Posted on 07/31/2006 1:42:13 PM PDT by topcat54
In a Sunday school class that I was guest teaching yesterday, I was asked about the significance of Isaiah 11 and its prophetic role in history. Modern-day prophetic theorists claim that the passage describes events that will take place during the “millennium” of Revelation 20. I believe Isaiah 11 has significance for what is happening in the Middle East at this very moment. While dispensationalists look for the prophetic inevitability of war—Armageddon—the Bible presents a different perspective rooted in the life-transforming gospel of Jesus Christ to bring warring peoples together in peace. (More about this tomorrow.)
There are several problems with the futurist interpretation of Isaiah 11 and its relationship with Revelation 20. The most obvious one is that Revelation 20 doesn’t say anything about a change in the animal creation. If fact, all the things necessary for a premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 are absent from the chapter: a rebuilt temple, the reestablishment of the physical throne of David, Jerusalem as the earthly millennial capital of the world, and the most important feature, the physical presence of Jesus on earth.
Another problem is that Isaiah 11 begins with a prophecy about the first coming of Jesus Christ:
Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit. The Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. And He will delight in the fear of the LORD, and He will not judge by what His eyes see, nor make a decision by what His ears hear; but with righteousness He will judge the poor, and decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; and He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins, and faithfulness the belt about His waist (Isa. 11:1–5; see Rev. 5:5; 22:16).
At this point, dispensationalists insert one of their many gaps in time, even though there is no indication that there is a gap. While Isaiah 11:1–6 refers to the NT era, the following verses are yet to be fulfilled during the “millennium” of Revelation 20. This is pure conjecture and unnecessary to maintain the integrity of the Bible. John Gill’s comments are helpful at this point:
The wild and tame creatures shall agree together, and the former shall become the latter; which is not to be understood literally of the savage creatures, as if they should lose their nature, and be restored, as it is said, to their paradisiacal estate, which is supposed to be the time of the restitution of all things; but figuratively of men, comparable to wild creatures, who through the power of divine grace, accompanying the word preached, shall become tame, mild, meek, and humble; such who have been as ravenous wolves, have worried Christ’s sheep, made havoc of them, breathing out slaughter and threatenings against them, as did Saul, through converting grace, become as gentle and harmless as lambs, and take up their residence in Christ’s fold, and dwell with, yea, some of them even feed, Christ’s lambs and sheep, as the above mentioned person.
Lions and bears represent nations in opposition to the kingdom of God (Dan. 7:4, 5). But like David, who killed a lion and a bear (1 Sam. 17:34), the greater David, Jesus Christ, will subdue these animal-like nations in peace with the gospel. I’m optimistic enough to believe that peace can come to the warring factions in the Middle East because the gospel—not land or blood (John 1:13)—“is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). The church of Jesus Christ should be promoting Jesus Christ as the solution to war, both for Jews and Muslims, not some contrived end-time inevitable conflagration.
Gary DeMar is president of American Vision and the author of more than 20 books. His latest is Myths, Lies, and Half Truths.
Permission to reprint granted by American Vision P.O. Box 220, Powder Springs, GA 30127, 800-628-9460.
"Modern-day prophetic theorists claim that the passage describes events that will take place during the “millennium” of Revelation 20. I believe Isaiah 11 has significance for what is happening in the Middle East at this very moment."
Since Isaiah was written app. 2,700 years ago it sounds like the problem with the prophecy is just a question of timing. DeMar is setting a date today and PreMils set it later. Someone should caution DeMar about the LaHay syndrome.
I think you misunderstand DeMar. The subject of Isaiah 11 has relevance for events today -- in the Middle East or anywhere else -- precisely because the gospel, the good news of peace with God through Jesus Christ, has been going out into all the nations since Christ's first appearance. And this gospel of peace will continue to go forth until He returns to finally judge the nations and deliver up the kingdom to the Father.
It is a timeless gospel. Rather than being a datesetter like LaHaye, et al, DeMar is just the opposite.
There is a movement presently splitting apart my church. Postmillennialims is a component of this movement but it is far broader than that, and challenges the believer's personal relationship to Christ, the doctrine of justification, the meaning of baptism, and the definition of the church. The brand of postmillenialism is a rabid, aggressive form that, in my experience, is not driven by love and pity for the lost so much as by being right and taking the world by force.
As I understand it, the postmillennialism of the Puritans was less of a triumphalism and more of a blessed hope and expectation - really just a more optimistic amillennialism that did not deny "take up your cross."
Without getting into a lengthy discussion what is your opinion on eschatology?
You'd be surprised how many of us are driven by a love for God and an eagerness to try out His program first of all in our own lives, in our own families. Seeking "dominion through service," acquiring influence among our neighbors by excellence in our vocations. Home schooling a generation of motivated heirs in large families.
Come on in, the water is fine!
Would this movement, by any chance, be Christian Reconstructionism / Dominion Theology?
ditto. That was my first thought. Is this a denominational problem, or for your congregation?
And what's the other side?
My denomination happens to have premillenialism written into it's statment of faith. There's a move afoot to loosen up on that as part of a general revision (see sidebar on link) leading to some predictable arguments.
Thanks -- I had to save that image!
Sounds as if Lexinom believes this is a problem unique to, if not caused by a given theology/eschatology -- and not one of simply selfishness itself among the body of Christ. As for myself, I've been through at least two church splits personally, and (bolding this for emphasis) none of them were caused by differences in theology. Oh sure, theology is often the wedge used to split churches apart, but if a legitimate heresy itself isn't being manifest, and tears are not being shed over the split, then the real conflict is selfish personalities that refused to owe love to one another:
What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members?Unless FReepers are prepared to claim that theonomy/Dominion Theology/Christian Reconstructionism is heretical, and can cite Scripture and Reformed church history to back that charge, I would think twice about pursuing that line of reasoning.
- James 4:1
My denomination happens to have premillenialism written into it's statment of faith. There's a move afoot to loosen up on that as part of a general revision (see sidebar on link) leading to some predictable arguments.
Listing a particular eschatology in one's Statement of Faith is IMO a bad idea. Historically speaking, none of the basic protestant eschatologies - pre, mid or postmil - have ever been held to be heretical by the orthodox church. All should be permitted within a Statement of Faith, IMO. Speaking to your precise example, years ago (after one of the previously mentioned splits), I considered joining an otherwise excellent Evangelical Free church. In good conscience I had to refuse, because to become a member of their congregation, I had to sign a statement of faith declaring that I believed in Dispensational Pre-Trib Premillenarianism. I didn't have an issue with the doctrine, but clearly they would if I were discovered to believe otherwise. Regardless, signing that Statement would have been a lie on my part, and as a result they lost a tithe-paying potential member.
While there is some good, the particular movement is characterized by sarcasm and novel ideas, some apparenlty for shock value, and a disproportionate emphasis on the covenent at the expense of the believer's relationship with Christ. There is a venemous hatred for a man who has stood against the movement, and I recently witnessed that venom firsthand. It was not of God.
Anyways I did not want to initiate a big discussion. I am having trouble eating and sleeping because of this. I want my brothers and sisters back.
The issue we're having is something bordering on the sinister, and postmil just happens to be a component, but is not the central issue.
"none of them were caused by differences in theology. "
"In the 1890s there was a small Baptist church in Mayfield County, Kentucky. The church had just two deacons, and those two men seemed to be constantly arguing and bickering with each other.
On a particular Sunday, one deacon put up a small wooden peg in the back wall so the pastor could hang up his hat. When the other deacon discovered the peg, he was outraged. "How dare someone put a peg in the wall without first consulting me!" The people in the church took sides and the congregation eventually split.
Over a hundred years later, residents of Mayfield County still refer to the two churches as Peg Baptist and Anti-Peg Baptist."
Unless FReepers are prepared to claim that theonomy/Dominion Theology/Christian Reconstructionism is heretical,
I wasn't. At this point I don't know enough about them. (I've got Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law not two feet from me, but I haven't read it in a third of a human lifetime. My attention's been elsewhere for a good part of that time.)
Reading L.'s description more closely, it doesn't sound like what I do know about the theonomists.
Speaking to your precise example, years ago (after one of the previously mentioned splits), I considered joining an otherwise excellent Evangelical Free church. In good conscience I had to refuse, because to become a member of their congregation, I had to sign a statement of faith declaring that I believed in Dispensational Pre-Trib Premillenarianism.
I made a point to bring it up, both to the pastor teaching the membership class and to the elders doing the membership interview. Neither had a problem with my position.
Listing a particular eschatology in one's Statement of Faith is IMO a bad idea.
I'd be content to leave it where the Apostle's Creed does.
There are eschatologies that are beyond the pale by denying cardinal doctrines (like, to pick a totally non-random example, bodily ressurection).
Classical dispensationalism's fascination with "Israel according to the flesh" and it's supposed seperate destiny brings a danger of approaching that point. That's the way this outsider sees it, anyway. YMMV.
There is enough misunderstanding of evangelical, Bible-believing postmillennialism abroad today that it would be worthwhile to make note of the kind of constitutive doctrinal convictions which have been set forth by its representatives.
The end.
Amusing story, and so true. A friend of mine, who happens to be a pastor in a Reformed Baptist group once told me the key to understanding Baptists:
My question though goes unanswered. That's fine...
Specifically my concern is Auburn Avenue theology, which seems like this many-faced Proteus that will become all things to all people - whether intentionally or by internal disputes with one saying x and another saying "not x". If the former then clearly their m.o. is growth at all costs. To be fair, not everyone in it is postmil, but the majority are. Fortunately it is being systematically dismantled in the larger denominations. We're not so fortunate, however.
I would maintain that, regardless of a group's logic and soundness of argument, "By their fruits shall ye know them" (which is why it's not simply cut along eschatological lines; look at the godly Puritans). 1 Co. 13 is another excellent text, and the central issue is the heart.
I'm acquainted with the ideas of this group, but I do not see any necessary connection with Putitan or evangelical postmillennialism, other than a glancing reference to Calvinistic soteriology. Postmillennialism of the Puritan sort is well-established with the historic Reformed/Calvinistic community.
Without getting into a lengthy discussion what is your opinion on eschatology?
My broad views are consistent with the comments by Dr. Bahnsen.
No, I agree. Postmillennialism is a kind of a motivator for them (as it is, rightfully, for you). They belittle the Puritans, however ("assurance peddlers"). I have known and worked with some of the men in this movement, and have very specific reasons for opposing them. They've a great deal of pride, and need a lot of prayer and a lot of grace. I'd just as soon be done with them were not many in my denomination aggressively pushing their ideas, some set forth in an earlier post.
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.