The Evangelical Universalist Forum

On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Hi pilgrim!

I understand your gravitation toward your view, but if we feel that a consensus amongst the (many) scholars is necessary to establishing truth, we (Christianity) may be in for a long fight. As we find different sources and idea’s outside of traditional orthodoxy, knowledge moves ahead.

The Idea’s that are being thrown about on this very forum, are in may instances way outside the orthodox views. But we would do well to remember that Luther himself, when brought before the council at Worms, said " To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand I can do no other."

All can at least say is that Luther’s view at the very least brought about a huge shift in paradigm, as such we are all doing right now in different ways.

I enjoy the posts here. I am interested but not necessarily swayed by the posts of others, though I do consider them. As I believe you also do.

Many post opinions in the idea that outsiders may perhaps view and be swayed. I unfortunately, could not sway a drowning man to a life raft.

I just say what I say, as all who are here do: and hey… WE ARE ALL BROTHRS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST. Sometime we have to remember to love one another, even if we don’t physically know each other or agree. As Paul talked incessantly about unity, we find ourselves challenged by circumstances beyond what I think even He may have envisioned.

Amen

Yet again a very gracious reply Chad and I appreciate it. I do consider you as my brother in Christ and I chuckled at your drowning man. Me too!!
As for those times when it makes sense to go against the bulk of scholastic thought I also agree that there are many times when we might (and perhaps should) do this. But as for dating some source material, that is a very technical skill and requires substantial knowledge and training.
Just as it would be silly of me to side with the one ‘expert’ who declares that he has a more efficient way of creating nuclear fusion which will solve all our energy needs, because I am not learned in that field, who am I to disagree with the consensus of nuclear scientists? Now, if the debate were on how to interpret a particular prophecy (eg the parousia), then I fully agree that, with considerable background reading etc, both you and I are competent enough to form an opinion and to stick with that opinion regardless of whether it is a minority view.
I think the foundation for my disbelief in preterism is because I just cannot accept that the events around 70CE came anywhere close to fulfilling most of the parousia prophecies. We disagree on this and that is fine.
I was happy to take another look at all the relevant texts (which I did and posted my conclusions) and it was only then that I noticed the comment in John’s epistle and thought about the scholars views of the dating of that material. One thing I would emphasise is that I would take a little more note of those scholars who are disinterested in the date of his epistle(s). Others may well be more inclined to introduce bias.
So, I will repeat, that my position just happens to be tenable regardless of an early date, the preterist position is not. For this, apparently, my honesty and integrity have been repeatedly called into question. I can only think this is a defensive emotion from a brother and such emotions usually derive from some sort of fear of the alternative. Thankfully not by your good self.

P.S. I have no idea whether Robinson is a preterist or not but I will assume not. However, he is not a ‘disinterested scholar’. He wrote a book proposing that a lack of comment re the destruction of the temple would imply that the writings were before that event. No doubt his intentions were good as he was arguing against those German scholars (Bultmann, higher criticism etc??) who were giving extremely late dates for all the NT books and so were robbing the NT of any historical accuracy. But even I, as a layman, can legitimately claim Robinson’s argument to be weak if there exist many early christian writings from the church fathers, which were indisputably written post 70CE and yet do not mention the destruction of the temple. Now, it is obvious that Robinson would want his book to be considered credible and for that, he would have considerable interest in dismissing arguments for a later dating of the Johannine epistle.
God bless.

Hmm, pot meet kettle… :unamused:

For the interested… what follows is a quote from Dr Kenneth Gentry, a partial prêterist (someone who rejects the FULL prêterist view) advocating for an early dating of John’s ‘Revelation’. This quote, pages 81-87, is from his 1989 edition of ‘The Beast of Revelation’ of which a free pdf version is available HERE. This book is a shortened abbreviated version of his more comprehensive work ‘Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation’ also free in pdf HERE.

As can be seen an early dating isn’t an insignificant position held by a thoughtless few, and it seems a shame that pillorying prêterism when one cannot sustain a biblical rationale against it that claims of bias (bias’ of which we all have) with regards to “dates” are thrown up as though that is an adequate refutation… hmm?

:laughing: :mrgreen:

davo said:

J S Russell in his book ‘The Parousia’ said this: (page 104 of the digital version)

“We are placed, therefore, in this dilemma – either the words of
Jesus have failed, and the hopes of His disciples have been falsified ; or
else those words and hopes have been fulfilled, and the prophecy in all its
parts has been fully accomplished. One thing is certain, the veracity of our
Lord is committed to the assertion that the whole and every part of the
events contained in this prophecy were to take place before the close of
the existing generation. If any language may claim to be precise and
definite, it is that which our Lord employs to mark the limits of the time
within which all His words were to be fulfilled. Whatever other
catastrophes, of other nations, in other ages, there may be in the future,
concerning them our Lord is silent. He speaks of His own guilty nation,
and of His judicial coming at the close of the age, as had been often and
clearly foretold by Malachi, by John the Baptist, and by Himself. (5) For
this His words are to be bold responsible ; but beyond this all is mere
human speculation, the hypothesis of theologians, grounded upon no
warranty of Scripture.”

:smiley:

be nice if all the horrors in Rev were already fulfilled…and this world wont have to go thru anymore…I;m not convinced tho…I sure hope so…dont want to think about any more terrible suffering on this poor earth…been way too much already (even as we speak, look at Syria for example ).

Hi Neil, it is in many an opinion that:
If you look at revelation (and all of the cryptic prophesies of Christ) from a fulfilled eschatology view, all the bad stuff that is talked about in revelation is done and gone! The judgment on Israel is complete and the reconciliation with the Father is complete. It has all to do with the nation of Israel and the coming of the new covenant.* We *do not need to look for some great calamity, for that is not good news.

Look it up, it is kind of cool!

Just a thought.

Like some of you, it was Preterism, in my case Partial Preterism, what brought me to UR. I would like to know the opinion of those who know more about preterism and universalism than I do concerning their interpretation of 2 Bible verses:

1 Corinthians 3: The epistle was written to Gentiles, does the judgment stated in the chapter have to do with AD 70 Judgment or to a broad universal judgment that even had to do with the gentile nations?

1 Corinthians 11 has life or death consequences, How do you interpret that within God’s judgment for AD 70 and Jerusalem?.

Thanks for your interest in my question.

That’s Davo, Ricky. He’s really the residentual expert. But I believe he lives in Australia (where my Christian Science practitioner friend lives). So he might not answer until tomorrow - time zone difference, you know. And he hasn’t eaten his Vegemite yet - an Australian delicacy. :exclamation: :laughing:

Ok, no problem. please pass davo the message so he may give me his answer. I have no hermeneutical answer to this question and I would really like to learn. Thanks.

Can someone confirm I did the right thing - in the next sentence :question:

Let me try this, with the tag element: [tag]davo[/tag]

But rest assured, if the forum thread has the word Preterism in it… I can say with 90+ percent certainty, he will read it. :laughing:

G’day Ricky, welcome to the forum…

There is a good degree of diverse opinion within the prêterist view on given matters, as there is for example among universalists etc, so I don’t speak directly (or indirectly) on behalf of prêterists; however to some degree I’ll give a pantelist’ (inclusive prêterist) perspective.

The ‘judgment’ of 1Cor 3 is seen as relative to the AD70 Parousia which encompassed the final end of the old covenant (AD66-70 age (world); Rev’s 3½yrs, 42mths etc, culmination with Jerusalem and in particular the Temple being awash with flames… aka “the lake of fire”, from which there would be NO resurrection in terms of the desolation of the old covenant age (world), WHICH is WHY the same was likewise describe by John as “the second death”… there was prophetic promise of resurrection from Israel’s first death i.e., her EXILE under Babylon, but in Christ ALL things were made anew aka “a new creation”.

It needs to be noted that Jewish insurgents were afoot throughout Palestine and certainly further afield to which Rome’s Legions were often and quickly dispatched to put down such uprisings and insurrections. “Christianity” in its very early days was considered nothing more than a Jewish sect and duly pursued due to its advocacy that “Jesus is Lord” NOT Caesar! Thus it was not unimaginable that the early church of far-flung Asia Minor with strong links to ‘Jerusalem’ still took to heart such threats as were laid against the birthplace of their movement.

To the ‘judgment’ itself… said judgment was particularly upon one’s “works” as opposed to just the particular individual; though there were tough times and one’s personal safety could easily be in peril. Again, in the NT “judgment” is most often associated with “works”. Jesus said…

According to Paul worthless works would entail loss, but whatever endured or was “lasting” (menei <μενεῖ>) into the coming new age would receive its due reward. Paul goes onto say that “and the fire will test each one’s work” which most likely has some bearing on Jesus “For everyone will be salted with fire” of Mk 9:49 – a reference not to universal postmortem burnings for all and sundry, but rather a reference to the fire of persecution that would through trial and tribulation test (refine) the followers of the Way…

Having one’s works “salted” or “tested” by “fire” had much more to do with antemortem realities, i.e., to do with this life than with postmortem calamities, and was very much limited to believers – true disciples in faithful service were a “living sacrifice” (Rom 12:1) who would be tried by the fires of persecution.

As the purifying agency of salt accompanied OT sacrifices (Lev 2:13) so too would the soon coming fires of trial and tribulation accompany and so test (refine/purify) NT believers…

This then as I understand it IS what Jesus meant by his…

Again… the “everyone” according to the greater context being fully inclusive of the group in view, i.e., the believers of the day.

The “life or death consequences” I see as more relevant to that burgeoning church where certain selfish individuals were “not discerning the Lord’s body” (the church) and eating and drinking “in an unworthy manner” NOT considering the needs of others and so found themselves being “judged” aka “chastened by the Lord”. And so it would seem some may have ended up in a similar predicament much like Ananias and Sapphira.

Thanks for the answer, it makes a lot of sense. Do you know where I can get the book: This Book will Change your Life. It was written by another pantelist. I believe it was in pdf format some time ago.

Who is the author, Ricky? If you type “this book will change your life pdf” into Google or Bing, you can get many sites offering a download. The book has the same title. But it is probably a very popular, self-help book. :exclamation: :smiley:

Can’t say I’ve ever heard of any book specific to ‘pantelism’ in the offing, but that doesn’t mean anything. :sunglasses: The pantelists I’ve been loosely involved with over the years have treated our view as somewhat fluid and progressive, but that’s not to say someone hasn’t collated something. I know I’ve discussed this position way more on forum sites than I actually have articles up on my own site. :mrgreen:

I am clearing my throat… :exclamation: :smiley:

Like this :question: :laughing:

I like your post but unfortunately David knows where I stand. :laughing:

Peace folks. :smiley:

The title of the book actually is: This Book will Change your World, by Kevin Beck.