Here's Shawn Willson's brief YouTube review of Alan Kurschner's book, PRETRIB: Examining the Foundations of Pretribulation Rapture Theology. While I haven't read the book, I intend to add a few comments about the essential observations from the review at a later time. I can already hear some of the objections.
Showing posts with label parousia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parousia. Show all posts
Friday, June 16, 2023
Monday, July 25, 2022
Jump Rope Parousia
In a Facebook group I belong to, a gentleman started a thread suggesting that Scripture supports two future comings of Jesus. A prewrath (PW) adherent (Ron Wallace) soon posted a commentary contradicting him. This is a fairly typical scenario. Wallace's position is that when Christ returns, He remains in the atmosphere. While this has problems, I'll grant he can claim a single Second Advent. I noted that Robert Van Kampen, Charles Cooper and Alan Kurschner hold to multiple Second Advent events; where Christ moves between heaven and earth—yet they call it a single Parousia.
Alan Kurschner reacted HERE, claiming I don't understand prewrath,
The second coming (parousia; the plural in Greek is parousiai) is an extended event when God will fulfill various purposes through his Son. Jesus’s first coming lasted over thirty years, beginning with his arrival of his birth and ending with his ascension.
Christ's resurrection and ascension did not involve a second coming in that time. His first coming, and all the events associated with it, lasted over thirty years—while remaining on the earth. The issue is whether Christ's (PW) deliverance of the church to heaven (Rev 7)—and then His return to earth—constitutes more than one future Parousia.
He asserts I believe in two future comings because I think Paul's Parousia occurs before the seven-year period. What's his logic? If one insists the PW Single Parousia contains a subset of comings and goings—aside from disagreeing with pretrib—how does the same condition not apply to pretribulationism?
Kurschner points to Rev 19 (retrieval of heavenly armies for Armageddon), and claims I misunderstand this as a completely different Parousia,
...if Jesus removes his feet from earth for a particular purpose (such as retrieving his heavenly army) then that must somehow terminate his current parousia. That is where his literalistic claim—and misunderstanding of the use of the Greek word parousia—fails.
Don't know what he means by "literalistic." I understand the PW position and disagree with it. In fact, in my experience, many PW proponents aren't aware of the multi-phase issue and become confused when told. It's not in the charts and Kurschner didn't mention it in his book. As for his prewrath Parousia (in contrast to "parousiai")—where do we find it supported in the definitions?
He (oddly) uses "an absurd illustration to make the point" (his words).
...if Jesus exercised by jump roping one hundred times by lifting his feet off the ground, then there must have been one hundred comings (parousiai) of Jesus.
No, there would then be an event consisting of a hundred jumps, because Jesus would be on the earth while performing them. But if Jesus, while jumping rope, went into Target four times in three years—we wouldn't say He had a continuous presence there. We ought to then say that He visited Target four times in three years. We can say He has a continuous presence in the city He lives in. That's it.
Likewise, at Rev 19, Jesus comes from heaven to the earth. But PW must assert that Rev 19 (not the first coming) is part of the same coming as Matt 24:30-31 with an unspecified period in between, because it wants to declare a Single Parousia.
Kurschner says,
First, if Jesus must be physically on earth alive to be considered a Parousia, then that contradicts Paul’s teaching in 1 Thess 4:15–17 where Paul explicitly states that his parousia begins in the air—not the earth. Not to mention, just after the second coming (parousia) begins, he will escort the church to heaven before the (sic) his Father.
Jesus' feet don't touch the earth in the pretrib rapture view. Why, then, can't it claim a single extended Parousia if the rapture occurs before the 70th Week, and then Christ returns later? Kurschner attempts to impose an inconsistent criteria because PW is a modified Historic-Classic Premil version of posttrib. Traditionally, HP posttrib proponents deny that the Lord can come (First Parousia) for His church, and then come (Second Parousia) to inaugurate the Millennium.
An afterthought: One reason PWs will not theoretically allow a Single Parousia designation for the pretrib model is that it would then support imminence.
Prewrathers occasionally cite Ladd's The Blessed Hope. In chapter 3 (The Vocabulary of The Blessed Hope), he writes that the Parousia is a Single Event involving the rapture of the church and the destruction of the Antichrist etc (pages 62-65). But what would Ladd say of the PW extended posttrib version?
Charles Ryrie addresses the vocabulary of eschatology in Come Quickly, Lord Jesus; noting that posstribbers [like Ladd] view the Parousia, Apokalypse and Epiphany as One Event. Again, this would be at odds with prewrath. After drawing an analogy, Ryrie responds,
...the word [Parousia] itself does not indicate whether these are a single event or separate events. In other words, the vocabulary used does not necessarily prove either pre- or posttrib views.
Dr. Kurschner's use of Parousia is bound up in his rapture deductions and opposition to pretribulationism. But he fails to show how his model isn't an example of parousiai. He simply asserts otherwise.
Further reading:
The Parousia of Jesus Christ (Cooper)
Eric Douma's response to Prewrath
John Walvoord's review of "The Blessed Hope"
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Those misleading pretribulationists (Part 2)
Continuing on from the previous post:
Dr Cooper claims that if the rapture was pretribulational the Thessalonians should have been reminded that they would be taken away before any part of the 70th week began and that the very first sign (Joel 2:31) could not have been missed. Yet, while talking about the apostasy and AOD in 2 Thess 2, Paul does not mention Daniel’s 70th week or the so-called cosmic precursors.
He bundles Joel 2, Matt 24:29 and Rev 6:12-13 in the same bucket as the same event. But if we were to apply the same exegesis that he demands of 2 Thess 1-3 to those verses we would be confronted with the obvious differences in the cosmic moon signs.
On a side note, prewrath demands and boasts a single technical parousia yet it actually teaches a multi-phase second-Advent. The Antichrist is slain at 2 Thess2:8 (see Rev 19) yet the prewrath system re-interprets this to state that he is only handcuffed there and destroyed later. See Douma’s analysis of the prewrath parousia p 11.
Dr Cooper:
“It is obvious that the coming of the day of the Lord will be thieflike (sic) for unbelievers. “Sudden destruction” is the prospect for the wicked in connection with that “day”. On the other hand, Paul states that believers who are alert and sober will not expect the day of the Lord to surprise them as would a thief’s sudden appearing. Nothing that Paul wrote here is contradicted by what he wrote in II Thessalonians 2:1-3. Thomas completely misunderstands what Paul has written. Sadly, he attempts to prove a position which from the beginning was never true. This is so typical of the pretribulational position...For their definition of imminence to be correct, pretribulationalists like Thomas must distort Scripture to prove it. There are no contradictions in the writings of Paul. The only contradictions are found in the writings of those who simply will not take Paul at face value!”
Another PRI post states: “…He [Paul] consistently notes a peace and security (albeit a surface-level quality) that will precede the day of the Lord. But this peace and security is illusory, a false security, for unbelievers because unforeseen sudden calamity will come on them just as unexpected labor pains on a pregnant woman...”
Let’s take some verses at “face value”.
1Th 5:2-6 Note that the labor pains and sudden destruction are directly connected to the DOL. Once a woman experiences the first birth pang she cannot escape. The birth pangs are sudden, the delivery isn’t. At the point of the birth pangs one knows the baby is due.
Rev 6:4 Scripture plainly tells us peace is taken from the earth at the 2nd seal. A delusory peace beyond this point is a deduction based upon a pre-understanding or requirement for the DOL occurring later in the week.
Rev 6:8 PRI has claimed that this verse isn’t saying that a quarter of the world’s population (1.7 billion) will be killed. Yet, in fact, that’s exactly what it is saying.
Mat 24:21-22 This will be the worst period of time there ever was or ever will be and so terrible it must be stopped or no life would be saved. The language in the first sentence indicates that this tribulation encompasses all people (see Rev 6:8). Given the description in Matt 24:21-22, the DOL cannot be worse that the GT, therefore it must comprise the same period. And it’s highly unlikely that there will be any delusory peace during the worst time in history.
Mat 24:38-39 Compare that normal situation with Matt 24:21-22 & Rev 6:4, 8.
Mat 24:42-44 The Lord tells His disciples "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect”.
How can the DOL not be expected if at Rev 6:17 the unbelievers are said to be anticipating the future wrath and hiding in caves and under rocks? Compare with Isaiah 2. There the 6th seal is within that day (the DOL).
Posttribbers and prewrathers focus on the cosmic sign precursors of the DOL and insist that the rapture and DOL are tied together. The DOL is sometimes treated as a broad period and sometimes as the coming at Armageddon. And because the rapture timing is inferred in Scripture, any argument tying the DOL with that event is based upon theological deductions.
The thief coming in the night as opposed to day denotes surprise. It’s not that the believer will know approximately when the thief will come by watching. The watching idiom represents the position of the believer. The believer will not experience loss – not because he knows the “signs” of the thief’s coming but because of his continuous abiding in Christ.
Prewrath holds that, because the great tribulation has been changed to an unknown length, it qualifies as a sort-of imminency expectancy that involves “watching” for the cosmic precursors etc. However, that premise doesn’t match the face-value sense of Matt 24:44.
Moreover, the idea that the great tribulation is cut short in this sense is contrary to Scripture (Dan 7:25, 12:7; Rev 13:5, 7).
Why were the Thessalonians troubled? Had they missed the rapture?
Whatever the reason, one must ask the question that if the great tribulation of Matt 24:21-22 was a period that the Thessalonians would have to eventually endure – why didn’t Paul prep them for it?
Dr Cooper claims that if the rapture was pretribulational the Thessalonians should have been reminded that they would be taken away before any part of the 70th week began and that the very first sign (Joel 2:31) could not have been missed. Yet, while talking about the apostasy and AOD in 2 Thess 2, Paul does not mention Daniel’s 70th week or the so-called cosmic precursors.
He bundles Joel 2, Matt 24:29 and Rev 6:12-13 in the same bucket as the same event. But if we were to apply the same exegesis that he demands of 2 Thess 1-3 to those verses we would be confronted with the obvious differences in the cosmic moon signs.
On a side note, prewrath demands and boasts a single technical parousia yet it actually teaches a multi-phase second-Advent. The Antichrist is slain at 2 Thess2:8 (see Rev 19) yet the prewrath system re-interprets this to state that he is only handcuffed there and destroyed later. See Douma’s analysis of the prewrath parousia p 11.
Dr Cooper:
“It is obvious that the coming of the day of the Lord will be thieflike (sic) for unbelievers. “Sudden destruction” is the prospect for the wicked in connection with that “day”. On the other hand, Paul states that believers who are alert and sober will not expect the day of the Lord to surprise them as would a thief’s sudden appearing. Nothing that Paul wrote here is contradicted by what he wrote in II Thessalonians 2:1-3. Thomas completely misunderstands what Paul has written. Sadly, he attempts to prove a position which from the beginning was never true. This is so typical of the pretribulational position...For their definition of imminence to be correct, pretribulationalists like Thomas must distort Scripture to prove it. There are no contradictions in the writings of Paul. The only contradictions are found in the writings of those who simply will not take Paul at face value!”
Another PRI post states: “…He [Paul] consistently notes a peace and security (albeit a surface-level quality) that will precede the day of the Lord. But this peace and security is illusory, a false security, for unbelievers because unforeseen sudden calamity will come on them just as unexpected labor pains on a pregnant woman...”
Let’s take some verses at “face value”.
1Th 5:2-6 Note that the labor pains and sudden destruction are directly connected to the DOL. Once a woman experiences the first birth pang she cannot escape. The birth pangs are sudden, the delivery isn’t. At the point of the birth pangs one knows the baby is due.
Rev 6:4 Scripture plainly tells us peace is taken from the earth at the 2nd seal. A delusory peace beyond this point is a deduction based upon a pre-understanding or requirement for the DOL occurring later in the week.
Rev 6:8 PRI has claimed that this verse isn’t saying that a quarter of the world’s population (1.7 billion) will be killed. Yet, in fact, that’s exactly what it is saying.
Mat 24:21-22 This will be the worst period of time there ever was or ever will be and so terrible it must be stopped or no life would be saved. The language in the first sentence indicates that this tribulation encompasses all people (see Rev 6:8). Given the description in Matt 24:21-22, the DOL cannot be worse that the GT, therefore it must comprise the same period. And it’s highly unlikely that there will be any delusory peace during the worst time in history.
Mat 24:38-39 Compare that normal situation with Matt 24:21-22 & Rev 6:4, 8.
Mat 24:42-44 The Lord tells His disciples "Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect”.
How can the DOL not be expected if at Rev 6:17 the unbelievers are said to be anticipating the future wrath and hiding in caves and under rocks? Compare with Isaiah 2. There the 6th seal is within that day (the DOL).
Posttribbers and prewrathers focus on the cosmic sign precursors of the DOL and insist that the rapture and DOL are tied together. The DOL is sometimes treated as a broad period and sometimes as the coming at Armageddon. And because the rapture timing is inferred in Scripture, any argument tying the DOL with that event is based upon theological deductions.
The thief coming in the night as opposed to day denotes surprise. It’s not that the believer will know approximately when the thief will come by watching. The watching idiom represents the position of the believer. The believer will not experience loss – not because he knows the “signs” of the thief’s coming but because of his continuous abiding in Christ.
Prewrath holds that, because the great tribulation has been changed to an unknown length, it qualifies as a sort-of imminency expectancy that involves “watching” for the cosmic precursors etc. However, that premise doesn’t match the face-value sense of Matt 24:44.
Moreover, the idea that the great tribulation is cut short in this sense is contrary to Scripture (Dan 7:25, 12:7; Rev 13:5, 7).
Why were the Thessalonians troubled? Had they missed the rapture?
Whatever the reason, one must ask the question that if the great tribulation of Matt 24:21-22 was a period that the Thessalonians would have to eventually endure – why didn’t Paul prep them for it?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
2 Thessalonians 2:1-8
Here's a commentary on 2 Thess by Eric Douma. He responds to the pre-Wrath interpretation of Paul's Epistle and points out some difficulties with that system.
He also demonstrates why, despite so many claims and assertions that 2 Thess is incompatible with pre-Trib, the pretribulational model is still viable and even likely.
I like the humble manner in which he has approached this critique and agree with his following comment:
"I don’t hold to my own pre-tribulation position with absolute certainty. If certitude must be asserted, then I will claim with certainty that Antichrist cannot both be destroyed at the parousia (2 Thessalonians 2:8) and continue to reign for 3 and ½ years (Revelation 13:5) as pre-wrath would have to maintain without engaging in a form of equivocation."
2 Thessalonians 2:1-8: Does it Support a Pre-wrath View?
More on this subject can be found at Twin City Fellowship
Begin at Class 1- Introduction to Eschatology
Note: In the first audio, Pastor Douma has some interesting comments on the pre-Wrath position on the parousia and the single versus multi-stage Second Advent.
Highly recommended!
He also demonstrates why, despite so many claims and assertions that 2 Thess is incompatible with pre-Trib, the pretribulational model is still viable and even likely.
I like the humble manner in which he has approached this critique and agree with his following comment:
"I don’t hold to my own pre-tribulation position with absolute certainty. If certitude must be asserted, then I will claim with certainty that Antichrist cannot both be destroyed at the parousia (2 Thessalonians 2:8) and continue to reign for 3 and ½ years (Revelation 13:5) as pre-wrath would have to maintain without engaging in a form of equivocation."
2 Thessalonians 2:1-8: Does it Support a Pre-wrath View?
More on this subject can be found at Twin City Fellowship
Begin at Class 1- Introduction to Eschatology
Note: In the first audio, Pastor Douma has some interesting comments on the pre-Wrath position on the parousia and the single versus multi-stage Second Advent.
Highly recommended!
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Parousia, Apokalypse, and Epiphany - One Event?
In regards to language and the argument against plural comings of the Lord, if I make multiple trips to another country, there will be descriptions of that event which will be similar for each visit. Within each coming, I may do different things and not all people may see me. It is the differences within each visit which are important and may highlight that I’ve made multiple trips. There are similarities and differences in Thess and Matt 24. This may be due to some omissions in describing a single occurrence (as in harmonizing the Gospels) or there really may be more than one event. As far as I’m concerned, only posttribulationists can legitimately claim to believe in a single Second-Advent.
Aricle by Dr Ron Bigalke.
Excerpt:
As a futurist posttribulationist, Ladd wrote, “The parousia, the apokalypse, and the epiphany appear to be a single event. Any division of Christ’s coming into two parts is an unproven inference.” Ladd believed the words “parousia, the apokalypse, and the epiphany” refer to the same, single event, and therefore are not to be differentiated. Ladd is incorrect, however, in his assertion. The first word, parousia, is translated “coming” in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, and in that passage refers rather specifically to the rapture of the church. The same Greek word, parousia, is used in Matthew 24:27 and is accurately translated “coming” with regard to the Lord’s return to earth. Since the same Greek word is used in Matthew 24:27 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15, posttribulationists believe the texts refer to the same, single event. Pretribulationists disagree, and understand parousia to describe two separate events: the rapture and the second coming...First Thessalonians 4 and the Rapture PART 1
How often have you come across the name Manuel Lacunza? I bet more often than not it was in some spam comment on a blog...such as occurs here from time to time. Often the name Lacunza and MacPherson are linked. Well, here's an interesting post by Fred Butler on his blog Biblical Premillennialism:
The Manuel Lacunza Conspiracy
Aricle by Dr Ron Bigalke.
Excerpt:
As a futurist posttribulationist, Ladd wrote, “The parousia, the apokalypse, and the epiphany appear to be a single event. Any division of Christ’s coming into two parts is an unproven inference.” Ladd believed the words “parousia, the apokalypse, and the epiphany” refer to the same, single event, and therefore are not to be differentiated. Ladd is incorrect, however, in his assertion. The first word, parousia, is translated “coming” in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, and in that passage refers rather specifically to the rapture of the church. The same Greek word, parousia, is used in Matthew 24:27 and is accurately translated “coming” with regard to the Lord’s return to earth. Since the same Greek word is used in Matthew 24:27 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15, posttribulationists believe the texts refer to the same, single event. Pretribulationists disagree, and understand parousia to describe two separate events: the rapture and the second coming...First Thessalonians 4 and the Rapture PART 1
How often have you come across the name Manuel Lacunza? I bet more often than not it was in some spam comment on a blog...such as occurs here from time to time. Often the name Lacunza and MacPherson are linked. Well, here's an interesting post by Fred Butler on his blog Biblical Premillennialism:
The Manuel Lacunza Conspiracy
Sunday, January 24, 2010
How many second comings?
I’m indulging in a little axe grinding again. Pretribbers are often accused of “traditionally” believing in a two-stage Second Advent for scripturally unsound reasons.
Here’s a sample Q & A which appears HERE:
Q: Can you point to a direct scriptural reference that states that Jesus' return will be a two-stage event — a “spiritual” or “visible” (but not bodily) return at the rapture for the Church and then a “bodily” or “physical” coming at Armageddon?
Answer: No such scripture exists. When the return of Christ is mentioned in scripture it is always mentioned as a singular event.
Another sample HERE:
Pre-Tribulation Theory incorrectly teaches two separate Comings of Christ, one when He comes "for His Church" and the second when He comes "with His Church" without one verse of explanation. There is but one Return of our Lord taught throughout the Old & New Testament, and is never referred to in the plural.
And HERE:
The term is always stated in the singular, not Comings. There is only one Second Coming (Parousia). Further, it is reading one's tradition in this term when it is suggested that there are "two stages of Comings." It is common to hear that Christ will come first for his Church secretly, then return seven years later with his Church. This notion is foreign to any Parousia text. There is only one future Coming (Parousia), in which God will fulfill certain Divine purposes.
In his book "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church" on pp 222-223 and 294, Marvin Rosenthal asserts that there is only one “coming and a continuous presence to accomplish a number of divine purposes”.
New Testament Words for the Lord’s Coming
Here’s a sample Q & A which appears HERE:
Q: Can you point to a direct scriptural reference that states that Jesus' return will be a two-stage event — a “spiritual” or “visible” (but not bodily) return at the rapture for the Church and then a “bodily” or “physical” coming at Armageddon?
Answer: No such scripture exists. When the return of Christ is mentioned in scripture it is always mentioned as a singular event.
Another sample HERE:
Pre-Tribulation Theory incorrectly teaches two separate Comings of Christ, one when He comes "for His Church" and the second when He comes "with His Church" without one verse of explanation. There is but one Return of our Lord taught throughout the Old & New Testament, and is never referred to in the plural.
And HERE:
The term is always stated in the singular, not Comings. There is only one Second Coming (Parousia). Further, it is reading one's tradition in this term when it is suggested that there are "two stages of Comings." It is common to hear that Christ will come first for his Church secretly, then return seven years later with his Church. This notion is foreign to any Parousia text. There is only one future Coming (Parousia), in which God will fulfill certain Divine purposes.
In his book "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church" on pp 222-223 and 294, Marvin Rosenthal asserts that there is only one “coming and a continuous presence to accomplish a number of divine purposes”.
I don’t intend this post to be an in-depth apologetic for the pretribulational belief that the rapture and second coming are two distinct events separated by a period of time. Despite assertions, there is no Scripture that invalidates that view. Furthermore, Rabbis reading Moses and the Prophets would be hard pressed to be convinced of two comings of Messiah, yet we know that that is the case. Jesus’ reading of Isaiah 61:1,2 in Luke 4:17-20 illustrates my point.
What confused me when I initially began to study Mr Rosenthal’s system is that in Rev 7:9 the “raptured” great multitude is standing before the throne and the Lamb in heaven. As I dug a little deeper I discovered that the above statements are made by people who subscribe to an eschatology that teaches multiple future comings.
Following Marvin Rosenthal’s book, Robert Van Kampen’s “The Sign” was published. Ironically, between pages 304 to 423 of that book, Mr Van Kampen identified FOUR separate future comings.
Dr Charles Cooper’s article “The Parousia of Jesus Christ” which can be read HERE also ends with a most interesting final paragraph that lists a number of Christ’s movements between heaven and earth, post rapture and prior to the Millennium.
Finally, Dr Elbert Charpie provides the following justification for his belief in a multi-stage Second Advent:
Jesus does come back and rapture His saints and He does deal with them in Heaven, but at the same time He deals with the Jewish remnant here on earth. It is no problem for Him to travel back and forth. Furthermore, He is God and as God shares the attributes of God including omnipresence (the ability to be everywhere at the same time). As far as the Jews are concerned, they are not raptured. The Jewish remnant will enter the millennial kingdom in their earthly bodies and will have charge along with a multitude of Gentiles that survive the 70th Week to re-populate the earth….Read it HERE
Now, whether the Lord can be physically omnipresent is a whole new subject and the questionable necessity for a single/technical parousia is also another matter. However, one cannot legitimately declare that all biblical references point to a single second coming and then assert there are other comings following that one. In light of the attention John Darby has received, perhaps a legitimate question to ask is; were all these comings taught by the early Church fathers or is this tenet a recent development?
In conclusion, and given the above statements and admissions, it is somewhat inconsistent of these people to accuse pretribulationists of incorrectly teaching a two-phase Second Advent.
What confused me when I initially began to study Mr Rosenthal’s system is that in Rev 7:9 the “raptured” great multitude is standing before the throne and the Lamb in heaven. As I dug a little deeper I discovered that the above statements are made by people who subscribe to an eschatology that teaches multiple future comings.
Following Marvin Rosenthal’s book, Robert Van Kampen’s “The Sign” was published. Ironically, between pages 304 to 423 of that book, Mr Van Kampen identified FOUR separate future comings.
Dr Charles Cooper’s article “The Parousia of Jesus Christ” which can be read HERE also ends with a most interesting final paragraph that lists a number of Christ’s movements between heaven and earth, post rapture and prior to the Millennium.
Finally, Dr Elbert Charpie provides the following justification for his belief in a multi-stage Second Advent:
Jesus does come back and rapture His saints and He does deal with them in Heaven, but at the same time He deals with the Jewish remnant here on earth. It is no problem for Him to travel back and forth. Furthermore, He is God and as God shares the attributes of God including omnipresence (the ability to be everywhere at the same time). As far as the Jews are concerned, they are not raptured. The Jewish remnant will enter the millennial kingdom in their earthly bodies and will have charge along with a multitude of Gentiles that survive the 70th Week to re-populate the earth….Read it HERE
Now, whether the Lord can be physically omnipresent is a whole new subject and the questionable necessity for a single/technical parousia is also another matter. However, one cannot legitimately declare that all biblical references point to a single second coming and then assert there are other comings following that one. In light of the attention John Darby has received, perhaps a legitimate question to ask is; were all these comings taught by the early Church fathers or is this tenet a recent development?
In conclusion, and given the above statements and admissions, it is somewhat inconsistent of these people to accuse pretribulationists of incorrectly teaching a two-phase Second Advent.
Further reading:
New Testament Words for the Lord’s Coming
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
