Full Preterism: True or False

[Yeshua1]

As I have stated in an earlier post I can accept there are two resurrections for the elect. The first I would call the coming to life of the soul/spirit of the person who is spiritually dead, a spiritual resurrection. I believe this is the proper understanding of John 5:25 and those Scripture dealing with the New Birth. The second resurrection is the resurrection of the body at the return of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul discusses that resurrection and the nature of the resurrected body in 1 Corinthians 15:35-58.



I am not sure what you mean by two crucifixions and two baptisms!



Seems to me that Romans 6:5 and point #2 above supports the resurrection of the body at the return of Jesus Christ.

seems like he holds to the first resurrection being when born again, and the bible states that will happen after death at return of jesus, or to us alive at that time!

Also, why would we celebrate Communion still, fior that is to be done as a memorial until he comes again?

 

[OldRegular]

Also, why would we celebrate Communion still, fior that is to be done as a memorial until he comes again?

That is a very good question but perhaps Full Preterists don't. I also believe that hyper dispensationalists don't celebrate communion!

 

[Yeshua1]

That is a very good question but perhaps Full Preterists don't. I also believe that hyper dispensationalists don't celebrate communion!

That is true, for they see the baptism/communion under old covenant period/era!

Same way Hyper calvinists don't have missionaries, for I am a calvinist, but do NOT discount the great commission as not for today!

back to the op though...

IF Pretierists deny that we also will experience physical resurrection, deny Communion, deny Second Coming, how can that view NOT be heretical?

 

[percho]

Methinks, "heretical," may be a lot like, "beauty."

In the eyes____

 

[quantumfaith]

I don't really have time right now as I have a full time job, a separate part time job, a difficult (for me) math class and family/church/volunteer firefighter/EMT things going on now.

The Apostle John quoted Jesus as saying (John 14:2-3 in the simplified NIr version) “There are many rooms in my Father’s house. If this were not true, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. If I go and do that, I will come back. And I will take you to be with me. Then you will also be where I am".

QUESTIONs: On what date did Jesus return (come back) to receive those saints to himself? When it happened, did anyone notice? Who do you know noticed and how did that affect them and their behavor and their personal relationship with religion and or faith in God? What evidence do you offer to make the claim that this already happened? From the preterist view, could not this event be classified as a super secret rapture, so secret that even after 20 centuries there is not bit of evidence of the event?

And if this event already happened, what other alternate Biblical promises can 21st century saints use as a replacement verse/passage to keep our hearts from being troubled and looking forward to Jesus coming for us and showing us our own room in the Fathers house? Paul speaks of the blessed hope Titus 2:13, the second coming of Christ. What is the new blessed hope if this event already happened?

The Jehovah's Wintesses teach that Jesus returned in 1914 or 1915. Given that I myself do not believe that Jesus has returned yet, would you say that with respect to the second coming of Jesus, an event with 100s of Bible passages in support, that the JWs are closer to the truth than futurist like myself?



John quotes Jesus speaking to the church in Philadelphia (Revelation 3:9) "Some people claim they are Jews but are not. They are liars. Their worship is from Satan. I will make them come and fall down at your feet. I will make them say in public that I love you."

QUESTIONs: On what date did Jesus make the Jews fall down at the feet of this particular church to confess before men that Jesus did infact did love/loved them? What proof do you offer that this actually happened? Why and for what purpose did Jesus promise that the Jews would do this thing in public (acknowledge the love of Christ) if Jehovah is done with the Jews as the covenant/reformed/replacement/preterist teach?

Is it possible that John wrote(Rev 3"9) "Jews" when he really ment "Christians"? Is it possible that Jesus misspoke and ment to say "Christians" instead of "Jews"? If Christians are the Israel of God or the true Israel as the reformed claim, then how did those liars get baptized into the new covenant? And why didn't the church simply throw them out of the church, using the normal Biblical church disclipline?

Likewise, in this passage (Rev 3:9) is it possible that John and/or Jesus ment to say "church" when in that passage we read "synagogue"?

And is there any difference between a man saying that Jesus loved him and a man confessing his sins and trusting in Christ for his salvation? And if there is a difference, what would those differences be?



John quotes Jesus as follows (Revelation 20:6) "Blessed and holy are those who take part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them. They will be priests of God and of Christ. They will rule with him for 1,000 years."

QUESTION: If this first resurrection has already taken place as the big thinking heavy lifting preterist claim, then how does the Lord Jesus bring this world to a final end without a second second coming? R.C. Sproul is at least honest on this point and states Jesus will return a 3rd time. But we know that the preterist big thinkers like to make the false claim that the dispensationalists err in teaching that the rapture is the 2nd coming (1 Thess 4:13-17) and the return at the end of the tribulation (Matt ch 24-25) are two distinct events making the dispies teach 3 comings of Christ. But you yourselves teach 3 distinct comings of Christ. How/Why/When?

Math is our Friend!!!

 

[quantumfaith]

Methinks, "heretical," may be a lot like, "beauty."

In the eyes____

You have just so clearly illustrated Occam's Razor......sort of.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have just so clearly illustrated Occam's Razor......sort of.

problem here is that full pretierism disagrees with Jesus Himself, so comes down to the basic question "qwho do you trust?"

 

[asterisktom]

That is a very good question but perhaps Full Preterists don't. I also believe that hyper dispensationalists don't celebrate communion!

I still celebrate communion when I get the chance. There is nothing that stops this observance from being continued. I believe the passage emphasizes the backward aspect (rather, the ongoing aspect) more than the eschatological, "in remembrance of Me" being mentioned twice.

1Co 11:24-26
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

The until He comes part does not say explicitly that the observance ends at the Parousia; it just describes a feature of the Lord's Supper for the church - and to outsiders - a proclaiming of the Gospel message in symbols. It is a means for getting ready for that Parousia.

In the same way, we have the promise of Christ to His disciples (Matthew 28) that He would be with them until the end of the age. Whether you see this age's end to be in the first century (as I do), or some future time to come (as most here do), still, I think we can agree that the age spoken of here has an end. And yet we believe that Christ will not stop being with us. We believe that He will be with us forever, far beyond the end of all finite ages.

I would say that duration of the Lord's Supper should be understood the same way.

 

[asterisktom]

Tom, here is the crux of the matter.
The question was asked:

Will he saints be raised physically from their graves when jesus returns or not?

Your answer is given above: "NO."

You also stated above that there are two kinds of resurrection: physical and spiritual.
That is false. That is the same kind of thinking that the J.W.'s have and it is heretical. There is no such thing as a "spiritual resurrection."

I believe that, in your zeal to get to to the crux (as you see it) you make hasty comments. Are you really sure about your last statement? And to call it "false" (with all that word implies)? Are you thus lumping scholars like Hodge with the JWs? He certainly (to name one of many) believed in spiritual resurrection as well as physical. A quick check found also writings by Ryle and Vos along the same lines.

I must say I was surprised that you had written that.

 

[asterisktom]

No, it isn't.
Your posts indicate that you believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without that we cannot be saved. We have a point of agreement there. Right? (1Cor.15:1-4)

Most definitely.

Now when Jesus came to see the disciples a second time, Thomas was with them. Thomas had doubted the resurrection. Jesus said to him: Come hither, touch the prints in my hands, my feet, my side. Be not faithless but believing. Thomas fell down and said: "My Lord and my God."
He believed when he saw the resurrected Lord.
Note again how "resurrection" refers to the body.

This argument is only against those who deny a physical resurrection of Christ, like JWs - not preterists.

In 1Cor.15, Paul lists the different ones that Christ appeared to: Cephas, James, the twelve, and over 500 brethren "the greater part of whom are with us to this day," and "last of all to me as one who is born out of due time."
Again, this refers to a physical resurrection, not a "spirit" for they could all see Him. I am not questioning your faith here. I know you believe this. I am only establishing a base from which to work from--that the resurrection is always physical. When referring to Jesus Christ it never referred to spiritual.

I agree to everything up to your last two sentences. The base you established is for a physical resurrection of Christ, not that there is not also, in Scripture, reference to spiritual resurrection.

Now later, approximately 40 days later the ascension took place.
Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
--While they were looking he was taken up, physically. He was physically among them, and then started to arise toward the clouds.
--A cloud received him. That is he went into the cloud.

Wycliffe translated it this way:
Acts 1:9 And whanne he had seid these thingis, in her siyt he was lift vp, and a cloude resseyuede him fro her iyen.
--He was lift up.

In verse 10 he went up. As they were gazing, watching in astonishment this amazing event two angels appear (another astonishing event in itself), and ask them why they keep on staring.
It was a rhetorical question, for they reassure them that Christ, whom they saw physically arise into heaven will come the same way. The only time that he will come that specific way back to this earth is during that event that we call the rapture.
The Second Coming itself will occur a little later when he will come in power and glory with the glory of the Father and the holy angels.

See, this is where you are adding to your careful work things that are explicitly given in Scripture. He shall come in like manner (manner is the emphasis, not essence).

In what manner did the disciples last see Jesus? A
cloud took Him out of their sight. He was invisible. And that is how He was to return.

I want to answer a few other posts before I answer yours in more detail, probably after I return from work.

I appreciate your having verses here that we can work with.

 

[asterisktom]

You also deny that he is still in that physical glorified body, correct?

I already answered the first part of your post. But, to be clear, yes, I do deny that Christ exists now in a physical body, whether glorified or not.

To me it is both unscriptural and a conceptual monstrosity that one third of the ineffable Godhead should be physical, the other Persons being "only" spiritual".

The Son's taking human form was a mission-constrained necessity, not an improvement over the perfection He already had from eternity past. He went "slumming" down to our world to rescue us. There is no need for Him to continue under the constraints of eternal physicality, whether glorified or not.

 

[asterisktom]

Tom, Welcome back home and to the Board. Full Preterism needs a voice of sanity at this time. I had planned a hiatus but a thread on Preterism instigated this one and I am here for a few more days. Unless the Lord says otherwise!
******************************************************************

You say you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and I believe you. But in another post you say you do not believe in the resurrection of the dead at the return of Jesus Christ. That I simply cannot understand because I believe Scripture teaches otherwise.

I am not sure what I had written that could have been construed in such a manner. Maybe you can find my actual comments. I do believe in the resurrection of the dead at the coming (that is the Parousia) at AD70. That was the general resurrection. Everyone since then, though they are still saved though faith in Christ, are enjoying the benefits of the "age to come".

Unfortunately, this is all I have time for before work.

 

[DHK]

I believe that, in your zeal to get to to the crux (as you see it) you make hasty comments. Are you really sure about your last statement? And to call it "false" (with all that word implies)? Are you thus lumping scholars like Hodge with the JWs? He certainly (to name one of many) believed in spiritual resurrection as well as physical. A quick check found also writings by Ryle and Vos along the same lines.

I must say I was surprised that you had written that.

In my study of the resurrection I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection can refer only to the body. That is what makes the J.W. position so ridiculous. It is a non-resurrection.

Here is the definition of death:
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
--The spirit is separated from the body at death. It either goes to heaven or hell. Is the term "resurrection" ever applied to this situation? Not that I know of. It only applies to the body. This is why we are able to attack the RCC doctrine of Mariolatry effectively. Mary is dead. She is still in the grave, along with everyone else who has died. We don't pray to the dead. Mary, along with all the apostles, and other saints of God that have died, are awaiting a physical resurrection, where their bodies will be raised from the dust of this earth. Their spirits may already be in heaven. But someday they will be united together again as one person.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
--Some of those that John wrote to probably saw the resurrected Lord. Now they were waiting for him to come again. When he would appear the second time they would see him, and they too would be changed in their physical appearance. They would receive glorified bodies as Christ has. They would see Christ and would be like him. They would see him as he is. They would be like him as he is.

This is one of Paul's greatest arguments:
1 Corinthians 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
--In verse 13 he speaks of the resurrection of the dead in general--our physical resurrection which is yet to come. Christ was the first one, and is the only one to have risen from the dead. If there is no "resurrection" then our preaching is vain; our faith is vain; and we are found false witnesses. What an indictment!!

1 Corinthians 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
--The conclusion of that passage. If there is no physical resurrection to look forward to, then Christ himself is not raised. There is a resurrection. Inasmuch as Christ is raised from the dead it is a sure thing that we also will be raised from the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
--If there is no physical resurrection then we of all people are most miserable. What have we to look forward to?
There is a kingdom coming. Then after that: a new earth and a new heaven. These are not to be inhabited just by spirits.

1 Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
--There is an order to everything.
First Christ was physically raised from the dead.
Then we will follow in that same kind of resurrection. We will be raised "at his coming."

Paul goes on from verse 49ff to describe the nature of our body, what type it will be. The word "resurrection" always refers to the resurrection of the body. No other religion claims to have a resurrected prophet. They know the word refers to the body. Muslims cannot claim that Mohammed arose from the dead. He didn't. His body is in the grave. "Resurrection" applies only to the body.

 

[OldRegular]

I am not sure what I had written that could have been construed in such a manner. Maybe you can find my actual comments. I do believe in the resurrection of the dead at the coming (that is the Parousia) at AD70. That was the general resurrection. Everyone since then, though they are still saved though faith in Christ, are enjoying the benefits of the "age to come".

Unfortunately, this is all I have time for before work.

I knew that you believed in a resurrection in 70 AD. That being the case do you believe there are Saints in heaven with resurrected bodies and Saints without?

PS: As far as your view on the resurrection of all the dead I believe misread your response in post #44.

 

[HisWitness]

In my study of the resurrection I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection can refer only to the body. That is what makes the J.W. position so ridiculous. It is a non-resurrection.

Here is the definition of death:
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
--The spirit is separated from the body at death. It either goes to heaven or hell. Is the term "resurrection" ever applied to this situation? Not that I know of. It only applies to the body. This is why we are able to attack the RCC doctrine of Mariolatry effectively. Mary is dead. She is still in the grave, along with everyone else who has died. We don't pray to the dead. Mary, along with all the apostles, and other saints of God that have died, are awaiting a physical resurrection, where their bodies will be raised from the dust of this earth. Their spirits may already be in heaven. But someday they will be united together again as one person.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
--Some of those that John wrote to probably saw the resurrected Lord. Now they were waiting for him to come again. When he would appear the second time they would see him, and they too would be changed in their physical appearance. They would receive glorified bodies as Christ has. They would see Christ and would be like him. They would see him as he is. They would be like him as he is.

This is one of Paul's greatest arguments:
1 Corinthians 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
--In verse 13 he speaks of the resurrection of the dead in general--our physical resurrection which is yet to come. Christ was the first one, and is the only one to have risen from the dead. If there is no "resurrection" then our preaching is vain; our faith is vain; and we are found false witnesses. What an indictment!!

1 Corinthians 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
--The conclusion of that passage. If there is no physical resurrection to look forward to, then Christ himself is not raised. There is a resurrection. Inasmuch as Christ is raised from the dead it is a sure thing that we also will be raised from the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
--If there is no physical resurrection then we of all people are most miserable. What have we to look forward to?
There is a kingdom coming. Then after that: a new earth and a new heaven. These are not to be inhabited just by spirits.

1 Corinthians 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
--There is an order to everything.
First Christ was physically raised from the dead.
Then we will follow in that same kind of resurrection. We will be raised "at his coming."

Paul goes on from verse 49ff to describe the nature of our body, what type it will be. The word "resurrection" always refers to the resurrection of the body. No other religion claims to have a resurrected prophet. They know the word refers to the body. Muslims cannot claim that Mohammed arose from the dead. He didn't. His body is in the grave. "Resurrection" applies only to the body.

Does it not say in scripture that the SOUL that sinneth IT shall die ?
not only did the body die but the SOUL also in Hell(grave)
I believe the DEATH passed from adam was SOUL DEATH by sin.
Psalm 6-5:For in DEATH there is NO remembrance of thee(God):in the GRAVE who shall give thee thanks?
Psalm 16-10:For thou(God) wilt not leave my SOUL in Hell(grave)neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
The SOUL was DEAD in the GRAVE

 

[asterisktom]

In my study of the resurrection I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection can refer only to the body. That is what makes the J.W. position so ridiculous. It is a non-resurrection.

Why do you keep bringing up the JWs?

 

[asterisktom]

I knew that you believed in a resurrection in 70 AD. That being the case do you believe there are Saints in heaven with resurrected bodies and Saints without?

PS: As far as your view on the resurrection of all the dead I believe misread your response in post #44.

OK. BTW, I forgot to thank you for kind words earlier. I appreciate it.

Now I really do have to go. Those Chinese students won't teach themselves.

Hmm... actually they will. I have never seen such motivated students.

 

[percho]

OK. BTW, I forgot to thank you for kind words earlier. I appreciate it.

Now I really do have to go. Those Chinese students won't teach themselves.

Hmm... actually they will. I have never seen such motivated students.

Maybe they will teach themselves this.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. Ezek 18:20
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isa 53:6
because he hath poured out his soul unto death: Isa 53:12
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; (Sheol) neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Psalms 16:10
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, (Hades, Sheol) neither his flesh did see corruption.

Will be the only way they will learn it. NO?

 

[OldRegular]

OK. BTW, I forgot to thank you for kind words earlier. I appreciate it.

Now I really do have to go. Those Chinese students won't teach themselves.

Hmm... actually they will. I have never seen such motivated students.

I thought you were back Home based on an earlier post!!

 

[quantumfaith]

problem here is that full pretierism disagrees with Jesus Himself, so comes down to the basic question "qwho do you trust?"

Thanks for clearing that up for me.