A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS

[Michael Bennett]

* A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS

A) Recently I was accused of possibly being a Docetist. Rather than even acknowledge this lie with a blog entry addressing the entire thing, just know that I am not even close to a Docetist. It is a total misrepresentation. Basically if you want more answers, feel free to ask me. Or better yet, just look up pretty much any James White article / blog - on the Trinity / God / Jesus' nature - (basically I agree with just about everything he would say).

B) Things are looking really good for Preterism. We now have a Book Publisher and School that is accepting the Full Preterist view as a viable view.

C) We are seeing major break-throughs at Partial Preterist sites that are now accepting various types of Full Preterists. These people are still saying that the 2nd coming of Christ has already happened and they are writing blogs and are accepted as members on some of these Partial Preterist sites. We all know that as Partial Preterism grows, and now with this above also, that Full Preterism is just going to get bigger and bigger.

D) On a personal note - I ran into a by a Pastor I had known for years - and the Pastor had told me he recently did a sermon from a Partial Preterist perspective - and basically said "I see what you were saying years ago to me" and "let's catch up soon" (regarding Full Preterism) - so that sounds very promising.

E) For the last announcement - TBA later. Coming soon - (Preterist soon). It will be an exciting announcement for the Preterist Community. STAY TUNED. It will be announced in a week or 2. Thanks for all that are involved with that project.

[Michael Bennett]

Vince writes:
I don't have all the answers to what texts contain fulfilled and which are future. I do know where to draw the line though.

Well that says it all doesn't it? I don't know the answer but I know the answer?

Vince nobody I know on this site has ever said these don't still apply to the Christian today...

Titus 2
14Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Hebrews 8
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Hebrews 12
6For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

and even if a Full Preterist somwewhere did - nothing in Full Preterism that you have mentioned as a concern - is not something also going on in Futurist circles.

[Bible-Touchstone]

Thanks for the discussion, Ron. Grace and Peace to you.

[Ron]

Vince: I think we've come full circle on the Antinomian thing, but I appreciate that you wrote out the amount of explanation you did for this site. It does help as people read through the posts you make, as they want the details of what you think. As for the multi-trails, for me, they all ended in FP. I don't have rabbit trails anymore, not for several years now.

All the best.

[Jason King]

Vince, sin does not dwell within believers. Sin is in the world and in fact, it is of the world. And we all know that where sin increases, grace does respectively. The law makes us aware of sin but where there is no law there is no sin. What law are we under? The law of Christ which is fulfilled in loving one another. We are not under Moses' law where we sin for not observing dates and festivals. We sin by knowing the good we ought do and not do it. And the good we ought do is made known through Jesus - not through observing the Law. Would you agree? Jesus summed up the entire law with love. We all have moments where we do not love - that is why we need grace and not law or else we WOULD be condemned. However, we only "crucify" Jesus again when we "CONTINUOUSLY" sin with no thought of repentance. I have yet to see you mention repentance, which isn't a one time occurrence at confession of faith and baptism. Repentance is continuous and Jesus himself said to forgive someone seventy seven times if they but say the words "I repent". Surely salvation and condemnation hang on repentance and not robotic technicalities. If I've misread you then I apologize, but I think you are severely over analyzing words and missing the forest for the trees.

As for the Docetist issue...

2John 1:7 "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."

I'm sorry, but calling us Docetist is slander and that are calling us antichrists. This is unacceptable and God will judge them harshly for it, whoever these people are. PP need to get their act together, they are making our entire eschatology look like a bitter pseduo-inquisition. I've never been happier to abandon any former position I've held than PP purely on the lack of the fruits of the spirit from that camp. I'm done ranting.

[Bible-Touchstone]

Ron,
Please grant that this is an extremely complex doctrine that I must for sake of the limitations of this medium generalize and abstract. There a thousand implications that could easily explode into a huge debate and chase red herrings down rabbit holes, something that I am too busy to get too invested into. Let us nonetheless open the box with some care. If the elect are born definitively sanctified and sin has been destroyed by the cross at around ad 70, but the elect are still liable to sin as glorified creatures with no indwelling sin or stain of Adam’s transgression, then when we do sin we would either crucify Him again or our sin would have no penalty or propitiation (unless we mean to say that all our future sins are covered by the blood, in which case we must infer that regeneration leaves the liability to conceive sin without the body being dead because of sin). All mankind would be in the same estate (or actually a much greater one) of Adam before the fall (unless we take the Pelagian position which is not a viable option). Therefore, if we sin after definitive sanctification without sin already infecting our members as it before ad 70, we then fall like Adam did or even worse. This is, of course, is similar to pelagianism anyway.

There are several ways out of this, each leading into worse theologies. One option is to say that believers do not sin anymore. This is untenable for various reasons. Perhaps the best explanations I can think of are that because we no longer under the condemnation of the Law that either the cross was not intended to make us cease from sinning or that our sins are not properly sins because we are no longer under a Law to transgress it. Again, there are obvious antinomian proclivities to that, but we only need to see that this was not the case for those justified regenerates before ad 70. Another common explanation is that justification and sanctification are the same benefit of the cross (I am not suggesting that they are exclusive as I have been charged of recently). But again, that is not full-preterism unless we suggest that the saints of all time before around ad 70 were not justified until around ad 70. I know well there are many more novel solutions to this problem, please do not take any lack of response from me as a concession because I am not in the mood to debate all of SGP at once. But if there indeed be some problem with my reasoning or something obvious I have overlooked, I have not enough pride to keep me from conceding this argument.

This does not even begin to deal with whether the residue of sin (the work of the devil from the father of lies who lied since the beginning) unbelieving reprobate has been destroyed by Christ (again, we see FP has a different view of the Incarnation than orthodox Christianity). Some time ago, I spoke with a FP gentleman who I admire who appealed to Genesis on this very issue. He (who once called himself Reformed) told me that as Adam was liable to sin before the fall, so do all today. But Adam was not just liable; he was decreed to fall and was indeed culpable for his own sin. He agreed that Adam was decreed to fall because the elect are predestined from eternity to be saved. Then he suggested that as Adam was liable unto physical death had he not eaten from the Tree of Life but was still obedient to the commandment of God (to defend the FP position that physical death is natural). This is at best, semi-pelagianism. There is no other way to be saved than by the Tree of Life. Mankind has no right to the Tree under Adam’s expulsion, and there is no possible way to sidestep the decrees of God and attain righteousness. Adam was created good and just in true righteousness and holiness, but to suggest that the elect who share of his original state (or even a greater one) are now liable to sin would mean we could also fall as him and convey our disobedience unto our children.

I don't have all the answers to what texts contain fulfilled and which are future. I do know where to draw the line though. It is important that each believer knows the cause of his or her misery and to repent of sin and believe and follow Him. We are saved by faith through His grace not by any works which we have done. Nevertheless, we being freed from sin are to not continue in the things which we were indeed under the dominion of. If Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Therefore knowing that sin still is indwelling in our body after regeneration (though sin is not inherent or intrinsic, but rather our bodies were indeed corrupted under Adam) and it is our duty because He loved us to through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body. The cross motivates us, our baptism into it freed us, and the Spirit empowers us and sustains us unto the end. In death we put an end to sin and our mortal bodies are given life.

[Michael Bennett]

Vince Wrote: "If Full-Preterist view of sanctification is correct, then any talk of our liability to sin is dangerous. "

Ron - what Vince keeps forgetting is that we are supernaturally changed and that nothing changes THESE facts.

We have a NEW heart & we have THE LAW WRITTEN ON OUR HEARTS.

There is no reason why one can not share in the GLORY (GLORIFIED) of the Lord and still be "SET APART" for GOOD WORKS. As EVERY CHRISTIAN is. These verses below are still very applicable.

Titus 2
14Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Hebrews 8
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Hebrews 12
6For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

BTW - I saw your music list on myspace Vince - is that an example of your progressive sanctification? =) HAHA (just mess'n)

But BTW - your argument was the Arminian argument Vince - the protested we can't teach predestination - it will make people lazy. They ignored the SUPERNATURAL CHANGE that takes place.

[Ron]

Vince Wrote: "If Full-Preterist view of sanctification is correct, then any talk of our liability to sin is dangerous. "

Vince, please elaborate further on what you mean in this above statement. Also, would you agree (I am just supposing now), if the FP position on Sanctification is right, that any differing system should carry the same burden of being "dangerous" with its talk of sin and Sanctification?

And, thank you for your detailed reply. I see better what you are saying and I appreciate that.

[Bible-Touchstone]

Mike,
1. I do believe that the Heidlberg and the Belgic may have errors. I can think of at least one in the Belgic off the top of my head, but these errors by no means affect the system. I never appeal to them as in themselves being authoritative. I referred to them because they are examples of Christian Theology. In the same way, or so I'd hope so, you do not believe that any Full-Preterst documents are without error.
2. As I recently stated in a post:
{I remember reading a thread here on SGP of two (I think Mike B. and Sam F.) ridiculing a confession for getting the doctrine right but the proof texts wrong. But this is the same thing Full-Preterists like David Green have argued [“They truly saw these things by faith, even if they exegetically failed to connect all the right Scripture texts to the realities they embraced” (House Divided p. 42].}
Where Scripture is cited, I am most often in agreement. But "proof texts" of the The Heidelberg Catechism I have found to be a good help, but hardly treated fairly by the document. I have a general subscription, and the system presented resounds the Scriptures, but I do not fail any more that Green's statement in regards to the wisdom of Christian theology.
3. Yes.


Ron,
I do not think that FPs are antinomian unless they believe and practice that the Law of God is totally abrogated. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that FPs who deny the doctrine of progressive sanctification do not have a proper understanding of Christian accountability and duty because they do not understand indwelling sin. I am not suggesting that all FPs do not mortify sin, much less that they are in danger of damnation on this issue. But where the children of God have understanding, they will continue in that word unto all good works. I recomend the classic Mortification of Sin In Believers by Dr. John Owen. Contrary to popular thought, it is actually pretty easy to read, understand, and practice. If Full-Preterist view of sanctification is correct, then any talk of our liability to sin is dangerous.

[Ron]

Vince wrote: "We believe in common with most full-preterists that the Incarnation was purposed to destroy the works of the devil, but we do not agree upon what that means, how it is realized, or even why then do believers still need to mortify sins of the body through the Spirit."

Vince, again do not understand me being combative in any sense. I want to make sure I have complete understanding on the Antinomian issue you had raised in another post as this last sentence seems to imply to some degree that you do consider FP Antinomian. I do not want to assume anything about this.

Will you do me a favor and just give me a simple Yes or a No to this question so I can put it to rest in my mind: Do you believe that FP is Antinomian?

Thank you for having patience with me.

[Michael Bennett]

Vince writes:
I will be referring you to the “Heidelberg” Catechism and the “Belgic” Confession.

1. Vince as a Realist Preterist - do you believe every "jot and tittle" of the Heidelberg and Belgic or do they error in places?

2. Vince as a Realist Preterist - do you believe all of the scripture references in the Confession are accurate in regards to the subject that they are attributed to in the Heidelberg and Belgic?

3. Do you agree that there is a connection between Soteriology and Eschatology and that a false Eschatology may affect how we understand the details of Soteriology?

EXAMPLE

The Heidelberg Catechism

Question 52. What comfort is it to thee that "Christ shall come again to judge the quick and the dead"?

Answer: That in all my sorrows and persecutions, with uplifted head I look for the very same person, who before offered himself for my sake, to the tribunal of God, and has removed all curse from me, to come as judge from heaven: (a) who shall cast all his and my enemies into everlasting condemnation, (b) but shall translate me with all his chosen ones to himself, into heavenly joys and glory. (c)

(a) Luke 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. Rom.8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

SWEET - LUKE 21 IS THE SAME EVENT AS ROMANS 8 !!! =)

Romans 8
23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Luke 21
20"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written... 27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."...32"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.