Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)

Maybe. That's one possible position, but not mine.

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Jack Syme <drsyme@verizon.net> wrote:

> David,
>
> The "already-not-yet" aspect of the kingdom was in fact the case when the
> NT, especially the Pauline epistles were written. However, this does not
> mean that the "already-not-yet" is necessarily still the way things are.
> The time from the beginning of Christ's ministry, or from the time of his
> crucifixion, until 70 AD and the destruction of the temple, was a transition
> period between the old covenant and the new. Both were in effect at the
> time, until the time of the end, and the beginning of the new age after the
> destruction of the temple. At that point, the new heavens and earth are in
> place, and the "already-not-yet" aspect was over.
>
> Jack
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
>
> Bernie said: *Twist Scriptural interpretation to say that they never
> believed in an imminent return in their lifetime (David O.'s response, I
> think).*
>
> I respond: (a), I think you're misreading what Murray said. But (b), I
> know you're misreading what I said. I've said:
>
> -- many of the first Christians appear to have expected the parousia in
> their lifetimes, and some of the Biblical texts, such as 2 Peter, are
> directed at assuaging such expectations;
>
> -- the Biblical texts do not teach anything explicit about the timing of
> the return of Christ, with the possible exception of a couple of problematic
> sayings of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels;
>
> -- Jesus explicity taught that only the Father knows the exact timing of
> the parousia, and it is dangerous at best to surmise that Jesus gave some
> secret, unrecorded teaching to the contrary;
>
> -- New Testament ethics are not primarily based on an immediate return of
> Christ; many if not most of the ethical obligations in the NT relate to a
> context of hopefully persevering before the parousia;
>
> -- the overall emphasis of the New Testament witness is not about a return
> of Christ within any particular time frame, but of the "already-not-yet"
> aspect of the Kingdom;
>
> -- Biblical language about the transformation of creation at the parousia,
> such as the "heavens will be rolled up like a scroll," is typical Second
> Temple apocalpytic imagery, and should be as symbolic of the real
> transformation of creation that will occur at the parousia. On this last
> point, I should note that I don't know whether the original writer would
> have conceived of that typical apocalyptic language as "literally"
> descriptive or not; hermeneutically, I think the fact that it is common,
> historically situated imagery helps us understand that it isn't necessarily
> "literal" for today.
>
> I'm quite confident that all of the foregoing is consistent with a
> significant body of theologically moderate scholarly opinion and is not
> "twisting" the text at all. In contrast, I see the hyper-critical
> perspective as guilty of cherry-picking and twisting isolated passages to
> suit an agenda.
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi George, this imminent issue seems to me to be a tie-in to science
>> issues here.
>>
>> For example, the Bible plainly teaches (in my opinion) that Adam was not
>> made by evolution, and was made by fiat. However, because of modern DNA
>> scientific evidence, evolutionary Christians accept evolution. Conflict.
>> Solution: acknowledge that the Bible is not a science textbook. Science is
>> then de-coupled from theology.
>>
>> Likewise, the Bible clearly teaches the imminent return of Christ in the
>> lifetime of the disciples (Pastor Murray agreed, maybe most on this list
>> agreed, but some still disagree like David O.). However, the passage of
>> time proved them wrong. Conflict.
>>
>> Solution 1: Twist Scriptural interpretation to say that they never
>> believed in an imminent return in their lifetime (David O.'s response, I
>> think).
>>
>> Solution 2: Acknowledge they were wrong, and try to just accept it as some
>> mysterious question (like the trinity, which all scholars say is
>> incomprehensible- not in a bad way, but because of the complexity of God and
>> our feeble brains).
>>
>> Solution 3: Mix solution 1 and 2. Partly agree that the early disciples
>> believed, and were wrong, about an imminent return, and also look at the
>> Scriptures as if some of them taught that the consummation of this age could
>> be far off. (This is the "mix 'em up and confuse 'em approach" ;-)
>>
>> George said:
>> " Among other things, this means that we have to be very wary of focusing
>> just on what one verse or one passage says about the last things. It's
>> important to remain aware of the tensions - now & not yet, continuity &
>> discontinuity, same & changed. Failure to do this is one source of a lot of
>> the "end times" nuttiness that's so prevalent."
>>
>> Just curious, do you think this "nuttiness" would include selling all your
>> things and living in a commune, like they did in Acts? Why is that nutty to
>> do it now, but not then? Is it because we have more knowledge- the knowing
>> of time elapsing so that the original idea of an imminent return (in their
>> day) was wrong? Therefore, we say we believe in an imminent return but
>> don't live like it at all, such as in planting trees for the future? Our
>> real beliefs are revealed by our actions. It is like the husband telling
>> his wife that he loves her, but has no proof of it (he actually thinks he
>> does love her but does nothing about it, self-deluded.)
>>
>> So I hear you saying, in my paraphrase, "don't just follow scripture, but
>> temper it with modern science and history." I think that is true and
>> correct, however it strikes a big blow to inerrancy and fundamentalism,
>> which is what I'm struggling with. I'm sure you are past that. But I run
>> in circles of people (friends) that still feel strongly about that.
>>
>> I learned a while back about a new kind of Christian. I call them a
>> "Philosophy-based" Christian. I think of people like CS Lewis, and Francis
>> Collins. I don't think they came to Christ because of the Bible. They are
>> not "Bible-based" Christians. They are Christians because it makes sense to
>> them logically and philosophically. I think you are in that same vein, and
>> I'm headed there more each day. That's why specific passages don't bother
>> you- you deal with them in the aggregate, I think. It is just like a
>> scientist trying to make sense of the data in a scattergram... the
>> individual pieces of data don't mean a whole lot- the goal is to come up
>> with a equation or understanding of the whole.
>>
>> I hope you don't get me wrong- I appreciate your insight and that of the
>> others. I'm sure you know a lot more about science and religion that I do,
>> although there's more to this than just knowledge- there's interpretation.
>> Having all knowledge of facts but having a bad interpretation can spell
>> disaster... not that that applies to you.
>>
>> ...Bernie
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 5:58 AM
>> To: Dehler, Bernie; asa@calvin.edu
>> Subject: Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
>>
>> Bernie et al -
>>
>> In discussing eschatology it's crucial to be aware that in the NT there
>> are
>> elements of both discontinuity and continuity between the present age &
>> the
>> world to come, between the present & the new creation. The new creation
>> is
>> not yet - but it is breaking into the world now. We will be raised the
>> same - but changed.
>> & there will be new heavens and a new earth - but they will be heavens &
>> earth. In Rev.21:1 the world has apparently been destroyed - "the first
>> heaven and the first earth had passed away." The rulers of the earth who
>> have opposed Christ have been defeated, but then in 21:14-16 here they
>> come,
>> bringing "the glory and honor of the nations" into the holy city. "The
>> glory and honor of the nations" can hardly be anything but what was good
>> in
>> the original creation, & which is therefore not destroyed - though (as
>> with
>> the resurrection) it may be transformed.
>>
>> Among other things, this means that we have to be very wary of focusing
>> just
>> on what one verse or one passage says about the last things. It's
>> important
>> to remain aware of the tensions - now & not yet, continuity &
>> discontinuity,
>> same & changed. Failure to do this is one source of a lot of the "end
>> times" nuttiness that's so prevalent.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:30 AM
>> Subject: RE: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
>>
>>
>> > Hi Christine-
>> >
>> > I saw Romans and 2 Peter in agreement. They both talk about a new
>> heaven
>> > and new earth. The old passes away, including that tree you plant.
>> >
>> > ...Bernie
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>> > Behalf Of Christine Smith
>> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:31 PM
>> > To: asa@calvin.edu
>> > Subject: RE: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
>> >
>> > Hi Bernie,
>> >
>> > I'm drawing on Romans 8:19-23:
>> >
>> > "For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons
>> > of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will
>> > but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the CREATION
>> > ITSELF will be set free from its bondage to decay AND OBTAIN THE
>> GLORIOUS
>> > LIBERTY OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD [my emphasis]. We know that the whole
>> > creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only
>> the
>> > creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit,
>> groan
>> > inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies."
>> >
>> > Given that Romans was certainly written by Paul and was clearly
>> considered
>> > authoritative, whereas 2 Peter's canonical status was questioned prior
>> to
>> > its inclusion in the Bible, my inclination would be to place more weight
>> > on Romans....even if you didn't though on that basis, I think its still
>> > fair to say that the tone of Romans--much more deliberative and
>> > theologically rigorous--gives it greater weight doctrinally than 2
>> Peter,
>> > which is more designed as an exhortation (possibly leading to, as David
>> O.
>> > noted figurative and/or exaggerated language for emphasis)...would you
>> > agree?
>> >
>> > In Christ,
>> > Christine
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Tue, 10/21/08, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>> >> Subject: RE: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)
>> >> To: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> >> Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 6:35 PM
>> >> Christine said:
>> >> "creation itself will be redeemed, so that tree which
>> >> you plant today may yet remain when Christ's kingdom
>> >> comes tomorrow."
>> >>
>> >> I don't think so; I think it is all going to burn (see
>> >> v 11-13 below). In this way, anything you do for the future
>> >> is like arranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic- it
>> >> is all going down.
>> >>
>> >> 2 Peter 3:1-13 (New International Version)
>> >>
>> >> The Day of the Lord
>> >> 1Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have
>> >> written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to
>> >> wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken
>> >> in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by
>> >> our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
>> >> 3First of all, you must understand that in the last days
>> >> scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil
>> >> desires. 4They will say, "Where is this
>> >> 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died,
>> >> everything goes on as it has since the beginning of
>> >> creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago
>> >> by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was
>> >> formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the
>> >> world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same
>> >> word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire,
>> >> being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of
>> >> ungodly men.
>> >>
>> >> 8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the
>> >> Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years
>> >> are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his
>> >> promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with
>> >> you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to
>> >> repentance.
>> >>
>> >> 10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The
>> >> heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be
>> >> destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will
>> >> be laid bare.
>> >>
>> >> 11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what
>> >> kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and
>> >> godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and
>> >> speed its coming.That day will bring about the destruction
>> >> of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the
>> >> heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking
>> >> forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of
>> >> righteousness.
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
>> >> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Christine
>> >> Smith
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:53 AM
>> >> To: asa@calvin.edu
>> >> Subject: RE: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of
>> >> Christ)
>> >>
>> >> Hi Bernie,
>> >>
>> >> You wrote:
>> >> "Luther was reported to say something like he believed
>> >> Christ could return at any time, but he would also plant a
>> >> tree (for the future). That's dualistic thinking-
>> >> trying to hold two mutually exclusive thoughts at the same
>> >> time- and agnostic thinking, practically, I think. (If
>> >> someone is planting a tree, they don't really believe in
>> >> the end of the world happening tomorrow..."
>> >>
>> >> If memory serves, I believe Luther was answering the
>> >> question, "What would you do if you knew that Christ
>> >> would return tomorrow?". And again, if memory serves,
>> >> the answer "plant a tree" was his response because
>> >> 1) this was in fulfillment of God's original command to
>> >> keep and till the garden (steward of the earth), and 2)
>> >> because planning for the future is a symbol of hope, just as
>> >> (I think it was?) Jeremiah went and bought a field even as
>> >> Israel was about to be sent into exile. To Luther's
>> >> answer, I would also add 3) creation itself will be
>> >> redeemed, so that tree which you plant today may yet remain
>> >> when Christ's kingdom comes tomorrow.
>> >>
>> >> I would also note, more to your main point, that at least
>> >> for me (and many other Christians?), I would not
>> >> characterize my feelings as "don't know/don't
>> >> care" but rather "can't know/won't worry
>> >> about it" in the sense of, "let's not get so
>> >> preoccupied with trying to know something that we cannot
>> >> know that we lose sight of what we're actually supposed
>> >> to be doing right now (be the body of Christ and do
>> >> God's work in the world). Perhaps that's what you
>> >> meant in your original phrase, but that's not how it
>> >> came across.
>> >>
>> >> That's all for now...lunch break is over!
>> >> In Christ,
>> >> Christine (ASA member)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --- On Tue, 10/21/08, Dehler, Bernie
>> >> <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>> >> > Subject: RE: [asa] A theology question (imminent
>> >> return of Christ)
>> >> > To: "asa@lists.calvin.edu"
>> >> <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
>> >> > Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 10:43 AM
>> >> > Edward said:
>> >> > " And the mere fact that interpretations are
>> >> necessary
>> >> > in order to either try to pull all the loose strings
>> >> > together or acknowledge their looseness (the latter of
>> >> which
>> >> > is my view), should make one step back and acknowledge
>> >> that
>> >> > perhaps people are putting too much faith in their
>> >> > interpretations, especially since all these
>> >> difficulties
>> >> > inherent in each interpretation arise from a plain
>> >> reading
>> >> > of the texts themselves and have never been solved,
>> >> not by
>> >> > prayer nor theological cunning. So maybe there's
>> >> > something to be said for agnosticism after all."
>> >> >
>> >> > In a way, I think we agree with you, only instead of
>> >> > agnosticism on the entire Bible and faith in God, it
>> >> is
>> >> > agnosticism on certain issues, such as the imminent
>> >> return
>> >> > of Christ. I see agnostics with an attitude of
>> >> > "don't know/don't care." In regards
>> >> to
>> >> > the imminent return of Christ, many believers may
>> >> profess
>> >> > they are ready for it now, but in practical terms I
>> >> think
>> >> > they are "don't know/don't care."
>> >> Luther
>> >> > was reported to say something like he believed Christ
>> >> could
>> >> > return at any time, but he would also plant a tree
>> >> (for the
>> >> > future). That's dualistic thinking- trying to
>> >> hold two
>> >> > mutually exclusive thoughts at the same time- and
>> >> agnostic
>> >> > thinking, practically, I think. (If someone is
>> >> planting a
>> >> > tree, they don't really believe in the end of the
>> >> world
>> >> > happening tomorrow... that would be stupid, like
>> >> arranging
>> >> > the deck chairs on the sinking Titanic.)
>> >> >
>> >> > ...Bernie
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Edward T. Babinski [mailto:leonardo3@msn.com]
>> >> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 8:02 PM
>> >> > To: asa@lists.calvin.edu
>> >> > Cc: Dehler, Bernie; bsollereder@gmail.com;
>> >> > gmurphy10@neo.rr.com; joe.degroot@gmail.com;
>> >> > muzhogg@netspace.net.au; leonardo3@msn.com;
>> >> > christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com;
>> >> Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU;
>> >> > schwarzwald@gmail.com; pleuronaia@gmail.com;
>> >> > alexanian@uncw.edu; dopderbeck@gmail.com;
>> >> > jarmstro@qwest.net; drsyme@verizon.net;
>> >> heddle@gmail.com
>> >> > Subject: Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent
>> >> return of
>> >> > Christ)
>> >> >
>> >> > A word to all,
>> >> >
>> >> > I've studied Preterism and Dispensationalism. The
>> >> > Preterists agree with me that the predicted time was a
>> >> > generation. The Dispensationalists agree with me that
>> >> the
>> >> > coming of the son of man would equal the final
>> >> judgment with
>> >> > the angels gathering the righteous from the world,
>> >> etc. Put
>> >> > those two points together and you get the modern
>> >> apocalyptic
>> >> > view that the Bible contains errors.
>> >> >
>> >> > Neither do you have to be a "skeptic" like
>> >> Ehrman
>> >> > to note such difficulties. Modern theologians
>> >> including
>> >> > James D. G. Dunn along with the host of scholars he
>> >> cites
>> >> > also recognize such difficulties.
>> >> >
>> >> > Lastly, among Preterists, the Partialists and the Full
>> >> > Preterists don't get along. There's also
>> >> different
>> >> > schools of Dispensationalism. It's all pretty
>> >> wild. What
>> >> > I learned after studying such matters is that no
>> >> matter how
>> >> > much you believe the Bible is inerrant, proving it is
>> >> > another thing, and nobody so far has claimed that
>> >> their
>> >> > interpretation is inerrant. And the mere fact that
>> >> > interpretations are necessary in order to either try
>> >> to pull
>> >> > all the loose strings together or acknowledge their
>> >> > looseness (the latter of which is my view), should
>> >> make one
>> >> > step back and acknowledge that perhaps people are
>> >> putting
>> >> > too much faith in their interpretations, especially
>> >> since
>> >> > all these difficulties inherent in each interpretation
>> >> arise
>> >> > from a plain reading of the texts themselves and have
>> >> never
>> >> > been solved, not by prayer nor theological cunning. So
>> >> maybe
>> >> > there's something to be said for agnosticism after
>> >> all.
>> >> >
>> >> > "The Lowdown on God's Showdown"
>> >> > http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_babinski/
>> >> >
>> >> > N.T. scholar James D. Tabor lists "New Testament
>> >> Texts
>> >> > on the Imminence of the End" on his website,
>> >> "The
>> >> > Jewish Roman World of Jesus":
>> >> >
>> >> http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/christian.html
>> >> >
>> >> > See also Tabor's article, "Dead Messiahs Who
>> >> > Don't Return: Millennial Hope and Disappointment
>> >> in the
>> >> > Dead Sea Scroll Community"
>> >> >
>> >> http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/deadmessiahs.html
>> >> >
>> >> > Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet (Minneapolis:
>> >> > Fortress Press, 1998)
>> >> >
>> >> > Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New
>> >> York:
>> >> > Oxford University Press, 1999).
>> >> >
>> >> > The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate (Santa Rosa, CA:
>> >> Polebridge
>> >> > Press, 2001)
>> >> >
>> >> > The Stars Will Fall from Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in
>> >> the
>> >> > New Testament and Its World -- (Library of New
>> >> Testament
>> >> > Studies 347, 2007) delves into conclusive evidence for
>> >> a
>> >> > belief in the end of the created world in works
>> >> written
>> >> > either just before or during the N.T. period.
>> >> >
>> >> > In God's Time - The most moderate Evangelical book
>> >> on
>> >> > the topic
>> >> > http://www.ingodstime.com/
>> >> >
>> >> > The video for the above book is even sold along with
>> >> N.T.
>> >> > Wright's videos at this website:
>> >> > http://www.wesleyministrynetwork.com/
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > __________________________________________________
>> >> > Do You Yahoo!?
>> >> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
>> >> protection
>> >> > around
>> >> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu
>> >> with
>> >> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of
>> >> the
>> >> > message.
>> >>
>> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>> >> message.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
>> >> message.
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>> >
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
>
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.