Corporate Soteriology: The Cancer Within Full Preterism

This is not their name for this group. It goes most often by the name of Covenant Eschatology, but it is really a doctrine of salvation (soteriology), not eschatology. And the tragedy is that this unbiblical subgroup of Preterism is mistaken for the whole. Many Christians, sensing errors in their own eschatology "-isms" and potentially open to Preterism, come across these particular unbiblical teachings and give Full Preterism in its entirety a hard pass.

Instead of interpreting the Old Testament in the clearer light of the New they force an Old Testament grid over the New. Case in point is Don Preston's over-emphasizing the Feasts as the most important foundation for New Covenant truth. To achieve this end he contrives spurious connections like making Lev. 9, and not a passage like Isa. 53, be about the Atonement. In his Morning Musings Preston proclaimed that
"The atonement was not completed until the high priest came out of the most holy place, Leviticus 9:22."

He downplays the fact that that chapter in Leviticus actually concerns the dedication of Aaron's sons into the priesthood. It is not a passage from which to derive central Atonement doctrine. For that we have many other passages both in the New and Old Testament, connecting the Atonement with the Cross. But Preston, in all his writings and videos largely ignores those passages. Just as he largely ignores the Cross.

That is the crucial event, the actual physical death of Christ, shedding His blood. However, for Preston the Atonement, redemption, and justification are all essentially held in abeyance until magically activated in AD 70. This is all so contrary to Scripture. Moreover, those main passages of the Bible that could have corrected his doctrine he largely bypasses: Isaiah 53, Hebrews 7, Romans 3 - 5. Or if he does refer to them it is only to point to a word here or tense there to seemingly justify his teaching.

He misses the forest for the trees. And he misidentifies the trees.

He is the grand deflector. The main central theme of the Bible is salvation through Christ's actual (not spiritual!) death on the Cross. He avoids this, saying, paradoxically, that the price was paid before Christ even died! And that He "died twice"! And that the Atonement wasn't fully secured for the saints until AD 70!

However, the Atonement was indeed secured for them - and us - at the Cross. The benefit of that came down to the saints and to us ever since at Pentecost when, Christ having being presented to the Father, the empowering Holy Spirit came down. "Pentecost" - "50 days". NOT almost 40 years. Why would Christ wait for almost 4 decades to follow through as our High Priest on what He had already accomplished for the saints?

Christ's blood shed for us was the New Covenant:

"For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." - Matt. 26:28

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul." - Lev. 17:11

When Christ died for us He, in effect, gave us His life. Lev. 17:11 describes the divine intent of the whole sacrificial system. It also points to the final, perfect, eternally effective sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Death for death and life for life. He died for us so that we could live in in Him.

He nailed the Old Covenant, "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us" to the Cross. Col. 2:14. He did not take it (the handwriting of ordinances) with Him to the Most Holy Place. And He certainly did not put this off for almost 40 years. So what could there be left of this Old Covenant? It was taken away at the Cross. Scripture is clear on all of this.

Any teaching that denies this is another Gospel.

 

Thanks, at any rate, Van, for taking the time to read what I wrote.