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

[Grasshopper]

Part 3

So to prove what first century Hebrews think something meant, you cited a 7th century Hebrew interpreted by a 19th century American?

Who is the 7th century Hebrew?

But to the point, am I to make by your statement you do not believe we can know how 1st century Hebrews viewed their idioms and such? We do not know how they viewed apocalyptic language? This seems to be what you are saying. If true, then how are you to know what the NT writers meant by thier time statements?

Or perhaps you know this is not the case and you wish to hold me to a standard you will not hold yourself to. When shooting a gun, make sure it doesn't shoot two ways. I smell the early signs of desparation.

I can't believe you seriously believe we cannot know how 1st century Hebrews understood thier language. After all you said this:

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.

So I will just assume this was all a cheap debating trip. If not, explain why Albert Barnes is wrong.

Quote:
Isa 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

This is typically called a theophany. They are all through the OT, primarily in the psalms and prophets, I think. But you would have to show some relevance to the topic at hand.

Relevance..... your kidding right? Jesus and the NT writers used almost the exact same language.

Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Mat 24:29 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:


Yea, I think it might be relevant to how you interpret these passages.

If your point is that AD 70 was the judgment of God, I agree.

Was it predicted in the scriptures anywhere?

But Acts 1 says that Jesus will return just like they saw him go. That is in the clouds, which didn’t happen in AD 70.

You assume those are the same events. Most preterist do not. Are you sure you have read any preterist works? Thats elementary stuff.

Gill:
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:

But there are some who see it as the same event:

John Lightfoot
"Then shall the Son of man give proof of himself, whom they would not before acknowledge: a proof, indeed, not in any visible figure, but in vengeance and judgment so visible, that all the tribes of the earth shall be forced to acknowledge him the avenger. The Jews would not know him: now they shall know him, whether they will or no, Isa. 26:11. Many times they asked of him a sign: now a sign shall appear, that this is the true Messiah, whom they despised, derided, and crucified, namely, his signal vengeance and fury, such as never any nation felt from the first foundations of the world." (A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 4 vols. Oxford University Press, 1859; reprinted by Hendrickson, Peabody, Mass., 1979. Vol. 2, p. 320)

Quote:
Jesus said:

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Which generation? You can’t just blow over that.

I didn't blow over it, do you not read? Do you even know what preterists believe?

If Matt 24 describes the events of the future, "this generation" is not the generation of Jesus’ disciples (of whom many passed prior to AD 70, which is a rather big whole for you, IMO).

That would be hole.

"This generation" is the generation who sees "all these things."

I agree, and earlier you indicated those 1st century Jews did see those signs fulfilled.

Quote:
Included in that was the parousia.

Actually, v. 33 does not include the parousia in "all these things." When "all these things" happen, the parousia ias "right at the door."

Does "right at the door" mean a specific time frame or mean imminency like all the other words?

Quote:
But you admit that the signs were already fulfilled by the time James wrote his words.

I was referring to something different—the resurrection and the beginning of the church. Perhaps I poorly communicated.

Here is what I asked:

Quote:
The reason James can say it was near is because all the signs Jesus gave had been fulfilled.

This was asked in the context of the Olivet Discourse. You said this in response:

I wouldn't argue.

I then asked you this:

"Then you would agree Luke 21:1-26 were fulfilled?"

You gave no response. So am I now to assume you believe none of the signs found in the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled?

I don’t recall the exact post and you didn’t link to it here. James was saying that the end could begin at any time. I think that is the consistent position of the NT.

Well that leaves you with two possibilities, either one destroys your view.

1. The signs were fulfilled in the 1st century and by your own words the generation that saw those signs would see the parousia.
2. If the signs had not yet occured in the 1st century then the time statements you insist mean imminency could not mean that since there were still signs that needed to be fulfilled.

No. I think you are very confused about the issues. I think you have revealed some significant misunderstanding.

As shown above, one of us is confused and it's not me.

I'll leave you with the words of someone who knows a little about the New Testament,

FF Bruce
"The phrase "this generation" is found too often on Jesus' lips in this literal sense for us to suppose that it suddenly takes on a different meaning in the saying we are now examining. Moreover, if the generation of the end-time had been intended, 'that generation' would have been a more natural way of referring to it than 'this generation.

 

[HankD]

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?

…


34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


The disciples asked 3 things
1) when shall these things be? and
2) what shall be the sign of thy coming,
3) and of the end of the world?

The “problem” as I see it is where the explanations in the remaining verses after the questions 1, 2, and 3 begin and end and do any of them intersect?

Also are the answers given serially and in order?

Does the “all” in verse 34 refer also to those things after verse 34?

These questions were asked in response to His prophecy that the temple would be razed so obviously that part was fulfilled in AD70. But did the disciples equate the other two parts to the question as immediately coming out of the first (temple destruction?).

What makes this seem unlikely is the part of the answer before verse 34 that include verses such as verse 30:

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.

Also repeated in part in the Book of Revelation Chapter 1:
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.


In the Revelation passage there is a distinction between Jew and Gentile.

If the generally accepted date of Revelation is under the reign of Domitian (AD81-96) then this passage is post temple destruction.

However there are those who claim an early date (pre-destruction). In either case why would all the kindreds of the earth wail because of Him?

One way of neutralizing these passages from their strict literalism is by allegorizing them or assigning them metaphorical meaning.

To me the literal seems more likely and that the partial preterist and/or traditional dispensationalism is the correct view.

Then there is the Matthew 13 Kingdom chapter where it also seems unlikely that “the end of the world” is the destruction of the temple. Where the wheat are “gathered” into His barn and the tares bound in the field just prior to His return.


Just a few thoughts…


HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

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.
.
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?

…


34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


The disciples asked 3 things
1) when shall these things be? and
2) what shall be the sign of thy coming,
3) and of the end of the world?

The “problem” as I see it is where the explanations in the remaining verses after the questions 1, 2, and 3 begin and end and do any of them intersect?

Also are the answers given serially and in order?

Did they ask 3 separate questions or just two questions? Mark and Luke shed light on this:

Mar 13:4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?

Luk 21:7 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?

It seems they believed these events to be connected in time. Jesus told them about the destruction of the Temple and they follow up with questions about signs of His parousia and the end of the age.

The question is why did they associate His parousia and the end of the age with the destruction of the Temple?

Does the “all” in verse 34 refer also to those things after verse 34?

I would say yes.

These questions were asked in response to His prophecy that the temple would be razed so obviously that part was fulfilled in AD70. But did the disciples equate the other two parts to the question as immediately coming out of the first (temple destruction?).

There is no question they did, the debate is whether they were correct in doing so. If not, why did Jesus not correct them?

What makes this seem unlikely is the part of the answer before verse 34 that include verses such as verse 30:

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.

Not sure how you get there. What was "this generation" to see? What were the "all these things"? Assuming of course you believe "this generation" refers to who Jesus' contemporaries.

Also repeated in part in the Book of Revelation Chapter 1:
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.


In the Revelation passage there is a distinction between Jew and Gentile.


If the generally accepted date of Revelation is under the reign of Domitian (AD81-96) then this passage is post temple destruction.

However there are those who claim an early date (pre-destruction). In either case why would all the kindreds of the earth wail because of Him?

Young's Literal

Rev 1:7 Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen

Tribes of the land refer to the Jews.

earth:

gē
ghay
Contracted from a primary word; soil; by extension a region, or the solid part or the whole of the terrene globe (including the occupants in each application): - country, earth (-ly), ground, land, world.

Gill on "tribes of the earth" usage in Matt. 24:30:

And then shall the tribes of the earth, or land,
mourn; that is, the land of Judea; for other lands, and countries, were not usually divided into tribes, as that was; neither were they affected with the calamities and desolations of it, and the vengeance of the son of man upon it; at least not so as to mourn on that account, but rather were glad and rejoiced:

Adam Clarke:

Rev 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds - This relates to his coming to execute judgment on the enemies of his religion; perhaps to his coming to destroy Jerusalem, as he was to be particularly manifested to them that pierced him, which must mean the incredulous and rebellious Jews.
And all kindreds of the earth - Πασαι αἱ φυλαι της γης· All the tribes of the land. By this the Jewish people are most evidently intended, and therefore the whole verse may be understood as predicting the destruction of the Jews; and is a presumptive proof that the Apocalypse was written before the final overthrow of the Jewish state.

One way of neutralizing these passages from their strict literalism is by allegorizing them or assigning them metaphorical meaning.

Why would you use "strict literalism" when these phrases are used by OT prophets in a similar way? It seems if one wants to change the usage from metaphoric to "literal" the burden of proof is on him to explain why a change is necessary.

Of course the context is found in verses 1 and 3:

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

So why is strict literalism to be applied to verse 7 but not verses 1 and 3

To me the literal seems more likely and that the partial preterist and/or traditional dispensationalism is the correct view.

The partial-preterist view is the one I have laid out in the preceding posts.

Then there is the Matthew 13 Kingdom chapter where it also seems unlikely that “the end of the world” is the destruction of the temple. Where the wheat are “gathered” into His barn and the tares bound in the field just prior to His return.

Mat 13:40 `As, then, the darnel is gathered up, and is burned with fire, so shall it be in the full end of this age,

What age were they living in when this was spoken? Is it a different one than what Paul spoke of?

1Co 10:11 And all these things as types did happen to those persons, and they were written for our admonition, to whom the end of the ages did come,

Or different than the one the writer of Hebrews refers to?


Heb 9:26 since it had behoved him many times to suffer from the foundation of the world, but now once, at the full end of the ages, for putting away of sin through his sacrifice, he hath been manifested;

 

[HankD]

A brief answer RE: The time is at hand.

It was at hand. No definitive time increment is given as to what that means.

Infinity (eternity) divided by any number no matter how large is till infinite.
Or the reciprocal : any number no matter how large divided by infinity is 0.

In other words terms like "at hand", "quickly", etc may have a different perspective through God's eternal eyes.

And even if interpreted in strictly human terms by assigning small increments of time in days, years, whatever to them doesn't necessarily solve the problem of their "literalness".

For this reason: Humanly speaking God has on occassion "repented" or altered His plan without consulting us about it (except in the case of Moses below).

e.g.

RSV Genesis 6

6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."​

Again: Moses trying to convince God to "repent"​

Exodus 32
12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.​

KJV 1 Chronicles 21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.​

KJV Jonah
3:1 And the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the second time, saying,
2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.
4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
...
10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.​

The point is that apparently God has altered His plan (without first consulting us and/or giving us a reason) and has delayed His return.​

In fact Jesus opens this door of possibility in advance of the Book of Revelation:​

At the end of the Olivet Discourse​

Matthew 24
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.​

HankD​

 

[Grasshopper]

A brief answer RE: The time is at hand.

It was at hand. No definitive time increment is given as to what that means.

The NT writers seemed to understand what it meant. Were the inspired writers wrong and also their audience when they assumed it would occur in their lifetime?

Infinity (eternity) divided by any number no matter how large is till infinite.
Or the reciprocal : any number no matter how large divided by infinity is 0.

In other words terms like "at hand", "quickly", etc may have a different perspective through God's eternal eyes.

Basically then it boils down to those words being meaningless to humans. Here is an example of this type of thinking:

Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Your interpretation would be: when you see these things look up (though I don't know why) your redemption could be millions of years away still because God's time is not your time. "Nigh" is unknowable to the human understanding.

And even if interpreted in strictly human terms by assigning small increments of time in days, years, whatever to them doesn't necessarily solve the problem of their "literalness".

For this reason: Humanly speaking God has on occassion "repented" or altered His plan without consulting us about it (except in the case of Moses below).

I do not believe God ever goes to plan B because there is no plan B.

e.g.

RSV Genesis 6
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

How do you reconcile your belief that God wished He had never made man with these verses telling of His eternal plan:

Joh 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

The point is that apparently God has altered His plan (without first consulting us and/or giving us a reason) and has delayed His return.

Then we can't really know the truth of anything found in scripture because God might change His mind. What is true and certain now may not be so in the future. I guess your eschotology could be changed as well, God might alter His plan and never have Jesus return.

Secondly if He "delayed" His coming then you agree that an earlier coming was the original plan? Otherwise a "delay" would not be necessary.

In fact Jesus opens this door of possibility in advance of the Book of Revelation:

At the end of the Olivet Discourse
Matthew 24
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

But notice who said "My lord delayeth His coming", not God but an evil servant. It was the evil servant who says the lord would delay His coming and the same evil servant who was not looking for Him. This in no way is an example of God making the case for a possible delay.

It seems you are willing to sacrifice much in order to hold to your view of eschatology. Which plans is God not willing to change or alter? Is it possible the events of the book of Revelation could be altered by God at some point? If not, why not?

 

[HankD]

The NT writers seemed to understand what it meant. Were the inspired writers wrong and also their audience when they assumed it would occur in their lifetime?




Basically then it boils down to those words being meaningless to humans. Here is an example of this type of thinking:

Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Your interpretation would be: when you see these things look up (though I don't know why) your redemption could be millions of years away still because God's time is not your time. "Nigh" is unknowable to the human understanding.



I do not believe God ever goes to plan B because there is no plan B.



How do you reconcile your belief that God wished He had never made man with these verses telling of His eternal plan:

Joh 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,



Then we can't really know the truth of anything found in scripture because God might change His mind. What is true and certain now may not be so in the future. I guess your eschotology could be changed as well, God might alter His plan and never have Jesus return.

Secondly if He "delayed" His coming then you agree that an earlier coming was the original plan? Otherwise a "delay" would not be necessary.



But notice who said "My lord delayeth His coming", not God but an evil servant. It was the evil servant who says the lord would delay His coming and the same evil servant who was not looking for Him. This in no way is an example of God making the case for a possible delay.

It seems you are willing to sacrifice much in order to hold to your view of eschatology. Which plans is God not willing to change or alter? Is it possible the events of the book of Revelation could be altered by God at some point? If not, why not?

I don't know how to reconcile these apparently contradictory things.

In so many many passages God appears to change His mind, I provided a few examples. How might you reconcile them grasshopper?

I believe the Systematic Theologies and the Scripture that God is unchangeable but here we have so many passages that He "repented".

Just because I can't reconcile them doesn't mean there is not an explanantion. So looking beyond the explanantion all I am saying is that whatever that explanantion is, it doesn't matter just apply the premise that He has historically altered His plan (or given that impression) and apply that premise to the Book of Revelation that can be applied to the Book of Jonah.

God altered His previous plan in the Book of Jonah and we are told why He did so - in response to the repentance of the Ninevites.

We are not told why He has delayed His coming in the Book of Revelation (my interprative opinion of course) except perhaps to confound those evil servants talked about at the end of the Olivet Discourse and to make it plain to everone who they are (BTW, I am NOT applying this term "evil servants" to any here at the BB). Another possibility is to insure that

"of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father"
and another like it:
"The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware".​

This is all theoretical but none-the-less within the realm of possibility when taking all the Scripture into account and the way our God behaves when He enters into the time continuum with us. Obviously It is safe to assume He knew all along before His discussion with Moses that this time He would "alter" His previous threat and not destroy the Israelites.

And to repeat, God has indeed "repented" in terms of altering His plan (Obviously He has no need of repentance from sin) and I gave several illustrations (Niniveh, etc).

Perhaps also from the point of view of His "soon" return being delayed.
And if it is indeed so, why?


I quoted
RSV Genesis 6
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

So, grasshopper, was God sorry or not that He had made man?

HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

I don't know how to reconcile these apparently contradictory things.

In so many many passages God appears to change His mind, I provided a few examples. How might you reconcile them grasshopper?

This would be an excellent topic for its own thread.

I think these provide a good start on an explanation:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/627-genesis-6-6-did-god-repent

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2166

just apply the premise that He has historically altered His plan (or given that impression) and apply that premise to the Book of Revelation that can be applied to the Book of Jonah.

I did just that and asked you questions based on that premise. You did not answer. So I will ask again.

1. Is it then possible that the entire book of Revelation including the Second Coming could be altered/changed so that none of it occurs? Based on your premise the only answer is yes, it is possible. Am I correct?

God altered His previous plan in the Book of Jonah and we are told why He did so - in response to the repentance of the Ninevites.

Then God could "alter" His plan in the book of Revelation?

We are not told why He has delayed His coming in the Book of Revelation (my interprative opinion of course) except perhaps to confound those evil servants talked about at the end of the Olivet Discourse and to make it plain to everone who they are (BTW, I am NOT applying this term "evil servants" to any here at the BB). Another possibility is to insure that

"of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father"​

So God inspired his writers to write something only to then do something else in order to "get back" at evil servants?

This is all theoretical but none-the-less within the realm of possibility when taking all the Scripture into account and the way our God behaves when He enters into the time continuum with us. Obviously It is safe to assume He knew all along before His discussion with Moses that this time He would "alter" His previous threat and not destroy the Israelites.

Then you seem to have just contradicted you original thought that God altered His plan because of Moses. If He never intended to carry through with the threat then Moses' request was of no consequence.

And to repeat, God has indeed "repented" in terms of altering His plan (Obviously He has no need of repentance from sin) and I gave several illustrations (Niniveh, etc).

Assuming it was His intended plan.

Perhaps also from the point of view of His "soon" return being delayed.
And if it is indeed so, why?

This was the other question I asked and got no answer.

2. If He delayed His coming then does that not mean He had an original time in which He planned to return? You can't have a delay with out an original set time. If you believe He delayed his coming then when was the original planned and how do you know, from scripture, when that original time was to be?

I quoted
RSV Genesis 6
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

So, grasshopper, was God sorry or not that He had made man?

Not in the way I think you mean it. To be "sorry", as we would mean it in this context, would mean things didn't turn out as planned. Since God planned out our salvation and the means of it before creation I do not believe man's sin and rebellion caught God of guard and and to come up with another plan on the fly.

I eagerly await your answers to questions 1&2. :wavey:

 

[HankD]

This would be an excellent topic for its own thread.

I think these provide a good start on an explanation:

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/627-genesis-6-6-did-god-repent

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2166




I did just that and asked you questions based on that premise. You did not answer. So I will ask again.

1. Is it then possible that the entire book of Revelation including the Second Coming could be altered/changed so that none of it occurs? Based on your premise the only answer is yes, it is possible. Am I correct?

Theoretically yes since Jesus said with God all things are possible.

Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.​

I went to both of these sites and in both the writers expressed the opinion that either it was an "anthropromorphism" or an "anthropopathism" and in reality (or so it seems to me) God neither "repented" or was "grieved" in His heart (and this is spite of the NT admonishment to "grieve not the Spirit") but as the writer says " is simply a symbolic way of asserting that man’s conduct did not meet the divine standard".

In other words it really does not mean what it says literally which is exactly what dispensationalists are accused of propounding.

So then dear grasshopper why can't you/I /anybody take hold of this explanation of "anthro-whatever) and apply it to the concept that what is "soon" to God can be something else to man and not meeting His divine standards?

But IMO with God all things are possible. Personally I believe He has delayed His coming for reasons unknown to us.

And yes, God will at time offer aternatives one of which could possibly be applied to the Book of Revelation:

Malachi 4

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.​

He changed His mind about Niniveh, His message was that it was to be destroyed in 40 days. It was not. That is Scriptural proof enough that He changes the course of events (whatever the explanation).

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.​

So even at the level of being strictly literal its good for some to use when it suits their purpose but not others when it suits theirs.​

In other words its OK to redefine "repent" when it comes to the realm of God's dealings but not "soon" or "quickly".​

Then God could "alter" His plan in the book of Revelation?

Like I said with God all things are possible. He did it for the Ninivites. He did it for Moses, etc...

So God inspired his writers to write something only to then do something else in order to "get back" at evil servants?

No, not to be vindictive but as a warning as He gave the ninivites who responded in the manner which pleased Him. So it was not to "get back" but a warning for the brethren not to abuse each other.

Then you seem to have just contradicted you original thought that God altered His plan because of Moses. If He never intended to carry through with the threat then Moses' request was of no consequence.

I have indicated in the past and I will do it again. I don't understand how God works in these apparent contradictions.

I guess I'm guilty of Orwell's "doublethink" except that in reality there is no contradiction. The reality is that I don't how it works. My presumption is that when our Father enters into the time continuum with us things which we don't understand (yet) take place.

This was the other question I asked and got no answer.

2. If He delayed His coming then does that not mean He had an original time in which He planned to return? You can't have a delay with out an original set time. If you believe He delayed his coming then when was the original planned and how do you know, from scripture, when that original time was to be?

I'll use the words from the URL you gave me as a possibly explanation.

It was simply a symbolic way of asserting something which really means something else and/or He knew all along that we would intrepret "soon" in an "anthropormorphic" way.

Not in the way I think you mean it. To be "sorry",

Ditto for words like "soon", "quickly" applied to God.
Not in the I think you mean it. To come "quickly".

Blessings to you brother, I appreciate the challenge you offer and your good demeanor.

HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

Theoretically yes since Jesus said with God all things are possible.

So the answer to this question is yes:

1. Is it then possible that the entire book of Revelation including the Second Coming could be altered/changed so that none of it occurs? Based on your premise the only answer is yes, it is possible. Am I correct?

I must admit I don't think I've ever come across this belief. So much for the "hope" the NT teaches. Pehaps Paul should have taught the blessed "maybe".

Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed maybe, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
I wonder if other dispies agree with you.

I went to both of these sites and in both the writers expressed the opinion that either it was an "anthropromorphism" or an "anthropopathism" and in reality (or so it seems to me) God neither "repented" or was "grieved" in His heart (and this is spite of the NT admonishment to "grieve not the Spirit") but as the writer says " is simply a symbolic way of asserting that man’s conduct did not meet the divine standard".

In other words it really does not mean what it says literally which is exactly what dispensationalists are accused of propounding.

So the 1000 years might in fact be symbolic as the A-mills insist?

Can we really know anything using this method of interpretation?
So then dear grasshopper why can't you/I /anybody take hold of this explanation of "anthro-whatever) and apply it to the concept that what is "soon" to God can be something else to man and not meeting His divine standards?

Because there is no reason to. That method renders the words meaningless.

But IMO with God all things are possible.

Can God lie?

Personally I believe He has delayed His coming for reasons unknown to us.

If He delayed it, when was His original coming suppose to be? You have not answered this.

And yes, God will at time offer aternatives one of which could possibly be applied to the Book of Revelation:

So Revelation may or may not happen.

Malachi 4

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.​

Speaking of John the Baptist:


Luk 1:16 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
Luk 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

He changed His mind about Niniveh, His message was that it was to be destroyed in 40 days. It was not. That is Scriptural proof enough that He changes the course of events (whatever the explanation).

So we either come up with an explanation of the few verses where God changed or repented or, we do as you have seemed to do, and throw everything written up in the air and say it might happen like God said, or it might not. Included in that is my salvation and yours. We can really know nothing except the past.

In other words its OK to redefine "repent" when it comes to the realm of God's dealings but not "soon" or "quickly".​

I'm not redefining "repent". It is clear from the Biblical record that "repent" is not limited to one meaning. God is Spirit, yet He is described human traits such as the "hand" of God.

I asked Pastor Larry to show me where "near" in James 5:8 has an elastic meaning, his proof was quoting James 5:8. :BangHead: Perhaps you would like to take up that argument.

I have indicated in the past and I will do it again. I don't understand how God works in these apparent contradictions.

But your assuming a contradiction in the area of eschatology, why? Is it ,as I suspect, you see preterism when you read the NT but that contrdicts your personal eschatology?

It was simply a symbolic way of asserting something which really means something else and/or He knew all along that we would intrepret "soon" in an "anthropormorphic" way.

Would would assume the same for phrases such as "this generation" and "some standing here" and "gone through the cities of Israel". It's not just words such as "near" and "at hand".

Ditto for words like "soon", "quickly" applied to God.
Not in the I think you mean it. To come "quickly".

Apples and oranges unless you are prepared to throw words such as salvation, justification, atonement etc.......into the same catagory.

Blessings to you brother, I appreciate the challenge you offer and your good demeanor.

Always a pleasure, you debate with class.:thumbsup:

Don't forget, when was Jesus originally suppose to return, but then delayed it?

 

[HankD]

I will respond to all you have asked in this way grasshopper...

I used the very words of the URLs that you sent me.

These writers redefined and/or made "symbolic" these words which had one literal meaning through out the Scripture.

e.g. to repent - to change one's mind.
e.g. to be grieved - to be remorseful.

I quoted these pasages (there are others) as scriptural evidence of their use applied to God.

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.​

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.​

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.​

According to your own words

Can God lie?

Did He "repent" or not? Was Niniveh destroyed in the previously prophecied time? Why Not, did God lie?

Here is my basic objection: that when it suits one's purpose "symbolism" or "anthropomorphism" is called upon to say that the Scripture does not mean what it plainly says. when it suits another that is not of one's liking then somehow it becomes comparing "apples" and "oranges" (both of which are fruit). In reality they are related, as they are words which are reflections of the character and mind of God which none of us can completely understand.

I am asking you then to accept the fact that some believe that In God's scheme of reckoning "soon" may mean something other than what we "anthropologically" attribute to it just as you do for God to "repent" or to be "grieved".

Or alternatively that God has altered His plan as He did for Niniveh at the preaching of Jonah and for Israel at the persuasion of Moses as the Scriptures themselves literally proclaim "He repented".

You ask why believe anything the Scripture says if "soon" is not "soon" as we define it. I ask the same thing of you if God cannot "repent" (obviously not of sin) or be "grieved" as the Scripture plainly (literally) indicates.

As I said, I do not know which it is when applied to the second coming or if it some other reason.

I would even go so far as to say that you may very well be correct in your view (although I am not convinced).

But then you still have God "repenting" and being "grieved" in your Bible.
In fact we are instructed not to grieve Him.

We have come to the point where we are simply repeating the same thing over and over again and saying "He does, He doesn't, He does He doesn't...". Personally, I really don't want it to continue in that same vein or go beyond that even perhaps go downhill.

There is enough here in this thread for folks to decide (or not) upon on their own concerning this debate issue.

I said this in another post in another thread, if I were not dispensational, partial preterism would be my second choice.


God bless you brother.
HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

So I guess I'll eternally have to wonder what the answer to this questions was:

Don't forget, when was Jesus originally suppose to return, but then delayed it?

It always seems when we are about to get to the final, consistent and logical conclusion to ones views as espoused in a few pages of comments, the debate comes to an abrupt end. Perhaps one sees the landscape ahead and wishes not to tread that terrain.

 

[HankD]

So I guess I'll eternally have to wonder what the answer to this questions was:

Don't forget, when was Jesus originally suppose to return, but then delayed it?

Not eternally Grasshopper but then again we don't know the day or the hour.

It always seems when we are about to get to the final, consistent and logical conclusion to ones views as espoused in a few pages of comments, the debate comes to an abrupt end. Perhaps one sees the landscape ahead and wishes not to tread that terrain.

Perhaps.

HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

[/i]Not eternally Grasshopper but then again we don't know the day or the hour.

Since you are unwilling to answer, I will answer why I believe you won't answer. Clear?:laugh:

In order to believe in a delayed return you must believe that an earlier return was predicted. Where would this predicted earlier return be found? In scripture! So when you read the words of Jesus and the inspired NT writers you see a return predicted in thier generation(as do most scholars,dispies included as I have pointed out). You see preterism when you read your Bible but reject it because the "parousia" doesn't fit your view of what its fulfillment would look like. Therefore a "delayed parousia" must be introduced into the scheme of things. In order to introduce this into the scheme certain words must be rendered meaningless. Thus time-statements are redefined in such away as to allow for a much broader time span(Pastor Larry) or are to be rendered unknowable(HankD). Problem solved. Except of course that leads to unexplainable contradictions that usually are never dealt with because the debate suddenly comes to an abrupt end.

In summary,, unless you wish to continue, I"ll address a couple of things you said in your previos post.

Here is my basic objection: that when it suits one's purpose "symbolism" or "anthropomorphism" is called upon to say that the Scripture does not mean what it plainly says. when it suits another that is not of one's liking then somehow it becomes comparing "apples" and "oranges" (both of which are fruit). In reality they are related, as they are words which are reflections of the character and mind of God which none of us can completely understand.

No one whether dispie or preterist questions the existence of anthropomorphisms in describing the attributes of God in scripture.

Here is your interpretive method as I see it.

God is Spirit (John 4:24) yet God has a face (Gen. 33:10) and hands (Job 19:21), we have a seeming contradiction. Therefore because of this contradiction we cannot know what "near" and "at hand" mean. I don't think any scholars including dispensationalist would use this method of interpretation.

To say, since we cannot fully understand the attributes of God, then every communication He has with his creation is questionable in it's meaning is dangerous ground. You are correct, it's not apples to oranges it's apples to mules.

I am asking you then to accept the fact that some believe that In God's scheme of reckoning "soon" may mean something other than what we "anthropologically" attribute to it just as you do for God to "repent" or to be "grieved".

Then you must accept, if your consistent, that justification,santification, atonement and salvation may have meanings we cannot know. But more important and concerning is your apparent belief that God could repent He ever offered salvation and just "change His mind". All because your eschatology forces you to these considerations.

What you have laid out goes much further than just eschatology. Your method would effect every "ology" in scripture.

 

[HankD]

But Grasshopper, you criticize yourself since the advice you gave me was to read the writings of these authors in the URLs you had previously noted which I did.


In both there is the suggestion, nay the outright propagation, of the concept that the Scripture does not necessarily mean what it says even of terms which are used in consistent manner through out the Scripture.


For instance “repentance” as applied to God cannot mean what it says.


Personally I had said in more than one post in more than one thread and on more than one occasion that indeed He can in that He does what He pleases when He wants, where He wants and usually without consulting us for His advice.


Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.


In addition I have stated that this repentance (the alteration of His plans) are within the boundaries of His sovereignty and is a concept we cannot understand.

Which incidentally is exactly what one of the proposed authors of the suggested URLs has suggested.

The more one carefully studies the nature of the God of the Bible, the more the “mystery” surrounding His actions dissipates. Let us, therefore, trust, and submit to Him Who has demonstrated His concern for us in a myriad of ways.

I noted that the word “concern” was used by this author of God. Now if He cannot be “grieved” then how can He have “concern” of which both of these authors had a problem (i.e. His grief).

The Scripture plainly and literally teaches that God can be grieved and in fact we are admonished NOT to grieve God.

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

So, in this instance I (coincidently) do take the advice above and trust His word. That God can be grieved and that I should not do those things which tend to grieve Him.

And after all it’s a “mystery” how we, the children of God can grieve Him, a mystery apparently Paul, inspired by the Spirit, preached/taught.

In addition, if God indeed cannot be grieved then we are commanded to something which is impossible and Paul has deceived us.


If I cannot trust the Scripture that He can indeed be grieved then how can I trust the part of this passage above which speaks of our “redemption”.


Perhaps it is an “anthro-whatever” and may not actually mean what it says.


HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

But Grasshopper, you criticize yourself since the advice you gave me was to read the writings of these authors in the URLs you had previously noted which I did.


In both there is the suggestion, nay the outright propagation, of the concept that the Scripture does not necessarily mean what it says even of terms which are used in consistent manner through out the Scripture.


For instance “repentance” as applied to God cannot mean what it says.


Personally I had said in more than one post in more than one thread and on more than one occasion that indeed He can in that He does what He pleases when He wants, where He wants and usually without consulting us for His advice.


Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.


In addition I have stated that this repentance (the alteration of His plans) are within the boundaries of His sovereignty and is a concept we cannot understand.

Which incidentally is exactly what one of the proposed authors of the suggested URLs has suggested.


I noted that the word “concern” was used by this author of God. Now if He cannot be “grieved” then how can He have “concern” of which both of these authors had a problem (i.e. His grief).

The Scripture plainly and literally teaches that God can be grieved and in fact we are admonished NOT to grieve God.

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

So, in this instance I (coincidently) do take the advice above and trust His word. That God can be grieved and that I should not do those things which tend to grieve Him.

And after all it’s a “mystery” how we, the children of God can grieve Him, a mystery apparently Paul, inspired by the Spirit, preached/taught.

In addition, if God indeed cannot be grieved then we are commanded to something which is impossible and Paul has deceived us.


If I cannot trust the Scripture that He can indeed be grieved then how can I trust the part of this passage above which speaks of our “redemption”.


Perhaps it is an “anthro-whatever” and may not actually mean what it says.


HankD

This keeps getting more bizarre. Like I stated earlier the Genesis text dealing with God being grieved would be a good thread to start but I'm not sure why you brought it up in an eschatology debate. No one of any
eschatological view I have ever read or encountered has used that passage as some sort of hermeneutical principle in which to interpret prophetic passages. I applaud your originality.:applause:

However the point you seem to be making does in fact call into question a preterist understanding of eschatology, but if applied consistently would also call into question your view and everyone else's view. So it's really a moot point. If we can't know what God meant and if God can alter His plans without notice then what is the purpose of this debate or any other.

Eschatology and Soteriology are so intertwined that if eschatology is unknowable then so is soteriology unknowable. If eschatology can be altered by God then soteriology can also be altered by God. So why debate Calvinism?

In fact if the events of the book of Revelation can be altered or done away with, as you have said is possible, then so can the soteriology found in the book as well.

You cannot say with any certainty that you will live forever in the presence of God. God may change His mind and send us all to hell. Comforting thought isn't it?raying:

If what you are arguing for is valid then this scorched earth approach of yours does in fact call into question my eschatology but it also calls into question the entirety of Biblical Theology no matter what your paradigm.

All this in order to prove that either James really didn't know what he meant or God may or may not have really meant it when he uttered these words:

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


We stumble over the obvious in search of the obscure

 

[HankD]

Well Grasshopper you have the same problem and in fact you introduced it with these words I have used along their redefinitions from the URLs you suggested I read.

They were simply a spring board from which I developed this concept you introduced of "anthropomorphisms" and the like.

In one thing (and maybe some others) you are correct, it is pointless from this juncture of rehash and repitition.

I was proving a point. If you want I can bring out more "allegories", "metaphors" "anthroporphisms", etc from Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, the Book of Revelation, etc, etc... which are necessary to a preterist point of view.

e.g.

Mark 13

19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.
21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

Personally I can't equate the coming of Titus with the coming of the Son of man. They in literal Jerusalem saw the prophecy of Christ being fulfilled but not Christ Himself along with the astronomical signs as well.

there are just too many words and concepts in preterism IMO which have to be allegorical or anthropomorphisms which have a different meaning in God's revelation from a point of view of human understanding.

All except the words "soon" or "quickly" that is.


HankD
​

 

[Grasshopper]

Well Grasshopper you have the same problem and in fact you introduced it with these words I have used along their redefinitions from the URLs you suggested I read.

No, I don't. I don't try to wedge anthropomorphisms into other areas of theology.

I was proving a point. If you want I can bring out more "allegories", "metaphors" "anthroporphisms", etc from Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, the Book of Revelation, etc, etc... which are necessary to a preterist point of view.

Sure, as long as you use the metaphors in the same manner they were previously used by the Prophets in the OT.

Then perhaps you can be consistent and apply the same standard to your view and destroy it as well.

Personally I can't equate the coming of Titus with the coming of the Son of man.

Nor can I.​

They in literal Jerusalem saw the prophecy of Christ being fulfilled but not Christ Himself along with the astronomical signs as well.

Ever read Josephus or Tacitus?
​

Josephus
"Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence"

Tacitus
"13. Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs. In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure. Few people placed a sinister interpretation upon this. The majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world." (Histories, Book 5, v. 13).


http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/war6.html

Read section 3 of chapter 5. They never taught me this in Sunday School.

there are just too many words and concepts in preterism IMO which have to be allegorical or anthropomorphisms which have a different meaning in God's revelation from a point of view of human understanding.​

I know of no anthropomorhisms in prophecy statements. Metaphors yes, but all one has to do is look in the OT to see how they are used. Isaiah 13:10 for example.​

All except the words "soon" or "quickly" that is.

Then you have just contradicted everything you just wrote.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
Rev 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

 

[HankD]

Dear Grasshopper,

In answer to your statement: - Then you have just contradicted everything you just wrote - I have not and here is why:

Again Grasshopper, the same ground is being covered again, again…

I believe this dead-ended offshoot of the debate began with the use of certain terms being used in the Bible in relationship to God, His attributes, person and character.

I expressed the concept that these words “quickly”, “shortly”, “soon” could be viewed in a context from the point of view of an eternal God.

God being eternal with no beginning or ending of days down though the endless aeons just might have a ground of being from which these words have a different nuance.

The objection was that these words were given in the context of the human understanding of “soon” and “quickly” and by following though with this paradigm to its logical end, the entirety of the revealed Scripture collapses.

Therefore I chose to show that there are/were several words that are used in like manner in application to our God, words like “to repent” and “to grieve” being used in the context of human understanding and showed a single passage in which both these words are used. And in fact used writings which you suggested and which use the very same paradigm, to view certain concepts from other than a human understanding.

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Now the Scripture plainly says that He was grieved at His heart and then we have God Himself saying “… it repenteth me…”

Also we are admonished in the Scripture not to grieve God.

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

The objection was brought forth that these situations were not the same kind.

But indeed they are Grasshopper. They both have to with our perception of the attributes of deity.

One has to do with His immutability, the other His eternality.

In each case the words used ( “grieved” and “soon”) may have to be assessed from a different point of view as you yourself have done with the word “repent” and “grieved”. So, if my schematic of an assessment of certain words used in the Scripture pertaining to the attributes of God being used in a context of human understanding collapses the Scripture then it works the same for you.

So if the objection is made that we are being deceived by God because certain terms in the Scripture which are always used in a certain context of human understanding then in the elements of the arts and sciences of debate, my objection is that my opponent does the very same thing and in fact when I asked if God can repent or be grieved (I forget which one exactly) the answer was – “not in the way you think” in the realm of His immutability.

However, I am disallowed that privilege with the word “soon” and/or “quickly” when used of the God of eternity in the realm of His eternality – So , “Not in the way you think” although used by my debate opponent is disallowed from my usage.

Again in the spirit of debate and because we have no debate board or facilitator to judge whether my point was a fair and allowable item, we really therefore can go no further.

Let the readers decide. After all, it is not who speaks last, longest or loudest, but best.

Neither of us can judge that fairly either of ourselves or each other.

My premise is one of two (and I am undecided but lean towards the perception of "soon"): either “soon” or “quickly” concerning the second coming must be viewed from the point of view of the one who has lived eternally (concerning His eternality).

Or there has been an apparent modification of God’s action (within the realm of His immutability and sovereignty) just as there was with His dealings with the Ninivites to whom He sent the message “…forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown”. No ifs, buts, maybes, or “unless you repent”, just the message “…forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown”.

Later we read:
And God saw their works that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

So If God cannot repent then of necessity either His word is not infallible and/or He deceived both Jonah and the Ninivites and in either case the entirety of the Scripture collapses using the paradigm of redefining the words “repent” and “grieved” in the human scheme of understanding of the Jonah passage and the Genesis 6:6 passage.

Then I offered the following as an example of that possible response that Christ used to evoke in His followers along with the possibility of His delayed coming:

Luke 12
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

The desired response to be evoked that we do not abuse one another in the possibility that He might delay His coming.

Again this was disallowed and again since there is no debate facilitator to make a judgment as to the fairness of my point then we really can go no further except to rehash, repeat, deny … rehash, repeat, deny.

There may be some truth in the statement that I don’t want to go over the up-coming terrain but only because it is the same terrain we have gone over these several times with little or no meeting of the minds.

But, I am grateful to you Grasshopper that this did not become a total ad hominem exchange.

So, let the readers decide (or not). Because I believe there is enough here in this thread to stimulate real interest in what we call Eschatology (things to come).

Eschatology is important, but of all the elements of Systematic Theology, as our brother Sproul has said, it the one fraught with the most difficulties and diversity of opinion.

Personally, I have stood in more than one camp over these 40 plus years as a believer. Currently, as you certainly know, I am a moderate dispensationalist without a total adherence to any one modern author (Darby, Mary MacDonald, Schofield, Walvoord, etc…) and I believe this will be “the last stand”.

However, I love all my brethren, from preterist, partial preterist, pre, post and amillenialist.

Even pan-millenialists (it will all pan out in the end) the undecided.

We can all agree (I believe) that we will all spend eternity with our heavenly Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit in the New Jerusalem.


Your brother in Christ.
HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

I expressed the concept that these words “quickly”, “shortly”, “soon” could be viewed in a context from the point of view of an eternal God.

Those words do not fit the definition:

Nave's Topical Bible

Anthropomorphisms

• (Figures of speech, which attribute human forms, acts, and affections to God)

Follow the link and show me where prophetic time-statements are used as anthromorphisms:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Concordances/NavesTopicalBible/ntb.cgi?number=T339

If you cannot, your entire argument is moot, as I have tried over and over to demonstrate. If you apply it to these words then it must be applied to every word leaving us with a Bible full of unknowable truths.

God being eternal with no beginning or ending of days down though the endless aeons just might have a ground of being from which these words have a different nuance.

So He chose to communicate with His creation in terms they would not understand.

The objection was that these words were given in the context of the human understanding of “soon” and “quickly” and by following though with this paradigm to its logical end, the entirety of the revealed Scripture collapses.

Therefore I chose to show that there are/were several words that are used in like manner in application to our God, words like “to repent” and “to grieve” being used in the context of human understanding and showed a single passage in which both these words are used. And in fact used writings which you suggested and which use the very same paradigm, to view certain concepts from other than a human understanding.

Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Now the Scripture plainly says that He was grieved at His heart and then we have God Himself saying “… it repenteth me…”

Also we are admonished in the Scripture not to grieve God.

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

The objection was brought forth that these situations were not the same kind.

But indeed they are Grasshopper. They both have to with our perception of the attributes of deity.

No they are not attributes of God, you are the only one who believes they are. Perhaps you can point to others who hold such a view. When Jesus said He would be raised again in 3 days, that was not an anthromorphism.

In each case the words used ( “grieved” and “soon”) may have to be assessed from a different point of view as you yourself have done with the word “repent” and “grieved”.

Again, nobody disputes this.


Anthropomorphisms

• (Figures of speech, which attribute human forms, acts, and affections to God)

So, if my schematic of an assessment of certain words used in the Scripture pertaining to the attributes of God being used in a context of human understanding collapses the Scripture then it works the same for you.

That was my point. It collapses everyones view of everything if it goes beyond the definition of anthromorphisms.

However, I am disallowed that privilege with the word “soon” and/or “quickly” when used of the God of eternity in the realm of His eternality –

It is disallowed because you are the only one who sees these words as "attributes of God".

Again in the spirit of debate and because we have no debate board or facilitator to judge whether my point was a fair and allowable item, we really therefore can go no further.

Or you could produce scholars who believe time-statements are anthromorphisms.

Let the readers decide. After all, it is not who speaks last, longest or loudest, but best.

Agree. I would love it if rjprince would comment on this point. He has read much of the scholarly dispies. I wonder if he has ever run across this argument.

My premise is one of two (and I am undecided but lean towards the perception of "soon"): either “soon” or “quickly” concerning the second coming must be viewed from the point of view of the one who has lived eternally (concerning His eternality).

I would say that God meant it to be understood by the audience He was giving it to.

Does the "nigh" of Luke have the same meaning as the "nigh" of James?

Luk 21:28 But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads; because your redemption draweth nigh.

Jam 5:8 be patient, ye also; establish your hearts, because the presence of the Lord hath drawn nigh;

Then I offered the following as an example of that possible response that Christ used to evoke in His followers along with the possibility of His delayed coming:

Luke 12
43 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

The desired response to be evoked that we do not abuse one another in the possibility that He might delay His coming.

Actually it would lead one to the complete opposite view:

45 But and if that servant say in his heart

This servant isn't one to model yourself after.

Again this was disallowed and again since there is no debate facilitator to make a judgment as to the fairness of my point then we really can go no further except to rehash, repeat, deny … rehash, repeat, deny.

Heb 10:37 For "yet a little while, and He who shall come will come and will not delay."

There may be some truth in the statement that I don’t want to go over the up-coming terrain but only because it is the same terrain we have gone over these several times with little or no meeting of the minds.

Except you never answered the question. If Jesus delayed His coming then that means there waa a time set for His original coming. When was it and how do you know.

The answer to that question will lead you places you don't want to go.

But, I am grateful to you Grasshopper that this did not become a total ad hominem exchange.

Has it ever between me and you?

So, let the readers decide (or not). Because I believe there is enough here in this thread to stimulate real interest in what we call Eschatology (things to come).

:thumbs:

We can all agree (I believe) that we will all spend eternity with our heavenly Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit in the New Jerusalem.

Another can of worms. :laugh:

 

[HankD]

First of all it doesn’t matter what you call it camping out on the particular names of theses phrases such as “anthropomorphism”, "figure of speech", "hyperbole" or any other term one wants to hang on it.

If one says that the Scripture doesn’t mean what it says when being used in a human context then it really doesn’t matter what term you attach to it.

One of the writers that you suggested called the verses and the words in question “symbolic”.

If you cannot, your entire argument is moot, as I have tried over and over to demonstrate. If you apply it to these words then it must be applied to every word leaving us with a Bible full of unknowable truths.

Again it doesn’t matter what you call it. Just because I don’t want to get involved with circular reasoning or be measured by a straw man standard and a pronouncement therefore that my argument is moot doesn’t mean my argument(s) are indeed moot just because of your decree.

If the Bible says “grieve not The Holy Spirit” and someone else says it doesn’t mean what it says because God cannot be grieved, it does not matter the tag you hang on it (anthropomorphic, symbolic, hyperbole, figure of speech, etc…).

In addition, assigning it a name which has more authors in agreement with one’s own view is not the measure of truth when it come to the Scriptures (although I personally don’t completely dismiss the value of the varying opinions of scholars).

So He chose to communicate with His creation in terms they would not understand.

Yes, in some instances.

Mark 4:11
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

This is also evident within the church by observation that there are so many diverse opinions concerning eschatology (as a singular example). Admittedly this is not God’s doing but it is a reality.

They cannot all be right, therefore there is a breech of communications between God and man and in the instance of Mark 4 some (howbeit “outsiders”) were not given understanding as the will of God.

And again, as to believers, Peter speaks of our beloved brother Paul who taught things “hard to be understood”.

This is especially true related to the study of Eschatology.

RE: Your response to “soon”, “quickly”.

It is disallowed because you are the only one who sees these words as "attributes of God".

Note that I said “in the realm of His eternality”.

And if I am the only one who sees this, what difference does that make? Just because I don’t give an answer with chapter and verse out of Calvin’s Institutes (as a “for instance”) or Chafer’s Systematic Theology or whoever, doesn’t necessarily make me wrong.

In addition, there is a well know Scripture which illustrates this concept that with God, the passage of time is subjective especially when human kind is doing the measuring.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I would say that God meant it to be understood by the audience He was giving it to.

Does the "nigh" of Luke have the same meaning as the "nigh" of James?

Maybe but possibly not, when Scripture is compared with Scripture (2 Peter 3:8) it could be a subjective proposition as well as one that I have explained before in the apparent modification of what was originally given as in the case of the Ninivites, God promised one thing and something else happened (howbeit as a result of the preaching of Jonah).

If this view is correct that Jesus has delayed His coming, I don’t why He has, that is His business and the business of the Father.

In the case of the Luke 21:28 passage the “nigh” is after the phrase “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”. In my view the events of verse 25 are directly following this scriptural episode of the “times of the Gentiles” and is the generation of Israelites which “bring forth fruits” that Jesus referred to in Mathew 21

43 Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

Those Israelites of Luke 21:28 are not the Israelites contemporary with the sack of Jerusalem but those which come after the “times” of the Gentiles” are fulfilled and are part of the Tribulation.

Again in Romans 11
Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Actually it would lead one to the complete opposite view:

45 But and if that servant say in his heart
This servant isn't one to model yourself after.

I agree with the part that this servant is not to be modeled after.

However, it is exactly why the Lord gives the warning to evoke a modification of behavior.

The servant must have had a reason for believing that his Lord was delaying His coming (might it possibly be because He had) and in that event we are not to become abusive to one another at the expense of chastisement.

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Except you never answered the question. If Jesus delayed His coming then that means there was a time set for His original coming. When was it and how do you know.

The answer to that question will lead you places you don't want to go.

No it won’t because it’s the same answer Jesus gave:

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Has it ever between me and you?

Not that I remember.

RE: Our citizenry in the New Jerusalem

Another can of worms

I goggled this phrase and found :

Idiom Meaning - To "open a can of worms" is to get involved with something that is unpleasant, difficult and not easily resolved.

Found in the public domain at http://www.quotations.me.uk/famous-idioms/42-can-of-worms-idiom.htm

So what do you mean by this?

My presumption is that you believe that the “New Jerusalem” is a metaphor for heaven the dwelling place of God.

Am I wrong (Don't worry, I won't bully you about it - unless I'm provoked)?


HankD