Are All Christians Preterists?

[didymus]

This is obviously a companion question to "Are All Preterists Christians? - I Wonder" It is in response to some that have suggested that it is not necessary to believe in the truth of fulfilled prophecy to be a Christian. While, God is the ultimate judge in these matters, this is my understanding at this point of my Christian journey.

As one who believes in fulfilled prophecy, I believe that to be the truth. But can you be a Christian if you don't believe this truth? Can you believe in some form of futurism and still be a Christian. Fulfilled prophecy and futurism are diametrically opposed to one another, so they both can not be true. Does that matter?

I believe the answer to this question lies with who Christ is. Who is Jesus? What has he taught? What has he accomplished? What did the apostles, the sent messengers of Christ, teach? And, can we pick and choose what we believe about Christ? Can we separate the accomplishments of Christ, and still say we believe in Christ? These are the questions that have to be answered in order to answer the larger question posed here; Are All Christians Preterists?

Truly Jesus is our savior. But he is also our reigning king in His kingdom which was established and shall be forever. Can you separate the two? Since there is only one Jesus, it seems unlikely that one could justify, to God, the division of Christ as savior and Christ as reigning or coming king. Is Christ divided? You do see that if Christ is the "coming" king, he is not yet king. So any suggestion that Christ is now king would be erroneous if he has yet to come as king. But, even futurist call him "King of kings." If a king, then he obviously has a kingdom. But we are not in that kingdom, for he has yet to come in his kingdom, and establish his kingdom on earth, according to futurism. But preterists believe that Christ did come in his kingdom and established his kingdom on earth is 70AD. Both of these views can't be true, unless you believe in a double fulfillment. One lesser fulfillment in 70AD, and a greater fulfillment sometime yet future. But, there is absolutely no Scriptural basis for such belief.

They can't both be true, therefore one must be a lie. So, then, can one be a Christian and believe there is untruth in Christ? How can that be? Did not Jesus say, "I am... the truth..." Therefore, there is no untruth in him.

What did Jesus teach regarding his coming in his kingdom? The basic difference between preterism and futurism is timing. On teaches the coming of Christ and all related prophecies have been fulfilled while the other teaches those prophesies are still future, 1900 years later and counting.

I want to point out here that when you take what is written in established Scripture known as the canon, and apply it to today, religious leaders, like Jack Van Impe, John Hagee and others conclude that the coming of Christ soon. They are making a lot of money selling their "end times" scenarios, and Bible prophecy is being fulfilled before our very eyes. But consider, when you apply the same established Scriptures to the first generation of Christians, they too thought they were seeing the "end times," and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy right before their eyes. And the same thing has happened down through history.

What did Jesus, teach? In Matthew 16.27&28, he taught his coming in his kingdom would be in the life time of some who were "standing" there. Indicating the coming would be in the generation Jesus was in. And in Matthew 24.34, Jesus said that "this generation" will not pass till all these things are fulfilled. So Jesus taught that his coming in his kingdom would happen in the generation he was in. But, then I believe in fulfilled prophecy, so I would make that conclusion. But, it is a conclusion that happens to be true.

So, what is the answer to my question? Are all Christians preterists? In my opinion, yes.
Now, what's your opinion?

[Morris]

May 27, 2010 17:27:26 GMT -5 @didymus said:

But preterists believe that Christ did come in his kingdom and established his kingdom on earth is 70AD.

I'm going to flip your comments on their head and (with tongue in cheek) say that you cannot be a Christian either because you understand the establishment of the kingdom incorrectly, just as the futurists do.

Peter declared Christ to be King in Acts 2, telling his audience that the Jesus they crucified had been made both the Messiah, the Anointed One, and Supreme in Authority.

When the Bible says that they preached the gospel of the Kingdom, they were preaching that Christ was King, presently. This was not openly written in letters because it was illegal for them to acknowledge another King. This is seen in Acts 17:7, "They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus."

I'd go back even further and look into the gospel accounts.
John 18:37
"You are a king, then! said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.""

Jesus claimed to be King even at this point, and the people knew that He claimed this!
John 19:21
"The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, Do not write 'The King of the Jews,' but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.""

Jesus was born a king. I have been told that even though Jesus was born a king, He did not receive His kingdom until some point later (the exact point always varying). I say that scripture does not contain the concept of Christ receiving a kingdom. It is quite the opposite in fact. People are to receive the kingdom;
Mark 10:15, Luke 18:17
"I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." This is spoken in other words here;
John 1:12
"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God".
Luke 16:16
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time [John], the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it."

Didn't Jesus tell people to seek the Kingdom? That implies that it was already there to be found! What I find throughout the NT is that the receiving/entering of the kingdom is associated with the presence of God; that is, being IN Christ where we set aside our will for His and participate in the Divine nature.

This is why Jesus spoke about the kingdom as being 'near' and 'at hand'. It was indeed there among them in the person of Jesus, His presence. The 'kingdom' is not talked about as coming 'soon' or 'shortly' as in a frame of time (although judgment certainly was).

Luke 11:20
"But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you." The Spirit of Christ is the kingdom. It is him that we enter and receive, and become a child of God.
John 3:5
"Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."
Romans 14:17
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit".

I could go on and on, but the point remains; being a Christian is about being in Christ, not in some head-knowledge of what this or that means. Saying that being in Christ is based on proper understanding is dangerous and unscriptural.
1 Corinthians 8:1
"Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."
1 Corinthians 13:2
"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."
1 Corinthians 13:8
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away."

The commandments given by Jesus as the greatest and supporting all others, is love. If given the choice I take love over knowledge.

[didymus]

Morris said:

I'm going to flip your comments on their head and (with tongue in cheek) say that you cannot be a Christian either because you understand the establishment of the kingdom incorrectly, just as the futurists do.

I don't believe I said anything about understanding. I believe things that I don't understand. Creation, for example. I believe the account of creation in Genesis. I have no clue how anyone could voice activate the universe, but I believe God did. The resurrection of Christ is another. I don't understand it, but I believe it.

The rest of your post is quite sound.

God bless,

Tom

[Morris]

May 29, 2010 11:38:47 GMT -5 @didymus said:

I don't believe I said anything about understanding. I believe things that I don't understand.

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, Didy. I thought you were saying that a person couldn't be a Christian if they didn't believe in/understand fulfilled prophecy as understood by Preterists [sorry for the double negative in there].

[didymus]

Perhaps another point of clarification is needed here. I use the term "preterism" as a conventionalization. Personally I don't like the term. I prefer "fulfilled prophecy." And I believe that Christians must believe fulfilled prophecy as the Bible teaches it, not necessarily how preterists teach it, as preterists are divided. But the message of the parousia is not divided in Scripture. And, I accept that message by faith, as I do not have all the answers. Most preterists don't have all the answers either, and many resort to eschatolical gymnastics to prove their point.

I believe that a true Christian will eventually accept the truth of fulfilled prophecy based on faith in the one Christ. Certainly, trust is a part of faith. A true Christian will ultimately trust in what Jesus said. Like you, Mell, me, and many others.

Yeah, we may disagree on finer points, and even squabble about them. That is to be expected since we have a limitation called the flesh, which does not understand the things of the Spirit of God. But, as we all continue on this journey, the more we will, hopefully, learn to yield to the Spirit of God, instead of yielding to our own limited understanding in the flesh.

God bless,

Didy

[Morris]

I think I understand your point better now, although I still don't fully agree with it (for that's worth), mainly because of what (I believe) scripture speaks about what is required.

Please allow me to comment on this statement, "And, I accept that message by faith". Dispensationalists, Historists, Preterists, Trinitarians, Oneness, Combo-ists, What-have-you-ists; they all take what they've heard and accepted on faith. For whatever reasons, their conscience binds them to their beliefs for the time being.

I have heard the following comment from people of many different beliefs, "But, as we all continue on this journey, the more we will, hopefully, learn to yield to the Spirit of God, instead of yielding to our own limited understanding in the flesh." Even dispensationalists say and believe this. We all believe that our beliefs are truth arrived at through yielding to the Spirit. What does that prove?

Here is another interesting thought; it is not our doctrines that will be tested, it is our faith and character.
2 Corinthians 13:5
"Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?"

The test here is about being "in the faith", but notice that it isn't about the 'beliefs of the faith'. Being "in the faith" is made synonymous Christ being in you.

James 1:12
"Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial [test of faith, vs 3], because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him."

Here, the test of faith is connected to loving God.

2 Corinthians 2:7-10
"Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. If you forgive anyone, I also forgive him. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake"

Again, the test was obedience to the command Jesus had given. To love one another, and here the test was to love, a love that forgives and comforts. The commandment we were given was to love, and this is where our test will be centered.

1 John 3:23
"And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us."

1 John 5:1
"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well."

John 16:27
"No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God."

1 Corinthians 8:3
"The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God."

[didymus]

Being in the faith, Christ being in you, is what I am talking about. If one is in Christ, and Christ in that one, won't that result in that one believing in all that Christ is?

Didy

[Morris]

Will it? What is it that makes you come to that conclusion?

[didymus]

If one is in Christ and Christin that one, doesn't that one share the mind of Christ?

Didy

[Once4all]

I don't believe having the mind of Christ has anything to do with doctrine, but it has everything to do with heart and behavior.

Romans 12:1-2 NASB
(1) Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.
(2) And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

1 Corinthians 2:16 NASB
(16) For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

Who has known the mind of God? Jesus. And we are to transform our mind to be one with his.

[didymus]

Oh contrare, my dear Bev. Having the mind of Christ does have doctrinal implications, for that is where doctrine comes from - the mind. If we have the mind of Christ, we would teach what he taught, which is doctrine.

Didy

[Morris]

I'm on Bev's side here, and solely because scripture backs it up. There is no such support for what you are putting forth, Didy.

Having the mind of Christ refers to knowing God, not knowing things.

[didymus]

Morris,

"Knowing God and knowing things." What does that mean?

Didy

[Morris]

What does knowing God mean? That's a whole other subject altogether, but knowing God is eternal life.

John 17:1-3
"After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

That word translated "know" here transliterates as 'they may be knowing' and the root of which means:
"to "know" (absolutely) in a great variety of applications and with many implications (as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed)".

This is perhaps a good study for an individual to make for themselves but here are some starting notes;
1 Corinthians 8:3
"But the man who loves God is known by God."

Galatians 4:8,9
"Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?"

Ephesians 1:17
"I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better."

2 Thessalonians 1:8
"He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus."

2 Peter 1:2
"Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."

1 John 4:7,8
"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

1 John 5:20
"We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life."

[didymus]

Morris,

I guess what I'm asking is: Isn't "know God and knowing things" the basis for doctrine?

There is a bunch of things mentioned in the passages you provided, such as: Knowing, trusting and obeying. Isn't what we teach impacted by all these things?

Tom

[Morris]

Jun 7, 2010 1:08:11 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Morris,

I guess what I'm asking is: Isn't "know God and knowing things" the basis for doctrine?

There is a bunch of things mentioned in the passages you provided, such as: Knowing, trusting and obeying. Isn't what we teach impacted by all these things?

Tom

Knowing God is the basis of eternal life, or rather, eternal life is knowing God.

"Knowing things" is the basis of doctrine, or perhaps better stated, our doctrine is defined by the things we believe we know.

Look at what Paul said,
Philippians 3:4-11
"If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead."

What did Paul list as being previously to his profit? Boiled down, it was anything relating to himself. Instead, he desired to know Christ.

Now, was it things about Christ that he desired to know? No. He wanted to know Christ as Lord so that he might gain Him and be found in Him. He wanted to know the righteousness of God through knowing Christ. He wanted to know the power of Christ's resurrection. He wanted to know the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings!

This is not a knowledge about Christ as in a correct understanding of who He is. This is not doctrinal understanding, this is an experience by partaking. Paul desired to partake of Christ, His righteousness, His power, and His sufferings.

[didymus]

Morris,

How can one partake in Christ if one does not know who Christ is?

[Morris]

Jun 7, 2010 16:17:14 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Morris,

How can one partake in Christ if one does not know who Christ is?

Search scripture to see what it says. Here's something to start you off;
Ephesians 1:13
"And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit"

This talks of hearing and believing. Now if you can identify what scripture calls the word of truth and the gospel, you should be much closer to your answer.

[didymus]

Morris,

Believing based on what? God said, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." - Hosea 4.6, cf. Isaiah 5.13, Ezekiel 22.26

There is much said about pursuing wisdom, knowledge and understanding in Proverbs. Proper wisdom, knowledge and understanding leads to proper doctrine.

Proper doctrine increases faith, it does not diminish faith.

[Morris]

Jun 8, 2010 0:21:55 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Proper doctrine increases faith, it does not diminish faith.

I don't want to diminish the value that doctrine can have on faith. Personally, my faith is strengthened when I study the bible.

However, scripture declares what knowledge and wisdom are really about.

1 Corinthians 1:30
"It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption."

Also read chapter 2. I'm not necessarily going to change your thoughts on this, but when I read about wisdom, knowledge and understanding, I can't help but see that it is talking about the gospel and what we receive from God through Christ.

This wisdom from God, this righteousness, holiness, redemption, and power from the Holy Spirit, is all knowledge and is what is called having 'the mind of Christ'.

Ephesians 1:7,8
"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding."

Ephesians 1:17
"I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better"

James 3:13-18
"Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness."

I don't think that, in general, our understanding or knowledge of what wisdom really is, corresponds to what is portrayed in scripture.

[didymus]

Morris,

This is turning out to be another pointless discussion. It doesn't matter what I say, if I say it it must be wrong. So, what is the point of saying anything.

Didy

[Once4all]

I didn't notice anyone saying that anyone else was wrong. All I see is an exchange of different ideas, ideas which I appreciate reading from everyone participating! I'd venture to guess that all of us who participate actively here read and study the Scriptures regularly, even daily. To that end, it might seem dismissive to say to someone (here) to "search Scripture," because I think we all probably do. We should all consider what we say, how it might sound to the person reading it. When reading, we should also not be overly sensitive to what was written. I'm guilty of that one, reading personal "snipes" into things where none likely exist. All the years on CARM ruined me that way (because there the personal snipes DO exist).

[Morris]

Jun 8, 2010 16:34:14 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Morris,

This is turning out to be another pointless discussion. It doesn't matter what I say, if I say it it must be wrong. So, what is the point of saying anything.

Didy

I'm sorry you feel that way. Here, let's have a coffee!

You know, I had a long post typed up, but I cleared it all.

Instead, I've decided to be blunt. I don't disagree with what you say because you say it. I disagree because I find scripture that disagrees with it even though some scripture agrees.

This is why I say search scripture, because it gain a full understanding of a subject we need to look at all the scripture that speaks on it. If we take only certain passages than yes, we will come to certain conclusions.

My hope is that we can look at all passages and see that all are true. Believe it or not, but my posts are not pre-made studies. I'm often learning as threads develop.

I also realize that you are my brother in Christ and I don't what you to feel discouraged. Instead, I encourage you in love. Unfortunately, I really have to go, so here's a hug.

[didymus]

Morris,

Let me be equally as blunt.

I received my first Bible at the age of 7. I am now 54+. I have been studying and searching the Scriptures ever since I was 7. That's 47 years. That's longer than most of you are alive. And, yet I often get treated as if I know nothing.

Morris, I urge you to read 1st Timothy 1.3-11. This shows the importance of sound doctrine. Sound doctrine is my aspiration. But, in these days, sound doctrine is being challenged. And this concerns me greatly because you young people are still impressionable.

Take Genesis 1. Sound doctrine is to accept exactly what it says, for what it says. But that isn't good enough. It can't mean exactly what it says. It can't mean that God actually created the heavens and the earth in six days, can it? It had to take 6,000 days. Or, now it is coming out that it's not about creation at all. It's about the establishment of the covenant.

Then there's the challenge to God's omniscience. The new doctrine is that if there is eternity/infinity, it's impossible for God to be omniscient. Sound doctrine is that God is eternal/infinite, so it has always been understood that God's knowledge is also eternal/infinite.

And, now what about transition. That has been taught ever since I know anything. It's always been taught that one covenant was coming to an end, and another covenant was being established. And though it is just a man's document, a will goes through a probate and challenges before it is firmly established. See Galatians 3.15. So we had a situation where the Old was vanishing away, and the New was being confirmed That sounds like transition to me. Now you come along and challenge that to.

Are all my established beliefs wrong? That's the way I am being treated. And, nothing I say means anything anymore. So, why say anything at all.

[Morris]

Jun 9, 2010 12:25:02 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Are all my established beliefs wrong? That's the way I am being treated. And, nothing I say means anything anymore. So, why say anything at all.

Actually, I agreed with you right up to the final part, and that of course is the subject of this thread. [Wait... no it isn't... that's the other thread. Sorry.]

Galatians 3:15-29 is a great passage! Verse 15 reads,
"Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case."

Now, am I incorrect in reading that what is said here (and following) is that the law did not set aside or add to the covenant God made? Furthermore, the promises of that covenant were spoken to Abraham and to Christ.

I do apologize sincerely if you feel slighted in any way, Didy, but I don't understand where you see a "situation where the Old was vanishing away, and the New was being confirmed".

Verse 19,
"What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator."
Doesn't this verse show that the 'law' was no longer 'added' to the covenant because the Seed had come? If it isn't saying this, why isn't it?

Verse 20,
"A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one."
This is a thought here that I'm not fully sure about, but I can't see any other meaning; the mediator represented two parties, both of which are God. For God gave the promise and the beneficiary was His Christ. Does that make any sense?

The passage continues to say, as far as I can understand, that the only access to these promises are through the One to who these promises were made. The promises came from God, were made to God's Son (the Seed of Abraham, the Christ), and are therefore available only to God's sons (again, the Seed of Abraham).

If you disagree with me, well, you disagree. No problem. I don't base fellowship (or respect for that matter) on people agreeing with me. These are my opinions that I've been persuaded to have (whether by others or myself) and they are not unchangeable.