I have heard that the Second Coming of Christ is divided into two stages. Is this true and, if so, what are they?
The Second Coming of Christ in evangelical theology is often divided into 2 phases: (1) the Second Coming for the Church (the Rapture); (2) the Second Coming to reign.
The Blessed Hope of the Church is clearly the Rapture (see Titus 2:13). Assemblies of God theologians see this as the first phase of the Second Coming. The Assemblies of God perspective is presented in this excerpt from Bible Doctrines by William W. Menzies and Stanley M. Horton:
The definition of the term “Second Coming” is broad, used in at least two different ways. Sometimes this term is used of the total end-time drama, encompassing both the rapture of the Church and the revelation of Christ in triumphant glory (2 Thessalonians 1:7), when He will stand on the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14:4). Sometimes the term is used specifically of the revelation of Christ, in distinction to the Rapture, which precedes it. The first phase of the Second Coming, then, used in this broader sense, refers to the rapture of the Church.
William W. Menzies and Stanley M. Horton, Bible Doctrines (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1993), p. 216.
Ken Horn
Read Full Post »
Categories: Church, ecclesiology, Christianity | February 7th, 2008 | by Ken Horn | 2 comments
I have heard that AG churches should not have religious sounding names. Is this true,and if so, why are we doing this? Should we rename the Assemblies Of God?
Editor’s note: This is an editorial response since there is no straight biblical answer on the topic.
One of the goals of the church is to reach the unsaved and the unchurched. To this end, many pastors and congregations have opted for names that they feel are more inviting to the general populace. In the ’60s and ’70s, there was a movement away from the then typical names: “First Assembly of God,” etc. Many churches became “Christian Center” or something similar. AG churches used to use the word “Temple” a lot. That gave way to “Community Church,” etc. Today, even many of the biggest seeker-sensitive churches use the word “Church” in their name, along with a descriptive word of the location. A few churches have gone to names that do not incorporate anything religious.
I don’t have a beef with anybody’s name. What I do have a problem with is when a church is trying to “trick” people with their name or lack of full disclosure. I don’t believe the name “Assemblies of God” needs to be in the title of a local AG church. But I have seen AG churches that try to keep people from knowing they are AG or Pentecostal. They have the philosophy that people are more likely to attend a church that is not tied to a large fellowship or denomination. I believe this is inherently dishonest.
And, no, we shouldn’t rename the AG. “Assemblies of God” is just fine, and all our churches, while they don’t need to include it in their name, should make it clear they are Assemblies of God. If they don’t … then why are they (AG)?
Ken Horn
Read Full Post »