# Potential Problems in Imminentist Eschatologies



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2007)

This idea isn't new to me. 

if you think Christ may return at any second then you must believe that:

1) The great commission has been fulfilled

2) The fulness of the gentiles brought in

3) we are not in the millennium now

4) Satan has already been bound, then loosed, then finally crushed

5) the final apostacy has occured


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 21, 2007)

Devil's Advocate:
What about?
1) a) the GC will be fulfilled just prior to whenever the SA happens, which still allows for an "anytime" fulfillment, b/c we don't know the one or the other. The only way we know the GC isn't fulfilled yet is because we're still here
1) b) the GC was fulfilled in the 1st century, or it is fulfilled in every post-ascension hour when the gospel proclamation goes forth without compromise.

(I don't think #1 affects Calvinists too much, just Arminians.)

2) This one is related to the first. But don't these two force a certain uncommon meaning on "imminent" return? The word means "near." And usually the people using it mean only that in terms of _revelation_ nothing remains except for the "promise of his coming" and events associated with it. Which would presumably include the last persons (elected) to be saved becoming saved.

3) unless you are a-mil or non-golden-age-post-mil, then the rest do deny being in the millennium. And the former could affirm that we are in the "millennium", yet advocate an imminent return. This point depends on the "earthly reign of righteousness" interpretation of "millennium," in my opinion.

4) If you don't adhere to a lengthy (even as long as 7 years! or 3.5 years!) "release" of Satan at the "end", but have all that bound up in the "Final Day's or Hour's" events, then you can believe he's been bound, just not loosed and crushed yet, and see all that as happening "at the end". Building in a number of pre-established "time factors" is what gives this particular slant of interpretation its weight.

(I for one reject most if not all the "time" registrations so many appeal to)

5) Again, if this like the previous # is part of what is essentially a whirlwind of end-time motion, I do not see how one who believes in the imminent return has been stymied by this objection. 

Most of these are effective against those who have the "timeline" down, you know, the 7 years, the 3.5 years, the Tribulation, the Rapture, etc, etc. For those who eschew the literalism and the time-hacks, but accept a cataclysmic denouement, I don't see how this compels one to reevaluate.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 21, 2007)

Thanks, Bruce. That was a well-thought out post.


----------

