From: baresson@cbnewsi.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Imminency doctrine
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:15:14 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Oct.12.02.22.17.1992.19789@geneva.rutgers.edu> topcat!tom@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>One can be called to a holy life without the so-called imminency doctrine.
>After all, Abraham and Moses and the children of Israel were also called to
>holiness of living.  Jesus' second coming certainly was "imminient" as far
>as they were concerned.

I concede that imminence does not hold a monopoly in its
relationship with holiness, and I would hope that the love of
God and an awareness of his character and call of us would
provide sufficient incentive for a holy life - but the knowledge
that He can return, like the master away on a journey to return
at an unspecified hour provides additional reason for the
servants to keep the place in order (Mt 24.46)

>>The doctrine of imminency attests to this: we are
>>told to look for his appearing and at the same time to WATCH
>>"when you see these things beginning to take place ..."
>
>No, "come to pass" as in:
>
>    Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When its branch is yet
>    tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
>    So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to
>    pass, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.
>    Verily I say to you, that THIS GENERATION shall not pass,
>    till all these things shall be done.
>    Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not
>    pass away.  (Mark 13:28-31)
>
>Note the words "this generation."  The passage in question is speaking to
>the generation of Jews living at the time of Christ.   It's quite
>impossible that Jesus was speaking of the time just prior to His second
>coming -- unless you don't take Jesus' words at face value.

The disciples asked a 2-pronged question (Mt 24.3), which was given a
2-pronged answer, ie both the events later in the century and
those immediately prior to Jesus' return were referred to.
The 2 subjects, separated as we know by a considerable time
span, were nontheless treated in the same dialogue - when
Jesus prophecied of the future from his standpoint. Consider the
above verses you quote and the verses following:

	But of that day and that hour no man knows, no not the
angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father.
Take ye heed, watch and pray, for ye know not when the time is.
For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left
his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man
his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye therefore;
for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or
at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning. (Mark
13:32-5)

This is a passage which deals with the return of Christ, an
event yet future, and it sits right next to the passage you
quote.

>>Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:51-2 talks of "we who are left": I believe
>>that he fully expected the Lord to return in his lifetime - or
>>at least he lived with the strong possibility. So must we.
>
>This reads like speculation rather than hard and fast biblical evidence for
>the doctrine.  I still fail to see a doctrine of "imminency" from the
>scriptures, esp. I Cor. 15.

We in the church are called to look for his coming - and we are
not told when it will be - the second coming will occur at an
unrevealed time. Surely we agree on this? Are you saying that
the return of Christ cannot happen just yet - because certain
other events must precede it? (eg revelation of man of sin/
Satan's short season?) I guess I would seek clarification on
your position - as if you place no importance on specific events
that you hold will occur before Jesus' return then imminence
becomes a point of agreement between us.

>>The relationship between the signs and the rapture is never made
>>clear, as to say what will happen BEFORE the departure of the
>>church and what will happen after, so for instance we see
>>that there are some things pointed to which could occur
>>beforehand or maybe afterward.
>
>Scripture references, please?  I think part of your problem is incorrectly
>theorizing a timing difference between the "rapture" and the second coming
>in glory and judgment.


The second coming of Christ is always set forth in the
Scriptures as an event that is imminent, that is, as something
that is possible at any moment. In Jewish time calculations, the
night was divided into 4 watches (see verses quoted above). So
the Lord reminds His own that they could not tell in which watch
He might come. It is incumberant on believers to "be ready also;
for the Son of man comes at a time when you know not (Luke
12:40). This is why believers are constantly urged to look for
the coming of the Lord Jesus (Phil 3:20; Heb 9:28; Titus 2:13;
1Thess 5:6).

Either the Lord deceived His own or His coming is an imminent
event. This means that there is no prophecied event that stands
between the present moment and the coming of the Lord Jesus.
Some may object and insist that signs intervene. But the answer
is simple. The second coming of Christ is a vast and complicated
development when looking at the entire event. And signs have
reference to the revelation of Christ in glory, not necessarily
to the rapture. Whenever the roots of these signs appear before
the rapture, they can be said to point to the rapture. But in
reality they are intended to point to an event that occurs 7
years later. Therefore God's people are always encouraged to
look for the Lord and not for signs.

>>It is the church's relationship with Israel which is a major
>>factor in the pointing to our generation as being the last. ...
>
>Dispensational speculation.  You posit a theorical relationship between
>Israel and the Church during the new covenant, and then build up an
>elaborate set of theories based on it.  It's like a house of cards.  If the
>basic theory is in error, then what flows from it is most likely in error
>as well.

Either  the church is Israel or it is not. So one of us is building
on a house of cards. We have discussed Rom 9 - 11 before.

>I would still like to see specific scriptural references to support this
>"imminency" theory, rather than long drawn out hypotheses.
>

>>Now, here is something you can take me up on. I personally
>>believe that the battles of Ezek 38-9 refer to an invasion
>>of contemporary Israel by Russia. ...
>
>With swords, spears, shields and horses?  How else would a "literalist"
>interpret Ezekiel 38&39?

We'll see. There is either a substantial downgrading  in battles
(I have heard a theory involving solar flares rendering
electronics useless) or the passage was using contemporarious language.

>>See Tim la Haye's book 'The Coming Peace in the Middle East' for
>>instance, where he postulates a rapture well before Daniel's 70th
>>week.
>
>More theory?

This is in harmony with what I have outlined above.

>Just one more question.  According to your definitions, was the return of
>Jesus "imminent" to Christians 1000 years ago?

In John 14:1-3 Jesus asserts that He is coming to take His
church to heaven. No reference to time is made in this promise,
He says "I come again". The original Greek is a present tense,
with the sense of immediate future. The futuristic idea brings
the possibility of Christ's coming right down to the immediate
present and thus possible at any moment.

I hope this answers your questions, my friend.

Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)