Showing posts with label premillennialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label premillennialism. Show all posts
Saturday, October 8, 2022
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Revelation: A Testimony of Jesus Christ
I'm regularly alerted to all kinds of eschatological (and other) teachings on YouTube. Some of it isn't bad and some highly commendable. Other material ought to be avoided. Bad examples can be found in all groups. On the pretribulational side I can cite the Sep 23, 2017 fiasco, and more.
I was made aware of a popular posttrib ministry which seeks to correct myths regarding Revelation and end times through its teaching series and books. It infers that people believe what they believe because they've not bothered checking their Bibles. And perhaps their pastors haven't either. On the other hand, this ministry purports to have diligently studied Scripture. After some samplings, I'm not impressed.
Two pretrib "myths" highlighted were: only the first four chapters of Revelation are intended "for the church"; and the church isn't present for most of the time span of the book.
Whether the church is present or not during the bad stuff is a hotly debated issue. A well-argued differing point of view should be engaged rather than relegated to the myth pile. Revelation was written for everyone, regardless of their eschatological position. It is Jesus' testimony and warning to the world. Jesus is its focus. Believers throughout the centuries have gone to be with the Lord. While many weren't premillennial, most would have still drawn comfort from God's revealed plan for the redeemed.
And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Rev 21:3-4
While I have several commentaries on Revelation, the one I most often go to is Tony Garland's A Testimony of Jesus Christ. It is from a pretribulational standpoint. The fact that it can be read online for free, isn't a testimony to its value (no pun intended). I may not necessarily agree with everything, but he frames his arguments very well. The work is a goldmine of notes and resources. It stands shoulder to shoulder against Robert L. Thomas' Two Volume Commentary.
The same cannot be said for most of these YouTube commentaries. I can hear some complain that this is just another pretrib commentary. Well, Tony has put a lot of work into it and it deserves attention. My suggestion to those who gripe that their points of views aren't presented is to to roll up their sleeves and produce something worthy of consideration. YouTube just doesn't cut it. Moreover the one or two online written commentaries I've seen don't have the depth (IMO) of Tony Garland's work. Depth alone doesn't guarantee correctness. But it does demonstrate the effort expended.
Read A Testimony of Jesus Christ (Tony is also working on a commentary on Daniel)
P.S. Rev 4 is sometimes offered as a proof text for pretribulationism. I disagree. Even so, I thought this Triablogue article was uplifting - especially coming from a CT person.
I was made aware of a popular posttrib ministry which seeks to correct myths regarding Revelation and end times through its teaching series and books. It infers that people believe what they believe because they've not bothered checking their Bibles. And perhaps their pastors haven't either. On the other hand, this ministry purports to have diligently studied Scripture. After some samplings, I'm not impressed.
Two pretrib "myths" highlighted were: only the first four chapters of Revelation are intended "for the church"; and the church isn't present for most of the time span of the book.
Whether the church is present or not during the bad stuff is a hotly debated issue. A well-argued differing point of view should be engaged rather than relegated to the myth pile. Revelation was written for everyone, regardless of their eschatological position. It is Jesus' testimony and warning to the world. Jesus is its focus. Believers throughout the centuries have gone to be with the Lord. While many weren't premillennial, most would have still drawn comfort from God's revealed plan for the redeemed.
And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Rev 21:3-4
While I have several commentaries on Revelation, the one I most often go to is Tony Garland's A Testimony of Jesus Christ. It is from a pretribulational standpoint. The fact that it can be read online for free, isn't a testimony to its value (no pun intended). I may not necessarily agree with everything, but he frames his arguments very well. The work is a goldmine of notes and resources. It stands shoulder to shoulder against Robert L. Thomas' Two Volume Commentary.
The same cannot be said for most of these YouTube commentaries. I can hear some complain that this is just another pretrib commentary. Well, Tony has put a lot of work into it and it deserves attention. My suggestion to those who gripe that their points of views aren't presented is to to roll up their sleeves and produce something worthy of consideration. YouTube just doesn't cut it. Moreover the one or two online written commentaries I've seen don't have the depth (IMO) of Tony Garland's work. Depth alone doesn't guarantee correctness. But it does demonstrate the effort expended.
Read A Testimony of Jesus Christ (Tony is also working on a commentary on Daniel)
P.S. Rev 4 is sometimes offered as a proof text for pretribulationism. I disagree. Even so, I thought this Triablogue article was uplifting - especially coming from a CT person.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Mike Vlach on Luke 21:5-28
Interesting thoughts here. I've always appreciated Dr Vlach's humble approach:
Jesus’ Olivet Discourse discusses future events from the standpoint of Jesus and the apostles shortly before Jesus’ death. The contents of Jesus’ discourse are found in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. Jesus addresses the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, the sign of His coming, and the end of the age (Matt. 24:3; Mark 13:4; Luke 21:5-7).
With this article I focus specifically on the Olivet Discourse as recorded in Luke 21:5-28. I present what I believe is the chronology of events that Jesus lays out ranging from the first century A.D. through the second coming of Jesus.
In doing this I understand that there is much debate on the chronology of the Olivet Discourse and it is rare for any two people to agree on all the details. This includes people who often agree on matters of eschatology, let alone those who disagree. So I suspect that many who read my understanding will differ with me, and that is fine. Below is not so much a full-blown defense of my understanding or a detailed interaction with other views, but a stating of how I view Luke 21 after studying this passage for years. In a nutshell, you can know how I interpret the events of Luke 21...keep reading
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Bible Passages on the A.D. 70 Destruction of Jerusalem
From Michael Vlach's blog:
A.D. 70 witnessed the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple by the Romans. This is a historical fact and one that the Bible predicted. But the issue of which Bible passages predicted the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem is heavily debated. Put simply, there are many differing views and combinations concerning which Bible passages refer to the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem.
Even people who are closely aligned on most eschatological issues can have differing opinions on this. But below are the Bible passages I believe predicted the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Note that this is not a full discussion of the Olivet Discourse, nor do I explain why I do not include passages that others would use (such as Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation). Thus, what follows is more of a statement of how I view this matter more than a full blown defense of why I include these passages and do not include others...keep reading
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Millennial Meltdown
I thought this was pretty good. From The Cripplegate:
I started this month with an experiment: listen to 12 sermons from Revelation 6, from 12 well-known pastors; half amillennialists, and half premillennialists. I ended this month with a new (to me) argument for premillennialism. Let me explain:
Revelation is obviously the book of the New Testament where one’s millennial view substantially affects the interpretation of the book as a whole. Premillennialists and amillennialists disagree over chapters like 1 Corinthians 15, Acts 1, and Romans 11. But overall, millennial views allow for substantial agreement on things like 1 Corinthians 1-14, Acts 2-27, and Romans 1-10/12-16.
But when it comes to Revelation, all bets are off...keep readingThought I'd add a link to this: The First Resurrection in Revelation 20
God's Wrath in the 4th & 5th Seals
BTW, I found the comments at the end of Johnson's article interesting. No, I'm not talking about the eschatological debate challenge issued to him by one reader. Michael Heiser was mentioned and Fred Butler (Hip and Thigh) rightly chimed in with a warning about Heiser's "wonky" view of Genesis. Someone responded:
Lots of people have a wonky view of something. Take this lecture out for a spin and see where it goes. I found it interesting...P.S., I didn't see much problem with his Genesis approach. Unless, of course, you have to have a 6,000 year old universe or something. Lots of people aren't married to that.Someone else mentioned Keller and Ross in a positive frame. They have their own problems marrying their beliefs with the biblical text. But Heiser's views on Genesis run further away from the text than the age of the universe and earth, or the extent of Noah's flood. Do your homework. Kudos to Fred for speaking up.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
2014 CDH Conference - Defending Premillennialism
Materials from the 2014 Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics (Defending Premillennialism) are now available HERE
(Note Dr Stallard's response to Sam Storms' Kingdom Come)
(Note Dr Stallard's response to Sam Storms' Kingdom Come)
Saturday, November 29, 2014
Christopher Cone on Biblically Derived Premillennialism
Dispensationalists have been accused of, among other things,[1] being pessimistic (as by Marsden and Bube)[2] and anti-semitic (as by Wilson),[3] in large part due to our premillennial understanding of Biblical eschatology. However, upon exegetical consideration of several foundational prerequisites of Biblical socio-political thought, it is evident that Biblical socio-political undergirding in fact requires the premillennial understanding, and that such an understanding affords dispensationalists an appropriate (i.e., Biblical) degree of care, realism, and constructiveness for the world around us. In short, owing much to our premillennial understanding, dispensational thinking – far from being a hindrance to the progress of society, is a great benefit to society. This has profound and far-reaching practical implications not only for dispensational thought, but also for practical ministry in the church and for interaction with those outside the church...keep reading
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Mike Vlach on the 'Intermediate State as Millennium' View
Mike Vlach continues his thoughts on the millennium:
In a previous post I argued that premillennialism best fits the Bible’s storyline, particularly that there must be a successful reign of the Last Adam (Jesus) from and over the realm (i.e. earth) where the first Adam failed. Thus, the millennium of Revelation 20 is a fulfillment of the Gen 1:26-28 mandate.
In this entry I offer some comments on another view of the millennium and compare it with the premillennial view. This perspective is found with some who hold to amillennialism. Not all amillennialists hold the perspective I am about to explain, but some do...keep reading
P.S. Keep an eye out for an upcoming book by Mike on the Kingdom:
In a previous post I argued that premillennialism best fits the Bible’s storyline, particularly that there must be a successful reign of the Last Adam (Jesus) from and over the realm (i.e. earth) where the first Adam failed. Thus, the millennium of Revelation 20 is a fulfillment of the Gen 1:26-28 mandate.
In this entry I offer some comments on another view of the millennium and compare it with the premillennial view. This perspective is found with some who hold to amillennialism. Not all amillennialists hold the perspective I am about to explain, but some do...keep reading
P.S. Keep an eye out for an upcoming book by Mike on the Kingdom:
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Why Premillennialism Must be True
Mike Vlach gives four reasons why premillennialism must be true:
Premillennialism is the view that there will be a kingdom of Jesus between the second coming of Jesus and the eternal state. This millennium is both future from our standpoint and earthly in nature. Yet while many premillennialists have focused on the fact that there is a coming earthly kingdom of Jesus (see Revelation 19-21), it is also important to explain why there must be such a kingdom. It is one thing to know something is true, it is another to know why something is true. What is the rationale for premillennialism? In this entry I address the “Why?” question. I offer four reasons why there must be a future earthly kingdom of Jesus and why this perspective is so important to the Bible’s storyline...keep reading
Premillennialism is the view that there will be a kingdom of Jesus between the second coming of Jesus and the eternal state. This millennium is both future from our standpoint and earthly in nature. Yet while many premillennialists have focused on the fact that there is a coming earthly kingdom of Jesus (see Revelation 19-21), it is also important to explain why there must be such a kingdom. It is one thing to know something is true, it is another to know why something is true. What is the rationale for premillennialism? In this entry I address the “Why?” question. I offer four reasons why there must be a future earthly kingdom of Jesus and why this perspective is so important to the Bible’s storyline...keep reading
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Amillennialism & Revelation
Matt Waymeyer has done some good work responding to the amillennial view of Revelation. His little book Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate is a must read. At only 129 pages it is packed with pointed information and arguments. The notes themselves are worth getting the book.
You can download and listen to his talk given at the 2010 Shepherd's Conference HERE. Lynda O has blogged on Waymeyer's presentation HERE.
Waymeyer has also written a couple of articles addressing Waldron and Storms HERE and HERE. The comments section is an interesting read. Note Fred Butler's comments on Ezekiel's Temple in the Waldron article.
Hat tip to Joel H for the following link: A Christian woman writes about her honest misgivings about the amillennial teaching in her church HERE
Dr Reluctant on Storm's Kingdom Come HERE. Further thoughts HERE
You can download and listen to his talk given at the 2010 Shepherd's Conference HERE. Lynda O has blogged on Waymeyer's presentation HERE.
Waymeyer has also written a couple of articles addressing Waldron and Storms HERE and HERE. The comments section is an interesting read. Note Fred Butler's comments on Ezekiel's Temple in the Waldron article.
Hat tip to Joel H for the following link: A Christian woman writes about her honest misgivings about the amillennial teaching in her church HERE
Dr Reluctant on Storm's Kingdom Come HERE. Further thoughts HERE
Saturday, September 6, 2014
New Book on Israel & the Jews
We are living in a world that is increasingly hostile to both the modern state of Israel and the Jews. This hostility generally comes from Islamists and secular sources, but also from some Christians. There is a steady shift away from support for Israel within the churches. I am regularly seeing premillennialists in this shift.
In a previous post I mentioned a newly published book on Israel, the Land and the Jews. It is edited by Mitch Glaser of Chosen People Ministries and Darrell Bock.
The book features a large number of notable authors, each tackling diverse subjects concerning Israel. Each chapter is accessibly concise, yet packed with loads of information. Much of this information was new to me.
Given the times, this book is a very important contribution. You can buy it from Amazon, and can watch some of the videos of the 2013 Conference which resulted in the book HERE
The People, The land, and The Future of Israel
Foreword by Joel Rosenberg & Introduction by Mitch Glaser
Hebrew Scriptures
1) Israel according to the Torah - Eugene H Merrill
2) Israel according to the Writings - Walter C Kaiser
3) Israel according to the Prophets - Robert B Chisholm Jr.
4) The People and Land of Israel in Jewish Tradition - Michael L Brown
New Testament
5) Israel according to the Gospels - Michael J Wilkins
6) Israel in Luke-Acts - Darrel L Bock
7) The Jewish People according to the Book of Romans - Michael Vanlangingham
8) Israel according to the Book of Hebrews and the General Epistles - Craig A Evans
Hermeneutics, Theology, and Church History
9) Israel and Hermeneutics - Craig A Blaising
10) Israel as a Necessary Theme in Biblical Theology - Mark R Saucy
11) Israel in the Land as an Eschatological Necessity? - John S Feinberg
12) Israel in Church History - Michael J Vlach
13) Israel in Light of the Holocaust - Barry R Leventhal
Practical Theology
14) The Jewish People: Evidence for the Truth of Scripture - Michael Rydelnik
15) Israel and Jewish Evangelism Today - Mitch Glaser
16) Israel and the Local Pastor - David Epstein
17) A Survey of Positions on Israel Currently Taught At Theological Schools - Gregory Hagg
Conclusion by Darrell Bock followed by Chapter Notes (352 pages)
In a previous post I mentioned a newly published book on Israel, the Land and the Jews. It is edited by Mitch Glaser of Chosen People Ministries and Darrell Bock.
The book features a large number of notable authors, each tackling diverse subjects concerning Israel. Each chapter is accessibly concise, yet packed with loads of information. Much of this information was new to me.
Given the times, this book is a very important contribution. You can buy it from Amazon, and can watch some of the videos of the 2013 Conference which resulted in the book HERE
The People, The land, and The Future of Israel
Foreword by Joel Rosenberg & Introduction by Mitch Glaser
Hebrew Scriptures
1) Israel according to the Torah - Eugene H Merrill
2) Israel according to the Writings - Walter C Kaiser
3) Israel according to the Prophets - Robert B Chisholm Jr.
4) The People and Land of Israel in Jewish Tradition - Michael L Brown
New Testament
5) Israel according to the Gospels - Michael J Wilkins
6) Israel in Luke-Acts - Darrel L Bock
7) The Jewish People according to the Book of Romans - Michael Vanlangingham
8) Israel according to the Book of Hebrews and the General Epistles - Craig A Evans
Hermeneutics, Theology, and Church History
9) Israel and Hermeneutics - Craig A Blaising
10) Israel as a Necessary Theme in Biblical Theology - Mark R Saucy
11) Israel in the Land as an Eschatological Necessity? - John S Feinberg
12) Israel in Church History - Michael J Vlach
13) Israel in Light of the Holocaust - Barry R Leventhal
Practical Theology
14) The Jewish People: Evidence for the Truth of Scripture - Michael Rydelnik
15) Israel and Jewish Evangelism Today - Mitch Glaser
16) Israel and the Local Pastor - David Epstein
17) A Survey of Positions on Israel Currently Taught At Theological Schools - Gregory Hagg
Conclusion by Darrell Bock followed by Chapter Notes (352 pages)
Friday, September 5, 2014
On Populating the Millennium
Regardless of when the rapture occurs in relationship to the 70th week, people must be saved post-rapture and thus without the benefit of the church's "great commission." It also occurs in an environment under the wrath of God. The closer the rapture event to the beginning of the millennium, the more problematic and redundant the Sheep-Goats Judgment event becomes.
Gavin Finley (End-Time Pilgrim) claims a solution to the problem:
They (pretribulationists) do not discuss the Millennial entry issue in any detail at all. Curiously the subject is kept rather vague. They certainly do not discuss the entry of mortals into Millennium in terms of the Sheep-Goat Judgment. Post-Tribbers are beginning to look into this. And why are they interested? It is because they, (unlike the Pre-Tribbers), have a personal interest in the blood covenant issues inside the 70th Week of Daniel. Post-Tribbers know that they will be going up on stage to bring in the final witness during the final seven years of this age. (Emphases mine)
One popular posttrib response has been to simply refer to Zechariah 14 to show that people make it into the millennium. But Finley raises the issue because it has been a problem, not because there's some biblical "blood-covenant" that needs to be addressed. That's a whole other issue.
His solution involves coming up with a third category of people who aren't saved, yet merit a pass at the Sheep-Goats Judgment. We should note that Revelation speaks of only two kinds of people - the saints and the earth dwellers (Rev 13:7-8).
In Finley's scenario, the Sheep and Goats are unsaved. The Sheep avoid the Mark of the Beast and escape the "Wicked Tares Judgment." Conveniently, they resist the everlasting gospel (Rev 14:6-7) which is preached to all to those who dwell on the earth (every nation, tribe, tongue, and people). Hence they also evade the rapture in order to progress to the Sheep-Goats Judgment.
The Sheep merit a last-minute reprieve because of a works/heart based judgment (Matt 25:34-40). They are not judged "for entry into heaven or eternity." They are attributed this "blood-covenant" righteousness as a passport into the millennium. He claims that Matthew 25 clearly shows that "a human person to human person blood covenant loving-kindness is the central issue."
He writes:
As we [posttribulationists] see it, the Sheep-Goat Judgment appears to be based on matters of heart attitude and character. These heart issues may in turn evidence themselves in works to be sure. But the heart issue revolves around blood covenant commitment to someone in trouble who happens to belong to Messiah. This is the lovingkindness (sic) Messiah is looking for and finds in the sheep. The Sheep-Goat Judgment is not a judgment of works as we have been told. (Emphases mine)
Finley works hard to avoid a faith-by-works salvation, or a different dispensation application to the Sheep-Goats Judgment. He simply needs a vehicle for the unsaved to access the millennium.
The Goats (a fourth category) also escape the Tares Judgment because they haven't taken the Mark of the Beast. However, this category does not make it into the millennium because of its lack of "heart attitude and character" towards the persecuted (Matt 25:41-46). How they could posses the character to resist the Beast yet not possess the heart/attitude to be Sheep is not explained.
The scheme fails to explain the conditions outlined in Hosea 5:15; Matt 23:39 and Matt 24:22. How do any saved individuals (including Israel) enter the millennium in their physical bodies? It also ignores what Revelation consistently says of the Earth Dwellers. See Thomas Ice's article HERE and Tony Garland's article HERE.
Only the righteous inherit the kingdom. Finley has created a quasi-righteous millennial passport in order to solve his posttribulational dilemma. Pretribulationists might respond that if these Sheep were not "saved" then they rejected the gospel (2 Thess 2:8-12; Rev 13:7-8; Rev 14:6-7).
Interestingly, posttribulationist Robert Gundry avoids these convoluted explanations and simply relocates the Sheep-Goats Judgment to the end of the millennium. Ron Rhodes responds to him HERE
This Blood Covenant theory appears to owe some debt to Word of Faith pioneer E. W. Kenyon. Whatever the case, Finley holds the view that the church must do its part by participating in the events of the tribulation. Sadly, he ignores the purposes for the tribulation, and poisons the well by asking leading questions:
Is the Bride of Christ passive and out of the loop, as we see in the pre-tribulation rapture scenario?
But how about this pre-tribulation Rapture of an unsuspecting uninvolved 'bride' leaving early without Israel?
Is the Church to be unaware and passive in the Rapture, as our present day Bible prophecy teachings have suggested? Will God’s faithful witnesses be engaged in cheap, Hollywood style melodrama? Is the end time merely a boring, ho-hum story of survivalist Christians scurrying around like rats after being 'Left Behind' (sic).
Do we just work and play, watch the ballgame and the soaps on TV, talk with our stockbroker, attend church, and wait around for the rapture? Is the bride of Christ, passive in the covenant?
Gavin Finley has turned the rapture debate into an emotional one where the non-pretribulationalist adopts the higher moral ground. Given the website's popularity, it's no wonder many parrot this sort of bias.
Addendum:
I came across an attack on pretribulationism from a prewrath proponent who claimed pretribbers overstate the millennium population problem. He writes:
They are essentially two groups:
1. Those who have been “Jesus’ own” (i.e. were saved) prior to His second coming. This group includes all Old Testament saints as well. This is the group who will “reign” with Jesus during the Millennium.
2. Israel and the remnants of other nations who did not literally participate in the war against Jesus in the last days (and also did not receive the “mark of the beast”). This is the group who will be “reigned” over by Jesus and the saints.
It is a (sic) simple as that. This view is supported by the following passage from Zechariah...
Sound familiar?
But, no, for the reasons stated above it's not that simple at all. This individual also seems to limit the Antichrist's reign. It doesn't help him. In another attack on pretribulationists he ironically quotes Matt 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
However one might want to interpret the parable of the Ten Virgins, it is quite clear that only the righteous will inherit the kingdom (Matt 25:1-13). There is no sitting on the fence in the 70th week waiting for the last minute so that non-glorified people can populate the millennium. If they haven't become saved by the time of the prewrath rapture (whenever that might be) they are likely to have taken the Mark of the Beast.
It's that simple.
Eric Douma on the 70th week (Part One)
Gavin Finley (End-Time Pilgrim) claims a solution to the problem:
They (pretribulationists) do not discuss the Millennial entry issue in any detail at all. Curiously the subject is kept rather vague. They certainly do not discuss the entry of mortals into Millennium in terms of the Sheep-Goat Judgment. Post-Tribbers are beginning to look into this. And why are they interested? It is because they, (unlike the Pre-Tribbers), have a personal interest in the blood covenant issues inside the 70th Week of Daniel. Post-Tribbers know that they will be going up on stage to bring in the final witness during the final seven years of this age. (Emphases mine)
One popular posttrib response has been to simply refer to Zechariah 14 to show that people make it into the millennium. But Finley raises the issue because it has been a problem, not because there's some biblical "blood-covenant" that needs to be addressed. That's a whole other issue.
His solution involves coming up with a third category of people who aren't saved, yet merit a pass at the Sheep-Goats Judgment. We should note that Revelation speaks of only two kinds of people - the saints and the earth dwellers (Rev 13:7-8).
In Finley's scenario, the Sheep and Goats are unsaved. The Sheep avoid the Mark of the Beast and escape the "Wicked Tares Judgment." Conveniently, they resist the everlasting gospel (Rev 14:6-7) which is preached to all to those who dwell on the earth (every nation, tribe, tongue, and people). Hence they also evade the rapture in order to progress to the Sheep-Goats Judgment.
The Sheep merit a last-minute reprieve because of a works/heart based judgment (Matt 25:34-40). They are not judged "for entry into heaven or eternity." They are attributed this "blood-covenant" righteousness as a passport into the millennium. He claims that Matthew 25 clearly shows that "a human person to human person blood covenant loving-kindness is the central issue."
He writes:
As we [posttribulationists] see it, the Sheep-Goat Judgment appears to be based on matters of heart attitude and character. These heart issues may in turn evidence themselves in works to be sure. But the heart issue revolves around blood covenant commitment to someone in trouble who happens to belong to Messiah. This is the lovingkindness (sic) Messiah is looking for and finds in the sheep. The Sheep-Goat Judgment is not a judgment of works as we have been told. (Emphases mine)
Finley works hard to avoid a faith-by-works salvation, or a different dispensation application to the Sheep-Goats Judgment. He simply needs a vehicle for the unsaved to access the millennium.
The Goats (a fourth category) also escape the Tares Judgment because they haven't taken the Mark of the Beast. However, this category does not make it into the millennium because of its lack of "heart attitude and character" towards the persecuted (Matt 25:41-46). How they could posses the character to resist the Beast yet not possess the heart/attitude to be Sheep is not explained.
The scheme fails to explain the conditions outlined in Hosea 5:15; Matt 23:39 and Matt 24:22. How do any saved individuals (including Israel) enter the millennium in their physical bodies? It also ignores what Revelation consistently says of the Earth Dwellers. See Thomas Ice's article HERE and Tony Garland's article HERE.
Only the righteous inherit the kingdom. Finley has created a quasi-righteous millennial passport in order to solve his posttribulational dilemma. Pretribulationists might respond that if these Sheep were not "saved" then they rejected the gospel (2 Thess 2:8-12; Rev 13:7-8; Rev 14:6-7).
Interestingly, posttribulationist Robert Gundry avoids these convoluted explanations and simply relocates the Sheep-Goats Judgment to the end of the millennium. Ron Rhodes responds to him HERE
This Blood Covenant theory appears to owe some debt to Word of Faith pioneer E. W. Kenyon. Whatever the case, Finley holds the view that the church must do its part by participating in the events of the tribulation. Sadly, he ignores the purposes for the tribulation, and poisons the well by asking leading questions:
Is the Bride of Christ passive and out of the loop, as we see in the pre-tribulation rapture scenario?
But how about this pre-tribulation Rapture of an unsuspecting uninvolved 'bride' leaving early without Israel?
Is the Church to be unaware and passive in the Rapture, as our present day Bible prophecy teachings have suggested? Will God’s faithful witnesses be engaged in cheap, Hollywood style melodrama? Is the end time merely a boring, ho-hum story of survivalist Christians scurrying around like rats after being 'Left Behind' (sic).
Do we just work and play, watch the ballgame and the soaps on TV, talk with our stockbroker, attend church, and wait around for the rapture? Is the bride of Christ, passive in the covenant?
Gavin Finley has turned the rapture debate into an emotional one where the non-pretribulationalist adopts the higher moral ground. Given the website's popularity, it's no wonder many parrot this sort of bias.
Addendum:
I came across an attack on pretribulationism from a prewrath proponent who claimed pretribbers overstate the millennium population problem. He writes:
They are essentially two groups:
1. Those who have been “Jesus’ own” (i.e. were saved) prior to His second coming. This group includes all Old Testament saints as well. This is the group who will “reign” with Jesus during the Millennium.
2. Israel and the remnants of other nations who did not literally participate in the war against Jesus in the last days (and also did not receive the “mark of the beast”). This is the group who will be “reigned” over by Jesus and the saints.
It is a (sic) simple as that. This view is supported by the following passage from Zechariah...
Sound familiar?
But, no, for the reasons stated above it's not that simple at all. This individual also seems to limit the Antichrist's reign. It doesn't help him. In another attack on pretribulationists he ironically quotes Matt 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
However one might want to interpret the parable of the Ten Virgins, it is quite clear that only the righteous will inherit the kingdom (Matt 25:1-13). There is no sitting on the fence in the 70th week waiting for the last minute so that non-glorified people can populate the millennium. If they haven't become saved by the time of the prewrath rapture (whenever that might be) they are likely to have taken the Mark of the Beast.
It's that simple.
Eric Douma on the 70th week (Part One)
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Eric Douma's Eschatology Studies
Pastor Eric Douma once presented a formidable defense of the pretribulational rapture view as a response to a challenge. Sadly, these audio studies had been offline for quite some time.
Well, they are finally back up again and can be accessed HERE
Well, they are finally back up again and can be accessed HERE
Friday, June 6, 2014
Israel, Salvation - Progressive & Normative Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism draws too hard a line between Israel and the church; although there are differences between them...Dispensationalism teaches multiple ways of salvation.
These two statements are fairly common. Israel is a nation composed of ethnic Jews, while the church is Christ's body composed of saved Gentiles and Jews. So what exactly is a "too hard line"? An example would have been good to work with; typically none are provided. I rather suspect that the "hard line" needs to be blurred when one speculates about eschatology i.e., whether particular texts refer to Israel, the church, or a combination of both, and especially in relation to the rapture, tribulation, millennium or the eternal state.
Popular websites such as Tim Warner's Progressive Dispensationalism 101 don't help. Here's what he writes under his Major Problem #5 Multiple Plans of Salvation:
Many traditional dispensationalists have devised different plans of salvation for Israel and the Church. Pre-tribulationists usually claim that during the tribulation, the plan of salvation will incorporate the Old Covenant in some way. Salvation for the Old Testament saints is seen as having to do with works along with faith. Progressive dispensationalists see only one means of eternal salvation, through the blood of Christ.
Warner doesn't provide citations or sources. I would suggest that if one wants to know what dispies teach about the method of salvation (whether in the OT or the 70th week) then one should read primary sources. Note also that Warner's Major Problem #4 Only a Remnant of Old Testament Israel is Saved, is a red herring. Dispies do not claim that all OT Israel is saved. See Dr Fruchtenbaum's article HERE
Dispensationalist John Feinberg comprehensively deals with the topic of Salvation in the Old Testament in Traditions & Testament - Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg (Chapter 3 pp 39-77). I recommend Mike Vlach's booklet Dispensationalism - Essential Beliefs and Common Myths and pay particular attention to pages 35 to 38.
Dr. Vlach has dialogued extensively with PD proponents. He provides a brief summary on the distinctions between Classic Dispensationalism, Revised or Modified Dispensationalism and Progressive Dispensationalism (Dispensationalism pp 9-12). He notes that PDs see more continuity between Israel and the church. Citing Blaising and Bock he writes:
Progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people....The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ.
And, more notably, this:
They stress that both Israel and the church compose the "people of God" when it comes to salvation and both are related to the blessings of the new covenant. This spiritual equality, however, does not mean that there are not functional distinctions between Israel and the church. Progressive dispensationalists do not equate the church as Israel and they still see a future distinct identity and function for ethnic Israel in a coming millennial kingdom.
It's entirely possible that I've missed some important nuance but in his Appendix 1 of Israelology (p 861) Arnold Fruchtenbaum presents a diagram (the second of three) which he says is representative of the dispensational view of the relationship between the church, Gentiles and Jews. This diagram has three oval figures. Two of the ovals are adjacent - one represents Israel while the other represents the Gentiles. These two are intersected in the center by a third which represents the church composed of Jewish and Gentile followers of Christ.
On page 862 Fruchtenbaum corrects the notion that dispies teach that God's purpose for the church comes to an end - even temporarily - so that He might work with Israel exclusively. In Feinberg's Continuity and Discontinuity Robert Saucy (who is an advocate of discontinuity) disagrees with Chafer's statement in Dispensationalism that God, throughout the ages, is pursuing two different purposes - one earthly and one heavenly (p 240). Some modern dispies would agree with Saucy. Dr. Fruchtenbaum writes that:
Dispensationalism does believe that when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, then God's purpose for the church on earth is complete, but continues in heaven and then continues again on earth in the Messianic Kingdom. (Israelology p 862)
Of course this is where the crux of the problem is for non-pretribulationists who want to see the church on earth for all or part of the 70th week.
The matter of the relationship between Israel, Gentiles and the church in the eternal state is more complex and speculative. My guess is that there may be various understandings among dispensationalists. Even so, a comparison of Robert Saucy's views (The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism) with that of dispensationalist Robert L Thomas' (Revelation 8-22) sees no major differences, at least to me.
Dr. Saucy writes that the idea of incorporating Israel into the church does not logically require that the church becomes a "new Israel" (pp 208-209). In fact Saucy does not necessarily hold that it should be "incorporated". He argues that even if this was the case it does not require a denial of continued distinctions and that the question is not crucial to understanding Israel's prophecies. Continuing on he says that if the word "church" is the name of the body of Christ, "or the final eschatological people of God throughout eternity, then it would be correct to include Israel in the church." But Saucy then makes the intriguing observation that "one never finds the term church applied to those beyond the present age."
He summarizes by noting that whether Israel should be considered part of the church rests on the biblical application of the term "church." If "church" signifies all of God's people then saved Israel must become "a part of His body." On the other hand, if that term only applies to the present age then it would seem to not encompass a future saved Israel. Either way the church cannot be identified with Israel. They enjoy a "similar identity as the people of God" and the "blessings of the promised eschatological salvation", but "this does not eliminate all distinctions between them." One question which isn't resolved is: since Saucy affirms discontinuity, how does he regard the term "in Christ" in respect to saved OT saints?
In discussing Rev 19, Robert L Thomas notes that the difficulty in including Israel along with the church as part of the bride is chronological (Revelation 8-22 p 368). He admittedly draws on pretribulational assumptions when he states that OT and 70th week saints will rise in time for the Millennium but not in time for Christ's "triumphal return" (Dan 12:1-2,13; Rev 20:4). But he also writes:
Yet it is incontrovertible that Israel will appear in the New Jerusalem which is also Christ's bride...So the bride of Christ will be a growing body of people, with the church functioning as Christ's bride during that phase of the wedding feast that comes during the Millennium, but with the integration of the new order (21:1 ff), the bride receives the enhancement of the redeemed of Israel and of all ages, including the Millennium. (Emphasis mine)
I'm sure some dispies would disagree with Dr Thomas here. My point is that Warner has incorrectly assigned views and limitations to dispensationalism. In fact I recommend going to a Saucy, Blaising or Bock to learn more about PD rather than Warner's PD 101 page.
Aside from differences between dispensationalism and PD and the status of the Davidic Covenant, the greatest objection (and concern) is the PD concept of Complementary Hermeneutics (CH). About four years ago I came across someone who converted from pretribulationism to posttribulationism. He was quick to find fault with pretribulationism and dispensationalism while praising PD and posttribulationism.
Oddly enough, contra Saucy, he preached his version of the continuity of Israel and the church while actually recommending Saucy's book. At the time I hadn't come across Feinberg's Continuity & Discontinuity and Saucy's contribution. I only knew then that there were concerns about PD's already-not-yet fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant and CH. This fellow brushed them off as irrelevant straw man objections.
I find that this person now has his own blog and enjoying an extensive following. On one page he compliments PD as a "refinement" of "Traditional Dispensationalism." More importantly, he claims to espouse PD's complementary hermeneutical framework, and provides a link to Warner's PD 101. A look at some of his Scripture "discoveries" calls to mind Robert L Thomas' warnings regarding PD & CH and the dangers of enthroning the interpreter.
Suddenly, the 144,000 Jews of Revelation are really something deeper (or different) than the text plainly states, as is the Mark of the Beast etc. I remember one discussion where this man even suggested that Michael the Archangel might be the pre-incarnate Christ (though not a created being). Perhaps one may only be limited by one's imagination.
To be fair, I'm sure Blaising and Bock would be alarmed to learn how PD and CH are being used to re-interpret Scripture based on one's prior inclinations (as I know to be the case here). This individual is the perfect example of Dr Thomas' concern regarding CH.
As for me I'll stick with dispensationalism, warts and all.
A final afterthought: it would be helpful if critics, who claim dispies teach multiple ways of salvation, would clearly formulate how they believe salvation was arrived at in the OT.
Further reading:
Progressive and Normative Dispensationalism
Recommended Reading in Dispensationalism
Some Mud That Sticks: A Little Insider Criticism Of The Face Of Dispensationalism
Contra The 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism
Addendum:
I see that Tim Warner ran afoul of James White (Alpha & Omega Ministries) back in 2006. I find the following comments in one response by White enlightening:
I have commented on Warner’s dispensationalism and the over-riding role it takes in his commentary resulting in eisegetical errors in John 6 and elsewhere. I do not have to commit myself to a never ending series of give and take articles with every unusual interpretive system that finds a voice on the Internet, and this is particularly true with the wide range of “dispensationalisms” that are developing as the movement shatters into a thousand different streams. In any case, I looked at the articles, and have chosen to respond, not so that another endless series of articles can be produced, but because I see value in illustrating when tradition (in this case, some kind of “progressive dispensationalism”) distorts exegesis resulting in error. (Emphasis mine)
Elsewhere White writes:
In our last installment we examined Tim Warner’s assertion that rather than the great promise of God to His people that He has provided a full and complete salvation in Jesus Christ, Warner’s man-centered “progressive dispensationalism” leads him to make this amazing statement:
Jesus did not tell the Jewish crowds what God had absolutely decreed, but God’s desire and purpose. “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:39-40).
Unsurprisingly, White appears to have a low opinion of dispensationalism. In these cases he takes issue with Warner's attack on Calvinism and uses it to denigrate dispensationalism in general. In fact White does this in several other responses. Yet dispensationalism has nothing whatsoever to do with how one interprets John 6 (the subject of the exchange). White is either biased or ignorant of dispensationalism and its hermeneutics. Whatever the case, it's sheer irony that Warner, who disparages dispensationalism, is used by White to do the same thing!
Meanwhile, Warner not only misinforms his readers on what classical dispensationalism teaches but he gets PD wrong as well. Darrel Bock has seen his page and has said that he does not align completely with Warner.
These two statements are fairly common. Israel is a nation composed of ethnic Jews, while the church is Christ's body composed of saved Gentiles and Jews. So what exactly is a "too hard line"? An example would have been good to work with; typically none are provided. I rather suspect that the "hard line" needs to be blurred when one speculates about eschatology i.e., whether particular texts refer to Israel, the church, or a combination of both, and especially in relation to the rapture, tribulation, millennium or the eternal state.
Popular websites such as Tim Warner's Progressive Dispensationalism 101 don't help. Here's what he writes under his Major Problem #5 Multiple Plans of Salvation:
Many traditional dispensationalists have devised different plans of salvation for Israel and the Church. Pre-tribulationists usually claim that during the tribulation, the plan of salvation will incorporate the Old Covenant in some way. Salvation for the Old Testament saints is seen as having to do with works along with faith. Progressive dispensationalists see only one means of eternal salvation, through the blood of Christ.
Warner doesn't provide citations or sources. I would suggest that if one wants to know what dispies teach about the method of salvation (whether in the OT or the 70th week) then one should read primary sources. Note also that Warner's Major Problem #4 Only a Remnant of Old Testament Israel is Saved, is a red herring. Dispies do not claim that all OT Israel is saved. See Dr Fruchtenbaum's article HERE
Dispensationalist John Feinberg comprehensively deals with the topic of Salvation in the Old Testament in Traditions & Testament - Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg (Chapter 3 pp 39-77). I recommend Mike Vlach's booklet Dispensationalism - Essential Beliefs and Common Myths and pay particular attention to pages 35 to 38.
Dr. Vlach has dialogued extensively with PD proponents. He provides a brief summary on the distinctions between Classic Dispensationalism, Revised or Modified Dispensationalism and Progressive Dispensationalism (Dispensationalism pp 9-12). He notes that PDs see more continuity between Israel and the church. Citing Blaising and Bock he writes:
Progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people....The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ.
And, more notably, this:
They stress that both Israel and the church compose the "people of God" when it comes to salvation and both are related to the blessings of the new covenant. This spiritual equality, however, does not mean that there are not functional distinctions between Israel and the church. Progressive dispensationalists do not equate the church as Israel and they still see a future distinct identity and function for ethnic Israel in a coming millennial kingdom.
It's entirely possible that I've missed some important nuance but in his Appendix 1 of Israelology (p 861) Arnold Fruchtenbaum presents a diagram (the second of three) which he says is representative of the dispensational view of the relationship between the church, Gentiles and Jews. This diagram has three oval figures. Two of the ovals are adjacent - one represents Israel while the other represents the Gentiles. These two are intersected in the center by a third which represents the church composed of Jewish and Gentile followers of Christ.
On page 862 Fruchtenbaum corrects the notion that dispies teach that God's purpose for the church comes to an end - even temporarily - so that He might work with Israel exclusively. In Feinberg's Continuity and Discontinuity Robert Saucy (who is an advocate of discontinuity) disagrees with Chafer's statement in Dispensationalism that God, throughout the ages, is pursuing two different purposes - one earthly and one heavenly (p 240). Some modern dispies would agree with Saucy. Dr. Fruchtenbaum writes that:
Dispensationalism does believe that when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, then God's purpose for the church on earth is complete, but continues in heaven and then continues again on earth in the Messianic Kingdom. (Israelology p 862)
Of course this is where the crux of the problem is for non-pretribulationists who want to see the church on earth for all or part of the 70th week.
The matter of the relationship between Israel, Gentiles and the church in the eternal state is more complex and speculative. My guess is that there may be various understandings among dispensationalists. Even so, a comparison of Robert Saucy's views (The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism) with that of dispensationalist Robert L Thomas' (Revelation 8-22) sees no major differences, at least to me.
Dr. Saucy writes that the idea of incorporating Israel into the church does not logically require that the church becomes a "new Israel" (pp 208-209). In fact Saucy does not necessarily hold that it should be "incorporated". He argues that even if this was the case it does not require a denial of continued distinctions and that the question is not crucial to understanding Israel's prophecies. Continuing on he says that if the word "church" is the name of the body of Christ, "or the final eschatological people of God throughout eternity, then it would be correct to include Israel in the church." But Saucy then makes the intriguing observation that "one never finds the term church applied to those beyond the present age."
He summarizes by noting that whether Israel should be considered part of the church rests on the biblical application of the term "church." If "church" signifies all of God's people then saved Israel must become "a part of His body." On the other hand, if that term only applies to the present age then it would seem to not encompass a future saved Israel. Either way the church cannot be identified with Israel. They enjoy a "similar identity as the people of God" and the "blessings of the promised eschatological salvation", but "this does not eliminate all distinctions between them." One question which isn't resolved is: since Saucy affirms discontinuity, how does he regard the term "in Christ" in respect to saved OT saints?
In discussing Rev 19, Robert L Thomas notes that the difficulty in including Israel along with the church as part of the bride is chronological (Revelation 8-22 p 368). He admittedly draws on pretribulational assumptions when he states that OT and 70th week saints will rise in time for the Millennium but not in time for Christ's "triumphal return" (Dan 12:1-2,13; Rev 20:4). But he also writes:
Yet it is incontrovertible that Israel will appear in the New Jerusalem which is also Christ's bride...So the bride of Christ will be a growing body of people, with the church functioning as Christ's bride during that phase of the wedding feast that comes during the Millennium, but with the integration of the new order (21:1 ff), the bride receives the enhancement of the redeemed of Israel and of all ages, including the Millennium. (Emphasis mine)
I'm sure some dispies would disagree with Dr Thomas here. My point is that Warner has incorrectly assigned views and limitations to dispensationalism. In fact I recommend going to a Saucy, Blaising or Bock to learn more about PD rather than Warner's PD 101 page.
Aside from differences between dispensationalism and PD and the status of the Davidic Covenant, the greatest objection (and concern) is the PD concept of Complementary Hermeneutics (CH). About four years ago I came across someone who converted from pretribulationism to posttribulationism. He was quick to find fault with pretribulationism and dispensationalism while praising PD and posttribulationism.
Oddly enough, contra Saucy, he preached his version of the continuity of Israel and the church while actually recommending Saucy's book. At the time I hadn't come across Feinberg's Continuity & Discontinuity and Saucy's contribution. I only knew then that there were concerns about PD's already-not-yet fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant and CH. This fellow brushed them off as irrelevant straw man objections.
I find that this person now has his own blog and enjoying an extensive following. On one page he compliments PD as a "refinement" of "Traditional Dispensationalism." More importantly, he claims to espouse PD's complementary hermeneutical framework, and provides a link to Warner's PD 101. A look at some of his Scripture "discoveries" calls to mind Robert L Thomas' warnings regarding PD & CH and the dangers of enthroning the interpreter.
Suddenly, the 144,000 Jews of Revelation are really something deeper (or different) than the text plainly states, as is the Mark of the Beast etc. I remember one discussion where this man even suggested that Michael the Archangel might be the pre-incarnate Christ (though not a created being). Perhaps one may only be limited by one's imagination.
To be fair, I'm sure Blaising and Bock would be alarmed to learn how PD and CH are being used to re-interpret Scripture based on one's prior inclinations (as I know to be the case here). This individual is the perfect example of Dr Thomas' concern regarding CH.
As for me I'll stick with dispensationalism, warts and all.
A final afterthought: it would be helpful if critics, who claim dispies teach multiple ways of salvation, would clearly formulate how they believe salvation was arrived at in the OT.
Further reading:
Progressive and Normative Dispensationalism
Recommended Reading in Dispensationalism
Some Mud That Sticks: A Little Insider Criticism Of The Face Of Dispensationalism
Contra The 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism
Addendum:
I see that Tim Warner ran afoul of James White (Alpha & Omega Ministries) back in 2006. I find the following comments in one response by White enlightening:
I have commented on Warner’s dispensationalism and the over-riding role it takes in his commentary resulting in eisegetical errors in John 6 and elsewhere. I do not have to commit myself to a never ending series of give and take articles with every unusual interpretive system that finds a voice on the Internet, and this is particularly true with the wide range of “dispensationalisms” that are developing as the movement shatters into a thousand different streams. In any case, I looked at the articles, and have chosen to respond, not so that another endless series of articles can be produced, but because I see value in illustrating when tradition (in this case, some kind of “progressive dispensationalism”) distorts exegesis resulting in error. (Emphasis mine)
Elsewhere White writes:
In our last installment we examined Tim Warner’s assertion that rather than the great promise of God to His people that He has provided a full and complete salvation in Jesus Christ, Warner’s man-centered “progressive dispensationalism” leads him to make this amazing statement:
Jesus did not tell the Jewish crowds what God had absolutely decreed, but God’s desire and purpose. “This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:39-40).
Unsurprisingly, White appears to have a low opinion of dispensationalism. In these cases he takes issue with Warner's attack on Calvinism and uses it to denigrate dispensationalism in general. In fact White does this in several other responses. Yet dispensationalism has nothing whatsoever to do with how one interprets John 6 (the subject of the exchange). White is either biased or ignorant of dispensationalism and its hermeneutics. Whatever the case, it's sheer irony that Warner, who disparages dispensationalism, is used by White to do the same thing!
Meanwhile, Warner not only misinforms his readers on what classical dispensationalism teaches but he gets PD wrong as well. Darrel Bock has seen his page and has said that he does not align completely with Warner.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Misrepresenting Dispensationalism
A few days ago I read where one individual lumped dispensationalists in the same bucket as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and rabbinical Pharisees who didn’t understand the prophets. He was convinced that the push for the restoration of Israel was a “diabolical” and “political Zionist agenda” which will give rise to the Antichrist and the falling away of many Christians etc.
This low view of dispensationalism isn’t isolated. In another forum I made the mistake of disagreeing with an Amillennialist’s conclusions that God was finished with Israel as a nation; that the resurrection in Rev 20:4 was spiritual and that Satan was currently bound. I was promptly informed that I was “clueless” and needed prayer for my salvation.
What drives these attitudes?
There was a discussion over at Dr Reluctant’s that touched upon how dispensationalism is sometimes misrepresented. The names Ferguson, Sproul and Gerstner came up. I’ve noticed that Gerstner’s “Wrongly Dividing” (which I haven’t read) is cited freely by a smattering of authors and assumed to be thorough scholarship. One of the contributors to Paul’s discussion noted several flaws to Gerstner’s work, and he’s right.
There have been several responses to Gerstner (and others) by dispies. In particular, I’d encourage people to read John Witmer’s review of his book HERE and HERE. Note that you need a subscription with Galaxie but it is a worthwhile investment.
In some cases I suspect that passion to defend a particular understanding of the “truth” has over-ridden objectivity. This is where an author will deliberately refer to non-representative fringe and sensationalist cases against another system. One stark example of this is where Reverend Barbara Rossing (The Rapture Exposed) thanked her friends for sending her newspaper stories that presumably helped her research against the “Left Behind” genre. The almost obligatory mine-quoting of John Hagee, as if he was the dispensational model, is another one. And, of course, there’s the indiscriminate repetition of the Darby-MacDonald myth.
Rossing’s biblical scholarship is appalling – especially her interpretation of the book of Revelation. Yet she’s considered by some to be an authority against dispensationalism. At one point she refers to Christ as “Lambkin” and claims that the fundamentalists have misrepresented Him and misinterpreted the book of Revelation. Yet she simply ignores verses that portray God as being wrathful against the earth dwellers. You can read an exposé of Rossing’s book by Dr Kevin Zuber HERE.
In her book, Rossing included Dr Robert Gundry’s input on Thessalonians and John 14 to counter pretribulationism. It lent her academic credibility and her book is still considered “authoritative” by contra-dispies. Yet many of her readers wouldn’t be aware that Gundry’s anti-pretribulational contentions have been challenged. Ironically, Gundry – a premil, posttrib “dispensationalist” - would have disagreed with Rossing’s ultra-liberal approach to Revelation. One wonders whether he was aware of the full thrust of that book when permission was granted for his contributions to be published there. The scope of Rev. Rossing’s work went far beyond disputing the pretribulational rapture.
Often polemicists will feed off each other. Someone quotes Gerstner because it confirms their position, influencing someone else to adopt that same quote of Gerstner's, who got it wrong to begin with. They’ll frequently use whatever secondary sources suit their view without fact-checking. A critic will claim to have been formerly involved in the dispensational system, yet misrepresents it. Examples of this are some of David B Currie’s comments in his “Rapture” book and some of the ex-dispie critics who formulated the 95 Theses Contra Dispensationalism. All this leads someone with an existing inclination against dispensationalism to feel justified in trusting whatever is offered up by the polemicist.
Even within the premil camp it’s common to read that “dispensationalism has too many contradictions” or “there’s too sharp a distinction between Israel and the church” although the reasons are seldom clearly articulated. Perhaps this blurring between the church and Israel is rapure-timing driven. I note that at the moment this event occurs, that distinction suddenly sharpens for all views.
Earlier, I asked what drives these attitudes. I don’t think it is always just a biblical disagreement with dispensationalism. I think there are some extra-biblical reasons that I can only guess at. But even in some cases where legitimate biblical differences are present, I think that that disagreement is driven by personal presupposition.
This low view of dispensationalism isn’t isolated. In another forum I made the mistake of disagreeing with an Amillennialist’s conclusions that God was finished with Israel as a nation; that the resurrection in Rev 20:4 was spiritual and that Satan was currently bound. I was promptly informed that I was “clueless” and needed prayer for my salvation.
What drives these attitudes?
There was a discussion over at Dr Reluctant’s that touched upon how dispensationalism is sometimes misrepresented. The names Ferguson, Sproul and Gerstner came up. I’ve noticed that Gerstner’s “Wrongly Dividing” (which I haven’t read) is cited freely by a smattering of authors and assumed to be thorough scholarship. One of the contributors to Paul’s discussion noted several flaws to Gerstner’s work, and he’s right.
There have been several responses to Gerstner (and others) by dispies. In particular, I’d encourage people to read John Witmer’s review of his book HERE and HERE. Note that you need a subscription with Galaxie but it is a worthwhile investment.
In some cases I suspect that passion to defend a particular understanding of the “truth” has over-ridden objectivity. This is where an author will deliberately refer to non-representative fringe and sensationalist cases against another system. One stark example of this is where Reverend Barbara Rossing (The Rapture Exposed) thanked her friends for sending her newspaper stories that presumably helped her research against the “Left Behind” genre. The almost obligatory mine-quoting of John Hagee, as if he was the dispensational model, is another one. And, of course, there’s the indiscriminate repetition of the Darby-MacDonald myth.
Rossing’s biblical scholarship is appalling – especially her interpretation of the book of Revelation. Yet she’s considered by some to be an authority against dispensationalism. At one point she refers to Christ as “Lambkin” and claims that the fundamentalists have misrepresented Him and misinterpreted the book of Revelation. Yet she simply ignores verses that portray God as being wrathful against the earth dwellers. You can read an exposé of Rossing’s book by Dr Kevin Zuber HERE.
In her book, Rossing included Dr Robert Gundry’s input on Thessalonians and John 14 to counter pretribulationism. It lent her academic credibility and her book is still considered “authoritative” by contra-dispies. Yet many of her readers wouldn’t be aware that Gundry’s anti-pretribulational contentions have been challenged. Ironically, Gundry – a premil, posttrib “dispensationalist” - would have disagreed with Rossing’s ultra-liberal approach to Revelation. One wonders whether he was aware of the full thrust of that book when permission was granted for his contributions to be published there. The scope of Rev. Rossing’s work went far beyond disputing the pretribulational rapture.
Often polemicists will feed off each other. Someone quotes Gerstner because it confirms their position, influencing someone else to adopt that same quote of Gerstner's, who got it wrong to begin with. They’ll frequently use whatever secondary sources suit their view without fact-checking. A critic will claim to have been formerly involved in the dispensational system, yet misrepresents it. Examples of this are some of David B Currie’s comments in his “Rapture” book and some of the ex-dispie critics who formulated the 95 Theses Contra Dispensationalism. All this leads someone with an existing inclination against dispensationalism to feel justified in trusting whatever is offered up by the polemicist.
Even within the premil camp it’s common to read that “dispensationalism has too many contradictions” or “there’s too sharp a distinction between Israel and the church” although the reasons are seldom clearly articulated. Perhaps this blurring between the church and Israel is rapure-timing driven. I note that at the moment this event occurs, that distinction suddenly sharpens for all views.
Earlier, I asked what drives these attitudes. I don’t think it is always just a biblical disagreement with dispensationalism. I think there are some extra-biblical reasons that I can only guess at. But even in some cases where legitimate biblical differences are present, I think that that disagreement is driven by personal presupposition.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Touching On Evolution & Hermeneutics
I’ve already mentioned that I was raised in the RCC. My first years were spent being taught by the nuns and I must admit they actually did a fine work of presenting the Gospel message to me and I understood Christ died for my sins, and that He was my savior. It was there I was taught that the OT sacrifices – especially the Abraham-Isaac story – pictured Christ’s future sacrifice. It was also there I was taught a literal Adam and Eve.
When I reached my teens I found myself in a secular school and confronted with the “fact” of evolution. Now I’m not particularly bright but those nuns had done a great teaching job and I immediately saw the ramifications of evolution; a mythical Adam and the need for a savior or even a creator. In search of an answer I consulted the priests and ministers who taught our half-hour weekly Christian Education classes. Sadly, getting answers from them was not fruitful. They wouldn’t or couldn’t refute evolution yet avoided addressing the implications of subjectively choosing which portions of the Bible were to be understood as truth or literal events. Those men were no better than social workers dressed up in clerical garb.
Later, I spent some time in a church which produced some impressive refutations of evolution. Unfortunately, that same organization also claimed to be the true spiritual Israel and the only authentic church led by a modern day apostle – in other words, it was a cult. On the one hand we were encouraged to diligently study the inerrant Bible in a literal manner for ourselves, yet on the other hand we were fed various “codes” to use. For example, whenever we came across the word “Israel” in the OT or NT we mentally inserted – not just the word “church” – but the name of that particular organization. That exercise never sat comfortably with me.
That I later embraced the New Age and other erroneous ideas is the subject of another story. I must take full blame for having gone down that path. Had I been more diligent and discerning I would have found my answers years ago. Except for the grace of God, I might still be lost in it.
Now I’m back on track and I see the same two issues plaguing some Christians. One is the compromise of evolution and the other is hermeneutics.
Some Christian evolutionists take an elitist stance. They assume creationists are in denial and/or cannot meet the so-called academic challenge of evolution. Creation Ministries International addresses the implications surrounding Christians accepting the evolution hypothesis in Evolutionary syncretism: a critique of Biologos. Also worthwhile reading is CMI’s Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2. CMI is run by scientists like Jonathan Sarfati. They aren’t exactly intellectual lightweights – many of the technical papers they write are peer reviewed. Spend enough time reading at their website and you will see CMI successfully interacting with skeptical “boffins” who write in questions hoping to trip them up. There is no valid scientific excuse for a Christian to embrace evolution. The ramifications of doing so are dire.
The other issue comes down to how some Christians deal with scriptural references which would seem to contradict their theology. The amillennial treatment of Revelation (literal thousand years & binding of Satan) and a multitude of OT references to Israel’s future and relationship to the church, are uppermost in my mind here. One good example is how Kim Riddlebarger deals with Isaiah 65:20 HERE. Essentially, he appeals to the likes of Motyer and argues that Isaiah had to use “metaphors” to express what he couldn’t fully comprehend about the glorious future. Of course, Riddlebarger et al take the view that Isaiah couldn’t have understood it because his report doesn’t comply with their own understanding of how it should read.
During some recent online discussions I’ve been called “blasphemous”, “heretical” and “clueless” for rejecting supercessionism and Amillennialism. The individual even offered to pray for my salvation. I’m glad we weren’t discussing the rapture! Sadly, this attitude is a growing trend.
I feel greatly indebted to Paul Henebury’s recent outstanding work in addressing (and exposing) the methodologies people use to get around OT passages which don’t comply with their respective theologies. I encourage people to visit his blog and spend some time studying his commentaries. A great place to start is HERE and then work your way to recent installments.
Other notable articles by Paul:
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The First Twenty
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The Last Twenty
When I reached my teens I found myself in a secular school and confronted with the “fact” of evolution. Now I’m not particularly bright but those nuns had done a great teaching job and I immediately saw the ramifications of evolution; a mythical Adam and the need for a savior or even a creator. In search of an answer I consulted the priests and ministers who taught our half-hour weekly Christian Education classes. Sadly, getting answers from them was not fruitful. They wouldn’t or couldn’t refute evolution yet avoided addressing the implications of subjectively choosing which portions of the Bible were to be understood as truth or literal events. Those men were no better than social workers dressed up in clerical garb.
Later, I spent some time in a church which produced some impressive refutations of evolution. Unfortunately, that same organization also claimed to be the true spiritual Israel and the only authentic church led by a modern day apostle – in other words, it was a cult. On the one hand we were encouraged to diligently study the inerrant Bible in a literal manner for ourselves, yet on the other hand we were fed various “codes” to use. For example, whenever we came across the word “Israel” in the OT or NT we mentally inserted – not just the word “church” – but the name of that particular organization. That exercise never sat comfortably with me.
That I later embraced the New Age and other erroneous ideas is the subject of another story. I must take full blame for having gone down that path. Had I been more diligent and discerning I would have found my answers years ago. Except for the grace of God, I might still be lost in it.
Now I’m back on track and I see the same two issues plaguing some Christians. One is the compromise of evolution and the other is hermeneutics.
Some Christian evolutionists take an elitist stance. They assume creationists are in denial and/or cannot meet the so-called academic challenge of evolution. Creation Ministries International addresses the implications surrounding Christians accepting the evolution hypothesis in Evolutionary syncretism: a critique of Biologos. Also worthwhile reading is CMI’s Refuting Evolution and Refuting Evolution 2. CMI is run by scientists like Jonathan Sarfati. They aren’t exactly intellectual lightweights – many of the technical papers they write are peer reviewed. Spend enough time reading at their website and you will see CMI successfully interacting with skeptical “boffins” who write in questions hoping to trip them up. There is no valid scientific excuse for a Christian to embrace evolution. The ramifications of doing so are dire.
The other issue comes down to how some Christians deal with scriptural references which would seem to contradict their theology. The amillennial treatment of Revelation (literal thousand years & binding of Satan) and a multitude of OT references to Israel’s future and relationship to the church, are uppermost in my mind here. One good example is how Kim Riddlebarger deals with Isaiah 65:20 HERE. Essentially, he appeals to the likes of Motyer and argues that Isaiah had to use “metaphors” to express what he couldn’t fully comprehend about the glorious future. Of course, Riddlebarger et al take the view that Isaiah couldn’t have understood it because his report doesn’t comply with their own understanding of how it should read.
During some recent online discussions I’ve been called “blasphemous”, “heretical” and “clueless” for rejecting supercessionism and Amillennialism. The individual even offered to pray for my salvation. I’m glad we weren’t discussing the rapture! Sadly, this attitude is a growing trend.
I feel greatly indebted to Paul Henebury’s recent outstanding work in addressing (and exposing) the methodologies people use to get around OT passages which don’t comply with their respective theologies. I encourage people to visit his blog and spend some time studying his commentaries. A great place to start is HERE and then work your way to recent installments.
Other notable articles by Paul:
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The First Twenty
Forty Reasons For Not Reinterpreting The Old Testament By The New: The Last Twenty
Saturday, February 18, 2012
On The Dating of Revelation
“No can do.”
That’s what David B Currie informs us in “Rapture – The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind” (p 456). He’s talking about Rev 22:10 where “rapturists attempt to place the fulfillment [of the time is near] twenty centuries later!” Currie argues that most of the events of Matthew 24 and Revelation have already taken place. However, he doesn’t believe that the second coming of Christ occurred at 70 AD. In fact he takes hyperpreterism to task for teaching that (p 465).
His issue is with the word “tachos” in Rev 1:1 regarding the “things which must ‘soon’ take place”. Perhaps the real problem is that Currie wants to place the events of the seals back to 70 AD to defend his adopted Roman Catholic eschatology. Yet his own argument is precarious because a similar expression is used in Rev 3:11 (tachu) and other places where the Lord warns the churches that He is coming quickly. We know that the Lord didn’t come then – or the early church fathers would have noted it – now it’s “twenty centuries later” and He still hasn’t come.
So, we actually “can do”.
Tony Garland provides insight into this alleged quandary in his excellent commentary on Revelation HERE. Robert L Thomas also addresses the issue in his exegetical commentary on Revelation 1-7 (pp 54-56). Dr Thomas cites Henry Alford (among others) and his expository can be read HERE. Alford uses Luke 18:7-8 as one example where similar expressions imply “long delay”.
One of Currie’s contentions is that Revelation was written around 68 AD. If he can support that conclusion then he can gain some traction in arguing that most of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation events were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. If John wrote Revelation later than 70 AD then Currie’s eschatological assumptions suffer a fatal blow.
Currie somehow sees internal evidence for an early date in the fact that only seven churches were addressed by the Lord. On page 457, he says: “By 96 A.D., there would have been many more than seven Churches to address.” He rejects the suggestion that the seven “encompass the entire scope of St. John’s concern”. However, we need only look at Paul’s Epistles to realize that, in fact, there were many more churches prior to 68 AD that weren’t mentioned in Revelation. It should seem obvious that there were instructive reasons for the Lord to single out those churches that were mentioned.
In “Ancient Witnesses” (p 460) he rejects the argument that John was imprisoned by Domitian between 81 and 96 AD (as per Irenaeus). Currie appeals to Epiphanius who states that John was first imprisoned under Claudius who reigned from 41 to 54 AD. Claudius was another name for Nero...so one can see where the argument is heading. He then cites Dr Robert Young (Young’s Analytical Concordance) to discount Irenaeus’ witness. According to Currie (p 462):“Dr Young held that the original word Domitianou was later ‘stupidly mistaken’ (his words) as Domitianakos...” So if Domitianou refers to Nero and Domitianakos refers to Domitian then Currie has his early date.
Irenaeus (130-202 AD) wrote: "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For [he] was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.”
That last statement fits the later 96 AD date rather than the mid to late 60s.
For various reasons, Nero doesn’t fit the Antichrist’s credentials despite the fact that one can force the number 666 to equal his name (p 457). Nero committed suicide in 68 AD. There was no wound that he was miraculously healed of (Rev13: 3, 12, 14), no miraculous signs and wonders (Rev 13:14) and he didn’t sit in the Temple at Jerusalem proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thess 2:3-4). One can only conceivably fit Nero into the role if one takes great liberties with the texts - which flies in the face of Scott Hahn’s assertion in his Forward to Currie’s book that, “The Fundamentalist tendency is to read each biblical context in isolation from the other texts and from the larger context.....”(p viii).
Of course, given Irenaeus’ observations, he also seemed to have missed the alleged connection between Nero and the Antichrist.
One example of Currie’s circular reasoning occurs on page 451. Consider that he believes that the Roman Catholic Church (the Magisterium) has equal authority with Scripture in the sense that it can proclaim doctrine that hasn’t been taught in the Bible. His premise is that some early church fathers doubted John’s authorship of Revelation because of its perceived “millenarianism”. He notes that “an apostle would never have held the millenarian position that they thought was integral to The Apocalypse.” They objected to the “Jewish” concepts in Revelation. Currie’s solution is that Augustine came along and “conclusively showed that the book does not have a millenarian slant (unless the reader brings it with him).”
To that I would add that only if one does NOT take Revelation at face-value (Rev 20: 1-14) can one then discount millenarianism (Rev 22:18-19).
Dr Mark Hitchcock has written an in-depth 229 page dissertation defending the Domitianic date of Revelation. You can read it HERE
He has also debated Hank Hanegraaff, who can’t seem to be able to decide whether he is a preterist or not. You can watch it HERE
Dan Phillips of Pyromaniacs has a great article on Henry Alford HERE
Henry Alford’s commentaries can also be accessed via Precept Austin HERE
Further reading:
Millennial Series
Theology Adrift: The Early Church Fathers and Their Views of Eschatology
The Reign of Christ and the Great White Throne (Rev 20:1-15)
The Danger of Teaching that All or Most Prophecies Were Fulfilled in 70 A.D.
That’s what David B Currie informs us in “Rapture – The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind” (p 456). He’s talking about Rev 22:10 where “rapturists attempt to place the fulfillment [of the time is near] twenty centuries later!” Currie argues that most of the events of Matthew 24 and Revelation have already taken place. However, he doesn’t believe that the second coming of Christ occurred at 70 AD. In fact he takes hyperpreterism to task for teaching that (p 465).
His issue is with the word “tachos” in Rev 1:1 regarding the “things which must ‘soon’ take place”. Perhaps the real problem is that Currie wants to place the events of the seals back to 70 AD to defend his adopted Roman Catholic eschatology. Yet his own argument is precarious because a similar expression is used in Rev 3:11 (tachu) and other places where the Lord warns the churches that He is coming quickly. We know that the Lord didn’t come then – or the early church fathers would have noted it – now it’s “twenty centuries later” and He still hasn’t come.
So, we actually “can do”.
Tony Garland provides insight into this alleged quandary in his excellent commentary on Revelation HERE. Robert L Thomas also addresses the issue in his exegetical commentary on Revelation 1-7 (pp 54-56). Dr Thomas cites Henry Alford (among others) and his expository can be read HERE. Alford uses Luke 18:7-8 as one example where similar expressions imply “long delay”.
One of Currie’s contentions is that Revelation was written around 68 AD. If he can support that conclusion then he can gain some traction in arguing that most of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation events were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. If John wrote Revelation later than 70 AD then Currie’s eschatological assumptions suffer a fatal blow.
Currie somehow sees internal evidence for an early date in the fact that only seven churches were addressed by the Lord. On page 457, he says: “By 96 A.D., there would have been many more than seven Churches to address.” He rejects the suggestion that the seven “encompass the entire scope of St. John’s concern”. However, we need only look at Paul’s Epistles to realize that, in fact, there were many more churches prior to 68 AD that weren’t mentioned in Revelation. It should seem obvious that there were instructive reasons for the Lord to single out those churches that were mentioned.
In “Ancient Witnesses” (p 460) he rejects the argument that John was imprisoned by Domitian between 81 and 96 AD (as per Irenaeus). Currie appeals to Epiphanius who states that John was first imprisoned under Claudius who reigned from 41 to 54 AD. Claudius was another name for Nero...so one can see where the argument is heading. He then cites Dr Robert Young (Young’s Analytical Concordance) to discount Irenaeus’ witness. According to Currie (p 462):“Dr Young held that the original word Domitianou was later ‘stupidly mistaken’ (his words) as Domitianakos...” So if Domitianou refers to Nero and Domitianakos refers to Domitian then Currie has his early date.
Irenaeus (130-202 AD) wrote: "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For [he] was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.”
That last statement fits the later 96 AD date rather than the mid to late 60s.
For various reasons, Nero doesn’t fit the Antichrist’s credentials despite the fact that one can force the number 666 to equal his name (p 457). Nero committed suicide in 68 AD. There was no wound that he was miraculously healed of (Rev13: 3, 12, 14), no miraculous signs and wonders (Rev 13:14) and he didn’t sit in the Temple at Jerusalem proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thess 2:3-4). One can only conceivably fit Nero into the role if one takes great liberties with the texts - which flies in the face of Scott Hahn’s assertion in his Forward to Currie’s book that, “The Fundamentalist tendency is to read each biblical context in isolation from the other texts and from the larger context.....”(p viii).
Of course, given Irenaeus’ observations, he also seemed to have missed the alleged connection between Nero and the Antichrist.
One example of Currie’s circular reasoning occurs on page 451. Consider that he believes that the Roman Catholic Church (the Magisterium) has equal authority with Scripture in the sense that it can proclaim doctrine that hasn’t been taught in the Bible. His premise is that some early church fathers doubted John’s authorship of Revelation because of its perceived “millenarianism”. He notes that “an apostle would never have held the millenarian position that they thought was integral to The Apocalypse.” They objected to the “Jewish” concepts in Revelation. Currie’s solution is that Augustine came along and “conclusively showed that the book does not have a millenarian slant (unless the reader brings it with him).”
To that I would add that only if one does NOT take Revelation at face-value (Rev 20: 1-14) can one then discount millenarianism (Rev 22:18-19).
Dr Mark Hitchcock has written an in-depth 229 page dissertation defending the Domitianic date of Revelation. You can read it HERE
He has also debated Hank Hanegraaff, who can’t seem to be able to decide whether he is a preterist or not. You can watch it HERE
Dan Phillips of Pyromaniacs has a great article on Henry Alford HERE
Henry Alford’s commentaries can also be accessed via Precept Austin HERE
Further reading:
Millennial Series
Theology Adrift: The Early Church Fathers and Their Views of Eschatology
The Reign of Christ and the Great White Throne (Rev 20:1-15)
The Danger of Teaching that All or Most Prophecies Were Fulfilled in 70 A.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
