Questions for the non-full preterist

[Allyn]

Allyn-

By that are you saying that we are currently living on the "new earth"-- i.e. that this is all there is and all there will be?

TK

TK

I'm saying this is what the Bible is teaching. Have you personally done a study on the subject of the NH and NE? It might be worth your while. In the old testament there are many many references to Israels heavens and Israels earths be affected. In every case the terms are applied to a relationship or a religious concept. Our western phrase is similar when we might say our whole world is crumbling when we are in the midst of turmoil in our life. But in the biblical sense it has everything to do with Christ and His atonement. The old heaven and old earth where based on the Law of Moses. The New Heaven and New Earth are based on the New Covenant in Christ.

[Allyn]

Thanks Mellontes-

so in other words, in the FP view there will be no "supernatural" end to the physical earth, and ultimately, one day, assuming we dont colonize other planets, Christians will simply die out (physically) when the earth becomes uninhabitable. right?

TK

If that is what will happen then yes - the point is it is nowhere taught in the Bible that this world comes to an end. Even the word "elements" used by Peter do not refer to molecules and atoms but rather rudiments and principals.

[Mellontes]

Thanks Mellontes-

so in other words, in the FP view there will be no "supernatural" end to the physical earth, and ultimately, one day, assuming we dont colonize other planets, Christians will simply die out (physically) when the earth becomes uninhabitable. right?

TK

Thank you for allowing me to respond. I realize that you had asked Allyn and Steve so I wasn't trying to respond to anyone in particular. Believe it or not, I am just trying to help in my own feeble way...

I don't believe the Bible talks about the duration of the planet in any way, shape, or form. Ephesians 3:21 has been used to express the never dying nature of the "world" (aion, age, Strong's 165) even by some preterists, but the language is indicative that it speaks of the everlasting Gospel kingdom (church) and not the planet.

Given that our technology has exploded in just the last 100 years, I can't even imagine what things would be like in the next 1,000 years. Would travel to other regions of space be possible? Why not? I personally believe that the technology to produce those food replicators from Star Trek is not too far in the future, although I doubt I shall ever see the device. But as for instant teleportation for people - - - Never, because that involves transmitting the "life force" (soul, spirit, or whatever term is used). We can't do that.

I think it is quite possible that many regions of the huge expanse of this universe will one day be "touched" by human hands. But of course, all this is sheer speculation because the Bible is quite silent in this matter. Question: In how many years do you think the present Earth will become uninhabitable? Perhaps that requires too much speculation as well. I think it does.

[steve7150]

Hi Steve7150. May I call you Steve? May I have the Scriptures you are using to substantiate the above statement about evil? It is very hard to discuss these things without having a Scriptural frame of reference. I hope you understand...thank you.




"who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father". Gal 1.4 It's interesting that Paul speaking around 50AD says Christ gave himself for our sins to rescue us. It sounds to me like the New Covenant is effectuated when Christ gave himself, not 70AD. BTW of course you can call me Steve.
So though Paul says we have been rescued he also acknowledges the present evil age in the world.

[Mellontes]

Hi Steve7150. May I call you Steve? May I have the Scriptures you are using to substantiate the above statement about evil? It is very hard to discuss these things without having a Scriptural frame of reference. I hope you understand...thank you.

"who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father". Gal 1.4 It's interesting that Paul speaking around 50AD says Christ gave himself for our sins to rescue us. It sounds to me like the New Covenant is effectuated when Christ gave himself, not 70AD. BTW of course you can call me Steve.
So though Paul says we have been rescued he also acknowledges the present evil age in the world.

Hi Steve,

There is no question in my mind that the new covenant came into effect at the cross, or at the resurrection (at least within a 3-day period). When He said "It is finished" let us understand that His resurrection had not even taken place. I would say that His sacrifice was finished. But no matter...

The old covenant was made ineffectual at this time too, but it was still the order of the day for all those unbelieving Jews, and there were plenty of them!

The "present evil age" was pre-parousia and referred to the old covenant age. Remember, the temple was still standing and in common use right up to 70 AD. The "age to come" referred to the age of Messiah (new covenant age). Our contemporary definitions just don't always fit into first century usage...

A very misunderstood passage from Luke 20:27-39 regarding marriage and the resurrection:

Listen to one gentleman explain its meaning to see how the usage and timing of "this age" and "the age to come" are very important to our understanding of NT theology...

Consider, first of all, the issue of what scripture calls this age, and the age to come. This is vitally important. Most futurists assume that when scripture speaks of "this age" it means the current Christian age that will end with the arrival of "the age to come." This is a fundamental error.

In Luke 20, Jesus discussed the resurrection and the age to come.

Note that Jesus is confronted with the Sadducee's hypothetical argument against the resurrection. They discuss the practice of the Levirate marriage. Jesus, in response, says, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, nor can they die...and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

Please take note: Jesus said "the sons of this age marry." Jesus was referring directly to the issue of the Levirate marriage! He was not referring to the universal human experience!! It is wrong to argue "ad hominem" that "Preston is married, therefore the resurrection has not occurred," for this argument totally ignores the fact that the marriage issue at stake was the Levirate marriage law!

In what age was Jesus living, in which the Levirate marriage was the law? Clearly, it was the age of the law that was delivered to Israel at Sinai. It was the Mosaic Age!

( Deuteronomy 25)

Allow me to make three important points:

1. The bible speaks of only two ages, "this age," and "the age to come."
2. Jesus taught that "this age" was the Mosaic Age, and the age to come, was the age of Messiah and the new covenant.
3. Jesus believed that "this age" the age of Moses and the Law, was to end, but the age to come was without end!

There can be no doubt as to the essential truth of these statements. And, consider that the New Testament constantly refers to the end of the Mosaic Age, but affirms repeatedly that the age of Jesus and his New Covenant is without end! (Luke 1:32-35 / Matthew 24:35 / Ephesians 3:20-21). Ask yourself therefore, if the church age has no end, how can anyone teach the end of the current Christian age?

Now to more specifically address Jesus' teaching in Luke 20.

In the age to come: 1.) They neither marry nor are given in marriage. How was Jesus' this age sustained? By marrying. Jesus said in the age to come that would not be the case.

Paul said that in Christ, the age that would follow the Mosaic Age, where "there is neither male or female!" (Galatians 3:28) If, in Christ, there is neither male or female, how can there be marrying and giving in marriage? Further, Jesus said in the age to come, the Levirate marriage would not be the order of the day. Is Levirate marriage practiced under the New Covenant age of Jesus? If not, then the age to come has arrived.

2.) In the age to come they cannot die. Death was the order of the Mosaic Age. Romans 7:7f / 2 Corinthians 3:6f, (Galatians 3:20-21). In contrast, Jesus' New Covenant gives eternal life. John 8:51-Romans 6:23 / Romans 8:1-3 — free from the law of sin and death!

3.) They are Sons of God, being sons of the resurrection! Under the mosaic age — sons of god produced by giving in marrying. Born, then taught! Under the New Covenant, children are produced by faith: "you are all the children of god by faith, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Taught, then born (Hebrews 8:6f). In Romans 6:4f, Paul speaks of death, burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism, the resurrection by faith, that produces sons of god, and life from the dead (Colossians 2:11-13).

Thus, every constituent element that Jesus said would characterize the "age to come" is found in Christ's new covenant world. And, it goes without saying that the New Covenant world followed the Mosaic world in which Jesus was living.

My final argument, therefore, has proven two things. It has proven that what the Bible calls "this age" was not the Christian age, but was in fact, the Mosaic Age, the age of the Law given to Israel at Sinai. This means, unequivocally, that the age to come, the age of the resurrection, is the Christian Age.

Second, since the resurrection was to occur at the end of Jesus' this age," and his "this age" was the Mosaic Age, then since that age came to an end at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, this means that the resurrection occurred with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Source: http://en.preterism.com/index.php?title ... married.3F

[steve7150]

The "present evil age" was pre-parousia and referred to the old covenant age. Remember, the temple was still standing and in common use right up to 70 AD. The "age to come" referred to the age of Messiah (new covenant age). Our contemporary definitions just don't always fit into first century usage...




It seems to me the Old Covenant ended with the tearing of the curtain of separation in the temple when Jesus died on the cross. That was an act of God that a new relationship had just begun. The fact that the temple stood after this , i think was incidental. After all the temple was Herrod's temple , not Soloman's temple, it was not a temple commanded by God, it really was a man made building with no God ordained purpose, at least as far as i know.

[Allyn]

The "present evil age" was pre-parousia and referred to the old covenant age. Remember, the temple was still standing and in common use right up to 70 AD. The "age to come" referred to the age of Messiah (new covenant age). Our contemporary definitions just don't always fit into first century usage...




It seems to me the Old Covenant ended with the tearing of the curtain of separation in the temple when Jesus died on the cross. That was an act of God that a new relationship had just begun. The fact that the temple stood after this , i think was incidental. After all the temple was Herrod's temple , not Soloman's temple, it was not a temple commanded by God, it really was a man made building with no God ordained purpose, at least as far as i know.

And yet Steve the curtain was sown back up and hung in place - the temple has not nor will be rebuilt.

[Mellontes]

It seems to me the Old Covenant ended with the tearing of the curtain of separation in the temple when Jesus died on the cross. That was an act of God that a new relationship had just begun. The fact that the temple stood after this , i think was incidental. After all the temple was Herrod's temple , not Soloman's temple, it was not a temple commanded by God, it really was a man made building with no God ordained purpose, at least as far as i know.

It would seem that Jesus (or at least the writings of what we called an inspired individual) would disagree with you on this account:

Matthew 21:12-13 - And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

As for the temple just being incidental, then why Christ's prediction/prophecy of its destruction in the Olivet discourse? I mean why do away with it if it meant nothing and had no purpose. Perhaps it was in answer to OT prophecy as well? It would result in the destruction of the entire old covenant economy! No more temple, no more genealogies, no more priests, no more anything related to the types and shadows. The fulfillment in Christ had arrived!

[Homer]

So if Preterism is supposedly the ancient faith, how is it that Clement of Rome (1st century), Justin, and Irenaeus all clearly believed in a future, bodily resurrection, even quoting Paul about it? How did the church go wrong so soon?

[Allyn]

So if Preterism is supposedly the ancient faith, how is it that Clement of Rome (1st century), Justin, and Irenaeus all clearly believed in a future, bodily resurrection, even quoting Paul about it? How did the church go wrong so soon?

Preterism is based on the writings of the Bible and not on the misunderstanding of those who appeared after the events.