First things and last things

I have not tried to find a reason to disagree with the majority when it comes to my theological positions. Any reader of this blog will recognize that this has nevertheless happened on occasion. Chiefly, theistic evolution puts me at odds with most evangelicals and full preterism puts me at odds with most believers. In other words, I hold a minority position on protology (the doctrine of first things) and eschatology (the doctrine of last things). From what I know, only a handful of Christians who accept full preterism also accept the scientific consensus on origins; likewise, only a few believers who accept the scientific consensus on origins accept full preterism. I am amazed by this because of how well the two fit together. I’ve been meaning to write a post such as this for some time, so here goes.


Evolutionary origins and death

The issue of biological death preceding sin is among the most troubling to special creationists. And not just to them: there are evolutionary creationists I know who feel that theodicy is given a more pronounced challenge since billions of years of evolutionary history – including suffering, death, and extinction – occurred without any sin to blame. I’m not at all convinced that humanity must blame anyone or anything for death any more than they feel the need to blame someone for photosynthesis. Death and suffering are not objective, absolute evils but are only recognized as evil in the eye of the beholder; because no other species even recognizes such ideas as absolute good and evil, over 13 billion years of natural history occurred before anyone found any need to blame anyone for what would seem to most observers from an ant colony to simply be the processes of life.

That Christians of today would hold a somewhat dualistic understanding of life and death is not really surprising given that, for the majority of our lives, life and death are certainly on the opposite poles of desirability: self-preservational instincts, emotional attachments, and a sense of social justice are wonderful things and the only practical way of living life as humans, but these considerations do not entail an absolute basis for those preferences. In actuality, no one really behaves as though death were an absolute evil: some are sensible enough to limit it to human death (who wouldn’t have termites exterminated?) but even those would likely admit to times in which taking the life of another human would be justified (e.g., self defense). Death and suffering are not objective evils; human agency intentionally causing them often is – but that’s the subject of another blog post.

But even most of the Christians who are willing to entertain the idea that death and suffering are evils that are in some way necessary assume that the focus of eschatology is the elimination of these things. It’s the notion that the events brought about by eschatology must function by the standard of “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” where we are the ones who decide the standard of great and greater, and since we avoid death at all costs, well, that’s got to be included in the deal! But this inaccurate view of eschatology is bolstered by a misunderstanding of the nature of the death that Christ’s work was intended to deliver us from.

FP position on the curse and the death of Adam

Full preterists point out that God promised Adam in Gen. 2.17 that “in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.” Some translations try to lessen the force of this, including the NIV (“when you eat of it you will surely die”, where “when” translates “on the day”) and the NRSV (“in the day that you eat of it you will die”, where “surely” is inexplicably omitted). Did Adam or Eve “surely” physically die “in the day” they sinned?

There are various ways to explain this. Some who are not committed to inerrancy might speculate that the author got something mixed up. But the documentary hypothesis doesn’t have much of an argument here either; it’s not as though one author wrote the threat and another author didn’t follow through, given that the name “LORD God” was used throughout the narrative, of both the threat and the banishment. It also beggars belief that the redactors didn’t catch the major incongruity between the threat and the result although positioned mere sentences apart from each other.

The more conservative Christian is likelier to follow the tack of translating the text word-for-word as “dying you shall die” rather than “you shall surely die” to the effect that physical death – deterioration, corruption, decay – began that day and was not completed until later. The Hebrew does not support this at all, and in fact, it insists upon the opposite. This proposed reading is a classic misunderstanding of the Hebrew syntax. The construction here is “[infinitive absolute] you shall [finite verb]“; in Biblical Hebrew, if the verbs are of the same root and the infinitive absolute precedes the finite verb, the construction signifies an emphatic construction (“surely”). This is the same expression seen in Gen. 2:16 (“eating you may eat freely” → “you may certainly eat freely”) and 15:13 (“knowing you must know” → “know for certain”). If the infinitive follows the finite verb, it’s progressive (e.g. 1 Sam 6:12). A correct, emphatic reading of this passage seems at pains to yield almost the exact opposite of the progressive reading: “You will die that day, make no mistake.” In fact, the Hebrew translators of the Septuagint chose to render it in Greek as emphatic rather than as progressive as well (lit. “on that day . . . by death you will die”).

God followed through on His warning: on the day they ate, they died. But obviously not biologically. Rather, this story, produced well before the concept of the Resurrection of the Dead was revealed to the prophets, sought to emphasize the magnitude of being separated from God within this life: everyone ends up in the grave, but banishment from the covenant for disobedience is living death. The Resurrection of the Dead was the late breaking hope that by God’s grace our personhood need not pass away after death, but the Hebrews never thought it was incumbent upon God to deliver humanity at any future time from the inevitability of physical death.

The upshot is that full preterists see physical death not as the adverse result of sin or anything else but as the original state of affairs. The elimination of physical death on earth was never an eschatological expectation. The death of Adam and Eve was the death of separation from God and loss of covenant fellowship. The institution of the New Covenant that accompanied the fulfillment of the Old eliminated the threat of disobedience from those in covenant: unlike the situation of the participants in the Mosaic Covenant, those in covenant with God and adopted as His sons need not fear being banished for the failure to meet a dizzying number of ritual obligations, any more than a father disowns his child when he disobeys. This, not the abolition of physical mortality, is the benefit of the New Covenant! Biological death – not evil, but always a part of the universe God constructed. We do not like death, and should rightly avoid it until its appointed time comes, but no more so than a child should try to avoid going to the dentist. God’s plan for us extends after death – and it gets better.

New Heavens and New Earth

The “new heavens and new earth” promised by the prophets was as hyperbolic an expression as it sounds: we talk of “moving heaven and earth” in order to get something done, and it wasn’t much different for the prophets. The “old” and “new” are analogous to the Old and New Covenants: Jesus referred to the necessity of the supersession of the Old Covenant when he made his observations about not pouring new wine into old wineskins (Mat 9.17). In Mat 5.17-18, Jesus remarks, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Jesus stated emphatically that the Old Covenant was not to be abolished until “everything is accomplished”. So, too, 1 Corinthians 15.50-57 describes the Resurrection in conjunction with the completion of the Law (v. 56). So let me ask you, Christians – do you observe the Torah? Are you under the Old Covenant? If you respond, “Well no, and neither was Paul,” I’ll ask you why Paul’s expectation of the Resurrection was yet future. As long as the Old Covenant was kicking, as long as the Temple was standing and the Jewish cultus was active, the old system was functioning mockingly alongside the New Covenant built upon the shed blood of Christ; that’s what AD 70 was about - filling up the new wineskins and effectively bursting the old wineskins with the new wine. The “New World Order” of Christianity was the direct result of the fulfillment and abolition of the Old one. The New Heavens and the New Earth were never intended to be literalized and physicalized.Our quest for immortality and avoidance of pain is natural, and by fulfilling the mandate to take dominion over creation we will address those concerns. But the belief that we should just hang on until Jesus comes to rapture us away, that we should not bother “polishing the brass on a sinking ship,” is insidious and counterproductive. Full preterism affirms that the death of being isolated from our creator has been abolished. We continue to make good and bad choices, then live eternally as the adopted sons of God or fail to avail ourselves of this gracious communion with our Creator. In short, we live as humans and die as humans.

The Road goes ever on and on Out from the door where it began. Now far ahead the Road has gone, Let others follow it who can! Let them a journey new begin, But I at last with weary feet Will turn towards the lighted inn, My evening-rest and sleep to meet.

Bilbo’s final song, by J. R. R. Tolkien

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Delicious
  • PrintFriendly
  • Share/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. And the Lord spake, saying, “What was I thinking?!” Preterists who deny a physical Resurrection of the Dead have been accused of being gnostic (because we supposedly believe that only spiritual reality matters and...
  2. Caution: not for the close-minded It having recently come to my attention that a surprising number of my intimate acquaintances are uninformed of the specifics of my eschatological beliefs, and...
  3. Major revision to an earlier post A correction from a commenter shows that I was wrong in attributing the following quote to Eusebius, the Early Christian Father (ECF), in my post...
  4. Dembski on theodicy and a young earth William Dembski, a father of the Intelligent Design movement, has recently become comfortable calling himself an old earth creationist who, as a good Baptist, accepts...
  5. Avoiding theodicy with the moral law It seems every time I hear Ravi Zacharias he’s either (or both) quoting Malcom Muggeridge or telling the story of going to a college campus...

View Comments Posted by Steve on Sunday, September 14, 2008 at 10:42 pm.

Filed under Evolution/origins, Preterism, , , , , .

  • Heh...well, I certainly don't "like" it, per se, but I wouldn't be content not giving every sincere viewpoint I encounter a fair hearing. And sometimes, this means that I adopt a stance without regard to its popularity (or lack thereof).
  • Outside beliefs: Preterist, Evolutionist, Austrian Economics
    Man , you like living in the tail-end of the Gausian Distribution.
    .-= Sabio Lantz´s last blog ..Changing your beliefs =-.
  • patrick stone
    To me, the story is almost like an ancient memory of how man evolved and how his relationship with God evolved with him.
  • patrick stone
    Here is my interpretation of the story of Garden of Eden / Tree of Life / Tree of Knowledge. I may be way off base, but just a thought.


    A long time ago, a very long time ago, God created man [Gen 1:27a, 2:7a] [Possibly Australopithecus?] & MAN was INNOCENT [Gen 1:27b, 2:25]. He was in many ways like a small child.

    He then became aware of God. [Gen 2:7b]
    Of a higher power that influenced the world around him.
    And he formed a relationship with this God [Gen 1:28-30; 2:15-19].
    For the time, MAN FREELY WALKED WITH GOD [Gen 3:8a] .

    Later, this same MAN became aware of RIGHT AND WRONG [Gen 3:6,7,8b] .
    This is symbolized by his eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
    He developed a conscience that convicted him of that which he knew to be wrong [Gen3:8, 10].
    And so his fellowship with God was forever changed.
    No longer was MAN INNOCENT [Gen 3:22,23].

    God told Adam that he would die the day he ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge [Gen 2:17]. He did not PHYSICALLY die but he died spiritually. This spiritual death was rooted in man’s separation from God [Gen 3:23].

    As mans awareness and knowledge grew, he learned to plant and to till the ground [Gen 3:17-19].
    He gave up his innocence for a lifetime of labor. But this was a necessary choice.

    Other things changed that separated MAN from the animals.
    As MAN grew more intelligent, his head literally grew larger.
    Women, unlike the other animals, had difficulty in childbirth [Gen 3:16].
    Man was now cursed by his own intelligence.

    But that is not the end of the story. Man now needed a bridge to bring him back to God. At first this was animal sacrifice [Gen 3:21]. Life is in the blood [Lev 17], and man’s life was now imperfect due to sin. The blood sacrifice was a temporary atonement that covered man’s unrighteousness by the “innocent” blood of the animal.

    Man was “kicked out” of the Garden due to his separation from God, but also so that he could not eat of the “Tree of Life” [Gen 3:22-24]. The Tree of Life foreshadowed another tree, the cross. Adam could not eat of the Tree of Life, because Christ’s time had not come (Gala 4:4). But one day, Christ would come to permanently bridge the gap between God and man.
  • patrick stone
    Hi all. I am TE and FP as well. Personally I think both will come around in due time. Afterall, the eschatological position of the majority has changed over the centuries dramatically...Chiliasm of the Early Church, Augustine's Amill, The Historicism of the Protestants, the Futurist Dispensationalism of modern times.

    Interesting story, the youth pastor at my church (I still go to Pentecostal Holiness; although my beliefs have changed since my youth) recently became aware of my being a Full Preterist through Facebook in which I host a group on eschatology. We debated for a while, and I was sure he would proclaim me a heretic but he actually said that if he were the pastor, he didn't care if the people in his church held to that belief. Of course, he was absolutely against it...but it was neat just to know that the younger generation may not be so judgmental of it.

    And then I told him I was TE. Oh my! That opened up a can of worms! He said "Well you know the fossil record has been debunked, right?" And I'm like what, no it hasn't. Oh yeah they found fossils in a place where they shouldn't be, blah blah blah. What is it with YEC???? I told him the problem is that there is a mountain of evidence in favor of an ancient earth (4.5 bill years) and universe (20 bill) and evolution (dna analysis, etc), but all YEC does is take one little tiny grain of sand and say "oh, here is an inconsistency" you and all the 99.99% of scientists and scientific evidence is therefore wrong. Sorry, I'm getty frustrated just thinking about it.

    But in my opinion its just a matter of time. I haven't done research lately, but when I did five years ago it seemed the studies in DNA just about proved beyond doubt evolution. I'm sure the evidence is absolutely overwhelming by now. But this is not my battle, I'll stick with eschatology right now.
  • Jack Syme
    No, the post on the ASA list was by Joseph DeGroot. The thread there is unique because it is not about science. Someone asked a question if the apostles of the first century gave up all possesions, and or shared all of their possesions because they expected Christ to return soon. And it was brought up about how to deal with expectations of a first century fulfillment, that Christ, John, Paul etc. were incorrect about.

    Joseph DeGroot, (and later me) pointed out that it may not be that Christ et al were mistaken, but that they were correct, and that the Church has been mistaken about its fulfillment. Joseph gave a link to your blog for further information.

    I understand that Martin and Vaughn are not evolutionists, which is unfortunate. As far as I can tell they are progressive creationists. At least this is an old earth view, and it is far better than YEC in my opinion.
  • Wow - I'd like to know who posted the link - was it done in derision? ("Look at this fool!") :D

    Tim Martin is a great guy, an old friend, and probably the person most critical to my abandonment of partial preterism for full preterism. Unfortunately, both he and Jeff are quite adamantly against evolution. I also disagree with their reading of Genesis 1-11 as historical and recorded by the participants (Adam, Noah, etc.), and with their central argument that the narratives of early Genesis were intended to prophecy the coming of the New Covenant. Of course, I go into this a bit on my Covenant Creation posts. I do wholeheartedly support them in their fight to stop reading YEC into Genesis, though.

    I was a YEC as a kid and throughout some of college, but I must say that I was never fully on board with pretending there was a vast atheistic conspiracy suppressing good science with their blasphemous farce.
  • Jack Syme
    I very much think they complement one another.

    I have been a preterist for several years now, my friend Doug Church being the most influential on me, and Ed Stevens mostly through Doug. All of the preterists I know are YEC.

    However, I spend more time discussing science and bible issues. I am a neurologist so I have a scientific background, and I was never YEC. I spend some time on the calvin college email discussion list regarding science/bible issues, most folks there are TE. They often snuff out preterist discussions pretty quickly, and I think for a while my posts were monitored and some moderated off of the list. But I am finding more folks there sympathetic to preterist views of late, and someone there posted a link to this blog which is how I found it.

    Tim Martin is the only other person that I have heard of that writes about old earth/preterism. http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/
  • Thanks, Jack! Actually, I thought the same thing for quite a while, but since starting this blog, I've discovered that we're a growing number. I interact with a few here: Mike Beidler was the first I knew, but now I know of a couple more, including Patrick Stone and (I think) Doug Moody (right, Doug?). I find the two positions complement one another quite well, don't you?

    Anyway, welcome to the site. I hope you'll find a way to contribute and we can learn from one another.
  • Jack Syme
    Hey! Someone just emailed me this blog.


    I thought I was the only one that was a full preterist and a TE! It is so good to know there are others out there.
  • Familiar? I'm quite a regular over at his site. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the new printing of that book has a blurb from one Stephen Douglas recommending it. :) Glover's a great guy, and there is no better defender of TE than he, although he insists on calling it "evolutionary creationism" instead of "theistic evolution" (like Denis Lamoureux).
  • Patrick Stone
    Are you familar with the book "beyond the firmanent" by Gordon Glover. Just bought it and (the videos he made) seems compatible with TE.
  • I don’t have an answer for that, but I am still looking. I only hope that my life won’t come to an end without some constructive and God-honoring outlet for what I know. I can only pray and hope.

    Amen, amen, and amen. The thing closest to an answer for me is this blog.

    And thanks for reminding me of that poem: I love its spirit. But then again, here's hoping that neither you nor I come anywhere close to "that good night" for quite some time!
  • Doug Moody
    Steve,

    Your words are often an encouragement to me, even if it were just you and me who knew these things! But of course, it makes for a lot of self-doubt, at least on my part. I wonder how it is that so many learned and sincere men and women could be wrong on these topics. I am nothing, and yet knowledge which eludes other, seemingly better educated and more sincere people, seems to rest on me as a "burden". My question then becomes "What shall I do with it?" especially if I have no one to bounce my thoughts off of.
    I don't have an answer for that, but I am still looking. I only hope that my life won't come to an end without some constructive and God-honoring outlet for what I know. I can only pray and hope.
    Thank you for your comments. I would love to hear more on this topic. It seems to be at the heart of "why" I even bother. So, I leave for everyone's consideration a poem:

    Do not go gentle into that good night,
    Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
    Because their words had forked no lightning they
    Do not go gentle into that good night.

    Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
    Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
    And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
    Do not go gentle into that good night.

    Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
    Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    And you, my father, there on the sad height,
    Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
    Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

    -- Dylan Thomas
  • Doug,
    I totally understand what you feel, especially regarding the church issue: I'd love to find a church that believed as I do, but since that's impossible, I must be content to find a church that lets me believe as I do; but then, as you said, it's no fun going to a church and feeling critical of everything the whole time. My own church occasionally sings songs I disagree radically with, but since I play keyboard for the praise team, I'm not about to just take my hands off the keyboard during those lyrics and risk offending all those dear people singing their hearts out. I play through it, grimacing all the way. It seems to be an interminable problem, doesn't it? But if the Church knew what it meant to love someone through their disagreements, we wouldn't have near as much at issue. This is one reason I think that home groups are the ideal option; it's an organism that can grow and permit evolution within itself, whose backbone is relationships, not an artificially standardized creed.

    Your comment about the Magi reminds me of this post of mine. This is a fascinating subject to me, and in your comment you nail what's so intriguing about it on the head. Thanks for the reminder.
  • Pete, you said:
    If Christianity is true, and God is actively involved and leading most Christians in their daily walk, why are almost ALL conservative Christians wrong about evolution? Why doesn’t God tell them so we can move on?

    God didn't correct their science before revealing His truth to the very authors of Scripture, so why should we expect more for conservative Christians? Apparently God is more concerned with whether we "do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with [our] God" than whether we solve the mysteries of the universe; disagreeing on these things is a definite opportunity to show our love for Him and humility before one another, or else exalt ourselves and our superior knowledge. The fact is, the reason I named this website "Undeception" instead of something like "The Truth" is that Christians have to be aware that they are wrong on stuff, even if they got their whole system of beliefs on good authority from the likes of D. James Kennedy, Martin Luther, or Ken Ham. This humility about our beliefs is the only thing that will allow 1) fellowship with other imperfect Christians and 2) the opportunity to have our erroneous beliefs corrected.

    Even where I notice problems with other Christians' thinking that are dangerous enough for me to point out, I want to do so in full acceptance of them as brothers and sisters in Christ, not as potential heretics. But you guys are right: I have noticed that some other Christians do regard me somewhat differently once they know my beliefs, not unlike the eccentric uncle of the family. Christians do seem preoccupied with staking out their ground and regarding all who deviate as unaccountably "strange" or even "damnably heretical", whether it's Arminianism, the charismatic issue, or whatever. Thankfully, I do have close friends with whom I can disagree on points such as these who will fellowship with me regardless. I hate it for you both that you do not.

    I recognize that it's not everyone's burden, but my own tack for remedying some of these problems is to try appealing for broader acceptance of these sometimes controversial ideas and breeding out the "You believe what?!?!?" factor by means of more public exposure. I believe that one day, maybe even one day soon, fellow Christians will look at you no differently for saying "I'm a theistic evolutionist" or "I'm a preterist" than they would if you said "I'm an Arminian" (regarded as heretical among many of the Reformed tradition, but somehow less heretical than full preterism).
  • Doug Moody
    Steve and Pete,

    You have affirmed my own feelings, yet I scarcely know what to do. Although you, Steve, were raised to believe that no one has all the answers (which is a trusim, because no one does), that doesn't make it any easier to walk alone.

    I am glad a few are at least talking to me about this (notably, you all here). But as you said, Pete, so that people aren't questioning ME! I attended church this Sunday, and the first song out of the chute was one that had several lies in it. I could not sing a lie any more than I can tell a lie. Yet it pains me to go to church and have to sit through a sermon with this and that theological fault in it.
    I well know that going to another church isn't the answer, because there will be lies there too. I also know that not attending is not the answer, because that only leads to a self-satisfied smugness and a blockage in growth. That leaves me with having to be on my guard at church wondering what might be said that is not right. This then robs me of a certain innocence which I really would like to have. I would like to feel like a child at the feet of my parent, who I know would never tell me a lie.
    Instead, I have to be guarding my mind, even in church. That's wht I do all week long to keep the world's evil messages from my eyes and ears. And then to have to do it (in a different way) on Sunday, means I never really get any rest.
    Its a dilemma without an answer. Like you, Pete, I am shying away from digging deeper so that at least I won't have to deal with yet one more thing. But, OTOH, can I answer to God ultimately for willful ignorance?
    So, my prayers to God are for grace to help so that I can bear it.

    On a similar topic, have you ever wondered what the magi of the east were thinking as they journeyed to Bethlehem to see the new King Jesus? Somehow, all the wisdom of the Jews was not even remotely enough to connect the dots and be ready to welcome Jesus into the world. Yet, God saw fit to reveal Himself, in some limited but unknown way, to strangers to the Children of Israel. Non-covenantal people, presumably. Yet, the greatest event of earth to that time had been revealed to them. I wonder if they had their own doubts and if they suffered for the knowledge they had within their own tribal group? I am also struck by how often the OT prophets used the word "burden" to describe the prophecies that God laid upon them.
    Knowing God deeply IS a burden. Jonah tried to get out of it, and it cost him a trip in a smelly fish and a hard lesson in the awesomeness of God.
  • Pete
    Yet, surely God desires for man to know truth in more than just a few isolated pockets here and there, doesn’t He?

    I struggle with this on almost every Christian disagreement. Indeed, it fills me with quite a lot of doubt. If Christianity is true, and God is actively involved and leading most Christians in their daily walk, why are almost ALL conservative Christians wrong about evolution? Why doesn't God tell them so we can move on? This isn't new for me, I used to ask the same question with regards to eschatology (like you have here), charamstic gifts, KJV only, New Perspective on Paul, etc.

    I'm in the closet a bit but already in the dog house about evolution. I think I will ignore studying FP, because I might be convinced and then have one more reason I am a heretic to my friends.

    As for me, I would LOVE to attend a church where the majority are behind preterism - not so that we could sit around and have preterism arguments, but so that that we could edify and uplift each other and be able to offer REAL answers for the hard questions that people are asking.

    Ditto, I would love to join a church that accepted common descent, not that we could sit around every Sunday and talk about it, but so people didn't question my spiritual maturity or walk with the Lord because I accepted it.
  • If indeed FP is true, then why in the world is it only voiced by a few?

    I am distressed by the fact that this position is in the minority. But this doesn't in any way call into question its truthfulness for me: the more I look, the more I see that the majority is wrong on a whole lot of things. The majority of evangelical Christians are convinced that the theory of evolution is of the devil; church history has, on the whole, accepted de novo, ex nihilo creation and the historicity of Adam and Eve, both of which a growing number of even evangelicals are starting to call into question. They also insisted that the earth was fixed at the center of the universe for a majority of that time based on the clear testimony of Scripture, falsely interpreted. Why should I expect any position on eschatology to be true based on the number of its adherents, most of whom simply inherited the belief unquestioningly? The fact is, there is hardly a majority view on eschatology, given that dispensational futurism and Reformed-style postmillennialism/amillennialism (quite similar to my own eschatology) are hardly on the same page on any of a number of eschatological details. The fact that they happen to agree over and against one or two particular details of my eschatology (notably the nature of the Resurrection and the timing of the Second Coming) means precisely nil. They're all wrong on some issues; is it so surprising that they might happen to be wrong on the same issue every now and then?

    I am troubled by futurism as a majority only in the sense that it means a lot more work for preterists to do. I am troubled by the majority view on bibliology for the same reason. I was never raised to assume that anyone - anyone - was right all the time; my father instilled in me the knowledge that I must glean what's good from the good, but never to swallow anything hook, line, and sinker.

    As for me, I would LOVE to attend a church where the majority are behind preterism - not so that we could sit around and have preterism arguments, but so that that we could edify and uplift each other and be able to offer REAL answers for the hard questions that people are asking

    Hear, hear. I want to settle this so we can leave it behind, roll up our sleeves, and work on something that matters. Thankfully, preterism is undoubtedly on the rise, given certain high profile affirmations such as by Brian McLaren, love him or hate him. Sproul and Demar are important as well, partial prets though they may be.
  • Doug Moody
    I tune in to your blog from time to time, and this particular one hits me particularly because I have been wrestling for almost a year with FP. Heck, a year ago I had never heard of ANY preterism, full or otherwise. But after reading "Beyond Creation Science" (four times I might add), I have to admit I am almost "whupped" on this topic.

    Yet, there is one big elephant in the room that you mention at the beginning of your blog, and I would like to know how you deal with it. You said that you are at odds with mainstream christianity on protology and eschatology. I find this condition most disconcerting. I deeply long for fellowship with others who are like-minded, and really would appreciate being able to "go deep" with brothers face to face, without having to re-explain myself every time and not being looked at like I am from Mars - and that's from the ones who are gracious!

    If indeed FP is true, then why in the world is it only voiced by a few? Yeah yeah, I know, the majority opinion doesn't make the right opinion. Yet, surely God desires for man to know truth in more than just a few isolated pockets here and there, doesn't He? Wouldn't the gospel message be better off if Christians were accurately preaching the truth?

    So, that is the main reason I am loathe to fully embrace FP as my worldview. I have endured many years of being the "odd" theological standout, and it doesn't feel very good. The net result for me is that I just spend time talking to people on the internet about it. While OK, it isn't the best situation, is it? Probably you feel the same way, or maybe you are made of iron and really don't care about others around you and what they believe. As for me, I would LOVE to attend a church where the majority are behind preterism - not so that we could sit around and have preterism arguments, but so that that we could edify and uplift each other and be able to offer REAL answers for the hard questions that people are asking. It makes me pretty mad when I hear the non-defense of the gospel to the world by people who ought to know better, and then hearing the heathen mock Christianity because of the ludicrous and nonsensical way we offer up fables and myths to the hard questions.

    OK. End of rant. Thanks.
  • Interesting points, Pete! Many thanks for weighing in.

    But then once we have admitted his physical body is “transformed” to something “higher” where questions about skin cells and nuclear forces are irrelevant, then why do we stress so much over the “physical” resurrection.

    Well, the idea that Jesus' resurrection body was non-physical sounds like you're claiming that he was merely a somewhat tangible ghost, which doesn't add much credibility to a claim of "resurrection" as classically understood. Yet at the same time, I believe that whatever sort of resurrection occurred with Christ was done as accommodation, and so I contend that the physical aspect of his resurrection was at least apparent (i.e., was intended to look like a physical resurrection), even if not actual.

    I often point out that his body retaining its scarring seems like a fairly good indication that, if futurists are correct that it may be taken as an indication of our future resurrection state, doesn't bode well for the eternity of paraplegic Christians.

    At the surface, the prophecies seem very simple and the hopes of iron age kingdoms of that time, namely that there kingdom is restored centered around their capital and they have prosperity and peace. I can’t imagine anyone living during that time didn’t see it as a soon approaching literal rebuilding of Israel.

    I hear what you're saying and agree that there is certainly something to it, although I firmly believe that the wisest among them recognized - or were expected to recognize, at least - all the ethical concern and appeals for social justice in the prophets' words as central to their message. The Jewish religion was soundly based upon social order rather than political hegemony, and it's not coincidental that 1 Samuel 8 depicts God as exceedingly reluctant to even give the nation a king. They were supposed to be satisfied by doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with their God (Micah 6.8), although they definitely viewed national status as tied to how well they performed these things. Even when the prophecies dealt with their political enemies, the prophets never pinned hope on Israel's/Judah's political power, but on God's faithfulness and their faithfulness to God's ways. The Jewish leadership's missing this and refusing to lead the people to understand the LORD's ways were the causes for Jesus' consternation with them. They were in survival mode: Jesus didn't want them to just hold on and wait for God to put everyone beneath them. He wanted them to (at the risk of sounding cliche) bloom where He planted them and be a light to the Gentiles, as promised to Abraham (Gen 22.18).

    Here we are in the midst of our glorious future and yet quite clearly people still die.

    Excellent observation! This is a perfect example of where their literalism and disregard for issues of genre and original context lead them.

    Anyway, in light of modern knowledge, I don’t see how there could be any stable ecosystem without death. What about bacteria, viruses, skin cells, fungus, parasites, Venus fly traps, creatures that lay their eggs inside other creatures, mosquitoes, etc.

    Well said. I've often thought the same thing.

    What do you recommend as a good introductory text to full preterism?

    Mike Beidler usually recommends Behind the Veil of Moses, which I have not read. J. S. Russell's The Parousia, while over a hundred years old, is a great introduction as well, and there are free copies floating around online in various formats.
  • Pete
    "much like his physical ascension into the clouds (is heaven really up there?) "

    Oh yes, one more piece of accommodation I guess. Thinking about Jesus "physical" resurrection often gets me in a tizzy. Where is Jesus? At the right hand of God, in heaven is He not. But then if Jesus is in heaven, is that where his "physical" body is? We no longer place heaven anywhere within our observable space-time dimension, it isn't up in the sky anymore. So Jesus is in another dimension so to speak, but still has a "living physical body". So, if He is still in a human body, are the outer layer of His skin cells dead? Does His living body still require food, as it did on earth? Is His body still made up of atoms, and if so, does this mean the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force still operate in the heavenly realm? I suspect most wouldn't lose much sleep over these questions, quite clearly Jesus physical body was "transformed" (didn't he walk through walls...) and why ask such mundane questions anyway. But then once we have admitted his physical body is "transformed" to something "higher" where questions about skin cells and nuclear forces are irrelevant, then why do we stress so much over the "physical" resurrection.

    Old Testament prophecy has been a head scratcher for me for some time. At the surface, the prophecies seem very simple and the hopes of iron age kingdoms of that time, namely that there kingdom is restored centered around their capital and they have prosperity and peace. I can't imagine anyone living during that time didn't see it as a soon approaching literal rebuilding of Israel. But lets assume they do refer to some future time and incorporate new testament language. Is this a description of a future time, or of heaven. We'll notice this

    Isaiah 65:20 ""No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days,
    Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred will be thought accursed."

    My pastor (at a dispensational church) was preaching of the future restoration, quite obviously applying it to the afterlife (or maybe the millennium, our church doesn't stress such issues so perhaps he was going soft on identifying it). I showed him this passage afterward (he didn't read this far) and he admitted he had no idea what it means. Here we are in the midst of our glorious future and yet quite clearly people still die.

    I have always taken Adam's death on the day to be spiritual (for obvious reasons) and I think I was even taught that growing up. And yet these same people are adamant there was no death before the fall because of Romans chapter 5 though it takes about Adam in that passage. Anyway, in light of modern knowledge, I don't see how there could be any stable ecosystem without death. What about bacteria, viruses, skin cells, fungus, parasites, Venus fly traps, creatures that lay their eggs inside other creatures, mosquitoes, etc.

    What do you recommend as a good introductory text to full preterism?
  • And Angi, yes, you may request topics. I'll see about blogging specifically on the Gap theory, although it might take the form of an examination of a couple other views as well.
  • Hi, Steve.

    First of all, I don't think you're "trying to be difficult" in the slightest. This stuff is counter-intuitive to modern Western minds.

    I *think* you are saying that the "New Creation" is not actually a new physical creation, but the transforming of the existing universe. Is this correct? Like, is this as good as it gets?

    Perhaps "transformation within the existing universe" would be better. The language of the Old Testament prophets has been literalized when referring to events after Christ, for no good reason; when Jesus talked about the cosmic signs of the eschaton, he was expecting his audience to use precisely the same hermeneutic to interpret his words as they all used to interpret verses in the Old Testament such as Isaiah 13.9-13 (of Babylon being overthrown by the Medes), 19.1, 5-8 (of judgment on Egypt), 34.4-10 (of Edom), etc. The Hebrews saw history as roughly cyclical, but in need of recurring "reset button" events each called "the Day of the LORD", in which affairs are settled and things go back to where they were before. It wasn't until Christians (probably the Gentile converts) lost the significance of the prophetic diction underlying the prophecies of Jesus, Paul, John, etc. that the literalization happened. Remember 2 Cor 5.17: "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away, behold, all is become new." Paul was speaking of participation in the New Covenant here, the covenant that could not be fully instituted until the old one was gone (Hebrews 9.8). Because the Church Age is characterized by participation in the Kingdom of God that has no end (need I start quoting here?), there is no end to the Church Age.

    Like, is this as good as it gets?

    I hope you don' t think that I don't believe in an afterlife, which will for each of us finally remedy "the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to." However, if you were referring to life in our physical universe, let me point out a few things.

    I hardly think someone living in 1400 AD could have responded to this post differently. "This is it?" There are high points and low points throughout history. In many ways, we're at a high point - our medical and technological advances are promising, especially with the prospect of spreading them the world over - but there are certainly aspects of our world that seem dark and dim. I think the tide of history is in humanity's favor, provided the Church realizes it's "on the clock" and exercises the salt and light influence of the Kingdom. (See some of these posts for more on that.)

    The New Jerusalem of Revelation 21 and 22 does not picture the eternal state: you still have "kings of the earth", you still have a Tree of Life by which the nations are still being healed (presumably because they still need healing now and again) much like we see in Isaiah 2.1ff. Isaiah 24 and 25 show beautiful phraseology similar to Rev 22 hyperbolically applied to the fall of oppressive nations such as Moab and Tyre and to Judah's return from exile. Note especially Isa 25.8, "Then the Lord GOD will wipe away the tears from all faces, and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken." Yet when we see this in the NT - even in a book characterized by the most bizarre imagery and obvious metaphors - we are supposed to assume it's all literal?

    Back to those living in 1400, we understand that they might well have looked forward to a future in which literally every tear was wiped away, sorrow and pain literally went the way of the buffalo, etc. Now think: what do you lose by rejecting the concept of a literal future conflagration/renovation? A lot of good it does believers who died in the 15th century! What did they have to look forward to but life after death? If Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye are wrong (a not wholly incredible prospect) and the world's not going to end within our lifetimes, what do we have to look forward to? God wiping the slate clean some 2,000 more years later? Now, we have an obligation as children of God to remain faithful to our charge (Gen. 1.28; cf. Mat. 5.5), not to mention provide for our children and build a world worth living in for our descendants, but these concerns seem at loggerheads with the idea that God's going to clear everything away in a few years.

    Also, what exactly does “resurrection” mean in FP theology?

    Now, the Resurrection of the Dead is an interesting subject, and there's no consensus among FPs in regard to all the specifics, but it's generally agreed that it is concerned with the person (transfer of consciousness) and not the reconstitution of the original flesh. Jesus' obvious physical resurrection, much like his physical ascension into the clouds (is heaven really up there?) was signatory of his victory over the grave and of the fact that the life of the believer extends beyond physical death.

    Perhaps this is overload, and it may not have even answered your questions. If the latter, please rephrase so I can explain myself better.
  • Hi Stephen,
    Maybe I'm missing something here. I *think* you are saying that the "New Creation" is not actually a new physical creation, but the transforming of the existing universe. Is this correct? Like, is this as good as it gets?

    Also, what exactly does "resurrection" mean in FP theology?

    I'm not trying to be difficult ... just not sure I understand how this stuff fits together from your point of view.
  • Hmmm...lots to think about.

    Are we allowed to submit reader requests for blog topics?

    I'm going to, anyway...;)...shoot me down if you so desire, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts about the Gap Theory. It was the subject of many a debate in college.
blog comments powered by Disqus