BOOKS: BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)
AD70 Dispensationalism: According to
that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'.
Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking
the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only
Herod's Temple in Jerusalem
fell. Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old
Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of
Christianity as seen in the New Testament.
AD70 Dispensationalism: According to that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'. Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only when Herod's Temple in Jerusalem fell. Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of Christianity as seen in the New Testament.
material is being archived for balanced representation of all preterist views,
but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond
the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website. The
classification of all full preterism as Hyper Preterism (HyP) is built
upon well over a decade of intense research at PreteristArchive.com, and
the convictions of
the website curator (a
former full preterist pastor). The HyP
theology of final resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70
(end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors
through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity leading up
to 1845, when the earliest known full preterist book was written.
Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between
Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, their premises are undeniably and
THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST"
"Full preterist" material is being archived for balanced representation of all preterist views, but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website. The classification of all full preterism as Hyper Preterism (HyP) is built upon well over a decade of intense research at PreteristArchive.com, and the convictions of the website curator (a former full preterist pastor). The HyP theology of final resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70 (end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity leading up to 1845, when the earliest known full preterist book was written. Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, their premises are undeniably and fundamentally different.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST"
SOME DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES OF SYSTEMATIZED HYPER PRETERISM
It is important to keep in mind that many ideas and doctrines full preterism appeals to - such as the complete end of the Old Covenant world in AD70 - are by no means distinctive to that view. Many non HyPs believe this as well, so one need not embrace the Hyper Preterist system in order to endorse this view. Following are exceptional doctrines which, so far as I've seen, are only taught by adherents of Hyper Preterism.:
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY STANDARD FULL PRETERISM
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY VARIOUS FORMS
Refuting the Transcendental Argument Against HyperPreterism
By Mike Krall
A Exegetical look at the what exactly the New Heavens and New Earth is thereby destroying the straw man created by the TAAHP
Is the New Heavens and New Earth the same as heaven? Is the desciption in Rev 21:4 “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” a description of heaven that the believer experiences when he or she dies?
All agree on one thing regarding the New Heavens and New Earth and that is that it follows after the second coming and resurrection of the dead.
What does all this say? All of this shows that for the author that wrote an article on the transcendal argument against so called hyper preterism is based upon a preconceived wrong concept of what the New Heavens and New Earth is. As a result the argument was weighed in the balances and found wanting. That argument says this:
“If we were in the New Heavens and New Earth we would not be debating doctrinal issues (e.g., baptism, Calvinism/Arminianism, eschatology, etc.,). Since we are debating doctrinal issues then, we therfore cannot be in the New Heavens and New Earth. We will have reached the unity of the faith in the New Heavens and New Earth. In the New Heavens and Earth there will be no liars there, and teaching/promoting false doctrine is to lie the NH and E which we saw that all HPs hold to.
That brings us to analyze some texts and ask some questions and see if the New Heavens and New Earth is a description of heaven. We tend to prove without a doubt that the premise of the transendendal argument against preterism in regards to what the New Heavens and New Earth is is wrong therefore their argument fails.
If one says that yes the Hew Heavens and New Earth is heaven that leaves us with one big dilemma. Since this does not come into being until the second coming of Christ there is no basis for one to expect to experience the blessings as described in verse 4 of Revelation 21. One cannot also expect tears to be wiped away, and sorrow to be gone, and for God to be called their God. Why is that? Because these things do not come into being until the second coming of Christ and the resurrection. So what are we left with if this is a decription of heaven? We are left with either some intermediate state of the dead in Christ in which these blessing are awaited or soul sleep neither of which would be a place where these blessings can and will be realized.
But what do we have if we say it is NOT a description of heaven? We have basically the same thing because if it is not then again one cannot expect the blessing of these things until it is manifested when Christ returns.
But what about double fulfillment? There can only be a double fulfillement in the first fulfillment follows the pattern set forth in scripture. This is where fulfilled eschatology has the proper biblical answer. The New Heavens and New Earth is NOT a description of heaven but a picture of the New Covenant where these spiritual blessings are described. There is no more death for Jesus said he who believed in him “shall never die.” There are no more liars because he who confesses not the Jesus is the Christ is a liar so certainly there are no liars in the New Covenant according to this description of what makes a liar.
Lets look at a few scriptures and see if we can see exegetically what the New Heavens and New Earth is and when it was promised to come. Once we see where our friend was wrong on what the New Heavens and New Earth is his whole argument falls to the ground.One cannot read the Scriptures long before they read of God ‘s promise made to Abraham whereby he promises him a city whose builder and maker is God. There are many passages which speak of this eternal inheritance that awaits those who belong to Christ. But when is this inheritance received in its fulfillment? In Hebrews 11 we read there that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were heirs of this promise and that “they all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them..” Then throughout this chapter, called by many expositors the “hall of faith” we read of the many trials of faith many went through waiting for the promised inheritance. In verse 35 we read this is stated as “a better resurrection” which is the heart of the promise. Then in verses 39-40 we read “And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise, God having provided some better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” The point we want to emphasize is that Old Testament Israel, to whom this promise was made, all died not receiving this promise of a better city and a better resurrection. But can it still be said that those that have died in faith are still awaiting a fulfilment of this promise or is the promise completely fullilled at the cross and all that have died have now received the promise? It would be important to look at how Paul viewed this hope and see if indeed he thought Old Testament saints have received the promise. In Acts 23:6 “ But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” We can see from this passage that it was for the hope and resurrection of the dead that Paul was being questioned on. Note his similar language in chapter 24 verse 21 “Except it be for his one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.” Again showing that what he was persecuted for preaching was this hope of Israel the resurrection of the dead. One futher verse will show that Paul was in fact preaching a future hope of Israel which the Old Testament saints never had come to embrace but were still waiting for it. In Acts 26:6-8 we read “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead.” So we can see from these passages that the hope of Israel, which the Old Testament saints had not yet received and were eagerly waiting for, was the resurrection of the dead. It was the promised inheritance, which was the city that hath foundations was what the saints that have all gone before us have a hope for. But when is this to be realized? Isn’t it when one dies and goes to heaven that they receive all these promises? When Paul spoke in Acts 26 that was obviously not the case for he said that the 12 tribes were hoping to come to that promise and nothing in the context points to merely waiting to die but rather waiting for the resurrection of the dead. If we fail to see that the hope of Israel, the eternal inheritance is tied to the promise of the resurrection of the dead we will fail to see when this hope is fulfilled and if there are any recipients of that hope. That brings me to the New Heavens and New Earth promises which are a direct link to where the faithful “inherit all things.” In Hebrews 11:15 "And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.” There are two things we need to observe in these two verses and see their link to the New Heavens and New Earth. The first is the phrase “God is not ashamed to be called their God.” In Revelation 21:3 in the New Heavens and New Earth “and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.” We see similar language here where in Hebrews God is called their God and in Revelation he will “be their God.” But there is another similarlity and that is the phrase in Hebrews 11:16 “prepared for them a city.” In Revelaton 21:2 the holy city new Jersusalem is “prepared as a bride adorn for her husband.” We see here the similar statements of a prepared city where God will be their God. Is this not ample proof that the New Heavens and New Earth is in fact what the fulfilled promise of eternal inheritance is? In verse 7 we read “He who overcometh will inherit all things.” There again is another reference to the inheritance awaiting those that have gone before. When one looks at the Old Testament promises of the New Covenant such as Jeremiah 31:31ff and similar passages, they will see the similar language that John uses in Revelation 21 clearing indicating a connection between the New Covenant and the New Heavens and New Earth. So what do we have so far? We have OT saints waiting for the hope of Israel, the resurrection of the dead where they will receive their inheritance, where and when God will be called their God, where they will be called his people and where he has prepared a city for them the New Jersusalem. But isn’t this heaven where all of those that have died in the faith enter into at death? If one does not hold to a fulfilled eschatology and believes that there are still promises in the bible yet unfulfilled, such as the New Heavens and New Earth and the resurrection of the dead, then there is no basis to say one enters this eternal state upon death. But we do believe that those dying in the Lord do in fact receive all these promises because we believe that all prophecy and all promises have been fuflilled including the resurrection of the dead. We will show that this is the biblical position and to deny it is to fall into the error of soul sleep for those who have died in faith or to believe in some intermediate state for them at this present time that does not have the blessings of Rev 21:4. A state in which they are not in the full presence of the Lord. The Scripture that I want use 1Peter 1. In this first chapter of first Peter we have overwhelming evidence to support the belief that the receiving of the inheritance by the saints of God, which includes the salvation of the soul, was expected in the lifetime of those then living. In verse 4 he speaks of an inheritence that is reserved for them in heaven. Then in verse 5 he speaks of a salvation that is ready to be revealed. Then in verse 9 he qualifies all this by speaking of the saints receiving the end of their faith the salvation of their souls. Then he goes on in verse 10 to speak of this salvation saying that it is the very salvation the Old Testament prophets spoke of. Verse 12 is a verse that we believe is seldom looked at in the context. He says there that the prophets had it revealed that the salvation was “not unto themselves but unto US….” Peter is quite clear that it was to those first century Christians, the US, that this salvation of the soul (verse 9) that the Old Testament Prophets spoke of would be realized. He then says “Wherefore…” and gives some admonitions “..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..” Now we ask this question to “the end of what?” They were to hope to the end for a grace to be brought to them. And at the end how was it going to be brought to them? By the revelation of Jesus Christ. So the revelation of Jesus Christ comes at the end of something at which time the grace (salvation of the soul verse 9, the inheritance verse 4) will be brought to them. It is quite clear that the resurrection of the dead, the hope of Israel, the inheritance, the new heavens and new earth and the second coming of Christ ( the revelation of Jesus Christ), and final salvation are all tied together. This is not denied by any Christian regardless of their eshatological view. But when was this said to take place. At the end of what? If it is indeed the end of the Christian age, which is the end of the physical heavens and earth then there is a real important question that needs to be addressed and it is this: “Since the the first century Christians died not receiving this promise since the revelation of Jesus Christ has not happened yet then have they received this grace that was to be brought to them at that revelation of Jesus Christ?” To say yes is to say they received it apart from the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. But what many want is to say that a believer goes to be with the Lord upon death in some intermediate state but to do so denying past fulfillment of prophecy is to say that the believer enters the presence of God before they have received “the grace that is being brought to you…” which is the “salvation of their souls.” This is the dilemma of the futurist who does not believe in soul sleep. He is stuck in the middle between denying past fulfillment of prophecy but still wanting those that died in the Lord to receive their hope at death. Peter told these saints to HOPE for this UNTO THE END when Christ was revealed. If the revelation of Jesus Christ is received at death to saints now then at what point in redemptive history did this take place? We know from Hebrews 11 that the faithful of the Old Testament “all died in faith not receiving the promises….” Heb 11:13, so what happened that makes those to whom Peter was writing ones that died in faith RECEIVING the promises? This is a question that cannot be ignored by those that embrace the futurism of the promise. Some will point to the cross as the point at which saints receive the promise. But if that is the case why did Paul state in Acts 26 that the 12 tribes were still awaiting the hope of the promise? So there is a big dilemma and an inconsistency for any that reject fulfilled redemption for a futurist fulfillment of the “one hope “of the gospel. They are forced to say that no saint has as yet received any of the promises that are fulfilled at the resurrection, second coming and the bringing in of the New Heavens and New Earth for as we have seen it is in there that God is promised to be their God and they are promised to be his people. But those that embrace fulfilled redemption and past fulfillment know that at the comsumation of the Old Covenant Christ came to complete the work he started at the cross which was to “finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconcilation for iniquity, and to BRING IN EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS….” No study of the New Heavens and New Earh (henceforth NH and NE) without looking at the very text Peter was referring to in 2Peter 3 regarding the promise of the NH and NE. That is Isaiah 65-66.. First, In the NH and NE recorded in Isa 65, there is this verse. This needs to be explained how this can be the eternal state. 20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. Now that does not sound like the eternal state where there is no more physical death does it? Second there is this verse: 25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD. This is right out of Isa 11:9 "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." Is that not the gospel age? If you say no then you disagree with Paul for note verse 10 “And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.” Does that verse sound familar? It should for Paul quotes it in Romans 15:12 and applies it to THE GOSPEL AGE!!!! Thirdly I ask you who it is that Isaiah is referring to in the first 16 verses of Isa 65 which immediately precedes the coming in of the NH and NE?.
Here are a few of these verses that should be considered. 1 I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name. 2 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts; Sound familar? It should Paul quotes it in Romans 10:20-21 referring it to ISRAEL OF HIS DAY! Note these verses: 3 A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; 4 Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine’s flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels; 5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day. Clearly referring to Israel. Now note these next verses in particular: 11 But ye are they that forsake the LORD,that forget my holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that number. 12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not. 13 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, my servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry: behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty: behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed: 14 Behold, my servants shall sing for joy of heart, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of spirit. 15 And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name: Now here is my question brother WHO IS IT WHOSE NAME IS LEFT FOR A CURSE AND WHO ARE THE PEOPLE THAT GOD WILL CALL BY ANOTHER NAME? If this is not OT Israel whose name is left for a curse and now the people of God are called by another name -the church- then this must be something yet in the future can someone explain how this will happen right before or during the Lords future coming? Is it the church that will be left for a curse since they are now the people of God? The author that we are responding to has stated in a private email that the Isaiah passage is not the same thing as the Revelation passage regarding the NH and NE. This we believe is a stretch for what other verse would Peter be referrring to in 2Peter 3 if it is not Isaiah? When one looks at the first verse in Revelation 21 regarding the NH and NE we see that the FIRST HEAVEN AND FIRST EARTH has passed away. How can that be? Since Isaiah 65 states the writer, is the millenial reign then it would not be the first heaven and first earth that passed away but the second one and the one in Revelation 21 would be the third one. Be that as it may we will look at a few more things in Revelation 21-22 and show that this too cannot be the eternal state. How come there is need for leaves for the healing of the nations in the NH and NE? How come the gospel call goes out to those outside the gate (Rev 22:14)? If this is the eternal state how can this be? Why is there a need for healing of nations? Why is the gate left open for people to come in? 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. People are entering the city of the New Jerusalem which Isaiah says is the NH and NE so how do people enter it in the eternal state? is this second chance salvation ? We have shown the evidence and ask the reader to think on the questions proposed in this article and answer in the theater of your own conscience if in fact the NH and NE is a description of the eternal state alone which is still in the future.
What do YOU think ?
Amen! I have had a historist friend nearly profess that he believed in soul sleep. He denied it, but associated death with an immediacy produced by going into an eternal/timeless state when we die. I do not believe in such a state as timelessness. Time is one of God's attributes. Nothing stands still. Everything is moving/active. This is fundamental to scripture and to science. We change at the time of death, but never cease to exist. God's creation is a closed state. Nothing escapes His creation. God speaks to the dead. Heaven is a state of existence. A spiritual realm, being with God and seeing Him. It is within the bounds of His creation. There is a gate and a way. I appreciate Mike Krall's article. Vern Manson www.peacekey.com
Rev. 21 and 22 does not describe heaven "up there somewhere." Those two chapters describe the descent of heaven to earth in the moment of Christt's parousia (in AD 96, not AD 70) - the kingdom (spritual reign) of God that came on earth as in heaven (Mt. 6:10) at that time - the new, spiritual and eternal Canaan with respect to God's covenants with Israel and the new, spiritual and eternal world, the restoration of God's fellowship with man in Eden, with respect to God's separate and earlier covenants with the world (Adam and Noah).
I have now been blessed to be freed from the time-space limited God (the non-eternal god) of BOTH Full Preterism and Futurism. Both views fail to preserve the timeless Orthodoxy of the eternality of the Godhead, and therefore necessitate a denial of the Trinity.
Each position sees heaven and earth as "parallel worlds" in finite time, rendering God a mere participator in history, under and chained to His own creation.
Heaven is not a place "up there" after we die, nor is it "here now" in its ontological fulness. It is both, and yet in another sense neither. In the Parousia, Christ condescended to man' s experience in a transcendent, eternal Judgment of all men past, present and future. There will be a final resolution to sin and the Adamic curse in earth's future, Heaven and Earth united in eternity.
Christ's Parousia was an eternal, transcendent,spiritual-realm theophany that was made manifest to men in 70 A.D. with the eschatological termination of the Old Covenant "havens and earth" (covenantal). The New Covenant "heavens and earth" (covenantal) are here in their fulness, and the PHYSICAL earth will be united in our "future" (as we perceive time)to the angelic, spiritual realm (as per the two natures of Christ).
Christ's body represented heaven (divinity) and earth (humanity). In Him, both must be reconciled in time. Any theology which fails to acknowledge a future termination of sin as we know it has fundamentally misunderstood Christology, Trinitarianism, the Eternal nature of God, and the cosmic significance of the the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ.
Dr. Kelly Birks has written a book on this that is forthcoming.... "The End of Sin: An Eschatological Odyssey into Teloarmartia"...
Jonathan C. firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks for the good comments. The final resolution was the work of Christ in the first century. The uniting is an ongoing process of growth and development, and needs not any further impetus than that purchased by Christ's blood. I agree that those who see rebellion as never-ending are mistaken - that is not an inherently full pret position, but the opinion of some full prets. Thanks again! Todd
Hi, Todd. Thanks for those remarks. I'm with you all the way on the eternal efficacy of Christ's blood applied to the predestined. Indeed, though the blood was spilled in time, it finds its eschatological and cosmic fulfillment in eternity, when heaven and earth (no longer marred by sin) are restored together in eternal equilibrium. In this regard, I see the Parouisa as having occurred in one eternal moment (on God's eternal plane), which coincides with 70 A.D. and the future termination of sin on earth -- not two separate "comings", but two separate earthly (finite time) manifestations of the same coming. In this regard, I do think full preterism misses the boat, since it sees the Adamic nature of man permanently unresolved in history.
I am the author of the TAAHP. Mike, you did not deal with the liars part of the argument. My argument can be found at www.puritanboard.com. Rev 21 tells us that there will be NO LIARS there. In my paper I showed that ONE of the ways someone can lie is by teaching false (or contradictory) doctrine. Since there are NO LIARS in the NH and E then it cannot be the case that there are contradictory positions floating around. The above paper is yet another example of the faied attempt to answer the TAAHP. ...still waiting for a response -Paul
furthermore, don't you think that you should quote more from my seven pages then the one quote you did? Also, my argument is based of Rev 21:7. I did not say that it is heaven (exept as a way to explain it more simple to my orthodox brothers who say the two are the same), I said that in the NH and E we would..." Also, you should provide a link to the argument that you "refuted" in order to allow others to verify that you have attacked a straw man.
...also, if my quote is read I say nothing about it being heaven, my quote says the new heavens and earth. Again, if we are in the NH and E we would not be debating doctrinal issues because there are NO LIARS there and teaching doctrine that is not revealed is called a lie (Prov. 30:6 "He who adds to the word of the lord is a liar.") If the Bible teaches hyper-preterism and I teach that it teaches partial/futurism/etc/ then I add something to the word that is not taught there, thus I lie. Conversely, if the Bible doesn't teach hyper-preterism then the hyper-preterists are adding something to the word, thus they lie. Hence the dilema: "ALL liars" will not be there. Since teaching wrong doctrine is one form of lying, then I guess, since there are so many contradictory doctrines today, that we are not in the NH and E! (Note: in my paper I have handled all the objections so I refer you to that). Therefore, debate presupposes that one side is adding to the word of the lord, thus lying. So, the hyper-preterist has to assume the orthodox worldview (i.e., we are not in the NH and E) in order to debate whether or not we are in the NH and E. Put differently, hyper-preterism has been refuted....transcendentally! -Paul
...even more to add: I find it interesting that the "refutation" did not deal with ANY of my arguments but rather just tries to show that we are in the NH and E. This reminds me of how Dr. Bahnsen said that when he showed Dr. Gordon Stein that he could not account for balancing his checkbook on non-Christian assumptions, Dr. Stein said, "But I do balance my checkbook."! Isn't it ironic that the same type of responses are given to transcendental arguments? Hyper-preterist beware, you need to be intellectually honest. You need to admit that the above "refutation" was a hit and run tactic. If this is the best the hyper-pret can do... it truely is a worldview on its last leggs. -Paul
There are no more liars because he who confesses not the Jesus is the Christ is a liar so certainly there are no liars in the New Covenant according to this description of what makes a liar. He does so address the issue of liars...you just don't accept his definition of what lying is according to this passage...you also do not deal with his points regarding Heaven not coming until the 2nd coming and the implications of your viewing Rev 21 as refering to heaven or the eternal state. - Adam Boone
To the writer of TAAHP and in response to your 24 Dec comments. You have stated in the 3rd paragraph of objection #4:
" Moreover, you cannot prove, logically, that there are liars in the NH and E but not in the city based on a verse which says "outside [the city] are the liars." There are alot of things "outside the city," for example the lake of fire is outside the city as well. This would be similar to saying that all X's are in California simply because I said that all X's are "outside" San Diego. "Outside" San Diego could be New York, or Africa. The point is that you cannot prove that there are liars in the NH and E but not in the city simply because Revelation tells us that the liars are outside the city."
Can you say you have never uttered a lie? If you have lied (which I am very sure of), then are you looking forward to your second death in the lake of fire? After all, Rev 21:8 says "all liars".
I find it very logical as Rev 22:15 provides the logical answer that liars will continue to exist but they exist outside the City of New Jerusalem which is in the New Heaven and Earth.
Take this simple logic - If the zoo is in San Diego, it can be said also that the zoo is in California. But if the zoo is 10 miles north of San Diego, it is outside of San Diego, but it still is in California.
Rev 21:27 states - "And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, ... or maketh a lie: ...". If there are no liars then Rev 21:27 does not have any significance at all (about 'entering into the City'). The nations outside the City still need healing (Rev 22:2). They who are saved (believers made ‘rulers’ - Rev 1:24,26) shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it [new victory over death and their praises of new believers]. And as long as you remains a liar, without confessing Jesus as your Savior, you will remains outside the City and upon your untimely death ... well, then the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. (Isa 65:20)]
From the author of article: Regarding there being no liars in the NH and NE I quoted the verse that says he who confesses not the Jesus is the Christ is a liar and the NC is made up of only those making such a confession. So according to the Bible there are no liars in the NC. Once I prove the NC is the NH and NE, which I did, then the whole TA argument falls to pieces. You can't take your own conclusion of what the NH and NE is and show how our premise doesn't fit. That is dishonest to say the least and a straw man. mk
From the author again: It might be pointed out that the TAAHP mentions Eph 4 and unity of the faith but even commentators are divided on when this is realized some say at death others say it is the local church unity so I didnt deal with that argument but might in another article where I will also show PM is worng in his concept that Isa 65-66's NH and NE is not the same as Rev 21-22's NH and NE which is clearly refuted by one verse (Rev 21:1). For when the NH and NE of Rev 21 comes in the FIRST one is taken away and according to him it would be the SECOND one since the Isa 65-66 one is the millenial reign which has yet to come. mk
For those who are trying to use the out that "liars are those who deny Christ" therefore, there are no liars now in the NC/NH and E are answered in my article. I think you should refer to that. I will give you the answer briefly: That is ONE type of lying, yes, but what does Revelation say? It says. "ALL liars" and "ANYONE who practices falsehood." This is repetative universal language, I think we should heed it.
Furthermore, if you choose to say that "ALL" does not mean all, then I will just as arbitrally say that the overcommers in 21:7 does not mean all overcommers. Arbitrariness is s fickel friend; my friends. Even more, John says other people are liars, NOT JUST CHRIST DENIERS. He says that those who say they love God and not their brothers are liars. He says that those who say they love God but do not do what he commands are liars. So, basically, you guys are nwrong, and have been shown to arbitraraly (and ad hoc)deal with only one type of liar. Yes, there's more. Your position is easily reducable to absurdity. If the "ALL liars" in 21:8 means ONLY those who deny Christ then are you implying that the other liars can be in there? So those liars who don't obey God's commandemets (As 1 John says) can be in the NH and E? So the Prov. 30:6 liars can be in the NH and E? This is absurd!
Now to address Mike Krall's comments that I am confusing the NH and E with heaven. I am not. If you like I can substitute it with anything. All I am saying is that in Rev 21 we are told that no liars are there, teaching false doctrine is lying, so how could we be there given all the contradictory positions in the Church today? It doesn't matter if it's the NH and E, heaven, or Disneyland(!). So if this makes it simpler here you go: When x comes there will be no Y. There is Y. therefore X has not come. This syllogism PROVES that I am not misunderstanding. Whatever Rev.21 is talking about (mars, the moon of Endor, parallel universes as postulated by string theorists, it doesn't matter) there is something there that makes it impossible to be right now. There was another challenge. Someone asked "If I lie." Well, I have. I try not to. And in whatever areas of doctrine that I teach which are not Scriptuaral, I lie. But, the challenger should understand the orthodox answer to this question. At the final judgement, BEFORE I enter the NH and E I will be glorified (body and soul)...BEFORE I enter. Thus, according to our position we can escape the dilema; you cannot. -still waiting for a refutation-Paul
For MK. You can deal with Eph 4, as long as you know (which you should sice you read my paper) I conceded that it was the weaker of the two, and said that not everyone holds my position on it (just those lightweights Calvin and Hodge!). I said that it works on those and only those who think that it was eschatalogical prophecy. The tougher part is the liars argument (which has still not been delt with). Indeed your fellow hyper-pret's tried to answer it by giving an answer that was answered in my paper. This is shoddy. So I do know, and admit that the Eph.4 is the weaker of the two. I have more though. As I said in my paper it is a shorter version. We could get into the noetic effects of sin and more.
To 'Paul', the author of TAAHP.
You have insisted that "all liars" means "ALL LIARS". Yet obviously it does not include you, as you admitted having lied before (and of course all mankind had lied sometimes in their life). So, "all liars" doesn't mean all as it excludes all repentant 'liars' who will enter in the gates in their glorious bodies (as you state in the above comments). Thus, "ALL LIARS" are those who had not confessed and acknowledged Jesus as their Savior and Lord, and according to you, they will not be in NH&E, which made Rev 21:27 and Rev 22:15 meaningless. I would like to hear your TA's view on Rev 21:27, 22:14,15 and who are the nations living outside the City?
"And there shall in NO WISE ENTER into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever ... maketh a lie: ... 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. For WITHOUT are dogs, and ... whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."
As I have said, 'If the zoo is in San Diego, it can be said also that the zoo is in California. But if the zoo is 10 miles north of San Diego, it is outside of San Diego, but it still is in California.' Similarly, if liars are outside of the City of New Jerusalem, they cannot enter into the City but are still living within NH & E. Please tell me what is wrong with the above logic (as Rev 22:15 plainly states there are liars outside the City's gate!). When I read Rev 21:7,8, it shows me that there will be liars living in NH&E, but he who overcome shall inherit all things, but he who remains unrepentant, liars or others, shall have (future tense) their part in the lake of fire.
I answer that in my paper....read it.
...and, as my paper says, you still have the same problem. If there are no liars in the city then why are people teaching/believing/promoting contradictory doctrines (i.e., lying)...in the city? If only hyper-pret's are in the city then why do they not all agree? Why do some think that you should, say, take the Lord's supper, and some do not? This could be easily multiplied. Again, since teaching false doctrine is lying then why are there people in the city who teach lies...if there are no liars there? Also, you can say that they are outside, all I said is that I can just as validly say that they are not... outside could mean anywhere. Show me where it says that liars are "in the NH and E" You cannot. I can show you where it says where they are. It says they are in the lake of fire, so is the NH and E the lake of fire? Besides, I do not need to prove that, my argument can be used in the city as well. Now, if you respond you are showing that there can be liars in the city because both of us cannot be right (i.e., we are contradicting each other (note: does God contradict himself? No! Why? Because "It is impossible for Him to LIE" ahhhh you see now) So, by responding you prove my argument. Now, that's nice and tidy...isn't it? -Paul
I found this article to be one of the best things I have read to prove the new heavens and new earth is the new covenant. although I am a partial preterist I found Mr. Krall's argument irrefutable regarding what the new heavens and new earth is. excellent peace. Anyone disagreeing should answer his questions. I need to further look into full preterism for I am liking what I am reading. James P.
I also found the article to be good in defending the position that the New Heavens and New Earth is the NC, but then again it is so plain in Scripture only the willfully ignorant would reject it. I was convinced before I read this article this article only substantiated what I have seen all along for the last 41 years of reading the bible. miquel santa maria
miqel santa maria said, "The full-pret teaching is "so clear" and "only the willfully ignorant don't understand it" Well, if it's so clear why has the Church not seen it until late? Doesn't Eph. 4 say that we are being "built up" not down?!
miquel here. good point on eph 4. since we are being built up God shows truth more clearly as time goes on. just look at the doctrine of justification by faith alone. you could barely find it if at all in church history for over a millenia. God is starting to show his children more and more of this truth and I praise him for it. Btw my original point was the new heavens and new earth was clearly the NC and that was believed by the post mil puritians so it isn't anything new. miquel santa maria
miquel: (1) Give the quotes by "most" the Puritans. (2) Secondly, the WCF does not hold your view, which was the puritan's confession. (3) "So clear?" Why wasn't it believed until recently. (4) There is a difference between building up on a doctrine and putting forth a brand new doctrine, this is where you fail according to Eph. 4. (5) You said, "only the willfully ignorant misunderstand it." My question, was Calvin willful ignorant? Was Hodge? Was Warfield? Were the divines? Was Luther? Was Edwards? Was Spurgeon? (6) The Puritans, as do I, made a distinction between the NH and E already/not yet. NONE of them thought that we were in the Rev. 21 NH and E. (7) So, now how do you handle Eph.4? -Paul
To Paul of HAAHP on his reply on 27 Dec.
I did not see any explanation or your TA's view on Rev 21:27, 22:14,15 and who are the nations living outside The City. Only your argument using them but nowhere did you offer any explanation for those nations or for those who are outside The City. Not a problem if you don't have the answer.
I am still very puzzled by your statement (and logic) - "Moreover, you cannot prove, logically, that there are liars in the NH and E but not in the city based on a verse which says "outside [the city] are the liars." There are alot of things "outside the city," for example the lake of fire is outside the city as well."
FIRSTLY, what is there to prove? Rev 22;15 is so straightforward. You are either inside The City or outside. If you are not in New York, then you are outside of New York. It does not matter whether you are in San Diego, in Africa or in Timbuktu. In Rev 21 and Rev 22, the location in context is the NH&NE and within this NH&NE is The City of New Jerusalem. You are either inside or outside of the City.
If you are in The City, you shall not die, no tear and shall inherit all things, meaning, you are already absent from the body and present with the Lord. (In the City, there is no need to debate any doctrinal issues. God is there!)
But many outside The City are not like you - they do not yet confess Jesus as Savior for forgiving of their sins, and hence are still lairs and murderers. That is why we have Rev 22:14-15 admonishing us to do His commandments so that we "may enter in through the gates into The City, for without [the City] are dogs, and sorcerers, .… , and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."
SECONDLY, by your own TA's argument, you have acknowledged that there are liars in NH&NE. You have stated that "There are alot of things "outside the city," for example the lake of fire is outside the city as well." According to your argument, all liars are in the lake of fire. And where is the lake of fire? Outside the City. And where is this City? In the New Heaven and New Earth.
Oh! BTW, I need to alert you again, that "all liars SHALL [future tense] have their part in the lake which burneth with fire" not "are in the lake already". We all are liars and murderers. And we have our whole lifetime to confess to our Lord and to do His commandments so that we may enter in through the gates into The City.
Isa 65:20 does not contradict Rev 21 at all if we are careful in rightly dividing the word of God - which portion of that verse apply to inside Jerusalem (Isa 65:18) and which portion apply to the NH&NE (Isa 65:17), especially when we have the benefit of Rev 21 to guide us. Well Paul, I shall not be belaboring on this anymore. But I hope to see a Saul of you who once persecuted HP but if God be willing, make you truly into a new Paul.
...and, as my paper says, you still have the same problem. If there are no liars in the city then why are people teaching/believing/promoting contradictory doctrines (i.e., lying)...in the city? If only hyper-pret's are in the city then why do they not all agree? Why do some think that you should, say, take the Lord's supper, and some do not? This could be easily multiplied. Again, since teaching false doctrine is lying then why are there people in the city who teach lies...if there are no liars there? -Paul
Mr. Krall Your argument is persuasive. I have a question. You stated "there is no basis to say one enters this eternal state upon death". How do you account for Paul's statement in Philippians that "to die is to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord"? And in Thessalonians, he says, "them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him". From where is he bringing them, pre-resurrection? Regards, email@example.com
Since you guys do not understand the objection, here goes: In X there will be no Y. There is Y. Therefore, we are not in X. Get it? I have shown that one form of lying is teaching false doctrine. If this is the case then why are there contradictory doctrines in the city? To debate contradictory doctrines proves that there are liars in the city! The end! -Paul
I think the article conclusively proves without question that the nh and ne CANNOT be the eternal state. Instead of all the back and forth about liars why don't some of you try to respond to the questions asked in the article. I don't see how one can deny that the nh and ne is indeed the new covenant. Since the article proves it all this straw men about liars and false doctrine is meaningless. You have to first prove that nh and ne is the eternal state which has been disproved by this article already. James P
The crux of the problem is that Paul had insisted that there are Liars INSIDE The City whereas Rev 22:15 plainly shows us that they are OUTSIDE the City. We can never agree on a conclusion as it just does not compute because he is missing one critical parameter in the equation.
Paul argued that "In X (The City or NH&NE) there will be no Y (liars). But since there are liars, so we are not in The City or in NH&NE. He is missing another critical parameter - W. Here goes: In W (NH&NE [Rev 21:1]) there is X (The City [Rev 21:2]) and in X there will be no Y (Liars [Rev 21:27]). The Y is outside X (Rev 22:15).
Take this analogy - In California is the city of LA. There is no Golden Gate in LA. It is outside of LA. Now, the fact that there is a Golden Gate does not mean all living in California are not living in California NOW because there is a Golden Gate now within California. Sound confusing? It is because that is the twisted logic that Paul is trapped in.
All of us are liars and murderers! But it is not hopeless. Jesus had given us the key to enter into That City: "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." (Rev 22:14) - MS Cheo.
It seems to me that if Mr Krall's view on what the NH and NE is, is correct, then Paul M's argument is invalid. But what Paul M refuses to do is refute Mr Krall's concept of what the NH and NE is. That tells me that Paul M is either mentally incapable of understanding what the issue is that he needs address or he is willfully ignorant. He just keeps repeating himself and cannot see that his argument is only valid IF the NH and NE fits into his own concept. That is what it seems to me is Mr Krall's argument in his article. Disprove Krall's idea of what the NH and NE is then and then and ONLY THEN will Paul's argument have any credence. As long as he refuses to refute Krall's argument on what the NH and NE is and refuse to answer the questions proposed he has created a straw man. James P
It doesn't matter what my conception is. Whatever the NH and E OR city is, it doesn't matter, there is something that is NOT going to be there. Now, if one form of lying is teaching/promoting false doctrine then why are there contradictory doctrines in the city? Please answer the question. again...Since you guys do not understand the objection, here goes: In X there will be no Y. There is Y. Therefore, we are not in X. Get it? I have shown that one form of lying is teaching false doctrine. If this is the case then why are there contradictory doctrines in the city? To debate contradictory doctrines proves that there are liars in the city! The end! -Paul
To Paul: I am amazed at how deceived you are. You just don't get it. IF the nh and ne is the NC then there are no liars there for he that confesses not the Jesus is the Christ is a liar and he that believes in Christ SHALL NEVER DIE! Now I ask you this question and if you either refuse to answer or skirt it then your argument is not worth responding to. Here it is: IS THERE ANY IN THE NEW COVENANT THAT CONFESS NOT THAT JESUS IS THE CHRIST AND ARE THERE ANY IN THE NC THAT WILL SEE THE DEATH CHRIST SAID THEY WOULD NOT SEE IN JOHN 8:52 AND 11:26? Now once you respond to that we have somewhere to go from there. Notice I did not say anything in that question about the nh and ne ONLY THE NEW COVENANT! PLEASE RESPOND! James P
James P I think you nailed it down with that question. I am looking forward to see how Paul responds. miquel santa maria
How will Paul respond? Well, IF MY PAPER HAD BEEN READ YOU WOULD KNOW HOW I RESPOND. here it is: "objection 3: "This is talking about the Jews who denied Christ." This cannot be the case for it falls into seriouse reductio ad absurdems: Really, only the jews? So you are saying that we can teach the most blatent hersies in the NH and E? If it is only the Jews, who denied Christ, then what about Prov. 30:6? Are you saying that those liars can be in the NH and E? Also, Revelation teaches that ALL liars will not be there. It does not say that only one kind of liar will not be there. Furthermore, if ALL liars in Rev. 21:8 does not mean ALL, then ALL the overcommers in Rev. 21:7 does not mean ALL. The HP cannot have it both ways. Even more devastating is this: if ALL liars does not mean ALL then neither does ALL apply to the muderers and idolaters. Therefore, since ALL means ALL in this passage then we can also include the group of liars who teach wrong doctrine about God and his word. Since we can do that then we can dismiss the HP before he even begins to utter a syllable. Because when he begins to argue he presupposes that liars can be in the NH and E (unless he says that only HPs are in the NH and E, that will be addressed below). We can multiply this list ad-nauseum." .....still waiting a refutation
...and you can substitute NH and E for "the city," it makes no difference.-Paul
asking for refutations to MK paper? Here is one: MK writes that the NC promises in Jeremiah apply to the NC, or NH and E. Well,m is this particular to the NC? NO, read Deut. 6.4. Notice, hyper-prets, that there is a TIME TEXT, i.e., "TODAY...my law shall be upon your hearts." Isn't this what Jeremiah say is new to the NC? Well, it obviously isn't. Therefore, you guys need to re examine your view of the NC/NH and E. -Paul Also, my paper is not intended to refute all the parts. My paper doesn't even say that HP is false. It says that IF it were true we would not be debating if it were true. Since we are debating if it is true, it therefore, must not be true! -Paul
It is amazing! I just read a diatribe of Paul's and he still has not answered my question but skirted around it. I simply asked if the NC has any in it that did not confess Jesus was the Christ and any that will see the death Christ said believers wouldn't. Well so be it.....
Paul I am curious as to when Jer 31 was enacted according to your concept of the new covenant? (Sheeesh what am I doing you didnt answer my other question?) James P
well, I'm sorry but you asked about the liars. That is a vital part ot my argument and I showed how your interpretation of who the liars are is faulty. You gave only ONE type of liar. Furthermore, your question (which is off the topic anyway) depends on who you belieev is in the covenant. You see, I am a CT and I belive that the covenant is STILL made up of external and internal members. So you would need to be more specific. On one interpretation the members of the covenant (internal, that is) cannot deny. But on another analyisis there are mebers who can (external, that is). But the real probelem is THAT MY ARGUMENT STILL HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED! If you believe that we are in a place (HOWEVER YOU DEFINE IT) which has NO LIARS in it, then why are there contradictory teachings floating around? Teaching something that is contrary to God's revealed word is to lie, but you say we are in a place with NO liars? As far as Jer. 31, you need to explain. it mentions many things, so when was WHAT enacted? I already said that ONE of the things mentioned was not new. So what specifically are you refering to? (Sheesh, I don't know why I responded, you still haven't delt with my argument...note: ad-homs are always reversable).
Restating it: James, do you believe that there are liars in the city? Answer 1, "Yes I do." Well you contradict the Bible then. Answer 2, "No I don't." Well, then why are we debating, since debating presupposes that one of us is adding the word of the Lord (which is lying. Prov.30:6). So, if you respond you prove my point. Get it now?
What's interesting, James, is that you have to believe, as a consistant HP, that the law on the heart was fulfilled THE DAY God said "TODAY." So your own position is undermined.
Refuting another part of MK article: He says: "There are no more liars because he who confesses not the Jesus is the Christ is a liar so certainly there are no liars in the New Covenant according to this description of what makes a liar." The orthodox says: did he even read the article he supposedly "refuted?" My article anticipates and answers this objection: " "objection 3: "This is talking about the Jews who denied Christ." This cannot be the case for it falls into seriouse reductio ad absurdems: Really, only the jews? So you are saying that we can teach the most blatent hersies in the NH and E? If it is only the Jews, who denied Christ, then what about Prov. 30:6? Are you saying that those liars can be in the NH and E? Also, Revelation teaches that ALL liars will not be there. It does not say that only one kind of liar will not be there. Furthermore, if ALL liars in Rev. 21:8 does not mean ALL, then ALL the overcommers in Rev. 21:7 does not mean ALL. The HP cannot have it both ways. Even more devastating is this: if ALL liars does not mean ALL then neither does ALL apply to the muderers and idolaters. Therefore, since ALL means ALL in this passage then we can also include the group of liars who teach wrong doctrine about God and his word. Since we can do that then we can dismiss the HP before he even begins to utter a syllable. Because when he begins to argue he presupposes that liars can be in the NH and E (unless he says that only HPs are in the NH and E, that will be addressed below). We can multiply this list ad-nauseum." Now, why is it that MK didn't address this? He just thought it would go away? This is embarrassing to the HP community. If you "refute" someone you should read waht they said about one of your objections and then answer it in your "refutation." Should I still keep going with the critique of his paper?...-Paul
Paul, I am not a full preterist but a post mil in the same way Owen is who agrees that the NH and NE is the NC. What you fail to see is that your statement about Deut 6:6 (you said 6:4 which threw me at first) proves too much. It proves, if you premise is correct, that the NC is in itself is not what Jer 31 is talking about. Forget the nh and ne for a minute. Since Jer 31 was written after Deut 6 what was Jer referring to then. I noticed you didnt answer my question about the NC. Regarding your question about liars well I again point you to the question are there any in the NC who do not confess Jesus is the Christ or who say they are without sin.............. 1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him............ 1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son........... 1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?......... NOW ARE THERE ANY OF THE ABOVE MENTION PEOPLE IN THE NEW COVENANT??????????
I answerd that didn't I? I said to explain which members of the NC your are referring to. The external or internal. Please read what I said above I answerd your question. As far as my view on Jer.31/Heb 8. I refer you to the article by Jeffery Neil in "The covenantal case for infant baptism." It does not prove to much. But again, we are dealing with my argument against HP, (for more proof that you did not read my article I said that is a sense we are in the NH and E, but not in the HP sense...please do not respond again until you read my paper.) I do not care about any of the other liars except the class of liars that teach false doctrine. Now since it says ALL liars will not be there then the above class will not be there. If the above class is not there then why are there contradictory doctines within the city? If you refuse to answer again I will not respond. -Paul
Paul, in Jer 31 it says "ALL shall know me" unlike the Old which not all were the elect of God so all in that covenant did now know God. So where one can get the idea that not all know him in the NC is foreign to Scripture. Nonetheless I dont understand your point.
Paul, one other thing. You are following a tactic that is easily picked up on. You take your conclusion of your premise and try to button hole someone into fitting their premise into your conclusion. I wont fall for it. The NH and NE as being the NC was well defended in MKs article (as well as Owen in numerous places of his writings) and you have yet to deal with any of his questions but just come up with rabbit trails like Deut 6 which proves nothing related to it. Now you are starting a new rabbit trail of internal and external covenants something foreign to scripture. I ask you what MK asks have those that died in the Lord received the blessings of Rev 21:4? If so how can they since it hasnt come yet? Why are there leaves for the healing of the nations in eternity? Why is the gate left open for people to enter? Why is their a gospel invitation there? That coupled with some of his other questions are being avoided. James P
The problem is he was supposed to be refuting MY argument. I am the one who needs the questions answered. Indeed, YOU are the one doing rabit trails. When, in the history of refutations, does someone not even address the refutation? I will ask again, and if it is not answered I will assume that you have none (like Birks didn't with Cook!=). If teaching doctrine that is not what was revealed is teaching a lie (according to the Bible), then why are there contradictory doctrines in the city? A place where there are NO liars? (Can God contradict himself? No? Why? because he doesn't LIE). Is teaching something contrary to what was revealed a lie? Yes (Prov.30:6. for example). HP as one contradictory position amongst many cannot account for the pre-conditions necessary to make debate intelligible! Why? Because if their position were true then no one would be debating it! -Paul
LOL I figured that you would side with Gene in the debate even though he violated the rules and had to divert the topic and like the sore sport he is he took his ball and went home LOL. Kelly offered to set up a second debate on the nature of the resurrection. Gene just cannot deal with the timing texts and he knows it. Its like universal atonement if it is for everyone in general it is for no one in particular so if the timing texts are for every age in general it means nothing to anyone in particular.......... You fail to respond to questions so this has become an exercise in futily. It has been well defending by people like Owen and other puritans that the NH and NE is the NC even with those that see double fulfillement. Since you cannot respond to MK's questions I will leave this be. Have a happy new year Paul. James P
HEY PAUL U DA MAN!!!!!!!<GRIN> KEEP IT UP! KEEP TALKING LIKE A RETARDED PERSON THAT KEEPS REPEATING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER IN THE FACE OF CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE. MAN I CANT BELIEVE IT! YOUR ARGUMENT ONLY HOLDS WATER IF THE NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH IS FUTURE WHICH EVEN PARTIAL PRETERISTS HISTORICALLY HAVE HELD TO BEING THE CHURCH AGE WITH A DOUBLE FULFILMENT. GIVE IT UP YOU ARE STARTING TO SOUND LIKE SOMEONE WITH A MENTAL DEFICIENCY. KENNY MATHIS
Well, someone who acted like a donkey and yelled the whole way and called me retarded has bigger problems then HP being wrong. As far as the charge that I didn't answer the above "refutation" which, ironically, was supposed to be a refutation of MY paper and it is the one who didn't answer MINE, so until it does I cannot respond to a non-answer, all I can do is re-post how I did respond, even in these little messages. Here is ONE response I gave which wasn't answered. MK said: The liars in Rev. 21:7, 28 are those who denied Christ. My paper anticipated that "out" and had a response. Was THAT answerd? No it wasn't.
This post shall serve as an testimony that you guys have lied. I can only do one thing at a time. So lets take the ONE thing relevent to my paper. MK's "explanation" on who the liars are..."those who deny Christ" Here is my answer: "objection 3: "This is talking about the Jews who denied Christ." This cannot be the case for it falls into seriouse reductio ad absurdems: Really, only the jews? So you are saying that we can teach the most blatent hersies in the NH and E? If it is only the Jews, who denied Christ, then what about Prov. 30:6? Are you saying that those liars can be in the NH and E? Also, Revelation teaches that ALL liars will not be there. It does not say that only one kind of liar will not be there. Furthermore, if ALL liars in Rev. 21:8 does not mean ALL, then ALL the overcommers in Rev. 21:7 does not mean ALL. The HP cannot have it both ways. Even more devastating is this: if ALL liars does not mean ALL then neither does ALL apply to the muderers and idolaters. Therefore, since ALL means ALL in this passage then we can also include the group of liars who teach wrong doctrine about God and his word. Since we can do that then we can dismiss the HP before he even begins to utter a syllable. Because when he begins to argue he presupposes that liars can be in the NH and E (unless he says that only HPs are in the NH and E, that will be addressed below).
We can multiply this list ad-nauseum." .....still waiting a refutation ...and you can substitute NH and E for "the city," it makes no difference.-Paul Now, AGAIN, (ATT.! let the HP beware, I want an answer to this, otherwise it is YOU GUYS who have not addressed it. i am calling the HP's out. Here is the challenge, and if it is "retarded" it should be easy to answer...DIRECTLY:If there are no liars in the city then why are people teaching/believing/promoting contradictory doctrines (i.e., lying)...in the city? If only hyper-pret's are in the city then why do they not all agree? Why do some think that you should, say, take the Lord's supper, and some do not? This could be easily multiplied. Again, since teaching false doctrine is lying then why are there people in the city who teach lies...if there are no liars there?
Also, you can say that they are outside, all I said is that I can just as validly say that they are not... outside could mean anywhere. Show me where it says that liars are "in the NH and E" You cannot. I can show you where it says where they are. It says they are in the lake of fire, so is the NH and E the lake of fire? Besides, I do not need to prove that, my argument can be used in the city as well. Now, if you respond you are showing that there can be liars in the city because both of us cannot be right (i.e., we are contradicting each other (note: does God contradict himself? No! Why? Because "It is impossible for Him to LIE" ahhhh you see now)
So, by responding you prove my argument. And, if you like: Since you guys do not understand the objection, here goes: In X there will be no Y. There is Y. Therefore, we are not in X. Get it? I have shown that one form of lying is teaching false doctrine. If this is the case then why are there contradictory doctrines in the city? To debate contradictory doctrines proves that there are liars in the city! And,... If teaching doctrine that is not what was revealed is teaching a lie (according to the Bible), then why are there contradictory doctrines in the city? A place where there are NO liars? (Can God contradict himself? No? Why? because he doesn't LIE). Is teaching something contrary to what was revealed a lie? Yes (Prov.30:6. for example).
HP as one contradictory position amongst many cannot account for the pre-conditions necessary to make debate intelligible! Why? Because if their position were true then no one would be debating it! Now, deal with that. I want answers. It doesn't matter if it is future/covenant relationship or anything! What matters is that there will be NO LIARS there, no matter WHEN it comes. If so, and if teaching wrong doctrine is to lie, then why are there contradictory doctrines in the city. If NOT ONE HP can directly respond to this then this post stands against you, and the young HPs can see how my argument was avoided and hopefully come back to orthodoxy! -Paul
HEE HAW IM BACK..... For the one who is mentality deficient let me requote what some else did and add a verse or 2 .............. 1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:................ 1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. .................. 1 John 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him................. 1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son................ 1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?............... THERE ARE NONE OF THE ABOVE IN THE NEW COVENANT. Let God be true and Paul M a liar and a ....i wont say it but it starts with an R
To Paul: there are no jews that deny Jesus is the Chris in the New Covenant so I dont see your point. Either you have none or you have not made your point clear. The bible clearly says that no one that is a liar is in the new covenant. John is quite clear on that in his first epistle for I think he used the word lie, liar and truth more than any one else. But this has become contentious for me for me so I will say no more. miquel santa maria
This is a good time to quote David Chilton from Days of Vengeance:
"Finally, St. John says, no lie was found in their mouth, for they are blameless. It is the Dragon who is the deceiver, the false accuser, the father of the Lie (John 8:44; Rev. 12:9); God’s people are characterized by truthfulness (Eph. 4:2427). As St. Paul declared regarding the heathen, the basic Lie is idolatry: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and fourfooted animals and crawling creatures.
For they exchanged the Truth of God for the Lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever” (Rem. 1:2225). At root, the Lie is false prophecy (cf. Jer. 23), the rendering of honor and glory to the creature in place of the Creator. We have seen that the conflict between true and false prophecy, between the witnessing servantprophets and the False Prophet, is central to the concerns of the Book of Revelation. In opposition to her enemies, the Church carries and proclaims the Truth. As the prophets had foretold, God raised up a faithful Remnant during the time of wrath and tribulation on Jerusalem: But I will leave among you A humble and lowly people, And they will take refuge in the name of the LORD. The Remnant of Israel will do no wrong And tell no lies, Nor will a deceitful tongue Be found in their mouths. . . . (Zeph. 3:1213) Commentators have often been vexed over the question of whether this picture is meant to represent the Church as seen on earth, or the Church as seen at rest, in heaven. It should be obvious that both aspects of the Church are in view here — especially since, as we have seen, the Church on earth iS “in heaven” (12:12; 13:6). The famous statement in Hebrews 12:2223 provides compelling evidence: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels in festal assembly, and to the Church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven. . . .” Milton Terry rightly remarks: “The heaven of our apocalyptist is the visional sphere of the glory and triumph of the Church, and no marked distinction is recognized between the saints on earth and those in heaven. They are conceived as one great company, and death is of no account to them. . . . Thus the entire passage serves to illustrate how saints ‘dwelling in heavenly places in Christ Jesus’ are all one in spirit and triumph, no matter what physical locality they may occupy.”G For St. John, Zion “is neither in Jerusalem nor above the clouds; it is the whole assembly of the saints, living and departed.”7
HEE HAW IM BACK AGAIN
Excellent quote by this guy Chilton. I looked up the verse he quotes in Zeph 3. Kinda puts an end to this idea of liars heh? 12 I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD. 13 The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid. NOW IS THAT NOT A DECRIPTION OF ALL TRUE BELIEVERS OR WHAT. COME PAUL DA MAN WHAT SAY YE? WHO IS ZEPH TALKING ABOUT AND WHO ARE THE 144000 THAT HAVE NO GUILE IN THEIR MOUTH. HEE HAW HEE HAW
This will be my last post. You guys have named many types of liars and that is all well and good; those will not be there as well. The problem is that Rev. 21.8,27 teaches us that ALL LIARS, and ANYONE WHO MAKETH A LIE will not be there! So, you have only accounted for SOME but not ALL liars. It is so exciting to hear that the other liars in the Bible,i.e., the teachers of wrong doctrine, will indeed be there! What about THOSE liars? There are MORE than just the FEW you guys mentioned, and Revelation says ALL will not be there, not some. In case you think that ALL does not mean ALL then read my paper if ALL liars in Rev. 21:8 does not mean ALL, then ALL the overcommers in Rev. 21:7 does not mean ALL. The HP cannot have it both ways. Even more devastating is this: if ALL liars does not mean ALL then neither does ALL apply to the muderers and idolaters. Therefore, since ALL means ALL in this passage then we can also include the group of liars who teach wrong doctrine about God and his word. Since we can do that then we can dismiss the HP before he even begins to utter a syllable. Because when he begins to argue he presupposes that liars can be in the NH and E Now, I am glad that that ass is doing more damage to your guys camp than my argument will ever do...please, muzzle him!-Paul
HEE HAW IM BACK ONCE MORE. It seems to me it is good that it is Paul da man's last post for me misses the whole point. What can we expect from one who is re&*() oops I almost said it. Well anyway he refused to comment on Zeph an excellent passage that shows how God views all of his own in the new covenant and yes according to that there are no liars in the new covenant. HEE HAW HEE HAW ....Happy New Year in 1hr and 11 min
HEE HAW HEE HAW HAPPY NEW YEAR IM BACK TO START THE NEW YEAR................. Well Paul Da Mann is gone and maybe for good. I guess he couldnt respond to Zeph 3 which demolishes his whole argument. It clearly shows that God looks upon all those in Christ as having no guile in their mouth IN OTHER WORDS PAUL DA MANN THERE ARE NO LIARS IN THE NEW COVENANT--- case dismissed-- Well I cant say as I blame him after all his argument is dead and he has no more rabbit trails to go down. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT -oops it aint night-GOOD DAY....Kenny Mathis
yes "Mr hee haw" I think my Chilton post put an end to our friend. It is quite clear that God does not view any true believer as a liar and all the unsaved as liars. It is so clear, especially in the Zep passage that I wonder about this man myself though I would refrain from calling him names.
PaulM considers preterists as non Christians because they promote a lie-false doctrine. Therefore they are not in the NC (the internal one as he notes being a paedorhantist). So according to his own concept there are no liars in the New Covenant because it is not made up of any that promote heresy else he would have to consider preterists brethren. Therefore his argument fails unless he considers preterists brethren else he also says there are no liars in the NC. In the light of that it is no longer valid to say that the NC cannot be the nh and ne.
One more point to add to the above post. Since ALL LIARS are in the lake of fire NONE OF THEM are in the (internal) New Covenant. So for Paul's argument to be valid pretersts have to be considered Christians proving the preterist concept of the NH and NE is wrong because there would be liars in the nh and ne. But then this becomes a vicious circle for if that is the case then we are not liars because we are Christians and will not be in the lake of fire. If preterists will be in lake of fire that means we were never in the NC so that would make his argument null and void. He cant win with is own argument. Either all false doctrine is a lie putting all those that preach it in lake of fire, proving the nh and ne is the NC or false doctrine is not a lie and then his argument fails there too. CASE DISMISSED!
I see the last few posts drove the nail in Paul da mans coffin. I guess he wont be back so he admits defeat. The last 2 posts made an excellent point. Since all liars are in lake of fire then none are in the NC right Pauly boy????? (u still da man though pauly)Since no liars are in NC then there isnt any argument against the NC being nh and ne. Boy whoever you are that wrote above message I think you cut to the heart of it. Too bad Pauly boy aint around he might learn something. HEE HAW HEE HAW good night all till another time............
Good articles Mike. Paul's argument is based wholly on the idea that his conception of liars is true in Revelation 21, 22. If his argument about liars is false, his point does not hold. In my first comment on his paper I pointed out that people would die on the New Earth (Isaiah 65), and then showed that there was no death there (Revelation 21, 22). It is clear, then that the deaths of these passages are not the same. Likewise, there are different kinds of lies and liars (which even he says in his article). His argument is, (1) In the NH and NE, there are no liars (with definition "X" of liar in mind). (2) Liars (according to definition "X") exist. (3) Therefore we are are not in the NH and NE. The problem, though, is that he does not prove that "definition X" of liar is in mind. It's like a critic of Christ saying that Jesus is a false prophet because of His statements in John 6 and John 8:51, based on the fact that people physically die. The argument is based on physical death being in view, and since physical death is is not in view in these passages, the argument is invalid. Likewise, Paul must prove, and not merely assert, that his view of liars is in view and that Mike's (and the others') are not before his arguments about liars are valid. Kenneth Perkins
To Kenneth Perkins...The way Paul gets around Isa 65 is he says it is not the same new heavens and earth of Rev 21-22. The Isa one is the coming millenium (he is postmil) and the rev one is the eternal state. The problem of course is that the Rev 21 nh and ne replaces the FIRST ONE not the second one. But that is how he gets around Isa's clear teaching that the nh and ne cannot be the eternal state. See my newest argument
I am aware that some hold to this view, but I'd like to know on what basis this distinction is made (keeping in mind that John 11:25, 26 shows that one can live - no more death - even if one dies). I'm wondering: which NH and NE was Peter looking for? The Isa. 65 or Rev. 21, 22? Is the the "Jerusalem above"/"heavenly Jerusalem" of Galatians 4 and Hebrews 12 the Isa. 65 Jerusalem or the Rev. 21, 22 Jerusalem? Or does one NT passage refer to Isa. and the other to Rev.? And so on and so on. But I guess the same issues could be brought up with the whole "coming in (local) judgment" on Jerusalem/"coming at the end of the world" issue as well.
PS The argument about Isa. 65 and Rev. 21, 22 speaking of different heavens, earths, and Jerusalem still does not address John 6 and 8:51. Obviously, since people who trust in Christ physically die, the death in view here in these passages is not physical, and therefore the meaning of "death" is limited. Likewise, as you, Mr. Bennett, and others clearly demonstrate, "". KP
Hello all, H.L. James here. I've posted a new article at www.AD70.com called "The Hole in Paul Manata's Donut (Why the TAAHP is Dead)," which goes over in detail how Paul Manata, by certain of his own admissions and in his own words, has refuted his own argument. Here is the link: http://www.ad70.com/writing/articles/h_l_james/manata_donut.html
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996