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.