Now, with this premise, we can get some possible answers to long standing questions
The concept of fulfilled grace makes the notion of "partaking in Christ's suffering" more understandable, and offers a probable purpose for the world being left in this state. The purpose of suffering is one of the ancient questions that Christianity often deflects in one way or another.
First of all, God leaves the world the way it is, and no longer "polices" it, because when people do evil, they will experience more grace.
Suffering that is not the fault of any person's sin is just apart of the same state of the world. What science calls "entropy". (If God doesn't fix one, there is no reason to fix the other). Much of the pain from this state is a result of our own shame, simply compounding whatever physical pain we are suffering. Think of the common question, "why has this happened to me? Am I being punished for something?" We can even see others accusing the infirmed of this in scripture. And relgious leaders today, interpreting national tragedies as "judgment" for "sin".
Hence, why the world seems like such a godless "jungle" (as people have put it) of pain, suffering and [physical] death.
God no longer gives special revelation because, think about the so-called "unpardonable sin", from the actual context of the warning (and not from our own speculation from trying to fuse it with other passages we think are addressing the same thing). Christ performed an act of special revelation (miracle) by the power of the Holy Spirit, and the scoffers attributed it to Satan. Christ said this was not pardonable, in either that age, nor the one to come.
So if God is operating on grace, and spiritual death is abolished, how can you prevent this from happening again? Why; you just cease special revelation. Since grace has spread to the world, you really do not need it anymore anyway. The Plan is"finished".
Again, the principle is "to whom much is given; much is expected".
(And it follows, that God hides knowledge of the afterlife from us, AND allows religion to instill fear regarding a conscious afterlife, might be because if we knew it was for sure there was an afterlife, and we were forgiven, then a lot more people would probably be giving up and killing themselves when things get too hard here).
The traditional futurist view, on one hand, makes suffering out to be either for some flaw in the sufferer (such as the "need for character development"; growth through trials, "you really deserve so much worse in hell, but He is giving you grace with these lesser pains", the "national judgments", etc.), or some unknown (but nevertheless "good") cause; and the consolation is often that the offenders will be punished eternally. (It may be for an occasion for "grace" to the offender, but since grace is conditional, this will only apply if they choose or are "chosen" by God).
So the traditional view basically parallels Satan and Job's friends' answer to Job.
Job was a type of Israel, and ultimately, Christ. He seemingly suffered for no reason at all, and then the assumption became that it must have been because of some sin in his life. This led him to see what can be called "the dark side of God"; (silence, supposedly unfairly inflicting the innocent, etc).
Likewise, Christ did actually bear the sins of the world, suffering for no fault of His own, and thus also experienced this dark side of God, reflected in the lament "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?"
Of course, by remaining faithful and not giving into Satan's temptations; He became the Mediator between man and God. Just like Job remained faithful in the end.
The purpose of all this was for grace to the world of sinners. (Romans 5:12-21, 11:25-36) So in participating in this timeline in the aftermath of grace, with all its suffering (daily, major, fault and faultless, etc), we can now say we are partaking in His suffering in a way. The traditional view I have discussed elsewhere, tries to force all of our daily "trials and temptations" into this mold, with no real theological basis beyond just the proof-texts.
Outline of the purpose of life under Fulfilled view.
With all of this, I have been able to put together a proposal of a short outline on the purpose of life, as well as answers as to long standing questions as why things in life and with God look the way they do.
•The purpose of life is for God to make and remake man in His own image (i.e "become like Him").
•Mankind took on knowledge of good and evil, which he was not equipped for. This in turn produced shame, which is a sense of not living up to our own ideals, which can be either our own goals, or even involve others' expectations. (There was also guilt, which was about his responsibility to the other party [God], but God was willing to forgive the guilt. It was the shame that perpetuated sin!) Shame leads to rage. Rage in all its forms from resentment to revenge is often an unconsciously derived reaction to the frustration of not knowing what to do with shame.
-This led men, as we see, to murder and try to control each other. To lie, cheat, steal. To find some sort of relief through gratification, including sexual, and intoxicating or mind-altering substances, which in turn leads to more problems, and the total breakdown of human civilization.
-He also attempts to compensate for this by suppressing his sin in some way; either hiding it, denying it, or making up for it with works, or some sense of his own righteousness. He will even project it onto others, and perhaps set himself up as some sort of defender of right and good, often further attacking others. If this fails, his reactions (whether rage, or more projection, etc) will get worse.
Here we have the root of all problems in the world.
-God's solution for this was not simply changing all our behavior to create a perfect utopia. Instead, He sent His Son to die to pay the penalty of what has brought our shame (as well as death). This is not forced on anyone (including with any threats of punishments for not meeting "conditions"); all are free to find the peace that comes through knowledge of this grace.
•The purpose of evil being allowed to exist is Grace. (Rom.5:15-21, 11:32) God has grace towards our sin, and we in turn are to have grace towards others.
This is the means by we are "made like Him". Thus, when we suffer, we "partake in His suffering".
Justice will likely involve people (who've done evil to others, or thought they were good before God) realizing just how much grace they received. Even without sentencing to eternal torment, this will be quite humbling.
•The purpose of life being left in a "painful" state is that it provides opportunity to love and serve others, again, making us like Christ.
It seemed this would make eternity better and more appreciable than an existence in which everything had always been "perfect".
-Also, much of our pain is more likely from our own perception of life (infused with "knowledge of good and evil"), manifesting largely as a survival/procreation instinct gone wrong. (e.g. our desire for comfort and ease, to have our own way, gratify insatiable hormonal desires, etc. These often lead to gluttony, greed, sloth, lust, vengeance, depression over past, heartbreak, abuse and infidelity, etc and thus the psychological and emotional problems that result. Basically, an overreliance on self-protection that makes pain and discomfort less tolerable).
If it wasn't for all of this, thorns & thistles, hard work, sickness, physical injuries, death, etc. would still be less than comfortable, or painful, but they would not cause so much emotional stress and then become added to any perception of "fallenness"; that the physical world in itself is corrupted.
•Our need for Equity [and perhaps other *ontological needs; identity, competence, significance etc] is connected with the "fruit of knowledge of good and evil". This is one of the main causes of emotional pain (and hence, a greatly heightened, overly vivid perception of "wrong" in life). It is what drove Satan to rebel, and lead man to fall with him. It leads to all our wars and crime.
While these needs are genuine, still, we were never given the capacity to know how they should truly be met.
-Our sense of guilt from sin is itself also a product of knowledge of good and evil. After all, it was then (after originally taking the fruit) that we sensed we were "naked and ashamed". We have a sense of good, but know deep inside that we do evil. We expect good, but then feel "punished", as if for evil ("What did I do to seserve this?"), when these expectations aren't met.
Hence, the loss of "equity" in man's relationship with God (to a state of being in debt. In fact, the word "iniquity" is just a French-strained version of the word inequity! The result is feeling the need, somehow, to make/prove ourselves right, (even if by denying any problem altogether).
Hence, Grace being the undoing of this, leaving only the Tree of Life. (Rev.22:2).
-Satan's tactic (as with Job) is to convince us we must secure these needs for ourselves now (also like his temptation of Jesus), or we are being punished, either rightly (accusations of sin) or wrongfully (denial of sin). We then try to compensate for this, again, through a focus on the Law, or the opposite extreme of denying any wrong or responsibility to do differently.
•God has ceased special revelation to us as part of Grace, to protect us from the "unpardonable sin" (rejection of special revelation carries a more severe penalty; "to whom much is given, much is expected").
•God has obscured general proof of Him and knowledge of the afterlife, because if people knew for sure there was "a better world" beyond this one, more would be killing themselves when life got too difficult here. (He did not put us here to just escape into the next world).
It would also skew our motivations for doing good here and now. It would be about "gaining rewards" (for self) rather than love. Hence, it is by "faith".
As for affirmation for either suffering or service ("rewards", recompense, etc), the story of Joseph illustrates the unfortunate stuff that might happen when a person knows for certain about a special promise of God for his life. (Hence, also, the need for Paul's "thorn in the flesh", "that I might not be exalted beyond measure").
•These premises only work under a "Fulfilled Grace" paradigm, where forgiveness through Christ's death has spread to all unconditionally (with no "requirements" of any sort placed on man, leaving most still "lost" and forfeiting this grace. The Law man was condemned under was finally abolished upon the destruction of the Temple in AD70, after three decades of overlapping with the New Covenant).
-This also maintains Christ as the only Savior, however, it eliminates the need for one group of people (nation, race, religion, denomination, sect/cult as "the small flock", etc) as the sole bearer of "the truth" ("exclusionism"). This has ultimately led to self-righteousness, schism and strife in both covenants, with Church history being even worse in that respect than "unregenerate" Old Covenant Israel!
It thus ends the "scandal of particularity" that the world has been so put off by.
*Seems that the ontological needs not tied to the Fall are: acceptance, belonging, security and transcendence. The entire set of eight were outlined by Craig W. Ellison From Stress To Well Being, Wipf and Stock Pblishers, Eugene, OR, 1994).
•It's been pointed out that a past fulfillment, might actually be "The Hour We Least Expected"!
-Looking at Matt. 24:48ff draws an amazing fit! It's the mainstream Church that claimed "My lord delayeth his coming" (the verse they used to try to motivate us to obedience. But it's contradictory, because they teach we are not to be obedient only for fear of Christ "coming back" while we're in sin; we supposedly will "stand before Him" after death anyway).
-And what did they start doing after a few centuries, but "begin to smite his fellowservants": —controlling, ruling, even persecuting, and thundering fear at congregations (and then arguing that this is what kept sin in check in past society!) Most today have softened it all down, and fill the services with entertainment, and pep talk; but it's often still about money! (pressure to give).
-"and to eat and drink with the drunken;" Many have preached against literal drunkenness, but none would ever consider that this could simply be an allegory for the rich, "executive" lifestyle Church leaders live, off of the backs of the flock!
-"The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
They did not expect the fulfillment of all things to have been 1900 years in the past! At that time, the Law was completely finished, yet by continuing to preach Law, trying to control with it, institutional Christianity has shown itself to be of the same spirit as the "hypocrites" Jesus dealt with: the Pharisees and other "doctors of the Law" of His time. —And this is precisely what the world sees them as! Much of the Church has copied lock, stock and barrel the attitudes and tactics of the Pharisees, only changing the sabbath and other rites, and adding Jesus to it, instead of openly rejecting Him. So they all think they are "preaching the Truth"; but in actuality, they will find that they were just as much in error and in need of forgiveness as the "sinners" they preached against.
And this also caused them to lose much of the power over society they once had, which they of course attribute to society's "turning away from God", but it is the Church's own turning from the true Gospel (Good News), back to the offense of the Law, which nullified the good news, and drove "the world" away!
(Illustrating how the concepts have been turned around; we speak of a leader falling into sin, into certain violations of the Law as "Falling from grace", but in Galatians 5:4, where this term is derived from, its nearly the opposite in direction).
Here's an alternative take on the "change" promised in the New Testament:
http://www.matthew24fulfilled.com/2013/04/up-up-and-away.html?m=1
http://bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/philippians/3_11.htm
http://bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/philippians/3_12-16.htm
•We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed —(Paul and his listeners would live to see the moment when people stop going to Hades at death, but begin going straight to Heaven instead. They now had the “deposit” of this new “immortality”, and this was the “change”, not either a literal new physical body, nor behavioral sinlessness. This was the [positional] “new birth”).
•The dead in Christ shall rise first —(those already dead would now go from Hades to Heaven)
•Those of us still alive shall be “caught up” to join them (not a simultaneous “rapture”, but when they die, they will now go to Heaven instead of Hades; “clouds” are symbolic e. g. Ps. 18:3-15, Is.19:1)
•Christ physically died, and so was physically resurrected. All believers only *spiritually* died with Him, so they would spiritually “rise”. —(Many did physically die for Him, but this was not necessary to experience the “rise” to eternal life. It did give them an additional high position in the Kingdom, however, of course).
Explains “if the dead do not rise, those asleep in Christ have perished” much better than either the traditional position that the resurrection is yet future, yet every saint already goes straight to Heaven when they die now, or other preterist and pantelist views, which say the language is all strictly symbolic/allegorical.
[So, the martyrs of the transition period went to heaven as part of the first resurrection. But everyone else went at the general resurrection at the end of the age. These first resurrection martyrs went to Heaven, but they were not in the Holiest of all, the presence of God, until the temple was destroyed in AD 70. (Need explanation of Satan being bound, not “deceiving the nations” during this time)]
Tracts
A common Gospel Tract message extended to Fulfilled Grace
The cartoon tract "the Rescue" (By "Cartoonworks)
"The Rescue" at Cartoon Works
I always liked this tract, as it pretty nicely summarized the different responses to the Gospel. Now, from a Fulfilled Grace perspective, I wanted to extend it.
The premise is that someone realizes the building is on fire, and that the entire office needs to escape, and tries to "preach" this to his coworkers.
So you get:
•The uninterested person who just wants to carry on with life as normal
•the skeptic who doesn't sense anything and thinks it's a fear tactic
•the person who panics and resigns herself to hopelessness
•The person who believes he can fight the fire himself with a fire extinguisher
•the philosopher who wrangles on "definitions"
Perfect illustration of today's world, right?
The tract has him smelling smoke, then looking out the window and seeing an actual big fire downstairs. But for the sake this analogy, let's say there was a fire, BUT, it had been put out years ago, and that what he was seeing was just a movie reenactment of the fire (using special gas torches placed in the windows and artificial smoke) for a documentary on it. (The "script" of the Law of sin and death is basically replayed every day when we sin and feel guilt and other consequences of it. This however, says nothing of what we are supposed to do about it, and whether or not there is still any danger we need to "escape".
Also, this person had found the Command Center instructions for evacuating the building (perhaps used as a script for the movie), which confirmed the danger must still be ongoing.
These instructions MUST apply TO US; else, they wouldn't be here, would they not?
(And we could ignore other evidence it wasn't, such as that a real fire that big would not be going on without the people above it not even knowing about it for that long. A building like that would have alarms which would sound by the time the fire got as big as it was portrayed).
This would correspond to man's proclivity to assume the necessity of a religion based just on what he sees or his conscience. (Think about it; it's what all "religion" is ultimately based on!) It looks like there's a real threat, but he does not have all the facts. And in this analogy, notice it is a random, everyday man who on his own comes around to "discover" this threat rather than it being revealed to him from a more objective source like an alarm or the fire department! So yes, the analogy is a perfect illustration of how "religion" gets started!
Hence there being not even any sign of fire to others, as the second guy argued; not even the smell of smoke. You just had to go by "faith" in this personal "testimony" that there was a real fire and these instructions were still in effect. In the Command Center instructions, the fire was promised to be put out "soon", and soon has been stretched out for years, somehow; but in the meantime, we can't "use our reasoning" to figure out why; we must take our own action to escape.
In fact, a sixth person then suggests all of this, and is dismissed and criticized for "rendering the instructions useless" and trying to give everyone a "false assurance" or to trick them into burning. That just makes things "too easy"! But the instructions serve as a lesson and testimony to the rescue; hence being kept on record in the building, and used to create an educational production on it.
Effort was required while the fire was still ongoing, and before the fire department arrived, all they could do is try to fight it by their own efforts, but found they could not. When the fire department arrives, then the people had a promise that they would be safe if they held fast and followed the instructions on how to escape. So it was true that the person who still tried to fight it himself with the fire extinguisher was wrong. You must follow the fire department's instructions for the escape route. There was only one way. And the effort of getting up from your chair and leaving, and even facing possible danger, was still required; despite having a "deposit" of safety as long as they followed properly. Much "easier" than trying to put it out themselves, but still difficult with all the obstacles along the way. (And thus, still just as much a kind of "effort" or work as trying to put it out onesself).
Yet after the fire was extinguished, then this "safety" would extend to everyone in the building, and no further effort was required. (The movie fire was totally under control, and does not threaten anyone).
The effort to escape was connected with the "grace" that would allow them to survive. (Titus 2:11-12) But the effort itself was not the grace, it was apart of the "law" of survival, and only a temporary measure until the total "grace" of an extinguished fire was completely realized.
Forward to today's scene; people do not realize that the real (original) fire is out, and are telling everyone they still need to escape, and using the five (or six) reactions given as "proof" of everyone's stubbornness, and the arsonist's ongoing "deception" of them. Without the ongoing direct instruction of the fire department anymore, the escapers break up into factions, all interpreting the instructions differently, and going different ways (including the guy trying to fight it with an extinguisher), with enthusiastic leaders gaining followers in these different paths, denouncing each other as wrong, in addition to the people not on a path at all; or those on a "path" to something else other than escaping a fire; and many of these leaders manipulating the whole situtation for their own control (even having people "honor" them with money for their "service" in getting them out).
All they agree on is that there is a fire that we must "do something" to escape, and that all those on wrong paths will "burn"; and one should follow these leaders (whichever one[s] are "within the pale of the right belief" about the best escape route; the fire will have mercy on those followers if wrong; just as long as they're exercising their will in "cooperating"). The majority of fleers all agree, and that is why these dissenters not following some path are just "refusing to submit".
When the fleers get out "safely", they all look totally ridiculous, and find that under their application of the instructions, and the total disunity and confusion, many would have still perished had it been a real fire! They were just as much inadvertently going by their own effort, as the guy with the fire extinguisher.
Another good one I liked (probably by the same company) is called "Heavens Gate", which asked that if you were standing there and God asked "why should I let you in", what would you say. It originally showed this guy standing all casually in his bathrobe with a cigar in his mouth. The latest one has him in his golf gear, ready to putt.
http://www.printmytract.com/store/tract-library/ron-wheeler-tracts/heavens-gate-niv.html
http://www.familychristian.com/heavens-gate-tract.html
He begins listing his good works, and of course, the point is that it is not by works. But then if this did happen to any one of us when we died, what would WE say? Ultimately, it would be "because I believed in you". But is that really different from the other guy? This used to even make me worry. It is basically because we made the right choice and they didn't.
We could try to put it on God, and say something like "because you died for us". But that is not what caused us to differ from the guy who held up his works! Christ supposedly died for him too! The Calvinists would take this last route, and justify it by denying that Christ died for the person. But this stems from what is one of their weaker links; the claim that the "all" the Bible says Christ died for is only "all kinds of men". But if all there does not specify every single person born, why does the condemnation spread to every single person and not only "kinds" of men? And anyway, while they can still claim that it was God who caused them to differ, it was still ultimately not without some action on their part, which one could conceivably answer with in the scenario of that tract.
(Calvinism is basically "scripted synergism". God writes a script where one person "cooperates" with Him, by "believing", and then (among many) bearing the "fruit" of it, and another does not. They believe it is purely monergistic since God "ordained" it, but as it "plays out" in time —which is the only perspective available to us, and the only one they admit matters the most when it comes to evangelism, it is clearly "cooperation" with Him!)
Tracts also often with the subject of "procrastination". One common one, Fellowship Tract League's "I'll Do It Later" http://www.fellowshiptractleague.org/tract_html/english/154/page_flip/154.html, tells the story of "little Johnny", who since childhood always "put things off" in his life (reminded me of lectures my father gave me), getting in trouble with authority figures and thus always saying "sorry".
So finally, he is approached with the the Gospel, which he seems enthusiastic about, until the call to do something ("Call on the Lord Jesus"), and that becomes another thing he decides to put off. So the final page shows him lying in a casket, and when someone wonders if he ever "got saved", it asks "What do YOU think?", with the flames of Hell ominously in the background, and a footnote "It's too late to say 'I'm sorry' now".
In a world governed by laws and rules, where parents and other authority figures constantly told you of your responsibilities and criticized "procrastination", this seemed to figure, or fit in perfectly with the rest of life. It's another responsibility, before another authority figure; in fact that highest Authority in the universe!
But this too eventually came to betray a virtual "works" salvation, even, as I keep repeating, the works are reduced to just "calling out" or "believing". It's all about something you have to DO, that requires something of you, in order to satisfy someone else and gain something in return. The fact that they would even compare this to all the other "works" required of him throughout his life tells us something! If someone said that one must put your toys away, or do your homework, or do your job report (or in general, just "obey those in authority over you") to be saved, that would obviously be "salvation by works"; wouldn't it?
The Gospel is that there is no comparison with earthly responsibilities. That is what the Bible means by "of the flesh", as opposed to the Spirit. People associate "flesh" with the breaking of the Law and our responsibilties, like laziness, lust, envy, etc. But as was stated in the main page, what it means that the same "flesh" that is responsible for those sins is what's being trusted on when we seek to remediate them through our own efforts.
Comprehensive Grace does not deny sin, the Cross or the "cost" of Grace (like standard "universalism").
It does not teach that sin is "OK" now, because it will go "unpunished". (The motivation for obedience is love).
It does not teach man is saved because he is basically "good", or "a loving God wouldn't condemn man"
It is purely by GRACE, just like conventional theology teaches!