Larry Siegle Comments

November 8, 2010 by Samuel Frost

172 Comments 172 Comments

Larry and I talk quite a bit during the week, usually when I am at work. So, there is no beef in this piece, but a warm welcome for him to post here and clarify what he means when, on Pret Cosmos, he writes, “For example, there is every reason to disagree with Sam Frost in his current position and some of the logical conclusions that are implied by that position. However, taking the battle to his doorstep may simply continue to drive him further in his present position. Does he need loving correction? Yes. Is he listening to those who accuse him of having adopted a postmillennial/partial preterist, hermeneutic? Not at the moment. We need to creatively find a better way to develop a collaborative framework through which the foundation correction necessary can be administer and where Sam (and others) are not forced into a theological corner…Pray for him. I do, each and every day, asking God for the wisdom and the words to help him see some of the conclusions he has reached may be logical, but are not what is necessarily implied by the text.”

Let’s break this down, shall we? There is “every reason to disagree with Sam Frost.” What are they? Every reason? I have yet to see one, Larry – except “paradox” – which we both reject. Care to offer some more “reasons”?

What is my “current position”? 1. I deny infinite procreation, which, we have found out in this debate many other Preterists do as well – opting for a “maybe” end of the world. This begs the question, Larry, that if the Bible is so, so clear on infinite procreation, then there is no maybe about it – baby making will go on ad infinitum. It is either taught in the Scriptures or it is not (or maybe it is just an “inference” that is not “necessarily implied” by the texts used to support such a view – which would sort of place us in the same boat, eh?).

“Taking the battle to his doorstep” may drive me further in my current position? And here I thought I was operating on studying, exegeting, and using logic in order to form my convictions about what the Bible says. I thought I have made this clear to you in numerous ways. I want this battle on my doorstep. I invited it. At first I was accused of all sorts of “motivations” and the like – even that Talbot taught me this view (in fact, he recently e-mailed citing our differences – go figure). But, this comment makes it sound like that I am driven by some sort of emotional booh booh. Nope. Not in the slightest. Not even close. If anything, Larry, Roderick Edwards has so offended me that one would think I would do anything not to side with him on anything if that were my motivation. The fact that he has even chimed in “agreeing” with me on an end to history makes me a little ill. But, that doesn’t stop me. Biblical exegesis and logic does. And so far, I have heard little of each, and a “paradox” loving from a few. Not anwers in my book.

Do I need loving correction? I would love to see it! Unfortunately, it ain’t happening. That would require a full refutation of what I have written thus far. Have not seen one. Am I listening? You bet! I visit Death is Defeated daily, and Pret Cosmos daily. I read it all. I don’t comment on those sites, but that does not mean I am not reading them. In fact, my recent paper on Beyond Creation Science shows I am reading DID. And, lo and behold, Tim Martin asserts my “goal” to a tee! So, where’s the correction for his postmillenialISH leanings?

Yes, pray for me, as I pray for you and the others (you know that). And, yes, we can collaborate – it’s just that I don’t have to collaborate with some. I choose to collaborate with Dave Green, or Jeff Vaughn and maybe some others, but there are some that I won’t do that with. My choice. No big deal there. I am not obligated to respond to everyone.

I await your response, or better yet…..I might just call you write now! :)

Larry Siegle

The primary point of disagreement between the two of us, is not in the substance that those issues related to what life means in the “age to come” (new heavens and a new earth) implies for believers who today are necessarily “in” the very “age” to which both the Old and New Testaments looked forward in prophecy (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; II Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1-3). In your discussion of ‘infinity’ you begin with defining the nature of God as it related to omniscience (an attribute that the Bible certainly affirms as part of God’s nature), and then built the case that conceptually the idea of an ‘infinite series’ is a logical contradiction with God’s omniscience. Fine. However, when the evidence is examine within the scope of those verses that pertain to the nature and extent of the “new heavens and a new earth” the Bible is absolutely silent as to any cosmic “end” (material, redemptive, or otherwise) that lies beyond the “age to come” and what is defined Scripturally, that pertains to the extent of that “age.”

In Isa. 65:17, the “new heavens and new earth” are mentioned, an obvious reference pointing forward to the messianic “age” following his parousia. However, notice the next verses what is stated as to the redemptive-covenantal state that describes this “new heavens and new earth”: “They will not labor in vain, nor bring forth for terror. For they are the seed of the beloved of Jehovah, AND THEIR OFFSPRING WITH THEM” (v. 23). The “beloved of Jehovah” refers to Christ who was promised: “Yet it pleased Jehovah to crush Him, to grieve Him; … He shall SEE HIS SEED, and the will of Jehovah will prosper in His hand” (Isa. 53:10). Both his SEED and His NAME will stand (Isa. 66:22). Instead of the concept of an ‘infinite series’ my understanding is that the “new heavens and a new earth” represent a perpetual ‘state of being’ in which God’s people dwell, grow and continue to prosper. The New Covenant is a ‘timeless’ state that exists within the stream of ‘time.’ The “new heavens and a new earth” describes life, people, nations as continuing to exist “outside” the Holy City beyond the end of the “age” (Rev. 21, 22). The stream of time appears to continue from the standpoint of life outside of Covenant. Such is not the case for those who enter “into” the gates of the City, into the ‘timeless’ region of where God exists outside of time, as the I AM. Inside the New Covenant there are no yesterdays, no tomorrows, there is the ever present NOW of BEING in relationship with God, dwelling in His Presence, celebration of His glorious nature. “Eternal Life” pertains to QUALITY of immortality within God’s Presence, while “Everlasting” better describes QUANTITY. Nowhere in the closing chapters of Scripture is another cosmic “end” either foretold or predicted. Moreover, if it is necessary for God once again intervene in the cosmic sense in the affairs of humanity, then redemption remains a process that is incomplete. Not until the very “last” of the “last” generation of the “elect” is called and gathered could it be said that God’s ultimate purpose is fulfilled. This also implies that Christ will someday bring to an end the very “age” He died to establish. The offer of salvation is a constituent element of life in the “age to come” (Rev. 22:14), while mundane existence of the wicked continues outside the City (Rev. 22:15). This is the epilogue of biblical redemption, all that the Scripture state explicitly about the ‘state of being’ that is the “age to come.” It is the everlasting “age” of Messianic “blessing” and nothing else beyond that is ever pictured in either the Old or the New Testaments. Therefore, to infer a possible cosmic end at some undetermined point in human history is to go beyond what is explicitly stated in Scripture. Better hermeneutics requires that one infer from what is explicitly stated, rather than to infer from a concept that may or may not be the case based upon the limited information revealed about the nature of God and the need for a finite human being to define the nature of an Infinite Being who is God. The safe course of action is to base any position of what can be proved based upon the clear statements of Scripture.

The other arguments about the infinite continuation of evil in the universe and child molesters, murderers, thieves, etc. is emotional and not necessarily logical. Atheists have long accused God of being either too weak to resolve the question of evil, or that He simply does not care enough about His creation to do something about it. In my view, such arguments beg the question of what the issues really are, and the remedy given to cleanse human society of evil through the power of the gospel. The purity of the message of Christ remains “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). The extent of that “power” is everyday demonstrated in the testimony of transformed hearts and lives–those released from Adamic “sin and death” and ushered into a place “where righteousness dwells.” If physical destruction of planet earth is necessary to cleanse the planet of evil, then the power of the Cross, the power of the Resurrection, the power of the Message itself is negated. Why? Because 2,000 years of mundane history shows that evil has continued, sin has continued, physical death has continued. Nothing was really accomplished through the Cross from this vantage point. The power of the gospel itself is called into question. The flood of Noah did nothing to change the “heart” of man. Only the transforming power of having been “raised with Christ” can bring about the “new creation” (II Cor. 5:17, 21).

We simply disagree on the basis of differences from whence we begin our premises. Your view contends that if there is a “beginning” there must also be an “end” for everything that exists apart from God within the material universe and that redemption itself and the identity of the “elect” is connected to the eventual filling up of the total number of those who are God’s people. I do not choose to make this issue the point from which to begin the discussion and am content to leave the picture of total and complete redemption as it stands in what is clearly described in the prophets and in the book of Revelation. If some “other” cosmic intervention were necessary to bring to consummation all that God promised, the text would not leave such a matter pending, or within the pale of some vague line of argumentation.

I intend to write more on the nature of the “age to come” in the future, and I encourage you to continue to study, let the evidence take you where it leads. However, logically, BOTH views are not compatible from the standpoint of truth. In fact, NEITHER viewpoint may be the correct one. Two doctrines that stand in contradiction to one another cannot possibly BOTH be the case. This is where good people differ. This is where the issue must be defined.

God bless you. Sorry I missed your call last night. I will try to call you either today or tomorrow.

Larry D. Siegle
http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Jason Bradfield

Larry, “consummation” and “end” do not necessarily mean the same thing. I don’t have time to elaborate on that, because i’m getting ready to haul out…but i am more and more seeing these “straw men” that full preterism builds.
- Larry Siegle
  
  Thanks for the quick comment Jason. Have a safe journey. The terms “consummation” and “end” are terms both used to describe the completion of a process, and includes the “goal” to which the process had moved toward. Christ is the “end of the Law” ie “the goal” to which the Law pointed (Rom. 10:4). The words “consummation of the age” and “end of the age” refer to the completion of all that pertained to the goal and purpose for which that “age” was established.
  
  I tire of those who insist that any argument that runs counter to their understanding of Scripture automatically constitutes a “straw man” because that is not always logically the case. Where is the book, chapter and verse that describes life beyond the Messianic “age” as determined by the arrival of the “new heavens and a new earth”? Where does this phase of God’s creative work reach its “goal or objective” beyond the clear statements as described by Isaiah and the apostle John? If God, in His eternal counsel and determinate foreknowledge has chosen to bring to an “end” (in the cosmic sense) the planet upon which it is said that He NOW dwells covenantally…since the “NH and NE” come “down out of heaven from God”, are we to believe that God and His children are rendered eternally “homeless”? I realize the language is metaphorical and symbolic, but it is nevertheless all that the Bible teaches on the subject.
  
  Blessing
  
  Larry D. Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
  - http://thereignofchrist.com Jason
    
    Well, i thought i was rolling. Lady is slow with the paperwork…Larry, i understand your frustration with the automatic “straw man” response. I too, tire of it, which is one of the reasons i stopped interacting with covenant creationists. However, i believe you have built one and you have repeated again in your last response.
    
    Perhaps you have been a full preterist for so long, that you have forgotten what many orthodox men teach.
    
    You keep equating a future “consummation” with a future “end” that involves some sort of complete annihilation of planet earth. And here, you have done it again, with your question about leaving man “homeless.”
    
    I, personally, don’t know of a single “futurist” who argues a complete annihilation of planet earth.
    
    That, my friend, is the straw man.
    
    via iPhone
Samuelmfrost

Larry,

First off, thanks for posting. Second, your tone is most gracious. May I continue to decrease so that your example here increases and that I may follow it. And to think I had a lot of zingers and names to use – you have spoiled all that! Just kidding (Larry is a source of laughter throughout the week). But, let me put something out there that has caught the Preterist community in some horns.

You wrote, “We simply disagree on the basis of differences from whence we begin our premises. Your view contends that if there is a “beginning” there must also be an “end” for everything that exists apart from God within the material universe and that redemption itself and the identity of the “elect” is connected to the eventual filling up of the total number of those who are God’s people. I do not choose to make this issue the point from which to begin the discussion and am content to leave the picture of total and complete redemption as it stands in what is clearly described in the prophets and in the book of Revelation. If some “other” cosmic intervention were necessary to bring to consummation all that God promised, the text would not leave such a matter pending, or within the pale of some vague line of argumentation.”

Basically, then, you would HAVE to conclude that there is NO prophecy whatsoever “being” fulfilled today. There couldn’t be. Any aspect of any thing related to “redemption” in the process of “being fulfilled” would automatically mean that it is not “filled up” (i.e., FULLfilled). But, we have seen from the Pret Cosmos crowd and equally from the Covenant Creationist crowd that they DO believe in ongoing fulfillment. They DO believe that prophecy concerning the age to come is BEING fulFILLED today. You can’t have it both ways. It is either fulfilled, or not. If entirely FULLfilled, then you would have FULL Preterism, leaving us only to speculate about “what to do” now. Sure, you can have God’s presence with us as a “result” of AD 70, or “completed redemption” as a result for us today, and you could even bring in some morality about living for God – but you could not bring in ANYTHING in terms of ANYTHING being fulfilled TODAY. This would leave the door open to, well, hyper-preterism (and many of these folks, Larry, we have ran into).

So, what I am saying is, maybe THEY are the most consistent and true FULL Preterists – believing that ALL prophecy was FULLfilled by AD 70. Everything after that is simply a non-predicted flow of history operating on the basis of a synergy between man’s freewill and God’s rule. What we have “may” unfold. The world “might” be better off. Christians “may” get the upper hand. The sun “might” burn out. But, NONE of these questions can be answered biblically – since the Bible basically PROPHESIES NOTHING about the FUTURE post AD 70.

Let me sum it up. Jesus has brought about the remedy for the healing of the nations – all of them. But, the Bible leaves us hanging as to whether or not that will happen. For if it say anything about what WILL happen beyond AD 70, then it is PROPHESYING about the future, and this would mean that whatever God’s “purpose” was, it was NOT fulfilled YET ENTIRELY by AD 70, and this robs, for you, the meaning of redemption……

Horns of a dilemma, indeed…….
Samuelmfrost

I was wondering that, too, since, basically, as Part 2 of my “Towards a Fuller Preterism” essay deals specifically with an eternal earth and cosmos. We can have an end of history without an end of the age to come, or planet earth and the cosmos. The “natural” end of history is based squarely on the fact that God knows “all” his people, and from this, the Westminster Divines (not Sam Frost) deduced that “all” must be fixed number wherein it cannot increase or decrease. I also quoted earlier in the paper on infinity from an Arminianist author who agreed that God’s knows “all those who will be saved”. Either way, Calvinist or Arminianist, believes that God has a fixed number of those who are “elect” or who by “freewill” will be saved. Only the FP scheme infinitely adds to this number so that it is forever “increasing”. But, again, this “may” or “may not” forever “increase” (which means, for Isaiah, “the increase of his government” cannot mean the infinite increase of PEOPLE, for if that is the case, there is no “may” about it….it will INCREASE infinitely). So, it is wrong to say I do not deduce this from Scripture. I most certainly do, as have others way before my time. This was not based on their faulty eschatology, but a simple deduction from the word “all”. Infinity has no “all”. “All” is a complete category. Infinity is always incomplete.

But, this gets back to “never filled”. God’s people, for who completed redemption is to be applied, is never applied to “all” for there is always one more being added. And, here, we run smack dab into a contradiction. Solution: Paradox (which Larry rejects as an answer). So, we would have to find a LOGICAL solution to a most illogical dilemma…….
Larry Siegle

Sam
As always, your comments are insightful and provoke a deeper search for truth. However, I believe some of the problems with the discussion remains within the definition of certain words that are used. For example the word “fulfillment” as seen within the specific program of redemptive-history reached its “consummation” (goal, purpose), THROUGH the Cross and AT the Parousia (A.D. 70). King 101 would say that these are two aspects of one ‘age-changing eschaton’ (a view that I believe to be true and correct). EVERY aspect of what the Old Testament Law, Prophets and Psalms pointed toward, with respect to the Cross at the decisive event (D-day) of redemptive-history stands in a ‘state’ of COMPLETION. Jesus does not have to continually die on the Cross for each individual who accepts Him as Lord and Savor because His work in this regard has been 100% FULFILLED. The benefits of the shed blood of Christ continue to be applied to the sinner who becomes a child of God. It is illustrated by a bank account in which a DEPOSIT was made, and upon which any recipient may partake when the conditions of access have been met. I believe that condition is the exercising or operation of “faith” that brings the sinner into access “into” the place where “grace” and thus forgiveness of sins takes place. It is the APPLIED meaning of Christ’s sacrificial death and the resulting benefit of what was a ‘once-for-all-time’ action pointed toward. “Faith” is the ATM card that allows the benefits of the account to flow into the life of a person. This does not imply that something “more” or something “else” is necessary on the part of God or Christ who FUNDED the account at the Cross. The Parousia (A.D. 70) was the removal of all those remaining “elements” of an Old Covenant system that simply could not bring people back into the Presence of God. Even the faithful who lived prior to the time of the Cross were consigned to Sheol/Hades to “wait” for the time when the Redeemer would someday appear. The Parousia was the time when “all” in Sheol/Hades were released, judged and sentenced. Since that point in time, the situation of the “righteous” and the “unrighteous” differs in that their destiny beyond physical existence is not determined by their former relationship to Adamic “death” and condemnation, but NOW, it is determined by their acceptance or rejection of that which God has lovingly established through the death, burial and resurrection of His Son, as the means through which “life and immortality” are received. Those outside of Christ are “condemned already” (John 3:18), and thus forfeit any possibility of participation in “life and immortality” through the gospel that is reserved for believers ALONE. The lost simply die in their state of “condemnation” having heard of the provisions that God has made on their behalf, and their existence (from God’s standpoint and those in Covenant) is “terminated” and they are “separated” from God eternally–either in eternal conscious torment, or for those who prefer, eternal destruction, thus ceasing to exist and returning forever back “to the dust from whence they came.” In my view, the gospel is the line of demarcation between life and death, and the decision rests with the condition of the heart of the individual when the good “seed” of the word of God is “sown” into their hearts.

While it might APPEAR that God has left certain questions unanswered, thus “leaves us hanging” when such is not actually the case. “Of the increase of His government there will be no end” (Isa. 9:7). The Kingdom has borders without boundaries in the sense of growth and development within the scope of the “age to come.”

The established New Covenant is the basis of what we today have as a present reality. The “manifestation” of that which already exists as a present AVAILABLE reality for the individual believer has nothing to do with the need of “more” fulfillment or “more” prophecy that remains in a “pending” state of affairs. The victorious life (Abundant Preterism) which is my own approach and understanding, contends that “fulfillment” and “manifestation” are two very different things. Fulfillment pertains to specific prophecy that pointed forward to the time of redemptive consummation. Manifestation pertains to certain choices that believers make with respect to the benefits that were established at the time fulfillment was accomplished. God is alive. God is active, working through His word to reach into the hearts and minds of people, moving in amazing ways to transform the reality of their existence, to bring them “out of death and into life”. Prayer, worship, evangelism, ministering to the sick, to those hurt by the effects and consequences of sin and rebellion. Thus, the gospel is rightly empowered to do exactly what God said it would do, and that it will continue to do–world without end (Eph. 3:21).

None of this robs one of the benefits of completed redemption, when seen within its proper perspective.

Thanks for the kind comments….

Larry D. Siegle
http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Samuelmfrost

Larry,

And, again, thanks for the response. As we have talked about, “fulfillment” and “manifestation” are, indeed, two different things (the Reformed would say “accomplishment and application”). In terms of justification and redemption, those, too, are “fulfilled” and “complete”. A hearty “amen” from the Reforme crowd, again. Here’s the issue, then: Prophecy, as it relates to redemption, is a completed thing, received upon “by faith” (whether “freewill” or “election” – that’s not important right now). What I am asking, then, or saying, rather, is, can we have prophetic fulfillment that is related strictly to the “manifestation” of the completed redemption? This is what I am saying. The age to come “manifestation” of what was accomplished in the “two aspects of the one age-changing eschaton” concerns itself with the age to come. It is HERE that prophecy is “being fulfilled” – manifesting what would be the RESULTS of the two aspects of the one age-changing eschaton. In this scheme, nothing is robbed from completed redemption by having still ongoing PROPHESIED EFFECTS in the age to come. Thus, as it relates to Redemption:fulfilled. As it relates to the age to come produced by the Redemption: unfulfilled, ongoing. My point is, the Prophets spoke of BOTH.

It would seem, then, that if this is the case, then not ALL prophecy was fulfilled “by” AD 70. And, thus, theologically, FULL Preterism would have to make this case. And this leads us to consider, then, the prophesied effects in the age to come and the GOAL they have in bringing about the manifestation of Christ’s Redemption. Maybe, here, we have this paradigm:

Christ -> Parousia (two aspects of the one-age-changing-eschaton)/Age to come (two aspects of the one Goal). Here, we would see Fulfillment and Manifestation (application) as two aspects of the One Goal (universal Redemption in time, space and history). Both are prophesied and the historical manifestation of the Goal in time is equally A PART OF the one-age-changing eschaton (for what was the CHANGE of the ages, except “this age” and “the age to come” about which we are not speaking?). Were not the prophesies of the present evil age MANIFESTED in time, space, and history? Sure they were. And will not the age to come prophesies equally be manifested in time, space, and history? Sure they will (are). And what PURPOSE does this have? What GOAL? Ask Tim Martin……
Mike Bennett

Wow, here is what I find quite strange & hilarious. All of this attack on Sam for taking an “end of the world” view (though we all agree with a progressive kingdom growth as Preterists). So where do Dave Green and the likes attack Sam…at DID where they are staunch supporters of evolution. So you see Sam, you are horrible for having this view of kingdom growth (in which we all agree with) but you are horrible for thinking an end of the physical world. But Evolution – no problem. We are all good in the hood at DID, LOl. I don’t even necessarily agree with the end of the world view, but if people who disagree with evolution, can not see that that is a MUCH BIGGER issue than Sam’s view and don’t address it at DID – that blows my mind. Heck Tami and Ward think that Jeff and Tim teach work’s salvation – again – I guess no problem? But Sam, you are a horrible person! Lol.
Mike Bennett

PS – BTW – I am not saying that Larry was saying that about Sam. Just making an observation of what is going down at DID. Larry is always cordial, even when he disagrees.
Mike Bennett

Apparently I owe John S. at DID a partial apology. He says…”Norm is the only one that i know is an evolutionist. The fact that i allow doscussions on the topic or even post artilce that discuss it are just that “for discussion”

So allowing (and posting) video after video in support of Evolution at DID (never-mind that it is totally contradictory to the Christian world view) is fine and dandy. I apologise John for assuming that you believed it when you have posted video after video in support of it.

Has anyone addressed Norm on the topic? Does anyone correct Norm? Nope. John – I didn’t say that you believed it, but your site obviously represents support of it. No one writes against it there, and you are constantly posting support for it. This is a MUCH BIGGER issue than Sam’s position.
Samuelmfrost

It gets back to the fact that Adam was not the first immediately created human being. So, there must have been others before him. And where did they come from? You have two choices: evolution or direct, immediate creation. If the latter, then why would God have not started there with the first directly created man? But, if he directly created a man and he did not evolve, then he made him in a “day” – and we are right back to where we started…..if you say, “well, God did make man immediately, but Adam was not him” because you “reject evolutionism” then what’s the problem with asserting that Adam was the “first man”? I mean, there had to be a “first created man” or you are stuck with evolutionism……no two ways about it, Mike.
Larry Siegle

Mike
I appreciate the validity of your comments and while I am not fully supportive of the Covenant Creation (as a valid framework) as a means through which to explain fully the events either of Gen. 1-2, or of that of others who espouse some form of evolution. Whether CC is true or false as it pertains to the exegesis of symbolic language found in Scripture is of lesser importance than the denial of the fact that God is the Creator of “all things” (physical and spiritual). Even if God spoke the material universe into existence in an instant of time as some posit, or if the six days described by inspiration contain both literal and symbolic meaning, that God is the Grand Creator and Lord of All is not a point where compromise (for me) is not an option. Theistic Evolution or YEC–are imperfect representations of the biblical implications of what took place in “space and time” from the beginning. A matter to be considered more on some other day.

Sam
I want to discuss just a portion of the questions you ask in your last comment regarding “Fulfillment and Manifestation as two aspects of one universal GOAL.” There is no denial of the fact that spiritual realities of the “new creation” are manifested in the lives of people living during the “age to come.” That the power of the gospel remains the SINGLE-FORCE through which any change ever occurs within this realm of existence, apart from any “more” or “other” effort or cosmic event that brings about that change is my ONLY point. Prophecy relates to that which point TOWARD the “age to come” and DEFINES the characteristics of what the “age of come” would be like for believers and unbelievers alike. From the standpoint of redemptive-history, the Parousia, the resurrection of the dead, and the eschatological Day of Judgment were the FINAL acts of God in order to bring about Covenant change, thus resulting in a “new creation” that NOW operates with the scope of that which had been foretold would be the RESULT at the time of the Parousia. What takes place DURING the “age to come” is not prophetic fulfillment, but merely the evidential and ongoing results that CAME (past-tense) from that first-century period of Covenant Change.

The arguments against “infinite procreation” are of lesser concern and value (in my view) because of those verses in the New Testament that seem to describe a “state of being” instead of an “infinite series.” The City of the New Jerusalem has “trees of life” that continually bear fruit 12 months a year, which is the best way for God to have described the ongoing benefits that would be made available for the “healing of the nations” which continues as an ongoing MANIFESTATION of the Kingdom of God as it exercises dominion that has now been restored “in Christ.” The limited atonement model (from the standpoint of the eventual filling up the number of the “elect”) is rooted more in Calvinistic thought than within the framework of true Preterism. From the human perspective, the ongoing nature of the Kingdom as it operates on planet earth represents the manifold benefits of the applied meaning of the Cross. It would require that God give His people some additional revelation in order to determine exactly when the preaching of the gospel needs to cease because it is the very LAST of the LAST of the “elect” to be gathered, after which, REAL eternity would begin, because until all the elect are present with God, the “redemption of the purchased possession” is incomplete from the standpoint of your understanding of election. If not, why not?

Larry D. Siegle
http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Samuelmfrost

Larry,

Again, opposition from your pen is more than welcome here. It is no less “opposing”, to make sure our readers understand that we do have differences and we take them seriously, but the flow of your comments are, again, most welcome here.

Two things: first we should note the differences between your approach and a Calvinist one. Perhaps here there is a more serious aspect of “true Preterism” and the Reformed approach (which, there is no such thing as “Reformed Full Preterism” – call it Sovereign Grace or something, but “Reformed” is a specific historical moniker with specific doctrines in a system)…more serious than we have spotlighted. For example, I vehemently deny “freewill” along the lines of Luther (Bondage of the Will), Calvin (On Predestination), or Clark (Biblical Predestination). That’s a staple for me. A fundamental. From this, it appears that you are saying that within a “Calvinist” framework (soteriology), the definition of “the elect” would certainly infer a fixed number of God’s people. Else, don’t call yourself a “Calvinist” at all. “The elect” and its fixed number is foundational block in his theology. Remove it, and the whole thing comes apart. I have not removed, but rather, have come back to it through an understanding of passages in the Bible (namely, “he knows ALL his people” – and I define “all” logically).

Second, I still see a problem in your own words: ” From the standpoint of redemptive-history, the Parousia, the resurrection of the dead, and the eschatological Day of Judgment were the FINAL acts of God in order to bring about Covenant change, thus resulting in a “new creation” that NOW operates with the scope of that which had been foretold would be the RESULT at the time of the Parousia. What takes place DURING the “age to come” is not prophetic fulfillment, but merely the evidential and ongoing results that CAME (past-tense) from that first-century period of Covenant Change.”

“…the scope of that which had been FORETOLD would be the RESULT” coupled with, “is NOT prophetic fulfillment.”

Two propositions: the results (post AD 70) are FORETOLD/ This is NOT prophetic. Question: How can that which is FORETOLD not be considered PROPHETIC, when the word “prophecy” simply means “forth telling”? You can’t have it both ways. The results are either FORETOLD or they are not. And, if they ARE, then we are still FULFILLING what was FORETOLD. This would not be, then, FULL Preterism……..but another futurist eschatology of sorts. So, if the Bible foretells the results (age to come, post AD 70), is it automatically wrong, as I have suggested, to state that these foretold result have a GOAL as well (as any prophecy has – every prophecy has a GOAL to attain: FULLfillment)……..a goal-less prophecy is no prophecy…….
Larry Siegle

The Bible teaches that “all things written” would be “fulfilled” in those events associated with the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:22). The “all things” was inclusive of those things associated with the dismantling of the Old Covenant mode of existence (Heb. 8:13), the complete defeat and subjection of Christ’s “enemies” (Psa. 110:1, 2: I Cor. 15:24-28), the power of sin and death broken through the removal of the Law (I Cor. 15:56), the establishment of the “everlasting” New Covenant (Heb.13:20), the arrival of the “new heavens and a new earth” (Rev. 21:1-4 et al), and all of the other constituent elements that pertained to the ESTABLISHMENT of the meaning of life as defined by the “age to come” (Mark 10:30).

What the Bible PREDICTS is the establishment of a state of being, an “AGE” in which all of the constituent elements or characteristics related to that “age” would be present in some form or to some degree. The MANIFESTATION and development of those characteristics that define the nature of the “age to come” are left into the hands of the church and thereby individual believers to exercise the restored authority and dominion that belongs to them by virtue of their position with Christ. It is the operation of FAITH that determines the degree to which the prophetic description of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms of what life MAY be like in the “age to come” has been DELEGATED into the hands of believers who are called to act in FAITH in response to the authorizing POWER of the word of God and the promises given to believers who choose to willingly act in faith.

The Abrahamic blessings are AVAILABLE to the church and thus to every believer living today. However, this does not necessarily imply that each individual believer operates in FAITH to the degree that these characteristics are MANIFESTED in this realm of existence. The best example is the Old Testament at the time God told Israel that he had “already given the land into their hands” and yet it remained the responsibility of the people to rise up in FAITH and through their actions to move forward in “taking the land” that God said “already” belonged to them. To the degree that they believed God and acted in accordance with His word, they were blessed and the “land” promises were fulfilled. To the degree that they disobeyed Jehovah, and gave way to unbelief, the promises made by God regarding their victory were not MANIFESTED. It was their relationship to the word of God that determined the results that God has said was already the case.

There is nothing wrong with seeing as a GOAL the demonstration of the characteristics of the Kingdom of God in accordance with the word of God, but that GOAL is not evidence that something remains yet to be fulfilled. God FORETOLD the establishment of the Kingdom and (POTENTIALLY) the MANIFESTATION of those characteristics in the lives of believers who are walking by faith and obedience to the word of God. The “power” to overcome is ALREADY present. The “power” to transform the world through the message of the gospel is ALREADY delivered, once for all time (Jude 3; Rom. 1:16). The defeat of sin and death has freed believers from BONDAGE to sin and from the effects of sin in their individual lives (Rom. 6-8). The degree to which such liberation is MANIFESTED is determined by the relationship of the individual believer with God and has nothing whatsoever to do with any Covenant promise or blessing that must have a “yet future” fulfillment. It exists in its perfection, fullness and completeness. It is the Christian, acting through the power of God, Christ living in us and through us, that determines our stance in relationship to that already completed, established state of perfection and holiness.

The GOAL to which redemptive history pointed forward was two fold: (1) To bring people from the power of sin and death to Christ as the Source of life and righteousness (Gal. 5:5), and (2) To establish the sphere where grace could be exercised through the applied meaning of Christ’s death and subsequent resurrection from the dead. The end result or GOAL has been achieved and has nothing to do with whether or not the church (Kingdom) is actually enjoying the benefits of what has ALREADY been accomplished. There is no future Judgment coming that removes wickedness from planet earth. There is no “yet future” bodily resurrection that somehow perfects the flesh and transforms it into a spiritual body that is “the same, but different.” There is no “yet future” rescue RAPTURE to steal away the saints from evil and wickedness in the world. There is no “yet future” end of planet earth that cleanses the universe. These issues were related to “relationship” with God and not with His “very good” creation (from the standpoint of the material universe). The problem was never with the planet itself, but with God’s removal of the “curse” that MANIFESTED itself in the lives of people and caused the “blessing” of God to be withheld.

I agree that a “goal-less prophecy is no prophecy” but one has to determine the nature of what is being described by the prophecy, whether it represents the POTENTIAL or the ACTUAL situation and if that prophecy is CONDITIONAL from the standpoint, not of fulfillment, but of MANIFESTATION.

Thanks Sam. I am enjoying this discussion.

Larry D. Siegle
http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Larry Siegle

The Bible teaches that “all things written” would be “fulfilled” in those events associated with the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:22). The “all things” was inclusive of those things associated with the dismantling of the Old Covenant mode of existence (Heb. 8:13), the complete defeat and subjection of Christ’s “enemies” (Psa. 110:1, 2: I Cor. 15:24-28), the power of sin and death broken through the removal of the Law (I Cor. 15:56), the establishment of the “everlasting” New Covenant (Heb.13:20), the arrival of the “new heavens and a new earth” (Rev. 21:1-4 et al), and all of the other constituent elements that pertained to the ESTABLISHMENT of the meaning of life as defined by the “age to come” (Mark 10:30).

What the Bible PREDICTS is the establishment of a state of being, an “AGE” in which all of the constituent elements or characteristics related to that “age” would be present in some form or to some degree. The MANIFESTATION and development of those characteristics that define the nature of the “age to come” are left into the hands of the church and thereby individual believers to exercise the restored authority and dominion that belongs to them by virtue of their position with Christ. It is the operation of FAITH that determines the degree to which the prophetic description of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms of what life MAY be like in the “age to come” has been DELEGATED into the hands of believers who are called to act in FAITH in response to the authorizing POWER of the word of God and the promises given to believers who choose to willingly act in faith.

The Abrahamic blessings are AVAILABLE to the church and thus to every believer living today. However, this does not necessarily imply that each individual believer operates in FAITH to the degree that these characteristics are MANIFESTED in this realm of existence. The best example is the Old Testament at the time God told Israel that he had “already given the land into their hands” and yet it remained the responsibility of the people to rise up in FAITH and through their actions to move forward in “taking the land” that God said “already” belonged to them. To the degree that they believed God and acted in accordance with His word, they were blessed and the “land” promises were fulfilled. To the degree that they disobeyed Jehovah, and gave way to unbelief, the promises made by God regarding their victory were not MANIFESTED. It was their relationship to the word of God that determined the results that God has said was already the case.

There is nothing wrong with seeing as a GOAL the demonstration of the characteristics of the Kingdom of God in accordance with the word of God, but that GOAL is not evidence that something remains yet to be fulfilled. God FORETOLD the establishment of the Kingdom and (POTENTIALLY) the MANIFESTATION of those characteristics in the lives of believers who are walking by faith and obedience to the word of God. The “power” to overcome is ALREADY present. The “power” to transform the world through the message of the gospel is ALREADY delivered, once for all time (Jude 3; Rom. 1:16). The defeat of sin and death has freed believers from BONDAGE to sin and from the effects of sin in their individual lives (Rom. 6-8). The degree to which such liberation is MANIFESTED is determined by the relationship of the individual believer with God and has nothing whatsoever to do with any Covenant promise or blessing that must have a “yet future” fulfillment. It exists in its perfection, fullness and completeness. It is the Christian, acting through the power of God, Christ living in us and through us, that determines our stance in relationship to that already completed, established state of perfection and holiness.

The GOAL to which redemptive history pointed forward was two fold: (1) To bring people from the power of sin and death to Christ as the Source of life and righteousness (Gal. 5:5), and (2) To establish the sphere where grace could be exercised through the applied meaning of Christ’s death and subsequent resurrection from the dead. The end result or GOAL has been achieved and has nothing to do with whether or not the church (Kingdom) is actually enjoying the benefits of what has ALREADY been accomplished. There is no future Judgment coming that removes wickedness from planet earth. There is no “yet future” bodily resurrection that somehow perfects the flesh and transforms it into a spiritual body that is “the same, but different.” There is no “yet future” rescue RAPTURE to steal away the saints from evil and wickedness in the world. There is no “yet future” end of planet earth that cleanses the universe. These issues were related to “relationship” with God and not with His “very good” creation (from the standpoint of the material universe). The problem was never with the planet itself, but with God’s removal of the “curse” that MANIFESTED itself in the lives of people and caused the “blessing” of God to be withheld.

I agree that a “goal-less prophecy is no prophecy” but one has to determine the nature of what is being described by the prophecy, whether it represents the POTENTIAL or the ACTUAL situation and if that prophecy is CONDITIONAL from the standpoint, not of fulfillment, but of MANIFESTATION.

Thanks Sam. I am enjoying this discussion.

Larry D. Siegle
http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Kerry

I’ve said it before, I learn something here everyday. It is good to see a discussion that doesn’t disintegrate into madness. Nobody seems to learn in that environment.

It is important as Preterist’s that we do offer an answer to those who listen, and as their eschatological foundations begin to shake, they reach for that question; “Well, if it’s all completed, what now”? I know this has been discussed already, and I think we do need to change the moniker as was stated. Now, if we are to continue to make inroads with people in other views, we have to give them scriptural proof and a vision, which means PROPHECY, (don’t read into that anything other than a need to show ongoing fulfillment). If not, we lose them, even if we have something that is beneficial. We don’t want to end up just discussing this within our community, and sit in an internet circle trying to get to the highest seats like the rabbi’s of old.

Proverbs 29:18 Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law.
19 By mere words a servant is not disciplined, for though he understands, he will not respond.

Just another two cents. Thanks for all the good points made, believe me, it has helped. Sometimes I just sit back and go “wow”, another nugget for me.
Larry Siegle

Thanks Kerry. Sam Frost and I are great friends and brothers in the Lord despite some obvious differences of approach. The “key” is that of maintaining a good spirit toward one another and not to confuse the zeal for sound argumentation with the need to berate and attack one another. God bless and thank you for your encouragement.

Larry Siegle
http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Kerry

Back-atch-ya :)
http://thereignofchrist.com Jason

Hey, the covenant creationists, with all their localizing, have a bank/atm view of redemption too. Know what they call it?

“Regions”.

ba doom dat.
Larry Siegle

Jason,
I am not sure the comedy clubs are ready for either you or I at this point. I would keep my hands on the wheel if I were you. I would certainly not quit my “day job” if I actually had one at this point. I like the theme song to the Regions commercials, the “green bikes” gotta go….
od
Every illustration limps in some ways and certainly there is no exact correspondence between the bank/atm concept with that of redemption, but from a human standpoint it is difficult to help people to understand such simple matters related to their salvation. People say, “Jesus, died for you.” I understand the words, and the message they are trying to convey, and certainly from the standpoint of God’s foreknowledge and such is true. But the phrase gives the impression that Christ has to die over and over again individually for each individual sinner who repents. Have a safe trip and watch out for what we used to call back in the 70′s them “seat-covers” In the meantime, I am 10-10 on the side, good buddy…(See, I can speak Jason-eze)…

Larry D. Siegle
http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
http://pantelism.com davo

Sam: “Either way, Calvinist or Arminianist, believes that God has a fixed number of those who are “elect” or who by “freewill” will be saved. Only the FP scheme infinitely adds to this number so that it is forever “increasing”.”

Maybe that then is a major fault within “the FP scheme”? If ALL the elect be known to God as I believe to be the case, then the “fixed number” applied fully to those through whom redemption came to fruition. IOW, “election” pertains to the biblical time frame alone and not beyond – what we have beyond that point is the perpetual effect of such fulfillment, i.e., Christ died ONCE, the affect however know no bounds, that is, has no end.
Ken Singleton

Sam, Larry, thanks for the discussion.
I found your distinction very interesting Larry. The typology of the promised land used to confuse me until this discussion. Now it makes sense. Even though the faithful entered the promised land, they still had to battle to win and make it their own. If the promised land is a type and shadow of the age to come, then even though we are now in that age, the “land” (earth) is ours to take by faith (the meek shall inherit the earth?).

I still have an unanswered question which seems to me directly relevant to all of this, and I guess more for you Sam as you seem to propagating the idea of ongoing fulfilment of prophecy:

If Bible Prophecy was not “all” fulfilled in A.D. 70, then what do you understand Jesus to be saying in Mt 5:17-18, “17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (KJV)

So, is all fulfilled or not? Jesus says it is. Or have I misunderstood what He is saying?

Ken
Larry Siegle

Ken
I look forward to what Sam has to say about this verse also. However, if any constituent element of the that which was foretold or predicted by the Old Testament Law, Prophets, and Psalms remains in a state of “pending” fulfillment, then logically “all” of the Law still stands covenantally in force, unresolved. This also goes to the “all things written” (Luke 21:22) that would have been “fulfilled” by those events associated with the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. My view is that everything that pertained to the ESTABLISHMENT of the New Covenant as a ‘state of being’ (a circle into which “all” Jews and Gentiles would enter, and through which those blessings of that Covenant, “according to” the Abrahamic promises, would come to those who had died through resurrection and release from Hades), and no “more” fulfillment is either necessary or possible. Second, the issue of the “age to come” and the descriptions given of the nature, qualities and characteristics of the New Covenant demonstrate what is POSSIBLE through application within the lives of individual believers operating in faith and obedience to the word of God today. The MANIFESTATION of those characteristics is the responsibility of the church acting on what the word of God describes as a present reality. The perceived “deficiency” of MANIFESTATION is not on God’s part, as though anything He has promised has failed or is lacking, but rather the perceived “deficiency” of MANIFESTATION lies with the church as the Kingdom of God acting under the headship and authority of Jesus Christ. God has already FULFILLED His part by telling His children who they are, and what they have “in Christ.” Now, it remains the responsibility of Christians to live a God-empowered life that receives those blessings and takes back the “land” from those today who continue to believe they have the “right” of dominion. The means through which this takes place is not carnal warfare, but rather belongs to the operation of the gospel alone. Even the slogan chosen by Sam and Jason for RCM demonstrates that the “healing of the nations” (which continues as a post- “end of the age” work of ministry in demonstrating the goodness of God and the power of the Cross) comes through “knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” I could not have stated it better! The growth of the Kingdom from the Cross to A.D. 70 was in preparation for the “harvest” that took place at the “end of the age” and through the gospel, the Kingdom growth would continue, with “children of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36; Dan. 12:2, 3; Matt. 13:41-43). It would be “then” (following the resurrection/harvest) that God’s people would continue to MANIFEST the qualities and characteristics of the Kingdom, just had BEEN described and predicted. Not ongoing fulfillment, but rather demonstration that what God said HAS ALREADY come to pass.

Thanks

Larry D. Siegle
http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Larry Siegle

Davo
I always appreciate your comments and observations. This is one of the primary reasons why I am neither Calvinist or Arminian. The weakness of BOTH systems is in its devotion to seeing salvation from the standpoint of “individuals” and their destinies, predestined to salvation or reprobation within a fixed number (known only to God), as determined “before the foundation of the world” (which is also a misapplied concept too often connected with “eternity past” rather than to the proper understanding of the use of the term “world”).

The last two chapters of the book of Revelation are of interest because they are vague with reference to seeing a vision of the throne of God with the 144,000 or the “Great Multitude” present in that scene. Why? Because the depiction of what constitutes the “people” has changed from that of being a large statistical number (fixed or otherwise), and moves to the description of them as the “bide” the “lamb’s wife” in the form of a City, shaped like a perfect cube. The focus is not on “individuals” but on the “whole” of the nature of those who belong to, and BECOME that City itself. The New Jerusalem IS the people of God, and instead of God having a dwelling place in a temple elsewhere, God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) takes up residence WITHIN the City itself. God NOW lives within His people.

The “healing of the nations” comes through the ministry of this City through which God provides for the necessary “healing.” The “trees of life” are WITHIN the City, as also is the RIVER OF LIFE. Nothing external is any longer necessary–For those who ARE the City, God is now the “all in all” (I Cor. 15:28). The City (and God from within) ministers to those “outside” the Covenant.

Israel became the vehicle through which the administration of the blessings of the Abrahamic promises would be fulfilled, in the arrival of the promised “seed” (Christ). This was the process through which “election” was to take place. “Election” as a end-result of the process related to LOCATION, those who are the “elect” are those “in Christ” (Eph. 1; Rom. 9-11). The pronouns are less individualistic and more constitute the US and the THEM aspects of the finished product which was Jew and Gentile entering into the “one body”, through the “one faith” having “one hope” in the “one Lord” by partaking of the “one baptism” thus entering into Covenant relationship with the “one God” united together by the “one Spirit” (Eph. 4:4-6). It is the characteristics and location (in Christ) that constitutes the identification of those “called according to election” who at the end of the age are seen as “one” unified City, with God living, acting and moving from inside toward those who are outside.

Just a thought

Larry D. Siegle
http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Kerry

My two cents on Matthew 5.
I think the context is that Jesus is teaching them how to apply the “law”, in His sermon in a more perfect way, for the future. That is, He is writing it on their hearts, and how (looking forward to the Kingdom life in verse 19) it should be understood. He is teaching them not believe that law is going away, but that the correct application in the future kingdom is what He is teaching. It seems Jesus is looking past 70AD in this teaching, and how his future disciples should live according to His words, His teaching, and His exegesis of the law.

No doubt Jesus told them it (heaven and earth) would pass, and He did fulfill what was written, but that is precisely why he was teaching them how to apply it in the kingdom and beyond. The righteousness of the kingdom beyond 70AD, that applies to us today, and in the future.

Believe me, I don’t think for one minute that my arguments are perfect, and I have not been trained in logic, I’m just looking at the context, and enjoy being a part of the discussion.
- Larry Siegle
  
  Kerry
  I can only say “amen” to your comments. The contrast Jesus makes throughout his sermon on the mount contrasts the legalism and tradition added by the Rabbinic teachings of the day, and why the Kingdom of the Heavens that was “at hand” stands in stark contrast to their old way of thinking. God, according to Jeremiah, with the operation of the New Covenant now writes his law in the hearts and minds of His people, not on external tablets of stone or in oral traditions that add to or take away from the spiritual nature of the Kingdom (Jer. 31:31-34). This Kingdom message did not produce bondage, fear or legalism, but rather empowers the people of God to hear His voice and to walk with Him in Covenant relationship each and every day!
  
  Kingdom people saturated with the principles of grace, mercy and truth.
  
  Praise God!
  
  Larry Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Kerry

Thanks, Larry. Good stuff.

Speaking of the Sermon on the Mount, is there any on going fulfillment or goal, for us today in the”Lord’s Prayer” in Mat. 6? Or has this become just a vain repetitious prayer like Jesus warned not to do? Is this for us today, and in the future, or did the ultimate fulfillment of that prayer end in 70AD?

It has been my experience so far that most people really don’t use that prayer for much more than a recital and formality. Should it be applied like the rest of the sermon, just like chapter 5 and the law? And if so, what is the goal on earth that we are praying for, or should we just expect that it really only pertains to heaven, something we can’t see yet? Or is it only applicable to the New Heavens and Earth, and nothing outside?

I believe there is a goal in that prayer not yet fulfilled, and it should be on earth, physical earth as it is in heaven. There is no eternal struggle between good and evil. His will is gong to be done, and what we see today, is not the way it is in heaven.

By the way, how close are you to San Diego. I live in the Gilbert AZ, just outside of Phoenix. I visit my Army buddy, and best friend there. We are going fishing for three days starting Wednesday at El Capitan lake. Maybe on a future trip I could swing by. Don’t mind me just trying to crash into your life, I’m really not that bad. :)
http://thereignofchrist.com Jason

Soooo, Jesus just died for a state of being and holds it out there just as a possibility? hmmmm. well, i think i’m beginning to understand better and better how an infinite procreation/history would fit. But i can’t accept such an unbiblical view of the atonement.

If it’s that or paradox, then it looks like my full pret days are coming to an end.
- Larry Siegle
  
  Jason
  You and I have talked on past occasions and I know that you are aware that your summary is more simplistic than actually represents the nature of what I am saying, and certainly my view of the atonement, while perhaps differing in some aspects from your own is not meant as irreverent or disrespectful of Christ or His redemptive work through the Cross. I sense that your level of discouragement, frustration and conflict over the past few years is beginning to take its toll and that your zeal and convictions in this regard are at a very low ebb.
  
  Theologians use terms such as “positional” when describing certain aspects of the relationship one has “in Christ”—but nobody would just say, “Sooo Jesus died to give us some position.” Redemption is pictured in a number of ways, as a City, a Kingdom, a Church, a Body etc. These are describe various relational aspects of what it means to be in relationship with God through Christ. Regarding salvation there is God’s part and there is man’s part, God has done His part in providing redemption for the “whosoever will” (in my view), and the exercise of “faith” as a response to the call of God through the gospel is man’s part (in a sense). The process of wholly of grace through faith. Beyond that, there is responsibility before God to have a vibrant, active and living faith, that responds to the will of God. [More Later]…. Love ya Brother Larry
  - Larry Siegle
    
    Jason
    Last night I had set about to continue with a few comments, and “poof” for whatever reason, my thoughts in the comment box disappeared into the ozone of the Internet in an instant of time….Therefore, I start over. I wanted to comment on the ABSOLUTE vs. the POSSIBLE as it relates to the MANIFESTATION of the characteristics, qualities and descriptions given of life in the “age to come.” The verses that point toward the victorious nature of the gospel are ABSOLUTE as part of God’s “eternal purpose” that is demonstrated and shown through the church, “world without end” (Eph. 3:10, 11, 21). However, from the standpoint of the believer, living in the “age to come” and the church (as the body of Christ), victory is conditioned upon the operation of FAITH and OBEDIENCE in a daily walk with God. The victory of Christianity is not dependent upon what occurs in the New York Times to be demonstrated in the mass conversation of China, Iraq, Russia, or other “nations” (as a whole) to biblical principles of Christianity. Otherwise, the victory is removed from the essence of its spiritual roots, in Christ and transplanted into the realm of the subjective whims of expositors who read the newspaper looking for new sources of Prophetic Fulfillment. The transforming power of the gospel has always taken place “one heart at a time” and the effects are seen within the society of every nation whose citizens embrace the ethics and morals, living in the power of God in their daily lives. Instead of Christianity being victorious over the Roman empire, history records that eventually the Roman empire swallowed up Christianity, remaking the “church” in its own image instead of the influence being the other way around. Out of that situation arose Roman Catholicism, not as the “victorious expression of the Kingdom of God” but rather as a hybrid expression of paganism and Christianity–compromise with the world was never the means or road to victory in Christ.
    
    The influence of the Kingdom spreads, not by some form of legislation in congress, or because the President of the United States professes to be a “Christian” (of some brand or variety), but rather when the genuine power of gospel operating through the gospel is demonstrated daily, in the lives of individual believers. It is my conviction, based upon the Scriptures that God’s purpose is to be MANIFESTED, not because there are prophecies yet to be fulfilled., but rather because of the fact that they HAVE BEEN fulfilled and therefore believers, with authority exercise their restored dominion as God’s representatives in every nation under heaven.
    
    The New Covenant was the goal or end to which redemptive history pointed (Heb. 13:20). Never is any indication given in the text that God needs to do something “more” than has already been accomplished through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. The renovation of planet earth was never the problem, the removal of the “curse” on the ground because of the entrance of the sin and the death, was that which brought about the necessary transformation. It was relational, not environmental in scope and purpose.
    
    The depiction of God’s description of life in the “new heavens and a new earth” is ABSOLUTE from the standpoint of His VERY BEST for the lives of His children, but such remains within the realm of what is POSSIBLE, only because believers are called to step forward in FAITH and receive what belongs to them in Christ. The issue is not salvation, that matter was settled through the work of the Cross, and the “last days” work of the Holy Spirit to bring about the transformation of the Covenants. The issue within the framework of the “age to come” is that of MANIFESTATION of those purposes through lives that are empowered by God to live in a way that brings honor and glory to Him and to His Kingdom.
    
    Perhaps an illustration from Paul is appropriate. In Romans 6, the concept of CHOICE and POSSIBILITY are seen. Paul talks about those who “yield” themselves EITHER as “instruments of sin” or as “instruments of righteousness” (Rom. 6:13ff). The Covenantal contrast Paul makes is between life under the “Law” and life under “grace”–each with certain consequences that necessarily follow. Obedience to the will of God would bring “life” through the power of the gospel, while choosing to remain under the Old Covenant “Law” would result only in “condemnation” and “death” (Rom. 6:13-23). The two modes of existence are under consideration in this text and continues into chapter 7 and 8. Freedom from “the law” and the operation of “grace” was enough to deliver them from the power of sin and death, and to set them free from the resulting bondage. The question before them was, “Which mode of existence would they CHOOSE?”
    
    From the standpoint of life in the “age to come” believers are set free from the bondage of sin and death, including “condemnation” (Rom. 8:1ff). The process stands COMPLETE from the standpoint of the Parousia which has already taken place. However, within the lives of INDIVIDUAL believers such victory is not always immediate evidenced in their actions. Believers are not exempt from temptation, or from YIELDING themselves over to every kind of bondage that was common to the time PRIOR to the arrival of the “age to come.” The difference is in knowing that the victorious life is POSSIBLE, as believers continue to enjoy and to experience the “powers of the age to come” (Heb. 6:5), under the direction and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Victory is POSSIBLE from the standpoint of believers, but ABSOLUTE from the standpoint of God. It is a matter of walking yielded before the Lord.
    
    Make no mistake, the issues in this discussion are important on several levels. There is a line of demarcation that is ABSOLUTE from the standpoint of the text that separates FUTURISM from PRETERISM–a line that cannot and must not be blurred into a hybrid form of PRETERIST-FUTURISM that seeks to have it both ways. Manifestation of that which has already been fulfilled is NOT identical to saying that “more” is necessary in order to fulfill that which had been predicted in the Scriptures. The fact that everyone exposed to the gospel is not converted by it, does not lessen the power of the Cross to save, as some might contend. The fact that whole nations (China, Iraq, etc) are not converted “as a whole” to the message of the gospel does not negate the power of the Cross, nor does it demonstrate that something “more” and “better” is needed to fulfill the picture of Kingdom victory. We cannot allow spiritual promises to be determined by carnal fulfillments that require subjective standards of observation in order to determine their fulfillment. The compromise between Preterism and Futurism results is NEITHER surviving. The future was consummated in the past. What was consummated in the past is demonstrated within the lives of God’s people at every time, in every culture–yesterday, today and tomorrow. The church has the delegated authority and dominion to walk far above its current state of compromise and defeat. False views of eschatology are 90% to blame for much of the error that now exists within “Christianity” today. Cults whose entire existence is about the “soon” coming Rapture so that the church can escape and not conquer. God’s ABSOLUTE is POSSIBLE through believers who exercise faith in the power of the word of God.
  - Larry Siegle
    
    Jason
    Last night I had set about to continue with a few comments, and “poof” for whatever reason, my thoughts in the comment box disappeared into the ozone of the Internet in an instant of time….Therefore, I start over. I wanted to comment on the ABSOLUTE vs. the POSSIBLE as it relates to the MANIFESTATION of the characteristics, qualities and descriptions given of life in the “age to come.” The verses that point toward the victorious nature of the gospel are ABSOLUTE as part of God’s “eternal purpose” that is demonstrated and shown through the church, “world without end” (Eph. 3:10, 11, 21). However, from the standpoint of the believer, living in the “age to come” and the church (as the body of Christ), victory is conditioned upon the operation of FAITH and OBEDIENCE in a daily walk with God. The victory of Christianity is not dependent upon what occurs in the New York Times to be demonstrated in the mass conversation of China, Iraq, Russia, or other “nations” (as a whole) to biblical principles of Christianity. Otherwise, the victory is removed from the essence of its spiritual roots, in Christ and transplanted into the realm of the subjective whims of expositors who read the newspaper looking for new sources of Prophetic Fulfillment. The transforming power of the gospel has always taken place “one heart at a time” and the effects are seen within the society of every nation whose citizens embrace the ethics and morals, living in the power of God in their daily lives. Instead of Christianity being victorious over the Roman empire, history records that eventually the Roman empire swallowed up Christianity, remaking the “church” in its own image instead of the influence being the other way around. Out of that situation arose Roman Catholicism, not as the “victorious expression of the Kingdom of God” but rather as a hybrid expression of paganism and Christianity–compromise with the world was never the means or road to victory in Christ.
    
    The influence of the Kingdom spreads, not by some form of legislation in congress, or because the President of the United States professes to be a “Christian” (of some brand or variety), but rather when the genuine power of gospel operating through the gospel is demonstrated daily, in the lives of individual believers. It is my conviction, based upon the Scriptures that God’s purpose is to be MANIFESTED, not because there are prophecies yet to be fulfilled., but rather because of the fact that they HAVE BEEN fulfilled and therefore believers, with authority exercise their restored dominion as God’s representatives in every nation under heaven.
    
    The New Covenant was the goal or end to which redemptive history pointed (Heb. 13:20). Never is any indication given in the text that God needs to do something “more” than has already been accomplished through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. The renovation of planet earth was never the problem, the removal of the “curse” on the ground because of the entrance of the sin and the death, was that which brought about the necessary transformation. It was relational, not environmental in scope and purpose.
    
    The depiction of God’s description of life in the “new heavens and a new earth” is ABSOLUTE from the standpoint of His VERY BEST for the lives of His children, but such remains within the realm of what is POSSIBLE, only because believers are called to step forward in FAITH and receive what belongs to them in Christ. The issue is not salvation, that matter was settled through the work of the Cross, and the “last days” work of the Holy Spirit to bring about the transformation of the Covenants. The issue within the framework of the “age to come” is that of MANIFESTATION of those purposes through lives that are empowered by God to live in a way that brings honor and glory to Him and to His Kingdom.
    
    Perhaps an illustration from Paul is appropriate. In Romans 6, the concept of CHOICE and POSSIBILITY are seen. Paul talks about those who “yield” themselves EITHER as “instruments of sin” or as “instruments of righteousness” (Rom. 6:13ff). The Covenantal contrast Paul makes is between life under the “Law” and life under “grace”–each with certain consequences that necessarily follow. Obedience to the will of God would bring “life” through the power of the gospel, while choosing to remain under the Old Covenant “Law” would result only in “condemnation” and “death” (Rom. 6:13-23). The two modes of existence are under consideration in this text and continues into chapter 7 and 8. Freedom from “the law” and the operation of “grace” was enough to deliver them from the power of sin and death, and to set them free from the resulting bondage. The question before them was, “Which mode of existence would they CHOOSE?”
    
    From the standpoint of life in the “age to come” believers are set free from the bondage of sin and death, including “condemnation” (Rom. 8:1ff). The process stands COMPLETE from the standpoint of the Parousia which has already taken place. However, within the lives of INDIVIDUAL believers such victory is not always immediate evidenced in their actions. Believers are not exempt from temptation, or from YIELDING themselves over to every kind of bondage that was common to the time PRIOR to the arrival of the “age to come.” The difference is in knowing that the victorious life is POSSIBLE, as believers continue to enjoy and to experience the “powers of the age to come” (Heb. 6:5), under the direction and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Victory is POSSIBLE from the standpoint of believers, but ABSOLUTE from the standpoint of God. It is a matter of walking yielded before the Lord.
    
    Make no mistake, the issues in this discussion are important on several levels. There is a line of demarcation that is ABSOLUTE from the standpoint of the text that separates FUTURISM from PRETERISM–a line that cannot and must not be blurred into a hybrid form of PRETERIST-FUTURISM that seeks to have it both ways. Manifestation of that which has already been fulfilled is NOT identical to saying that “more” is necessary in order to fulfill that which had been predicted in the Scriptures. The fact that everyone exposed to the gospel is not converted by it, does not lessen the power of the Cross to save, as some might contend. The fact that whole nations (China, Iraq, etc) are not converted “as a whole” to the message of the gospel does not negate the power of the Cross, nor does it demonstrate that something “more” and “better” is needed to fulfill the picture of Kingdom victory. We cannot allow spiritual promises to be determined by carnal fulfillments that require subjective standards of observation in order to determine their fulfillment. The compromise between Preterism and Futurism results is NEITHER surviving. The future was consummated in the past. What was consummated in the past is demonstrated within the lives of God’s people at every time, in every culture–yesterday, today and tomorrow. The church has the delegated authority and dominion to walk far above its current state of compromise and defeat. False views of eschatology are 90% to blame for much of the error that now exists within “Christianity” today. Cults whose entire existence is about the “soon” coming Rapture so that the church can escape and not conquer. God’s ABSOLUTE is POSSIBLE through believers who exercise faith in the power of the word of God.
Kerry

I was thinking about the mustard seed teachings, and I remembered a testimony a visiting preacher gave at a congregation I attended some years back.
The term mustard seed is only used five times in the Bible. Three times it is used to describe the Kingdom and it’s growth, and two times it is used to describe the faith required to move mountains, uproot trees.

This man was a preacher, and this was in a small town with small farms and dirt roads. Anyhow, this preacher was doing the best he could to clear this portion of his property for a future sanctuary. We were chuckling at the way he told the story.
He said he had the equipment to do most of the work, but when it came to this particular tree, and it’s stump, he could not remove it. So, he said he stood there yelling at it to be removed, and pointing at it with forcefulness as he is yelling these commands. About that time an old farmer from up the road was driving by on a tractor and heard the yelling and saw the preacher pointing and waving at the tree. He pulled up and said, “What are ya yellin’ at, are ya alright”? The preacher told him that he couldn’t do anything with the tree, so he was commanding it to be uprooted. The farmer said, “Well, that shouldn’t be a problem, I can help you with that right now”. The farmer went onto say that he had never seen a man ever doing such thing. Nonetheless, the tree came out.

There ya go.
Kerry

Not to long ago, someone mentioned the problem of infinity, and procreation….Again. First of all, I don’t believe anyone here or elsewhere in this discussion wishes our children not to marry or have children. This is of course is ridiculous, even to me, and my limited formal education.

I believe Sam has already addressed this and has said it better than I could. However, I have two cents, and maybe someday I will work my way up to two bits, if I work on my math and logic.

God is not subject to our analysis of His ability to count. Something infinite to us, doesn’t mean it is, it only seems that way to us because we can’t do that kind of math. Therefore it is not a denial of God’s ability to count an endless series of “things” that is the issue. We are depending on His omniscience when we believe he knows “all” things in a finite set that seems endless to us, There is nothing that goes on forever, without it being known in advance.
However, If we were to deny His infinite QUALITY or qualities, then yes, we have impugned His perfect and endless nature with our finite and corrupt judgment. This of course is wrong, and should be rejected.

Basically, when Christians have used the word infinity, they have used it as an all encompassing term for His qualities. But it is very apparent in scripture that, He knows all the hairs on our heads, the sparrows that fall, the stars, the sands, and everything else. He made them, it follows that He knows them. Quality, verses quantity and mode of operation. One is applicable, and one is not. I don’t think to deny infinity in the quantitative sense implies God is finite. To deny His perfection, and His ability to affect, and create, does imply He is finite.
Kerry

Forgive my occasional extra word or typo, it definitely shows my imperfections.
- Larry Siegle
  
  No worries on the typos, I am now up to 60 MISTAKES a minute in my typing spppeed.
Kerry

You guys take care and keep up the good work. I’ve got to get out of my town for a bit, and get on some fish. Thanks for the comments and teaching points, and allowing me to participate.

Larry, I thought I read your in CA? Like I said earlier, I head to San Diego now and then to link up with my bud to go fishing. If your close to Diego, let me know.
- Larry Siegle
  
  Kerry
  I would love the opportunity to meet you some time. I live in the SF Bay area and therefore quite some distance from you. However, Michael Loomis, Jeff Vaughn and others live in southern California and are closer. Perhaps the time will arise in the near future to have a real “West Coast” Seminar on Biblical Fulfillment. My suggestion to you is to go “catching” and NOT “fishing.” Faith always looks toward the end result and therefore, “catching” the fish, having dinner, and perhaps the added benefit of paying your taxes if you find money in the mouth of the fish…Granted that ONLY happens under limited circumstances (as was the case with Jesus and His apostles), but with rising unemployment and tax season just ahead, one might hope for that added benefit.
  
  Take care. Enjoy. I do appreciate your helpful insights!
  
  Larry D. Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Samuelmfrost

Larry,

You wrote, “What the Bible PREDICTS …..” concerning the age to come. You keep wanting to shy away from the word “prophesies”……
Samuelmfrost

Larry wrote on another site, “It is an EITHER/OR and not a BOTH/AND situation. Anything that smacks of ongoing “fulfillment” must be squashed like a bug. I do not object to ongoing “manifestation” of that which has already been accomplished. But the two concepts are NOT identical.”
- Larry Siegle
  
  I apologize for the harsh-sounding tone of the comment. However, one would have to agree that much harm has come into the church because of mistaken concepts about eschatology in the form of “last days” madness. My conviction is that Futurism and Preterism are incompatible expressions of biblical teaching and that only one of the views can constitute the truth.
  
  To my knowledge, other preterist such as Max King, Don Preston, Jack Scott, William Bell have all consistently taught that “all prophecy” was fulfilled in those events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. In fact, those are nearly the exact words of the debate proposition Max King affirmed in his public debate with Gus Nichols in 1972.
Samuelmfrost

Larry,

apology accepted. This is what is happennig, though. If a person has any future in terms of anything being fulfilled beyond AD 70, then he cannot be a Full Preterist. You can talk about “application” all day long, but it still carries no weight other than “maybe”. What God came to establish is amazingly silent as to the effects it would have on the earth it came to (Rev 21). But, if you start talking about the EFFECTS, you have stepped right into – you guessed it – prophecy. You can avoid this conclusion all you like, but it’s unavoidable – unless you go the whole route, like Rivers of Eden does.

Now, we are told, that the ea rth “may” or “may not” end. Green has said this. Sullivan sees the problem here even with a “maybe”. He is adamant: infinite procreation. At least he is remaining more consistent. So, what’s happening, then, is that Full Preterism has attached with it a DOGMA: infinite procreation. I have asked, can a person be a Preterist without this illogical doctrine?

See, no one wants to come out and say this. We are more comfortable with “we don’t know” – meaning, if the Bible speaks of infinite procreation, then it PROPHECIES it and it is BEING FULFILLED right now – in fact, it will never be fulfilled because it is infinite.

These horns, Larry, have caused me to step back here. Is the message of infinite procreation really the key that the world has been needing to hear? Where is the future going? FP’s answer. “we don’t know.” Will the earth last forever? Maybe. will there ever be peace on earth? No.

Every millennial system in Christianity has an answer to these questions. they all end in a glorious manifestation of God’s people enjoying Him forever ON EARTH and in Heaven. They get there differently, but they all get there. FP is the only millennial system that cannot answer these questions, and it insists that this make its the most mature! Can’t you hear the nations coming in droves, Larry, to hear this great “I don’t know” view?
Anonymous

Sam,

I can understand your logical argument for ongoing fulfilment but I cannot overcome the exegetical issue of what seems to be a straight contradictory statement by Jesus in Mt 5:17f. Now for some reason you haven’t addressed this. I could come up with all manner of fantasies as to why you haven’t addressed this, but that is pointless. So for the third time of asking:

If Bible Prophecy was not “all” fulfilled in A.D. 70, then what do you understand Jesus to be saying in Mt 5:17-18, “17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (KJV)

This seems very clear to me. All was fulfilled at the passing of heaven and earth, or the Law is still fully in force, all of it.

Regards, Ken
http://pantelism.com davo

Sam: “…if the Bible speaks of infinite procreation, then it PROPHECIES it and it is BEING FULFILLED right now – in fact, it will never be fulfilled because it is infinite.”

Sam… IF you believe in “ongoing prophecy” then infinite continuation does not nullify prophetic fulfillment but ever testifies to it. DID Jesus’ preaching the gospel to the poor, healing the broken hearted, delivering the captives, bringing recovery of sight to the blind, setting at liberty the oppressed and preaching the acceptable year Lord etc, CEASE the day Jesus said such WAS “fulfilled” in their hearing?

Personally I see the “perpetual effect” of fulfillment ad infinitum, which is beyond the fulfillment itself; but that said, it still makes no logical sense for you to argue that “ongoing prophecy” somehow nullifies or negates infinity, or vice versa – this above is but one example that to me makes your proposition rather moot, IMO.
Samuelmfrost

Ken,

First off, you are to be commended for not producing a “fantasy” as to why I have not responded. Thank you! I have to deal with enough of those! The comment simply got lost amidst the flurry of comments here and there. Accept my apologies.

When “all” is fulfilled, jots and tittles would then begin to pass from the Law and Prophets. This statement signifies that a change was coming. It is much of the argument of Hebrews, “if there is a new covenant, then there must be a change.” The powers of that change were “already” at work (Hebrews 6.5) in that jots and tittles were already passing in the ministry of Jesus (the prophecies he fulfilled, making all foods clean, He is the Lord of the Sabbath, etc), through the Acts of the Apostles (Joel 2.28, etc. etc.), through Paul’s Gentile mission, all the way to Revelation and the Destruction of Jerusalem. “All” concerning what the Law and the Prophets had to say on these matters was “fulfilled” and, so, they “passed” in that they no longer stood in need of fulfillment. The problem you are having is with the word “all”. Tricky word. Was the “age to come” prophecies “fulfilled” entirely by AD 70? That means they passed away, too. Or is “all” pertaining to all manner of prophecies and the law related to the change the new covenant would bring (and continue to bring for eternity, since it is an eternal covenant)? Isaiah speaks of the “remnant” being saved “in that day” and THEN they would, in turn, “spread and flourish” through the whole earth. Did the remnant of Israel do this in AD 70? Jesus fulfilled “all” that needed to be fulfilled in order to effect the change of the Law (change of covenants/change of the ages) and set (inaugurate) into motion the PROPHESIED new covenant age. Does this answer your question?
Samuelmfrost

Larry Siegle writes, “if something more is necessary for God to do–direction intervention in human history–then the efficacy of these events (Cross, Parousia, Resurrection, Judgment) is now called into question….” What, then, is God doing right now? Nothing. If God is still “saving” people – his People – then he is still doing something in terms of Redemption, is He not? See, a consistent Full Preterist approach would be that God has SAVED ALL that He is going to save (and some hold to that). Others, have us ALREADY saved, denying salvation today is “by faith.” Larry wants no Direct Intervention of God in terms of Redemption – but in my view, the Bible speaks of God APPLYING the accomplished work of God in the age to come. Each of these things are components. The cross, the resurrection, the ascension, the rule and the parousia and, let us not forget, the establishment of a new heavens and new earth IN WHICH the accomplishments of Christ would be applied – AS PROPHESIED THAT THEY WOULD BE APPLIED – means that if they are NOT applied and being applied – God FAILED.

But, even more than this – an infinite future is supposedly preached by FP. Jeff Vaughn is arguing that to end procreation would mean a “curse” (I know, lame argument, for that must mean that we get to make whooppie in heaven, too). God, then, would NEVER cease in applying (saving) His people – it never ends. I thought about this this morning…..who is the Futurist here? My “future” ends in terms of evil, sin, suffering and history. The FP future NEVER ENDS – evil, sin, suffering and history and procreation continues on ad infinitum! Talk about FUTURISM!!!!!

But, Larry wants to make the case that ANY fulfillment whatsoever, any asect of something “lacking”, would mean to take away from what Jesus accomplished. Not true. For, Larry must posit that when he dies physically, something will change. If we have it all…..why don’t we see it all? Why the interim between history and heaven? What purpose does this serve in terms of the Purpose of God? What is its function? One Preterist argued that believing in a sinless state was “fantasy.” That God has prescribed for us endless “process” – it’s getting wacky out there, folks.
- Larry Siegle
  
  Sam
  I appreciate your insights and I promise not to go “wacky” unless it is absolutely necessary.
  
  God “saving” (present-tense) today, comes through faith’s response to already accomplished (past-tense) redemptive work of Christ. The message itself, the gospel of grace is the “power of God” (Rom. 1:16), that creates “faith” in the human heart (Rom. 10:17), and that brings one into Covenant relationship with God (Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:26, 27). The New Birth into the Kingdom is the result of the “seed” (which is the word of God) (Luke 8:11) implanted within the human heart, and from which faith for salvation arises (Rom. 6:17). It is not God doing something MORE or FULLER than what was already accomplished 2,000 years ago. Every person who is “born from above” (John 3:3-5) and who enters into “resurrection-life” (John 5:24) today, does so–Not on the basis of ongoing fulfillment of prophecy–but rather by appropriation of the already accomplished benefits of what Christ has already done.
  
  I agree concerning the ESTABLISHMENT of the “new heavens and a new earth” (II Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21;1-3). However, the ARRIVAL of the reality of this “new heavens and a new earth” does not require that MORE prophecy be fulfilled over the course of thousands of years while history gradually unfolds. The arrival of the “new heavens and a new earth” are the focal point to which consummated redemption pointed. If we are now 2,000 years beyond the “end” then WHEN exactly does the “new heavens and a new earth” reach and attain to the ultimated purpose of God, how will be know when it arrives since there is no “signs” no “warnings” no specific time-element given in order to identify this next great accomplishment of God? Especially so since the book of Revelation, in its closing chapters is silent as a tomb about any of this extensive renovation project of God that “fixes” all of the problems unique to planet earth?
  
  Why bother placing any emphasis on the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 if this event was simply an brief “interlude” to the EVENTUAL victory of the Kingdom of God thousands of years afterward? Would it not simply be more logical to embrace a total futurist framework such as premillennialism and ignore completely the significance of that MINOR coming of the Lord in A.D. 70, as compared with the “yet future” cosmic renovation project that lies ‘just ahead’ (whatever that means)?
  
  If the creation of an earthly perfect state in which God literally takes up residence on planet earth, then it seems more logical to believe in a physical, bodily resurrection that accommodates such a notion. If not, why not?
  
  The existence of “extreme” positions within every systematic theology proves nothing! In your view does “hyper-calvinism” disprove the validity of Calivinism itself? Both of us are in agreement that a balanced approach to the Scriptures is absolutely essential in order to arrive at a logical conclusion (Josh 1:7-8; I Thess. 5:21; II John 9-11). What proves too much, proves nothing! Both of us are committed to the authority of the word of God, and therefore using the “extremes” and “abuses” as an example is not a valid argument.
  
  Regarding the death of the human body, who is claiming that “nothing changes” or that any “change” from the physical to the spiritual realm necessarily constitutes FULLER fulfillment? Moreover, what about being in a physical body affects one’s relationship with God? Did Jesus become “flesh” fully and completely (John 1:14)? Did the fact that he was living on earth in a human body somehow affect his relationship with His Father in an adverse way? The issue within the realm of salvation history is RELATIONSHIP and not LOCATION. Is the spiritual realm different than the physical realm? No doubt. But the shedding of the human “meat-suit” at the end of biological life has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the person is in Covenant relationship with God. Sin is that which separates from God (Isa. 59:2), and leads to “death” (Rom. 6:23). Redemption RESTORES the relationship with God that was lost “in Adam.” Death of the human body is a moot point relative to relationship with God. Jesus was in relationship with His Father, before and after His death, burial and resurrection from the dead. “As He is, so are we…” We are now called “sons”–not on the basis of the human body, but because of the price of redemption that was paid in order that physically living people could be called the “sons of God”–that is, unless one is willing to affirm that no actual adoption as “sons” takes place until some future point of resurrection from the dead. Is Sam a “son” now, or does this wait until the time of his biological demise? Or, does a FULLER view imply that genuine adoption does not occur until EVERYTHING is fixed on planet earth, the nations are subdued and confessing the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the planet is restored physically to its Edenic glory?
  
  Thanks Sam…
  
  Larry D. Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Ken Singleton

Hi Sam,

Apology accepted! Thank you for responding. I know you’re a busy guy and are having to defend yourself on many fronts at the moment. I just want you to know that I greatly value this web site and your clarity of thought. I appreciate your scholarship very much, and it is good to know that you are a Reformed, Calvinist, Preterist. That is my background too, and so it is good to pick your brains on issues that I still struggle with. Nevertheless, I am aware of how wearing it can be to have to keep answering everyone’s questions and demands, so I will hold back from questions, and instead just share thoughts, from time to time.

As for whether your answer to my question satisfies me, I am not sure yet. I will need to ponder it more.

However, I am very clear about where you are coming from, and indeed where Larry and the others are coming from too. I like pictures – it helps me to clarify issues. So as I understand it the problem seems to be like a car designer who plans and purposes to build a car. As part of that planning, he envisions how that car will be used because that effects how the car will be designed. He sees thousands of them all over the world. He sees the performance criteria. How the car will break in emergencies. How it will stick to the road when it is wet, and so on. Finally, after much work the car is completed. The designer’s work is finished. But if no one buys the car or uses the car will the designer be glad? Surely the whole purpose of the car is to fulfil the designers vision of how the car would be used. Only then would the designer be happy.

If the designer is God and the car is the completed church/city/body etc. in the “age to come” in the “new heaven and earth”, then what was the point of it all if it was all completed at AD70 but does not then go on to fulfil the Designer’s vision. And what is the Designer’s vision? Well if you can answer that question exegetically, then logically, you are agreeing with Sam. If you cannot answer it exegetically, then you’re making it up and everyone will have a different idea of what the vision should be.
As for me, I think we are like those Exodus believers who entered the promised land (thanks Larry). The land was theirs to take but only because God had already given it to them. Likewise, the world is ours to take but only because God has already given it to us (in the prophecies? – grins).

Regards, Ken
- Larry Siegle
  
  Ken
  You have a wonderful attitude toward the Scriptures and your comments and questions are welcome. I realize that Sam and I approach these issues from slightly different points of view. He and I have been friends for several years now, and I have profound respect for him as a friend and as a Bible student. The efforts at clarifying our differences are always in the interest of hearts that are devoted to the search for truth. Love for God is never questioned, and motives for what we understand the Scriptures to teach or why are never under scrutiny. At times it appears that our studies take us in separate directions, but the exploration of ideas within a Biblical framework is always priority one with both of us. I have learned much from Sam over the years and hopefully I have made some small contribution to his spiritual growth and development also. The need to “press the issue” or hold the other person’s “feet to the fire” is never an attempt at making the other person look foolish, but only to reduce some arguments to their most logical implications. None of us is exempt from following of mistaken path and often it becomes necessary to think critically about whatever position we hold to in order to determine whether or not it stands in harmony with the rest of what inspiration has revealed to us. Both of us are committed to the principle of Christocentricity in every aspect of our theology, including eschatology. Those who believe that somehow Preterism detracts from the Cross or diminishes the power of the gospel are sadly mistaken.
  
  I appreciate your car illustration. Once the builder has completed the task of assembling the vehicle (which I believe illustrates what took place in A.D. 70), the purpose for which the car was designed, constructed and assembled becomes a reality for the intended recipient (believers following the Parousia). My point is that whatever use that car receives following the time of its having been built is the immediate EFFECT of what the designer intended and not the car-maker (God) does not need to CONTINUE to walk alongside the road adding new parts, changing the color of the paint, or installing new equipment. The recipient is free to enjoy what the car-maker has. Whatever happens later down the road is traced back to what the designer and builder has already put together and accomplished.
  
  This view does not take away from God’s providential dealings with humanity beyond the Parousia. This does not take away from the power of the once-for-all-time delivered to the saints message of faith (Jude 3). I have always believed that Kingdom growth post-A.D. 70 comes as a direct result of what Christ accomplished in bringing to pass the fulfillment of “all” of the promises made. The post-A.D. 70 presence of God in the lives of believers is only possible because of what has already occurred in the two-dimensions of the one “age-changing” eschaton (See preface of The Cross and the Parousia of Christ (1987) Max R. King). The prophecy that in the “age to come” would see “all nations” flowing into the Kingdom of God became true the very moment it was predicted and spoken, the characteristics and qualities of such growth being the effect of that which had been accomplished. The prophecy was FULFILLED in A.D. 70 with the arrival of the “age to come” and MANIFESTED in the lives of people thereafter. I believe the confusion is the chosen use of the words “ongoing fulfillment” as opposed to “ongoing manifestation”. The view of Sam is focused on the PROCESS of continuation, while my view is focused on the EFFECTS that come as the RESULT of that PROCESS. The process is complete, the effects are ongoing. The one point that Sam and I do agree on is that God did not “go out of business” in A.D. 70, nor has He abandoned His children. Rather the EFFECTS of His glorious Presence in our lives are being demonstrated each and every day.
  
  Have a blessed day
  
  Larry D. Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Samuelmfrost

Ken, Larry,

You have single handedly given us a picture of the issues with the car analogy! Larry wrote, “Every person who is “born from above” (John 3:3-5) and who enters into “resurrection-life” (John 5:24) today, does so–Not on the basis of ongoing fulfillment of prophecy–but rather by appropriation of the already accomplished benefits of what Christ has already done.” Larry’s view, then, is God has built the car and the left the POSSIBILITY of driving it to us. There is NO PROPHECY that says that we will DRIVE THE CAR. That is, there NO PROPHECY that say that anyone will be born again, post AD 70. God made the car. It’s up to us to drive it, but it not fulfilling anything if we do, or if we don’t – apparently, part of the “Purpose” of God which works all things to the Good stopped in AD 70. We know of the Purpose of God up to AD 70 and that was fulfilled. After that……we know zilch. Larry escapes this by saying that we know the “constituent elements” of the car. We have been given the manuel. But, where to drive the car? How many cars will be driven? Is there any PURPOSE heading in any direction when we drive the car? Larry can give no answers except that we will drive this car ad infinitum….where it goes, nobody knows…..

But, I have given Scripture after Scripture showing that the Prophets spoke of the car being built AND that IT WILL BE DRIVEN by the NATIONS—-KINGS will drive it….PRINCES will drive it, NATIONS will drive it so many nations that their number will be like the dust of the earth (Abrahamic covenant – which, interestingly enough, is not an infinite number). So, while Larry and Mike and the other FPs want to say the Bible says “nothing” beyond AD 70 except for POSSIBLE benefits (if you buy the car), well, then, there you have it. This was never the FP I signed up for (and going over some of my earliest lectures, that can be proven – I even had a guy who has been reading me from the get go call me the other day and ask what the fuss was about because I have always said these things). What has changed for me is that the Bible does not teach the illogical infinite procreation – which I did teach – and apologize for teaching as it is an error. I simply never saw the problem before – call me stupid, whatever. FURTHER STUDIES as I walk with the Lord, though, made it clear. If the Scriptures teach it, then I must submit to it – period. God knows ALL his people, every ONE of them. Therefore, this cannot be a finite number, and, as I have quoted the Abrahamic covenant, it NOT. It may a NUMBER which no man can number…but the Bible is loud and clear: IT IS A NUMBER that God knows – and therefore, cannot be infinite without involving a logical contradiction (excuse me, a “paradox”).

On one hand, I am accused of sucking up to Futurists because of my ego. On the other hand, I have been accused of sucking up to the Virgil’s, Don’s, and Larry’s, even the Mike’s and Dave’s of FP…..yet, when I actually DO speak my mind, it’s only because I am sucking up to one or the other……which is it? I understand the issues this has raised in the FP community. That’s a community I have helped build. I got lambasted for being Virgil’s friend. Now, I get lambasted for being Dr. Talbot’s friend……which is it? Maybe……just maybe…..what I am saying has a ring of truth to it that further enhances what the FP are doing…..but, if that means that we now have an “orthodox” view of the final state from a FP perspective, then what’s the problem? When did “orthodoxy” become a boogeyman?

My eschatology is definitely structured by a natural end of history, according to the Scriptures. I cannot any longer operate in an eschatology that operates with “we don’t know”. I know what happened from Adam to AD 70…..but what about the REST OF THE STORY? What about the REST of the world for which the car was built? God brings us up to this grand moment, only to say, “here’s the car, here’s the keys, here’s the manuel….” “Well, great, God, but, ahem, where are we going?” “Silly wife, I can’t reveal that to you.” “Well, do you know?” “Yes, I know everything. I know exactly where and how many will drive the car”. “Oh, well, okay. How long have you known this?” “From eternity. I do all things according to the counsel of my will and purpose”. “Oh, so we do have a purpose?” “Yes.” “What is it?” “Can’t tell you.” “So, I guess, the purpose is to drive the car as best as we can, with your help, and maybe impact our neighbors around us?” “Something like that”. “What will be the extent of our success?” “Can’t tell you.” “Oh….well…..okay. One last question. Have you revealed for how long your people will drive this car?” “Oh, that I can tell you: for infinity!” “Oye vey!” “Hahahahaha. Don’t forget to check the oil.”
- Larry Siegle
  
  Sam
  I suppose that IF illustrations actually constitute “proof” there might be something to concede, but since illustrations themselves prove nothing, the journey moves forward. Using the car illustration, if God is the builder and car-maker, then according to your view the driver who assumes ownership of the vehicle but have God driving with him off the lot while He continues to put the car together, because the car is not finished! If God were the builder of a house, according to your logic, a person could never actually live in the house because the builder is still in the process of construction for more than 2,000 years!
  
  The flow of redemptive-history, from the beginning when Adam and Eve fell into sin, and subsequently the death that resulted from the transgression (Rom. 5:12; 6:23), moves toward the goal of the “seed” promise (Gen. 3:15), leading to Christ and his entrance into the world, “born of a woman, born under the Law” (Gal. 4:4). The Cross and the Parousia of Christ constitute two aspects of one COMPLETED process through which redemption, through resurrection is accomplished. When Christ returns in glory, bringing judgment and destruction on Old Covenant Israel, the issues related to sin and death are forever settled, with the defeat of the “last enemy” and the “strength of sin” as manifested through the power of the Law (I Cor. 15:25-56). It was God who was “giving” to this first-century transition period generation the promised “victory” before and without any ‘deferment’ until some “yet future” time of cosmic intervention of God to restore planet earth back into its Edenic state of perfection (I Cor. 15:57). To remove ANY element of the promised redemption from within its historical, contextual and redemptive framework in favor of some fulfillment of “more” promises, “more” prophecy” that brings about “more” salvation is to go beyond the authority of the Scriptures (II John 9-11).
  
  The problem with a FULLER view in this respect is that it takes salvation and redemption from its covenantal framework that is “of Israel” (John 4:22), and places it in an “unknown” time beyond the scope of the purpose and meaning of God’s “eternal purpose” as manifested through the glorification of the church at the end of the Jewish age (Eph. 3:9-21; 5:25-27). Either the church today exists as the “glorious” result of accomplished redemption, or is left in an state of incompleteness awaiting the “eventual” restoration of the planet and “more” fulfillment that is outside the framework of redemptive history itself.
  
  The illustration of the car maker who allows the driver to put into operation the purpose for which the vehicle was produced (that of actually driving it) has fulfilled his purpose for having produced the car. Who would expect FORD to tell the driver to whom the vehicle has been given to them him WHERE to drive the car, and control every aspect of the car’s usage? That the car-maker would have to continue the process of building the car even after it was driven off the lot is ridiculous, much less that he would continue to direct every aspect of the car’s operation from that point onward. Not a car I would want to have anything to do with! Illustrations that prove too much, prove nothing! One cannot press the meaning of an example or illustration beyond the actual scope of what is being illustrated.
  
  In your view, the events of the first-century were simply a “foretaste” of what would eventually come to pass in the realm of space and time. Until every issue related to the conflict between good and evil is resolved, the process can never be considered complete from your standpoint. Not until “every knee” bows and “every tongue” confesses, every nation and every physical Kingdom is subdued, not until God takes up actual residence on planet earth, do the events of Revelation 21-22 actually become REALIZED. This, my friend, makes part of the book of Revelation a prophecy of a “yet future” time and therefore does not fit within the framework, either or Scripture or of Full Preterism. What you are advocating in this regard may be Preterism, but certainly not FULL Preterism. This is not said in the spirit of condemnation, but only as a plea to a genuine friend to look again at the the CONTEXT in which the writings of the inspired apostles and indeed of Christ Himself, point forward to. It is not something 2,000 years BEYOND the “last days” beyond the “transition period” beyond the removal of the Old Covenant mode of existence, but rather it is those very constituent elements that prove beyond any question that “all things written” were fulfilled at the TIME and in the MANNER in which they were predicted to do so (Luke 21:22).
  
  There are no degrees of Preterism and no degrees of Futurism, there is one system or the other, and one must decide which of the two views is more consistent with the message and meaning of Scripture.
  
  Larry D. Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
http://thereignofchrist.com Jason

“I even had a guy who has been reading me from the get go call me the other day and ask what the fuss was about because I have always said these things”

But see, that’s the problem. Mike S and others HAVEN’T been “reading [you] from the get go…” I’ve known you since the end of 2oo2. You have ALWAYS taught this concerning the growth of the kingdom. I even remember a study in 2oo3 where you and Mike G had a friendly banter about this very issue. I remember it well…i guess because me and Mike were tag teaming against you, which didn’t happen often. lol.

Mike S has told us before that he barely keeps up with things and if you’ll notice, he often begins his responses with something like, “i have briefly scanned through this…” blah, blah, blah.

So, it doesn’t surprise me one bit that it has taken him at least 8 years to figure this out.

oh well…
Samuelmfrost

Yeah, I remember that. Mike Grace was a little opposed to it, but open.
Samuelmfrost

Yeah, I remember that. Mike Grace was a little opposed to it, but open.
Samuelmfrost

By the way, the name of the car is Infinity……
Anonymous

Sam, Larry, thanks for your gracious comments.
I am glad that the car analogy helped. Pictures always help me. At the moment I am like the man being asked to view a room through two different windows. I go with Sam to view the room through his window and it makes sense. I see what he sees. Then I go with Larry to view the same room through his window and it makes sense, I see what he sees. Same room but from different viewpoints. However, I guess only one can be right. At the moment I am sitting in the “excluded middle” – grins – and it is painful, but it is the place I need to be until I have done all my homework and gathered all the data.

I have to confess though, the idea that every single bit of prophecy is fulfilled at AD70 is a fairly new understanding for me. I was a bit shocked, therefore, to see how entrenched some preterists are in holding to this view, as well as the eternal universe idea. My thinking before I came to this site was along the lines of: the great commission needs to be fulfilled in every generation and I mustn’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Nevertheless every doctrine still needs to be re-examined in the light of full preterist beliefs. Personally I think we are still in the infancy of full preterism, and it will be many, many more years before it becomes the dominant Christian understanding. You guys are the pioneers, along with Don and Max, and others, but one day the church will come to a full and settled understanding of the truth.

So, thank you Sam and Larry for the humble way you are engaging with each other. One last point. I live in the UK, and this is the reason why my posts are often so far apart from yours, also why I won’t be at your gathering on Saturday, Sam – grins.

God bless both of you.

Regards, Ken
Anonymous

Sam, Larry, thanks for your gracious comments.
I am glad that the car analogy helped. Pictures always help me. At the moment I am like the man being asked to view a room through two different windows. I go with Sam to view the room through his window and it makes sense. I see what he sees. Then I go with Larry to view the same room through his window and it makes sense, I see what he sees. Same room but from different viewpoints. However, I guess only one can be right. At the moment I am sitting in the “excluded middle” – grins – and it is painful, but it is the place I need to be until I have done all my homework and gathered all the data.

I have to confess though, the idea that every single bit of prophecy is fulfilled at AD70 is a fairly new understanding for me. I was a bit shocked, therefore, to see how entrenched some preterists are in holding to this view, as well as the eternal universe idea. My thinking before I came to this site was along the lines of: the great commission needs to be fulfilled in every generation and I mustn’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Nevertheless every doctrine still needs to be re-examined in the light of full preterist beliefs. Personally I think we are still in the infancy of full preterism, and it will be many, many more years before it becomes the dominant Christian understanding. You guys are the pioneers, along with Don and Max, and others, but one day the church will come to a full and settled understanding of the truth.

So, thank you Sam and Larry for the humble way you are engaging with each other. One last point. I live in the UK, and this is the reason why my posts are often so far apart from yours, also why I won’t be at your gathering on Saturday, Sam – grins.

God bless both of you.

Regards, Ken
Ken Singleton

Larry,
I looked up the word fulfilled in the free online dictionary (and many others, including Greek lexicons) to see what the English word meant and the gist of it is this:

ful•filled, ful•fill•ing, ful•fills also ful•fils
1. To bring into actuality; effect: fulfilled their promises.
2. To carry out (an order, for example).
3. To measure up to; satisfy. See Synonyms at perform, satisfy.
4. To bring to an end; complete.

From these definitions of the word, “on-going” fulfilment makes no sense to me. However, the definition does make sense of what Jesus says in Mt 5:17f. The Law and the Prophets contained all the promises that the Father had made concerning Israel’s redemption and through them the redemption of the world. Jesus was sent to fulfil them. He did this throughout the last days, and by AD70 they were all satisfied, fulfilled, completed, brought into actuality etc. As a result the old-age ended, the Law and the Prophets then passed away and the new-age came.

Larry, how would you interpret the following passages within your framework of all prophecy being fulfilled by AD70?
The rock that grows into a mountain that fills the whole earth – Dan 2
Increase of his government and peace…from this time forth and forevermore – Is 9:7
The kingdom of heaven like a grain of mustard seed that grows into a great tree – Mt 5:31
The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations – Rev 22:1f
By its light the nations will walk… – Rev 21:24f
Teaching all nations to observer all that I have commanded you – Mt 28:16ff

The above definition of fulfilled seems to support your understanding of all being fulfilled at AD70, but the scriptures above are prophecies and promises that appear to have an on-going element to them and support Sam’s case for on-going fulfilment of prophecy. So I would be interested to get your thoughts on them.

Regards, Ken
Samuelmfrost

If what Larry has said above is true, then it cannot be answered from the Bible whether or not God’s fulfillment of everything will be successful in the age to come. Larry continues to miss what I am saying when he says that I want the car to keep being built. Didn’t say that. I asked the question, does the Bible tell us the car WILL BE DRIVEN? Larry’s answer: no. My answer, YES. Larry see’s this aspect, or any aspect, of futurity totally in the realm of “possibly”. My answer is “definately.”. For Larry, the Bible telling us that the Church WILL BE (not MIGHT BE) successful in the age to come means “God is continuing to build the car”. The conversation between is sharply clarifying the positions.
Ken Singleton

Sam,
Having pondered somewhat, I would like to respond to your exegesis of Mt 5:17f.
You say:
“The powers of that change were “already” at work (Hebrews 6.5) in that jots and tittles were already passing in the ministry of Jesus…”

That seems to me to be saying the opposite of what Jesus said. He said “not one jot or tittle”, nada, zilch, would pass from the Law and the Prophets (L&P from now) until ALL was fulfilled. There is no hint of progressive passing away of the L&P as they were being fulfilled, which is what your statement suggests. For sure, Jesus was progressively fulfilling the promises of God in the L&P but not until they were all fulfilled would the L&P pass away.

You say:
“ ”All” concerning what the Law and the Prophets had to say on these matters was “fulfilled” and, so, they “passed” in that they no longer stood in need of fulfillment.”

If I understand you correctly, you are limiting the ‘All’ to ‘these matters’, but what in the text of that chapter would lead you to such a conclusion? How, from the text, do you decide what is in ‘these matters’ and what is out?

You say:
“The problem you are having is with the word “all”. Tricky word. Was the “age to come” prophecies “fulfilled” entirely by AD 70? That means they passed away, too.”

I guess ‘All’ is a tricky word for anybody when it spoils an existing belief. I fully accept that the word ‘All’ can in certain circumstances mean ‘categories’ rather than individuals (1 Co 15 comes to mind). However, what textual indicators are there in this passage that leads it to being a category with limits?
As for the “age to come” prophecies, I would say that the “promises” concerning its coming were fulfilled. In other words the “age to come” came just like God promised it would as a result of Jesus’ ‘last days’ ministry. I guess you are asking me whether there are further promises within the “age to come” prophecies which have yet to be fulfilled or are in need of some on-going fulfilment, and of that I am not yet certain. I am still gathering the facts on this one, part of which is my understanding of Mt 5:17f.

You say:
Or is “all” pertaining to all manner of prophecies and the law related to the change the new covenant would bring (and continue to bring for eternity, since it is an eternal covenant)?”

I guess it may be, but what is there in the text, or context, to limit it to that? I know that we sometimes need to harmonize passages with existing belief, but I am not at that stage yet. To me Jesus is black and white in this passage; none will pass until every bit is accomplished. It fits with what He says in Luke 21:22, “for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. “(Luke 21:22 ESV). There is that tricky word again, “All”.

Finally you ask:
“Isaiah speaks of the “remnant” being saved “in that day” and THEN they would, in turn, “spread and flourish” through the whole earth. Did the remnant of Israel do this in AD 70?”

It depends on who you consider the remnant to be and how you translate “whole earth”. If the remnant are the first-fruit Jews, and the spreading and flourishing is seen as the gospel going into all the world (oikumene) converting the gentiles and scattered Jews as per the great commission then, I think a strong case can be made which answers yes, the remnant of Israel did do this leading up to AD70. However, I will defer the answer to this question to Larry. Larry how would you answer this question?

So, in conclusion Sam, I don’t think I am fully convinced by the exegesis you have put forth for this passage. I just don’t see how you can limit “All” to “these matters” from the text and context.
Nevertheless, I am still undecided either way. I will continue to study the Scriptures and read what you guys write, and hopefully make a decision that will get me off this fence.

God continue to bless you Sam.
Regards, Ken
Samuelmfrost

Ken,

In the Lukan passage, “all” can be modified by “THESE be the days of vengeance, to fullfill ALL the prophecies written concerning the days of vengeance.” There is nothing in the Greek to prevent this understanding. Jesus, there, is directly alluding to Isaiah 59.17; 61.2; 63.4, no doubt. When we read that context, we can clearly see that he came to fulfill these passages. So, let’s read THESE passages. We find the pattern I am advocating. Coming in Judgment -> Saving the Remnant ->bringing in the new heavens and new earth (age to come) ->Israel becomes a blessing to ALL THE EARTH and the ALL THE EARTH will respond and beat their swords into plowshares. These latter aspects were NOT FULLfilled in AD 70, Ken. They are BEING FULFILLED as we speak unto “all the generations” (Ephesians 2). We find the same PATTERN in Revelation: Trampling the earth – > dressed in garments splattered by blood (Isaiah)-> saving the remnant (Revelation 7, 14) – > then a new heavens and new earth as a result which WILL (not maybe, but WILL) bring healing TO THE NATIONS. I don’t know why Full Preterists cannot wrap their minds around this consistent pattern.

Therefore, when I read Matthew 5.18, I read it in the overall PATTERN and context of the Law and the Prophets, including Isaiah. THIS is what Jesus meant. To make it mean anything else truncates the age to come to a mere “maybe” or “potential blessing” to the earth. You would have to say that the “nations” that were “healed” were the Gentiles that Paul called and were brought into the New Jerusalem in AD 70. That fulfills that. Whether or not nations BEYOND AD 70 are going to be healed….well, the Bible doesn’t say that in one jot or tittle…..you are left only to speculate….which is where Larry is left…..
Samuelmfrost

Jeff Vaughn has written, “Historically, preterists who believe Genesis 1 refers to the creation of the physical universe have believed that the physical universe will never end. Why? Because Genesis 1 describes the creation and no place in Scripture describes the end.

The typical futurist view is that Genesis 1 concerns the creation of the physical universe and Revelation concerns the end of the physical universe. See the symmetry?

Many preterist hold the view that Genesis 1 refers not to the creation of the physical universe, but to the creation of the Old Covenant, more than a thousand years before Moses. Our view is that Scripture describes the creation and end of the Old Covenant and has very little and likely nothing to say about the creation or eventual state of the physical universe. Again, see the symmetry?

The lack of symmetry in the physical creation / covenantal end view bothers a lot of people. Eventually, they will abandon a physical creation in Genesis 1 and adopt a covenantal creation,”

This about nails it. You see, for Jeff, it matters not if the physical earth ends. There is no real purpose for it in terms of redemption. Perhaps, also, Jeff sees the issue with an “infinite earth” and believes it will eventually end. See, if “earth” is covenantal, then Scriptures saying “the earth remains forever” is not talking about physical earth…..He mentions those Preterists that believe in an infinite earth (in the sense of the way things are now), and perhaps rightly sees the problem.

Perhaps there is, then, a ring of truth: Full Preterists must embrace some form of Covenant Creationism in order to avoid the problems I have raised. And, since I do not believe that Genesis 1-11 is “apocalyptic” and the “sea” is not the real sea, and the animals on Noah’s ark were Gentiles, and that man was not made in God’s image, then, in some ironic way, Jeff and I are complimenting each other. Hold to Genesis one as I do, you get the problems I have raised. Reject Genesis 1 as I do and accept Covenant Creationism, and the problem “goes away” – but then you have the problems of Covenant Creationism (which are too numerous to number).

Now, another argument, one of the strangest ones I have heard, is that an end of procreation would be a curse. However, Jeff believes the earth “may” end one day. Should I even comment on how bad of an argument this is?

Here’s the responses to the issues I have raised: Paradox. Embrace Covenant Creationism. Earth May End or It May Not End. Isaiah 9.6 teaches that procreation will never end. All is fulfilled with ongoing benefits that we are not told if they will materialize or not in the age to come. Then we have some Prets saying that things will “continue pretty much the way history has always continued” (infinite amillennialism). This makes “heaven” the ultimate goal. But, even here, it is being questioned whether or not we will sin in heaven. I mean, since we are already “perfect” and “in heaven” now, and still sin, why wouldn’t that continue, too. Maybe the Full Preterist should abandon the traditional teaching of a Sinless State of Perfection in Heaven, since it, too, is based on an END and FINAL State. What, you mean there is more to come? What is Heaven going to “add”? What will shedding this body “bring about”? In this fashion I argued that it would bring about a deeper experience of the salvation we fully now have. But, this begs the question: why can’t this deeper experience be experienced here on earth? What, is there something wrong with “flesh and blood”? Is it flesh and blood that makes me sin? Careful, here, now. If you answer “yes”, you have stepped in Gnostic doo doo. Now, these are questions I am asking and pondering, because, on one hand, we are in the kingdom – no doubt. God has made us a kingdom of priests. A new nation (which he promised would fill the earth – which I guess was already FULLfilled in AD 70). So, what, then, is preventing heaven to be realized on earth? Flesh and blood? Sin? Evil? What prevents a literal understanding of on EARTH as it IS in Heaven? What, does something need to CHANGE? Is there some PREVENTING thing that keeps this from happening? Is heaven to forever be separated from earth? We say, “things will be better in heaven”. But, as Full Preterists, where do we get that from? The Traditionalists say this, yes….but they are the nasty Futurists that Full Preterism so abhors as the enemy. So, maybe Full Preterists should revise this as well. And, since time, space and quantity continue for infinity in heaven, then maybe Heaven won’t be that bad, but it won’t be some perfect state of sinless perfection where nothing can go wrong, either.

Ken, maybe you are on to something for your fellow Full Preterists….I, for one, will stick to the traditional view I have always stuck to: Heaven is a Sinless State of Perfection. Heaven can be realized on Earth. And, now, to add this with what HAS changed in my view, History will End. Details coming shortly.
Anonymous

Larry and Sam,

I am enjoying the exchange, processing all that I am reading, and trying to formulate some thoughts. Quite honestly, Larry is bringing up a lot that I have thought about as I meditate upon the “What now?” of Preterism. And yet much of what Sam is responding with (and has written) is that which I currently agree with. I do adhere to the *semper reformanda* maxim, and so I am willing to learn and unlearn.

Larry, in your first posting within this particular thread you say:

“If physical destruction of planet earth is necessary to cleanse the planet of evil, then the power of the Cross, the power of the Resurrection, the power of the Message itself is negated.”

I do realize that a Futurist schema adheres to such an axiom. Are you positing that Sam Frost believes/teaches such a statement?

I appreciate your time and response. Please be patient with me as I work my way through the length of all this and ask any questions that may be obvious or known to others.

In Christ,

Dustin…
Anonymous

Sam,

In response to a post by Mike B you said:

“It gets back to the fact that Adam was not the first immediately created human being. So, there must have been others before him. And where did they come from? You have two choices: evolution or direct, immediate creation.”

I had a conversation with Alan while at the conference about this very thing (right Wanda?). Alan’s response was an honest one. I love Alan and his humble and sincere approach to the Scriptures. But this point, to me, is not a small one to be dismissed cavalierly. But I digress since Covenant Creationism is not the topic here, particularly.

Dustin…
Anonymous

Larry and Sam,

Revelation 21:3-4 –

“And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

This *was* a prophecy. Would both of you agree with this? If it *was* a prophecy (something predicted in the past that had a specific goal of completion for the future) then are you (Larry) saying that the lingering results of the prophecy are manifestations of the prophecies effect?

Revelation 21:6:

“To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.”

This to *was* a prophecy. Would both of you agree with this? When you (Larry), or Sam, or me drank from the spring of the water of life, could we say that this was that which was predicted, i.e. prophesied? In other words, when a heart of stone is turned to flesh is that this particular prophecy coming to pass, or do we say it’s a “manifestation” of a prophecy that *was* (past tense)? The text, in my opinion, does not seem to dichotomize the prophecy from the effect.

I realize that it may seem I’ve pushed myself into a corner with such a statement. At least, I felt like I did as I typed it. And yet there seems to be a difference between a prophecy like Revelation 20:13 and Revelation 21:3-6. The unrighteous in Sheol were judged (past tense) and this was a prophecy (future tense). There are no lingering remnants of this prophecy. Yet people still drink from the spring of the water of life (past tense prophecy that is still being filled up/manifested/being accomplished/reaching its goal in each changed heart).

Again, thank you for your patience with me.

Dustin…
http://pantelism.com davo

Sam, over at SGP you said:

“The Westminster divines, when they spoke of God’s people as being a number “which can not increase nor diminish”, DEDUCED that logically from the word “all”, and they quote as a scriptural proof the verses I have quoted: “ALL that the Father has given me….” “He knows ALL his people….” et al. It was not their eschatology driving them, but a logical deduction derived from the word “all”. It is because of that logical, necessary deduction (not inference, but deduction) that I must conclude that procreation cannot be “infinite”. Therefore, it must come to an “end”.”

So Sam… what happens to the premise that drives your argument and conclusions IF you simply apply what you normally would not ignore, i.e., the somewhat convenient Calvinist caveat that claims “all doesn’t mean all”? Surely when considering a prêteristic hermeneutic it could be understood that “all” as being indicative and inclusive of those involved with the fullness of Israel’s redemption etc; of which Jesus and his faithful firstfruit saints were the key to that ‘end’.

If this be the case then the conclusions you further draw i.e., post AD70 ‘end of procreation’ and ‘end of history’ etc “all” becomes rather moot. I might add… it would be a fruitless response to chide in with something like – “oh so God doesn’t give a rip about a post AD70 world” as THAT is NOT what I’m raising or even advocating above. IOW… your “ALL that the Father has given me….” “He knows ALL his people….” et al” etc CAN rightly be wholly inclusive of a finite number or group relative to the given task and or role in view.
Samuelmfrost

Tami Jellinek writes, “”The Reverend Frost has told us that because God knows every saved person from before the creation (Calvinist supralapsarian view of predestination)”

JL, just a quick note, I am a “supra,” and unlike Sam, I have no problem whatsoever accepting God’s infinite knowledge. Just don’t want any guilt by association deal going on. :) .”

Larry Siegle, a great friend and brother, but with who we have admitted disagreements, agrees with me on the IMPOSSIBILITY of being “supralapsarian” and a full preterist. And, I agree with Larry. Supralapsarianism is classic Calvinism based, for those that have read Calvin, on the notion that God will save “His ELECT” – which is a number that cannot increase, nor diminish. Hence, infinite procreation is false. Tami would have to completely reject Calvin on this point, for the doctrine of Supralapsarianism is that God ELECTED to save ALL those whom he FOREKNEW from the beginning to the END……Tami has no END…….She has an ever increasing infinite number of the elect, which is a contradiction in terms in Logic 101, not to mention the doctrine of the SOVEREIGNTY of God……..

systematics, anyone?
Samuelmfrost

Dustin,

Larry’s statement that I advocate a destruction of planet earth is false. The earth itself will come under the full BLESSINGS of Deut. 28 and Heaven itself. On EARTH (this one) as it is in Heaven. Well, I ask, how are the people in Heaven right now? Suffering? Nope. Sinning? Nope. Perfect? Yep. Seeing Jesus? Yep. Will that be manifested on EARTH? Yep. It’s already begun…….See, you can’t say “on earth as it is in heaven” is fulfilled, when you have such a massive difference when you die and “go to heaven” and enjoy and even better state of being than you do on earth. Preterists have insisted on the traditional view of Heaven (sinless perfection), and I have always taught that, too. But, the prayer says “on EARTH as it IS in heaven”. Well, how IS it in Heaven? Sinless Perfection. No wars. No fighting over whether or not Paul wrote Hebrews. See, I am not arguing with full preterism in general, but with certain FORMS of full preterism. I have yet to see an answer to this. Here, we are told, no more “suffering” exists because he has ended suffering from a “spiritual” point of view. Great. But, when we die, we will “fully experience” no more suffering (there won’t be any children of God dying of hunger). Can’t you see the great divide here? The spiritual, in my view, will bring about the spiritual realities ON EARTH in the age to come….and that’s what we have been progressing towards for 2000 years. Cleaning up the mess. And, it is prophesied that we will clean it up. The Parousia of Christ guarantees it. He has already given us “the world” as our inheritance (Romans 4). It’s a done deal. All that we participate and look forward to now is the manifestation of what is PROMISED in the New Covenant Age: the complete realization of the Abrahamic Covenant: ALL families on earth shall be blessed (Dt. 28). And, to think that I believe in the realization of this vision would be anathema to Full Preterists is a real eye opener…..it’s almost as if they don’t WANT this to happen……they don’t BELIEVE this can happen…..it CAN’T happen……God forbid an end to suffering on earth……..how could we ever live with ourselves! We MUST have infinite evil!!!!! Good lord…….
Ken Singleton

Ok this is an open invitation to all preterists everywhere, to share with me their preterist exegesis about life in heaven, post-mortem. I want textual exegesis from the Word of God, not fantasies, or cherished beliefs. Show me the Scriptures both OT and NT which clearly and unequivocally teach about heaven, post-mortem. I want to believe in Sam’s picture of heaven, but as someone who has come from futurism to preterism I am now lost amongst a sea of conflicting views and ideas. I once believed exactly what Sam believes about heaven, but I am no longer sure about them because they were derived from my futurist eschatology. So, if those beliefs about heaven from futurist eschatology are still correct, then it should be no big deal for someone to show me how they derive that belief, from the Scriptures. Remember we are talking about heaven – post-mortem.

And here is one more to throw into the pot while I am asking. If we who are in the New Jerusalem, who are clean, and in whom the Holy God now dwells, still sin, then what law are we transgressing?

I look forward to your responses.

Many thanks, Ken
http://pantelism.com davo

Sam: “See, you can’t say “on earth as it is in heaven” is fulfilled, when you have such a massive difference when you die and “go to heaven” and enjoy and even better state of being than you do on earth.”

Sam… I might be mistaken, but I was under the impression from times past that you understood the “on earth as it is in heaven” in terms of the TOTALITY of God’s Kingdom rule – and THAT through His emissaries to “others” in the earth – that ain’t happening if you have these others smudged out over the eons of time finally culminating in the next you-beaut thing in God’s plan, which seems to be what you are positing. The “better deal when you check out” type mentality seems somewhat more a throwback to “it’s all yet still to happen beyond death” partial prêterism, at best – which is fair enough IF that’s where you’re tracking???

Sam: “Preterists have insisted on the traditional view of Heaven (sinless perfection), and I have always taught that, too. But, the prayer says “on EARTH as it IS in heaven”. Well, how IS it in Heaven?”

Again, it IS or was to be in its “fullness” i.e., where sin no longer held sway against man in relation to his Maker; but such doesn’t need to be judged according to some temporal frame of reference, and in contradistinction “spiritual” doesn’t have to mean ethereal.

Sam: “I have yet to see an answer to this. Here, we are told, no more “suffering” exists because he has ended suffering from a “spiritual” point of view. Great. But, when we die, we will “fully experience” no more suffering (there won’t be any children of God dying of hunger). Can’t you see the great divide here?”

Is this “great divide” a warranted one? Could it be a presuppositional imposition? Again I’m not you Sam but I’ve always understood the “no more tears” as being expressive language indicative of “covenant renewal” – very much a “this life” reality. What happens in the dimension beyond when we die is less clear in Scripture and our traditional Utopianism is probably to be expected from our limited grasp of it but way more IMO gets read into it than is actually there and can more readily be read in terms of covenant life as in THIS LIFE now.

Sam: “And, to think that I believe in the realization of this vision would be anathema to Full Preterists is a real eye opener…..it’s almost as if they don’t WANT this to happen……they don’t BELIEVE this can happen…..it CAN’T happen……God forbid an end to suffering on earth……..how could we ever live with ourselves!”

I wonder if it’s a case of some struggling with what they hear from you sounding more and more like a partial preterist? That’s just my guess, but I wouldn’t worry too much about getting people off side IF you’re convinced of it stick with it. I don’t see it as you seem to but so what, we’re all free to put our points of view out there. I don’t mind friendly banter either but I think Larry the nail right on the head earlier when he mentioned the “extremes” and “abuses” of examples given and in that sense Sam I think you sometimes egg the argument, maybe for affect, but it end up as Larry pointed out… “What proves too much, proves nothing!”

Sam: “We MUST have infinite evil!!!!! Good lord…….”

“Infinite evil”… a must have to the degree you would frame it? The only difference between evil 10,000 years ago and evil 10,000 years from now will hopefully be that humankind will have developed enough through the benefits of grace, IF the church can get its message straight, that man’s calamities [evils] will become more minimal in their effects on each other.
Samuelmfrost

I would like to hear an answer to Ken’s question……
- Larry Siegle
  
  SUMMARY
  At certain points during the course of any discussion it is good to pause and make a brief summary of what the two persons who disagree with each other are actually saying so that care is exercised in NOT misrepresenting the view of the other person. Moreover, the distinguishing differences between Sam and myself should not be seen as a condemnation of one viewpoint over the other, merely the fact that we come from separate traditions and our approach to Biblical interpretation differs in important philosophical ways. The key to success for all of us is to keep our views in perspective, realizing that there is much to be learned from each other, and that humility toward one another and toward the word of God is that which drives us again and again to the feet of Jesus for instruction.
  
  I would also like to take the opportunity to clarify several aspects of what I have written that may be somewhat confusing simply because of my own inability to communicate my thoughts and concepts properly. Therefore, I would request patience and understanding in those areas where I may have pressed a point beyond the scope of my own intentions or otherwise implied something that was never intended. I confess my lack of “sinless perfection” in this regard, which in no way affects my view of life as it exists in the “already-having-arrived” age to come…
  
  POINTS OF AGREEMENT
  
  1. Sam Frost and I both affirm the verbally inspired, inerrant word of God as contained in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments–that in their original autographs these books are perfect, complete and authoritative.
  
  2. Sam Frost and I both affirm that certain events related to the “fulfillment” of Old Testament prophecy pointed forward to the “fullness of the times” when the Word “became flesh” and was “born of a woman, born under the Law” (John 1:1, 14; Gal. 4:4).
  
  3. Sam Frost and I both affirm that the ‘second coming of Jesus Christ’ (the Parousia), the resurrection of the dead, and the eschatological day of Judgment were “fulfilled” in those events associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Matt. 24:3)–that these “events” are bound together in Scripture as reaching their point of consummation at the same time or point in history.
  
  4. Sam Frost and I both affirm that the “last days” and “time of the end” are references to the period of time between the ministry of John the Baptizer, and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:17ff).
  
  5. Sam Frost and I both affirm that “in the last days” the end-time ministry of the Holy Spirit, including the operation of the 9 “gifts” of the Spirit continued in operation until the “end of the age” and the arrival of “that which is perfect” (complete), in the revealing of the written word of God, and that beyond that time, no further inspiration or revelation of the Holy Spirit continues, and that “the faith once delivered to the saints” is complete (Jude 3).
  
  6. Sam Frost and I both affirm that beyond “the end” of the Jewish “age” or end of the Old Covenant was predicted the arrival of the New Covenant, and the “age to come” (Heb. 8:13).
  
  7. Sam Frost and I both affirm that beyond the end of the Old Covenant, believers have now entered into the “age to come” including the arrival of a “new heavens and a new earth” (Isa. 65:17; II Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1-4), in which certain characteristics that are unique to the “age to come” would be evidenced.
  
  DISAGREEMENTS
  
  Sam Frost
  1. Sam Frost believes that predictive PROPHECY, as part of the Old Testament description of life in the “age to come” continues to have an ongoing fulfillment today.
  Larry Siegle
  1. Larry Siegle believes that “all” prophecy related to the consummation of the Old Testament has been FULFILLED through those events associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Luke 21:22; Matt. 5:17, 18). What characterizes the “age to come” is described in the Old Testament prophets, not as a FULLER or more COMPLETE fulfillment of what was promised, but rather is the DEMONSTRATION or MANIFESTATION of the EFFECTS of the already established Kingdom of God. The Old Testament was the “shadow” the New Testament is the “substance” to which the “shadow” pointed.
  
  Sam Frost
  2. Sam Frost affirms the eventual victory of the Kingdom of God, physically manifested on planet earth by the “healing of the nations” and the eventual “peace on earth” and submission of Kingdoms to the authority of Jesus Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords, and a “joining together of heaven and earth as the dwelling place of God and man.” This requires direct and immediate intervention of God in human affairs separate and apart from the Parousa, resurrection and judgment that already have occurred in A.D. 70.
  
  Larry Siegle
  2. Larry Siegle affirms that with the arrival of the “age to come” in A.D. 70, the Kingdom authority of Jesus Christ was fully and completely established, the power of sin and death broken, and the arrival of the New Jerusalem and the “new heavens and a new earth” and that since that time, no further direct intervention by God is necessary to fulfill any aspect of Bible prophecy. The characteristics and qualities of what was promised as “reality” in the “age to come” are to be MANIFESTED or DEMONSTRATED in the glorious and victorious church and in the lives of individual believers who willingly exercise authority and dominion that has been restored “in Christ.” What becomes POSSIBLE in the “age to come” is contrasted by what was NOT POSSIBLE in the Old Covenant because of the continued reign of sin and death.
  
  Sam Frost
  3. Sam Frost affirms an eventual “end of history” scenario (not yet defined clearly by him).
  
  Larry Siegle
  3. Larry Siegle affirms no further need for an “end of history” beyond the scope of what was predicted was to occur with the destruction of Jerusalem and the establishment of the “everlasting” Covenant. This implies the continuation of the preaching of the gospel to the “whosoever will” and that life on planet earth continues in the state described in Rev. 21-22. The Bible is simply silent about anything related to the need for cosmic renovation, destruction or renewal of the physical planet. That salvation is RELATIONAL, and not directly related to environmental issues.
  
  CONCLUSION
  There are many other aspects of the discussion that I will address in upcoming posts, including some of the excellent questions that have been submitted for the discussion. While there are other points of disagreement, the above represents SEVERAL of the key features that separate the two viewpoints.
  
  My only clarification is that my use of the term POSSIBLE is not meant to imply uncertainty with respect to what the characteristics of the “age to come” are, as described in the Scriptures, only the CONTRAST between what was NOT POSSIBLE during the time of the Old Covenant administration, regarding the ability of overcome sin and death and to experience the fullness of victory. The “age to come” means that under the administration of the New Covenant ACTUAL victory over sin and death is now POSSIBLE because of the change of “worlds” or modes of existence through which man is defined or determined. The resurrection life that now belongs to believers everywhere is the source of empowerment through which the principles of the Kingdom are being MANIFESTED in the lives of people. My conviction is that REGENERATION and the “new birth” are TRANSFORMATIVE to the spiritual life of believers through which such TRANSFORMATION is MANIFESTED physically in their everyday lives. Transformation always begins spiritually before it is manifested physically.
  
  Sam, if I have in any way misrepresented your position of the implications of your position, please feel free to clarify. Thank you, brother.
http://pantelism.com davo

Ken: “If we who are in the New Jerusalem, who are clean, and in whom the Holy God now dwells, still sin, then what law are we transgressing?”

G’day Ken…

You are probably transgressing “the royal law of love” by considering your own interests at the expense of your neighbour’s, as per…

Jas 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,”[ you do well.
Ken Singleton

Sam,
You say:
“In the Lukan passage, “all” can be modified by “THESE be the days of vengeance, to fullfill ALL the prophecies written concerning the days of vengeance.” There is nothing in the Greek to prevent this understanding.”

Fair enough, the Greek might permit this. However, on two other occasions Jesus very specifically limits the extent of the prophecies being fulfilled:
1) [31] And taking the twelve, he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. [32] For he will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. [33] And after flogging him, they will kill him, and on the third day he will rise.” (Luke 18:31-33 ESV) – Here Jesus limits the extent of fulfilment to the ‘Son of Man’ prophecies.

2) [44] Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” [45] Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, [46] and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, [47] and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:44-47 ESV) – Again, notice that Jesus limits the extent of fulfilment to the passion prophecies.

So, in both these cases Jesus is very specific about the extent of the prophecies he is fulfilling. He uses the same phrase on both occasions: “everything written about…” Yet both these times He specifically limits the scope of the prophecies being fulfilled to “the Son of Man” and “Me” and makes it clear in the following context He is only referring to the passion prophecies.
However, when it comes to his words in Lk 21:22, “…for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written”, he does not ‘specifically’ limit the prophecies being fulfilled. If he was going to limit the fulfilment to just the ‘days of vengeance’ prophecies, then why did he not do that specifically like on the previous two occasions?
Then of course, one also needs to ask, if he really wanted to say “ALL that is written”, how else could he have said that in the Greek without it being ambiguous?
We also need to look at the context in which this statement falls. The context is the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. The parallel passage of Mt 24 makes it clear that Jesus is opening and expounding upon the book of Daniel, specifically chapters 9 and 12. Daniel was told to seal it until the time of the end. Jesus unseals it because the time of the end had come. Hence, where Luke has “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies…” (Lk 21:20), Matthew has, “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)…” (Mt 24:15). Clearly then the immediate context from which Jesus is drawing is the book of Daniel. In those chapters of Daniel (9 and 12), he describes what will happen in Israel’s latter days, the time of the end. Those days end with the destruction of Jerusalem:
“24Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, … 26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary….” (KJV Dan 9:24-27)

Notice that one of the things to happen in the 70 weeks is the sealing up of vision and prophecy. Don Preston has a little book (Seal up Vision and Prophecy) that goes into this and in it he quotes from many scholars on the definition and meaning of that phrase. In the booklet Don says, “…it surprised me to learn there was virtually no disagreement among scholars as to what the phrase means.” (Pg. 1, italics his).
Then, by way of conclusion on page 81 he states, “We have demonstrated that God though Gabriel was giving a definite time for which and in which all divine revelation would not only be given but would be fulfilled. Next, the time given for the fulfilment of all prophecy, and yes, we mean all prophecy, was the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 that Daniel was told was the “full end.” (Italics his).

So, in summary, it seems to me that Jesus makes it clear when he is limiting what prophecies are being fulfilled. On two occasions he does this very thing. Yet in the passage in question (Luke 21:22) he does not limit the extent of the prophecies being fulfilled. Why does he not limit them? Because he is elaborating upon Daniel’s 70 weeks prophecy in which we are told ‘vision and prophecy is sealed’ and which means ‘all fulfilled’ according to all the best scholars of all theological persuasions.

In view of this I maintain that ‘ALL that is written’ in Lk 21:22 fits accurately with what Jesus says in Mt 5:17f about the passing of ‘heaven and earth’ and the’ Law and the Prophets’ and in neither case is there any textual warrant to limit the word ‘All’.

Finally, for the record, I am not yet a full preterist. I am a ‘fence preterist’. I am sitting on the fence gathering the facts I need to make an informed choice. This discussion is part of that data gathering process. Once I have come to a firm conviction I will fall off the fence in one direction or the other, and when I do I will tell you why.

As for the other parts of your post, Sam, ‘the PATTERN’, I still think you have a strong case even in spite of what I say above. So, while I am not convinced of your reconciliation of these conflicting passages, neither do I think that they are devastating to your case. Again, I call upon those who are convinced you are wrong to provide the ‘scriptural exegesis’ necessary to refute your ‘PATTERN’.

Regards, Ken
Ken Singleton

Davo,

Good day to you sir (though strictly speaking it is 7pm in the evening over here in England – grins).

To quote your passage in full:
“[8] If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. [9] But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. [10] For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. [11] For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. [12] So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. [13] For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.”
(James 2:8-13 ESV)

Are you saying that we (those in the NJ) are still under the Old Covenant Law of Moses and thus in danger of judgement? This surely is what James is talking about in this passage. He is simply referencing Lev 19:18, “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.”

Regards, Ken
Sharon Nichols

Lk 21:22, “…for these are days of vengeance, to fulfil all that is written”, he does not ‘specifically’ limit the prophecies being fulfilled.

Except, it can be argued that Jesus is limiting His words to what had been WRITTEN.

~~sharon
- Larry Siegle
  
  Sharon
  Good to hear from you! Why is it not possible for see the ‘specifics’ in Luke 21:22, through Jesus own words where is defines the limitation of the scope of “fulfillment” to “these…days of vengeance” which most scholars and commentators would agree are in reference to the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. The “all that is written” is limited by the “for these are the days of vengeance”–therefore, “all that is written” was fulfilled during the time when “these…days” would have occurred as a specific point of historical reference.
  
  Larry D. Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Anonymous

Ken,

In your response to Dave you stated that James’ point was that the “law of love” is in fact the Law of Moses. Unless I am mistaken in understanding what you posted, I believe this is an equivocation. Let me explain because I may be the one in error.

I believe that James is pointing out a royal law that finds a myopic manifestation in the Mosaic Law. In other words, there is an overarching and all encompassing royal law that addresses every situation a child of God may encounter – love God and love your neighbor. God in His sovereignty ordained that a written code (the myopic manifestation of the royal law) be placed on tablets of stone as a tutor to the Israelites. This Mosaic Law is the one being addressed in James 2 that has a repercussion of judgment if even one jot or tittle is not followed. Thus, it is a ministry of condemnation and a ministry of death (2 Cor. 3).

The royal law, i.e. love of God and neighbor, was in the Garden. “Adam, obey this commandment that I give to you.” To obey the commandment and to protect Eve (since Adam was the one given the commandment) would have been a fulfillment of the royal law, i.e. loving God and loving his neighbor. He failed! The last Adam, Christ, fulfilled this royal law perfectly, and subsequently fulfilled the “record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands” (Col. 2:14). Christ satisfied the overarching and eternal, royal law (love) while fulfilling the righteous requirements manifested in the Mosaic Law Covenant with the Israelites; which really is summarized with one word – love!

The context of Leviticus 19:18, quoted by James in chapter 2, is not a part of the Decalogue. However, James does quote from the Decalogue in verse 11. I believe that James is pointing to a greater, more all encompassing New Covenant, eternal law (love) in 2:8 juxtaposed to the fading ministry of condemnation and death in v.10f, which is why he uses the word “But…” in v.9.

Hopefully this made sense. And maybe I completely missed your point and am in error in my understanding of what you were saying. If so then I certainly apologize.

In Christ,

Dustin…
Samuelmfrost

Larry,

No, that’s a fairly good representation, I guess. Hope all is well with you.

Ken,

The “pattern” controls a great deal of my reading. For example, in Daniel 2.44, the “Stone” comes and “fills the whole earth”. There it is again – the expansion – the prophesied expansion. This is what, I believe, enables Paul to write: ” that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.”

See this? “not only in this age, but in the age to come….” See, this continues for Paul because he is operating on the framework found in Daniel 2.44 (and other passages I have given in this discussion). What’s the “mission”? To “who is FILLING”. Note the participle….not only in this age has this coming filling already been prepared, but also in the age to come….The FILLING does not STOP in AD 70.

But, Paul says this again, “and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” See the “so that”? That’s a PURPOSE clause. Where does Paul get the idea that the PURPOSE of establishing Psalm 110 (which he has in mind here) is for the SHOWING FORTH (think of the metaaphor of Light, here). He is getting this, as did John in Rev 21, from Isaiah 60 – which comes AFTER the judgment – AFTER the “day of the Lord” and AFTER Israel, the Seed (remnant) has been “saved” (AD 70). Therefore, this is our MISSION and PURPOSE and explains for the phenomenal growth of Christianity from the time of AD 70 onward (which, amazingly, is an incontestable HISTORICAL fact). This puny little offshoot of Judaism, persecuted to near extinction from the Beast, FLOURISHES, and even within a couple of hundred years, OVERTAKES the Seat of Rome! That, my brothers and sisters, is because we are DESTINED by the Prophetic Word. It was not a mere “possibility” that we have grown from that time because we have merely appropriated the Gospel……no, no….we are DESTINED, because our “inheritance” is the “world” (Romans 4).

And, so, Paul is able to write, ” that ye may be in strength to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, 19 to know also the love of the Christ that is exceeding the knowledge, that ye may be filled — to all the fulness of God; 20 and to Him who is able above all things to do exceeding abundantly what we ask or think, according to the power that is working in us, 21 to Him is the glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus, to all the generations of the age of the ages. Amen.” See that? “to all the generations OF THE AGES OF THE AGES”. How is Paul able to do this? He is not limited to his “generation” alone. He speaks of the coming “generations” of the coming ages. This is our mission, our purpose – our destiny. If God has given us the world, the earth, all things, as our “inheritance” (echoing the Adamic covenant), then our we content to believe that we shouldn’t be the Light to the World as the Corporate Body of Christ – the Redeemed on Earth? And what is that mission? To show forth the DWELLING OF GOD WITH MAN so that “the nations enter into its gates”. This was not FULLfilled in AD 70. It had JUST BEGUN……the story isn’t over, yet.
- Larry Siegle
  
  Sam
  Of course regarding the Daniel 2:44 passage let’s not forget that the text says, “it [the Kingdom] will stand FOREVER” or, is that just until the “end of history”? Since FOREVER cannot be an indefinite number representing something of ETERNAL duration, therefore, the Kingdom must at some point in time come to and “end”–probably when heaven comes to earth, oh wait, John seems to connect that whole arrival of a “new heavens and a new earth” (Rev. 21:1-4) with the Parousia. Perhaps you should read the comments from J.S. Russell with respect to the verses in Ephesians about the time when “all things are summed up in Christ” that occurred “at the fullness of the times” and notice his consistent application of the text.
  
  Larry Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
http://pantelism.com davo

Hey Ken… down my end of the globe “g’day” can happen any hour of the clock. :)

Ken: “Are you saying that we (those in the NJ) are still under the Old Covenant Law of Moses and thus in danger of judgement?”

No, definitely not. No doubt the OC would have been a natural factor behind some of James’ thoughts here, given his target audience, but Dustin as I see it explains the proper connections rather well, i.e., ‘the law of love’ transcends the OC wherein it became codified.

The OC became null and void through the Cross-Parousia event – the ONLY way someone could possibly come under anything like that again would be to resurrect it, but why do that?
Samuelmfrost

Larry,

I have no logical issues of something “ending” and something being “eternal”. You shouldn’t, either, since you have vocally said that the earth “may” one day come to an end…….If you were consistent, there would be no “maybe” about it……I am speaking of an end to “history” – not the “world” of God’s people. J. S. Russell had an end to history……not an end to the “world” of God’s People enjoying Him forever on earth……
Anonymous

Larry,

I wondered if you had seen my post regarding the verses in Revelation. I know that within the myriad of responses a single response can get lost.

Whenever you have some time if you could let me know if I am on track or off track then that would be great.

Thanks,

Dustin…
- Larry Siegle
  
  One of the great things about having a discussion such as this (and I sincerely appreciate the willingness of Sam and Jason to make RCM available for this very purpose), is that it allows for the exercise of constructive collaboration from all sides, a mutual sharing from each person that brings something of value to the table for consideration. The fact that Sam Frost and I have strong convictions about the meaning of life in the “age to come” reveals just how close to the heart these matters really are. The Preterist framework of fulfillment forms the solid basis from which a reasonable solution to the difficulties can and must be found.
  
  Both Sam and I are in agreement that the Kingdom of Christ AT the time and IN the manner that Christ and His apostles predicted would be the case. The “at hand” nature of God’s Kingdom remains in tact (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). The approach “end of the age” (Matt.24:3; 28:20), and all of the pageantry associated with its consummation move ahead into the time when the promised blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant would be realized fully and completely. The “last enemy”–death, along with the “strength of sin” and its connection with the “ministration of death” was forever vanquished, defeated and cast into the Lake of Fire (I Cor. 15:24-28, 54-56; II Cor. 3:7-11). Most of those who embrace the basic principles of Preterism can see the logical progression of redemptive history and the “end-time” consummation that was in view during the first-century transition period between the Cross and A.D. 70.
  
  Books, magazine articles, websites, media presentations and other tools are available to whoever wishes to investigate the matter further. The “undiscovered country” for Sam and I is related to the qualities and characteristics of what constitutes life in the “age to come”–the so-called “What now?” factor that most Preterists refer to in vague terms, sometimes without substances. Such a vague presentation of both life in the “age to come” and what happens to a person past biological death of the physical body, are areas that remain open for honest investigation and Biblical exploration. While both Sam and I may appear somewhat “dogmatic” in our presentations, both of us admit that a continued study of the matter is required and that neither position is in its finalized form. Although Sam is presently convinced in his arguments against the so-called ‘infinite procreation’ concept, based upon his understanding of the very attributes of God’s nature and character, this does not necessarily imply that he has closed his heart and mind to the authority of the word of God, and knowing him as a man of character and integrity should convincing evidence be discovered from the text, he will be among the first to correct his course of action. Likewise, I believe that I am also a person who has a willingness to bow to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and to the authority of the word of God. This is discussion is not an attempt on the part of either party to “point a finger” at the other person by way of condemnation, but rather to look deep within the innermost parts of our being and to examine our own motives for what we believe and understand the Scriptures to teach. Since Sam Frost and I have had to admit error a number of times in our lives, it therefore stands to reason that neither he or I is willing to draw a line in the sand from either tradition or emotion, but rather based upon those principles related to sound reasoning and drawing only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence (the Law of Rationality).
  
  Dustin, in my next post I will review some of the interesting points you have made regarding those verses in the final chapters of Revelation.
  
  Thanks
  
  Larry D. Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Ken Singleton

Larry, Sam,
A great clarification Larry, congratulations! That has helped me to crystalize the discussion, and possibly, to my own satisfaction, come to a decision.

First, if I have understood correctly, the whole discussion pretty much comes down to two words:

CERTAIN vs. POSSIBLE

Sam = CERTAIN because it is prophesied
Larry = POSSIBLE because before AD70 it wasn’t possible
The dividing wall = “All Fulfilled”

IF this assessment is accurate then I think I have a satisfactory solution for myself (please note that I say for myself, it may not satisfy anyone else), but it needs a picture to explain it.

Let’s suppose that I want to build a new kitchen. To do that I order a new kitchen from the kitchen company. It’s a packaged kitchen. I know exactly what ought to be in that package when it arrives because it is all listed in the brochure I used to choose the kitchen, and part of the content of that package is a man from the kitchen company to help me build the kitchen. So I place my order, and the kitchen company promises to deliver the package in a month’s time.
Lo and behold, the time arrives and so does the package, along with the man to help me build it. All the promises made by the kitchen company are fulfilled. The package is delivered on time just as promised, along with the man and everything that the brochure said would be in the package.
So now, with the help of the man from the kitchen company, I start to build the kitchen. It takes a while because I am not very good at building kitchens and I am not very good at doing what the man says. Nevertheless it is absolutely certain that the kitchen will get built because all that was needed to build the kitchen was part of the promised package which was faithfully delivered exactly when the kitchen company said it would be.

Now, the Kitchen Company = God
The brochure = The Law and the Prophets
The package = the ‘age to come’
The delivery = Christ fulfilling all God’s promises to us in order to get the package here
The man = God with us in the midst of the NJ helping us to build
The kitchen = the Kingdom that needs to be built

So, for me, all prophecy is fulfilled (just as Jesus said Mt5:17f, Lk21:22, Dan 9:24) in the delivery of the package (the age to come). This is what Jesus was doing in the last days of Israel’s OC; fulfilling the promises of the Father to Israel, and thus, by delivery of the package, to the rest of the world. By delivering the package, it is “absolutely certain” that everything that was included as a part of the package will come to pass, because this is what the package is all about. Now it may take a shorter time, or a longer time to build the kitchen (the kingdom of God on earth), that depends on how well we work with the man (God with us), but there is no question that it will get built because that is what the package is all about.

Now, I know all illustrations will break down when pressed, this one included. Nevertheless, at the moment this is the only way that I can reconcile what I believe is true about Sam’s position, and what I believe is true about Larry’s position. It is only by viewing the age to come as a complete entity (a package), that I can reconcile how it can be ‘all fulfilled’ and at the same time that it is ‘absolutely certain’ that what is in the package will happen just as it says in the brochure. The fact of ‘God delivering the package’ rendered everything in the package an absolute completed past action from the perspective of fulfilling God’s promises, but from our point of view (inside the package as it is being built) there is process, and goal, and completion, and thus end.

Interestingly, almost as a side benefit, I think I have also gone someway to answering my own question concerning life post-mortem, in heaven. I have been reasoning from heaven (post-mortem) to earth (on earth as it is in heaven), and because I was no longer clear about what life is supposed to be like post-mortem, I could not work out what life should be like on earth, hence my question to everyone. However, it just dawned on me that I can reason backwards, from what life will be like on earth to what life therefore must, at the very least, be like in heaven. So if we have an accurate picture of what life is going to be like on earth at the completion of the kitchen (and it seems there is a lot more Scripture to derive that understanding). Then, we can say without doubt that heaven must, at the minimum, be like that too (on earth as it is in heaven).

Nevertheless, I would still be very interested to see how others in the preterist community derive your views of life post-mortem from the exegesis of the Scriptures.

Many thanks to you all, but especially to you Sam, and you Larry.

Regards, Ken
- Samuelmfrost
  
  Ken,
  
  You wrote, “Now, I know all illustrations will break down when pressed, this one included. Nevertheless, at the moment this is the only way that I can reconcile what I believe is true about Sam’s position, and what I believe is true about Larry’s position. It is only by viewing the age to come as a complete entity (a package), that I can reconcile how it can be ‘all fulfilled’ and at the same time that it is ‘absolutely certain’ that what is in the package will happen just as it says in the brochure. The fact of ‘God delivering the package’ rendered everything in the package an absolute completed past action from the perspective of fulfilling God’s promises, but from our point of view (inside the package as it is being built) there is process, and goal, and completion, and thus end.”
  
  That is just about dang near what I am saying –
Ken Singleton

Sharon,

Good to hear from you.

You say: “Except, it can be argued that Jesus is limiting His words to what had been WRITTEN.”

Do you know of anything that needs to be fulfilled that is not written?
Anonymous

Larry,

Thank you.

By the way, incredibly gracious and edifying 3 paragraphs before you addressed me. I greatly appreciated that.

Dustin…
- Larry Siegle
  
  Dustin, thanks for the kind comments. Even in the midst of the technical study of eschatology should be something that edifies and encourages us.
  
  Your observations about the Revelation passages are interesting because BOTH the prophecy and the effects that come from the STATE OF BEING that exists because of the arrival of what was prophesied are, indeed, closely related. My conviction, based upon the Scriptures is that, in the case of prophecy, a certain EVENT in history can be demonstrated as an absolute FULFILLMENT (destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E., the Messiah being both in a specific city, the predictions related to the Cross, the arrival of the New Heavens and a New earth). These are distinct EVENTS that constitute something that occurred at a specific point in TIME. Those seeing these events in retrospect can point to such events and say with absolute certainty, “this has been fulfilled.”
  
  There are other instances in CONNECTION with an inspired utterance (prophecy) that simply convey the aftermath of the STATE OF BEING that would prevail beyond the time of the specific event to which the prophecy itself pointed. For example, Isa. 65:21 says, “they will build houses and live in them, and they will plant vineyards and eat there fruit.” When will this prophecy be fulfilled? If we take the text for what it says in a literal way, the fulfillment does not occur until EACH and EVERY person (1) builds his own house, and (2) has a vineyard in his backyard to partake from. Nobody understands fulfillment this way. In my view, the most logical conclusion is that this is the PROPHETIC EFFECTS of the arrival of the new heavens and a new earth and symbolically describes the prosperity of God’s people who are dwelling in their covenantal homeland in the new heavens and new earth. I do not believe that anyone can point to a SPECIFIC time (past or future) when the REALIZATION of this is to be in an absolute literal way. This is why I object to looking for a literal kind of fulfillment to Isa. 2:4, in the absolute military sense. It is a description of the peaceful condition of God’s people living in God’s Kingdom. It is not meant to convey anything more.
  
  This does not imply that spiritual blessings have no actual, physical effects in the lives of God’s people or in the victory that belongs to the Kingdom of God. Only that looking for a “yet future” fulfillment of these passages misses the actual point they were trying to describe.
  
  Thanks
  
  Larry D. Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Ken Singleton

Larry,

I echo Dustin’s remarks about your post. One of the pleasures in watching you and Sam debate each other is the way you have both conducted yourselves in the debate. You both set good examples of how to interact with the content of each others arguments rather than attacking the character or motives of the person. As a result I have learned much from both of you and it has helped greatly to refine my understanding of preterism and it’s various viewpoints.

So, once again thank you.

Regards, Ken.
Ken Singleton

Dustin, Dave,

Just a quick message to let you both know that I am not ignoring your posts. On the contrary, it has caused me to think deeply about what you have said and I am in the process of putting together a response. However, I am not around for the next couple of days, so it won’t get to you until later in the week.

Thank you both for your contribution.

Regards, Ken
Kerry

Hey, I’m back in town. I had the chance when I was gone to read the comments, but I did not post.

Sam, Jason, I appreciate the opportunity to post on your site. Sam, I have learned some good things from reading your articles and comments, and I thank you for you tone, even though I’m sure some of my comments were elementary.
That being said, I am going to stay out of the fray for awhile, this is not your fault Sam. I will continue to read this site and others, but I will keep my distance. I have purposely not signed up for other sites, mainly because of the level of aggressiveness in speech, and un-Christian demeanor that comes through from peoples minds into the keyboard. Frankly, it makes me sick, and angry. Where I come from, if you were to talk to a man the way some do, you would be having a serious problem, Christian or not. However, many Christians on these forums tip toe up to the line of disrespect, and then cross over big time, because they know that if another person reacts physically, or loses their temper, at that point the un-Christians point the finger and hide behind the teaching of Jesus to protect them. I don’t operate that way, so, it’s better for me to step back. No one has directed comments at me, but I know if I interact with them for acting the way they do based on this discussion and others, it is a losing proposition all the way around.

I could call out some names, but I won’t, it would just increase the stupidity and tit for tat attitude. Most of these people I am referring to have their own websites, books, or they have become a self appointed modern day Wyatt Earp of heaven, and heresy hunter. A sheriff among other sheriffs looking for heresy, and not applying the principles in the the very word they claim to defend. There is a word for that, hypocrisy.

The other thing is this, I reject anyone that tries to teach me the word of God while their actions and words are lip service. If someones life and words are nothing but anger, hate, lies, accusations, envy, judgment, and ill-tempered, I’m not going to pick fruit for that tree. That is what many people are like that read and follow this site, some of the present company excluded. They don’t realize what this looks like to an outsider. If someone reads this, and the shoe fits, that is to say it stings your conscience, don’t get mad at me. Check yourself, I’m not the one. Don’t get me confused with someone who will put up with the emotional roller coaster ride.

Last but not least, this whole belief that all we have left to do is study and debate, and hope people are called and regenerated is like a cloud without water. No power. There is work to be done, (I know that some who comment on this site do good Christian work for their community and fellow man, this is not directed to you), and for the record, miracles have not ceased. It is the lack of faith the size of a mustard seed that is the problem. I don’t care what someone tells me about the gifts of the Spirit, I have too many testimonies of the miraculous that defy that teaching. It’s hard for me to listen to a teacher or preacher who teaches such things, and easily dismisses what I have seen and heard when the Word has gone forth and people have received deliverance. So say what you will, but I would be very careful before passing judgment on the works of God. If you want some testimonies, go out and see what happens when you speak the words of Christ in a prison, or Bangkok, or a soup kitchen, you will see that there is power in the name above every name. At the name of Jesus, I have heard with my own ears evil cry out, and recognize His name, and have to bow, and the person was delivered and then sitting in their right mind. Go ahead, call me a liar or that I just don’t understand that those things don’t happen anymore, but I would seriously consider not doing that, or you will accuse yourself. I have seen and heard men come up out of the water at a baptism speak in a language that they didn’t know, but seemed to be praising God in their actions. I have seen a Jewish man who believed on Christ as his Messiah, praise God in a language he couldn’t possibly have known, and then asked me what happened. These and many other testimonies that refute some dried out teaching. I know the scriptures you are going to bring up, but good luck explaining your unbelief.

Like I said, I will be reading from a distance, but this madness I have witnessed is not for me. Anyone who reads this, should really ask themselves what they are studying the Word of God for! I hope it is so you can do something with that knowledge that is powerful, and changes lives for the better, and truly brings healing to the nations. I’m out.
Anonymous

Ken,

Take your time. I, too, do not live on blogs/forums. I can’t. They can become addictive and a sort of pseudo social community. Plus, I have a wife and a daughter, a business, 2 dogs, and my hobbies.

Have a great evening!

Dustin…
- Larry Siegle
  
  Here is an “Oldie But Goodie” from Sam Frost:
  
  VII. Eschatology: Preterism. We affirm with the Scriptures that the Son completely and entirely fulfilled the Law of Moses and the Prophets of the covenant made with Israel. We affirm that the Greek Scriptures of the Apostles record the fulfillment in their own generation as the Spirit inspired them. We affirm that John’s holy vision of God is fulfilled. We proclaim that we live in the Age of Redemption, Grace, and Righteousness.
  
  Notice in his theological outline, Sam leaves the impression that Christ “COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY fulfilled the Law of Moses AND the Prophets…” Further, “the Greek Scriptures (NT) of the Apostles record the fulfillment IN THEIR OWN GENERATION.” And finally, “John’s holy vision (the book of Revelation) IS fulfilled.” Notice the consistency in each of Sam’s previous statements and his usage of the terms, “completely” “entirely” and “is fulfilled”. Most would assume in reading this statement of faith, drafted by Sam Frost himself, that whatever in Scripture that falls into the actual category of PROPHECY has already been accomplished–that is, “completely, entirely” thus leaving the impression (and rightly so) that nothing remains to be accomplished relative to redemptive history is left “pending” or would necessarily require a FULLER and more COMPLETER, and BETTERER, fulfillment.
  
  In fact, if you consider his statement concerning the concerning the book of Revelation (which includes chapters 21 and 22) “is” (not WILL BE) fulfilled. Even if Sam MEANT all along that certain aspects of PROPHECY in the form of the “promises of God” are “already” but “not quite” the “Yes, and Amen” as the apostle Paul stated in reference to what first-century believers had already begun to experience, the use of the word “fulfill” rather than another term such as “manifested” or “prophetic effect” leaves his listeners and readers with the wrong impression.
  
  I am not certain as to how this “almost” but “not yet” concept of fulfillment stands in contradistinction with the first-century “already” but “not yet” of prophet fulfillment. In any form, is does this not imply some sort of “delay” between the beginning of the “age to come” and the time when it would eventually reach the state of full and complete “perfection”–the “heaven/earth motif of eternity with God everlastingly living and dwelling among His redeemed people?
  
  Help me see this paradigm more clearly.
  
  Larry D. Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Samuelmfrost

Larry,

Yes, I wrote that. I wrote a lot of things that I am sure will be brought up. But, I was reading House Divided the other day (that I wrote with Dave, Mike and Ed) “The Preterist scheme is simple: the end of the age took place in AD 70, and at that time, the “age to come” was inaugurated by the Second Coming of Christ…..The Kingdom was established in that day and is now fulfilling passages that speak of its eternal, never ending growth and increase…” (229). You can already see that issue with me there. But, you can also see my allusion to Isaiah 9.6 (“increase”) and how I had not formulated an end to history yet. This was my Full Preterist view. The point of this is to point out the “now fulfilling”…..That has always been in my preaching (mustard seed growth), and even in House Divided, no one picked up on it then as they are now.

So, it demonstrates what I used to believe, and how the argument from infinity has made a huge impact in my thinking as well. I wasn’t searching for this. I was quite happy where I was at. But, I do operate from two things, one of which you mentioned. First, Scripture. It is the word of God over all the “knowledge” of Man. Two: the Nature of God. Here, I would describe with traditionalism, the Classic Theistic view. My eschatology will not drive my view of God. God is Absolutely Sovereign: whatsoever comes to pass is according to His will. He knows all things from beginning to end. See, it was that “end” part that, for whatever reason (being human), just didn’t catch my eye. I never thought of the problem of infinite procreation and God’s omniscience. See, I never limited “the elect” to AD 70, or Israel (since, I believe, the Bible does not warrant this). I never limited “foreknowledge” and “predestination” to Israel or to AD 70, either (as many on the Church of Christ side do). These aspects of my theology NEVER left (and never will). What has happened is a clash….a loud crash, if you will, between these ideas coupled with infinity – they cannot be squared. So, I now had a choice: choose what I have always believed, or tow the Full Preterist line even to the point of “paradox”. But, that would mean I abandon my epistemology – and that was not going to happen, either. These choices – far more important to me than some speculative point of Full Preterism (infinite procreation) have become crystal clear. Crystal clear.

If I may continue….These issues, combined also with the idea that we are “now fulfilling” prophecy in the age to come all came to a head. That’s when, in 2008, I began asking about the number of those who are his….and that conversation was set aside. It came back, though, this year – with a vengeance. As I studied how Christians traditionally used the word “infinity” (and I document in my paper on the subject), and the omniscience of God – it all hit. A dovetail effect. We are fulfilling prophecy in history, in the age to come, until there be a natural end to history (of which only God knows – Eccl. 3.11; Isaiah 41.4) when “all” those whom God has “foreknown” from the “beginning to the end” and predestined unto salvation. When this happens, history will end.

Now, take this with my postmillennialISH leanings and there is another dovetail. History is steadily improving because the Light of the World has come. Now, I am not a PostmillennialIST, who has Gog and Magog and Satan in one last ditch effort at the end of history. Nope. That’s happened. But, I do share with the Postmiller a victory IN history (not Utopia, not a state of sinlessness, not 900 year old men – although I have no problems with men living that long as they used in Genesis). So, each progress, each growth, each aspect of Christianizing the earth, for me, “is fulfilling” what the Prophets foresaw. That’s what I work toward. I am a son of God. I have built a business. I want it to prosper. I run it according to His Law (as best I can, of course). Same for my family. I get this from Isaiah 65…..”blessed coming in, and blessed coming out”. Sure, I am spiritually blessed, but the Hebrew never radically separated “spirit” from “matter”. We can spiritually “love” all day long….The Hebrew wants to see ACTION and DEMONSTRATION (history – material demonstration). They go hand and hand.

Now, with all of this, and with an end to history, I see for our future a steadily, progressive growth of the Kingdom. To how far and to what ends – well, let’s just say we are not there yet. And this aspect of the here and now will come to an end and be enveloped into the Final State – the Final Manifestation of the Kingdom of God – not as an attachment as if it is “adding something” to our salvation – but as a manifestation OF our salvation. See, I have not rejected the Final State (sinless perfection) as a Full Preterist, either (but I am now seeing a problem here for the Full Preterist – and you should see that, too. I think Ken sees it).

So, that’s where I am at right now…..that’s how I came to where I am at right now. And, this may change some other things.

I am sorry, though, that I have not always put this out there in the most kindest of ways all the time. Frustration sets in and this has CRASHED into a lot of Full Preterists…..I didn’t expect the reaction…I expected some reaction….but not the last few months, no….I have had to cut ties with some within the FP community. However, I have kept in association with others, as witnessed here. It is not my intention to say that I now damn to hell Full Preterists. Most of you guys are Bible lovers with Jesus in your heart, following a Light down a path…..I know I was….I wasn’t any less “saved” believing in infinite procreation than I am now not believing it. Let’s not lose sight of that. I admire Larry, Don Preston, and whole long list of men and women who have impacted my life for the good. Make no bones about that. But, I have changed – after many years of studying, there has been a long coming dovetail effect where certain things, which I believe take precedence over AD 70, finally came to a head, and I had a choice to make….It was not an easy choice, but a clear one – at least to me.

All I can do now, from this point, is continue to present my studies – and that’s all they are – to you. I hope to “defend” them in the manner as you have witnessed here on RCM. I cannot help where my convictions now are. They are my convictions – at first they are things a person ponders, entertains, then they become convictions. My foot has always been in the scholarly world, the Evangelical world, and in the Full Preterist world. I did this deliberately. I never wanted to get so far out there that I could lose that sense of “checks and balances” – if I was in error – something would check it because I continued to read those who 1. Opposed us and 2. Were traditional and orthodox. I didn’t read them to “find weaknesses” in their arguments. I read them to see if there were weaknesses in my FP. This helped me stay somewhat grounded against, what Larry and I both see as “extremes” and “abuses” in the FP movement in general. I have not “left” the Full Preterist community (although some may want me to be kicked out)…..but, you guys were never a cult to be kicked out of, right?…….So, am I a Full Preterist? I don’t know. Partial Preterist? Not as typically defined. Right now….just call me a Preterist.
Anonymous

Larry,

I’ve been pondering your response.

You say this:

“Your observations about the Revelation passages are interesting because BOTH the prophecy and the effects that come from the STATE OF BEING that exists because of the arrival of what was prophesied are, indeed, closely related.”

And this:

“These are distinct EVENTS that constitute something that occurred at a specific point in TIME. Those seeing these events in retrospect can point to such events and say with absolute certainty, ‘this has been fulfilled.’”

In all honesty I am having a very hard time seeing the distinction that you are seeing. That does not mean that you are wrong. It may very well mean that I am just not seeing it.

In your first quote you differentiate between a prophecy and the “effects” of the prophecy in the “state of being.” I understand that in relationship to Revelation 21:3-4. Can you help me understand how this relates to v.6, though? This is a prophecy (foretelling of a future event/prediction/declaration of something to come) about people receiving the water of life without payment. Is this still happening (being fulfilled) today?

And in your second quote you said that these things were events that happened “at a specific point in TIME.” I agree. You were regenerated at a specific point in time which is a manifestation of Revelation 21:6, correct? Would this be a prophecy finding a fulfillment in the life of Larry Siegle at a specific point in time?

In Christ,

Dustin…
- Larry Siegle
  
  Dustin
  I appreciate your keen observation and perhaps the distinctions between the PROPHECY and the PROPHETIC EFFECT seems unclear. The Cross, the shedding of the blood of Christ, His burial and subsequent resurrection from the dead were EVENTS that were PROPHESIED throughout throughout the Old Testament and were FULFILLED in the life and ministry of Christ, a certain HISTORICAL place, and in a certain HISTORICAL time. Believers have ALWAYS understood that the events that occurred in connection with His sacrificial death as the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29), accomplished fully and completely the purpose for which God had intended (Acts2:23ff). The fact that, beginning with those events that occurred on the day of Pentecost, people APPROPRIATED the BENEFITS or EFFECTS of that “completed work” in no way implies that with each individual conversion a FULLER fulfillment of prophecy has occurred. When a sinner hears the gospel, believes that Christ died on His behalf, repents from his past sinful actions, and entered into Covenant relationship with God, his actions are those of one who is ACCEPTING an “already purchased” gift. The part of the sinner in the transaction is that of RECEIVING the benefits (effects) of what was once for all time accomplished IN THE PAST. It is APPROPRIATION of what is an accomplished reality. That from the time of the arrival of the “new heavens and a new earth” (Rev. 21:1-4), “nations” would come to the City of God for “healing” and that individuals would partake of the “trees of life” and the “waters of life” are EFFECTS that come from what was once for all time ACCOMPLISHED at the arrival of the “new heavens and a new earth” in A.D. 70. It is the present MANIFESTATION of an already accomplished reality. Otherwise, that which was spoken by God in the form of “promise” and “prophecy” would NEVER be fulfilled because there is no indication (from the inspired text) that believers at some point of “yet future” FULLER consummation will cease partaking of either the “trees of life” or in drinking from the “waters of life.” While certainly the language is SYMBOLIC, the reality that is pictured by the symbolism is REAL, and by implication ETERNAL.
  
  The premise of Full Preterist (one for which I have stood for more than 25 years, written, preached and taught publicly and privately) is the simple principle that [1] God made “promises” in His word. [2] God further gave “predictive prophecy” that foretold the FACT, TIME, the PLACE, the MANNER, and the PURPOSE that was to be accomplished at the time of fulfillment. [3] God, through the Cross and the Parousia fulfilled, in EVERY RESPECT, those “promises” revealed through “prophecy” that foretold the FACT, TIME, the PLACE, the MANNER, and PURPOSE for which they were given. [4] What believers experience as a present reality in the “age to come” is based upon the the premise that God KEPT (past-tense) all that He had promised in His word and that NOTHING was left in a state of incompleteness or in need of MORE to be accomplished beyond those events associated with redemptive history. For one to conclude otherwise, removes him from Preterism and moves him into another form of Futurism and incompleteness, waiting for God to do something MORE and DIFFERENT from that which He has already done.
  
  Thanks
  
  Larry D. Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Samuelmfrost

I’ll let my brother, Larry, answer on his own able accord, but it is at this point, which Larry and I have discussed, that he would see that God “looked down the corridors of time and saw when Larry had faith.” I, on the other hand, would say God saved another one of his “elect” whom He has foreknown and predestined according to his Purpose. That Purpose is unfolding in time, space and history and was not “fullfilled” in AD 70. That may be what is “behind” a lot of this for me and him.
Samuelmfrost

Larry,

you wrote, “Sam Frost says, history ends, the planet remains, except that God moves here and “heaven and earth” become one in a new restored paradise home….

My Jehovah’s Witnesses relatives will be elated to hear the “Preterist” change of doctrinal policy on this issue…”

I fail to see the humor. You believe that God “moved here” in AD 70, am I correct? As far as heaven and earth becoming one, that’s standard, orthodox Christianity, not Jehovah;s Witnesses only. Full Preterism is the ONLY Millennial scheme that does not have this Final State – which should make it suspect, right there. But, I do hope you are not equating my view with JW’s…..Dorothy and Mike seem to think so – I am trying not to laugh at their speculation of “where’s Samdo?”
- Larry Siegle
  
  Sam
  Keep your sense of humor, that is the one thing that I DO believe continues beyond A.D. 70. Having grown up in the environment of relatives who lived each day with the “at hand” expectation of the outbreak of a world-wide “Great Tribulation” and battle of Armageddon from which Jehovah’s Witnesses alone emerge to begin the process of restoring planet earth back to its paradisaic condition, was (and is) their hope. The end of the “system of things” was always just around the next corner….and so we watched, and we waited….
  
  It is one thing to say that spiritually and covenantally God NOW dwells among His people and works through them in ministering to those “outside” the gates to the Holy City, and yet another for one to affirm that God, literally, actually, and immediately brings about some transformation of the planet that brings together (literally, actually and immediately) “heaven and earth” to become the FOREVER dwelling place of God with His people. It assumes some future form of transformed “spiritual-physicality” similar to what others such as N.T. Wright have posited in his words. The problem is that such a transformation is logically associated (and rightly so) with the resurrection of the dead–a doctrine which you would continue to affirm (at this time) was consummated with those events associated with A.D. 70, and the corporate body of Christ (Israel) that was resurrected into a New Covenant mode of existence. Perhaps Preterism is the only scheme that sees no absolute “end of history” or “grand finality” beyond those events predicted to occur within the lifetime of the “generation” that lived in the first century. There can be no “gap” between those events 2,000 years ago and ANOTHER grand consummation (end of history) that is outside the bounds of the Covenantal framework and the transformation of the ages.
  
  Orthodoxy associated these “final” events with the second coming, the resurrection and the judgment–consistently. Why? Because they understand that you simply cannot have these events in the past and have some other consummation in the future because such a concept is simply NOT in the Bible. No orthodox believer (in the traditional sense) is going to allow for a past resurrection and a 2,000 year gap (or longer) for an “end of history.” From the standpoint of the relationship between “promise” and “fulfillment” and “shadow” and “reality” the Second Coming, the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Day of Judgment constitute the “last” of the “last things” and from this perspective A.D. 70 WAS the “end of history” as it related to what God set about to accomplish through Christ and to establish the everlasting New Covenant, in which we today live as citizens of the already established Kingdom of God.
  
  Think about it.
  
  Larry D. Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Anonymous

Sam (and Larry),

Regardless of the soteriological, metaphysical elements of *how* Larry was regenerated that day, i.e. Arminianism or Calvinism (I really do not care), the fact that Larry’s salvation was predicted in the past and fulfilled in the future is what I am concerned with, presently.

People are still drinking from the water of life and eating from the living bread, i.e. Christ. The kingdom gates are open and it is being occupied in ever increasing numbers. This seems to be a prophecy that is still being fulfilled, per Revelation 21:6.

Dustin…
Anonymous

Larry,

In your response to Sam you say:

“…the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Day of Judgment constitute the “last” of the “last things” and from this perspective A.D. 70 WAS the “end of history” as it related to what God set about to accomplish through Christ and to establish the everlasting New Covenant…”

This is a great statement! I agree wholeheartedly. And I am wondering if this really may be semantics.

Your 2nd paragraph in your last response to me made me pause and think about all of the labels within Christendom. I believe they are such a hindrance to objective dialog. I do not mean that you are unable to have objective dialog. I was speaking more with regards to “traditional” (there’s another label) Christendom.

What I mean is, you said that a view like what Sam is mulling over (I am too, for that matter) would make him a Futurist, of sorts. However, a “traditional” Futurist would still consider Sam a “Hyper” Preterist. The only people who would consider Sam a Futurist, of sorts, are those within the “Hyper” Preterist community who do not believe in an ongoing fulfillment. Do you see what I mean? It’s so strange to me.

I have 0 problem being considered a Futurist amongst Preterist; just as I had no problem being called a heretic by Futurist when I became a Preterist. Titles are irrelevant, ultimately. You know this better than I do. You have been standing up for the Truth longer than I have been a Christian. So if I end up a Futurist of sorts, but still a Preterist, all the while still a heretic, then I will put that at the end of my signature so that I look more sophisticated, i.e. Dustin Curlee, F. FP. HP. H. :)

As I read your first paragraph I also did not see anything that I would contend with, minus the definitions of prophecy and “prophetic effect.”

The cross, a specific event, was prophesied and it took place. The cross was prophesied to *do* something, which was also prophesied, i.e. ransom of souls. Th prophecy of those souls coming to a knowledge of the prophesy that was fulfilled, the cross, was *being* fulfilled. John 6:37 “All that the Father gives me will come to me…” Regardless of who a person thinks that this is talking about (I believe it’s localized to the Jews of the 1st century, although a precept of metaphysical saving is there, but I digress), it would seem that it must be recognized that this was a prediction of what was determined to take place. What’s more, it was a process. These souls were coming (present and future tense) to the Son. It was a prophecy that was *being* fulfilled. Is that making any sense, Larry, or am I missing the point. I’ve missed points before.

In Christ,

Dustin…
Samuelmfrost

Well, Larry, aside from the argument of what “no orthodox” person has done, I am not attempting to reconstruct Preterism in terms of an assumed “orthodoxy.” You make it sound imnpossible, so why even try? Or, “go ahead, Sam and try, but you will fail.”

I think what is seen, though, is the impossibility to separate the age to come from prophecy. You will call the unfolding of the age to come everything BUT prophetic (when in fact it is prophetic as it meets every characteristic of prophecy). See, this runs counter to your “all prophecy is FULLfilled aspect. to you, it “takes away” from what God has accomplished. But, then I add, what is the FINAL STATE of the believer? I get no response. Do we become sinless? Is that FULLfilling anything? What part of “going to heaven” when we die play in the overall scheme? See, this is where other full preterists are seeing the problem, and actually coming out and denying the final state, or denying that we become sinless….all because we can’t have anything “beyond” AD 70 that would “take away” from what God has “done.” Whatever he has done, he is done doing it…..I just don’t see any other way around this…..
- Larry Siegle
  
  Sam
  My understanding of the “final state” of the believer (a descriptive term that is never used in Scripture) would relate to his entering into Covenant with God through identification with and participation in the already accomplished “resurrection-life” that belongs to the “age to come.” Believers are “sons of the resurrection” not in the sense that each individual is resurrected as an “ongoing process” but rather it is a legal transaction based upon the benefits of the shed blood of Christ when he was “put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit” (I Pet. 3:18)–the death as defined by the Old Covenant mode of existence, and His resurrection into the New Covenant mode of existence. In order to change man, you must first change the world by which man is determined. The believer today, in terms of “the life” that belongs to his ‘stance’ with God, is received at the point of conversion, with nothing “more” or “fuller” or “better” to be received with regard to the RELATIONAL aspect of his mode of being.
  
  Even as Christ was “God manifest in the flesh” believers, through participation of His death, burial and resurrection, are risen to become “Christ manifest in the flesh”–a manifestation of HIS rule, HIS dominion and HIS authority in this realm of existence. “As He is, so are we…” (I John 4:17) is the principle to be demonstrated, manifested and lived out, free from the bondage to sin and death. The individual believer is to be “Christ manifest in the flesh” in terms of his walk amid those who are lost, he demonstrates the power of God and victory of the God in every aspect of his life. This does not constitute any form of humanly devised “sinless perfection” but rather that God, because of completed redemption sees the nature and character of His Son, and therefore, believers “in Christ” are counted righteous on the basis of what was accomplished. Thus a “new creation” (II Cor. 5:17), becomes “the righteousness of God in Christ” (II Cor. 5:21).
  
  Every spiritual blessing (Eph.1:3) are manifested in the reality of the victorious life lived by believers today. At the end of their earthly life, they leave the physical realm to forever be with the Lord beyond the realm of space and time.
  
  More later on this…
  
  Larry D. Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Kerry

Exactly how is a Christian supposed to demonstrate the power of God without the “gifts” that were manifested and supposedly ended in 70AD? I don’t see any power necessary in a world that is as good as it is going to get, and maybe getting worse according to some. Why exhibit anything for the unbeliever except a good attitude? If evil is going to exist along side good in equality, then why do we need power? We just simply have to exist until we exit this life, and the world will continue on in this fashion for an infinite period of time. God becomes reactionary to man, and man’s decisions. The power is exactly that, power to overcome evil with good! That is what Jesus, Peter, Paul and others did. I can’t believe we just live, and are to affect the world with words that have no power behind them, to affect that change. My life is a testimony to be sure, but when the rubber meets the road, and someone needs a real touch, who are they going to come to? Not an atheist…Not a professor..They won’t go to a politician, and sometimes not even a doctor can help. So who is it that can help in that time of need? Someone who believes these things are over, and ended in 70AD, or a Christian who they know has faith in the name and power of Jesus. I have not seen it happen every time, and I don’t claim to know why some prayers go unanswered, but many times I have witnessed what can only be called, POWER. All that is required is the faith of a mustard seed.

Anyone who teaches that the Gospel preached to the unbeliever, and then is not followed by manifestations and proofs of the Spiritual power in the name of Jesus, because it ended in 70AD, are simply wrong. The burden of proof is on them that say these things don’t happen anymore, or ever.

By the way, it seems like some people are taking it upon themselves to cool the tempers and get back to acting like they should. I’m glad to see it. I hope it continues. I appreciate Chuck Coty and his words, along with Ted’s, and that doesn’t mean they agree with me on anything else. I read just about every post, on quite a number of websites, and it has been quite an eye opener these last few months. I am an outsider, but not a “Johnny come lately” as the term has been used.
Samuelmfrost

Kerry,

I understand, and because of your cool tone, are able to post here representing the “gifts” section of Full Preterists. There are many of you out there. At this point, I will simply say you can continue to state your case, and I won’t interfere with it in terms of rebuttals.
- Kerry
  
  Sam, thanks. I haven’t always had a cool tone at times, and I have won arguments, but lost the soul. A person can really beat someone down with a sharp sword.
  
  I’m sure you could offer rebuttals. Many do. But I just keep on seeing things that proclaim better than my words could the wonderful works of God. I don’t want to take it off of topic, and that is not why I said what I said. I believe in a past fulfillment of prophecy regarding Christ and His work, in the “last days” generation. But our work continues, and it is heading somewhere, and that somewhere is what is causing some in the Preterist camp to disagree now. If it is finished, and this is it, I will have to be convinced some other way. Especially since I woke up one morning speaking in tongues after dreaming about a homeless man being healed. Say what you will, but testimonies have a powerful effect on the unbeliever when you have given them the scriptures and then the proof. People can dismiss my testimony, but it doesn’t change what happened.
  
  Whenever I have witnessed to a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, or just someone on the street that says, what makes me think my “Bible” or word or God is any better than theirs, I show them the scriptures, but I also give my testimony if they let me. I ask them if their God answers their prayers, and if not, do they want me to pray to my God for them, because my God hears me. That is called Power. This is the ongoing fulfillment of the Kingdom and the continued goal of the “prophecies” past 70AD. You can’t do much without the Word, and a testimony of powerful works. It is just a shame that after I came to the understanding of the past fulfillment of scriptures, that I’m not accepted by my former futurist pastors and teachers. That is why I am here. But I can’t deny what I have witnessed. It is going somewhere. I have to believe it, it is all I have now, Preterism. I’m not accepted anywhere else.
Samuelmfrost

Larry,

Are you sure there is “more” of this later…..hahaha

I will wait for you to finish. But, yes, we have entered into the new covenant. Yes, we have “all things as it pertains to life and godliness.” And, yes, we have been clothed with Christ. So, what prevents me from walking around like Jesus did on earth – sinless, and full of power, hearing the Father and doing nothing but His will (which I will be doing in HEAVEN)…….
Samuelmfrost

One the next Sam Frost Show, I am going to go through all of the things I have read that supposedly believe. Like, the earth will end one day (Dave Green). Where have I ever said that?
- http://thereignofchrist.com Jason
  
  Sam, when’s the show?
Samuelmfrost

Kerry,

I don’t talk much about what I do in private. But, I don’t hear a lot from FP’s that practice street evangelism and the like……soup kitchens? Tent evangelism? Hear the message, world: It’s all fulfilled! Can’t you hear the crowds running to this message?
Kerry

Sam, I hear you..

Maybe I talk to much? People have told me this before. I don’t blame you for not talking about certain things, my father rarely did either, but when he did, people listened. His father, my grandfather did hold tent meetings, and that was the only time I heard him raise his voice.

You know, I’m pretty sure that the Preterist movement if you want to call it that, has not escaped the Lord’s attention. Where two or three are gathered together in His name, He is there. So I’m sure that these conversations aren’t in a some sort of vacuum in internet land. And if Preterism has a future, which is what these discussions basically have been about, it will only have a future if it has been ordained by the Lord. If it is a dead end, time will tell, and God won’t be in it. If it is correct, and has a future, it must have a goal that is in line with the will of God. The scriptures tell us the will of God for man. Without a vision, the people perish. Preterism must have a vision. What is it? Where are we going? Is anyone going to lead? Who’s wagon do we hitch the horses to? The status quo has never been acceptable to God.

Sam, I hope we do have a message for the world, and you are correct, if we don’t, the silence will be deafening because the crowds won’t come. Thanks again.
Samuelmfrost

Thanks Kerry.

Jason, Wed. 3.00 EST on Pret Radio
- http://thereignofchrist.com Jason
  
  aight, cool. I was hoping i could catch it live, but UPS called and they want me to go ahead and start tomorrow. I’ll grab it tomorrow night and post it here. Have fun with that one! lol.
Samuelmfrost

That’s great news! Praise the Lord!
Anonymous

Larry,

I’m wondering if in the fray of things you missed my last post where I mentioned John 6:37. I’m just curious because I am truly struggling to try and figure out the difference between prophecy (a prediction of things that would come to pass) and manifestation/effect *of* of prophecy.

If I asked someone, “Do you believe it was prophesied that Christ would be a light to all nations and that these nations (which are made up of individuals) will continually come to the light until either this earth comes to an end or God literally just destroys it,” then the answer would be “Yes!” This prophecy, then, is *being* fulfilled.

Maybe I shouldn’t let this eat at me, but it is. :)

In Christ,

Dustin…
- Larry Siegle
  
  During the past few days the “gates of Internet Hades” have prevailed against me in anticipation of moving from Comcast to AT&T as an ISP. I have been unable to participate in the discussion for a few days, and intend to response more extensively to the great discussion that has continued in my absence.
  
  By this weekend I should be up and running fully and completely, so I am requesting your patience. I am not avoiding the great questions and points being made by all of you….
  
  God bless
  
  Larry Siegle
  http://www.VictoryWordsOnline.com
Anonymous

Larry,

I’m wondering if in the fray of things you missed my last post where I mentioned John 6:37. I’m just curious because I am truly struggling to try and figure out the difference between prophecy (a prediction of things that would come to pass) and manifestation/effect *of* of prophecy.

If I asked someone, “Do you believe it was prophesied that Christ would be a light to all nations and that these nations (which are made up of individuals) will continually come to the light until either this earth comes to an end or God literally just destroys it,” then the answer would be “Yes!” This prophecy, then, is *being* fulfilled.

Maybe I shouldn’t let this eat at me, but it is. :)

In Christ,

Dustin…
Anonymous

Larry,

Brother, of course. No rush at all.

Dustin…
Kerry

Dustin,

I know you addressed Larry, I just wanted to respond to you because I like people to respond to me, and let me know someone is listening. This is not to say Larry isn’t listening, he is probably very busy, and has always been very responsive with some good knowledge to me.

I think you make a good point. My guess is that in verse 39 it says “I will raise him up at the last day”, would be argued as being fulfilled by 70AD. However, you and I know people are still drawn to Jesus today.

So my questions are; Were we as Christians today, who came to Jesus in this age, raised at the “last day”, during the culmination by 70AD, but it is only “manifested” today because we were born after 70AD? How would those who heard Jesus speak those words have understood “all”? Would they have understood it as all people past that generation, or was Jesus only fulfilling His work gathering the lost sheep of Israel in these verses, and this is the “all”, before the Gospel went to the Gentiles by the preaching of Paul?

I know that people are continuing to come the the Light as you put it, and I have to believe that the preaching will go on so people will be called. It seems it is still being fulfilled, even though the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous has occurred in the past. There must be a goal to this work of Christ.
Kerry

Unbelievable….I responded prior to seeing the other post by Larry and Dustin, and as soon as I close out, I see they both posted.

Dustin, and Larry, just know that I was typing prior to you posts coming up, and my comments look out of place now, but I’m glad to see Larry back, and I concur with Dustin.
Ken Singleton

Hi Dustin, Davo,

Finally I get to respond to your post. Life has been a bit hectic, and I have found myself quite mentally tired as a result of all this website interaction, and the lack of resolution of some things in my own mind.

As it is I spent a long time cogitating upon what you wrote Dustin, and in a nutshell I think I pretty much agree with what you have said with one proviso: it depends on what you mean by the word love. Let me illustrate.

Is a pillow still a pillow if you rip out its soft stuffing and fill it with stones and broken glass? That is the problem with the word love, you can stuff it with all kinds of meanings and say and do pretty much whatever you like. The world and many professing Christians do this all the time.

So, as a Christian, where do we get our meaning of love from? As I understand it there is only one place and that is the OC Law, and then watching how Christ and the disciples put that Law into practice in their lives. It is this OC Law that God is writing on our heart of flesh, by the Spirit, in the NC (Jer 31:33, Ez 36:26).

If this is what you are meaning by your post then we are in full agreement.

Regards, Ken
Anonymous

Ken,

Thanks for your response.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that “love” today has been redefined as tolerance, apathy, and the like. This is no love at all.

You say that love is defined by the Old Covenant Law. Before the Law was given (Romans 5:12-13) was there no such thing as love?

In Christ,

Dustin…
Ken Singleton

Hi Dustin,

Yes, there was love in the world before the Law was given to Moses. You give a very good example of it. Adam in the garden was given the opportunity to show love to God and neighbour by obeying the Law that God gave to him. Instead he transgressed the Law, and thus revealed that he preferred to walk in sin rather than in love. Love is expressed in obedience to what God says. Jesus told his followers that if they loved Him they would obey Him (Jn 14:15), and John expressed the same truth when he said, “[3] For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.”
(1 John 5:3 ESV)

So, love was in the world to the degree that men did what God asked of them, and walked in faith with Him (anything not done in faith is sin, Rom 14:23). Nevertheless, it did not take long after the fall before God wiped out the world of Noah. Why did he wipe them out? Was it because they all obeyed God and expressed their love for Him and neighbour? No! He wiped them out because: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Gen 6:5) Only Noah and his family expressed their love for God by walking in obedience to God, doing what He said, and believing what He said.

So, in conclusion, love is given it’s meaning by the Law of God. That Law is being written on our hearts. To the degree that we love that Law and obey that Law, we show our love for God and neighbour. When we fail to love, by transgressing God’s law and not walking by faith in what God has said, we reveal ourselves to be sinners. The good news, however, is that our sin no longer condemns us or separates us from God, because of the grace found in our Lord Jesus Christ. Our sin is atoned for, all sin, past present and future, and we are clothed in the perfect obedience of Christ (his righteousness = doing what is right).

Hopefully, Dustin, this goes some way to answering your question. If you have a different meaning of love, I would ‘love’ (grins) to hear it.

Regards, Ken
Anonymous

Ken,

No, our understanding of love is the same, i.e. a desire to obey God. I just do not see that love as being defined by the Law manifested in the Decalogue (Mosaic Covenant). That Law was not a reality until Moses, yet “the death” reigned from Adam to Moses. How was this possible?

In Christ,

Dustin…
Ken Singleton

Dustin,

You say: “No, our understanding of love is the same, i.e. a desire to obey God.”

But, I ask, how do you know that you are obeying God? What has God asked of you that you need to obey? Where do you find this ‘stuff’ from God that you need to obey? And why do you need to obey it?

You ask: “That Law was not a reality until Moses, yet “the death” reigned from Adam to Moses. How was this possible?”

The death came as a result of Adam not living in love (as you rightly have pointed out). Adam transgressed God’s Law. Just a single Law. The “death” was the penalty, the penal sanction for his offence. Adam died the moment he ate. Until that moment he knew only good (everything in the garden was rosy, so to speak), but the moment he ate from the forbidden tree he also knew evil. His dormant conscience was now awakened and for the first time he experienced the shame and guilt and fear of evil. He then tried to hide his shame, his guilt, his nakedness with leaves, and he separated himself from God, hiding amongst the trees, afraid. Eventually God completed the death sentence by banishing Adam and Eve from the Garden, and the possibility of eternal life in His presence for-evermore.
From that point onwards, all humanity is born separated from God. Separated from life eternal in His presence. What is more, they are like Adam, having first hand knowledge of good and evil (their conscience first convicting and then excusing). As a result men create their own laws to regulate the evil and to promote the good. Yet no one has ever been able to obey even their own laws, let alone the perfect Law of God. In this way, death passed to all men for all sinned. Eventually, the evil in man gained the ascendancy until “every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” and at that point mankind was judged by God (the flood).

The nation of Israel was created to be the vehicle and means of blessing the world (Ge 12:3). They were the light of the world and the salt of the earth. It was God’s Law of love, His perfect Law, that made them this. The nations would see what great laws God had given to Israel, and be drawn to it’s light, and thus to the Messiah. The Law didn’t fail, but Israel did because she broke the Law repeatedly, and then tried to use the Law as a means of self-righteousness. The Law was never abolished, only fulfilled and applied in a new way, no longer on tablets of stone, but on hearts of flesh, with God Himself, causing us to obey it in those who love Him and long to please Him.

This is how I understand the Law and it’s place today. It is great to be able to discuss these things with you Dustin.

Regards, Ken
Anonymous

Ken,

Again, I agree with everything that you are saying, except that I stress that the Law, i.e. Decalogue, Mosaic Covenant – does not define love. Adam knew what it meant to love God apart from the ministry of death and condemnation (2 Cor. 3). That written code, which was good and perfect in that it expressed the righteousness of God and was spiritual, was not love itself, nor did it define love. It was a disciplinarian (Gal. 4) until Christ.

Adam was given a commandment (Law). To obey this commandment was to love God and to love Eve. The single command, as some have suggested, does not encompass the Decalogue nor is it confined only to the Decalogue. After all, the Decalogue does *not* address every situation a child of God encounters, thus guiding the way in all scenarios. Love, however, does.

Dustin…
Ken Singleton

Hi Dustin,

It looks like we have probably reached that stage of impasse, where we must now agree to disagree in this one thing. Nevertheless, I have benefited from this discussion with you and I appreciate your willingness to discuss it with me.
So thank you.

Regards, Ken
Ken Singleton

Hi Sam,

Just thought that you may be interested to know that I have finally come off the fence, and I jumped firmly down onto your side of it.

Do you know what finally clinched it for me? It was Rivers Of Eden, and the talk he gave to Michael Loomis. He was incredibly clear and erudite and presented his case well, and as a result I saw clearly for the first time the consequence of taking the ‘all fulfilled’ to it’s logical end, and it is not pretty.

Nevertheless, it forced me to go back to Gen 12:3 and re-examine the original promise given to Abram. When I did I saw clearly that the whole point of God blessing him and making him a great nation (singular) was to bless “all families of the earth.” I then realised that Rev 21-22 was the fulfilment of this promise. The ‘all fulfilled’ was the promise to make Abram a great nation which was completed at AD70, with the marriage to the Bride. Her whole reason for existence upon the earth from that point onwards was to be the vehicle through which God would accomplish the final part of His promise, and this is why the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.The age-to-come is God now fulfilling the final part of His promise to Abram. AD70 was the beginning of this part of the promise, and I believe history confirms this.

So, thank you for having the courage of your convictions and remaining firm against the onslaught! Thank you also for being patient with me and answering some of my questions.

May God continue to bless you and your family.

Love in Christ, Ken
Kerry

Good stuff Ken. These have been good discussions.
Anonymous

Ken,

I really wish that we were not at an impasse. That proverbial impasse is extremely frustrating to me. I am not frustrated *at* you. I am frustrated with the impasse.

I have had this discussion several times with others who believe that the Decalogue was the commandment (singular) given to Adam in the Garden. I have heard the arguments – “All the commandments (plural) were spiritually encompassed in that one commandment, there has only ever been on Law, etc. None of these arguments, in my opinion, are exegetical or necessarily inferred. They are deductions stemming from a presupposed philosophical construct. For example, the Covenant Theologians *must* presuppose this in order for their entire theological construct to work and the Covenant Creationist *must* presuppose this as they believe that Adam was the first man to enter into covenant with God out of an already preexisting people. Either way, if the Decalogue was not in the Garden then both of these theological systems are going to have issues.

I have no idea if you are either of these camps of thinking, but regardless, I simply cannot see what you are saying. I have tried very hard to be objective and critical with my own presuppositions and with the text.

“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that when you eat of it you shall surely die’” (Genesis 2:16-17).

Commandment – Everything is yours except this one tree. Do not eat of it or else you will die.

Decalogue – 1. You shall have no other gods before me, 2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments (plural), 3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain, 4. Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh is a Sabbath to the LORD your God (snipped), 5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you, 6. You shall not commit murder, 7. You shall not commit adultery, 8. You shall not steal, 9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor, 10. You shall not covet your neighbors house; you shall not covet your neighbors wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbors.

Question – If this Decalogue was given to Adam in the Garden then how is it that it was totally foreign when given to Moses? The flood would not explain this since “righteous” people were placed on the Ark.

Question – What “father and mother” would Adam and Eve have honored? Unless we take the position that calls God mother in a “spiritual” sense this does not make sense.

Question – What land was God going to give (future) tense to them connected to the commandment about honoring their father and mother? They were already in the garden.

I just do not see it. I have tried. I remember reading a book called “The Marrow of Modern Divinity,” by Edward Fisher. I was encouraged to read it by Douglas Wilson. I read the book. Page after page was filled with long and drawn out explanations of how the Decalogue Law *must* have been in the garden in a spiritual sense. Exegetically it was weak. Philosophically and logically it was compelling. But philosophy and logic can do great damage to truth.

When my daughter was little I would tell her “When you are at this birthday party I want you to do what is right. You can enjoy yourself and play with your friends, but act in a way that would make daddy proud.” I did not have to hand her a written out list of do’s and don’ts while at a party. And even if I were to hand her a list of written do’s and don’ts, these do’s and don’ts would not address every situation she would face in such an environment. When she would come to such a situation then the “make daddy proud,” overarching, and grand commandment was the arbiter of action. Now, if in such a situation she continually did the wrong thing without regard to what would make me proud then she would have had the list of do’s and don’ts pinned to her shirt so that she was without excuse if/when she transgressed manifesting love. She never needed the list in order to want to make me proud; well, until she became a teenager. :)

I’m quite certain that you and I both would take a presuppositional approach against an unbeliever when it came to right and wrong. The atheist/agnostic would say that right and wrong were matters of convention; learned over time. You and I would say that every person *from the beginning* knew right and wrong inherently. Was Adam any different?

The Garden – Adam, love me and love Eve.
Decalogue (summed up) – Love me and love your neighbor
Leviticus 19:18 (summation of a list of rules) – Love your neighbor as yourself (cited in Matthew 22)
Deuteronomy 6 as a caveat to the Law – Love God and love your neighbor (cited in Matthew 22)
Hosea 6 – God desires love, not sacrifice (Law element), knowledge of God, not burnt offerings (Law element)
Matthew 7:12 – Love others, “this IS the Law and the Prophets

The rest of New Testament, as we know, is filled with things like “…love is the greatest of these,” and “love sums up the Law and the Prophets,” “…for the Law and the Prophets are summed up with one word: love.” And, as I pointed out in my original response to you, James calls Leviticus 19:18 “the royal law.” Does a royal law take precedence over a lesser law? It does. James also calls this royal law of love the “law of liberty” because, as Paul says “…against such there is no law” (Gal. 5:23). I also find it interesting that in 1 Timothy 1 Paul says that the law was given to the disobedient. When the Decalogue was supposedly given to Adam, he was not disobedient.

I’ve rambled on enough. I’m sorry, Ken. I just want to understand the Scriptures. You do not have to respond. If we are at an impasse then I respect that, truly.

In Christ,

Dustin…
Ken Singleton

Kerry,

Yes they have, and no doubt there will be much more “good stuff” to come. Thank you, also, for the contributions that you have made.

Regards, Ken
Ken Singleton

Hi Dustin,

I can see now why we were at an impasse. For some reason you have thought that I am saying the Decalogue was in the Law given to Adam in the garden. I am not sure how you came to this understanding from anything that I wrote, but if I did give you that impression then I apologise. So let me make it crystal clear: I do not believe the Decalogue is in the Law given to Adam in the garden. I reject as preposterous any such notion. There is no way you can obtain that view from an exegesis of the Genesis text. Nor have I even heard of anyone teaching such a view. Furthermore, I am not a Covenant Creationist. I reject that understanding of the Scripture as coming from a faulty hermeneutic. Nor am I a Covenant Theologian – again, never heard of them.

My understanding of love and the Law is very simple:
1) It starts with the character and nature of God – God is love.
2) Everything God does is an expression of that nature or characteristic of God – including his Justice
3) Law comes from the nature and character of God – therefore the Law is good, and an expression, a manifestation of His love
4) The Decalogue came from God – it is a manifestation of His Love – it teaches us what love is – the content of love – Moses fleshed it out in ‘case laws’ so that the people would understand how it applies to the whole of life. It was not necessary to have a law for every situation, but only to understand how a particular commandment was applied in several different situations, so that the principles could then be applied to the many other situations the people would find themselves in. When they understood the principles and put that into practice, they would be walking in Love. The ‘case laws’ were the equivalent of you ‘modelling’ to your daughter how she should live. “Making daddy proud” would be meaningless to her unless, from the moment she began to know right from wrong, you had taught her by example and precept what that meant. The phrase “Making daddy proud” is the summary of the Law that you modelled and taught her through the countless do’s and do nots that you will have spoken to her as she was growing up.
5) For this reason (they manifest God’s love), the Law and the Prophets can be SUMMARISED (emphasis not shouting) by the word ‘love’ – you don’t rip the summary out of a book and agree with that whilst throwing the book away saying it is no longer relevant. The summary only has meaning once you have understood the book.
6) The Law was applied to Israel in one way under the OC – that same Law is applied to the New Israel in a new way
7) Under the OC the Law of Love was applied as external commands with penal sanctions attached
8) Under the NC the Law of Love is applied to hearts of flesh by the Spirit with God causing us to walk in them
9) No penal sanctions any more because Christ atoned for that – and we are clothed in His perfect obedience (righteousness)
10) So why should we obey the Law of Love now? Because we love God and we can only express that love by walking in His commandments, as the NT writers exhort us to do.

I hope this clarifies my understanding of the Law for you Dustin.
Like you, I too only desire to come to a knowledge of the truth through faithful exegesis of the Word of God.

Regards, Ken
Anonymous

Ken,

I sat back and just laughed as I read this. I do enjoy forums like Sam’s and like Sovereign Grace Preterism, but this is a classic example of someone (me) completely misreading what someone else (you) wrote.

Unless I misread what you wrote, I completely agree. :)

Dustin…
Ken

Dustin,

If Love is the Law, then was not Adam given that law? If the Law and the Prophets’ law was Love, would that not be the same law that was given to Adam? If Love was the Law in Christ, would that not be the same law given to Adam?

Blessings….Ken P
Samuelmfrost

I think there is some confusion over the “law is love.” The Law (613 commandments), or Torah, is “summed up in love” – not “love” itself. For Adam, for him to “love” God would have been to follow the commandment given to him. It cannot be deduced that Adam was given the 613 commandments. That was “added” later (Romans 5.22). Am I missing something here?
Ken Singleton

Dustin,

Glad we got to the bottom of it in the end. It has been a pleasure to discuss with you.

Regards, Ken

Sam,

I agree totally, hence my points 1 to 4 in my last post.

Regards, Ken
Samuelmfrost

I often think “the Law” gets a bad rap because of its association with human sin. The Law was a vehicle through which human sin was exposed. The Law works wrath in this regard, “because the flesh is weak” and the Law has no intrinsic ability “to save” – it points to the need for salvation – but cannot save. However, once the salvation problem is solved (“through Jesus Christ”) Law, being written on the heart by the Spirit, can now properly function as a sort of guide for new covenant ethics and morality for the self, family and society. Here we would speak of the “general equity” of the Law of Moses. This is Paul’s point about “love” summing up the Law. Why put safety barriers around a house top? So no one falls. Thus, “love” cares that no one falls. Why cover a ditch? So that no one falls in. Care for your fellowman. Do we not have “safety laws”? The Law also speaks about just weights, adequate wages, interest charges, etc. Why? Failure to do these things rightly results in not loving your neighbor, your employees, and felllow workers. Surely we can see this.

It is not about directly applying the laws in a one-to-one ratio to our times. It is about reading the “spirit” of the law behind it. But, all law functions this way. Why do we have speed limits? Seat belts? Air bags? Safety. Loss of life….loss of neighbors….

It is here, too, that biblical economic concerns results in a more or less free market, competition idea that has been teased out of the general equity. Moses did not have a “socialist” paradigm. It had a “blessings and cursings” design that saw God as the ultimate sovereign, judging from the top (kings) down (the people). If the king did well, the people, on a national level, would do well. The “individual” (which is a new concept, by the way, in the development of human sociology) would be successful because of his own “self government” – God is his God – he honored the king, and lovingly ruled his family with grace and in all that he did, whether field or factory, would prosper. The prosperity of the people (corporate) in general is focus of many OT passages. It does not mean every individual prospers financially – but that the people in genral, as a whole, were prosperous. Those individuals who WERE prosperous financially were given the charge to look over and help the poor, the orphaned, the widow, the elderly, the mentally handicapped, etc. Here, we see, “charitable giving”. The government does not do this. The people of God do.

When we see, then, the visible church (the whole), and ask from a corporate level, if she has been prosperous – has she built anything on earth – has she collected wealth – then we can answer with an affirmative. Has she secured peace at times in history? Yes. Wealth? Yes. Has she built institutions that have helped the poor, the hungry, the orphaned? Yes. Has she changed the fabric – the deep fabric – of culturalisms? Certainly. It is here, too, that we should step back and not focus on the individual of various expressions of Christianity (Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Protestantism), but see the larger picture (Christendom) and its influence. It is the individual for the sake of the individual that sees himself as a being alone concerned of by God that works to dissolve this larger concern – and that is a mistake. “I” am not just on my own. “I” am a “member”. The corporate defines the individual. “We” are defined by the One – Jesus Christ. “We are the many” and He is the “One.” Too often, “we” break from the larger Christianity with the need to focus on “our own” interpretation – and so create another denomination, which, if you look at them, are there usually because of one or few men or women and their own ideas. Those ideas catch on to others, and before you know it, you have a new denomination that has “more truth” than the others. This may be the case. We cannot rule it out. However, we must always have an eye on the larger picture. As you can see….this can get quite involved theoretically….but, I am just rambling….
Ken Singleton

Hi Sam,

Amen, to all you have just said, I couldn’t agree more. My concern in raising the issue of the Law is the fear of it being despised and rejected by preterism because of Paul’s declaration that it is a ministry of death (2 Co 3:7). However, if we dump the Law we lose all this:

[7] The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple;
[8] the precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
[9] the fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the LORD are true,
and righteous altogether.
[10] More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey
and drippings of the honeycomb.
[11] Moreover, by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.
(Psalm 19:7-11 ESV)

So ramble on brother. We need to hear the good of the Law, and how we can implement it in our lives, families, societies and nations. Not as some external imposition with the threat of punishment if we don’t obey it but as people who understand its intent and purpose as delivered to us from our Holy and Loving God. When we come to love the Law and understand how perfect are it’s precepts, we will discover that God has written it in our heart.

Regards, Ken
Samuelmfrost

Ken,

Right. Psalm 19 cannot be brought into conflict with Paul’s view of the ministry of the death. It is “the death” of Adam that he has in focus here, and in II Cor. 3 his theology is no different from Romans 5. The Law administered the role of highlighting the death of Adam (sin death) – exposing the weakness of the flesh in Adam. The Law is “holy, righteous and good.” We don’t nullify the Law, “we uphold it.” We acknowledge its God given task – it brings us to Christ, and Christ, in turn, shows us the Perfect Law. Obedience to the Law is now the avenue of liberty for the sons of God. The blessings that come through the Law can now be fully realized for those in Christ Jesus. There is no “law versus gospel” in Paul. There is “law under condemnation” and “law under grace” – It is not even “grace versus the law” because it was God’s grace IN SPITE of the Law’s condemnation that brought us to Christ. There can be no “grace” if there is no “law”. How else could we even understand grace? It is grace that enables us to grow in the righteousness of the law – Paul said, “it is the grace of God that teaches us to say no to ungodliness.” As a Hebrew, one would ask, “what is the ungodliness I should leave?” Paul would say, “read the Law! It will tell you.”

We have to distinguish between the Law’s role in the old covenant, and the Law’s role in the new. The Law has been “fulfilled” – not obliterated. It now stands in relationship to God and His people as Fulfilled. What this means is that it can now be carried out by God’s people without ever bringing us into a relationship of condemnation. The Law can no longer “condemn” God’s people. This is the “grace” aspect brought about through the work of Christ. We, in Christ, “fulfill the righteous requirements of the Law” (Romans 8.3). What this means is that the works of the Law – and all that it stood for – is continually applied to us. Allow me to demonstrate.

The Law commanded circumcision. We are circumcised in Christ.
The Law commanded a Temple. We have and are a Temple.
The Law commanded a High Priest. We have one.
The Law commanded a peculiar people; a nation. We are one.
The Law commanded a sacrifice for sins. We have one.
The Law commanded the Feasts and observances: We do. We keep Passover, Sabbath and the Feasts in Christ.
The Law commanded that when we sin, we seek to rectify this through a sacrificial system. We have one.
The Law commanded worship. We do.
The Law also commands not to steal, kill, commit adultery, and the like. We seek to obey these various moral stipulations as much as we are able to apply the general equity of their spiritual value and intent – and when we break any commandments, we have the forgiveness of sins (grace) through our High Priest and His Atonement – the one time event of Christ that is continually applied to His People.

In short, we walk, talk, and eat and sleep Law because it has been transformed from the “letter” to the “new way of the Spirit” (spiritual understanding of the intent of the Law). Whereas sins under the old covenant “filled up measure” and were “counted against” God’s people, they are now not counted against us. But, let’s look at that. If we say, “they are not counted against us” we are not saying that we no longer “sin”. We certainly do sin according to the Law. It is the SINS that are no longer counted against us. They are STILL SINS – they are just not “counted against us” any longer. See the difference? And, as sins, they still have consequences (punishment) in the land of the living – and God still carries out these punishments to whatever degree He has always carried them out. God has always operated on grace, even over the condemned – to bring those condemned in Adam to the resurrection of Christ and set them free from Adam’s guilt – those whom he has foreknown. His People. He was not bringing a people “under law” to a new covenant “where there is no law”! Far from it. He was bringing his people who were condemned under the law, and those condemned under Adam’s law breaking (Jews and Gentiles, respectively) to a life of godliness in which they could work out what the Law says without having their sins counted against them – without condemnation to the point of separation. God will no longer cast away His People – ever.

See, we have to understand God’s People “according to the flesh” and God’s people “according to the Spirit” – or, Israel within Israel, respectively. Those whom God cast away were, in accordance with the old covenant regulations, marked as His people. They carried the mark of circumcision and performed the ceremonial letter. When they sinned, they went through the proper ritual. Yet, they were not part of “the elect.” Those whom God foreknew. Those whom God foreknew ALSO did the same outer works of the Law. What was the difference? It was not the outside observances….they both did the same things there. It was the INSIDE-HIDDEN difference (Romans 2, to use Paul’s words). They, too, awaited the hope of redemption – and they and they alone recieved it through Christ. They were rewarded for their faithfulness. The others may have said, “Lord, Lord….” But they had only the outer works. This is what drives Paul, after reviewing the Scriptures, to issue forth his phrase: we are saved by grace through faith. It can be no other way.

The Law, in many of its aspects, still functions “externally.” I mean, if we live a life of stealing, we will be caught and punished. But, if you are one of his, this outer punishment may destroy your flesh, but your spirit will be saved (I Cor 5). And, methinks, if you are his, then you have “thou shalt not steal” written in your heart (conscience), and you know what you are doing is wrong – and when the cops catch you, something in you will say, “well, I knew my Father would bring this about…..Praise be to the Lord….you are Just in your dealings with me.” The spiritual life is a dovetail between our life “above” and here “below” – what the Hebrews called “the land of the living.” They are not separated so that we can live one way (in heaven) and another (on earth). They dovetail, with the heavenly having pre-eminence in all things, above and below. We seek to live, then, our lives “on earth” to mirror our justification “in heaven” – and this not only includes seeking to live a life of godliness, but also excercising the fruits of Spirit with those failures that we, and others, will produce. Godliness takes time. I often fail. And others do as well. My response: patience, kindness, gentleness. “you who are spiritual should carry the burden of one in sin.” It’s still sin. It has to be called what it is. But, there can be a judgmental attitude about it, or a spiritual attitude about it. But, the “it” is still what it is: sin. This keeps us humble, because at any time we be lifted up in the areas we have conquered – God can swiftly and quickly remind us of the Gospel: by grace YOU were saved….It is that grace which has taught you to say no to this particular ungodliness…..so how do you act towards another caught in a sin…..with grace?

This would even include those aspects where a brother’s sin may include jail time, or even worse, the death penalty. We do not say, “well, he’s forgiven of murder, so let’s let him go.” That’s where God’s Law checks grace being used for a license for sin. See, if this were the case, we could no longer argue for punishment for ANY crime. All crime is sin, but not all sins are crimes. And the Law makes this clear distinction, and so should we. There are some sins that we can simply forgive and bring counsel to for healing and up-building. There are other sins that demand a heavier punishment – even death. The Law makes this clear.

See, what happens is that grace comes to be used as a license for sin, and in some cases, where punishment for sins are continually lifted, we are, at that point, sinning – using grace for sin. This, I suppose, I would call “liberalism”. Liberalism runs an argument that seeks to obsfucate the distinctions I have outlined above. “We are all sinners. So don’t judge.” They will say, “have you never sinned? then how can you condemn this murderer who has turned his life over to God?” Well. I don’t condemn him from the standpoint that I am not God, and may see him in heaven if God has forgiven him. And, I will show him grace from that aspect based on his confession of Christ and the like. However, if we were to lift his punishment for sins, and Christ has taken away all our punishments for sins….then we should build a system that has NO PUNISHMENT WHATSOEVER FOR ANY SIN.” See, Liberalism equivocates “sin” in the land of the living, and sin “no longer counted against us.” It equivocates “the condemnation” that separates us from God, and condemnation a judge may hand down because of what you did – which may take away some liberties in the land of the living, but cannot possibly rob you of what you have in Christ “above.” Liberalism cannot make these distinctions and constantly blur the two distinctions.

Take politics. Social Democrates will preach Christ. Roosevelt preached the dawning of a millennium through his social policies to help the poor. He motives are good. Many Democrates have good, Christian motives. But, their argument, at bottom, is the Liberalism above. Yes, we should help the poor. Yes, we must feed the hungry and take care of the environment, and check monopolies. Sure. HOW do we go about doing this, or seeing these things done? There is the “philosophical difference”. “Let him who steals, no longer steal, but work, and offer his wages….” Liberalism says, “let him who steals not be judged for stealing, becuse we are all sinners, so let us subsidize his stealing, allow him to get education through tax dollars so that he will learn to steal no more.” See, we would say, “if he continues to steal, he needs punishment.” The Liberal says, “no, he needs subsidization and education.” See the difference? We both want him to stop stealing……but the one lessens stealing as a “crime”. It’s no longer a “sin.” It’s a “social maladjustment that needs education” usually at the expense of those who never steal.

Well……didn’t mean to write a book…..
Kerry

The Law does get a bad rap. I have often thought about how much healthier we as a society would be if we ate according to the diet God gave. Would we need so much of these other diets and medications for our sustenance? Just a thought. And to honor our parents, or being faithful to our spouse by not committing adultery, what could so bad about obeying laws like that? It seems common sense that doing these things show we love each other.

I also hardly ever hear about the “new commandment” Christ gave, after all He is the final Lawgiver an supersedes Moses. You know, it is interesting to me that in the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah are there, and after God says to “hear” His Son, Moses and Elijah fade away. Symbolic?
Samuelmfrost

Oh, and don’t get me started on “Prisons” – I will just say this…..did the Law direct the government to build and finance what we call the Prison System today? Did it have any picture at all of hundreds of thousands of men and women locked up in cages for mutiple years or even “life”? Liberalism claims to be “fair”. Is this what it means? Under the Law, the same crimes were committed as they are today……but the Law had no “prison system” (the Egyptians did – Joseph was in one – Paul was on one, too – Rome had them). So, where did this come from? And, does it work? My answer, in short, is absolutely not….it’s a miserable failure of an institution and is draining on hard earned dollars from American citizens who never spent a day in jail……
Kerry

Go brotha’ go!!! Preach it..
Kerry

Sam,

Do these passages seem to show ongoing fulfillment?

Psalm 2:6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

And also;
Isiah 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be SATISFIED: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Samuelmfrost

This view is much in accords with the ultimate mission of Israel: the dominion of God expressed through His King and His People over all the heavens, the earth and under the earth. This where Paul could infer from Genesis and other several passages that speak of this ultimate mission (which Israel failed, but that we do see with Solomon, where there “was peace from all their enemies and the people were happy.”) – Paul could infer that the inheritance of the saints was “the world” (Romans 4 something). Abraham saw “the east, west, south and north, as far as the eye can see”. He was to inherit the world. The original intent in Adam was that peace would continue and he would spread the Edenic Garden over all the earth, ruling and reigning with God. That was compromised. God re-issues this Abraham, and Israel was given the task to bring it about on earth. This was compromised because of “the weakness of the flesh.” Israel did “not give salvation to the earth, but only wind. We have not given birth to the people of the world.” Isaiah laments this because it was a mission that had failed on Israel’s part (weakness). When we turn to the King, Jesus, shall we not infer that the ultimate mission will not be carried out fully and entirely? That all of this was just to bring about a “spiritual” change that would not manifest on earth the dominion given to Man – to rule and reign with God on earth and in heaven? Even as full Preterist I did not endorse such a view. It has simply come into sharper focus over the last few months.
Kerry

Romans 4:13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Isiah 26:18 We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth; neither have the inhabitants of the world fallen.

There ya go..
Anonymous

Ken and Sam,

Ken, you ask:

“If Love is the Law, then was not Adam given that law? If the Law and the Prophets’ law was Love, would that not be the same law that was given to Adam? If Love was the Law in Christ, would that not be the same law given to Adam?”

The commandment (Law?) given to Adam was a commandment, not the love itself. The obedience to that commandment was the manifestation of love. Adam was to obey God; he failed. Christ was to obey God; He succeeded. Adam failed at fulfilling the commandment (Law?) to love; Christ succeeded.

Adam did not receive the Decalogue in the garden “spiritually” encompassed in the 1 command, as espoused by Covenant Theologian’s and Covenant Creationist’s. You (Ken) and I agree on this. Nor did Adam receive the Decalogue AND the 100′s of other stipulations revealed within the Torah. No matter how hard I tried, and I did try at one point and time in my life, I just could not ever reconcile that kind of thinking with the Scriptures. It is not there.

Let me try and state what my position is and this might clear up some confusion. I do not think that we are bound to follow the Decalogue. I believe that this Covenant was specific to the Israelites under the fading covenant that passed at 70AD. This Law covenant was a disciplinarian until Christ. It is at this point that many have sought to brand me an antinomian. That is the furthest thing from the truth.

In the Sermon on the Mount, in my opinion, Christ began to reveal something far greater and more penetrating than the written code on tablets of stone. Christ began to reveal the fulfilling of Jeremiah 31, i.e. that the law (not the Decalogue, but the greater, more surpassing law of love) would be written on the hearts and minds of God’s children. This greater and more surpassing law of love demanded even more than the written code did. Yet God required that this love be fulfilled in His children. It was the love that was required of Adam. Christ fulfilled this requirement of perfect love for us, as we could not. So, in all reality I am a supernomian, not an antinomian. I do believe that God’s law is good, righteous, perfect, and timeless. But the law that we follow is not summed up in 10 rules given to Israelites under an Old Covenant. The law that we follow is far greater and all encompassing. It covers every situation, especially the 10 written out.

I’m certain that I’ve left something out. I’m very tired. I have to pack for a trip in 1.5 days, drive to San Antonio tomorrow to be with a friend who just lost his grandfather, stay the night for work, and then drive back Tuesday to pick up a rent car and head out to Colorado. So, I’m packing, washing clothes, dealing with a frantic family, etc. :)

I’m thankful to both of you for the dialog though. I hope what I said made sense.

Dustin…
Kerry

Just thought I would close out my day with this vision from Revelation 5:9-13:

9and they sing a new song, saying, `Worthy art thou to take the scroll, and to open the seals of it, because thou wast slain, and didst redeem us to God in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation,
10and didst make us to our God kings and priests, and we shall reign upon the earth.’
11And I saw, and I heard the voice of many messengers round the throne, and the living creatures, and the elders — and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands –
12saying with a great voice, `Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive the power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing!’
13and every creature that is in the heaven, and in the earth, and under the earth, and the things that are upon the sea, and the all things in them, heard I saying, `To Him who is sitting upon the throne, and to the Lamb, [is] the blessing, and the honour, and the glory, and the might — to the ages of the ages!’ (YLT)
Ken Singleton

Sam,

I just wanted to thank you for what, I think, is a masterful presentation of how the OC law of Torah, transitions into the NC Law written on our hearts. Awesome stuff!

Regards, Ken
Samuelmfrost

Kerry,

Amen. A great passage. I believe it is all encompassing. “to redeem” there speaks not only of those redeemed at that time, but all the redeemed. God is still applying that redemption according to His Purpose “unto to the ages of the age”. We, too, are “the redeemed”…called out according to His Purpose which He purposed in Christ “not only in this age, but in the ages to come…..” Note, also, the future tense, “and they WILL reign on the EARTH….” They were already empowered to reign with him at his right hand, but the full title of Psalm 110 (sit at my right hand) came in AD 70. The Hebrews author saw this. “..we do not yet see all things subjected to us….but we see Jesus….” “It is not to angels that he has subjected the WORLD to come…” Jesus reigned in the “transition” period at His ascension – this was a specific (interim) reign that brought all things in heaven and on earth under his power, the last enemy being “the death”. This reign, in turn, manifests itself in time and space “in the ages to come” with His people. What IS in heaven is to be ON earth. Revelation states this perfectly. It’s like our President. “Change is coming.” With a NEW administration, new ideas and laws and directions are enacted and this takes times for them to have their effect (which is a part of that cause). Heck, we are still dealing with the “change” Roosevelt brought. But, this is just one country…imagine a New President over all the nations and the new policies He HAS enacted. IT takes time for their effects to work through (leaven) the whole lump. But, I know this: according to the Scriptures, they WILL, not maybe, not possibly, but WILL work through the WHOLE lump….heaven and earth….above, below and under.
Samuelmfrost

Ken,

You are welcome any time to post. This has been our longest thread (thanks Larry!). It has also been one of our most read. It’s been most rewarding.
Samuelmfrost

Dustin,

I’ll give you a call today. I ran to Daytona this weekend from Tampa with 12 others. It was a 24 hour run…..yikes.

Ummmm, from what you are saying, I sort of see it. I would say, in my spin, that the “fuller” aspect of the law is not a supercessation of Moses’ Law, but a “fulfilling” of it. In this way, we have continuity and discontinuity of the same Law. “Love your neighbor” is found in Moses. “Circumcision of the heart” is found in Deuteronomy. This is what the Law always had behind it. External versus internal. Jesus drives at the “heart” not because the Law didn’t, but BECAUSE THE LAW DID, TOO. It has been shown that Jesus’ “ye have heard it said….but I say unto ye….” pattern is not, as commonly thought, a dispargement against Moses. It is not “ye have heard Moses say, but I say to you…” but, rather, “ye have heard it said by the rabbis, by the traditions, by the interpretations….but the SCRIPTURES, the WORD, I say unto you….” Jesus was fulfilling the Law’s purpose and expounding upon the Law. The Law commanded, “thou shalt not commit adultery.” But from where does adultery begin? The heart. “I have commited to myself that I would not look lustfully upon any woman” (Job something: something). The Law was meant to penetrate the heart (circumcision of the heart, Moses said). But, it didn’t….it COULDN’T….because of the weakness of the flesh. The difference then and now is that the Law is “written on the heart” (Jer. 31.31). It’s original intent and purpose is now “fulfilled”. God’s people, in Christ, are justified by the works of the Law because the all the works of the Law are “fulfilled for those in Christ Jesus.” Justification “by faith” is believing that He has justified us apart from OUR works, and BECAUSE of His WORK, and applying the fullness of those works TO us by faith. We are, then, RIGHTEOUS in His sight. Righteous according to His Law.

There is a strong tradition that reads Romans 2 “written in their hearts” as applying to natural law written into the heart of Adam, and all men, regardless of their allegience to Christ. I myself held to that. Increasingly, though, by seeing this as an “echoe” of Jeremiah in Romans 2, Paul is not referring to Gentiles in general, but to CHRISTIAN GENTILES in particular. He is pointing out to the Jew that these Gentiles are expressing the NEW COVENANT. They are “circumcised in the heart” (Romans 2). They have the “hidden Jewishness” as opposed to the “in the open Jew”. The “hidden Jew” and the “open Jew” is the difference between the new covenant Jew and the old covenant Jew. This is my understanding (one may consult N.T. Wright’s commentary on Romans from the New Interpreters Bible series for a fuller textual explanation on the grammar of “by nature” and its place in the sentence).

It is the LAW that is written in the heart. What LAW? What other LAW was there, for Paul? Now, this is not to do away with man’s intrinsic moral sensibility. I root that in the fact that he is the image of God, regardless of whether he is “saved” or not. One may argue that “written in the heart”, which, for Paul is equivolent to “circumcision of the heart”, has a imago Dei aspect to it that is “natural.” (I deny, also, that Romans 1 is waxing eloquent on some natural theology as well – see my commentary). Man definately has a moral intrinsic nature to him a “sense” of good and evil, right and wrong – a knowledge of good and evil. But, to say he had God’s Law as given to Moses intrinsically written in his heart is to deny that Moses laments that it WAS NOT written in his heart! One may, I suppose, argue for a “natural written-ness” and a “super natural written-ness” in man’s heart. One being the image of God, the other, the work of the Spirit (new covenant). But, we must be sensitive to Paul’s Hebrew world and the OT Scriptures from which he developed his theology. We must be careful not to read into Paul’s very specific language a tradition of our own heritage that is simply not there.
Ken Singleton

Sam,

I really appreciate the invite to post on your site. I was afraid that I might be a bit of a gate crasher, having come late to the party. So thank you.

However, I am aware that there are now two “Ken’s” posting, and that Dustin may, due to his tiredness and the obvious pressure he is under at the moment, have inadvertently confused the two of us. So just for the record, I am Ken Singleton, and I am not the “Ken P” who posted this:

“If Love is the Law, then was not Adam given that law? If the Law and the Prophets’ law was Love, would that not be the same law that was given to Adam? If Love was the Law in Christ, would that not be the same law given to Adam?”

I hope that clarifies matters.

Sam, I fully agree with what you have written to Dustin above, and this statement:

“God’s people, in Christ, are justified by the works of the Law because the all the works of the Law are “fulfilled for those in Christ Jesus.”,

is liberty creating for me. For some reason I had never equated “Christ’s righteousness being credited to me” as me “being justified by the works of the Law” but now that you have pointed it out it is so obvious and clears up many confusions I still had in regard to the Law and how we as Christians fulfil it even though we still sin.

I hope others are being as blessed as I am as a result of the work being done on this site.

God bless you, Sam

Regards, Ken
Kerry

Sam,

148 comments, that has to be some kind of record. I don’t know, but you might have to create another article just to keep from scrolling down so far to comment :) It just took me about 5 minutes to get to here. That of course is a little exaggeration.
Anonymous

To whomever I have been in dialog with, :)

I read, reread, and reread Sam’s post on the Law. I still think that the cart may be being put before the horse, but it truly could just be that I am misunderstanding or do not have a good grasp on the subject.

Short and sweet – I think that love was first, *an* (not necessarily *the*) expression of love was made manifest in the written code, i.e. Decalogue. The commandment in the garden was not the Decalogue; it was to love. We are not bound to an adherence to the Mosaic Covenant Decalogue Law. We are bound only to love. Does that manifest itself in the 10 rules sometimes? Sure! But the 10 rules do not cover every situation we encounter. Love, however, does.

Sam, I called and got your voice mail. I left a message. I will be driving to Colorado this evening so I will be available.

Blessings,

Dustin…
Ugotlj

Hello Friends,
Thank you all for creating such an interesting discussion; I can no longer resist the urge to post my thoughts on some of what was mentioned in this forum.
With regard to the postmillennialism espoused recently, these very ideals were also held by those that chanted “crucify” one Passover a few thousand years ago. And when given the option to release the postmillennial-like Barabbas or the gentle Jesus, they opted for Barabbas; they wanted an insurrection for themselves rather than a crucifixion. Nevertheless, Jesus said that in order to gain life you must lose it and that to follow him a cross will be required; no time signatures can be found to limit this realization to pre 70AD. The same earthly euphoric expectation which led those political minded theologians to error is at work in the present postmillennialism.
As for the Isaiah 2 passage that seems to back these notions, may I make use of the passage in 1 Timothy 2:4:
1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Most in the reformed camp would agree that the “all men” here is defining the kind of men or manner of men (even kings and authority). Likewise, in Isaiah 2 it may sound as though planetary salvation is meant here but it is more consistent with the rest of the canon to take the approach that all nationalities will “stream to it.” This goes right along with Paul’s breakdown of the seed of Abraham explanation on faith and also that those faithful converts will no longer fight since the very expression of their faith is love (Christians should be peacemakers).
1This is what Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:
2In the last days the mountain of the LORD’s temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. 3Many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. 5Come, O house of Jacob, let us walk in the light of the LORD.
As for where 70AD leaves us for today, we have a fully established, everlasting covenant and each believer has the joy of realizing the accomplished work of Christ. 70AD broke our bonds to the Egyptian refugees and began the church of Jesus Christ and we simply follow the pattern established by Christ and the apostles. In other words we all get to live out our personal eschatology or bask in finding ourselves in the completed state.
Concerning the Kingdom of God, Barak Obama or the Prime Minister of England have nothing to do with it. When Jesus was before Pilate he said that his kingdom was not of this world or his servants would have fought the Jews that handed him over. Many like to clue into the word “now” later used in that passage to hinge the notion of fighting for Jesus later. However, Jesus did not teach any ninja skills or pass down the ability of jedi masteries to John, who wrote much about love being the way (non-resistant love at that). I surely wish there were some competitive advantage to being a Christian on the planet but Christ and the apostles left us a pattern of suffering.
Moreover, nothing is mentioned about how to politically tackle governments and administer the law as is held to be the view of postmillers. Certainly preaching the gospel is for taking people out of the worldly system and transferring them into the kingdom of Christ. Talk about Obama makes me think of my days when I was trying to help build a temple in modern day Palestine (I was a Zionist once). This recent line of thinking is just a scoot away from demanding that patch of dirt as Promised Land. Or we stay with Abraham as having all the earth as inheritance and no boundary or nationality that sets us apart, only our loving faith.
In short, if you asked a Hindu what the future holds, he/she would just shrug and tell you that things will continue to be as they are; there are spiritual realities to dive into and learn about. For them there is the opportunity to discover the mysteries of the spiritual state and that there is the opportunity to be something better in their next life. There is nothing more to be accomplished now after 70AD and the ongoing state of things are in effect, including our own personal lives, physical decay, and judgments.
- Kerry
  
  Interesting.
Samuelmfrost

Well, I think I’ll just pack it in, be content that me and Jesus know each other, and basically, be concerned for just me and mine…….
- Kerry
  
  Sam,
  I wish there was something I could do. I’m sure I added to the craziness. If i did, you can let me have it. I hope you take heart in knowing how much you have helped, even if it has just been over the internet. Seriously, I hope you are not going to pack it in. But if you do, you have done allot of good work, and I wish you the best.
- Ugotlj
  
  Hello Sam,
  
  With regard to packing it in and being content, this sounds biblical in some respects (Godliness and contentment…) but detrimental to hear you say that in others. In light of the poor state of the Lord’s church today and the confusion that propels many Christian brethren to try and build a JEWISH TEMPLE in the Middle East for example, what can be more necessary than to preach the kingdom of God correctly? Nevertheless, I hear your dissatisfaction in your note and I have had enough voice to voice communications with you to know your sarcasm.
  As for knowing Jesus and being concerned for number 1, the ability to have loving concern for others should be a result of the knowing Jesus part and there are enough hurting people that require the love of Christ to come from His church. I’ll go out on a limb to say that if the church was loving as prescribed and that if your personal experience with the church were richer, you would be more content. At this point, I am encouraged to pour myself out for the advancement and nurturing of God’s church rather than be concerned for the affairs of the world. It has always been the case that God sovereignly rules over the powers on the earth. He has always set up kings and rulers as he sees fit. Subduing the political landscape is over now that the 4 kingdoms of Daniel are out of the way. The people of God ceased to be held by political powers when he destroyed the harlot and we came out of the Egyptian refugees. The true Israel is without boundaries now. Our inheritance is the earth not some strip of land somewhere. I lay no claim to America (even though I did serve in my dispy years). The Lord is the inheritance and we have the church.
  Now if I am wrong and the world becomes Disney Land, then I am happy as a pig and will recant gleefully. Nevertheless, there is great harm in cutting off ears and fighting for Jesus instead of loving people with the love of Christ. Our place is to pay taxes but to live as strangers on the earth politically. Leave the vote to the heathen and find your place among the holy nation of God; she needs us.
  
  With loving respect,
  
  Brandon Littlejohn
Samuelmfrost

Kerry,

Nah, that was just my reaction to the post above…..I will never pack it in…..I live in the age to come!
Samuelmfrost

Kerry,

Nah, that was just my reaction to the post above…..I will never pack it in…..I live in the age to come!
Ken Singleton

Ugotlj,

You say: “With regard to the postmillennialism espoused recently, these very ideals were also held by those that chanted “crucify” one Passover a few thousand years ago. And when given the option to release the postmillennial-like Barabbas or the gentle Jesus, they opted for Barabbas;”

Come now, be reasonable! You cannot seriously believe that the extension of the Kingdom of God on earth by faithful Christians, as has been put forth on this thread, is the same as the belief system held by the Jews that murdered Jesus!
If you do believe that then please present your evidence to support such a charge.

You say: “70AD broke our bonds to the Egyptian refugees and began the church of Jesus Christ and we simply follow the pattern established by Christ and the apostles. In other words we all get to live out our personal eschatology or bask in finding ourselves in the completed state. ”

I always thought that the “pattern established by Christ and the apostles” was this: “ GO therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU.” (Mt 28:19). Even the passage from Isaiah that you quote says: “The law WILL GO OUT from Zion, the word of the Lord FROM Jerusalem.” Was this really all to end at AD70? Did the nations “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks” at AD70? Has this, “Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore”, happened yet? Personally I think the world is on its way to fulfilling this prophecy. Can you imagine there being a furore over a soldier getting killed in war 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or further back? In which countries is this objection to war already being expressed? Only those that have been kneaded with the yeast of Christ. So when Christianity spreads over all the world and “makes disciples of ALL nations” will there not be a good chance that war will end, that there will be peace on earth? That idea seems reasonable to me, as well as Biblical. Surely AD70 was not just the END of something, was it not also the BEGINNING of something new? Was not the purpose for which the “new nation” in Christ was created to fulfil the promise made to Abraham that “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”? Is this not what we see BEGINNING in Rev 21&22?

Regards, Ken
- Ugotlj
  
  Hello Ken,
  
  Thank you for your response and request for clarification; I am always happy to assist.
  
  With regard to the insurrectionist or zealots that killed Jesus, I am not aligning Sam with these folks. However, in so far as reconstructionists expect Disney Land on the planet as a result of the efforts of the elect, there exists similarities. The people wanted freedom from Rome and did not care about freedom from sin or peace with God. This is maligned since the only time God offers health and wealth to a people on the planet is to the Egyptian refugees, provided they keep the law. This however, is what reconstructionists try to make of our new covenant (if we follow the law of Moses we will have Disney Land). This deal is no longer on the table.
  
  Also, notice how the Mosaic covenant does not mention everlasting life but that if the people would obey the 10 that they would party like a rock star for as long as they live. However, if they did not abide, other nations would tread on them. So their bondage to the 4 kingdoms of Daniel was a result of the curse for not following the 10. Nevertheless, once the law covenant passes away (Moses was not eternal but Abraham was) the true church would be free from that nationality and what Rome had in its grip was the harlot ex-wife of God. This is our freedom politically as the church if we ever had one. We no longer have boundary lines over in Palestine (I’m not a Zionist).
  
  As for the Isaiah 2 passage, this also was fulfilled at 70AD since this is when we became a nation made up of many nationalities. Only in Christ can we have peace regardless of national identity. Notice that the passage gives reference for where all this will take place: Zion, Jerusalem, descendants of Jacob, mountain of the Lord, etc. This is Abrahamic since he is the father of many nations. While I previously served in the military, I learned that in Christ I should not partake in the affairs of the world and have renounced my military exploits. I personally found military service to be inconsistent with being a Christian.
  
  However Ken, the real point of contention exists in whether or not there is still a two kingdom reality; what is the nature of Christ’s kingdom. The prophecies that speak of political overtake by the messiah, have to do with the 4 kingdoms of Daniel’s prophesy that were placed over Israel. Read Daniel 2 and 7 again and tell me if you think that Russia needs to be conquered by Christ today. I reread these passages just recently to check myself with all that has been going on lately and I cannot see any room for reconstructionism.
  
  Thanks again and please follow up if you have additional questions or concerns.
  
  Have a great day!
  
  Brandon Littlejohn
http://bradfieldfamily.posterous.com Jason Bradfield

Brandon, let’s cut to the chase….

A man breaks into my house while i’m at work and kills my wife and kids. He’s caught. What do we do with him?
- Ugotlj
  
  Hello Jason,
  
  Always great to hear from you.
  
  The government bears not the sword in vain to punish the evil doer. Also, acknowledge the stuff about leaving room for God’s vengeance. These two seem to have overlapping jobs. Who’s job is it or is it both and? Nevertheless, not the job of the church.
Ken Singleton

Hi Brandon,

Just two points in response to your post:
1) I am not a Reconstructionist, so you may be better off directing most of what you said to Gary North et. al.
2) Russia, as all nations, need the “healing” that comes from the leaves of the Tree of Life (Rev 22:1f).

Regards, Ken
- Ugotlj
  
  Thank you for the clarification, Ken. Do you feel that I addressed your questions?
  
  Concerning Russia, I would almost agree with number 2 but would say that the Russian elect need leaves but Russia is just fine.
  
  Thanks again.
  
  Brandon Littlejohn
Samuelmfrost

Brandon,

You said, not the job of the church. But, no one is arguing that. So, is what you are saying is that no christian should be a police officer, a marine, or a judge? that christians should withdraw from these public offices? Second, do you believe in self defense? Biblical Law distinguishes between public and private matters. In private matters, try to live a life of peace. But, slap an officer in the cheek….should he turn the other? The Bible recognizes different offices and different functions within those offices. And, you, apparently agree with this by alluding to Romans 13.

Romans 13 is not an absolute statement about how Christians are to react to government coercion. As a Preterist, we should ask, what government is he talking about? Rome. And, who was Rome? The fourth beast of Daniel. They were given the authority over the Whore, to manifest “the wrath of God”. It would be, then, in that context, foolish to “resist” Rome with violence since it was the Word of God that spoke of their role and task in biblical prophecy. Dietrich Bonhoeffer got this point in that he rightly resisted Hitler and was hung as being a co-conspirator for Hitler’s assassination. I would have gladly signed up with a group that plotted to kill Hitler. It was under this principle as well to throw off the yoke of King George – give me liberty, or give me death……
Ugotlj

Hello Sam,

Thank you for allowing me to clarify.

In futurism there exists a dichotomy of worldly kingdoms and the kingdom of our Lord. However, in preterism, many forsake this separation and blend Russia, USA, and the United Kingdom into the kingdom of Christ. If I understand your postmillennial leanings, you are still expecting a realization of global Christianization where modern day nations become confessing Christians submissive to the Law of Moses. Am I correct on this? This being the case, Christians should take part in the global political landscape and enter the earthly human race (get competitive as another gang) against the other contenders in the mix.

However, there are hints in the scripture that tips us off to the nature of this other kingdom that requires rebirth, eating and drinking Christ’ body, resurrection from Adamic death, and yet a death to self. It’s highest virtue is love and all the others will cease but this loving characteristic carries on. Faith is the only requirement and is also expressed in love. And according to the time signatures alone this kingdom came to the earth at 70AD and nobody saw the Roman emporer at the time bow down to a physical (holes in the hands) Jesus. I still hold to a spiritual kingdom of Christ that we have now been included into but that also includes all the saints on the other side (where ever that is). This spiritual dimension is separated from the kingdoms of the world that God continues to govern as he always has.

This root issue is a dividing point on this preterism debate as some believe we should be partying like a rock star because the kingdom of God has come and the time has long past where the saints of the most high took possession of the kingdom. So if the Kingdom is earthly, then I am full of disappointment because I have the ugliest car in the parking lot at work. However, if we have in full now what the apostles were tasting in the “already not yet” then we should be embracing the cross gladly from the power we receive from our fellowship with Christ.

Overall, I have not lost my Mennonite – nonresistant leanings like you have kept your postmillennial ideas.

Thanks again Sam and sorry I did not address your questions; I just felt like we should get to the bottom of where this is coming from first and go over the details later.

In Christ,

Brandon Littlejohn
Pingback: Mike Sullivan's Rant - Reign of Christ Ministries
http://thereignofchrist.com Sam

Where are the comments on this?

Share with your friends!