Is the Man of God’s Own Choosing on Your Side?

July 29, 2012 by Paul Gates

10 Comments 10 Comments

By Paul Gates

During the question and answer portion of the Joel McDurmon Don Preston debate the question was asked if hyperpreterism, aka “full” preterism is a damnable heresy. In follow-up to this question Mr. Preston seemed to imply that belief in Jesus Christ is what unites McDurmon and Preston. Although Preston affirmed belief in the deity of Christ, due to the format of the debate McDurmon was not able to inquiry as to Preston’s definition of Jesus Christ.

The question remains, who is the Jesus Christ Preston avows. Based on what he has written Mr. Preston, while affirming the deity of Christ seems to deny the humanity of Christ Jesus. This is a huge issue and goes to the very heart of Christianity.

Thomas Torrance explains in, “When Christ Comes and Comes Again”, “This same Jesus is also the Jesus of the Resurrection. It belongs to the very essence of the Christian faith that Jesus rose again from the dead in body, in the fullness of His humanity. If the resurrection of Jesus is not a literal and actual fact, then the powers of death remain unbroken and sin an guilt have triumphed after all, even over Jesus-then we are yet in our sins and without any hope whatsoever. Everything depends upon the actual physical resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is not dead. He is not a ghost. He did not disappear into the thin air of spirit. He rose again as Man, and opened up a way of salvation for us men and women of flesh and blood. Far from being held captive by the bonds of sin and death, far from being made a prisoner forever by entering into a guilty past that cannot be undone, Jesus Christ did the impossible: He snapped the bonds of sin and guilt; He broke open the prison-house of the past and shattered the power of death by His resurrection from the grave. And now He is alive for evermore on the other side of corruption and death and judgment, in the life of the new creation. It is this resurrected and triumphant Jesus, this same Jesus, who will come again.”[i] (emphasis added)

Germane to the subject at hand as it relates to the Jesus Christ of Mr. Preston is the statement by Dr. Torrance that Christ Jesus “did not disappear into the thin air of spirit”. Mr. Preston while affirming the deity of Christ deferred on affirming the permanency of the incarnation. Mr. Preston seems to hold the same position as articulated by his colleague David Green who explained that the Jesus he avows is “something that is Spirit”. However, Scripture conveys an entirely different Jesus Christ. The Jesus Christ of Christianity has permanently taken on human nature. Commenting on 1 John 4:2 Martyn Lloyd Jones explains,

“The ultimate of all who profess or teach Christianity is their attitude towards the Lord Jesus Christ. ‘Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God’; whatever their gifts may be and however wonderful they may be, they are not of God; ‘and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.’[ii] If one does not confess Christ Jesus in the flesh they are not of God according to the text of 1 John 4:2. Dr. Lloyd-Jones goes on to explain, “What is the teaching of the antichrist? It is not a denial of Christ; it is a misrepresentation of Christ; it is a teaching that either does something to Him or detracts something from Him”[iii]

The point, a denial of who Christ Jesus is, whether it focuses on denying His humanity as it appears Mr. Preston and his colleagues do or His deity is damnable. Dr. Lloyd-Jones points out regarding the errors brought against the doctrine of the incarnation, “There is no modern heresy. All the clever people who propound their apparently new ideas about Christ are simply repeating what has already been said; there have literally been no new heresies since the first century. But, you see, men have constantly fallen into that error; some have seen God only, and others have seen man only, and others have tried to see the two. That is why we must never say Jesus is God, Jesus is man; no, Jesus Christ is the God-man. In the incarnation, the eternal Son of God took our nature unto Himself deliberately; He is the God-man, Jesus Christ”[iv]

It is disingenuous for Mr. Preston to claim he shares a common belief with Joel McDurmon regarding Jesus Christ when he only affirms the deity of the Son of God and not the humanity of Christ. Mr. Preston needs to come clean, as his colleagues have, does he affirm the permanency of the incarnation, or does he avow the Jesus of his colleague Mr. Green, a Jesus who is “something that is Spirit”, a Jesus which, needless to say, is foreign to Scripture.

Of course, if Mr. Preston affirms the permanency of the incarnation which would require that Christ Jesus still possesses His body of the resurrection albeit glorified then he will have a real conundrum on his hands. That is, how is it Jesus as the first-fruits of the resurrection of the dead has His body, but the redeemed in Him don’t get theirs, so much for the term “first-fruits”. Mr. Preston would need to explain, why the only aspect of the believer that dies never gets raised to life in the resurrection of the dead? The fact is Mr. Preston’s entire heretical world-view comes tumbling down. But then, that is to be expected, the Man of God’s own choosing is not on Mr. Preston’s side.

[i] When Christ Comes and Comes Again, Thomas F. Torrance, Wipf and Stock Publishers, pg. 19-20

[ii] Life in Christ, Studies in 1 John, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Crossway, pg. 410

[iii] Ibid, 412

[iv]

Samuel Frost

These are, of course, strong points. In order to affirm the two nature of the Logos, the Logos “became flesh” in order to gain the addition of what consititutes “human nature” (one cannot be a human without a conception of substance and spirit, which, in turn is an indissoluable unity forming the very definition of “human nature”). Hence, if Jesus permenantly sloughed off his body, it would break the bond of the unity that forms the very definition of “human nature”. In short, denying the continuing incarnation of the Lord in his human body is, in essence, denying that he still retains “human nature”. This is a MAJOR theological error, and is certainly a differing position from the orthodox confession of “two natures, human and divine, very God and very man”. It would be saying, in effect, that Jesus, the man, sloughed off not only his body, but his manhood as well and returned to simply being the Logos. His remaining “very man” (a loaded phrase) is the very essence of his intercession AS man FOR humanity. It is through the human nature of Christ that intercession, atonement and his priesthood are effected. Remove the human nature in ALL of its meaning, and you have effectively removed salvation.
http://gregoryleonkiser.blogspot.com QuantumGreg

“There is no modern heresy”, amen. I’m finding this out. Being woefully ignorant all my life of church history, creeds and the early teachings and struggles of the church was the kink in my armor that allowed me to slip into full preterism. I didn’t realize there was “nothing new under the sun” and thought their novel interpretation was a revelation from God. But once I began to remove my ignorance of these historical issues I immediately saw how it attacked the very foundation of WHO JESUS CHRIST IS. That literally scared the hell out of me. LOL. Thanks for being Father’s vessels guys.
http://www.facebook.com/kengallowaypalmer Ken Palmer

“Thanks for being Father’s vessels guys.”
Ditto.
Paul Gates

Hey Guys,

I see where Mr. Sullivan has attempted to deflect the issue brought to bear by 1 John 4:2 against him and his colleagues. Mr. Sullivan quotes James Jordan. Interestingly enough the argument Mr. Sullivan quotes from Jordan doesn’t appear to be supported by anything within the context of the epistles. That would be, it seems an argument from silence, if you catch my drift. Mr. Sullivan explains,

“The Judaizers fit perfectly Jesusâ€™ predictions. They claimed to come in His name. They misled many. They claimed an anointing, but it was false. They were false prophets.â€
The Pharisees and no doubt Judaizers were hyper-literalists and believed the OT Law would continue in the New Creation/Age to come.”

You might find this of interest. Rudolf Schnackenburg wrote what is regarded by some as one of the three best commentaries on the epistle’s coming out of the last century. Dr. Schnackenburg explains of the opponents, “Although the problem of heresy has often been discussed and is still a matter of debated, there is general agreement on the following points”(The Johannine Epistles, Rudolf Schnackenburg, Crossroad, pg.17) It just so happens one the points in agreement contradicts Jordan and Sullivan. Dr. Schnackenburg goes on to explain, “The opponents are to be sought predominately in a Gentile Christian milieu. This is evident from the method of argument, which makes no use of scriptural proof, from the preference for the Son of God as a title for Jesus, and from other factors as well. A. Wurm has suggested that the opponents were Jewish and that the epistle defends the messiahship of Jesus against attacks from that quarter, but this theory has been generally rejected. An important counterargument is that such a denial of the messiahship of Jesus could never have arisen in a Christian community (cf.2:29)”

Mr. Sullivan’s argument doesn’t even get off the ground as there is no evidence the opponents were “Judaizers” based on the arguments put forward by John in his epistles. What Mr. Sullivan is left with is the fact he is advocating the same view the Docetics, and many believe Docetics were the opponents the arguments of the epistles addressed. You know a view that Jesus no longer is God incarnate. LOL!
Samuel Frost

Sullivan understands the point: if Jesus exists bodily “in heaven”, Full Preterism falls apart. Therefore, to save their heresy, they deny what is clear. This is a case where the “clear” Scripture SHOULD trump obscure. Rather, the obscure (hyper view) trumps the clear…..they always deflect to “time statements” – that’s Mike’s whole case….
Paul Gates

Folks,

I see where Mike Bennett who at one time was arguing a position, that at the time, I don’t believe he understood was doceticism, as pointed out here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3533 has weighed in on the subject. Mr. Bennett explains,

“So I see whether Jesus is still in a body or not is some huge deal to them. First off there is no reason why one can’t believe Jesus still be in a body and be an FP.”

Mr. Bennett is clearly confused over the matter, I’m don’t believe anyone here wrote 1 John 4:2. Mr. Bennett needs to understand the belief that the historic Jesus of Nazareth still lived was/is a central tenet of Christianity as explained by John who wrote 1 John 4:2.
BTW, do you all notice how Mr. Bennett subtlety attempts to change the issue? The concept goes from Jesus of Nazareth being in His body, you know the one which first saw the light of day in Bethlehem to being in “a body”. Apparently Mr. Bennett understands the implication of Christ’s status as the “firstfruits” in the resurrection of the dead. Therefore, if one avows what Scripture teaches about Jesus of Nazareth, having lived, died, only to live again and continue to do so, then one will NECESSARILY have to concede that is the promise those who have the down payment of the Spirit confess. Oops, don’t know many “FP” who avow the resurrection of the dead inclusive of their body as the Apostle Paul maintained.

BTW, this is interesting. Mr. Bennett goes on to explain,

“So in other words – all the souls in heaven already – they are SUB-human according to their argument.”

Evidently Mr. Bennett is borrowing a play from his colleague Mr. Green’s playbook. Given that Mr. Bennett has a strange definition of a winner as he supports the San Diego Chargers; I’m not surprised he would leverage a losing play. In any event, it is odd don’t you think that the RINO’s would classify a dead human being as a “non-human” being. Sounds like something they’ve borrowed from B.F. Skinner’s “playbook”. I believe it was Skinner who claimed death brought an end to the existence of the man. Makes sense, the RINO’s who are in fact Pelagians would borrow a concept from a humanist. Yeah, buddy, wouldn’t you know it, B.F. Skinner’s point of view works well for the RINO’s

ROFL!
Samuel Frost

Paul, Michael Bennett, with who there may be some hope, wrote, “So I see whether Jesus is still in a body or not is some huge deal to them. First off there is no reason why one can’t believe Jesus still be in a body and be an FP.” If he is willing to grant what the Bible teaches (continuing incarnation), then he has a huge problem on his hand.

First, he appears to think “we” are making a big deal of this. Actually, no. The orthodox from the second century onwards did, and it is the meaning of Jesus’ “human nature”. When the council stated, “two natures, very man, very God” the had in mind the continuing incarnate man, Christ Jesus (we know this as fact from their writings). There is NO text that says to the effect: Jesus sloughed off his body.

Second, If he is now willing to grant this sacred, biblical truth, the problem is that he now has to distinguish between the “bodily” presence of the man, Christ Jesus, and the Logos (who is eternally omnipresent, sharing the incommunicable attributes of God in that the Logos is God, the Son). The Logos is “always” with us. Yet, Jesus plainly states in John that he was “leaving this world to go to be with the Father”. By distinguishing these two aspects, the brilliance of the theologians of the Trinity noted that on one hand, Jesus, the man, did leave this earth. He has yet to return, for “he must be received in heaven until the restoration of all things”. Yet, he, as Logos, is omnipresent (“always” with us). One Person, two natures.

I realize this may go over Mr. Bennett’s head (as it has clearly done with so many other Hyper Prets), but perhaps there may be a glimmer of hope if Mr. Bennett is willing to grant this most fundamental, orthodox point.
- Paul Gates
  
  Amen, with God there is a way!
Samuel Frost

Ah, I saw you already caught that….lol…I just read your post after I wrote mine….lol…
Paul Gates

Folks,

I just posted this in response to several fallacious complaints issued against this blog over at facebook. I’m placing a copy of my extended response here as it is likely the frankness in which I deal with the dishonesty leveled against me won’t be appreciated and the post will be deleted.

Apparently a blog I wrote has made an impact in your hyperpreterist community. Sam contacted me alerting me to a long string of comments written in objection to this article, http://thereignofchrist.com/is-the-man-of-gods-own-choosing-on-your-side-by-paul-gates/ . I’ve reviewed several of the complaints and will post a series of responses as Facebook apparently won’t allow the content in one post. Anyway, the string was started by Alan Morton who begins by explaining,

“This is a favorite tactic of this Paul (whatshisname). He sets up a false premise within a question to make the one he is talking about to look like some weirdo ignorant christian in order to rip him a new one.
The failure of Gates to understand the body concept of Christ is really his own problem and not that of Preston.”

Not that Allyn has ever demonstrated much of a capacity to think through the issues, but this comment of his is a bit much. Are we to believe the body of Jesus of Nazareth isn’t a human body? Scripture is explicit for example, Paul explains, “who was descended from David according to the flesh” Does anyone really not understand what the concept of the body from a descendent of David means? Can he be serious? Or as the author of Hebrews explains, “he had to be made like his brothers in every respect”. Does someone really not understand what the concept of the human body means?

Clearly, Mr. Morton’s complaint is without merit as even children understand what the concept of a human body is all about.
Mr. Morton’s illegitimate complaint was followed up by, Jen Siegle who complained,

“Joel McDurmon was definitely not going there or he would have. They each had every opportunity to say whatever they wanted, including one last chance at the end. PaulT is off his rocker here.”
If Mrs. Siegle would review the Q&A session she will find in follow-up to the line of thought regarding whether “full” aka hyperpreterism is a damnable heresy a comment from Mr. McDurmon regarding the consequences of denying the permanency of the incarnation of Christ Jesus. According to Mr. McDurmon a denial of such is damnable heresy.

Then Bev Parks opined,

“The whole litmus test of the deity of Christ isn’t even biblical, but based on a man-devised creed”

Evidently 1 John 4:2 has been redacted from the version of Ms. Parks Bible. In any event the text is clear ones view of the incarnation is a “litmus test”, which is clearly where the creeds later got the idea. 1 John 4:2 explains,

“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.”

As we’ve pointed out here, http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=5914 the grammar when read in context leaves no doubt. John was communicating Christ Jesus IS God incarnate.

I’ve take to not normally commenting on what Ed Hassertt writes, because he is clearly a tormented soul. But, Mr. Hassertt goes on to explains,

“Paul has suggested over and over again that if preterists believe there is no future physical resurrection then preterists are robbing men of their full identity. He has repeatedly said that man without a physical body that is the same as his earthly body is not fully human. then when we point out the glorified nature of Christ’s body in heaven, he claims we are teaching that Jesus is not fully man. It is a logical game he plays that in the end destroys itself. They claim because we believe in the glorified body of Christ as taught in scripture instead of the exact same kind of body Jesus had before death, that we believe in a different Jesus.”

Actually, when Mr. Hassertt’s colleague Mr. Green explains the Jesus he avows is “something that is Spirit”, I point out they are denying the Christ Jesus of Scripture.

Then Mr. Morton replied to Sam bearing of all things false witness writing,

“I have been in discussions with Paul (whatshisname) over the years and know exactly where he is coming from. With Gates its that Jesus has the same body of flesh and blood, post cross as He had pre-cross. This is far from the glorified body concept that the Bible teaches about. With Gates its total flesh that guides him. Jesus certainly claimed he was in flesh and bone in the room with Thomas, but the fact remains that the body of Christ was glorified. His mortal wounds no longer took his life and the holes in his flesh did no longer bleed. He walked through solid objects defying the law of physics that say it is impossible for two material objects to occupy the same space at the same time. But these mean nothing to the flogger whose only object in life is to scorn the fulfilled person in Christ.”

What Mr. Morton falsely reported is, “With Gates its that Jesus has the same body of flesh and blood, post cross as He had pre-cross.” What an absolutely stupid thing to write. What Mr. Morton should have explained as to my position, which is the orthodox view, is that the self-same body of Christ Jesus, born in Bethlehem, which matured to be an adult, died on the cross and rose back to life is now glorified, having left the characteristic of mortality in the grave. The self-same body of Jesus of Nazareth which resides in heaven and will never be subject to death again. And Folks, that is what the Gospel is all about. The God-man Christ Jesus conquered the grave!

BTW, Folks, do you notice Mr. Morton’s tendency to employ Ad Hom in his responses? The poor guy just can’t get over the fact he had egg all over his face after it was pointed out Christ Jesus performed supernatural acts prior to the cross so the fact he performed supernatural acts post the resurrection doesn’t mean His body was not the self-same body of His birth. The poor guy never was able to address that point.

The a Jeffery Tyrell opined,

“For example, to describe Yeshua as God in a human body, or any variant thereof, really denies any true humanity. It denies a human conscience, a human mind. This, after all, is just a divine conscience in a flesh shell.”

I don’t think Mr. Tyrell understands the platonic presupposition inherent within his post. Not much use in responding to a guy who thinks a possession of Christ Jesus is just a “shell”.

And then Ed Hassett borrows the absurd argument of his colleague Dave Green and inputs,

“Its the Same sub-human argument they keep making in multiple places. It is another attempt at using human logic to twist scripture.”

I’m unaware of anyone who claims a dead person is a “sub-human” other than materialistic humanists who believe the existence of a human ends at death. There is a reason I don’t typically respond to Mr. Hassertt, he truly is a tormented soul, and the logic of his position is simply absurd.

I’ll skip down a few of the Ad Hom’s to some more input by Jen Siegle who claims I’m,

“Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.”

If I’m misrepresenting Mr. Preston’s position and in fact he does believe Christ Jesus is God incarnate maintaining possession of the body of His birth, albeit glorified, then all he has to do is say so. If not, then Mrs. Siegel’s charge of “straw-man” is bogus.

What’s hilarious is Mr. Morton’s testimony,

“I talked to him (Paul Gates) nearly everyday for 2 years on the internet and I am fully aware of his beliefs and narcissism.”
Odd, don’t you think? The guy claims he knows what I avow, only to turn around and misrepresent my position, sounds like he knowingly violated the ninth commandment. But then, that’s Mr. Morton.

Then Dale Sanford asks,

“How silly is this argument? Has ANYONE seen Jesus since he ascended?”

Yes, the Apostle Paul saw Christ Jesus post His ascension; he wrote that he did,

“he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” 1 Cor. 15:6-8

“Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” 1 Cor. 9:1
Dale went on to recommend and article written by Walt Hibbard whose argument at best is very superficial claiming among other things,

“If Jesus had a physical, corporeal body which He will inhabit when He comes a second time, why did He not reveal Himself with this to Paul on the road to Damascus? Was He saving His physical body for later? Or, could it be that His physical body had been changed into its glorious essence by this time?”

I wonder why Mr. Hibbard thinks when Paul saw Jesus of Nazareth He didn’t have the body of His birth. Paul clearly explains, “Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:8,9) I wonder what basis Mr. Hibbard has for assuming Paul meant some other body than the body of His birth we he explained the whole fullness of deity dwells in the body of Christ? Perhaps Mr. Hibbard doesn’t think descendents of David had human bodies.

Mr. Hibbard goes on to explain,

“I Tim. 6:16 describes Jesus as He “who alone possesses immortality.” Reason with me on this: Was His body before the crucifixion mortal or immortal? It had to be mortal (able to die), because if it wasn’t, how could He have died for our sins? Is the body He possesses now (at the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy) mortal (able to die) or immortal (able not to die)? It has to be immortal since the inspired word says so. Conclusion: Jesus’ body was changed.”

Gee isn’t there something about mortal putting on immortal written by Paul in 1 Cor 15? Oh yeah,

“this mortal body must put on immortality” 1 Cor. 15:53
I guess Mr. Hibbard failed to take into account the transformation which occurs to the body in the resurrection. Paul also explained, “I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 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.” 1 Cor. 15:51,52
Interestingly enough, Mr. Hibbard points out,

“Neither is it scripturally necessary to insist that corpses, bones, body particles or decayed organs from our earthly bodies will be reconstituted into incorruptible, immortal, glorious spiritual bodies. In fact, the seed analogy of I Cor. 15, esp. vs. 37-38, flatly denies such a notion. It is not just preterists who deny this, but many published scholars, such as Dr. Merrill Tenney of Wheaton’s Graduate School, and Dr. Kenneth Kantzer and Dr. Murray Harris of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, who have written excellent studies in this area.”

Here is what Dr. Murray Harris has to say about what Scritpure has to say of God incarnate,

In his book “From Grave to Glory” Dr. Murray Harris, in answer to the question, “Is the glorified Jesus still “in the flesh”?” points out, “Hidden away in the Johannine corpus is a trio of fascinating texts that relate to the Incarnation.” Dr. Harris goes on to explain,

“Jn. 1:14 “The Word became flesh.”
1 Jn 4:2 “Every spirit who confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh comes from God.”
2 Jn 7 “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, people who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.”

The verbs underlined are in three different tenses in Greek, reflecting differing emphases regarding the Incarnation.
In Jn 1:14, the aorist (“became flesh”) emphasizes the Incarnation as a past fact, a historical event (cf, 1 Jn 5:6). The perfect participle in 1 John 4:2 in the (…“having come in the flesh”) stresses the ongoing effects and permanent consequences of Christ’s coming in the flesh. Then in 2 John 7 the present participle (… “coming in the flesh”) points to that past fact as a timeless truth; the mark of “the deceiver” and “the antichrist” is the denial of the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. In these three verses, taken together, John assures us that the “enfleshment” of the Son of God is not only a historical fact but also a permanent fact; the incarnation is irreversible. The implication is that, as our advocate before the Father (1Jn 2:1), Jesus Christ retains the full humanity he assumed in the Incarnation. But “in the flesh” in 1 John1 Jn 4:2 and 2 John 7 must be understood in the same sense as “flesh” in Jn 1:14 – of an embodied human being.” (From Grave to Glory, Murray J. Harris, Zondervan, pg. 414)

Perhaps Mr. Hibbard should have checked what an author wrote on the subject prior to citing them as reference. I don’t think Mr. Hibbard was arguing for the permanent “enfleshment” of the Son of God.

Anyway, I believe I’ve demonstrated the complaint lodged against me was false, but then that is to be expected coming from the quarter it did.

God Bless,

Share with your friends!