Here is why eschatology is so crucial to the debate over predestination.

fltom

Well-known member
Tom I have a shelf full of books with all the views so I'm familiar with the arguments. We can agree to disagree.

I'm not all that dogmatic with eschatology even though I'm Pre- Trip/ Pre Mil
No problem but from what I see you are holding to one future literal visible return

I do not see how you can with a pretrib-premil position

which holds to one return for the saints and one with the saints separated by a 1000 years

but you are correct eschatology is not an essential
 

Predestined

Well-known member
My advice is do not believe it Christ is/was only coming 2 times period. Once was for 33 years for His atoning sacrifice for sin and to provide forgivenss. The 2nd time is for Judgment in His Divine wrath. That has not happened. This world has yet to see this wrath being poured out upon all mankind.

To say it happened in one small area of the world in 70ad is ridiculous. Read all the Major/ Mino Prophets on the Day of the Lord and all the NT references and Revelation.

I'm definitely not buying what they are selling.
I totally agree and I'm also Pre- Trip/ Pre Mil.

The A.D. 70 Doctrine Defined - buy it to put on a bologna sandwich.

Realized Eschatology affirms that all prophecies regarding “the end times” were fulfilled in A.D. 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem, including: The Second Coming of Christ, The Resurrection of the Dead, The Day of Judgment, The End of the World, etc. Furthermore, proponents of this doctrine affirm that Christ’s Kingdom/Church was not fully established on Pentecost. Instead, the kingdom was born in Acts 2, but did not come with “power” and fulness until Jerusalem was destroyed in A. D. 70. “The last days” never apply to the Christian age, but always to the closing period of the Jewish age (A.D. 30- A.D. 70).

Wikipedia Article on Realized eschatology:

Realized Eschatology is a Christian eschatological theory (Also called baloney) popularized by C. H. Dodd (1884– 1973) that holds that the eschatological passages in the New Testament do not refer to the future, but instead refer to the ministry of Jesus and his lasting legacy. Eschatology is therefore, not the end of the world but its rebirth instituted by Jesus and continued by his disciples, a historical (rather than transhistorical) phenomenon. Those holding this view generally dismiss "end times" theories, believing them to be irrelevant. They hold that what Jesus said and did, and told his disciples to do likewise, are of greater significance than any messianic expectations.

This view is attractive to many people, especially liberal Christians, since it reverses the notion of Jesus' coming as an apocalyptic event, (and makes them want to run to their safe space) something which they interpret as being hardly in keeping with the overall theme of Jesus' teachings in the canonical gospels, and are troubled by its firm association with evangelicalism and conservative politics. Instead, eschatology should be about being engaged in the process of becoming, rather than waiting for external and unknown forces to bring about destruction.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
No problem but from what I see you are holding to one future literal visible return

I do not see how you can with a pretrib-premil position

which holds to one return for the saints and one with the saints separated by a 1000 years

but you are correct eschatology is not an essential
Actually the pre trib holds to two returns of Christ. The rapture being one
 

fltom

Well-known member
Actually the pre trib holds to two returns of Christ. The rapture being one
Yes I stated one for the saints the other with the saints

The thing is resurrection and rapture happen at the same time

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 (KJV)
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

and resurrection is at the last day

John 6:39-40 (KJV)

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:44 (KJV)
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 11:24 (KJV)
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

at the same time as judgment

John 12:48 (KJV)
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
 

fltom

Well-known member
I totally agree and I'm also Pre- Trip/ Pre Mil.

The A.D. 70 Doctrine Defined - buy it to put on a bologna sandwich.

Realized Eschatology affirms that all prophecies regarding “the end times” were fulfilled in A.D. 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem, including: The Second Coming of Christ, The Resurrection of the Dead, The Day of Judgment, The End of the World, etc. Furthermore, proponents of this doctrine affirm that Christ’s Kingdom/Church was not fully established on Pentecost. Instead, the kingdom was born in Acts 2, but did not come with “power” and fulness until Jerusalem was destroyed in A. D. 70. “The last days” never apply to the Christian age, but always to the closing period of the Jewish age (A.D. 30- A.D. 70).

Wikipedia Article on Realized eschatology:

Realized Eschatology is a Christian eschatological theory (Also called baloney) popularized by C. H. Dodd (1884– 1973) that holds that the eschatological passages in the New Testament do not refer to the future, but instead refer to the ministry of Jesus and his lasting legacy. Eschatology is therefore, not the end of the world but its rebirth instituted by Jesus and continued by his disciples, a historical (rather than transhistorical) phenomenon. Those holding this view generally dismiss "end times" theories, believing them to be irrelevant. They hold that what Jesus said and did, and told his disciples to do likewise, are of greater significance than any messianic expectations.

This view is attractive to many people, especially liberal Christians, since it reverses the notion of Jesus' coming as an apocalyptic event, (and makes them want to run to their safe space) something which they interpret as being hardly in keeping with the overall theme of Jesus' teachings in the canonical gospels, and are troubled by its firm association with evangelicalism and conservative politics. Instead, eschatology should be about being engaged in the process of becoming, rather than waiting for external and unknown forces to bring about destruction.
That sounds a lot like a full preterist type of view

and has little to do with Amillennialism or partial preterism
 

Predestined

Well-known member
There is no way to get around the meaning of Gods wrath when you look at both Testaments and who the recipients are of that wrath. And there is no passage that says Jesus bore Gods wrath. So that is a double whammy in my book. But I know I'm in the minority here with Gods wrath poured out on the Son.

But look at the definition I provided and all the NT passages above about His wrath.
I like this definition You posted.... fixed, controlled, passionate feeling against sin . . . a settled indignation.

The picture I have in my mind of wrath is like getting in the ring with Mike Tyson then sticking your tongue out at him.

If you look at all Jesus went through the beatings, the floggings, the punching, the beard being pulled out for starters. Then the terrible torture of being nailed to and hanging from a cross not being able to breathe properly, all that seems like enough wrath to me. But then to have God say here let me add a little wrath to that suffering. It seems to me God would be encouraging him, "you're almost there Son" Not making it worse.
 

fltom

Well-known member
I like this definition You posted.... fixed, controlled, passionate feeling against sin . . . a settled indignation.

The picture I have in my mind of wrath is like getting in the ring with Mike Tyson then sticking your tongue out at him.

If you look at all Jesus went through the beatings, the floggings, the punching, the beard being pulled out for starters. Then the terrible torture of being nailed to and hanging from a cross not being able to breathe properly, all that seems like enough wrath to me. But then to have God say here let me add a little wrath to that suffering. It seems to me God would be encouraging him, "you're almost there Son" Not making it worse.
That would make Mike Tyson very angry

You won't like him when he is angry

In any case Jesus suffered

he was made perfect by his suffering

Hebrews 2:10 (KJV)
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

Hebrews 5:8-9 (KJV)
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

He was not punished for he was without sin

Hebrews 9:14 (KJV)
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

1 Peter 1:19 (KJV)
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
 

Johnnybgood

Well-known member
Not to change the subject but I'm a GRANDPA with by first flesh and blood Granddaughter about an hour ago . Healthy Vivian - 9lb 2 oz at 10:04 am Whoooo Hoooooo

Time to celebrate they are both in good health. Thank you for your prayers brothers/sisters.
Congratulations!
 

fltom

Well-known member
Not to change the subject but I'm a GRANDPA with by first flesh and blood Granddaughter about an hour ago . Healthy Vivian - 9lb 2 oz at 10:04 am Whoooo Hoooooo

Time to celebrate they are both in good health. Thank you for your prayers brothers/sisters.
Congratulations

Great start to the New Year
 

squirrelyguy

Active member
ya know, after reading your op a few times I’m just not getting what your implying.

There seems to be a few issues in it.
Paul seems to be teaching about Israel that having a partial hardening going on which brought them to a place of stumbling, not falling. :11.

How would this relate to vessels of wrath? Are you trying to connect the two chapters?

In the context, all Israel means something less than “all inclusive.” All Israel has a corporate significance, referring to the nation as a whole, and not every single individual who is part of the nation [Riddlebarger]. All Israel therefore, means something like the vast majority or a great number.

I believe, once the fullness of the Gentiles has come, God will bring great numbers of ethnic Jews to Christ. Then will be the end, right around this time.

Not sure how the vessels of wrath comes into play here in the context.
It goes like this:

1) Paul says "Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded." (11:7) Here he separates members of "Israel" into two groups, the elect, and the rest who were blinded.

2) He then speaks of "the rest" by quoting the Psalms:
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,
And bow down their back always.”


3) He then spends the rest of that chapter assuring his audience that the fate of "the rest" is a hopeful one. In the very next verse, he says "I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not!" Notice that he uses the word "stumbled" immediately after quoting the Psalms which says "...a stumbling block and a recompense to them." In other words, he is talking about the same individuals within Israel, not corporate Israel. These individuals within Israel are those who comprise "the rest who were blinded", not "the elect." The elect were never blinded, nor did they stumble. "The rest who were blinded" are those who stumbled. But they didn't stumble so as to "fall", which is Paul's way of suggesting that what Calvinism calls "reprobation" is nowhere in view here. This "stumbling" is not part of some eternal decree to eternal damnation. Nothing of the sort is called for here.

4) He doubles down on this hope by saying "For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" Again, he is speaking not of corporate Israel but of individuals within Israel; namely, "the rest who were blinded", or those who "stumbled." It is they who were "cast away" so that the world could be reconciled, and likewise, it will be their ultimate acceptance which will bring life from the dead for the world.

5) In vv. 16-24 he uses the metaphor of an olive tree with wild branches grafted in to replace the natural branches which were removed due to unbelief. He explicitly holds out hope that they can be grafted in again, and that God is able and willing to do so when they no longer persist in unbelief. The question is, when will they cease persisting in their unbelief?

6) He answers that question in the very next verse. The blindness that was imposed on "the rest" is only temporary, and will be removed once the fullness of the Gentiles comes in.

7) Verses 28-32 bring his argument to a conclusion, and make it clear that he is holding out hope for "the rest who were blinded." In v. 28 he says "Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers." The exact same people who are "enemies for your sake" at the time of Paul's writing, are also "beloved for the sake of the fathers." This brings up another issue: the doctrine of election, as it is taught in Scripture, not only supposes that God has a chosen few that He will guarantee a good place in the resurrection to...but one benefit of being among the elect is that God extends His kindness to those who are beloved by members of the elect, even if those who are beloved by the elect are not among the elect!

8) Verse 32 says "For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all."
 

fltom

Well-known member
Actually the pre trib holds to two returns of Christ. The rapture being one
Yep

1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 (KJV)
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

2 Peter 3:3-10 (KJV)
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
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.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
 

fltom

Well-known member
His Coming in both testaments is always literal, never figurative. Its EVERY EYE WILL SEE Him just as He said in Matthew 24 and other places. His 2nd Coming is the Terrible Day of the Lord where He pours out His Wrath upon the entire world in Judgment.

That has not happened in any way, shape or form. There has to be some texas two stepping to get around it imho.
Um no one holds that it has

All traditional eschatologies Amillenialism, Postmillenialism, historic premillennialism and of course dispensational premillennialism hold the second coming as future

Chart of various eschatologies


 
Top