my eclectic view of futurism

RandyPNW said:

Okay, you believe in Imminency Doctrine?--thanks for informing me of that. I don't take the verses the way you and my own denomination do. It explains a lot of things for me in our discussion. You are holding to a set of beliefs associated with Dispensationalism, regardless of whether you are one. Dispensationalism has controlled the agenda for a long time in the US and in other places. But certainly not everywhere.

I was trying to explain that just because we don't know the day and hour of Christ's Coming doesn't mean he can Return on any day or that we should expect he could Come on any day. As I said, I believe certain prophetic events must take place first before Christ Comes back. In fact, I believe Armageddon must take place first before Christ Comes back. But we have to be convinced in our own minds.

Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, you don't believe that Jesus could come on any day, because you hold the post-trib (post-70th week) rapture timing view ?

RandyPNW said:

Well, in becoming Post-Trib I began to study the Pre-Trib position, and ultimately recognized that Imminency Doctrine was part of that view. And because Dispensationalism is so prevalent, Imminency Doctrine crept into the view of many non-Dispensationalists, as well.

I just found Imminency Doctrine to be incompatible with biblical eschatology because even though we were told we don't know the day and the hour of the Lord's Return, and even though we were told to always be ready, still we were told that certain things had to happen before the Lord's Return. I already listed the Exile of Israel, the proclamation of the Gospel to all nations, and the individual ministries we are currently engaged in, among other things.

It just made no sense to me, logically, to keep my eyes peeled on the heavens waiting for an event at an unknown time. We could be "expecting him to break through the clouds" for a thousand years in utter vanity!

So, obviously, waiting for Jesus and being ready for Jesus really consists of doing things that make us ready at all times, regardless of when we think he's coming back. You have to decide for yourself what makes sense to you.

Click to expand...

Would not the possibility that the resurrection/rapture could take place any day and hour - mean that the post-trib view is not a certainty ?

I just posted a new thread..... The "watch rapture view". Take a look at that thread.

Make the "watch rapture view" your prime rapture view. And the post-trib rapture view that you hold as your secondary rapture view.

RandyPNW said:

As I said, I think the "watch rapture view" is the Imminency view, and as such, incompatible with Post-Trib.

Click to expand...

No, the "watch rapture view" is not the imminent rapture view. The imminent rapture view is the certainty that rapture is just about to happen.

The imminent rapture view often involves projecting a near term date that the rapture will take place.

RandyPNW said:

Sorry, Doug, but you don't get to define the terms. Imminency (not immanency) Doctrine is defined as the belief that Christ's Return can take place at any moment. Here is one Pretribber's view:

"THE DOCTRINE OF IMMINENCY: IS IT BIBLICAL?
The primary thought expressed by imminency is that something important is likely to happen, and could do so without delay. While it may not be immediate nor necessarily soon, it is next on the program and may take place at any time"

https://www.pre-trib.org/pretribfiles/pdfs/Stanton-TheDoctrineOfImminency.pdf

Click to expand...

imminency is a noun. imminent is an adjective. call it the imminent rapture view instead of the imminency view.

You are the first person that I have heard mentioning an imminent rapture doctrine nor an imminency rapture doctrine.

The common terms for rapture timing are pre-trib, mid-trb, post-trib, pre-wrath.

RandyPNW said:

Petty! I wasn't trying to get you to enter into a spelling bee. I was trying to get you to acknowledge what Imminency or Imminent means. Imminency Doctrine is what I and others call it. You ignored the point...significantly. I'd like this to be a discussion with value. It's ending up something else.

Click to expand...

Imminency is a noun, not an adjective. Instead of saying Imminency Doctrine - say Doctrine of Imminnency.

Hi Randy

Thank you very much for your post and this whole thread, I have read it all through. I am coming into it a bit late but I wanted to pick up specifically on the Olivet discourse in Matt 24 as there have been some interesting points.

In verse 3 the disciples ask (I am using NIV): "When will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

The "when will this happen" relates to Jesus' statement about the temple being thrown down in AD70, I think we agree there, but there are 2 parts of the question, the second part is about his second coming, and I think Jesus is trying to answer both.

Verses 4-26 in Jesus' reply could be applied to either the end of the temple, or the second coming depending on interpretation. I can understand your view that they relate to the destruction of the temple. However from verse 27 onwards Jesus is talking about his second coming (mentioned specifically in verse 27, verse 30, verse 37, verse 39, verse 42 and verse 44). So the lesson of the fig tree in verses 32-33 is right in the middle of this section about the second coming.

I personally believe the fig tree reference is therefore part of the signs of the second coming and relates to the restoration of Israel/Jerusalem in 1948/1967. I think you are already familiar with the arguments for this. Do you have any more to say about why you think it still relates to the destruction of the temple, even though the passage before from verse 27 is about the second coming? Also, why would the fig tree budding be anything like the destruction of the temple? Surely the destruction of Jerusalem, Israel and the temple were presaged by the cursing of the fig tree in Matt 21, killing it off, rather than by the budding of the fig tree, which represents something new?

However one final thing I will say is that I think some people who do think the fig tree relates to Israel then misunderstand verse 34 "...this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened". Even Doug on this thread seems to have mentioned 70 years and set an end date, but all it says is that the generation will not pass away - ie. there will be people alive in 1948 (or 1967 if you think it refers to Jerusalem) who are still alive when Jesus returns. How old will they be then? 80? 100? 120? Older? It doesn't say, so we can't put an end date on when Jesus will return based on this passage.

Unfortunately I think the credibility of the fig tree = Israel view has been undermined by the date setting that has been done afterwards by people. I can understand the desire to see Jesus return soon but wishful thinking on the dates doesn't help the case.

BibleDaniel7 said:

Doug on this thread seems to have mentioned 70 years and set an end date,

Click to expand...

I would not call 2037 as an end date, but as "not later than" the end of 2037.

minus 7 years, and the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel 9:27 as "not later than" the end of 2030.

Also since the Gog/Magog event of Ezekiel 38-39 will take place right before the 70th week begins, Gog/Magog event also "not later than" the end of 2030.

Those events could take place any time between right now and the not later than years. There is no way to predict exactly when.

BibleDaniel7 said:

all it says is that the generation will not pass away - ie. there will be people alive in 1948 (or 1967 if you think it refers to Jerusalem) who are still alive when Jesus returns. How old will they be then? 80? 100? 120? Older? It doesn't say, so we can't put an end date on when Jesus will return based on this passage.

Click to expand...

Very good - a scripturally correct understanding at last.
I am an example of someone born before 1948. It is quite possible for me to live for another 16 years from now.
I pray to be one of the Lords peoples who say- Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord!

I used to be a dispensationalist, and still somewhat sympathetic to that view even though I no longer agree with it.

My problem with dispensationalism is that it seems to assume too much. I also don't like its wooden and literalistic interpretation of OT prophecies.

However, while I reject the rigid literalism of dispensationalism, I think amillennialism can go to the opposite extreme by over-spiritualizing much of prophecy.

I find the historic/post-tribulational premillennial position to be a happy medium. Still, I only hold to it tentatively. While I don't think the Millennium has to last exactly 1,000 years, I also don't see Satan currently being bound. To me, it looks like he's actually doing a good job at deceiving the world. If we are currently in the Millennium, then it's been pretty disappointing so far.

I'm still unsure about the relation between Israel and the Church. On one hand, I think Scripture is pretty clear that God only has one people, and one way to salvation. There is no Jew nor Greek in Christ.

On the other hand, Paul seems to say that God isn't finished with ethnic Israel, and has some kind of plan for them. So, I think many traditional Christian views like Covenant theology can be overly dismissive of national Israel.

Ultimately, I'm not sure what the implications are when it comes ethnic Jews and the modern state of Israel. Like, I don't want to say that the Jewish people returning to the Holy Land was mere coincidence, and we as Chrisrians should support Israel to some extent. But I think dispensational can go a little too far in their support to the point of being uncritical of everything Israel does or linking it to prophecy in some way.

Idk if I'd go as far as to say I'm a theistic evolutionist, but I don't think evolution is incompatible with a high view of Scripture and I'm open to theistic evolution myself.

I bring this up because it seems like there's a correlation between one's view of Genesis and their eschatology: Dispensationalists seem to almost always be young earth creationists, theistic evolutionists are probably amillennial or preterist, etc.

9Rock9 said:

God isn't finished with ethnic Israel, and has some kind of plan for them

Click to expand...

Yes He does, but we must keep in mind the fact that there are 2 groups of Israelites. They were divided in King Rehoboam's time and have not yet rejoined; as per Ezekiel 37.
The group that are the visible entity are the House of Judah; the Jews, now back in a small part of the Holy Land and facing punishment for their continued rejection of Jesus.
The group which became scattered among the nations and lost their identity, are the House of Israel. God knows who there are, Amos 9:9 and it was to save them that Jesus came. Matthew 15:24 He was successful - thru his Apostles and all the evangelist's since then and we Christians are the result. WE are the peoples who bear the proper fruit. Matthew 21:43

Gods Plan for both groups is well Prophesied. in great detail throughout the Bible. Believe it or not, up to everyone to read and understand our destiny.

Douggg said:

Randy, Matthew 24 is taking place on the mount of Olives. Matthew 24:3.

Here is the question that the disciples asked on the mount of Olives...

Matthew 243 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

That's the context for the response Jesus gave in the rest of Matthew 24. The destruction of the temple and his second coming.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Randy, why did the disciples include "and what shall be the sign of the coming" ? What would have been their reason for even asking about his coming ?

education time....

Jesus and the disciples were in the temple complex earlier in the day in Luke 21. He was speaking to others there in the courtyard, besides his disciples.

That's when Jesus first started talking about the destruction of the temple, followed by the time of Gentiles in Luke 21:24. Then after speaking about the time of the Gentiles, Jesus begins speaking about his coming in Luke 21:25-28.

And a key verse is Luke 21:8
27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Then Jesus speaks to everyone there in courtyard about the parable of the fig tree and other trees, when the things in Luke 21:25-26 will happen, near the end of the great tribulation.

Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Then in Luke 21:37 And in the day time he was teaching in the temple; and at night he went out, and abode in the mount that is called the mount of Olives.

So Luke 21:37 takes us to Matthew 24 and Jesus speaking to the disciples on the mount of Olives.

That's the background of why the disciples included in their question in Matthew 24:3 about his coming.

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

So that is the context of Jesus's response in Matthew 24. His response does include the destruction of the temple (which you have focused on), but also the gospel spread throughout the nations, during the time of the gentiles. And also about the great tribulation that will be right before his second coming.

The parable of the fig tree is about the generation that will not pass without witnessing Jesus's return. The important thing for us to be aware of, being that generation, is look up our redemption draws near ! The rapture of the living in Christ. And the resurrection of the dead in Christ. Into everlasting eternal bodies.

Be encouraged, not discouraged. 1Thessalonians4:18.

Click to expand...

It appears that you are claiming that you believe that what is written in Luke 21:5-36 does not have the same timing as what is written in Matthew 24 (and Mark 13?) because you said "So Luke 21:37 takes us to Matthew 24 and Jesus speaking to the disciples on the mount of Olives.". This would mean that you don't see Luke 21:7-36 as being an account of the Olivet Discourse. Is that correct? If so, that would mean you think this...

Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, 6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? 8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.....(continued up to verse 36)

happened before this...

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. 2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.....(continued up to verse 51).

So, is that what you think, that what is recorded in Luke 21:5-36 occurred before what is recorded in Matthew 24? If so, that is not even reasonable. Why would Jesus have told them again that the temple buildings would be destroyed with no stone left upon another after having already just told them that while then repeating many other things that He had already just told them? That makes no sense.

9Rock9 said:

I used to be a dispensationalist, and still somewhat sympathetic to that view even though I no longer agree with it.

My problem with dispensationalism is that it seems to assume too much. I also don't like its wooden and literalistic interpretation of OT prophecies.

However, while I reject the rigid literalism of dispensationalism, I think amillennialism can go to the opposite extreme by over-spiritualizing much of prophecy.

Click to expand...

You have the wrong understanding of amillennialism which is based on clear, straightforward scriptures that are used to help understand more difficult scriptures like those contained within highly symbolic books like Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah and Revelation.

The amillennialist understanding of Revelation 20 is partly based on the clear scriptures which teach that Jesus began reigning after His resurrection (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-23) and that His people are priests in His kingdom now (1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:5-6).

Scripture clearly teaches that all unbelievers will be killed when Jesus returns (Matt 24:35-39, 1 Thess 5:2-3, 2 Thess 1:7-8,2 and that the earth will be burned up when Jesus returns (2 Peter 3:10-12), so amills recognize that it's not possible for any mortals to survive the return of Christ and then populate the earth for a thousand years.

Scripture clearly teaches that all of the saved and lost dead will be bodily resurrected at the same time/hour (John 5:28-29, Daniel 12:2, Acts 24:15), so that means Revelation 20 can't possibly teach that there will be two separate mass bodily resurrections of the saved and lost separated by 1,000+ years.

Scripture clearly teaches that all people will be judged at the same time (Matt 13:40-43, Matt 13:47-50, Matthew 25:31-46) rather than there being two or more separate judgments separated by 1,000+ years.

The problem with premillennialism is that it often interprets symbolic text literally and literal text either symbolically or not as literally as they should.

9Rock9 said:

I find the historic/post-tribulational premillennial position to be a happy medium. Still, I only hold to it tentatively. While I don't think the Millennium has to last exactly 1,000 years, I also don't see Satan currently being bound. To me, it looks like he's actually doing a good job at deceiving the world. If we are currently in the Millennium, then it's been pretty disappointing so far.

I'm still unsure about the relation between Israel and the Church. On one hand, I think Scripture is pretty clear that God only has one people, and one way to salvation. There is no Jew nor Greek in Christ.

On the other hand, Paul seems to say that God isn't finished with ethnic Israel, and has some kind of plan for them. So, I think many traditional Christian views like Covenant theology can be overly dismissive of national Israel.

Ultimately, I'm not sure what the implications are when it comes ethnic Jews and the modern state of Israel. Like, I don't want to say that the Jewish people returning to the Holy Land was mere coincidence, and we as Chrisrians should support Israel to some extent. But I think dispensational can go a little too far in their support to the point of being uncritical of everything Israel does or linking it to prophecy in some way.

Idk if I'd go as far as to say I'm a theistic evolutionist, but I don't think evolution is incompatible with a high view of Scripture and I'm open to theistic evolution myself.

I bring this up because it seems like there's a correlation between one's view of Genesis and their eschatology: Dispensationalists seem to almost always be young earth creationists, theistic evolutionists are probably amillennial or preterist, etc.

Click to expand...

Spiritual Jew said:

It appears that you are claiming that you believe that what is written in Luke 21:5-36 does not have the same timing as what is written in Matthew 24 (and Mark 13?) because you said "So Luke 21:37 takes us to Matthew 24 and Jesus speaking to the disciples on the mount of Olives.". This would mean that you don't see Luke 21:7-36 as being an account of the Olivet Discourse. Is that correct?

Click to expand...

I was pointing out that Jesus in Luke 21 was speaking in the temple courtyard.

Later, at the end of the day, Jesus and the disciples left the temple mount and walked to the Mt. of Olives where they regularly over-nighted.

Once on the Mt. of Olives, in Matthew 24, the disciples asked more about what Jesus had said when in the temple courtyard.

On my Olivet discourse chart, I foot noted that Luke 21 was a parallel to Matthew 24.

Spiritual Jew said:

So, is that what you think, that what is recorded in Luke 21:5-36 occurred before what is recorded in Matthew 24? If so, that is not even reasonable. Why would Jesus have told them again that the temple buildings would be destroyed with no stone left upon another after having already just told them that while then repeating many other things that He had already just told them? That makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Because apparently not all of the disciples were there with Jesus as he was speaking in the temple courtyard. But joined up with Jesus and the other disciples (the ones in the temple courtyard, like Luke was) on the walk to the mount of Olives.

Douggg said:

I was pointing out that Jesus in Luke 21 was speaking in the temple courtyard.

Click to expand...

Only in Luke 21:5-6 which is parallel to Matthew 24:1-2 and Mark 13:1-2. What is recorded in Luke 21:7-36 is from His Olivet Discourse which, obviously, was given when He was on the Mount of Olives (hence, the name "Olivet Discourse") and is parallel to Matthew 24:3-51 and Mark 13:3-37.

Douggg said:

Later, at the end of the day, Jesus and the disciples left the temple mount and walked to the Mt. of Olives where they regularly over-nighted.

Once on the Mt. of Olives, in Matthew 24, the disciples asked more about what Jesus had said when in the temple courtyard.

Click to expand...

So, your claim seems to be that the questions they are recorded as asking in Matthew 24:3 were asked at a different time than the questions they are recorded as asking in Luke 21:7. If, that is what you are claiming, then that is clearly false. If you read Mark 13:4 you can see that the questions are recorded very similarly to how they are recorded in Luke 21:7. But, you wouldn't try to say that the questions recorded in Mark 13:4 were asked at a different time than the questions recorded in Luke 21:7, right? Similarly, it makes no sense to claim that the questions recorded in Matthew 24:3 were recorded at a different time than Luke 21:7 since that would force you to conclude that they were asked at a different time than Mark 13:4, also, despite that clearly not being the case.

Douggg said:

On my Olivet discourse chart, I foot noted that Luke 21 was a parallel to Matthew 24.

Click to expand...

Your comments came across as if you were saying what is recorded in Matthew 24 occurred after what is recorded in Luke 21. But, that isn't the case then?

Douggg said:

I was pointing out that Jesus in Luke 21 was speaking in the temple courtyard.

Click to expand...

Luke 21:5-6 only. That is parallel to Matthew 24:1-2 and Mark 13:1-2. Starting in Luke 21:7 it's parallel to the other accounts starting in Matthew 24:3 and Mark 13:3 where Jesus was speaking on the Mount of Olives. Do you agree with that?

Douggg said:

Later, at the end of the day, Jesus and the disciples left the temple mount and walked to the Mt. of Olives where they regularly over-nighted.

Once on the Mt. of Olives, in Matthew 24, the disciples asked more about what Jesus had said when in the temple courtyard.

Click to expand...

This comes across as if you think the disciples asked Him different questions in Matthew 24:3 then they are recorded as asking in Luke 21:7. Is that true? If so, that is false. They are parallel accounts of the same questions asked at the same time. If you read Mark 13:4 you can see that the questions are recorded very similarly to how they are recorded in Luke 21:7. Do you claim that the questions they asked in Mark 13:4 were asked at a different time than the questions recorded in Mark 13:4? I doubt it.

The only reason the second question is recorded differently in Matthew 24:3 than it is in Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 is apparently because Matthew wanted to make it more clear that Jesus spoke of two different events in the Olivet Discourse (things related to 70 AD and things related to His future second coming). I believe the second question they asked is most likely recorded word for word in Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7, but Matthew decided to paraphrase it because of wanting to show that Jesus did not just talk about things related to the destruction of the temple buildings, but also things related to His future coming at the end of the age.