Tribulation and Millennium

The study of last things, or Eschatology, has focused often on two questions. The first question is that of the Millennium. The answer to the first question often sets the importance of the second question, which is that of the tribulation.

Generally, the order is believed to be some period of peace then tribulation then the Millennium. Timelines are often shown to illustrate the various views. They will not be repeated here but they can make the point.

What does the Millennium question hinge on? Really it hinges on two basic points. One of them is emotional more than Biblical. That is the notion that God is not finished with Israel yet and has some future plans for restoration of Israel. The second point is that the text from the Book of Revelation chapter 20 which speaks of a thousand years. Most would agree that the book of Revelation is full of symbols, but when it comes to this text the argument centers around whether the 1000 years is to be taken literally or symbolically. It's not a question of one side taking the Bible seriously and one side not taking it seriously (sorry Missler). It's a question of how we should take it, or more accurately, how it was intended that we should understand apocalyptic language.

The Cluelessness Continues

The latest question on the Phoenix Rising BLOG is:

What Is Your Position On The Rapture?

* Pre-trib
* Mid Trib
* Post Trib
* Pre-Wrath
* Amill
* Huh?

This guy can't even keep his basic categories straight. Since when is "Amill" a "position on the rapture? It's a non-sequitur. One's position on the millennium may be related to the rapture but that's not an answer the question. Most amillennialists would be see the rapture as happening after the tribulation.

Not only that but Mikey misses one key possibility - past-tribulationalism. That is the teaching that the tribulation happened in the past. Hence all rapture possibilities are future to the past (since we live in the future as compared to the past!)

The view that Jacob's Trouble happened when Jacob (Israel) was carried out to the nations by Rome in the year 70 AD has long standing. All that we are waiting for now is the any day return of Jesus Christ.

Michael's "pre-wrath" position on the rapture is nothing more than a failed attempt to rescue the pre-tribulational rapture doctrine from the proof texts which failed to prove the point to start with. The notion is that God will not allow us to see His wrath. The Biblical support for such a position is almost non-existent. The one text is misread and the verse after it which sets the context is uniformly ignored.

The "pre-wrath" position is simply based on a radical misunderstanding of the word "wrath" in the Bible and in prophetic language in particular. One such example is:

1Th 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

and

Rev 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

Spot the fallacy? It's the fallacy of equivocation. It is a failure to recognize that words have a range of meaning. Wrath in one verse is not necessarily relating to the same event as another verse. The first verse is describing eternal punishment and the second is describing a temporal (in time) judgment. Both describe God's reaction - punishment.

I wonder if the people who assert the pre-wrath position have a problem with the doctrine of Hell - the eternal wrath of God?

Picking just one point

From the page quoted below.

5. "P" = PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS - The Calvinists believed that salvation is entirely the work of the Lord, and that man has absolutely nothing to do with the process. The saints will persevere because God will see to it that He will finish the work He has begun. (Smith's pamphlet)

The Bible teaches this...

We might get the impression that we can lose our salvation (fall from grace) when looking at the following isolated verse:

Galatians 5:4 "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."

But then when we look at the verse that immediately follows, we get additional information regarding what Paul was talking about:

Galatians 5:5 "For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith"

Paul is saying here in Galatians that salvation (i.e. Christ's righteousness) is received by faith, not by the works of the law. His point is not that we can fall from grace. He is telling the Galatians that they are missing the whole meaning of grace if they think they are justified by the law. In fact, this point is the main reason for him writing the epistle to the Galatians. The Greek word for 'fallen' is 'ekpipto' which means "to be driven out of one's course". So the Galatians were falling off course with respect to their understanding of the Gospel of grace. So was Paul telling the Galatians they were in danger of losing their salvation? Not in view of 2 Timothy 1:9, Jude 1:24, and other verses mentioned above, and we are not at liberty to ignore these other verses.

Once again, the author of the page does not deny the characterization by Smith of what Calvinists believe. He provides proof texts and arguments to back up the position. As much as it pains me to write this, it appears that Smith does not misrepresent Calvinism and that he has a valid critique. There are a lot of ways of going at this point.

Let's try and follow the Galatians 5 argument though and see if the critic makes the point he is trying to make.

Smith lists Gal 5:4 as evidence that someone can fall from grace. The author of the paper accuses Smith of ignoring the following verse which asserts that righteousness comes from faith. But exactly what bearing does that have on Paul's (or Smith's) point? Paul appears to be talking about someone who has ceased to be in faith and as a result lost their salvation. Smith's paradigm takes this into account. The Calvinist's paradigm can't deal with this as anything other than an impossible scenario. Hence, all of these sorts of warnings on Scripture are all hypothetical but empty threats since a person given the gift of faith can never lose that gift (according to the Calvinist).

But, that's nothing more than begging the question that they seek to prove. For the Calvinist, there can be no proof texts of losing salvation since salvation can't be lost. Once again Calvinism shows itself to be completely circular. The five points cohere together logically but only in relation to each other. At every Scriptural test they falter.

In this case it is because to a Calvinist faith is not something we possess but something that is itself completely foreign to us and completely a gift of God without any part of our own. God is loving God through us since, to the Calvinist, we are completely incapable of loving God on our own. Ignoring the narcissistic aspects of that sort of love, it completely empties a human person of any of the image of God which to the Calvinist has to be completely obliterated in God's creation. God is incapable, in Calvinism, of creating beings who are capable of loving Him on their own so they have to be altered individually by God to love God. Being born again takes on a radical meaning in such a system.

Now that's an interesting system, and it is certainly internally consistent, but it makes a mockery of God's creative skills and reduces Him to not much more than a playground bully who always wins by force.

Cal(vary)-minianism

Here's a critique of Calvary Chapel's pamphlet on Calvinism. Reading the conclusion written in all caps was enough for me. I feel like yet again I am being shouted at by some shrill Calvinist. No offense intended for those non-shrill Calvinists who read this page.

Most of the paper is insertions of Scripture passages supporting the Calvinist view. It is an interesting read since most Calvinists deny that Smith's pamphlet is an accurate representation of their views. This paper does not so much deny the accuracy of Smith's pamphlet as try to defend the Calvinist position.

Anyone have time to take this task on? Comments welcome.

Chuck Smith attacks the historical church

Chuck Smith has once again publicly attacked the historical church. This time his target is the Catholic Church.

I suppose it's not odd that someone like Smith, who denies the resurrection of the flesh, would go after a historical church, like the Catholics, which affirm the resurrection of the flesh. But really, who's the greater heretic someone who prays to saints or someone who denies the resurrection?

What the other BLOGs won't publish

I've put up a few comments onto the "From the Ashes" BLOG which have all been moderated out. I guess I will need to respond here. Why are they so afraid that they have to moderate?

Dispensational Disasters

I've often been amazed at so-called Dispensational Christianity.

They raise money to relocate Jews from Russia and other countries back to Israel.

They believe that the anti-Christ will kill 1/3 of the Jews in Israel during the tribulation.

If they love Israel as much as they say, why do they want to bring them back to be slaughtered?