Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
Mystery of the Parousia
Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
48 Comments
Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply.
Leave a Reply to Philip Williams Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Varnel Watson
pay attention Link Hudson Philip Williams Rico Hero http://ourcog.org/the-mystery-of-the-parousia-2/
Link Hudson
Sorry. If it fits in a Facebook cornbox I might read it. I have seen Perry Stone try to weave a pretrib story around verses that do not support it before. Is there any reason to think this one would be any different? I have no plans to spend hours online listening to videos people point me to.
Varnel Watson
if you cant beat Perry’s theology you cant beat a real Greek NT scholar or two 🙂
Link Hudson
Troy Day not trying to beat people here Troy.
Varnel Watson
speaking of theology – if you can you can if you cant you cant
Daniel J Hesse
He’s infallible!
RichardAnna Boyce
While most NT scholars do not believe the Rapture is found in the Olivet Discourse, Free Grace Zane Hodges argues persuasively that it is. The Lord’s reference to His coming “as a thief in the night” is shown in this book to be the basis for the use of that expression by Peter (2 Pet 3:10) and Paul (1 Thess 5:4-8). And while there are signs that indicate that the Tribulation is underway (e.g., the abomination of desolation at the midpoint) and that it is ending (seeing the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, Matt 24:30), “‘the coming [parousia] of the Son of Man’ starts without a sign” (p. 25, italics his). While many prophetic teachers point to a myriad of things that they believe prove the Lord will return in our generation, if not in the next year or two, Zane was clear to point out that the Lord made the opposite claim. His coming would start when “when uninterrupted human life is continuing as usual, just as it was before the flood” (p. 24). This is an especially remarkable break from tradition since Zane thought it quite likely, in light of the events surrounding Israel, that the Lord would return in his lifetime. Yet Zane distinguished between what was likely and what was certain due to signs.
Varnel Watson
every Pentecostals scholar should argue persuasively that it is. What is his MAIN argument?
RichardAnna Boyce
Sorry you have to buy the paper .. Jesus, God’s Prophet: His Teaching about the Coming Surprise By Zane C. Hodges. Mesquite, TX: Kerugma, Inc., 2006. 64 pp. Paper, $4.95.
Though short in length, this book makes a profound point. Zane’s point is that the prophetic teaching we find in the NT epistles does not come via the Spirit revealing new truths to the apostles. Rather, it comes from the apostles proclaiming what the Lord Jesus Christ taught. Jesus is God’s prophet. Many give lip service to this. Hodges proclaims it.
But this book implies an even more profound claim: All of the teachings found in the NT epistles find their source in the teachings of the Lord Jesus, including soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology, pneumatology, Christology, and theology proper.
The Olivet Discourse is analyzed in this work. Zane focuses on the discourse as it is recorded in Matthew 24–25. He makes the point that this discourse “is the longest uninterrupted prophetic discussion found anywhere in the New Testament outside the book of Revelation” (p. 15). ……………………………….. Another unique teaching in this book is that the Second Coming takes place over the course of seven years. Many Bible teachers see the Rapture and His setting foot on the Mount of Olives to defeat the armies arrayed against Israel essentially as two Second Comings. Zane sees those as two parts of the same coming: “The term for coming [parousia] does not simply refer to an arrival. It clearly covers a span of time” (p. 25, italics his).
As those of us familiar with his writings have become accustomed, Zane’s discussion of the Parable of the Just and Unjust Servant (Matt 24:45-51) and of the ten virgins (Matt 25:1-13) leaves no important observation left unstated. His discussion is masterful. It is exceeding practical in terms of our daily living until Jesus returns. The notion that Free Grace theology promotes spiritual indolence is laughable for anyone who reads this book (and the other books by Zane Hodges as well).
After challenging the reader to reader to believe in Jesus for everlasting life (p. 63), Hodges writes, “And if you have believed, then stay awake and be fully alert. Don’t allow sinful conduct or spiritual neglect rob you of your readiness to meet Him face to face. You have a splendid promotion ahead of you if you are faithful” (p. 63, italics his).
I highly recommend this book.
Bob Wilkin
Editor
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
Denton, TX
RichardAnna Boyce
You can google this and parts 1 and 2 on Grace Evangelical Society search, and i have given the conclusions of all 3 ….SHOULD PRETRIBULATIONISTS
RECONSIDER THE RAPTURE
IN MATTHEW 24:36–44?
Part 3 of 3
JOHN F. HART
Professor of Bible
Moody Bible Institute
Chicago, IL
I. INTRODUCTION
The previous two articles of this series have contended that Matthew
presents Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ two questions (Matt 24:3) in a
chiastic structure. In vv 4–35, Jesus answered the second question,
“What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?” (v
3b). His answer revealed new prophetic truth about the future seventieth
seven (week) of Daniel (vv 4–28). It is only after the Great Tribulation
with all its telltale events that Jesus will be manifested to the entire world
(vv 29–31). In vv 32–35, Jesus clearly taught that the nearness of His
return to earth could be known in the same way that the spring budding
of a fig tree is the announcement that summer is near. But the evidential
happenings that lead to the Second Coming of Christ in Matt 24:29–31
cannot be harmonized easily with Jesus’ description of His Parousia in
Matt 24:36–44. The transitional nature of v 36 has been discovered to be
the solution to this dilemma.
Beginning at v 36, the Lord addressed the first question of the disciples (“When will these things happen?” v 3a). Since v 36 is introduced
by the specialized Greek phrase, peri de, the verse shifts the perspective
slightly. Jesus now declared that the coming of “that day,” the day of the
Lord, could not be known. Jesus also paralleled His Parousia with the
unexpected, sudden arrival of the flood (vv 37–39). Basing their prophetic understanding on the teachings of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse,
Paul and Peter declared that the day of the Lord would come suddenly at
a time of “peace and safety” (Paul’s wording in 1 Thess 5:1–4). At the
time leading up to the day of the Lord, scoffers will question the promise
of Christ’s return because they see no evidence of His coming
43
44 Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society Autumn 2008
(2 Pet 3:3–4). Peter informed his readers that such mockers have purposefully forgotten the divine judgment of the flood (2 Pet 3:5–10). But
believers will be rescued from the tribulation like Noah was delivered
from the flood (2 Pet 2:4–9). Also, from Peter’s inspired typology of 1
Pet 3:20–21, it was concluded that Noah and the ark prefigure the church
(and its rapture), not the rescue of the Jews (and/or Gentiles) at the close
of the tribulation period.
Philip Williams
So Perry Stone believes that Jesus will complete in the flesh what was begun in the Spirit. Is Jesus like one of those foolish Galatians?
To the contrary, it’s not that Jerusalem that is Christ’s bride but the one coming down out of Heaven.
“The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.”
1 Corinthians 15:46
Perry Stone is too carnal to see the Kingdom of Heaven. He needs to be born again by dying with Jesus to the present world including all this foolishness.
Varnel Watson
Rev 19 says Jerusalem is the Bride – behold come and see
Philip Williams
Troy Day that’s the Jerusalem above. The one below is not Christ’s bride because she is in slavery with all her children.
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams so you too believe in a DUAL Jerusalem theology?
Philip Williams
Troy Day As did Paul in Galatians!
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams so you believe in a DUAL Paul theology too 🙂 How did it go Nelson Banuchi? one Corinthians two Corinthians Ready or not …
Philip Williams
“These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.”
Galatians 4:24-26
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams oh Lord have mercy you are way deeper in dual covenant I was thinking 🙂
Philip Williams
People will have to become spiritual to see God’s Kingdom. That means born again. A man like Perry Stone who is so alive to this present world is either a baby (carnal) Christian or else not even born again. He needs to seek his treasures in Heaven and not in this present world.
Philip Williams
Troy Day I was quoting Paul and Jesus.
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams very dual covenant of you indeed 🙂
Nora Neel-Toney
Philip Williams aren’t you judging? Sure sounds like it.
Varnel Watson
Nora Neel-Toney judging what – theology?
Philip Williams
Nora Neel-Toney judging what?
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams YES we have to judge dual covenant theology theologically and through the BIBLE
Nelson Banuchi
Troy Day reading the above comments, it seems to me that in Rev 19 the Church is married, so to speak, to Christ and not until then is she His bride. Here on earth the Church is engaged, so to speak, to Christ, the Spirit being the “engagement ring.”
But, unlike Phillip Philip Williams, I don’t think the apostle Paul is referencing !the Church, which lives and walks in liberating grace, as Hagar or as those “in slavery with her children.”
Philip Williams
Nelson Banuchi the Apostle Paul is referring to the church already in Heaven with Christ as our mother. That would be the saints of old: those like Abraham of the OT, now including all those of the NT and since who have gone to be with Christ.
Those on earth who are in Christ are, as you mention, “engaged.” I like to refer to them as her daughters, daughters of Jerusalem. Or collectively as Daughter of Jerusalem seeking to become like her mother in Heaven. We will one day be gathered as one for the great marriage supper of the Lamb. This Paul refers to in 2Thes 1 when Christ comes to be glorified in his holy people. The saints in Heaven with Christ are with him at his Coming when we will rule and reign with him for one thousand years.
Philip Williams
The church is not earthly stones, earthly walls, earthly roads and buildings. That real estate or section of dirt and pavement in the earthly geopolitical state is only that. It may mean a lot to Perry Stone and very important to archaeologists. But other than being the historical site of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, and his previous attempts to gather his people on earth, it means nothing to God.
Nelson Banuchi
Philip Williams, just so you know, my comment had nothing to do whatever it is Perry Stone believes in.
Varnel Watson
Nelson Banuchi the church is silenced by the ones married to – through much of the 20th century pre-trib pre-mil was the most prominent, but not totally. Many of the earliest Pentecostals in the first decade of Pentecostalism were partial rapturists, believing on the basis of the parable of the 10 virgins that those who were prepared (had oil in their lamps, i.e., were sanctified or baptized in the Spirit) would be raptured earlier and those who were not prepared would be raptured later.
sanctification or baptism with the Holy Spirit that make us rapture ready.
THE Darby Lacunza connection is pretty well known We have actually discussed it here somewhat – paul riviera too borrowed from Lacunza I have the detail transference of pre-Trib doctrine within the USA and in fact it was NOT via Scofiled or Darby but via the Catholic church of Latin America Scofield did nothing more than popularizing a teaching that has been already prominent in non-reformed evangelical churches like many baptists at the time
Lacunza borrowed much from Fiore with his 3 eras of Father, Son and HS – Darby however did translate the BIBLE from original languages in French and English There is a small and not well known but very important book with his translators notes where he explains the actual BIBLE and then theology truth of his rapture findings during his double BIBLE translation I’ve tried to relate SOME of this to Link at times but it has proven to be a lost cause without basic understanding of at least Greek
Link Hudson In the Dispensational Premillennial view, the “He” in 2 Thess 2:7 –who is now restraining lawlessness until “he is taken out of the way” , is seen as the Church and more proof of a
pre-tribulation rapture.
The Historical Premillennial view objects to pre-tribulation rapture because they do not do not see a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church–as seen in Dispensational Premillennialism. Therefore, Historical Premmillenialsm do not beleive the “he” in 2 Thess 2:7 is the church.
Nelson Banuchi
Troy Day, thanks for that bit of History. Unfortunately, I’m not that well informed about the rapture and the pre-trib post-trib views. What I can say is that I do not believe and either the pre-trib or mid-trib rapture idea. I’m not sure I believe in the idea of a Rapture at all.
Philip Williams
Troy Day have no doubt that the futurist interpretation of Revelation that you pre-tribs teach was invented by the Jesuits to defend the Pope against accusations of him being the anti-Christ. This, it’s not unjust to see Dispensationalists as furthering the cause of the Papists.
Link Hudson
Do you have evidence that this view with non-Reformed evangelicals like Baptists before Darby and Schofield? I am not talking about premil, but pretrib.
Most of us hear or not Greek scholars. If you are a teacher of God’s word why should members of your audience not knowing Greek keep you from being able to communicate a point? I do not care gor the’academic gnostic’ approach which says I have some knowledge you do not or cannot access to prove my point so just trust me. I would venture to guess not many people hear know Greek or not much of it.
I also do not care for the…how to say…urination contest I pick up on in the comments. It is a constant them in your posts.
Varnel Watson
Link Hudson non-Reformed evangelicals – you gonna have to try to define those very very hard I’ve explained the Greek for your well – you should understand it by now BTW HOW are early baptist not reformed 🙂 #funny
Link Hudson
Troy Day not sure how early baptists weren’t reformed. Just repeating back your own comments in my question. You said it. I am not an expert on Baptist history but I think non-Reformed versions it the movement emerged in the 1800s around the same time as pretrib started to get followers.
Link Hudson
Btw ‘Reformed Baptist’ seems to be neoCalvinist terminology. The people in the Reformed movement– which historically persecuted Anabaptists may not consider Baptists Reformed. Sterns at the old Sandy Creek church held to at least 4 points of TULIP but that ford not mean they called themselves Reformed.
Philip Williams
“He that holds him back” is a Spirit-led church, Jesus in his people. That happened when the Catholic Church replaced the Spirit-led church.
Varnel Watson
I agree that has to be the church holding back but not the Catholic church riding the red beast
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams you are right about pre-trib before Catholics about as much as post-trib among Early Pentecostals There were MANY futurists amongst the Early Church As a matter of fact I would not be too much wrong to state that hardly any a-mils and preterists were prominent before Augustine promoted Catholic theology
Philip Williams
Troy Day they were demonized as chiliasts by Augustine and accused of holding a carnal view of the millennium. Augustine hated what Papias shared concerning Jesus’s remarks to John about the fertility of the millennium.
Philip Williams
Troy Day a futurist then was something different than it is almost 2000 years later. ?
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams yeah you are mixing them up again A preterist then was no preterist now either You are trying to place dispensational bapticostals lke Link Hudson in the same camp with straight Pentecostals and it aint working
Varnel Watson
Link Hudson you dont mixed yourself up in your own bapticostal frontology Of course 1600-1800 baptists were reformed since they came out of Calvinism Most are still there What are you trying to prove with your dance circles? You got no case
Link Hudson
Refirmed do not consider Baptists Reformed. They are credit ptists.
Varnel Watson
Link Hudson you really need to get your story straight First you said
non-Reformed evangelicals like Baptists
then you turned 180 and said baptists weren’t reformed.
and later on 360 or 720 again
Refirmed do not consider Baptists Reformed.
which one is it and about which are you asking?
TULIP Baptists are reformed
All Baptists started as TULIP
Free will baptist was invented in America
End of story
Philip Williams guess baptists and reformed changed not to be what they used to be too
Link Hudson
Troy Day I was copying your wording. Tulip Baptists are Calvinists but Reformed do not consider them Reformed or haven’t historically. Read your last post. You must have worded it wrong.
Varnel Watson
Link Hudson Do you have proof for any of this?
Link Hudson
Troy Day based on conversations with Reformed folks and reading their comments.