Posted on 05/21/2007 1:31:42 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
I am confused by this reply. How does my eschatological belief fulfill biblical prophecy?
To allegorize or interpret away the Scriptures that God intends to be taken literally is a reflection of what one really feels about the Word of God. The Pharisees were allegorizers of the Scriptures, and as a result, they were not only incapable of recognizing the truth of the Word of God standing right in front of them, but they also led the campaign to get rid of Him.
Sure I deny it. There’s only one rapture. I think the Church goes through the tribulation - but with some kind of divine protection.
“Actually, this says nothing about a geopolitical state of Israel. It MIGHT (I believe it does) point to a return of Jews to Jerusalem, but that is a far far far cry from the restoration of a theonomic state in covenant with God.”
I DO NOT think there is evidence for the return of a functioning “theonimic state”. God doesn’t “restart” Israel. But there IS evidence for a physical Israel in the end times. They more than likely rebuild the Temple.
I agree. And to ignore clear instances of the New Testament instructing us by clearly "allegorizing" passages from the OT is, in fact, attempting to correct the Holy Spirit by saying "NO, you must interpret this LITERALLY." I prefer to let the bible itself teach me how to interpret it, as I think the Holy Spirit is more reliable as a teacher than Lewis Sperry Chafer.
As an addendum, the Pharisees did not, in fact, allegorize scripture. That was the Saducees, who were the "liberals" of the day. The Pharisees were quite the literalists. What that tells us is that no hermeneutic will safeguard against heresy, which is an issue of the heart. I belong to a denomination which is extremely heavy on orthodoxy. This is a good thing, as it goes. However, orthodoxy and attentiveness to strict theological precision will not warranty against a lapse into heresy. Again, that is the realm of the heart.
I owe you an apology, then. You have surprised me (pleasantly). Please accept my apologies for assuming I understood where you were coming from. I clearly did not.
Sell them to the folks who took offense at the Left Below episode of The Simpsons?
That does not mean that the book does not have necessary spiritual benefit for us today. But the book is a 1st Century letter written to 1st Century people about 1st Century problems.
Thanks for posting this. I’ve always respected Mike Adams as a man of uncommon good sense. Discovering that his sanity extends to eschatology is gratifying.
Any article purporting to be about "the New Testament as it's meant to be read," (i.e., no rapture); and which at the same time basically ignores the Scriptural promises concerning the Second Coming ... well, that is a pretty dismal excuse for Biblical exigeses.
Adams evidently has had it with "rapturists," and has allowed that to cloud his rational faculties. I'm not a "rapturist" by any stretch ... but one doesn't need to be, to understand that Adams is clearly full of crap on this.
Actually, Mike Adams is a sociology prof down at UNC Wilmington. He is a believer, and a pretty sharp guy, and a “no time for fools” person. He has done some pretty funny nuking of liberal shibboleths there and has enraged one gender bender in the UNC system enough so that s/he tried to have him fired. He became a Christian late in life from a bitter atheist. He is NOT discounting the idea of the Second Coming. It seems he is a preterist, and a hard core one, dating Revelation from 65 AD. While I have some degree of sympathy with his frustration with the dispensational camp, I don’t buy that kind of extreme preterist position on Revelation. You don’t have to be a preterist to see the folly of the dispensational timeline.
...you could have simply been saying that “you know the theological bent simply by knowing the theological heritage of RTS.”
That is what I meant. Sorry if there was something I wrote that seemed unfair. Please forgive me in the future! I’m sure to mess something up and I could use “one in the bank.”
I’m starting to think all of us are wound a bit too tight these days. My excuse is three teens... I’m hoping that will soon be over - either by “believers only” rapture, or natural age progression.
BTW, somewhere (I looked for it last night in vain) I have a list of early writers who discussed the premillenial view well before the 1800s. I thought you’d enjoy it, since you’re a seminary guy, but I haven’t put my hands on it yet. I’m running out of places I could have put it to search. I shared it a year or so ago with another guy who told me the rapture, etc was only a recent invention via Darby. In the end, to me, I saw Darby just as the one who delineated the position. And again, to me, I don’t care when something was written about. I only care if it is true.
all the best,
ampu
“And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, "There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.”
and there is also this nicely footnoted article:
I am interested in hearing your idea of the folly you describe?
Meanwhile, it is clear from Mat 24:21: (For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be)....that a full preterist has to make the destruction of Jerusalem into something worse than Noah's flood or Sodom's destruction, or even, more recently: WW2
thanks, great article.
I have dealt with Thomas Ice ans Pseudo Ephraim before. Let me just say that Ice is very dishonest in his citations. I will get back with you on this,, but He and Grant Jeffreys are just plain liars and deceitful on this issue. I am busy right now.but I can respond further if you wish. At any rate, I would not cite either Ice or Jeffreys as honest scholars in this debate.
Please do!
I take no refuge in liars. I appreciate the honestly of true scholarship.
Thanks. I am not a preterist. I do believe in a future coming man of sin and a great tribulation.
I just don’t believe in a lot of the nonsense that surrounds those events in dispensational teaching.
That's what I'm trying to understand here, from you. I've been watching and reading over the past couple of days and doing research and I'm trying to find out what you believe. Right now (and feel free to correct me...I'm just guessing here), it sounds as though you cannot divorce dispensationalism from pre-trib beliefs?
IOW: It sounds as though you see 'pre-tribbers' as an inclusive subset of dispensationalism? Perhaps I am mistaken, so could you clarify this for me?
I should note that I don't believe eschatology to be a settled doctrine so I am open for different...better(?) truths, thus my query to you.
It is interesting that you quote Irenaeus as it is quite clear from AGAINST HERESIES that MANY in the early chuch were NOT chiliast (although he was). That is, they did NOT believe in an earthly millenium. In fact, part of his writing here in the work you cited was directed to believers who clearly did NOT believe in a millenium. They believed that dead believers would go to heaven and a subsequent return to an earthly millennial kingdom would be a step back from the glories of the beatific vision. Irenaeus asserted that they would not share in the millenium, but that their souls would remain in Hades unitl Christ returns except for the martyrs. So, although Irenaeus (and probably Papias, whom Irenaeus cites) were chiliast, it is also clear that MANY early Christians simply were not.
Whatever they were, they were NOT advocates of a premillineal "rapture" and a reconstitution of the nation of Israel and the other loopy stuff you find in dispensational writings.
Of course I can. George Eldon Ladd was a premillenial theologian and a fine one so was Walter Martin, John Warwick Montgomery, J. Barton Payne, Heny Alford (one of the worlds most devout and erudite Greek scholars), and Theodore Zahn. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School is almost exclusively HISTORICAL pre mil. I admire and respect these men and their teachings. But there is a gaping divide between this historically orthodox crowd and the kind of nutter stuff that dispensationalists crank out. Dispensationalism is NEW teaching and HISTORICALLY UNFOUNDED teaching, and UNBIBLICAL teaching.
IOW: It sounds as though you see 'pre-tribbers' as an inclusive subset of dispensationalism? Perhaps I am mistaken, so could you clarify this for me?
Only because I have never met a pre trib rapture advocate who was not dispensational. There is a first time for everything, though, I guess.
I should note that I don't believe eschatology to be a settled doctrine
Me either. I go back and forth from a mil to pre mil and have very optimistic spurts when I read of the periods of powerful revival and I think of the regrafting of Israel and "life from the dead" and I start looking at the post mil guys (did you know that ALL of the great fathers of the American missionary movement were all post mil?). I really do not know where I come down.
I DO know that the disjunction of Israel and the Church and the silly silly stuff by Hal Lindsey (LATE GREAT PLANET EARTH was the second book I ever read as a Christian) and LaHaye is unworthy of serious consideration as I try to hammer it all out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.