Resurrection of the Dead

[mellontes]

May I recommend a 16-part teaching series from 1 Corinthians 15. It does not refer to decayed, rotting, or totally disintegrated human corpses being resurrected from their graves, Titanic ocean liners, or vaporized Challenger space flights. Nor does it refer to a special, spiritual body for each human Christian who has died physically. It is the corporate resurrection argument - the hope of Israel. A must view for all preterists. Those who are not preterists may not have sufficient Bible knowledge necessary to understand these resurrection concepts...

The link is www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E8EABBC750AD4F33.

[Once4all]

Notes taken while listening. These are raw notes typed hastily in one browser window while listening to the YouTube presentations in another (pausing it to type, as necessary). This is not meant to be a review or even a comprehensive critique. Just simple notes about things that caught my attention.

Some of my comments may come across as NEGATIVE. Don't take that to mean I disagree with the presentation or am attacking it. I'm a natural skeptic and tend to approach things with doubt. This allows a more critical ear rather than to be swept in to something that may be false simply because I've entered into it already eager to believe it or already believing it. That, surely, is one way to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine!

Part 1 of 16

I hate that translations can sometimes be very different and that we (being human and wanting to support our own views) will choose the translation that agrees with us.

Not sure which translation Fenley is using, probably NKJV. Acts 26:23 is a little different between NKJV and NASB. They disagree on the location of the word "first":

(Acts 26:23 NKJV) that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

(Acts 26:23 NASB) that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."

Fenley is saying that Christ's resurrection from the dead must be "of a different sort" than the other resurrections from the dead that obviously took place before Christ was resurrected. It seems he is about to base an argument about the nature of Christ's resurrection on a translation choice.

Part 2 of 16

Fenley makes a point that many Christians associate psuchikos in 1 Corinthians 15:44 with "physical" (as opposed to spiritual; "sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body"), but it does not refer to the physical body at all, but to the soul. According to Thayer and Strong, psuchikos refers to what is animated by the breath, applying to both man and beast. That definition, anyway, would seem to refer to a living physical body (as opposed to a lifeless, dead body).

Fenley makes the case that the resurrection of Christ's physical body was a sign and did not represent the resurrection for which Christ was first. In making this point he points out that sin separates us from God and that separation is a form of death. He cited appropriate verses such as Isaiah 59:2 and 1 Timothy 5:6.

Part 3 of 16

He goes on to point out that Paul writes that we have been raised up with Christ (Ephesians 2:5-6). If this is true, then he must not be referring to resurrection of physical bodies.

I find it interesting that he says that "every one who sees the Son" (John 6:40) obviously cannot mean that you have to have physically seen him with your eyes, otherwise none of us have everlasting life. Now if you trinitarians out there can reflect on that the next time you hear someone (or you yourself) defend the Trinity by referring to all those verses in John that say that Jesus has "seen God" or "seen the Father"...

Part 4 of 16

Now we're back to a translation issue. The translation of 1 Corinthians 15:15 Fenley is using reads, at the end, "if so be that the dead are not rising." That's not any of the translations I've checked (not KJV, NKJV, YLT, NASB, NIV, etc.) Most translate it as "rise not" or "are not raised." Be that as it may, Fenley makes the excellent point that egeiro there is in the present tense, meaning that the raising up is presently occurring, not future tense, as though it had not begun. Of Christ, "raised" (egeiro) is in the aorist (1Cor 15:15) or perfect (1 Cor 15:16) tense (both normally rendered with past tense English words), but of "us," the tense in both those verses is the present tense.

Ephesians 5:30 - another textual difference. The words "of his flesh and of his bones" do not appear in all translations. KJV, NKJV, YLT, LITV - yes; NASB, NIV, NET, ASV - no.

Part 5 of 16

My first strong point of disagreement. He's talking about there being no condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1) and moves on to 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 and how we are being changed. He says "don't separate yourselves from the community." (Which thereby acknowledges that you CAN do so.) After that, Fenley contradicts himself and states, "you are inseparable from the body of Christ, you CAN NOT BE disconnected from the body of Christ; it's impossible." To this I strongly disagree. Why would Jesus tell people to "remain in me" if it was impossible to be separated from him.

( Dinner Break )

[Allyn]

You guys seem to have a lot more time then I do. Where do I get signed up for that? LOL

[Once4all]

Allyn, I'm retired! LOL.

[Allyn]

Jan 13, 2010 19:19:24 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Allyn, I'm retired! LOL.

I find myself being tired and re-tired every night.

[MoGrace2U]

Funny that I was responding to Simplesinner's thread at CARM on this same subject when they went into test mode today. But the gist of my post was that I don't trust Ward Fenley's ability to exegete scripture because of his leanings towards covenant creationism. My experience at DID tells me to be wary of the entire view because of the shenanigans of those who hold it. Which perhaps makes me a bit biased...

[Once4all]

Part 6 of 16

Imputed righteousness. Oh brother. Quoting 2 Corinthians 5:21, Fenley says that "we have the complete holiness of God and so does every believer."

"...so that we might become the righteousnes of God in Him." - NASB

"...that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." - KJV

Sorry, but "we might be" does not mean that we already have "the complete holiness of God."

In fact, and this ties in with an earlier part of this presentation, speaking of righteousness, being made perfect, and resurrection, says in Philippians 3:11-12, that he has not already obtained it, but presses on so as to lay hold of it.

Then in Philippians 3:15, Paul writes of "as many as are perfect," so Paul believes that there are those who have achieved righteousness (and resurrection), which goes well with the present tense idea of resurrection discussed previously. "If the dead are not rising" (to use Fenley's translation of 1 Cor 15:15) may not refer to new believers as they come to Christ, but rather to believers in Christ who are being made perfect.

It gets worse. Now he's talking about Hebrews 10:1-2, how the Law could not make anyone perfect. Perfect - teleioo. The same word which Paul states in Philippians 3:12 that he has not yet attained. So... where the Law could not make anyone perfect, Christ CAN, as long as you remain in him.

But anyway, Fenley seems to contradict himself again, because now he talking about those who are "in the process of rising from the dead." So now he acknowledges that it is a process. I thought, and I may be wrong, that he previously taught that we were already raised.

(Can you tell I disagree with Reformed theology?)

Another problem. At first, I thought this next item made sense, but then I noticed that to do what Fenley suggests would contradict a verse just a few lines above. Regarding 1 Corinthians 15:23 and the order of the resurrection, Fenley suggests that maybe there should be a comma inserted after "Christ" so that the order reads:

1. Christ,
2. the first fruits,
3. they that are Christ's at His coming.

However, 1 Corinthians 15:20 plainly states that Christ is the first fruits of those who are asleep. What is the reason to redefine the meaning of "first fruits" from verse 20 to verse 23? The immediate context is that Christ is the first fruits.

It's true that other passages (James 1:8 and Revelation 14:4) identify different first fruits, but it must be determined what is being spoken of. For example, in 1 Corinthians 16:15, the household of Stephanas is called the first fruits of Achaia. So first fruits means the first of many and the subject must be determined by context.

Fenley thinks he needs there to be an order of three in 1 Corinthians 15:23 in order to support preterism, but I don't think it is necessary. If he remembers that being made perfect is a process, the culmination of which is resurrection to life, the present tense rising describes that process, but the culmination was Christ coming to "receive you to myself." (John 14:3)

Part 7 of 16

Here Fenley identifies the enemies of Jesus as the Jews (specifically, the Pharisees). This is important because so many believe that Christ's enemies are pagans, atheists, sinners, you name it. But in context, it is clear who Christ's enemies are.

He goes on to show that in Ephesians 1:20-22, Paul states that all things have indeed been put under his feet. It's a done deal, there are no longer enemies to be conquered by Christ. I have two observations about this. (1) Since this was written before 70 A.D., it can't be referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and (2) the context appears to be his headship over the Church, not conquering of enemies.

Fenley does a fair job of trying to make sense of being "baptized for the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:29) in the context of preterism. However, it still leaves questionable the idea of being baptized FOR someone else. He says, paraphrasing Paul, "Why are they identifying themselves with a group that's not rising from the dead?" It remains a baffling verse.

Another disagreement. He talks about baptism and refers you to 1 Peter 3:20-21. He reads about Noah and his family being brought safely through the water, then proceeds to say that the baptism corresponding to that (next verse) is the baptism of fire! Another example of forcing his Reformed beliefs into the text, even though the context is clearly of water ("not the removal of dirt from the flesh").

Part 8 of 16

*Groan* Did you know that living a sinful life of debauchery won't make you lose your salvation, it will just make you feel bad. It brings you down. It's not healthy.

I'm not sure I can stomach the second half of these videos. I appreciate the preterism teaching, but I'm not sure it's worth the onslaught of Calvinism.

Fenley: "If you believe in Jesus Christ, you are now sinless. You are holy and blameless." He says this while displaying a verse that says "Awake to righteousness, and do not sin." 1 Corinthians 15:34. He's equating this verse with Ephesians 5:14: "Awake, you who sleep, Arise from the dead..."

If anything, equating those two verses tells me that resurrection is righteousness. Full sanctification. Fenley needs to read this passage from Romans:

Romans 6:19-22 NASB
(19) I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.
(20) For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
(21) Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death.
(22) But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.

The outcome of righteousness is sanctification. The outcome of sanctification is eternal life. And this is BEING righteous, not simply imagining that you are righteous while continuing in sin.

Fenley also says that, "Sure, you may fall into (or "follow" - audio unclear) some of the same vices you had before, but now God doesn't regard it as sin."

Then he quotes 1 John 3:9 saying that someone who is born of God cannot sin. Well, you know what? If Mr. Fenley is willfully sinning, he might want to examine himself to see if he is in the faith.

Seriously, I'll never refer this video series, or anything by Ward Fenley, to anyone. I'd rather they remain a futurist than be taught that they can sin in Christ.

[Once4all]

Jan 13, 2010 21:42:45 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Funny that I was responding to Simplesinner's thread at CARM on this same subject when they went into test mode today. But the gist of my post was that I don't trust Ward Fenley's ability to exegete scripture because of his leanings towards covenant creationism. My experience at DID tells me to be wary of the entire view because of the shenanigans of those who hold it. Which perhaps makes me a bit biased...

I don't trust Ward Fenley's ability, either, Robin. Possibly for different reasons than you. Read my concluding sentence on my Parts 6 - 8 post.

[mellontes]

Jan 13, 2010 17:16:52 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Notes taken while listening. These are raw notes typed hastily in one browser window while listening to the YouTube presentations in another (pausing it to type, as necessary). This is not meant to be a review or even a comprehensive critique. Just simple notes about things that caught my attention.

Some of my comments may come across as NEGATIVE. Don't take that to mean I disagree with the presentation or am attacking it. I'm a natural skeptic and tend to approach things with doubt. This allows a more critical ear rather than to be swept in to something that may be false simply because I've entered into it already eager to believe it or already believing it. That, surely, is one way to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine!

Part 1 of 16

I hate that translations can sometimes be very different and that we (being human and wanting to support our own views) will choose the translation that agrees with us.

Not sure which translation Fenley is using, probably NKJV. Acts 26:23 is a little different between NKJV and NASB. They disagree on the location of the word "first":

(Acts 26:23 NKJV) that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

(Acts 26:23 NASB) that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."

Fenley is saying that Christ's resurrection from the dead must be "of a different sort" than the other resurrections from the dead that obviously took place before Christ was resurrected. It seems he is about to base an argument about the nature of Christ's resurrection on a translation choice.

Part 2 of 16

Fenley makes a point that many Christians associate psuchikos in 1 Corinthians 15:44 with "physical" (as opposed to spiritual; "sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body"), but it does not refer to the physical body at all, but to the soul. According to Thayer and Strong, psuchikos refers to what is animated by the breath, applying to both man and beast. That definition, anyway, would seem to refer to a living physical body (as opposed to a lifeless, dead body).

Fenley makes the case that the resurrection of Christ's physical body was a sign and did not represent the resurrection for which Christ was first. In making this point he points out that sin separates us from God and that separation is a form of death. He cited appropriate verses such as Isaiah 59:2 and 1 Timothy 5:6.

Part 3 of 16

He goes on to point out that Paul writes that we have been raised up with Christ (Ephesians 2:5-6). If this is true, then he must not be referring to resurrection of physical bodies.

I find it interesting that he says that "every one who sees the Son" (John 6:40) obviously cannot mean that you have to have physically seen him with your eyes, otherwise none of us have everlasting life. Now if you trinitarians out there can reflect on that the next time you hear someone (or you yourself) defend the Trinity by referring to all those verses in John that say that Jesus has "seen God" or "seen the Father"...

Part 4 of 16

Now we're back to a translation issue. The translation of 1 Corinthians 15:15 Fenley is using reads, at the end, "if so be that the dead are not rising." That's not any of the translations I've checked (not KJV, NKJV, YLT, NASB, NIV, etc.) Most translate it as "rise not" or "are not raised." Be that as it may, Fenley makes the excellent point that egeiro there is in the present tense, meaning that the raising up is presently occurring, not future tense, as though it had not begun. Of Christ, "raised" (egeiro) is in the aorist (1Cor 15:15) or perfect (1 Cor 15:16) tense (both normally rendered with past tense English words), but of "us," the tense in both those verses is the present tense.

Ephesians 5:30 - another textual difference. The words "of his flesh and of his bones" do not appear in all translations. KJV, NKJV, YLT, LITV - yes; NASB, NIV, NET, ASV - no.

Part 5 of 16

My first strong point of disagreement. He's talking about there being no condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1) and moves on to 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 and how we are being changed. He says "don't separate yourselves from the community." (Which thereby acknowledges that you CAN do so.) After that, Fenley contradicts himself and states, "you are inseparable from the body of Christ, you CAN NOT BE disconnected from the body of Christ; it's impossible." To this I strongly disagree. Why would Jesus tell people to "remain in me" if it was impossible to be separated from him.

( Dinner Break )

Hi Bev,

I started listening to the series but YouTube was giving me fits. It stopped 4 times in the first message. Then I had to go out. I will try again tomorrow. I will give my thoughts on some of the points even though you must temper it with the fact that I am only about 4 minutes into the series...plus I have few odds and ends here and there...

Your first point...

(Acts 26:23 NASB) that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles."

Fenley is saying that Christ's resurrection from the dead must be "of a different sort" than the other resurrections from the dead that obviously took place before Christ was resurrected. It seems he is about to base an argument about the nature of Christ's resurrection on a translation choice.

That may be a little harsh because the reasoning goes way further back...all the way to the garden. Was the penalty for sin physical death or spiritual death. Most say both but we never really hear how Christ died the spiritual death of Adam. In fact, we never hear much at all about the spiritual death - separation from God. I believe the death of Adam was solely and strictly spiritual death, separation from God. The object lesson was for him to be kicked out of the garden. To my way of thinking, covenant creation brings this out to its fullest extent.

Now to the NASB version of that verse...I really don't see much difference. Obviously, the verse is not speaking of Jesus proclaiming light in the same way He had done all throughout His earthly ministry because of the usage of "first."

It was by reason of His resurrection that He would show "light" and I would think this "light" as more of a "proof," as in making manifest, than more gospel ministry, if one thinks that in the first place...

If Adam's death was spiritual (separation from God as I believe it was), then if Christ did not die Adam's death for us, we are still in our sins. So, did Christ die Adam's death? The physical death of Christ is the one that gets the most emphasis. For 20 years as a dispensationalist I never heard once about Christ dying Adam's spiritual death, not once...The "in that day" of Genesis 3 has so much significance, yet it is shelved in the light of redemption.

This is why the resurrection is tied into NEVER dying in John 11:26. Most say that we still die "later" and then are physically raised again. This is VERY different than NEVER dying - hence my continuing "discussions" with our beloved PaulT on this particular matter. If the penalty of sin is physical death, and Christ paid our penalty on Calvary, please tell me why we still have to pay the penalty of sin. I thought we got redeemed at the moment of salvation. We were freed from the penalty of sin. If sin's penalty is physical death I should never have to physically die. But everyone dies physically. So, either no one ever got "saved" or the penalty MUST, by necessity, not be physical death. And if not physical death, then neither is the resurrection from that death... What happened in the Garden is the foundation for redemption. If we go wrong there, we go wrong everywhere. Anyway, I have blabbed enough on this one point.

The other point, which Ward has not likely gotten to in those 5 points is the present passive verbs of 1 Corinthians 15 "is being raised" etc. This is crucial to the fact that the resurrection had already started. And it started with living people! That is why I constantly harp upon the fact that we, as Christians have already been resurrected from death! And since we were alive when this happened (salvation), it could not be physical death.

John 5:24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

1 John 3:14 - We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

point #2

Fenley makes a point that many Christians associate psuchikos in 1 Corinthians 15:44 with "physical" (as opposed to spiritual; "sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body"), but it does not refer to the physical body at all, but to the soul. According to Thayer and Strong, psuchikos refers to what is animated by the breath, applying to both man and beast. That definition, anyway, would seem to refer to a living physical body (as opposed to a lifeless, dead body).

Fenley makes the case that the resurrection of Christ's physical body was a sign and did not represent the resurrection for which Christ was first. In making this point he points out that sin separates us from God and that separation is a form of death. He cited appropriate verses such as Isaiah 59:2 and 1 Timothy 5:6.

I have not heard this before. I have always (well, not always) associated the natural body with OC Israel and the spiritual body with the new covenant Israel. I am not too fussy what futurists (Thayer and Strong) say about these kinds of texts, since they must treat them as still being in the future...

In Ezekiel's vision of the dead bones (Ezekiel 37) notice what is said in verse 5:

Ezekiel 37:5 - Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live:

To me, this is a foretelling of the spirit of promise, the corporate body of Israel be raised - live Jews from 30-70 AD and the rest of the dead (ones), those already in the grave (sheol/hades) at Christ's coming. PaulT thinks like a lot of folks do. To him, it is a graphical description of physical resurrections - never mind the fact that some bodies that have been buried for thousands of years have undergone total disintegration and plants and animals have ingested the human remains and we have ingested those plants and animals as food...Whether or not this has anything to do with "psuchikos," I do not really know at this time...

To me, Christ suffered separation from God when He said "Eli, ELi lama sabachthani." At physical death, He (emphasis on HE not His body - His body lay limp in Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb) went to that realm of the dead where His soul was eventually raised by God within that 3 day period - the sign of Jonah.

Acts 2:27 - Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Part 3...

Part 3 of 16

He goes on to point out that Paul writes that we have been raised up with Christ (Ephesians 2:5-6). If this is true, then he must not be referring to resurrection of physical bodies.

I find it interesting that he says that "every one who sees the Son" (John 6:40) obviously cannot mean that you have to have physically seen him with your eyes, otherwise none of us have everlasting life. Now if you trinitarians out there can reflect on that the next time you hear someone (or you yourself) defend the Trinity by referring to all those verses in John that say that Jesus has "seen God" or "seen the Father"...

I think this is the last point I can address at this time...too tired.

I think that Ephesian 2:5-6 is an excellent point against physical resurrection of dead human corpses...

Ephesians 2:5-6 - Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

And since I don't really understand the second part, I will stop there. Hopefully, I will have some more time to devote to this. I doubt I will have time to go through each and every point. People need to study on their own, whether or not they have been "poisoned" by other people's views...

In fact, I will stop there unless I see something glare at me in the future. I would also recommend some of Jack Scott's material. I have contacted him to see what he has available on the Internet, if anything. I have a powerpoint presentation that he did at TruthVoice 2009. If anyone is interested, they may PM me and give me the usual contact info and I will send it off to you for a nominal fee...okay, okay, no fee...sheesh.

[mellontes]

Hi Bev,

I just posted my thoughts on points 1 to 3 and noticed that you had just posted more stuff. Let me say a few things about point #6.

As preterists, we simply must come to terms as to exactly what the parousia did. Did it complete salvation or not? Are we still waiting for salvation? Are we still waiting for redemption? I say emphatically NO!

Now those 1st century CHristians had the promise by faith. The Holy Spirit was the earnest for their redemption. The redemption of the body (not human body) would come at the parousia. I ask, "Did it come or not?"

This is why the futurists are so future oriented. Just because the first century saints referred to a future redemption does not mean that redemption is STILL future to us. We still have many presuppositions to overcome...

Romans 9:30 - What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

Galatians 5:5 - For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Romans 5:19 - For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

1 Peter 3:12 - For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

1 John 2:29 - If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

in conjunction with:

1 John 3:7 - Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Revelation 22:11 - He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

And a personal favorite of mine...

2 Peter 3:13 - Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Are we living in the new heavens and earth or not? That is the question.

Another question is this: "Does redemption and being raised from the dead unto life provide present post-parousia saints with righteousness? I say yes, because if we have to wait until we die to see if we got it or not, then it is a little too late to do anything about it. The "decision" for salvation MUST be made while we are presently alive. I got it all when I got "saved." I ain't waiting for any more promises to be fulfilled. God dwells within me. I am made righteous by what Christ did upon Calvary.

As to your closing statement, are you sure you understand what Ward was saying? Have you clarified what he said to mean exactly what you understood him to say? I sure hope so, because that was some concluding statement! You do realize that if you were wrong in the assumption you made, you have sinned not only in making the error, but in publicly posting negative comments based upon your error. We might even be able to add some pride as well...

1 John 2:1 - My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

I think there is a BIG difference in original sin (what Jesus died for) and sins we commit almost on a daily basis. If you are honest with yourself, I cannot see how you could possibly believe that you do not ever sin...I wonder if you ever utterred the following words in your prayer closet - "Father, forgive me." I am so thankful that when God looks upon me, He does not see me, but sees His righteous Son, the Lord Jesus, or something similar like that.

Enough for now, beddy-bye time...

[MoGrace2U]

Jan 13, 2010 22:30:19 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Jan 13, 2010 21:42:45 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Funny that I was responding to Simplesinner's thread at CARM on this same subject when they went into test mode today. But the gist of my post was that I don't trust Ward Fenley's ability to exegete scripture because of his leanings towards covenant creationism. My experience at DID tells me to be wary of the entire view because of the shenanigans of those who hold it. Which perhaps makes me a bit biased...

I don't trust Ward Fenley's ability, either, Robin. Possibly for different reasons than you. Read my concluding sentence on my Parts 6 - 8 post.

Idid listen to Part I but did not get thru Part II because of similar reasons you listed. But the result of those teachings I had already encountered at DID by its members - justifying sin is not the gospel!

[MoGrace2U]

Ted,
The decision we make for Christ is one that we continue to make. There is nothing static about faith or salvation - it is a dynamic living relationship with Christ in which we must abide unto the end. If one departs from the faith, should that man think he is still saved? Or have you not read anything about John Shelby Spong who now denies the entire testimony of Christ yet believes 'the myth' still has some value? We have every heavenly blessing we need to keep us in the faith - yet we still must avail ourselves of those blessings if we are to stay on the narrow path in this crooked and perverse world. It is therefore not an OSAS or NOSAS issue - it is about how this new life must be lived day by day - because that is how we live this life we have been given. If we return to the ways of death and sin then how can we claim that the life of Christ is at work in us? For then we must deny that it is God who sanctifies and that it is our sin He justifies. And that is not what this life is about!

[mellontes]

Jan 14, 2010 11:51:38 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Jan 13, 2010 22:30:19 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I don't trust Ward Fenley's ability, either, Robin. Possibly for different reasons than you. Read my concluding sentence on my Parts 6 - 8 post.

Idid listen to Part I but did not get thru Part II because of similar reasons you listed. But the result of those teachings I had already encountered at DID by its members - justifying sin is not the gospel!

So, now it has gotten to be "justifying" sin now...like it is an okay thing to do. Hardly his viewpoint at all...nor mine. It must be absolutely wonderful to never sin and ask forgiveness...simply lovely.

[mellontes]

Jan 14, 2010 12:01:54 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Ted,
The decision we make for Christ is one that we continue to make. There is nothing static about faith or salvation - it is a dynamic living relationship with Christ in which we must abide unto the end. If one departs from the faith, should that man think he is still saved? Or have you not read anything about John Shelby Spong who now denies the entire testimony of Christ yet believes 'the myth' still has some value? We have every heavenly blessing we need to keep us in the faith - yet we still must avail ourselves of those blessings if we are to stay on the narrow path in this crooked and perverse world. It is therefore not an OSAS or NOSAS issue - it is about how this new life must be lived day by day - because that is how we live this life we have been given. If we return to the ways of death and sin then how can we claim that the life of Christ is at work in us? For then we must deny that it is God who sanctifies and that it is our sin He justifies. And that is not what this life is about!

Am I crazy or is your portion of a post in response to PaulT saying something a little different:

"No man is able to deliver his own soul from death, he cannot keep his soul alive. But God who raises the dead can keep the justified soul alive in Christ - and it is why eternal life is imparted to us now. Because that life thru the power of the Spirit of God keeps the soul of the inner man alive even though the body dies here."

Source: forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?2457-Is-Christ-truly-the-First-Fruits-of-the-Resurrection&p=49737#post49737

[mellontes]

Jan 13, 2010 17:16:52 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Part 4 of 16

Now we're back to a translation issue. The translation of 1 Corinthians 15:15 Fenley is using reads, at the end, "if so be that the dead are not rising." That's not any of the translations I've checked (not KJV, NKJV, YLT, NASB, NIV, etc.) Most translate it as "rise not" or "are not raised." Be that as it may, Fenley makes the excellent point that egeiro there is in the present tense, meaning that the raising up is presently occurring, not future tense, as though it had not begun. Of Christ, "raised" (egeiro) is in the aorist (1Cor 15:15) or perfect (1 Cor 15:16) tense (both normally rendered with past tense English words), but of "us," the tense in both those verses is the present tense.

Ephesians 5:30 - another textual difference. The words "of his flesh and of his bones" do not appear in all translations. KJV, NKJV, YLT, LITV - yes; NASB, NIV, NET, ASV - no.

Those present passive verbs of 1 Corinthians are a REAL issue. Futurist translations never gave them an accurate translation. They are basically "being" verbs, as in "it is being raised" etc.

And regarding Ephesians 5:30, "of his flesh and his bones is in the KJV, ALT, Bishops, Darby has it in grey text, DRB, Geneva, and several others. The real issue is the Greek text being used. That phrase is in the Textus Receptus but not in the Westcoot-Hort Greek text...

Jan 13, 2010 17:16:52 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Part 5 of 16

My first strong point of disagreement. He's talking about there being no condemnation for those in Christ (Romans 8:1) and moves on to 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 and how we are being changed. He says "don't separate yourselves from the community." (Which thereby acknowledges that you CAN do so.) After that, Fenley contradicts himself and states, "you are inseparable from the body of Christ, you CAN NOT BE disconnected from the body of Christ; it's impossible." To this I strongly disagree. Why would Jesus tell people to "remain in me" if it was impossible to be separated from him.

( Dinner Break )

Personally, I think you are having difficulty understanding the corporate body (community) from the individual person. Please tell me exactly what it is that you must do (or not do) to cause the indwelling presence of God to leave you.

As for your "remain in me," what particular text are you referring to. I don't like to assume...

Other quick thoughts..

I don't think Ward is Reformed in theology...else you would have heard the word "elect" almost as often as Brian Simmons, Roderick and PaulT use the word "hyperpreterist."

As to the "process" of resurrection, are you sure he is not talking about the corporate body of Israel being raised during Christ's ministry and throughout the entire book of Acts? I haven't listened so I don't know. But it would seem to contradict what Ward believes if you are right. I don't see resurrection as an individual process but I sure would see it as a process if there are literally thousands of Jews who were yet to become part of the fithful new covenant remnant. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

And you are not alone in being against Reformed theology. Besides, if Reformed theology is true, then apparently you were ordained of God to speak against it... and the fact that God created non-Reformed people just to add spice...just two of my many statements I use in discussing these types of things...

[Once4all]

Ted, thanks for all your comments. When I posted my notes, I did not do so with any expectation of replies to them. I'll think twice about doing so in the future, especially if my notes are long, because I don't want to put a burden on anyone thinking that I may be expecting comments. I'm sorry if I made you or anyone else feel that I wanted to engage replies.

You made some good remarks, though I stand by my written opinions regarding what Ward Fenley is teaching (beyond preterism).

When I realized that he was going beyond preterism in his teaching and that I so strongly disagreed with him, I probably should have abandoned the notes and deleted what I had already posted.

[MoGrace2U]

Well Bev, I for one am glad you didn't abandon your notes. It helps sometimes to know you are not alone when others have rallied in favor of what you see as error. Not getting sucked in by smooth words is important too!

[Once4all]

Thank you, Robin. It was indeed encouraging to me to see that we had agreed on this. Some of the things in the videos touched hot buttons with me.

Truly, the message of preterism could reach a wider audience more positively if those teaching it could resist trying to cram all their other beliefs along with it. They turn away many who might otherwise be receptive.

[mellontes]

Bev, Robin,

May I ask that both of you give attention to the following new thread?

livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ac&action=display&thread=361

Blessings!

[bryan729]

Thanks for sharing that Ted, I will definitely check it out. I like Ward Fenley, I've seen other videos of his that I really enjoyed.