Even though I am not what is called a “Full Preterist” I would like to share this website which states that teh earliest Universalists in the USA had preteristic leanings:
Interesting to me is that Universalism can be held by preterists, Postmillenialst, Amillenialists and dispensationalists as well. The reason for that is not eschatology but the true translation of words like gehena, aion and krysis.
A preterist view on universalism can be seen in this website.
blogforthelordjesusbiblenotes.wo … -heaven-2/
Very interesting. I hold mostly to this position. On the other hand, I believe that Revelation 20 has certain aspects of the future. We can see this in the book The Parousia, by James S. Russell where he states that verses 5-10:
[5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. 7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. 9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them. 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. ]
have to do with a future attack from Satan and his followers agains God’s People.
Now my questions about Revelation 20:9 are: Can we say that the enemies of God’s people are physical as well as spiritual? If that is the case: Can we say that the fire that came down from heaven has to do with the same in the lake of fire? If that is correct, can we say that this judgement has the same finality: to purify and change the sinners towards faith in Christ? If not, then, can we say that the fire will bring God’s enemies TO the Lake of Fire, so they may be purified and changed through faith in Christ?
What do you guys think?
As a former Calvinist, a full preterist and a universalist, I’d like to address some of the overall judgments posted here concerning my beliefs. I will preface my other comments with a caveat that I am not looking for argument but rather attempting to address some of the misconceptions that were made.
- The accusation of gnosticism shows a general ignorance of true gnosticism. Gnostics had a particular non-Christian way of viewing the scriptures. The proper attempt at perjorative would be the use of the phrase “neo-Platonist,” which particularly signifies the disdain, or villification of matter. I know of no “Pantelists” (the phrase we have chosen to represent ourselves) who teach such a disdain.
In fact, I would argue that it is the futurist (whether full or partial) who is actually the neo-platonist. One of the main futurist arguments against full preterism is that we cannot now be in the resurrected kingdom when we are still in “sinful flesh.” The futurist requires a physical resurrection because this so-called “sinful flesh” “cannot enter the kingdom of God.” But flesh in the new testament (SARX) has to do with a general weakness of humanity. Our SARX is weak, but the spirit gives us life. Sarx was directly tied to the Law, which was the ministration of death (the “strength of the law”). Spirit was tied to the new covenant. Pantelists have no problem with our humanity, as it was created by God. And it, like all else created, was GOOD.
- I noted someone’s objection to full preterism with an allusion to the physical resurrection of Jesus. The “spiritual resurrection” that occurred in baptism prior to AD70, and in the destruction of Jerusalem, was “the resurrection of the body” prophesied in the New Testament. The “body of death” was Moses’ body, into which ALL Israel was baptized (1 Cor 10); but in its resurrected form in AD70 it was joined with the rest of the body of Christ - the “perfect man.” The TWO (believing Israel and unbelieving Israel) were joined through resurrection and Jesus was their Shepherd King.
Paul makes reference to this in Romans where he says “they (Israel after the flesh - i.e., under the law) are your enemies for the sake of the gospel but, for the sake of the patriarchs, they are beloved…for the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable.” IOW, even Israel after the flesh would be saved for “ALL were consigned to disobedience so that God may have mercy on ALL.” Jesus came to “save the lost house of Israel,” the “world” of the old covenant. The “seed” of Israel fell to the ground and died (baptism was viewed as a death and resurrection; the destruction of Jerusalem, the lake of fire, was the second death - the first death being that brought about by the Law).
In regards to Jesus’ physical resurrection (which I embrace wholeheartedly), I would argue that if Jesus died physically on the cross and the believers were told they were “crucified with Christ” (yet not physically); then why would believers have to be physically raised from the dead to share in his physical resurrection? Are you prepared to say that we must physically hang on a cross in order to be “crucified with Christ”? Then why must our rotting, decaying corpses require rescuscitation?
A few other points in regards to how I see scripture. The 1,000 year reign of Christ was both literal and figurative and spanned an actual 1,000 years. Interestingly, the time from Solomon to Christ was this 1,000 years. Solomon was not the true heir of David for the throne because he didn’t keep God’s commandments. Jesus did and thus; Jesus was the true heir and, in a sense, ruled over Israel from the time of David’s death. Solomon was a usurper, but still in some ways a “type” of Christ (he built the temple, which Christ finished in AD70). The reality though was that Solomon was “the beast” of Revelation. He was known for his wisdom (“let him who has wisdom…”) and his annual tribute was “six hundred and sixty six” talents of gold. Those who “worshipped the beast” and took his mark (the old covenant mark of circumcision) were “destroyed with the breath of ‘Christ’s’ coming” in AD70. Those who did not receive the mark (which Paul warned against accepting after initially saying it didn’t matter) were persecuted by the Jewish religious leadership (the False Prophet). Those who denied Christ were, by definition, the antichrists - denying that the Messiah (the Christ) came in the flesh (i.e. under the Law) to redeem those still in their flesh. They were “dead in their trespasses and sins” under the law, and we know from the Revelation that “the rest of the dead (Israel after the flesh) did not come to life until the thousand years were over (in AD70).”
One final chapter in this seemingly growing “book” is the story of Adam and Eve. Note that they were created “naked but not ashamed.” God created them that way, and he said his creation was good. But when they were deceived to wanting to “know good and evil” rather than to “know God” their spiritual eyes were opened and they saw their nakedness. They were then ashamed. They hid from God, trying to separate themselves, and God found them and covered their shame. “Knowing good and evil” brings us only shame…that is SARX. Spirit gives LIFE. That is the message of the new covenant, the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells.
1 Cor 15 says that “the last enemy to be destroyed (or nullified) is death,” meaning spiritual death (the only form of death that mattered as was pointed out by one poster here). “The sting of death is sin, and the law gives power to sin.” IOW, when the old covenant “passed away” (as Hebrews says that it was about to, and that Jesus would not tarry, and he didn’t), there was no more Law. And, as Paul said, where there is no law, sin is not held to anyone’s account. And when there is no sin, there is no death. End of story. Christ has won. Christ is risen, he has conquered ALL of his enemies. Death is defeated and ALL humanity is reconciled to God.
Herein lies my presentation of my beliefs in a short, “nutshell” fashion. I hope it has helped to give some here an understanding of where Pantelism (Full Preterist Universalism) is coming from scripturally.
blessings,
Ed Burley
Ed! Thanks for posting this. I have never heard this take on full preterism before, and certainly have never heard of Solomon being identified as the beast. Very interesting food for thought, as someone who was leaning toward at least partial preterism before even becoming a universalist.
Thanks Mel. I should point out though that my belief that Solomon was the beast is a minority opinion amongst Pantelists, as is the view of circumcision being “the mark of the beast.” Most Pantelist-types see Nero as the Beast and submission to Rome as the mark. Also, most Preterists believe the 1,000 year reign was actually the 40 years between Christ’s ascension and the destruction of Jerusalem.
I also would point out some significant time frames:
40 years = a biblical generation. The number of years Israel was in the wilderness…that David ruled Israel/Judah…that David’s tabernacle stood before Solomon built his temple…
70 years = Captivity. Israel was in captivity for 70 years in Babylon, and the number of years between Christ’s two comings (birth and parousia).
Revelation uses a phrase “Sodom and Egypt, where our Lord was crucified…” Well, we know our Lord was crucified in Jerusalem, so “Sodom and Egypt” were actually Jerusalem. What happened to Sodom and Egypt? They were destroyed by “fire from heaven” or “curses.” What happened to Jerusalem in AD70? She was destroyed by “fire from heaven” or “the lake of fire, the second death.” Revelation goes on to describe plagues similar to those that came upon Egypt…and who do those plagues fall upon? Babylon, the great…the Mother of All Harlots. Who does the old testament call a harlot repeatedly? Jerusalem. While the “New Jerusalem” is called by Paul in Galatians, “the mother of us all;” why wouldn’t Jerusalem after the flesh be “the mother of all harlots”? And she’s compared to Babylon…why? How long was Israel captive in Babylon? 70 years - the time from Christ’s first coming (birth) to his second (parousia).
Every way you look at it, you can find, in the Hebrew paradigm, the new testament pointing back to the old AND being fulfilled in Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, ascension and parousia.
Hello wmb2003,
I’ve been wanting to ask, how is a Preterist Postmillenialist Universalist biblical view consistent with Calvinistic theology? From what I understand about Calvinism, the two views are mutually exclusive to each other. Chapter 33 of the Westminster Confession directly contradicts all what we Preterist Universalists believe.
Here is what the Confession says concerning the Last Judgement:
Unless I misunderstand what the above implies, the Confession seems to take a futurist premillenialist perspective. It also confesses the doctrine of eternal damnation for the non-elect, which is characteristic of, but not particular to, Calvinism.
Please help me to understand, because I’m a bit confused 
, lol.
I would agree that the confession is not a preterist document but don’t really see the pre-mil there.
Anyway, when we talk about calvinistic universalism or arminian universalism these are really oxymoron since both systems are based on eternal torment.
Really what we are getting at is a system of doctrine that sees man as totally depraved, but unconditionally chosen to salvation, sees the atonement as limited to those who actually put faith in Christ and believe that they will all be irrisistably drawn to him and persevere in the faith.
Naturally as universalists we would say that this will eventually apply to all men. Thus the atonement is limited to those with faith in Christ, but eventually that group will, like the mustard seed grow to encompass everything.
None of this is the least bit incompatible with post-millenialism, or universalism.
Unless a Christian is a full preterist, then he is a partial preterist. I don’t think there’s any such thing as a non-preterist Christian.
Other than full preterism, there are only varying degrees of partial preterism.
As a Pre-millenialist, I am doubtless among those whose partial preterism belongs to a very small part of Matthew 24, namely verses 1 and 2:
Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”
I’m pretty sure EVERY Christian believes that this applies to 70 A.D.
1 Like
I would say am a nearly full preterist. Probably as far from your pre-mil eschatology s possible. 
" The Ascension of Jesus and the Second Coming are nevertheless vital Christian doctrines[3], and I don’t deny that I believe some future event will result in the personal presence of Jesus within God’s new creation. This is taught throughout the New Testament outside the Gospels. But this event won’t in any way resemble the Left Behind account. Understanding what will happen requires a far more sophisticated cosmology than the one in which “heaven” is somewhere up there in our universe, rather than in a different dimension, a different space-time, altogether." - NTW
1 Like
That is interesting, It is vital to the Christian doctrines of the evangelicals. It is a interesting point to note that many of those same evangelicals propose a trinity doctrine that you seem to so oppose, and you seem to have a problem with the pantelist or even the preterist view, and yet you seem to be willing to let the trinitarians slide… Just a thought.
Slide? I’ve questioned trin theories from day 1 on this forum. I’m not sure what you are talking about in that respect?
And as for pantelism etc - I have a problem with that as well and for the same reasons - I don’t find those positions scriptural any more than I find trins to be scriptural.
At least on my readings, and what study I have been able to do.
You’re always talking about making up our own minds and thinking outside the box - well, I have, outside the trin box and outside the preterist box. And those aren’t the only boxes.
I’m not opposing your position, just questioning how anyone can hold that position. I find it to be an interesting problem.
In what sense are you or are you not a Christian? I’m not going to judge, I just would like to know.
Evangelicals believe in Christ because they believe He will through their belief save them from a calamity, thus HELL.
My position is that God through his love sent a son to deliver humanity. No strings attached. Don’t have to believe anything, don’t have to do anything quite simply God’s love saved humanity from destruction. Death on the other hand, is where many evangelicals differ from my view. I am fairly convinced that all of our sins are washed away by the Christ. It may stick in your craw so to speak, but the worst of all humanity was indeed made in God’s image, so if we look for a different view of how to deal with them, when we start to analyze the place where their sin came from, we start to see a pattern that includes us. All Humans.
So this is just my two cents worth and I am bearing my soul/ belief. But I do think there is credence to the idea.
Look forward to the debate.
Thanks for that, Chad! I’m not interested in a debate, but what you said is valuable to you and that really helps me understand it better.
I’m glad i could be of service.
1 Like
Or even outside of space and time. Jesus said we would be like the angels. Paul says we are buried as terrestrial beings being in the first Adam and of the earth earthly but raised as celestial beings with the second Adam who is the Lord from heaven! I don’t think any terrestrial being is qualified to even come close to an idea of what it even means to become a celestial being.
This statement made me curious as to what you think Jesus’ ministry or death or whatever delivers humanity FROM. What would happen to humanity if God had not sent his son Jesus?
1 Like
I thought this was an EVANGELICAL unversist forum not an UUA forum. I cant even imagine how anyone can reconcile inclusivism with universalism. Evangelicals believe the Bible and the Bible is exclusist. You must belueve and be born again.
1 Like