6. The church needs apocalyptic eschatology to ground its mission. The resurrection and ascension of Jesus was a sign that Israel’s restoration was indeed at hand (Acts 1:11). Yet it was also a call to engage in witness to the expanding kingdom. That witnessing inevitably brings the witnesses into conflict with a world hostile to the message of the lordship of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit empowers the church and forms the community as a missional organism that works out God’s purposes for redemption and judgment. Without this endtime perspective the content and urgency of the Christian mission is greatly retarded.
7. The church needs apocalyptic eschatology to speak with integrity about suffering and death. Those armed with an apocalyptic eschatology need not live in denial of the sufferings of this age and the groaning that accompany it. Cynicism nor despair takes over Christians because they know that their telos is the resurrection of their body assured by the resurrection of Jesus’ body. Christians therefore know how to grieve with hope in the face of the horror of death knowing that every tear will one day be wiped away their eyes in the new creation.
Sad. Disheartening. It’s hard to comprehend that this gobbledy-gook can be passed along as actual thought coming from people so trained in eschatology. If He came as Messiah, finally, 2000 years ago, we are looking awfully Jewish and ignorant and stalwart in still waiting upon Him after the first Pentecost where all those people were waiting on Him and found Him in power.
Milton, I’m not completely sure I understand your comment above. Are you saying you don’t believe that Christ “shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead: Whose kingdom shall have no end”?
Are you saying that there is no further coming– that Pentecost was it?
Yes, Farstrider, that is exactly what I’m saying. His coming in glory is now our coming to Him at the moment of our death. He already judges the quick and the dead. As long as there are Christians, there is His kingdom in strength and reality.
Well, Milton, THAT’s certainly a novel idea. What book did you get that from? Certainly not the Holy Bible.
Evan,
I wrote a book about the subject. It’s called Hello Again, Already!, and it came entirely from the Bible, but instead of a doom and destruction slant, it is developed from a creational slant, seeing how God is so good at that sort of thing. Peter gives a great sermon about it being the “end” at Pentecost.
I’ve always wondered about this: Isn’t it way better to have the very Spirit of God within you calling the shots instead of Him on the outside of you telling you something and your heart not really feeling it..with no real conviction on the matter? That would be a return to the days before Pentecost when the apostles seemed to never get anything right, wouldn’t it!? After Christ’s Spirit entered them, they became knowledgeable and began writing things and speaking things that were not in them until that day.
That is the day we became His Body on earth and, by proxy… He is here! Just that spiritually simple and miraculous. Thanks be to God, He made it simple.
And what about his coming again with clouds and power, etc.? How does that fit in to your tale?
How does 2 billion Christians sound compared to the motley twelve? That’s power. It would be so much more if the church would get it right. The clouds have to do with revelational reality that we all deal with when God gives us an “Ahah” moment, exactly like when the people at Pentecost realized for the first time in their lives that Jesus was and is the Christ of God. If you look throughout the Bible, you will see the cloud metaphor reenacting itself time and time again.
Sorry Milton, but I don’t think the Church has gotten it wrong.
The church has gotten it wrong in a big way. That’s what I’m sorry about. It’s disheartening when one sees people regurgitating simply what they’ve heard, or holding a belief, without giving eschatology a decent study by using the mind God gave them.
I prefer to trust the mind of the Church in interpreting Scripture rather than the mind of Evan Miller or Milton Finch.
Who is the church? I thought it was Evan and Milton.
Evan and Milton are only atoms in the Church. The Holy Spirit decides these weighty matters, such as the canon of Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the creeds, etc. through the Church in council.
Peter of the Bible got it right, way back then. It was the mind of the church that messed it up and made us wait on our Messiah all over again. Either Jesus lied to his apostles or He was right when He said in John 14:3, “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, ye may be also. 4. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.”
I feel a lot of our ministers know the way, but dang that path is hard…and the people so dull!
Peter says it’s the last days, in Acts, not “the end.” Rather than building a castle on one (I would dare to say “misread”) passage, why not look to testimony of Scripture as a whole? You keep on saying “Peter got it right.” Yes, he did– just look at 2 Peter 3.
There Peter speaks of those who deliberately ignore the fact that the same Word of God that created and preserves the cosmos will judge it. Some deliberately ignore this truth, because of God’s apparent slowness to judge. Peter points out that God’s timing is different than ours, and he is patient with us. Salvation history isn’t complete until he says it is.
If you were right, then St. Peter is wrong. St Paul is wrong. St John is wrong. The Lord Jesus Christ himself is wrong. The Church, which you point out is the body of Christ, is wrong.
Do you think it might be worth considering that it is you who are mistaken?
[blockquote]Either Jesus lied to his apostles or He was right when He said in John 14:3, “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, ye may be also. 4. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.â€[/blockquote]
How does this quotation undermine normative Christian eschatology? How does it conflict with Christ’s coming to judge and renew his creation?
Farstrider,
I chose to start with Peter because you were with my statement on Pentecost. The main thrust of my argument comes from Matthew 24, which is the most in-depth “end” discussion there is from the synoptic Gospels. Look at the word “end” as Christ uses it in Matthew 24, and you will find that Christ is using” telos” when the disciples used the word ” suntelia”.
They were asking when He was goring to wrap everything up, putt under His arm and take it home to Daddy. He answered using telos which means a finality, yes, but as a new condition. In other words, ire you have a cup of coffee, then add some sugar, you have the same cup of coffee, yet entirely different…. Sweeter. Telos also means a tax or an impost. A taxing situation was going to take place, and that was His crucificion. The disciples “tarried” just like He asked them to, and on Pentecost, He returned in power and glory.
I am not wrong. The church’s stance is.
Milton, your interpretation of Matthew 24 is unusual… Even full preterists don’t take it to refer to Pentecost– they take it to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem (Christ’s coming in judgment to bring the old order of Moses to an end). While I think the end of temple worship is partly in view, the language Jesus uses reflects the apocalyptic language of the prophets– it points to an immediate judgment (Assyria, Babylon, Jerusalem– or later, Rome) and beyond to a final judgment. Telos typically means “end” in the sense of “goal” or “completion.” Peter does not use the word “telos” in Acts 3, so I don’t see why you are making the link…
Furthermore, looking at Matthew 24-25 again, you’re focusing on one tree and ignoring the wood it stands in. Jesus’ language is explicit regarding his coming in glory to judge the nations. Saying that this refers to the singular judgement of individuals at the point of death, and not a final and complete judgment of all men at the end (completion) of the ages runs against the grain of everything Jesus is saying here.
Finally, you write: “I am not wrong. The church’s stance is. ”
Did you blush at all when you wrote that line?
Farstrider,
You asked a question in post 15. Look at the words “where I am”. He is simply stating that where Peter’s mindset is is not where Jesus’ mindset is. Where. Peter’s understanding is is not where Jesus’ is. Do you see that? He was always speaking spiritually while His listeners were hearing with spiritually dead ears.
Farstrider,
I want you to think about the entire earth generation that lived a mere 200 years ago. Are there any left from that generation? No. That entire world population has ceased to exist. That is no small thing. That is catastrophic if you think about it. The same will happen to every person living today. The same will happen 200 years from now. Think of the billions of us that will cease to exist and be judged at His throne.
Again, 2 Peter. I wrote:
[blockquote]There Peter speaks of those who deliberately ignore the fact that the same Word of God that created and preserves the cosmos will judge it. Some deliberately ignore this truth, because of God’s apparent slowness to judge. Peter points out that God’s timing is different than ours, and he is patient with us. Salvation history isn’t complete until he says it is.[/blockquote]
While we can all claim to be the only ones with spiritual ears to hear what no one else has heard, and thereby sanctify our own peculiar interpretations, we’re still confronted with these words by Peter.
From an outside point of view, you seem to have joined the ranks of those who deliberately ignore the reality of the final judgment.
I’m thinking of the implications of your view. I can only assume that you also reject the idea of a general resurrection. The bodies that we “sow” in the ground won’t, in fact, be raised up on the last day. Do you hold to some version of transmigration, then, or do you hold to pure spiritual existence?
And what of the Lord? Do you believe he was raised bodily from the dead?
2nd Peter, chapter 3 is the 8th chapter of my book. The day of the Lord in Pentecost is not the day of the LOrd he is talking about in Peter 3. THe first day of the Lord as to do with the Body of Christ being in the here and now via HIs Spirit in us working through us. The one in Peter 3 is the judgement when we have lived our lives and ceased to breathe. You will see Him in all His glory then.
What of resurrection? Ours and the Lord’s…
I absolutely believe in Christ bodily being raised from the dead. As to your general resurrection, Paul said to be absent from the body is to be present with God. What about those that have been cremated during your general resurrection?
Cremation is irrelevant.
Yes, Paul said “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” That’s the intermediate state. Scripture spends a great deal more time talking about the resurrection than it does the intermediate state, though. 1 Thessalonians, for example, was written to assure Paul’s readers that the end hadn’t happened. He didn’t want them to worry about those who had died in Christ– they were with him, and they would come with Christ at his Parousia, which [i]hadn’t happened yet.[/i] That’s the beginning of what comes after the intermediate state.
St Paul also said:
“Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality.”
— 1 Corinthians 15:51-53
Earlier in the chapter he spoke of our mortal bodies being sown and raised up as immortal bodies. There is a 1-1 correspondence between the body that is sown and the body that is raised in glory, as was the case with Christ.
Scripture has to interpret Scripture. You can’t build theologies on a handful of passages ignoring the testimony of the whole.
I’m glad you believe that Christ was raised. Scripture tells us, though, that he is both the pattern and the first fruits of the resurrection. He is the pattern in that our own resurrection will be like his. He is the first fruits in that his own resurrection, ahead of time, is the pledge that we too shall be raised when times have reached their telos.
What about all those saved cremated bodies. Don’t brush it aside. Paul is speaking of a new spiritual reality after death. He is not talking about two different kinds of flesh. There is your 1 to 1 correspondence. Jesus was spiritual and Paul was spiritual after he became part of the Body of Christ. It’s not so hard to see. Spirituality interprets spirituality.
I fail to see why cremation is an issue. It’s a sub-point at best. Are you asking how, if someone was cremated, God would be able to raise them up? I reply by asking, “Is anything to hard for the Lord?”
In one of your earlier posts you stated that you approached this from a more “creational” stance. As far as I can see that is patently false. Your slant is anti-creational, rather, in that it sees God as being interested in the “soul” rather than the whole person. For you, salvation means disembodied bliss.
The biblical accounts see the God of creation as being a God who is faithful to his creation. Salvation encompasses not only our spiritual lives, but our bodies and the cosmos itself. Creation, Paul tells us, is in bondage to decay and is awaiting it’s final release– a release that orthodox Christianity teaches will come with the Parousia– when Christ is revealed, and we are revealed in him.
Your approach is a reductionist one, in this sense.
Worst of all, though, is what your view does to belief in the resurrection of Christ. You say you believe in his bodily resurrection, and good. But the truth of the matter is, there is no need for a bodily resurrection in your theology. For years liberals have said of Christ what you say of the Christian. If we our resurrection and salvation are merely “spiritual,” then Christ’s resurrection need only be spiritual.
Well, if one throws ashes into a river and they disburse into the mud and later out to sea, I would see a problem with it.
Creational is meant to be the ever-present way the Lord deals with us. It’s not all gloom and doom, seeing that He allows us resurrection over death, and that even works for everyday problems. It’s the spirit of the individual that God is interested in, not the “soul”. You need to try to get your facts straight. For me, salvation means being saved from a withering spirit, or a tormentors time while still going through it.
I speak of the spiritual side of things. You seem to be stuck very much in the earthly. Paul speaks of the carnal man and the regenerate man. The regenerate man would understand these spiritual things.
My theology does no such thing to the reality of Christ’s resurrection. Maybe it’s a weakness of faith or the deafness of ears that will not hear. From what I can see in your writings, I see someone that follows so much what they perceive to be right from what they’ve been told that they have no time whatsoever for the spiritual and choose to go whole hog literal. That runs the extreme danger of turning ones faith into a garbage of works.
[blockquote]Well, if one throws ashes into a river and they disburse into the mud and later out to sea, I would see a problem with it.[/blockquote]
The God who is able to speak into nothing and create everything is unlikely to be stymied by such a petty thing as the dispersion of ashes.
[blockquote]I speak of the spiritual side of things. You seem to be stuck very much in the earthly. Paul speaks of the carnal man and the regenerate man. The regenerate man would understand these spiritual things.[/blockquote]
Yes, a lot of people find it helpful to take a spiritually superior tone when confronted with Scriptures that contradict their pet theories. You have the privilege, it seems, of being the only spiritual man alive. The rest of the Church is made up of carnal types unable to see what your eyes so clearly see. It must be wonderful.
[blockquote]From what I can see in your writings, I see someone that follows so much what they perceive to be right from what they’ve been told that they have no time whatsoever for the spiritual and choose to go whole hog literal.[/blockquote]
From what I can see from your writings, I see someone who is willing to embrace his own unfettered imaginings, (without regard to the wisdom of the Apostles, saints and martyrs) that he is willing to spiritualize the Scriptures in a way that even Origen would balk at.
[blockquote]That runs the extreme danger of turning ones faith into a garbage of works.[/blockquote]
No, it runs the danger of allowing God’s word to speak as it intends to, rather than reading it as an esoteric puzzle game.
Your reading, on the other hand, has already led you into heresy. You’re no longer a credal Christian, and you’re proud of it. You’ve chosen your own reading over and against the whole of the Church and the clear sense of Scripture, and you are unable to see the irony in your certitudes. For all that you say that everyone else is blind, you aren’t in the place to see what everyone else sees.
Milton, I have no illusions as to whether or not I can change your mind on this forum. I can’t. I will pray, though, that the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture and has guided the Church will also guide you.
Signing off for tonight,
farstrider+
31, well you have to admit it’s a very Greek and Gnostic interpretation. Marcion comes to mind. Spirit good, matter bad.
Interesting thread. Thanks to Milton, Evan and farstrider+ for keeping the ball in play.
Doesn’t anyone find it strange that we are dealing with Pentecost, that is the third largest season of the Anglican calendar. Not only that, but it is the “largest” of the Christian calendar year?
When one deals with God, one is dealing with all Three. Not only that, but when one deals with One, one is dealing with all Three (One). In other words, when a person deals with God, are they, being as interpersonal as a Triune God are, dealing with the Father and the Son and the Spirit, all in One, as only God can be “treated”?
Let’s deal with the Holy Spirit now. What “service” exactly, does the Spirit of God “and” Christ do? He becomes your “eyeglasses”! One can only see what your Father is asking you to say or do through the power of His Holy Spirit and Christ who was once with you. The Holy Spirit also enables one to “see” what God is trying to show you. Where in all this am I in the least bit Marconian? Happy God Dying Day and Resurrection Day AND the Second Coming of Christ Day on
Pentecost Day, everyone!
When one comes to think about it, really, isn’t it much easier to deal with “One” on the outside than “One” that is inside your head and heart telling you how you should really treat someone you are dealing with?
“Love your neighbor as yourself.”