The Continuing Incarnation of Christ

June 20, 2012 by Samuel Frost

11 Comments 11 Comments

We have noted and documented the explicit denial of what theology refers to as the “continuing incarnation” of Christ. That is, that “the man, Christ Jesus” still retains the body of his incarnation, glorified, residing “in heaven”. The denial is held by those who call themselves, “Full Preterists”. Now, to be fair, not all FP hold to this view. There are some who teach that we will “get” a new body upon our death. Edward Stevens represents this view, and he understands that Jesus still retains his individual human body. Needless to say, this wrecks the FP scheme as Jason Bradfield has pointed out here. However, there are those who attempt to mutilate the plain meaning of I John 4:2, which we have documented as well (see here).

There is another verse, however, which plainly teaches that Christ continues to dwell in the body of his incarnation, Colossians2:9, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (NIV). Seems straight forward. The Greek tense for “dwells” is Present Active. Andrew Lincoln notes the comparison to 1:19, “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him.” There is no mistake here. 2:9, then, is an addition of a present tense (“dwells”) and the adverb, “bodily” (somatikos).Quite plainly, “…the totality of diety is embodied in Christ.” Finally, Lincoln notes, “What is more, there is no dualism between the God of the higher world and the body viewed as some prisonhouse of the soul in the lower world. The apostolic gospel holds together the two concepts the philosophy deemed incompatible, because all the fullness of the diety not only dwells in Christ but dwells in him bodily – that is it dwells in one who became incarnate in a body of flesh (1:22)” (Andrew Lincoln, “Colossians”, New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume XI, Abingdon Press, 2000, p.623).

We can site other commentaries on this point, but Lincoln has summed up our issues. The denial of the continuing incarnation supports a Greek concept of “dualism.” We also note that the FP has and does use the phrase, “prison house of the soul” for the body. Creation (physical matter) is not to be redeemed, and even Jesus sloughed off his body, we are told, upon his Ascension. Of course, there are no specific verses that teach this, but it is an implication of the FP heresy (one that leads right to another).

Considerable confusion has arisen in FP circles. Namely, why does the Christian still sin? Alan Bondar, a FP pastor and teacher, has answered: “The righteous are freed from sin when our biological bodies die and we go to heaven” (Reading the Bible through New Covenant Eyes, 189). I was recently sent a book from Michael Miano, another FP. This is what he wrote in a email dialogue with Alan Bondar:

“Mike: A low view of the body- Gnostics felt all flesh was evil and Greeks “body is the prison of the soul” (Plato). Didn’t early Christianity and even Paul dispute that?”

“Alan: Yes. Full Preterists do not believe that the body is the prison of the soul. Ironically, it’s the futurist position that ends up with the Gnostic view. If you think about it, futurists maintain that the biological body is still evil, and that’s why it has to die. So, in futurism, the soul is righteous but the body is evil. That’s the whole spirit is good and matter is evil heresy of Gnosticism. Either way you spin it, that’s what futurism teaches” (Michael Miano, Freaked Out by the New Covenant, 2011, 138).

This is an example of spin. Question: do these men believe in the resurrection of our biological bodies? No. Did the Gnostics? No. Why? Because matter was not ever what God was after in terms of redemption, and plays no real part in redemption. What you indefeasibly end up with is Greek dualism, no matter how you spin it. The sheer fact that we believe, and the early church turned the world upside down with such an idea, that the body will be glorified and stamped with resurrected power utterly denies that the body is a prison house. However, leaving the body to rot in the dust utterly affirms it. In one breath, Bondar can say that we are “freed from sin when our biological bodies die and we go to heaven” (freed?), and then say, “oh, no, we don’t say this at all.” Absolutely amazing.

Some have tried to use Calvin’s remark that we are “imprisoned in the body” (Institutes 3.25.1). True. However, the chapter is on resurrection of the body, and is explicitly aimed against Plato (3.25.2)! Calvin, then, is not arguing the Platonic concept at all. Rather, the groaning and longing of our present existence is due to the fact that we have already been set free in Christ Jesus, yet we have not ”attained to complete fruition” in terms of “things seen”. We are obtaining and shall obtain, for the keys of freedom have already been given to us. The complete realization is the resurrection of our very bodies, of which we see that Jesus, the Incarnate Lord in heaven, has already obtained in reality, and by our union with him, we are promised the same attainment. The longing is produced not because we are wishing to escape creation for “heaven” (Dualism). Our longing is to see the uniting of creation and heaven: heaven on earth. How Bondar, Miano and others attempt to spin this into “Gnosticism” and “matter is evil” is beyond my comprehension. Their view leads inescapably (and admittedly) to the fact that we are “set free from sin” when we die. I could have sworn we were set free from sin when we believed and the gifts of the meritorious works of Christ were imputed to our account. For the true Gnostics, though, we are not set free until we die. Creation will never be redeemed. Matter is never allowed to enter heaven. Heaven is a higher place of existence, apart from matter and all the difficulties living in a material world brings. In short: Full Preterism is an escapist religion.

PaulT

Sam,

Nice article! I would add that Bondar has misrepresented the orthodox view on the body. Christians believe the body is good as created, after all God said it was good. The issue is in the fall sin entered the picture corrupting the body which is therefore in need of redemption. To put it bluntly, Bondar doesn’t comprehend the Biblical view of man, sin and God’s plan of redemption.
sam

It really is an amazing amount of revisionism.
Sharon Nichols

Great paper Sam! I agree about Colossians2:9. It is a very important verse in this discussion.
Alan Bondar

I can see how easy it is to deduce from the comment in my book that I’m arguing for sin in the biological body (i.e. matter is evil). So good catch on that. That wasn’t what I was intending to communicate though. My point was not that sin is contained in the matter, but that sin is removed when we can no longer express it through the body in which we now live.

So I do not mean that the body is evil while the soul is righteous. I mean that when we move to heaven, temptation and sin are removed. This has nothing to do with the biological body save that the only way to move to heaven is through the death of the biological body.

I would suggest to you that we have identical views on this. You believe we sin now. Why? You believe we won’t sin after we die and go to heaven. Why? I propose to you that the only difference between our views in this particular discussion is that you’re still anticipating a new biological body (material) that has to be redeemed and glorified so that we…not sure here (do you believe that the biological body has to be redeemed because sin is in the matter?)…whereas I simply do not look for that. I stop at eternal life apart from a biological body since I find that doctrine nowhere taught in Scripture. The biological body doesn’t die because of sin. It dies because it’s matter.

Both of us believe that after death, we live in a state apart from our biological bodies in the presence of God. I believe that’s the final state. You believe we need something more – a glorified body to enjoy that presence fully.

But hey, thanks for pointing out an apparent contradiction. It gave me a chance to explain. No more contradiction.

And for the record, in Christ all the fullness of the Deity does indeed live in bodily form. Thank God for that, or the body of Christ would be hopeless.

Finally, PaulT, I’m not sure how you can conclude that the reason for the corruption was a result of the fall since Paul teaches that the body was sown in corruption when man became a living being (1 Cor. 15:42-49). The fall had nothing to do with corruption. In fact, the fall was a result of corruption. But hey, we need a glorified biological body so the problem that has to be fixed must be the biological death that came from the fall. We can’t find it anywhere else so…let’s put it there.
- PaulT
  
  Alan,
  
  You ask, “I’m not sure how you can conclude that the reason for the corruption was a result of the fall “. Here is a hint, Paul explains, “the body is dead because of sin” (Ro 8:10) Alan why did Paul say the body is dead? Did you see the term “sin” in the text? Here is another hint, Paul also explains, “just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Ro 5:12) I’m not sure how you could read that and not conclude corruption to the body was as a result of the fall. But hey, those who don’t want to deal with the Scriptural mandate as to the ramifications of sin have been denying God’s truth from the start. Perhaps you’ve heard of the second century Gnostic Valentinus. If you haven’t, you should, because you would like how he redefined the terms within Scripture. You know you aren’t the first one to come up with the idea, right?
  
  “So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven”. (1 Cor 15:42=29)
  
  I’m not sure how you arrive at, “Paul teaches that the body was sown in corruption when man became a living being” out of that passage The text you reference is dealing with the denial of the resurrection of the dead and is directly responding to heretics who were asking, “”How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 1 Cor 15:35 Alan, what kind of bodies do you think they were asking about? Do you think it might have been “biological” bodies? When the ancients thought of dead people do you think they had any inkling about the dead “biological” body? Anyway, Paul’s answer after telling them they are “fools” for asking such a dumb question, that is, if they believe in the God of Scripture, is don’t they know, God brings to life that which looks dead. (1 Cor. 15:38) Alan, do you think it impossible for God to bring back to life a dead body?
  
  Paul explains when the body dies, it is sown in corruption when it is raised it is immortal, imperishable not subject to corruption, think Easter here Alan. The fact is, this is what the text to which you allude is discussing. Paul, for those who haven’t figured it out yet reiterates it here, “…the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.” (1 Cor 15:52,53)
  
  Here is something for you to think about, if as you say, “the body was sown in corruption when man became a living being”, how is it Adam is described as a “living being” in the text to which you allude, but it is through Christ, according to Paul, “a life-giving spirit” came? Alan the text just contradicted your claim, which isn’t all that surprising. After all you are reading your pretext into the text rather than performing the required exegesis of the passage.
  
  As to your comment, “The fall had nothing to do with corruption.” Any thoughts as to why in the curse which resulted from the fall God explained, “for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen 3:19) Do you think God chose to explain that to Adam just to throw us all off of track? Gee that’s got to be it, God was just fooling.
  
  Spare us the gratuitous, “we need a glorified biological body so the problem that has to be fixed must be the biological death that came from the fall. We can’t find it anywhere else so…let’s put it there.”
  Just do me a favor and tell us all where it is taught in Scripture “His” body is really “our” body, because according to Paul the hope in which Christians are saved is the redemption of “our” body. You know, “…we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for…, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved.” Alan, how is it the Spirit bore witness with Paul’s spirit that the hope in which he was saved was the redemption of his body, yet you deny that very hope?
  
  Do me a favor, consider my last question rhetorical, that is unless you can find the text which teaches “His” body is really “our” body, which I don’t think you will given He died for “His” body.
http://www.historicalpreterism.com Ken Palmer

Hi Alan,

Blessings to you. I think where you may be erring is in your analogy of what is being sown. Paul is discussing the resurrection of the dead (this is what is being redefined in full preterism – not the first to have done so either). We, in the body, are sown, as a seed, into the ground, in corruption. Our bodies are corrupt when we die. We are raised, incorruptible in the resurrection of the dead. It isn’t about the body of Adam as an ethereal/spiritual entity being sown or raised, as PaulT explained. This is just unsupported and piecemealed. There is a direct connection between Christ’s rising from the dead and His elect (after they had died), and it wasn’t what Paul was arguing against in his letters, or the body of Adam being raised.

I think many complicate this general fear or concern that everyone was having in antiquity (and now of course) is what happened after we die. What about the afterlife? Paul comforted them and told them what awaited.
He then pointed to Christ. “Remember Him, He was raised from the dead. So will you too.”

I hope all is well and God bless you.
Alan Bondar

Paul,
1. I didn’t say death wasn’t a result of sin. I said corruption wasn’t a result of the fall.
2. The fools didn’t ask about bodies (pl). They asked about body (sg). And no, I don’t think it’s impossible for God to bring back to life a dead body. That’s an unnecessary question which has nothing to do with the discussion.
3. Strange that if Paul’s argument is that dead bodies which rise no longer face corruption that every other person that rose from the dead biologically eventually died, even after the resurrection of Christ. That’s not Paul’s argument.
4. This discussion will end up going nowhere because you only see biological bodies in the word “soma.” That won’t work for me. Obviously, from your paradigm, what I’m suggesting makes no sense. I get that. I think you’re paradigm is wrong.
5. Again, the discussion on the garden regarding just about anything will go nowhere. You see material creation. I see covenant creation. Our world-views are so different that no matter what I explain, it will never fit your paradigm.
6. Paul never said that his hope was in the redemption of his own biological body. You see “soma” and automatically read “bodies” (pl). The passage you quoted from in Romans 8 does not speak of the redemption of bodies (pl). It speaks of the redemption of our body (sg). This is the same body Paul is teaching about in 1 Corinthians 15. But again, you see biological bodies. I see corporate body. Totally different paradigms.

As long as you’re a futurist, every other issue we find need to debate about will be pointless. The real issue is that you allow nature to dictate time. For me, time dictates nature. It’s as simple as that. We will disagree about many things until you recognize that all things were fulfilled during the times of vengeance (Luke 21).
- Paul Gates
  
  Alan,
  
  Please see my remarks in answer to your follow-up,
  
  “Paul,
  1. I didn’t say death wasn’t a result of sin. I said corruption wasn’t a result of the fall.”
  
  So corruption doesn’t lead to death. Are you serious? Nice dodge. However, you may want to look up the definition of the word “corruption” in a Bible dictionary. “Corruption – decay of the body, (Acts 2:27, 31) and degradation of human life through the power of sin (2 Pet 2:14).” (Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary) Wanna try again with your response? Or is your fall back position some bogus claim that the dictionary was biased because it was written by “futurists”?
  
  “2. The fools didn’t ask about bodies (pl). They asked about body (sg). And no, I don’t think it’s impossible for God to bring back to life a dead body. That’s an unnecessary question which has nothing to do with the discussion.”
  
  Again, are you serious? I mean how many bodies do you think a dead person has? I’m not sure why you think the question is unnecessary. Paul asked those who claimed to be believers in Corinth that doubted the resurrection of the body, as in “biological” body, the very same question.
  
  “3. Strange that if Paul’s argument is that dead bodies which rise no longer face corruption that every other person that rose from the dead biologically eventually died, even after the resurrection of Christ. That’s not Paul’s argument.”
  
  I’m not sure why you think it “strange”. Don’t you realize Christ Jesus was the “firstfruits” of the resurrection of the dead? I mean that is what Paul said, “Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ” (1 Cor 15:23) Perhaps you didn’t realize those who understood what resurrection meant looked forward to a better resurrection, (Heb 11:35), one like the resurrection of Christ Jesus wherein the mortal body is transformed into an immortal body, which is why it is called a “better” resurrection. Fairly simple logic, if you catch my drift.
  
  “4. This discussion will end up going nowhere because you only see biological bodies in the word “soma.” That won’t work for me. Obviously, from your paradigm, what I’m suggesting makes no sense. I get that. I think you’re paradigm is wrong.”
  
  Too bad your paradigm isn’t supported by Scripture. However, you are right, this conversation likely won’t go anywhere because I abide by the definition of the term as it is found in context. I don’t override the original author’s intention by employing my pretext. So because you clearly don’t abide by those simple grammatical rules the conversation likely will not go anywhere. I mean every time you bring up something not supported by the text I will point that out and you as is the case with this response will simply ignore that fact.
  
  However, you are wrong about one thing. What you are suggesting makes perfect sense. The natural man does not understand the things of God, (1 Cor 2:15) That is, for those who take a very low view of Scripture, overriding the Word of God written based on what they believe is possible have been offering redefinitions and reinterpretations almost from the beginning as evidenced by those who questioned Paul in 1 Cor 15. Thus I’m not surprised by your paradigm. The Bible has an explanation for it.
  
  “5. Again, the discussion on the garden regarding just about anything will go nowhere. You see material creation. I see covenant creation. Our world-views are so different that no matter what I explain, it will never fit your paradigm.”
  
  Right, I see all of God’s creation as His handiwork and His message one of redemption of that handiwork. That is, after all what the plain reading of the text requires.
  
  “6. Paul never said that his hope was in the redemption of his own biological body. You see “soma” and automatically read “bodies” (pl). The passage you quoted from in Romans 8 does not speak of the redemption of bodies (pl). It speaks of the redemption of our body (sg). This is the same body Paul is teaching about in 1 Corinthians 15. But again, you see biological bodies. I see corporate body. Totally different paradigms.”
  
  Really, and how do you deduce included in the statement “our” body was not Paul’s very own body? Alan, you are demonstrating your ignorance with the ancient language. Have you ever heard of the Semitic preference for a distributive singular? If not look up 1 Cor 6:19 you will find the same grammatical form applied, “do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you”. Do you seriously think Paul was NOT addressing the body of each individual believer in the Corinthian congregation? If you doubt that he was dealing with the individual bodies of each believer don’t leave the immediate context just toddle on back up to v.15 where he asks, “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” So much for your superficial argument regarding the plural form of the word, it is time to provide a refund to all those who bought your book that were misinformed.
  
  Alan, what you “see” isn’t taught in Scripture. What you “see” is being brought to the text. This is why you can’t find ONE verse that states “His” body is really “our” body. The corporate body of Christ, i.e. the Church is “His” body, not “our” body. As I pointed out there is a reason for that. He bought His body for a price.
  
  Alan concludes,
  
  “As long as you’re a futurist, every other issue we find need to debate about will be pointless. The real issue is that you allow nature to dictate time. For me, time dictates nature. It’s as simple as that. We will disagree about many things until you recognize that all things were fulfilled during the times of vengeance (Luke 21).”
  
  LOL, I allow “nature” to dictate “time” whereas Alan allows what he believes possible to override the clear dictates of Scripture. Clearly Alan didn’t think through his position, at least I hope not, his answers here and those we dealt with just above weren’t very well thought out.
  
  BTW Folks, did you see Alan reconcile his clear contradiction we brought forward? You know the one with the passage in 1 Cor 15:42-49 wherein he claimed the resurrected man was a living being, yet the text states Adam was the living being. That is a sure sign of false teaching when what they claim turns out to be at odds with the Scripture they quote. The issue here is that Alan has allowed his tradition to override the clear meaning of the text. Thus Alan can’t explain why the text doesn’t support his premise.
  
  Also, Alan didn’t provide much of an answer as to why God included within the curse associated with the fall the statement, “for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” In fact he didn’t’ provide any answer. I guess my problem is, I just don’t understand the enlightenment associated with denying God’s propositional truth claims.
  
  I would have thought a “published” author would have been more prepared to deal with what Scripture actually has to say on the issue. I mean claiming, “hey, first before you can understand what I’m claiming you have to accept my paradigm” is a very weak response. In my worldview, it is Scritpure that dictates the paradigm vs. the other way around.
sam

Alan, first off, thank you for coming on here. You and I go a ways back, and during my years as a FP, you housed me many of nights and I enjoyed my company with you and Gail Ann. Even on my business trips, you gave me a place to stay, and for that I am thankful. I also know that you credit me somewhat on your understanding of I Cor 15. We both shared the same “coporate body” view of that passage and King’s Cross and the Parousia. I have no animosity or regret knowing you and hope to see you again some day!

As for our differing “paradigms”, well, you know mine has changed. To say the least! There are few things that I want to point out, and hopefully you will oblige me and we can talk about this here some more. I will keep the “rhetoric” down.

Yes, from what you wrote in the book, it was a deduction that could have easily been made, and hence, in your admitting that, were willing to come here and clarify it. That’s always a plus. And, yes, sinning will not be an issue upon our death’s, for then we shall be “present with the Lord” (absent from the body). But, it is precisely here where the agreement ends. For your paradigm, that’s it. Heaven is the goal and always has been the goal. And, it is precisely here that, I believe, the Scriptures roundly contradict such a view. Abraham was promised to inherit “the world” (Romans 4:13), and not just heaven. When he looked, he didn’t just see the stars and all that was in them, but he also saw God’s creation and all that was in it. All of this was promised to him, hence Paul made the deduction he does in Romans 4:13. He wasn’t just promised the land of Canaan, nor just heaven. He was promised heaven on earth. He would be the vehicle through which the blessings of all nations/families would come. Through his loins the Son would come and deliver the Promise, undoing all of the results brought through the Fall. The “seed” of the woman progressed through the “seed” of Abraham and finally to the “seed” of Mary, daughter of Abraham. Jesus, the man, the Seed (in both body and by Spirit, uniting the two) would be given all power to restore the ideal Man (Psalm 8) and place all things under man’s feet in answer to the Promise. In order to do so, He would take away from one nation (old covenant Israel) and give to another (New Covenant Israel) so that “they will produce fruit”. This “fruit” is the bringing about of the restoration task Israel “according to the flesh” failed to bring about, and it starts with the drawing in of all those “taught of the LORD” (John 6, quoting Isaiah 54:13), and he shall raise them up “in the last day”.

That’s my paradigm, just so you know where I am coming from. One telling thing that you wrote is troubling, exegetically speaking, and it was not something I caught when I wrote and lectured as a FP. You wrote, “Paul teaches that the body was sown in corruption when man became a living being (1 Cor. 15:42-49).” This is not true. The verse Paul quotes is Genesis 2:7, which Gaffin pointed out what now is quite obvious: Genesis 2:7 was written BEFORE Adam fell! Thus, what you would have to say is that God made Adam in his image, as CORRUPT. Adam, the “son of God” (Luke 3:33), was made CORRUPT. We cannot find any text, any verse that would suggest such a thing. What would this say about the Last Adam? Was he made unto corruption as well? No. Adam was made without corruption, created with glory and honor (Psalm 8), having all things placed under his feet (Psalm 8), made a little lower than ‘elohim’ (however one argues to translate that word). The resurrection is a reversal of corruption, a reversal of shame to glory, from mortality to immortality. The Fall (Paul’s reason to quote Gen 2:7 – to show contrast) produced corruption, shame, without glory, dishonor and mortality. It produced that from which we are to be raised.

Secondly, the question (“in what body?”) is found in Paul’s quote: Genesis 2:7, where “the body” was created according to the Gen text. THAT body is to be raised “from the dust” as God originally made it “from the dust” and shall raise it again “from the dust”. That’s Paul’s point. It’s that simple.

On this paradigm, we can account for sin, not as something “out there” in terms of the world that entices us, and hence, when we are “in heaven” we are no longer enticed. Sin works “in” our hearts from which it springs. It doesn’t come from the outside, but from the outside drawing on and enticing that which is on the inside. I am appealing to your Reformed heritage here. And, if there is such an enticement, something is still wrong. Still not fixed. This, of course, brings us to progressive sanctification.

I am being all to painfully brief here, and hope that what I am saying will continue to allow us to dialogue. I finally want to conclude with the idea of the meaning of death. Comprehensive death. Adam’s death involved three aspects: separation (estrangement, exile themes), physical, and finally, sheolic. Jesus encountered each of these. Separation (why have you forsaken me?), physical (he gave up the ghost), and sheolic (he descended to the grave or lower parts). And, he was removed from each of these aspects. He was restored, as a man, from his estrangement through his obedience to the Father “even unto death”. He was restored physically by being not able “to die again” (Romans 6), and he was delivered from hades/sheol. Thus, he conquered and swallowed up death as a man in all of death’s aspects. The same is to be done to us by Him. We are no longer estranged. We shall not see sheol/hades. What about the physical? Is that one left undone? Are we not to share in ALL of the swallowing up effects of death? Are we not to stand as Man, made from the dust, united to creation, without sin? Are we not ever to stand upon creation, as creatures, without sin, as did the Man, Christ Jesus? This appears to be a half-hearted victory if there is nothing less than this! I leave you with my thoughts.

Take care,

Sam
Alan Bondar

Hi Sam,
I do love you brother. I hope we can see each other again. BTW – Great drumming on your youtube vids. I was like “WHAAAAAA????!!!!” Nice.

Anyway, you are very aware from your past life in full preterism that these discussions don’t go anywhere. Both sides will bang their head against the wall wondering why the other person can’t see “the obvious.”

I’ll be trying to convince you that my orange is indeed orange and you’ll be trying to convince me that it’s not because your apple is red. When we’re both holding oranges again, we can discuss what kind of seed is contained in the orange. You’ve held the orange before, but all you can argue from anymore is an apple.

Since you almost know where I’m coming from and almost understand my paradigm (I say almost because of covenant creation), you know that the real crux of the issue is the timing of fulfillment. In a sense, in thinking about it further, time dictates nature for both parties. If you believe the end of all things is still in our future, then the nature of fulfillment looks a lot different than if you believe the end of all things was near in the first century. I believe the end of all things was near in the first century.

The other issue that you and I are at odds with is the nature of creation. But that becomes moot if you don’t believe the end occurred in the first century. We will go in circles and spend countless hours rehashing conversations that have taken place a hundred times over already – conversations that you’ve had when you were a full preterist (which by the way, was truly your best work. Absolutely incredible).

I’m just not interested in being sucked into that right now. My time is very limited. If someone wants to pay my salary for year, I’d be glad to debate whatever you want just for fun. But I know how this works. Many, many hours will go by and we will have accomplished nothing positive.

My reason for coming on here was just to explain what I meant with my lack of clarity in the quote from my book. I’m glad you pointed that out. It made me realize how much more clear I have to be to make sure my intention is communicated.

I also know that my understanding of things has changed over time. That’s just the way things work. So I know for certain that if you wanted to point out contradictions, all you’d have to do is thread my sermons together over the last three years. If that’s what you all want to take the time to do, go for it. I’m guess I’m not worried about that too much. It’s bound to happen. Shifting from futurism to preterism changes many things that one cannot possibly figure out overnight. So yes, there are many things I wrote about in my book that I despise now. But I know God better because of it. My views will continue to sharpen as they hone in on a better understanding of the Scriptures.

I appreciate the short conversation gentlemen, but this is about it for me. I may pop on from time to time, but not to get into a semantic battle. I know all the things that will get thrown around now about me: “He couldn’t defend his position,” etc. So be it. From my perspective, at least we’re both holding fruit. Sam, if you want to call me and talk, that I’ll do. You and I are close enough that we can enjoy a little banter on the phone. I wish that you would.

Because of His grace,
Alan
Sam

I will merely point out that when it does come to the historic Faith and Full Preterism, we are talking about apples and oranges…….

Share with your friends!