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

[Pastor Larry]

Typical arrogance.

Excellent. Way to get personal there.

Well according to most dispie commentators, the NT writers thought they were to occur in a short period of time but they were mistaken. So according to most dispies you think the NT writers were scoffers.

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?

No you don't, you just ignore the time statements.

I am not aware of any that I ignore.

So this is the real issue, things didn't happen the way you think they should so they just didn't happen. This is why you must play games with time statements.

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.

 

[Grasshopper]

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.

Lets see, you call me a scoffer and then tell me I don't know what words mean yet I'm the guilty party. Practice what you preach.

 

[Grasshopper]

John Gill on Matthew 26:64

and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mt 24:27,30. Though this may also be understood of Christ's second coming to judgment, at the last day; when as he went up to heaven in a cloud, he will return, and come also in the clouds of heaven; see Ac 1:9,11 Re 1:7, when he will be seen by the eyes of all, good and bad; and when this sanhedrim, before whom he now was, will see him also, and confess that he is Lord and Christ, and the Son of God. Though the former clause seems to have regard to what would quickly come to pass, and what they should soon observe, and be convinced of; for ap' arti, rendered "hereafter", may be translated "henceforwards"; or as it is in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, "from this time"; meaning, that in a very little while, they should begin to see the effects of his being set down at the right hand of God, and which would be full proofs of it, and should see him come in the clouds of heaven, at the last day: reference seems to be had to Da 7:13, where one like unto the son of man is said to come in the clouds of heaven, and which is understood of the Messiah by many, both of the ancient and modern Jews {g}: with whom one of his names is "Anani" {h}, which signifies "clouds".

Gill on Matt 24:30

and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. The Arabic version reads it, "ye shall see", as is expressed by Christ, in Mat_26:64. Where the high priest, chief priests, Scribes, and elders, and the whole sanhedrim of the Jews are spoken to: and as the same persons, namely, the Jews, are meant here as there; so the same coming of the son of man is intended; not his coming at the last day to judgment; though that will be in the clouds of heaven, and with great power and glory; but his coming to bring on, and give the finishing stroke to the destruction of that people, which was a dark and cloudy dispensation to them

 

[Pastor Larry]

Lets see, you call me a scoffer

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."

and then tell me I don't know what words mean

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.

yet I'm the guilty party.

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.

Practice what you preach.

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

 

[Grasshopper]

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."

Why did they believe a "soon" coming? You indicated earlier a 1st century audience would know what these words mean:

I think you interpret the words of Rev 1, just as you do the ones in Gen 1 ... Just like they were used in the first century.

They understood the earlier words of Peter just fine. As did the other apostles as you admit:

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.

So the scoffers understood what Peter was saying, the apostles understood the plain meaning of the time statements, so according to your own words, the apostles were scoffers.

When you study those words in the Bible, you see that they obviously are not referring to a strict time frame. The Bible calls people who believe that "mockers who come with their mocking"

Congrats, you have Paul being a 1st century mocker.

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.

Forgive me, perhaps you are arrogant.

So give me the wide semetic usage of this:

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

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.

If people want to have honest civil discussion I'll do it, if people wish to debate in the gutter I'll do that as well.

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

Ditto

It all comes back to this statement you made:

But isn't it clear that they don't meant that?

You take the simple time statements of the NT and are forced to redefine them because their obvious meaning would render your view of eschatology baseless.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Why did they believe a "soon" coming?

Because once Jesus rose and the church was established, nothing else had to happen. Jesus could return at anytime. They misunderstood. That's entirely possible.

So the scoffers understood what Peter was saying, the apostles understood the plain meaning of the time statements, so according to your own words, the apostles were scoffers.

No, you have misunderstood my words. The difference is in the response. The scoffers ultimately denied the return of Christ because it didn't happen. The apostles did not.

Congrats, you have Paul being a 1st century mocker.

Obviously not.

Forgive me, perhaps you are arrogant.

Perhaps. I try to watch that very carefully. It is a struggle that I face everyday.

So give me the wide semetic usage of this:

Rev 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

A verse doesn't have a semantic range. Words do. What word are you talking about?

...if people wish to debate in the gutter I'll do that as well.

I won't.

But isn't it clear that they don't meant that?

You take the simple time statements of the NT and are forced to redefine them because their obvious meaning would render your view of eschatology baseless.

First, I wouldn't grant that I redefine them. I would argue that others do. I think I have the right meaning, obviously. If I thought otherwise I would change my belief.

Second, Obvious meaning to who? Their obvious meaning to me doesn't render my view of eschatology baseless. It supports it.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular

John Gill on Matthew 26:64

and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mt 24:27,30. Though this may also be understood of Christ's second coming to judgment, at the last day; when as he went up to heaven in a cloud, he will return, and come also in the clouds of heaven; see Ac 1:9,11 Re 1:7, when he will be seen by the eyes of all, good and bad; and when this sanhedrim, before whom he now was, will see him also, and confess that he is Lord and Christ, and the Son of God. Though the former clause seems to have regard to what would quickly come to pass, and what they should soon observe, and be convinced of; for ap' arti, rendered "hereafter", may be translated "henceforwards"; or as it is in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, "from this time"; meaning, that in a very little while, they should begin to see the effects of his being set down at the right hand of God, and which would be full proofs of it, and should see him come in the clouds of heaven, at the last day: reference seems to be had to Da 7:13, where one like unto the son of man is said to come in the clouds of heaven, and which is understood of the Messiah by many, both of the ancient and modern Jews {g}: with whom one of his names is "Anani" {h}, which signifies "clouds".

Originally Posted by Grasshopper
Gill on Matt 24:30

and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. The Arabic version reads it, "ye shall see", as is expressed by Christ, in Mat_26:64. Where the high priest, chief priests, Scribes, and elders, and the whole sanhedrim of the Jews are spoken to: and as the same persons, namely, the Jews, are meant here as there; so the same coming of the son of man is intended; not his coming at the last day to judgment; though that will be in the clouds of heaven, and with great power and glory; but his coming to bring on, and give the finishing stroke to the destruction of that people, which was a dark and cloudy dispensation to them

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.

 

[Grasshopper]

Because once Jesus rose and the church was established, nothing else had to happen. Jesus could return at anytime.

So nothing past AD30-33 had to happen before the coming of the Lord? You disagree with most dispies that Israel had to return to their land?

They misunderstood. That's entirely possible

.

Do you believe the NT writers possibly misunderstood as well?

No, you have misunderstood my words. The difference is in the response. The scoffers ultimately denied the return of Christ because it didn't happen. The apostles did not

.


Seems like they were mocking because it hadn't happened yet even though Peter suggested a near occurence.

A verse doesn't have a semantic range. Words do. What word are you talking about?

Lets start out easy, what is the range for nigh:

Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

First, I wouldn't grant that I redefine them. I would argue that others do.

So those who believe near, soon, shortly, and "at hand" mean a short time span are really the ones who redefine those words?

I think I have the right meaning, obviously. If I thought otherwise I would change my belief.

Hugh Ross would say the same thing about "day" in Genesis.

 

[Grasshopper]

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.

As far as I can tell Gill holds to a sort of double fulfillment view. He sees the obvious 1st century context in which this prophecy was meant but it also conflicts with his futuristic eschatology. Spurgeon had the same problem, he saw the obvious AD70 fulfillment but he still had to somehow find a future fulfillment so he cut and spliced the Discourse:

Matthew 24:29
"Our Lord appears to have purposely mingled the prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and his own second coming, so that there should be nothing in his words to satisfy idle curiosity, " (Matthew: The Gospel of the Kingdom. p. 217)

Matthew 24:32-33
"Our Lord here evidently returns to often made use of its illuminated the subject of the destruction of Jerusalem, and in these words gives his apostles warning concerning the signs of the times.

I would say the entire Discourse speaks of AD70.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So nothing past AD30-33 had to happen before the coming of the Lord?

Yes, nothing.

You disagree with most dispies that Israel had to return to their land?

Not before the Rapture. That has to happen before some other stuff, but not the Rapture.

Do you believe the NT writers possibly misunderstood as well?

The time factor? Yes. Not the principle of his return.

Seems like they were mocking because it hadn't happened yet even though Peter suggested a near occurence.

They were mocking because they said that since he hadn't come soon, it was foolish to believe that he would come at all.

Lets start out easy, what is the range for nigh:

Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

The word is usually translated "near" in our English versions. It is from the word engizo. It is the same word used in 1 Peter 4:7 to say that the end of all things is near. Since 2000 years later, the end of all things has not yet come, we know that it does not necessarily mean a short time span. It can be either temporal or spatial. Here it is spatial.

Isn't it clear that he has not yet returned? I am not sure how you can even make an argument that he has already returned.

So those who believe near, soon, shortly, and "at hand" mean a short time span are really the ones who redefine those words?

In some contexts, yes.

Hugh Ross would say the same thing about "day" in Genesis.

If you do the exegesis though, you will see that he is wrong.

 

[Grasshopper]

Yes, nothing.

Not before the Rapture. That has to happen before some other stuff, but not the Rapture.

We were speaking of His coming, not a rapture. Was there nothing left to happen before His coming?

The time factor? Yes. Not the principle of his return.

So inspired writers were wrong when writing the events were to happen shortly.

The word is usually translated "near" in our English versions. It is from the word engizo. It is the same word used in 1 Peter 4:7 to say that the end of all things is near.

Yes, the same word Jesus used here:

Luk 21:8 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.

Was James a false prophet? He said it was near. What did Jesus mean by near?

Since 2000 years later, the end of all things has not yet come, we know that it does not necessarily mean a short time span. It can be either temporal or spatial. Here it is spatial.

Isn't it clear that he has not yet returned? I am not sure how you can even make an argument that he has already returned.

So we return yet again to my previous point. You interpret the time statements in light of what events you think should have come to pass instead of letting the time staements define the events.

As far as His parousia in the 1st century I have showm how many see it.

Albert Barnes

The coming of the Son of man - It has been doubted whether this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, or to the coming at the day of judgment. For the solution of this doubt let it be remarked:
1. that those two events are the principal scenes in which our Lord said he would come, either in person or in judgment.
2. that the destruction of Jerusalem is described as his coming, his act.
3. that these events - the judgment of Jerusalem and the final judgment in many respects greatly resemble each other.
4. that they "will bear," therefore, to be described in the same language; and,
5. therefore, that the same words often include both events, as properly described by them.
The words had, doubtless, a primary reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, but they had, at the same time, such an amplitude of meaning as also to express his coming to judgment.

Adam Clarke
Mat 24:27

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west - It is worthy of remark that our Lord, in the most particular manner, points out the very march of the Roman army: they entered into Judea on the East, and carried on their conquest Westward, as if not only the extensiveness of the ruin, but the very route which the army would take, were intended in the comparison of the lightning issuing from the east, and shining to the west.

John Gill

so shall also the coming of the son of man be; which must be understood not of his last coming to judgment, though that will be sudden, visible, and universal; he will at once come to, and be seen by all, in the clouds of heaven, and not in deserts and secret chambers: nor of his spiritual coming in the more sudden, and clear, and powerful preaching of the Gospel all over the Gentile world; for this was to be done before the destruction of Jerusalem: but of his coming in his wrath and vengeance to destroy that people, their nation, city, and temple: so that after this to look for the Messiah in a desert, or secret chamber, must argue great stupidity and blindness; when his coming was as sudden, visible, powerful, and general, to the destruction of that nation, as the lightning that comes from the east, and, in a moment, shines to the west.

John Lightfoot

1. That the destruction of Jerusalem is very frequently expressed in Scripture as if it were the destruction of the whole world, Deuteronomy 32:22; "A fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell" (the discourse there is about the wrath of God consuming that people; see verses 20,21), "and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains." Jeremiah 4:23; "I beheld the earth, and lo, it was without form and void; and the heavens, and they had no light," &c. The discourse there also is concerning the destruction of that nation, Isaiah 65:17; "Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered," &c. And more passages of this sort among the prophets. According to this sense, Christ speaks in this place; and Peter speaks in his Second Epistle, third chapter; and John, in the sixth of the Revelation; and Paul, 2 Corinthians 5:17, &c.

Spurgeon sees it as His coming as well:

"When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh." They could not mistake so plain a token of the near return of summer; and Jesus would have them read quite as quickly the signs that were to herald the coming judgment on Jerusalem: "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." The Revised Version has the words, "Know ye that he is nigh," the Son of man, the King. His own nation rejected him when he came in mercy; so his next coming would be a time of terrible judgment and retribution to his guilty capital. Oh, that Jews and Gentiles today were wise enough to learn the lesson of that fiery trial, and to seek his face, those wrath they cannot bear!"

So the question is does the Bible teach more than one parousia as Spurgeon and Sproul believe or one as most dispies believe or just one as full preterist believe?

 

[GordonSlocum]

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

 

[OldRegular]

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.

 

[thegospelgeek]

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

We were speaking of His coming, not a rapture. Was there nothing left to happen before His coming?

The rapture is part of his coming.

So inspired writers were wrong when writing the events were to happen shortly.

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.

Yes, the same word Jesus used here:

Luk 21:8 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.

And?

Was James a false prophet? He said it was near.

No, of course not.

What did Jesus mean by near?

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?

So we return yet again to my previous point. You interpret the time statements in light of what events you think should have come to pass instead of letting the time staements define the events.

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.

As far as His parousia in the 1st century I have showm how many see it.

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.

 

[Grasshopper]

The rapture is part of his coming.

Only according to dispie authors.

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.

You keep contradicting yourself, you now say the NT writers were correct that they understood that shortly didn't mean a short time span but earlier I asked
if the NT writers perhaps misunderstood Jesus about the time statements, you said:

"The time factor? Yes. Not the principle of his return."

So which is it? Did the apostles understand that these words had an elastic meaning or did they not understand that?

If they misunderstood then we have inspired writers giving out false information, if they understood then all dispie writers who say that the NT writers thought that the events were to happen in their lifetime because of their statements regarding time are wrong.

And?

If "nigh" has a very elastic meaning and could mean anything from 1 day to 2000 years, why would Jesus care if people said the time is "nigh"? They would be correct using your definition and not false at all.

No, of course not.

James wasn't a false prophet for claiming His coming was near, even though Jesus said anyone who says so is a false prophet.

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?

I asked you what Jesus meant by using the word "near."

You didn't answer, you either didn't understand or are intentionally sidestepping the question.

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.

Thank you for finally admiting you interpret the time statements in light of the events. The Jews missed the coming of their Messiah in much the same way, He wasn't what they expected so clearly the time was not fulfilled.

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

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.

Bingo! Perhaps looking at OT example of coming on the clouds would be useful? Have you ever considered the possibility that you are wrong?

You think "soon" means "short period of time" and so you find a way to shoe horn it into AD70 or thereabouts.

No I think: soon, quickly, at hand, this generation, the last hour, end of the age, end of the ages have come upon us, some standing here, these last days, judge standeth at the door, and seal up not the book mean a short period of time.

You say these words have no real time meaning at all, Could be a day could be 5000 years. You sound like Hugh Ross.:laugh:

But 40 years really isn't "soon."

Considering the Mosaic economy was 1500 years or so, I think the last 40 would quailfy as pretty 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.

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Darn those scriptures, they keep getting in the way.

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.

Research what? We can go much deeper if you would like. But lets first grasp the easy stuff...time statements.

rjprince had 4 keys to interpretation posted on here somewhere, one of the 4 was begin with the simplest and work toward the more complex. (paraphrase) You can't get much simpler than the clear, plain, time statements.

 

[Grasshopper]

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.

Then the time statements of Revelation aren't really time statments at all because they tell us nothing of when the events are to occur.

What if God wished to convey that the events of Revelation would happen in the lifetime of the readers, what words or phrases would He use?

Hint: Don't use any words or phrases found in the NT regarding prophecy or your loss of the argument will be apparent to all.

 

[rjprince]

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

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.

 

[thegospelgeek]

Then the time statements of Revelation aren't really time statments at all because they tell us nothing of when the events are to occur.

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

What if God wished to convey that the events of Revelation would happen in the lifetime of the readers, what words or phrases would He use?

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

Hint: Don't use any words or phrases found in the NT regarding prophecy or your loss of the argument will be apparent to all.

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

 

[thomas15]

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.