Preterism and Universalism

While not causally related, I suppose, there is a link between preterism—the belief that some or all of the events in Revelation have occurred already (known respectively as partial and full preterism)—and universalism.

The most obvious one is that if the judgments described have already passed (e.g., because they really refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70), then clearly they're not meant for those following afterward.  This, of course, ties neatly into the universalist's position that there isn't a final eternal judgment.

One of the interesting aspects of Universalism is that it is so often accompanied by different heresies, whether it's anti-trinitarianism or full preterism.  One wonders how far down the road the heresies must fall, since the resurrection is commonly mentioned with respect to judgment (Lu 14.14, 20.35 if we treat "worthy" as a statement concerning judgment; Jo 5.29; Ac 4.10–12, 17.31, 24.15; He 6.2; and others).

Not surprisingly, forgiveness is also tied to the resurrection; so in Ac 13.33 and others, the preaching of the gospel is a message of forgiveness.  The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is simultaneously an indication of a judgment to come and a proclamation that forgiveness is to be found in the person of Jesus.

While it would take too long to go down this path—it's late—I think it's worth noting the tie-in to the law, too.  In this same passage in Acts, Paul in preaching to the Jews notes that through Jesus Christ one is justified from all those things that the law of Moses condemned.  In his famous passage concerning the resurrection, Paul also writes that the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law (1Co 15.56).  I think the idea here is that sin is a mini-death, and it is empowered through the law.

Full preterism, among its many faults, upends the entire structure of the arguments pertaining to resurrection.  Indeed, virtually the whole New Testament breaks down at this point.  Allowing that there is a fairly diverse spectrum of universalist beliefs (ranging from purgatory knock-offs to no-fault judgments and others), it seems to me that they also wildly mistake the message of the New Testament.

The resurrection means at least two things:  (1) that there is a future resurrection for all people—that Jesus rose from the dead is the proof of this; and (2) that this resurrection includes one for judgment.

Dr John Lennox Lecture

Dr John Lennox, a noted Irish apologist, recently gave a lecture at Proclamation Presbyterian Church.  My folks were in attendance and sent along the link to the lecture.

There are some good things in here.  I noted that he does a good job of distinguishing between philosophical materialism and science itself.  Giving credit where it's due, he points out well that science owes a great deal of its advancement to theism.  Lots of good stuff there.

The talk is about half an hour, and 20 minutes are dedicated to Q&A.

Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom

In the car on the way to a wedding this past week, I listened (again) to one of Tim Keller's sermons on the passion of Jesus Christ.  It reinforced how much of a defeat the cross really must have been.  When Jesus says, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," it simply isn't martyr material.  It isn't inspiring.  If we look at the cross without the resurrection, it's a complete failure.

I was reminded of 1995's Braveheart while listening to the sermon.  William Wallace's last word—an impossibly long word—was the revolution-inspiring Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedom! Of course it's a movie, but this is what we build:  this is what inspires.  There is a part of us that is comforted when  William Wallace dies that horrible death:  he may die, but his movement (we know) will endure.  Scotland will be free.

This is not like that.  Not at all.  It is the cry of defeat.  And the disciples are anything but inspired.  They are defeated and scared men, hiding in the Upper Room and wondering what should be done.  The resurrected Jesus does not find inspired disciples on the road to Emmaeus:  he finds disappointed ones.

I find this so compelling.  What does it mean to us that there is defeat in the cross?  It means that the death that Jesus died was a real defeat:  but it was not a defeat of God's forgiveness or God's glory.  It was rather the defeat of the sin that once held such sway over our hearts.  It was the utter and complete defeat of death:  death died when Jesus Christ died, because he rose again from the grave.

The victory of the resurrection triumphs over all despair, all sin, all death.  Jesus Christ is the archvictor.  He is not an inspiring martyr who remains in the grave, but the risen and conquering Lord.  Who is this King of Glory?  He is the Lord of Hosts.