The PP and the Eastern Orthodox Church

The PP has had a discussion about the Eastern Orthodox Church going on for a couple of days. Reading the PP's comments about the Orthodox Church are humorous, but surely not in an intended way. To see him compare what the Church believes to what he believes as if he is the measure of truth cracks me up. The PP is part of a particular branch of Protestantism, namely, the Reformed Baptist.

Reformed Baptists
There are some prominent Reformed Baptists out there such as zealot James White, of Alpha Omega Ministries. They take Calvinism and combine it with Baptist theology. You might ask how is that even possible? Well, it's certainly an eclectic mix. They toss out Calvin when it comes to sacraments, like infant baptism and follow Anabaptist traditions in that area baptizing people only after making confessions of faith. In the end they necessarily shred Calvin's Covenant Theology which supported his infant baptism views. Yet they hang onto the Calvinistic/Lutheran (as in Luther not Lutheran) ideas about strict predestination even to the point of believing God preselected people to go to Hell.

In the end they are like Grapenuts, neither grape nor nuts. Or maybe just nuts, who knows?

Phoenix Preacher's Pronouncements

Here's the latest gem from the Phoenix Preacher:

The doctrine of justification by faith is the foundation of the church.

Think about that statement. Justification by faith is the foundation of the church, the PP claims. No wonder the critics say Calvinists tie up their view of Calvinism and make it the same as the Gospel. All you have to do is read one to see what they write!

The PP could do well to read the old song, "The Church's One Foundation" or the scripture passage it comes from.

1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.
1Co 3:11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Leaving CC and Quitting Smoking

Some of the posters on the PP blog have taken to wondering on what basis someone who has left CC has a right to still complain about CC. Of course we know that there's a cone of silence for those inside the movement which prevents them from blabbing to the outside world about the downfalls but what about those who have left? In leaving CC did they give up their right to speak about CC's failures?

To me it is analogous to quitting smoking. It's said that the worst anti-smokers are those who are former smokers themselves because they are always preaching to their friends who are still smoking. But hey, I ask, who is more appropriate than a former smoker to do that sort of preaching?

Who is the one bothered by the reformed smoker than the one who is still smoking? To the non-smoker it is just preaching to the choir.

What offends CCites the most about former CCites is that those who left demonstrate it is possible to leave CC and find another place of true Christian fellowship.

The successor question

George Bryson weighs in on the succession question. What do you think? Will CC go on just fine without Chuck Smith or will it implode? How can an organization which is centered itself one man succeed without that man at the helm? All affiliation in CC is with CCCM only because Chuck Smith heads CCCM. Put Brian Broderson OR ANYONE at the helm of CCCM and see how quickly local churches will disaffiliate themselves.

Denominations smominations
What about George's argument against denominations? Is the marking characteristic of a denomination that there are "national or regional governing boards"? Do pastors like George have the slightest clue about how denominational structures work? There are plenty of autonomous denominations out there which do not have regional boards. The Superintendent system used in such denominations as the Evangelical Free church and the Evangelical Covenant Church creates regional leadership that is only binding over the local pastor and not his flock. The local pastor is the member, as it were, of two congregations, one local and one national. His "boss" is the Superintendent, but the Superintendent has no real power. There are plenty of ways that this cat has been skinned short of one guy at the very top, like CC with CS at the head of CCCM and at the head of the entire CC movement.

How about regional pastors?
Is there a difference between "regional pastors" or "archbishops"?

Roasting Finney

The Phoenix Preacher has taken to roasting Charles Finney. Now, I'm no great fan of Finney, but most of the shots the PP has been taking have been quite off the mark.

The #1 claim, that Finney was Pelagian and therefore a heretic, in particular, is not accurate. Quoting Wikipedia:

While some theologians have attempted to associate Finney with Pelagian thought, it is important to note that Finney strongly affirmed salvation by faith, not by works or by obedience.

Secondary Sources and Calvinistic Biases?
The PP is roasting Finney based on secondary sources and his own peculiar Calvinistic bias. The PP quotes Reformed writer Michael Horton at length but is short on actual Finney source materials. It would be interesting to read Finney himself, wouldn't it?

Finney on the Atonement
The PP has enshrined the Catholic Anselmian theory of the atonement as Gospel fact. This is typical of a particular breed of the more narrow-minded Calvinists. This satisfaction view of the atonement is not the only possible view. In fact, the view itself replaced an earlier view. What does this mean for the people who held to the earlier ransom theory of the atonement? Were they all heretics too since they did not hold the Anselmian view?

How Clean was Calvin on the Atonement?
Before pronouncing Finney to be a heretic, it might do well for the PP to examine the views of his own hero in the faith, John Calvin. Calvin's solution to the atonement question was that Christ's death on the cross paid not a general penalty for humanity's sins, but a specific penalty for the sins of individual people.

For Calvin, Christ did not die for the sins of the world, he only died for the elect. Any Bible reading Christian should be able to quickly come up with at least a dozen Bible passages which this flies in the face of among them John 3:16 which must be read in a very peculiar sense of one is a Calvinist. You see, Jesus did not come to save the world, but only the elect, they would tell us. So everyplace we see world we need to substitute the word elect in it's place.

Fans of Finney
When someone says that they are a fan of Finney, what exactly do they mean? I take it to mean that they are a fan of affective preaching, which is preaching which causes changes of heart towards God. In particular, a sort of preaching which brings people to repent and change. It probably does not mean that they agree with Finney on all subjects. This is a distinction that the PP seems unable to concede.

Movements

Is Calvary Chapel a Movement?

As part of the denial that CC is a denomination, CCites often claim that they are not a denomination, but rather a movement. But is CC a movement in any sense of the word?

Think of other movements, such as the charismatic movement. What made them a movement rather than a church or denomination was that they crossed denominational barriers. You can find Charismatic Catholics, Charismatic Baptists and even entire denominations which are Charismatic/Pentecostal.

Similarly, Calvary Chapel is part of a larger movement, often called "the Jesus Movement" which occurred starting in the mid to late 1960s. The movement was an Christian form of acommodation to the hippie movement of the day. Calvary Chapel is not the entire movement but is one part which survives.

Face it, the VW buses in the CCCM parking lot have long ago been replaced by BMWs.

From what I can see, it's simply not accurate to call CC a movement.

Pleasing God

Does Calvinism deal with the idea of "pleasing God" in a consistent manner?

Calvinism say that we cannot please God.

Calvinism also says that we try to please God, and that is what they see as the error of Arminianism.

But what does the Bible say about pleasing God?

1 Thes 4:1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.

Once again the Bible and Calvinism stand at polar opposites. Calvinism tells us that the very desire to please God is Arminian and we can't do it, so why try? OK. So be it. Paul, the author of 1 Thes, must have been an Arminian, too!

Affiliation?

What does it mean that Calvary Chapel is an "affiliation"? How does that compare to being a "denomination"? Who is the pastor of a CC pastor? Who affiliates with whom? What causes disaffiliation?

Basic Definitions
The more basic question to start with is what is a "church"? Moving past the common misconception that church = building, in the root meaning the word "church" also means "assembly". That implies more than 1 person. The pastor is not the church. The pastor and all the people are the church. This point matters a great deal when discussing affiliation.

What does "Affiliation" Mean?
A Calvary Chapel is "affiliated" with Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa which is affiliated with other like-minded local Calvary Chapels. But what does that mean? Surprisingly, it's not the church which is affiliated at all, but the pastor who is affiliated. And his affiliation is with Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa. And the head of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa is Chuck Smith (hence the BLOG title).

So when a pew warmer says "I go to Calvary Chapel of Tucson" for instance, what he is saying is that I fellowship together (I "church") with other people who are also pastored by a person who is in affiliation with Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa which is headed by Chuck Smith.

See the distinction? To restate - it's not the church which is affiliated with Calvary Chapel, it's the pastor. This is why Calvary Chapel is NOT a denomination. Denomination affiliate the church with the larger group. Calvary Chapel pastors are all connected together since they are part of the same group.

Not a Denomination?
Seems strange? It is different than most other churches and similar at the same time. Other denominations have local church pastors and a denominational structure. The local church affiliates with the denomination and the pastor is a member of a separate group, often called the ministerium. His superintendent is his pastor.

Who is my pastor's pastor?
Look at it this way. Your CC pastor is a member of two churches. He is a member of the local church, just like you, and he is a member of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa through his affiliation with CCCM. Chuck Smith is his pastor in that relationship.

Don't expect your pastor's pastor to rope in your pastor if he gets out of control. Remember you are not being pastored by your pastor's pastor, only your pastor is pastored by Chuck Smith. With 1000 churches, Chuck Smith can't pastor all 1000 pastors. Calvary is trying to solve some of these issues by putting in place regional pastors. This is being resisted by the local pastors who don't want the accountability structures or resist the denominationalism that it implies to them.

That Sounds Catholic, not Protestant!
Yes, it does. The analogy is to the Roman Catholic church with a Pope and Cardinals. Chuck functions as the Pope and the regional pastors are his bishops/cardinals.

However there is an important difference. The Catholic Church has accountability which Calvary Chapel lacks. The local pastor is controlled by the Bishop not the local congregation. It takes an action by the Bishop to remove him. There is no way to remove a pastor of a Calvary Chapel since he's his own little Pope, just like Chuck. Look at it this way. CC is even worse than the Roman Catholic Church. All the problems with none of the avenues of justice to resolve them!

Disaffiliation?
That's a fairly simple question. All you need to do is become a net negative to the head boss and you will be punted to the curb. He did it to his own son, Chuck Jr, so don't expect less yourself.

Chuck Smith defines what Calvary Chapel means and what it will take to become disaffiliated. Today the list is 1> Pretrib is necessary, 2> Can't be Calvinist, 3> Don't emerge or be seeker sensitive...

What will be added to the list tomorrow?

Calvary Pastor Rakes Chuck Over the Coals

Calvary Chapel pastor, Daniel Fusco, has written an article summarizing his view of what's wrong with Calvary Chapel and Chuck Smith. Although he misses some pretty spectacular issues he hits some big and fairly safe points. They are:

Issue #1 - When the Jesus Movement became the Calvary Movement
Issue #2 - A Non denomination that IS a Denomination that is NOT a Denomination
Issue #3 - Hero Worship and the Uneven Scales
Issue #4 - A New Emphasis on Dividing the Body of Christ
Issue #5 - When Protecting the Pastor means Hurting God's Kids
Issue #6 - When the Holy Bible replaced the Holy Spirit as the Third Person of the Trinity

Good job, Daniel. When you posted on the Phoenix Preacher you admitted CC had problems but every time I pressed you to elaborate you dodged them. I am glad to see you admitting to these problems and taking some action to remedy them.

Smith's Settle with Kestler

The lawsuit has been settled between the Smiths (Chuck and Jeff) and Mike Kestler for control of CSN. For the most part, Kestler walks away the winner.

God's word, plus static, on Calvary Satellite Network

LA Times Article from Feb 2007

Amid accusations over sex, money and control, Pastor Chuck Smith is about to surrender much of the evangelical radio empire to a man he calls morally unfit for ministry.

WHEN Chuck Smith, founder of the worldwide Calvary Chapel movement, decided to invest big in radio, the Orange County evangelist joined forces with a pastor he trusted...

CC vs EC - Charge #8

The final charge is

8 - The great confusion that exists in the divergent positions of the Emergent Church results from their challenging the final authority of the Scriptures. When you no longer have a final authority, then everyone's ideas become as valid as the next person's, and it cannot help but end in total confusion and contradictions.

This one has several aspects which reflect on CC and Protestantism in general. Everyone does have their private interpretation of Scripture in Protestantism. That's not just a problem within the EC, but all of the Protestant Church.

For CC, this is an implicit assertion that it is only Chuck Smith's interpretation that matters. The final authority on what constitutes a CC is Chuck Smith and the position papers he endorses - ex cathedra. Pope Chuck at his worst.

The criticism of the EC is that they are a movement without a central authority. LOL.

CC vs EC - Charge #7

Chuck comes out against contemplative practices in the church:

7 - Should we look to Eastern religions with their practices of meditation through Yoga and special breathing techniques or repeating a mantra to hear God speak to us? If this is needed to enhance our communication with God, why do you suppose that God did not give us implicit instructions in the Scriptures to give us methods to hear His voice? Is it the position of my body or my heart that helps me to communicate with Him?

Where is the place for prayer in the Christian life? How serious should we be about it? What about fasting? When was the last time you heard Chuck Smith preach on fasting or any of the other spiritual disciples which are clearly found in the NT?

Jesus prescribes fasting for the church

Mat 9:15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

Is Meditation Eastern?
Christianity is Eastern. It was born in the Middle East. Meditation is part of the Christian faith and the Jewish faith. In the NT we read:

1Ti 4:15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.

The same is in the Old Testament:

Jos 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

CC vs EC - Charge #6

Homosexuality has been a hot topic at CCCM for a long time. In this charge, they write:

6 - Should we seek to condone what God has condemned, such as the homosexual lifestyle? Should we tell them that their problem is a genetic disorder rather than a blatant sin that God condemns over and over in the Bible? How long before they tell us that they have discovered that rapists, pedophiles, and adulterers have a genetic disorder and need to be understood rather than condemned?

The CC message seems long on condemnation here and little on the message that Christ came to save sinners. Not to make them good sinners, but to save them.

This is a pet peeve of Chuck Smith which led many attenders there after hearing Smith preach on it week after week that Chuck Smith can find anti-homosexual content in every verse in the Bible. True enough. When it comes to bad behavior there's more than a small amount of it to be found among CC pastors.

CC vs EC - Charge #5

The fifth charge is

5 - We do not believe that we should seek to make sinners feel safe and comfortable in church. Is it right for me to speak comfortable words to a man who is going to hell unless he turns from his sin? If I fail to warn him of the consequences of his sin, and he dies and goes to hell, will God require his blood at my hand? When is godly sorrow and conviction of sin such a wrong thing?

Once again this one feels like the pot calling the kettle black. Calvary Chapel is the place that the hippies were openly welcomed in spite of their dirty feet and smell or is physical comfort all that was provided by CC?

Does Calvary preach a message of repentance?
Not in my experience. It's a rare message that centers on the repentance of the pew warmer at Calvary Chapel.

CC vs EC - Charge #4

NO ICONS ALLOWED

4 - We have great problems with the use of icons to give them a sense of God or the presence of God. If they want to have a tie with the historicity of the church, why not go back to the church in Acts, which seems to be devoid of incense, candles, robes etc., but was filled with the Spirit.

Was the early church "devoid of icons"? The use of priestly clothing and incense have very early witness.

Should the church have incense?
Interesting question which Smith would clearly say "no". Unfortunately for Smith the Bible says something quite different. Mal 1:11 prophetically states about the church that

Mal 1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

The context here is clearly one of the proper worship of God among the Gentiles and incense is specifically mentioned.

Let's turn this passage around. In every place where God is worshiped incense is offered. Is incense offered at any CC? Nope. Then it stands to be asked if God is being worshiped there or are they only playing at worship?

The Scriptural Test
Are there Scriptural prohibitions against incense? We see the contrary is the case. Are there Scriptural prohibitions against robes? The Priests in the Old Testament wore priestly clothing to differentiate them from the rest of the people. The principle would seem to be a sound one even today. It marks a person as a religious leader if they wear different clothing. There are no prohibitions against this anywhere in the New Testament and there is a precedent for it in the Old Testament. How can CC justify their rejection of specific clothing? There is no indication in the NT one way or the other.

How about Icons?
Calvary Chapels often have religious images in their worship spaces. Costa Mecca has a wooden dove at the front of the church and on their literature. Why? Does the New Testament portray the dove icon anywhere? Or is the presence of the icon not so much the issue as the attitude of the person towards the icon?

This same controversy happened way back in church history. It was called the iconclast controversy. 'Iconoclasts' were deeply suspicious of any pictorial representations of Christ, the Mother of God, and the saints, and they therefore unleashed a wave of persecution against the use of religious images, while 'iconophiles' fiercely defended the veneration of icons as an integral element of the life of the church.

The controversy over icons during the eighth and ninth centuries shook the entire Byzantine Empire. Emperor Leo III triggered the dispute with an open condemnation of icons in 726, and only the Seventh Ecumenical Council, held in Nicea in 787, could reverse the iconoclastic current.

Basically, Calvary Chapel agrees with the Roman Catholic emperor Leo III. On the other side, the church council settled the question in favor of icons. Calvary Chapel has a right to be distinctive but they need to understand that their position was rejected by the entire church in 787. It was the Muslims who have a radical rejection of religious imagery that inspired the icon smashers. Why does Calvary side with the Muslims against the Christian church?

CC vs EC - Charge #3

This next one has to be the best of all:

3 - We have difficulty in their touchy-feely relating to God. Where the experience of certain feelings become the criteria for truth rather than the word of God.

This is too nebulous a charge to address, but if there is one characteristic of CC it is that CC is all about "feeling" God. It's the burning of the bosom that one gets when visiting CCCM that you hear many testify about. The stress at CC on a personal relationship with Jesus is the center of "touchy-feely." The position paper does not explain what constitutes an appropriate amount of touchey-feeliness.

CC vs EC - Charge #2

The second charge CC has leveled against the EC is:

2 - The soft peddling of hell as the destiny for those who reject the salvation offered through Jesus Christ. There are suggestions of universalism in their teaching, that all will ultimately be saved.

There are two charges here which are once against unsubstantiated.

About making unsubstantiated charges against Christians
This is an ethical problem. Does the Bible permit CC to make these charges without substantiation? I think that CC is being unethical here.

The two charges are "soft peddling of hell" and "suggestions of universalism".

1 - Soft peddling of Hell. This same charge has been raised against Calvary Chapel. Here's how it can be done. Go to the document "What Calvary Teaches". Search the document about what Calvary teaches for "hell". You will only find one reference and it is in a section about what Calvary rejects. Near as one can tell from their own official documents they "soft peddle hell".

2 - Universalism. Again there is no specific quote included and even this point says that the EC only offers a "suggestion" of universalism. This point was also dealt with in the first point.

OK, we get it. Calvary Chapel is against everyone being saved. Nuff said.

CC vs EC - Charge #1

The first charge CC has raised against the EC is:

1 - That Jesus is not the only way by which one might be saved. It seems that they are postulating a broader gate and a broader path to heaven, a sort of "all roads lead to heaven." That good people by every religious persuasion may be received into heaven. We feel that this goes against the plain teaching of the Scriptures and negates the need of the cross for the expiation of our sins. Paul wrote of those men in his letter to the Philippians and called them enemies of the cross of Christ. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man can come to the Father but by Me." This is not relative truth, but absolute truth.

Since there is no specific source and only "it seems that they" statement this is hard to address. For the sake of argument let's assume that there are some people in the EC which see other roads to Heaven outside of Evangelical Protestantism. So what?

Saying all roads lead to heaven is quite a different thing than saying good people get to get to heaven. If all people go to heaven then it doesn't matter whether one is good or not.

What About Righteous Pre-NT People?
The position paper fails to take account of people who have never heard the Gospel message or those who lived prior to 27 AD. What about them? Was David saved? Certainly CC would say he was, but did David know Jesus? CC seems to be ignoring these questions by their flip response.

Phil Passage Butchered Out of Context
The Phillipians scripture quote is completely out of context and is drawn upon in the most evil sort of way by CC. The context of Phillipians 3:18 is those who are seeking to draw Christians back into the Jewish Law and they are called enemies of God. The dogs and evil workers are those of the circumcision (Jewish Christians trying to draw people back into Judaism).

If there is one consistent characteristic of the Emerging Church is that they are not drawing people back into following the Old Testament Law. Quite the contrary. Their ethos is the exact opposite, drawing people towards grace. If there is one side that is closer to drawing people back to law, it is CC not the EC.

Absolute vs Relative Truth
Are the words of Jesus "I am the way, the truth and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through me." intended as absolute truth? Certainly they are an absolute statement but is CC reading them right? Try another reading that fits the words quite nicely. If someone is coming to God, then God is drawing them to Himself through Jesus. Does that mean that they even know who Jesus is? Can't this drawing be progressive?

Who was Jesus speaking to?
He was speaking to an audience who was rejecting Him and claiming they could get to God without Jesus. That was a different situation than what the EC are talking about. Certainly if someone is deliberately and consciously rejecting Christ they have a reason to be concerned about their souls.

Emergent Controversy

Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapel have come out swinging at the Emergent Church in a way that is reminiscent of the sort of attacks that Calvary Chapel received from mainline churches in the 1970s. Calvary Chapel has always been "seeker sensitive" when the term is defined in the broadest way. Smith prides himself on being the one to tell the usher that the people without shoes (the hippies in the 1960's) should be allowed to come in and the church would take care of cleaning the carpets after they left.

Why Has the Emerging Church Movement Gone Too Far?
This one's a bit harder to follow. With the (self) excommunication of Chuck Smith Jr from Calvary Chapel the separation has taken hold.

The criticisms are non-specific in terms of who said what or pointing to any authoritative position since the emerging church itself is non-specific and has no central authority - unlike CC where Chuck Smith is the pope. The emergents have taken a page from Calvary by eschewing traditional denominational associations but gone a step further by not needing someone like Smith at the center.

Listing the errors of the EC, the CC position paper says

1 - That Jesus is not the only way by which one might be saved. It seems that they are postulating a broader gate and a broader path to heaven, a sort of "all roads lead to heaven." That good people by every religious persuasion may be received into heaven. We feel that this goes against the plain teaching of the Scriptures and negates the need of the cross for the expiation of our sins. Paul wrote of those men in his letter to the Philippians and called them enemies of the cross of Christ. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man can come to the Father but by Me." This is not relative truth, but absolute truth.

2 - The soft peddling of hell as the destiny for those who reject the salvation offered through Jesus Christ. There are suggestions of universalism in their teaching, that all will ultimately be saved.

3 - We have difficulty in their touchy-feely relating to God. Where the experience of certain feelings become the criteria for truth rather than the word of God.

4 - We have great problems with the use of icons to give them a sense of God or the presence of God. If they want to have a tie with the historicity of the church, why not go back to the church in Acts, which seems to be devoid of incense, candles, robes etc., but was filled with the Spirit.

5 - We do not believe that we should seek to make sinners feel safe and comfortable in church. Is it right for me to speak comfortable words to a man who is going to hell unless he turns from his sin? If I fail to warn him of the consequences of his sin, and he dies and goes to hell, will God require his blood at my hand? When is godly sorrow and conviction of sin such a wrong thing?

6 - Should we seek to condone what God has condemned, such as the homosexual lifestyle? Should we tell them that their problem is a genetic disorder rather than a blatant sin that God condemns over and over in the Bible? How long before they tell us that they have discovered that rapists, pedophiles, and adulterers have a genetic disorder and need to be understood rather than condemned?

7 - Should we look to Eastern religions with their practices of meditation through Yoga and special breathing techniques or repeating a mantra to hear God speak to us? If this is needed to enhance our communication with God, why do you suppose that God did not give us implicit instructions in the Scriptures to give us methods to hear His voice? Is it the position of my body or my heart that helps me to communicate with Him?

8 - The great confusion that exists in the divergent positions of the Emergent Church results from their challenging the final authority of the Scriptures. When you no longer have a final authority, then everyone's ideas become as valid as the next person's, and it cannot help but end in total confusion and contradictions.

Let's look at each of these claims one at a time.

Same Old Stuff, Different Book

More End Times Speculation by Chuck Smith

Chuck Smith is coming out with yet another end times speculation book, "The Final Act". If only it were true and it was the final act for Smith's end time speculations. According to Amazon, the book is due out Aug 27, 2007.



Apparently Smith's lust for profiting from end times speculation didn't end with his failed predictions when Jesus failed to return in 1981.

A better use of money might be to go to the used bookstore and find used and cheap older books Smith has written on the subject. In "The Soon to be Revealed Antichrist" Smith speculated that Yassir Arafat fit the bill for Anti-Christ. Last time I checked Arafat was still dead. Smith named 1981 as the year of the rapture in at least three books Future Survival (1978), Snatched Away (1978) and End Times (1976 and 1980).





The covers get fancier and the content changes constantly to match the current political situation, but the same errors prevail.

The Examples of Noah/Lot and the Rapture

The examples of Noah and Lot are connected with the Rapture doctrine by Jesus:

Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luk 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Luk 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
Luk 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
Luk 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
Luk 17:31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
Luk 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.

In both passages, Jesus makes the point that the righteous are with the unrighteous right up to the time of judgment. Noah went into the ark because of the flood and Lot went out of the city moments before fire fell from Heaven on Sodom.

How does this relate to the rapture? This text about one in the field being taken is directly connected to this passage:

Luk 17:33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
Luk 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Luk 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luk 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Jesus is specifically rejecting the re-tribulational rapture doctrine by the timing of his comments. The church is taken to be with the Lord at the judgment of the Earth. They are not part of the destruction that comes with judgment. There is no 7 year period between the two events.

1 Thes 4 and the Rapture

The central proof text used for the pre-tribulational Rapture doctrine is 1 Thes 4:13-18:

1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
1Th 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1Th 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

It may surprise the reader to discover that there is no mention in this passage of the tribulation. Look hard to find it. The passage describes the Second Coming of Christ, not some secret rapture of the church. Why?

1 - Jesus is bringing the church with Him. That makes no sense if he is simply returning back to Heaven. Also if this was at the start of the tribulation, as Smith claims, it demonstrates that there is a noticable passage of time in the sequence of events in Heaven. Our souls are not fast forwarded as Smith claims.
2 - If there is a tribulation mention it is in the word "remain". Remain from what? Either it's people who are still alive due to the time passage or people who remained through the Tribulation. Either way, it doesn't support this passage as pre-trib.
3 - The resurrection of the dead is described here. That happens at the last day, according to Jesus in John 6:39.
4 - Smith assumes that Jesus is descending and then ascending back into heaven in this passage. Acts 3:21 says that Jesus remains in Heaven until the time He returns to restore all things. There are no descents down for the church in the middle.
5 - The concern addressed in this passage was for the dead in Christ. Clearly the audience understood the Second Coming of Christ, the judgment and the resurrection, but what was the order and what about the already dead? Would they be raised or would those who were alive the only ones who would be changed? Paul's point is that the dead are first. Not only are the dead going to be raised, but they get to be with GOd in the meanwhile.
6 - Note the prepositions. Jesus is coming with the dead saints for the living ones. The dead He will reunite with their bodies and He will raise them. The living won't have to die, they will be changed.
7 - There is a trump here. Where are the Trumps? At the end of the book of Revelation. They are the sign of the final battle and that it's over. God is victorious.
8 - This passage makes a connection that is not always obvious at our distance from the events. Some could ask, "So what if Jesus was raised? How does that ensure I will be raised?" Paul says that if we believe Jesus is raised then we believe His words that He will raise us up too. More than that, here's just how and when He will do it.

In conclusion, there's nothing in the central passage about the timing of a return of Jesus before the tribulation and everything in the passage about the Return of Jesus at the end of human history. Why take this as a pre-tribber proof text? Is that honest, really?

Is 1 Cor 16:51-52 about the Rapture?

Chuck Smith writes in "Answers for Today" quoting 1 Cor 15:51-52 as evidence for the Rapture. He writes:

In I Corinthians 15:51-52 Paul said, "Behold, I show you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will be changed [metamorphosis, a change of body] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye." You won't even realize it's happened until it's all over. Suddenly, you're in the presence of the Lord with all the church! We the Church will be changed.

The context of this passage is the Second Coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead not a pre-tribulational rapture. Paul says nothing in this passage about the tribulation and the timing verses the rapture but it is completely clear that the context of this chapter is the Second Coming.

This passage is about the change that happens to people who are alive at the time of the second coming. As the ancient creed says

From thence (heaven) He (Jesus) shall come to judge the living and the dead.

At the return of Jesus there will be people still alive who do not have a normal death. Their bodies are transformed into their resurrection bodies. The analogy of the butterfly is a great one. From the worm comes the butterfly. Not a different body at all, but something quite different at the same time.

This passage is not a proof text for the Rapture at all, but the use of this passage by Smith demonstrates the weakness of his case. There are no pre-trib rapture verses in the entire Bible.

Understanding our home from heaven

Chuck Smith goes well beyond what is expressed in 2 Cor 5:2 when it speaks of the death of the believer. The text says:

2Co 5:2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

Does this mean, as Chuck Smith asserts, that our resurrection body is in Heaven now awaiting us and that on our death we receive that resurrection body? If so then the current body has no connection to that kind of resurrection body. Worse yet, there is no resurrection since the dead are not raised but their bodies are replaced.

What is the context of this passage? Is 2 Cor 5:2 actually talking about our resurrection bodies at all or is it talking about something else. The passage is clearly talking about our deaths and dealing with the issue of what happens to us at death. The "earthly house of our tabernacle" describes our bodies which we currently inhabit. But is the building of God a resurrection body for us as Smith suggests or is it Heaven itself? After death, the believer goes into the presence of the Lord:

2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

The whole passage speaks of what happens when we die. The resurrection happens at the end of time but raised the question of what happens between our deaths and the last day. Smith solves the puzzle by asserting time in Heaven is different so the day we die is the last day. On the other hand, the Apostle Paul solves the issue here by saying that we go to be with the Lord until the judgment day. While we are in the presence of the Lord we are not unclothed, but clothed with the glory of God.

Being clothed with Heaven, as Robinson write is "a mixed metaphor (putting on as garment the dwelling-place)." It is now that we are naked being children of the fall by nature, but the spirit of God covers us with Heaven. That won't change just because we are away from our bodies for a time. We will still be clothed with Heaven then. Not made from heavenly material, as Smith carnally describes.

The context of this passage is the time between our death and the Second Coming of Christ, which is describe in the 10th verse:

2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

The passage is not about what we are clothed with at all but whom. We go to God's place, Heaven, and we are in His presence. We are not left dead or alone at death. We are reunited with our bodies on the last day of human history but in the meanwhile we are with God in Heaven.

Addressing Particular Moral Failures Inside CC

There is a discussion going on in the Phoenix Crashing site about how particular moral failures in Calvary Chapels should be handled. There are a number of opinions being posted on the comments section. Since I have been moderated out from participating there (no surprise), I will comment here.

Who's Business is it?
If it is public teaching, that's one thing, but moral failure, is another. I think we are responsible to comment on public teachings, but if there is a moral failure in a particular Calvary Chapel is it my business to comment? I am not an eyewitness of course, so I have no direct commentary of any value anyway.

Is there a value in warning people about predators? That would seem to be the right thing to do.

Unfortunately all of the discussion in the group which centers around various texts on discipline in the church just don't work within Calvary Chapel. There are no effective independent elders to investigate and judge issues. There is no overarching ministerial body which can be appealed to for help. In short, there's no way to address them in Calvary Chapel. That's why the discussions have gone outside the organization.

Do the verses even apply?
The reason the verses do not apply is that Calvary Chapel is not a church. It is a personality cult built around the leader, Chuck Smith. The local CCs are modeled on the same principles as the mothership. The Senior Pastor is at the top of the chain and there is no way to correct him. This demonstrates the cultic nature of the organization and why the verses about how church discipline should be handled are simply not asking the right question.

The problem is first theological and ecclesiological, not ethical. "Is Calvary Chapel a church?" is a prior question. For the verses about churches to apply to Calvary Chapel it would have to be a church. It's really just a glorified Bible Study or at best a mission. The fact is has no church discipline simply demonstrates the point that it's not a church.

"But my XYZ Calvary Chapel is a 'good' Calvary"
At this time I can hear the objector raising the point above. I ask "How do you know if your local CC has church discipline or not?" Without reading the constitution of the organization and the controlling documents you don't know whether it's there in structure and without really knowing the culture inside the leadership of the church you don't know if it's there in practice. A local CC can even look like it's not a cult on paper (there are a couple of them out there) but without really knowing the inside culture you just don't know.

How do I figure it out?
Start by asking for a copy of the church constitution, articles of incorporation and other documents of that nature. Tell them they can PDF them and send you them in a email. Check them out. Does the Senior Pastor get a free pass if there is moral failure or is he held accountable by a truly independent board?

If they don't have it right run for the door. If they do, talk with staff in "honest" moments. Don't expect honest answers since the staff have a culture of covering up for the Senior Pastor which is long established and well documented in CC literature.

Best to just stay away from Calvary Chapels.

Who is the Church?

Is the church the people in the church or is the church the pastor?

Calvary Chapel crassly says that the church is the Senior pastor. The people, in essence, are irrelevant to the discussion of what constitutes church. Well not completely irrelevant. They are supposed to pay the bills, but it's still the Senior pastor who makes up the church.

In Calvary Chapel, the Senior pastor is Moses, to whom God said that he would destroy the people and make a great nation out of just the one man (a threat which God did not go through with). In such a system you don't need the entire body, you just need the pastor.

In Calvary Chapel, the Senior pastor is the spiritual person and the pew warmers are not spiritual. The law makes you have church boards but you are free to fire them at the first sign of disagreement.

In Calvary Chapel, there is no denominational structure, just regional pastors (like Bishops) and a head (like the Pope).

The Revelation of Saint John

The book of Revelation was written to seven churches that existed in the mid to late 1st century AD. This sounds obvious to anyone who has been a student of the book or even just read it casually but it is a central point to the book. Each of the churches have listed attributes in the book; some good, mostly bad attributes.

What Does Smith Do With These Churches?
Like most allegorizers of the Book of Revelation, Chuck Smith has a fanciful way of understanding the churches. This way of understanding them is outside of the historical context of the letters. For instance, in his article Answers for Today, Smith writes about two of the churches:

The unrepentant church of Thyatira. which had gone into spiritual "fornication" (idolatry and saint-worship), was to be cast into the Great Tribulation unless, the Lord said, she repented. 2. To the church of Philadelphia in Revelation 3:10 Jesus said, "Because you have kept the word of my patience, I also will keep you from the hour of temptation which is coming to try them who dwell upon the earth."

Smith writes these things to support his belief in the pre-tribulational rapture but they prove way too much for Smith's position. What they prove is that the first century saw events which will never be repeated in human history with the destruction of the Jewish people in 67-70 AD and their being carried off into the nations. What these texts don't prove is some future tribulation period.

Why Do These Churches Matters?
Smith, and other teachers like him, have to allegorize or spiritualize the seven churches out of their historical context. Otherwise they can't read these passages as referring to a future tribulation period. You see, these churches no longer exist in their forms they once did, although according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, there is still a church in the city. Thyatira, for instance, is the modern Islamic city of Akhisar.

The situation was purely a mid to late first century AD situation. WHen the passage talks about "great tribulation", Smith re-reads that as "the great tribulation". Since for Smith the great tribulation is future, then the churches have to be allegorized. They are no longer actual churches. Some take them to be various churches today and others see them as ages of the church. Smith credits his own church as being Philadelphia and of course other churches are the apostate churches listed at the beginning.

What justifies this reading of the text?
Certainly people like Smith can read the Bible any way that they wish. It's a free country after all. But should they be teaching it this way? Of course they should not.

What Generation Will See the Rapture?

When Chuck Smith wrote about the timing for the Rapture, he wrote:

What "Generation"?
Not the generation Christ was talking to, because they've passed - but the generation that saw the fig tree budding forth. The coming of Jesus Christ is "even at the doors." The rebirth of Israel should be a sign to every child of God! Jesus said throughout the rest of Matthew 24, "Watch... be ye also ready." That was the constant warning to the Church: watch and be ready. In Luke 21:28 when Jesus was speaking of these same things, using again the parable of the fig tree, He said, "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."

Why not the generation that Jesus was speaking to?
Because it makes our own generation seem less important. If we aren't the "Rapture Generation" then what are we? What exactly did Jesus mean by "this generation"? After all, He should have said "that generation" if He pointing to some future generation thousands of years later.

Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Mar 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.
Luk 11:30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
Luk 17:25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

Jesus wasn't speaking of some distant generation, but the generation that he was speaking to. Parallel passages make this very clear:

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Mar 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Luk 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

What About the Fig Tree?
Smith takes the fig tree in a non-literal sense, as a figurative symbol, in this case for the national Israel. He sees the fig tree blossoming as a figure of Israel becomming a nation once again. There is nothing in this immediate text to support that premise. Jesus is using the example of the fig tree in an entirely different way than what Smith suggests. Jesus is using the fig tree as an example of something you can see with your own eyes as a sign of the seasons. The events Jesus described were the signs to watch for, not the fig tree itself. The fig tree stood for those events not some other event, such as Israel becoming a nation.

Suppose the Fig Tree is Israel!
But if the fig tree is Israel then what about this passage?

Mar 11:13-14 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

If the fig tree is Israel then Jesus has just cursed Israel forever to wither and die.

More Smith Resurrection Heresy

In his book, What the World is Coming To, Chuck Smith wrote:

God made our new bodies in a new manner. They're made from heavenly elements. You'll be able to walk right through a material wall. It's as when you shine a flashlight through a one-foot thick piece of glass. The light comes out on the other side completely unimpaired. Similarly, after Jesus was resurrected from the dead, He evidently passed through the walls into the room where the disciples were gathered (John 20:26). All the doors were locked and, suddenly, Christ appeared in their midst and began talking to them.

Our new bodies will probably be made of a different molecular structure than the material universe. As far as we know, in this material universe everything is made up of three building blocks: protons, electrons, and neutrons. God has created such an infinite variety from these three components by combining them in different ways. How do we know that God doesn't have other building blocks? Why should God limit Himself to three? God made our earthly bodies out of these three building blocks and God has another body waiting for us. He said that as we have borne the image of the earthy, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly (I Corinthians 15:49). Those building blocks God used to create heaven are the building blocks He has used to make your new body.

Not only does Smith deny the resurrection of the flesh and assert that we get different bodies, but he says that they are made out of the same stuff Heaven is made from. This stuff is just plain crazy. No commentary should be needed but apparently people have itching ears. Why is this guy leading a church? He isn't qualified to lead a home Bible Study!

Using Smith's way of thinking Jesus must have been made of the same material as ducks. After all, Jesus walked on water and we know ducks float on water, too.

Rapture Proof Texts

Let's look at the texts that are claimed as support for the Rapture from chapter 4 of Chuck Smith's book, What the World is Coming To.

Rev 4:
Chuck Smith wrote:

I believe that the rapture of the church takes place in verse one of Revelation 4 - after the things of the church history are completed. John heard a voice as a trumpet saying, "Come up hither, and I will show you things that shall be after these things." Now John will see the things that shall take place after the church is gone.

Contrary to Smith, this first text is not a text at all, it is a chapter divide, namely the chapter divide that starts at Rev 4 verse 1. John is asked to come up into Heaven to view a heavenly scene. What this has to do with the rapture is hard to discern. John being transported to Heaven for a revelation from God has nothing to do with the church being taken to Heaven for 7 years (or even part of seven years). Just because John got to see something doesn't mean that future people would see something.

This particular connection is one of the most imaginative of all Dispensational ideas and it is based on the theory that the book of Revelation is time ordered/coded with events from earlier at the start and events from later at the beginning. At best it's an allegorical reading of the text. There is nothing in that text that indicates that the church will be taken up into Heaven. The text is clear, it is John the Revelator who is in Heaven at this point in the text, not the church.

1 Thes 4:16:
This text is:

1Th 4:16-17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Unfortunately the previous two verses are ommitted by Smith. The entire section, read it context, reads:

1Th 4:14-17 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Listing out the events in the order listed in the passage:

-The Lord descents from Heaven
-There is a shout which is the voice of the archangel (no secret coming there)
-The trumpet sounds (the trumpets are at the end of the tribulation)
-The dead are raised (the resurrection)
-The alive people are taken up to meet them in the clouds (we know they are clothed with immortality at that point)
-We all go to be with the Lord

Before the rapture teaching was invented it was uniformly believed that this text described the descent of Jesus with the saints at the start of His earthly reign. The dead are raised and the living are transformed into their immortal bodies. They remain on the Earth with Christ. This is completely consistent with the text. The only way to get Smith's view is to read it into the text and then the problems multiply. For instance;

Problem #1 - When will this happen?
If this event is 7 years (or any period of time) before next Second Coming then there would need to be another resurrection at that time. There are no texts which support two resurrection of the righteous, just one at the end of time.

Problem #2 - Where is the second Second Coming in Scripture?
Secondly, there is no second translation of the living anywhere in Scripture. What happens to those who believe in Christ at His second Second Coming? Presumably they will need to be translated as well.

Problem #3 - Down and back or Down?
Thirdly, what is presumed by Smith is that Christ comes down and then goes back up again. This view is not supported by the text which does not say which direction Jesus is going. Since Jesus is bringing the souls of the dead with Him to be raised in their resurrected bodies, why taken them back to Heaven at all? There's no need for resurrection bodies in Heaven.

The Historical Views
Historical Pre-millennialists believed that the 1000 year Millennium started at that point in time. Amillennialists disagreed and stated that the church age constituted the millennium. It is a misnomer to say Amillennialist in that Amillennialists don't believe in any sort of millennium, rather they believe that the Millennium in Revelation is a description of the current time frame.

Why does Pre-wrath matter to CC?

There are a couple of reasons I am focusing on Pre-wrath. One is the recent attention brought to the subject by the Phoenix Preacher who is an advocate of the position.

Another reason is its attraction to folks on their way out of Calvary Chapel. They have begun questioning the teachings of Calvary Chapel and are looking for alternatives. Pre-wrath, for them, is a way of salvaging most of their Dispensationalism without keeping the Biblically unsupportable Pre-tribulational rapture doctrine.

A third reason is that this view has some footholds in the evangelical community which is hasn't earned because most others give it a free pass thinking it is a harmless error.

Pre-Wrath Prevarications

Yet another quote from the Pre-Wrath website:

Since a view of a literal thousand-year kingdom on earth holds that there is still a future kingdom for the Jews, and that God has not rejected the nation of Israel and yet will fulfill His covenants with them, this view came to be rejected in this growing anti-Jewish church culture.

There are two mixed up notions here which the pre-wrath advocates can't seem to understand in their materials. On one hand they want to present their view as the historically accepted view in the Earliest Church days. As one of their sources writes:

In contrast to this “great cloud of witnesses” for the chiliastic (one thousand year kingdom) view of the early church, there are virtually no early church documents prior to AD 325 which support a different view.

On the other they have this notion that the 1000 year reign of Christ on the Earth somehow relates to genetic descendants of Jacob/Israel.

What did the Early Pre-Millennialists believe?
The early Premillennialists believed that Christ was going to return to the Earth for a reign of 1000 years after which there would be a general resurrection of the dead. They did not equate this 1000 year time period for National Israel. They did not see "the church age as a parenthesis" as the Pre-Wrath and other Dispensational variants see it.

In other words, the early church had a completely different view of the purpose and peopling of the 1000 year reign of Christ than the Pre-Wrathers do today. Not only was the purpose different, but the people who inhabit the time are different. Ask yourself, who rules and reigns with Christ during that 1000 years according to the book of Revelation? Is it Israel or is it the Church?

The bottom line is that their view is sadly mistaken and the notion of a future for Israel is a separate question from the 1000 year reign which they have mixed up due to their own Dispensational leanings. Most, if not all, of the early church did not see this 1000 years as focused on Israel. They saw it as the church age. No wonder Amillennialism arose, since it was a natural continuation of this same theme, not some new radical teaching.

This is an important point and refutes the central notion of Pre-Wrathism, namely their claim of historical connection to the Early Church's view on Pre-millennialism. The only thing their view has in common with the Early Church is the return of Christ at the start of the 1000 year period. Everything else about their view is different. The Early Church writers did not see a need for the Millennium to fulfill some Old Covenant promises to Israel. They realized that the New Covenant was now the controlling document and that the Old Covenant had died with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD as the final evidence of the ending of that Covenant (with the cross being the very real beginning of the end).

Wikipedia article on the differences between the Historical Pre-millennialism and the Dispensational Pre-millennialism.

Was Early Amillennialism a Result of Anti-Semitism?
Or were there other reasons for the rise. I suggest above why it made perfect sense when a couple of hundred years passed to assume that since Jesus who was already reigning from Heaven they were in the millennium. After all, there are no texts which show Jesus returning to the Earth prior to the Millennium without making assumptions brought into particular texts. Check it out, it's true!

Also, there were many Pre-millennial authors who were anti-semitic by today's standards. It's not necessary to go beyond the New Testament itself to find materials which people have claimed is anti-Semitic. The recent hoopla over the movie "The Passion of the Christ" demonstrates that content directly out of the Gospels appears to some as anti-semitic.

It is important for Christians to understand the work of Christ that was done by His death and resurrection from the dead. Once we really understand that we can proclaim to all of our neighbors, Jew and Gentile alike, that Jesus really is the Savior of the entire world.

For a good short article on the Orthodox view, see this page.

Contemporary Judaizers

Why did the church so early on embrace Amillenialism and reject Premillennialism which had ancient roots predating the Christian era? Was it because the church got corrupted or was was because the church came to realize the central notion of Pre-millennialism was/is Judaizing?

At its core, the idea that the New Covenant is somehow not complete and that the Old Covenant with its promises to National Israel is still in force denies the Gospel and the Cross of Christ. It says what Jesus did was inferior to the Old Covenant. No wonder it was sharply rejected by the Apostles and Early Church.

It's important to realize that the New Covenant was with the House of Israel and being the New Covenant it replaced the Old Covenant. Jeremiah wrote about this new Covenant:

Jer 31:31-33 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

There is no continuation of the Old Covenant with Israel, the New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant. Call this "replacement theology" if you wish, but that's the very language of this text. Not according to the Old [Covenant], Jeremiah wrote, but a New Covenant.

It's not so much that the people of God were replaced, it's that the Covenant God had with people was replaced with a better covenant based on better promises. It was no longer with National Israel, but with the entire Earth, including National Israel. It was much more than what it ever was before.

New Testament Writers on the New Covenant
This "New Covenant" is picked up on by the writer of Hebrews who wrote:

Heb 8:6-13 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Those who would seek to return to the Old Covenant are Judaizers. Seeing a future for Israel based on promises of the Old Covenant is exactly what the author of Hebrews is clearly rejecting. To say that the promises of the New Covenant are inferior and therefore the old promises to National Israel are what matters is patently false. The New Covenant is superior to the Old Covenant.

To take it a step further, it is a damnable heresy to reject the New Covenant and seek the Old Covenant:

Heb 10:29-31 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

This is why the early church rejected Premillennialism - it sets the New Covenant aside and tries to reestablish the Old Covenant. In the process it denies the work of Christ. Follow such false teachings at your own peril!

Sources of Amillennialism?

According to the pre-wrath website:

amillennialism is a human creation that developed out of the nascent Roman Catholic church

Is their claim true? What do they mean by nascent? What does it matter anyway?

The Augustine Question?
First of all, who was Augustine? He was one of the earlier and stronger proponents of the Amillennial viewpoint, but was he a Roman Catholic? Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo, which was in northern Africa. Bishops were not appointed from Rome at that time. They were independent of Rome.

What other views came out of the same time frame?
The Trinity is one of them. It was present earlier, but it came out of that time frame. The reference to the Roman Catholic church is anachronistic since the the Roman Catholic church did not take form until the 7th century.

A proposed better wording

Amillennialism was taught in the Early Church

Nascent means newly born. How could the church be newly born if it wasn't born for centuries afterwords? The use of Roman Catholic and the attempt to tie it to the Amillennial teaching is perverse and at best it is poisoning the well by appealing to the anti-Catholic sentiment of many evangelicals.

Separating the ragweed from the dandilions

How do we separate the two teachings - the pre-tribulational rapture and pre-wrath rapture? What are the differences between the two? Based on my reading the pre-wrath position is merely a sub-species of Dispensationalism.

Clearly, the pre-wrath folks have recognized that the few rapture texts can be more reasonably read in ways other than the pre-tribulations readings. However, they have not yet rejected their Dispensational roots holding to a Jewish restoration to the ancient land of Israel.

In a way, this difference is one without much substance to it. Both believe that the church age is a parenthesis in the middle rather than the original goal of God. Both see merit in being born of the Jewish people, something which Jesus spent most of His teaching ministry combating. The only difference is whether the church will be removed before the peaceful part of the tribulation period or before the later non-peaceful part.

In a way, there's a certain sort of logic to this.

Why would God remove people if they are not actually in immediate danger?

My History
I abandoned pre-trib within months of becoming a Christian at a church which emphasized pre-trib. I did much study on the subject and quickly recognized that the verses which were used to support the teaching were being read in a way that did not allow the text to say what it was actually saying. I saw how my friends put their faith in pastors, like Chuck Smith, rather than being able to defend the teaching.

I got ahold of a tape which presented post-trib and by the time I was half way through the front side the matter was answered for me. The large pile of passages against the position and the poor exegesis of the small pile of passages which were claimed to support the rapture made the results inevitable.

Israel in Romans 11

Pre-wrath and pre-tribbers are fond of quoting Romans 11 as evidence of a future for Israel. They rarely provide a thorough exegesis of the entire chapter, and to do so is beyond the scope of this page, but I will present one passage which is problematic to their position right out of Romans 11. How can they account for this passage?

Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

For Paul Israel's future with respect to God was not a given, unless this is a mythical hypothetical and is dismissible as such. Rather, for Paul it was possible that Israel might not come to faith.

The condition for admittance for Israel is the same as it is for the Gentiles, faith in Christ.

The whole chapter refutes their central notion, namely that there are two peoples of God. Today and in the future there are and will be only one people of God, those who come to Him in faith. Israel, through unbelief, has separated herself from God. If and when she comes to faith in Jesus as their Messiah, she will be saved.

Strawmen

Here's another strawman from the pre-wrath page

So, it is illegitimate when an Amillennialist asserts, "This Bible passage says the kingdom is happening right now, therefore it is completely fulfilled in all its aspects with no future reality to be realized.” The reasoning does not follow Biblically as we noted above because the nature of the kingdom of God is inaugurated and progressive, which will be realized in all its fullness at the commencement of the age to come.

First of all, this doesn't sound like anything I have ever heard any Amillennialist say. That's not to say that there are none that would say this, rather that it's quite out of the norm for Amillennialists to say that there is no future aspect of the Kingdom. That would be silly since for the Amillenialist, at the very least, the entire church history which was future from 30 AD is seen by Jesus as part of the Kingdom of God.

Secondly, I know of no Amillennialist who denies the Second Coming as a future event. Some hyper-preterists assert that, not no Amillennialist that I have ever read or heard of would assert such a thing.

Pre-Wrath Passages

Just took a look at the splash page for http://www.prewrathrapture.com/. There is an argument given on the splash page that is interesting but extremely easily refuted. The passage in question is Acts 1:1-9 where Jesus is asked if He is going to restore the kingdom to Israel. Jesus does not answer the question, but tells the disciples that they are not to know the day or the hour which the Father has in His control.

The author of the article then states that since Jesus did not correct them He must have been in agreement with the presumption of their question. The author writes:

His answer assumes a future Israel, and thereby in this shared assumption with the disciples Jesus defers the answer to when the kingdom will be restored to Israel to the Father’s sovereign timing.

Logically, this is a classical example of the fallacy of the argument from silence. Put simply, silence does not necessarily imply agreement. Remember the elementary school quote about what happens when we ass-u-me?

What did Jesus agree with?
Did Jesus agree that Israel had a future as a people? He did not say either way. What did their question indicate? What they did know is that Jesus was the King of Israel and He had risen from the dead. Why didn't the King take authority over His kingdom and do it immediately? Why stay in a small group even after the resurrection? Why not march straight up to Herod's palace and take control? They had asked this same question in different forms at many times in the past. Each time it demonstrated that they still did not get it. Why is this time different?

Jesus' answer pre-figures what was about to happen. The King was taken away from them once already in death, but He was raised from the dead. What happened next clearly took them by surprise, the King was once again taken away from them. They were so stunned that they kept looking up into the sky. In fact, they were so taken back that an angel came and told them to stop looking up. Jesus would return, the angel said, in the same manner in which He had departed.

What Was the Expectation of the Apostles?
Even after being with Jesus for 40 days between the empty tomb and the ascension they did not understand that Jesus would be departing. So much for their understanding of the Kingdom of God. The one thing that they did know is who the King was, Jesus. What the author of this paper asks us to believe is that they were taught about some future kingdom and then surprised when the King left them. The core argument of the page is then refuted by the very text which the author claims supports his position.

Secondly, the assumption of the author is that the Kingdom of God is future, relating to the reign of Jesus from the Earth, rather than present with Jesus reigning right now from Heaven. When Jesus preached the kingdom of God and the disciples asked about the Kingdom and Israel the two are not necessarily referring to the same thing. To the disciples, the Kingdom was still an earthly and immediate expectation. To Jesus is was also immediate, but for Jesus it would be the age of the Spirit of God in the church.

Thirdly, the apostles demonstrate that prior to Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit came, they had an amazing ability to listen to teaching and not get it. Jesus had told the apostles many times about how He was going to die and then be raised up. What was so special about the 40 days when they did not get it in 3-1/2 years?

The question that the Apostles asked could also be stated as a question, "If you really are the King, why not take the Kingdom now"?

Paul's statement at the end of Acts says it all:

Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

The Jews rejected Jesus and the Gospel was first offered to them. Rather than accept Jesus as their King, they chose to follow false prophets and they went to their own deaths in 67-70 AD.

What did Luke Mean by Kingdom of God?
Luke explains later what he means by the Kingdom of God:

Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.

The preaching about the Kingdom of God is that the King is Risen!

Amen

The Phoenix Preacher: Blissfully or Invincibly Ignorant?

Here is the latest inane quote from the PP:

Whatever your position is on the Rapture, this is the foundation stone you build the doctrine on and it’s a foundation under attack from amillennialism and preterism.

This weeks posts will give you a starting place to understand and defend the premill position intelligently and Biblically.

This guy just can't keep his categories and definitions straight. What is the rapture? Is the "rapture" denied by amill and preterists? What does the rapture have to do with Pre-millenialism?

Unfortunately, the rapture is a term which has several meanings and going to the Greek or English New Testaments don't help in clearing them up. Webster's gives a problematic definition of the rapture as:

3 often capitalized : the final assumption of Christians into heaven during the end-time according to Christian theology.

If that's the definition of rapture then I personally deny it as being a Biblical doctrine. And most Christians historically would deny it as a doctrine of the faith unless heaven is more clearly defined.

What do you mean by Heaven(s)
There are at least a few "heavens" in the Bible. The birds fly in one of them, the stars are in another and God "lives" in yet another one of them. But (the third) Heaven comes down to Earth in the form of the New Jerusalem in the Book of Revelation so it is reasonable to conclude that Heaven is not our final destination but the Earth.

So by that definition, Christians would not be taken to Heaven unless the rapture occurred before the end of the Tribulation period. Therefore, most Christians would deny the rapture but it's the definition they are denying, not the basic concept. The basic concept is that Christ will return bodily for His church.

A Working Definition of Rapture?
But if the definition of rapture were slightly altered then very few Amill or Preterist folks would take disagree.

the final assumption of Christians to be with Christ during the end-time according to Christian theology

The Second Coming is the Real Issue
You see, Amill and (most) Preterist folks do believe in a future, personal Second Coming of Christ and that's the key issue. The big difference is that they only believe in one Second Coming, not two or more Second Comings. The Pre-millennialist believes in at least two Second Comings and at least three Second Comings if they hold to some form of Rapture doctrine as described above. Along with the multiple Second Comings they also have to believe in multiple different resurrections - at least three if you are a Pre-Tribulationalist or Pre-wrath advocate.

What did Jesus say?
Jesus never spoke of multiple Second Comings, multiple resurrections or multiple "last days". He spoke of all of these as being at the end of time. It's no more complicated than that. Jesus told us we would suffer tribulation in this world but to be of good cheer since He had overcome the world. The lives and deaths of the martyrs of the Church show that few escape persecution who chose to live righteously in Christ.

What is the history of the doctrine
Pre-millinarians were around for much of the earliest church history phase but by the time of Augustine, the view was seriously on the decline and would have been characterized as cultic at that time.

On the other hand, pre-tribulationalism as a sub-species arose less then 200 years ago and other than the speculations of an 18th century writer or two the idea had no advocates prior to that time. It is completely unknown in Church History. None of the early Church writers wrote about it. It's not in any of the creeds of the church or any of the councils, either. That doesn't make it automatically false. Someone could have discovered it 1800 years later than Christ and the Apostles. It's newness just makes it suspect.

Pre-Wrath Patchwork Quilt
The pre-wrath view is a weak attempt to salvage the pre-tribulational rapture from its exegetical death throws. Still there are no texts which teach it (see previous post "The Cluelessness Continues" where I explain how the texts used for pre-wrath are often misused). It is used by people who want to cling to the idea that they will escape general wrath by being taken off the Earth.

Conclusion
Let's keep what is most important at the top of the list. Christ is coming again to raise the dead, change the living into immortal beings, judge the dead and the living and rule and reign on the Earth forever. That is agreed to by all Christians. As the old creed says "From thence (Heaven) He (Jesus Christ) shall come to judge the living and the dead". That is the doctrine that needs defense, not the pre-wrath or pre-trib rapture doctrine.

Phoenix Preacher Contines Implosion

The Phoenix Preacher continues to send people to his favorite Calvinist (actually so-called Reformed Baptist) writers. The latest writer that he sends people to read is one of his favorites, John Piper. This time Piper writes on the subject of the bridge collapse in the Twin Cities. You don't have to go far into the article until Piper blows it once again taking the Phoenix Preacher down with him.

Piper quotes a passage from the New Testament that is one of the more obscure texts. Not because it is hidden, but because it is rarely well explained by preachers, particularly those who are after spiritual "notches on their belts". It's the following passage from Luke 13:1-5:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

Exactly how does Piper misuse the passage? He fails to understand and take account for the passage both in it's textual and historical contexts.

What is that passage about?
The passage itself provides the clue. It is not at all about natural disasters, as Piper claims. It's about rebellion against the Roman civil authorities. Pilate put to death people who were rebels against his authority. The collapse of the tower was not another natural disaster but a similar event. Both of these groups were not caught up in some newsworthy tragedy, they were both conspirators against the Roman authority of Pilate.

The warning Jesus is giving in the text is not some generalized warning about repentance at all. Nothing to do with that. He is warning the people of his day that if they rebel against the Roman authority using armed resistance that they would die just like those others had died. Jesus is using the word "repent" in the very literal sense of "change your mind". To paraphrase, Jesus is saying that if they don't repent about their plans to fight Rome with arms they will die like the others who already tried?

Did Jesus get it right?
But was Jesus right? Of course. In 67-70 AD the Jews did exactly what Jesus had warned them not to. They openly rebelled against Rome and the siege of the city of Rome was their downfall. They were carried out into the nations.

The followers of Jesus did not join in with the Jews who rebelled against Rome. They fled the city, just as they were warned to do by Jesus less than 40 years earlier. The judgment against Israel prophesied by Jesus had begun and they knew if they stuck around what would happened.

What exactly is the Gospel?

The Phoenix Burning BLOG is discussing the "Gospel" today and offers this definition:

When we speak of the essentials of the Christian faith, we speak of those doctrines which are bound together as The Gospel.

None of the proof texts Michael presented defined the Gospel in the same way. In fact, one had a very clear message about just what the Gospel is:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

In essence the Gospel, at least in this text, is the life story of Jesus. More particularly, it's the events in the life story of Jesus that, strung together, make His life story different than the life story of any other human person.

Why is His life story different? Was it His life? Lots of people have achieved fame in their communities but their names have been long forgotten. Was it His death? Lot's of people have died unjust deaths. No, it's really none of that. It was what happened after Jesus was killed. You see, unlike the rest of the people who had previously died, Jesus did not stay dead. He rose from the dead and lives even today.

That my friends, is the Gospel. Not some collection of doctrines, although doctrines do flow from that basic fact. And getting straight what the Gospel is, and is not, is one of the essentials.

This is one area where Calvinists have long been confused because they mix their Calvinistic doctrine with the Gospel. For many of them it then becomes essential to the faith to adhere to the five points.

Best all I can tell from Scripture we really need to believe is that Jesus died and rose again from the dead.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Is Calvary Different?

What does all of this Millennium stuff matter anyway? Isn't this BLOG supposed to be about Calvary Chapel?

Calvary Chapel has long been centered around a particular and narrow view of end times events, stated as:

We believe in the personal, visible, and pre-millennial second coming of Jesus Christ to the earth.

Yet at the same time, Calvary Chapel has long had a tenant that

We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only to their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ.

Yet, isn't this exactly what has happened? Not the denominational question, but the basic issue of whether or not Calvary Chapel's "distinctives" have "led to a division of the Body of Christ". If you change your views on the end times from the standard party line you will be cast out of Calvary Chapel. Isn't that exactly what they claim to be against?

Does Calvary Chapel overemphasize doctrinal differences when it comes to end times? Of course they do, and they do it constantly. Whether or not they are a denomination depends largely upon your definition of denomination. Smith's definition appears to be a cohesive group with different views than his. Doesn't Scripture tell us that God hates differing weights and measures?

Thousands and Thousands

Those who claim that a thousand is always a thousand (see last post) have probably not done a study even of the way that the Bible uses the word "thousand". Here's an interesting test text for the literalist view

Deu 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he [is] God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Taken literally would this not set a minimum limit of the number of generations of humans? After all if there is a single person who loves the Lord, he will be faithful to to a thousand generations of their descendants. Or is the intent of the text to say "a very long time"?

Suppose a generation is about 25 years and if a thousand is always a thousand then God will keep covenant and show mercy for 25,000 years. Yet, Abraham loved God and he lived less than five thousand years ago. By this there are 20,000 years left until the end of God's mercy.

Or is God's mercy everlasting and the word thousand means a big number once again (like the cattle on the thousand hills)?

A Thousand is Always a Thousand

"A thousand is always a thousand" is what some say to defend their literal view of the millennium. They ignore the genre of the book which is apocalyptic in nature. In apocalyptic literature a literal number is almost never literal. But let's try another test text:

Psa 50:10 For every beast of the forest [is] mine, [and] the cattle upon a thousand hills.

Does that mean that God does not own the cattle on hill number 1001? Or was the intended meaning that God owns everything and the number 1000 merely a way of using a big number to make a point?

At this point the defenders of the millennium as 1000 literal years of 365 days will say, well that's poetic language there in Psalms. The fact is, this is Revelation, which is even more coded language and much less literal that the Psalms. It seems like the 1000 years is one way of saying a very long time, much longer than the lifespan of a person.