Is the Resurrection already past?

[Allyn]

Hi steve,
No, my lack of response has nothing to do with what you are saying. I sinply have no gotten around to respond. I posted to posts that were on my mind and then my wife and I had to rush her aged aunt to the emergency room this morning (she is 92 and very frail but has been treated and will return home). So I will deal with the question today.

[Allyn]

I want to back this conversation up a little.


John 17:4
"I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. (NKJV)

Notice that Jesus mentions it was while He was on Earth. I believe Jesus completed all things the Father had given Him to do... on earth, that is.


Allyn did not respond.

Allyn, how do you respond to this? I too wondered if you were referring to John 17 but thought you couldn't have been since it doesn't apply (I read it like Rich does). Does your lack of response mean you did intend that verse? It would be ironic if you intended to demonstrate how clearly FP is spelled out in scripture and yet seemingly misapplied a scripture.

I fail to see how these two passages provide a self evident, "no brainer", explanation of Full Preterism. It seems to me that your level of dogmatism far exceeds the clarity of scripture on the subject.

Would you not agree that Rich's question is legitimate? I'm assuming you've asked yourself similar questions about the clarity of the subject while researching. Right?

Steve

Hi steve and Rich,

I think, yes, John 17:4 is the verse I had in mind. Jesus did accomplish all things He was given to do on earth. I may have overstepped a little by projecting the completed work on earth of Christ by adding His death, burial and resurrection in with that statement before that had been done, but my point was that Jesus was asked to give a sign and we know that the sign he gave them was His resurrection. It just was not the sign they wanted and seems to me the words of Jesus maybe aren't good enough for Rich either. Rich wished for precise language to make it believable for him.

Rich said:

Also, if full-preterism is so important... why didn't God make an apostle write an extra letter to be added to the Canon post-AD 70? Then the apostle could tell us all of these things you are insinuating. Why is it so hard to see your points unless someone accepts your biased framework?

That is why I answered with a biblical example.

But let me fully answer how Jesus accomplised all things by 70AD.

Hebrews 10
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

Bear with me here. In times past while Israel was under the Old Covenant several high priest over time performed the duties of the high priest (vs11) but Jesus, being the Substance of that earthly priest was required to offer the blood sacrifice only one time and forever. He then ascended to heaven and sat down by beside God. Jesus completed all the earthly requirements of Him put upon Him by the Father (vs12).

During a period of time Jesus was waiting in heaven. All His enemies were to be made His footstool (vs13), and we know, according to 1 Cor. 15 that the last enemy was death.

Verse 14 says the one offering of Jesus perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
How is it that the offeering of Christ did not completely sactify them who believed at the time the offering was made? It is because the time of the New Covenant was not fully in place. The Old was still growing obsolete and the New was certainly coming in but it had not fully arrived and neither had their sactification even though the work of sactification was completed.
Since the Old was only growing obsolete and since all the enemies had not yet been defeated - especially the last enemy, death, the Kingdom of God also was not fully in place.

Verse 15 tells us that what the writer of Hebrews was about to say is true because the Holy Spirit was the witness of what was said before by Jeremiah concerning those days soon to come upon them. That is to say that the New Covenant was about to come in.

I hope you have read this far because this is where verification of teaching comes in. This is where the harmony of Scripture really provides the place where the rubber meets the road.
Hebrews 10 is not just talking about the New Covenant. Hebrews is providing the basis for the teaching of 1 Cor. 15:54 because Paul, although, not talking about the New Covenant in Christ per se, but is talking about death being defeated at the resurrection and at the inheritence of the Kingdom of God. How does this tie in with Hebrews 10? In a very significant way. Jesus can not return until all the enemies are made His footstool. Paul Says the last enemy is Death. Death was defeated at the resurrection of the dead when:
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible
It is at that time that death is defeated because Paul quoted Hosea 13:14 (a resurrection passage) saying:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “ O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”

So then death, being the last enemy then we therefore have all the enemies of Christ made His footstool. But then Hebrews goes on to quote something seemingly out of context - but its not. Hebrews, after saying that the enemies will be made His footstool, takes us to Jer. 31:33,34 which is seemingly not about the enemies being made His footstool or the resurrection of the dead but instead is about the New Covenant.
Reconciliation is in order for this all to make sense. The teaching can only make sense if we tie all this together.
Jesus said the Abomination of Desolation is what Daniel spoke of.
Daniel went further and said that at the end those days of the Abomination of Desolation the His People would be raised from the out of the dead.
We are told that Jesus would wait til His enemies are made His footstool.
Paul said that the last enemy was death.
The resurrection of the dead is the defeat of death for the death could not hold them.
Hebrews said that Jeremiah 31 was speaking of the time of the enemies being defeated but Jeremiah 31 is about the New Covenant.
Therefore the enemies of Christ are made His footstool at the New Covenant but not until the resurrection.
Preceding that time the one offering He has perfected forever [was for] those who are being sanctified.. Not yet sanctified but are being sanctified.
Jesus says in many places of the four Gospels that the sactification is the coming in of the Kingdom of God.
Paul says in 1 Cor. 15 that the kingdom of God is inheited by the incorruptable both the dead in the graves and the yet living.
Paul, in context, is placing the timing of the kingdom of God as being at the resurrection.
Therefore the Abomination of Desolation, the resurrection of the dead, the last enemy being defeated, the kingdom of God and the New Covenant are all totlally taken care of by the end of those days which Jesus says is at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple system (thus the Old Covenant). It is the time of the parousia of Christ because it can be at no other time since the resurrection is at the second coming of Christ. It is the the full coming in of the kingdom of God when all have finally been sactified in Christ by the accomplishments of the kingdom.

As a preterist I am not insinuating but actually bringing out the teaching in the way the Bible is presenting it. Rich wants it all to be right there in one chapter or one Epistle. That would make it nice but that would not fulfill the command that says to SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES.

However I have done the work for you, Rich. You must choose to accept it or reject it.

It has all been completed. All has been fulfilled and the kingdom never ends.

[DBS]

I'm a newbie here and I really appreciate all the posts in this thread. Everybody is quite civil and respectful. I am "usually" a partial-preterist but could change if I become convinced that problems concerning the resurrection could be resolved. The other day I was listening to Steve Gregg's tape on Dan 12. Steve wasn't trying to place the Dan 12 resurrection in the first century but he did such a great job linking the rest of Dan 12 with I Peter that it made me think twice about it.

Anyway, here's a verse I rarely see discussed: Rev 14:13. I take Rev 14 as the AD70 judgment on Jerusalem. At this point, Rev 14:13 seems to clearly state that people who die in Christ after this (AD 70) have it better than those who died before. This seems to be a fulcrum point. Before we had souls "under the alter" and later we have them "living and reigning with Christ". My question is, what is happening here and does it relate to a AD70 resurrection? John Bray would say this could signify an on-going resurrection of believers and we all meet Christ in the "air" when we die (resurrection at death theory).

[Conquest]

DBS,

I'm a newbie here and I really appreciate all the posts in this thread. Everybody is quite civil and respectful. I am "usually" a partial-preterist but could change if I become convinced that problems concerning the resurrection could be resolved. The other day I was listening to Steve Gregg's tape on Dan 12. Steve wasn't trying to place the Dan 12 resurrection in the first century but he did such a great job linking the rest of Dan 12 with I Peter that it made me think twice about it. ).

By “partial” preterist, I assume you mean someone who has an orthodox view of God’s plan of redemption applying to the whole man. Given you believe the whole man will be redeemed how could you ever reject this view supplanting that view with something akin to what the Gnostics of the 2nd Century proclaimed?

Regarding Daniel 12, I haven’t listened to Mr. Gregg’s tape, but do you realize the Apostle Paul broke the event known as the resurrection of the dead into 2 stages, the 1st taken place in the 1st Century? If Daniel is discussing the resurrection in Daniel 12:2, the fact he didn’t know the event was a 2 stage process is completely understandable given what he saw wasn’t the complete full story the New Testament authors had.

Anyway, here's a verse I rarely see discussed: Rev 14:13. I take Rev 14 as the AD70 judgment on Jerusalem. At this point, Rev 14:13 seems to clearly state that people who die in Christ after this (AD 70) have it better than those who died before. This seems to be a fulcrum point. Before we had souls "under the alter" and later we have them "living and reigning with Christ". My question is, what is happening here and does it relate to a AD70 resurrection? John Bray would say this could signify an on-going resurrection of believers and we all meet Christ in the "air" when we die (resurrection at death theory).

John Bray would have a hard time explaining the self-same body will be raised as the Apostle Paul makes plain in texts like 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thess 4:15-18, Romans 8 and Philippians 3 to name a few. However to the text of Rev 14:13,

12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. 13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!”

Where are OT saints mentioned as not being as well off as those post AD70? The Apostle Paul who died prior to AD70 indicated he would be with the Lord. Are you suggesting the text supports the idea someone in Christ who died in AD71 was better off than the Apostle Paul who died prior to AD70? I don't think the text is conveying what you think it implies.

Conquest

[RICHinCHRIST]

Sorry for my late response... I've been very busy out here at Steve's first semester of the New Great Commission School...

Firstly, I am saying that salvation wasn't COMPLETED until 70AD. That is slightly different than your "didn't happen until 70AD." First, they were sealed with the promise. One day the promise would come true. And you have already seen a multitude of Scriptures quoted by us in regards to that time frame, like Matthew 24:34, for instance. I need not post them all again. But, if you believe that the day of salvation had come to those first century Christians (because Christianity had grown exponentially), then according to Isaiah 25:8, death was swallowed up in victory. Paul seems to say otherwise though and that is the difficulty...

It's true that it is a difficulty that Paul quoted that verse. However, I don't think salvation was completed in AD 70 the way you think of it. It is complete in the sense that Christ has done all that is necessary to provide salvation... but salvation is a term that can have a variety of meanings. I have no problem taking Isaiah 25 in context and saying salvation came in the first century. But I believe the fullness of the plan of salvation will commence on the last day, which I believe is on the day Christ returns bodily to the earth. Death figuratively was swallowed up, in a sense, because Christ destroyed the devil who had the power of death (Heb. 2:14). Now, that passage (Heb. 2:14) clearly says that Christ destroyed death... or if we must say it... it was "swallowed up". However, think about this. Was the devil completely destroyed when Christ through death destroyed him? No, he wasn't. Why? Well, Peter said we needed to look out for him and be watchful (1 Peter 5), and Paul exhorted us that we would need to keep guard and war against the spirits of wickedness. Therefore, death was figuratively swallowed up in the work of Christ... but there is still a future destruction of the demonic realm. Maybe you believe that already happened.. if you do, that can't be true on a number of levels.

Actually, I don't know of any preterist who believes the land of Judea was destroyed in 70AD. You obviously misunderstand what we believe in this regard. It was the city of Jerusalem which was destroyed. That is a far cry from all the land of Judea...As for the song, I must ask which tribe was Christ from?

I understand your logic here... you could be right. However, I was referring to a future fulfillment of this passage.

My logic behind my comment was this: If you believe that the phrase "that day" refers solely to salvation, you have to also interpret the same thing when the phrase "that day" is used elsewhere in that context. The bizarre thing in doing that is that you will have to interpret in that same 'day' that there was a song sung in the land of Judah. However, there probably was no singing in the land of Judah on 'that day' if you refer to it being in AD 70. There was most likely weeping on that day in the land because Jerusalem was destroyed.

I believe that the Old Testament prophets often used figurative language... but I sometimes struggle with taking the passages too loosely (maybe that's because of my dispensational upbringing). I think it could refer spiritually to salvation, but I also think that this could easily have a double fulfillment in the New Earth. I take the new Earth passages to refer to a future transformation of the current planet we live on due to Romans 8:18-25, Matthew 5:5, and 2 Pet. 3:10-13. This could easily prove why there would be a song in the land of Judah when it is transformed into the New Earth. There are other verses that you'd have to bizarrely interpret if you apply it to 70 AD (Isa. 27:1-6, 27:12-13)

Perhaps you are not aware of the two Jerusalems - one earthly and one heavenly. One apostate and one in Christ. One after the flesh and the other after the Spirit. That is why it is difficult sometime to differentiate between the Jerusalem rejoicing and the Jerusalem which receives judgment.

I'm aware of them. I just see them as having a double fulfillment. I believe that the New Jerusalem is the Church, but I also believe that the Church will be glorified and completely united in one when Christ returns and receives His bride corporately.

I didn't see the planet Earth in Isaiah 25:8-9 at all. Nor is resurrection, sons of God, or creation mentioned. And perhaps you could help me out here. What do you mean by creation? Are you talking plants, animals, mountains, insects, etc.? I was under the impression that the only creation that was in bondage to sin was that which did sin - human beings. I am also under the impression that redemption from that same sin comes as a result of trusting in Christ, something which animals, plants, mountains, and insects cannot do. Isn't that what was meant by 2 Corinthians 5:17?

As stated before, I see the land of Judah as being on the planet Earth (pretty clear to me, I guess). In that day there will be a song sung in the land of Judah (Isa. 26:1). I don't think it's too farfetched if it is a dual fulfillment passage.

I believe that the whole creation will be liberated, yes. Not just sinners.


The creation is distinct from the children of God.


Not willingly? We know that humans were willingly involved in the corruption of the world through sin. However, the rest of the creation is not responsible for the curse on the ground. God put a curse on the ground in hopes of one day restoring it. (thus, why I believe the current Earth will be transformed into the New Earth, and the kingdom will have no end.


the corruption spoken of here can also be translated 'decay'. Human sinners are not the only ones decaying; the entire cosmos is decaying according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If Paul was talking about only people here, why didn't he just say "we" instead of 'the creation'?

Strange word "creature." A little more than half of the translations use the word "creation" for the Greek ktisis in the above verse. Christians literally become new creations in Christ. The new covenant people are in stark contrast to the old covenant people. The OT prophesies of the new creation, the new heaven and earth. The old heaven and earth gives way to the new heaven and earth - Christians. Now, I KNOW you won't accept that! But unless you can show me where two creations are promised, then what I said is a possibility, especially when understanding the idea that heaven and earth would pass away. But to many futurists, these are speaking of cosmic entities and not Jewish understandings. Ask an orthodox Jew what was meant by heaven and earth sometime. He will answer "the temple." The old covenant temple is replaced by the new covenant temple in CHrist. This was the temple prophesied by Ezekiel. Yet there are those (not saying you are one) who believe this is going to be a rebuilt physical temple...As long as we continue to try to interpret the Bible based upon our Western 21st century understandings, we will be completely lost...

You mentioned 2 Cor. 5:17 which says:


Notice Paul says anyone who IS in Christ. He says that it IS current from his perspective. Even though the word IS is not in the original Greek... it is implied from the phrase "have become new". In other words, it already happened when Paul was writing. Paul was in Christ. Therefore, he was a new creation. The Corinthian believers were in Christ, therefore, they were new creations. He doesn't mention anything about the significance of AD 70 making a new creation... he says they were currently new creations in Christ. I believe that was already fulfilled at that point! No need to stretch it out to AD 70.

I also mentioned 2 Cor. 3:11 which is in the same context. Paul never mentions anything significant about the Old Covenant passing away... rather, he just says that it was passing away. And he says in that verse that the New Covenant already remained, and it was much more glorious. Seems like that would have been a great time to mention the significance of the Old Covenant passing!! However, Paul says nothing about the second coming of Christ nor the resurrection having any significance in AD 70.

I believe it's possible to see the New Heavens and New Earth as referring to a Jewish system... I've never thought of that before. However, how do you see Genesis 1:1? Did God create a Jewish system in the beginning? No, He created a universe and a planet. I don't think it's crazy to take my interpretation... once again.. dual fulfillment is possible even if you're correct about the Jewish Hebraisms.

Can you explain what you mean by planetary restoration and support it from Scripture please. I am not saying you can't, it is just that it is tremendously difficult to discuss opinions...I hear a lot of this planet Earth restoration stuff but I never see any Scripture that speaks of that, whether they are old or new testament references. I am also under the impression that the "end" espoused in the OT is the same "end" espoused in the NT. Yet there is clearly nothing related about the "end" in the OT as having anything to do with planet Earth. How would these OT people even know what the planet was named and would they even know it was a planet? And if the "end" from the NT is not the same as the "end" described in the OT, then when is the OT "end," especially since the "end" in the NT is allegedly about the end of time and history? I see the "end" in covenantal terms - the end of the old covenant economy - not in planet Earth terms. Where is it?

I mentioned passages earlier about this. I'm sure I can find more, but the three I'm thinking of off the top of my head are these:

1) Romans 8:18-25

I don't see how this can be spiritualized. Paul is clearly talking about the current decaying creation and a day when it will be liberated. I see it making a clear distinction between spiritual rebirth (the sons of God) and physical creation (8:20; 'our body' in 8:23). I think, therefore, that the current decaying planet will be transformed into a glorified one where the new creation is "revealed" (8:19).. this includes our new body (8:23)..

2) 2 Peter 3:10-13

I'd like to hear you expound on this chapter. It clearly speaks to me of a future return of Christ and of a new physical creation. Specifically, verses 10-12 mention the elements melting with fervent heat. The earth and its works will be burned up. He even repeats it twice. The elements will burn with fervent heat. The earth and its works will be burned up. How do you spiritualize that?

Now, I'll admit it's difficult to see whether this new heavens and new earth will be a completely new universe or if it will simply be our current universe transformed. I primarily think the latter because of this verse:


When did the meek inherit the earth? At 70 AD? I don't think so. This has not been completely fulfilled yet. I believe that it will be fulfilled in the New Earth.

I noticed that you cut my quote off eliminating those verses that indicated exactly what I believe about salvation not being realized fully until 70AD. What explanation would you give to those verses? We believe them.

I'll have to re-read them, I must not have thought they said much of the significance you are asserting.

How would you explain the promise of the Spirit given to those first century saints. What was the promise for and when would the promise be fulfilled? Why was "Christ in you" a future HOPE if it had apparently been realized according to your understanding? Is not "Christ in you" a reference to the presence of the Lord Jesus? Is not the Parousia defined, at least in part, as a presence. If Christ is in you NOW, then the parousia for that presenvce to come has taken place.

You are greatly mistaken. First of all, Christ is not in me. Christ is in heaven. However, the Spirit of Christ is in me according to Rom. 8:9-11. That's what Paul is referring to in Colossians 1. The Spirit of Christ is in me. You can also see this in Eph. 3:16-17. Very clear that Christ in me refers to the Spirit of Christ in my inner man.

I think what we disagree on is WHEN the hope was fulfilled in Colossians 1:27. You're saying it was completely fulfilled in AD 70. I disagree. I believe it was already fulfilled according to the above Scriptures. However,I also believe that the future culmination of that glory will be apparent when I'm glorified in a new body. This has to be true. Why? Because Paul mentioned the Spirit of Christ being in us as a present reality. If He meant it as some spiritual event to occur at AD 70... He would have to explain why such a significant event would happen in such a seemingly weird way. We didn't need a second day of Pentecost at AD 70. If we did, I'm sure God would have made it very clear for us to see that... I just think your points are weak. Eph. 1:13-14 speaks of the Spirit of Christ being a downpayment... a sealing of promise for a future redemption of His purchased people. Once again, I have no reason to believe that I have more of a spiritual fulfillment than what the apostles had. What do I mean? You are saying that at AD 70 some supernatural fulfillment of the resurrection and "presence" of Jesus was revealed in some new and better, and more fulfilled way. How does this practically work? Are we more spiritual than Stephen, who was stoned in Acts 7? Are we more spiritual than Paul, who died pre-AD 70?

What do you do with Luke 21:22?

Luke 21:22 - For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Surely you realize that all things written refers to the OT scriptures. And how could they be all fulfilled at this time (destruction of Jerusalem) if the resurrection is mentioned in the OT? Unless the NATURE of that resurrection is different than what futurists presently believe.

Way too long of a post. Sorry. It is difficult to address so much at one time. I wish we could focus in on one thing and park there a while...

I see "all things written" as a hyperbole. It could refer to all things referring to the judgment of Israel, and the transferring of the kingdom to a new nation (Matt. 21:43). Even so... if Jesus was saying all things in the OT would be fulfilled... that doesn't change the fact that the NT gives plenty of things which are to be accomplished in the future. Paul even said the 'mystery' was revealed to him which wasn't revealed to previous ages (Eph. 3:5). This could clearly be why the OT is silent on many things.

I suppose it all comes down to this one question: "Are you 100% redeemed right now by what Jesus did upon Calvary + His resurrection?" In other words, was what Jesus accomplished all that is necessary for redemption? Please understand that I am speaking from a 2010 time frame. Is there anything else that I must do in order to get this redemption? Must I physically die to gain complete redemption? Futurism believes this is so.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe you are more saved than Paul was in his life? [EDIT: Maybe I should say, have "more" of the "presence" of Jesus] You would have to say yes because he died pre-AD 70. If that's true, than I sure hope that all the full-preterists go out and start doing something about this supernatural power they have that far exceeds the pre-AD 70 Church. Are you serious? What kind of practical significance does this doctrine have? None. It's just puffed up, argumentative hogwash. You're trying to convince Christians of a fringey doctrine that has no significance whatsoever. If you're right... then it means nothing. If you're wrong, then you greatly misinterpret and misapply one of the most significant topics in the Bible: the second coming of Christ and the resurrection. Not only that, but you're in danger of straying from the truth just like Hymaneaus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17-18). If you honestly hold this conviction because you are sincerely convinced of its points, then I'm hopeful God would have mercy on you if you're wrong. However, if full-preterists hold their position because of selfish ambition, conceit, and to cause discord in the body of Christ... then whoever has that attitude behind a false doctrine is in serious danger. I'm not saying you or any on this forum are of that sort, nor am I inferring that all full-preterists are. I'm just warning you as a brother in Christ, because that's what I'm commanded to do according to the Scriptures.

[TK]

Rich wrote:

What kind of practical significance does this doctrine have? None. It's just puffed up, argumentative hogwash. You're trying to convince Christians of a fringey doctrine that has no significance whatsoever. If you're right... then it means nothing. If you're wrong, then you greatly misinterpret and misapply one of the most significant topics in the Bible: the second coming of Christ and the resurrection.

I have asked numerous times for an explanation from the FP's why FP matters- as a practical matter. I have yet to hear one response that makes any sense at all. Someone said it is important because of the emphasis dispensationailists place on Israel; well- there are a lot of Christians who are not dispensationalists (like me) who have no rabid interest in Israel. 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?

TK

[Mellontes]

Rich wrote:

What kind of practical significance does this doctrine have? None. It's just puffed up, argumentative hogwash. You're trying to convince Christians of a fringey doctrine that has no significance whatsoever. If you're right... then it means nothing. If you're wrong, then you greatly misinterpret and misapply one of the most significant topics in the Bible: the second coming of Christ and the resurrection.

I have asked numerous times for an explanation from the FP's why FP matters- as a practical matter. I have yet to hear one response that makes any sense at all. Someone said it is important because of the emphasis dispensationailists place on Israel; well- there are a lot of Christians who are not dispensationalists (like me) who have no rabid interest in Israel. 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?

TK

It has been estimated by non-preterists that approximately 40% to 60% of the New Testament Scriptures is eschatological in nature. I think it was R.C. Sproul who places the estimate in the higher range (don't quote me). So, I recognize this to be a relatively significant subject. I guess the questions could be:

1) Does truth matter?
2) Do you wish to impart this truth correctly?
3) Are you basing your Christian walk on a yet future hope or are you basing it upon fulfilled promises?

I think the least amount of difference would be to those who are postmillennialists. At least, they don't believe in a "Why polish the brass on a sinking ship" philosophy and are involved in the affairs of man.

Probably not very helpful...

[TK]

mellontes wrote:

1) Does truth matter?
2) Do you wish to impart this truth correctly?
3) Are you basing your Christian walk on a yet future hope or are you basing it upon fulfilled promises?

1) Yes?

2) Yes, but in the instance of FP it is far far far from established that it is in fact, the truth.

3) I base my walk on striving to be a disciple of Jesus, regardless of any future hope or fulfilled promises. He is my King and Creator, after all.

TK

[steve]

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.

[Mellontes]

Rich,

We are miles apart in our 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 there 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 (unclean) dwelling with the Jews (clean) 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.