Eschatology: The "Left Behind" narrative is unbiblical

[RandyPNW]

More than a setback. Chiliasm was determined to be completely wrong at the divinely inspired Second Ecumenical Synod in Constantinople, the same one that produced the current recension of the Symbol of Faith (the Nicene Creed), and indeed the clause “Whose kingdom shall have no end,” referring to our Lord, was included specifically to refute the idea that our Lord would only rule for a thousand years, which had been a doctrine embraced by the Apollinarians, who denied the Incarnation in a big way by blasphemously asserting, contrary to Scripture, that our Lord had a human body but a divine soul. This doctrine of Apollinarius, who stressed premillenialism far more than any of the ante-Nicene fathers had, caused people, very wisely, to think about what the original Scripture meant.

Of course now there are many Chiliasts and adherents of related doctrines who also confess the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, without paying much attention to the clause “whose kingdom shall have no end.” And indeed, some might arguably be correct vis a vis the Symbol of Faith provided they do not assert that the Kingdom of our Lord will end after the initial thousand years.

And Tertullian, famous for his use of Trinitarian terminology, was also one of those awful "Montanists," wasn't he? I suppose if you're interested in one subject, and wrong in another subject, that all of the subjects, good or bad, must be thrown out?

The important matter for me is what God promised Abraham, and His Word cannot fail. He promised Abraham a "nation." That nation is now sort of suffering in grief, and is attempting to reestablish itself, though the world doesn't seem able to help it.

I have to look at what momentous event turned the Church, of all entities, against little Israel, the "apple of God's eye?" Well, the world is all too ready to jump on God's bandwagon, condemning Israel when God is not actually doing that. After all, Christ said they didn't know what they were doing, and longed to gather them as chicks under his wings.

So the big momentous event that this belief turned on was disbelief, that is, the choice to no longer believe in God's grace, patience, and kindness towards Israel. That explains following God as He turns aside from Israel to reach other nations.

But did God turn to other nations to no longer care about Israel? No. Neither has He forgotten His promises....in my opinion.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Exegesis is when you say what a text means. No more, no less.

Not exact enough. Meaning from any language can only be derived from its context.

exegesis is where one explains what the text is saying in the context of the rest of Scripture,

This is more exact.

There is more. Because this is Scripture the Analogy of Faith holds:

The Analogy of Faith is a hermeneutical principle that states that all scriptures are harmoniously united with no essential contradictions. Therefore, every proposed interpretation of any passage must be compared with what the other parts of the bible teach. The rule of interpretation means that, since Scripture is self-consistent, you should interpret Scripture in light of other Scripture. And wherever there is an unclear verse, you should look for a clear verse to explain it.

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

And is Paul talking about the Church of Thessolanika?

No. 1 Th 4:16 is a future event. It's about the raising the of the dead in Christ. That means ALL of the dead in Christ. 1 Th 4:17 is about all living believers and the resurrected dead in Christ being raptured together and directly to Heaven. 1 Cor 15:52 is fulfilled only with 1 Th 4:16-17. If you compare those three verses, you will see that is true. We will instantly receive our eternal bodies and then we are raptured to Heaven. All raptures go straight to Heaven: 2 Kings 2:11 and Rev 11:12.

The pre-Trib timing of the rapture is assured by Rev 4:1. Apostle John never left the island of Patmos while receiving his vision of Revelation. It is proven by John's own words that he was shown his entire vision of Revelation by just one angel, cited in Rev 22:8. Therefore, Rev 4:1 is entirely a future event, the one event before the Trib.

 

[All Becomes New]

No.

False. Paul says, "You." There is nothing in the context that says this "you" is some future group outside of Thessolanika.

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

False. Paul says, "You." There is nothing in the context that says this "you" is some future group outside of Thessolanika.

You are not fully reading the verses that I referenced. 1 Th 4:16-17 pertain to the future. As of the rapture (Rev 4:1), it is only then that the dead in Christ are raised, and along with we who are currently living, we will be instantly changed into our eternal bodies through 1 Cor 15:52. 1 Th 4:17 then raptures us straight to Heaven.

Show me where that isn't true.

 

[All Becomes New]

You are not fully reading the verses that I referenced. 1 Th 4:16-17 pertain to the future. As of the rapture (Rev 4:1), it is only then that the dead in Christ are raised, and along with we who are currently living, we will be instantly changed into our eternal bodies through 1 Cor 15:52. 1 Th 4:17 then raptures us straight to Heaven.

Show me where that isn't true.

How many times do I need to tell you I am not dealing with any of those verses? I am dealing with 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10.

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

How many times do I need to tell you I am not dealing with any of those verses? I am dealing with 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10.

Here's 2 Th 1:6 (NKJV): since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with 3 tribulation those who trouble you,

That means the unbelievers enter the Trib, and we don't. Now, where do we go when this world is engulfed in God's wrath?

 

[All Becomes New]

Here's 2 Th 1:6 (NKJV): since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with 3 tribulation those who trouble you,

That means the unbelievers enter the Trib, and we don't. Now, where do we go when this world is engulfed in God's wrath?

2 Thessalonians 1:6 (NASB)
"For after all it is only right for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you,"

The word can mean many things and does not always refer to the Great Tribulation. Sometimes it simply means "trouble."

 

[The Liturgist]

Not exact enough. Meaning from any language can only be derived from its context.

This is more exact.

There is more. Because this is Scripture the Analogy of Faith holds:

The Analogy of Faith is a hermeneutical principle that states that all scriptures are harmoniously united with no essential contradictions. Therefore, every proposed interpretation of any passage must be compared with what the other parts of the bible teach. The rule of interpretation means that, since Scripture is self-consistent, you should interpret Scripture in light of other Scripture. And wherever there is an unclear verse, you should look for a clear verse to explain it.

Indeed, you are of course quite right, and the definition you have provided is the one I agree with concerning the nature of exegesis.

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

How many times do I need to tell you I am not dealing with any of those verses? I am dealing with 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10.

Here are 2 Th 1:5-10 (NKJV): which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; 6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

Verses 6 - 7 are about unbelievers entering the Trib, and we are given rest in Heaven.

Verses 8 - 9 are about God's wrath carried out on the unbelievers in the Trib.

Verse 10 is about the pre-Trib rapture.

 

[The Liturgist]

And Tertullian, famous for his use of Trinitarian terminology, was also one of those awful "Montanists," wasn't he? I suppose if you're interested in one subject, and wrong in another subject, that all of the subjects, good or bad, must be thrown out?

In the case of Tertullian, unlike Apollinarius, he wrote a number of good and useful works regarded as doctrinally orthodox and masterful, which is why his conversion to Montanism was regarded as such a great tragedy, because he was persuaded to join an existing heresy, owing largely to his rigorist hamartiology.

But really, aside from the word “Trinity”, which is useful but not essential, indeed, I don’t recall St. Athanasius, the most important defender of the doctrine of the Trinity, ever using the word to describe it, nor does it appear in the Creed, his contributions have become forgotten outside of the field of Patristic studies.

 

[The Liturgist]

Exegesis is when you say what a text means. No more, no less.

Wrong, see the correct definition posted by @Ain't Zwinglian .

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

2 Thessalonians 1:6 (NASB)
"For after all it is only right for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you,"

The word can mean many things and does not always refer to the Great Tribulation. Sometimes it simply means "trouble."

View attachment 354478

What does Paul mean in 1 Th 1:5-10, the author of the rapture verses: 1 Th 4:16-17? What does Paul mean who said the Judgment Seat of Christ will occur on the day of the rapture, in 2 Tim 4:8 ("on that day")?

 

[All Becomes New]

What does Paul mean in 1 Th 1:5-10, the author of the rapture verses: 1 Th 4:16-17? What does Paul mean who said the Judgment Seat of Christ will occur on the day of the rapture, in 2 Tim 4:8 ("on that day")?

Christ's return.

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

Christ's return.

False. Jesus' next return is for the rapture. He will remain unseen by the world below, just as 1 Th 4:17 proves. We won't even see Him until after we pass through heavenly clouds (1 Th 4:17). Therefore, the unbelieving world below will not see Him, at all. That is important because His next return is governed by Acts 1:9-11. The 2A (2nd Advent) in no way aligns with Acts 1:11. Only 1 Th 4:17, a rapture verse, aligns with Acts 1:11.

 

[All Becomes New]

Jesus' next return

There are not three comings of Christ. Only two: The first when He came to die. The second is when He is coming to judge. There is no other coming of Christ than that.

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

There are not three comings of Christ. Only two: The first when He came to die. The second is when He is coming to judge. There is no other coming of Christ than that.

Jesus doesn't come to Earth in the rapture. Look at 1 Th 4:17. We are raptured to Him.

 

[All Becomes New]

Jesus doesn't come to Earth in the rapture. Look at 1 Th 4:17. We are raptured to Him.

You said he "returns." That was your word, not mine.

 

[Jeffrey Bowden]

You said he "returns." That was your word, not mine.

Return, for rapture purposes, does not mean to Earth. Read 1 Th 4:16. Jesus "descends." Read 1 Th 4:17. He never descends to Earth. We go to Him. Please go by what those verses say. The next return of Jesus is not to Earth. Acts 1:11 only requires that He descends into the view of believers, only. He will do that in Heaven.

 

[RandyPNW]

In the case of Tertullian, unlike Apollinarius, he wrote a number of good and useful works regarded as doctrinally orthodox and masterful, which is why his conversion to Montanism was regarded as such a great tragedy, because he was persuaded to join an existing heresy, owing largely to his rigorist hamartiology.

But really, aside from the word “Trinity”, which is useful but not essential, indeed, I don’t recall St. Athanasius, the most important defender of the doctrine of the Trinity, ever using the word to describe it, nor does it appear in the Creed, his contributions have become forgotten outside of the field of Patristic studies.

The point is, I don't wish to brush aside reasonably good contributions just because in one area the theologian has problems. There are indeed some problems that are fatal.

But I was citing a case where Tertullian has contributed good material despite his involvement ini Montanism. I could say the same thing about Origen, who dabbled in all kinds of speculations, and incurred the anger of some who want to call him a "heretic." But Origen was brave and was unafraid to look at many difficult issues and talk about them, even as he faithfully upheld the fundamentals of the Gospel and contributed, I think, a lot to Christian theology.

But yes to your point on Trinitarianism. Athanasius was the more important contributor, but came later. Some brteak the ice, and others can later "swim."