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

Bernie -

A few points here. 1st, we need to be careful about saying "The NT (or Bible, or Jesus, &c) teaches so & so. People will say, e.g., "In Mt.19:8 Jesus taught that Moses wrote Deuteronomy." But when Jesus attributed the Deuteronomic law on divorce to Moses he wasn't "teaching" anything about the authorship of the text but just using the common designation of the torah as "Moses." (He may indeed have believed, as a 1st century Jew, that Moses did write that part of the Bible but he wasn't "teaching" that there.) Similarly, when Paul speaks in I Thess.4 about "we who are alive" at the parousia he pretty clear expects that he - or at least his contemporaries - will be in that number, but he isn't "teaching" that.

2d, yes, there are places in the NT that clearly suggest that the parousia will be soon. But there are also places - II Peter 3 is the most obvious example - that say that it shouldn't be a surprise if it's delayed. That's part of the tension I referred to.

3d, I don't think that selling one's possessions & living in a commune is necessarily nutty. That's what monastics have been doing for centuries & I think (with the qualifications to be expected of a Lutheran) that that's a vocation for some - not too many - Christians. Going out on a hillside & waiting for Christ to descend, like the Millerites, is. Making Daniel & Revelation the center of scripture, goofy guesses about 666, trying to work out detailed correlations between current events & apocalyptic Biblical literature as if the latter were to be read as schedules of events, & talking about the non-existent "pretribulation rapture" are prime examples of "end times nuttiness" today.

4th & finally, saying that the Bible is not a textbook of science (which it isn't) doesn't mean decoupling science from theology in the sense that the 2 have nothing to do with one another.

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 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)

> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 22 20:14:39 2008