Previous      Home         Next      Table of Contents

  9.  The Second Coming “Realized”          

            There is one other doctrine I wish to introduce which has been significantly reinterpreted.  This is the doctrine of Jesus’ second coming.  It must be acknowledged that when the divinity of Jesus, his substitutionary work on the cross, are changed, the second physical return of Jesus will also be denied.  If one wonders how this critical point is reinterpreted, one does not have to go far to find the answer.  James Fowler discusses the eschatological nature of the gospel as being one of many expressions of the “ultimate environment.”

                        Metaphors, symbols, concepts - and many, many other kinds of

                        representations - serve to bring our shared image of an ultimate

                        environment to expression.  The lasting world religious traditions

                        prove again and again to be the lively custodians of truthful image 

                        of the ultimate environment.  They awaken persons to an imaginal

                        grasp of the ultimate conditions of existence and enable them to

                        celebrate or assent to the visions of transcendent value and power

                        they mediate.  (p. 29)

The idea inherent in this quotation is that the “New Jerusalem” is a metaphor for the ultimate environment which man has the potential to actualize.  This being the case, values may be drawn from the Christian tradition, as well as other religious expressions, to determine what man is capable of realizing.  As a result, the actual physical return of Jesus into the history of man is denied as superstitious.  What is important is what this return symbolizes to man (Interesting enough, at this point the reinterpeters seem to be just one step away from a full embracement of “New Age” goals and beliefs).

            The catch word which becomes important when speaking of the eschatological nature of the gospel is “realized.”  In other words, there is much in the New Testament which speaks of the Kingdom of God being already “realized” in the life of the believer.  Thus, when a person commits himself to a responsible and conscious goal of actualization, the person begins to realize the Kingdom of God on earth.  The stress becomes on realizing this now and not looking forward to some type of way out of the world, via rapture.  This would be to live inauthentically and unresponsively to the potential one has now.  I grant that there is a sense in which the new-born child of God realizes something of the Kingdom of God.  However, this realization is always partial and incomplete.  It waits its full realization with the return of Jesus and the subsequent glorification of the saints.  This is why Peter encouraged his listeners to preserve in the faith and the hope of their calling knowing that they would receive the crown of life in heaven.  It is significant that Peter did not insist that they merely get on with their life and reach their potential so that the Kingdom of God would be realized on earth.

            When asked about the purpose of all the references to the second coming of Christ, the existentialist will speak of the “future” which confronts the believer now.  Revelation is symbolic of the future which is possible in God.  In other words, the future vision of what man can be, what he envisions as being possible, is what is meant by the idea of a “second coming.”  No doubt this will be the time when the spirit of the “New Being” will rule.  Only in this scheme it will not be Jesus Christ but man corporately.  What becomes important for the present, then, is to stress the idea of man committing themselves to this ideal by emphasizing their obligations and responsibilities to fellow man.  James Coleman defines this as an emphasis of existentialism.

                        For there is a basic unity to humankind, and all people are faced with

                        the task of learning to live constructively with themselves and others.

                        Hence, there will be an underlying continuity in the value patterns

                        chosen by different individuals who are trying to live authentically.

                           Existentialists also place a strong emphasis on our obligations to

                        each other....Our lives can be fulfilling only if they involve socially

                        constructive values and choices.  (p.  71)

Other statements suggest that this “realized” potential of world actualization is not only possible, but is what God desires of man.

                        But God still holds faith that, in collaboration with the general vision,

                        we can make of our particular lives and of our world something that

                        will honor the Creator.  God still believes in us and therefore is

                        continually working to heal the inner split, to reconcile the division,

                        to restore the unobscured and clear image in which we are made....

                        In collaboration with God we can put our lives back on course.  That

                        which is awry can be recentered.  (Sparkman,  p.30)

Does this not suggest that the world can achieve its actualization by collaborating toward the “general vision”?  This sounds as if man’s faith in Jesus is not what brings victory over Satan.  Rather, God believes we can do it.  Is this the biblical view of man?  It seems to me that man has from the time of Babel been trying to reach the vision of glory.  However, history has proven man will fail at this attempt.  It will be a physical return of Jesus with His armies which shall put down all powers which have exalted themselves against God.  Such positive preaching in the power of man may be popular, given man’s self-seeking nature to think the best of himself.  However, it does little to help sinners see that their only hope is in the historical Jesus Christ and His work upon the cross.

            It must be stated in conclusion, salvation is by grace.  This means it is a gift of life given from without.  Scripture equally affirms that all will not partake of God’s salvation.  There is an election and calling involved which is one of the greatest mysteries concerning God’s purpose.  It is also true that all man can be or know is found in the blessings and privileges of Jesus Christ.  he is the fullness and man is complete in him.  I do not desire to deny or hold back each believer from becoming everything God would desire of the, or of coming to a full experiential understanding who Jesus Christ is.  However, I do not wish to see this potential or actualization, if I may borrow a term, bring glory to man.  There is so much flesh and man-glorying in the church today that the heathen laugh at our calamity with joy.  It is time for the church to awaken to its commission and responsibility to the truths which have been entrusted to it.  They are not for personal advantage, but are to be used in service to God to accomplish what Jesus commanded the church to do.  It is to the truth of God’s Word that the church is to be an ambassador, no to man’s reinterpretations, visions of the future, or what man thinks God is saying.   It is to the foolishness of the cross that the church is to be willing to give everything within its power to see that its message is proclaimed world-wide.  May I suggest that while most of the evangelical church’s are busy becoming actualized, the rest of the world is going to an eternal hell.  The only way to stem this departure is to return to the faith and practice of “sola Scriptura” in which, whether a person feels that being obedient will help him reach his potential or not, individuals humble themselves to its truths and commands.  It is only when this is done that true unity in Jesus can truly be had.  Any other type of union is union around man or one of his inventions.

            One other comment is in order at this point.  I know that many will say that they do not deny the truths of Scripture, such as Jesus’ divinity or His second coming.  However, let the reader not be so naive that he fails to examine just how Scriptural his approach is to the Bible and to the goals which are envisioned.  I have found that even among those who claim to believe in the historicity of the biblical claims that at the point of evangelism they have become directed toward the goals which have been reinterpreted from God’s Word.  Equally, others, while adhering to the idea of objectively submitting to God’s Word, have actually let the opinions of professors, books, commentaries, and friends to guide their interpretations.  This is why some aspects of the Bible are dismissed so quickly as being only for the first century or the Jewish world.  The only way for the Christian to be truly biblical in his approach is to see what Scripture says about Scripture.  Then he will have reason for holding on to the wheat and sifting out the chaff, like the polygamous marriages found in the Old Testament.

            I equally realize that there are varying degrees of departure from good biblical interpretation.  I have chosen to primarily expose in this section some of the most extreme reinterpretations in order to show how far the departure can go.  While on may not have reached the extremes of existential belief, this is the end and full measure of the approach which begins with subjecting the Bible to man.  The question is where will the line be drawn on what to accept and what authority will be used to determine this line.  Of course, there is no such line provided for man other than those he has imagined.

            One point I wish to return to is the existential idea of God.  As we have seen, the existentialist need for a God is more from necessity than a conclusion drawn from revelation.  Further, this God has been redefined to mean such things as the “ground and source of being.”  We also have seem that to participate in the “New Being” is to suggest that man can become divine.  The point I wish to make is that the God portrayed in this scheme and the commitment to Him is not the God of Scripture.  In fact, the God of this scheme sounds more like a pantheistic force or dynamic in the life of creation.  His image becomes more vague and uncertain since it is believed that man cannot know Him who is infinite.  I am not surprised by this however.  I am sure that Satan knows that man needs to be committed to something.  Why not take the concept of God, a concept which is connected with good connotations, and get man to commit himself to Him.  Only, this God is stripped of His revealed attributes and titles. He is equally surrounded in vagueness and mystery.  Then set forth certain a priori values which are supposed to be representative of this God.  When this is done and biblical truth demythologized, the man can actually be worshipping man and his potential rather than the God of revelation.  Does this sound ridiculous and impossible?  It is not only possible, it has been done.  My charge to you is “choose this day whom you will serve!”

 Previous      Home         Next       Table of Contents

© CopyRight 2002 Scott R. Simpson