Conclusion

That the majority of Christianity, including many outstanding scholars and persons of Godly character, do not hold to the views presented herein, we readily admit. We do not deny that a case for Futurism can be built, but we believe that it only remains standing because it is, and must be, supported by a multitude of props, braces and reinforcements. The everyday student of the Word must rely upon the “higher” education of others to explain to them why, when they read “this generation,” it does not mean “this generation.” Theologians must enlighten the average reader as to why time statements cannot be taken at face value and show them where there are gaps that are indiscernible by a natural understanding of the text. Scholars are needed to explain why breaking the Old Testament precedents of apocalyptic language and cloud comings are justified, and not really contrary to Scripture. Elaborate schemes of partial-, double- or typical-fulfillment must be developed to explain to us why apparent fulfillments of prophecy are not the actual fulfillments. Yet we ask, where is there one Scripture that says that the apocalyptic language of the New Testament is to be understood literally? Where is there one verse that indicates that Christ was NOT to be expected within the New Testament generation? Show us from the Scriptures how the “we, you, us,” etc., are NOT the audience of the New Testament generation. (pp. 412-413)

Clearly the Apostles expected and admonished the New Testament saints to study the Word for themselves, reproving those who did not, commending those who did, and praying that the eyes of their hearts would be enlightened. Is it not then incumbent upon us to search the Scriptures to find out whether these things are so, be it Preterism or Futurism? (p. 415)