Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:

1.) It must ignore dozens of clearly stated time frame references.

You'd have to give examples . . .

Matthew 10:23
Matthew 16:28
Matthew 24:34
Matthew 26:64
(The above are repeated in other gospels)
Romans 13:11-12
1 Corinthians 7:29-31
1 Corinthians 10:11
Phillipians 4:5
James 5:8-9
1 Peter 4:7
1 John 2:18
Revelation 1:1
Revelation 1:3
Revelation 1:19
Revelation 3:10
Revelation 22:10

I would guess that the people who recieved these words in the First Century expected something to happen pretty soon.

PS. I also love the classical Dispensationalist view of the European Union. How many toes does this image need to get before they give this up?

I love your objection here, because it offers an ironic twist to a lot of our debates. You love to say, with reference to Calvinism, that people only prove your point when they accuse God of being unjust, because that is precisely the objection Paul dealt with. Well, the objection you are offering here - that the first century writers and readers were expecting a soon return - is exactly what Peter dealt with in 2 Pet. 3:8-10

• But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. (NIV)

Paul dealt with the same issue, too, in the early epistle of 1 Thess (AD 50ish), saying:

• Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words (1 Thess. 4:13-18, NIV)

Here, only twenty years after the Resurrection, believers were dying and some were afraid that th dead would miss out on the blessings of the Second Coming. They were expecting an immediate return there as well. And yet, Paul assures them that the dead would rise first at the Rapture, which you must take to be the Second Coming. So, this doesn't work as AD 70 for you, regardless, and you have the expectation of an immediate return that did not happen. And why not? Because it wasn't time. The "fullness of the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:25) had not, and has not, come yet. But, as Peter points out, there is no slowness of promise. When Christ said He would return soon, He meant it. The promise of an immenent and close return is absolutely true, so we are to be on guard and ready, because it could happen at any moment. It could have happened two thousand years ago, and it could well happen today. But, regardless, we are not to say, along with the wicked men, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." (2 Pet. 3:4, NIV)

So, dispensationalists have no problem with those passages. The ones from Matthew and their parallels are easily handled as well. Matt. 10:23 is a reference to the future evangelism of Israel during the tribulation. Matt. 16:28 is a reference to the transfiguration. We have talked extensively about Matt. 24:34, and I agree with Neil Nelson's conclusions in his article, "This Generation" in Matt 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective (JETS, Sep. '95, p. 369-386). And finally, Matt. 26:64 is a reference to the Jews who will see Christ's return at the end of the Tribulation. All of this is very literal and not at all difficult, in my opinion.

God bless

edit: Equating the EU with the ten toes is rather silly, but only because it seeks to interpret the Bible by modern politics. It is rather clear that a confederation of ten nations from the former Roman Empire will rule in the last days. Will they have total world dominion? I think that is probably too strong of a claim. Babylon, Persia, and Greece never had total dominion. Rome conquered the known world, but you would be hard pressed to say that the emperor of Rome ruled the WORLD. So, there isn't a lot of reason to say that this ten nation confederacy will be a one world gov't. It just means that this confederacy will basically control what goes on in the world . . . they'll be the primary voice and will hold most of the world's power. Is that the EU? Probably not. It wasn't the League of Nations, and it certainly doesn't look to be the UN, and the EU is even more worthless than they are So, who knows, but it isn't hard to imagine such a confederation coming together. We certainly have the precedent for it, and it won't be long before the world's financial markets will make this perfectly feasible in a new way. We'll see.

Jac3510 wrote:Well, the objection you are offering here - that the first century writers and readers were expecting a soon return - is exactly what Peter dealt with in 2 Pet. 3:8-10.

Jac,

The problem here isn't that "the first century writers and readers were expecting a soon return". Be that as it may, the issue here is what the scripture actually says. Dispensationalists make the assumption that any NT reference to "coming in the clouds", or "coming in His kingdom" refers to the Second Advent. The fact is that the Second Advent is only mentioned a few times in the Scriptures. Christ "comes in the clouds" quite often, just as He did via the Assyrian judgment against Egypt in Isaiah 20:1-4 (see the prophecy concenring this judgment in Isaiah 19:1.)

The one exception that Dispensationalists allow is Matt. 16:28, which you claim is a reference to the transfiguration (a common argument). My first question is, "if you can allow this particular reference to "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" to be something other then the Second Advent, why not other references?" Next, what "reward" was given at the Transfiguration, and what about the angels (Matthew 16:27)? Thirdly, what was the purpose of this prophecy? The transfiguration happened six days after Jesus uttered these words. Can you really imagine Him saying, "There are some standing here who shall not die within the next six days"? Doesn't take much Divine insight to make that kind of claim. Most people could make this claim and probably be right.

In it's context, Matthew 16:28 is a reference to 70 AD. Jesus makes reference to the Sign of Jonah, and compared the Judaists to "a wicked and perverse generation" (verse 4). When many study the Sign of Jonah in Matthew 12:38-42, they stop at the death and resurrection of Christ (an accurate application). But Jesus didn't stop there. He spoke of a coming judgment upon "An evil and adulterous generation".

Matthew 12:41-45
"The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon is here. “When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. Then he says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.' And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.”

This is a pretty clear reference to 70 AD, and I hold that the word generation here, like Matthew 24:34, is meant in the normal sense of the word. Jesus also compares the "coming of the kingdom of God" to the direct judgment on Jewish cities in Luke 10:8-15.

Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. And heal the sick there, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.' But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 'The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you.' But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades. He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

Back to the problem with these time frame references. It isn't enough to claim that "the first century writers and readers were expecting a soon return." The reason that they expected it was because the Scriptures clearly say so, and it does so way to often to be explained away with 2 Pet. 3:8-10, (one of the few references to the Second Advent). For example, in Matthew 26:64, Jesus clearly told the high priest that he would "see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Therefore, this cannot refer to a future period.

The infallibility of Scripture is at stake. If "first century writers and readers were expecting a soon return" in respect to the Second Advent, they were wrong. They didn't say that Jesus coming "could" take place soon. They said that it "would" take place soon.

I hold that the "coming" most often spoken of in the NT is the same "coming" in Matthew 21:40, a clear refernce to 70 AD.

God Bless,

PL

The problem here isn't that "the first century writers and readers were expecting a soon return". Be that as it may, the issue here is what the scripture actually says. Dispensationalists make the assumption that any NT reference to "coming in the clouds", or "coming in His kingdom" refers to the Second Advent. The fact is that the Second Advent is only mentioned a few times in the Scriptures. Christ "comes in the clouds" quite often, just as He did via the Assyrian judgment against Egypt in Isaiah 20:1-4 (see the prophecy concenring this judgment in Isaiah 19:1.)

That is the issue, PL. First of all, from an exegetical perspective, you have to understand the writer's and recepients' ideas and thought processes before you can understand meaning. Isn't the first rule of hermeneutics (at least, from a literalist's perspective) that a text cannot mean to us what it did not mean to the author? Meaning lies with the author, not with the reader. Secondly, it is the issue because it deals with the nature of your objection, which was:

You wrote:I would guess that the people who recieved these words in the First Century expected something to happen pretty soon.

In other words, PL, it is your objection, not mine . . .

You charge us with making assumptions about texts, but we make less than you do. We read that these people expected the second coming of Christ quickly, but that they were wrong. Peter, realizing this many years later, explained the issue as quoted above. And as for your claim that we "assume" that the issues raised are references to the Second Coming, I would simply point out that these are not "assumptions" but rather studied conclusions. Is it possible that we are wrong? Yes, but it is just as possible that you are wrong. If you classify our position as an "assumption," then you must classify yours as well. I suppose, then we can remove the purjorative terminology?

The one exception that Dispensationalists allow is Matt. 16:28, which you claim is a reference to the transfiguration (a common argument). My first question is, "if you can allow this particular reference to "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" to be something other then the Second Advent, why not other references?" Next, what "reward" was given at the Transfiguration, and what about the angels (Matthew 16:27)? Thirdly, what was the purpose of this prophecy? The transfiguration happened six days after Jesus uttered these words. Can you really imagine Him saying, "There are some standing here who shall not die within the next six days"? Doesn't take much Divine insight to make that kind of claim. Most people could make this claim and probably be right.

Yes, it is a common argument, and it is the correct argument. As to your question, no dispensationalist believes "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" is a technical term for the Second Advent. Context dictates all. Matt. 24 is an eschatological chapter, so we take those passages that way. The preterist explanation on that is lacking, as I've already addressed . . . I pointed out, what, sixteen or so problems in the Olivet Discourse thread? As for Matt. 16, contextually, there is no doubt that Jesus was talking about His transfiguration.

You also asked about the reward and the angels . . . (I'm really trying to avoid doing a full exegesis of this passage, as so many are commonly available). The general context a reference to the bema seat of Christ (24-26). In verse 27 makes the idea explicit. Verse 28, however, is not a reference to the bema seat. How would Jesus' words in verses 24-27 possibly be verified? The eschatological judgment on believers is clearly concurrent with the "coming of the Kingdom," but if that were to come at such a later time - after Jesus' death and resurrection, even - how could the disciples know Jesus' words were true? It was a standard test of prophets in the OT that their predictions come true. That is why long term prophecies in the OT always have short term fulfillments, so that the people can know that the prophecy was either true or false. So, Jesus says in 28 that even some of those people would see the coming of the Kingdom! We could paraphrase the idea of the passage this way:

"Guys, I'm going to have to die and raise from the dead. Peter, I know you and the others don't like it, but that is because you think like people rather than like God. You are actually doing the work of the devil in that! So, yes, I am going to die. And, as a matter of fact, if you want to be my disciples, you are going to have to suffer persecution, too. Based on how you react to that persecution, you will be rewarded when I come with my Kingdom. And, as a matter of fact, there are some of you standing right here with me that are going to see that Kingdom before you die!"

Finally, you ask for the point of the prophecy . . . I wouldn't call this a full blown prophecy. It is, in a sense, but it is a teaching and a promise. Jesus tells them what would happen, and three of them would get a taste of the Kingdom. Let me ask YOU this: what was the point of the transfiguration at all, in your scheme of things? As I, and dispensationalists in general, see things, it proves Jesus' words about the Bema Seat of Christ, since that is exactly what He was talking about.

In it's context, Matthew 16:28 is a reference to 70 AD. Jesus makes reference to the Sign of Jonah, and compared the Judaists to "a wicked and perverse generation" (verse 4). When many study the Sign of Jonah in Matthew 12:38-42, they stop at the death and resurrection of Christ (an accurate application). But Jesus didn't stop there. He spoke of a coming judgment upon "An evil and adulterous generation".

I disagree that the context is AD 70. I've tried to show above the context is discipleship and the future judgment of believers. A look at the parallel texts shows the same things. Anyway, I'm not sure why you bring Matt 12 into this . . . we are talking about Matt 16?

Anyway, in the Matt 12 passage you quote, I don't see that as "a pretty clear reference to 70 AD." I see it as a reference to the GWT judgment. The people of Nineveh and the Queen of the South, both of whom repented at the preaching they heard, will stand as witnesses of how bad these peoples' rejection was. That condemnation will come at the last day. In AD 70, I didn't see anybody from Nineveh, nor did I see any Queen of the South. Do you?

Back to the problem with these time frame references. It isn't enough to claim that "the first century writers and readers were expecting a soon return." The reason that they expected it was because the Scriptures clearly say so, and it does so way to often to be explained away with 2 Pet. 3:8-10, (one of the few references to the Second Advent). For example, in Matthew 26:64, Jesus clearly told the high priest that he would "see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Therefore, this cannot refer to a future period.

You can't make blanket assertions and wide-referenced doctrinal expositions, PL. This is what I was getting on to ttoews about. You have to deal with specific passages, get the ideas from them, and then draw your theological conclusions. You do not draw a conclusion and then take it to the text, which is precisely what you are doing here! Every passage you talk about has been adequately exegeted by dispensationalists. Further, our exegeses is in harmony with the rest of Scripture, with 2 Pet. especially, and with the general context of the writers and audiences. It's you who have the problem, not me . . . you are the one who has to spiritualize and allegorize texts. Not me.

The infallibility of Scripture is at stake. If "first century writers and readers were expecting a soon return" in respect to the Second Advent, they were wrong. They didn't say that Jesus coming "could" take place soon. They said that it "would" take place soon.

I agree that infallibility is at stake. I said so myself with reference to your systems' required understanding of Gen. 15 and Josh 21:45. PL, I hold to dispensationalism because it is the only system that doesn't create contraditions. Feel free to disagree with the theology . . . but do realize that you are dealing with your interpretation of the texts as I am with mine.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:I hold to dispensationalism because it is the only system that doesn't create contraditions. Feel free to disagree with the theology . . . but do realize that you are dealing with your interpretation of the texts as I am with mine.

I certainly realize this Jac, and will comment more later. However, I am curious about your statement that "dispensationalism...is the only system that doesn't create contraditions". Could you explain this further? In the meantime, I'm currently involved in stripping a Universalist heretic naked, so to speak. This one is a bit more important...

God Bless,

PL

1.) The Resurrection of the Righteous Dead and the Rapture of the Church (Bema Seat, in heaven, goes on here)
2.) A world dictator arises and signs a peace treaty with Israel, and the 7-year tribulation begins. . (However, I'm not sure how much of a "word dictator" he will be in the first 3.5 years . . .)
3.) A third Jewish temple is built.
4.) Turkey/Iran Invades Israel. (Gog I)
5.) Two witnesses preach the gospel in Jerusalem, are killed, and brought back to life.
6.) The dictator is killed, but comes back to life. (HIGHLY contested interpretation . . . I don't know that I buy this)
7.) After 3 ½ years, the dictator breaks the treaty and forces all people to worship a talking statue (or beast computer). All people worldwide are forced to take the “mark of the beast” in either their foreheads or their hands.
8.) 1/3 of Israel is killed off. God pours out the plagues on planet earth.
9.) Just as Israel is about to be defeated at Armageddon, Jesus returns and slays the world dictator and his armies. He then rules from the Jerusalem for 1,000 years. Sacrificial system reinstituted.
11.) After the 1,000 years are over, Christ puts down a final rebellion. (Gog II)The wicked are resurrected and judged.
12.) Eternity…..

Jac,

In order to help me address your timeline more accurately, can you include Scripture references? I don't want to assume anything, or let the kooky dispensationalists renderings cloud my arguments,

Thanks,

PL

puritan lad wrote:I certainly realize this Jac, and will comment more later. However, I am curious about your statement that "dispensationalism...is the only system that doesn't create contraditions". Could you explain this further? In the meantime, I'm currently involved in stripping a Universalist heretic naked, so to speak. This one is a bit more important...

Consider the Gen. 15/Josh. 21 problem, for starters. In addition, Cov. Theology forces you into Calvinism, and stand by all my original arguments against it. To take one as a representation, though, you are forced into the belief that repentance from sin is necessary for salvation, which flatly contradicts passages like John 3:16 and 6:47 . . . I've mentioned this before, but when you read of a Presbyterian minister that refuses to preach John 3:16 because it is too complicated, you know there is something wrong! You are also forced into a salvation by proxy (via infact baptism), and all that comes dangerously close (though not exactly to) sacramental grace . . . also, a good portion of Cov. theologians hold to a true amill., and that forces you into a replacement theology, and even you can see the problem there!

Needless to say, dispensationalism doesn't have these (and other) issues. If you want to go deeper into this, when you get time, feel free to open a new thread on it. I'll be happy to show the problems I find

And take your time, btw, with Bernie. Universalism is a silly position (he's already admitted to an allegorical hermeneutic . . . what more is there to discuss?!?) I do wish you would have argued from a less Calvinistic perspective, just because I think the points could have been made without it. Your position has left you open (and worst case, unconvincing ) to attack by people who don't interpret key passages the way you do . . . just seems a bit unnecessary. *shrug* Have fun, though.

God bless