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

Excellent. Way to get personal there.

I think the point is the insistence. Of course they thought it would happen in their lifetime. In part, that stems from the book of John and Christ's words to Peter. But isn't it clear that they don't meant that?

I am not aware of any that I ignore.

You obviously have me confused with someone else. I don't play games with time statements. I fully affirm them. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the way I think something should happen. You are the one talking about the way it should happen, and putting a time frame on it. I am not doing that.

I would appreciate it if you would avoid getting personal. I have not done that to you, and you have no cause to do it to me. Christians throughout the centuries have differed on this issue. That should not result in personal attacks from you. I won't ask you to apologize for the ones you have already made (though you should). I will simply ask you not to do it in the future.

Keep the discussion on the topic, and realize that I believe the Bible as much as you do. I can fully defend what I believe. So let's differ with charity.

 

I quoted Scripture and applied it to the situation at hand. In 2 Peter 3, the people there believed in a "soon" coming, and when it didn't happen, Peter called them "mockers that come with their mocking."

I didn't say that. I said "Perhaps" you don't know. Perhaps you do. It could be that words have a wider semantic domain than you realize. So if you are going to say I said something, please say what I actually said.

Yes you are. You called me arrogant with no basis whatsoever. What I said had to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore, even if I had done that (which I clearly didn't), that does not mean that you should do it.

I do. I am asking you to refrain from getting personal. If you can't do that, then a conversation is not worth having.

 

It appears that Gill is contradicting himself. In my opinion he is incorrect in his exegesis of Verse 30 particularly when it is interpreted in the context of Verse 31.

Matthew 24:29-31
29. Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

The sound of the trumpet [as well as the appearance of the clouds] is elsewhere associated in the New Testament with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ [1 Corinthians 15:50-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17; Revelation 11:15-19; Revelation 1:7]. I believe that to be the case here, notwithstanding the "Immediately" of verse 29. Looking at Gill's exegesis of the above passage I believe he is using a metaphorical approach to the passage.

 

Pease allow me to step in for a minute. What eschatological position does R.C. Sproul believe?

 

From his book The Last Days According to Jesus which I have not read thoroughly I believe he is a Partial Preterist and likely a-millennial or post millennial.

 

I fail to see why both Gen:1 and Rev:1 can not be literal. The terms used in Gen:1 are objective. A day is a defined period of time. I believe this to be a 24hr. day. The terms in Rev:1 are relative and comparative. If I tell you that super will be ready soon, you have one time frame in mind and if I tell you that my son will return from Iraq soon, you have another time frame in mind. The term is relative. Rev. states that these things will happen soon. Not in a day or amonth or a year. Can they? Of course. Will they ??? I do not see where I am doing a 180 or changing my literal reading of the verses. If you do, please explain to me how.

 

The rapture is part of his coming.

No they were correct. That's my point. Just because "soon" doesn't mean what you think it should doesn't mean that they were wrong.

And?

No, of course not.

Did you read the verse? Jesus is talking about those who will say "I am the Christ" and "the time is near." He is saying do not go after them.

Are you playing the devil's advocate here? Or do you really not know this stuff?

When Jesus returns, he comes on the clouds in power and glory, destroys all his enemies, binds Satan, and sets up his kingdom. That hasn't happened. We interpret the time statements by the use of the words involved.

But perhaps they are wrong. I think we need to take seriously the Scriptures that desribe the second coming of Christ. We should stop putting our own expectations on it.

You think "soon" means "short period of time" and so you find a way to shoe horn it into AD70 or thereabouts. But 40 years really isn't "soon." As I type, dinner will be ready "soon," and I am sure that it won't be forty years. So even you recognize that the words involved have meanings that don't conform that your particular desires.

I won't prolong this. I imagine if you are serious about this line of questioning, you will take the time to do the research.

My best to you.

 

I have read The Last Days According to Jesus very thoroughly and agree with Old Reg that RC is a partial preterist, though he calls himself a “moderate” preterist as opposed to a “radical” preterist. According to his own definition on p. 24, all preterists believe that “the kingdom is a present reality” while radical preterists believe that “all future prophecies in the NT have already been fulfilled” as distinguished from moderate preterists who believe that “many prophecies in the NT have already been fulfilled” and that “some crucial prophecies have not yet been fulfilled.” He does refer to divisions within preterism by the more common terms “full” and “partial” on page. 202. He states that the purpose of the book is to evaluate moderate preterism and it views of eschatology.

I found it difficult to pin down his specific position regarding the millennium from the manner in which he cites and evaluates his sources. He is either a- or post-. He is definitely not pre- and intensely opposed to the dispensational premil position. A great deal of time is consumed evaluating the positions of J. Stuart Russell’s Parousia, both the first anonymous edition and the second edition which bears his name.

Sproul’s position is that the Lord’s second coming was at least partially fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. On p. 202-203 of TLDATJ, Sproul says that “the preterist is a sentinel standing guard against frivolous and superficial attempts to downplay or explain away the force of [the time references of the New Testament regarding eschatological prophecy.] He further states that the destruction of Jerusalem “certainly spelled the end of crucial redemptive-historical epoch. It must be viewed as the end of some age. It also represents a significant visitation of the Lord in judgement and vitally important ‘day of the Lord.’ Whether this was the only day of the Lord about which Scripture speaks remains a major point of controversy among preterists”.

Significant in the book is the emphasis upon the argument for an early date for the writing of Revelation as presented in Kenneth Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell. I downloaded my copy of BJF from one of Gary North’s sites about 8 years ago or more. At one point many of the works by Gentry, DeMar, Chilton, Bahnsen and others were available as free pdf downloads from North. North and the “Tyler Group” basically represented a continuation and refinement of Rushdooney’s brand of Theonomic Post-Millennialism. North is married to Rushdoony’s daughter. Sproul quotes these writers frequently but does not side with their position although they certainly are in agreement on a good many points.

 

Wrong, they are time statements. Just relative statements not absolutes. But I think you know that.

Whatever he chose. I am not an Author of the Bible.

Not arguing or debating. Just put my 2 cents in. Take or leave it, doesn't matter to me.

 

I have read through this thread several times and have to ask the question, what is the purpose of this discussion?

I think it has been established that RC is a preterist of some variety. It would apprear, (although I might be mistaken and if I am please accept my appology beforehand) that grasshopper is a student of Sproul and he doesn't like pre-mil, pre-trib Dispensationalists. So, what are we trying to accomplish here?

These huge cut and past jobs are not really effective, By the way.