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

Myron Houghton 

Bifurcating the Parousia

John Walvoord's review of "The Blessed Hope"

Bifurcating the Parousia

This one is a repost. See also HERE. Essentially, if "apokalupsis" indicates One Future Parousia of Christ, how does the prewrath view explain its multi-phase system? And why could it not then be allowed in a pretrib "dual-phase" future coming of Christ? 

During a fairly recent protracted (often frustrating) exchange on Facebook someone commented that pretribbers "bifurcate the singular future Parousia of Christ into two events," among other grievances. It came from a proponent of the prewrath rapture view.

Years ago I met a zealous blogger (O) who was proficient at reciting what I call the Prewrath Catechism. This person's testimony attributed their conversion to Rosenthal's book, and a pastor. O recommended Van Kampen's The Rapture Question Answered & The Sign, and also challenged the pretrib "two-stage" coming of Christ.

I responded that if the Great Multitude was the raptured church worshiping Christ in heaven, then O's system also has a dual-phase aspect. O countered that Christ remained in the atmosphere above earth. This response wasn't exactly a Plain & Simple or Face-Value understanding of Rev Chapter 7. Perhaps Rosenthal's vagueness regarding the Parousia wasn't helpful. He wrote that: "Not once does the Bible speak of two comings..." O was just going by his book.

To this day I see two-stage charges from this camp. I've cited examples in previous posts. Here's one example from a Van Kampen dedicated site:

...pretribulationism sees two separate parousias (comings) of Christ, one when He comes "for His Church" and the second, when He comes "with His Church," a grammatical position with not one verse of substantiation or explanation...

"Before God's Wrath" author Heidi L. Nigro also took issue with pretrib's "two-stage" HERE. This was her novel response to Renald Showers' prewrath-multiple-comings critique:

First of all, Jesus may have the ability to be in more than one place at once. Second, God and heaven exist outside of time as we know it, so one moment of earthly time can be all the time Jesus needs in heaven to judge a billion or more saints, and have a wonderful wedding celebration. While I hold to the multi-phase view, the single-phase view is no problem either. (Emphasis mine)

Prewrathers look to Matt 24:30 as Christ's coming with a "continuous presence." Like Classic Premil Posttribulationists, they want to affirm a Single Future Coming of Christ. Their problem is the "shortened great tribulation" (Matt 24:22) and how it ties in with the rapture, Rev 7 and Rev 19. They must keep Matt 24:30-31 and Rev 19:11 somehow distinct - but still united - where the latter isn't the beginning of Christ's coming, yet an integral part of it. Got all that?

The system also allows for Christ's return to heaven and then two or three more comings to earth, depending on how you interpret Van Kampen's The Sign. Some of these comings are secret in the sense that they're not located in any texts. They are deduced. See Charles Cooper's rather paradoxical Parousia article.

According to Renald Showers' prewrath analysis citing The Sign, there are four future second coming events (page 83 of Showers' book):

1) The rapture between the 6th & 7th seals, then Christ returns to heaven
2) After the end of the 70th Week to save-gather Israel, then back to heaven
3) After the 7th bowl judgment to defeat Antichrist, then back to heaven to deliver the kingdom to God
4) Then Christ returns permanently to rule the earth

Is this a single continuous presence, or actually four separate parousias? If we apply the same criteria PW insists for pretrib, then it must be the latter! Is it a Greek grammar issue, or something else? No wonder many proponents are in denial when initially confronted with this data (at least in my experience). It isn't in the charts, and neither is it clearly articulated in the books. They inevitably default to the Christ-is-continually-present position.

Eric Douma rightly said that: "There is a logical fallacy in attempting to maintain that Jesus can come bodily in the Parousia, and then somehow be continually present – without being present bodily."

There must be some sort of cognitive dissonance at work when you militantly criticize another position's "two-stage" second coming, yet hold to several event comings and goings under the innovative banner of a Continuous Parousia. For instance, see This Example. PW proponents need to take a close hard look at their own systems before using phrases such as "false pretrib dichotomy" in context to the difference between the rapture and Second Advent.

Note that the idea of an extended-parousia-program isn't allowed for the pretrib model. Not even theoretically. There aren't any grounds for this stance other than the desire to tenaciously hold onto as many criticisms of pretrib as possible. While these people entertain one or two coming events of Christ not mentioned in Scripture, they cannot allow an extended coming by Christ for His church before Matt 24:31.

This is echo-chamber mentality. It convinces no one except those who have bought into the PW view.

Dr Reluctant - The Rapture

Darrel Cline's lengthy review of The Rapture Question Answered

(I disagree with Cline's position on the 1st seal)