Approaches to Eschatology

[food4thought]

Dispensationalism is the most complete and Bible honoring of the eschatological views, and it is sad that so many people refuse to see that.

With regard to @claninja, the word translated as "near" can mean immanent, or in other words, nothing else must happen before the events described. It is not always used that way, but it can be.

Hope this helps;
Michael

 

[claninja]

Actually, we do indeed take both "near" and "soon" to mean exactly what God said.

No, you don't. As you clearly showed in post #18, you use 2 peter 3 to interpret "near" and "soon" to mean 2000+ years based on time relativity to God.

And I answer, relative to what? You insist it is relative to mankind,

Correct, revelation was written to mankind, no?

But an explicit statement of a period of time is not a relative term.

for arguments sake (lets not get into Einstein's theory of relativity), I agree. For humans on earth, explicit periods of time are not relative.

To change an explicit statement of time, into a relative term, is to claim it does not mean what it actually said.

Kind of like turning 490 years into 2000+ years by inserting a gap into a time frame of 70 'sevens'

 

[parousia70]

With regard to @claninja, the word translated as "near" can mean immanent, or in other words, nothing else must happen before the events described. It is not always used that way, but it can be.

Got any examples of it being used this way?

 

[parousia70]

But an explicit statement of a period of time is not a relative term. To change an explicit statement of time, stated six times over in just six verses, into a relative term, is to claim it does not mean what it actually said.

"a day is as 1000 years and 1000 years are as a day".

Seems explicit enough. You insist 1 explicit day is RELATIVE in this passage, is it not?

Yet there are over 100 New testament "time statements" about the relative nearness to the 1st-century peoples specifically addressed in the epistles and gospels.

Over 100.

If the existence of just six statements prove to you that you must accept the literal meaning of those 6 time statements, why does the existence of over 100 mean exactly the opposite to you?

 

[claninja]

With regard to @claninja, the word translated as "near" can mean immanent,

where is it translated this way?

 

[parousia70]

where is it translated this way?

Maybe it's here?:

Hebrews 10:37
For yet a very little while,
And He who is coming will come and will not tarry.

oops, never mind... probably not this one.

Though I can't help but wonder what the Dispensationalists' "literal" interpretation of this passage would be...

I am curious what "Literal" interpretation could be applied that would change Hebrews 10:37 from what it actually says into:
"For in yet a few thousand years, He who is coming will finally come after a long, long delay"

Though, do Dispensationalists even consider the Book of Hebrews Canonical?

 

[Monk Brendan]

There are a number of approaches to the study of eschatology. But all of them can be boiled down to two choices. Do we believe that God actually meant what He said, or do we not believe that?

All the various eschatological "isms" except one fall into the first choice. That is, for them to even appear to be rational, it is necessary to begin with an assumption that the many prophetic utterances in the Bible do not actually mean what they say. This takes in Preterism, Historicism, Covenant Theology, and Idealism. All of these deal with the various prophecies in the Bible in different ways. But all of them start with an assumption that they do not really mean what they actually say.

The only "ism" that assumes that the entire Bible actually means everything it says is Dispensationalism.

And as I said elsewhere today, Dispensationalism of any kind leads to the Divine Principle of the wannabee christ Sun Myung Moon.

Here is what I think about eschatology:

Jesus made it clear in Matthew 25 that we will NOT be quizzed on whether we believed in the right eschatology.

All I need to know about it is that one way or the other, Jesus Himself will summon me: at the moment of my death or the Parousia, whichever comes first.

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

 

[Biblewriter]

"a day is as 1000 years and 1000 years are as a day".

Seems explicit enough. You insist 1 explicit day is RELATIVE in this passage, is it not?

Yet there are over 100 New testament "time statements" about the relative nearness to the 1st-century peoples specifically addressed in the epistles and gospels.

Over 100.

If the existence of just six statements prove to you that you must accept the literal meaning of those 6 time statements, why does the existence of over 100 mean exactly the opposite to you?

ALL of these use relative terms, whose meaning depends on the point of reference. You are insisting upon one feasible conclusion about what this point of reference is. But other conclusions are equally feasible. So your argument lacks anything even resembling a firm logical base.

 

[Biblewriter]

And as I said elsewhere today, Dispensationalism of any kind leads to the Divine Principle of the wannabee christ Sun Myung Moon.

Here is what I think about eschatology:

Jesus made it clear in Matthew 25 that we will NOT be quizzed on whether we believed in the right eschatology.

All I need to know about it is that one way or the other, Jesus Himself will summon me: at the moment of my death or the Parousia, whichever comes first.

Christ is born! Glorify Him!

Anyone who would say such a thing as this, only proves his near total ignorance of the subject.

 

[parousia70]

ALL of these use relative terms, whose meaning depends on the point of reference.

Are explicit time statements in scripture "relative" or not?... first you said they are not, now just a few posts later you insist they are?

 

[BABerean2]

Very, well, tell us the difference, in your own words. By now you should know that no one listens to the many videos you keep posting.

The difference is that New Covenant Theology actually believes what the scriptures say in Exodus 34:28, that the 10 commandments are the Sinai Covenant.
Nowhere in the New Testament does the Apostle Paul divide the Law of Moses into three parts, in an attempt to hang onto the Old Covenant.
We know the term "The Moral Law" is not found in the Bible.

We believe what Paul said in Galatians 3:16-19, when he said the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed (Christ) could come to whom the promise was made.

We can see that Paul compelled the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage" in Galatians 4:24-31.

We do not believe that the New Covenant is a "New Administration" of the Old Covenant, as is found in Reformed Covenant Theology.

We understand the New Covenant believers were never commanded to keep a Sabbath day, because Christ is our Sabbath rest every day of the week.
(See Colossians 2:16-17)

Unlike Dispensational Theology, we actually can see the fact that Jesus fulfilled Jeremiah 31:31-34, at Calvary.
We can see the word "now" in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18.
We can see the word "church" in Hebrews 12:18-24.
We also believe that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of Israel, as found in Matthew 1:1.
We also believe Paul in Galatians 3:16 when he said the Abrahamic promise was made only to Christ.
We also understand that the Church as a whole has never been a "Gentile Church" as Dispensationalists often infer.

We also understand the "Church Age" ends at the Second Coming of Christ.

We do not have to ignore the New Covenant to make our doctrine work.

You may not listen to any of the videos I have posted, however some people have thanked me for posting some of them, so once again we find your statements to be in error.

.

 

[food4thought]

Got any examples of it being used this way?

where is it translated this way?

I apologize, I was mistaken. Biblewriter has the correct view of it, and it is demonstrated by OT prophecies like Isaiah 13:6-13, which depict the day of the LORD (the end times) as near, when in fact it was, even by your reckoning, hundreds of years away. Also, passages of OT prophecy depict Christ's 1st and 2nd coming in the same passage (Isaiah 61:1-2... see how Jesus Himself makes a distinction when He quotes it in Luke 4:18-19), when we know that there is a significant time gap between them.

 

[parousia70]

I apologize, I was mistaken. Biblewriter has the correct view of it, and it is demonstrated by OT prophecies like Isaiah 13:6-13, which depict the day of the LORD (the end times) as near, when in fact it was, even by your reckoning, hundreds of years away.

Actually, This particular "Day of the Lord" event WAS FOR the 6th Century BC Babylonians:

Isaiah 13:1 The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.

When Isaiah wrote this, the event WAS near to the Babylonians it overtook, and as History confirms scripture, took place in 539 BC when the Medes Sacked Babylon:

Isaiah 13:6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is at hand! It will come as destruction from the Almighty.

Isaiah 13:9-13 Behold, the day of the LORD comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. 10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine. 11 "I will punish the world for its evil, And the wicked for their iniquity; I will halt the arrogance of the proud, And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. 12 I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold, A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir. 13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the LORD of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger.


Isaiah 13:17 "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, Who will not regard silver; And as for gold, they will not delight in it.

There have been several "day of the lord" events in Israel's history documented in scripture. the Sacking of Babylon by the Medes, as foretold by Isaiah above, is but one of them.

 

[food4thought]

Actually, This particular "Day of the Lord" event WAS FOR the 6th Century BC Babylonians:

Isaiah 13:1 The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw.

When Isaiah wrote this, the event WAS near to the Babylonians it overtook, and as History confirms scripture, took place in 539 BC when the Medes Sacked Babylon:

Isaiah 13:6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is at hand! It will come as destruction from the Almighty.

Isaiah 13:9-13 Behold, the day of the LORD comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. 10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine. 11 "I will punish the world for its evil, And the wicked for their iniquity; I will halt the arrogance of the proud, And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. 12 I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold, A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir. 13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the LORD of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger.


Isaiah 13:17 "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, Who will not regard silver; And as for gold, they will not delight in it.

There have been several "day of the lord" events in Israel's history documented in scripture. the Sacking of Babylon by the Medes, as foretold by Isaiah above, is but one of them.

That was still about 150 years away, so even if I agree with you about the meaning of the prophecy, you just proved my point.

 

[food4thought]

10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine. 11 "I will punish the world for its evil,

This indicates a different time than the sacking of Babylon by the Medes... I can concede that this passage has a near and far fulfillment, though, from the context. Prophecy often does this, moving from a near judgment to the ultimate day of the LORD.

 

[Biblewriter]

Are explicit time statements in scripture "relative" or not?... first you said they are not, now just a few posts later you insist they are?

Explicit time statements are not relative. ALL words indicating nearness are relative.

 

[parousia70]

This indicates a different time than the sacking of Babylon by the Medes... I can concede that this passage has a near and far fulfillment, though, from the context. Prophecy often does this, moving from a near judgment to the ultimate day of the LORD.

How does that indicate a different time?

If you were a Babylonian YOUR world would have ended, no?

Scripture oft uses this seemingly universally cataclysmic language to describe the fall of a nation or a King.

Take a look at this:

AFTER Davids battlefield defeat of Saul, notice the things David says took place:
(2 Samuel 22:8-16)

8“Then the earth shook and trembled;
The foundations of heaven quaked and were shaken,
Because He was angry.
9 Smoke went up from His nostrils,
And devouring fire from His mouth;
Coals were kindled by it.
10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down
With darkness under His feet.
11 He rode upon a cherub, and flew;
And He was seen upon the wings of the wind.
12 He made darkness canopies around Him,
Dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.
13 From the brightness before Him
Coals of fire were kindled.

14 “The Lord thundered from heaven,
And the Most High uttered His voice.
15 He sent out arrows and scattered them;
Lightning bolts, and He vanquished them.
16 Then the channels of the sea were seen,
The foundations of the world were uncovered,
At the rebuke of the Lord,
At the blast of the breath of His nostrils.

God sure was a huffin and a puffin right there wasn't He?

Bowing the heavens, starting fires with his nostrils, shooting arrows, actually seen riding on Clouds and Cherubs, shaking the heavens and laying the foundation of the entire earth bare.

Is it your position that these things LITERALLY happened during that Battle, exactly as David said they did?

If not, was David Lying?

 

[parousia70]

Explicit time statements are not relative. ALL words indicating nearness are relative.

Yet you said 1 day and 1000 years are relative, did you not?

Can you show me where the Bible teaches you to interpret:
Hebrews 10:37
For yet a very little while,
And He who is coming will come and will not tarry.

from what it actually says into:
"For in yet a few thousand years, He who is coming will finally come after a long, long delay"

The Literal translation is even more precise:

( 10:37 YLT)for yet a very very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not tarry;

Very, Very little while.

What do you say is is the point of the author emphasizing "very VERY little while", if, as you assert, such language is meaningless and not applicable to the 1st century Hebrew people who were reading this message delivered TO THEM, FOR THEM??

What other parts of Scripture do you assert are meaningless, unapplicable &/or undiscernable to the original receivers?

Doctrines of Grace?
Baptism?

Since it appears you believe so much of the NT (over 100 verses) was worthless, meaningless, undiscernable, and not at all applicable to the original receivers, I can't help but think you hardly believe any of it was for them?

How did they know which parts were for them and which weren't?

How did the 1st century Hebrews know that "for yet a very very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not tarry;" was not true for them and actually meant the opposite of what it says??

Is our God in the Habit of telling His people the exact opposite of what He really wishes to convey, hoping they will understand that what He is saying is exactly opposite of what He means??

How is that you have built an entire Doctrine that is dependant on God meaning the exact opposite of what over 100 NT verses actually say?

 

[food4thought]

How does that indicate a different time?

If you were a Babylonian YOUR world would have ended, no?

Scripture oft uses this seemingly universally cataclysmic language to describe the fall of a nation or a King.

Take a look at this:

AFTER Davids battlefield defeat of Saul, notice the things David says took place:
(2 Samuel 22:8-16)

8“Then the earth shook and trembled;
The foundations of heaven quaked and were shaken,
Because He was angry.
9 Smoke went up from His nostrils,
And devouring fire from His mouth;
Coals were kindled by it.
10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down
With darkness under His feet.
11 He rode upon a cherub, and flew;
And He was seen upon the wings of the wind.
12 He made darkness canopies around Him,
Dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.
13 From the brightness before Him
Coals of fire were kindled.

14 “The Lord thundered from heaven,
And the Most High uttered His voice.
15 He sent out arrows and scattered them;
Lightning bolts, and He vanquished them.
16 Then the channels of the sea were seen,
The foundations of the world were uncovered,
At the rebuke of the Lord,
At the blast of the breath of His nostrils.

God sure was a huffin and a puffin right there wasn't He?

Bowing the heavens, starting fires with his nostrils, shooting arrows, actually seen riding on Clouds and Cherubs, shaking the heavens and laying the foundation of the entire earth bare.

Is it your position that these things LITERALLY happened during that Battle, exactly as David said they did?

If not, was David Lying?

That is a psalm, not prophecy.

 

[Tutorman]

Christ will come back. Having this or that ism is folly, we should always live as if this is our last moment and live the Christian life; let God figure out when He will come again.