Posted on 05/21/2007 1:31:42 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
Everyone I know seems to be reading the Bible these days in search of answers. That is usually a good thing but not always. In fact, too many of the Biblical discussions I get into with friends and family members relate to the “End Times” and whether they are upon us. That is a shame because reading the Bible can enrich one’s daily life provided one is not obsessed with using it as a device to decipher the future.
Because of one relatively simple error in dating one book of the New Testament, author Tim LaHaye has misled tens of millions of people into thinking that a great time of tribulation is near. He has Christians everywhere looking for signs of an emerging anti-Christ and, ultimately, in a cowardly fashion, looking forward to a time when Christ will rapture his church away from earthly troubles.
If Christians would simply study the New Testament themselves – instead of relying upon 21st Century “prophets” writing fictional books for 21st Century profits – they would arrive at a few very simple conclusions:
1. The Revelation to John was written around 65 AD, not 95 AD.
2. The anti-Christ was Nero, not some world figure yet to emerge in the 21st Century.
3. The tribulation occurred in the First Century around the time of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD.
4. The “rapture” never happened and it never will.
5. The words of Jesus in Matthew 24 plainly reveal that most of the discourse in The Revelation to John is based on events in the First Century.
Once an individual realizes he is stuck here on earth and will not be raptured away from all of his troubles, he can begin to read the Bible the way it was intended to be read. I have a word of advice for those who have never really thought about reading the Bible as an end in itself rather than as a means to some goal such as predicting the future. My advice is actually borrowed from a friend who received a moving card from his wife just a few months ago.
After receiving the cherished card from his wife, my friend would sneak into their bedroom late at night (she always fell asleep while he was finishing his last TV show). After giving her a kiss while she was sleeping, he would take the card off his dresser and go into the spare room to read it by the light of a small lamp.
There were certain lines he would read three and four times over: “It is a privilege to know you, to share myself with you,” “I never knew such a person could exist until I met you,” and “You lift my spirits to places where my troubles seem so much farther away.”
Be the first to read Townhall.com. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
It was wonderful to hear that a dear friend had found his “soul mate” and all of the joy that comes from lifelong companionship. But, at the same time, I could not listen to his story without thinking of all the other friends I know who have suffered through a painful divorce or, in some cases, never even met someone with whom they share a special bond of love. And some are growing older and lonelier by the day.
But, recently, I received a new insight into what seems to be an unfair distribution of soul mates among God’s children. It came as I was listening to a pastor named “Mike” whose last name I do not even know. His message was broadcast from Port City Church in Wilmington to a theater rented out to handle the overflow of his growing congregation.
He urged each member of his church to read the First Letter of John during the coming week. He also urged them to read it as if it were written just for them by someone who is madly in love with them.
I was so intrigued by this take on the proper approach to reading the New Testament epistle that I immediately bought a copy of the English Standard Version – a version I’ve been meaning to read for quite some time. Later that night I opened it and started reading by the light of a small lamp:
“…Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling… I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake … Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure… We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him…”
After reading those lines, it occurred to me that I had only been skimming through this great epistle on my last several runs through the New Testament. My zeal to get to The Revelation to John has been such that I have hardly noticed those great words in the years following the attacks of 911.
We all need to learn to read the Word as if it were written for us personally by someone who could not love us more. When we cannot get enough of it in the here and now, the future seems so much less important. And a little uncertainty is hardly the end of the world.
WHOOPS. sorry, I saw "PREMIL" and you wrote "pretrib" therefore alot of what i said above is senseless. Please forgive.
Yes, I have never met a pretrib advocate who was not dispensationalist. Like I also said though, there is a first time for everything.
Why would a non-dispenstionalist need a pre-ANYTHING rapture in his system. The only reason for a "rapture" like folks teach is to get the "church" out of the way to go back and work with the nation of "israel" (a distinction which is unbiblical, btw).
I try to be precise in my words but I am not always clear or precise as I want to be. I make mistakes, also. I also hope that others will allow me to correct these mistakes or allow me to rephrase what I say (my point) in a better way. I hope for the same from you? .
Anyway...hmmm...I suppose I, myself, cannot divorce my (current) understanding of scripture from the idea of a true (spiritual) Church versus (a secular promised land) Israel.
Question:
Why does most of the world hate Israel (as a secular nation)?
I am curious about your ideas on this.
I think this is a false presumption. Personally, I believe that most of the evil world hates Israel, secular or otherwise.
Wiley
I'm just now learning however that I believe things that I didn't know that I believed. And BTW, is there anyone here who believes that a person's view of the end times determines their salvation. If not, why am I hearing so much contention in some of these post.
In Christ, Wiley
In fact, looking up the word, "secular", I think the word I used is quite right. Israel (as we know it today) is NOT a 'religious' state: It is secular. ("Secular" being opposite of religious.)
The world (most of it) hates Israel (state), not Judaism (religion)....thus the distinction.
So, my question stands:
"Why does most of the world hate Israel?"
Learning is a never ending endeavor. Then there is the LDS perspective.
yitbos
Then there is the LDS perspective.
Sorry, I do my best to respect persons of all faiths...but I just can't do the LDS thing. But having said that, I wouldn't call someone ignorant who does follow that faith. I would just try with "meekness and fear" try to lead them to Jesus, the Son of God and not 'Jesus, the spirit brother of Lucifer'.
Wiley
Interesting. I call the faith "Christianity". Then there are denominations.
yitbos
Rather than tell you why that is (I have my suspicions), I will rather ask you why do you think that is so? (be prepared for a follow up question)
As for your (very good) question: Why does most of the world hate Israel (as a secular nation)?
My answer is simple. 1.3 billion moslems who view Jerusalem as THEIR holy city. I view Israel as an ally to the US, but I am not a Christian Zionist. I think you are amazingly honest to list Israel as a secular nation. I thank you for this. Many persons run immediately from a bunch of secular (atheistic, if truth be known) Jews occupying a strip of land in Palestine to the OT promises and breathlessly announce the OT covenant blessings of God on such a state. No such blessings are promised. In fact, if anything, in its current state, Israel is under the curse of the covenant keeping God, as they are at present, still rejectors of the Messiah. I want to tread lightly here, as I believe in fact the national covenant stipulations were dissolved with Christ, plus I don't want to sound like some European Nazi sympathizer. It is just hyperbole illustrating the unbiblical nature of those who insist on God's covenant blessings on modern Israel.
Since I can't sleep (smile), I will answer the same question re: hatred of Jews BEFORE they were a nation state. One of the largest mistakes in western culture imo was the Edict of Constantine, and the consequent attempts by Europe to incorporate some OT laws which were never intended to apply to the transcultural transnational people of God. Unrepentant Jews were heathen and "outsiders" and I don't have a problem with that, but they were refused entry into many job positions and careers simply because they were Jews (unrepentant unbelievers). Also, Europe adopted the fiscally untenable position of no interest, which functionally reduced it to a barter economy. As mercantilism caught on, they recognized the need for a banking industry, but what to do if it is "godless" to lend money and make money by doing so? Simple answer: get the heathen to do it. They are damned anyway and don't care about the church laws. So the Jews were permitted and encouraged to go into the ONE profession which even an idiot can succeed at when there is no competition. You are essentially watching a river of money run past you and can scoop off a little (just a little!) from each transaction. This did WONDERS for the financial postion of Jews (who had been dirt poor earlier), but also made them resented, as any wealthy class is resented. If you had some dishonest folks here and there, it simply reinforced the hatred and resentment. Let there come a fiscal collapse like the Weimar debacle and you have the ground laid ready to do what we in the USA have now learned to do (even without a collapse!), hate the wealthy. In Europe they had the advantage of a particular ethnic group to do so.
I said that I respect PERSONS of all faiths. I am a born again Christian. I really don’t care what denomination you are.
Bump to a lovely little piece of truth.
How else do you describe and event which is visible only to a select group of people and hidden from the unbelieving world?
The historical (pre darbyist) view of a "rapture" is simply that as Christ comes back, the dead in Christ rise to meet him in the air, and the living saints are changed and meet him AS HE RETURNS TO THE EARTH -- either for final judgment or to set up a millenial reign and then final judgment 1000 years later--depending on whether your are amil or premil or postmil. All this weird stuff about the secret spiriting away of the "gentile" church and the re-establishment of Israel as a theocratic state, complete with a functioning temple with acceptable sacrifices to God, and interspace visitation between the heavens and earth on a vehicle like a space shuttle(I am not kidding, this is straight from Walvoord, one of the big guns from the biggest dispensational school out there, Dallas Seminary), is more reminiscent of the weirdo stuff from the Mormons or the WorldWide Church of God than the bible. It is kerfuffle and is NOT historical Christianity, and I don't care how many "Left Behind" film series and books are printed.
I personally can't comment on what you believe and what you are learning in this thread. I do know that when you believe a SYSTEM of thought that one element sometimes demands another. For example, a person who denies the divinity of Christ may SAY that he believes also that God is the savior, but simply put, If Christ is a created being, then we have no savior, because only God can save, and Christ is not God. A non-trinitarian heretic will immediately protest that you are "putting words in his mouth" but that is the clear and unmistakable result of his belief. I find that many American Christians are taught almost NOTHING but dispensationalist end times theology(even if they don't know it by name) and when they are first exposed to the idea that this system is not historical, nor even biblical, they react with some degree of indignation and horror, as if you had challenged the authenticity of Scripture. Of course, this is to be expected. That may be some of your own emotional reaction here. It certainly was mine. I had even taught a CLASS using Hal Lindseys little potboiler (Late Great Planet Earth) at my church -- ahem, this uh, also kind of tells you how OLD I am!!!! I let go of my beliefs SLOWLY as I studied the scriptures, studied the prophetical passages, looked at how they were applied in the NT as the NT quoted the OT, and read Romans. I do remember openly challenging John Stott (imagine the gall!!!) at a question/answer session at Urbana in 1974 as he stated he did not believe the present state of Israel had any particular eschatological significance in history. The very idea was horrifying to me, and I had no idea how biblically illiterate I was. All I knew was what I had been taught, and I had memorized ALL the verses and charts on the issue! I thought I was well read, and I was just indoctrinated.
And BTW, is there anyone here who believes that a person's view of the end times determines their salvation. I dont' know of anyone who believes that ANY of the four "biggies" in eschatological views is crucial to salvation. Historical pre mil, a mil, post mil, dispensational pre mil, all have good guys who hold these views.
I believe firmly that much of dispensationalism is simply wrongheaded, shallow and unsupported by historical scholarship by men you and I can't hold a candle to. That is a far different issue than whether a person is orthodox. It is the same kind of issue that predestination or baptism or church government are. People are emotionally committed to their positions (usually from personal loyalty to some leader who has helped them) and are largely ignorant of the idea that there might be biblical support for anything other than what they have always believed. That has certainly been my history, and still is oftentimes.
... and then there are schisms from faith (I John called them "antichrists") who have so deviated from the essence of the faith that they can no longer in truth be called "Christian" The history of the church is replete with such heretical movements.
LDS is certainly one of those heretical schisms.
I think my problem is that I don't put the same emphasis on eschatology as some others seem to.
The historical (pre darbyist) view of a "rapture" is simply that as Christ comes back, the dead in Christ rise to meet him in the air, and the living saints are changed and meet him AS HE RETURNS TO THE EARTH -- either for final judgment or to set up a millenial reign and then final judgment 1000 years later--depending on whether your are amil or premil or postmil.
This pretty much sums up the way I was taught. I've never heard of a "secret rapture". I was taught that everybody would know when it happened because we'd all be gone.
I don't give Hal Lindsey any more or less credibility than I do Hank Hanegraaff or Mike S. Adams. The last place I heard Hal Lindsey was on the Art Bell show...what does that tell you?
Thanks again for you response. I'll be standing on the sidelines I expect reading, studying, and praying for the Holy Spirit to give me true discernment.
In Christ, Wiley
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.
The novelty, the "new kid on the block," is the notion of a "rapture" broken out from the main event, and taking place 3.5 or 7 or n years before the final resurrection. Mike Adams confesses the Biblical, historical, and creedal Christian faith in this regard.
To the extent that we reflect God's image, we are goal-seeking creatures. Our perception of the ends towards which we strive shapes all that we do, and what we're living for. Rather high stakes!
If, OTOH, you assume that God's gracious and gradual processes of sanctification are at work in our lives and our histories to bring about the day when His glory covers the earth as the waters do the sea, you'll live with longer-range projects in view. Why not start a dynasty of fervent believers, who will still be shaping history a century after I'm gone? Why not pursue a doctorate at age 50+, and plan to amortize the increased credibility over the next three decades?
Pentecostals dream of instant sanctification. Reformed believers assume it takes years for the individual soul, decades for the marriage, centuries for the nations, and milennia for the church to approach God's design for them.
[1] Apres moi, le deluge said Louis XIV as he ran up fiscal and societal debts his grandkids would be unable to pay.
So how does this have anything to do with end times theology? Simple. Dispensationalism as a system is horribly destructive to this mindset, because it denies that the salvation message of God is ONE message. It chops up the bible into two separate peoples, with two separate responses to God, and denies that CHRIST is the object of faith to large sections of the Old Testament. Ryrie pitches an absolute hissy fit in attempting to refute this charge, when he claims (departing from Scofield, btw) that the OT believers were saved by grace and through faith and that the benefits of Christ were imputed to them as they trusted Jehovah God's promises through the sacrificial system, for example. They also trusted under the dispensation of Abrahamic administration in a DIFFERENT manifestation of grace, and under the kingdom dispensation on yet another. This is destructive, and why even among your VERY BEST dispensational preachers (and there are some excellent pastors and teachers among them), you hear the kind of sermons you do from the OT. They teach moralisms and and examples of the faith of these men (that is GOOD), warnings not to emulate their mistakes (also GOOD), and the constant character of God (who can fault THAT!). However, they can't seem to find CHRIST in the OT. As an example, pick some contemp. preacher and compare his sermons on the OT with those of Spurgeon.
The bible is ONE book, about ONE people, having ONE message of salvation, mediated by ONE savior, united by ONE faith, with ONE common future. That gospel message is critical, and is obscured by an unbiblical insistence on a wooden and artificial literalism re: apocalyptic passages, so that it becomes a series of lessons on the failures of humanity, rather than the mighty works of God.
That, and only that, is why I invest time showing its internal and historical contradictions, and its unbiblical nature.
Figurative truth is just as true as literal truth. It does not imply a lack of respect for the scriptures to interpret obviously figurative language figuratively. For instance there are many references to "The Lamb" in the Revelation. Are we to take that as figurative language, or are we to worship an actual four legged animal?
Despite the obvious and necessary overall message of final victory, there are some things hard to understand about the book of Revelation. But it was simple and plain to the people it was addressed to, the early Christians of the seven churches of Asia. It was addressed to them, not to us. I wouldn't worry about fitting a 1st Century message into the 21st Century.
Okay, that's fine, but then please invest some time in explaining the "unbiblical nature" of the dispensationalism of the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem here in Acts 15:
" 14Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."
Despite the obvious and necessary overall message of final victory, there are some things hard to understand about the book of Revelation. But it was simple and plain to the people it was addressed to, the early Christians of the seven churches of Asia. It was addressed to them, not to us. I wouldn't worry about fitting a 1st Century message into the 21st Century.
Okay, here is a great exercise for us. Which of the words in your post above should I take literally and which of those should I take figuratively???
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.