PreteristArchive.com
World Wide Web

Crosswalk Bible Study Tools

Words/Verses:
Located Where:
 Which Version:  
  Tools!         HELP / OT Tools | NT Tools

Translate | Gateway | Vine's | Greek NT-Lex | Aramaic Bible-Lex-JasLex-Targum | Concordance | Alts / Vars / TC | Greek / Hebrew Fonts | Google Books


The Destruction of Jerusalem, By Kaulbach


End Times Chart

American Vision
Historical Preterism
Planet Preterist
Modern Preterism
Preterist Site
Critical of "Hyper Preterism"

Samuel Lee: Preliminary Dissertations on Eusebius' Theophany (1843) Amazing early Modern Preterist quote by Lee: "the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise; all these predicted empires have actually fallen, and the new kingdom, the new heaven and earth, the new Jerusalem--all of which were to descend from God, to be formed by His power, have been realised on earth ; all these things have been done in the sight of all the nations"


Add Your Comments at Bottom

 

What do Preterists Believe About the Lord's Supper?

By David Green

Potentially Gentry | The Arbitrary Principle of Hyper-Creedalism | 101 Preterist Passages in the New Testament | What do Preterists Believe About the Lord's Supper? | And it Came to Pass | New Covenant Salvation | Preterism and the Ecumenical Creeds | The Gift of Tongues and That Which is Perfect | The Great and Terrible Day of the Lord | Baptism Now Saves You| Scripture's Anti-Dualistic Doctrine of the Eternality of Evil | GARY NORTH: Postmillennial or Neo-Manichean? | The Bible Answer Man | Preterist Cosmos

QUESTION 75: What do preterists believe about the Lord's Supper? Do they still practice it today, or do they think it was abolished in A.D. 70?
 

ANSWER: Preterists are divided on this issue, although it seems that most preterists today hold to the continuation of the Lord's Supper. Below are the seven primary “Continuation-Versus-Cessation” arguments that are being discussed among preterists. (The first four are Cessation arguments with Continuation responses, and the last three are Continuation arguments with Cessation responses.)
 

1. “Until He Comes”
 

Cessation argument: For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.” (I Cor. 11:26) The Lord came in A.D. 70. This means the Church is not commanded to proclaim the Lord's death by means of “the Lord's Supper” after A.D. 70.
 

Continuation response: The word “until” does not necessarily imply a termination. For example, Christ was to reign “until” He put all His enemies under His feet. (I Cor. 15:25; cf. I Tim. 4:13) “Until” cannot mean a termination in that verse because Christ reigns forever. (Dan. 7:14; Lk. 1:33; Heb. 1:8) “Until” in I Cor. 11:26 implies a culmination and establishment, not a termination.
 

2. “Until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God”
 

Cessation argument: For I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” (Lk. 22:16) The Lord's Supper was an unfulfilled ritual and sign. It foreshadowed “Christ in you.” Therefore it was “fulfilled” when Christ made His Dwelling in the Church in A.D. 70. (Jn. 14:23; Gal. 4:19; Eph. 2:21-22; 3:17; Col. 1:27; II Peter 1:19; Rev. 3:20; 21:2-3) Now we dine with Him in the Kingdom, and no longer through a symbolic, fleshly ordinance.
 

Continuation response: “Fulfilled” does not necessarily imply a change from material to non-material. The truth that the Lord's Supper represents was brought to fullness in Christ in A.D. 70, but that does not mean that the Lord's Supper itself was to cease. Christ partakes of the Lord's Supper with us now in the Spirit as we partake of it physically on Earth.
 

3. “Until that Day when I drink it new with you in My Father's Kingdom”
 

Cessation argument: But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that Day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” (Matt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:16-18) We dine with Christ in a “new” way today, that is, in the New Covenant way. He partakes of the "new wine" of the Kingdom (“the Vine”) with us, not in the old covenant way, as He did in the "transition era"; not through a symbolic, fleshly ordinance, but in a non-ceremonial, spiritual way. The Last Days symbol of "Christ in you" ("the Lord's Supper") was made "new" (Rev. 21:5) by the A.D.-70 fulfillment of "Christ in you."


Continuation response:
Since A.D. 70, Christ takes the Lord's Supper with us in a “new” way, i.e., with “new” meaning. The Lord's Supper is no longer a somber remembrance, but it is a celebration feast. Now He has Communion with us spiritually when we partake of the literal bread and wine.


4. Manna

The Manna that the Israelites ate and the drink that they drank in the wilderness represented the Lord's body and blood. (Jn. 6:31-56; I Cor. 10:3-4)  The Lord's Supper also represented the Lord's body and blood.  When the Israelites entered the Promised Land, the representative food and the representative drink ceased.  Likewise, when the New Testament Church entered the spiritual Promised Land in A.D. 70, the representative food and drink ("the Lord's Supper") ceased.

Continuation response: The manna and the Lord's Supper are not likened to each other in Scripture. They are contrasted. In Jn. 6:31-56, the manna is contrasted with the Lord's Supper, i.e., with Christ's “flesh and blood.” The manna was temporary. The Lord's Supper (His “flesh and blood”) is an eternal New Covenant ordinance. Likewise in I Cor. 10:3-4, the manna and the water in the wilderness were temporary, but the Lord's Supper (of which Paul speaks in the same chapter) is eternal.


5. Passover

Continuation argument: The Israelites took the Passover while they awaited their redemption in Egypt. Then after they entered the Promised Land, they continued to observe the Passover throughout the entire old covenant age. The Lord's Supper is the fulfillment / antitype of the Passover. The New Covenant Church took the Lord's Supper while it awaited its redemption from the old covenant age. (Lk. 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; 4:30) Then after the Church entered the (spiritual) Promised Land (in A.D. 70), it was to continue taking the Lord's Supper throughout the entire New Covenant Age. Just like the Passover, the Lord's Supper is an age long Covenant-ordinance.

Cessation response: "The Lord's Supper" was not the fulfillment / antitype of the Passover. "The Lord's Supper" was the Passover. (Lk. 22:15-16) It was a continuation of and a redefinition of the Passover for the Last Days Church. Because "the Lord's Supper" was itself the Passover, "the Lord's Supper" was fulfilled at the same time the Passover was fulfilled: In A.D. 70. Christ Himself in us is the Fulfillment / Antitype of the Passover (I Cor. 5:7-8) and of "the Lord's Supper." (Lk. 22:16)


6. Given to Gentiles

Continuation argument: The Lord's Supper was given to Gentile believers. This proves that it was not an “old covenant ritual.” It is therefore a New Covenant ordinance and is to be observed forever.

Cessation response: The Lord's Supper was a “transition ritual,” just like the revelatory gifts (tongues and prophecy) were “transition gifts” that were given to both Jews and gentiles, until the gifts were fulfilled and done away in A.D. 70. “The Lord's Supper” was likewise a sign to the Jews, to "proclaim the Lord's death” in all nations until He came and destroyed the hand-made, old covenant temple. (I Cor. 11:26)


7. Signs and Seals

Continuation argument: God always gave "signs and seals" with His covenants. This is the pattern of Scripture. Circumcision was the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant. (Gen. 17:10-14; Rom. 4:11) Under the New Covenant, we now have two "signs and seals": Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Cessation response: The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The "sign" of that covenant (circumcision) was fulfilled and replaced with spiritual circumcision (i.e., "the circumcision of Christ" in Col. 2:11), not with "the Lord's Supper" and ritual baptism. Christ Himself came to dwell in us in A.D. 70 in fulfillment of all the "signs" and of all the fleshly ordinances. (including "the Lord's Supper") He Himself is now our Bread (flesh) and Wine (blood). The New Covenant is a covenant of substance and fulfillment, not a covenant of more "signs."


George Tarabolsi, Preterist

1) Salvation is completed through baptism

This is pursuant to the Lord Jesus Christ's words: "He who believes and is
baptised will be saved" (Mark.16: 16). The Lord did not say: "He who
believes is saved", but He put the condition of baptism alongside the
condition of belief.

(2) Through baptism we receive the Second Birth which is of water and the
Spirit

(a) This is pursuant to the Lord Jesus Christ's words to Nicodemus: "Most
assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God" (John.3:3). The Lord explained this to him, saying: "Most
assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter the kingdom of God" (John.3: 5). Then He added "that which is
born of the Spirit is spirit. The wind blows where it wishes... So is everyone
who is born of the Spirit" (John.3: 6,8). Thus the Lord considers that
everyone who is born of water and the Spirit is born from above or born of the
Spirit. It also seems strange that some Protestant brethren want to water-down
this text by claiming that the Lord did not say, "unless one is baptised of
water and the Spirit", but, "unless one is born"! Of course there
is no doubt that both express the same thing, because what is the other meaning
of "born of water" except "to be baptised" since the
baptised comes out of the womb of the font and moreover the Apostle St. Paul
affirms the same meaning when he says:

(b) "...not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to
His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration" (Titus 3: 5).
And about the Church he said: "... that He might sanctify and cleanse it
with the washing of water by the word" (Eph.5: 26). The Apostle considered
that the washing of water (in baptism) is the washing of renewal and the washing
away of sins.

(3) Baptism washes away sins

This is according to the last two verses and also according to Ananias' words to
Saul: "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptised, and wash away
your sins" (Acts 22: 16). Here we see that one of the outcomes of baptism
is the washing away of sins. We are surprised at Saul's case: He was called by
the Lord Jesus Christ Himself to be an Apostle to the Gentiles and a chosen
vessel to bear His name and to suffer for the sake of His name (Acts 9: 15,16).
Nevertheless, his sins were not forgiven by his encounter with the Lord or by
his faith or by becoming an Apostle. He was still in need of baptism to wash
away his sins. Probably the Apostle Paul always remembered that washing away of
sins through baptism, so he said to the Corinthians: "But you were washed,
but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus
and by the Spirit of our God" (1Cor.6: 11). This was because they were
baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and received the forgiveness of
sins as St. Peter -had said to the Jews.

 

(4) In baptism there is forgiveness of sins

On the Day of Pentecost, when the Jews believed and were  cut to the heart, they
said to St. Peter and the other Apostles: "Men and brethren, what shall we
do?" Then St. Peter and the Apostles replied: "Repent, and let every
one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins" (Acts 2: 37,38). If the belief of the Jews was adequate for the
forgiveness of sins, the great Apostles would not have instructed them to be
baptised, especially on such an historical day; the day of establishing the
Church; the day on which important principles were being set up for salvation.
One may ask: How are sins forgiven in baptism? We reply:

(5) Baptism is dying with the Lord Jesus Christ and rising with Him

The Holy Bible says: "For the wages of sin is death" (Rom.6: 23). The
way of salvation began by death: the Lord Jesus Christ died for us. It is
necessary to die with the Lord Jesus Christ or at least to resemble Him in His
death as the Apostle says: "...that I may know Him and the power of His
resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His
death" (Phil.3: 10). This is achieved in baptism. How? The Apostle says:
"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptised into Christ Jesus
were baptised into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism
into death" (Rom.6: 3,4). And he continues to confirm this expression by
saying: "...we died with Him... we were buried with Him... we have been
united together in the likeness of His death... our old man was crucified with
Him." Confirming the same meaning, the Apostle also says in his Epistle to
the Colossians: "...buried with Him in baptism" (Col.2: 12).

But why all this? The Apostle says: "Now if we died with Christ, we believe
that we shall also live with Him" (Rom.6: 8). Therefore, baptism is
essential for salvation because it is sharing in Christ's death. It is a belief
in death as a means to life and it is a confession that the wages of sin is
death. In chapter six of the Epistle to the Romans, we notice two important
points:

(a) The phrase "buried with Him through baptism" means immersion as
when the body is lowered into the grave.

(b) It appears that one of the results of baptism is the crucifixion of our old
self.

(6) Another Result of baptism is newness of life

The Apostle says: "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into
death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father,
even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom.6: 4). The new life is
the life we receive through baptism. Therefore our old nature is renewed in
baptism. How?

 

(7) In baptism we put on Christ

The Apostle says: "For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put
on Christ" (Gal.3: 27). Is there a more  powerful phrase than this to
signify the great efficacy of baptism? We put on Christ... We put on His
righteousness which He bestows upon us in baptism, we put on salvation which He
bestows upon us in baptism by His blood, we put on God's image (Gen.1: 26) which
we lost through the original sin.


(8) In baptism we become members of the Church

There is no doubt that baptism was symbolised by circumcision in the Old
Testament. The Apostle St. Paul says about the Lord Jesus: "In Him you were
also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the
body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in
baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of
God, who raised Him from the dead" (Col.2: 11,12). It is known that in
circumcision a part of the body is cut off and it dies. This refers to the
complete death in baptism.
 


What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam Filtered and Posted Shortly..

Discussions | ARTchive | Guestbook | Databases | Paltalk | Yahoo Pret Chat




Date:
05 Aug 2002
Time:
12:50:15

Comments

The only question seems to be whether or not the Lord's Supper was the Passover. If so, then it makes perfect sense why Paul referred to a terminus to the event at the coming of the Lord.. And what other terminus could he be referring to except that great terminus that awaited that generation??


Date:
05 Aug 2002
Time:
21:00:50

Comments

Looks obvious to me cessation has more solid biblical support.


Date:
05 Aug 2002
Time:
21:12:27
Remote User:

Comments

Amen. If David Green has accurately represented the primary bases for continuation, then continuation is on highly dubious exegetical ground.


Date:
05 Aug 2002
Time:
23:33:38

Comments

Continuation has a legitimate response to #1, but in light of #'s 2-7, even #1 goes to the cessation side! Cessation 7. Continuation 0.


Date:
06 Aug 2002
Time:
03:23:46
Remote User:

Comments

It seems once you start down the road of truth (preterism), you will eventually have to give up all your old truditions. Why is it so hard to just worship in Spirit and Truth?


Date:
06 Aug 2002
Time:
14:23:58

Comments

Without ever discussing the this issue with anyone, I determined that "Lord's Supper" was not something I needed to practice as I had been taught, and therefore did not apply as it had been presented to me. I came to this conclusion purely by my own study and leading of the Spirit. I thought I must be crazy and dared not mention it to anyone. Now that I see others have come to the same conclusion, I think we maybe are all being lead by the same Spirit. Do any of you ever question by what Spirit are we being lead? While I feel that I am right, I don't ever feel that not capable of being wrong. When I start droping tradition, it's hard, and I get fought at every turn. Am I alone?


Date:
06 Aug 2002
Time:
19:15:38
Remote User:

Comments

Excellent! The Lord's Supper (the Passover) was the last days church's "Manna" "until" the Parousia, at which time the Lord's Supper was "fulfilled" and made "new" in the Kingdom. Which means, "Christ Himself came to dwell in us in A.D. 70 in fulfillment of ...'the Lord's Supper.' He Himself is now our Bread (flesh) and Wine (blood). The New Covenant is a covenant of substance and fulfillment, not a covenant of more 'signs.'" Solid! Keep up the good work.


Date:
07 Aug 2002
Time:
11:42:16

Comments

Is there anyone out there who thinks that these "continuation arguments," taken as a whole, really have any biblical weight?? The only way that are convincing is if we assume they are true!


Date:
08 Aug 2002
Time:
05:03:24
Remote User:

Comments

Bro David: In love I submit you still have a Terminal Eschatology and differ in hermeneutics none whatsoever from the hyper-dispensationalist. It's over! Jesus has established his Kingdom, Death has been defeated, Satan has been destroyed, the Law no longer holds men in fear of death and the world is not going to end. What purpose is baptism, the lord's supper? Jesus has been proven to be the Messiah (baptism's purpose)and the Jesus has proven he could return (70A.D.) and the lord's supper has served its purpose. Are we still bound to the traditions and teachings of men? Bob usmc1div@earthlink.net P. S. We can't have our cake and eat it too. As Paul my goal is to arrive at my resurrection (death)alhough Bro. Paul came a little short of it, he is still probably satisfied with his current state.


Date:
10 Aug 2002
Time:
02:22:52

Comments

Regarding Continuation argument #5: How could "the Lord's Supper" be a fulfillment / antitype if "the Lord's Supper" itself had yet to be fulfilled? (Lk. 22:16)


Date:
11 Aug 2002
Time:
07:39:47
Remote User:

Comments

It appears that tradition is a stronghold indeed. The entire preterist position rests upon faith that scripture is accurate - that Jesus did come again, the resurrection of the dead did occur, the White Throne Judgment happened, etc. Simply put, Jesus spoke of things "spiritual" - a kingdom not of this world - a kingdom not of observation. However, we still seem to require a "sign"; An observable ritual or something to "prove" we are followers of the faith. If a preterist believes these practices have ceased, they are usually accused of being a "hyper" preterist, as if they believe in "too much" fulfillment. My question is, how much fulfillment has Jesus accomplished? How much transition period do we drag along with us? The NT teaches the building of a SPIRITUAL house through SPIRITUAL rebirth, worship, and sacrifices. Where is the emphasis on continued carnal ordinances? I guess Jesus made a "continuance" statement when He asked if He would find faith on the earth when He "come"!


Date:
12 Aug 2002
Time:
01:05:33

Comments

PREVIOUS COMMENT: ".....I guess Jesus made a 'continuance' statement when He asked if He would find faith on the earth when He 'come'!" QUESTION: I understood the rest of your comment, but how does Lk. 18:8 imply cessation?


Date:
12 Aug 2002
Time:
11:18:27
Remote User:

Comments

The ritual of communion was created when the Lord Jesus substituted wine for the blood of the Atonement and bread for the body of the Scapegoat. Since the promise of the New Covenant was to complete the Old Covenant and bring the Messiah's kinsmen into the New Jerusalem, then I submit that any "continuation" of New Covenant rituals is post-millenialism and not preterism. The Apostles and prophets addressed the Houses of Judah and Ephraim when they spoke of the restoration of the Kingdom. The Kingdom of God has always been the People and the Nation. Their hope was to be reconciled to God and redeemed; that their debt to the Law would be paid by the blood of the Messiah. No one wrote to or about pagans, which is what we would be to Peter and Paul.


Date:
12 Aug 2002
Time:
13:04:07

Comments

In the previous comment, someone said that we would be "pagans" to Peter and Paul because we are not "the Messiah's kinsmen," of "the Houses of Judah and Ephraim." RESPONSE: Cessation is perfectly biblical without using any "Christian Identity" arguments. The promise was not only to physical Abrahamites. The promise was to all who believe: "It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant To raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make You a Light of the nations so that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth." (Isa. 49:6)


Date:
14 Aug 2002
Time:
21:07:04
Remote User:

Comments

There is an unfortunate tendency to create what I call, "one-liner theology;" basing a system of belief on verses lifted out of their context. Isaiah 49:5-6 And now says the Lord, who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant, To bring Jacob back to Him, in order that Israel might be gathered to Him (for I am honored in the sight of the Lord, and My God is my strength), He says, "It is too small a thing that you should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel; I will also make you a light of the nations so that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth (land)." Making His servant a "light of the nations" so that His salvation might reach to the "end of the earth (land)" shows me that His intent was to be a light -- a beacon which would draw His People (Isreal) to Him. In other words, those who dwelt within the foreign lands would be guided by His light back to their own Land. I think that the earlier reference in Isaiah to the light is applicable: Isaiah 9:2 The people who walk in darkness will see a great light; those who live in a dark land, the light will shine on them. Isaiah speaks to the ingathering of Israel further in the context of Chapter 49, as well. For instance: Isaiah 49:14-15 But Zion said, "The LORD has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten me." Can a woman forget her nursing child and have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you. So, those who lived in "the dark land" (the exiles) would be remembered by the Lord God. Isaiah 49:22 Thus says the Lord God, "Behold, I will lift up My hand to the nations and set up My standard to the peoples ; and they will bring your sons in bosom, and your daughters will be carried on shoulders." Once again it is Israel that will be brought forth from out of the nations -- not the nations themselves -- and returned to their own land. Those nations who had oppressed the People would suffer for what they had done: Isaiah 49:25 Surely, thus says the LORD, "Even the captives of the mighty man will be taken away, and the prey of the tyrant will be rescued; for I will contend with the one who contends with you, and I will save your sons." And the result? Isaiah 49:26 "I will feed your oppressors with their own flesh, and they will become drunk with their own blood as with sweetwine; and all flesh will know that I, the LORD, am your Savior and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob." "Your Savior" is not contextually linked with the nations, but with the Twelve Tribes. In my opinion, the context doesn't support the view that Isaiah 49 is speaking of the Gentiles as being gathered together with Israel. The usage of the designation, "Jacob" for those whom He was to gather shows me that He is not distinguishing between Judah and Israel, but is speaking of the entire corporate entity -- His People.


Date:
15 Aug 2002
Time:
07:32:48
Remote User:

Comments

REGARDING THE PREVIOUS COMMENT: In Isa. 49:6, "the tribes of Jacob" and the scattered "preserved ones of Israel" are CONTRASTED WITH "THE NATIONS." This fact is so undeniable that only "Christian Identity" White Supremacists have the gall to so rebelliously deny it. ("Israel" is also contrasted with "the nations" or "the gentiles" in other post-exilic prophets and in the New Testament.) Yes, of course the prophets predicted the reunion of God's scattered nation, but what the "Christian Identity" wall builders (Eph. 2:14) resist so hatefully is the spiritual fulfillment of that prophecy in the body of the Savior. Specifically, THE GATHERING AND UNION OF ALL MANKIND THROUGH FAITH IN THE GOSPEL. The anti-cross, "Christian Identity" blasphemers abhor the thought of it, but even negros are sons of Abraham through faith in Jesus.


Date:
15 Aug 2002
Time:
08:50:29
Remote User:

Comments

LOL! What nonsense. Christian Identity are as much the idiots as the appropriaters of Jacob's Promise are. The Promise to Abraham was that he would inherit the Land, not the planet. Read Genesis, you'll see what the extent of the Land was. The Jews were given the Land and it was because of the contract made with Abraham. Since the contract with Moses would not allow the uncircumcised into the Kingdom, the Messiah's mission reverted to one that had been previously ratified so that the scattered tribes of Israel would qualify (compare with the resurrection of Ezra -- Ezra commanded all mixed progeny to be banished, especially the uncircumcised). The Wild Olives and the Natural Olives were the Two Groups who were to be made into One Body. Neither of the Trees was pagan, but represented the fulfillment of Jer. 31:31. If the previous comments are any indication of the scholarship among covenantal theologians, then the movement hasn't got a chance. So, all I have to do is remain patient.


Date:
16 Aug 2002
Time:
00:00:29

Comments

The previous comment is a curious collection of non sequiturs.


Date:
16 Aug 2002
Time:
06:58:44
Remote User:

Comments

There will always be those who are ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Those with ears to hear will hear. The rest I couldn't care less about.


Date:
18 Nov 2002
Time:
05:56:18

Comments

Dear Bethren: My opinion is that both the Lord's Supper and baptism are areas that pose no threat to the consistency of Preterism. If they are observed it poses no rejection of Fulfilled Eschatology so long as their meaning is made clear. I personally believe that both the Lord's Supper and Baptism ceased once the New Covenant was established, but if one choses the contrary I see no problem. We have no authority for (church) buildings, organs, pianos, choirs and an endless list of other practices that we variously observe. To me the salient and poignant point is that we are under the New Covenant, the universe will never be destroyed, Jesus returned AS HE PROMISED in 70 A.D. and to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. This is our resurrection and glorious hope. I desire, as Paul, to be absent from the body and be present with the lord as I also share the wretchedness of the misery we experience in the BODY of this DEATH, but not the DEATH of this BODY. The death experience in this body is but our movement into the glory which Jesus Christ has prepared for us. Let us rejoice in those areas where we agree and give liberty to the brethren in areas that do not deny the relavatcy of the abiding power of the New Heavens and the New Earth. Bro. Bob Pelham, N. C. usmc1div@earthlink.net


Date:
05 Mar 2003
Time:
17:13:43

Comments

I have one question. What did the Apostle John and the early church do about the Lord's Supper after A.D. 70. As far as I know, there is no record of John stopping the practice of the Lord's Supper. All of these early church fathers that we quote as preterists, did they stop with the Lord's Supper? The Lord's Supper is the only way Jesus asked us to remember His death. He asked us to just do this one simple thing. It proclaims His death and sacrifice and our freedom of sin until He came and after! It does not loose that effect! He never said it would. As for the baptism stuff, that was great! There is only one path, a narrow one, that gets to Heaven (Matt 7:13,14). Jesus is the WAY, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). We must, therefore, be in Christ, or clothed with Christ to make it to Heaven. The only way we put on Christ is through Baptism (Romans 6:1-14). It is the only way we receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). If we are not baptized we cannot live a new life (Romans 6:4), we cannot be free from sin (Romans 6:6), and we cannot believe that we will live with Christ (Romans 6:8). Great Article! It answered a lot of my questions.


Date:
05 Mar 2003
Time:
17:14:05

Comments

I have one question. What did the Apostle John and the early church do about the Lord's Supper after A.D. 70. As far as I know, there is no record of John stopping the practice of the Lord's Supper. All of these early church fathers that we quote as preterists, did they stop with the Lord's Supper? The Lord's Supper is the only way Jesus asked us to remember His death. He asked us to just do this one simple thing. It proclaims His death and sacrifice and our freedom of sin until He came and after! It does not loose that effect! He never said it would. As for the baptism stuff, that was great! There is only one path, a narrow one, that gets to Heaven (Matt 7:13,14). Jesus is the WAY, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). We must, therefore, be in Christ, or clothed with Christ to make it to Heaven. The only way we put on Christ is through Baptism (Romans 6:1-14). It is the only way we receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). If we are not baptized we cannot live a new life (Romans 6:4), we cannot be free from sin (Romans 6:6), and we cannot believe that we will live with Christ (Romans 6:8). Great Article! It answered a lot of my questions.


Date:
05 Mar 2003
Time:
17:15:16

Comments

I have one question. What did the Apostle John and the early church do about the Lord's Supper after A.D. 70. As far as I know, there is no record of John stopping the practice of the Lord's Supper. All of these early church fathers that we quote as preterists, did they stop with the Lord's Supper? The Lord's Supper is the only way Jesus asked us to remember His death! He asked us to just do this one simple thing. What does it say about people who are not willing to do this one simple thing that Jesus asked of them? It proclaims His death and sacrifice and our freedom of sin until He came and after! It does not loose that effect! He never said it would. As for the baptism stuff, that was great! There is only one path, a narrow one, that gets to Heaven (Matt 7:13,14). Jesus is the WAY, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). We must, therefore, be in Christ, or clothed with Christ to make it to Heaven. The only way we put on Christ is through Baptism (Romans 6:1-14). It is the only way we receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). If we are not baptized we cannot live a new life (Romans 6:4), we cannot be free from sin (Romans 6:6), and we cannot believe that we will live with Christ (Romans 6:8). Great Article! It answered a lot of my questions.


Date:
22 Sep 2003
Time:
20:14:47

Comments

Question (1). I would like to know if George Tarabolsi is talking about spiritual baptism or ritual baptism in the article which is posted in your archives? Question (2).Whether or not I agree or with the preterist position that says (yes) to the ceasation of the Lords supper, it seems to me that those who hold to this position could certainly use this to correct those who mistakenly believe that preterism started with a 1600's Jesuit conspiracy against Protestantism. Especially because the witty Jesuits certainly should have seen it coming that the Lord's coming in 1 Cor.11:26 would be interpreted according to the preterist view as fulfilled in 70AD, thus, no more need not only for the Lord's Supper but also no more need for THE MASS!, WHICH WAS AND IS THE CHIEF R.C. DOCTRINE! Do you agree? If not please explain why not! Thanx, Glenn Schmidt


Date:
22 Sep 2003
Time:
20:24:05

Comments

Question (1). I would like to know if George Tarabolsi is talking about spiritual baptism or ritual baptism in the article which is posted in your archives? Question (2).Whether or not I agree or with the preterist position that says (yes) to the ceasation of the Lords supper, it seems to me that those who hold to this position could certainly use this to correct those who mistakenly believe that preterism started with a 1600's Jesuit conspiracy against Protestantism. Especially because the witty Jesuits certainly should have seen it coming that the Lord's coming in 1 Cor.11:26 would be interpreted according to the preterist view as fulfilled in 70AD, thus, no more need not only for the Lord's Supper but also no more need for THE MASS!, WHICH WAS AND IS THE CHIEF R.C. DOCTRINE! Do you agree? If not please explain why not! Thanx, Glenn Schmidt


Date:
15 Mar 2004
Time:
11:30:56

Comments

I Corinthians 1:17 "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should be made void." Paul recognizes that baptism is not the saving grace, the gospel is the saving grace.


Date: 26 May 2006
Time: 13:30:28

Comments:

To Mr. Tarabolsi,
I too believe (waveringly) in baptism in Jesus Name to wash away sins. However, using types, when Isreal passed thru Jordan (which is a type of baptism) all that GENERATION ( 40 years and younger)passed thru the river. The jews never brought their children to "pass" thru the jordan again. Could this mean that after the transition from pentecost to 70 A.D. (that generation-35-40 years) that no longer is baptism needed. Just a thought, what are your thoughts?
Terry

 

Click to Go to Main Page

Partial Preterist Archive    Study Archive  Critical Article Archive   Christian History and its Preterist Presuppositions  Sovereign Grace Preterism  Josephus' Wars of the Jews   

Feel free to email todd@preteristarchive.com or come chat on PalTalk