We now turn our attention toward the distinctives of Dispensationalism and what separates it from all the other views.
DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY
The first distinction that needs be made is the relative newness of the view in theological terms and its unique history. The distinctives of the view (pre-trib rapture, Church/Israel distinction, Jewish political dominance, different economies and salvation methods, postponement theory, etc) are all relatively new ideas. Formulated in the early to mid 1800's, it is not possible to trace the distinctions to any earlier time in Church history. This comes as a shock to many sitting in the pews as the teaching is presented in such a forceful and confident manner that one would assume this view has been the part and parcel of Church history. Not only that many assume, since they have never been introduced to competing views that it is the ONLY view in Church history.
This post will deal only with a brief timeline and those names most popular who have been instumental in propigating and popularizing the view. Obviously, this is not exhaustive and only serves the purpose of trying to show where the view came from and how it became so popular. I have also tried to avoid legends and heresay but have included some sidebar stories that may prove fruitful in the discussion.
THE ROOTS
Now, many will claim that the view can trace it's roots back to the first and second century and the rise of chiliasm. But this is only true of the Premillennial distinction that they share with Classical Premillennialism. Classical Premillennialism can trace it's roots back to the earliest Church fathers (like Amill and Postmill as well) but there can be found no evidence of the other Dispensational characteristics having proponents - the Israel/Church Distinction, Old testament Salvation, Literal Hermenuetic, Pre-Tribulation Rapture, etc.
The common history thread runs through the writings and teaching of Plymouth Brethren founder, and former Anglican teacher, John Nelson Darby. Though obviously influenced by others preceding him, Darby is credited with making Dispensationalism a system of theology, especially promoting the idea of an imminent secret rapture of the Church, including a two-stage Second Coming of Christ.
Darby was convinced - against 1,800 years of Church teaching I might add - that the Kingdom of God was not, as he had been taught, the Church. The Brethren also were anti-clerical, anti-denominational and anti-creedal...forefathers to modern evangelicalism I presume!
There have been detailed accounts of what led Darby to this view that are available on line as well as in print and would take too much time to deal with here. I would recommend a quick google of Gregory Boyd and his work in dismissing the claims of Dispensationalist of the views early origins despite Mr. Boyds Dispensational view. Some scholars maintain that the new understanding of the rapture was the product of a prophetic vision given to a young Scottish girl, Margaret MacDonald, in 1830. She claimed special insight into the second coming and began to share her views with others. Her ecstatic conduct and apocalyptic teaching led to a charismatic renewal in Scotland. Impressed by the accounts of a new Pentecost, Darby visited the scene of the revival. According to his own testimony in later years he met Margaret MacDonald, but rejected her claims of a new outpouring of the Spirit. Despite his opposition to MacDonald's general approach some writers believe that he accepted her view of the rapture and worked it into his own system.
Darby's influence reached the mind of Cyrus I Scofield, author of the famous Scofield Reference Bible. Scofield was influenced by Darby, D L Moody and a prominent Dispensational pastor named James Brookes. Scofield at one time Pastored Moody's church in Massachusetts, but moved to Dallas to work full time on his reference Bible. The Scofield reference Bible was released in 1909 and quickly became a publishing juggernaut. With notes promoting the Dispensational system on the same page with the actual text of the Bible, students, pastors and lay people began merging the two together and quickly the concepts and ideology became as trusted as the text on the top of the page.
Scofield, though, would have the greatest influence on a young pastor, teacher, theologian named Lewis Sperry Chafer. Chafer worked with Scofield in Philadelphia and helped the ailing theologian found the Philadelphia School of the Bible. Like Scofield, Chafer moved to Dallas and with the aid of friends founded the Evangelical Theological College in Dallas. He was founder and professor of systematic theology at the Bible School for nearly 30 years. That school eventually changed it's name to Dallas Theological seminary and remains one of the most popular and influential seminaries in the world. Students and administration have included; Jim Rayburn, founder of Young Life (as well as many of Young Life's first staff members), Ken Taylor, author of The Living Bible translation, and numerous future Christian educators and pastors, including Howard Hendricks, J. Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, R. B. Thieme, Jr. and John Walvoord, who succeeded him as president of DTS. The list reads like a who's who of Dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism did not reach the mainstream of American and evangelical thought until the late 1960's and early 1970's with the publishing of Dallas Theological student Hal Lindsey's Late, Great Planet Earth. Other students and faculty like Charles Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost, John Walvoord, Thomas Ice and others and have continued to promote the view. Most recently, the fictionalized series of Left Behind books has been a unprecedented publishing success. All this has made the view the prominent, and in some people's minds, exclusive view of eschatology, despite it's relative youth and questionable beginnings.
Another note to consider when asking how did the view gain such a foothold in America especially is to realize it did not take place in a vacuum. It's rise coinciding with the rise of Fundamentalism in the early 20th century. With attacks by liberal theologians a group of conservative evangelical scholars and pastors responded with a call to return to a more literal approach to Biblical interpretation. This coincided with Dispensationalism's "wooden literal" approach and the two forces, though differing on many issues, seemed to gravitate toward one another. They together published a large amount of written material that was consumed by the laity as well.
One last oddity for consideration. The rise of apoctolypticism within several cults also developed at the same time. Both the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons were birthed at generally the same time with some common influences. History is replete with many false predictions of the end of the world by these groups and unfortunately, Dispensationalism’s history is no different.
Though there appears to be no theological commonalities when discussing essential aspects of the faith it should be noted that they do share some common influences and results.Over the next several posts we will look at those theological underpinnings that separate Dispensationalism from the rest of Christian thought. They include; Wooden Literalism, Parenthesis Theory, Israel/Church distinction, Kingdom Distinctions, the Secret Rapture and a concept called The Second Humiliation of Christ.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
It's the End of the World As We Know it - Making Friends
For several years I have named the SS class I teach on Eschatology “It's the End (of the End) of the World As We Know It.” And by that I simply mean that by the time we were done with the 20 to 30 week course the class would probably be introduced to a new way of looking at the subject and will hopefully have enough Biblical evidence to reject the "popular" view. Most of the class was with me up to this point - about week three or four - even when I had fun at the expense of the prophetic prognosticators they may actually read and follow.
Then the week the fan consistently got hit!
In fact, it probably wouldn't have been as bad if it was actually just one week. The critique of Left Behind Theology normally took several weeks as fielding questions took up a great deal of time and my four favorite words became, "we'll get to that!" One person, after I criticized the popular timeline of events in a section called The Second Humiliation, asked if I believed the Bible or not? It can be heard on one of the SS sessions on sermonaudio.com.
Suffice it to say that this will also take more than a couple postings.
There is a Pastor of a Church in Southern California that over the span of several years took his Church from an association with the charismatic Four Square denomination to an alliance with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church! Now, that's a shift in thinking. Part of that discourse of sermons was a series called "Remedial Christianity." The title was used because remedial does not mean "slow" or "mentally challenged," but rather that one must "unlearn" what they know first in order to put the new, correct information into the brain. This comes from the fact that different theological strains will still use the same vocabulary, but will place new definitions into them. That causes great difficulty in learning and comprehending the new material. The brain will try to associate the old definitions with the new teaching.
That is why I spend so much time critiquing the popular Left Behind view. The concepts, definitions and biases are so ingrained into our thinking that it is natural when someone hears a particular subject to associate those definitions with the new material, causing great confusion and perplexity. Also, because the view is such a part of evangelical Christianity (even the pagans are familiar with it) it has become the status quo. Many are not so much offended that someone may differ with their view as they are surprised to discover there are other views at all.
Much of evangelical Christianity thinks that the only real difference is in regard to the timing of the rapture in relation to the Tribulation - are you pre- mid- or post- trib? Most have no idea that there are differing Millennial positions, hermeneutical approaches, Church and Israel distinction debates and so on. There are several reasons for this.
1. Go to a local Christian Bookstore and browse the Eschatology or Prophecy section. How many books are NOT proponents of Left Behind Theology?
2. The opposing views have not only done a bad job of marketing their books, they haven't produced all that much material to promote their case. The exceptions appear to be Kim Riddlebarger, Gary DeMar, Ken Gentry and the late Greg Bahnsen. But those books and materials have been by small publishers (except one by DeMar) and are difficult to find. Also, for the most part many books of the non-Left Behind variety are critiques of that view without expounding upon their own view.
3. The other views just don't make for exciting movie plots of world domination and the forces of evil. Surely I jest? Not at all. The Left Behind view makes for better movie material and bumper stickers. Here's what I mean ... "In case of rapture this car will be unmanned...and yours will too since there is no secret rapture and just one general resurrection at the end of time so everyone here will be gone..." just doesn't have the same ring to it!
4. The LB view seems to fit the current world circumstances and mankind’s natural inclination toward doomsday scenarios. The Bible's more fun to read with the USA Today next to it!
5. This relates back to the first couple reasons and to an earlier post regarding Fruit Bowl Theology. To the non LB theologian, eschatology is a small, minor subset of the overall doctrinal stand and is not worth great discussion. On the other hand, the LBers place a high importance on the study and proliferation of their view.
6. Finally. Since most of the material available is of the LB variety there is no reason for the LB proponents to discuss the opposition. They deny it's existence by simply ignoring it. They assume their audience neither knows nor cares about the opposing views and therefore simply do not bring it up.
Ultimately the fault lies in those who oppose the LB view. They have done little to make their case, and in the case of one author, shown a tendency to spend more time critiquing there most closely associated brethren (Amill v Post) that they don't critique the LB view firmly enough.
That being said, the next several posts will be dedicated to a discussion and critique of LB theology...
Just trying to make friends :)
Then the week the fan consistently got hit!
In fact, it probably wouldn't have been as bad if it was actually just one week. The critique of Left Behind Theology normally took several weeks as fielding questions took up a great deal of time and my four favorite words became, "we'll get to that!" One person, after I criticized the popular timeline of events in a section called The Second Humiliation, asked if I believed the Bible or not? It can be heard on one of the SS sessions on sermonaudio.com.
Suffice it to say that this will also take more than a couple postings.
There is a Pastor of a Church in Southern California that over the span of several years took his Church from an association with the charismatic Four Square denomination to an alliance with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church! Now, that's a shift in thinking. Part of that discourse of sermons was a series called "Remedial Christianity." The title was used because remedial does not mean "slow" or "mentally challenged," but rather that one must "unlearn" what they know first in order to put the new, correct information into the brain. This comes from the fact that different theological strains will still use the same vocabulary, but will place new definitions into them. That causes great difficulty in learning and comprehending the new material. The brain will try to associate the old definitions with the new teaching.
That is why I spend so much time critiquing the popular Left Behind view. The concepts, definitions and biases are so ingrained into our thinking that it is natural when someone hears a particular subject to associate those definitions with the new material, causing great confusion and perplexity. Also, because the view is such a part of evangelical Christianity (even the pagans are familiar with it) it has become the status quo. Many are not so much offended that someone may differ with their view as they are surprised to discover there are other views at all.
Much of evangelical Christianity thinks that the only real difference is in regard to the timing of the rapture in relation to the Tribulation - are you pre- mid- or post- trib? Most have no idea that there are differing Millennial positions, hermeneutical approaches, Church and Israel distinction debates and so on. There are several reasons for this.
1. Go to a local Christian Bookstore and browse the Eschatology or Prophecy section. How many books are NOT proponents of Left Behind Theology?
2. The opposing views have not only done a bad job of marketing their books, they haven't produced all that much material to promote their case. The exceptions appear to be Kim Riddlebarger, Gary DeMar, Ken Gentry and the late Greg Bahnsen. But those books and materials have been by small publishers (except one by DeMar) and are difficult to find. Also, for the most part many books of the non-Left Behind variety are critiques of that view without expounding upon their own view.
3. The other views just don't make for exciting movie plots of world domination and the forces of evil. Surely I jest? Not at all. The Left Behind view makes for better movie material and bumper stickers. Here's what I mean ... "In case of rapture this car will be unmanned...and yours will too since there is no secret rapture and just one general resurrection at the end of time so everyone here will be gone..." just doesn't have the same ring to it!
4. The LB view seems to fit the current world circumstances and mankind’s natural inclination toward doomsday scenarios. The Bible's more fun to read with the USA Today next to it!
5. This relates back to the first couple reasons and to an earlier post regarding Fruit Bowl Theology. To the non LB theologian, eschatology is a small, minor subset of the overall doctrinal stand and is not worth great discussion. On the other hand, the LBers place a high importance on the study and proliferation of their view.
6. Finally. Since most of the material available is of the LB variety there is no reason for the LB proponents to discuss the opposition. They deny it's existence by simply ignoring it. They assume their audience neither knows nor cares about the opposing views and therefore simply do not bring it up.
Ultimately the fault lies in those who oppose the LB view. They have done little to make their case, and in the case of one author, shown a tendency to spend more time critiquing there most closely associated brethren (Amill v Post) that they don't critique the LB view firmly enough.
That being said, the next several posts will be dedicated to a discussion and critique of LB theology...
Just trying to make friends :)
Friday, November 21, 2008
It's the End of the World As We Know It - Millennial Views Part 2
With this post we will conclude the general overciew of the four views of the Millennium. Greater discussion will follow this post on the very popular Dispensational (Left Behind) view.
POSTMILLENIALISM
1.The Church Age is the Kingdom prophesied by the OT prophets. The “people of God” are expanded from ethnic Israel to the Church
2. Christ established His kingdom at His first advent
3. The binding of Satan has a specific purpose and accomplishes the above goal
4. The nature of the Kingdom is primarily “redemptive” rather than political
5. The power of the Gospel is transforming in nature and through it people, societies and nations are redeemed and changed
6. The “kingdom prophecies” are seen as literal
7. The Kingdom expands gradually over time leading to a time in history where the world is converted
8. Christ returns “after” His enemies are made His footstool to resurrect, judge and establish the eternal order
Early Church Adherents Include: Eusubius, Athanasius, Augustine
Modern Church Adherents Include: Bahnsen, Boettner, DeMar, Edwards, Henry, Hodge, Kik, Machen, Gentry, Murray, North, Owens, Sproul, Warfield * Calvin and Luther CLASSICAL
PREMILLENNIALISM
1. The NT Church is the initial phase of Christ’s Kingdom
2. The NT Church will win occasional victories, but will fall victim to a Great Apostasy
3. The Church will pass through a yet future Great Tribulation (Post-Tribulational)
4. Premillennialist are, by definition, futurists.
5. Christ returns at the end of the tribulation to Resurrect/Judge the elect and set up an earthly kingdom – The First Resurrection
6. Christ binds Satan at this Second Coming
7. Satan is loosed after 1000 years and is ultimately defeated by fire from Heaven
8. The Second Resurrection where the damned will be judged
9. The eternal order – New heavens and new earth
Early Church Adherents Include – Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian
Modern Church Adherents Include: Erdman, Spurgeon, RA Torry, George Eldon Ladd
DISPENSATIONAL PREMILLENNIALISM
1. Christ offered the Davidic Kingdom at His first advent, which was rejected and postponed to some future time
2. The Church was wholly unforeseen and unknown to the OT prophets
3. God has two distinctive eternal plans – one for the Church and one for ethnic Israel
4. The “Prophetic Clock” stopped ticking at Christ’s first advent
5. The Church will fail in history and need to be “raptured” so that the promises made to Israel may be fulfilled
6. Christ returns (partially) to “rapture” the Church before the Great Seven Year Tribulation
7. During the Great Tribulation Jews will be converted and the Church will have a feast in heaven
8. The temple will be rebuilt – during or previous to the tribulation – and OT Jewish ordinances will be reinstated
9. Christ returns after the Tribulation to kill the Beast and False Prophet and set up a distinctly Jewish government in Jerusalem – Animal sacrifices (that were stopped during the tribulation by the Anti-Christ) will be reinstituted
10. After 1000 years, Satan is loosed and leads a rebellion against Christ. God intervenes and destroys Satan and throws him into the fiery pit. The eternal order is established.
Early Church Adherents: NONE
Modern Church Adherents: LS Chafer, Darby, Scofield, Chuck Smith, Lindsey, Hagee, LaHaye, Missler, Ryrie, Ice, Pentecost, Walvoord
POSTMILLENIALISM
1.The Church Age is the Kingdom prophesied by the OT prophets. The “people of God” are expanded from ethnic Israel to the Church
2. Christ established His kingdom at His first advent
3. The binding of Satan has a specific purpose and accomplishes the above goal
4. The nature of the Kingdom is primarily “redemptive” rather than political
5. The power of the Gospel is transforming in nature and through it people, societies and nations are redeemed and changed
6. The “kingdom prophecies” are seen as literal
7. The Kingdom expands gradually over time leading to a time in history where the world is converted
8. Christ returns “after” His enemies are made His footstool to resurrect, judge and establish the eternal order
Early Church Adherents Include: Eusubius, Athanasius, Augustine
Modern Church Adherents Include: Bahnsen, Boettner, DeMar, Edwards, Henry, Hodge, Kik, Machen, Gentry, Murray, North, Owens, Sproul, Warfield * Calvin and Luther CLASSICAL
PREMILLENNIALISM
1. The NT Church is the initial phase of Christ’s Kingdom
2. The NT Church will win occasional victories, but will fall victim to a Great Apostasy
3. The Church will pass through a yet future Great Tribulation (Post-Tribulational)
4. Premillennialist are, by definition, futurists.
5. Christ returns at the end of the tribulation to Resurrect/Judge the elect and set up an earthly kingdom – The First Resurrection
6. Christ binds Satan at this Second Coming
7. Satan is loosed after 1000 years and is ultimately defeated by fire from Heaven
8. The Second Resurrection where the damned will be judged
9. The eternal order – New heavens and new earth
Early Church Adherents Include – Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian
Modern Church Adherents Include: Erdman, Spurgeon, RA Torry, George Eldon Ladd
DISPENSATIONAL PREMILLENNIALISM
1. Christ offered the Davidic Kingdom at His first advent, which was rejected and postponed to some future time
2. The Church was wholly unforeseen and unknown to the OT prophets
3. God has two distinctive eternal plans – one for the Church and one for ethnic Israel
4. The “Prophetic Clock” stopped ticking at Christ’s first advent
5. The Church will fail in history and need to be “raptured” so that the promises made to Israel may be fulfilled
6. Christ returns (partially) to “rapture” the Church before the Great Seven Year Tribulation
7. During the Great Tribulation Jews will be converted and the Church will have a feast in heaven
8. The temple will be rebuilt – during or previous to the tribulation – and OT Jewish ordinances will be reinstated
9. Christ returns after the Tribulation to kill the Beast and False Prophet and set up a distinctly Jewish government in Jerusalem – Animal sacrifices (that were stopped during the tribulation by the Anti-Christ) will be reinstituted
10. After 1000 years, Satan is loosed and leads a rebellion against Christ. God intervenes and destroys Satan and throws him into the fiery pit. The eternal order is established.
Early Church Adherents: NONE
Modern Church Adherents: LS Chafer, Darby, Scofield, Chuck Smith, Lindsey, Hagee, LaHaye, Missler, Ryrie, Ice, Pentecost, Walvoord
Thursday, November 20, 2008
It's the End of the World As We Know It - Millennial Views Part 1
Before we begin an actual discussion of the four primary Millennial views I wanted to take a look at how the term Kingdom and Millennium are often used interchangeably by all Millennial position. This prophesied Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven is used by Amills and Postmills to describe the Church in it’s present state and coming glorification (now, not yet) and by Premill’s to describe the future Millennial Kingdom of Christ’s literal and physical reign on earth. This promised Kingdom is also called the Davidic Kingdom.
The Davidic Kingdom is derived from a prophecy given to David that one from his own body would be seated on his throne and, according to Isaiah, would have a government that would ever increase.
Psalm 132:11 The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back: "One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne.
Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.
This is what the Premillennialist would argue has been postponed from Christ’s first coming until His Second Coming in the near future. It can only be fulfilled when Christ literally and physically sits on the throne of David located in the Holy City of Jerusalem. Some speculate it will be located in a rebuilt temple. This, it is argued, is exactly what the Jews of the first century were expecting and why they were shocked to hear that this Christ (no kingly warrior) was this long anticipated Messiah. This is also why the terms Kingdom and Millennium are often used interchangeably.
So how does the Amill or Postmill respond?
First they would make the case that the NT writers and speakers, including Jesus Himself believed and taught that not only was the Kingdom near…
Mark 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.“
…but that it was a present reality…
Matt 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you...
and was immediately expected to come in some level of fullness…
Mark 9:1 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."
…and was both earthly present and heavenly fulfilled…
Col 1: 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son
But while some may argue that those verses may pertain to the Church or some sort of spiritual reality, it does not account for the literal physical reign of Christ as a descendent of David in the Davidic Kingdom fulfilled. So, with the above verses regarding the Kingdom’s present reality in mind let’s consider Peter’s sermon in Acts chapter 2…
Acts 2:29-31 "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. [30] Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, …
So here Peter is plainly and blatantly discussing the Davidic Kingdom promise that David’s own descendent would sit upon his throne. Peter explains the fulfillment of that promise in the next verse…
[31] he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ…
So, it is the resurrection of Christ that fulfills the promise made to David, NOT a future, literal and physical sitting upon an earthly throne.So, there is how the two views make their case regarding the issues of the Kingdom and why the term is used in connection with and in place of the Millennium.
AMILLENNIALISM
With that in mind let us begin our overview of the four Millennial position by describing first, Amillennialism. Each overview will deal with the same primary issues and how each view describes and interprets those issues. Items like timing, nature, kingdom, etc will be bullet pointed. I will also include a list of early Church fathers and modern Church adherents to each position. I will not detail here how these views came to their conclusions as all of that will be discussed later. This is primarily for reference.
1. The Church Age is the same as the Kingdom Era of the Old Testament
2. Satan is “bound” during Jesus’ first advent
3. Christ is currently reigning “spiritually” through the hearts and lives of those in the Church
4. There are occasional short-lived advances of the Gospel, but the Church will gradually lose influence
5. Many Amillennialist believe in cyclical “tribulations” throughout history
6. Christ returns at the end of the millennium to resurrect, judge and establish the eternal order.
7. The “millennium” (1000 years) is a figurative, long period of time starting at the first advent of Christ and ending at the Second Coming
Early Church Adherents Include: Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Rome
Modern Church Adherents Include: Berkhof, Adams, Hanko, Hoekema, Kuyper, Horton, Riddlebarger, Kline, Pink, Van Til, Calvin*The next posts will detail the three other views.
The Davidic Kingdom is derived from a prophecy given to David that one from his own body would be seated on his throne and, according to Isaiah, would have a government that would ever increase.
Psalm 132:11 The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back: "One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne.
Isaiah 9:7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.
This is what the Premillennialist would argue has been postponed from Christ’s first coming until His Second Coming in the near future. It can only be fulfilled when Christ literally and physically sits on the throne of David located in the Holy City of Jerusalem. Some speculate it will be located in a rebuilt temple. This, it is argued, is exactly what the Jews of the first century were expecting and why they were shocked to hear that this Christ (no kingly warrior) was this long anticipated Messiah. This is also why the terms Kingdom and Millennium are often used interchangeably.
So how does the Amill or Postmill respond?
First they would make the case that the NT writers and speakers, including Jesus Himself believed and taught that not only was the Kingdom near…
Mark 1:14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, 15and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.“
…but that it was a present reality…
Matt 12:28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you...
and was immediately expected to come in some level of fullness…
Mark 9:1 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."
…and was both earthly present and heavenly fulfilled…
Col 1: 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son
But while some may argue that those verses may pertain to the Church or some sort of spiritual reality, it does not account for the literal physical reign of Christ as a descendent of David in the Davidic Kingdom fulfilled. So, with the above verses regarding the Kingdom’s present reality in mind let’s consider Peter’s sermon in Acts chapter 2…
Acts 2:29-31 "Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. [30] Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, …
So here Peter is plainly and blatantly discussing the Davidic Kingdom promise that David’s own descendent would sit upon his throne. Peter explains the fulfillment of that promise in the next verse…
[31] he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ…
So, it is the resurrection of Christ that fulfills the promise made to David, NOT a future, literal and physical sitting upon an earthly throne.So, there is how the two views make their case regarding the issues of the Kingdom and why the term is used in connection with and in place of the Millennium.
AMILLENNIALISM
With that in mind let us begin our overview of the four Millennial position by describing first, Amillennialism. Each overview will deal with the same primary issues and how each view describes and interprets those issues. Items like timing, nature, kingdom, etc will be bullet pointed. I will also include a list of early Church fathers and modern Church adherents to each position. I will not detail here how these views came to their conclusions as all of that will be discussed later. This is primarily for reference.
1. The Church Age is the same as the Kingdom Era of the Old Testament
2. Satan is “bound” during Jesus’ first advent
3. Christ is currently reigning “spiritually” through the hearts and lives of those in the Church
4. There are occasional short-lived advances of the Gospel, but the Church will gradually lose influence
5. Many Amillennialist believe in cyclical “tribulations” throughout history
6. Christ returns at the end of the millennium to resurrect, judge and establish the eternal order.
7. The “millennium” (1000 years) is a figurative, long period of time starting at the first advent of Christ and ending at the Second Coming
Early Church Adherents Include: Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Rome
Modern Church Adherents Include: Berkhof, Adams, Hanko, Hoekema, Kuyper, Horton, Riddlebarger, Kline, Pink, Van Til, Calvin*The next posts will detail the three other views.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
It's the End of the World aswe Know it - Intro to Views
At this point we will begin our discussion on the differing views, both in the area of millennial position and also in the area of hermeneutics. Both areas contain four primary views.
MILLENNIAL VIEWS
Amillennialism
Postmillennialism
Classical Premillennialism
Dispensational Premillennialism
THEOLOGICAL MATH
Theological math is a funny thing. You start with two views and somehow end up with four. 1 + 1 = 4. Since the Millennial positions contain both a “timing” element (when the millennium begins and ends along with it's spacial length) and a “nature” element (what things happen before, during and after), the positions double. As an example, both Amillennialism and Postmillennialism argue that Christ will return AFTER the Millennium and most agree it is a present day event. But Postmill differs in seeing the millennium as an ever increasing time of prosperity for the Church culminating in a world wide acceptance of the Gospel, while Amill’s argue that good and evil will have equal amounts of representation, possibly ending with a great apostasy of the Church.
So, even though both agree for the most part on the timing issue, there is great disagreement on the nature of the millennium. Hence, one view becoming two. Here are some quick definitions for the above views.
Classical Premillennialism - Very old view that Christ returns before the millennium and can be covenantal (Reformed)
Dispensational Premillennialism - Recent (1830’s) and novel view. Similar to Classical, but adding a “pre-tribulation” Rapture – also known as Left Behind Theology. Is not Covenantal and not Reformed (despite the protestations of some of my close Calvinist Baptist friends)
Amillennialism - Sees the return of Christ at the end of a “figurative” millennium
Postmillennialism - Same as Amillennialism in regards to timing issues, but teaches an “optimistic” view of world wide conversion before the physical return of Christ
HERMENEUTICAL OPTIONS
Spiritualism/Idealism
Historicism
FuturismPreterism
Though the above mentioned hermeneutical approaches to prophetic passages have been mostly played out in the understanding of the book of Revelation, the same methods are used elsewhere in Scripture as well (ie Olivet Discourse, Daniel 9, etc). It should also be noted that Dispensationalism is a subset of the Futurist hermeneutic method with some very unique positions attached exclusively to it’s view (more on that later).
Like above, here are some very quick definitions. Remember that the hermeneutic views impacts the interpretation of Revelation primarily.
HISTORICISM - Revelation is a chronological picture of history
IDEALISM/SPIRITUALISM - Revelation is figurative and cyclical – good vs. evil
FUTURISM - All New Testament prophecy is yet future
*PRETERISM - Most New Testament prophecy is now history and seen as relating to primarily 70 AD
*Some Preterist are full-Preterist and believe that all prophecy is complete and there is no literal future Second Coming of Christ. That view will not be in mind when the term Preterist or Preterism is used.
MILLENNIAL VIEWS
Amillennialism
Postmillennialism
Classical Premillennialism
Dispensational Premillennialism
THEOLOGICAL MATH
Theological math is a funny thing. You start with two views and somehow end up with four. 1 + 1 = 4. Since the Millennial positions contain both a “timing” element (when the millennium begins and ends along with it's spacial length) and a “nature” element (what things happen before, during and after), the positions double. As an example, both Amillennialism and Postmillennialism argue that Christ will return AFTER the Millennium and most agree it is a present day event. But Postmill differs in seeing the millennium as an ever increasing time of prosperity for the Church culminating in a world wide acceptance of the Gospel, while Amill’s argue that good and evil will have equal amounts of representation, possibly ending with a great apostasy of the Church.
So, even though both agree for the most part on the timing issue, there is great disagreement on the nature of the millennium. Hence, one view becoming two. Here are some quick definitions for the above views.
Classical Premillennialism - Very old view that Christ returns before the millennium and can be covenantal (Reformed)
Dispensational Premillennialism - Recent (1830’s) and novel view. Similar to Classical, but adding a “pre-tribulation” Rapture – also known as Left Behind Theology. Is not Covenantal and not Reformed (despite the protestations of some of my close Calvinist Baptist friends)
Amillennialism - Sees the return of Christ at the end of a “figurative” millennium
Postmillennialism - Same as Amillennialism in regards to timing issues, but teaches an “optimistic” view of world wide conversion before the physical return of Christ
HERMENEUTICAL OPTIONS
Spiritualism/Idealism
Historicism
FuturismPreterism
Though the above mentioned hermeneutical approaches to prophetic passages have been mostly played out in the understanding of the book of Revelation, the same methods are used elsewhere in Scripture as well (ie Olivet Discourse, Daniel 9, etc). It should also be noted that Dispensationalism is a subset of the Futurist hermeneutic method with some very unique positions attached exclusively to it’s view (more on that later).
Like above, here are some very quick definitions. Remember that the hermeneutic views impacts the interpretation of Revelation primarily.
HISTORICISM - Revelation is a chronological picture of history
IDEALISM/SPIRITUALISM - Revelation is figurative and cyclical – good vs. evil
FUTURISM - All New Testament prophecy is yet future
*PRETERISM - Most New Testament prophecy is now history and seen as relating to primarily 70 AD
*Some Preterist are full-Preterist and believe that all prophecy is complete and there is no literal future Second Coming of Christ. That view will not be in mind when the term Preterist or Preterism is used.
It's the End of the World As We Know it - Why Eschatology Part 3
As we continue our discussion as to how eschatology impacts other facets of our worldview and belief system, we turn to doctrinal, theological and ecclesiological issues. Where previously we discussed a more sociological impact, here we look at the more basic underpinnings of the different belief systems and how eschatology fits into and impacts those systems.
FRUIT BOWL THEOLOGY
Picture a large fruit ball. In that fruit bowl would be placed different fruits (doctrines) that make up ones theological system: hermeneutics, salvation, church discipline and government, Christology, covenants, creation, evangelism, providence, law, gospel, etc. But the bowl that holds these together must be the over-arching theme. For the Reformed community I would argue the bowl that holds these items in the Sovereignty of God. God’s ultimate sovereignty over all things is the thread that runs throughout the entire Bible. It is also the primary focus of the teaching from pulpit and the words from the paper…even the lyrics of its worship. Some in the modern church have made that bowl itself - the thing with which the system is held together - eschatology. What does that look like?
HERMENEUTICS
The art and science of Biblical interpretation.
How do we know what we are reading really means to say? Despite the best intentions NO ONE opens the Scripture with a blank sheet for a mind. Everyone has preconceived notions about the meaning of words, phrases, emphasis, etc. Knowledge of the context, the author, the audience and circumstances at the time are vitally important. With that in mind one must understand that differences in opinion on interpretive methods of Scripture are directly impacted by the presuppositions.
But how does eschatology impact the interpretive method? Sometimes obviously. Sometimes more subtly. A traditional Dispensationalist will see a distinct divide between the Old and New Testaments. And as we will see later this distinction impacts nearly every other major doctrinal category.
So, when one reads certain “buzz” words that seem to relate to their particular view of eschatology, they will always interpret that word in the same way regardless of context. One of the most obvious is the word “coming.” When the word coming is used in relation to Jesus many will always interpret the event in question to be the literal Second Coming of Jesus, even though several instances can in no way be related to that event. Other common phrase or words include; end of the age, last days, clouds, world and several more that will be discussed over the next several blogs. Suffice it to say for our purposes that, yes, your eschatology will impact your hermeneutic.
Another area this shows itself (and I do not have space to go into detail here, but will in great detail when we discuss Daniel) is the adding of a parenthesis of time in Daniel 9. This unwarranted intrusion into the passage has nothing to do with “blank slate” exegesis leading to this conclusion, but rather starting with the preconceived necessity and making it fit the system.
On a side note, the term “latter days” found throughout the Old Testament literally means “the days after this,” or better yet, "some time in the future." It does not necessarily have to mean “the end of days.”
SALVATION
Though this is not true for many modern Dispensationalists, the more popular and traditional Dispensationalist do have differing forms of salvation in their theology. Ryrie and others may shout from the rooftops that it is not true and that Dispensationalism has always believed and taught that mankind was always saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ, the following popular authors and theologians beg to differ.
“…grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ…The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation” Scofield
“It can be said at once that His (Jesus) dying was not God’s own plan. It was conceived somewhere else and yielded to by God…the plan is given in the Old Testament code…the tabernacle or temple, under prescribed regulations…” Chafer
This is sometimes called the Age of the Church, or the Church period. The characteristic of this age is that salvation is no longer by legal obedience, but by the personal acceptance of the finished work of Jesus Christ, who by his meritorious ministry has procured for us a righteousness of God'.” Evans
“A distinction must be observed here between just men of the Old Testamen and those justified according to the New Testament. According to the Old Testament men were just because they were true and faithful in keeping the Mosaic Law. ... Men were therefore just because of their own works for God whereas New Testament justification is God's work for man in answer to faith” Chafer
I would hope that anyone with even the most elementary understanding of salvation by grace through faith would see the great heresy being promoted by the above concept.
The distinction described at the beginning of today’s blog shows itself here again by posturing a different form of salvation between the Old and New Testaments. As a result there is a different resurrection for the Old and New Testament saints as well (discussed later). Again, this is just to show that ones eschatology and the underpinnings and presuppositions of that view has great impact even on the view of salvation.
APOLOGETICS
Bertrand Russell, the famed atheist, made some very strong arguments in the 20th century regarding the validity of Christ’s claims to deity when he pointed out that clearly Jesus believed (and taught) that he would return within a generation. Russell argues that Jesus either didn’t return and was a liar/false prophet or that He didn’t really know if He would return which means He wasn’t God either. This put those who debated Russell on the horns of a dilemma. The apologist must make cogent and clear arguments as to where Russell is wrong. If one takes the position that Matthew 24 and the Olivet Discourse is about the literal, physical Second Coming of Jesus he has the most difficult time dealing with the plain meaning of the text and struggles making his case. Either way, his apologetic is compromised.
THE LAW
If the distinction between the Old and New Testaments remain consistent then how one view the law can be greatly affected. If the law is only for Old Testament Israel (as the claim is made) than the New Testament Church member has no obligation to follow it. Only if one sees salvation wrapped up in following of the OT ordinances (as shown earlier) is there any trouble. The Reformed reader can see the OT Law differently and realize it’s value for both the OT and NT saint.
This problem has lead many to claim that only those laws repeated in the NT are valid for today and the NT saint is required to obey only them. Here in lies another dilemma. As Gary North has pointed out, the prohibition on sex with animals IS NOT repeated in the NT.
ETHICS
Since our morality and ethics are to be derived from Scripture, if we are to – like above – abrogate the Old Testament law to a different economy, then we are hard pressed to find an over-arching, full-orbed ethical standard. We may be told to love one another, but without the law we may not know how or why. Thomas Ice in his famous debate with Gary DeMar argued that his eschatology gave him his ethical standard (remember the fruit bowl?).
What did that mean? Well, perhaps you were once told that you should not see an “R” rated movie. When you asked why, you may have been told something akin to, “You don’t want to be sitting in that movie theatre watching that R Rated movie when the rapture takes place and that was the last thing you were doing on Earth!” I actually have heard that argument and notice that the ethic is derived from the eschatology, not from a Biblical standard. And when questioned further, to what standard would this person use to make the claim that the R rated movie was something bad and you would be ashamed to have been doing it when Christ returned? They are still caught having to appeal to that which they deny has authority. They could point to Paul and his prohibitions on certain actions and activities, but Paul has to point to the law to make his case. Even given that one could demand a thorough explanation as to which things were right and wrong and the NT simply does not have the exhaustive list nor is there enough for “General Equity” to suffice.
Ultimately I want to show that ones eschatology will impact their ethics and standards, even though I would also argue most Dispensationalist are very inconsistent in this manner and still embrace the law, at least the Big 10.
THE CHURCHLike most of the above the impact one eschatology has on your view of the Church can be traced to the distinction many have created within the pages of Holy Writ. Some claim the Church was a mistake, plan B, a complete unknown and not in the complete and perfect plan of God Almighty. This shows itself most in the Church/Israel distinction which will be a matter of great importance later in our discussions.
So, rather than tackle that weighty issue I will simply discuss one view of the Church in two ways. One, is the Church important and as a covenant body and two, what is the future for the Church.
Because of the aforementioned distinction, many have argued that the Church is not as important, that worship is individualized and God’s relationship with mankind is individualized, not corporate, and the Kingdom of God is postponed. On the other side of the coin are those who say that God deals covenantally with the Church (both the elect and non-elect members). This leads to a view where worship is corporate and regulated (by His word), God’s dealings with men are covenantal through families and that the Church is the Kingdom of God as expressed in the present age.
These differing views also can lead to differing views on the sacraments, church discipline, worship methods, emphasis on preaching or teaching and a lot more. Again, what is important here is that these differences come about as a result of the underlying system found in particular eschatologies.
Finally, and for those who stick around long enough (and most importantly to me) is how eschatology impacts how one views the future of the Church. Is that future paved with misery, deceit, failure and pessimism? Is the world going to hell in a hand basket with Church falling right in line? Will the Bride that Jesus returns for be bloodied, bruised, dirty and ashamed?
Will the gates of Hell prevail?
FRUIT BOWL THEOLOGY
Picture a large fruit ball. In that fruit bowl would be placed different fruits (doctrines) that make up ones theological system: hermeneutics, salvation, church discipline and government, Christology, covenants, creation, evangelism, providence, law, gospel, etc. But the bowl that holds these together must be the over-arching theme. For the Reformed community I would argue the bowl that holds these items in the Sovereignty of God. God’s ultimate sovereignty over all things is the thread that runs throughout the entire Bible. It is also the primary focus of the teaching from pulpit and the words from the paper…even the lyrics of its worship. Some in the modern church have made that bowl itself - the thing with which the system is held together - eschatology. What does that look like?
HERMENEUTICS
The art and science of Biblical interpretation.
How do we know what we are reading really means to say? Despite the best intentions NO ONE opens the Scripture with a blank sheet for a mind. Everyone has preconceived notions about the meaning of words, phrases, emphasis, etc. Knowledge of the context, the author, the audience and circumstances at the time are vitally important. With that in mind one must understand that differences in opinion on interpretive methods of Scripture are directly impacted by the presuppositions.
But how does eschatology impact the interpretive method? Sometimes obviously. Sometimes more subtly. A traditional Dispensationalist will see a distinct divide between the Old and New Testaments. And as we will see later this distinction impacts nearly every other major doctrinal category.
So, when one reads certain “buzz” words that seem to relate to their particular view of eschatology, they will always interpret that word in the same way regardless of context. One of the most obvious is the word “coming.” When the word coming is used in relation to Jesus many will always interpret the event in question to be the literal Second Coming of Jesus, even though several instances can in no way be related to that event. Other common phrase or words include; end of the age, last days, clouds, world and several more that will be discussed over the next several blogs. Suffice it to say for our purposes that, yes, your eschatology will impact your hermeneutic.
Another area this shows itself (and I do not have space to go into detail here, but will in great detail when we discuss Daniel) is the adding of a parenthesis of time in Daniel 9. This unwarranted intrusion into the passage has nothing to do with “blank slate” exegesis leading to this conclusion, but rather starting with the preconceived necessity and making it fit the system.
On a side note, the term “latter days” found throughout the Old Testament literally means “the days after this,” or better yet, "some time in the future." It does not necessarily have to mean “the end of days.”
SALVATION
Though this is not true for many modern Dispensationalists, the more popular and traditional Dispensationalist do have differing forms of salvation in their theology. Ryrie and others may shout from the rooftops that it is not true and that Dispensationalism has always believed and taught that mankind was always saved by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ, the following popular authors and theologians beg to differ.
“…grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ…The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation” Scofield
“It can be said at once that His (Jesus) dying was not God’s own plan. It was conceived somewhere else and yielded to by God…the plan is given in the Old Testament code…the tabernacle or temple, under prescribed regulations…” Chafer
This is sometimes called the Age of the Church, or the Church period. The characteristic of this age is that salvation is no longer by legal obedience, but by the personal acceptance of the finished work of Jesus Christ, who by his meritorious ministry has procured for us a righteousness of God'.” Evans
“A distinction must be observed here between just men of the Old Testamen and those justified according to the New Testament. According to the Old Testament men were just because they were true and faithful in keeping the Mosaic Law. ... Men were therefore just because of their own works for God whereas New Testament justification is God's work for man in answer to faith” Chafer
I would hope that anyone with even the most elementary understanding of salvation by grace through faith would see the great heresy being promoted by the above concept.
The distinction described at the beginning of today’s blog shows itself here again by posturing a different form of salvation between the Old and New Testaments. As a result there is a different resurrection for the Old and New Testament saints as well (discussed later). Again, this is just to show that ones eschatology and the underpinnings and presuppositions of that view has great impact even on the view of salvation.
APOLOGETICS
Bertrand Russell, the famed atheist, made some very strong arguments in the 20th century regarding the validity of Christ’s claims to deity when he pointed out that clearly Jesus believed (and taught) that he would return within a generation. Russell argues that Jesus either didn’t return and was a liar/false prophet or that He didn’t really know if He would return which means He wasn’t God either. This put those who debated Russell on the horns of a dilemma. The apologist must make cogent and clear arguments as to where Russell is wrong. If one takes the position that Matthew 24 and the Olivet Discourse is about the literal, physical Second Coming of Jesus he has the most difficult time dealing with the plain meaning of the text and struggles making his case. Either way, his apologetic is compromised.
THE LAW
If the distinction between the Old and New Testaments remain consistent then how one view the law can be greatly affected. If the law is only for Old Testament Israel (as the claim is made) than the New Testament Church member has no obligation to follow it. Only if one sees salvation wrapped up in following of the OT ordinances (as shown earlier) is there any trouble. The Reformed reader can see the OT Law differently and realize it’s value for both the OT and NT saint.
This problem has lead many to claim that only those laws repeated in the NT are valid for today and the NT saint is required to obey only them. Here in lies another dilemma. As Gary North has pointed out, the prohibition on sex with animals IS NOT repeated in the NT.
ETHICS
Since our morality and ethics are to be derived from Scripture, if we are to – like above – abrogate the Old Testament law to a different economy, then we are hard pressed to find an over-arching, full-orbed ethical standard. We may be told to love one another, but without the law we may not know how or why. Thomas Ice in his famous debate with Gary DeMar argued that his eschatology gave him his ethical standard (remember the fruit bowl?).
What did that mean? Well, perhaps you were once told that you should not see an “R” rated movie. When you asked why, you may have been told something akin to, “You don’t want to be sitting in that movie theatre watching that R Rated movie when the rapture takes place and that was the last thing you were doing on Earth!” I actually have heard that argument and notice that the ethic is derived from the eschatology, not from a Biblical standard. And when questioned further, to what standard would this person use to make the claim that the R rated movie was something bad and you would be ashamed to have been doing it when Christ returned? They are still caught having to appeal to that which they deny has authority. They could point to Paul and his prohibitions on certain actions and activities, but Paul has to point to the law to make his case. Even given that one could demand a thorough explanation as to which things were right and wrong and the NT simply does not have the exhaustive list nor is there enough for “General Equity” to suffice.
Ultimately I want to show that ones eschatology will impact their ethics and standards, even though I would also argue most Dispensationalist are very inconsistent in this manner and still embrace the law, at least the Big 10.
THE CHURCHLike most of the above the impact one eschatology has on your view of the Church can be traced to the distinction many have created within the pages of Holy Writ. Some claim the Church was a mistake, plan B, a complete unknown and not in the complete and perfect plan of God Almighty. This shows itself most in the Church/Israel distinction which will be a matter of great importance later in our discussions.
So, rather than tackle that weighty issue I will simply discuss one view of the Church in two ways. One, is the Church important and as a covenant body and two, what is the future for the Church.
Because of the aforementioned distinction, many have argued that the Church is not as important, that worship is individualized and God’s relationship with mankind is individualized, not corporate, and the Kingdom of God is postponed. On the other side of the coin are those who say that God deals covenantally with the Church (both the elect and non-elect members). This leads to a view where worship is corporate and regulated (by His word), God’s dealings with men are covenantal through families and that the Church is the Kingdom of God as expressed in the present age.
These differing views also can lead to differing views on the sacraments, church discipline, worship methods, emphasis on preaching or teaching and a lot more. Again, what is important here is that these differences come about as a result of the underlying system found in particular eschatologies.
Finally, and for those who stick around long enough (and most importantly to me) is how eschatology impacts how one views the future of the Church. Is that future paved with misery, deceit, failure and pessimism? Is the world going to hell in a hand basket with Church falling right in line? Will the Bride that Jesus returns for be bloodied, bruised, dirty and ashamed?
Will the gates of Hell prevail?
It's the End of the World AsWe Know It - Why Eschatology Part 2
Previously we discussed the initial purposes for even discussing eschatology as a subject and why many avoid it all together. The modern Church’s obsession with all things “apocalyptic” has made a more intelligent and doctrinal discussion on the matter more difficult. But, as we saw, Scripture is replete with passages dedicated to the subject and a solid, full-orbed Biblical student must try to scratch the surface of this seemingly perplexing subject.
Perhaps the difficulty lies in finding out just how eschatology fits into ones over theological and doctrinal standard and how, or if, eschatology impacts ones views. It is toward this direction we will now turn.
It is my belief that eschatology, at least the basic assumptions necessary to come to a particular eschatological view will have a great impact on ones doctrinal, theological, apologetical, political, sociological and economic views. It can also impact when one argues certain books of the Bible were written and their underlying purpose. Salvation, evangelism and church government can be impacted and even seemingly unrelated views like credo or paedo-baptism and communion can involve ones views on eschatology.
Maybe it’s worth a cursory discussion after all?
Please note I will be making an argument based on one worldview being consistently lived. This is not always the case (seldom the case?), but if one consistently lives out their beliefs, what direction or actions might one take depending on their eschatology? So, for the sake of this discussion I am making an argument presupposing a consistent worldview lifestyle. Also, this discussion may take several postings to work our way through. The reason here is not to necessarily make a case for one view over the other (though the personal convictions of the writer will undoubtedly shine through), but rather show that “Eschatology Does Matter.”
SOCIOLOGICAL
If one has a more optimistic view of the future (one where there is no future Great Tribulation), you may have a greater chance to possess an optimistic view of sociological, economical and political futures. If your eschatological view is one in which the world is not “going to hell in a hand basket” and the end is not “just around the corner” you may find yourself (if you are consistent) doing things with long term positive implications. Can society be changed through an effective representation of the Gospel (word and deed) or is the world on an unstoppable downward spiral to Armageddon with no relief in sight? Is it possible that ones eschatological would allow a sense of social injustice?
If the Rapture truly is on the near horizon, why would one “waste their time” trying to improve the conditions of South Central LA, plant new trees in a run down park or picket an abortion clinic? Many do, but are they being consistent? If it is God’s ordained plan that the world grow progressively worse why would one want to thwart that downward spiral by doing things to actually improve the sociological condition in a particular society? I am glad many are inconsistent, but it remains true that their eschatology does impact how they view society. Here you would find the words of J Vernon McGee ringing true as he want to say “you don’t polish brass on a sinking ship…” Can ones eschatology actually lead one to a sort of sociological lethargy?
So, one view actually finds positive expression in a soon coming societal disaster or inevitable decline of social standards. One popular teacher put it this way…”As the day grows darker my heart grows brighter.” There is to be seen a positive spin on the current sociological situation. An opposing view, though, may see a bright future based on their theological leanings. For our discussion today it is not a matter of who may be right or wrong, but rather that ones eschatology impacts their sociological outlook. Do you have an eschatology of “Cultural Victory” or “Cultural Surrender?”
As a side note here, one may want to consider how it also impacts your view of the environment. If the Rapture is around the corner, would it not be consistent to have no concern about the environment?
ECONOMICS
Though closely tied to the above circumstance ones economic outlook can also be impacted by ones eschatology. This would also involve how one may spend their money and the long and short term implications.
Someone may look at a snapshot of a few days, weeks or even years (a vapor against the backdrop of history) of their or the world’s economic outlook and view it through the lens of how that current situation may possibly be related to Bible Prophecy. Bad economic times may portend to be a lynch pin that sets off a soon coming time of tribulation, one world government and a cashless society. This scenario has played itself out in countless novels, paperbacks, sermons and conferences created by Bible prophecy gurus. The soon coming “Mark of the Beast” has been related to a cashless society and the Social Security system for over half a century. One Prophecy Expert related the word VISA to the number 666. Another proclaimed that a microchip will be placed inconspicuously under the skin of ones hand or forehead – seemingly fulfilling a chilling section of Revelation 13.
But along with the Tribulational scenarios, how one views economics and how one spends their money can be directly tied to ones eschatology. An example would include sending money to an organization that helps Jews relocate to the Holy land. Though nothing may be wrong with using your money in that way, it is most definitely derived from a particular eschatological view.
On the other hand, if the current economic situation is one of natural ebbs and flows and market dictates and is not tied to a soon coming Tribulational scenario, then even a complete economic meltdown disaster does not need to play into any eschatological framework. One can also take heart that it is not the inevitable outcome for all of mankind’s soon coming obliteration. If one particular eschatological view was in vogue (as it is now) during the depression, one must wonder what kind of response the Church would have had to that economic crisis?
POLITICAL
With the political impact discussion we will close for today as this blog is getting a little longer than anticipated. But since the political impact is so closely related to the above mentioned ones it will be best to include it here.
More than any other sociological (non-theological) topic discussed, one politics may be influenced by ones eschatology in a more severe and obvious than any other. This shows itself in many different ways, both directly related to a eschatological view and also by the presuppositions and doctrinal standards of those views.
The most blatant example of this is currently finding a foothold in American Evangelicalism. That is the idea that current President-Elect of the United States is in fact the Antichrist of Revelation (ironically the term Antichrist is conspicuous by it’s absence in the aforementioned book). But the lack of evidence for these bold proclamations has not let Prophecy Experts and students continue undaunted. A quick google of “Obama” and “antichrist” will reveal over one million results. This potential accusation can only make sense within a particular eschatological view.
The adherents are determining their political views of an individual as it directly pertains to their understanding of a certain Biblical ideas related to eschatology. How you vote and who you vote for is directly tied to ones eschatology in this situation. Obama is not the first to be tagged with the antichrist or beast label. He has merely joined the likes of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Adolph Hitler, Prince Charles and a host of others too numerous to mention.
Again, the issue isn’t whether they are right or wrong, but is stated to make the case that eschatology does have an impact on one politics.
This also shows itself in even important political decision making in regards to Israel. Since one particular view highly values Israel as that nation relates to seeming Biblical prophecies in the Middle East. It is, we are told, fundamental to believe that Israel is an exclusively different country and we must, without any equivocation, support and defend Israel in everything she does. One popular teacher went so far as to proclaim that one’s one eternal destination is determined by how you come down on the question of Israel. This popular view has impacted even the United States own foreign relations and policy!
What about voting and how one votes? Like how one views society and their economic future, ones eschatology can have a great impact on ones voting record. Imagine the quandary. There you are at the voting booth firmly believing that one particular candidate is the Antichrist. Do you vote for him and, in doing so, hasten the Day of the Lord? Or do you vote against him and, by doing so, attempt to thwart the sovereign purpose of the Lord of Host? What a sticky wicket! Seriously, though, is it too far fetched to believe someone may cast their vote based on a candidate’s view of this nation’s relationship with Israel? What about voting against a candidate because he may support a “smart card” identification system and that ties in directly to a possible “end times” scenario. I recall many who opposed Hillary Clinton’s Health reform tours of the mid-90’s not because the idea of nationalized health care is foolish and dangerous, but because they feared the “National Health Card” would be used as an end times tracking device like a “mark” of sorts for the soon coming one world government.
On the other hand, an opposing view may simply see politics as like the economic situation as ebbs and flows of God’s preordained human history. Nations rise and nations fall, but they don not necessarily play into any eschatological end times scenario. Israel is just like any other pagan nation and should not receive any special treatment because of their supposed influence on the soon coming Great Tribulation. One may argue that voting should be done based on political, moral, ethical and yes, Biblical standards.
One last political danger is the continuing problem of “giving back” the gains made by our forefathers and predecessors. Cultural Surrender has led to political surrender. The Church has given ground on political issues accepting the lie that politics is a neutral endeavor and one group cannot legislate it’s morality on to another? The Church has huddled back into its safety corner, circled the wagons and surrendered it’s rights. Later the case will be made this happened as a result of the influence of one particular eschatological view. But that is more than enough for now.Next time we will look at how eschatology impacts Doctrine, Evangelism, Apologetics, Presupposed Worldviews and the Church.
Perhaps the difficulty lies in finding out just how eschatology fits into ones over theological and doctrinal standard and how, or if, eschatology impacts ones views. It is toward this direction we will now turn.
It is my belief that eschatology, at least the basic assumptions necessary to come to a particular eschatological view will have a great impact on ones doctrinal, theological, apologetical, political, sociological and economic views. It can also impact when one argues certain books of the Bible were written and their underlying purpose. Salvation, evangelism and church government can be impacted and even seemingly unrelated views like credo or paedo-baptism and communion can involve ones views on eschatology.
Maybe it’s worth a cursory discussion after all?
Please note I will be making an argument based on one worldview being consistently lived. This is not always the case (seldom the case?), but if one consistently lives out their beliefs, what direction or actions might one take depending on their eschatology? So, for the sake of this discussion I am making an argument presupposing a consistent worldview lifestyle. Also, this discussion may take several postings to work our way through. The reason here is not to necessarily make a case for one view over the other (though the personal convictions of the writer will undoubtedly shine through), but rather show that “Eschatology Does Matter.”
SOCIOLOGICAL
If one has a more optimistic view of the future (one where there is no future Great Tribulation), you may have a greater chance to possess an optimistic view of sociological, economical and political futures. If your eschatological view is one in which the world is not “going to hell in a hand basket” and the end is not “just around the corner” you may find yourself (if you are consistent) doing things with long term positive implications. Can society be changed through an effective representation of the Gospel (word and deed) or is the world on an unstoppable downward spiral to Armageddon with no relief in sight? Is it possible that ones eschatological would allow a sense of social injustice?
If the Rapture truly is on the near horizon, why would one “waste their time” trying to improve the conditions of South Central LA, plant new trees in a run down park or picket an abortion clinic? Many do, but are they being consistent? If it is God’s ordained plan that the world grow progressively worse why would one want to thwart that downward spiral by doing things to actually improve the sociological condition in a particular society? I am glad many are inconsistent, but it remains true that their eschatology does impact how they view society. Here you would find the words of J Vernon McGee ringing true as he want to say “you don’t polish brass on a sinking ship…” Can ones eschatology actually lead one to a sort of sociological lethargy?
So, one view actually finds positive expression in a soon coming societal disaster or inevitable decline of social standards. One popular teacher put it this way…”As the day grows darker my heart grows brighter.” There is to be seen a positive spin on the current sociological situation. An opposing view, though, may see a bright future based on their theological leanings. For our discussion today it is not a matter of who may be right or wrong, but rather that ones eschatology impacts their sociological outlook. Do you have an eschatology of “Cultural Victory” or “Cultural Surrender?”
As a side note here, one may want to consider how it also impacts your view of the environment. If the Rapture is around the corner, would it not be consistent to have no concern about the environment?
ECONOMICS
Though closely tied to the above circumstance ones economic outlook can also be impacted by ones eschatology. This would also involve how one may spend their money and the long and short term implications.
Someone may look at a snapshot of a few days, weeks or even years (a vapor against the backdrop of history) of their or the world’s economic outlook and view it through the lens of how that current situation may possibly be related to Bible Prophecy. Bad economic times may portend to be a lynch pin that sets off a soon coming time of tribulation, one world government and a cashless society. This scenario has played itself out in countless novels, paperbacks, sermons and conferences created by Bible prophecy gurus. The soon coming “Mark of the Beast” has been related to a cashless society and the Social Security system for over half a century. One Prophecy Expert related the word VISA to the number 666. Another proclaimed that a microchip will be placed inconspicuously under the skin of ones hand or forehead – seemingly fulfilling a chilling section of Revelation 13.
But along with the Tribulational scenarios, how one views economics and how one spends their money can be directly tied to ones eschatology. An example would include sending money to an organization that helps Jews relocate to the Holy land. Though nothing may be wrong with using your money in that way, it is most definitely derived from a particular eschatological view.
On the other hand, if the current economic situation is one of natural ebbs and flows and market dictates and is not tied to a soon coming Tribulational scenario, then even a complete economic meltdown disaster does not need to play into any eschatological framework. One can also take heart that it is not the inevitable outcome for all of mankind’s soon coming obliteration. If one particular eschatological view was in vogue (as it is now) during the depression, one must wonder what kind of response the Church would have had to that economic crisis?
POLITICAL
With the political impact discussion we will close for today as this blog is getting a little longer than anticipated. But since the political impact is so closely related to the above mentioned ones it will be best to include it here.
More than any other sociological (non-theological) topic discussed, one politics may be influenced by ones eschatology in a more severe and obvious than any other. This shows itself in many different ways, both directly related to a eschatological view and also by the presuppositions and doctrinal standards of those views.
The most blatant example of this is currently finding a foothold in American Evangelicalism. That is the idea that current President-Elect of the United States is in fact the Antichrist of Revelation (ironically the term Antichrist is conspicuous by it’s absence in the aforementioned book). But the lack of evidence for these bold proclamations has not let Prophecy Experts and students continue undaunted. A quick google of “Obama” and “antichrist” will reveal over one million results. This potential accusation can only make sense within a particular eschatological view.
The adherents are determining their political views of an individual as it directly pertains to their understanding of a certain Biblical ideas related to eschatology. How you vote and who you vote for is directly tied to ones eschatology in this situation. Obama is not the first to be tagged with the antichrist or beast label. He has merely joined the likes of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Adolph Hitler, Prince Charles and a host of others too numerous to mention.
Again, the issue isn’t whether they are right or wrong, but is stated to make the case that eschatology does have an impact on one politics.
This also shows itself in even important political decision making in regards to Israel. Since one particular view highly values Israel as that nation relates to seeming Biblical prophecies in the Middle East. It is, we are told, fundamental to believe that Israel is an exclusively different country and we must, without any equivocation, support and defend Israel in everything she does. One popular teacher went so far as to proclaim that one’s one eternal destination is determined by how you come down on the question of Israel. This popular view has impacted even the United States own foreign relations and policy!
What about voting and how one votes? Like how one views society and their economic future, ones eschatology can have a great impact on ones voting record. Imagine the quandary. There you are at the voting booth firmly believing that one particular candidate is the Antichrist. Do you vote for him and, in doing so, hasten the Day of the Lord? Or do you vote against him and, by doing so, attempt to thwart the sovereign purpose of the Lord of Host? What a sticky wicket! Seriously, though, is it too far fetched to believe someone may cast their vote based on a candidate’s view of this nation’s relationship with Israel? What about voting against a candidate because he may support a “smart card” identification system and that ties in directly to a possible “end times” scenario. I recall many who opposed Hillary Clinton’s Health reform tours of the mid-90’s not because the idea of nationalized health care is foolish and dangerous, but because they feared the “National Health Card” would be used as an end times tracking device like a “mark” of sorts for the soon coming one world government.
On the other hand, an opposing view may simply see politics as like the economic situation as ebbs and flows of God’s preordained human history. Nations rise and nations fall, but they don not necessarily play into any eschatological end times scenario. Israel is just like any other pagan nation and should not receive any special treatment because of their supposed influence on the soon coming Great Tribulation. One may argue that voting should be done based on political, moral, ethical and yes, Biblical standards.
One last political danger is the continuing problem of “giving back” the gains made by our forefathers and predecessors. Cultural Surrender has led to political surrender. The Church has given ground on political issues accepting the lie that politics is a neutral endeavor and one group cannot legislate it’s morality on to another? The Church has huddled back into its safety corner, circled the wagons and surrendered it’s rights. Later the case will be made this happened as a result of the influence of one particular eschatological view. But that is more than enough for now.Next time we will look at how eschatology impacts Doctrine, Evangelism, Apologetics, Presupposed Worldviews and the Church.
It's the End of the World AsWe Know It - Why Eschatology
It has been quite a long time since I decided to start a blog of sorts discussing Eschatology and the class I taught that is available at www.sermonaudio.com. The delay has been a combination of laziness, busy work and family schedule during the summer and fall and ultimately trying to figure out the best way to start the actual discussion.
But several weeks back the Pastor of the church I am currently attending made the comment (heard all so often) that discussion, debate and interaction on the topic of eschatology is relatively “fruitless” and should be relegated to back burner discussion in favor of salvation, grace and works of mercy. I agree to a point that eschatology (from the position of dates, times and seasons) can prove fruitless and frustrating, but eschatology and the views one holds has a greater overall impact on the rest of ones theology and doctrines that it would be a danger to sweep the topic aside as mere conjecture of overwrought tautology.
I understand my pastor’s, and the multitude who agree with him, problem. It doesn’t take more than a cursory glance through a Christian Bookstore and more than an hour of Christian radio and television to note there is a potentially unhealthy obsession with certain issues that possibly pertain to the subject. Wild fancies of imagination run rampant with prognostications regarding the identity of the Beast, Antichrist and Man of Sin while others play mathematical gymnastics with numbers (666), dates and the timeline of festivals. This ”Obsession of the Modern Church” to coin a phrase of Gary DeMar has done much to make more level headed, theologically driven Christians to avoid the subject like a scourge and embrace more pleasant subjects like infra- and supra-lapsarianism.
So it is with this first foray into the blogosphere that my attention will be drawn to the discussion of “Why is Eschatology Important, Anyway?” … at least in part.
First, without sounding flippant, let’s deal with the fact that eschatology is a part of Scripture and as a part of Scripture it deserves our attention and effort to grasp. We are reminded by Paul that “all Scripture is God breathed” (2 Tim 3:16) not just the topics of more seaming relevance (salvation, grace, law et al). Paul’s admonition of the totality of Scriptures importance does not elevate one subject over another, but rather Paul is making the case that “all Scripture,” the subjects contained therein have value to the man of God and is “good for training” and ensuring competency and for equipping the saints (apologetics).
So, with a basic belief in the totality of the necessity of Scripture in mind, one must then seek to discover just how much of the Bible actually deals prophetically. Of the 32,120 verses of Scripture found in the Bible, 8,352 of them are prophetic in nature. That’s about 27% of the Bible devoted to a subject many just wish to ignore. It is true that many of those passages have been fulfilled, they were at one time prophetic and were not ignored by God’s people before their fulfillment. At the same time many (more or less depending on your specific view) remain unfulfilled and are worthy of our time and devotion to understanding them.
Before discussion of the actual impact one’s eschatology may have on the other aspects of their doctrinal beliefs, it would be important to also note that prophecy and eschatology also come with a blessing.
Rev. 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it
Scripture itself argues that there is something to be gained in terms of a blessing for those who take the time to hear, read and attempt to understand what many have called fruitless and too troubling to dive in to. In fact, the Thessalonians were instructed by Paul to encourage one another by “discussing” eschatology. The discussed events, whether they be fully understood or popularly misunderstood, are said to bring comfort and we are to share them with one another.
Next time I will take a more detailed look at that actual impact ones eschatological view has other aspects of our faith. We may even discover that our eschatology both directly and indirectly plays a role in how we view salvation, the purpose and work of Christ, the Church and even how and why we evangelize.
But several weeks back the Pastor of the church I am currently attending made the comment (heard all so often) that discussion, debate and interaction on the topic of eschatology is relatively “fruitless” and should be relegated to back burner discussion in favor of salvation, grace and works of mercy. I agree to a point that eschatology (from the position of dates, times and seasons) can prove fruitless and frustrating, but eschatology and the views one holds has a greater overall impact on the rest of ones theology and doctrines that it would be a danger to sweep the topic aside as mere conjecture of overwrought tautology.
I understand my pastor’s, and the multitude who agree with him, problem. It doesn’t take more than a cursory glance through a Christian Bookstore and more than an hour of Christian radio and television to note there is a potentially unhealthy obsession with certain issues that possibly pertain to the subject. Wild fancies of imagination run rampant with prognostications regarding the identity of the Beast, Antichrist and Man of Sin while others play mathematical gymnastics with numbers (666), dates and the timeline of festivals. This ”Obsession of the Modern Church” to coin a phrase of Gary DeMar has done much to make more level headed, theologically driven Christians to avoid the subject like a scourge and embrace more pleasant subjects like infra- and supra-lapsarianism.
So it is with this first foray into the blogosphere that my attention will be drawn to the discussion of “Why is Eschatology Important, Anyway?” … at least in part.
First, without sounding flippant, let’s deal with the fact that eschatology is a part of Scripture and as a part of Scripture it deserves our attention and effort to grasp. We are reminded by Paul that “all Scripture is God breathed” (2 Tim 3:16) not just the topics of more seaming relevance (salvation, grace, law et al). Paul’s admonition of the totality of Scriptures importance does not elevate one subject over another, but rather Paul is making the case that “all Scripture,” the subjects contained therein have value to the man of God and is “good for training” and ensuring competency and for equipping the saints (apologetics).
So, with a basic belief in the totality of the necessity of Scripture in mind, one must then seek to discover just how much of the Bible actually deals prophetically. Of the 32,120 verses of Scripture found in the Bible, 8,352 of them are prophetic in nature. That’s about 27% of the Bible devoted to a subject many just wish to ignore. It is true that many of those passages have been fulfilled, they were at one time prophetic and were not ignored by God’s people before their fulfillment. At the same time many (more or less depending on your specific view) remain unfulfilled and are worthy of our time and devotion to understanding them.
Before discussion of the actual impact one’s eschatology may have on the other aspects of their doctrinal beliefs, it would be important to also note that prophecy and eschatology also come with a blessing.
Rev. 1:3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it
Scripture itself argues that there is something to be gained in terms of a blessing for those who take the time to hear, read and attempt to understand what many have called fruitless and too troubling to dive in to. In fact, the Thessalonians were instructed by Paul to encourage one another by “discussing” eschatology. The discussed events, whether they be fully understood or popularly misunderstood, are said to bring comfort and we are to share them with one another.
Next time I will take a more detailed look at that actual impact ones eschatological view has other aspects of our faith. We may even discover that our eschatology both directly and indirectly plays a role in how we view salvation, the purpose and work of Christ, the Church and even how and why we evangelize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
