What I wish to present in this article is much more stripped down and to the point, and less of a lesson plan than the previous article was. I believe my previous article fairly expresses my thoughts on baptism from the Preterist perspective, but it doesn't touch on the "transition period." In this brief article, I wish to acknowledge this argument and how I believe my previous points relate to it.
In relation to the topic of baptism,
one must take into consideration what some call “the new exodus,”
or the transition period between the cross and the parousia. When
this topic is brought up during the discussion of baptism from the
Preterist perspective, many will draw on the types and shadows found
in the Old Testament. I also believe my fellow Preterists are correct
in doing so (cf. 1 Peter 3:20-21).
You see, just as Noah was saved by
water, baptism acted as the anti-type during the apostolic era, or
transition period. Likewise, when the Israelites were being led out
of Egypt during the first exodus, they passed through the Red Sea.
Thus, when one considers the remnant being led out of bondage during
the first century (i.e., being led out of the bondage of the old law,
and Jerusalem, which was likened to Egypt (Revelation 11:8)), the
parallels are rather obvious, which allows us to understand that the
period between the cross and the parousia was a “second exodus.”
This is what leads many, or most
Preterists to believe baptism ceases to serve a purpose today. After
all, if there's no more “transition period” (which there's not),
then what purpose could baptism actually serve today? My counter to
this is to stop looking at baptism as a means of “transition” and
start looking at it as a sign of the covenant! Baptism is likened to
circumcision more than it is likened to a liquid safety net! Through
baptism, believers do away with the old man of sin (Romans 6:1-11; 2
Corinthians 5:17), and become circumcised in their hearts, not the
flesh (Colossians 2:11-14). This is the circumcision God always
wanted for his people (Jeremiah 4:1-4).
But many seem to think that since the
kingdom has been established within believers that there is no need
for baptism anymore, for the transition period is over, and there
remains no reason to travel through this new “Red Sea,” or
“neo-Noahic Flood,” if you will. Many of these same people reject
Universalism, but consistency forces them to accept it! If the
kingdom of God is present today, and we believe it is, then claiming
that the necessary means by which we enter that kingdom (John 3:1-5)
is nullified is to claim that it is present among everyone, and that
everyone living since A.D. 70 have been a part of it. You can't claim
that there are still people outside the gates of new Jerusalem whilst
removing the means by which people enter, and still reject
Universalism. Do you understand that?
If what you say is true, my fellow
Preterists and beloved friends, why are people still outside the
gates of this heavenly city, this new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:27)?
The argument I hear the most is that all we need is faith to come
into covenant with God. Yes! But what is “faith”? Is “faith”
void of obedience? When Jesus gave the great commission to his
disciples, did he not command for them to teach all things which
Jesus commanded? Was that only to last until the parousia forty years
later? How ridiculous! Those people outside the gates of the city
have to come in somehow! If baptism is the putting away of the old
man, and the rising of the new creation, and its the old man that
cannot enter through the gates (i.e., the carnal man which has not
been “born again”), then by what means do we expect these people
outside the gates to come into covenant with Christ?
If we remove one requisite from coming
into covenant with Christ, we will find ourselves removing all the
requisites, and this leads to Universalism, which many Full
Preterists reject! We cannot simply say, “Salvation was only for
the time leading up to the parousia.” Salvation is much more than
that. Sure, those born under the law needed to be “saved” from
the law. I understand that. But sin wasn't only of the Israelites
(cf. Isaiah 13:1,9), and there are sinners today!
I realize that this makes me the black
sheep among a group of black sheep (I suppose I always have burned
rather than tan), but I am willing to accept that and all it means
for the sake of remaining more honest to the text than I believe many
of my friends are. And this is not to say I am above correction. The
fact that I'm a Full Preterist who was once a diehard
Dispensationalist proves that! But I truly believe people
misunderstand the implications of Full Preterism, and that goes for
both cessationists and Universalists alike.
For the sake of truth and wisdom, consider what is written in this brief article, as well as the previous one. It is no secret that I do not subscribe to a "no salvation after A.D. 70" view, and all I want is for those outside the gates of God's glorious kingdom to enter, and partake in the purest form of fellowship that God always wanted with his people. In bringing healing to the nations, I wish to be as open and truthful as I possibly can, and correct myself as needed. I only hope to be a light for you.
Blessings,
Jason Watt
No comments:
Post a Comment