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
More Refutation of Paul Manata's TAAHP Argument Regarding Liars in the New Heavens and Earth
By Michael Krall
In Paul Manata's Transcendental Argument Against HyperPreterism, he states over and over again that since all liars, and all means all no matter what, will in no wise enter the gates of the New Havens and New Earth (hereby NH and NE) that is proof that the NH and NE cannot be what we are living in how. He so states it this way:
“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 therefore 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.
Now Mr. Manata is quite emphatic that all heretical doctrine is a lie so since we are debating this issue and one side or the other is the liar it disproves the preterist position. In a previous article we have shown how the Scripture clearly shows the NH and NE is indeed the gospel age but we have not dealt as much on this issue of liars in the NH and NE. Rather than give biblical support for what constitutes a liar we want to just use Mr. Manata’s own argument against him to show that his premise is impossible to use.
Mr. M considers us “hyperpreterists“ non believers because we promote a lie which is false doctrine. Therefore we are not in the New Covenant (the internal one as he has stated since he has an outward New Covenant and an inward one). So according to his own concept there are no liars in the New Covenant (hereby NC) because it is not made up of any that promote heresy else he would have to consider us brethren. It is obvious that since ALL liars will have their place in the lake of fire as per Rev 21:8 none can be in the NC unless MR M. believes one can lose their salvation which we know he does not believe. So for Mr. M’s argument to be valid us “hyperpretersts” have to be considered Christians proving our concept of the NH and NE is wrong. That way the existence of liars in what we call the NH and NE proves we are not in the NH and NE since we are liars and none will be in it that are liars. But here is his dilemma -once he has taken all those that hold to false doctrine out of the NC, then he has a NC here on earth that excludes all liars. Since he has a NC that has no liars what basis does he have to say that the NH and NE cannot be the NC since both have no liars in it?
For Mr. M’s argument to be valid “hyperpretersts” would have to be considered Christians, for the presence liars in the NC (which we say is the NH and NE) is his argument against us. But then this becomes a vicious circle for if that is the case then we are not liars because we are Christians therefore we will not be in the lake of fire where ALL liars without exception will go. But if “hyperpreterists” will be in lake of fire that means we were never in the NC, therefore never in the NH and NE so that would make his argument null and void. He cant win with is own argument.
All false doctrine is a lie putting all those that preach it in lake of fire, AND OUTSIDE THE NEW COVENANT ( and the NH and NE) refuting his notion that the NC cannot be the NH and NE. His whole argument regarding no liars in the NH and NE is based upon this premise but he himself admits- that those holding to false doctrine are indeed outside the pale of that covenant. So where is his argument now?
Lets us summarize the premise we assert to disprove his logic.
All false doctrine is a lie putting all those that preach it in lake of fire, so therefore they are outside the NC as well as the NH and NE. This takes away his argument against the NH and NE being the NC. Either that or false doctrine is not a lie and us “hyperpreterists” are Christians and in the NC. Then his argument fails there too for then there would be no liars in the NH and NE since false doctrine would not be a lie.
To put it even more simply since there is no false doctrine in the NH and NE there is also then none in the NC for Jeremiah said concerning the NC “they shall ALL know me from the least to the greatest.” Since that is the case, no false doctrine is in either the NH and NE or the NC then where is the argument against them being the same thing.
Before closing this brief article we would like to quote David Chilton from Days of Vengeance (pps. 357-358 ) on Rev 14:5 which he wrote when he still believed “hyperpreterism” was heretical but later came to embrace it. We might add that Mr. Chilton held to a similar eschatological view as Mr. M when he wrote this and certainly would not have agreed with Mr. M’s TAAHP argument. [emphasis ours]
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” (Rom. 1:22-25). 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 servant prophets 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. 3:12-13)
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 12:22-23 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.” For St. John, Zion “is neither in Jerusalem nor above the clouds; it is the whole assembly of the saints, living and departed.”
So we leave this article with this pertinent question to Mr. Manata and those that agree with him.
Among the liars that will have their place in the lake of fire are there any in the New Covenant which Jeremiah said “they shall ALL know me from the least to the greatest?”
If you say no then your argument against the NH and NE being the NC has just been rendered null and void.
What do YOU think ?
Goodness me, all one has to do is ask Mr Manata is, is he ever prone to tell a lie, that should soon sort out whether or not he's in the NC, according to his own standard.
I would really be interested in Mr Manata's response to the last question asked in this article. It would be interesting for the whole of the article is summed up in that one question. Miquel Santa Maria
Well it looks like you wont get your wish Miquel since it looks like Paul Manata gave up in responding. Can't say as I blame him seeing this article clearly shows his argument meaningless. Of course it doesnt prove full preterism for there are partial preterists that believe the nh and ne is the new covenant but it at least takes away this particular argument once and for all. James P.
Yeah I pointed out that issue with some PP's and the NH and NE in a post elsewhere on the issue, James P. (either Krall's other article on the issue or Manata's). KP
Dear Sir: I am a disillusioned Preterst and a born again believer. Spent 45 years in a local Baptist and have real peace, joy and contentment in watching the News as God works out His continuing plan. God made the earth be be inhabted. Trust you will study Peterism more intently on http://www.peteristarchive.com or www.planepreterist.com. In God Grace, Bob USMC Korean Veteran 1385573
Krall asks me: "Among the liars that will have their place in the lake of fire are there any in the New Covenant which Jeremiah said “they shall ALL know me from the least to the greatest?” If you say no then your argument against the NH and NE being the NC has just been rendered null and void." I don't have the supposed argument that you think I do. Forget the names. I will now use "city" for your sake. If what YOUR saying is true then there are NONE who teach false doctrine in the city. Since even HPs debate (e,g,m Lords supper) which ones are in the city? Now, if you don't think that ALL liars being excluded means ALL then you have SOME entering into a place where "NOTHING unclean shall enter into it!!!!!!!" Which is it? -Paul
Paul I'll ask you again ARE THERE ANY LIARS IN THE NEW COVENANT OF WHICH JEREMIAH SAID ALL WILL KNOW THE LORD?
One more question Paul. ARE THERE ANY THAT ARE "UNCLEAN" IN THAT SAME NEW COVENANT? mk
IM BAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCKKK HEE HAW HEE HAW. I am glad to see our friend Paul is back. I have been waiting and hoping he would. Now if he will just answer those questions. Ken Mathis
I think that Preterist Archives needs to have an age limit and keep people under the age of 13 out...like ken. ken I will not respond to you. Hey ken, are you the one who came on PB and lied by saying that you hold to the WCF or LBC? I think so, since that person said, "u da ma" just like you. This is pathetic! MK, to answer your question: YES THERE ARE! Now what! Also, you need to write a paper refuting infant baptism and covenant theologies concept of internal/external members of the covenant. I said in another post, which members of the covenant are you talking about? The external or internal? Furthermore, not everyone in the cog internally agrees on ALL their doctrine, so of course some of them are liars! -Paul
Paul I have written extensively on the errors covenant theology and fully reject it but that is not the issue. (i have an unpublished book on it that hopefully will be in print in the near future) Since you think that some that are in the covenant will ultimately wind up in the lake of fire where ALL LIARS will go then you have to believe that one can lose their salvation. For Jeremiah says those in that covenant will ALL KNOW ME so those that ultimately go to hell once knew the Lord according to you. Now you say some in the cog are liars then they will go to hell for ALL LIARS will be in hell. But the Bible is clear that in the NC they shall all know the Lord and all will have the fear of God in them. Notice Jeremiah's words in Jeremiah 32:40 "And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me." ....Now Paul who am I to listen to Jeremiah or you? We read here that those who are in the covenant (internal for you) will not wind up in the lake of fire. So since that is the case your argument for the (internal) New Covenant not being the NH and NE falls to pieces. To make my point let me rephrase my question. ARE THERE ANY LIARS OR UNCLEAN PERSON IN THE INTERNAL NEW COVENANT? mk
MK, YES THERE ARE! (1) deal with progressive sanctification. (2) Deal with, we are glorified, sanctified BEFORE we enter the NH and E/city. (3) There will be NONE of the liars THERE!!! (4) Show me a passage that says "there will be lying BEFORE the NH and E? (5) There will be NO lYING in the CITY. Lying is teaching false doctrine. Why do HPs debate about, say the lords supper? Who, then, is in the city. (6) John 15: teaches us that there are some branches "IN HIM" that will be cut off. and some that are 'IN HIM" that will not be cut off. Now, if EVERYONE "IN CHRIST" is ELECT, then YOU teach that people can loose their salvation. Who should I believe John or you? (7) Peter tells us of the who were "bought with the blood of the master" (8) Heb. 10 tells us that the lord will judge "HIS PEOPLE" note these people are NOT OC members since they have "trampled under foot the Son and counted as unholy the blood of the covenant which SANCTIFIED them." (9) "They shall all know me" refers to all kinds not just jews. (10) AGAIN!!! lying is to teach false doctrine, why are there liars in the city which you say has NO liars there? (11) why do I have to keep answering your questions and you don't answer mine? (12) WHy are there liars in the city? (13) why are there liars in the city? -Paul
No Paul there is no teaching in Scripture of progressive sanctification 1Cor 6:11 says "YE ARE sanctified" an aorist indicative. All in the NC are sanctified. I guess not only do you believe in one losing salvation you must also believe in perfectionism before you die. Because according to you if you die with ONE FALSE DOCTRINE OF ANY KIND you are a liar and will go to hell. You my friend have a works gospel for sure.
One more point Paul. The passage in Heb 10:29 about being sanctified by the blood the HE there is Christ not the person in the covenant. If I remember correctly Owen agrees with me on that as he does on the NH and NE. (or should I say I agree with him)
One more thing - no there are no liars in the NC as there are no unclean. The bible defines a liar not Paul Manata and as the Chilton quote shows from Zeph and Rev 14 all true believes are not liars for all liars will be in lake of fire and were never in NC or nh and ne. mk
boy Paul all you legal begals are all alike no sense of humor. Lighten up. It was you that called me a donkey HEE HAW HEE HAW LOL and no I am not the one that PB whatever it is. ken
Paul, I was just thinking on the extremes u have to go to in order to make ur view consistent. First u tell me that the Isaiah's nh and ne is not Rev 21-22's when it is clear that it is the same thing and then u have to, in theory, agree with the arminian and the prefectionist to try to stay consistent with ur position on liars in the NC. Let me just make a statement that clearly will disprove ur notion that Isaiah's and John's nh and ne arent the same. In Rev 21 we are told that when the nh and ne earth appears the FIRST ONE PASSES AWAY .THATS RIGHT PAUL THE FIRST ONE PASSES AWAY. WHICH ONE IS THAT PAUL? According to you the Isaiah nh and ne precedes the Rev 21 nh and ne so why is it called the first one and not the second one that passes away? Since Isaiah's replaces a heavens and earth which one is the first one that the Rev 21 one replaces the one before the Isaiah one appears or the one Isaiah speaks of? mk
I dont know what this Paul believes or what kind of church he is affiliated with but it does seem to me that he has a strange view on the covenant of grace. A view I am not familar with. And it does sound like he is teaching some kind of works perfectionism. I can be wrong but that is what it looks like to me. Miguel Santa Maria
Hey guys, H.L. James here. The statement about Manata teaching works perfection is pretty close to the mark. Manata teaches that all mankind will eventually be epistemologically equal to God. If you consider the implications of that you'll see that Paul Manata has a very loose grasp of many essentials of Christianity. Imagine being epistemologically equal to God almighty. Paul fails to believe that epistemological equality with God is not one of the promises of the New Covenant the Bible teaches. It sounds more like Zen. - H.L. James - www.ad70.com - Beyond the End Times Preterist Radio Broadcast
H.L. JAMES! Quote me where I teach that. You have sunk to new lows! I have NEVER said that we will be epistemologically equal to GOD! YOU ARE A LIAR! AGAIN QUOTE ME OR PUBLICLY REPENT AND RECANT! Furthermore, I have NEVER said that we have to die with NO LIES. I said that BEFORE we enter into the place where NO LIARS are we will be glorified and sanctified (finally). You have publicly slandered/libel me. All I have said is that we will not be debating doctrine in heaven. MK, you can quote your past tense verse (even though it was writtne BEFORE 70 a.d. oops) because you don't understand sanctification. I can also quote verses. Heb. 10:14 "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those WHO ARE BEING SANCTIFIED." MK, you say that the BIBLE defines liar." I know, Prov.30:6" whoever adds to the word of the Lord is a liar!!!" Now, one of us has added to the words of the Lord! Oh, now you don't want to let the Bible define liar! I will ask, again, the question EVERYBODY has been avoiding like the plague. In the city it says that NO/NONE liars will be there...right? And it says that "NOTHING UNCLEAN SHALL EVER ENTER INTO IT." Now, (1) does ALL liars mean all? (2) If it does mean ALL the kinds the Bible mentiones it means those who contradict God's words as well. (3) Then, why are there contradictory teachings within the city? (4) If it doesn't mean ALL, then you have to say that SOME are allowed in...right? (5) But how can SOME enter a place where NOTHING unclean shall enter it? You guys cannot dodge forever. Deal with my arguments. WHY ARE THERE LIARS IN THE CITY????
Again, take back your lies you have spread H.L. or else quote me where i say we can be epistemically equal with God. NEVER! We can only know thing analogously. God is ALWAYS the standard. btw, who teaches perfectionism? You say that we are already sanctified. That's a shame since I sin on a daily basis. Darned sanctification. I mean, whats the difference between being fully sanctified and not sanctified? If I do not get an apology for the lies than I will not respond again and this post will stand as a testimony! -Paul
Paul, you are shoe horning your theology to fit the debate. Regarding sanctification in Heb 10 yes it is a present participle there but the present tense is used for justification in such passages as as Rom 3:24.Does that mean justification is progressive?
You to teach perfectionism and arminianism theoretically because you say that among the liars that are in the lake of fire some of them were in the NC that Jer said knew the Lord. When asked "ARE THERE ANY LIARS OR UNCLEAN PERSON IN THE INTERNAL NEW COVENANT?" you responed
"MK, YES THERE ARE! (1) deal with progressive sanctification." So you are saying that there are liars in the NC but through progressive sanctification they dont die liars else how can they enter. According to your view no one that has false doctrine when they die enter the city so only those that have all the truth when they die. If holding false doctrine makes one a liar that goes for ALL FALSE DOCTRINE including infant baptism if the Baptists are right and visa versa. One of the 2 will die a liar. Same with the amil verses premil verses postmil verses preterism. Only one of them is right and the others are liars so all cannot be in the city. Baptists and paedorhantists cannot both be in heaven according to that concept.
Now you say there are the unclean and liars in the "internal" NC so therefore you must believe one can lose salvation since they break the covenant.
If I misquoted you then forgive me. If you did not say there are liars and unclean in the internal covenant please state so else I will continue to quote you as having said it.
Also I didn't say we are sanctified THE APOSTLE PAUL SAID IT! It does not mean we are without sin. Inanimate objects were sanctified in the OT. It means seperated unto devotion. All of God's regenerated children are sanctified. They are all washed in the blood and there is not a liar among them because they are complete in him. Now to clear things up please clarify if you believe liars and unclean are in the INTERNAL COVENANT and if so are they regenerate? I want to make sure I am not misquoting you.
You said you cannot be sanctified because you sin. Well how do you expect to enter that city then since nothing that works an abomination enters. Are you totally free from lying all the time and if not if you died this minute how can you expect to enter that city? mk
IS SOMEONE GOING TO FACE THE CHARGES I HAVE LEVELED? Libel was committed! H.L. James lied! MK, you seem to not understand orthodox teaching. We face thr judgement BEFORE the NH and E/CITY is here. Therefore, BEFORE I enter the city I will have been glorified and sanctified, finally. In the city, no one will be debating doctrine because there ARE NO LIARS THERE. Why are you leaving out christian teaching? You should know these answers. The problem is that you say WE ARE in the city NOW. Ummm, why are there liars there then? Are you going to answer this or avoid it like H.L. James? MK I CHALLENGE YOU. Answer the questions or stop responding. Since there will be NO/NONE/ZERO liars in the city, and since teaching something which contradicts the word of God si to teach a lie, why do people debate contradictory doctrines in the city? Answer it! You can say that ALL does not mean ALL, then how do you have SOME entering a place in which NOTHING can enter? Are you going to deal with this? If not, then stop your responses. It is funny how I keep asking the SAME questions but you want to talk about sanctification and justification and other things. Deal with it MK. Finally, I am not going to debate you on the issues of sanctification and justification and glorification. We are dealing with my argument now. If you want to know about those things go read Dabney, Hodge, Van Til, Berkof, Warfield. In them you will find my answers. It's no surprise that there is nothing new under the sun. Now, answer my questions directly or admit you have none and have wasted time writting your "refutations" which have not even touched my argument. (Again, H.L you need to give the quotes or all here will know you are a liar). -paul
Miquel here to Paul and MK. From what I am reading here something isnt fitting. It seems to me that Paul is saying, or at least MK states he does, that there are liars in the new covenant but that they wont be when they die. I must admit it does seem as if this is what Paul said in his post. If that is not the case I dont understand how there can be any that will finally be in the lake of fire that were once in the NC. As Paul pointed out it does say ALL liars will be in the lake so how can any of them be in the new covenant? Just my humble opinion. Miquel Santa Maria
because the lake of fire is future. becasue we stand before the judgement throne in the future. because we will be glorified and finally sanctified BEFORE we enter the city! now, God has chosen to have us grow in sanctifiaction. now, we still suffer from the noetic effects of sin. therefore, orthodox christianity can account for why there are contradictory doctrines (liars) within the covenant. HP cannot, it positis that we are already there, if so, why the debating contradictory doctrines? Oh, I forgot. ALL liars does not mean ALL. then how can SOME of the class of liars enter into a place that NONE of the class of liars can? Remmeber I have shown that the Bible includes those who add to God's one revealed truth as someone who lies. E.G., arminianism is a lie, dispensationalism is a lie. Now, by the law on ~contradiction either HPs teach a lie or I do, either the HPs who say we should take the Lords supper are lying or the ones who say we shouldn't are. How can you account for what our debate presupposes Miquel, i.e., one of us is lying? -Paul
Paul, you just defeated your own argument of progressive sanctifcation. If we become completely holy the moment we die, then there is no need for progressive sanctification. The wicked sinner that gets converted and dies right away is as holy when he dies then the christian living for Christ 50 years. It comes instantly at death then. The moment one is converted they have enough holiness to get to heaven for Christ is their sanctification 1Cor 1:30. The difference between what you teach and what the bible teaches is that you believe those in the NC are still unclean, lying sinners (since all in the NC have to be liars since all false doctrine is a lie and no one has all the truth now)and the bible teaches that Christ is the believer's sanctification so we have it now and will fully enjoy it the moment we leave this world and enter with our glorifed body in the presense of God. If you say that you dont believe that the all in the NC are lying unclean sinners then you contract your own position else you think there are those with perfect truth and not one bit or error. Do you know any that fit that? If so who I would like to pick their brain. Here is another question for you: ARE YOU FREE FROM ALL FALSE DOCTRINE WHATSOEVER TO THE POINT THAT YOU HAVE NOT ONE SINGLE DOCTRINE THAT IS FALSE? If yes then give me your ph# so I can pick your brain and sit at your feet, if not YOU WILL BE IN THE LAKE OF FIRE WHERE ALLLLLLLLLLLL LIARS WILL BE. mk
To Paul: What was Peter referring to in 2Peter when he says we look for a promise of a new heavens and new earth? What passage of Scripture did he point to as containing the promise? I ask this because of what was posted a few messages ago. It is confusing to me. Miquel Santa Maria
So, Miquel and MK flat out refuse to play! Anyone can see that I asked SPECIFIC questiones and they have not been touched. ATT: ALL HP are any of you going to stand up. Miquel i asked YOU questions and then in typical Krallian/H.Lian fashion you ignore and ask your question. Now, Krall, were you going to deal with my questions or not? Out of kindness I will AGAIN address your specific questions and then hope that you will finally address mine. In I John we read that if "any sin we have an advocate with the father." It is NOT US who are clean, it is by trusting in Christ's cleanliness. God credits Christs' righteousness to our account. We are POSITIONALLY clean and sanctified before the Father. But, He has chosen to have us grow in our sanctification TEMPORALLY. This is God's choice. The Bible speaks of sanctification in 3 tenses, past, present, and future. We are being made Holy. You guys are confusing the tenses. From God's point of view it is sure that the elect are sanctified, God will accomplish His goal. So he can say that we are sanctified (cf. Rom. 8:28), but it is also said that we are "being sanctified" (cf. Heb. 10:14), why these two "contradictions(?)". Also, you believe that we were sanctified at 70 a.d., then why quote passages that say were were sanctified (past tense) whivh were written BEFORE 70 a.d.? Furthermore, it is a non-sequitar to say that "since we are fully sanctified when we die then we don't need progressive sanctification." How does this follow, logically? And no, I am not free from false doctrine, my point though is that: YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE IF YOUR POSITION WERE CORRECT! If you are not, then you teach and believe a lie in a place that has NO liars there?!?!?!?! Yes, Mike, we are dirty rotten sinners, all our righteousness are like dirty rags before God, and at finl judgement all I can do is fall on my face before the Savior. AFTER I have been judged "not guilty" I will the enter a place where NO LIARS are and AT THAT TIME I will not teach contradictory doctrines. I will not be debating Arminians. You had better watch out Mike, the Scriptures tell us to run so as not to be discredited from thr prize. They tell us to make our calling and election sure. We certainly are being progressively sanctified. Again, read up on our orthodox brothers who have written exstensively on the subjects of sanctification and justification. In fact, read the WCF for my position. Now, I have endlessly addressed your questions, will you please answer my above specific questions. Quote me and then respond. Btw, I AM STILL WAITING FOR H.L. TO MAKE GOOD ON HIS ACCUSATION THAT I TEACH WE CAN BE EPISTEMICALLY = TO GOD!! I would like to see this. I guess H.L. isn't in the city since NO LIARS are there and he agreed that "ALL meant ALL" LOL. -Paul
Paul, I have answered your question about liars I dont know how many times. If you concept of liars is the correct one than no one gets to heaven unless they have all doctrine correct. Now regarding sanctification I do not hold to progressive sanctification nor did I as an amill. My view on that is no different than the likes of JC Philpot, William Gadsby, William Huntington, John Irons and a host of other men of bygone generation. But I am not about to turn this into argument on sanctification. I will leave that for now. Your view on the NC is one that I cannot even fathom. You are suppose to be a calvinst but you say that some of the liars that will be in the lake of fire were in the "internal" NC as liars the very covenant that Jer says all will know the Lord and all will have the fear of God in them that they will NOT depart from me. You MUST say that in order to shoe horn you view into your own schema. Let again quote Zeph.......... 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. 3:12-13) Now what can be plainer. Is that a description of the NC believer or not? If it is then there is your answer and that is what is being referred to in Rev 21. Yes it has a more full fulfillment when the believer dies but it is true now in the NC. And you no full well that there are many in your camp, postmil that agree that the NC is the nh and ne they just see a double fulfillment as we do....... Now your statement that we believe we were sanctified at ad70 shows how little you know of what I believe. The ad70 event was that of covenantal change and the new Exodus out of the Old Covenant into the full establishment of the NC Heb 10:9. Santification is at regeneration 2Thes 2:14...................Now I noticed you did not answer the question of Miquel about what promise Peter was referring to. For Miguel: I asked Paul this in email and I do not remember if he ever answered it but he cannot say it is Isa for that would wreck his whole argument but he knows full well that men like John Owen and many post mils today do not see any distinction. To Paul: I would be interested in your answer to that question regarding Peter and where the promise is...............If I have not answered your question or questions then please do me a favor and post it in a short simple post so I can fully understand what u want me to answer. I again say there are no liars in the NC nor the nh and ne because of it is clear from Scripture that all in Christ are sanctified. You say positionally only ok fine. Then why cant Rev 21 be referring to that aspect in the here and now to later be fulfilled when one dies? Btw the problem you will have with your position is regarding entering the city fully sanctified AT DEATH is that the nh and ne is FUTURE TO YOU so how can you receive its blessings at death for it is at least 1000 years in the future for you postmils? Or do you somehow bypass all that at death? mk
To Miquel: You asked a good question and one that I have asked him in email. There is no other OT verse that speaks of a nh and ne so it can be no other than the one in Isaiah. In addition the one in Rev 21 replaces the FIRST ONE not the second one so if he has the Isa one to be something that precedes the one in Rev 21-22 he has a real problem with Rev 21:1 where the first one passes away. I dont recall him ever answering the question in email though he might have. I have all the emails in my archives and cant find any answer from him. Maybe nhe will deal with it here as well as Rev 21 where it says the FIRST passes away. That proposes a real problem for him. mk
(1) I will not answer Miquel until he responds to me. (2) MK you commit the "et tu" fallacy. That is, you think that you don't need to answer my question by saying, in effect, "well you to, you to, have a probelm." Well maybe I do, maybe I don't, but we are not debating that are we. What we are debating is that Rev. tells us that ALL liars will not be in the city...right...all? Now, since teaching doctrine which contradicts God's revelation is to teach a lie, then why are liars in the city? My question will be built up, so please bear with me. Question #1. Does ALL liars mean ALL liars (e.g., those who deny Christ, those who don't obey His commandements, and those who add to the word of the Lord, or teach contradictory doctines)? That is my first question. Does ALL mean ALL? (as a side note: your "answer" does not touch my argument. Because it is not our righteousness that we are let into heaven, it is on Christ's. So NO LIAR WILL ENTER HEAVEN, but "we have an advocate before the father." God will not look at my lies but rather Christ's life/death. Then, AFTER I am sanctified and glorified will I enter a place where NOTHING unclean can enter it. therefore, I DO NOT ENTER INTO IT UNCLEAN, and YES I would not teach false doctrine there. Now, you can say, "well, the same with us." But then, why are there liars there? oops, that was two questions=) So, just answer the above one. Then I will follow with my second, since I;m just trying to learn here.) -paul
Paul, ALL LIARS will be in the lake of fire and NO LIARS ARE IN THE NEW COVENANT read Zeph 3 again. If wrong doctrine makes one a liar and that is not cleansed by the blood of Christ making then only those like you with all the right theology will be in heaven. You argument fails Paul because you cannot see that ALL IN THE NC are not seen as unclean and liars even though in reality we still are all sinners. Why is it so hard for you to see that Rev 21 is speaking "positionally" in the here and now. Now answer my questions and Miquel. Until you do I will just refrain from answering and continue to work on part 3 of my refutation that I am doing right now.mk
To Paul and MK: I am not interested in getting into a deep debate over these things I just wanted to see what Paul thinks regarding 2Pet and the promise. If he doesnt want to answer or cannot that is ok. Regarding what Paul is asking me I am not sure I understand what he it is. Miquel Santa Maria.
Paul, One final statement that will not include a question. This will be my last till you respond to miquel's question. Here is my statement. All true believers the moment they enter the NC are as perfect and holy in God's eyes at that very moment then they will ever be in eternity. Notice I said in God's eyes. Since that is the case there are NO LIARS or sinners in the NC as there arent in the NH and NE. Deny that statement of what the believer is in God's eyes and one denies the heart of the atonement of Christ. mk
HEY MIQUEL AND MK MY BET IS HE WONT ANSWER. AND IF HE DOES IT WILL BE SOME DIATRIBE THAT EVADES THE ISSUE----------------HEE HAW HEE HAW
Mike K.-I guess your last statement is the one I'm wondering about too. If we have our righteousness in Christ, do we not have it until after the final judgement? If we are in Christ now, therefore not liars, why can't we be in the "city" now. Paul says in one of his comments above, that it's only in Christ that he can enter. Are we not in Christ now? He says he's awaiting the "final judgement" to be found not guilty. As Michael Bennett stated: "" Anyway, thanks for the good articles. Scott
Scott: Yes it is kind of strange how he talks of positional in Christ and sanctified but doesnt see that we are as perfect before God as we ever will be for all eternity for we are perfect in Christ right here and now. mk
I see it has been really hopping here for a few days and then everything went quiet. I would also be interested in the answer to Miquel's question regarding Peter and the promise. I have been reading all these messages and would be curious as to what Peter is referring to if not Isaiah. I can't see how Isaiah cannot be talking about the same thing as John in the Revelation. James P
IM BACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKK HEE HAW HEE HAW Where is da man Pauly..............
I want to comment that I think the tone of this whole thing is getting way out of hand. It is my observation that Paul’s attitude is less than Christ-like. Paul seems to confuse actions with position. Does one lie by a born again believer automatically make him into a liar that will not enter into the NHNE? Since I am a Calvinist, the answer is emphatically no. Second, all Paul has to do is read and study some of the articles on the preterist archive that have to do with 2 Peter 3 and the New Heavens and New Earth. Typing it here is merely a waste of time since it is obvious he has no interest in doing any of the studying we did to arrive at preterism. Third, if Paul is truly a Christian, then he needs to stop violating the ninth commandment by labeling preterists as “Hymenaens”. If he were intellectually honest, he would read and study Dr. Kelly Birks’ article on this very subject. And, after reading it, he still doesn’t agree, he should then be Christ-like and stop with the name calling. Fourth, in some of his above comments he was referring to some posts on the Puritan Board website, where two preterists engaged in cyber space debate with Paul and some other folks who insist that we are heretics. The springboard there was this same “Transcentental Argument” article he posted here. I would highly encourage a thorough reading of these exchanges, as it will give you a good idea into Paul's true nature Part 1:
that board have a very immature and contentious attitude in how they treated two preterists that posted on there. Granted the preterists should not have posted there to begin with, as they did not adhere to the Puritan Board’s rules for posting, but that does not excuse Paul’s and the others’ sinful behavior. Galatians 5:13 through 6:10 makes it CLEAR that those who are spiritual are to restore heretics (so accused by Paul and Company) in a gentle manner (Gal. 5:20 and 6:1). It also states that those who practice the works of the flesh such as contentions (such as Paul and Company) shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19). I would also remind Paul that if you do not forgive others, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive you. The preterist that lied to get onto the Puritan Board admitted as much and asked to be forgiven; instead he was shot down by Paul and Company. Paul and Company’s fruit of the Spirit is missing love, peace, and gentleness for preterists with whom they disagree. It is hurtful to the body of Christ and must grieve the Holy Spirit. Respectfully, Paul and Company, it’s time for you to remove the plank from your own eye. Signed 57chevypreterist
Its time to move on to my third installment in this saga http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/krall-mike_04_p_03.html mk
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