RC Sproul and Eschatology........

I don't think I am contradicting myself at all. I think you might be misunderstanding. They did not make time predictions. While they believed that the words used could refer to a short time span, they also understood that they did not necessarily refer to a short time span. So if they believed that Jesus "soon" return was in their lifetime, they were wrong about the timing, but not about the "soon" return because they understood what it meant (which apparently you don't).

Because the NT stresses the need for readiness.

Of course James wasn't a false prophet. It should be clear that Jesus was not referring to the type of statements that he inspired James to make.

I see your question. Your original post appeared to put that in the mouth of Jesus, when in fact Jesus was putting in the mouth of others. There is no doubt that the word can have a temporal meaning. But there is also no doubt that it doesn't always have that. Failure to make these distinctions make for bad theology.

Huh?? Jesus said (esssentially), "when I return X, Y, and Z will happen." Therefore when X, Y, and Z don't happen, we can safely conclude that he didn't return.

But that was the fault of their understanding. It would be like you trying to put a meaning on words that they don't have in that context.

Perhaps.

Absolutely. I consider it every day. These kinds of discussions raise that issue again, and each time I work through I reevaluate what I believe and so far have found no reason to change.

If your wife told you dinner would be ready soon, and it wasn't ready for 40 years, I don't think you would approve of her use of "soon." If your wife went to be and you told her you would be there soon, and you didn't come to bed for four more hours, I am guessing she wouldn't approve of your use of soon.

I wouldn't use even vieled profanity against God's words. But I don't think this passage is a real problem.

The issue. It sounds like you are just repeating what you have heard others say.

I don't have time to go deeper here because of other priorities though I would encourage you to. I think this issue of time statements is a key one. When you miss them, you end up trying to force things into events that really isn't there and it does extreme injustice to the Scriptures.

 

Do you know what the author of Hebrews (AH) was quoting there? He was quoting Habakkuk which was written almost 700 years before. His point there was certainty of the event.

BTW, Haggai uses a similar phrase in Haggai 2:6 to refer to the end of the age and the rebuilding of the millennial temple. Even if you think the millennial temple is the church or heaven or something else. Haggai 2:6 was written in 520B.C., and uses "little while" to refer to events that are, at best, 500 years away, and probably at least 2500 years away since it is virtually impossible to put any meaningful interpretation on Haggai that has it already fulfilled.

So will you admit that these time statements can refer to periods of time longer than your forty years or so?

They didn't. Saying that something will happen soon is not a time prediction along the lines of "within 40 years" (which isn't soon by many definitions anyway). When I say time predictions, I am referring to defining a period of time.

Yes, James, Peter, Jesus, Paul, Haggai and others all used these terms to refer to things that were not "soon" they way you are defining it.

Again, I have to wonder, if you have studied this enough to have such a dogmatic opinion on it, why are you asking me for examples? You should know them if you know enough to be this dogmatic about it.

I will repeat what I have already said: To say something will happen soon is not the same as saying it will happen in 40 years. Surely you can see that difference. If "soon" means "ready to happen," it does not imply a time frame necessarily.

I have no doubt that they thought Christ would return in their lifetime. That doesn't mean they were right in that understanding. But you notice they never predicted that Christ would return in their lifetime.

I think all your quotes are correct, as I look at them briefly and out of context. BTW, one of the key reasons amillennialism exists is because people in the early centuries expected an earthly kingdom because they saw it in the Bible and when it didn't come in their timing, they thought they must have misunderstood. So they created a different kind of kingdom.

Because James said it under the inspiration of the Spirit. He can't be a false prophet.

Yes, Jesus was quoting what others would say. There will come some who will say two things: "I am the Christ" and "The time is near." He then says, "Do not go after them."

Isn't that obvious? What is your question? You think James was a false prophet that Jesus was warning people not to go after?

The fact that I don't define it like you do doesn't mean I have redefined it. You may be the one who has done that. You don't seem to get that though. I really don't think you grasp the issues. If t is an elastic statement (which it clearly is), then X, Y, and Z help us to know when it comes.

Nor do I.

In a few minutes, perhaps a half hour or so. It doesn't mean 40 years. If you are correct, then "soon" would mean 40 years or so. And that is plainly wrong.

I haven't gone back because I am not in the gutter now and never was there previously.

Nice personal attack again. Stop with this. Debate issues. Knowing and being able to explain something (however ineptly) is not arrogance.

I have never read one word of "Left Behind" and haven't seen more than 2 or 3 minutes of Jack Van Impe, though I did see him in a restaurant once in Troy.

I am no expert on this topic. There is much that I need to learn. I have studied it a bit however.

Can you demonstrate anywhere I have made this argument?

What I have said was that the time statements of Scripture not always used in reference to a definable span, but to necessary events. The fact that somethign is "soon" means that nothing else has to happen. It is imminent.

Again, I urge you not to make personal attacks. Simply because we disagree is no reason to call me arrogant or any other thing. Talk about issues.

 

I have. I taught through the post-exilic historical books, and have taught the Minor Prophets several times. I am doing doctoral work on the post-exilic writings and prophets, and will write my dissertation on some aspect of the kingdom in the post-exilic era. So suffice it to say that whatever our disagreements, I am not new to this subject.

So if your wife told you that dinner was near and she really mean 4 or 5 years, would that be satisfactory to you? I doubt it. But you should also note that some of the NT was written after the fall of Jerusalem and uses the same type of "soon" language.

I already gave some, such as Haggai 2 where "a little while" was 500 years in your view, and at least 2500 in a premillennial view. You have cited a number of examples yourself, such as James.

Now? No. In some cases, it does and always has, but not in all cases. Everyone who is even remotely familiar with linguistics knows that almost every word has a semantic range. It does not always take the same meaning in every usage.

Here's a good example of why you would be better suited to take my advice and put some time in studying the topic. An English word search, particularly in the KJV, is not a sound method of study. The word used here is παραχρῆμα. Out of all its uses, it is only used in an eschatological context only one time, by Luke, and there ... wait for it ... Jesus is telling his disciples that the kingdom is not coming immediately (Luke 19:11). We need to study the languages that God inspired. The English word "near" or "soon" might be used for several distinct Greek or Hebrew words.

Again, that's not a good method of study. You don't go looking for support to "fit a definition." You read the passage and study it and see what it teaches.

So since James was not a false prophet (as you agree) and since he said it was "near" and 2000 years later it has not yet happened, we know that "near" is not a temporal designation in that passage. In the following verse, he talks about being patient, something strange if in fact it were right around the corner. The exhortation to patience seems to indicate that it wasn't "soon" as you are conceiving of it, but still some distance off.

Because they are talking about two different things. Here's an example: If you tell your daughter "Don't go there" and "Go there," we wouldn't accuse you of falsehood. We would assume you mean two different things.

The question is, If Jesus told his followers not to believe people who said they were the Christ and that his coming was near, he would be the one making James' statement false, if he meant what you say he meant. I think the contexts obviously are referring to two different things. I think you hold an untenable position.

Let's say that I tell my son, "Don't go there" meaning "the back yard," and you tell your son "Don't go there" meaning "the mall." If my son goes to the mall and you say to him, "Your daddy told you not to go there," you are the one redefining the word becuase you didn't use it as I used it. You used the same word, but used it in a different way. I think that is what you are doing here. You are using the words Scriptures uses (at least an English gloss of it), but are not using it the way that Scripture does.

I certainly wouldn't say that.

Too long for what? Once you allow 4 or 5 years or 40 (from the time of Christ), or 500 (from the time of Haggai), you have no basis on which to restrict it, even if you do have it right. You run into a lot of problems with that.

My comments were based on what I see as the evidence you have given here. You don't seem to be interacting with the actual issues.

So you think you know it all? That you don't have anything left to learn? Or will you admit with me that you don't know it all?

Now? No, it always has in some cases. That is not a new thing.

I was flipping today through Renald Showers' book "Maranatha: Our Lord, Come." It would be well worth your time, even if you are not persuaded. It would help you to understand what we are saying, and you wouldn't have to keep asking me for examples. You would know them.

I am not a moderator in this forum. I have no authority here whatsoever.

 

His "There Really Is a Difference" is very good as well. Highly readable and clear examination of some key differences between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Premillennialism. Showers has the gift of communication through the written word.

as per the rest, Pastor Larry, AMEN!

RJP

 

And James is no deceiver but an apostle commissioned by Christ with that very message as were the other apostles...

Hebrews 1

3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?​

Example:
Acts 3

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.​

Wasn't this supposed to be a comparison of Genesis 1 and Revelation 1 to determine if the "days" of Genesis 1 are "days" or not "days" (in the typical sense)?​

If, based upon the several passages indicating the immediate coming of Jesus Christ soon after His ascension one wants to use the now apparent delayed Second Coming of Jesus Christ (after nearly 2000 years) , to promote 6 "epochs" (or whatever) of Genesis 1 then go ahead. ​

Why belabor the point or take delight in confounding one another with "gotchas" (although as I have indicated, I don't think its a "gotcha", an interesting challenge but not a "gotcha")?​

HankD​

 

Actually I have already written on both of those and the comments were judged by doctoral students and professors to be substantive.

I don't proudly claim it. I rarely mention it. I brought it up to answer your specific charge that I hadn't studied the topic. It was a sort of C.V to give you some idea that I wasn't just blowing smoke here. I have some reason to know what I am talking about.

I didn't claim they meant the same thing. But the point is easy to see if you understand the issue. You are claiming that "soon" is a time reference. I am pointing out that you see quite a bit of flexibility in "soon." So you are not as rigid as you pretend to be. You recognize that there is a semantic range to the word.

Where was that? The only "dealing" I saw was your charge that I needed to study it. BTW, Ezra 6:14 was talking about the post-exilic temple. The people of that time bemoaned its simplicity compared to the Solomonic temple. Haggai 2:6ff is promising a temple whose "latter glory" will be greater than the former glory. That wasn't the Second Temple which was mourned for its comparative simplicity. Furthermore all the nations weren't shaken at that time. It is the Millennial Temple.

You are dead wrong. I have given examples. You have given examples. I could list more like Rom 13:12. But you will say the same thing about them because you are focused on the wrong thing. You have preemptorily decided on the meaning of the word and any thing that doens't support that is rejected out of hand.

Again, that's false. I gave examples and you gave examples.

Interesting. You want proof but when it is given you dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notion. That is bad method.

The text you cited for support was.

Yes, it seems quite clear. But how do you miss it? Jesus has not yet come. The judgment, as described in Scripture, has not yet started. Yet you claim this verse was fulfilled. That makes no sense.

That doesn't affect the truth of the premise however.

then you aren't paying attention. The argument is much more than that.

1. The words in question do not always refer to time spans. They often refer to imminency.
2. The descriptions of the return of the Lord have not yet happened, and thus, we cannot assert that his coming has already happened.

There is often no way to know.

Because God said to. It is encouragement to remind us that our suffering is not in vain. this is a common theme in the NT.

As I already explained, he is speaking of the coming of false prophets who would make two claims: 1) I am the Christ (i.e. antiChrist) and 2) the time is near.

Jesus says, "When those claims are made, do not follow those people."

The coming of the Lord (as you can tell from the words). When you compare these two passages you see that one is coming from false prophets whom we are to reject because they make two false claims, the other is coming from the brother of Jesus, an apostle who was writing under the inspiration of Scripture.

I wouldn't argue.

More bad thinking on your part. It sounds like an attempt to avoid facing the obvious facts of the matter.

I have much to learn about everything. On Genesis 1 I have done a fair amount of study. One of my mentors has been published on the topic and has presented at ETS. We have spent considerable time talking about it and I have done some proof reading for him on it. I have also written on the use of yom in Genesis 1. But there is much more to be learned.

but to the point at hand, if you are not going to seriously interact with the issues, this is going nowhere. I should have known that from teh beginning. My past experiences here remind me that people don't often want to deal substantively with issues. They just want to play little games and give retorts, and I am not into that.

Have you read Showers? Have you interacted with the evidence he gives?

 

Hi Grasshopper, True and I am guilty but arern't we all inconsistent in one area of another?

BTW, that's why I mentioned the literal "Thousand Year" reign of Christ.

But, as a matter of fact, the Bible is a Book which lends itself to a multi-faceted approach as a comparison of Genesis and Revelation proves.

Blessings
HankD

 

Not really, just because men left Israel off their maps for a time does not mean it did not exist. God knows where Israel is whether we acknowledge it's existence or not and the reaches of its boundaries and in fact are found in the Scriptures and the Scriptures "cannot be broken".

This is an old road which we've been down before.

There is a precept of learning in the Scripture which declares that an accumulation of the knowledge of the Bible must be gathered and compared. True, some do a better job than others:

Isaiah 28

9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:​

Matthew 13

51 Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.
52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.​

In the following passage Jesus promises his Apostles a literal kingdom with literal food and literal thrones:

Luke 22

28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.​

Compare that precept with Revelation 20​

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.​

This place in Revelation seems the most likely for fulfilling Jesus promise of a literal kingdom with literal food and 12 literal thrones upon which the Apostles shall sit and from which they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel. ​

While the earthly temple is not mentioned in revelation 20, the point is there is no reason to disassociate the Luke passage from the the Revelation 20 passages concerning the millenium. The twelve thrones must be housed somewhere in this kingdom where they will sit down with Christ at His table, will eat, drink and reign with Him for 1000 years.​

HankD​

 

I won’t interact with most of what you say here, Grasshopper, since it really doesn’t say anything at all of substance. I will simply make a few comments.

I actually agree, which shows that the scriptural authors were dispensational in their thinking.

Why? Is not all of Scripture inspired by God? Do we discount the parts that aren't in red or in the epistles?

James didn’t do one of the things Jesus warned of.

No of course not. I mean seriously by actually seriously interacting with it instead of giving one liners. I am fine if people disagree with me. I am not bothered by that at all. But I think we should seriously interact with the whole of Scripture. You have not given evidence here that you have done it. You may have, and simply are not doing so here. In the end, I really don’t care what you believe about this.

You really should interact with the other side. It would be worth your time, if for no other reason than to keep you from making some of the silly kinds of comments and retorts you have made here.

I have read some of these, and others that you have not mentioned here. Why?

 

Not sure what your confusion is. The cities of Israel still have not yet been reached with the gospel. But I assume you know that. So why would you claim it is of no substance?

Again, not sure what your confusion is. Dispies don't say the church is gone here. In fact, 2 Thess 2 says that there were false rumors that the DOL had already come and Paul was saying it hadn't come. Tribulation (small t) always existed for the church. Paul is not talking about the Tribulation (capital T) here. Paul was encouraging the Thessalonians that the DOL hadn't come yet.

What does that mean?

It is the Ezekiel temple. But why would it be mentioned to the church? It is during the kingdom that the temple will exist again, as Ezekiel and Haggai talk about.

I didn't say that, but why would they? The temple would have no relevance for the church. Are you saying that God was wrong when he told of an end-time temple?

No.

Probably the end of the world.

I have interacted with every Scripture you have tried to use here, I think. Plus I have interacted with the actual theology of Scripture rather than just proof-texting a few things.

If you think that is what I have laid out, then you are not paying attention. I have said nothing of the sort. I have said that the Scripture gives some very clear indications of what will happen at the return of the Lord. Those have not yet happened. Therefore, the Lord has not returned. I have said that the statements you refer to do not necesssarily refer to short periods of time, and that can be verified from any number of sources that deal seriously with the Scriptures.

As I suspected, I don't think you are really paying attention here. This is proof of that. I haven't read a lot of "dispie books." I have probably read more of the alternative views, to be honest.

Actually we have. You simply haven't studied enough about the topic. I recommended a place to begin and you treated it with disdain. That's not a good thing. If you don't want to continue to study, that's fine I guess. But I wouldn't treat it lightly. And I would probably stop talking about it.