Is the Resurrection already past?

[Mellontes]

TK wrote:

What I am requesting is a reponse to the question: "If i became a convinced, sold out FP today, how would my Christian walk look different tomorrow?" If there is no reasonable answer to this question, then how can i (or why should I) have any interest in the topic at all?

I hate to say it, but I think your walk would look a lot like many others who have become convinced of it: seemingly self-righteous, superior, argumentative, obsessed with trifles, divisive. I don't think that would be an improvement for you, TK.

Golly gee whiz, Steve. Thank you so much for your seemingly self-righteous, superior, argumentative, obsessed with trifles, and divisive remark. Sheeeesh!

I really hope the light goes on for you one day, Steve! It will be very interesting to listen to your comments then. We've been where you are now. And please don't take that as an arrogant statement. It is just fact, that's all.

[StephenPatrick]

Rich,

We are miles apart in understanding.

You have used phrases such as "in some sense, hyperbole, and double fulfillment." You believe in literal songs and you see only the literal, cosmological planet and universe as being affected by the "end." You do not (or are unable) to see covenants. You believe in the fullness of the plan of salvation commencing on the last day. Yet you also believe in the salvation that happened in first century times. We agree in this, and admittedly it is confusing, but this is where the sealing of the promise comes into play. Why would it be necessary to be sealed if salvation was already complete?

Yes, there would be weeping in 70 AD and their would be rejoicing because the apostle Paul promised them relief from their persecutions. Christians were daily being killed for their faith. Remember Saul? I guess a good analogy would be birth. Imagine if your wife was pregnant and when it came time to deliver the baby, the doctor tells you it is most likely, that because of complications, neither the wife or baby will survive. You would be devastated! But a short time later, the doctor emerges and tells you your wife is perfectly okay. However, the baby is lost. You would have mixed emotions, I am sure.

Tell me, when did this planet get its name "Earth"?
How does your view of creation (inanimate objects) get redeemed. When did they sin? How do they repent? To me, this is just remnants of dispensationalism clinging on. Remember Isaiah 11:6-9? Remember Isaiah 11:10 as referring to that day? Does not the apostle Paul quote Romans 15:12 to indicate present fulfillment of Isaiah 11:10 which points back to the figurative nature of Gentile dwelling with Jew in one body?

Were you willingly subjected to Adam's sin? Or were you unwillingly subjected to it?

Ask an orthodox Jew about heaven and earth one day. Have you ever done your own study on it? I don't mean have your read someone else's study?
Do you believe the elements that would melt in 2 Peter 3 refer to atoms and such or do you accept the apostle Paul's definition (Galatians 4:3,9; Colossians 2:8,20; Hebrews 5:12). Paul's definition is about doctrine, religion, teachings and usually related to old covenant stuff. Your definition is about the planet and universe.

Tell me, how do YOU describe the process in burning up a work (2 Peter 3:10)? Should you ever have the desire to do your own study on works, you will find that in EVERY instance they are not flammable objects. It is not us who is spiritualizing the text to come out with a different meaning. Do the study of elements on your own. Strong's 4747... Do you adhere to the law of first mention? Maybe that's just a dispensational thing. But if you do, there is no way, that after learning Paul's understanding ot the stoichea (Strong's 4747), that you can take Peter's definition (who quotes Paul's letters regarding end time events) as being something entirely different.

Please knock off the futurist continued response that we spiritualize the text. This is nothing more than sarcasm. We take them as they were understood in the time frame they were presented. We are trying desparately not to use our 21st century Western idiology to interpret these things. The Bible is a book about redemption. It started off with old covenant and ends up with new covenant. You place the emphasis of this metamorphosis on the planet and the universe. I see you have decided to believe that it will be a restored creation. Kind of like it got damaged but God can fix it back to a new improved state sort of thing. But doesn't Peter say "ALL THESE THINGS will be dissolved (2 Peter 3:11)? Maybe you are the one who is spiritualizing the word "dissolved." Everything Peter says is regarding the old covenant economy!

Your argument disagreeing with Jesus that "all things written" would be fulfilled in Luke 21:22 is very weak. You simply don't accept what He said at face value. You say (or should I say you spiritualize the text) by thinking that it is just hyperbole, an exaggeration. Sorry, but my Christ does not exaggerate. You then mention Paul gives future prophecies...But what you fail to understand is that Paul preached nothing but was contained in the Old Testament. He wasn't bringing forth new things (although they appeared to be that way); he was ILLUMINATING what the OT was saying. Jesus Christ was doing the same thing in His many "discussions" with the Pharisees. This is a fallacy that you must get rid of. Why does the Apostle Paul quote the OT so many times? Think of it in those terms.

And your usage of Hymanaeus and Philetus is so over done that it is...pathetic. Yes, it is true that they believed the resurrection was past...and they even managed to convince some others of that fact. But there are 3 things you do that are in error. And I know you don't want to hear them. They are:

1) You take their PRE-parousia time frame and extend it to make it applicable to our POST-parousia time frame.
2) You fail to realize that Paul never corrected them on their NATURE of the resurrection, just the timing of it.
3) If your NATURE of the resurrection is the correct one, how could they have convinced anyone that the resurrection had occurred? The graves were still full, there was no "dissolving" ofthe planet. The universe was still intact.

PLEASE THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS VERY CAREFULLY!

The incident of Hymanaeus and Philetus is one of the best defenses of full preterism's nature of the resurrection. Yet it is constantly misapplied to us. Go figure.

Please do your own study on elements and works to see if it is concerned with planets and stuff. I think you will be unpleasantly surprised by the works that are mentioned in the NT. The only incident where works do get burned up is in 1 Corinthians 3:15 and those are NOT literal, flammable objects, are they?

1 Corinthians 3:15 - If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

As long as you continue to interpret the Bible from a 21st century Western perspective, you are going to be way off concerning covenantal matters...Sorry to be brutally honest, but that is exactly what is happening here. The word "earth" should more appropriately be translated "land." I know that you do this in many cases, but when it comes to eschatology it is mandated to be the planet. Do you really believe these saints (and especially OT saints) had a clue what the planet was called? I repeat, when did our planet get it name? Hint: All the other planets have something in common...

Put your sandals and robes on and try understanding the Bible from the time frame it was written.

Well said Mellontes!

[RICHinCHRIST]

Rich,

We are miles apart in our understanding.

I agree.

You have used phrases such as "in some sense, hyperbole, and double fulfillment." You believe in literal songs and you see only the literal, cosmological planet and universe as being affected by the "end." You do not (or are unable) to see covenants. You believe in the fullness of the plan of salvation commencing on the last day. Yet you also believe in the salvation that happened in first century times. We agree in this, and admittedly it is confusing, but this is where the sealing of the promise comes into play. Why would it be necessary to be sealed if salvation was already complete?

If you look up "salvation" in the concordance you will see what I mean. There is no way you can take your interpretation and apply it to all of the uses of salvation in the NT. It doesn't work. Salvation can refer to many things. Jesus' incarnation was spoken of as salvation by Simeon (Luke 2:30). Paul spoke of it being given to the Gentiles pre-AD 70 (Acts 28:28). There is no need for me to explain every single passage using the word salvation in the NT. Salvation was complete in Paul's mind, Christ had completed it. But, once again, there is no clear-cut passage that tells me it was completed at AD70. Jesus said it was finished on the cross.

Tell me, when did this planet get its name "Earth"?

You make a good point. I still don't see why I should not believe that the planet Earth is not being referred to in 2 Peter 3.



Peter contrasts the current earth with the earth at the time of the Flood. We young-earthers know that the Flood was worldwide (unless you're an Old-earth creationist) according to Genesis 7:20... the mountains were covered in water. I don't see why my interpretation is unreasonable even if "elements" is used differently by Paul.

How does your view of creation (inanimate objects) get redeemed. When did they sin? How do they repent? To me, this is just remnants of dispensationalism clinging on. Remember Isaiah 11:6-9? Remember Isaiah 11:10 as referring to that day? Does not the apostle Paul quote Romans 15:12 to indicate present fulfillment of Isaiah 11:10 which points back to the figurative nature of Gentile (unclean) dwelling with the Jews (clean) in one body?

I don't believe that inanimate objects are redeemed. I just believe that the whole creation will be liberated when the revealing of the sons of God occurs (Rom. 8:19). Everything will be transformed at that time, in my opinion. I'm not saying my childhood dog will get saved, I'm saying the creation (at the time God chooses) will be liberated. Everything will be free from the curse of sin.

Were you willingly subjected to Adam's sin? Or were you unwillingly subjected to it?

You make a good point. I might be wrong here, probably am actually. I still think the Earth will be transformed due to 2 Peter.

Ask an orthodox Jew about heaven and earth one day. Have you ever done your own study on it? I don't mean have your read someone else's study?

No, I've never done my own study. I've only been a Christian for 4 years. I take much more joy in studying the life of Jesus. Maybe one day I will though. I've only not been a dispensationalist for 6 months or so. I was saved into pre-trib dispensationalism being taught to me, and then I became post-trib dispensational a year and a half ago... now I'm partial preterist, and I want to be a postmillenialist so badly. I'm just an a-mil for now...

Do you believe the elements that would melt in 2 Peter 3 refer to atoms and such or do you accept the apostle Paul's definition (Galatians 4:3,9; Colossians 2:8,20; Hebrews 5:12). Paul's definition is about doctrine, religion, teachings and usually related to old covenant stuff. Your definition is about the planet and universe.

You could be right. I've never thought about that much. As stated above, I still think its referring to the planet due to 2 Pet. 3:5-7.

Tell me, how do YOU describe the process in burning up a work (2 Peter 3:10)?

Good question. It's actually works... plural. I think that could refer to everything that happens on the earth... all the evil and corruption that sin brings. The deeds of the earth have been quite evil over the eons... and they are still happening. One day they will be eliminated.

Please knock off the futurist continued response that we spiritualize the text. This is nothing more than sarcasm. We take them as they were understood in the time frame they were presented. We are trying desparately not to use our 21st century Western idiology to interpret these things. The Bible is a book about redemption. It started off with old covenant and ends up with new covenant. You place the emphasis of this metamorphosis on the planet and the universe. I see you have decided to believe that it will be a restored creation. Kind of like it got damaged but God can fix it back to a new improved state sort of thing. But doesn't Peter say "ALL THESE THINGS will be dissolved (2 Peter 3:11)? Maybe you are the one who is spiritualizing the word "dissolved." Everything Peter says is regarding the old covenant economy!

Even so, I think it can be referring to a transformed Earth... not just a restored or reformed Earth. The Flood brought about some radical changes on the planet, and it destroyed everything. I think it's possible that the fire that will consume the world will be a restorative dissolving process in which it comes out refined purer than before... yet it can still be dissolved. To be honest, I don't really care all that much. I mentioned in my previous post that it's difficult for me to determine whether it will be the same planet were on now, or if it will be a brand new place.

Your argument disagreeing with Jesus that "all things written" would be fulfilled in Luke 21:22 is very weak. You simply don't accept what He said at face value. You say (or should I say you spiritualize the text) by thinking that it is just hyperbole, an exaggeration. Sorry, but my Christ does not exaggerate. You then mention Paul gives future prophecies...But what you fail to understand is that Paul preached nothing but was contained in the Old Testament. He wasn't bringing forth new things (although they appeared to be that way); he was ILLUMINATING what the OT was saying. Jesus Christ was doing the same thing in His many "discussions" with the Pharisees. This is a fallacy that you must get rid of. Why does the Apostle Paul quote the OT so many times? Think of it in those terms.

I disagree with you. In that context, Jesus is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem. The full-preterist framework sees everything referring to the destruction of Jerusalem... however, I don't. Jesus said, "These are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled". Okay, that's fine with me. He's referring to all things written regarding the "days of vengeance". There's nothing wrong with taking this verse hyperbolically. Is everything in the OT regarding these days of vengeance? Certainly not.. only a portion is.

And your usage of Hymanaeus and Philetus is so over done that it is...pathetic. Yes, it is true that they believed the resurrection was past...and they even managed to convince some others of that fact. But there are 3 things you do that are in error. And I know you don't want to hear them. They are:

1) You take their PRE-parousia time frame and extend it to make it applicable to our POST-parousia time frame.
2) You fail to realize that Paul never corrected them on their NATURE of the resurrection, just the timing of it.
3) If your NATURE of the resurrection is the correct one, how could they have convinced anyone that the resurrection had occurred? The graves were still full, there was no "dissolving" ofthe planet. The universe was still intact.

1) Well, I have trouble seeing the parousia as fulfilled already due to many things referred to in the NT that will happen at that time... such as the end of evil, the destruction of the demonic realm, the resurrection of both the just and unjust, and everyone being like the angels in heaven.

2) This is true. But who's to say they didn't teach full-preterism by inferring a different nature to it? He was writing to people who understood what he was talking about... he could have only been giving one detail of it. But, I see your point. It's pretty ambiguous.

3) How are all full-preterists convinced that the resurrection has already occurred?

1 Corinthians 3:15 - If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Like I said earlier, I take works figuratively... it could refer to the actions, deeds, and evil ways of the world being finally put to an end. In this verse, it could be referring to someone's work having eternal value. It never had any value, so it can't stand the test.

As long as you continue to interpret the Bible from a 21st century Western perspective, you are going to be way off concerning covenantal matters...Sorry to be brutally honest, but that is exactly what is happening here. The word "earth" should more appropriately be translated "land." I know that you do this in many cases, but when it comes to eschatology it is mandated to be the planet. Do you really believe these saints (and especially OT saints) had a clue what the planet was called? I repeat, when did our planet get it name? Hint: All the other planets have something in common...

Once again, God didn't create a Jewish system in the beginning. He created space and dirt. This same dirt, or land, whatever you want to call it, was referred to have been completely covered with water in Genesis 7:20. Peter correlates the Flood with a future judgment of the world by fire.

Put your sandals and robes on and try understanding the Bible from the time frame it was written.

Well I'm thankful that full-preterism has no practical significance at all. Because even if I am wrong, I'm not going to notice it at all. It will have no bearing on my walk with Jesus, and it will not make me significantly less used by God.

Well, I'm really hoping I get buried near you, so that when we do get resurrected, I could give you a high five on our way up. I'm not gonna need any robes except the righteousness of my Lord on that last day!

[steve]

Mellontes wrote (again....):

As long as you continue to interpret the Bible from a 21st century Western perspective, you are going to be way off concerning covenantal matters.

This is such a broken record—and such a dishonest piece of rhetoric at that! Imagine, when someone takes the same interpretation of scripture that was taken by virtually all Christians for 20 centuries of church history, that he is accused, by someone who takes a position that originated in the 20th century, of interpreting the Bible "from a 21st century Western perspective"! Talk about disingenuous historical provincialism!

Golly gee whiz, Steve. Thank you so much for your seemingly self-righteous, superior, argumentative, obsessed with trifles, and divisive remark. Sheeeesh!

I didn't identify anyone by name, but the shoe may be available in your size, if you are interested.

[Mellontes]

Mellontes wrote (again....):

As long as you continue to interpret the Bible from a 21st century Western perspective, you are going to be way off concerning covenantal matters.

This is such a broken record—and such a dishonest piece of rhetoric at that! Imagine, when someone takes the same interpretation of scripture that was taken by virtually all Christians for 20 centuries of church history, that he is accused, by someone who takes a position that originated in the 20th century, of interpreting the Bible "from a 21st century Western perspective"! Talk about disingenuous historical provincialism!

Steve, what you just said about our position originating in the 20th century is an out and out LIE - and what's worse, you know it! Perhaps you may of heard of Gary DeMar and Francis Gumerlock's fairly recent book? Perhaps you are aware of many church father's statements bearing preterist content? Perhaps not.
So, I guess when you said, "the same interpretation of scripture that was taken by virtually all Christians for 20 centuries of church history," I suppose you mean justification by faith alone, as well. Or was Luther just flogging a dead horse? Or infant baptism? or purgatory? Your continued rhetoric of biased accusations never cease to amaze me. What did you mean by "virtually" in that accusation of yours. Were you hinting at possible difference? GASP! Differences withing the church! Oh, nooooooooooo...

You mean like Dmitri Mendeleev's elements (1869) in 2 Peter 3 for instance? You mean like computer bar codes or computer implants as the mark of beast for instance? Nuclear war? The list is endless...

What you fail to realize (again...) is that the Bible was able to be FULLY understood in the year 1615, 1776, 1881,1907, and 2010. You probably don't even understand why I said that.

And who cares how many years of Christianity has gotten it wrong. They have been adjusting their creeds continuously. What if everything keeps going (as postmils are willing to accept) for another 50,000 years? Your pathetic 2,000 years of Christianity position will be like time spent in kindergarten. The cults have a similar eschatology to yours, ya know. As I have mentioned before, your precious church history with all of its stupendous scholars can't even figure out if Christ comes before or after the millenium (literally "thousands," not 1,000 years), or if there is a millennium in the first place! And yet you feel it is your place to use this as "biblical" proof of their scholarly knowledge in the area of eschatology. Give me a break!

In reference to:

Golly gee whiz, Steve. Thank you so much for your seemingly self-righteous, superior, argumentative, obsessed with trifles, and divisive remark. Sheeeesh!

You said:

I didn't identify anyone by name, but the shoe may be available in your size, if you are interested.

There you go, trying to shoehorn people into a particular mold. And no, you didn't identify anyone by name but you made positively sure you attached your demeaning characteristics to a particular GROUP...

Still waiting for those "coming" verses that point to a future "coming" other than 70 AD. It been almost five days now and not a peep from anyone...not that I am really that surprised though.