further, “The same “hyper” argument can be applied to Calvinism. Seeing that MacArthur is a Calvinist, I can just hear some of his Arminian friends saying, “It is clear that the hermeneutical approach taken by Calvinists like John MacArthur is what laid the foundation for the hyper-Calvinism error.” Amillennialist David Engelsma, also a preterist critic, follows a similar slippery slope argument. Engelsma writes that partial “preterism will become consistent preterism.” This is curious coming from Engelsma since he defends Calvinism against those who maintain that Calvinism inevitably leads to hyper-Calvinism or that Calvinism is in fact hyper-Calvinism.”
I used this very argument from David Engelsma. The very same one! I bashed Gentry with it: See! Even Engelsma gets it. Partial Preterism MUST give way to Full Preterism! Lord, I repent for such bad logic!
“This is exactly what Engelsma does in his attack on preterism. Instead of dealing with the detailed arguments of preterists, he immediately attacks hyper-preterism as if partial and hyper-preterism are synonymous. Engelsma even attacks a non-preterist, Andrew Sandlin of Chalcedon, accusing him of being a full preterist because he shares other theological distinctives with partial preterists. Very poor scholarship indeed. And Engelsma is a professor at a seminary! Let’s modify the hyper-Calvinist paragraph above by substituting hyper-preterist for hyper-Calvinist.
In most cases the charge “hyper-preterist” is nothing but a deceptive attack upon preterism itself. Someone who hates preterism, or the uncompromising, consistent defense of preterism; yet he hesitates to attack preterism openly and forthrightly, and therefore he disguises his attack as an attack on “hyper-preterism” and “hyper-preterists.”"
Now, there is something to learn here. If each view is to stand on its own merit, then what we have in Full Preterism are several version of Full Preterism. I have been using a blanket statement for Full Preterism when, in fact, I should be saying Full Preterisms, plural. Each view stands or falls. Covenant Creationism Full Preterism. Young Earth Full Preterism. Sovereign Grace Full Preterism. Rapture-Theory Full Preterism. Church of Christ/Arminianist Full Preterism. BiMillennialism. Immortal Body at Death Full Preterism. Redirectional Full Preterism. Universalist Full Preterism (Pantelism). Apostolic Gifts Full Preterism. So, yea, I am sorry for the blanket statement. I am sure many within the Engelsma crowd would still accuse me of being “full preterist” because I have the second coming in AD 70. I believe we are living in the “age to come”. DeMar stated last year that maybe he would debate full preterists if they could just figure out what they believe in. Chuckle.
Why bring this up? Because my position is very close to DeMar’s. As those who know me, and have heard me say a million times, I cut my teeth on DeMar, Chilton, Jordan, North, Sutton and Gentry (the Tyler, Texas Gang) back when Dominion Press and ICE were just starting. Now that I have moved slightly back to this position from a more or less appreciation of Full Preterism (sans its “goofiness”), I wonder why Gary DeMar continues to be featured on Full Preterists websites, but I am deceived and not to be trusted?
I don’t call Full Preterist “heretics”. Not all of them, anyway. I think some views are “goofy”, too. I don’t think much exegetical work has been accomplished. Same as Gary. I don’t even use the word “hyper-preterist” – Gary DOES! Go figure…..
tune in tomorrow on PRETRADIO 3:00 pm EST where we will address these very things.
Samuel Frost
With a B.Th., Sam completed a M.A. in Christian Studies; M.A. in Religion, and Th.M. from Whitefield Theological Seminary, Lakeland, Florida (with combined credits in Hebrew exegesis from Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida - and in Greek exegesis from Church of God School of Theology, Cleveland, Tennessee). Author of Full Preterist works, Misplaced Hope, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead and House Divided with Mike Sullivan, Dave Green and Ed Hassertt. Also edited A Student's Hebrew Primer for Whitefield Theological Seminary. Samuel M. Frost co-founded Reign of Christ Ministries, and has lectured extensively for over 8 years at Full Preterist conferences, including the Evangelical Theological Society conference, of which he is currently a member. Samuel is ordained, and has functioned as Teaching Pastor at Christ Covenant Church in St. Petersburg, Florida (2002-2005). He helped host the popular debates between Don Preston and Thomas Ice (with Mark Hitchcock) and Don Preston and James B. Jordan. Samuel is widely regarded by many of his peers as being one of the foremost experts on prophecy, apocalypticism, and Preterist theology. He was highly influential in the Full Preterist movement, having been published by Don Preston (Exegetical Essays), footnoted in several Full Preterist works, and authored one Forward, Reading the Bible Through New Covenant Eyes, by Alan Bondar. He has come to denounce his Full Preterist views in 2010 and affirms the historic Christian Faith and orthodoxy. Samuel Frost owns and operates his own business and resides in Florida with his wife Ann Marie, and his children, Janet, Jacob, Hunter, and Olivia. Check out more from Sam.
Lisa
Good article Sam. For my part, any view that compromises the individuals self-same flesh-body resurrection of the believer is in error. Period.
Lisa
^—— ha, sorry, it’s eric, not lisa :)
Jason Bradfield
Eric who? This ain’t Blore, is it?
Lisa
Hey Jason, yeah it’s Blore, wuttup yo? Been awhile. Hope all is well. I like what you guys have done with the place. I have to figure out how to change Lisa to Eric, or get a new account somewhere…
Jason Bradfield
Great to see ya, Eric! man, i’ve been wondering about you. I noticed you were gone at SGP and i tried emailing you a couple of times and never heard from ya….assuming i have the right email address. I was worried something bad happened. Anywho, good to hear from you.
I take it by your comment above that you are done with full preterism as well? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to, but i was just curious. If you’d rather shoot me an email, that’s cool.
peace out.
ps. up above and to the right, just above the “sort by oldest” menu, there is a grey button labeled “Disqus”. Click on that, log out, and then you can log in with your own name, etc.
Lisa
I was actually undergoing extensive eye surgery from rolling them so much lol, but yeah I’m pretty much done with “full” preterism. However, Russell was definitely on to something with “the” parousia occuring in 70A.D. but he was also right about there being a future resurrection, end of the world, and final judgment. That’s pretty much where I’m at now. If that makes me a “full”-preteirist still, then whatever, but for my part I agree much more with Amillennialism. Glad to see you guys are also reevaluating things. God is good. Be this, while life is mine, my canticle divine: May Jesus Christ be praised! Sing this eternal song through all the ages long: May Jesus Christ be praised! Hopefully, we’ll keep in touch, brother. Take care.
Anonymous
Agreed – good article. Are we “IBD’ers” or my particular version “goofy?” Hopefully not, but I’m a big man…if you / Gary thinks it is then so be it.
Blessing to you and Jason…Patrick
Samuel Frost
nah, you’re not goofy…….:)
Anonymous
Thanks Sam, to be honest my conclusions on the New Earth are making me feel a little goofy. I’ll post the scriptures and final conlusions on the various ning sites, but, well it is what it is.
God Bless…last day of chemo this week! Praise God…Patrick
Anonymous
Agreed – good article. Are we “IBD’ers” or my particular version “goofy?” Hopefully not, but I’m a big man…if you / Gary thinks it is then so be it.
Blessing to you and Jason…Patrick
Anonymous
You can send a private email if you’d like, of post here, or whatever, but I’m very curious what scriptures are being used to place certain key events in the future. I can see many things as ongoing until a final consummation (God all in all), but I’m at a loss for many others. Or you may be still searching this out…if so I’m patient.
Thanks…Patrick
Paul Richard Strange, Sr
Dear Brother Frost:
Am I alone in thinking that there has been more heated discussion among Christians online in the last 4-5 years than just about any
theolgoicial issue in church life over the last century?
Also, I wonder if any theological movement since the time of the Apostles themselves effort split into muttiple “camps” as fast as the
American Preterist Movement. I believe that Christ fulfilled His promise to come in the events of the Jewish-Roman War, and I believe
that much more wholesome Christian unity will emerge from increasing interest in this teaching than what currently appears as the
coming decades unfold.
But, it is utterly amazing that feeling threatened has produced in so many evangelicals exactly the attitude of the Council of Trent
against justificaiton by faith, the priesthood of the believers, and questioning of papal authority. Many evangelicals, in order to stop
Christians from seriously studying Christ’s promise to come in the First Century, are starting the church with Nicea, just as the Pope
and his defenders did, in order to argue for institutional control over what is “orthodox”.
Paul Richard Strange SR
dadprs@hotmail.com
Waxahachie Texas
todd
lisa, didn’t paul say exactly that “flesh and blood” WOULDNT make it to heaven? 1Cor15, had it not been my force of majority, could never be used as an arguement for traditional eschatology. paul clearly, and uniquivocaly argues for a “tent made without hands” or a spiritual resurrection.
todd
how do you know that they didnt know it? i believe that they not only knew it, they EXPECTED it. I am all for the blessed hope, but who’s blessed hope? it was the first century Christians that hoped to see their Lord in their lifetime. it was their anchor against the most violent persecutions ever launched on a believing people with Jews on the one hand and Nero on the other. They were torn apart, cast from their homeland, burned as candles, sharing things in true communist style, and singing psalms and hymns while those even in their own family were against them. The idea that Christ will come to rescue his Church in the future, is to me, just downright selfish. We have things too easy, believe too little, gorge ourselves on the excesses of culture too much, all the while paying no mind to what the first century Christians went through. and if that isn’t enough, we even have the gall to steal their blessed hope and add that our list of consumer-based guarantees; while ivory tower theologians are profiting off a false eschatology and enjoying be seated in high places and being called “rabbi” at their conferences. enough is enough. as you can see, fighting for hyperpreterism is also a fight for the honor of the first century Christians– to whom it is finally due– whose hope was not in vain– despite the blood they shed which was willingly poured along side their Saviors.’ Amen and amen. Hyperpreterism, the “heresy” that when paul wrote to thessalonia, he ACTUALLY wrote to thessalonia! oh how that violates the grammatico-historical approach! oh, how that violates audience-relevance of the text! oh, how we should embrace the oxymoron of “delayed-immenence”!
PaulT
Todd,
I assume you mean “ethereal” when you employ the term “spiritual” Here is the quote in context,
50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
I’m not sure how you get a “spiritual” resurrection out of that? What “ethereal” transformation occurred to those then living, the ones who didn’t go asleep when the “spiritual” resurrection transpired? Why if resurrection is spiritual did Paul claim to be absent from the body was to be present with the Lord yet held out hope to attain resurrection from the dead and claim his body would be transformed to be like Christ’s? BTW, was Adam’s body made with hands?
todd
again, had it this verse not been ruled by the majority of an erroneous eschatology, paul’s words would have never been made into a twisted pretzel. i can prove this very easily with paulT. he asks,” I’m not sure how you get a “spiritual” resurrection out of that?” my answer is simply to turn to the text, namely, 1Cor.44
todd
again,
traditional orthodoxy argues that the corruptible body will obtain kingom of heaven; paul says the corruptible body will NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven.(1cor.15.42)
traditional orthodoxy agues that flesh and blood will inherit the kingdom of heaven; paul says flesh and blood will NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven.(1cor.15.50)
traidtional orthodoxy argues that our body is like Christ’s (imperishable, heavenly); paul says our body is especially NOT like Christ’s, viz., it is perishable, earthly.(1cor.15.47)
the nicene creed says we look for the redemption of the dead, perishable body; paul says we look for redemption of the live, imperishable body (1cor15.37)
PaulT
Todd,
Did someone suggest the “corruptible” body will inherit the Kingdom? As the text indicates the corruptible “puts on” the incorruptible. Although you didn’t answer my last question which likely indicates you won’t answer this next question, but I will ask it nonetheless. Todd is the body of the believer said to be “corruptible”? What is said to “put on” the “incorruptible? And finally, why would an imperishable body be in need of redemption?
todd
paul
no question that YOU suggest that the corruptible body will inherit the kingdom. that is my point. you have no answer how flesh and blood enters heaven when paul says it cannot inherit it the kingdom of heaven! if you do, i am all ears. and i did answer your main question, although you asked 4 of them, namely paul DOES say that there is a natural body, and there is a spritual body, that which you call “etheral.” how does an imperishable body need redemption you ask? read 1cor15.36. a great verse is 2Cor.4:16, “therefore we do not lose heart. even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day.” And why would paul say to “depart from the flesh and be with Christ is far better” if he had no body and was awaiting an end-time adoption? and how could paul say that “although absent in the flesh, yet i am with you in spirit” if he was not being sown to the Spirit? or what about being” raised with Christ….for you have died and your life is HIDDEN with Christ in God” if there is no spiritual body living within an earthly body? now does 1cor.15 make more sense? if not, try reading 2Cor.5. first.
PaulT
Todd,
Please, you are reading into what I wrote. The text in context answers your question. The body sown corruptible is raised incorruptible. This is why the Apostle Paul states this mortal body must “put on” the immortal. That is what the text states. You are presupposing corruptible and body are synonymous, which is a question you are begging. My answer is that the body corruptible and weak doesn’t enter the kingdom, when raised it puts on the incorruptible immortal. Indeed, there is a natural body just like there is a natural person in 1 Cor 2. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with a position you’ve presupposed which is that “natural” equates to “material” or “spiritual” equates to “immaterial”, “ethereal”.
Finally, thanks, I read 1 Cor 15:36, and I’m still waiting for you to answer my question. The incorruptible body is the body redeemed from the grave with a new characteristics. Bodies redeemed are not in need of redemption. Thus far it doesn’t appear as though the orthodox has twisted anything. Oh, yea, was Adam’s body made with hands?
The fact that you’ve been seemingly reluctant to address my questions doesn’t shed any light into the fact you are arguing a position not supported by the text. If in 2 Cor 5 the Apostle is developing the concept of transmigration of the soul, why would he rather be further clothed than found naked. Try reading 1 Cor 15 then 2 Cor 4 & 5, after all that is how they were presented to the original audience. When you realize that both chapters talk about further “putting on” perhaps you will realize the Apostle isn’t talking about the oxymoron of an “immaterial” body.
todd
paul, you STILL cannot explain why you assert that flesh and blood enters the kingdom. sure, you can quote the text, but the text doesnt support your position. i want to know this: how does flesh and blood enter the kingdom of heaven? we know that Jesus entered heaven with flesh and blood, because the text in John tells us so. but you need to explain why their is a 1to1 correspondence between Jesus’ body and ours. paul goes to great pains to say, “no it doesn’t….it can’t” which probably is why he says elsewhere, that although we once regarded Christ in the flesh, we do so no more. and yes, i am assuming the corruptible and natural body are synomous! that which is of the flesh is flesh, that which is of the Spirit is Spirit. and yes, Adam’s body was made with hands, the text in Genesis tells us so!
todd
….and yes, i am assuming that spiritual means spiritual. you are assuming that spiritual means “neo-physical or neo-material”. you are also assuming that when paul said “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven” that he really meant “once the corruptible puts on the incorruptible, then yes, flesh and blood CAN inherit the kingdom of heaven.” Then you have the chutzpah to declare, “Thus far it doesn’t appear that the orthodox has twisted anything.” okay! whatever!
PaulT
Todd,
Why would I need to explain something I’m not asserting? You may want to start figuring out a better argument. So God has a pair of hands? Gotcha.
Todd, your position is untenable; let me explain to you why. You’ve just argued through implication that death, “absence from the body” equates to resurrection through implication by asking, “And why would paul say to depart from the flesh and be with Christ is far better” if he had no body and was awaiting an end-time adoption?” The answer, based on what Paul writes is I suppose, it is better to be naked in the presence of God than remain embodied in a fallen world in bondage to sin. Do you think living in a world in bondage to sin is better than being in the presence of God Almighty?
However that is just a rabbit path regarding this discussing, back to pointing out why your position is untenable. I’ve already pointed this out to a colleague of yours whose response seemed to be the Corinthians needed to wait 20 years or so until they received the book of Revelation and a timeline to figure it all out. Nevertheless 2 Corinthians 5 was written less than 12 months after 1 Corinthians 15 around ad54/55. In 2 Corinthians 5 Paul tells those same believers who already understood the “it” that was sown, (you know, “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body…”) would be raised, that absence from the body, (death) meant they would be present with the Lord. This then means they understood in AD54 or AD55 their loved ones were with the Lord which clearly then means they weren’t “sown”. Thus it is the body, the “it” which is sown. Therefore the material body of corruption sown is the material body raised in incorruption aka with different characteristics. I didn’t see your answer to the question “is “it” the body which is corruptible?” Please if you are going to claim Scripture doesn’t support my position at least answer my questions as to what Scripture is indeed conveying. The “it” that is sown is the “it” that is raised, which does indeed support my position.
Regarding your use of 2 Cor 2:14, the question under discussion right now is regarding the human body, not the man, right? Are you seriously suggesting the believer is walking around with two bodies? Perhaps Christ missed the mark in warning those about the One who could destroy body and soul. I suppose, based on your use of 2 Cor 2:14 He should have warned about the One who could destroy body #1, body #2 and soul.
Frankly, I’m a bit puzzled why you continue to ask about the idiom “flesh and blood” from 1 Cor 15. I’ve answered that question for you several times. First by providing you Paul’s own explanation found within the context in which he uses the idiom. Clearly Paul isn’t making a commentary on the physiological make-up of the body, but the fact the body sown is weak, corruptible driven by the desire to sin. However, Christ’ body raised wasn’t and given Christ’s resurrection is the model for the believers resurrection your point is meaningless. Is this the only argument against the resurrection of the material, corporeal body of the believer you have?
No, I’m not assuming “spiritual” means “neo-physical” or “neo-material”. I’m understanding the term based on how the Apostle Paul used it elsewhere, as I pointed out in 1 Cor 2 as an adjective to denote the ethical distinction by those driven by God and those who are not. You have no Biblical warrant to suggest “spiritual” is and adjective denoting some sort of spook, ethereal or immaterial “body” which in fact is an oxymoron. As soon as you explain what constituent part of man that the Apostle denotes is corruptible which he also explains puts on incorruptible then we can talk about chutzpah in the context of twisting Scripture.
todd
no, Paul, God does not have a pair of hands. the term “made with hands” is to denote that Adam’s body was made of clay. it is earthly, not heavenly. 1cor5.1
and yes, i am arguing for a spiritual body within a natural fallen body. 2cor5.1, 2Cor4.16. as well as our Lord’s words concerning being born again, born of the Spirit. and yes, i am saying that you believe that flesh and blood will enter the kingdom, once it is changed, because as you say, “Christ’s resurrection is the model for believers.” But our Lord’s own words dismiss that arguement entirely in Luke 24.39. “Behold my hands and feet…for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see i have.” in one very simple statement, our Lord destroys every plank of traditional orthodoxy concerning the nature of the resurrection. You say that flesh and blood will enter the kingdom once it is changed, Jesus says that flesh and blood is completely different than a spirit. So when Paul says “Flesh and Blood will not enter the kingdom” you take offense! amazing. you secretly desire that paul never used that statement. You wish that paul would have said, “now don’t get me wrong, i am not saying all flesh and blood, just the flesh and blood of unbelievers shall not enter, those born of the Spirit will.” But both Paul and Jesus totally dismiss that arguement completely.
todd
also, you say that “Therefore the material body of corruption sown is the material body raised in incorruption aka with different characteristics.” but when i point out that is neo-material, you take offense! so again, let me ask this question in a different way, “does flesh and blood in any compacity, change, or regeneration inherit the kingdom of heaven?
Dr. Kenneth Talbot
Todd:
You wrote:
“traditional orthodoxy argues that the corruptible body will obtain kingom of heaven; paul says the corruptible body will NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven.(1cor.15.42)
traditional orthodoxy agues that flesh and blood will inherit the kingdom of heaven; paul says flesh and blood will NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven.(1cor.15.50)
traidtional orthodoxy argues that our body is like Christ’s (imperishable, heavenly); paul says our body is especially NOT like Christ’s, viz., it is perishable, earthly.(1cor.15.47)
the nicene creed says we look for the redemption of the dead, perishable body; paul says we look for redemption of the live, imperishable body (1cor15.37)”
First, my question is which traditional orthdox views argue this position (you imply all), and second, what were the different views held in orthodox or protestant theology about flesh and blood vs. flesh and bone, or preresurrection bodies and post resurrection bodies? This might be more helpful in my understanding of what you have being stating. Because it sounds much like the “transmigration of the soul theory” of the Ancient Greeks. Thanks!
todd
ken,
no question it sounds like the “transmigration of the soul theory”, but the emphasis in the new testament is flesh/spirit. “that which is of the flesh is flesh, that which is of the spirit is spirit. again, “though the outward man is perishing, the inward man is being renewed” again, “if this earthly tent is destroyed, we have a tent not made with hands-heavenly.” clearly, paul argues for a spiritual resurrection, to take place after the physical dies. as i said before, it is so simple, had it not been for an erroneous theology imposed on 1cor.15, it would have never been so difficult to try to understand paul, which is why the gospel was given to fisherman and not scribes!
as for your question on which tradition i am arguing against; i am arguing against any and all tradition which sees the flesh and blood resurrecting in a 1to1 manner of the risen Lord in ANY manner.
Hal1
Reminds me of “reformed and always reforming” as well as WCF 31.4:
“4. All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.”
todd
I am all for the blessed hope, but who’s blessed hope? it was the first century Christians that hoped to see their Lord in their lifetime. it was their anchor against the most violent persecutions ever launched on a believing people with Jews on the one hand and Nero on the other. They were torn apart, cast from their homeland, burned as candles, sharing things in true communist style, and singing psalms and hymns while those even in their own family were against them. The idea that Christ will come to rescue his Church in the future, is to me, just downright selfish. We have things too easy, believe too little, gorge ourselves on the excesses of culture too much, all the while paying no mind to what the first century Christians went through. and if that isn’t enough, we even have the gall to steal their blessed hope and add that our list of consumer-based guarantees; while ivory tower theologians are profiting off a false eschatology and enjoying be seated in high places and being called “rabbi” at their conferences. enough is enough. as you can see, fighting for hyperpreterism is also a fight for the honor of the first century Christians– to whom it is finally due– whose hope was not in vain– despite the blood they shed which was willingly poured along side their Saviors.’ Amen and amen. Hyperpreterism, the “heresy” that when paul wrote to thessalonia, he ACTUALLY wrote to thessalonia! oh how that violates the grammatico-historical approach! oh, how that violates audience-relevance of the text! oh, how we should embrace the oxymoron of “delayed-immenence”!
Dr. Kenneth Talbot
Todd:
I not sure you answered my question because there are variation of views on physical resurrection, you seem to lump them together. But, just so I am not mistaken, you are arguing the IBV view over against CBV or bodily resurrection views? IBV being a “transmigration of the soul” “like view” like that taught by the Greeks. Is that correct? So you are saying that the “soul” with the body dies and then it is brought back to life in a spiritual resurrection? However, I need you to explain resurrection as “spiritual” renewal and the difference between spiritual renewal here and now versus post-death experience. I find no where in the teaching of the evangelical orthodox view the idea of a soul dying and the need for it to resurrect. Just the opposite. But I will get a head of you so if you would kindly answer the questions it would be behelpful. Yet, let me add a question. I can see how you and I would differ from this view, I am evangelical and orthodox, but I don’t see how you and the CBV differ in your outcomes? Explain how the CBV view and IBV differ as to their final or eternal state, that is, “free floating spirits” in the eternal state of “spirit” as in “soul” or “heavenly” existence. I already understand the Corporate and Individual distinction, but I do not see the necessary final state differing at all. I would classify both views as unorthodox. So please, I have yet to see this distiction demonstrated. However, I do agree that both IBV and CBV do oppose “self-same-body” resurrection (as expressed from the Reformed perspective). Your answer will be most helpful. Thanks!
todd
dr Talbot,
for the record, i am not arguing for the “transmigration of the soul” as a greek gnostic would, anymore than a proponet of physical resurrection is arguing in a neo-aristolean, stoic view. That there is a similarity, i do not deny. i prefer the phrase “biblical dualism”–that which is of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. As i noted above, i am arguing for the hyperpreterism position, or passionately defending the first century Christians which have been denied their blessed Hope (see above). So i am saying that the spiritual body is a spiritual body and that the old Adam plays no part: “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust” the New body is born from heaven(John 3:80), “is being sowed to”(1cor15:37) and “being renewed day by day”WHILE the outward man is perishing [ it is crucial that one sees the two body model here as opposed to the one body model] (2Cor4:16). it is awaiting adoption (Romans8:23) for who hopes for what he sees, rather we hope for what we DO NOT SEE(romans8:24-25). We don’t need to go to the greek and try to make “spiritual body” mean “physical body.” Dr. Talbot, i am aware of your belief that the old Adam or “flesh and blood” will, in fact be resurrected at the end of human history. To that, i say, you simply do not “have a friend in Jesus”–or Paul, for that matter :>) on this issue. the one body model has been forcefully injected into the annals of church history, viz. the nicene Creed.
sam
If flesh and blood cannot be raied and transformed, then what “body” did Jesus have when he ascended?
todd
If flesh and blood cannot be raied and transformed, then what “body” did Jesus have when he ascended?
sam, is this question directed to me, or the apostle paul?
Dr. Kenneth Talbot
Todd wrote:
“Dr. Talbot, i am aware of your belief that the old Adam or “flesh and blood” will, in fact be resurrected at the end of human history. To that, i say, you simply do not “have a friend in Jesus”–or Paul, for that matter :>) on this issue. the one body model has been forcefully injected into the annals of church history, viz. the nicene Creed.”
That can only mean one thing: I am not saved, Samuel or Jason are not saved either. Is that your position? Therefore all of evangelical Christianity is also damned who believe in a self-same-body resurrection. Is that your best argument? ROFL! You did not even attempt to answer the questions I posed to you. No exegesis, just proof-texts, out of context, grammatical wrong and lacks credible contextual thematic construction. Irrational babbling from a novice. Sorry, this a waste of my time. You would do well to study Dr. Birks on this matter, if you are going to take his position, at least he is willing to engage in an intellectual discussion on the topic with exegetical support, even if I disagree with his exegesis, it is a substantive discussion worthy of our time and consideration.
P.S. Oh, BTW you don’t even articulate my position on the resurrection correctly.
Dr. Kenneth Talbot
Samuel: This is a delusional statement: “sam, is this question directed to me, or the apostle paul?” Todd does not know that he was doing the posting and not the Apostle Paul in the conveerstation. This psychotic event is know as “psyco-history” a sad case where an individual thinks he exists as two persons in the same flesh – Todd (sometimes) and the (Apostle Paul) at other times. So play along and ask him “who is asking the question? Todd or Paul? You should be able to figure it out from there and answer the question.
Hal1
Dr. Talbot,
Mocking Todd such as making comments like, “Is that your best argument? ROFL!”, & “Irrational babbling from a novice. Sorry, this a waste of my time,” get people nowhere fast. Some such as myself enjoy reading these threads and seeing human beings sincerely share their ideas. Humility goes a long way, pride goes before a fall. Please, if this is a waste of your time, drop out of the conversation, but if you continue please do as Todd, Paul, and Sam have done and converse in a respectful and Christlike manner. Men sharing, not boys with their chests puffed out trying to run down their opponents and win an argument. It’s not a pissing contest, its a Christian website.
I believe this has been a substantive discussion worthy of my time and consideration, as one who is reading and learning. Only the Lord knows how many others are “lurking” and reading, and learning. Comments that mock or run others down are not worthy of one who names the name of our King.
Thanks.
Jason Bradfield
Hal, with all due respect, I believe Dr Talbot’s rebuke of Todd is warranted. Go back and read Todd’s comment…it is absurd:
“The idea that Christ will come to rescue his Church in the future, is to me, just downright selfish. We have things too easy, believe too little, gorge ourselves on the excesses of culture too much, all the while paying no mind to what the first century Christians went through. and if that isn’t enough, we even have the gall to steal their blessed hope and add that our list of consumer-based guarantees; while ivory tower theologians are profiting off a false eschatology and enjoying be seated in high places and being called “rabbi” at their conferences. enough is enough”
How should Todd expect to be spoken to when he starts off with such nonsense? Quite frankly, I didn’t really care to leave this comment up, but sometimes I do so that people can get an idea of what kind of mindset they are dealing with in many full preterists.
Todd should be thankful that anyone took a minute to respond to him & his nonsense at all. If anyone is stifling conversation, it is this guy who starts right in with his claims that all orthodox Christians are selfish and absorbed in consumerism.
I think asking Todd whether that was his best argument or not was pretty tame in light of what Dr T had to RESPOND to.
Just saying… ( :
todd
ad hominem attacks are never warranted, especially in “Christian” sites (matt5.22). i am all for heated debates, after all this is the internet, but i do feel sorry for Dr. Talbot. He had a meltdown. as for my post on the early christians vs. this present generation, that was written well over a year ago on a review of Keith Mathison’s book, “Age to Age, The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology.” i have had email correspondence with him on an occassion, and i found him very cordial. we ended our debate with respect, dare i even say love?
PaulT
Todd,
I’m not sure we are going to get anything resolved. Notwithstanding the fact you have no biblical basis to support the idea man is constituted of two bodies and a soul, a position which contradicts Christ Jesus on the matter. It appears to me you don’t seem to think Jesus Christ is God incarnate, aka God come in the flesh.
Your psychoanalysis is a bit amusing but allow me to suggest instead of attempting to practice internet psychiatry by reading peoples hidden desires you might want to spend a bit of time on basic hermeneutics. Employing the Lord’s statement to the disciples who thought they saw a ghost in support for your position is really a poor interpretation of the idom “flesh and blood”. The statement of Christ demonstrates the false nature of your claims. God’s plan of redemption isn’t about saving spooks as you would suggest, but men, whose body will be redeemed from the grave. That is why he assured them His body was real and not a “spirit”.
By the way if a body “made with hands” can’t inherit the kingdom of God, why is one sitting on the throne ruling that same kingdom at this very moment?
Jason Bradfield
If all attacks on people are off limits, then you have just condemned yourself in light of your attack on those who believe in a future return; even worse, condemning my Lord who called people swine and hypocrites. However, if by ad hom you are referring to the ad hominem fallacy, then you have just revealed your ignorance as to what that fallacy is because no where has Dr Talbot sought to discredit an argument of yours by sidetracking us all with an observation about your character. That observation came after the fact. ( ;
Go and learn what this means. Meanwhile, any more stupid generic jabs at orthodox Christians and/or scholars from you will get canned.
todd
I’m not sure we are going to get anything resolved. Notwithstanding the fact you have no biblical basis to support the idea man is constituted of two bodies and a soul, a position which contradicts Christ Jesus on the matter.
paul, again let me quote Scripture, as it appears i am the only one doing so. “Even though our outward man is perishing, our inward man is being renewed day by day.” The term “man” means something, does it not? it doesn’t mean “soul”. it is equivalent to “body” That is two bodies- an inward, and outward.
Again, “for we know if this earthly house is destroyed, we have a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” A house, paul, is not a soul.
So in two verses we have “man” and we have “house” That refers to “Body”
also, when Jesus saw the diciples, they thought he was a “spirit”. So much for the idea that a spirit has no form! also, in hebrews we read that some entertain angels unawares. wow! angels, who have no earthly vessel, can be mistaken for man! and they are spooks!
paul, YOU are the one with no biblical basis. i am the ONLY one on this discussion post quoting Scripture. There is something wrong with that, and from now on, no quoting of Scripture, no response, because i am getting tired of sophmoric ad hominem’s.
todd
By the way if a body “made with hands” can’t inherit the kingdom of God, why is one sitting on the throne ruling that same kingdom at this very moment?
wow, paul, you really think Jesus’ body is made with hands? let me ask you this: were you born in the line of David? were you conceived by a virgin? were you formed directly by the Holy Spirit? were you born perfect man and perfect God? Did you fulfill the law perfectly in your flesh? Did you take on the sins of the world? Can you resurrect on the third day?
enough, then, of trying to use our Lord as a model. unlike Jesus, you were made with hands. for Genesis is clear, “And the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life” That is what we mean by “made with hands.” Jesus was not made with hands, again, being formed by the Holy Spirit, and conceived by the Virgin. so you are quite wrong on this. But i digress. Paul in 1cor15 and other places is not concerned with our Lord, he is concerned with believers born “in Adam”. PERIOD.
steven
jason,
can you be more specific as to what you mean when you tell Todd “any more stupid generic jabs at orthodox Christians?” i have read all the posts and the only thing i can find is his reference to believers in this generation compared to early Christians? but if you read it closely it says “we”, which i think and includes himself.
i dont agree with his position, but i just feel that you and Dr. Talbot have not treated him fairly. i thought paulT and todd had a great debate/discussion going!
sam
Todd wrote, ” Paul in 1cor15 and other places is not concerned with our Lord, he is concerned with believers born “in Adam”. PERIOD.” Nope. Paul is dealing with “the resurrection of the dead” (15.42) and Jesus is the “firstfruits” of that resurrection. He is the cause. Second, Jesus was “in Adam” in that Jesus became “flesh”. He is the last ADAM. Luke even included Adam in the genealogy of Jesus.
Jason, this is typical, is it not? I don’t know who this Todd fellow is. But the inconsistency here is telling. I won’t say he represents Preston or more sturdier thinkers in Full Preterism, but these types are out there. If one is “seeking” and “asking”, great. If one is coming on here “telling” and “lecturing”, then there is no real “debate”. Jesus is the model. He is the Resurrection. He is Eternal Life. He is the Will of God. He is the Model. Full Preterism makes him so exceptional and so unique that it makes the author of Hebrews false: “he was made like unto us in EVERY way.” Jesus is fully man, and fully God as the Second Person of the Godhead – the Son of God, eternally. For me, you want to know the Achilles Heel of FP? Jesus.
Jason Bradfield
Dr T, Sam, Paul, you’ll love this…so, after warning “Todd” about his jab at Christians, he responds with this, “jason, i can see what kind of site this is, what kind of vitrolic hatred is here. don’t worry, i have decided to “can” myself. When ad hominem attacks become acceptible, and when “your” Lord is used as a defense, then trust me, it is time to leave.”
I marked it spam, deleted it, and called it a day. Then, about four hours later “Steven” leaves a comment, which can be seen above. He asks, “can you be more specific as to what you mean when you tell Todd ‘any more stupid generic jabs at orthodox Christians?’ i have read all the posts and the only thing i can find is his reference to believers in this generation compared to early Christians? but if you read it closely it says “we”, which i think and includes himself. i dont agree with his position, but i just feel that you and Dr. Talbot have not treated him fairly. i thought paulT and todd had a great debate/discussion going!”
I’ve been running/administrating websites for a long time and i am hip to all the tricks people try to pull. I thought it was weird that some guy named “Steven” showed up out of the blue to defend this guy named “Todd”, shortly after “Todd” said that he was leaving. I’ve seen this pattern before and my first thought was that this was the same guy. I could not, however, tell much from the WordPress app on my phone. It only lists the name, the email address used, and the comment. Doesn’t tell me the ip address. I could have disabled RCM’s mobile version and then logged in to look, but that was too much hassle. So, i waited until i got home to look some things up.
“Todd” posted using the email toddtst@yahoo.com with an ip address of 12.193.51.106.
“Steven” posted using the email stevensenjorg@yahoo.com with an ip address of…wait for it….12.193.51.106.
So, my first clue that this was the same person was that both men were commenting from the same computer. Some more clues came after doing a google search on the names ‘toddtst’ and ‘stevensenjorg’. Both names can be traced to the same guy thanks to Amazon….Todd T Stevenson.
“toddtst” is the nickname for a “Todd T Stevenson” on Amazon. That then makes sense of the email that was used: toddtst@yahoo. Todd T STevenson.
“Stevensenjorg” is a “T. Stevenson” on a few Amazon reviews. “T” for Todd, of course. “Stevensenjorg” also results in a “Todd Stevenson” at a mylife website. “Steven” then was probably used as a short version of his last name, Stevenson, which of course was confirmed in the email he used: stevensenjorg@yahoo.com.
And again, both of these came from the same computer…12.193.51.106. THIS IS THE SAME GUY POSTING AS TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. ROFL!!!
Dr Talbot was absolutely right. Not only is Todd delusional in that he doesn’t know when he is Todd or the Apostle Paul, but apparently now he gets confused with being “Steven” as well. ROFL.
Read the comment again from ‘Steven’ about ‘Todd’: “i dont agree with his position,” MUHAHAHAHAHA! What a nut!
And to make matters worse, Todd still can’t make sense of his own comments even with the help of his alter ego. He wrote, “but if you read it closely it says “we”, which i think and includes himself.” Why would Todd include himself in a slam against those who “[we] even have the gall to steal their blessed hope and add that our list of consumer-based guarantees.” I thought Todd was a “hyper preterist”? Yet, he includes himself with those who “steal their blessed hope.” His comment is complete nonsense. The whole “we” thing was nothing more than false humility….playing word games to take shots at Christians.
So Sam, there’s the answer to your inquiry of who “Todd” is. Todd T Stevenson, aka Steven aka the Apostle Paul.
Well, needless to say, Todd and Steven both have been banned with ONE click of the button. lol. And Dr Talbot was absolutely correct in his assessment of this delusional nut and the time he has wasted.
todd
i plead guilty! but once i decided that this site was run by third-graders, i decided to cower to your level!
Jason Bradfield
Todd, i’ll leave it at that. Toodle loo! Or, Toddle loo! Or perhaps I should say, Steven loo! lol.
Anything you send now goes straight to the :outer darkness: folder in WordPress and is never seen by anyone.
sam
Silly Full Preterists…..where’s Larry when you need a real representative? Larry?
Dr. Kenneth Talbot
Samuel:
That is my point exactly!
Jason Bradfield
Sam, Larry ain’t here because Larry thinks it is a waste of time. Someone emailed me this quote from him written today, “It is time to turn our energies and resources back to the text and to continue the work of ministering to interested people who really what to know what the Bible teaches with regard to the end-time, and further to convince those who are presently being confused by the “yeah we believe in A.D. 70, but God still have more stuff to do crowd” who are determined to push the consummation of redemptive history thousands of years beyond what the Bible teaches as truth. Too much time and energy have been wasted on Sam, Jason and others already who are no longer open to the truth.”
There you have it. Now, keep in mind that this is Larry writing this. Anytime anything even remotely negative is said about full preterists, Larry comes running over and reassures people that he is just as “Christian” as anyone else; that he loves the Lord, loves the Word, loves truth; so on and so on. But does he return the favor? Nope.
“Too much time and energy have been wasted on Sam, Jason and others already who are no longer open to the truth.”
Can you imagine the response Larry would write if i ever said anything like that about him directly? He gets all emotional even when what we write comes no where close to speaking of full preterists like this. I shutter to think what would happen if i ever said anything like this about him. Wow. But ah, doesn’t surprise me that he would say this. This is the arrogance and pomp of full preterism. You hear it in the rinos, Alan Bondar, Larry; we saw it immediately from “friends” when we started questioning full preterism.
Of course, i expect it. i did it too. But i just wanted to highlight the real nature of this debate between the full prets and everyone else; full preterism isn’t a viable alternative within Christianity. It is anti-Christian.
PaulT
Jason,
Spot on! Hyperpreterism, “full” preterism is antithetical to the Christian point of view as defined by the propositional truth claims of Scripture. RINO false prophet Green has conceded their understanding of God’s redemptive goal is akin to what the Gnostic’s of the second century advocated. What is a killer is that anyone would suggest someone who has fallen for Gnostic concepts is a “seeker of truth”. I think what this all gets down to is a few “poop” house theologians don’t have a clue about God’s meta-narrative.
God Bless,
sam
I am shocked….truly….I just spoke to Larry the other day…..Mike Sullivan calls me a “whore”…..does Larry say anything? Nope. Yeah….wow….just shocked…..didn’t see that one coming…..he’s another one of them…..Full Preterism creates this kind of thing…..and it did it to me as well….what do you expect?
sam
I just broke my own internet rule and went over to Pret Cosmos. Anyone associated with that slop is amazing to me. The filth that is spewed over there…pure slop. To think I actually respected these people. I mean just read it. If you were Christian it would make you sick to your stomach. I was visibly shaking…..I have lost respect for anyone condoning this kind of slop….
Larry Siegle
Jason
My point on PretCosmos was that a continuing stream of “Sam said this….” and “Jason said that…” is a waste of time and energy, especially if nothing is being offered that contributes to dialog. You and Sam have chartered a course and set sail in a certain direction and nothing that is said from me, or anyone else with Full Preterism is going to affect your decision. Three out of every four postings on PretCosmos has been devoted to Sam and my opinion WAS and IS that continuing to discuss various aspects of your decision is not going to produce any real fruit.
When I jointed PretCosmos nearly a decade ago the website and discussion group was devoted to what the Bible teaches and in exegesis of the text, not related to personalities–pro or con. I was urging people to take their eyes off of the disappointment of the moment and to go back to the word of God. My faith is not based upon what Max, Sam or you have shared over the years, but only on THE WORD. If the Bible teaches the Preterist view, then it will stand. If not, then it will once again be relegated to the theological trash heap (as apparently was the case with the rise of dispensationalism near the beginning of the 20th century). Some good books were written by Russell, and others, gained some acceptance, but the world changed, society changed, and the attention was placed elsewhere.
I do not read everything Mike Sullivan writes and until Sam mentioned it the other day, was not aware of the “street walker” reference, which I find unfortunate and judgmental. I defended recently the choice of Dr. Talbot in using a “screen name” in his postings on various websites in the past because I have no proof that his motives for having done so were impure or untoward. That is between him and God and not for me to judge. Sometimes what is said is based upon emotions instead of facts. I freely admit that I grieve deeply for your decision and that of Sam, but I am a man and can handle myself (most of the time) in a detached, adult manner. I have nothing to say about REASONS or MOTIVATIONS other than what the two of you have shared. Again, that is a matter that lies between yourself and God.
My disappointment is with the continual disparity and usage of terms that both of you found offensive during the time YOU were a Full Preterist. How is it okay NOW to charge FP with being “heretical” and dishing out “pure slop” when you would not have wanted to have had such things said of you in the past. A change of “teams” does not imply the necessity of engaging in “trash talk” that really does not address the important issues that divide us.
A true scholar is not one who SAYS they are a scholar and a theologian, but rather the one whose ACTIONS reflect that such is the case. Pressing an argument does not give license to “judge the servant of another”. I will give account for my words and actions because I recognize that the Lordship of Christ is more than just a “doctrine” it is a REALITY–one that requires careful attention given to the “orthopraxy” aspect of Christianity. It is not necessarily to sacrifice one’s integrity upon the altar of doctrinal correctness.
Blessings
Larry
Jason Bradfield
hmmm…let’s read this again: “Too much time and energy have been wasted on Sam, Jason and others already who are no longer open to the truth.”
Larry, i get that you think it is a waste of time for dave, ed, and mike to do what they do; mainly because the vast majority of what they do is “pure slop”…they lie, they slander, they gossip, they mock. So yeah, i completely agree with you that it is a waste. But you didn’t stop there. You went on to say that the waste was because we “are no longer open to the truth.” Seems pretty clear to me what you meant.
And yes, i was offended at times when referred to as a “heretic”. And? Your point is? “Heresy” exists regardless of whether or not the adherents want to call it that. OF COURSE full preterists will not be cool with people calling them heretics, because in THEIR EYES they’re not. But since when were you the standard?
It is just like i told you on preteristblog: “of course no one in it thinks they are foolish and arrogant, just as i didn’t think that of myself at the time…that’s where the “blindness” part comes in.”
So what if i got offended when i was a full preterist; the fact is that my view was heretical the whole time, whether i wanted to acknowledge or not. “Heresy” isn’t subjective. Heck, if we were to follow your lead Larry then i guess we could never call anything heresy because all an adherent to the view would have to do is talk about how “sincere” and “honest” and “genuine” they are with their beliefs.
Mormons are sincerely, honestly, and genuinely wrong and heretical…period. I, as a full preterist, was sincerely, honestly, and genuinely wrong and promoting heresy…period. I’m not going to water down the terminology and avoid calling something for what it really is just because YOU are disappointed, Larry.
And please point out to me where i am “dishing out ‘pure slop’” comparable to that of what goes on at pretcosmos. Are you kidding me? Where Larry? I have people in my life now that would eat me alive if they came on here or at my blog and saw me writing in the sinful manner that goes on at that joke of a website. And even when i was a full preterist, i LEFT the pretcosmos list YEARS ago because they dished out the same pure slop that they dish out now…the only thing that has changed is their obsession went from Virgil to Sam and Dr Talbot.
I LEFT PC at least 2 or 3+ years BEFORE i “changed terms” Larry. What’s your excuse?
And again, i would be curious to know if you would consider this ‘trashtalk’: Jason is not open to the truth anymore.
As for your “scholar” bit, i have no idea why you even bring that up. I have never referred to myself as a scholar.
Lastly, you write, “I will give account for my words and actions because I recognize that the Lordship of Christ is more than just a “doctrine” it is a REALITY”
Besides the point that i have no idea why you bring this up to me ~ i am actively involved in a church that practices real discipline and accountability ~ i really would like to know what Scripture you base this ‘future accountability meeting with God’ on? You WILL give an account? Really? You mean to tell me that “God has more to do”?
Larry, let’s just cut to the chase. The reality is, you are no different than the dogmatic, ‘narrow-minded’ calvinists you chastise. They think your view is a joke. You think their view is a joke. So just say it. Why do you continually attempt to sneak in with all this flowery and personal language? JUST SAY IT LARRY! Because you OBVIOUSLY will let what you really think slip out occasionally, as seen above.
You might be fooling some…you ain’t fooling me.
Larry Siegle
Jason
I do NOT believe any part of what Calvinists teach is a “joke” because of what the system implies about the nature of God, the nature of man, and the nature of the gospel itself. There is no question that ALL of us are ‘narrow-minded’ to some extent and for that I make no apology. Having a sense of convictions about what we believe is healthy and necessary, otherwise, we take no stand whatsoever, thus diminishing the power of the gospel. Calling ‘sin’ (for example) an “alternate lifestyle” does not make it any less what it is: SIN.
The difference is my preference of the use of language that communicates the same sense of conviction but without the unnecessary “jabs” and “attacks” aimed at the character of the other person–something that is simply NOT relevant to whatever argument is being made. I can debate a Baptist about some aspect of doctrine without calling attention to the fact that he is sleeping with the church secretary, cheats on his taxes, spends his money at the casino, and wastes his time drinking and dancing at the local clubs. While ALL of those things may be FACTUAL, it would have nothing to do with the particular doctrinal question that is being addressed in the discussion. The question in Biblical debate always remains: “What does the Bible teach?”
When I say that you and Sam are “no longer open to the truth” I stand by that statement BECAUSE I understand what I believe to be consistent with the word of God and therefore “the truth.” I believe that Futurism (in all of its ugly forms and convolutions) are, in fact, “false doctrine” and therefore deserve to be exposed as do all of the rest of the “unfruitful works of darkness” about which Paul speaks.
The eschatological Judgment Day in A.D. 70 did not bring an end to “accountability” before God. The New Covenant has FACTS to be believed, PROMISES to be received, and COMMANDS to be obeyed. The very nature of a Covenant necessarily implies responsibility between the parties involved to fulfill those things that pertain to the “legal” aspect of the Covenant itself. God has “written His law” on the hearts of those who are His children, a fact which necessarily implies that disobedience to those laws is certainly possible and therefore certain consequences are involved. Grace and Law are not mutually exclusive (as some Calvinists and others seem to imply at times). “The faith” (the complete body of truth contained in the New Testament) never gives the impression that grace allows for a lifestyle that runs counter to the character, nature and attributes of God. As “sons of God” and “children of the resurrection” we share His “divine nature” (II Pet. 1:4), and live in accordance with “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (II Pet. 1:3) that are revealed in the Scriptures. We are to be “conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:29) as individual believers because we live in Covenant with Him and therefore stand in the position of those “raised to walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-5) from the moment of conversion.
I agree “heresy” is NOT subjective. However, “heresy” is also NOT some definition given to it by a denomination, creed, council or confession. Heresy is defined as that which deviates from what is revealed in the word of God. The Bible (not religious organizations founded by men) are the OBJECTIVE standard of truth and therefore it is necessary for believers to “prove all things, hold fast that which is good” (I Thess. 5:21).
People CAN agree on what the Bible teaches. Most of the division within the religious world today comes as the result of arguing about matters about which the Bible says nothing. The Bible was delivered using human language and the average child can understand enough to be saved by simply reading what it ACTUALLY says.
Thanks
Larry Siegle
Jason Bradfield
Great then Larry. I’m glad you agree that heresy is not subjective and that we are all narrow minded and that we both think that the other one is teaching falsehood. So, now that we have finally resolved that, i don’t expect to read any more personal and emotional responses from you anytime i refer to full preterism as heresy and an “unfruitful work of darkness” about which Paul speaks.. ( :
sam
Larry wrote, “We are to be “conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom. 8:29) as individual believers because we live in Covenant with Him and therefore stand in the position of those “raised to walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-5) from the moment of conversion.” Notice that Larry is applying this verse to believers today. Can’t do it. The “body of Christ” (the church, ala King) has ALREADY been conformed to his image. Where does this “individual” thing come in? Isn’t that what the Futurists do? See, I taught that we ARE ALREADY conformed. “Image” here has nothing to do with the individual believer – it had everything to do with the “transition generation” from 30 to 70 AD. Sorry, Larry, you can’t use that verse today to support something that I should “be” – Futurism does that by missing the corporate resurrection of the dead for a resurrection at the end of history, and thus, in all of its ugly forms, crams this verse to apply to the individual believer today who is awaiting ultimate conformity in the resurrection of the dead at the end of time. You are being inconsistent here. Ask Dave Green. He’ll tell you.
Jason Bradfield
Right, Sam. King said it over and over again. The conforming in Ro 8:29 is that of the “corporate dimension of the one new man.” (The Cross and the Parousia of Christ, p. 497) It was completed in ad70. But now Larry wants to add another layer that applies it to individuals post ad70, even suggesting that there is a sense of incompleteness about it…”we are to be conformed…”
I thought we were conformed already, Larry? Which is it?
Samuel Frost
I do hope Larry responds to this. We “really” are “interested” in what the Bible teaches…..
Larry Siegle
Jason & Sam
There is NO questioning the fact that “The Cross and the Parousia of Christ (1987), written by Max King was written with ONE specific issue in mind, which was presenting the larger context of Covenantal transformation as it pertained to those events having occurred between the Cross (Christ-event) and His age-changing Parousia. That the Old Covenant community (Israel) was the primary focus of attention, the transformation (resurrection) of the New Covenant community (church), is seen ONLY from the standpoint of the “corporate” or “community” dimension as a WHOLE. The Gentile mission of Paul, and the necessity of God’s “election” of the “remnant” of historical Israel, and the inclusion of Gentiles into Israel’s “spiritual things” (Rom. 15:27) was of primary importance for the consummation of the age and the “goal” (teleos) to which those events pointed.
As a “corporate body” the action of “being conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom.8:29) was fulfilled in the redemptive sense for the purpose of completion of the process of Covenantal change. The fact remains, however, that Max King never addressed the issue of the “individual” believer with respect to his personal relationship to what had been accomplished. The FULL and COMPLETE establishment of a “system” furnishes the picture of what is purposed for those “individuals” who enter into the MEANING of what has been established. The Old Testament presents the entrance of sin and death through Adam (Rom. 5:12ff), and from the standpoint of the “corporate” level arguments presented by Paul throughout Romans, the consequences of Adamic “death” spread to “all” (Jew and Gentile) without exception. This fact, however, does not address the relationship of any specific “individual” who, because of faith, entered into a relationship with Jehovah. “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen.6:8), and this during a time when, “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). Noah (as an individual) is described separately, although none could doubt that he belonged to the same “world” (community) that was facing the judgment of God. “…Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God” (Gen. 6:9).
Although Noah belonged to the same “corporate body” (so to speak), as an “individual” his stance before God was not defined by the lifestyle and actions of his contemporaries. This is the contrast that must be seen in relationship to what is presented as the WHOLE in relationship to its individual PARTS. The transformation of believers (first-fruits) as a “remnant” generation living during the period between the Cross and A.D. 70, the “already, but not yet” aspect of “being conformed to the image of His Son” (Rom.8:29) was already IN PROGRESS, to be consummated at the end of the age. As a WHOLE, the body of Christ is seen as the “purchased possession” and “without spot or wrinkle”–AS A WHOLE, not in relationship to any individual member. The problems that existed in the churches is an illustration of how this is possible. Paul often addresses “the church” as “saints” (holy ones), even though certain individuals WITHIN that congregation may not have been living their lives according to God’s standards (See I Cor. 5).
The “age to come” resurrection-life of the believer today has both a COSMIC and an INDIVIDUAL aspect. The New Testament primary deals with the COSMIC aspect of eschatology, and the implications of what is meant for the life of the INDIVIDUAL believer. A new convert is not “born again” into the family of God fully grown, fully mature, with full and complete understanding of all that it means to be a Christian. A new Christian whose lifestyle was previously characterized as “dead in trespasses and sins” does not automatically (presto chango) become a child of God with no temptations, habits or attitudes that were evidenced in his former life. While from the standpoint of Covenantal change, the transformation process is completed, this fact alone does not speak to the issue of the individual believer who enters into that “state” or “sphere” of where “life and righteousness” are now possible. Such was not the case for humanity “in Adam” apart from the work of Christ. Such was not the case for those who lived “according to the flesh” relative to the Old Covenant mode of existence.
One of these days, I will set about to take the construct proposed by Max King in the COSMIC or CORPORATE sense and provide the applications of what this means for the INDIVIDUAL living now in the “age to come.”
Thanks
Larry Siegle