Hey Alec,
post a link, please.
thank you,
Nick
Will do! 
Preterism is really a neat concept that too many Bible readers have not considered. The idea that I am reading something prophesied in the future that is actually in the past from my time-frame is often over-looked. The average evangelical theologian is often scared by the term preterism, but I think with thoughtful discussion we could get every Christian to agree that the Bible has spoken of at least some events using the future tense that are already in the past. Any such statement is a preteristic statement. In fact most Christians hold to some form of this.
The question then is where to draw the line. How do we understand the multitude of statements that Jesus and his Word makes about the future? What has already happened and what remains in the future for mankind?
One thing predicted in the future is the glorification of the God’s people, the complete removal of sin and the perfection of our minds, bodies, and souls. In fact this future event is SO certain that Romans 8:30 even speaks of it in the past tense. Yet I think each of us could consider our aches, pains, and struggles with sin and realize that we are not yet glorified. Of course one might try to follow Mary Baker Eddy into Christian Science and the denial of pain. One could also argue that this temporal life is simply an endless incubator bringing new people into this broken world in order to find Jesus and that glorification happens for all upon death. However, this simple model misses the Biblical teaching about the rapture and resurrection as well as other things.
One question I am researching along these lines is whether the White horse in Revelation 6 is the same event as the White horse in Revelation 19. One could try to understand Revelation as a prophesy of events and judgments, concerning Jerusalem or otherwise, beginning with the White horse in Revelation 6. John then returns to the same white horse in Revelation 19 to communicate that these events he just described in the body of the book are now beginning. This literary device would be called a framing-effect. I’ve tried to understand it that way, but after some effort it seems too cumbersome.
Presently I’ve simply settled to a partial-preterist stand while trying to build a consistent understanding of where to draw the lines in what is past and what is still future. The challenge is having a thorough enough understanding of history past while wading through the highly symbolic language of apocalyptic literature.
I have proposed a chart of redemptive history on this page. I’d love to have your feedback there. dgjc.org/optimism/hope-in-jesus
Hi Jeff,
I guess that as a full preterist and a universalist, I have found that to come to these conclusions I have had to unlearn many assumptions I have had over the years.
I am not sure why most all Christians believe that Christ came to earth, born of a virgin, did many miracles, taught of many incredible truths, was put to death, died, was buried, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven… We believe all these things (and I may add none of us has seen with our own eyes) and yet many will not believe that he came for all, to reconcile humanity to the Father, that he bore the sin of all the world, that he came to completely fulfil the covenantal requirements to the house of Israel, that through a partial hardening of heart, ALL have been Included… in short, Christ has done everything he said he would do.
As to sins, pains, sufferings, glorification etc… I will quote George McDonald:
God does not, by the instant gift of his Spirit, make us always feel right, desire good, love purity, aspire after him and his will. Therefore either he will not, or he cannot. If he will not, it must be because it would not be well to do so. If he cannot, then he would not if he could; else a better condition than God’s is conceivable to the mind of God-a condition in which he could save the creatures whom he has made, better than he can save them. The truth is this: He wants to make us in his own image, choosing the good, refusing the evil. How should he effect this if he were always moving us from within, as he does at divine intervals, towards the beauty of holiness? God gives us room to be; does not oppress us with his will; “stands away from us,” that we may act from ourselves, that we may exercise the pure will for good. Do not, therefore, imagine me to mean that we can do anything of ourselves without God. If we choose the right at last, it is all God’s doing, and only the more his that it is ours, only in a far more marvellous way his than if he had kept us filled with all holy impulses precluding the need of choice. For up to this very point, for this very point, he has been educating us, leading us, pushing us, driving us, enticing us, that we may choose him and his will, and so be tenfold more his children, of his own best making, in the freedom of the will found our own first in its loving sacrifice to him, for which in his grand fatherhood he has been thus working from the foundations of the earth, than we could be in the most ecstatic worship flowing from the divinest impulse, without this willing sacrifice. For God made our individuality as well as, and a greater marvel than, our dependence; made our apartness from himself, that freedom should bind us divinely dearer to himself, with a new and inscrutable marvel of love; for the Godhead is still at the root, is the making root of our individuality, and the freer the man, the stronger the bond that binds him to him who made his freedom. He made our wills, and is striving to make them free; for only in the perfection of our individuality and the freedom of our wills call we be altogether his children. This is full of mystery, but can we not see enough in it to make us very glad and very peaceful?
Macdonald, George . Unspoken Sermons Series I, II, and III (p. 75).
I kind of like how he puts this. Having pasted the above, I have no problem with the notion that Christ did all he said he would do. And we are exactly where the Father wants us.
qaz
1Co 15:19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
1Co 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
1Co 15:21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming,
1Co 15:24 then comes the end,
(if we consider the end, what is talked about here, is the ending of the age Christ spoke of=70AD destruction of the Temple)
1Co 15:24 (continued) when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
1Co 15:27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
1Co 15:28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
Once again, I have no problem with believing Paul saying that Christ is doing (has done in our time) everything he said he would do. The above has everything to do with God’s covenant with Israel. We keep trying to make it into a personal evangelical revelation.
Wright puts it like this:
Paul’s understanding of God’s accomplishment in the Messiah is that this single purpose, this plan-through-Israel-for-the-world, this reason-God-called-Abraham (you can see why I prefer the shorthand “covenant”; this is going to be a very long book if I have to use multihyphenated phrases all the time), finally came to fruition with Jesus Christ. Here is the point which has so puzzled John Piper that he thinks a “covenantal” reading would be a belittling of Paul’s meaning. The single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world was called into being by God as the means of addressing and solving the plight of the whole world. The “covenant,” in my shorthand, is not something other than God’s determination to deal with evil once and for all and so put the whole creation (and humankind with it) right at last. When will it become clear to the geocentrists? Dealing with sin, saving humans from it, giving them grace, forgiveness, justification, glorification—all this was the purpose of the single covenant from the beginning, now fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Wright, N. T. (2009-09-25). Justification: God’s Plan & Paul’s Vision (pp. 94-95). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.
Just my opinion.
Thanks 
Chad
Hi qaz
I guess I see all as all inclusive. Seems clear to me.
As I understand it from an “inclusive prêterist” perspective, aka pantelism… I would say the exact opposite to be true. In fact it was 1Cor 15 that that led me as a full prêterist to see the all-inclusive nature of God’s grace – TO ALL. I’m not making a case for “universalism” per se but rather “inclusion” – similar but with significant differences that foster different conclusions and assumptions that to my mind negate and quash a lot of unnecessary and manufactured doctrinal contradictions.
IF as Pantelism contends – in the AD70 Parousia of Christ the LAST enemy to be destroyed was “the death” (1Cor 15:26); and IF along with “the death” its paralysing venom of “the sin” duly empowered by the “the law” all suffered demise (1Cor 15:56); and further… IF God having reconciled all things in heaven and on earth to Himself through the blood of Christ’s cross (Col 1:20); THEN regardless of what you or I or anybody else thinks or reasons – God has no more enemies.
Now even if in the ignorance or arrogance of some men’s feeble minds they consider themselves enemies of God, from HIS perspective they are not (Col 1:21), period. The logic is clear-cut – IF from the pantelist perspective “the last enemy” to be destroyed was “the death” aka spiritual separation (that which the first Adam wrought was that which the last Adam rectified), then a consistent prêterism must dictate that there can be NO MORE ENEMIES thereafter; therefore God has no more enemies, period! And thus… IF God has made peace, and the Scriptures testify He has, THEN who are we to question His gracious will?
Needless to say I became the bane of existence in prêt circles being duly labelled “a dirty universalist!!” – lol.
If all is fulfilled then an unequivocal YES!
Some remain unconvinced but I suspect this is due to looking at life from our fleshly perspective; always a deficiency. Consider the logic… IF “Christ in you” can be relegated to the scrap heap based purely on the human observation of judging a person’s life i.e., their works, THEN no Christian can or could claim that reality that Paul claims to be true.
Just because a lot of humanity does not live as though God were present within does not mean He is not. Again simplifying it… just because a lot of believers do not live as though Christ were truly present within does not mean He is not.
I read the text with the prêteristic hermeneutic of “audience relevance” in mind, meaning… BEFORE I read “myself” back into the text I ask, HOW did this (the text) have meaning for those to whom it was specifically written, i.e., what did the original audience understand these words to mean? NOT what do these words mean to me? That is secondary and should be governed by that which is primary.
Which “world” were they not to love? …the one the majority of early converts came from, i.e., Judaism – the OC “world”. THAT world (the one Jesus came to redeem) was under “condemnation” and those who clung to it would duly go down with it, as per Jn 3:16-18, 36.
Again it was “the world” of the old covenant that was coming to naught, or as the immediate writer states “is passing away” i.e., in the process thereof of demise…
The brother who remained in the practice of Pharisaic judgmentalism, i.e., “darkness” was hindering the “true light from shining”. The likes of Diotrephes (3Jn 1:9) was such a one and was in danger of the very likes of the Pharisaic Lawyers, as per Lk 11:52 cf. Acts 15:10; Rom 1:18. This then is the likes of the behaviour 1Jn 2:9 refers to… NOT living out the fullness of NC grace.
Again this ‘passing world’ is in line with the writer to the Hebrews…
Note the then present diminishing nature of the OC world, said to be in the process of… “becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” There is likewise Paul’s words…
Again the OC world was “passing away” and “what remains is much more glorious” i.e., the NC world. Jesus’ disciples asked…
As can be seen there IS historical context determining HOW the relevant audiences understood their world and what was coming upon it, and in particular the words spoken in relation to it.
But to reiterate, and this does need taking note of…
In terms of ECT or some misapplying of the LOF, no! I’m somewhat agnostic on what I would see as ‘justice postmortem’ only because I don’t see it dealt with that clearly in scripture. Now someone might appeal to the likes of…
Again understanding “audience relevance” and “apocalyptic genre” this torturous torment lasting “forever and ever” speaks to the TOTALITY, completeness or fullness of judgment, NOT its length. Not only that… the context itself shows the timeframe of Jerusalem’s ‘last days’ (AD70) where the great Harlot Babylon, i.e., JERUSALEM is fallen.
But even if one wants, for example, to ignore the historic parlance and still claim the likes of postmortem ECT for this passage above then they can be greatly comforted knowing that even as they are likewise “in the presence of the Lamb” they too will be able to speak, as per Lk 16:26, with their lost loved ones as they writhe in flames; though there be a “great gulf fixed” between them at least they will be close enough to communicate… Jesus thought of everything, oh joy!! 
Hebrews 10:31 says it’s a scary thing to fall into the hands of the living God. In John 8:24 Jesus warns of the danger of dying in one’s sins. These seem to be clear references to post-portem punishment.
But even if the Bible didn’t deal clearly with the issue, we could conclude based on logic that if Christianity is true, there will be post-portem punishment. (Whether or not it’s unending is a whole other issue).
qaz Posts: 39Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am
Top
Sure, some will be beaten with many lashes, some with few. It’s proportionate.
Which is why I haven’t made that carte blanch claim.
It’s not that they can’t be true post parousia, BUT that those verses’ primary and more immediate focus and applicability was to the THEN suffering church as per ‘the tribulation’ and their need for unity of “love” in the face of division… as per the likes of 1Jn 2:19; Acts 15:1, 5, 24
AD70 was the end game with regards to Israel’s redemption. Any “believer” prior or since who claims to love God and yet hates his brother can be challenged to their apparent hypocrisy… I’m NOT arguing against that point.
Well no, I don’t. You’re saying I’m saying things that I’ve NOT actually said, i.e., you’re making false assumptions. What I’ve said is… by virtue of the parousia (AD70) God has no more enemies, period. AD70 hasn’t stopped anyone from coming to errant conclusions about God and so having ‘attitude’ against God… but that doesn’t faze God NOR change the reality of His grace covers all, dare I say is “all in all” – some people in this life “get it” and are blessed accordingly – the rest will (on the whole) be pleasantly surprised when they step through death’s doorway.
Your word “seem” is a massive qualifier! There is nothing in Heb 10:31 that requires such dire straits as referencing a post-mortem calamity; Israel’s history was replete with examples of what it meant “to fall into the hands of the living God” IN THIS LIFE!
Again in Jn 8:24… nothing apart from of doom IN THIS LIFE not knowing the forgiveness that was theirs, i.e., consequentially dying in their sins. WHERE are you getting “post-mortem” from in this text?
All well and good, so ok, logically state your case accordingly… 
Here is some of my logic.
- The wicked dead are punished in a place called Hades. The man died and was buried. Luke 16:19-31
- The righteous dead are raised to life to reign with Christ. Revelation 20:1-6
- The wicked dead are extracted from Hades after the Millennial time period. Hades is not empty, but will be emptied. Revelation 20:11-15
- Fallen angels are likewise being held for future judgment. 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6
Thus
- There is temporary postmortem punishment for unbelievers
- There is differential blessed postmortem treatment for believers
- There are redemptive events still in the future
- There is reason to fear the Lord’s wrath for he still punishes the disobedient
- The wicked dead are punished in a place called Hades. The man died and was buried. Luke 16:19-31
- The righteous dead are raised to life to reign with Christ. Revelation 20:1-6
- The wicked dead are extracted from Hades after the Millennial time period. Hades is not empty, but will be emptied. Revelation 20:11-15
- Fallen angels are likewise being held for future judgment. 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6
There will be a lot of varying opinions here. For example I’m undecided on a millennial period after Christ returns or does he simply return on the last day. Also I think the unrighteous dead are simply dead until judgment day. In Luke 16, I think is a parable about Israel losing it’s favor as I think the rich man is Israel and Lazarus represents gentiles. Hades simply means grave as it is the greek word for the Hebrew word “shoel.”
Qaz,
Joh 8:3 The scribes and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,
Joh 8:4 they *said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.
Joh 8:5 “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?”
Joh 8:6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Joh 8:8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
Joh 8:10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?”
Joh 8:11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”]
You say for God not to punish unrepentant sinners would mean that God does not care about sin any more. Is that how YOU take the above account of the woman caught in adultery?
You’re not taking into account context… “pleasing God” was relative to their service as faithful believing servants; something fleshly Israel failed to do.
Duly noted, and I’ll raise you one… Isa 43:19 “Behold, I will do a new thing, now it shall spring forth; shall you not know it?” God did a new thing in Christ… He abolished “the sin” that separated Him from his creation. All religianity seeks to do is rebuild that which is destroyed… and to no good end!
WELL YES exactly… and again He did something about it! You see, this is the schizophrenia of evangelicalism… it says it believes one thing and then practices the exact opposite.
Spiritual maturity into the grace of God is not marked by who you exclude, or the groups you exclude, or the life styles you exclude. The mark of spiritual maturity into the grace of God is marked by the circle that gets wider and wider, embracing more and more in understanding, that in no matter what a man does he cannot escape the incredible mercy of God.
It is little wonder that folk grow up struggling with any inner faith when we in our religiosity have learnt go around saying things like: “God loves you!” – to which a respondent might ask… “How much does he love me?” – “Unconditionally!” we will say… “He has grace for your life!” “What kind of grace?” they will query – “Undeserved and unmerited favour, it’s all yours!” “Well I’m not so sure I can believe all this” is their response – and what is our religious rejoinder… “then you’ll burn in Hell forever!” Talk about a toxic and schizophrenic message. The power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it, or the lack thereof!
I have a sneaking suspicion there hasn’t been a person born who has then come to stand in His Presence that hasn’t then duly “repented”.
There is of course my website… pantelism.com and of course on prêterism DKP is always a good read. But for the pièce de résistance on ‘covenant eschatology’ (aka prêterism) go to Max King’s opus magnum… ‘The Cross and the Parousia of Christ’ –– it is wordy and a hard slog but more than worth it.
I’m an ‘inclusionist’ as opposed to a ‘universalist’ as in I reject the typical universalist rationales around “hell” and “the lake of fire” which for the most part are no different in essence than that held by infernalists; the only real difference between the two is the amount of torturous time said to be spent therein. I also don’t buy into the philosophical type arguments lots of universalists’ often favour… I find them weak and unconvincing. IOW, I came to inclusion via biblical eschatology NOT philosophy.
Becoming an inclusive prêterist (a pantelist) was as natural as moving from partial to full prêterism, that is, it was IMO the most natural and logical progression to take when taking prêterism to it most obvious logical conclusion, that is, I found prêterism to be inherently inclusive and as such the pantelism extrapolated to be more exegetically and “prêteristically consistent”.
Example… prêterism maintains that “the last enemy to be destroyed is death” – I agree! (BTW… this “death” was the death of Adam i.e., relational spiritual] separation from God; that which Jesus rectified). LOGIC however dictates that IF this is so then by obvious extension GOD HAS NO MORE ENEMIES because there can be nothing more AFTER “the last” has been dealt with – that’s pretty simple AND pretty INCLUSIVE. There are of course other texts that feed into this pantelistic rationale.
I encountered a lot of heat and opposition from both Arminian (DKP) and Calvinist (Frost) prêterists… but the best they could do at the time (early to mid-2000s) was rail against my conclusions with pejorative name-slinging like “universalist!” But apart from disagree they couldn’t (can’t) refute said conclusions.
That $28 price tag on King’s book has discouraged me, but I’d like to read (study) it so will look around for a used copy.
davo said
“Spiritual maturity into the grace of God is not marked by who you exclude, or the groups you exclude, or the life styles you exclude. The mark of spiritual maturity into the grace of God is marked by the circle that gets wider and wider, embracing more and more in understanding, that in no matter what a man does he cannot escape the incredible mercy of God.”
That statement is so true… Thanks for sharing!
King again quoted
I believe that Romans 11:32 is the grand conclusion of grace theology in Paul magnum opus and is without a doubt teaching unconditional universalism for each individual. This verse is the center piece of my new book at dgjc.org/optimism and is fully exegeted here dgjc.org/optimism/romans-11-32-36.
Now I plan to buy King’s book, but I can tell we see the main point quite differently! 
One question I am researching along these lines is whether the White horse in Revelation 6 is the same event as the White horse in Revelation 19. One could try to understand Revelation as a prophesy of events and judgments, concerning Jerusalem or otherwise, beginning with the White horse in Revelation 6. John then returns to the same white horse in Revelation 19 to communicate that these events he just described in the body of the book are now beginning. This literary device would be called a framing-effect. I’ve tried to understand it that way, but after some effort it seems too cumbersome.
Have you ever considered the possibility of an Historicist approach with different beasts at different times? For example perhaps Nero was the first beast, the RCC the second, Islam as the third?
I do believe Revelation covers a larger part of history and that the Millenial Kingdom and GWT are still future. So yes I do believe the 1st and 2nd white horse are separate events. However, I have little to share about what they may be in detail. I am not sure. More important to me is that regarding the 1st Beast out of Thalassa, the sea, and the 2nd Beast out of the Earth, I think the first Beast is a fallen angel whereas the 2nd Beast is a human being. You would have to read my ebook and especially the appendix to follow my arguments.
I take a slightly different angle than many universalists, in that my understanding of the judgments assigned to fallen angels helps to properly understand passages like Matthew 25 and Revelation 20. If you cannot read my whole book, you might find this article interesting, dgjc.org/optimism/fallen-angels-at-the-great-white-throne-judgment.
Please provide a quote from a text written no later than A. D. 30 that presents Gehenna as a place of post-mortem punishment. The earliest I have ever seen the Greek word “gehenna” used for post-mortem punishments was possibly by Justin Martyr in the second half of the 2nd century, and definitely by Clement of Alexandria (who was a universalist) in the late 2nd century.
I would like to emphasize in the kindest way possible that I am not interested in a quote from a modern writer asserting what Jesus’s contemporaries supposedly believed about Gehenna. I am interested only in texts unambiguously written no later than A. D. 30. (To be fair, I must admit that I have been asking for this for years, and no one has ever been able to provide me with such a text.)
I do believe Revelation covers a larger part of history and that the Millenial Kingdom and GWT are still future. So yes I do believe the 1st and 2nd white horse are separate events
Yes and how these horses are viewed is connected to ones eschatology. Some believe the white horse is the Papacy, the red horse is Communism, the black horse is Capitalism and the pale green horse is Islam.