All things fulfilled at the Cross? [Archive]

View Full Version : All things fulfilled at the Cross?

mparkes

02-28-2007, 02:35 PM

Hi everyone! I just signed up for the forum and look forward to interacting with the group!

I am wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the idea that all things are fulfilled with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? I listen a lot to Mike Williams and this is kind of what he teaches. If you ask him what he thinks about the rapture, second coming, etc he falls back on the fact that the scriptures (OT) prophesied of the Messiah who would save his people from their sins. But nothing beyond that. In other words, the whole point of law and the prophets found their fulfillment in Christ. So Christ is the fulling of the law AND the prophets in Mike's view. All of the additional prophecies seem to be primarily added by the NT writers. (Although Christ did prophesy of the destruction of the temple AD70).

Now, I am coming at this with a preterist background. Having read books like The Cross and Parousia of Christ by Max King, I have tended to see Christ's ministry extending beyond the cross and into the transitional period until AD70. This seems to be the best explanation for much of the NT writer's claim that they were still waiting for Christ to "return". It would seem that if you relegate ALL prophetic events and fulfillment back at the cross and resurrection, then you have to deal with a LOT of writers in the NT that must have been confused in their theology. (Which to some degree I can go along with, as Paul himself knew they were seeing through a glass "darkly"... the early church did not have a clear picture of what was happening i dont think - we tend to accord them more insight than perhaps they possesed!)

Wel, Mike Williams "sort of" explains much of the future tense writings of Paul as a Jewish teaching tool or something, how that the writer can put things as future tense to help his reader get a better understanding? I am not sure about that... seems to that just confuses things more and I know God is not the author of confusion.

Paul did declare in 1 Cor 2:2 ..."For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified". This scripture would lend support to Mike's view, although maybe I am lifting it out of context. There is a certain elegance to figuring out a way to keep EVERYTHING at the cross... that makes for simpler view overall, but it does leave us with a LOT of NT writers that apparently didn't see EVERYTHING fulfilled at the corss.

Anyway, I just was curious as to anyone's thoughts. I love to listen to Mike and the Glenn Klein webcasts, they are awesome. I would certainly consider myself UR or some flavor thereof! In any case I believe with all my heart that God is the savior of ALL... not just a few! (Maybe I just need to read the Cross and Parousia of Christ again! :)

Amie

02-28-2007, 05:02 PM

mparkes,

Welcome! :cheerleader02:

I think that Christ's ministry did extend beyond the cross in that because of the fulfillment on the cross, some things were 'about to' happen.

Paul made the decission to "know nothing" among them. He allowed Christ to speak via the Holy Spirit through him. An example of his clarifying this is 1 Corinthians 7:10, "But I command the ones being married (not I, but the Lord), that a woman is not to be separated from her husband;" He himself, as the bride (translated "woman" in some areas) of Christ, remained "silent" per matters of interpretation.

In the same chapter he seems to share his personal opinion as well, " But about virgins, I have no command of the Lord. But I give judgment, as having received mercy by the Lord to be faithful." (vs 25)

So in the very least, Jesus spoke through the Apostles. The Holy Spirit entered into them and Jesus spoke via the Spirit. He actually came in the church (clouds) that way and they reigned with him in that way.

What they seemed to be preaching was that everything was accomplished and so everything within that old economy was about to pass away (-and indeed was in the process of passing - Hebrews 8:13). That was related to the prophecy of the destruction of the temple in that (the fall of the temple) was a sign that everything was complete and that the old had completely passed at that time (when the temple fell).

That's my two pennies currently :).

Amie

Paige

02-28-2007, 06:51 PM

Hi and welcome Mike,

My thoughts ditto Amie's above. I see the NT as the transitional period at which time the OC was going out and the NC was coming in in its fullness. I think I've listened to Mike Williams a time or two, and have enjoyed much of his perspective. However, I would have to part ways with his view of *everything* being completed by the cross.

Its so very nice to have you here, and I look forward to anything you'd like to share :)

Paige

Barry

02-28-2007, 09:40 PM

Hi and well come mparkes.
Mike Williams has a lot going for him. I love the guy immensely.
[Edited by Barry Mar. 1st : However, a message of grace that places the totality of fulfillment at the cross will not be able to reach the masses because it does not take into account a transition period.]

Far better that the NT writers spoke of the decisive act of the cross in its applied meaning ["For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified"] than to think that the "fulfillment of all things written" at the destruction of Jerusalem was a mere teaching tool.

"For now our salvation is nearer that when we first believed" must ultimately be contended with.

2 Cor. 3:11-14 in its proper tenses says a lot.

So then the applied meaning of the cross applied in the transformation of the ages harmonizes the scriptures.

Your thoughts are very well come.
Barry

davo

03-01-2007, 09:51 AM

G'day Mike and welcome :)

I think Mike Williams has a lot of thought provoking things to say and is not afraid to say them, which I find really good. I do think he misses things though where it comes to eschatology. I do understand why he maintains as he does his position of "all was fulfilled at the Cross" as it is his attempt to negate a lot of the rubbish that passes off as 'biblical teaching" – much of which is tainted with the condemnation of eternal conscious torment etc. So I tend to look at it in terms of "all was fulfilled THROUGH the Cross, i.e., because of the Cross etc.

Unfortunately IMO he leaves too much unsatisfactually explained by his approach. Having read Max's work you will be aware that he speaks in terms of the DECISIVE event of the Cross, and from memory the CULMINATING event of the Parousia. What Mike doesn't take into account [realise] is the function of the first-fruits saints – those who outworked Christ's victory on behalf of all Israel in that end-of-the-age period; what Paul refers to as making up that which was lacking in Christ [Col 1:24] – something that always sounded weird to me until I saw it in terms of those ones first called, and their place in the outworking to fulness of Christ's redemption of Israel and the subsequent reconciliation of humanity; I think 2Cor 1:20 also fits into this category: For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us. - that is, through the first-fruit saints.

mparkes

03-02-2007, 06:46 AM

Davo and friends,

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on this! While I really enjoy Mike Williams, I do agree that there had to be more to Christ's ministry than his death, burial and resurrection - and ending it there. If that is the case, then we have a LOT of explaing to do as regards the prophetic words of the apostles. Either that or we simply toss their words away as error or uninspired - a rather drastic step to take.

The view David that you just shared answers so many questions. It illustrates how Christ was in fact "working with them, confirming the word..." and that there was a nation to be resurrected - Israel - and the grafting in of the Gentiles was COMPLETELY dependant on her resurrection.

This is what Max brings out so well in his books... that Paul was countering a tendancy amongst the churches to cut themselves off from Israel. Paul was making it clear that the churches salvation was tied to Israel.

I need to read Max's books again!!! :) So much good stuff here... my heart rejoices at the manifold wisdom of God in his salvation of Israel and through Israel - all MANKIND!!! Halleluiah!

Paul must have had Israel in mind constantly. Consider 2 Cor 4:14
"...knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us (Israel?) also with Jesus and will bring us (Israel?) with you(Gentiles?) into his presence."

I really have to go back and begin to read Paul in light of his Jewish-Gentile understanding!

So perhaps, for the early church, their resurrection was understood as completely tied to Israel's... and WHEN they saw Israel destroyed ("the power of the holy ones if broken, then all things are fulfilled" -in Daniel somewhere) then they KNEW Israel was LIKEWISE resurrected (she had to DIE first) and they ALONG WITH HER!

Am i getting this straight?

G'day Mike and welcome :)

I think Mike Williams has a lot of thought provoking things to say and is not afraid to say them, which I find really good. I do think he misses things though where it comes to eschatology.

lynn

03-02-2007, 12:27 PM

:sign_welcome: Hi, mparkes. It's good to meet you!

I like Mike Williams in that he is a universalist who is also a preterist. He believes in past fulfillment like we do. That's good. The trouble is that his preterism puts the past fulfillment at 33 AD not 70 AD. Therefore his universalism is quite unbelievable, IMO. (You all have listed several reasons for this, which I share.) I just hope that people listening to him don’t throw out universalism altogether.

I emailed a question to him once which was, IMO, insufficiently answered by he and Glenn Klein. It went something like, “I don’t understand how the N.T. writers would say things like, ‘we shall not all sleep’ (1 Cor. 15:51). Wouldn’t past tense have been less confusing, i.e. ‘we did not all sleep’?”

a message of grace that places the totality of fulfillment at the cross will not be able to reach the masses because it does not take into account a transition period.]
That brings up a good question, Barry. Were the N.T. writers, with their various lists of “do’s and don’t’s,” describing that which is in effect even today? Here’s a few examples out of just one book, 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

1 Corinthians 16:22 If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed Maranatha.
I don’t think that we must obey the above commands today. These verses only applied to transition era saints. In Williams' view, why wouldn’t these still be required?
"For now our salvation is nearer that when we first believed" must ultimately be contended with. Yes, that’s another good one, Barry, one of many. I think that Mike Williams could strengthen his theology by sliding fulfilled Scripture from 33 to 70 AD.

In you all’s opinion, why doesn’t he do that? What would he loose? There must be something here that I’m missing. :confused:

mparkes

03-02-2007, 02:24 PM

Hi Lynn

I can't speak for the man, but I have a sense that his view simplifies eschatology to the point where all of the debate about the when, how, where, why of eschatology becomes a non-issue.
Similiar to his view that morality becomes a non-issue, at least in the sense of how God views us now. Davo hit it on the head when he said "...it is his attempt to negate a lot of the rubbish that passes off as 'biblical teaching". Mike enjoys turning these areas of dissension into non-issues.

As to what he would "lose" by extending the fulfillment past the cross, I am not sure. Other than his message at that point (the Gospel) would potentially fall back into the arena of debate and argument. His view is brilliant in that he removes the debate entirely, and ends it all at the corss. There! It is FINISHED as Jesus declared! Believe what you want, eschatology doesn't matter! JESUS is all that matters! Sounds pretty good on the face of it... The only problem is ... it doesn't line up with many of the NT prophetic words. So, you have choice. Either you work out an eschatology that EMBRACES the N.T. writers, or you throw the NT out, and only use the OT, and see it all fulfilled at the cross. At that point, the NT becomes a book of opinion and little more. Can't say that I am willing to do that quite yet! :)

As for how he arrived at this view, I have heard him teach that the wrath of God (as portrayed in Revelation, poured out through the "vials") was fulfilled at the Cross. In Matthew Jesus prays...

"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." - Mt 26:39

Mike teached that this cup was the same thing as the "vials" of Revelation, and that God poured out His wrath on Jesus instead of the human race. So I think Mike sees a very compelling reason to see ALL things fulfilled at the cross... instead of continuing God's dealing with man (or Israel) according to their unrighteousness.

I have also heard Mike share that in his view, Revelation is the story of what WOULD have happened (?) to humanity had Jesus not died on the cross. With mankind bearing the full brunt of God's anger. I have a suspicion that Mike hasn't had the "lightbulb" go off in his theology, that of seeing Israel's place in Christ's salvific history. THAT is the key to whole thing. (Not that I have that figured out though!:)

"As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." -Rom 11:28,29

I will say that Mike's view definately puts Jesus at the center of it all where He belongs! I can't fault him there... it's just those pesky writers like Paul, Peter, etc... what do we do with THEM? It would seem that if they understood that all was fulfilled at the cross they would have kept the message just that simple. The fact that they didn't implies either A) They had a more expansive eschatology or, B) They were still not seeing clearly (or didn't really understand) the "end of all things" magnitude of what had happened at the cross :)

I think that Mike Williams could strengthen his theology by sliding fulfilled Scripture from 33 to 70 AD.

In you all’s opinion, why doesn’t he do that? What would he loose? There must be something here that I’m missing. :confused:

davo

03-02-2007, 04:53 PM

I can't speak for the man, but I have a sense that his view simplifies eschatology to the point where all of the debate about the when, how, where, why of eschatology becomes a non-issue.That's it in a nutshell – if you disarm what is seen as a potential problem, or that which has been a perennial problem for the church in more modern times, then it does become a non issue; and he does this by affirming the power of Calvary and all that went with it. Now he is "seemingly" on a winner with his approach because who in their right mind is going to be seen as challenging the veracity of Calvary? But of course this is not the full picture.

His view is brilliant in that he removes the debate entirely, and ends it all at the corss. There! It is FINISHED as Jesus declared! Believe what you want, eschatology doesn't matter! JESUS is all that matters!Of course we agree whole heartedly with Mike in his acclamation of Jesus' victory – all we are doing from within the fulfilled framework is acknowledging [as per the NT writers] that this victory had an outworking to fullness in that end of the age transitional period – a victory that the first-fruit saints played a vital role in.

This is probably where Mike might balk at our position as it could be misconstrued that any involvement of "man" in the redemption of "man" goes totally against the grain of Scripture. This was my first reaction when this idea first occurred to me. However, as I pointed out above, there are certain verses that started to gel that up till this point almost seemed mildly blasphemous in what appeared to be a challenging of the fullness of power of Christ's atoning work – again, UNTIL it dawned on me how so much God DID involve "man" in this process, i.e., redemption via the first-fruits – Jesus THE first-fruit and those of that age "called" to follow – believers who were as James says "a kind of first-fruits of His creatures" Jas 1:18.

Now just to clarify – in no way was redemption contingent upon human effort, BUT, God did bring certain ones [man] into the outworking of it – just as he used human agency in the outworking of Israel's deliverance out of bondage – the type of what Jesus fulfilled through the Cross-Parousia event on behalf of humanity. These were the book-ends of God's "restoration of all things".

I have also heard Mike share that in his view, Revelation is the story of what WOULD have happened (?) to humanity had Jesus not died on the cross. With mankind bearing the full brunt of God's anger. I have a suspicion that Mike hasn't had the "lightbulb" go off in his theology, that of seeing Israel's place in Christ's salvific history. THAT is the key to whole thing.Yes you are correct – what his understanding currently misses is the historical element that NT speaks of and to.

lynn

03-02-2007, 11:36 PM

Good discussion. :) Thanks. It has addressed many of my questions about Williams.
Either you work out an eschatology that EMBRACES the N.T. writers, or you throw the NT out, and only use the OT, and see it all fulfilled at the cross. That’s what Mike seems to do. He implies that Paul, Peter, etc. were not necessarily inspired. Yes, I’d part ways with him there. That’s going too far, I think. Our 70 AD view retains the inspiration of these writers, a huge strength, IMO.

I will say that Mike's view definately puts Jesus at the center of it all where He belongs! I can't fault him there... it's just those pesky writers like Paul, Peter, etc... what do we do with THEM? It would seem that if they understood that all was fulfilled at the cross they would have kept the message just that simple. The fact that they didn't implies either A) They had a more expansive eschatology or, B) They were still not seeing clearly (or didn't really understand) the "end of all things" magnitude of what had happened at the cross :)
Our view puts Christ at the center too. Jesus' first coming and His second were all about Him, I think. Concerning "pesky writers," what does Williams do with their claims that that they were apostles of Christ, writing for Him?

To William's credit, though, these faults are of lesser magnitude than some of the fallacies present in futurism. So I'll give him credit there. :clap2:

I have also heard Mike share that in his view, Revelation is the story of what WOULD have happened (?) to humanity had Jesus not died on the cross.
Does this view have a label? Does the eschatology of Cross fulfillment have one? Just wondering.

Barry

03-02-2007, 11:48 PM

Does this view have a label? Does the eschatology of Cross fulfillment have one?

I don't know Lynn.

Personally speaking I'm almost content to see Mike stay where he is at for quite a time. That is however JMO.
He is reaching some with the message of grace that would not be reached otherwise.
Barry

davo

03-03-2007, 12:23 AM

Yeah just for the record I'm with you Barry. I have no issue with Mike W focusing where he does; given time etc he might shift somewhat from where he is to where we are, but if not no problems. I suspect no one has really had the chance to explain 'covenant eschatology' to him, and how it dovetails with the 'grace' message.

mparkes

03-03-2007, 04:50 AM

Amie

03-03-2007, 08:00 AM

Thanks everyone for your thoughts, this has been most enlightening!

And so has been listening to you. I do hope that you will share more of your thoughts in the future :).

Amie

Barry

03-03-2007, 08:16 AM

I agree. Mike Williams is doing a great job, a much needed voice in the current climate of religious intolerance. The "how" of eschatology's fulfillment is there for those who want to delve into it. If someone doesn't get all of the details exactly right, big deal. Some are not as called into these paths, and that's fine. But we are ALL called to love, and that is where Mike does a fantastic job. Thanks everyone for your thoughts, this has been most enlightening!

It is good that you are here.

What may be "missing" from the all fulfilled at the cross message is a bit of the strength behind the "all in all".

With the end of the world at the cross, we don't see the movement in the members of the transitional "body" go from the perceived "self" (under performance) to the God centered identity (where self is also seen as a part of a larger whole, and responsibility can blossom).

Since the masses (of Christians anyway) are not quite ready for this right now, approaching it from different angles is not a bad thing.

Nevertheless:
After listening to Mike in Kelown BC and listening to his audio tapes some 10 years ago, I came away with the distinct feeling that the fundamental meaning of life was love.
I do owe him (in the poetic sense) a lot.
Barry

Laren

02-22-2008, 08:24 PM

wondering if any here know if Mike Williams has changed or is considering the fulfilled view in lite of AD70 rather than all at the cross since the Baytown conference?

I just got done listening to one of his talks, and his message is good, but I have a hard time seeing how he comes to the fulfilled view without seeing a interim period as the new age swallowed up the old.

Amie

02-22-2008, 08:40 PM

mparkes

02-23-2008, 10:00 PM

Barry

02-24-2008, 06:35 AM

Hey Mike,
thought I'd stick my nose in but just a little :)

But I still get a kick out of Mike's tenacious hold on the cross as fulfilling all. I can sorta see both views as equally valid! Is that possible?
By and through the applied meaning of the cross and resurrection of Christ yes.
But by the meaning that the revelation was not fulfilled until all the types and figures had passed away no.

Otherwise we must then ignore all the "eagerness" of the saints in their wanting to see the finality of it all.
IE what were they eagerly waiting for?
What day were they hastening?
When they is Acts 17:31 fulfilled?

Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Then we would not think much of Paul in Acts 21:26 if there was no remaining provision for a Jew to be a Jew until the first tabernacle was taken down.

Not simply a teaching lesson of sorts IMHO. But rather the fleshing out of the redemption of the purchased possession.

And such is the really only the tip of the ice burg.

On the other hand, credit must be given where credit is due. Mike has opened up a can of worms that no one has been able to shut. The original applied meaning and intent of the Gospel to "save" man from his "ego", from his self gratification, and even from faith in ones own faith, and also to see that God is truly love, has been well presented by Mike IMHO.

JMO but a fantastic Job.
Barry

Amie

02-24-2008, 08:36 AM

Amie and Laren
What "went down" at the Baytown conference that would have impacted Mike's views? From what I have seen, so much of his teachings seem to parse out the cross as the final culminating event with anything following that as more a by-product. But I do like the 40 year transition period, that seems important and really harmonizes the NT nicely. But I still get a kick out of Mike's tenacious hold on the cross as fulfilling all. I can sorta see both views as equally valid! Is that posible? :)

Mike

I would agree that anything after the cross is somewhat a by-product actually. Because of the cross, the old world passed away. Because of the cross, the first fruits church could judge with Christ and declare the gospel, etc.

I think that maybe a difference would be that one view would have it that because of the cross sin and death will be defeated, and per another it actually was. As well, one would have us function in law-keeping per transitionary instruction - the law having not utterly passed away.

Those are just some guesses though.

Mike spoke with folks from the Baytown group before agreeing to speaking out there, and he spent a lot of time with different people in fellowship so I'm not sure that his views were impacted at all -- and truly it is okay if they were not. He has been in fellowship with people even before agreeing to speak at the conference and appears very open minded. I think that he is interested in understanding where we are coming from. Whether or not that means that he would adopt that view is another story.

Some people went over with Mike at Baytown and we were all very pleased with our shared spirit. They are a graceful bunch :)

Amie

Amie

davo

02-24-2008, 09:50 AM

I think that maybe a difference would be that one view would have it that because of the cross sin and death will be defeated, and per another it actually was.Yeah I think when we understand that Christ's Cross and Coming are both bookends of God's one eschatological and redemptive event that BOTH "at" and "through" then make sense and follow each other in the outworking of that reality established in that end-of-the-age period.

Mercyman

03-28-2008, 01:28 PM

Lou

03-28-2008, 03:45 PM

Perhaps the apparent NT prophecies relating to Christ's imminent return had more to do with the writers' hopes and expectations than with divine revelation (or perhaps at least as much).

At the bare minimum, is seems to me to make the subject area more of a bit player or even non-sequitur in relation to the finished work of Christ.

Matthew 24:1 Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not [one] stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down." 3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what [will be] the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" ...34 "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Mark 13:1 Then as He went out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings [are here!"] 2 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not [one] stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down." 3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, 4 "Tell us, when will these things be? And what [will be] the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?" ...26 "Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. ...30 "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Luke 21:5 Then, as some spoke of the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and donations, He said, 6 "These things which you see -- the days will come in which not [one] stone shall be left upon another that shall not be thrown down." 7 So they asked Him, saying, "Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign [will there be] when these things are about to take place?" ...27 "Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. ...32 "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.

Non sequitur?
They speak to the root of what is being said.

Without a doubt the NT writers had hope for what they wrote but they were so sure of it they were subjected to cruel death for their hope.

Mercyman

03-29-2008, 09:41 AM

Amie

03-29-2008, 09:47 AM

From one perspective, the Resurrection (the true hope and output of the finished work of Christ) is not dependent on an expectation or realization of Christ's imminent return (although if one's life on earth is miserable due to a combination of faithfulness and the evil actions of others, it is not unnatural to be hoping or expecting for the Saviour to return and reward diligence and bust some heads - as Mike Williams might say: "to good, get good...do bad, get beat").

Most religions hold a belief in a final battle between good and evil. As humanity grows more and more into love, there will be no more need for that belief and whether or not it is a future event will become moot.

As for me currently, I believe that "Armageddon" is a past event although I do not view it as a final battle between good and evil. I see it as the revelation of unconditional love.

And.. welcome to Talk-Grace Mercyman :)

Amie

Mercyman

03-29-2008, 10:00 AM

Lou

03-29-2008, 10:18 AM

From one perspective, the Resurrection (the true hope and output of the finished work of Christ) is not dependent on an expectation or realization of Christ's imminent return (although if one's life on earth is miserable due to a combination of faithfulness and the evil actions of others, it is not unnatural to be hoping or expecting for the Saviour to return and reward diligence and bust some heads - as Mike Williams might say: "do good, get good...do bad, get beat").

Hello Mercyman and welcome.

The promises made to Israel had to be fulfilled. In Hebrews 9 the writes speaks of the fulfillment of an OC type by Christ and it required Christ’s appearance.

Lou

03-29-2008, 10:23 AM

Amie

03-29-2008, 10:29 AM

Hi Amie. Thanks for your welcome.

Personally, I like your perspective. It seems a little strange to me that the God of the Universe apparently botches up his Creation so much that it ends up bankrupt and everything, except maybe a few choice assets, goes up in smoke in a fire sale. In contrast, maybe the Creation is good...only it's not done yet. It is still being processed. The longer it runs, the more it will tend toward what is Good (i.e. unconditional love).

Why 'thanky' Mercyman :9_cool:. Fulfillment, imv, was only the beginning.

Isa 45:17 But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.
Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

:) Amie

Bible-Touchstone

04-10-2008, 05:47 PM

By Christ' work on the Cross we are atoned, reconciled, justified, sanctified, etc. but not until Christ's triumphant Parousia at the resurrection of the dead is Salvation absolutely fulfilled.
There is a distinction between the effective function of Christ's work at the cross (by His blood) and the effective function of Christ's Parousia (His second coming/appearing). That means from this Preterist view, Christ has sealed our salvation from the foundation of the world and fulfilled the promise at His glorious return (Isaiah 62:11).

There are two major ways the Bible describes the effective function of Christ’s work at the cross. Primarily it is described as “by his blood”, and what will be pragmatically be referred to as “the doctrine of the cross”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BIBLE says that by Christ's blood we are:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atoned of our sins-1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5, 7:4; etc. also see Leviticus 17:11, Isaiah 53.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reconciled to God-Romans 5:10-11 (makes distinction between "were" reconciled and "shall" be saved, even though "now" already receiving the atonement); 2 Corinthians 5:18-20, Colossians 1:20-22, Ephesians 2:16; (more verb consistency shown throughout Romans 16:17; 1 Timothy 4:13, 6:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:16, 4:2-5; Titus 2:1; James 4:5; 2 Peter 1:20, 3:15-16)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church is "purchased"- Acts 20:25-30, he offered himself (Ephesians 5:2, 5:25); an acquisition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redeemed us from the curse of the Law, from sin- (Romans 3:20-26; 1 Peter 1:18-19, Revelation 5:9; also Job 19:25; Galatians 3:13/Deuteronomy 21:22-23; Yet the redemptive acquisition of the body (Romans 8:17-30) does not occurs not until the Son of Man is (was) seen coming in the clouds with power and great glory (Luke 21:24-28).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ's Blood is Symbolic of Communion with Him-John 6:53-56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justified-1 Corinthians 6:11, Titus 3:5-11, etc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanctified-Hebrews 10:29; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Leviticus 15:30; (those sanctified have an inheritance: Acts 20:32, 26:18; {salvation} :also see Psalm 106:4-6;Ephesians 1:10-23; Colossians 3:24; 1 Peter 3:1-5; Romans 15:16-17; 1 Corinthians 6:11, 1:2; etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Doctrine of the Cross:

1 Corinthians 17-18-the signs and wisdom of the world crucified by the cross

Ephesians 2:16-Christ reconciled both Jew and Gentile unto God into one body by the cross, having slain the enmity (of the Law contained in ordinances, not the Law itself: the "things" of Philippians 3:13)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christ's conditioning work at the Cross (the effectual work by His Blood) does all these things that antecede Salvation. But the absolute fulfillment of Salvation is not sealed until the [then still future (2 Timothy 2:18)] resurrection at the Parousia. No Bible verse explicitly proves salvation was wholly apprehended (besides by faith) before the Resurrection of the saints.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salvation was still then a future reality to the Bible audience because the resurrection of

the dead was the focal point of apocalyptic prophecy and expectation (1 Timothy 6:19).

Romans 13:11

Romans 13:11 And2532 that,5124 knowing1492 the3588 time,2540 that3754 now2235 it is high time5610 to(2248) awake1453 out of1537 sleep:5258 for1063 now3568 is our2257 salvation4991 nearer1452 than2228 when3753 we believed.4100

Hebrews 9:23-28

Hebrews 9:26 For then1893 must1163 he846 often4178 have suffered3958 since575 the foundation2602 of the world:2889 but1161 now3568 once530 in1909 the end4930 of the3588 world165 hath he appeared5319 to put away1519, 115 sin266 by1223 the3588 sacrifice2378 of himself.848

Hebrews 9:27 And2532 as2596, 3745 it is appointed606 unto men444 once530 to die,599 but1161 after3326 this5124 the judgment:2920

Hebrews 9:28 So3779 Christ5547 was once530 offered4374 to bear399 the sins266 of many;4183 and unto them that look for553 him846 shall he appear3700 the(1537) second time1208 without5565 sin266 unto1519 salvation.4991

1 Peter 1:2-12

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed2128 be the3588 God2316 and2532 Father3962 of our2257 Lord2962 Jesus2424 Christ,5547 which according2596 to his848 abundant4183 mercy1656 hath begotten us again313, 2248 unto1519 a lively2198 hope1680 by1223 the resurrection386 of Jesus2424 Christ5547 from1537 the dead,3498

1 Peter 1:4 To1519 an inheritance2817 incorruptible,862 and2532 undefiled,283 and2532 that fadeth not away,263 reserved5083 in1722 heaven3772 for1519 you,2248

1 Peter 1:5 Who are kept5432 by1722 the power1411 of God2316 through1223 faith4102 unto1519 salvation4991 ready2092 to be revealed601 in1722 the last2078 time.2540

Faithful attention to verb tense is imperative

Careful attention to the tenses of the King James Version show a consistent distinction between the fulfilled work of Christ, and the soon to be fulfilled work of Christ. The work of Christ that was still expected by the pre-Parousia first century New Testament Church is shown to be correlated consistently with the resurrection of the saints. Salvation, even then to them, was an immanent future expectation.

Romans 5:9 Much4183 more3123 then,3767 being now3568 justified1344 by1722 his848 blood,129 we shall be saved4982 from575 wrath3709 through1223 him.846

Romans 5:10 For1063 if,1487 when we were5607 enemies,2190 we were reconciled2644 to God2316 by1223 the3588 death2288 of his848 Son,5207 much4183 more,3123 being reconciled,2644 we shall be saved4982 by1722 his848 life.2222

Romans 5:11 And1161 not3756 only3440 so, but235 we also2532 joy2744 in1722 God2316 through1223 our2257 Lord2962 Jesus2424 Christ,5547 by1223 whom3739 we have now3568 received2983 the3588 atonement.2643

Romans 6:4 Therefore3767 we are buried4916 with him846 by1223 baptism908 into1519 death:2288 that2443 like as5618 Christ5547 was raised up1453 from1537 the dead3498 by1223 the3588 glory1391 of the3588 Father,3962 even2532 so3779 we2249 also2532 should walk4043 in1722 newness2538 of life.2222

Romans 6:5 For1063 if1487 we have been1096 planted together4854 in the3588 likeness3667 of his848 death,2288 we shall be2071 (235) also2532 in the likeness of his resurrection:386

Romans 6:6 Knowing1097 this,5124 that3754 our2257 old3820 man444 is crucified with4957 him, that2443 the3588 body4983 of sin266 might be destroyed,2673 that henceforth3371 we2248 should not serve1398 sin.266

Romans 6:8 Now1161 if1487 we be dead599 with4862 Christ,5547 we believe4100 that3754 we shall also2532 live with4800 him:846

Regeneration was then available then by the Holy Ghost; and was necessary, even for

those saints already reigning with Christ to be gathered together with the rest of the elected dead

in the resurrection, when the (new covenant) promised dispensation of salvation was delivered at

the “Last Day”. After executing an argument in Romans, highlighting his justification of the

righteousness that is in the baptism into Christ, Paul describes his existential condition so:

Romans 7:22 For1063 I delight4913 in the3588 law3551 of God2316 after2596 the3588 inward2080 man:444

Romans 7:23 But1161 I see991 another2087 law3551 in1722 my3450 members,3196 warring against497 the3588 law3551 of my3450 mind,3563 and2532 bringing me into captivity163, 3165 to the3588 law3551 of sin266 which is5607 in1722 my3450 members.3196

Paul still saw a still future redemption from death: the body of sin from Romans 6:6:

Romans 7:24 O wretched5005 man444 that I1473 am! who5101 shall deliver4506 me3165 from1537 the3588 body4983 of this5127 death?2288

His mind has been conformed to the image of Christ by regeneration. But he still was in
“the body of this death”, liberated of at the resurrection of the dead.

Romans 7:25 I thank2168 God2316 through1223 Jesus2424 Christ5547 our2257 Lord.2962 So686

then3767 with the3588 mind3563 I1473 myself848, (3303) serve1398 the law3551 of God;2316 but1161

with the3588 flesh4561 the law3551 of sin.266

Revisiting the imperative of tense

Acts 3:19 Repent3340 ye therefore,3767 and2532 be converted,1994 that your5216 sins266 may be blotted out,1813 when3704 the times2540 of refreshing403 shall come2064, 302 from575 the presence4383 of the3588 Lord;2962

Acts 3:20 And2532 he shall send649 Jesus2424 Christ,5547 which before was preached4296 unto you:5213

Acts 3:21 Whom3739 the heaven3772 must1163 (3303) receive1209 until891 the times5550 of restitution605 of all things,3956 which3739 God2316 hath spoken2980 by1223 the mouth4750 of all3956 his848 holy40 prophets4396 since the world began.575, 165

2Corinthians 4:14 Knowing1492 that3754 he which raised up1453 the3588 Lord2962 Jesus2424 shall raise up1453 us2248 also2532 by1223 Jesus,2424 and2532 shall present3936 us with4862 you.5213

Galatians 5:5 For1063 we2249 through the Spirit4151 wait for553 the hope1680 of righteousness1343 by1537 faith.4102

Colossians 3:3 For1063 ye are dead,599 and2532 your5216 life2222 is hid2928 with4862 Christ5547 in1722 God.2316

Colossians 3:4 When3752 Christ,5547 who is our2257 life,2222 shall appear,5319 then5119 shall ye5210 also2532 appear5319 with4862 him846 in1722 glory.1391

Also see Matthew 12:20

Revisiting the Pended Salvation of the Millennium

Already saved in Ephesians?

Ephesians 2:5 Even2532 when we2248 were5607 dead3498 in sins,3900 hath quickened us together4806 with Christ, by5547 (grace5485 ye are2075 saved;)4982

Ephesians was written before Jesus Christ’s Second Advent, and the general resurrection of the dead. This isolated verse (Ephesians 2:5—compare with Acts 15:11) may suggest that salvation was absolutely inaugurated already before the Second Advent. But what is the context? The next verse says that they have been raised up together, and made to sit together in the Heavenly places with Christ Jesus. Verse 7 speaks of future ages to come (most likely “ages” is of a covenantal context—see verses 9-22) that God Christ may show exceeding riches [(refer back to Ephesians 1:11-14) where the inheritance (salvation) is guaranteed (“perseverance of the saints”)] of His Grace. How certain is it that the riches of His Grace refer to salvation? Because the next verse (Ephesians 2:8) logically states that by Grace they’ve been saved through faith. They’ve been saved (past/present tense) in the context of their sealed promise (Ephesians 1:13).

The purchased possession was still to be redeemed (in the pecuniary sense of redemption—see Ephesians 4:30). They were saved by faith according to the purpose of God’s will.

But was not redemption by the blood? This redemption was to be of the body, not the Law. The chapter Romans 8 furnishes the context of the future redemption they groaned for in the old creation (covenant), and pronounces that their future salvation was apprehended even then, by faith.

Romans 8:23 And1161 not3756 only3440 they, but235 ourselves848 also,2532 which have2192

the3588 firstfruits536 of the3588 Spirit,4151 even2532 we2249 ourselves848 groan4727 within1722

ourselves,1438 waiting for553 the adoption,5206 to wit, the3588 redemption629 of our2257

body.4983

Romans 8:24 For1063 we are saved4982 by hope:1680 but1161 hope1680 that is seen991 is2076

not3756 hope:1680 for1063 what3739 a man5100 seeth,991 why5101 doth he yet2532 hope for?1679

Romans 8:25 But1161 if1487 we hope for1679 that3739 we see991 not,3756 then do we with1223 patience5281 wait for553 it.

Considering the tense distinction in verses like Romans 5:9-10, why did Paul

speak of them as being already raised (Ephesians 2:6)? If the general resurrection is

(was) future, then how were they raised even then? The problem is completely dissolved

when considering the Amillennial / Postmillennial Preterist view that some of the saints

were already being raised spiritually with Christ, reigning with him until His glorious

return (the “millennium” of Revelation 20).

The problem of the “pre-rapture” raised saints of Colossians 2:12-15 is also

resolved only from this consistent Preterist view.

What about 2 Timothy 1:9?

2Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved4982 us,2248 and2532 called2564 us with a holy40 calling,2821 not3756 according2596 to our2257 works,2041 but235 according2596 to his own2398 purpose4286 and2532 grace,5485 which was given1325 us2254 in1722 Christ5547 Jesus2424 before4253 the world began,5550, 166

Obviously there is more to that statement:

2Timothy 1:10 But1161 is now3568 made manifest5319 by1223 the3588 appearing2015 of our2257 Savior4990 Jesus2424 Christ,5547 who hath abolished2673 (3303) death,2288 and1161 hath brought life and immortality to light5461, 2222, 2532, 861 through1223 the3588 gospel:2098

That is, by “now made manifest”, the appearing is not the past (first) appearing (the incarnation) of Christ who saves, but the imminent return that is already in stage. The first appearing is implied to be a past event (“hath abolished”… “hath brought life…”); and is grammatically distinguished from the present manifestation. It was not

uncommon for the NT writers to speak of Christ’s return as imminent. The pasted tense

of saved in verse 1:9 rhetorically aids the imperative central meaning of the verse

(“Grace” given before the world began—past tense) in the same way it is used in

Ephesians 2. The context of all these passages still suggests that the actual fulfillment

of the promise of salvation is correlated with Christ’s then future return.

The rhetorical apprehension of Christ’s “already but not yet” effective work is

shown here:

1Thessalonians 1:10 And2532 to wait for362 his846 Son5207 from1537 heaven,3772

whom3739 he raised1453 from1537 the dead,3498 even Jesus,2424 which delivered4506 us2248

from575 the3588 wrath3709 to come.2064

They were already delivered, but from a future wrath (Romans 5:9).

2 Corinthians 6:2 also says salvation is “now”

2Corinthians 6:2 (For1063 he saith,3004 I have heard1873 thee4675 in a time2540

accepted,1184 and2532 in1722 the day2250 of salvation4991 have I succored997 thee:4671

behold,2400 now3568 is the accepted2144 time;2540 behold,2400 now3568 is the day2250 of

salvation.)4991

This is an allusion from:

Isaiah 49:8 Thus3541 saith559 the LORD,3068 In an acceptable7522 time6256 have I

heard6030 thee, and in a day3117 of salvation3444 have I helped5826 thee: and I will

preserve5341 thee, and give5414 thee for a covenant1285 of the people,5971 to establish6965 the

earth,776 to cause to inherit5157 the desolate8074 heritages;5159

The Greek νῦν (nun) means presently or immediately to suggest a soon time,

henceforth, hereafter; this is not necessarily an absolute fulfillment at the time 2

Corinthians 6:2 was written. The same rhetorical scheme is demonstrated here as is

the 2 Timothy case. How can one be sure Paul was not trying to say that Salvation was

already absolutely fulfilled.

The Bible tells us when “now” really is. In Revelation 12, the devil is cast out.

Then, was Salvation absolutely realized.

Revelation 12:10 And2532 I heard191 a loud3173 voice5456 saying3004 in1722 heaven,3772

Now737 is come1096 salvation,4991 and2532 strength,1411 and2532 the3588 kingdom932 of our2257

God,2316 and2532 the3588 power1849 of his848 Christ:5547 for3754 the3588 accuser2725 of our2257

brethren80 is cast down,2598 which accused2723 them846 before1799 our2257 God2316 day2250

and2532 night.3571

What about Titus 3:5?

Titus 3:5 Not3756 by1537 works2041 of1722 righteousness1343 which3739 we2249 have done,4160

but235 according2596 to his848 mercy1656 he saved4982 us,2248 by1223 the washing3067 of

regeneration,3824 and2532 renewing342 of the Holy40 Ghost;4151

The imperative central theme of these related verses is not the past

fulfillment of Salvation, but qualitatively how they were to be saved, by Grace. Verse

seven says that by that Grace, they have been made heirs to the hope of eternal life. The context is hope in a promised future inheritance.

When Salvation Would Be Realized According to Jesus Christ Himself

See Matthew 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:22, Luke 21:27-28.

Conclusion

Salvation is the focal point of prophecy. The consummation of Salvation was still an expected a future event to the early Church until Christ returned in glory. Salvation was not consummated by the cross.

Grace be to you,
PFC Vincent Michael Krivda, Jr.
Bible-Touchstone

Amie

04-11-2008, 06:59 AM

Hello Vincent and welcome,

I think that we agree (but I could be misunderstanding) in that Salvation was acheived at the cross, and because it was, it was consummated through the first fruits. As Davo wrote in an earlier post:

Yeah I think when we understand that Christ's Cross and Coming are both bookends of God's one eschatological and redemptive event that BOTH "at" and "through" then make sense and follow each other in the outworking of that reality established in that end-of-the-age period.

Amie

Barry

04-11-2008, 07:04 AM

Welcome to TG Vincent.
[Feel free to introduce yourself in the introduction area. We enjoy the fellowship here even more than the theology LOL! And feel free to open up a new thread if that tickles your fancy. :)]

Enjoyed reading over your contribution to this subject.

Something that we might explore (in addition to every ones comments) is the then working implied "substance" that "faith" offered in connection with that which was then already realized in Christ and thus imminent for the rest of the firstfriuts.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

1Jo 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
1Jo 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
1Jo 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, [even] our faith.
1Jo 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

In addition to this we see the past tense used as a matter of the imminence of the fulfilled victory.
First in Christ:
Jhn 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Then in the rest of the firstfruits:

1Jo 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.
1Jo 2:14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him [that is] from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one.

1Jo 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

IMHO, we see this in Philipians chapter 3 as Paul sees a partial but yet incomplete procurement of what was then still imminent and thus to yet be "found in him" in the consummation of the age as one not having a righteousness which was of the then still valid law.

Just a few thoughts alone the same lines (I think). :)
Barry

Laren

04-11-2008, 06:45 PM

Wow, just visited your website Vincent. Your art is amazing.

Laren

stsak

09-17-2008, 04:37 PM

Now I can’t speak for Mike, but I can explain what I have come to believe from listening to his teachings.

Yes, I believe that all things were fulfilled at the cross.

The only problem is ... it doesn't line up with many of the NT prophetic words. So, you have choice. Either you work out an eschatology that EMBRACES the N.T. writers, or you throw the NT out, and only use the OT, and see it all fulfilled at the cross. At that point, the NT becomes a book of opinion and little more. Can't say that I am willing to do that quite yet! I do not throw out the New Testament. I do not view the New Testament as inspired scripture because I see no indication that it is. None of the writers in the New Testament indicate that they considered their writings to be inspired. I consider them good books, books written by men who were there, books where the apostles debate some issues, and they are commentary and teaching on the Old Testament. Much of Mike’s teachings come from the New Testament. However teachings in the New Testament need to be validated from the Old Testament to be considered valid.

In believing what I do about the New Testament, I cannot work out eschatology just to embrace the New Testament. This does not mean that I am throwing out the New Testament. It also does not mean I can’t believe an eschatology that embraces the New Testament or that I cannot use the teachings of the New Testament to develop my belief in this or any other area.

I believe that unquestioned acceptance of the New Testament as the infallible, inspired Word of God is one of the things that has lead to much of the lack of unity of believers today.

The acceptance of the New Testament as the infallible, inspired Word of God is such a sacred cow in modern day Christianity that very few are willing to take a look at this seriously.

Barry

09-18-2008, 06:37 AM

Hey Bob,

It is great to have you here! It really is.

I was just talking to a friend yesterday about "sacred cows". IMHO at talk-grace we tend to sacrifice them! LOL.
Of course that doesn't mean that all of us have no more sacred cows, only that quite often they really are less important around these parts :)

Fulfillment at the cross is something that I considered very carefully indeed. For me it just didn't work out "completely". Though a lot could be said for it in principle. But yet something was clearly missing IMO.

It comes to mind Bob, at least to me that, we only have the New Testament writings to confirm any type of fulfillment at all.
If we cannot rely on the NT then we cannot confirm either the Cross, or Christ, or fulfillment.

Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
Act 26:23 That Christ should suffer, [and] that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Act 24:13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.
Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
Act 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
Act 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and [toward] men.

Would you accept Bob that both Christ and Paul taught a resurrection from the dead that the law and the prophets also taught, that had not yet occurred (fully or completely) either when Paul spoke these words or at the time of Christ's death (and even His resurrection)?

The point being that fulfillment of the law and prophets could not have been finalized at the cross since the law and prophets foretold the general resurrection.
It also foretold the destruction of Jerusalem. At least that is what Christ said Daniel for told in the abomination that causes desolation.

Christ never calls his death and resurrection the end of the age. The cross initiated and characterized fulfillment. It embodied what fulfillment was and would be.
The cross ended the law by applied meaning and the coming of Christ (which Christ himself speaks of independently of his own death and resurrection) caused the law to end historically. Hence the end of the age.

Just a few thoughts.
Grace to you
Barry

stsak

09-18-2008, 10:52 AM

Hi Barry,

One of the sacred cows I have is probably the teachings of Mike Williams. It was throu his teachings that I was released from the bondage of fundamental, orthodox, reformed, Baptist, organized, performance based religion.

It comes to mind Bob, at least to me that, we only have the New Testament writings to confirm any type of fulfillment at all. If we cannot rely on the NT then we cannot confirm either the Cross, or Christ, or fulfillment. I agree. I consider the NT documents to be very reliable.

This is what I believe about the New Testament:

The books of the New Testament were written when and by whom the church generally accepts them to be, the controversy regarding the dating of the writings of John not withstanding. (I believe in an early date)

The events reported in the New Testament are accurate.

Statements and teachings in the New Testament are accurate accounts of the statements and teachings of the authors at the time written.

I believe that the New Testament books are teachings and commentaries about the Law, the Psalms, and the prophets. I don’t believe the books of the New Testament are inspired Scriptures or the Word of God.

I have been looking at these things on this forum and other web sites, including infinite-grace.com and pantelism.com as well as a few others. I can add to my beliefs about the NT that they contain accurate statements of events that would occur shortly after they were written.

Would you accept Bob that both Christ and Paul taught a resurrection from the dead that the law and the prophets also taught, Yes.

that had not yet occurred (fully or completely) either when Paul spoke these words or at the time of Christ's death (and even His resurrection)? A month ago I would have said no. However today my answer is I am looking into it. One of my sacred cows may be on the way to the slaughterhouse.

Laren

09-18-2008, 11:19 AM

Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father.

the church, body was baptized too into Christ's death. Head (Jesus) and body (church).

baptized for a purpose: for the dead.

Barry

09-19-2008, 06:41 AM

Hey Bob.

A month ago I would have said no. However today my answer is I am looking into it. One of my sacred cows may be on the way to the slaughterhouse.

Personally speaking, I do not view "fulfillment at the cross" as a "bad" teaching or belief. It is better than much of the eschatology that is out there.
Only that in the end, we won't make sense of a lot of side issues. The problem involved IMO is that many (including full-preterists) have taken the "side issues" and made them more important than the cross.
With that having been said, consider the problem of fulfillment at the cross:

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

The question is then, can or did the "cross" independent of the promised complete "coming" or "second" appearance, complete what is mentioned here in Daniel?

Mat 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? {the catastrophic end of the old covenant}
Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city: {this we see in Acts}
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!
Mat 23:38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

These questions then arise:
When is the "end of sins" consummated?
When was the transgression finished?
When is "old" Jerusalem dealt with in finality?

If they are still filling up the measure of their father's transgression up and to the destruction of the holy city then the "law" still carried validity up and to the destruction of the holy city. While those obedient to the "faith of Christ Jesus" where then being baptised into Christ and so were then dieing to the law.

The point then being that the sacrifice was not yet consummated until the High Preist back out. Then the people knew that the sacrifice was accepted.

Hbr 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

The appearance is manifest in the ending of the temple:
ASV
Hbr 9:6 Now these things having been thus prepared, the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services;
Hbr 9:7 but into the second the high priest alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Hbr 9:8 the Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way into the holy place hath not yet been made manifest, while the first tabernacle is yet standing;
Hbr 9:9 which [is] a figure for the time present; according to which are offered both gifts and sacrifices that cannot, as touching the conscience, make the worshipper perfect,

This corresponds to what Paul said here:
NKJV

2Cr 3:15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.
2Cr 3:16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
2Cr 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
2Cr 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory {old covenant} to glory {new covenant}, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

And here:
1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cr 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Cr 15:24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Cr 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Cr 15:26 The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.

1Cr 15:54 So when this corruptible {independent human potential in the precedence of the old economy} shall have put on incorruption {married to God's infinite potential}, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Cr 15:55 O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?
1Cr 15:56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
1Cr 15:57 But thanks to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

So then IMO the law was still an issue to be completely dealt with at the time in which Paul wrote this Epistle.

This seems very much to be the context of Hebrews:

Hbr 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him];
Hbr 2:4 God also bearing [them] witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
Hbr 2:5 For unto the angels [B]hath he not put in subjection the world to come {Greek means "about to be"}, whereof we speak.

Hbr 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing [that is] not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Hbr 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Hbr 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

Just a few thoughts.
Blessings Barry

stsak

09-19-2008, 08:06 AM

Laren

09-19-2008, 12:27 PM

Gal 4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

Gal 4:21 ¶ Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

Gal 4:23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise.

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

Gal 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Gal 4:27 For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so [it is] now.

Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Barry

09-19-2008, 03:20 PM

Hi Barry,

I will be driving a cab for the next four days, ten to sixteen hours a day, so it will be the middle of next week before I can look at your post in detail and respond. I have read thru it and you bring up some good points for consideration.

I appreciate your time and expertise in this matter. You are good at getting to the issues that need to be consider.

I find it so liberating that we can explore new things about God without worrying that if we don’t believe the right things God is going to torture us for all eternity.

Thanks

Wow, that's a lot of driving bro!

Yea, believing the right things has more to do with realizing that we don't have to get it all "right".
And we sure don't have to agree on everything either.

With that behind us, we can fellowship a lot easier :)

Just a thought.

Laren,
great verses IMO.
Yea, the Jerusalem that then was, was the old one that was being replaced by the new one.

Barry

Bill

09-20-2008, 08:15 PM

I've come up with a view of the cross and parousia that helps everything make sense for me. I'm curious to know what you folks think.

Salvation is generally considered to have three tenses, past, present, and future. The way I see it we were saved at the cross or when we first believed in the cross. We are being saved by faith as our minds are being transformed from law to grace. We (they) will be saved by sight as the age of law comes to a visible end at AD70. I know that AD70 is past for us today, but I hope you get my point. For the pre-parousia believers salvation still had a future tense.

It's like when the high priest offered the sacrifice for the people. Their salvation was complete by faith when the sacrifice was made (the cross). Their salvation was complete by sight when the high priest came out of the holy place without the sacrifice (the parousia).

I could add more about what salvation means in each tense but I'd like to hear your comments first. Has anyone heard this view before?

Bill

Laren

09-20-2008, 09:34 PM

I have heard the idea of salvation being past, present and future. I tend to lean toward more of "earnest" of spirit given but salvation at the "end".

here's some scrips that come to mind:

2Co 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Rom 13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

1Th 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for a helmet, the hope of salvation.

1Pe 1:9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

1Pe 1:13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

"To him that overcomes will I give to eat of the tree of LIFE…" (Rev. 2:7).

Bill

09-20-2008, 10:10 PM

Thanks for your reply Laren!

Do you think that your "earnest" view conflicts with what I said? I agree with your view but I don't see any conflict.

Barry

09-20-2008, 10:14 PM

Fascinating perspectives of this thread!

Bill, I do get your point I think and I agree.
From my own position, types and figures still had precedence until the end. So the "ego" still had to be addresses from within that framework.
Bill, great to hear from you.

Laren, from my own perspective, same point really. Great texts, and it is clear that "expectation" still played a major role. Clearly they had not received so much that expectation was no longer an anticipation a great eagerness!

IMO they are still working through the still standing types and figures. So then "identity" (old and new) was clearly an issue.

JMO!
Barry

Bill

09-20-2008, 10:23 PM

Hi Barry!

I went to Transmillennial 2008 and made a resolution to be more active on Talk-grace. I've got a lot of ideas and I can't think of any place better to get feedback. I feel more comfortable here than anywhere else on the web.

I also hope to work more on my blog and finish my website on the contrast of flesh and spirit. Additionally, Lynn and I have been having an ongoing debate about many subjects and Amie suggested that we make them public here on talk-grace.

What fun!

Laren

09-20-2008, 10:27 PM

Thanks for your reply Laren!

Do you think that your "earnest" view conflicts with what I said? I agree with your view but I don't see any conflict.

no Bill,

I dont' think it conflicts with what u said, actually strengthens it. :)

Amie

09-20-2008, 10:28 PM

And you Laren,

Put it better than I was able to verbalize when talking to Bill. I saw it as the reception of a "pledge" unto consummation, though "earnest" works too, ha!

Amie

Bill

09-20-2008, 10:36 PM

Thanks for clarifying Laren. :)

When you said, "I tend to lean toward more of "earnest" of spirit given but salvation at the "end".", I wasn't sure if you were agreeing.

And now a question for you and Amie or anyone else. In what ways was salvation more complete in AD70 than at the cross? A pledge or earnest implies that salvation is partial until AD70.

Bill

09-20-2008, 10:38 PM

Oh, and Amie, you verbalized just fine. I'm the one that's hard to communicate with. Or at least that's how I come across. :D

Amie

09-20-2008, 11:02 PM

A pledge or earnest implies that salvation is partial until AD70.

Why?

Amie

Laren

09-20-2008, 11:02 PM

In what ways was salvation more complete in AD70 than at the cross? A pledge or earnest implies that salvation is partial until AD70.

that's a good question,

i think these verses give a hint: seen versus not seen

1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

and this

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Bill

09-20-2008, 11:24 PM

Amie,

From yourdictionary.com:

earnest money Finance Definition
A good-faith deposit paid before a transaction closes that ensures that the sale will be completed or a deal closed. Typically, earnest money is put down by a home buyer at the time the contract is signed.

This is similar to a pledge. It is a token of sincerity given to insure faithful completion. The earnest money or pledge is part of the full price with the completion to follow later.

Does that help?

Amie

09-20-2008, 11:46 PM

Yep Bill, thanks ;)

Amie

stsak

09-26-2008, 04:18 PM

Hi Barry,

Have been looking at the New Testament references by you and others as well as infinite-grace.com, pantelism.com, and presence.tv and other threads on this forum.

A lot to take in. Still do not have a grasp of what was fulfilled in AD70 or the firstfruits and other concepts. The concept of the coexistence of both covenants for forty years is new.

I still have questions in regards to compete fulfillment at the cross. Such as at the ascension, when the disciples are told that Jesus will come as He went up. Also there are teachings in the epistles that reference events as future or ongoing at the time of the writings.

:idea:
One new thing I have learned is the backing out of the High Priest. I see no reason not to consider the appearance of the High Priest to manifest the acceptance of the sacrifice as fulfilled at Christ’s resurrection.

:)

Paige

09-26-2008, 04:41 PM

One new thing I have learned is the backing out of the High Priest. I see no reason not to consider the appearance of the High Priest to manifest the acceptance of the sacrifice as fulfilled at Christ’s resurrection.

Bob,

Does the writer of Hebrews (9:28) place the appearance of the High Priest at Christ's resurrection?

Paige

Barry

09-27-2008, 12:04 PM

Hi there Bob.

Hi Barry,

Have been looking at the New Testament references by you and others as well as infinite-grace.com, pantelism.com, and presence.tv and other threads on this forum.

A lot to take in. Still do not have a grasp of what was fulfilled in AD70 or the firstfruits and other concepts. The concept of the coexistence of both covenants for forty years is new.

I still have questions in regards to compete fulfillment at the cross. Such as at the ascension, when the disciples are told that Jesus will come as He went up. Also there are teachings in the epistles that reference events as future or ongoing at the time of the writings.

:idea:
One new thing I have learned is the backing out of the High Priest. I see no reason not to consider the appearance of the High Priest to manifest the acceptance of the sacrifice as fulfilled at Christ’s resurrection.

:)

The concept of the coexistence of both covenants for forty years is new.

A few references I found very useful, there are many more:

NKJV
1Cr 2:6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, {that which then belonged to the precedence of types and figures} nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
1Cr 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,
1Cr 2:8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

NKJV
2Cr 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory {old man, old covenant} to glory {new man, new covenant}, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.

NKJV
Phl 3:4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so:
Phl 3:5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee;
Phl 3:6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Phl 3:7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ.
Phl 3:8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ
Phl 3:9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
Phl 3:10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,
Phl 3:11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Phl 3:12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.
Phl 3:13 Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead,
Phl 3:14 I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Strongs 3195, "about to be".
Hbr 1:14 Are they 1526 not 3780 all 3956 ministering 3010 spirits 4151, sent forth 649 to 1519 minister 1248 for 1223 them who shall {about to be} 3195 be heirs of 2816 salvation 4991?

Hbr 2:5 For 1063 unto the angels 32 hath he 5293 0 not 3756 put in subjection 5293 the world 3625 to come {about to be} 3195 , whereof 4012 3739 we speak 2980 .

Hbr 6:5 And 2532 have tasted 1089 the good 2570 word 4487 of God 2316, and 5037 the powers 1411 of the world 165 to come {about to be} 3195

Hbr 9:11 But 1161 Christ 5547 being come 3854 an high priest 749 of good things 18 to come {about to be} 3195 , by 1223 a greater 3187 and 2532 more perfect 5046 tabernacle 4633, not 3756 made with hands 5499, that is to say 5123 , not 3756 of this 5026 building 2937;

Hbr 10:1 For 1063 the law 3551 having 2192 a shadow 4639 of good things 18 to come {about to be} 3195 , [and] not 3756 the very 846 image 1504 of the things 4229, can 1410 never 3763 with those 846 sacrifices 2378 which 3739 they offered 4374 year by year 2596 1763 continually 1519 1336 make 5048 0 the comers thereunto 4334 perfect 5048 .

Hbr 10:27 But 1161 a certain 5100 fearful 5398 looking for 1561 of judgment 2920 and 2532 fiery 4442 indignation 2205, which shall {about to be} 3195 devour 2068 the adversaries 5227.

Hbr 13:14 For 1063 here 5602 have we 2192 no 3756 continuing 3306 city 4172, but 235 we seek one 1934 to come {about to be} 3195 .

Such as at the ascension, when the disciples are told that Jesus will come as He went up.

Here is another way of seeing that point:

Compare the meaning in these scriptures:

Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner {Strong's 5158} as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Luk 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as {in like manner 5158} a hen [doth gather] her brood under [her] wings, and ye would not!

IE, what is the Manner of the hen gathering?

Act 7:28 Wilt thou kill me, as {in like manner 5158} thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday?

IE, did they mean killed in the exact same fashion?

The manner was in the Hebrew "concept" of "on the clouds" which refers to authority.

Isa 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

Psa 104:3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:

Christ left in the authority of Jehovah.
NKJV
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Mat 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
{IE even unto my return.}

Christ would return in the authority of Jehovah.
Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

What was important is what the Disciples understood by Christ's departure on a cloud and so then the assurance that that "image" gave them until his return in authority when all enemies were defeated. That last being "death".

The context of the Hebrew writer then:
Hbr 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him];
Hbr 2:4 God also bearing [them] witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
Hbr 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come {about to be}, whereof we speak.

NKJV
Hbr 8:13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Hbr 10:36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
Hbr 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

Hbr 13:14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come {about to be}.

Blessings
Barry

Amie

09-27-2008, 12:15 PM

Per "clouds" -

In hopefully enhancing Barry's observations, the word "cloud" in Hebrew is understood as "to cover". It was the smoke hiding a magician's trick, it was the smoke created by the priest/incense in the temple which hid the glory of God, it was that which covered the abode of God/heavens when the rain came (they could not see the source of rain - hence saw it as God-sent), etc. It was allll about coverage.

Even in Acts, Jesus is first consumed by a cloud and then enters heaven out of their sight - they did not see him enter heaven. That was the point made by the men in white - that he would return in the same way that they saw him enter in (they did not see him enter in - they only saw him consumed by a cloud).

I think interesting is that Israel was seen as a cloud, or mass of people, where in the glory of God was hidden. It is probable that the elect acted again in that way - actually being the clouds through which Jesus came.

I think linked however, considering some of the texts Barry shared, is the uprising smoke following destruction which stood as a sign of the deliverance of God's people. A "swift cloud" would then speak of a clean and quick victory - the end in sight NOT the coming part.

Amie