ACenturyOfFailure

[Hitch]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Yet we have the blessed assurance that every passing day brings our salvation nearer then when we believed. And while it is true that the church, during all her history, has had repeated evidence that the day was approaching, we ask, what are these evidences in our time? Surely they are of especial significance.




Shortly previous to the first coming of Christ the Holy Ghost, although He had given through Daniel a special revelation unto the devout Simeon-who was 'waiting for the consolation of Israel', to-wit:' that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. Luke 2;26. And this leads us to ask: May not the same blessed Spirit who thus revealed this mighty event to Simeon fo old (and probably the aged Anna also) likewise give unto a favored one, or chosen few of the faithful watching ones, to know that their glad eyes shall see His appearing, and that they shall never taste of death. Even so now, many of the most devout and faithful of God's people, in all denominations, both in this and foreign lands, are seriously impressed with the conviction, that the coming of the Lord is near.

W.E. Blackstone, Jesus Is Coming ,1908 pgs 210,212,213. Emphasis added

How many times have you been told that if you would just listend to the Holy Spirit ,you too ,would be able to see the 'signs of the times'. Something else that hasnt chaged in a century is the intonation that real christians, 'the most devout and faithful', know with certainty the time is near. You dont think its near because you're not faithful and devout,,,

Well ,at least, thanks to Mr Blackstone we know with certainty that the people he considered to be the most devout and faithful of all demoniations completlely failed in their predictions.

Take care

Hitch

[sabertooth]

huh?

[eschaton]

huh?

I was a little confused when I read this too. But at the risk of putting words in peoples mouths again, let me offer an explanation.

Blackstone was a dispensationalist who believed the second advent would happen very soon, probably within his own lifetime. What the second advent is, and whether or not it has happened might be debated, but at least the world hasn't ended. That is probably what Blackstone was indicating.

In other words, dispys have expected the world to end for a hundred years, but the world was still here the last time I checked. I think that is what Hitch is saying. Right?

It's not so unusual for Christians to expect the world to end soon. I think that feeling can be found on and off throughout history. However, this world will end someday, whether it is millions of years from now or even tomorrow.

[Hitch]

Yup

[sabertooth]

Seems like an easy straw man to knock down. Regardless of whether one likes Dispensationalism or not, that idea is taught by even non religious sects as well, not just BlackStone

[John Reece]

Seems like an easy straw man to knock down. Regardless of whether one likes Dispensationalism or not, that idea is taught by even non religious sects as well, not just BlackStone

How is it a "straw man" to point out the fact that (ever since the destruction of Jerusalem circa AD 70) all such expectations (regardless of who may have had such expectations) have always invariably proved to be unfulfilled expectations when the time span of the expectation (be it a certain year, or decade, or generation, or century, or individual's lifetime) has arrived and passed?

[Teallaura]

Because it doesn't disprove the premise, merely the specific timetables. The Empire State Building will eventually collapse. If I predict it will do so tomorrow and Saturday morning it's still there the fact that all man made structures eventually collapse* is not affected. The Empire State building is waaaay over built but even so it isn't made out of indestructible materials and the strains of wind, weather and gravity will eventually take their toll. That I cannot accurately predict the date doesn't disprove the premise nor is it compelling evidence against it.

Since this assertion is evidently offered as evidence against dispensationalism it is a straw man - it is not a valid objection to the premise.








*The pyramids are an exception because they are already effectively in a collapsed state - the shape is the same as that of mounded sand for a reason. They still weather so they aren't evidence of permanence in man made structures. So there, whichever smart alec was gonna bring them up! :teeth:

[Hitch]

Seems like an easy straw man to knock down. Regardless of whether one likes Dispensationalism or not, that idea is taught by even non religious sects as well, not just BlackStone


OK Im listening

[Hitch]

Because it doesn't disprove the premise, merely the specific timetables. The Empire State Building will eventually collapse. If I predict it will do so tomorrow and Saturday morning it's still there the fact that all man made structures eventually collapse* is not affected. The Empire State building is waaaay over built but even so it isn't made out of indestructible materials and the strains of wind, weather and gravity will eventually take their toll. That I cannot accurately predict the date doesn't disprove the premise nor is it compelling evidence against it.

Since this assertion is evidently offered as evidence against dispensationalism it is a straw man - it is not a valid objection to the premise.

Actually 'the premise' is that all the sings and all real chrustians cas an see , because obviously those who cannot are disconnected from the
Spirit, that the Empire State Building will not fall some day but it will falll very soon.

Never before all the neccessary prerequisites been in place.....


The staw here is your clumsy attempt to change the focus of the OP, that is the essence of a 'straw man' argument, to answer a question or a comment that was never made in the first place.
Of course this would be completely wrong if you could prove Blackstone's predictions actually came true. Bear in mind the Blackstone quote was chosen because of its age and the authors longterm standing in DF circles, not because of the rarity of his position.




*The pyramids are an exception because they are already effectively in a collapsed state - the shape is the same as that of mounded sand for a reason. They still weather so they aren't evidence of permanence in man made structures. So there, whichever smart alec was gonna bring them up! :teeth:

[Teallaura]

:no: Good grief.

I answered John's reasonable question. I'm going to ignore your senseless rant trying to support your straw man.

~wonders if he's going to realize any time soon that the same exact "evidence" can be used against the Second Coming despite other eschatological views~

[John Reece]

Because it doesn't disprove the premise, merely the specific timetables. The Empire State Building will eventually collapse. If I predict it will do so tomorrow and Saturday morning it's still there the fact that all man made structures eventually collapse* is not affected.

:huh:

Here is the premise of the OP:
A : Time after time, it has been asserted by some that "X" would happen SOON -- within a certain specified imminent period of time (this date, this decade, this generation, this lifetime, this century).
B : Those certain imminent periods of time have expired without "X" having occurred within the time frame asserted in A.

Thus, time after time, the assertions of A have been proven to be untrue/false/erroneous by the facts of B.

The timetables are an inherent part of the A section of the premise, which time after time are disproved by the B section of the premise.

Thus, the assumption that "X" will happen eventually is a puzzling-to-me response to the point of my post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2134440&postcount=6).

[Teallaura]

Um, John, you really sure you want to take that course? You're going to end up arguing against Christ Himself with one of your conditionals (which will drag you out of this particular - it would have validity and is rectifiable in the larger context, granted - but it's rectifiable in this one too, hence the argument strays elsewhere, namely which rectification is correct).

Nevertheless, the problem remains - individual errors/lies/stupidity do not disprove the premise that X will occur nor do they define N (the time frame). You're back to arguing what 'soon' means in Scripture and whether or not He has already been here - basically back to the dispensationalism v preterism argument. This evidence doesn't further that argument. To do that you need to demonstrate that Brother Bob had sufficient and correct knowledge to accurately predict the thing in the first place and was capable of doing so - were that true then you have evidence that there is a flaw in the position. But if you can't show Bro Bob had those things you've done no damage to the position at all - that Bro Bob is a crackpot tells us nothing about the position he's espousing. That he has a lot of crack pot cousins doesn't do any more damage - Sister Suzy, Brother Bubba and Cousin It must meet the same conditions.

Given that Christ said He didn't know the time of His Second Coming the set of conditions necessary for this to work cannot exist - if Christ didn't know then it's absurd to assume any human might (for that reason I've never understood why anyone takes these predictions seriously). Bro Bob cannot have known the time - his prediction was nothing more than a random shot in the dark and not prophesy at all. How then does his prediction have any relevance to when X should happen?

Basically, Chicken Little's inability to discern the difference between an acorn and the sky doesn't really tell us anything about whether or not the sky can actually fall.

[Hitch]

Seems like an easy straw man to knock down. Regardless of whether one likes Dispensationalism or not, that idea is taught by even non religious sects as well, not just BlackStoneReally? What 'non religeous sects' teach the imminent rapture theory?

[Hitch]

Um, John, you really sure you want to take that course? You're going to end up arguing against Christ Himself with one of your conditionals (which will drag you out of this particular - it would have validity and is rectifiable in the larger context, granted - but it's rectifiable in this one too, hence the argument strays elsewhere, namely which rectification is correct).

Nevertheless, the problem remains - individual errors/lies/stupidity do not disprove the premise that X will occur nor do they define N (the time frame). You're back to arguing what 'soon' means in Scripture and whether or not He has already been here - basically back to the dispensationalism v preterism argument. This evidence doesn't further that argument. To do that you need to demonstrate that Brother Bob had sufficient and correct knowledge to accurately predict the thing in the first place and was capable of doing so - were that true then you have evidence that there is a flaw in the position. But if you can't show Bro Bob had those things you've done no damage to the position at all - that Bro Bob is a crackpot tells us nothing about the position he's espousing. That he has a lot of crack pot cousins doesn't do any more damage - Sister Suzy, Brother Bubba and Cousin It must meet the same conditions.

Given that Christ said He didn't know the time of His Second Coming the set of conditions necessary for this to work cannot exist - if Christ didn't know then it's absurd to assume any human might (for that reason I've never understood why anyone takes these predictions seriously). Bro Bob cannot have known the time - his prediction was nothing more than a random shot in the dark and not prophesy at all. How then does his prediction have any relevance to when X should happen?

Basically, Chicken Little's inability to discern the difference between an acorn and the sky doesn't really tell us anything about whether or not the sky can actually fall.Yawn...You are aware that Blackstone was not talking about the Second Coming arent you?

[John Reece]

Um, John, you really sure you want to take that course? You're going to end up arguing against Christ Himself with one of your conditionals ...

:smile:

:nc:

See here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2135243&postcount=14).

[dizzle]

Hey I am going to pay all of you a million dollars soon.

It could by "any time now"
:rofl:

Gotta love futurism

[dizzle]

Given that Christ said He didn't know the time of His Second Coming the set of conditions necessary for this to work cannot exist

Begging the question on several levels:

It is not at all proven that the verse referred to is about the Second Coming at all

Christ being limited in His knowledge at one time does not presume that all men at all times will be so limited, as Christ Himself certainly knows now and there was a lot of further revelation since the time of the Olivet Discourse

And the Second Coming isn't what is being spoken of at all anyways, it was the nonexistent fantasy "rapture"