Do I fit anywhere in particular eschatologically?

[James Diggs]

In a recent post a new term (“transmillianism”- at least it was new to me and many of us) that described a particular eschatological view.

I have never been obsessed with the end times, especially when reduced to just end of the world scenarios whether they are “2012” or “Left Behind”. But this recent conversation did leave me wondering what camp or “label” I might fit under because I can’t seem to find one – not that I have to, or want to, but I was just wondering.

Here is what I essentially believe (so far) eschatologically:

I believe Jesus came and preached that the Kingdom of God has come in Him and that we as his followers are the first fruits of a new creation through the power of the resurrection.

I believe that the Kingdom of God is continually growing, coming, and expanding as part of this new creation while the old creation is simultaneously passing away until Christ returns in all his fullness and brings the reality of the resurrection to fruition in all of creation.

I have no opinions about timelines and feel that much of Revelations is speaking of political, cultural, and social realities that set the stage for and predicts many events that would soon come to pass in the lives of that letter’s original audience. However, this is done in a way that has both present (especially for them) and future connotations and encourages them to wait on the same hope for the reconciliation of the world in all its fullness that we still anxiously wait for today- as does all of creation anxiously waits for it.

I believe in the fullness of Christ’s (second) coming there will be a new heaven and a new earth and a reordering of life where the lion and the lamb will lay down with one another and there will be a holy city without walls so that those from every nation from all around this reborn created order would be included in it. I have no idea what this would look like beyond this kind of poetic language and inspired dreams of our biblical prophets for the redemption of all creation.

So, does this leave me anywhere in particular as far as various eschatological categories?

[Benjamin Burch]

In a recent post a new term (“transmillianism”- at least it was new to me and many of us) that described a particular eschatological view.

I have never been obsessed with the end times, especially when reduced to just end of the world scenarios whether they are “2012” or “Left Behind”. But this recent conversation did leave me wondering what camp or “label” I might fit under because I can’t seem to find one – not that I have to, or want to, but I was just wondering.

Here is what I essentially believe (so far) eschatologically:

I believe Jesus came and preached that the Kingdom of God has come in Him and that we as his followers are the first fruits of a new creation through the power of the resurrection.

I believe that the Kingdom of God is continually growing, coming, and expanding as part of this new creation while the old creation is simultaneously passing away until Christ returns in all his fullness and brings the reality of the resurrection to fruition in all of creation.

I have no opinions about timelines and feel that much of Revelations is speaking of political, cultural, and social realities that set the stage for and predicts many events that would soon come to pass in the lives of that letter’s original audience. However, this is done in a way that has both present (especially for them) and future connotations and encourages them to wait on the same hope for the reconciliation of the world in all its fullness that we still anxiously wait for today- as does all of creation anxiously waits for it.

I believe in the fullness of Christ’s (second) coming there will be a new heaven and a new earth and a reordering of life where the lion and the lamb will lay down with one another and there will be a holy city without walls so that those from every nation from all around this reborn created order would be included in it. I have no idea what this would look like beyond this kind of poetic language and inspired dreams of our biblical prophets for the redemption of all creation.

So, does this leave me anywhere in particular as far as various eschatological categories?

I think you fit into the "New Testament" camp....

No, seriously. You certainly don't seem to "fit" into any of the ridiculous systems and that's a good thing!

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I believe that the Kingdom of God is continually growing, coming, and expanding as part of this new creation while the old creation is simultaneously passing away until Christ returns in all his fullness and brings the reality of the resurrection to fruition in all of creation.

At least this statement causes me to think of the post-millennial view of the return of Christ. Do you think you might see yourself as a post-millennialist?

[Dave Mann]

James,

How do align your eschatology with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic (entropy).

I find it fairly easy to have a crude concordist way of integrating a Wesleyan-Arminian view of creative love and freedom with the Big Bang, evolution and self-organizing dynamical systems, especially if you take a Polkinghorne sort of approach that puts the fingers of God in at the quantum level. This God the potter of the cosmos creating and shaping it as it explodes and spreads.

I have a much harder time as the universe cools off to a cold death though.

Perhaps related to this, what cosmology do you adopt? I can think of creation in terms of panentheism better than straight theism, but neither way helps me much when trying to align entropy and eschatology.

Thoughts?

[Benjamin Burch]

James,

How do align your eschatology with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic (entropy).

I find it fairly easy to have a crude concordist way of integrating a Wesleyan-Arminian view of creative love and freedom with the Big Bang, evolution and self-organizing dynamical systems, especially if you take a Polkinghorne sort of approach that puts the fingers of God in at the quantum level. This God the potter of the cosmos creating and shaping it as it explodes and spreads.

I have a much harder time as the universe cools off to a cold death though.

Perhaps related to this, what cosmology do you adopt? I can think of creation in terms of panentheism better than straight theism, but neither way helps me much when trying to align entropy and eschatology.

Thoughts?

I think since most people assume a straight theist creation as opposed to panentheist, they would tend to see God as doing something to (a part of the restoration) before the cold death that stops it and makes it not possible....

[Jim Chabot]

James, I am by no means an expert in the precise terminology used here.

With that disclaimer, I would hazard to guess that your views on the expanding kingdom ushering Christs return as the old creation passes away, would place you in the postmillenial category.

Your views on revelation being unfolded during the intended audiences lifetimes places you in the preterist camp.

I will leave you with the fine folks at Wikipedia, for the fine print.:ihe_cowboy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmillennialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

Interestingly, we share very similar views in this area. The expanding kingdom gives me pause, mainly because I don't see it happening, otherwise I think that you and I are on the same page.:smilies0262:

[James Diggs]

At least this statement causes me to think of the post-millennial view of the return of Christ. Do you think you might see yourself as a post-millennialist?

I think post-millennialist are so because of a particular belief surrounding when events (second coming?) take place in relation to the Millennial kingdom on a time line. I haven't really factored in a belief in a Millennial kingdom at all or have an opinion on what that means or how that fits with anything else. So I don't think I can describe my eschatological views in relation to beliefs about a Millennial kingdom. So I don't see myself as a post-millennialist (or any kind of "millennialist").

[Dave Mann]

I think since most people assume a straight theist creation as opposed to panentheist, they would tend to see God as doing something to (a part of the restoration) before the cold death that stops it and makes it not possible....

So, the Eastern Orthodox didn't get the memo? ;^)

[Billy Cox]

How do align your eschatology with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic (entropy).

I find it fairly easy to have a crude concordist way of integrating a Wesleyan-Arminian view of creative love and freedom with the Big Bang, evolution and self-organizing dynamical systems, especially if you take a Polkinghorne sort of approach that puts the fingers of God in at the quantum level. This God the potter of the cosmos creating and shaping it as it explodes and spreads.

I have a much harder time as the universe cools off to a cold death though.


I don't think that eschatology of any vintage jives with the law of entropy because eschatology deals with imminence (which is actionable) while entropy merely deals with eventuality (which is not actionable).

What if 'eternity' is merely a billion years? What if it is just a million years? I don't see that it matters. Even 100,000 years might as well be an eternity from our perspective.

[Benjamin Burch]

James, I am by no means an expert in the precise terminology used here.

With that disclaimer, I would hazard to guess that your views on the expanding kingdom ushering Christs return as the old creation passes away, would place you in the postmillenial category.

Your views on revelation being unfolded during the intended audiences lifetimes places you in the preterist camp.

I will leave you with the fine folks at Wikipedia, for the fine print.:ihe_cowboy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmillennialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

Interestingly, we share very similar views in this area. The expanding kingdom gives me pause, mainly because I don't see it happening, otherwise I think that you and I are on the same page.:smilies0262:

Preterism can't really be understood without it's reference to the second coming - of which James does not fall into that camp.

He does in fact have a "preterist" view of much of Revelation, but not the whole.

I also don't think that he's Postmillennial in that I don't think James would say that the expanding of the kingdom ushers in Christ - but that Christ ushers in the Kingdom.

That seems to have been my understanding of Postmil...

[Billy Cox]

Preterism can't really be understood without it's reference to the second coming - of which James does not fall into that camp.

He does in fact have a "preterist" view of much of Revelation, but not the whole.

I also don't think that he's Postmillennial in that I don't think James would say that the expanding of the kingdom ushers in Christ - but that Christ ushers in the Kingdom.

That seems to have been my understanding of Postmil...

With an incarnational understanding of the Church, perhaps the Second Coming is in progress now, and has been since the day of Pentecost?

[Jim Chabot]

Preterism can't really be understood without it's reference to the second coming - of which James does not fall into that camp.

He does in fact have a "preterist" view of much of Revelation, but not the whole.

I also don't think that he's Postmillennial in that I don't think James would say that the expanding of the kingdom ushers in Christ - but that Christ ushers in the Kingdom.

That seems to have been my understanding of Postmil...

Agreed. Can any thinking person fit perfectly into any of the boxes? I was looking only for a close fit.

I guess if you want to pick nits ok, but could it that Christ is the engine behind the expansion of the kingdom that ushers his return?

[Benjamin Burch]

With an incarnational understanding of the Church, perhaps the Second Coming is in progress now, and has been since the day of Pentecost?

I think there is certainly something to be said for that. But, that works better - imho - in panentheistic thinking than theistic thinking.

Unless you want to press your language into Post-millennialism.

[Benjamin Burch]

Agreed. Can any thinking person fit perfectly into any of the boxes? I was looking only for a close fit.

I guess if you want to pick nits ok, but could it that Christ is the engine behind the expansion of the kingdom that ushers his return?

Of course Christ is. I was just trying to make a (what seems to me to be bigger than a nit) distinction between Postmil and James' statements.

I also tried to use the words "I think," I don't think," and "my understanding."

[Jim Chabot]

Actually I'm wondering if Amillenialism is a better fit. I hadn't thought to go there, but then James mentioned that he really doesn't figure the millenial reign into this.

And here is more of the best scholarship available.:smilies1722:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillenialism

[Jim Chabot]

Of course Christ is. I was just trying to make a (what seems to me to be bigger than a nit) distinction between Postmil and James' statements.

I also tried to use the words "I think," I don't think," and "my understanding."

Sorry, I hit reply instead of advanced and missed the smiley face placement.:smilies0295::smilies0295::smilies0295:: smilies0295::smilies0295:

[Benjamin Burch]

Sorry, I hit reply instead of advanced and missed the smiley face placement.:smilies0295::smilies0295::smilies0295:: smilies0295::smilies0295:

Fair enough! Just wanted to make sure you understood where I was coming from and that I wasn't trying to be picking! :smilies1722:

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think post-millennialist are so because of a particular belief surrounding when events (second coming?) take place in relation to the Millennial kingdom on a time line. I haven't really factored in a belief in a Millennial kingdom at all or have an opinion on what that means or how that fits with anything else. So I don't think I can describe my eschatological views in relation to beliefs about a Millennial kingdom. So I don't see myself as a post-millennialist (or any kind of "millennialist").

Okay, it was just a thought. You are more knowledgeable than I about such things. I've generally seen "post" as fairly undefined as far as a time table is concerned, including the literal 1000 years. I view it as an expansion of and gradual advance of the Kingdom to the point that the Church is the most influential body on the face of the planet and culminating with the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule on earth.

I don't see that happening, but I generally lean toward it, at least in theory.

I see that the conversation is moving on, which is okay with me as I'm quickly left in the dust in these kinds of exchanges.

[Benjamin Burch]

Okay, it was just a thought. You are more knowledgeable than I about such things. I've generally seen "post" as fairly undefined as far as a time table is concerned, including the literal 1000 years. I view it as an expansion of and gradual advance of the Kingdom to the point that the Church is the most influential body on the face of the planet and culminating with the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule on earth.

I don't see that happening, but I generally lean toward it, at least in theory.

I see that the conversation is moving on, which is okay with me as I'm quickly left in the dust in these kinds of exchanges.

That is how I viewed Post-millennial, too.

[Jim Chabot]

Okay, it was just a thought. You are more knowledgeable than I about such things. I've generally seen "post" as fairly undefined as far as a time table is concerned, including the literal 1000 years. I view it as an expansion of and gradual advance of the Kingdom to the point that the Church is the most influential body on the face of the planet and culminating with the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule on earth.

I don't see that happening, but I generally lean toward it, at least in theory.

I see that the conversation is moving on, which is okay with me as I'm quickly left in the dust in these kinds of exchanges.

I was where you are until a couple of minutes ago. Apparently the big difference between post and amil is the literal 1000 years. I had never really looked at Amillenialism, and I had assumed that it was cantmakeupyourmindmillenialism, which is the distant cousin of panmillenialism, not to be confused with pantheism which is another genus entirely.:smilies0231:

[James Diggs]

Okay, it was just a thought. You are more knowledgeable than I about such things. I've generally seen "post" as fairly undefined as far as a time table is concerned, including the literal 1000 years. I view it as an expansion of and gradual advance of the Kingdom to the point that the Church is the most influential body on the face of the planet and culminating with the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule on earth.

I don't see that happening, but I generally lean toward it, at least in theory.

I see that the conversation is moving on, which is okay with me as I'm quickly left in the dust in these kinds of exchanges.


Actually Scott, I am not very knowledgeable at all about such things. I am just trying to use what I already believe as a base line to try and begin to understand some of these very elaborate positions. I hardly know anything about post millennialism or the others at all. I may have been to quick to dismiss the view because it frames the passion in relation (post) to something haven’t developed much of an opinion on (millennial kingdom).

Thank you though for chiming in- it’s helping me thing through this stuff.

[James Diggs]

Preterism can't really be understood without it's reference to the second coming - of which James does not fall into that camp.

He does in fact have a "preterist" view of much of Revelation, but not the whole.

I also don't think that he's Postmillennial in that I don't think James would say that the expanding of the kingdom ushers in Christ - but that Christ ushers in the Kingdom.

That seems to have been my understanding of Postmil...

What is Preterism’s view of the second coming? Is it that it already came? I certainly don’t believe that. Does that make me a “partial preterist"? looking at the wiki page (thanks Jim) I can see myself there in a general sense, but if there are specifics about which parts have been fulfilled and which hasn’t already in an historical sense I am not sure I am ready to draw such particular and absolute lines.

And yea I would say that Christ ushers in the Kingdom so if postmil says it’s the other way around I would not fit there.

[Dave Mann]

I don't think that eschatology of any vintage jives with the law of entropy because eschatology deals with imminence (which is actionable) while entropy merely deals with eventuality (which is not actionable).

What if 'eternity' is merely a billion years? What if it is just a million years? I don't see that it matters. Even 100,000 years might as well be an eternity from our perspective.

Billy, I'm not following this at all, which is probably reflective of me being out of my waters on this stuff.

Do you mean "Imminence", as in "soon to happen", or "Immanence", as in "divine presence"?
Either way I'm not parsing the meaning of your first statement. The latter makes your assertion more sensible to me but I'm not sure that's what you mean.

IMO, I can't separate issues of immanence (divine presence) from any understanding of current creation, incarnation or the eschaton. I have a very hard time with traditional (perhaps half baked) articulations theism, as they seem to want things both ways: a God that is entirely separate from creation and a God that is omnipresent. IMO, that leaves open massive questions about how God creates and sustains, the results of which lead to a God-free clock. My take on most theistic articulations is to appeal to a sort of magical form of creation ex nilo, and thus in terms of eschatology, a re-creation ex-nilo by the same sort of out of band magic. This doesn't line up with what I see in scripture regarding Christ's resurrected body, his transfiguration, and the prophetic language of a new earth, particularly that in Revelation in which heaven descends.

Also not tracking your comment on "eternity". Are you suggesting that after a couple of billion years we'll all be so fed up with streets of gold that we won't mind the whole thing sort of just (st) petering out? Serious question, despite the glib language.

[James Diggs]

With an incarnational understanding of the Church, perhaps the Second Coming is in progress now, and has been since the day of Pentecost?


I think there is certainly something to be said for that. But, that works better - imho - in panentheistic thinking than theistic thinking.

Unless you want to press your language into Post-millennialism.

I think I tend to think Billy’s statement is true in a very real way, yet still hold to a belief that the coming of Jesus won’t be here in all it’s fullness until Christ himself returns.

Also you said in response to something else,


I think since most people assume a straight theist creation as opposed to panentheist, they would tend to see God as doing something to (a part of the restoration) before the cold death that stops it and makes it not possible....

I agree with both Billy (with qualifier) and with your response to Dave. How do these things relate to theistic verses panentheistic thinking? Am I contradicting myself?

[James Diggs]

Interestingly, we share very similar views in this area. The expanding kingdom gives me pause, mainly because I don't see it happening, otherwise I think that you and I are on the same page.:smilies0262:

I can see why it is hard to see, I have trouble seeing it too sometimes. For me it is a mustard seed thing both in terms of my faith to see it and live it (Matthew 17:20) and in terms of how the Kingdom itself starts out really small (Matthew 13:31-32).



Actually I'm wondering if Amillenialism is a better fit. I hadn't thought to go there, but then James mentioned that he really doesn't figure the millenial reign into this.

And here is more of the best scholarship available.:smilies1722:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillenialism

I can see why you might say this. But this still seems to be a view related to a very specific interpretation of Revelations 20 and I really have no position on that particular text. :confused: Also I wonder if Amillenialism over spiritualizes God’s Kingdom now in a way that is too pessimistic for my tastes concerning how I believe the Kingdom of God is present in real ways and in the real world today - even if just in mustard seed ways.

I'll have to think more about it :smilies0717:

[Paul DeBaufer]

I find the timing of this thread very interesting as I began reading The Second Coming ed. by H. Ray Dunning just this morning. I do believe that I read part of an essay from it last year for a theology class.

I began reading it because I really don't have a good handle on the terminology or theology of the eschaton. Hopefully betwixt this thread and Dunning's book I may become less confused.

[Paul DeBaufer]

With an incarnational understanding of the Church, perhaps the Second Coming is in progress now, and has been since the day of Pentecost?

I think that Michael Lodahl asks a similar question in Claiming Abraham:


I am wondering about the viability of an alternative eschatology, a humbler, morte localized hope. I am wondering about the possibility that God entertains a hope that, even yet, the exaltation of the Crucified Lord will attract more and more people toward Jesus and his community of disciples, the church. But that hope goes hand in hand with a church that actually does practice the sort of eschatological life Paul describes in Philippians 2:1-11.... There is no evidence that God is interested in coercing Christians into such a life together; why should we expect that at some point God will resort to coercion, a kind of divine violence, in order to usher in a world of righteous love?

The process of mutual giving-and-receiving in Philippians 2:1-11--offered by Paul as the model for corporate existence together as the Christian community--does inded suggest a very different reading of divine power, and by extension a very different interpretation of Christian eschatology. The church is that gathered community, the eschatological community, which together makes this confession of humble Love Divine. Perhaps other religious traditions, most notably Islam, can justifiably await a dramatically divine denoument to the world as we know it. The church, on the other hand, apparently is called to embody, in the midst of the world as we know it, a radically different reality. Perhaps the church is called to BE the age to come.

Not sure how this fits into this discussion, but it feels as though it does.

[Larry Parsons]

Preterism can't really be understood without it's reference to the second coming - of which James does not fall into that camp.

He does in fact have a "preterist" view of much of Revelation, but not the whole.

I also don't think that he's Postmillennial in that I don't think James would say that the expanding of the kingdom ushers in Christ - but that Christ ushers in the Kingdom.

That seems to have been my understanding of Postmil...
Ben, What do think of this idea concerning the postmillennial view, The Kingdom was estabished in the finish work of Christ, it is being established progressively throughout history until it will be established finally on the Last Day. The Kingdom was established when Christ came, but it has not reach it full development. (Like the mustard tree. This what I believe what post-millennism is albout.
Thanks
Larry P

[Ryan Scott]

I view it as an expansion of and gradual advance of the Kingdom to the point that the Church is the most influential body on the face of the planet and culminating with the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule on earth.

I feel my view is almost the opposite. Perhaps this has more to do with the entropy discussion and the idea of this world fading away as the Kingdom comes. I sort of see the Church becoming more marginalized as time goes on - sort of the idea of a remnant. God continues to refine the Church until Christ's return where the chaotic, dying world is replaced with a new one - one in which the Church is perfectly at home and one which seems foreign and unbearable to those who have lived in the way of dying world.

[David Graham]

Qoute:/ "I believe that the Kingdom of God is continually growing, coming, and expanding as part of this new creation while the old creation is simultaneously passing away until Christ returns in all his fullness and brings the reality of the resurrection to fruition in all of creation."/ Quote James Diggs.

JAmes, thank you for outlining your understanding of this matter. It is hard to understand, and I for one feel uncomfortable in accepting one of the popular "packaged" views on the subject, as all seem to be inadequate.

Now while I basically agree on your premise that the Kingdom of God will be continually expanding while the old order continually "passes away", the fruits of this are not always seen on this earth and possibly wont be seen during the present covenant period. For as history shows us, the visible church grows and declines in different parts of the world at different times, whereas the invisible church, (the church triumphant) continues to grow in heaven. Of course, that is not to say that the visible church is wholly comprised of the faithful people of God, for some within the institutional church are not redeemed; yet the visible church reminds us of God's continuing redemptive presence in the world. Still, it might well be that at the very end of this age, that the visible church will be virtually non existent, for Christ asked the question: "when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth"? Jesus also said: "Wide is the way that leades to destruction and many walk therein, but narrow is the way that leads to life and few there be that find it". So in spite of the many great advances in the Christian faith around the world, the scriptures give us no comfort in saying that we will ever be in the majority. Nonetheless, the Christian influence has been widely pervasive, and the value of human beings is probably regarded as being better now, even in predominately non Christian societies (at least notionally) than it has ever been before. However, the kindom of God has certainly not come even into the nominally Christian areas of the world, since injustice, inequality, lawlessness, greed and violence still are rife in most of these societies.

So I guess, while I see advances in the kingdom of God here on earth, in the end, it will only be the coming of Christ that will bring about the giant leap required to finally usher in this kingdom so that the whole earth will be fully redeemed. Heaven, however, witnesses the ever expanding kingdom of God even now.

Well, that's what I think anway.
Cheers and Blessings,
Dave

[Larry Parsons]

In a recent post a new term (“transmillianism”- at least it was new to me and many of us) that described a particular eschatological view.

I have never been obsessed with the end times, especially when reduced to just end of the world scenarios whether they are “2012” or “Left Behind”. But this recent conversation did leave me wondering what camp or “label” I might fit under because I can’t seem to find one – not that I have to, or want to, but I was just wondering.

Here is what I essentially believe (so far) eschatologically:

I believe Jesus came and preached that the Kingdom of God has come in Him and that we as his followers are the first fruits of a new creation through the power of the resurrection.

I believe that the Kingdom of God is continually growing, coming, and expanding as part of this new creation while the old creation is simultaneously passing away until Christ returns in all his fullness and brings the reality of the resurrection to fruition in all of creation.

I have no opinions about timelines and feel that much of Revelations is speaking of political, cultural, and social realities that set the stage for and predicts many events that would soon come to pass in the lives of that letter’s original audience. However, this is done in a way that has both present (especially for them) and future connotations and encourages them to wait on the same hope for the reconciliation of the world in all its fullness that we still anxiously wait for today- as does all of creation anxiously waits for it.

I believe in the fullness of Christ’s (second) coming there will be a new heaven and a new earth and a reordering of life where the lion and the lamb will lay down with one another and there will be a holy city without walls so that those from every nation from all around this reborn created order would be included in it. I have no idea what this would look like beyond this kind of poetic language and inspired dreams of our biblical prophets for the redemption of all creation.

So, does this leave me anywhere in particular as far as various eschatological categories?
James, you may not agree with me but I would consider you to be a preterist post-millennialist The reason I'm saying you are preterist becuse you seem believe the book of Revelation is a contemporary book and I believe most preterist scholar will agree with you on that. Even those they believe bulk of the book of Revealation has nothing to do with second coming. Now don't know if you would go along with that ideal or not. I think that most preterist scholar would go along with the idea that Revelation was not only a contemporary for those who first read book but for all time.
Thanks
Larry P.

[Larry Parsons]

By Chilton,
"Can the doctrine of the Church be accurately described as either postmillennialist or amillennialist? In general, the difference between those traditionally called "amillennialists" and those traditionally called "postmillennialists" has been set in terms of their interpretations of the "thousand years" (in Latin, the millennium) of Revelation 20. ''Ami!lennialists" have usually seen this text as a reference to the condition of the saints reigning in heaven, while "postmillennialists" have understood it as a description of the saints' dominion on earth. As we shall see, however, this way of framing the question can actually obscure some very important facts about the Christian view of "the Millennium." If we wish to gain an understanding of the orthodox position, we must understand that the answer to this precise question cannot be determined primarily by the exegesis of particular texts. For example, "amillennialists" often disagree with each other about the precise nature of the resurrection(s) in Revelation 20 (to cite only one of several major points in dispute). And one of leading "postmillennialist" scholar of the early part of this century, proposed an exegesis of Revelation 20 which most theologians would consider to be classically "amillennialist"! Our framing of the question, therefore, should be broad enough to account for the diversity of approach among the various amillennialist and postmillennialist camps. In essence, the question of the Millennium centers on the mediatorial Kingdom of Christ: When did (or will) Christ's Kingdom begin? And once we pose the question this way, something amazing happens- something almost unheard of in Christian circles: Unity! From the Day of Pentecost onward, orthodox Christians have recognized that Christ's reign began at His Resurrection/Ascension and continues until all things have been thoroughly subdued under His feet, as St. Peter clearly declared (Acts 2:30-36). "The Millennium," in these terms, is simply the Kingdom of Christ. It was inaugurated at Christ's First Advent, has been in existence for almost two thousand years, and will go on until Christ's Second Advent at the Last Day. In "millennial" terminology, this means that the return of Christ and the resurrection of all men will take place after "the Millennium." In this objective sense, therefore, orthodox Christianity has always been postmillennialist.That is to say, regardless of how "the Millennium" has been conceived (whether in a heavenly or an earthly sense),regardless of the technical exegesis of certain points in Revelation 20-orthodox Christians have always confessed that Jesus Christ will return after (''post'') the period designated as "the thousand years" has ended. In this sense, all "amillennialists" are also "postrnillennialists."
At the same time, orthodox Christianity has always been amillennialist (Le., non-millenarian). The historic Church has always rejected the heresy of Millenarianism (in past centuries, this was called chiliasm, meaning thousand-year-ism). The notion that the reign of Christ is something wholly future, to be brought in by some great social cataclysm, is not a Christian doctrine. It is an unorthodox teaching, generally espousedby heretical sects on the fringes of the Christian Church."

Thanks
Larry P

[Billy Cox]

Okay, it was just a thought. You are more knowledgeable than I about such things. I've generally seen "post" as fairly undefined as far as a time table is concerned, including the literal 1000 years. I view it as an expansion of and gradual advance of the Kingdom to the point that the Church is the most influential body on the face of the planet and culminating with the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule on earth.


Pre-mil is like trashing the hotel room with full faith that the hotel maid will clean it up in due time. Post-mil is like believing that the hotel maid won't show up until we make the room spotless. :)

[Benjamin Burch]

I think that Michael Lodahl asks a similar question in Claiming Abraham:



Not sure how this fits into this discussion, but it feels as though it does.

Dr. Lodahl has said some things to me in person and in class which has totally reshaped my eschatological outlook. It has been so helpful for someone who (1) comes at this from a process philosophical perspective, (2) a panentheistic perspective, and (3) a concern for the law of entropy and the difficulties there as Dave Mann has suggested.

I am not really at liberty here to discuss it on a private forum, though.

[Hans Deventer]

I feel my view is almost the opposite. Perhaps this has more to do with the entropy discussion and the idea of this world fading away as the Kingdom comes. I sort of see the Church becoming more marginalized as time goes on - sort of the idea of a remnant. God continues to refine the Church until Christ's return where the chaotic, dying world is replaced with a new one - one in which the Church is perfectly at home and one which seems foreign and unbearable to those who have lived in the way of dying world.

I'm with you. There's a pretty strong principle in the Scriptures that something needs to die before it can bring forth fruit.

[Hans Deventer]

I think that Michael Lodahl asks a similar question in Claiming Abraham:


I am wondering about the viability of an alternative eschatology, a humbler, more localized hope. I am wondering about the possibility that God entertains a hope that, even yet, the exaltation of the Crucified Lord will attract more and more people toward Jesus and his community of disciples, the church. But that hope goes hand in hand with a church that actually does practice the sort of eschatological life Paul describes in Philippians 2:1-11.... There is no evidence that God is interested in coercing Christians into such a life together; why should we expect that at some point God will resort to coercion, a kind of divine violence, in order to usher in a world of righteous love?

The process of mutual giving-and-receiving in Philippians 2:1-11--offered by Paul as the model for corporate existence together as the Christian community--does inded suggest a very different reading of divine power, and by extension a very different interpretation of Christian eschatology. The church is that gathered community, the eschatological community, which together makes this confession of humble Love Divine. Perhaps other religious traditions, most notably Islam, can justifiably await a dramatically divine denoument to the world as we know it. The church, on the other hand, apparently is called to embody, in the midst of the world as we know it, a radically different reality. Perhaps the church is called to BE the age to come.

A few things. I'm quite sure the church is called to be the age to come, as sure as I am that for most of it's existence, it failed miserably.

Second, if we humans are free indeed to make choices, it is very unlikely that all will come to faith. If they crucified the Lord Himself, no level of Christ-like living will produce that universal salvation. God won't coerce people into a life of living together, that's right. So there is no hope in that direction.

The more humble, localized hope is actually the high road to despair, for then our hope is in humans in stead of God.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Pre-mil is like trashing the hotel room with full faith that the hotel maid will clean it up in due time. Post-mil is like believing that the hotel maid won't show up until we make the room spotless. :)

That's pretty good! Thanks.

As a Wesleyan I can't help myself for being optimistic about God's grace. When I read about the Day of Pentecost and it's promised empowering, I think the Church has been given everything necessary to advance the Kingdom among the nations and in every culture.

I'm the first one to admit that we believers aren't getting the job done. Because of that you might say that in practice I'm pre-mil while in theory I'm post-mil. In theory, then, I still expect Christianity to get it's act together, that there will be a world-wide revival in which the nations turn to Christ. In my theory, though, I'm not on the "spotless" side as in your illustration, just a switch from where we are now, with the majority refusing to believe or follow the teachings of Jesus. Rather, a new day when only a minority refuses to believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus.

[Dave Mann]

Dr. Lodahl has said some things to me in person and in class which has totally reshaped my eschatological outlook. It has been so helpful for someone who (1) comes at this from a process philosophical perspective, (2) a panentheistic perspective, and (3) a concern for the law of entropy and the difficulties there as Dave Mann has suggested.

A lot going on here...

It would be interesting to hear more about this if at all possible. As much as I love the idea of non-coercive love as described by Oord (and I guess Lodhal too) I have some real problems with it if taken to an extreme as I think it just devolves into Theism v2.0.

In my way of thinking, "the fall" happened as soon as God committed to the creative act including the Big Bang and with it, admitted a degree of freedom and the embrace of what Fretheim calls "the divine if". In this way of thinking, death, suffering and entropy are all a necessary cost of doing business when God hovers over the deep and moves to shape the void. I'm fine with this (as it relates to the problem of pain) because I would rather exist in pain than not exist, so I side with God and praise him for creating.

But I can't align what I see in the unfolding of creation with a fully and entirely non-coercive God. I'm entirely swayed by the challenge of the fine tuned universe. We have a life bearing universe only by the thinnest of margins. There are only 3 options as I see it. First, it all happened by chance, which is ultimately where the scientific materialists (atheists) come out. Second, God kept his hands out of it once he lit the fuse. I think that the way I hear "non coercive love" described by Oord (and perhaps suggested by the Lodhal quote above?) is compatible with this view. The clock is wound and started but it is set on a shelf and left to run free from the interference of a coercive God. I think this is functionally the same as theism. A third alternative would be God as cosmic potter, whose hand is literally in all things guiding and shaping them (but not fully controlling) them as they unfold. This allows for massive amount of freedom and thus preservation of the divine "if", can be aligned with pain and suffering as a result but still allows God the potter and shaper to have direct creative influence. I can line that up in my mind with evolution and self-organizing dynamical systems and all of it. I'm pretty sure I part ways with Oord on this this. Not sure about Lodhal.

I should note that I don't think one needs to pick up process philosophy to get here. All it takes is an understanding of "objects" from the standpoint of dynamical systems (math). We're all pretty comfortable with understanding named whirlpools, storms and even rivers as dynamic objects. A river doesn't contain the same water one day to the next. In the same way, my body doesn't contain the same star dust that it did 20 years ago. My body is quite literally a different body than it was. If you add to this the insights of sociology then "Dave Mann" as a stable identity is rooted in a set of dynamical social (and physical) relationships and it is these relationships that give my identity constancy. I have no problem at all in thinking of my body dying and decaying and returning to start dust and for a creative loving God resurrecting "me" from star dust and breathing back into me the breath of life that comes from his identity forming relatedness to me. I am appealing to panenthesism here, I guess, as I'm calling out to the same God who "coerces" the cosmos to be life giving to "coerce" the star dust to give rise to this bodily form again.

[Aside, if somebody wants to make a run at this from a purely theistic POV, have at it but expect problems integrating it with the known universe.]

Where I do get stuck though is on the question of entropy. I'm not sure how to think about a new earth happening en masse or for there to be an eternity (the issue Billy Cox raised). The notion of balance and equilibrium that sits at the heart of shalom may have a physical metaphor if we could talk about a universe that achieves equilibrium. In all the discussions about dark matter, I've never heard that suggested. Usually the discussion is whether or not the universe expands forever to a cold death or the universe collapses and entropy reverses (all bets are off at that point). Could there be just enough dark matter for the universe to stabilize? Side note, it's been reported that Villani's work that just earned him a Fields medal implies that entropy happens at different rates at different times!!

[Thomas Oord]

Y'all,

The issue of eschatology is really important, and I've enjoyed reading some of the posts in this thread. Unfortunately, getting ready for the new year means that I can't engage the thread fully. But I did want to make these points briefly about my own view:

1. I think God is the almighty and all-loving Creator.
2. I think God never entirely controls others -- coercion -- either at the beginning or the end of our universe.
3. I think God is "hands on" by working through a variety of means to create and sustain all creation.
4. I think Christians can have genuine hope for God's victory at the end of the age, but I beleive this victory can be secured through the power of God's persuasive love and creaturely cooperation.
5. I affirm what I call a "participatory eschatology," whereby creation has a role to play in the fulfillment of God's desire to redeem all creation.
6. I haven't got all of this figured out! : )

Tom

[Larry Parsons]

That's pretty good! Thanks.

As a Wesleyan I can't help myself for being optimistic about God's grace. When I read about the Day of Pentecost and it's promised empowering, I think the Church has been given everything necessary to advance the Kingdom among the nations and in every culture.

I'm the first one to admit that we believers aren't getting the job done. Because of that you might say that in practice I'm pre-mil while in theory I'm post-mil. In theory, then, I still expect Christianity to get it's act together, that there will be a world-wide revival in which the nations turn to Christ. In my theory, though, I'm not on the "spotless" side as in your illustration, just a switch from where we are now, with the majority refusing to believe or follow the teachings of Jesus. Rather, a new day when only a minority refuses to believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus.
Scot, It was John Jefferson Davis made a contrasts between his own postmillennial view with premillennialism " Generally speaking the pre-mill's is more oriented toward helping those who have been hurt by the system than addressing the systemic evil" And the reason why the church is not move as fast as we should because half it believe victory will only after the Rapture and if we believe that we will never try to reform the world. we all talk about apostasy and we are living in the laodicean age but let me tell you something and you may not believe it But greatest Revival in the history of the Christian church occurred in communism China. In 1947 China had one million Christians with in 40 years the church grew between 50 and 100 million and if we just take 50 million number and what this means the church in China grew at a rate over 5 times the general population growth rate. Since this would equals at least 3000 conversions every day for 40 years so in one sence Pentecost has repeated everyday in China for 40 years. We could travel around the world and see what God's church is doing and we would see a victories church. I know people will say Larry don't read the news paper and watch T.V I like what Loraine Boetter a Presbyterian postmillennialist had to say about the world condition They are only speed bumps to slow us down. There will be up and down and sometime it will look like the church is losing the battle and at other time it will look like the church is winning. We will never have to be air-lifted to safety to prevent us from being over power by the antichrist
Scot if you ever run into Harold Graves Sr. tell him I said hi, we meet at the Kentucky camp meeting.
Thanks
Larry P

[Jim Chabot]

A lot going on here...

It would be interesting to hear more about this if at all possible. As much as I love the idea of non-coercive love as described by Oord (and I guess Lodhal too) I have some real problems with it if taken to an extreme as I think it just devolves into Theism v2.0.

I also resonate with the thought of a non-coersive love, I think that is a great idea. But I don't think that I can line it up scripturally, there are just too many instances where it is recorded that God used direct intervention. So, I can't align with what Tom refers to as a participatory eschatology, nor to what Dr. Lodahl speaks of in "Finding Abraham" As much as I can resonate with their theology of a non-coersive love, and I do believe that God acts primarily in this manner, I don't believe that we can apply absolutes to the actionable qualities of God. I believe that he is far too complex for this approach, and as much as I believe in his consistency, It appears to me that the complexities of his consistent acts make them appear to be inconsistent from our mindset. I see a potter, much as you do, (with the exception of evolution, although in this discussion all we are talking about is a timeline), I see a potter who attimes has his hands on the wheel and at others is in contact with the clay.

And yes if we look at the known universe and the known laws of physics, then a new earth happening en masse, or the possibility of an actual eternity just doesn't seem probable. Unless the potter's hand is applied once again to the clay. I do believe that he intervened directly when he sent his son to earth, as I believe that he used direct intervention in 70AD, and I believe that whatever the eschaton reveals will involve direct intervention as well.

I think that this in one area where a totally open theology cannot give us answers that align with scripture. I haven't gotten this figured out, I have more questions than answers.

[Benjamin Burch]

A third alternative would be God as cosmic potter, whose hand is literally in all things guiding and shaping them (but not fully controlling) them as they unfold. This allows for massive amount of freedom and thus preservation of the divine "if", can be aligned with pain and suffering as a result but still allows God the potter and shaper to have direct creative influence. I can line that up in my mind with evolution and self-organizing dynamical systems and all of it. I'm pretty sure I part ways with Oord on this this. Not sure about Lodhal.


It would seem that this has more similarity with what Tom usually proposes than the second option, but that's just my take.

[Dave Mann]

Y'all,

The issue of eschatology is really important, and I've enjoyed reading some of the posts in this thread. Unfortunately, getting ready for the new year means that I can't engage the thread fully. But I did want to make these points briefly about my own view:

1. I think God is the almighty and all-loving Creator.
2. I think God never entirely controls others -- coercion -- either at the beginning or the end of our universe.
3. I think God is "hands on" by working through a variety of means to create and sustain all creation.
4. I think Christians can have genuine hope for God's victory at the end of the age, but I beleive this victory can be secured through the power of God's persuasive love and creaturely cooperation.
5. I affirm what I call a "participatory eschatology," whereby creation has a role to play in the fulfillment of God's desire to redeem all creation.
6. I haven't got all of this figured out! : )

Tom

Tom, thanks for posting this. We are in complete agreement on point 6!!!

I think we're in 95% agreement on the first 5 too. But closing that last 5% would mean gaining more clarity on the distinction between non-coercive loving actions and the variety of means by which God creates and sustains.

As we've discussed in the past, I continue to see the creation of universe and the resurrection as "real achievements" of God that came at great cost and with extraordinary effort. Like you (I'm pretty sure), I reject the magical God of the modern western church who is always and everywhere capable of doing absolutely anything with no constraint. I agree with you that such a God is culpable for pain and I agree with Frethiem that this is not the God seen in the OT.

But, (and this may be where we differ) I do see the creative act of the cosmos and the resurrection of Christ as achievements of God's. While I don't mean to exclude the participation of creatures in both events, I'm willing to hold on to some amount of sufficiency in God's actions to bring about these events. But in saying that, I don't mean at all to imply that God is able to achieve such things at any time and in all places (as most modern Calvinists would).

One thing that I think we're in total agreement on is that God will work to bring about the eschaton under the same set of metaphysical constraints by which he created the universe to begin with. That is, I don't think that the new heaven and new earth involves a complete removal of the universe (in nihlo) and a new unrelated ex nihlo universe. The only way I could get to that position is by becoming a gnostic (which is pretty much how I see most of the modern western church). Most Christians I talk to describe heaven as some sort of spiritual acid trip but this just totally tosses out the idea of the Incarnation and the resurrection of the body for me.

But, if we accept that the eschaton involves the same metaphysical constraints, then I think we need to talk more fully about entropy. What does "creaturely participation" look like in the great unwinding of an entropic universe? What does shalom look like?

[Dave Mann]

I think that this in one area where a totally open theology cannot give us answers that align with scripture. I haven't gotten this figured out, I have more questions than answers.

Jim, I agree in spirit with much of what you've written. The only thing I can add is that the only thing worse than the ambiguities of open theology on this matter is modern Calvinist theology, which asserts a magical unconstrained God and, imo, is little more than a rehashing of Greek philosophy.

I found "The Suffering of God" by Terance Frethiem to be very helpful on this point. Frethiem calls it the "divine if" as in "If my people repent and turn from their wicked ways..." He argues that God bound himself to a promise of loving freedom and once bound, God will not turn away from his commitment, even if that means he honestly doesn't know who will repent. This is at the core of the suffering of God for Frethiem and a good fit for our Wesleyan/Arminian heritage imo.

The Calvinist magical God certainly solves some of the problems of the eschaton ("poof", it's done!) but opens up other problems (like where's the "poof" already?).

[Hans Deventer]

I found "The Suffering of God" by Terance Frethiem to be very helpful on this point. Frethiem calls it the "divine if" as in "If my people repent and turn from their wicked ways..." He argues that God bound himself to a promise of loving freedom and once bound, God will not turn away from his commitment, even if that means he honestly doesn't know who will repent.

Sure, but I don't read in the Scriptures that this freedom comes without consequences.
Nor that God will allow that freedom to wreck havoc for all eternity.

Throughout the Scriptures, people have put their hope in God. I'm in that company.


The Calvinist magical God certainly solves some of the problems of the eschaton ("poof", it's done!) but opens up other problems (like where's the "poof" already?).

Care to explain this a little? I don't care about the "how" myself, I care about its result.

[Ryan Scott]

I've never been a fan of the term "non-coercive." Maybe I'm working with an incorrect definition of coercive, but I've always thought it meant biased influence. God wants us to make certain decisions and take certain actions and there are times when God acts with such force that people feel like they have no other choice. I will maintain that they always do have a choice, but I can understand those rare moments where it feels otherwise.

Coercion has negative connotations, but I'm not sure that is necessary, especially when one is dealing with an all-loving God, a God who is without selfishness. If we believe God has an end goal - the redemption of creation - and if we believe God has chosen to partner with creation in its redemption, and if we believe creation is doomed without God's action, I'm not sure how we could avoid coercion at some point. Again, maybe the use of the term is because of its negative connotations to us, but I do believe God's love has a purpose, to lead us towards the life we've been created to live. God doesn't make us do that, but it seems like everything in creation is designed to coerce us towards that end, while also leaving open the option of going a different direction.

[Hans Deventer]

I've never been a fan of the term "non-coercive."

Tom uses the word "coercion" in the sense of "completely controlling someone". It is a rather extreme understanding of the concept.

[Dave Mann]

Sure, but I don't read in the Scriptures that this freedom comes without consequences.
Nor that God will allow that freedom to wreck havoc for all eternity.

Throughout the Scriptures, people have put their hope in God. I'm in that company.



Care to explain this a little? I don't care about the "how" myself, I care about its result.

Hans, I'm with you in putting my hope in God to bring about new heaven and new earth and more to the point, I put my hope in God being able to sufficiently bring this to pass.

Regarding my comments regarding modern Calvinism, I'm referring here to the combination of an Omni-everything God and creation ex nihlo. In my opinion, this view creates a massive escape clause that easily gets out of these problems. Where did matter from before the big bang? No problem: the omni God pops it out ex nihlo. What do we do about the eschaton? Again, no problem: the creation goes away "in nihlo" and whatever comes next can be created by an unconstrained omni-God "ex nihlo" all over again. "Poof". My sense is that most western evangelicals aren't far off from what I just described, which is why most functionally have problems with the Incarnation and with affirming the resurrection of the body (as a real body). Another problem with this view is if God is so omni-powerful, then why not just zap us forward into the eschaton now? Or better yet, why didn't he just create the whole shebang into this wonderful eschaton and just avoid this whole fall thing and all the horrible pain it creates. It's on this point that I side with Oord and Frethiem. I don't see the God of the scriptures as one who is responsible for causing needless pain. If God has this greek omni-power, this pain was and is avoidable. Or, as Bruce Cockburn laments, "Why does history take such a long, long time?"

Personally, I see the generic Calvinist omni-God as being an even worse fit with scripture and I see no way to bend it to fit with the Incarnation or the resurrection of the body. But, I'll be the first to admit that I can't offer any way around entropy. Perhaps our hope is tied up with there being enough dark matter to hold the universe together at some point? I just dunno.... Nobody is talking about a static, stable universe in the end. Cold death or oscillation. Tough choices.

[Billy Cox]

Do you mean "Imminence", as in "soon to happen", or "Immanence", as in "divine presence"?
Either way I'm not parsing the meaning of your first statement. The latter makes your assertion more sensible to me but I'm not sure that's what you mean.

I was referring to imminence as in 'soon to happen'. If I wanted to be the least successful end-times expert in all of history, I would 'discover' a Bible code stating that the events described in Revelation will come to pass sometime in the early 25th century. What I'm getting at is that one does not call people to repentance with disasters that might happen long after we're dead.


IMO, I can't separate issues of immanence (divine presence) from any understanding of current creation, incarnation or the eschaton. I have a very hard time with traditional (perhaps half baked) articulations theism, as they seem to want things both ways: a God that is entirely separate from creation and a God that is omnipresent. IMO, that leaves open massive questions about how God creates and sustains, the results of which lead to a God-free clock. My take on most theistic articulations is to appeal to a sort of magical form of creation ex nilo, and thus in terms of eschatology, a re-creation ex-nilo by the same sort of out of band magic. This doesn't line up with what I see in scripture regarding Christ's resurrected body, his transfiguration, and the prophetic language of a new earth, particularly that in Revelation in which heaven descends.

I lean toward resurrection over rapture and a new earth over an otherworldly heaven. I also am content not really knowing the entire post-death itinerary and I am comfortable with the idea that on the day(s) of judgment, God can do whatever he wants without being shackled to our biblical interpretation and our theological categories.

These views might make me the worst Sunday School teacher ever, but I'll take the freedom in a heartbeat.


Also not tracking your comment on "eternity". Are you suggesting that after a couple of billion years we'll all be so fed up with streets of gold that we won't mind the whole thing sort of just (st) petering out? Serious question, despite the glib language.

I see language about 'eternity' as an expression that time is meaningless in the afterlife. Does time even exist apart from someone who cares to keep track of it?

[Paul DeBaufer]

Y'all,

The issue of eschatology is really important, and I've enjoyed reading some of the posts in this thread. Unfortunately, getting ready for the new year means that I can't engage the thread fully. But I did want to make these points briefly about my own view:

1. I think God is the almighty and all-loving Creator.
2. I think God never entirely controls others -- coercion -- either at the beginning or the end of our universe.
3. I think God is "hands on" by working through a variety of means to create and sustain all creation.
4. I think Christians can have genuine hope for God's victory at the end of the age, but I beleive this victory can be secured through the power of God's persuasive love and creaturely cooperation.
5. I affirm what I call a "participatory eschatology," whereby creation has a role to play in the fulfillment of God's desire to redeem all creation.
6. I haven't got all of this figured out! : )

Tom

I think, and I may well be wrong, that there are some who misinterpret what you mean by coercion/persuasion. Maybe it is I who misunderstands, but I think that what you say in The Nature of Love is that God's persuasive power just might look like coercion to human eyes when you tell us that God's persuasion is very great (paraphrase from memory.) Because I think that what we routinely use coercion to mean in ordinary language rarely, if ever, reflects total control but leaves room to make a choice, even if the choices are between a rock and a hard place, e.g., do this thing or die. In this the choice can be between very bad things and we feel coerced and would talk about the person placed in this situation as being coerced, yet by your definition I think that they are still free to make a choice, although that choice is really no choice by emotional standards.

[Larry Parsons]

What is Preterism’s view of the second coming? Is it that it already came? I certainly don’t believe that. Does that make me a “partial preterist"? looking at the wiki page (thanks Jim) I can see myself there in a general sense, but if there are specifics about which parts have been fulfilled and which hasn’t already in an historical sense I am not sure I am ready to draw such particular and absolute lines.

And yea I would say that Christ ushers in the Kingdom so if postmil says it’s the other way around I would not fit there.

James, What I understand about the preterist both the Radical and the Moderate believe that Christ came back in Judgement in AD 70 after the Great tiibulation.But None of them believe that coming was a phyiscal appearing.The Radical preterist believe this was Christ final and last coming. However. they do believe in a spiritual rapture that is taken place everyday.(John Noe who is conservative ,evangelical scholar and and who is an active member of the Evangelical Theological Society and who is a Radical preteist. Now people like R.C.Sproul,Ken Gentry Jr. and (Vic Reasoner who you may consider a radical wesleyan but a moderate preteris. you may want to take look at some of these Guy's works. What I know about the preterist movement and what you have written in this thread again I would consider you as moderate preterist. You may want to check it out but I blieve you will find that all post-mill do not believe has not started. I think you will find some who believe that Christ brought the Kingdom with him the first time. If I'm not mistake few years back in the preacher magazine Kenneth Grider wrote how he twitch from being a pre- mill to a post-mill and it was there he talk about these two view that the Post-mills hold. So I think that some post-mills would agree with you on the idea that Christ brought the kingdom in at his first coming. If that is the case that may make you a preterist post-millennialist. That is just my opinion
Thanks
Larry

[Larry Parsons]

James,

How do align your eschatology with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic (entropy).

I find it fairly easy to have a crude concordist way of integrating a Wesleyan-Arminian view of creative love and freedom with the Big Bang, evolution and self-organizing dynamical systems, especially if you take a Polkinghorne sort of approach that puts the fingers of God in at the quantum level. This God the potter of the cosmos creating and shaping it as it explodes and spreads.

I have a much harder time as the universe cools off to a cold death though.

Perhaps related to this, what cosmology do you adopt? I can think of creation in terms of panentheism better than straight theism, but neither way helps me much when trying to align entropy and eschatology.

Thoughts?
Dave I'm old simple country guy but I'm just wondering how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic has anything to do with Christ second coming.
Thanks
Larry

[Bob Hunter]

Y'all,

The issue of eschatology is really important, and I've enjoyed reading some of the posts in this thread. Unfortunately, getting ready for the new year means that I can't engage the thread fully. But I did want to make these points briefly about my own view:

1. I think God is the almighty and all-loving Creator.
2. I think God never entirely controls others -- coercion -- either at the beginning or the end of our universe.
3. I think God is "hands on" by working through a variety of means to create and sustain all creation.
4. I think Christians can have genuine hope for God's victory at the end of the age, but I beleive this victory can be secured through the power of God's persuasive love and creaturely cooperation.
5. I affirm what I call a "participatory eschatology," whereby creation has a role to play in the fulfillment of God's desire to redeem all creation.
6. I haven't got all of this figured out! : )

Tom

I think #5 is sure to be at odds our pre-millenial dispensationalists friends who promote the idea of a "secret" rapture, the futility of social reform, and a Armeggedon type of event that culminates with a huge bloody battle resulting in the termination of civilized society. Anyway, just trying to think how this might be different from the persuasion and cooperation you describe. I also love #6, that is probably where most of us find ourselves!

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I'm with you in putting my hope in God to bring about new heaven and new earth and more to the point, I put my hope in God being able to sufficiently bring this to pass.

Agreed!


Regarding my comments regarding modern Calvinism, I'm referring here to the combination of an Omni-everything God and creation ex nihlo. In my opinion, this view creates a massive escape clause that easily gets out of these problems. Where did matter from before the big bang? No problem: the omni God pops it out ex nihlo. What do we do about the eschaton? Again, no problem: the creation goes away "in nihlo" and whatever comes next can be created by an unconstrained omni-God "ex nihlo" all over again. "Poof". My sense is that most western evangelicals aren't far off from what I just described, which is why most functionally have problems with the Incarnation and with affirming the resurrection of the body (as a real body).

I should read more Calvinistic writers, apparently. So far, I haven't noticed the link.


Another problem with this view is if God is so omni-powerful, then why not just zap us forward into the eschaton now?

Ah, but the Scrpitures are full of "How long, Lord?" Not to mention 1900 years of Jewish exile. The timing of the Exodus (God who finally acts to liberate his people) is explained, but obviously that is in hindsight. Those who suffered under slavery didn't have a clue at that time.
Jesus says that even He doesn't know when He'll return, and the Peter's reasoning would logically lead to hell freezing over before it happens.
The Scriptures simply aren't big on explaining this kind of stuff. Now there may be a message in that fact.


Or better yet, why didn't he just create the whole shebang into this wonderful eschaton and just avoid this whole fall thing and all the horrible pain it creates.

Beats me. Love to hear the reason, but I'm convinced I won't hear it in this life.


It's on this point that I side with Oord and Frethiem. I don't see the God of the scriptures as one who is responsible for causing needless pain. If God has this greek omni-power, this pain was and is avoidable.

That escape door is closed. If He has even the slightest role in creating this earth, He's still responsible. And if He has none, what's He to us?

We'll have to face the fact that He did create the world as it is, and even an open theist would acknowledge that He at least must have known the risk involved. Still chose to do it.


Or, as Bruce Cockburn laments, "Why does history take such a long, long time?"

No idea. But I also wonder, is the answer what I need most in this life?


Personally, I see the generic Calvinist omni-God as being an even worse fit with scripture and I see no way to bend it to fit with the Incarnation or the resurrection of the body. But, I'll be the first to admit that I can't offer any way around entropy. Perhaps our hope is tied up with there being enough dark matter to hold the universe together at some point? I just dunno.... Nobody is talking about a static, stable universe in the end. Cold death or oscillation. Tough choices.

Dave, my quest in this world is to trust a God that I do not understand. And I neither understand why He created a world in which there is so much pain, nor why He chose to dive right into it and carry all of that on the cross Himself. But I do have a choice to weigh these two facts and act accordingly.

[Dave Mann]

That escape door is closed. If He has even the slightest role in creating this earth, He's still responsible. And if He has none, what's He to us?

We'll have to face the fact that He did create the world as it is, and even an open theist would acknowledge that He at least must have known the risk involved. Still chose to do it.


(for those noting the thread drift, sorry. I don't see how to cleanly separate the questions the eschaton from the problem of pain, though)

Hans, I see a pretty big distinction in the 2 understandings of God on this issue.

Of all of the metaphors for God that help me in this context, "God the Father" is the most helpful. Parents beget their children knowing that a) the act of caring for the child will require resource consumption (and thus pain), b) the child will experience pain and c) the child will cause pain for others. Despite these problems, (nearly) all people agree that good of the child's life is worth the costs of these pains. In the same way, I can accept the culpability of "God, the Father" because the joy of existing is worth it - even when facing horrible pain. But lets make something explicit here... We accept the choice of human parents to beget children because, among other things, those parents are not able to a) care for the child without incurring costs, b) stop the child from getting hurt and c) stop the child from causing hurts. Human parents are constrained and I think one of things that different theological traditions offer is a way of talking about God that recognizes constraints on God as he creates and calls creation to redemption.

The situation would be entirely different if you or I, as human parents, had omni-magical powers that could be exercised without constraint. It would be morally indefensible for us to care for our children by causing harm to others if we had the unconstrained power to do otherwise. It would be morally indefensible for us to allow our children to be harmed, if we had the power to prevent it. And it would be morally indefensible for us to allow our children to hurt others, if we had the power to stop them. This is precisely the story of God that I hear regularly from American Calvinists. It is very common to hear prayers along the lines of, "We can't understand why [insert horrible thing here], but we know that God is in control and that he could change things if He wanted to."

I see these as very different forms of culpability. The hard part is that either option can be a faith killer. I've heard folks respond to both views of God saying, "I could never serve a God like that."

In any event and tying this back to the question of the eschaton, if God has these greek hyper-omni capabilities, we need to explain why we weren't just created and kept in the eschaton to begin with. But again, I don't see that picture of God in the scriptures. Certainly not in Job.

[Dave Mann]

Dave I'm old simple country guy but I'm just wondering how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic has anything to do with Christ second coming.

Hey Larry,

In my mind the 2 are related in the same way that "the Big Bang" and "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" are related. I think this question is tied to many other theological questions:
+ What is the relationship between God and the material world (cosmology)?
+ How do with think about God's presence in or with the material world?
+ How do we think about the Incarnation?
+ How do we think about the resurrection of the body?
+ How do we think about "a new heaven and a new earth"?

[Larry Parsons]

Hey Larry,

In my mind the 2 are related in the same way that "the Big Bang" and "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" are related. I think this question is tied to many other theological questions:
+ What is the relationship between God and the material world (cosmology)?
+ How do with think about God's presence in or with the material world?
+ How do we think about the Incarnation?
+ How do we think about the resurrection of the body?
+ How do we think about "a new heaven and a new earth"?
Dave,
How do we think about "a new heaven and a new earth"? As i mention in another post according to Josephus to the Jews of Jesus day heaven and earth was thier temple

The New Covenant replace the Old Covenant with new leaders, a new priesthood, new sacraments, a new sacrifice, a new tabernacle and a new temple.In other words a new heaven and earth. John Owen of the 16 th century held to the idea that the "passing of heaven and earth in 2 Peter was not refering to last and final judgment of the world,but to that utter desolation and destruction of the Judaical church and state. John B. Lightfoot also applies the phrase "passing away of heaven and earth' to the destruction of Jerualem and the whole Jewish state...in A.D 70. I don't see why we can't assumes that Matthew 24:29 is a familiar Old Testament description of the "passing away of heaven and earth" Dave Is there verse of scripture that let us know that literal that heaven and earth will pass away?
Thanks
Larry P.

[Hans Deventer]

(for those noting the thread drift, sorry. I don't see how to cleanly separate the questions the eschaton from the problem of pain, though)

Hans, I see a pretty big distinction in the 2 understandings of God on this issue.

Of all of the metaphors for God that help me in this context, "God the Father" is the most helpful. Parents beget their children knowing that a) the act of caring for the child will require resource consumption (and thus pain), b) the child will experience pain and c) the child will cause pain for others. Despite these problems, (nearly) all people agree that good of the child's life is worth the costs of these pains.

May I submit that most don't take the reasoning this far? Especially among women, it just seems to be part of the "ideal picture". I'm not letting God off the hook so easily, nor myself for that matter. Hannie and I made choices. Almost took Hannie's life too, but that's another story.

In either case, I do not take lightly the responsibility of the One who started life as we know it, without giving the ones who are in it, a say. This means it is His sole responsibility. We bear responsibility for going astray, but I don't see how we are guilty for earthquakes, tornado's, volcano eruptions, tsunami's and the like.

And if God cannot help those, we'll never get rid of them and have precious little to expect from a "new heaven and a new earth".

There is no escape. Either we have hope in God who can do things He's not doing right now, for reasons unknown to us, and we can have hope for the future, or He cannot and there is no hope.

I see no distinction whatsoever. I merely see vain attempts to get God "off the hook" in the problem of pain, the theodicy, that create more problems than they solve and require a subtlety in thinking that borders believing that God is not to blame for damning those that could never have believed, as happens in extreme Calvinism.



In the same way, I can accept the culpability of "God, the Father" because the joy of existing is worth it - even when facing horrible pain.

I do not believe that.


In any event and tying this back to the question of the eschaton, if God has these greek hyper-omni capabilities, we need to explain why we weren't just created and kept in the eschaton to begin with.

We cannot. Period. And have to deal with it. It might be painful but He simply didn't care to tell us. It's a bummer, isn't it? Job didn't get that answer either.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not too big on the omni's either. But I still believe God created the heavens and the earth and raised Jesus from the death, and that is enough for me to have hope in the future, but also cuts short attempts to define God in ways as not to make Him responsible for not yet returning, or not starting with the eschaton in the first place, as you wrote. The answer is: we don't know.

But then again, we are not saved by knowing, but by faith. I never read anywhere in the Scriptures that people need to understand God in order to believe in Him. In fact, Job's friends who seemed to have it all figured out, are the ones who are condemned.

For me, it's simple. "God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him." (1 John 4:8b-9)

So I believe He is good.

And I believe that He is able to bring about the vision of the Revelation:



1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
5He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

That's it, Dave. My faith hangs on the love God has shown in Christ, in the cross, and in the power of the resurrection to bring about life from death.

Perhaps I'll live to see a day when all I can pray is the darkest of Psalms, Psalm 88.



1 O LORD, the God who saves me,
day and night I cry out before you.
2 May my prayer come before you;
turn your ear to my cry.
3 For my soul is full of trouble
and my life draws near the grave.
4 I am counted among those who go down to the pit;
I am like a man without strength.
5 I am set apart with the dead,
like the slain who lie in the grave,
whom you remember no more,
who are cut off from your care.
6 You have put me in the lowest pit,
in the darkest depths.
7 Your wrath lies heavily upon me;
you have overwhelmed me with all your waves.
Selah
8 You have taken from me my closest friends
and have made me repulsive to them.
I am confined and cannot escape;
9 my eyes are dim with grief.
I call to you, O LORD, every day;
I spread out my hands to you.
10 Do you show your wonders to the dead?
Do those who are dead rise up and praise you?
Selah
11 Is your love declared in the grave,
your faithfulness in Destruction ?
12 Are your wonders known in the place of darkness,
or your righteous deeds in the land of oblivion?
13 But I cry to you for help, O LORD;
in the morning my prayer comes before you.
14 Why, O LORD, do you reject me
and hide your face from me?
15 From my youth I have been afflicted and close to death;
I have suffered your terrors and am in despair.
16 Your wrath has swept over me;
your terrors have destroyed me.
17 All day long they surround me like a flood;
they have completely engulfed me.
18 You have taken my companions and loved ones from me;
the darkness is my closest friend.

May, on that day, I be like the man who wrote this, not understand it at all, but still not let go of God, and still put my hope in Him.

[Dave Mann]

May I submit that most don't take the reasoning this far?


Nod. But some of us do. Have to, really.




Almost took Hannie's life too, but that's another story.


Most people I respect have given this option serious consideration. Novelist Walker Percy's book "Lost in the Cosmos" helped me a great deal in making sense of that experience. More accessible was the movie "The Piano".

Ada: "What a death! What a chance! What a surprise! My will has chosen life!"





There is no escape. Either we have hope in God who can do things He's not doing right now, for reasons unknown to us, and we can have hope for the future, or He cannot and there is no hope.

I see no distinction whatsoever.


I think there is a 3rd option and (for me) it helps.

See the great mountain climber on the mountain? Is he capable of achieving the summit? Yes. Can he do it instantly, right now? No.

See the great master painter in front of the unfinished canvas? Is he capable of completing the creative work? Yes. Can he do it instantly, right now? No.




Job didn't get that answer either.


I read God's answer to Job in the last 3 chapters of the book with some regularity. Along with the creation narrative and the Noah story, it's become one of the most important passages for me. This is one of the passages that gives me the metaphor of God the master builder or master sculptor. His response to Job's complaint is, "I'm creating something really amazing. (And you don't happen to be at the center of it.)" What I see is a God who is capable of creating but it's a remarkable achievement that can't be done magically with a whimsical snap of the fingers. It requires real time for God to get us there and requires real effort on God's part, so much that he rests.

This understanding has allowed me to retain and regain faith, but I know in talking to people in their darkest of times that people need to think about this in different ways.



So I believe He is good.

And I believe that He is able to bring about the vision of the Revelation:


We are in agreement on this Hans. How we get there is different, perhaps. I can't align my hope and faith with entropy but I still cling to it. I believe in a new earth and the resurrection of the body.



Perhaps I'll live to see a day when all I can pray is the darkest of Psalms, Psalm 88.
(snip...)
May, on that day, I be like the man who wrote this, not understand it at all, but still not let go of God, and still put my hope in Him.

Agreed.

[Dave Mann]

The New Covenant replace the Old Covenant with new leaders, a new priesthood, new sacraments, a new sacrifice, a new tabernacle and a new temple.In other words a new heaven and earth. John Owen of the 16 th century held to the idea that the "passing of heaven and earth in 2 Peter was not refering to last and final judgment of the world,but to that utter desolation and destruction of the Judaical church and state. John B. Lightfoot also applies the phrase "passing away of heaven and earth' to the destruction of Jerualem and the whole Jewish state...in A.D 70. I don't see why we can't assumes that Matthew 24:29 is a familiar Old Testament description of the "passing away of heaven and earth" Dave Is there verse of scripture that let us know that literal that heaven and earth will pass away?


Larry, you're suggesting a view in which the new heaven and earth has already come with the reestablishment of the Jewish state, or will come when "the" temple is rebuilt, yes?

If so, how do align the claim that this kingdom will have no end with the scientific understanding that the universe, as we know it, will (or may) someday end?

[Hans Deventer]

I think there is a 3rd option and (for me) it helps.

See the great mountain climber on the mountain? Is he capable of achieving the summit? Yes. Can he do it instantly, right now? No.

See the great master painter in front of the unfinished canvas? Is he capable of completing the creative work? Yes. Can he do it instantly, right now? No.

I've been reading some process philosophy and theology, and there is good stuff to be found there, but I can't fit all of the Bible into that philosophy (I actually doubt it can be fitted in any philosophy).

I'm wondering, how long did it take Jesus to raise Lazarus from the death? Or take God to raise Jesus? Whatever it is He needs to do to achieve this, He's not doing it now. But He promised He will, one day. And I have to deal with that.

I have yet to read a 3rd option that aligns with what I see God do in the Scriptures. Not saying that it doesn't exist, in fact, I'd love to read it, but so far I haven't.

However, if it does for you and helps you, that's great. But it doesn't work for me.

It's interesting. Some need logical consistency more than anything else. Some need a sovereign God more than anything else. Some need hope more than anything else. I belong to the latter category. I guess that in a way, we still shape God in our image.

[John Kennedy]

Y'all,

The issue of eschatology is really important, and I've enjoyed reading some of the posts in this thread. Unfortunately, getting ready for the new year means that I can't engage the thread fully. But I did want to make these points briefly about my own view:

1. I think God is the almighty and all-loving Creator.
2. I think God never entirely controls others -- coercion -- either at the beginning or the end of our universe.
3. I think God is "hands on" by working through a variety of means to create and sustain all creation.
4. I think Christians can have genuine hope for God's victory at the end of the age, but I beleive this victory can be secured through the power of God's persuasive love and creaturely cooperation.
5. I affirm what I call a "participatory eschatology," whereby creation has a role to play in the fulfillment of God's desire to redeem all creation.
6. I haven't got all of this figured out! : )

Tom


I could, if really pushed, probably manage to distinguish eschatology from an escalator. The latter only takes you in one direction at a time. It may be unfortunate that if you take off the es- you wind up with a subject that, thank God, doesn't have much posting on Naznet.
I guess I just have a disinclination toward prophecy. There may be theological and doctrinal issues that have provided more heat and less light than the end-times obsession - I just can't imagine what they are.
I can say a hearty amen to your 6 points (you beat out Calvin by 1).
Since it is almost obligatory to take a dogmatic position on eschatalogical statements, I move that your point 6 be engraved in stone. Therein lieth wisdom.

[Dave Mann]

I've been reading some process philosophy and theology, and there is good stuff to be found there, but I can't fit all of the Bible into that philosophy (I actually doubt it can be fitted in any philosophy).

I'm wondering, how long did it take Jesus to raise Lazarus from the death? Or take God to raise Jesus? Whatever it is He needs to do to achieve this, He's not doing it now. But He promised He will, one day. And I have to deal with that.


Hans, I *am* with you on this. You note that I said earlier in this thread that I don't come to this as a person who would describe himself in being in the process camp. I also noted to Tom there was a 5% area of disagreement that I probably have with him and when you bring up the resurrection, you put your finger on it. You can add the incarnation too.

One way to think of the resurrection is that the resurrected Christ is/was something materially different, with no connection what-so-ever with this material universe. I think this understanding lines up well with classic theism. God is over there and the material world is over here, entirely separate. God intervenes sometimes and when he does, he does so a supernatural intervention into the otherwise natural clock-work order of things. Christ dies, but lives on as spirit only as a disembodied spiritual form and then is remade entirely supernaturally as some other kind of body. I think this picture is more or less along the lines with the sort of dualism of Descartes and the type of dualism that is casually assumed in (US) church. The pattern at the cosmic level would be creation ex nihilo, destruction "in nihilo" and then a new earth "ex nihilo v2.0".

I'm probably very close to process folks in rejecting this view. I think undercuts the Incarnation, the resurrection of the body and doesn't line up with "for God so loved the Cosmos". I have to hold to the belief that there was a material continuity between the living Christ and the resurrected Christ. Not that the resurrected Christ was made up of the same exact set of atoms, since that's not even true for you or I over the course of our lives. But rather, that the resurrected Christ was made up of real atoms from this universe.

What this means to me is that entropy and other "laws" were coerced and suspended. In my way of thinking, God intervened and did so materially and at the deepest levels. Entropy was held at bay.

When I read the literature in cosmology on the end of the universe, my head starts to spin. My background is mathematics, not astrophysics. One thing is clear - nobody is taking about an end state of equilibrium. The 2 basic choices are a cold death of entropy in an ever expanding universe (different ways of talking about "expanding") or a big collapse. At the risk of running cross-wise with the science, I'm holding out for God stopping the expansion and stopping entropy.

Somebody in a private message suggested that God would let this universe just run it's course (to entropy) and that the new heaven and new earth could take place after the big collapse (assuming there was one) and there was another big bang. But this punts the problem of entropy and beginnings and endings down the road and doesn't address it. Carl Sagan argues that theory of an infinitely oscillating universe is consistent with some forms of Hinduism. But our narrative talks of a single beginning and a stable ending - a kingdom with no end. I simply see no way to line up any of eschatology unless we have a "heaven and earth" that is stable in the end.

So, my short answer is that my hope is that God will "resurrect" the cosmos just as he did with Christ and I see that is being a wholesale suspension of entropy.

[Larry Parsons]

Larry, you're suggesting a view in which the new heaven and earth has already come with the reestablishment of the Jewish state, or will come when "the" temple is rebuilt, yes?

If so, how do align the claim that this kingdom will have no end with the scientific understanding that the universe, as we know it, will (or may) someday end?

Dave, I know in general when most people read Matthew 24;35 They believed that Jesus is saying the phyiscal heaven and earth will pass away but his word would never pass away.(whether this physical earth and solar system ever pass away is not the point here in this chapter) Remember, right before Jesus made that statement he was speaking in apocalyptic language so heaven and earth passing away could mean just what he was talking about. (The heaven and earth of the old Jewish order will pass away) Here at verse 35 Jesus is talking about the passing away of old Israel in fact this what 24 chapter of Matthew is albout.
In the Bible the figurative language of Heaven is refering to government and rulers and earth is refering to nation or people.For example who is God spoke to Israel in Isaiah 1:2 He address them as "Oh heaven and O earth, and when Jesus was address his disciples and said heaven and earth shall pass away they understood that he was refering to Israel. The old Israel had to pass away to make room for the New Israel which is the church. If you turn to 2 Peter,3:13 and you will read where Peter is telling his readers according to his promise we are to look for a New Heaven and New Earth....Let me ask where do we find this promise of a new heaven and new earth. I think you might find it when God spoke through Isaiah prophesying the earthly blessings of the coming Kingdom. Isaiah 65:17-25 this passage can't being talking about heaven because in the "new heaven and earth there is still death even at very advanced age. People will still be building,planting,working and having children and everyone knows that we won't be having children in heaven. What this passage is refering to is some will take place before the second coming of Christ. what this passages is showing what future generaton can expect as the gospel is being preach throughout the world to restore the earth to Paradise. who know that Isaiah maybe describing the blessing of Deuteronomy 28. And when John tell us that he saw "a new heaven and earth we should recognize that this phrase is symbolic and has to do with the blessing of salvation. John also tell us that he saw the Holy City,New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. No it not a space station that John saw, John saw the church. Remember the Bride is not just in the City, the Bride is the City see Rev. 21:9-10 We are in the New Jerusalem now.and we the church is God's dwelling place, His Holy Temple. When God promise "I will make My Tabernacle among you (Lev,26:11) and this is fulfilled in the New Testament Church.
Dave, I'm assuming that you didn't come up with any scripture that show us that this old earth that we are living on will be destoy and why would I want take a few scientific models that trying to prove that world will come to a end over the word of God.
Thanks
Larry

[Billy Cox]

Coercion has negative connotations, but I'm not sure that is necessary, especially when one is dealing with an all-loving God, a God who is without selfishness. If we believe God has an end goal - the redemption of creation - and if we believe God has chosen to partner with creation in its redemption, and if we believe creation is doomed without God's action, I'm not sure how we could avoid coercion at some point. Again, maybe the use of the term is because of its negative connotations to us, but I do believe God's love has a purpose, to lead us towards the life we've been created to live. God doesn't make us do that, but it seems like everything in creation is designed to coerce us towards that end, while also leaving open the option of going a different direction.

The book of Revelation has an interesting refrain; after a bunch of bad stuff happens, the people refuse to repent and persist in their wickedness.

While I think that the creation *is* tilted against those who refuse to follow God's way, I wouln't term that as coercive, but it's kinda foolish.

[Dave Mann]

Dave, I'm assuming that you didn't come up with any scripture that show us that this old earth that we are living on will be destoy and why would I want take a few scientific models that trying to prove that world will come to a end over the word of God.


Larry, I wouldn't expect to find any such scripture because I, like you, don't believe this material earth or universe will be physically destroyed. Instead, I believe it will be redeemed in the same way that Christ was resurrected. Like you, I accept that this view is not universally held by all Christians.

I would however direct you to 2 passages of scripture that I find important in this discussion. The first is the long 3 chapter discourse by God to Job at the end of the book of Job. In it, God challenges Job's limited understanding of God by demanding that he "Consider the leviathan" and as the discourse unfolds, that Job consider really all of God's created works. Of course, to consider the leviathan demands that Job and we actually learn about and understand the leviathan - and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And God demands that Job change his understanding of God (his theology) based on what God reveals in his created works (which we know through science). The God who reveals himself in scripture is the same God who reveals himself in creation - a point that Paul makes explicitly in Roman 1.

These passages tell me that our theology should always be shaped by our scientific understandings of God's creation. Job's understanding of the scriptures, his theology, evolved when he obeyed God's demand to consider the leviathan. In the same way, I think we need to consider the different models of the end of the universe as we best understand them and struggle to allow our own understanding of scriptures evolve in that light.

You and I both believe in a future of a redeemed earth. I do believe this. But, I can't yet integrate it with my understanding of God's creation with respect to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Like Tom, I don't have this figured out yet.

[Larry Parsons]

Larry, I wouldn't expect to find any such scripture because I, like you, don't believe this material earth or universe will be physically destroyed. Instead, I believe it will be redeemed in the same way that Christ was resurrected. Like you, I accept that this view is not universally held by all Christians.

I would however direct you to 2 passages of scripture that I find important in this discussion. The first is the long 3 chapter discourse by God to Job at the end of the book of Job. In it, God challenges Job's limited understanding of God by demanding that he "Consider the leviathan" and as the discourse unfolds, that Job consider really all of God's created works. Of course, to consider the leviathan demands that Job and we actually learn about and understand the leviathan - and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And God demands that Job change his understanding of God (his theology) based on what God reveals in his created works (which we know through science). The God who reveals himself in scripture is the same God who reveals himself in creation - a point that Paul makes explicitly in Roman 1.

These passages tell me that our theology should always be shaped by our scientific understandings of God's creation. Job's understanding of the scriptures, his theology, evolved when he obeyed God's demand to consider the leviathan. In the same way, I think we need to consider the different models of the end of the universe as we best understand them and struggle to allow our own understanding of scriptures evolve in that light.

You and I both believe in a future of a redeemed earth. I do believe this. But, I can't yet integrate it with my understanding of God's creation with respect to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Like Tom, I don't have this figured out yet.
Dave, you are not suggestion that there will be chaos and decay on earth before Christ final return. Isn't this what dispensationist believe. And I know you are DP. so explain in simple term's
Thanks
Larry