# Eagerly Awaiting Christ



## Steve Owen (Aug 29, 2005)

It seems that the New Testament church was expecting and eagerly awaiting the return of The Lord Jesus Christ. For instance:-

1Cor 1:7. 'So that you come short in no gift, *eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.'*

1Cor 16:22. *'O Lord, come!'*

Phil 3:20. 'For our citizenship is in heaven, from which *we eagerly wait for the Saviour*, the Lord Jesus Christ.'

1Thes 1:9-10. '....and how you turned to God from idols, to seve the living and true God, *and to wait for His Son from heaven.*'

2Tim 4:8. 'Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord....will give me on that day, and not to me only *but to all who have loved His appearing.*'

Titus 2:13. *'Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.'*

Heb 9:28. 'To those *who eagerly wait for Him* He will appear a second time apart from sin, for salvation.'

2Peter 3:12. *'Looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God.'*

Rev 22:20. 'He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." *Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!'*

Clearly the NT Church was expecting Christ to return at any time.
My purpose in listing these texts is to ask if we ought not to be awaiting the Lord's return with equal eagerness; and also to suggest that if our eschatology prevents us from expecting His imminent return, perhaps it is likely to be wrong.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 8-29-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 8-29-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 8-29-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 29, 2005)

I cant wait. Nothing can prepare you for it. Except the Holy Spirit. 

Blade


----------



## just_grace (Aug 29, 2005)

I was thinking earlier about this, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of Pompeii by the eruption of Vesuvius.

Christians must have really been on the lookout 

Yet with God one day and a thousand years are the same, so what if He waits a week or two or even a few days 

Act 1:7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. 

Keep sober and alert brothers and sisters for you know not what time our Lord is coming back!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 29, 2005)

Ditto to the above; In my young 47 years, I have decided that it is much easier to die than live! I have to remind myself, His will be done.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> if you think Christ may return at any second then you must believe that:
> 
> 1) The great commission has been fulfilled
> ...



It is interesting how the two polars (immenancy and full-preterism) actually come together; or even, that they share similar arguments.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 30, 2005)

From WCF Chapter 33.3



> III. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will he have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, *and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.*


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> From WCF Chapter 33.3
> 
> 
> ...



Sure, be always watchful and live as a citizen of heaven, but Paul also told us that Christ must reign until all enemies have been put under his feet. I don't think Christ will come back soon--there are a lot more enemies waiting to be conquered.


----------



## just_grace (Aug 30, 2005)

*New smiley...*



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> if you think Christ may return at any second then you must believe that:
> 
> 1) The great commission has been fulfilled
> ...



Trying to find a smiley that expresses 'spanner in the works'

Considering Christ's words that no-one but God knows the end and that we should concentrate on witnessing for Him I sometimes wonder why people just don't do that and instead muse upon things that distract us from what we should be doing.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



Then that puts the starter of this thread in jeopardy (and anyone who agreed with him!). Furthermore, Christ warned his disciples to know the signs of the time. Postmillennialism teaches precisely the opposite of "figuring out what's about to happen." Our God gave us a command to take over the world, and that is what we are occupied with.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 30, 2005)

> Then that puts the starter of this thread in jeopardy (and anyone who agreed with him!). Furthermore, Christ warned his disciples to know the signs of the time. Postmillennialism teaches precisely the opposite of "figuring out what's about to happen." Our God gave us a command to take over the world, and that is what we are occupied with.



Taking over the world? I guess this is the basic issue regarding Postmills.

But considering Paul's list:




> 1) The great commission has been fulfilled
> 
> 2) The fulness of the gentiles brought in
> 
> ...



It certainly seems like Postmills are trying to "figure" something out!


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > Then that puts the starter of this thread in jeopardy (and anyone who agreed with him!). Furthermore, Christ warned his disciples to know the signs of the time. Postmillennialism teaches precisely the opposite of "figuring out what's about to happen." Our God gave us a command to take over the world, and that is what we are occupied with.
> ...



Probably a good thing we are--otherwise the immanent view is eerily close to full preterism.


----------



## Peter (Aug 30, 2005)

Christ's message to eagerly wait and be prepared for his coming applies equally to all of us because for those who do not live to experience Christ's literal physical coming death is certain though its timing is not.

[Edited on 8-30-2005 by Peter]


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



How do you figure that this immanent view is eerily close to full preterism? 

In figuring out Paul's list, how will we know when all these have happened so Christ can come back? Read the newspaper?


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 30, 2005)

To requote Paul M. :



> if you think Christ may return at any second then you must believe that:
> 
> 1) The great commission has been fulfilled
> 
> ...



Full preterism believes all of the above.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Aug 30, 2005)

Hi Jacob you still located in Mississipi? If so, how did the storm treat you? Hope you and your family are ok.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> To requote Paul M. :
> 
> 
> ...



True, but they also believe that he came back in 70 AD. Besides, an imminent view of Christ's return could say that:

1. The great commission could be fulfilled at any moment, whenever the last of the elect are brought in.

2. The fullness of the Gentiles could also happen at any time.

3. We are in the millennium, but it also could end at anytime.

4. Satan is bound but could be loosed at anytime.

5. The Great Apostasy could very well be going on right now and could also come to complete fulfillment at any time.

Basically an imminent view of Christ's return does not set a particular "time table" that Christ must go by ala taking over the world before he can return.


----------



## Peter (Aug 30, 2005)

1. The great commission says to make the _nations_ disciples not just a representative smattering from every nation.

2. We're not in the millennium yet (perhaps the topic of another thread)


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 1. The great commission says to make the _nations_ disciples not just a representative smattering from every nation.
> 
> 2. We're not in the millennium yet (perhaps the topic of another thread)



Agree. These are topics for another thread.


----------



## Steve Owen (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> if you think Christ may return at any second then you must believe that:
> 
> 1) The great commission has been fulfilled
> ...



Acts 1:7. 'And He said to them, "It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.'

I do not know if the great Commission is about to be fulfilled and the fulness of the Gentiles about to be brought in. I only observe that with the advent of Radio Ministry, there can be few people groups where the Gospel hasn't reached at all. I also note Col 1:23b. Perhaps the Lord measures these things differently.

Nor do I know if 'Satan's little season' has begun and if he has been loosed to deceive the nations. I only observe that there is a lot of religious deception going on, increasing intolerance and persecution of Christians, and more martyrdoms than in the times of the worst Emperors or the Spanish Inquisition.

*"Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect"* (Luke 12:40).

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 30, 2005)

There could be another 10,000 years in my opinion, but I eagerly await being with the Lord.


----------



## Steve Owen (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Anyway, I don't need to post anymore in this thread, my position is air tight:



Thank you for your thoughts, Paul. It would have been interesting to know your understanding of some of the Scripture that I quoted.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## just_grace (Aug 30, 2005)

*Air tight...*



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> You kept referring to those things as future. I( said if Christ returned in one second then those things would be PAST. So, if you think Christ could return on ONE SECOND then you must say that we are not in the millennium, the great commission HAS BEEN fulfilled, the gentiles HAVE BEEN brought in, satan "little season" HAS BEEN finished, the final battle HAS HAPPENED.
> 
> Anyway, I don't need to post anymore in this thread, my position is air tight: if you think that Christ could return in ONE SECOND then you must, by necessity, say those things HAVE happened. That's not necessarily a refutation of the immanent return theory, it's just asking you to be fully consistent, that's all.



Don't make me laugh!

I have not even yet started to think about this post...


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 30, 2005)

Whoa,
The force of Paul's argument just hit me.
I had to reread it a few times.

[Edited on 8--31-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Whoa,
> The force of Paul's argument just hit me.
> I had to reread it a few times.
> ...


----------



## Steve Owen (Aug 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> You kept referring to those things as future. I( said if Christ returned in one second then those things would be PAST. So, if you think Christ could return on ONE SECOND then you must say that we are not in the millennium, the great commission HAS BEEN fulfilled, the gentiles HAVE BEEN brought in, satan "little season" HAS BEEN finished, the final battle HAS HAPPENED.
> 
> Anyway, I don't need to post anymore in this thread, my position is air tight: if you think that Christ could return in ONE SECOND then you must, by necessity, say those things HAVE happened. That's not necessarily a refutation of the immanent return theory, it's just asking you to be fully consistent, that's all.



I think we all have to be very cautious about these things, but I'm not sure you're right here. The reason I spoke about the Great Commission and the bringing in of the Gentiles as being future is that if they were past, I think the Lord would have come already. There won't be an announcement in the newspapers saying, *"Great Commission complete; Return of Lord imminent!"* The first we shall know of it will be when the clouds part to reveal Him.

Also, it doesn't seem to me that Satan will be crushed *before* Christ's return. *'...Whom the Lord will consume....and destroy with the brightness of His coming'* (2Thes 2:8 ). I take that to mean that Satan will be destroyed *when* Christ returns, not before.

The whole point is that the return will be without previous warning. *'For you yourselves know perfectly that the Day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. For when they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon them'* (1Thes 5:2-3 ). There will be tribulation for Christians (as there is right now in many parts of the world), but non-Christians may not even notice it.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 8-31-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 31, 2005)

> Everyone, amills included, (WSC students, teachers, et al.) agree with me on this point. It is logically inexscapable. This is not a refutation of the immanent return theory, but just asking them to be consistent. If you *seriously* believe that Jesus could return in ONE second, then you *must,* by the teaching of Scritpure (esp. Rev 20), *seriously* think that we are not in the millennium anymore, the great commission is over, the gentiles have been brought in, satan has been loosed to deceive the nations, he has gathered the nations for battle (note, according to Rev 20 this takes place AFTER the millennium, so don;t say that this is happening NOW unless you want to say we are not in the millennium NOW), the enemies have been put under Christ's feet, he handed the keys over to the Father, and THEN comes the end.



I seriously believe that Christ could and can return in "ONE" second. In fact I think he could return in a twinkling of an eye! In your original post you said "at ANY SECOND". The question is "which second"? Maybe you need to rephrase your comment to say "in the NEXT second". And no I don't think Christ is coming back in the next second, since by now that second has past.




> P.S. Do you think that some thought a immanent return was near in the NT times because Jesus promised that he would come back IN THAT GENERATION?



No I don't.




> P.P.S. Show where I know THE HOUR of Christ's return? Also, how is it unscriptural for me to use SCRIPTURE'S clues on what will happen before Christ returns? How am I trying to "know the hour?" Scripture tells us these things. I seriously confused. I use verses from the Bible telling us what will happen before Christ returns and I get accused of "trying to know the hour?" To me, at least, that accusation is absurd.



I don't know if you are directing this at me or not. But since I have not accused you of anything, I guess its not.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Matthew 24:34
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 

Every time in the gospels the phrase "this generation" occurs it means the present generation.


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



First you would need to show that the 1st century church was looking for Christ's return in judgment on Israel in 70 AD vs His final return.

I don't disagree that "that generation" saw the destruction of Jerusalem that was predicted in the first part of Matt 24. The question is whether the phrase "that generation" can only refer to the generation that saw the destruction of Jerusalem or to a generation to come that will see all of Matt 24 fulfilled, not just typologically as "that generation" did, with the second coming.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



I will delay answer to the first question for a while--hopefully in my other responses an answer will come forth. I had an answer but I am rethinking how I would say it. 

Can the phrase "this generation" refer also to another generation while also referring to "this generation"? I don't think so; every time it is used in the gospels it refers to the present generation.


----------



## just_grace (Aug 31, 2005)

*Apples of Gold...*



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



TrÃ¨s bien dit...


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 31, 2005)

> I will delay answer to the first question for a while--hopefully in my other responses an answer will come forth. I had an answer but I am rethinking how I would say it.
> 
> Can the phrase "this generation" refer also to another generation while also referring to "this generation"? I don't think so; every time it is used in the gospels it refers to the present generation.



Okay on the first one.

On the second one think "already and not yet".


----------



## Steve Owen (Aug 31, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Everyone, amills included, (WSC students, teachers, et al.) agree with me on this point. It is logically inexscapable. This is not a refutation of the immanent return theory, but just asking them to be consistent. If you *seriously* believe that Jesus could return in ONE second, then you *must,* by the teaching of Scritpure (esp. Rev 20), *seriously* think that we are not in the millennium anymore, the great commission is over, the gentiles have been brought in, satan has been loosed to deceive the nations, he has gathered the nations for battle (note, according to Rev 20 this takes place AFTER the millennium, so don;t say that this is happening NOW unless you want to say we are not in the millennium NOW), the enemies have been put under Christ's feet, he handed the keys over to the Father, and THEN comes the end.
> 
> So, please be consistent and admit that if you hold this view you have to say that it is logically possible that AT THIS MOMENT, all of the above could be past.


Well, I don't think you've put the order of events quite correctly, but in general terms, yes, that is what I believe. It seems to me, looking at the Bible, that Satan's defeat comes *at* our Lord's return, not before it, and that He hands over the keys after Satan is defeated. Then comes the end, whatever that means.

As for the battle of Armaggedon, is it impossible that it's going on now? Do you take a literal view of it like the _Left Behind_ guys? Do you take a literal view of Zech 14? Will the Lord come to defend the Jerusalem that now is, that is elsewhere described as Sodom and Egypt? Or could we be talking about a war that is being waged now against Christians in many lands, causing more than 100,000 casualties (martyrdoms) every year? Persecution of Christians is worse than it has ever been in history. Could that be the true interpretation of Matt 24:21-22?

I'm not saying that any of this is true. I simply don't know. Maybe the Lord will tarry for another 10,000 years, as someone has suggested. But I think that anyone who says that the Lord can't come right now is being unwise. Read the texts at the start of the thread again. The Corinthians and Thessalonians are *commended* for their eager expectation of the Lord.


> P.S. Do you think that some thought a immanent return was near in the NT times because Jesus promised that he would come back IN THAT GENERATION?


I don't know. I do know that Paul does not rebuke them for their view, except those who thought Christ had come already.


> P.P.S. Show where I know THE HOUR of Christ's return? Also, how is it unscriptural for me to use SCRIPTURE'S clues on what will happen before Christ returns? How am I trying to "know the hour?" Scripture tells us these things. I seriously confused. I use verses from the Bible telling us what will happen before Christ returns and I get accused of "trying to know the hour?" To me, at least, that accusation is absurd.


Like Wayne, I'm not sure whether this is addressed to me, but I do assure you that I haven't accused you of knowing anything.

Finally, for everyone's benefit, I ran a spell-check on the word meaning, "About to happen". It is spelled *I-M-M-I-N-E-N-T.* 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## wsw201 (Aug 31, 2005)

> So Wayne, since you did admit that that generation referred to the one Jesus was speaking to (as well as future ones) then you believe that THAT generation "saw the Son of Man coming on the clouds," right?



Wrong. That is apart of the not yet of the prophecy. There is no evidence that anyone saw Christ coming in the clouds. That will be seen at the second coming. Regarding the "œalready and not yet" aspect consider Matthew Henry´s comments in his preface to the chapter:

"The prophecy of divers events, especially referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the utter ruin of the Jewish church and nation, which were not hastening on, and were completed about forty years after; the prefaces to that destruction, the concomitants and consequences of it; *yet looking further, to Christ´s coming at the end of time, and the consummation of all things, of which that was a type and figure (v. 4"“31). *2. The practical application of this prophecy for the awakening and quickening of his disciples to prepare for these great and awful things (v. 32"“51)."

You need to think of these prophecies typologically in regards to what actually happened in 70 AD and what is still to come with the final judgment of the world.




> Now, tell me how THEY saw him "coming on the clouds" and how WE will see him "coming on the clouds."



Again. They didn´t. His coming in the clouds is in regards to his coming in final judgment. Henry notes the following about that passage:

"That then they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. Note, First, The judgment of the great day will be committed to the Son of man, both in pursuance and in recompence of his great undertaking for us as Mediator, Jn. 5:22, 27. Secondly, The Son of man will at that day come in the clouds of heaven. Much of the sensible intercourse between heaven and earth is by the clouds; they are betwixt them, as it were, the medium participationis"”the medium of participation, drawn by heaven from the earth, distilled by heaven upon the earth. Christ went to heaven in a cloud, and will in like manner come again, Acts 1:9, 11. Behold, he cometh in the clouds, Rev. 1:7. A cloud will be the Judge´s chariot (Ps. 104:3), his robe (Rev. 10:1), his pavilion (Ps. 18:11), his throne, Rev. 14:14. When the world was destroyed by water, the judgment came in the clouds of heaven, for the windows of heaven were opened; so shall it be when it shall be destroyed by fire. Christ went before Israel in a cloud, which had a bright side and a dark side; so will the cloud have in which Christ will come at the great day, it will bring both comfort and terror."

Note that he does not equate the coming in verse 30 with a physical coming to judge Israel in 70 AD, because Christ did not physically come back. But since all power and judgment has been given to Christ, Christ did pronounce judgment against Israel and He did execute it by the hand of the Romans.

One of the key phrases to look at is "œwith a great sound of a trumpet" in verse 31. Henry notes this:

"Their ministration will be ushered in with a great sound of a trumpet, to awaken and alarm a sleeping world. This trumpet is spoken of, 1 Co. 15:52, and 1 Th. 4:16. At the giving of the law on mount Sinai, the sound of the trumpet was remarkably terrible (Ex. 19:13, 16); but much more will it be so in the great day. By the law, trumpets were to be sounded for the calling of assemblies (Num. 10:2), in praising God (Ps. 81:3), in offering sacrifices (Num. 10:10), and in proclaiming the year of jubilee, Lev. 25:9. Very fitly therefore shall there be the sound of a trumpet at the last day, when the general assembly shall be called, when the praises of God shall be gloriously celebrated, when sinners shall fall as sacrifices to divine justice, and when the saints shall enter upon their eternal jubilee. [6.] That they shall gather together his elect from the four winds. Note, At the second coming of Jesus Christ, there will be a general meeting of all the saints. First, The elect only will be gathered, the chosen remnant, who are but few in comparison with the many that are only called. This is the foundation of the saints´ eternal happiness, that they are God´s elect. The gifts of love to eternity follow the thought of love from eternity; and the Lord knows them that are his. Secondly, The angels shall be employed to bring them together, as Christ´s servants, and as the saints´ friends; we have the commission given them, Ps. 50:5 Gather my saints together unto me; nay, it will be said to them, Habetis fratres"”These are your brethren; for the elect will then be equal to the angels, Lu. 20:36. Thirdly, They shall be gathered from one end of heaven to the other; the elect of God are scattered abroad (Jn. 11:52), there are some in all places, in all nations (Rev. 7:9); but when that great gathering day comes, there shall not one of them be missing; distance of place shall keep none out of heaven, if distance of affection do not. Undique ad coelos tantundem est viae"”Heaven is equally accessible from every place. See ch. 8:11; Isa. 43:6; 49:12."

Henry notes correctly the corollary between the Trumpet in verse 31 with 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Thess 4:13, and how they refer to the final coming and judgment of the world.




> If you say THEIR seeing Him was his coming on judgment on Jerusalem and ours is visibly seeing him return bodily, then how is it an already/not yet. You've made them two different prophecies! Not a double fulfillment of the *same* prophecy (i.e., since coming invisibly and coming visibly are logically *different* propositions they cannot be the *same* proposition just fulfilled already/not yet).



Hopefully, what I have already noted answers your question. He is basically making two prophecies! One regarding the question concerning the up coming destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the second answering what would be the sign of His coming and the end of the age.




> Wayne, logically, "any" second includes *all* seconds in the class of seconds. So, if you think Christ might come back any second, then you would have to, by logical necessity, think it is possible he could come back in the next second after you read this sentence.
> 
> Secondly, of course Christ *could* come back in that it's not logically impossible. The issue is *will he* come back (or is it possible that he may) in the next second from reading this sentence. If you say yes then you must grant that the other things I mentioned are also a possibility (i.e., we're not in the millennium right now, the great commission has been fulfilled, Satan has been loosed, etc).



I take the position that Christ "œcould" come back at any second, which you note as not being logically impossible. I also take this position because I don´t know the mind of God and his plans. Nor do I know how far along they are. BTW, the millennium is between the first and second advent of Christ. Therefore the great apostasy and the "œloosening of Satan" are during the Millennium (at least from an Amil perspective). Therefore these events could very well be working right now.




> Then it appears that you would have to say that first century Christians said what they said because Christ said that he would come back to them! Now, since you said that "THAT" generation saw the destruction of Jerusalem, then they also saw his "coming on the clouds" because Jesus said that THAT generation would not pass away until what He said previously happened! Even if you apply an already/not yet schema to this, you still have no basis to say, "no I don't." Your own words militate against you on this one, friend.



Sorry friend, I would not have to say this and don´t. As I asked Jacob, what scriptural evidence do you have that the 1st century Christians equated his coming with the destruction of the Temple? All the biblical evidence points to the second coming, not a "œcoming" in judgment on Jerusalem.

BTW, if I have offended you regarding "œtrying to know the hour", I apologize. That was not my intent nor do I think it was the intent of anyone posting to this thread to "œlibel" you.


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 31, 2005)

> As I asked Jacob, what scriptural evidence do you have that the 1st century Christians equated his coming with the destruction of the Temple?



Canonical or non-Canonical?
If Canonical that is an impossible question to seriously ask or answer--in many ways it gives me a short time frame from which to draw (I am assuming a 70AD date). 

Non-Canonical? While what they say is important, I don't hang by their words. A number of Early Christians and Fathers had some wacked ideas (Jesus dying at age fifty, for one). So, if I find a father who happens to agree with me, that's fine, although it won't convince anybody. If the Fathers happen to disagree, well, both sides already have their presuppositions which will eventually be judged by Scripture. What I am saying is that I guess I could play the "find the Father' game but I won't, since those quotations will be judged within our own interpretive frameworks, respectively.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > Wrong. That is apart of the not yet of the prophecy. There is no evidence that anyone saw Christ coming in the clouds. That will be seen at the second coming.
> ...



Paul,

I don't want to get into a long drawn out discussion on this. I especially don't have the time or inclination to answer silly questions like your first one. BTW, not only did they not see Christ in the clouds but the stars didn't fall from the sky either. 

If you have a point to make go a head and make it. I know the preterist position on Matt 24 so we can cut to the chase.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > As I asked Jacob, what scriptural evidence do you have that the 1st century Christians equated his coming with the destruction of the Temple?
> ...



Regarding a canonical answer, maybe you could explain why its an impossible question to seriously ask and answer. If you believe that Scripture talks about Christ coming in 70AD, then Scripture should say something about how the church would see this event if folks were concerned about Christ's return. Having Christ come back and destroy the temple is no small thing and if Scripture does talk about a coming then there ought to be something that we can point to.

As far as playing "Church Father" Bingo, I'm with you.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



If I may step in for a moment--you had originally asked me if the first century Christians saw Christ in the clouds. Well, I believe they did, but I don't think that answer will cut it at the moment.

You mentioned the stars not falling from the sky either. Poetically, they did. Acts 2:19-22

And I will show wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below,
blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
20 the sun shall be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood,
before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day.
21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.´

The bible is a poetic book and should be interpreted on those terms. While the above doesn't necessarily deal with nations falling, it does show when the Bible says stars are falling literal stars are not necessarily falling.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> Regarding a canonical answer, maybe you could explain why its an impossible question to seriously ask and answer. If you believe that Scripture talks about Christ coming in 70AD, then Scripture should say something about how the church would see this event if folks were concerned about Christ's return. Having Christ come back and destroy the temple is no small thing and if Scripture does talk about a coming then there ought to be something that we can point to.



Sure, but I don't accept those standards. I do think the Church speaks of the destruction of apostate Judaism in the NT, but not in a straightfoward way. It comes back to "transcendentals," a lens through which we view our theological system but a lens we cannot see. I have them and you have them. We can't see them but we don't see (myself included) anything without them. I look at poetic passages and and their time-referents and I see the destruction of Jerusalem as the ending of the Age. You do likewise with your respective system (as is natural for all of us).

In short, I can answer your question, but I won't do so on the hermeneutical terms mentioned above.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



Jacob,

I don't take aphocraphal language literally. I don't really think that stars fell from the sky or that the sun went dark. This type of language is typical in prophetic passages. As you well know, they use it to emphasize a point.

I am not following you about a particular "standard" or "transcendentals". If by transcendentals you mean presupps. then I think I may understand, but if you mean something else let me know. 

But even if we have built in presupps (transcendentals?) we must have some type of objective method to determine what Scripture is saying. There needs to be some type of reasonable assurance that we can trust that what Scripture says, that's what it means. Otherwise, the regula fide is out the window and the Scriptures become a wax nose.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



What question did I ask? The only thing I have asked is what evidence we have that the 1st century church's concern's about the coming of Christ was in regards to the destruction of the temple versus the second coming. From the passages that Martin quoted, these are passages about the second coming not the destruction of the temple.

As you well know not every post on these 2 pages are mine. I have only jumped in from time to time. I said that your question was silly because we both know the answer. So rather than go through all of Matt 24, make your point and we'll go from there. 

You certainly have every right to think my question is silly, and it wouldn't hurt my feelings. And I appreciate your trying to help me in this and I hope the feeling is mutual as I try and lead you in the ways of truth (which for some reason that is beyond me, you seem to be resisting!). 

And if you have an answer to my question, let's hear it. Jacob has given his answer.

BTW, on question #2, I already answered it. He is speaking to the generation that will see the destruction of the Temple and the judgment dished out on Israel and the generation that will see the judgment handed down to the world. I thought M. Henry's exegisis was right on the money.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 1, 2005)

It makes little difference when the Second Advent is too me... I'll see Jesus when I kick the bucket and get that resurrection body, and it will be a glorious day...


----------



## Marcos (Sep 1, 2005)

Why not just read "End times Maddness" by Gary Demar. Let us stop these arguments that will altimately lead to bitterness. I'm sure we can all agree that the scriptures say that Christ will return like a theif in the night. 

Be at peace my brother and sisiters.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Sep 1, 2005)

I am confused on end-time matters. I wonder if it would be possible if we had a a thread where everyone gets one post of a relatively "short" length in which they could explain what has happened since the first century and what is "soon to take place." 

I'm thinking something like that could be a good first step for some of us to begin to get a handle on eschatology. I've read a lot of stuff on it in the past, but I'm still just as confused...


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 1, 2005)

The only way Matthew 24 and Luke 21 can be interpreted that is consistent with "This Generation", is if they are absolutely not talking about the Final Judgment.

I tend to separate the Final judgment from the 2nd Coming, since the second coming is indicative of the coming judgment upon Jerusalem.


----------



## Steve Owen (Sep 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > But I think that anyone who says that the Lord can't come right now is being unwise.
> ...



OK, you're saying that Christ definitely *won't* come in the next second. The seconds roll on, and if you hold this view for ever, then according to you, Christ will never come at all, because He will never come in the next second. So what will you need to make you modify your view?

Do you think there is going to be some great sign in the sky when the 1,000 years is over and Satan is released? How do you know that these things haven't happened? Again I ask, do you think the Battle of Armageddon is definitely going to be a real literal battle just like Tim Lahaye says it is? How do you know that it's not going on right now in the persecutions of the Lord's people? 

BTW, You say you are choosing Scripture; well, I haven't seen you interact with the nine texts I quoted at the start of the thread yet. Do you think the Corinthians and others were eagerly awaiting the destruction of Jerusalem? Or the battle of Armageddon? It's not what the texts say. They were eagerly awaiting the Lord.

Martin


----------



## just_grace (Sep 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



'This'...

Does that need explaining?

David


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 1, 2005)

> Okay, so when Jesus says "this Generation" he is speaking to the generation that will see the destruction of Jerusalem as well as the generation alive at the end of the world.
> 
> Now, since YOU, WAYNE WYLIE, just admitted that "this generation" refers to, AT LEAST, the generation that witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, then what does this mean?



Well it means that they witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem. What do you think it means?




> 34I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
> 
> Since "this generation" means, ACCORDING TO YOU, the generation that witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem (as well as a future generation), then what does Jesus mean by telling THAT GENERATION that it will not pass away until "ALL THESE THINGS HAVE (past tense) HAPPENED?" What are "all these things?"



All of these things are the things he told them about the destruction of the temple and his coming in judgment.




> Secondly, did THAT generation (the one YOU admitted was, at least, the one alive BACK THEN) "pass away" even though "ALL" those things hadn't happened?
> 
> If not, then how did they witness "ALL" those things?



As I have said repeatedly, they did happen. They just didn´t happen the way you appear to think they happened. *Do you think Christ set foot on this earth in 70AD fulfilling the prophecy about his coming in the clouds? *




> P.S. If you think that henry answers my question then I'm lost. Henry doesn't address any of the arguments but just assumes that "coming on the clouds" refers to the future." It wasn't an *argument* but just a re-assertion of the futurist position. It is totally irrelevent to this discussion.



I think this comment is the most telling and goes to the crux of this discussion. You seem to be looking for a certain type of argument that is not being provided (and I don´t know what that is). Henry is not presenting an apologetic to persuade, he is dealing with the verses as they are. That is the essence of exegisis otherwise it isogesis. Henry´s exegesis of that passage is more than an acceptable interpretation. He is using a very simple hermeneutical method of allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. If it sounds "œfuturist" then that is what it is.


----------



## Herald (Sep 1, 2005)

> Clearly the NT Church was expecting Christ to return at any time.
> My purpose in listing these texts is to ask if we ought not to be awaiting the Lord's return with equal eagerness; and also to suggest that if our eschatology prevents us from expecting His imminent return, perhaps it is likely to be wrong.



If "our" eschatology prevents us from expecting His imminent return, then that eschatology is flawed. Deeply flawed. Imminency is not a matter of dispensationalism or covenant theology. Christ could return at any moment. He will come on His timetable and according to His sovereign will. The debate may be on whether He is coming for His church (the rapture), or to set up His kingdom. But He can come at any time. Of course....In my humble opinion.


----------



## wsw201 (Sep 1, 2005)

Okay. I'm finished.


----------



## just_grace (Sep 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by just_grace_
> ...


----------



## Marcos (Sep 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by alwaysreforming_
> I am confused on end-time matters. I wonder if it would be possible if we had a a thread where everyone gets one post of a relatively "short" length in which they could explain what has happened since the first century and what is "soon to take place."
> 
> I'm thinking something like that could be a good first step for some of us to begin to get a handle on eschatology. I've read a lot of stuff on it in the past, but I'm still just as confused...



Well, eschatology can be confusing given we use the information today's church has been implementing. I believe that futurist view on end times, (Left Behind eschatology), has plagued the church just like atheistic science has plagued the public schools. I would recomend reading "End Times Fiction" by Gary Demar. He explains the correct view of eschatology quite well.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 6, 2005)

To answer whoever asked or mentioned it: YES, ALL of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in A.D. 70, INCLUDING Jesus "coming on the clouds." All of it.


----------



## Myshkin (Sep 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Our God gave us a command to take over the world....



Jacob-

I know that this is a principle of postmill., but could you direct me to the verse where this is explicitly _commanded_? I am guessing you are referring to the great commission passage?


----------



## Myshkin (Sep 6, 2005)

Paul-

Who in your opinion gives the best exegetical treatment of that passage? (Gen. 1:26 ff., right?)

Also, if applicable to your experience, whose exegesis of this passage (that takes a contrary view to yours) is the most challenging to your position/gives you the most to think about? Thanks.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 6, 2005)

Have you read DeMar's treatment of Matthew 24, Paul? I think he hits the nail on the head, but I haven't studied Gentry or others' viewpoints yet.


----------



## Steve Owen (Sep 6, 2005)

Hi Paul,
You wrote in reply to me:-


> > How do you know that these things haven't happened?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. Where does it say that the going out to the nations will cease at the start of Satan's little season? Perhaps it will, but I don't see a clear indication of this in Matt 24:14.

2. What makes you think that the fulness of the Gentiles has not come in?

3. Have you considered Hendrickson's view of Rom 11 as well as Murray's?


> > BTW, You say you are choosing Scripture; well, I haven't seen you interact with the nine texts I quoted at the start of the thread yet. Do you think the Corinthians and others were eagerly awaiting the destruction of Jerusalem? Or the battle of Armageddon? It's not what the texts say. They were eagerly awaiting the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you look again, you'll see that I did not accuse you of being unscriptural. You said that you were placing your position on Scripture; I merely pointed out that you hadn't dealt with the initial post of the thread. Yes, there were nine texts. It would have been helpful to see you deal with even one of them. However, if you leave the choice to me, how about 1Thes 1:9-10?


Gabriel wrote:-



> To answer whoever asked or mentioned it: YES, ALL of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in A.D. 70, INCLUDING Jesus "coming on the clouds." All of it.


How does this view square with Acts 1:9-11?

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Gabriel wrote:-
> 
> 
> ...



DeMar would say they don't have anything to do with one another. Matt 24 is talking about the coming of the Son of Man in judgment on apostate Judaism with the destruction of Jerusalem. Acts 1 is referring to the return of Christ, physically, to earth after the fulfillment of the Great Commission.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 7, 2005)

Paul, how do you interpret verses such as this:

. . . .Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, *the gospel*, which has come to you, as indeed *in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing*"”as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth. . . .
(Colossians 1:5b-6 ESV)

_Disclaimer: This isn't an argument nor am I looking for one, I just want to know what you think._


----------



## Steve Owen (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> ...



So he believes in two 'comings' of Christ, just like the Pre-mils? 

Look again at Acts 1:9-11. *'This same Jesus, who was taken from you into heaven will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.'* From this we can make certain deductions:-

1. He rose visibly; He will return visibly.
2. He departed in a tangible body (Luke 24:39 ); He will return with a tangible body.
3. He was obscured by clouds; He will be revealed in the clouds ('coming with the clouds of heaven' Mark 14:62 etc).

I don't see this invisible return in AD 70 . Are you suggesting that's what the Corinthians, Philippians and Thessalonians were 'eagerly waiting for'?

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 1. Where does it say that the going out to the nations will cease at the start of Satan's little season? Perhaps it will, but I don't see a clear indication of this in Matt 24:14.
> 
> 2. What makes you think that the fulness of the Gentiles has not come in?
> ...


I'd sooner read the Bible. And I'd sooner hear you justify your views from the Bible than writing supercilious posts like this.


> A 2: Because as a matter of fact, I know a gentile that was saved yesterday.


That was yesterday. This is today. Someone, sometime is going to be the very last person to be saved. Maybe that's just happened.


> A 3: Yes, and as Murray said, the other interpretations are exegetically *impossible.*


Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?


In the absence of any meaningful comments on my original post, I think I've said all I want to say on this thread. I see no reason to change the view I stated at the start. Any eschatalogical position that denies the imminence of our Lord's return is likely to be wrong.

*'Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is.......And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!'* (Mark 13:33, 37 ).

Martin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 7, 2005)

*confused* by Martin's post . . . 

Paul: I've heard some say that it is referring to the Roman Empire (the whole "known world" at the time, practically), would that be your contention as well?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 7, 2005)

Okay. Yeah, I thought it made sense in this verse's case, at least.


----------

