A couple of days ago I offered a brief summary of post-NT writings (Clement thru Augustine) that expected Jesus' return, the resurrection and judgment in their future. This is a 15 page .doc that I will make available to whomever asks -- by Email, please.
I just discovered an explanation of why they missed it. I hope you'll read it.
While on this subject, here is my observation that when it comes to the Holy Spirit, preterists are no different than futurists:
I find it interesting that preterists (I'm one) make a big deal about who would see the parousia/resurrection/judgment (PRJ) -- recognizing that it was Jesus' generation, not any subsequent (post-70) readers.
Yet, these same preterists, thru the imposition of themselves into the text by assuming the role of antecedent of the second person pronouns, fail to apply the same criteria to the promise of the Holy Spirit:
1) the promises Jesus made in the "upper room" were to the Apostles specifically. Nowhere do we find the same promises being made to disciples in general.
2) the reception of the HS promised in Acts 2:38 was not simultaneous with baptism, as Acts 8:14-18 demonstrates. Reception of the "gift" was thru the "laying on of Apostolic hands."
3) in the "upper room" Jesus explains that the HS would be a temporary (note the use of "little while") substitute for Jesus during his absence -- the 40 years between his ascension and parousia.
4) the HS is absent in the New Jerusalem of Rev 21:10 - 22:5 (the post-PRJ church); a substitute is not necessary since the resurrected church (the kingdom) is in the very presence of Father/Son.
5) subsequent "days to come" saints rely on the past work of the HS as proof of the 1st century events; being in the presence of God continually negates the need for another, temporary non-God/Christ representative.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It seems to me there is a glaring contradiction. The apostles that were still living and that missed the second-coming were taught by Christ himself and guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. Not to mention those non-apostles that also received the gift of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. If those that were hand-picked, trained by Christ, and led by the supernatural force of God could miss such a cataclysmic event in the history of God's interaction with man, then what confidence can anyone have in the events they wrote about, the lessons they passed on, or the faith they preached.
ReplyDeleteThose Jewish Christians that survived the events in Judea 65-72 have never been heard from. The Gentile survivors probably did not recognize it as being what Paul and others were expecting.
ReplyDeleteMy confidence in scripture is based on two events: Jesus' resurrection and the PRJ within his generation.
If I were to be convinced that either of these didn't happen, I outta here!
Hmmm,while the resurrection is definitely a requisite belief, I'm not sure how the PRJ WITHIN His generation is.
ReplyDeleteSecond, since when does a prophet have to personally witness an event in order to relay the facts to the believer? I'll grant that it was a mark of the NT that most of it was written by primary or secondary sources. But what possible rationale could there be for a major event to occur without witnesses to pass it on? And even worse, the rest of the followers of the world never noticing that what God has said would happen has been accomplished.
Third, it seems like your reasoning is circular. You have faith in the scripture based on the testimony of a resurrection while at the same time, the testifiers (even the Holy Spirit)would prove themselves completely unreliable by neglecting to mention the fulfillment of the prophecy that would demonstrate the utter power and sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even the Great Flood is not as important to the story as the Second Coming.
I DO think that the events of 70 AD are a type of the second coming, but not the actual event.
Nathan, thank you for your comments. At lease one person is reading my blog.
ReplyDeleteBeing simple minded, I can easily equate the importance of the resurrection's reality with the reality of the PRJ when promised.
Otherwise we are faced with a resurrected liar.