Preterist Universalism: Global or Local Part 2 by Dorothy Anderson

Editors Note: Dorothy Anderson returned to the heresy of Full/Hyper Preterism in 2010.



Ya know, I hesitated doing this presentation on universalism because I fear that there may be some who embrace it. If they are tempted to do so, I certainly pray they hold firm until we get further down the road in discussion. I have to hammer the universalist position here to make my point about an AD70 judgment in it’s relationship to HP.

I do not advocate universalism. What I do advocate is there will be a time when all the Churches enemies will be defeated and theocracy will be the standard by which we live.

I thought I would address your post in pieces here. It’s a great platform to make some points.

The use of “all” and “every” is often used in a relative sense rather than in the absolute sense. With the preaching of John the Baptizer, the text says “all” Judea went out to him and “all” the regions around the Jordan. This does not necessarily imply that “every single person” in those areas when out to hear the preaching of John (Matt. 3:5; Mark 1:5). Regarding the preaching of Jesus the text says, “all the city” gathered at the door (Mark 1:33). “All” is sometimes used as hyperbole in order the emphasize the largeness of the respond, and not to indicate “every” individual person.

I don’t disagree here but the inconsistancy resides in making ALL prophecy fit into the AD 70 scheme. While you understand exceptions, your two age theme of ALL prophecy forces you into a box.

The book of Revelation suggests that there would be those “inside” the covenantal city of God, and those “outside” the covenantal city, and further that the “gates” to the city would never be closed. Those who insist that this prophecy refers to the eternal state (heaven) have to deal with the existence of “nations” in eternity and the need for the “healing” of those nations (Rev. 21-22). There is no reason to conclude that need for salvation ceases to exist after the time when Satan and his demonic forces are removed for their sphere of influence. Nor, it is the logical conclusion that everyone is saved in the end. Those who are “righteous” remain “righteous” and those who are “wicked” remain “wicked.”

They most certainly view the destruction of Jerusalem as a covenant judgment against those who denied Christ and rejected Him. Old wineskins/Old Covenant so to speak….They were the only ones under the law and subject to the sanctions of the law and thus they were punished – to remain forever “outside” the gates and will always be viewed as forever wicked. These are the ones who did not receive the blessings. They died the second death.

Notice that the gates of the city are OPEN. They are no longer closed because after AD70 they have no enemies.

The New Covenant is God’s everlasting provision (Heb. 13:20) for the salvation of the lost, before and after A.D. 70.

A HP universalist would ask you who was lost according to scripture?

Matt 15:24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

They will tell you those are the ones He came to redeem. They were the only ones required to repent. They were the only ones under the law of Moses and in covenant with God. All the law and sanctions belonged purely to Israel and no one else. The Gentiles were never under the law.

Since these judgments are not in effect against the Gentiles and they are not subject to the law or sanctions or judgment, then the “free gift” is inclusive.

Matt 23:35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

This verse right here takes the judgment back to Abel….If you make the White Throne Judgment about the destruction of Jerusalem and those wicked men, then you have judgment all the way back to Genesis. Period. Your AD70 theme forces you there.

This is where you see the Beyond Creation Science crowd step forward with their system and follow the theme of covenant bearers. What they effectively do is remove all terminology of God being creator of “heaven and earth” by assigning the terminology strictly to be speaking of God’s people…and what happens in their theme is they leave no scripture defining God as the God of the universe. Their approach leaves them with a tribal God imho. I know they don’t like me saying that, but that’s what I see.

I’m sure Davo will have some corrections and I encourage him to bring them forth. As I stated in the comments earlier, I’m working from arguments from some in this camp that are a few years old. I’m sure there have been some modifications since then. Of course, as in all of HP, there are varying views even in this camp.

6 thoughts on “Preterist Universalism: Global or Local Part 2 by Dorothy Anderson

  1. Another great article, Dorothy. It just occurred to me that Hebrews 9: 22 reads: “And almost all things are according to the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Well, Hyper-Prets say the law was completely dissolved in A.D. 70. I guess this means that there is no more need for Christ’s blood atonement. For “where no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom. 4: 15).

  2. Brian, since the thread discussion has moved on to this thread, I would remind you of a question I ask you on the previous thread which still remains unanswered. I do not ask these questions, as one shadow boxing, but with a sure purpose. If you choose not to spend any more time answering my questions, I realize that you are very busy studying to show yourself approved, which I would certainly not want to hinder. I also realize that my purpose in asking these questions is not to convince you of anything since it appears that you are thoroughly already convinced.

    However my purpose, is to continue to educate myself of the Hope which I have and which will not change either by this conversation, but instead will shine the Light of Eternal Truth, on the Hope set before us, to the Glory of the Father who has entrusted this ministry to His Son, and to us, and will keep this Glory Holy unto Himself! Gatekeeper

  3. Dorothy: I do not advocate universalism.

    Dorothy, just for the record… can you define “universalism” as you understand it, and also clarify the terms you use in explaining this.

    Dorothy: They were the only ones under the law and subject to the sanctions of the law and thus they were punished – to remain forever “outside” the gates and will always be viewed as forever wicked. These are the ones who did not receive the blessings. They died the second death.

    You make a valid point referencing ‘the second death’ as applicable to those under “the sanctions of the law” – it is however unfortunate how futurism in whatever guise it comes has taken the second death, lake of fire out of its historical and covenantal setting pertaining to Israel alone and wrongly applied it “universally” to “all men” post-mortem… strange indeed. Israel’s AD70 ‘lake of fire‘ was simply the outward showing and evidence of the greater and deeper covenantal reality of her covenantal demise or ‘second death‘, i.e., “that which was passing away”. Again, from a pantelistic framework I have more thoughts on this HERE.

    Dorothy: …and what happens in their theme is they leave no scripture defining God as the God of the universe. Their approach leaves them with a tribal God imho. I know they don’t like me saying that, but that’s what I see.

    Certainly that can be ONE “interpretation” and I do know of at least TWO certain chaps who parade themselves as the only true “consistent” prêterists whose whole presentation is implicitly “tribal deity”; but as you have described above need NOT necessarily be the case at all. The phrase “heavens and earth” most certainly can and does have covenantal application to Israel, BUT not carte blanch across the Scriptures. Even IF one takes Gen 1:2ff as less than wholly and cosmically global certainly IMO Gen 1:1 can of itself be viewed as a stand-alone statement declaring just that – that in the beginning all originated with and from Him; and that with this stated Gen 1:2ff being the story within the story relative to Israel etc. There are texts the likes of:

    Isa 45:12, 18 I have made the earth, and created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded. … For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the LORD, and there is no other.

    Now where some “heavens/earth” and “man” texts can be said to be “Israelites in the Land” I can agree with, but I’m just not convinced that the likes of the verse above is one of them – IOW I don’t think it’s a one-size-fits-all scenario. Anyway I digress – my current thoughts around this are posts 39 & 40 HERE.

  4. Hi Gatekeeper,

    Sorry for not answering your last post. You asked about the apocalyptic character of the Lord’s second coming for which the early church waited? Well, as you probably know, the word “apocalypse” means “unveiling.”

    In 1 Cor. 1: 7, we read that the Corinthian church was waiting for the “apocalypse” of Jesus Christ.

    It was to be a day revealed (apokaluptetai) by FIRE (1 Cor. 3: 13). Compare with 2 Peter 3, which speaks of the day of God coming with fire.

    In 2 Thess. 1: 8, Paul says Christ will come “in flaming fire, taking vengeance.”

    And the man of sin will be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s PAROUSIA (2 Thess. 2: 8).

    The same word “parousia” is used in 1 Cor. 15: 23 to refer to the “coming” for which the early church waited.

    These verses are just a sample, of course. All the imagery refers back to Old Testament prophecy, and to the “Day of the Lord.” See Isaiah 64: 1-3; Malachi 4: 1, etc. But such imagery is only found in the earlier epistles written during the Acts period. In the later epistles of Paul, we read nothing about an impending day of wrath or revelation of God. The words parousia, apocalupto, pur (fire) are nowhere used to describe the second coming. This tells us that there was a Dispensational change somewhere along the line.

    If we look closely, we’ll see that that change happened in Acts 28 when Israel formally rejected the kingdom. It was at that point that the nation was reckoned “Lo Ammi” (not my people), and were delivered into the hands of their enemies. God’s covenantal dealings with Israel ceased in A.D. 63 (not permanently, though), and from that time forth God’s principles of administration altered.


  5. Hi Davo,

    I see three forms of universalism in HP. One is common to the emergents – where all roads lead to Christ now. One is the “covenant context” group where it’s more of a seed line but all in the seed line are saved, then there is the two age theme where the OT was all about Israel and the Old Covenant and with the passing of that covenant, those who were filthy still were the wicked and those people of the OC who accepted Christ were redeemed and the Gentiles inclusion universally fell under the “free gift”.

    My purpose here isn’t to analyze each and every view or the veins in each system, but to show that using AD70 as the white throne judgement forces this view.

    I understand your appeal to Gen 1, but I have seen many HP universalists use this text to prove their were other worlds before the one spoken of in Gen 1 and I’ve seen it used to promote that God was creating the first covenant man…I’m not going there….not the focus of my presentation….

Comments are closed.