Jump to content
IGNORED

PRETERISM THE NEW FRONTIER


Larry H

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  119
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/17/2018
  • Status:  Offline

Part 3 picked up from Previous Post, soon the negative from Ed Steven who will challenge this view. Both parties don't believe in a restoration of the animal kingdom. The word all in verses indicating such have their limitation. As many other verses in the bible using the same wording. Acts 3:21 compare Matthew 21:26 But if we say, 'From men,' we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet." 

7. Let me say again: since Biblical eschatology was focused on the restoration of what was lost in
Adam, and the reality that what was lost in Adam was the fellowship between man on earth and
God in heaven,
I suggest that there was no need for the removal of man from earth for that
fellowship to be restored. After all, if fellowship between man on earth and God in heaven was the
goal of Biblical eschatology, then why would God have to remove man from earth - even one
generation of men - to restore that fellowship between man on earth and God in heaven?8. Paul affirmed that the eternal purpose of God was the reconciliation of heaven and earth:

“Having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will.” (Ephesians 1:9-11).

9. Thus, for Paul, the re-unification of heaven and earth, in Christ, was God’s eternal purpose. The
physical removal of that first generation of believers from the earth would run counter to that goal
of eschatology. How would the removal of the first generation of the reconciled, signal the
accomplishment of God’s purpose of reuniting heaven and earth? Their removal would not indicate
that restoration at all.

10. I ask Ed to explain for us, carefully and exegetically, what was the need for God to remove that one single generation of believers, in order to restore what was lost in Adam - i.e. fellowship between heaven and earth?

11. Ed says that part of the Adamic Curse was physical death. He admits that Adam died “spiritually” - by being separated from God - the very twenty four hour day that he sinned. However, he did not die physically that day because God killed the animals as a substitutionary sacrifice. The animal sacrifice forestalled Adam’s physical death for 900 years.

11-b - This issue has a direct bearing on the resurrection and the rapture. (When I say things like, “Ed believes...” I am referencing his answers to a series of written questions that I submitted to him in preparation for this debate).

12. Ed believes that due to the substitutionary animal sacrifice, Adam’s physical death was delayed for 900 years. He says that because of the substitutionary death of Christ, we do not die the day we sin- but we do die later. This raises severe problems.

13. What does “substitutionary” mean? It means “in the place of, instead of.” When the Passover lamb was slain, it died “in the place of, instead of” the firstborn in the houses where the blood was applied. The firstborn did not die due to the substitutionary Passover sacrifice.

14. If Jesus’ physical death was substitutionary, - and it was - then those in the power of that death
should never die physically - period. If only the first generation of saints were the object of Jesus’
promise to never die, as Ed suggests, (Response to my question #22) then, that demands that
only
the first generation of saints were recipients of Jesus’ promise to never die. Yet, Ed says that
Christ’s substitutionary death does apply to us today, even though we will die for our own sins.

If those in Christ do not die physically, then certain things would be necessary, if the ultimate goal / home of the saints is heaven (which Ed believes):

14-A. If Christ’s physical death was substitutionary, and those in him never die, then those in him
already possess the gift of eternal life, incorruptibility, and do not have to die physically to inherit
eternal life.

Feel Free to respond

Edited by Larry H
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  119
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/17/2018
  • Status:  Offline

This is Part 4 off previous postings in a debate between two full preterist concerning the Rapture. If parts 1-3 were not read, I recommend reading them before evaluating this one.

Both parties in the debate do not expect  a future Rapture or return of Christ, since they believe it is history.

Part 4

14-B. If heaven is the ultimate home of the saints then an on-going rapture of believers and thus,
recipients of the promise of never dying, would be necessary to take them to their ultimate home

in heaven. In other words, the rapture would not be, as Ed posits, a one time, for all time event. It
would be an on-going, unending reality, since Ed does not believe in an end of time. That is
patently not a reality.

 

14-C. If the death of Christ was substitutionary - as Ed believes - then no saint since the first century should have died physically- “If a man keep my saying, he shall never die.” We should
have 2000 year old saints among us. If not, why not? Incredibly, Ed makes Jesus’ promise of “never dying” applicable exclusively to that first century generation of believers - not to us today!
That essentially means that the Gospel of John - at the least - with all of the promises of eternal life, not dying, etc., has no application to us today! To sustain his position, Ed must prove
definitively that Jesus’ promise: “Those who believe in me shall never die” - applied exclusively to the first century saints who were ruptured and has no application to us today. Ed’s claim that
Jesus’ promise applied exclusively to the first century generation is a frightening prospect!

 

15. I agree that the death of Christ was substitutionary, but, it was not his physical death that served as the substitute. Jesus was alienated from the Father spiritually as he hung on the Cross: “My
God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” His (necessary) physical death, shedding his blood for forgiveness, was the visible proof of the greater spiritual realities taking place. But, his physical
death was not the substitutionary death or else the difficulties delineated here present themselves.

16. Ed realizes there is a conundrum in the substitutionary death of Christ. So, he offered this:

 

“You are probably wondering: “So why do we still die physically if Jesus died physically in ourplace on the Cross?”.... “We are supposed to die “on the very same day we sin,” just like Adam.
But Adam did not die physically “on that very day” simply because the lamb died physically in his place. And we do not die physically “on the very day we sin” simply because Jesus died
physically in our place. So physical death (“on the day we sin”) is still a part of the consequences (wages) of sin, along with spiritual condemnation and eternal separation. And the only reason we
are not struck dead “on the very day we sin” (just like Adam would have been if the lamb had not died in his place) is because Jesus died physically in our place “once for all” (1Pet 3:18; Gal 3:13;
Eph 2:16-18; Col 1:21-22).”

 

17. So, Ed says that the reason Adam did not die the very day he sinned (as he was supposed to) was due to the substitutionary death of the animals. The animal sacrifice delayed that death for 900 years. Ed says that we do not die the very day that we sin because of Christ’s substitutionary death. Yet, he knows that we will all die physically. This raises several questions.

 

17-A. Why doesn’t the death of Christ delay our physical death at least as long as the animal sacrifice delayed Adam’s physical death? Why doesn’t the death of Christ delay our physical death for even one single day? Christians die at every stage of our lives - just like non-Christians. Why doesn’t the substitutionary death of Christ at least delay our physical death longer than the death of the reprobate sinners? The truth is that it should totally prevent it!

17-B. If the substitutionary death of the animals forestalled the physical death of Adam for 900 years, why did it not delay his spiritual alienation (death) from God on the very day he sinned? If the animal sacrifice could prevent him from dying physically for 900 years, why didn’t it postpone his expulsion from the Garden for even one day?

In similar fashion, man is alienated from God (he dies spiritually) the day he sins (Cf. Colossians 1:20f / 2:12-13). Yet, in Ed’s paradigm, the death of Christ does not extend our physical life by
even one day. It is undeniable that the substitutionary death of Christ does not delay our death for even a fraction of how long the animal sacrifice delayed the death of Adam. Why? And, Christians
do not live any longer - at all - than the most reprobate of sinners. Once again, the physical death of Christians is not forestalled by even one moment longer than the death of sinners.

 

17-C. Why doesn’t the substitutionary death of Christ totally prevent our physical death - “If a  man keep my saying, he shall never die”? For Ed to say that we do not die immediately because
of the substitutionary death of Christ is patently false. The question is: why do we die at all?

 

Which raises another related question.

18. Since Christians do not die immediately when they sin, as a result of the substitutionary death of Christ, why is it that non-Christians, who hate Christ, do not die the very day that they sin the first time? They are not under the power of the blood of Christ, are they? So, what is keeping them from dying immediately upon sinning? Is the blood of Jesus being applied to the unbeliever in the same manner as it is to the Christian? This is hugely problematic for Ed’s view.

 

19. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). The “law of sin and death” says that, “You sin, you die.” This was the law of the Garden. Adam sinned, he died spiritually the day he sinned. Ed says he should have died physically that day, but, God provided a substitutionary sacrifice that postponed his physical death.

 

20. Paul says that the Christian is no longer subject to the law of sin and death (Romans 8:1-2). Living in Christ, where his Atoning blood continually washes us (1 John 1:7) means that we have eternal life (1 John 5:11-13). It means that we shall never die. Amazingly, Ed says Christians are not subject to the law of sin and death. This is patently false if the law of sin and death meant, “If you sin, you die physically.” This is logically irrefutable.

Feel Free to Respond

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  119
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/17/2018
  • Status:  Offline

Greeting    Thought I would take a break  from the debate, and add this for now in  its place. Will pick up on it in the next post.     Thanks

 Charles Meek

Skeptic Bertrand Russell made an accusation similar to the one by C.S. Lewis in the attached visual. Russell was one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century and the Nobel Prize winner for literature in 1950. He published a pamphlet entitled “Why I Am Not a Christian.” In the pamphlet he explained that one of the reasons he rejected Christianity was that Jesus failed to return as He promised. Russell wrote:

"The Nobel Prize in Literature 1950 was awarded to Earl (Bertrand Arthur William) Russell "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."

"Jesus certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. . . and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living [examples: Mt. 10:23; 16:27-28; 24:34; 26:64]."

Consider this attack by the group Jews for Judaism:

"No amount of Christian theological acrobatics will ever solve the problems engendered by the historical reality that a promised imminent fulfillment made two thousand years ago did not occur as expected by the New Testament. Simply stated, Jesus is never coming back, not then, not now, not ever."

Was Jesus a false prophet? If so, Jesus was not divine and Christianity collapses. Christians have been weak to answer these charges. But there are answers. The preterist view of eschatology successfully answers these charges, showing that JESUS WAS RIGHT—AND THE SKEPTICS ARE WRONG.

Capitalization Mine 

300111245_csLewis.jpg.12e3ee452cdc4a7cbe848d7e9f6e8c2b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  119
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/17/2018
  • Status:  Offline

This is a continuation from previous posts in this thread.

The battle rages on between two well known Full Preterist, this is the first Negative in response to Don Preston's opening affirmative. The question in view is..... was the Rapture  a literal taking up  from the earth as the tribulationist believe, however taking place in the first century.    Or does it mean as Don Preston posted .... "So, my position is that at the coming of the Lord in AD 70 the fellowship that was forfeited (lost) through the sin and the death of Adam (and Eve) was restored. Heaven and earth were reunited in fellowship. It is my contention that since it was fellowship between man on earth and God in heaven that was lost, that there was no need whatsoever for any of the saints (living in AD

Preston-Stevens Rapture Debate

                          Stevens First Negative - March 6, 2019

MY PRAYER: Blessing and Honor, Glory and Praise be unto You, Oh Lord Most High! We exalt your Holy Name. We pray that this debate will bring glory and honor to You, and exalt your Truth above all of our feeble opinions. Please help us to express our differing views in such
a way that Your Truth becomes clearly manifested to every truth-seeker who reads it. We pray this in the Name of Your Glorious Son, our God-Man in heaven, whose physical death on the Cross was our substitute sacrifice. May His Holy Name be blessed forever. Amen.

Abbreviations:

CBV = Collective (Corporate) Body View (Max King’s resurrection view) IBV = Individual Body View (preterist resurrection view)
DoA = Death of Adam

WSMHA = We Shall Meet Him in the Air, by Don K. Preston

OPENING STATEMEnTS:

I consider it a privilege and an honor to participate in this formal written debate with Don K. Preston. His reputation as a highly-skilled debater is well-known and well-deserved. And I greatly appreciate Don’s affirmation that he and I “are both full preterists,” especially since some of his CBV associates have called me a partial preterist. Don is right about that!

            When Don and I collaborated to debate two Amillennialists in New York City (April 6, 2002), it was fascinating to watch as Don overwhelmed our opponents with negative arguments. Even when Don was allegedly on the affirmative, he was still dumping boatloads of negatives on those guys. I almost felt sorry for them. His strategy then, as it is here also, is to put his opponent on the defensive as quickly as possible, and then keep him there for the duration of the debate. Don does not like to be on the defensive, and neither do I. Skilled debaters minimize the exposure of their view so that their opponents cannot easily see it, analyze it, and challenge it.

That may be why Don’s proposition statement seems so generic and bland. He alludes to the resurrection/rapture event in such nebulous terms (“restoration of fellowship”) that even a futurist could agree with it, except for its AD 70 timing. Thus, his proposition does not give me very much to negate.

However, Don is supposed to be on the affirmative, laying out his position clearly and comprehensively, and then defending it. Instead, the details and implications of his view remain mostly unstated and unclear, with much of his time spent trying to negate my view before I have even affirmed it. But I have no obligation to deal with his negative material until it is my turn to be in the affirmative.

And since Don did not give us very much information about his “collective body” view of the resurrection, bodily change, and rapture, it means that I will need to explain some of that here before attempting to negate it. So, let us begin

To be continued

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  119
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/17/2018
  • Status:  Offline

Greetings

The eschatology of the bible is what was lost in the Garden was restored in the closing stages of salvation. Whether it be restoration of all things, or just fellowship with God.  

Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day  that you eat of it you shall surely die." 

"But Jesus said to him, "Follow Me, and let the dead bury their own dead"

"The two major views on resurrection within the Preterist movement (CBV versus IBV) part ways at the very beginning of the Bible in regard to how we each define the “death” that  God threatened and carried out against Adam “on the very day” he sinned. The CBV defines it as a spiritual-only death, while the IBV sees it as a comprehensive death, including physical, spiritual, and eternal death." Ed Stevens

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  119
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/17/2018
  • Status:  Offline

Greetings  I believe some details should be added prior to the first century rapture debate between two scholarly full preterist authors. To understand the CBV, Don Preston and IBV Ed Stevens view on the topic.

"Don labors to point out that our eschatology (last things) cannot stand unless it is built on a solid biblical protology (first things). He goes further to assert that if our first things (our views on the Death of Adam) are “wrong,” then our last things (our eschatological views) will be “misguided.” Thus, we have to prove our protology first, before constructing our eschatology. First things first!" Ed Stevens

Refreshing on a Spiritual resurrection.

"Spiritual resurrection is the process of regeneration when people believe. This is different IN NATURE from bodily resurrection. Passages that discuss spiritual resurrection include: Luke 15:32John 5:24-2511:25Romans 6:1-14238:11Ephesians 2:1-75:13Colossians 2:12-143:1-41 John 3:14. Look these passages up and you will see that people are “dead” in their sins but “made alive” by belief in Christ." Meeks

"Of course Don Preston has an “exclusive spiritual death ONLY” that has absolutely NO NEED for a physical body. This is a foundational doctrine for Don Preston in what he teaches. Don says that Adam died this exclusive spiritual death ONLY” when Adam stepped out of the garden that was in Eden (spiritual separation death at that moment.)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  119
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/17/2018
  • Status:  Offline

Greeting 

Don Preston's Position.....He does not believe in a  literal first century Rapture of the saints taken off the earth, and Ed Stevens disagree.

Taken from Don Preston's Affirmative 

1.      So, my position is that at the coming of the Lord in AD 70 the fellowship that was forfeited (lost) through the sin and the death of Adam (and Eve) was restored. Heaven and earth were reunited in fellowship. It is my contention that since it was fellowship between man on earth and God in heaven that was lost, that there was no need whatsoever for any of the saints (living in AD 70 or at any other time) to be “raptured” removed from the earth. All that was needed, all that was foretold, was that the fellowship between man on earth and God in heaven would be restored. This goes to the very definition of “parousia” the presence of Christ. 

2.      What this debate is NOT about. It is NOT about the nature of the resurrected body of Christ. It is NOT even about the nature of our body in heaven. It is about whether the saints, alive in AD 70, were removed from the earth.

I came across this verse, and I am not sure how a Rapture tribulationist would deals with it.

John 17:15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  4
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  119
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/17/2018
  • Status:  Offline

Greetings for those who want to know the preterist view of Revelation by Ken Gentry

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  5
  • Content Per Day:  0.00
  • Reputation:   2
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/08/2020
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/7/2019 at 8:28 PM, Willa said:

 

Mat 24:3  Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

Three questions are asked here with three different answers:

When will this happen?  (the destruction of the the Temple)

What will be the sign of Your Coming? 

Whit will be the sign of the end of the age?

We know when the Temple was destroyed.  But neither the signs of His coming nor of the end of the age have been fulfilled in their entirety.

The end of the Mosaic Economy was fulfilled by the incoming of the New Covenant. Heb. 8:13 That is the never ending age we are now living in, enjoy it. We stand in the presents of God through the finished work of Christ. Heaven and Earth are now united because we have peace with God Romans 5:1 So we keep our eyes fixed on the things about. 

This was the sign of Christ coming that the high priest was going to witnessed

But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 Jesus said to him, " You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see TTHE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, andCOMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."NASU Matt 26:63,64

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...