Cessationist

[asterisktom]

I do not believe that if you were to do a word search on the word parousia that you will find the word means presence. In every case in the gospels Jesus talked about when He comes again. I cannot think or ever found that parousia ever meant presence.

Where did you get the idea that parousia ever means presence?

The time Paul wrote 1 Cor was after Jesus came and rose.

This is a basic definition of parousia:

Thayer's Lexicon gives "presence" as the first and basic definition of parousia. So does Liddell and Scott. These are two of my lexicons I just happened to have close at hand.

Yes, I know that the term is in some Bibles translated "coming" (erroneously, I would contend). I can't believe that you have not ever heard of "presence" as a perfectly valid translation.

Also, it is quite clear in several passages, like 2 Cor.10:10:

"his bodily presence (PAROUSIA) is weak",

and Phil. 2:12:

"not as in my presence only, but also in my absence"

In this last one we have the word defined both by context and by seeing the stated opposite, absence.

Additionally, anyone who has read Greek for any length of time recognizes "presence" in the word itself, in the parts: para + eimi. Also, the verb form, pareimi is not used in the sense that you seem to imagine.

 

[J.D.]

Interesting discussion. I have several anti-charismatic books by JM which he's writtn through the years. I don't know why after all of that he would be drawing exception fire today.

JM is correct to use church history to support his views as long as he doesn't give it too much weight.

IMO there's no doubt that Grudem has a broader grasp of biblical theology than Mac, but Grudem's defense of continuation is suprisingly shallow. It boils down to "it's real (tongues) becuase I experience(d) it and if you experience it you will know it's real".

The idea that the "perfect" is the Bible is easily defeated, but the existence of a special "apostolic age" is admitted by all sides.

 

[asterisktom]

Interesting discussion. I have several anti-charismatic books by JM which he's writtn through the years. I don't know why after all of that he would be drawing exception fire today.

JM is correct to use church history to support his views as long as he doesn't give it too much weight.

IMO there's no doubt that Grudem has a broader grasp of biblical theology than Mac, but Grudem's defense of continuation is suprisingly shallow. It boils down to "it's real (tongues) becuase I experience(d) it and if you experience it you will know it's real".

The idea that the "perfect" is the Bible is easily defeated, but the existence of a special "apostolic age" is admitted by all sides.

By "apostolic age" are you referring to the times of the Apostles, the closing of the NT canon? If so, I agree but don't know why it is mentioned at this point.

 

[asterisktom]

This is a basic definition of parousia:

Thayer's Lexicon gives "presence" as the first and basic definition of parousia. So does Liddell and Scott. These are two of my lexicons I just happened to have close at hand.

Yes, I know that the term is in some Bibles translated "coming" (erroneously, I would contend). I can't believe that you have not ever heard of "presence" as a perfectly valid translation.

Also, it is quite clear in several passages, like 2 Cor.10:10:

"his bodily presence (PAROUSIA) is weak",

and Phil. 2:12:

"not as in my presence only, but also in my absence"

In this last one we have the word defined both by context and by seeing the stated opposite, absence.

Additionally, anyone who has read Greek for any length of time recognizes "presence" in the word itself, in the parts: para + eimi. Also, the verb form, pareimi is not used in the sense that you seem to imagine.

I was rereading my Vine's on Parousia. It is still a very helpful book, but now I am amazed to notice how it, too, pours into some of these words their own definition, not drawing the definitions from the actual NT context. Specifically, this passage, underlining mine:

"In some passages the word gives prominence to the beginning of that period, the course of the period being implied, 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1; Jas. 5:7,8; 2 Pet. 3:4. In some, the course is prominent, Matt. 24:3,37; 1 Thess. 3:13; 1 John 2:28; in others the conclusion of the period, Matt. 24:27; 2 Thess. 2:8."

The implication is that the word itself requires these applications. But the word does no such thing. It is the presupposed theology of the editor that suggests to them these supposed nuances.