Why do futurists teach the second coming...

[Allyn]

Well said Stevenpatrick,

The question Steve Gregg has - what's so important about eschatology? There are many answers to this question and yours is extremely valid. I hold to what you have said. I also believe, as a preterist, that eschatology is kingdom stuff. what's more imprtant than that for the saved believer? If the kingdom has not come in then peace that passes all understanding has not come and with that the assurance which the 1st century Christians longed for in their struggle to be found worthy of the kingdom is still, perhaps, thousands of years off. For them "soon" has no meaning for they are dead and now waiting in the dust even longer than the promise that was to come shortly.

Yes eschatology is extremely important.

[Mellontes]

I wrote:
Jesus, when He left, left a church to which He had given opportunities and resources to invest for His kingdom. This remains true in every generation, and people of every generation will stand before Him and give an account for their stewardship.

To which you wrote:
Sure. no problem here...but where is this mentioned in those two parables? You are beginning to get off track...

(You apparently have no idea what I said, if you think it moves off track from our central discussion)

It is off track because those principle of yours are not specific to the parables. Where does the parable say those things. What you have done is to insert that opinion upon the parables because you must ignore the timing. Exactly this kind of thinking is applied to all the time statements. It is like a defense mechanism...

I wrote:
The nature of the stories embedded in the parables lent itself to describing a man who comes and goes in a single lifetime (because the character is assumed to be a mortal man, and therefore, for the purpose of the stories, he must accomplish everything in his one human lifetime)—which would, in the nature of the case, require that it also be in the lifetime of those same servants.

Let's say you are right and Jesus got that part down perfectly. If Jesus had no intention of returning to the same generation He said He would, why would He deliberately mislead His audience in these two parables? Why didn't He add "and several thousands of years later He came back..." Of course that would leave the problem of having VERY AGED indivuals still holding those talents and pounds... That doesn't sound like something He would do, unless of course your name happens to be C. S. Lewis...

I don't see how that understanding would jive with those who teach the final parousia event from those two parables, unless you are suggesting that the one who does return is nothing but a mere mortal man? I doubt that you are considering that.

(Huh? Where did this statement come from? And what has it to do with the point I made?)

Perhaps I erred in what I thought you meant. The questions we get come fast and furious these days, so please forgive me.

I wrote:
The fulfillment need not occur in a single generation.

You wrote:
That's a very attractive assertion and seemingly reeks of humanism.

(Really? Who or what would it tend to attract? And in what way does it have any resemblance to humanism?)

We are obviously talking past each other! I am directly answering your questions, and you are making responses that do not have anything to do with my statements.

The long list of scriptures you gave in your previous post do not connect in any perceptible way with anything that is being discussed at this thread, as far as I can see. The parables of the stewards don't give any more of a time indicator than "a long time." This does not help any particular position, so I don't understand what you are trying to make of it.

But here I greatly disagree. You said, "The fulfillment need not occur in a single generation." And I say God is VERY specific regarding fulfillments to a specific generation and at a VERY specific time. The list of Scriptures given indicate exactly this point. I didn't list the vast number of prophies in the OT that include time indicators for fulfillment like Daniel 9 and countless others. Your assertion is attractive because it sounds so logical and appealing. It is humanistic because you do not have Scriptural support for that novel assertion. I have Scriptural support for the contrary position.

Few theological subjects interest me less than eschatology. We definitely place differing values on the discussion. I have not stopped you from presenting you views here (I am sure there are forums that would have done so long before this). I don't actually see much danger in letting you post such presentations as those that have been posted thus far. Maybe there is someone reading them that can follow your train of thought better than I can, but if not, it does not seem likely that many will become convinced that your position has the more honest and responsible approach to scripture.

I thank you for your time and comments. I also thank you for allowing us to present our view in this forum. Perhaps greater understanding could be acquired if you and others would at least try to answer our questions. What has happened on a lot of occasions is the person says he disagrees with our posts but ignores our follow-up questions. We have spent a great deal of time and effort to answer the questions given to us and we are often chastised for not answering theirs in a quick enough manner, or for missing one a long the way. The follow-up questions are not there to intimidate, they are there for a specific reason and purpose - it's called interaction. Now, if someone has no wish to interact, then please don't ask questions, because we will have follow-up questions which lead to more interaction by both parties...

[steve]

I reserve the right to ask questions whether or not I have time for continuous interaction. I assume that the person seeking to present his views on the forum (that would be you, not me, since I never present my views, except in answer to someone's question) would welcome questions seeking clarification from those who cannot understand his points. This does not always mean the questioner has a high level of interest in the subject, or is at liberty to engage in an argument about it. When you post a question on the forum, no one is obligated to respond. You may choose to take their non-response as a concession of your point on their part. They may not care one way or another how you take their non-response...especially if it is not a matter of interest to them.

I am not satisfied with the reasons given for making this such an issue. StephenPatrick answered as follows:

Steve, you wrote, I have not yet seen how the topic has any bearing whatsoever on any matter that has relevance to being a follower of Christ.

I do see that it has huge ramifications. Most dispensationalists support with their finances a group of people that are extremely anti-christ in word and deed, Israel. They believe them to be "God's chosen people" still. The foreign policy of the USA is influenced by this destructive lie, and those who should know better (Christians) are the biggest cheerleaders for war against Muslims in favor of anti-christ Israel. In other words, the Sermon on the Mount is not to be observed when it comes to "end times" issues as taught by dispensationalists. War for example, is accepted as normal for Christians to engage in, especially for the furthering of their "end times" scenarios. For me, these things are much more destructive and heretical than believing that Jesus fulfilled everything written.

However, this is only a criticism of dispensationalists, and I don't know if we have any of those on this forum. Those who frequent here usually are sympathetic toward the eschatology that prevailed through more than 3/4 of church history, finding it to be biblically convincing, and do not need to seek in fringe eschatologies (which they do not find scripturally convincing) some relief for their Israel fetish.

Allyn, on the other hand, said it is important because it is "kingdom stuff," to which I would reply that I have made the kingdom of God my central interest of study since the mid-seventies, and I can find no evidence that the kingdom stuff of full-preterism bears any resemblance to the biblical emphasis on the kingdom of God.

As for Mellontes statements that there are so many time-sensitive statements about things in the Bible, I heartily agree. But this illustrates the point I have made early-on in my every foray into this topic: full-preterists are incapable of treating scriptures case-by-case. They make every pridicted event conform (however unnaturally) to an AD70 fulfillment, whether the event under discussion gives a time-reference or not.

The full-preterists at this forum certainly must be aware that many of us here are partial preterists. Therefore, we do not fall under the criticism of ignoring the "soon" and the "at hand" statements in many passages of scripture—and we tend to agree that those statements generally were fulfilled in AD70. What we do not do is cram every predicted event into one event. Things that were fulfilled in AD70 we have no difficulty identifying. Things that did not happen in AD70, and which were not specified as having a near fulfillment, we do not feel compelled to shoehorn into that mold. The difference between the full-preterist and the partial preterist, as near as I can determine, is that the former is simplistic, and incapable of nuanced thinking. Thus, so many of the arguments made above are flawed by their assumption that every event prophesied must be identified with every other event prophesied, even if their descriptions and stated timeframes differ from each other. These underlying presuppositions make virtually every posted full-preterist argument nonsensical to one who is not already in your camp. That would include myself.

It is a shame that the full-preterists, instead of arriving with a clear, holistic presentation of their view that is tailored to an audience unfamiliar with it, just show up swinging and ridiculing the honest and sensible exegesis of those with whom they disagree. Your camp needs someone who can communicate with those outside your camp. Maybe they exist, but they have not shown up here.

Mellontes, you have twice brought up the "we" in 1 Thessalonians 4 as evidence that Paul predicted a rapture and resurrection in his own day. The reason I have not bothered to revisit this point with you is that I brought it up about two weeks ago in a very unpleasant exchange with another full-preterist, and I explained why such conclusions were illogical. My correspondent at the time assured me that he did not use 1 Thess.4 that way, and so he did not feel obligated to address it. Almost the next day, you posted an argument using that passage in exactly the way I had refuted it, and I decided not to go over it again. There are other things in the Bible than this subject...but then, I forgot...the full-preterist doesn't appear to agree even with that statement.

[Mellontes]

Acts 28:24 - And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.

We all have our reasons why...