Critical Objections to Purging the ‘Second Coming’

(Objection #1): “To me you are quibbling over whether it is called his second (Heb. 9:28) or some other number, is really to miss the important point that all prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70.”

 

(Objection #2): By setting Jesus’ A.D. 70 parousia as just one coming among many comings (even though you allow for it to be “pretty important”), you delimit the importance and critical nature that Scripture gives for the A.D. 70 parousia. A.D. 70 was the game changer and eternal fulfillment of the soteriological plan of the Godhead. That’s the essence of Hebrews 9:24-28. . . . My question to you is, why all this stress on the “many comings” idea?  What is the motivation behind this thesis of many comings that you are pushing?

(My Response):  I not quibbling or delimiting at all.  To the contrary, I’m doing just the opposite and much is at stake.

 

And since Scripture instructs us to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up again the knowledge of God” (Heb. 10:4b-5a), I suggest we start here.

 

Please keep in mind that this so-called “second coming” and “return” of Christ is not only the most anticipated event in all of history, it is also the pivotal, central, and controlling event to which the fulfillment of all other end-time events in all four of the competing, conflicting, and divisive end-time views are conjoined.

 

It is the “chief moment” that defines and differentiates the four views.

 

But if we truly desire to reconcile this massive arena of theology termed eschatology, which is what I’m proposing, then we must get at this root cause that has produced “once of the most divisive elements in recent Christian history” (CT quote).

 

It’s the greatest impediment to eschatological reform and unification—i.e., the synthesis of end-time views.

 

Truly and sincerely, I consider the purging of this non-scriptural language and resulting flawed tradition to be a vital part of “the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18).

 

By eliminating this non-scriptural terminology and unshackling Christianity from its dominance it becomes a non-event (that it is) in peoples’ eyes and minds and clears the table of debate and divisiveness for a legitimate and divine solution of synthesis of all four competing and conflicting end-time views into one coherent and consistent view that is more Christ-honoring, Scripture-authenticating, and faith-validating than any one view in and of itself.

I hope this reconciliation direction makes sense to you?

 

We have been hamstrung by this two-advent tradition of men long enough.

 

It’s time to get Jesus out of our man-made and two-advent box.

 

So, what do you think?