The End of All Things / C. Jonathin Seraiah

Listen to the rest of the new audiobook for The End of All Things now on Canon+: https://canonplus.com/audiobooks/55587 

What is All of Christ, for All of Life?

This podcast is an audio highlight reel: fiery debates, life-changing seminars, practical workshops, and the "best of" conferences, sermons, and audiobooks. At Canon Press, we're gospel outfitters: no matter who you are or what you do, you're called to be increasing in faithfulness. That's because Jesus's death and resurrection changed everything: All of Christ, for all of life, for all the world.

Welcome to the All of Christ for All of Life podcast brought to you by Canon Plus. This week's episode is the first chapter of The End of All Things, a Defense of the Future by C. Jonathan Saraya. Listen to the full brand new audiobook now on Canon Plus. Introduction Introduction The solace liberalism of the 19th century left many people with a firm desire to return to a solid understanding of the scriptures. But rather than returning to the sound teaching of the previous centuries, many believers sought out new teachings, especially in eschatology. We were told that all the signs of the second coming were coming to pass, and thus that Jesus was definitely going to return within a few years. This teaching spread like wildfire, due mostly to the onset of the school field reference Bible. And eventually these views took on the name dispensationalism. One of dispensationalism's foremost characteristics was and is to read all prophecies in the new and usually the Old Testament as referring to the final advent of Christ. Over the past few decades, dispensationalism itself has faced increasing critical re-evaluation. As many believers have been moved to delve deeper into the scriptural basis for dispensational teachings, they have often come to the conclusion that dispensationalism has missed the mark drastically. In addition, many of those who have done this have been discovering that both the liberals and dispensationalists were misdirected along the same path. Liberalism said Jesus was wrong to say his return was soon. Dispensationalism said Jesus never said his return was to be soon in the first century, but soon in the 20th century. Today, a growing group of evangelicals wants to take the exegetical good of both the liberals and the dispensationalists. They argue that Jesus did say his final return was in the first century, as per liberalism, and that he was right in what he said, as per dispensationalism. In their response, however, they have gone to the opposite extreme. The dispensationalists moved all the references to Jesus' coming to today. This new group wants to move all the references to Jesus' coming to the first century and say that it really did happen then. Their error is the same as that of the dispensationalists and the liberals, both of whom they want to oppose. They don't carefully let the distinctions and the references to Jesus' return speak for themselves. Both groups tend to make this debate a simplistic matter of brute logical consistency, all then, or all now. But Scripture is not that simplistic. A radical distinction. Though the dispensationalists were clearly wrong in much of their eschatology, they have maintained a belief in the final advent of Christ, a future physical resurrection, and the day of judgment. Our new group has denied the historic understanding of these doctrines. In this case, they have rejected the errors of dispensationalism for errors that are far worse. Throughout history, the primary creeds that have been used by the Spirit to unite the church, the apostles in the Nicene, have affirmed the three essential doctrines of the final advent, the physical resurrection, and the day of judgment. This is certainly not to be taken lightly. This new teaching I speak of strongly desires to separate itself from the sort of exegetical fallacies in the writings of how Lindsay and the like. One of those within dispensationalism are seeing the need to rethink much of what has been taught for years now. I can attest to this situation in my own life. I started off as a dispensationalist. It was the only thing I had heard at first. As years went by, I began to recognize that the Scriptures did not support what I believed. I began a long and slow journey to find what the Scriptures really did say about the second coming. After years of prayer and study, I too have found myself disagreeing with dispensationalism on numerous grounds. Pantalism The new teaching which has a risen in response to dispensationalism has been referred to by its adherence as fulfilled eschatology, and sometimes as consistent preterism, preter means past. Of course, no one wants to be inconsistent, so they have made their opponents position in error by definition. Preterism communication can occur much more easily if we accept terms that appropriately define where we stand. In addition, the position presented in this book is that they are only consistent in most cases within their own system, which is not difficult. You merely relegate everything in Scripture to the past before you examine it. They are not consistent with Scripture itself. Preterist is obviously insufficient as a term for this group, because they themselves find the need to add qualifiers like consistent to it. Therefore, desiring to make an easy reference to this group that they themselves might accept, I shall refer to this movement as pantalism, from the Greek words meaning all is completed, and I will use the term preterism exclusively for those who hold that most of the eschatology of the New Testament is past. Since the term preterist refers to the past, and pantalist clearly means all is past, and the term preterist has not been used historically to refer to pantalists, I believe this is a fair distinction. I have done this with a desire to distinguish these two groups and to make their individual stances more clear in their names. We must remember here that in a certain sense, every Christian is preterist. What makes us Christians is that we believe the prophecy about the first coming of the Messiah is past. Every Christian has at least some preterist beliefs. Thus, preterist is an insufficient term to describe those who hold that all of the prophecies of the Bible were fulfilled by AD 70. It is true that the eschatology of the New Testament is predominantly preterist. For those unfamiliar with the preterist perspective, it is the ancient view that many of the eschatological passages of the New Testament were fulfilled completely in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. As you may sound novel, but in reality there have been orthodox adherence to it throughout church history. EG, Clemente V Alexandria, Eusebius, John Lightfoot, John Owen, Milton Terry, J. Adams. This interpretation does not deny the final coming of Christ. It merely finds that not all coming passages refer to that event. The preterist interpretation is actually the most faithful to the biblical text, because it recognizes that Old Testament prophetic terminology was used by the New Testament authors. This recognition is helpful in distinguishing the prophecies of Christ's coming that were near in the first century and thus fulfilled in AD 70 from those that were far and thus not yet fulfilled even in our day. It also helps to distinguish between a spiritual coming invisible for temporal judgment as in AD 70 and a physical coming visible for eternal judgment. It is not true, however, that the eschatology of the New Testament is exclusively preterist. Some prophecies are yet to be fulfilled. But the pantalists have gone so far as to deny the final advent of Christ at the end of the world, and end accompanied by the final physical resurrection and judgment day. In addition, most have gone on to deny there is a future eternal state. In other words, this is eternity now. We go on like this forever. It is not my desire to ignore the works of those who have gone before me who have put forward an orthodox understanding of the final advent of Christ. It is my desire, however, to state that those who are heterodox need to be shown as such and should not be allowed to proclaim heresy as truth within the Church of Jesus Christ. Theological ramifications Many within the Church today find the active departing from various doctrines of the historic Christian faith to be of no terrific consequence. I am not saying one needs to have all of his eschatological ducks in a row in order to be saved. There are many Christians I admire very much who might believe to be wrong in their understanding of eschatology. The issue involved here is that all doctrines, no matter how obscure, affect our relationship with God in some way. If a Christian believes the Bible says the world will be completely destroyed tomorrow, he will act in certain ways he would not act if he believed the world was not going to end until long after his death. Our salvation is not, of course, based on our understanding of the events related to the first or second coming of Christ. Our salvation is based on what Christ did at his first coming and through our faith in him. Pantelism, however, is a teaching, growing in evangelical circles today that can be called nothing other than heresy, and the ramifications of this teaching are not only dangerous for individuals, but destructive to the Church of Jesus Christ. Chapter 1 Historical Implosibilities When we first consider Pantelist assumptions, we find a basic point that is difficult for any Christian to accept. Their contention, whether expressed verbally or not, that the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years about such a major doctrine as the final advent, and only recently has anyone figured out what the Bible was really saying. The presumption about one's abilities that it takes to affirm something of this sort is incredibly high. They are essentially saying the Holy Spirit was unable to properly teach the Church what was really involved in the second coming, or was unwilling, and for some bizarre reason decided to leave the Church in the dark and allow her to promote errant theology for 2,000 years. The primary danger of this belief is in what else it may allow. We will find out tomorrow that the Church has been wrong about the deity of Christ. I certainly do not want to say that the majority rules when it comes to Christian truth. I also, however, do not want to say the Holy Spirit died, at least with respect to eschatology, with the last apostle, and was resurrected when the first Pantelist came on the scene. The history of the Church, although not a history of perfectly inspired actions and beliefs, is still the history of the Holy Spirit. He continues to work in the children of God, drawing them closer and closer to Christ-likeness in both thought and deed. The maturity of the Church According to Pantelism, all things must have been fulfilled by AD 70. This would include passages like Ephesians 4, 11-13 denoting the perfection of our knowledge of Christ, and 1 Corinthians 13, 9, and 10 denoting the same thing in different terms, in their entirety. This would lead us to a firm, by Pantelist assumptions, that our knowledge was made perfect in an absolute sense, meaning it cannot have anything lacking or an error. The Pantelist must be unwilling to allow that anything about the perfection of the Church still awaits us today. If there is anything left unfulfilled by AD 70, then the Pantelist has dug himself a hole too big to get out of, without giving up his Pantelism. Thus, given their framework, the Church was brought to a perfect knowledge of Christ in all forms, Scripture, Tradition, Individual Understanding, etc. This is hard enough to swallow by itself, but in addition, if this is so, how did the Church so quickly, once again according to Pantelism, lose that perfect knowledge and fall into error by affirming a final coming of Christ after AD 70? Either her knowledge was perfect and she didn't fall into error, or her knowledge wasn't perfect, and thus there are things left unfulfilled in the first century. Some can't have it both ways. Another problem with the 2,000 years of error notion is that the generation of Christians who had seen and heard the teaching of the Apostles themselves must have suddenly changed their position on the second coming from what the Apostles had taught them. They therefore delved into wholesale apostasy in regard to one of the most important teachings of the Apostles, rather quickly after AD 70, perhaps while some of the Apostles were still alive. Apostle John is universally reported by Church tradition to have survived till at least the end of the first century. On Pantelist grounds, they were still waiting for Christ to come when he had already done so and was not going to do so again. If there were any who would have known well the teachings of the Apostles, it would have been the pastors and elders of the churches, the very ones who had opportunity to preach and write against it. To say the church forgot what she was taught and underwent a radical change in belief of these proportions is an amazing assertion that cannot stand without some historical evidence. The church has certainly seen times of deep error, but she has never gone for long without a testimony of the truth. The Pantelists want to say the church went without a true testimony for even the basics of eschatology for 2,000 years. This is indeed an amazing presumption. The church fathers At this point, it is important to point directly to what the early church believed in regard to eschatology. There is no doubt that many in the early church held to a preterest perspective of various scriptures, and the work of those who have shown this to be so will not be repeated here. This is not my point of contention. We seek rather to see whether the church held also to a coming of Christ that was future to them. Let's therefore examine the evidence for the early church's belief in a yet-to-acura physical coming of Christ, i.e. post-870, as well as the attendant physical resurrection and judgment day. First Clement The writing of first Clement is usually dated around 895 or 96. Though a case can be made to date it as early as the late 60s, the note of the neuronian persecution being in the past seems to place the book after this event. Either way, it is clear was written closely within the time of the apostles. The note that some of those appointed by the apostles are still living gives credence to a date most probably within the first century. The possibility of an early date will not be ignored. This is one of the reasons why we have chosen to cover Clement first. If he was writing before 870 then some, though not all, of what is referred to below, may actually be speaking about the destruction of Jerusalem. This point is therefore acknowledged at the beginning. Most of what is said below will assume a post-70 date for the book. We find an examining first Clement at the author, whose name we shall assume to have in Clement, though the book itself does not give this name, gives us a testimony that is quite helpful for our discussion. Clement was most assuredly alive at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, even if he did write him in 90s, and thus yet at least some background knowledge of the event surrounding it, not to mention the numerous prophecies about it that even non-prederists cannot deny. It is therefore intriguing to find that he is still looking forward to the return of Christ and its concurrent developments. First, we find his interpretation of Psalm 1101, 1 Corinthians 1525, and other like passages, which say that the Father told Jesus, sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool, Ephesus' mind. In 365 Clement refers to this as justification for not being one of Christ's enemies. As he believes Christ is still upon his throne, waiting for all of his enemies to be made his footstool, most particularly the last enemy, death, which according to pantilism, has already happened. If Christ is viewed by Clement as still on his throne, then according to the full context in 1 Corinthians 1523-26, he believed the end and the coming of Christ that Paul is referring to had not yet come in his day. It also makes specific mention of a future day of judgment. In 281 and 2, Clement refers to being sheltered by his mercy from the judgment to come. This shelter is desired because God is omniscient, and nothing that we do is unknown to him. Though he is definitely referring to this quotation of Psalm 191-3 in the previous chapter, one can also easily see an allusion to Romans 216, the day when God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. Once again, he is viewing the judgment as including all the deeds of all men everywhere, not just the deeds of those Jews in Jerusalem. We also can clearly find Clement's belief that there was to be a future physical resurrection. In 241, Clement makes clear reference to a future resurrection of which he has made the first fruits by raising the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead. He is obviously alluding to 1 Corinthians 1523 here, which is another indication of the future coming of Christ in Clement's mind. This is because we are told plainly by Paul that it is that Christ's coming that he will resurrect believers. Christ the first fruits, then it is coming those who belong to Christ. Paul's and Clement's association between Christ's resurrection and that of the believers, which will be examined below in detail, shows they are of the same nature, physical. Also in 261, Clement notes that it is obvious God will bring about the resurrection of those who serve Him in holiness, again the resurrection is seen as both physical and in the future. Similarly, we can find an allusion to 1 John 3-3 where the apostle is speaking of a hope in the future resurrection that purifies the individual. In 271, Clement says, in this hope, then, let our souls be bound to Him. He had just quoted Job 1926 in the previous chapter, which speaks of God raising up this flesh which has endured all these things. And so Clement maintains the flow of thought by saying the soul hopes to be reunited with the flesh in the future. Clement following John, taught us to hope in a physical resurrection. We shall be like Him, 1 John 3-2, and this hope in a right understanding of the resurrection has a purifying affect on the believer. Second Clement This letter, probably not written by the same author as 1st Clement, is difficult to date. The most probable date is somewhere between AD 10150, and even this date has opposition from various sources. It is obvious that this book does not have the situation we find with 1st Clement. The date of this letter is most definitely after the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore any belief the author has of a future return of Christ, resurrection, and judgment will be highly significant for this study. In 174 the author quotes Isaiah 66-18, I am coming to gather all nations and tongues. The author's words are as follows. For the Lord said, I come to gather all the nations, tribes, and languages. By this he means the day of his appearing when he will come and ransom each of us according to our works. He hear gathers together the future coming of Christ and the judging of all men. What is most significant here is that the passage in Isaiah refers to all nations being gathered before the Lord. This is entirely different from the passages that refer solely to the destruction of Jerusalem in the 1st century. The issue in 1870 was the judgment of the single nation of Israel, not the judgment of all nations, i.e. all people. All nations, or Gentiles, have not yet been gathered before Christ to be judged by Him. A few other references help focus on future judgment even more clearly. While discussing the need for good deeds in his hearers, our author reminds them that there is a coming day of judgment. It is on this particular day that the author says there shall be made manifest the secret and open deeds of men. A final important passage on this subject is just a few verses after the previous one. Still discussing the need for repentance from evil deeds, the author says that the statement their warm shall not die and their fire shall not be quenched, Isaiah 66.24, is a reference to what will occur in the future on the day of judgment. 1756, this also is not merely a temporal judgment, as the destruction of Jerusalem was in the 1st century. The author speaks of the wicked being punished with terrible torture and unquenchable fire, 177. He says this is seen by the righteous who are being blessed. The pains of a temporal torture can easily be quenched when the person dies. The pains, however, of an eternal punishment are never quenched. Once again our author is alluding to a judgment that ushers in an experience of eternity, not merely something that pertains to this life. In referring to his own position in this need for personal piety, the author gives one primary reason for his effort to pursue righteousness. It is because of his fear of the judgment to come, 182. He knows that even though judgment was poured out on Israel one last time, there is still a judgment to be brought on all mankind in the future. The future resurrection was another hope of the author of Second Clement. Near the end of his letter, or possibly sermon, he seeks to encourage those who are enduring affliction in his day. He tells him they have the hope of the immortal fruit of the resurrection, 193. His description of this involves a time of blessedness, and he says those resurrected will live again in eternity where there is no sorrow, 194. This is unmistakably the same as the Orthodox doctrine of the future resurrection. In an earlier chapter of the book, the author warns his heirs against denying either the future resurrection or the judgment, 9-1. He then goes on to prove that this is true, based at least partly on the fact that Christ himself had physical flesh, 9-5. Thus he viewed our resurrection as relating to our physical nature and not merely as something spiritual. Ignatius of Antioch Let us now turn to Ignatius. Though an exact date is impossible, there is today unanimity that Ignatius was writing sometime between 107 and 117. Thus we once again have a situation different from what we have with First Clement. If Ignatius looked forward to a coming of Christ, there is no doubt it was post-AD70. In examining Ignatius' thought, however, we have more than one letter to use for information. There are seven letters he wrote to churches and individuals. Despite this, I shall not be examining them independently since they were written at the same time. After rejecting the view of those who said that Christ only appeared to suffer, dosatism, Ignatius says, I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection. First epistle to the Smyrnians 3-1. And gives an argument for this belief from the testimony of the Gospels. In a later note, Ignatius says that Christ's resurrection was of flesh. First epistle to the Smyrnians 12-2. To again point out that it was not merely a spiritual event. This shows us that Ignatius definitely views Christ's resurrection as physical, and this helps us to understand how he views the resurrection of all believers. In a separate letter, Ignatius mentions that Christ was truly raised from the dead. This leads him to point out that, in the same manner, believers will someday be raised from the dead. First epistle to the tralians 9-2. In other words, Ignatius states he is waiting for a resurrection of all believers that is of the same nature Christ was, physical, eternal, and in defeat of physical death. Polycarp Our next church father is Polycarp, whom tradition attests to have been a disciple of the Apostle John himself. We have only one of Polycarp's letters to use as a source of his thought, but as we will see, that one letter provides a wealth of information for the topic at hand. Polycarp's letter to the church at Philippi is commonly dated around AD 110 for various reasons within the text itself. Most specifically, we can date it after the death of Paul because of the clear reference to his death. Remembering the situation we saw with Clement of Rome and his understanding of 1 Corinthians 1525, we find a similar situation in Polycarp. In 2-1, Polycarp notes that Christ is, in Polycarp's day, still on his throne at the right hand of God Almighty. He has thus not yet come and brought the end, as for the reference Paul makes in Corinthians. Within the same verse, Polycarp also says that Christ is the judge of the living and of the dead, whose blood God will require from them who disobey Him. The word Polycarp uses for require is a simple future tense. He expected this still to happen. Within the same context, 2-2, Polycarp makes mention of his belief that believers will be resurrected as Christ was. Now he who raised him from the dead will also raise us up. This is again a future event he is looking forward to. Thus, within one passage we find Polycarp declaring his convictions that, 1, Christ was yet to come again, 2, there was yet to be a judgment day for all mankind, and 3, there was yet to be a physical resurrection. Later, Polycarp again makes reference to his belief in a future resurrection. He says that to those who prove themselves faithful and true believers, God has promised resurrection, including himself in that group, and thus denoting it as future to himself, he says God will raise us from the dead, 5-2. In another place, Polycarp points again to the future judgment. He now causes readers to live a life of holiness and to forgive others. Polycarp's argument is based on our asking God to forgive us, since he sees all that we do when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ, 6-2. Polycarp, however, goes even one step further in his beliefs. He continues with the context we have just mentioned, and states that anyone who denies there is a resurrection on judgment, unequivocally future, as is seen above, is the first born of Satan, 7-1. To say Polycarp viewed the resurrection, judgment day, and as a result, the final advent, as crucial doctrines that a person cannot deny without peril to his salvation, is not going too far. Epistle of Barnabas We move next to the Epistle of Barnabas. Whether it was really written by the Barnabas of Acts 436 is unknown and also highly doubtful. Its date is commonly given as after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70. Beyond that, it is difficult to put a specific date on the letter. The allegorical approach it takes in a number of passages raises questions for some. This must be admitted at the start. We are therefore looking for teaching that is outside of this allegorical arena. This will be difficult as this is the primary support for much of the author's doctrine. What we should remember is that one's method of proving what one believes is not the same as the beliefs themselves. Many theologians of the early church used questionable methods to prove the deity of Christ. It is certainly acceptable to say the author was top things by people who used theological disciplines other than allegory, and that he later came into the allegorical method by which he proves his beliefs. Either way, we shall see that the author of the epistle of Barnabas agrees with the other church fathers in the area of the final advent, resurrection, and judgment day. The coming of Christ is not a common reference in the epistle, yet we often do find it's concomitant events mentioned. There is, however, one reference that clearly mentions the final advent of Christ. In 155 he writes, when his son comes he will destroy the time of the wicked one and will judge the Godless, and then he will truly rest. Once again this event is looked forward to by the author as future. In this context he is connecting the coming of Christ with judgment day. It also has a reference that can easily be seen to refer to an end of this present world and the beginning of eternity. When we enjoy true rest because we have been made righteous ourselves and have received the promise when there is no more sin but all things have been made new by the Lord, 157. There are also a number of references to judgment in the epistle that are important for our discussion. We shall merely quote them below. The Lord will judge the world without respect to persons, for twelve. The Son of God is destined to judge the living and the dead, seven two. The wicked shall not rise up in judgment, eleven seven, cross reference Psalm 1.5. Thus shall remember the day of judgment day and night and thus shall seek each day the Society of Saints, 1910. And be taught of God, seeking out what the Lord requires from you, and see the ebe found faithful in the day of judgment, 216. The author is evidently concerned about a future day when both he and his readers were to be judged by Christ Almighty for their deeds. This is more significant when we realize the letter firmly emphasizes that the international church is the true heir to the promises of God. Writing after the destruction of Jerusalem, he knows the Jews have already received a full temporal judgment upon their entire nation. He is waiting for a future judgment that is on a larger scale than that experienced by Israel. There are also two clear references that connect the resurrection with a judgment as concurrent events in the future. He views them as two parts of one event. The glorious resurrection is for the faithful and the fearful judgment is for the wicked. This is perfectly in accord with the Scriptures. Resurrection is used almost exclusively for true believers, whereas judgment is used almost exclusively for the lost. He himself will raise the dead and judge the risen by seven. It is good, therefore, that he who has learned the ordinances of the Lord as many as have been written should walk in them, for he who does these things shall be glorified in the Kingdom of God, and he who chooses the others shall perish with his works. For this reason, there is a resurrection. For this reason, there is a recompense. 21-1 It is evident from these references that the author of the Epistle of Bartobus believed there was a day in the future when Christ would return and bring both physical resurrection and judgment upon all men. Thus he stands in firm agreement with the rest of the Church fathers we have noted. Shepherd of Hermas As before, the author of this famous work is unknown. The standard date accepted is between AD 140 and 154. Though there are some who posit dates such as the mid-80s and late 90s, there are no notable scholars who place it before 70. There is, however, evidence to claim it was definitely written after the book of Revelation. Thus for those holding to the view of this book, Preterism, this gives even more weight to the shepherd's testimony. There are only two references that are helpful in this work, but the first is especially helpful. The first reference is to Judgment Day. The author specifically warns his readers to look to the coming Judgment. Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3, Commandment 9, Similitude 5. His context is clearly in the realm of a future Judgment for all men for their deeds. He is discussing a future Judgment he and his readers will participate in, and he hopes to be able to give a good account of them on that day. What is even more significant here, though, is what word the author uses to refer to the Lord's coming? By common pantalist interpretation, whenever this word appears in the New Testament, since they view it strictly as a technical term, it is definitely referring to the coming of Christ in the first century. If the shepherd was writing post-70 and uses the book of Revelation in certain instances, then it is clear the author did not consider this word to be limited in reference to Christ's coming to Judge Ancient Israel. He obviously believed Christ was going to come again, on some day future to him, to judge the world. Why the Confucian of Passages? At this point it's pertinent to state the reason the early church made a mistake with regard to certain texts of Scripture. It is evident why the apostles taught both about the coming of Christ in the first century, as well as the final advent of Christ to judge all men, not just Israel, at the end of history. It took years, however, for all of the texts of the New Testament to be copied and then circulated among all the churches. During this time it was already believed, based on the verbal teaching of the apostles, that Christ was to return on some unknown day in the future to judge all men. Thus, when the numerous texts of the Scriptures did get into the hands of churches that had not seen some of these texts ever before, probably towards the end of the first century, but definitely after the year 70, they began to misinterpret the texts that refer to the judgment on Israel in 70, as being the same as the texts that refer to the final advent of Christ at the end of the world. Clearly, not all of them did this. He plainly did view correctly numerous prophecies as related into Christ's destruction of Jerusalem. If, however, the apostles never taught about a final advent, why did the church misinterpret only some of the texts? Conclusion With the above evidence, it is clear the early church, late first century to early second century, either forgot the final advent had already happened, or were never taught that by the apostles, either through negligence or intent. It is difficult to imagine such an essential doctrine as the second coming of Christ could be taught in such a poor fashion that the church fathers forgot the truth. Hence, if they were not taught that the only coming of Christ was to be against Jerusalem in 8070, and we hold to apostolic authority in all doctrine, we are not going to allow that this occurred because of negligence in the apostles' teaching efforts. We have therefore only one conclusion. It was their intent not to teach this. The apostles taught, through their words as well as their writings, that there was a coming of Christ other than the one prophesied to come in 8070, which was to be at the end of the world and would include a physical resurrection of all men and an eternal judgment of the same. Now, the question we must ask of the pantalist is, how did the church forget that the final judgment and resurrection had already occurred and that there was to be no future coming of Christ after 70, if the apostles had taught pantalism as clearly as the pantalist urges? In fact, how is it that if the apostles and prophets had never taught that there was going to be a final coming of Christ at the end of the world, along with the resurrection and judgment, how could those who had supposedly never heard it so quickly invent such heresy? If you enjoyed this episode, check out the full brand new audiobook of The End of All Things, A Defense of the Future by C. Jonathan Saraya, available now on Ken and Plus.