Dear Greg.
I take it then that you deny point two, the "Visible and Bodily Second Coming (of Christ)in the Future"
Yes, I deny that the second coming of Christ can be any amount of time longer than "a generation" and yet have a bible that is true and a saviour who is a "true prophet"
I also deny the argument from Acts 1:10 as being seen in the way that you have been taught to see it. I once believed what you now believe but I find that interpretation to be in conflict with the other teachings that came from the same "literal" school.
Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
You see this verse as meaning that Jesus' physical feet will touch the earth just as the words of Zech as you quoted:
4 In that day His feet will (6) stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be (7) split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south.
In my last post I showed you how some "partial preterists" have 2 second comings - one at 70 AD and another at what they think is the end of the world. Some futurist also teach 2 second comings. One a "coming for His saints" and another a "coming with His saints" because they see a different senario in this verse:
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Now it does not seem to bother you Greg - that Paul is teaching that some would be "alive and remain(ing) when this happened but is says that those who had not tasted death before the second coming in 70 AD would "meet the Lord in the air" How some futurist handle this is to teach that Jesus "raptures" out His elect prior to pouring out the bowls of wrath and them returns 3 1/2 years later "with" His saints and it is at the second second coming that Jesus' literal feet touch the earth.
Needless to say I do not believe any of that at all suits scripture when all of what God said is taken into account.
Your next statement is an invalid argument Greg. You said:
That puts you outside of two thousand years of historical Christian doctrine and puts you in good company with the Jehovah's witnesses.
Guilt by association?
I think you can do better than that. I could say that the Pope is the antichrist - the pope believes in the trinity - so you are in "good company" and must also be antichrist.
Why waste your time typing such stuff? Those tricks may work well in debates and you may even win the debate but they do nothing to promote God's truth. Your statement hold not just one fallacy of logic - it is not just a double sided coin - but a counterfeit coin as well. When you say that I an outside 2000 years of Historical Christianity doctrine you are wrong on several accounts. First the reformation started when Luther defied the "Roman Catholic Church" and nailed his 95 thesis in 1517 and was completed in 1647 when the Westminster Confession of faith was completed. That is only 130 year when you really think about it - prior to that the world suffer from 350 AD until then under Roman Catholic Dogma - most of which you would deny as being true. According to my figures that puts you and I both "outside" for more than 1/2 of your 2000 years simply for not being Roman Catholics - are you scared? You also make it sound like the "church" enjoys some kind of unity on the subject of eschatology. We both know that is far from true. We have Premillenials who differ on when the “rapture” is. Post-tribulation Mid-trib Pre-trib and then we have premillenials who don’t have a rapture at all who are A-trib. We have Amillennials who do not believe in a literal millennium at all. We got our postmillennialists who divide into reconstructionists or historical. Postmil - Premil - Amil – Tread mill. Of any subject that I can find no real agreement upon it would have to do with the second coming of Christ and prophetic fulfillment. I did not know however that the Jehovah Witnesses believed Christ already came. I’ve never heard that before – can you point me to a web site where this can be established as true? I am curious to see what they say.
They claim Christ has already returned by twisting the same scriptures that you do.
That statement is just an assertion – it contains no proof but mere accusation. That is also a waste of “ cyber ink”
You see that's the problem with unwarranted spiritualization of scripture. There can be no testing what is claimed.
Here is something that I would agree with. The problem Greg is that we both see each sides of the positions as stressing what they want stressed or making literal what they want literal. I fail to see anyone addressing what I have already taken the time to type. I see you slam down the last chapter of Zech as being the only text required to destroy my position – end of story really. Why does no one address Matthew 16? Is Zechariah to be taken literal while Matthew 16 taken figuratively? If I say I believe Zechariah is written in very figurative language I know what you will say. Let me speak to this in a moment first concerning what you said here:
The same thing happened with the resurrection. Hymenaeus and Philetus taught that the resurrection had already taken place and as Paul pointed out destroyed the faith of some in the process. How could anyone possibly claim the resurrection had already taken place? Easy, they just denied the physical nature of the resurrection and taught that it happened spiritually. That's essentially what you are doing.
I think you are very very right here Greg – the problem is you can see how right you are. You are so right that you astound me. YES – they taught that the resurrection was not a “visible” event. But why don’t you ask yourself how they could possibly get away with such a thing when the apostles were still alive to teach otherwise? Because it was NOT OTHERWISE. It was easy for them to mislead some into thinking it had occurred because they EXPECTED an invisible “thief in the night” return of Christ. Not a literal “every eye will behold” type of event. Now, can you ask yourself why Paul did not simply tell them what you would tell them. Would you not say that the second coming is going to be a “physically visible” event? That to me would seem to be the simplest way to settle the issue – unless – it was not to be witnessed physically.
Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Matthew 24: 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
What did Jesus mean? If someone told you they saw Christ on earth somewhere to NOT BELIEVE it. Why not if Christ was to “stand” on the earth? What does Jesus mean when He relates his coming to being like “lightening”? You asked me:
As an aside, do you remember the words of the angels to those who watched the ascension of Jesus from the Mt of Olives?
Yes I do. When I look at the verse however I see something else.
Acts 1: 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
I see that a “cloud” received Christ. I also see that Christ was “taken up” The question becomes when the angels said this:
Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
What are they referring to? Like manner – the being “taken up” or the “Cloud received him out of their sight” or both. I imagine that you think it both. There are enough scripture that speak of Christ coming “in the clouds” to prove that that must be at least part of it. 2 Samuel 22 is an excellent place to get a grasp on this abode of clouds and judgment etc. When God led the Jews in the wilderness he was a “cloud” by day.
Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
I think the KJV is a very poor translation of this verse – they were all futurists.
Revelation 1:7 Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen!
“tribes of the land “ is much better. And the verse refers to Israel not the whole world.
Most translators now realize this even though they are futurists.
I think when you look at that verse in Rev about Christ returning “with clouds” you can only do one of two things with the “manner” spoken of by the angels. Either it refers to both or the cloud but it can not refer just to Christ’s having been “taken up” I do not think it refers to Christ’s being taken up at all as you may have guessed. I believe Christ came back on the clouds just as he had become “taken from their sight” 40 years earlier and the saint were taken up to meet Him not He having come down to the earth. You see it also says meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Are you going to take this verse as being literal Greg? If so – it plainly says “so shall we ever be with the Lord” In what manner would that be? “In the air” Would it not?
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
The most important thing I would like to try and get across to you if I can get anything across to you is this. You can not just go about frustrated that people disagree with what verse should be taken literal. You quoted Zech 14 for my “edification” I do not really know that you mean by “edification” so I will not guess. You quote it – because you believe that 2000 years of Historical Christianity has realized it should be taken literally and that it is yet future. Greg – that is just not true. Many commentators have not seen this chapter as you see it. Let me show you a couple:
Matthew Henry, a futurist, said this about some of it:
The Lord Jesus often stood upon the Mount of Olives when on earth. He ascended from thence to heaven, and then desolations and distresses came upon the Jewish nation. Such is the view taken of this figuratively; but many consider it as a notice of events yet unfulfilled, and that it relates to troubles of which we cannot now form a full idea
Tremendous judgments appear to be foretold, to be sent upon those who should oppose the settlement of the Jews in their own land. How far they are to be understood literally, events alone can determine
Some consider that the progress of the gospel, beginning from Jerusalem, is referred to by the living waters flowing from that city
As it is impossible for all nations literally to come to Jerusalem once a year, to keep a feast, it is evident that a figurative meaning must here be applied. Gospel worship is represented by the keeping of the feast of tabernacles
Notice that Henry says things like “some consider” and “many consider” Greg that is far from a unanimous verdict that these thing MUST taken literally. Matthew Henry does not say “heretics believe otherwise” He plainly says that he does not believe one could know how much would turn out to be literal because “events alone can determine”.
Here is another futurist – his name is Darby and he likely shares your views:
He comes in the Person of Christ to the Mount of Olives, whence He ascended. The Mount of Olives cleaves in the midst, forming a great valley, spreading terror among the people who are there. But if Jehovah identifies Himself thus, so to speak, with the meek and lowly Jesus formerly on the earth, in order that the identity of the Saviour and Jehovah should be clearly acknowledged, it is not the less true that He will come from heaven in all His glory (as He Himself predicted, as well as the prophets beginning with Enoch). The heavenly saints will accompany Him in His public manifestation to the eyes of an astonished world. Marvellous glory for those that are His, with whom He will manifest Himself before all the wicked! For here it is Jehovah's public coming to the earth, as the righteous Judge, making war upon all that rebel against Him.
Notice what else he says here:
There is a division in the middle of verse 5. "And Jehovah my God shall come" begins a fresh subject, introducing a grand distinct event, which affects the whole earth in a manner that characterises its future existence.
This is what is known as a “gap theory” where the commentator asserts that a change has occurred without really proving it. Darby is taking the verse very literal.
Here are some comments from the Geneva bible – that was the bible that people used before the KJV took prominence:
14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the c mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst of it toward the east and toward the west, [and there shall be] a very great d valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
(c) By this manner of speech the Prophet shows God's power and care over his Church, and how he will as it were by a miracle save it.
(d) So that out of all the parts of the world, they will see Jerusalem, which was before his with this mountain: and this he means of the spiritual Jerusalem the Church.
These men say that the term “His feet shall stand” as being a “manner of speech” They also speak of a “spiritual Jerusalem” which means figuratively the Church.
14:7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, h not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, [that] at evening it shall be light.
(h) Signifying, that there would be great troubles in the Church, and that the time of it is in the Lord's hands, yet at length (which is here meant by the evening) God would send comfort.
Notice the use of the word “signifying” and “which is here meant” – these men of God are not taking quite the same literal sense that later commentators seem more bold about doing.
14:18 And if the family of q Egypt shall not go up, and shall not come, that [have] no [rain]; there shall be the plague, with which the LORD will smite the nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
(q) By the Egyptians, who were the greatest enemies to true religion, he means all the Gentiles.
14:20 In that day there shall be upon the r bells of the horses, HOLINESS TO THE LORD; and the s pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
(r) Signifying to whatever service they were put now (whether to labour, or to serve in war), they were now holy, because the Lord had sanctified them.
(s) The one as precious as the other, because they will be sanctified.
I do not currently have Calvin’s commentary handy but you may want to check out how he also approached those verses. How much he leaned toward the literal I do not know. Many futurists however saw "Jerusalem" as being a figurative term for the church. Many also saw the so called "golden age" as being the Gospel Age that we now enjoy and nothing more. These men were all well studied furturists.
In any case Greg. I am obviously not moved by the fact that what I believe is not held by the majority. Just because “everyone” does something or believes something does not make it so. My children say “If you had a friend named Cliff would you jump off him?”
I am well aware of the fact that I do not agree fully with the “apostles creed” but did you know that it was revised several times and changed as well?
My final position is the same as was Luther’s when asked to recant. I cannot and will not unless convinced by Scripture Alone. Nor can I make my conscience the victim of what other men’s - who do not always agree one with another – systems of belief.
I one day had a fellow come to my door who believed that the trinity doctrine was not correct. He had a ‘student’ with him. He began to tell me how it was not Jesus the son who died on the cross but it was the Father himself. He became very frustrated that he was making no progress with me at all and then said “ Well sir, I can see that you are a man that is so utterly convinced within your own mind that you are right that you have become completely unteachable on this subject” so I said to him “ Well sir, I can see that you are a man that is so utterly convinced within your own mind that you are right that you have become completely unteachable on this subject” At that they both looked quite stunned and they left.
Let me ask you this Greg. Can you for a moment entertain the idea that when Jesus said that “this generation will not pass until all these things be fulfilled” that He may have been very literal and very right? What I see is that people accuse me of not taking verse literal but they run to the most figurative areas of scripture to prove their point but refuse to deal with the verse I quote in a literal sense. What part of these scriptures make it impossible for you to take as being literal?
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Who is the “WE” in that verse?
Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
If you wanted to say that some of the apostles would still be alive when Christ returned is there a more plain way to say it?
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
What does “Surely” mean in that verse – maybe?
You may have all the best intentions in mind. You may think you are defending the “faith once delivered” but I don’t. I believe Christ plainly taught that he would be back within a generation. There are a lot of scriptures that prove that not just a “handful” I could list pages of them without any comment to fill those pages. Anyway, I have taken time, which I do not have a lot of, to try and address your comments. I do not know if you can receive any of it as being true or as even having a chance of being true. The truth is that no man knows anything except he receives it of the Lord anyway and so with that I close:
1 Corinthians 4:7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?
Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
I realize this post is a bit slapped together but I have no more time Greg.
Thanks - Brian |
