Matthew 24 - Transition or Not? Pt. 4

"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." (Hebrews 9:28)

When it comes to developing particular ideology concerning something as important as the cardinal doctrine of Christ's Second Coming, it would behoove us to at the very least consult antiquity on the matter.

Everyone in the Church likes to think that their doctrine is Apostolic. However, if so many people tend to believe so many things, the truth is that we are all wrong on some points, and are correct in others.

Thus, the closer to the apostles that we can get, the closer to the right ideas we can get. This is not to say that the Early Church was correct about everything they believed. However, it is sheer folly to think that they were so close to the purest form of doctrine, and yet somehow were so misguided about everything.

When we take an honest gander at the Early Church, we find that although no system of eschatology was fully developed by any stretch of the imagination, there were two views that were indeed prevalent. Those two hermeneutics were Historic Premillennialism and what we now call "Historic" Preterism.

Without a doubt, Historic Premillennialism was the most prevalent view of the Early Church. We should as honestly as possible, and without as much bias as possible, ask the question, "What did the earliest Christians believe about the Second Coming of Christ?"

This carries with it extreme logical reasons. It is the same idea as with Moses. We all know and understand that, until Moses wrote it down, ideas such as the Creation, to which Moses was not a first-hand party, were passed down orally. It is a credit to the truth of Creation that virtually every culture in the world has some variation of the creation account.

Therefore, the earliest Christians believed much of what they believed because that is what had been handed down to them by previous generations. Although something is true ultimately because it is supported in Scripture, one cannot seriously think that one is more "super-spiritual" than anyone else when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Even Luther, who developed the idea of Sola Scriptura, never intended for people to read the Bible in a vacuum. Luther intended for men to interpret the Bible through the lens of the orthodox Church.

In the next post, I will, as briefly as possible, compare these two oldest views of the Olivet Discourse, and find comparisons that we should consider before making a decision.

Here is the ultimate reality for anyone who is honest: The Bible can logically be interpreted a great many ways that make logical sense. Even hyperpreterists can present a logical argument from the Bible. My mom used to say to Jehovah's Witnesses that came knocking at our door, "You can make the Bible say that it's a sin to cut wood, for the Bible says 'What God has joined together let no man put assunder.'"

So it ultimately comes down to a matter of stubborn conviction. It comes down to saying "This is what I believe, and why I believe it. Period." Yes, the Bible can perhaps be interpreted differently, and certainly is. However, we must ultimately come down to the place where we find the best argument and hold on to it for dear life. If not we are "tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine."