Joel Rainey leads the Engagement Team for Evangelism and Missions at the Mid-Atlantic Baptist Network. He is on the adjunct faculty of two seminaries,and the author of three books. He blogs at Themelios, where this was originally posted on Monday.
October 3, “Left Behind” will debut in theaters across America, and its release will prompt a fresh discussion among evangelicals about our view of the end times. Additionally, the movie will encourage general discussion about what happens after we die, who goes to heaven, and how they get there. These are very important subjects, and for that reason, I’m thankful followers of Jesus can use popular movies to talk to their non-Christian friends about the Gospel.
I just hope that’s what actually happens.
Full disclosure: The “Left Behind” movie is based on a particular view of the end times that I don’t personally share. I’m not a Dispensationalist, so while I believe the end of the age will include mass numbers of our Jewish friends coming to realize who their Messiah is, I don’t see a distinction in the text between Israel as a nation-state and the church. Consequently, I don’t believe in a pre-tribulational “rapture” of the church. So it would be easy for someone with my bias to simply dismiss films like this as a waste of time. But I know too many good and godly pastors whose eschatology matches that of the upcoming film–serious students of Scripture whose theology is far deeper than celluloid and who have a genuine heart for Jesus and the Gospel, and who will use films like this as opportunities to share their faith, and encourage others to do so.
Speculative theology isn’t wrong, so long as we realize and admit that it is speculative. But when it is used in the wrong way, the results can be detrimental to the Great Commission. For example, if I spend more time pontificating on who the “elect” are than I do calling them out of lostness and into the light of the Gospel, then I’ve allowed my speculation to devolve into outright disobedience.
This is a particularly dangerous prospect in our current world, where over the last year world events have been the catalyst for heightened discussions about the end of the age. When does the “rapture” take place? Who is “the beast” of Revelation 13? What is the nature of the millennium? All Scripture is inspired and profitable, which makes these questions valid and worth exploring. But when set against a 2000-year history that includes three different millennial views, four different interpretive approaches to Revelation, and at least two different perceptions of the prophetic significance of the nation of Israel, we should all hold our opinions loosely. Otherwise, we risk being driven by speculation rather than by Scripture. Deuteronomy 29:29 states that “the secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and our children forever.” In short, explore the unclear, but not at the expense of disobeying the clear!
How should we strike that balance? I offer the following four principles.
1. Your Primary motivation should be making disciples. At the end of the day, if speculation about unclear doctrines is more important to you than making disciples of Jesus, you are in a very bad place. What good does it do to try and identify the antiChrist if you aren’t sharing the Gospel so people won’t follow him?
Where end times teaching is concerned, it is helpful to remember that these prophecies were originally given to a severely persecuted church as a tool of encouragement. When Paul writes to the Thessalonians, he speaks of the end when those who have passed away prior to the coming of Jesus will be called out of their graves, after which those in Christ who are still alive will join them in the air, being “caught up” (the phrase that translates the greek term from whence comes the Latin concept of the “rapture”) to meet the Lord Himself. He then concludes “therefore, comfort one another with these words.” I’ve quoted from that passage at innumerable gravesides for exactly that reason! Studying the Scriptures to discern whenthis event might take place (before or after the tribulation, for example) is to seek answers to a legitimate question. But ultimately, these words are given to suffering people for comfort, not speculation.
Eschatology, like any other Biblical subject, is given for the ultimate purpose of making followers of Jesus more like Jesus. And we don’t look very much like Jesus when we are drawing prophecy charts and fighting with each other.
2. You should have a Passion for all people to hear and respond to the Gospel. Since 1948, differences of opinion have existed between Bible-believing Christians as to whether the re-instatement of Israel is a prophetically significant event. I have many academic colleagues and fellow pastors who are convinced that this is the case. Count me among those who have our doubts about that assertion. But since 1830, dispensational and covenantal interpreters of Scripture have both faithfully proclaimed the Gospel and made disciples. The problems occur at the extremes of these views.
On the dispensational end of the spectrum, the problem is a kind of Zionism that presents a God who “plays favorites” where the Jews are concerned–to the extent that utter hatred is expressed toward any other Semitic peoples in the middle-east, including many of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who live in Gaza, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. On the Covenantal end, the problem is a move from seeing the promises of God in the Old Testament as fulfilled in both Jews and Gentiles, to a hermeneutic that sees Gentiles as fully replacing the Jews. The anti-Semitism that sometimes results from this view is quite frightening.
The bottom line is this: Both Testaments clearly state that God is not finished with ethnic Israel, and that there is coming a day when great numbers of them will recognize their true Messiah. I long for that day. But the same Bible that makes these promises to the sons and daughters of Isaac also clearly reveals a God who loves the sons of Ishmael (see Genesis 16!). I am for all groups finding Jesus.
3. You must maintain a conviction that all must respond to the Gospel. Here is where I”m going to speak candidly for a bit. If you listen to John Hagee, stop! There is only one label that can be given to a man who has publicly said that sharing the Gospel with our Jewish friends is a waste of time and has intimated that they do not need the Gospel to be saved–and that label is “false prophet.” And false-prophecy is always and exactly the result of allowing speculative teaching to overtake the clear teaching of Scripture.
I can work with any follower of Jesus who differs with me on the prophetic significance of Israel as a nation-state. But I can’t work with you if you talk more about Israel than you do Jesus. Neither ethnicity, or nationality gets you into heaven. Getting there takes bowing before the reality of a bloody cross and an empty tomb! Christians have disagreed for centuries about less perspicuous prophetic texts, but Acts 4:12 has never been in dispute!
4. You must remember that its all about Jesus. Personally, I am wary of any Bible teacher from any school of thought who is not actively sharing his faith with others. I’ve known men who spent inordinate amounts of time seeking to “fit” Communism within some prophetic scheme, but who have never crossed an ocean to actually engage someone of that mindset with the Gospel. I know men who say similar things about Islam, but have spent very little time actually getting to know Muslims. In the end, all my prophetic speculation does nothing to get those people any closer to Jesus, and the last time I read Matthew 28, this was my primary mandate. So as I explore Biblical prophecy, I need to do so with the realization that all those world events we speculate on have Jesus at the center. If you don’t get to the Gospel, your speculation isn’t just useless. Its sinful.
I don’t know exactly how history will end. But I do know the One who wrote out history before it began. I may be wrong about the rapture. Perhaps we will miss the tribulation, or maybe we will go through it. I don’t know. But I do know that no matter who is right, Jesus gives us the joy to be content regardless of our circumstances. I have no idea who the antiChrist is. But I know who Christ is! So sure, let’s have some serious conversations about unclear texts, but let’s be sure we don’t do it at the expense of our clear mission.
I was curious when the beating of this drum would start. The article seems to be pretty on target IMHO. I’ll go see the movie,…mainly for special effects and to see what does not line up with scripture. I’m sure the same old fear techniques will be put to dramatic fiction. But, at least the drama will have some well known faces.
Even though there seems to be some discontent over the book of the Revelation, this witnessing of John to what he saw is not that difficult to understand really. I have found, being raised in the church from day one, that most of the confusion is born out of surface teaching on this subject. Maybe in the future, we can all dive a little deeper in the blessing seen and revealed by the Apostle John. Revelation is truly a blessing,… “Left Behind” is certainly not revealing that blessing which is guaranteed by reading this Revelation from Christ, through John.
“” I’m sure the same old fear techniques will be put to dramatic fiction.”” This statement is stuck inside of your post and may not be a main thrust of what you are saying–or maybe it is.
It appears from reading this that you believe that “fear” is a bad thing in regard to eternal matters. I would agree that no believer has anything to fear, but what about non-believers?
It seems to me that if the movie does nothing but get people who have no fear of hell to have some fear of hell, then God can use that mightily.
I got saved initially because I had a fear of going to hell after listening to my pastor describe and proclaim the gospel. Now, fear is no longer my primary motivation for anything–at least I battle against it when it raises its head.
If I have misunderstood your proposition, I am sorry. I see great value in fearing an eternal existence in hell.
Jack, I think that is a fair statement. Maybe in a bit more context, what I am meaning by the statement is that John has given his fellow believers a non-fearful look, a blessing,… as to Christ reigning now and as He returns for the bride, and with the bride. That is the context of John’s depiction of what Christ is revealing to him…a clarion call to return to their first love. One other book that was penned by John describes a prelude to what is viewed in Christ’s final Revelation to John as well…. “By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love. We love, because He first loved us. If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.” NASB
I guess we all have differing experiences of how Christ captured us… mine was in a church gathering, and the Holy Spirit gave me understanding of the love of Christ for me through the reading of the scriptures. He captured my heart, and wow, I can almost remember it like yesterday (I was 8 years old, 45 years ago)… I ran into the loving arms of my Heavenly Father.
I’ll probably be able to use the movie, most likely not as a proponent for biblical doctrine, but as an opportunity to correct, and give the biblical account that John has given to the church. If non-believers have fear as a motivator from watching this drama, I’ll try to help them understand how fear is cast out by perfect love.
Chris, I think I understand what you are saying, though I don’t know if I can say I agree entirely.
If fear is not a motivating factor in the gospel presentation then why the graphic descriptions of hell (more than one) by the Lord, Himself?
Also, if love (not Law, as in wrath and judgment) is not a primary motivating factor (school teacher) then what is the meaning of Paul’s pronouncement in Romans 3:19 and other places.
I don’t think one can completely comprehend God’s love and mercy until they first comprehend what an affront sin is to a Holy God.
I guess I’m a “both/and” not “either/or” person when it comes to “fear and love.”
Jack, great question,
“If fear is not a motivating factor in the gospel presentation then why the graphic descriptions of hell (more than one) by the Lord, Himself?”
I would answer it this way…. We should tell the entire story. Please don’t take what I am trying to say here in the wrong way…We are certainly being rescued from sin that separates us from God, and there are consequences in that separation that must be spoken of..… . Jesus spoke in stark realities, and as those that proclaim the gospel, we must do the same.
As Paul would say at the beginning of the letter to those in Rome “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, But the righteous man shall live by faith.”
The reality is that being separated from Christ is death and hell. The Left Behind drama will no doubt try to convey some sort of consequence or at least an event. I’m curious to see if gospel will be presented as well and in what way,…. or, what “will be”, if anything, depicted as a gospel message.
My point concerning the Apostle John and the Revelation though, is that the letter is intended to be a blessing to the church. There are many believers that sit in churches that do not see the prophecy as a blessing. They may be depending upon things like “Left Behind” to color their view (leading them to fear) of what John saw…. that would be unfortunate, …since the letter is a great comfort and blessing to all the recipients within the churches. “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things which are written in it; for the time is near”.
Revelation is a tremendous blessing to the church, and is certainly a stark reality for the beast.
Chris, we are on the same page. I do think that a believer would get nothing but hope and encouragement from reading the Book of Revelation.
A non-believer would also get a promised blessing: perhaps it would scare the hell out of them!
So, the Word is two-edged. In fact, it is double-edged in each reference until the unleashing of God’s final judgments. Then, it has one single edge of judgment.
So, I see what you are saying. I do believe that even though fear may be a motivation, it certainly is not the only motivation. For fear could drive someone away from hell, but without God’s loving provision, there would be nowhere to run to.
I also think that a young person could respond just as you did. I think it might be less likely the older they get, perhaps.
I agree Jack, good stuff! The two edge sword describes it well.
Inasmuch as the Left Behind books are fiction intended to follow basic pre-trib eschatology, I don’t expect to be able to discern much of the Bible beyond what the books give. I might have to skim back through the books to see where this remake follows them. I’m mostly curious to see how it portrays Christian faith. The previous movies with Kirk Cameron were pretty predictable. He’s a solid Christian brother as far as I can tell and I knew if he was involved it would be pretty favorable. Nic Cage acting and Vic Armstrong directing… who knows what it’s going to look like.
I’m not a pre-tribber (anymore) either, but there are elements of the basic pre-trib timeline and scenario that convey aspects of the Christian message well. So I’m very interested to see how this movie plays out.
This article resonates with me. A few things: I’m not a dispensationalist either, and I’ve been critical of dispensationalism in the past, but I think to be fair, pre-mil dispensationaism and what I call “left-behind theology” are not necessarily the same thing.
I’m with you on speculative theology. We have a gentleman in our bible study who usually doesn’t say anything unless it is negative about the president, or is a proclamation of the certainty of left-behind theology. It is never “this might be the case”, it is always: “this is the way it is going to happen”. I think he really wants Obama to be the anti-Christ but with only two years left, it’s looking doubtful.
Thanks for your comment Bill. Before this post first appeared at my own website, I sent it to Dave Miller here at SBC Voices, because he is a friend AND a dispensationalist, and I wanted to ensure that my brothers and sisters who hold that view would believe I represented them fairly. Predictably, Dave responded saying “I have no problem with what you have written here, except that you are wrong.” 🙂
I’ll let Dave speak for himself, but you are correct that Tim LaHaye hath little to do with John Wolvaard or Craig Blaissing, and I know this is a sore spot with a lot of my dispensational colleagues including Dave, so I’m thankful you pointed out that the movie doesn’t always represent that perspective well.
I’ve been saying that for years.
I was raised up in the context of Dispensationalism. I guess that view is OK but I don’t think we should accept it as a default view.
Were Christians “in the dark” prior to John Darby?
If people come from a background where their seminary profs and pastors were trained at Dallas Seminary or Talbot then they might only have heard a subset of the various interpretative views regarding to eschatology.
As time passes I have dialed back my adherence to dispensationalism, and the attendant understanding of some specific understanding of the rapture. Instead I hold more to a Bill Gather brand of theology. Namely: As we get older we hold more and more firmly to less and less.
I don’t know what the third bowl of wrath, the second trumpet, or the second seal, is proclaiming — but whatever it is I don’t want to find out for myself, up close and personal, later.
I’m not saying that the Dispensational view is wrong. But, it involves a number of inferences that I think “overloads” the text.
For me one key question is: Is the I Thessalonians 4 text regarding the “rapture” describing an event that is different than the second coming of Christ? [or any other event that is described as coming up in the future]. I don’t know this answer. I don’t think I’m going to find out by watching something Hollywood puts out.
I’ve got “every book” that Dispensationalists have put out there: Ryrie, Saucy, Blaising and Boch, Walvoord — you name it. These books seem pretty coherent to me until you read stuff from the opposite point of view.
Remember 666 by Salem Kirban?
It was like reading Left Behind without the agony of plowing through a bazillion books.
Anyone remember the original – “Thief in the Night.”
Dave
Yes, i do
Curious. Miller insists that the only apt label for John Hagee is “false prophet” due to a statement he made about orthodox judaism?
Does that mean his prophesying of the death and resurrection of Christ and salvation in Christ are also “false”?
Does this mean that Hagee is among the unredeemed.
What exactly does this pronouncement entail?
“Miller” didn’t write any of this. I posted it. Joel Rainey (as it clearly says) wrote the piece.
Actually, Joel knew that I was a pre-tribber and asked me to review it before he published it. I asked his permission to post it here. I intend to write a response from the other side of the track, maybe next week.
You know, Scott, there is no fruit of the Spirit called snarky and belligerent. No need for you to be either.
Okay, forget the “snarkiness” and try to answer the simple question.
What in your estimation is the temporal/eternal state of John Hagee as a false prophet before God?
I’m curious.
You seem to be persistent in demanding I defend a statement I didn’t make.
I know almost nothing about Hagee. I’ve heard that his views of Israel border on the heretical. I’ve not researched it.
So, Scott, I think I will pass on your demands
Scott, I’m not defending “Miller” here. He’s already answered for himself. I’d just like to know which part of Hagee’s teachings you find to be biblical and truthful. Would it be the part where he get’s to redefine terms and state that people are redeemed by following a faith devoid of the crucified and risen Jesus?
Haven’t read or considered Hagee’s pronouncements for several years but that’s not the point that drives my question.
I’ve heard him preach Christ and Christ crucified, resurrected and coming again. I’ve heard him preach Christ singularly as God’s offer of salvation to mankind.
These specific matters can in no way be construed as “false prophecies.”
There’s a “false prophet” referred to almost every other article by most who post here and I’m just wondering what the commonly accepted criteria for “false prophet” is with some of you guys.
No malice here…genuinely curious.
He has evidently made statements indicating that Jets do not need to come to Christ for salvation since they are already God’s people. Can’t reference that. But that is the rap. Maybe someone else has a link.
The NY Jets? Or military Jets?
Autocorrect causes as many problems as it solves.
A quick search reveals the term “false prophet” in 4 articles (including this one) in the last year. Dave: How many articles posted in the last year?
Facts are our friends.
That still averages once a quarter there Bill Mac.
In this case, facts are the very things that prompt my question.
Yes, well, once a quarter and “almost every other article” are quite different. And what is the context of those posts? Would you like the term “false teacher” better? Relegating an entire people group, millions of people, to whom the Gospel does not apply is a pretty serious false teaching, not quite in the same category as whether women can be deacons or whether paedobaptists can be served communion.
Scott, whether Hagee is technical deemed to be a “false prophet” is really beside the point. John Hagee makes no bones about Jesus not being the Messiah to the Jews, which makes him not a very good prophet, ….not simply just hanging out with false teachers. Hagee likes the attention he gets from the “Word of Faith” movement and knows how to make money out of that bucket of teaching. John will most likely love the “Left Behind” movie (he’s on the plane in the film that is soon to hit theaters) !…. It fits squarely into his theory and racket.
He’s probably a fun guy to hang around with though.
Based on no more than you’ve presented as what “Hagee said” (i.e. no context etc), I’d say I’d have to agree.
Jesus, by conviction, by confession and by dogma is not the messiah of Orthodox Judaism. Has to do with the issues of rejection.
As to the personnel motives of Hagee (i.e. “he likes attention…”). He’s obviously not the only preacher around these days with that problem.
However, a wise person once said to me “The only way you can judge another person’s motives is by your own stinking heart and motives”.
One of the greatest statements I’ve ever heard.
I’m well aware of my own stinking heart and motives, but to say that discernment is to be ignored simply because of my own humanity/sinfulness is also error. That’s like saying “no truth can be known absolutely.” My response would be, “are you absolutely sure about that?”
Disparaging Hagee (or any other proclaiming/professing Christian) as “false prophets” would be exhibiting what kind of “discernment” exactly?
And how does public discussion of his perceived motives contribute to this “discernment”?
Hagee wrote…..in his book Should Christians Support Israel….
“The [Jewish] people wanted Him to be their Messiah, but He absolutely refused,” …. “The Jews were not rejecting Jesus as Messiah, it was Jesus who was refusing to be the Messiah to the Jews!” (p,67-68, 69,72)
Hagee’s bizarre and non-biblical view of the Jews, is diametrically opposed to the book of Romans. Jesus’ disciples were Jews, the first churches were full of Jews, and the missionaries were Jews.
So he’s lost right?
Scott, I would not go as far as you have in judging Hagee. He espouses to loving the Lord. I have no reason to judge the man’s heart, and never will. I can judge the accuracy of his teaching though, and will expose that as much as I possibly can, as well as the types of people he endorses, who are certainly indicative of bizarre theological gymnastics, if not outright heresy. (Copeland, et.al)
Scott, you see… Hagee has made the statement that Christ has refused to be the messiah of the Jews, not me. Maybe you should ask him if the Jews can be saved by the Messiah. Evidently, according to Hagee, Jesus said is was Jesus refusing them…. if Jesus is not the Messiah of the Jews, they are without hope.
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” (NASB)
The gospel was revealed back in Genesis… so the Jews (and anyone else) are without excuse.
Chris, you’ve misread me. I have not judged Hagee to be lost. I don’t think he is.
I’m assuming from the comments about him in this article that there are those who consider him a “false prophet”.
In my mind, you can’t be half-right and half-false when it comes to imparted righteousness and justification.
If one claims another to be a “false prophet” it implies that everything coming out of his mouth is error and that one is to be avoided like the plague.
Haven’t seen to many “false prophets” who preached faith in Christ crucified alone as man’s only hope of redemption.
If Hagee’s eschatology is in error….tell me one human being on earth who’s exactly right 100 percent of the time in that category.
I would say that if you think Jews are saved by keeping the Law rather than faith in Christ, if you think Jesus is not the messiah of the Jews, then more than your eschatology is in error.
Scott,
you said:
~~:If one claims another to be a “false prophet” it implies that everything coming out of his mouth is error and that one is to be avoided like the plague.”~~
This isn’t true. A false prophet mixes truth and error. If everything out of his mouth was error, the church would never sit under him, not even the weeds among the wheat.
That does not mean that Hagee is a false prophet because many things he says are wrong. No one but the Lord has doctrine 100% right. But to be off so far in some ways is what stirs up the cry of a false prophet.
I have never listened to him so I know very little about him. So I am not qualified to say false or not.
This isn’t true. A false prophet mixes truth and error.
I agree Mike. A false prophet mixes enough truth to get someone relaxed enough with the teaching to not check the rest of what he or she teaches with scripture. They then begin to believe and implement everything he or she says without question, not checking it with scripture. Look how Satan got Eve to take that first bite. Look at cults.
meant to write “technically”….. and wanting to add about Hagee. It is not that he is deemed among the lost. I have no reason to think that Hagee doesn’t love Jesus. He is just not a good teacher of the scriptures, and people should be helped to understand how he misuses the scriptures to advance his viewpoints.
WAT? You mean it isn’t enough to SAY you love Jesus but you also have to obey him (including dividing the Word truthfully), too? HERESY!!! You’re just being divisive. Surely there is room under the big tent for everyone who SAY they believe in Jesus? Oh yeah…except for this tiny little verse:
“You believe that God is one; you do well. The demons also believe–and they shudder. ” James 2:19 (Hard Core Southern Baptist)
Is that the HCSB version 🙂
Holman Christian Standard Bible==Hard-Core Southern Baptist, yes. I think Doug Hibbard introduced me to the alternative expansion of HCSB. Or one of the other SBCV wags.
“HCSB = Hard Core Southern Baptist”
I have used that term since the HCSB first came out…don’t know if you got it from me or not…but I have used it here several times.
I have heard others use it too – after I started saying it of course. 🙂
I am sure I am the one who coined it. 😉
verse has nothing in its original import to do with 20th century Christian theology and its nuances…but nice try.
Wow. Really? No import for 20th century theology? You’ve got to be kidding me.
I’m a little late to the party, but yeah Scott Shaver,”No import for 20th century theology? ”
Can you explain?
No problem, the verse quoted by Pugh in its original context distinguished between proper belief in God (i.e. via faith in and commitment to the person and work of Jesus Christ) as opposed to the other world religions of the period.
Context, context, context.
In it’s original context, the centuries of theological malaise (Calvinism and various other “isms”) weren’t yet blips on the radar screen of history.
My concern about the ongoing demise of Southern Baptists has to do with the propensity of it’s current leadership tier to continue down the pathway of galloping theological creedalism.
They continually work to constrict the theological parameters of freed, blood-bought individuals who under the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit have both the right and capacity to work out their personal convictions and understandings of God’s will with or without the imprimaturs of denominational influence and professional clerics (preachers).
Show me any biblical support for the idea that Christ died primarily to promote theological conformity to the extent that Southern Baptist leaders have gone to seed over it.
The current generation of Southern Baptist leaders, unlike their predecessors, have an inbred fear of soul competency.
That’s scary. I wouldn’t expect you to appreciate this Les as your background is obviously not baptist.
I’m sorry, twas Greg Harvey who interjected the verse “demons also believe”.
So Scott, is that verse in James applicable in modern days in your view? Is not the verse applicable to say, a conversation with someone about genuine faith? Adrian Rogers used it this way:
“A CLOSER LOOK AT “BELEIVE”
The word believe doesn’t mean just an intellectual assent. It’s NOT saying, “Yes, I believe that’s probably the case.” At that level, all of us “believe” many things. James tells us that even the devil and his fallen angels “believe and tremble.” But to believe in the Biblical sense goes far deeper. When the Bible says “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved,” believe means to have trust in, to commit to, or cleave to. You trust fully in and commit your life to this truth. You can “believe” that the next train will take you to Poughkeepie. But until you get on that train and entrust yourself to it, to take you to Poughkeepsie, you haven’t “believed,” in the Biblical sense.”
Les
Scott, I realize it wasn’t you who interjected the James verse into the conversation. Rather it was you who said “verse has nothing in its original import to do with 20th century Christian theology and its nuances…but nice try.”
And this, “I wouldn’t expect you to appreciate this Les as your background is obviously not baptist.”
I do appreciate the discussion for sure as I actually do have a Southern Baptist background, having grown up in and saved when connected with a SB church and having graduated from a Baptist seminary.
The demons believe that God is One and Holy and Righteous and tremble because the promise to them is something anyone who truly believes would tremble at if the doom promised to demons was theirs.
We believe and obey because the promise to us is so wonderful that we are filled with gratitude. Thus we obey while rejoicing while they tremble in fear.
Our belief is in a trust due to His wonderful promises, while their belief is in a fear due to their pronounced condemnation.
mike
I guess my Amillennial view will never be put into a movie. Not enough people disappearing and special effect destruction 😀
Tyler, it would also be a movie that only lasted about 12 minutes. 😉
Ah but why a beautiful 12 minutes it would be 🙂
Joel
Dr. Herschel Hobbs years ago was in my study looking at my books. He pulled his book on Rev our and set it on the edge, then pull Criswell’s book out and set it on the edge. He then said “you can tell the difference in our Millennial positions by the thickness of our books”.
Postmil either: “The Gospel will slowly triumph over the world” is not going to hold people riveted in their seats.
I guess my Amillennial view will never be put into a movie. Not enough people disappearing…
Not to worry. The Lord will bring you amillers along too when the rapture comes.
BTW, I just noticed the term “amiller” could apply to Dave Miller, as in, “a different view than Dave Miller’s”. Cool, huh? Anyway…
Before I get myself moderated here, let me just point out the obvious problem w/ a movie about amil eschatology:
PRODUCER: Dude, you missed the meeting. It was at 8 o’clock.
TREATMENT WRITER: Oh, you meant 8 o’clock literally. I thought you just meant some time after the resurrection and before the Second Coming. Sorry, my bad.
Take every number in Revelation literally and see what happens. Context is key brother. Don’t read an Apocalyptic book like you do a narrative. 🙂
Well, I was just having a little fun but since you bring up the numbers issue, I would point out the prophetic use of numbers as they relate to time frames (which is the real issue, not just numbers alone) is very consistent throughout the Bible:
Seven days in Genesis 7: 4 meant seven days. Three days in Genesis 40: 12-13 meant three days. Seven years in Genesis 41: 26-30 meant seven years. Forty years in Numbers 14: 33-34 meant forty years. Seventy years in Jeremiah 25:11-12 meant seventy years. Three days in Mark 9: 31 meant three days.
In Daniel 9: 2 Daniel relies on Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning 70 years as he begins to pray about it. 483 years in Daniel 9:25 meant 483 years.
The phrase “thousand years” is repeated six times in Rev 21: 2-7. I’m pretty sure it means a thousand years. (^;
Its probably not a consistent practice to interpret the meaning of a number throughout the book of the Revelation in the same manner as Genesis. Genesis consistently uses numbers in a wooden literal fashion, while John uses numbers in Revelation to consistently represent a literal meaning. Both are reliably consistent in their use of numbers.
Folks that remark Moses and John’s use of numbers as the same, also can be found to prop up Theistic Evolution using the same technique.
Again, I would not interpret Apocalyptic literature the same way I would interpret a narrative (Genesis)
Again, I would not interpret Apocalyptic literature the same way I would interpret a narrative (Genesis)
Except those events only became a narrative after the prophecies were fulfilled. When the words were spoken they were prophecies spoken by prophets. The 7+7 years and the 40 years were yet future events; in fact, the Book of Genesis had not even been written when Joseph prophesied. Also, I referenced Daniel and Jeremiah as well. I think the best hermeneutic to apply when studying Biblical prophecy that is yet future is to be consistent with the interpretation that would apply to prophecies already fulfilled. The combination of numbers and time in Biblical prophecy is consistently a literal concept.
Another thing that I realize differently today than I did some 15 years ago, is that Christ’s revealing of the end times to John is filling in the blanks for the other Prophets. When things are taught about the end times, teachers will typically take Daniel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc. as either informing John, or from another direction,…come to the thought that Christ is giving John a more complete view of the things that were not quite as clear to the previous OT Prophets.
After expositing the book for the past 4 years, I have come to the conclusion that what Christ has given to John is a more complete view. It appears to me that Christ has given John a very clear and more comprehensive view of end times events than Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah was given. John’s references to the OT Prophets, and not necessarily direct quotes is a good indicator of how the view that Christ has given John allows the church to see the OT Prophets with more precision.
I guess back to Joel’s main point in the post, how do we evangelize using the scripture of the Revelation that Christ gave to John?
Will it be based upon the disappearing of folks with clothing draped across airplane seats, or will it be based upon John’s encouragement to the churches about returning to their first love, knowing that their Groom has prepared a wonderful home, and that He is protecting and is their shelter…both now and in the future against any beast, and has promised to bring His righteous anger and wrath to all that are not his bride. And finally that He has adorned her like no other, and will be with her for all eternity.
I hope it is the latter description that John has comprehensively described throughout the book of the Revelation,…John didn’t care much about the “clothing on seats”.
Mike
It is my understanding the “a” (alpha privative) negates the word it precedes. Does that mean we “negate” Miller. 🙂
“Where the beast and the false prophets….ARE”
I’m still trying to figure out the status of false prophets and criteria
Jesus told his disciples to let them alone, those that are not against us are for us. I have other Christians that are not of this fold. I can over look a lot of beliefs in other denominations as long as they preach the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
I don’t believe man will ever have the spiritual knowledge “at least not in this life”, to get the book of The Revelation correct. Anyway this is my two cents.
Jess,… not sure why you believe that the book of the Revelation has to be put into the “can’t understand it” category. Christ has revealed to John a wonderful blessing for the church to read and know concerning the return of her Savior and Lord, and the how the bride is well adorned, fit for the new heavens and the new earth.
Chris,
I’ve read several books, and searched the scriptures diligently and the three main views about the end times have their points. I simply cannot teach a particular view with a clear conscious.
It seems to me that everywhere the scripture talks about a possible Rapture it can be replaced with the word Resurrection. I just think Pre, may not be the answer. There are some assumptions to be made in the three main views. In the past I have taught Pre, then asked myself why did I do that and then felt bad about it afterward.
I can honestly say that it’s hard to determine what is symbolic and what is not.
Jess, I think you are right about the three views. It finally dawned on me about 15 years ago that my approach to the Revelation was built around a faulty approach by paying attention to “the three views”, instead of expositing the letter. Once I got past that hurdle and started paying attention to what Christ was allowing John to see and write, the letter became much less complex. Since I was raised in and around the church, I came to see that most folks used that faulty approach, so I finally made sense to my hard headedness….that I was doing the same thing. Getting past that blind spot was very encouraging, and now it is a joy to teach the Revelation to the church and discuss how Christ’s portrayal to John concerning His bride is an amazing love story that is coming to pass.
The most salient point of Revelation is as you stated, it is coming to pass. Exactly how remains interpretation, so we will not have 100% clarity. I’ve taught through Revelation twice. I hold to the pre-mil view, but whenever I teach prophecy, I am always clear to treach it as what I believe scripture teaches from my studies, and not as dogma. I also explain the other views. We must be honest enough to say, it’s the future, and other than the sure return of Christ, we can’t be absolutely sure how God will work out the details. The problem I have with so many prophecy teachers is they claim absolute certainty about details of events that have not happened yet. My bible says we don’t fully know His thoughts nor have His mind(Is 55:8-9), and that their are mysteries He stills holds for Himself(Deut 29:29). Personally, I don’t want to teach something I can’t know fully as absolute fact, as I’ll be held to a higher accountability. I take that seriously. If I’m wrong Jesus will know my heart and that I was honest about my fallability
Jeff P., I think that is a good approach, and I also believe that most of the main views…only really two that can pass a consistent hermeneutic test, are worth discussing within the church in our current “information overload” culture. I mean, people will almost believe anything (Google has all the answers, right?) There are some fringe views that are also important to bring forward in order to illustrate the absolute absurdity, or motive of the teachers involved (i.e. Hagee).
At this point in my study of Revelation, I see no reason to dismiss how 1000 years is critical to the way Christ revealed to John the duration of time where a reign with the Saints in this world is necessary for the immediate churches (beginning of the letter) and the later churches (us now) to understand. So, I hold to a “Redemptive Millennialism”, a different perspective than Amil, or PostMil. What I have come to find is the question should not really be focused on a “rapture/catching up”, it is about reigning or not reigning. John’s encouragement to the churches, in what we know as present day Turkey, focused on those aspects of life in the church, not on a how movies are made today like “Left Behind”. The catching up is never a focus (less than a few verses and words) of the Apostle John in the book of the Revelation, but it sure seems to get a lot of Hollywood’s attention. I wonder why $.
meant to say….”so it finally made sense to my hard headedness”
Chris,
Maybe you are on to something, I wish I know more of what you are saying.
“It seems to me that everywhere the scripture talks about a possible Rapture it can be replaced with the word Resurrection.”
Thats my main critique with the rapture theory (other than the fact thats its still a pretty new doctrine). Scripture stresses resurrection, not escapism.
Tyler, I think that is a key thought to how John is depicting Christ’s coming for and with His bride. John spends an inordinate amount of time describing the scene in heaven, and the aspects of His omnipotence and preparation for His Bride. Yet, his focus is early in the letter; a real reign with the bride in this world, and how the Holy Spirit will return her to her first love. I think you are absolutely right…. “escaping” is not the focus. Christ’s current reign is consummated with His return and catching up of His Bride to live with Him forever. After all, He adorns His Bride for the new heavens and new earth,… a wonderful blessing for those that the Father has given to the Son.
Tyler
If I am following you correctly, my question would be “resurrection to what?” Raised to walk in the newness of life is certainly more than temporal unless one is a Bultmannian. Christ resurrection (and of course ascension) can hardly be called escapism. Our resurrection brought to fulness in the Rapture can hardly be called “escapism”.
Have I understood you incorrectly?
Jess
I can understand you point. I also have great respect for a man who says “I don’t know”. To be sure I do not have all the answers and have more than my fair share of questions.
However, if the Bible is all that we say it is, why would God give us a whole book that we cannot understand. Like every book it takes a mind that is open to the Spirit and free of agenda. I fall into that group of people who say one can discern the truth of Revelation.
For what it’s worth, I’ve heard Benny Hinn deliver a terrific sermon. I would still categorize him as a false teacher (I don’t usually use the term “false prophet” myself).
Bill Mac,
My granddaughter has taken a different Atheist friend to her church three Sunday’s in a roll, and all three Sunday’s her pastor preached on money. Matter of fact, my wife and I heard her pastor preach at another church, guess what he preached on, you’re right, money. My granddaughter’s atheist friends said that only strengthens their view of what churches are after.
In soon to be 36 years of ministry, not one time have I preached on money, and have always had more than enough.
Jesus’s middle name is not money. There is a lot of falseness in this world.
My point exactly. Poor, sub-par teachers ain’t necessarily “false prophets” when it comes to the only “prophesy” that matters.
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
Chris,
I googled Redemptive Millennialism and found nothing on the first 4 pages. Do you know of a place I could find more info on it?
Parsonsmike, It is not really a new concept, yet we have used this type of “terminology” during the last four years in discussing how John is using the terminology for 1000 years. It is very obvious throughout the book of the Revelation that John consistently makes use of numbers to describe the reality of the reigning of believers with Christ and within the descriptions of the the scenes that Christ is revealing to His church.
We will be publishing some additional thoughts on this in 2015. Again, it is not a new concept, but I think it does give a more comprehensive commentary on how John uses the 1000 year number to explain the reigning of His bride in this world.
Chris,
Your response was as cryptic as some numbers in revelations.
I didn’t say it was “new”, I asked where I could find info on it. (-:
mike
Parsonmike, what is cryptic about any of the numbers in Revelation? John is consistent and predictable throughout the letter.
I certainly didn’t mean to be coy or cryptic in my response about the term. Redemptive Millennialism will not found in a Google search.
Chris,
)-:
Don’t be sad…I’ll send you some information in several months. It would be fun to get your feedback.
(-:
“Not to worry. The Lord will bring you amillers along too when the rapture comes.”
Or perhaps, just perhaps – He will gather the amills along with the pre tribers at the post trib/pre mill rapture. 🙂
Any mid-tribbers wanna weigh in? (^;
“Any pre-tribers want to weigh in?”
Those exists??? 😀 hahahahah
See there! Tar Heel has obviously read the Scriptires and come to the right conclusion. 😉
Tarheel,
Are you historic per mil or ammil?
For all you “a,mils”, “mid tribes” and “post tribes” at the rapture stay close to me and I will explain it to you on the way up.:-)
So, …. at least you have it as imminent! 🙂
Chris
as a matter of fact I do!
I am hopeful that it is soon!…. there is nothing “Left Behind” to happen (pardon the pun), but to rise my friend.
Come quickly Lord Jesus and take your Bride away
Many of the most evangelistic preachers of the last 150 years or so have been premillennialists.
Examples of evangelistic premillennialists:
W. A. Criswell, R. G. Lee, D. L. Moody, R. A. Torrey, H. A. Ironside, C. H. Spurgeon, Paige Patterson, Adrian Rogers, Jerry Vines, Billy Graham, Warren Wiersbe, J. Vernon McGee, Charles Fuller, John R. Rice, R. L. Sumner, Bailey Smith, Mac Brunson, Hyman Appelman, M. E. Dodd, Jimmy Draper…
So premillennialism and the Great Commission get along very well.
David R. Brumbelow
David, of the grouping, do you know who holds to the dispensational or historic version of pre-mil. Would you say these are mostly historic?
Chris
Not Appleman, Torrey, nor McGee I am pretty sure
Does anyone know about Criswell? I had thought he was a “historic” but I read a sermon in which he said “one will never understand the scripture apart from its Dispensational truths”.
Spurgeon was historic per mil, I don’t know about Fuller or Dodd, but the rest are certainly dispensational per mil.
I am under the impression that George W Truett was a “Post Mill”. Anyone have any information.
I am also under the impress the Criswell had a difficult in the early years at Dallas because he was a “pre”. Again folk lore or truth, anybody.
“It’s the rapture of the church of Jesus Christ, caught up with the clouds of the Lord into glory, suddenly, furtively, secretly. He shall come first as a thief in the night and take away His saints to glory.”
-W. A. Criswell
David R. Brumbelow
David B: Your quote on Criswell doesn’t necessarily mean he was Dispensationalist. I believe Christ is coming back in the clouds for the church. What I don’t believe is the apocalyptic scenes given by Dispensationalists.
Debbie,
I can assure you that Criswell was a dispensational per mil man. As a matter of fact Dr. Criswell had the articles of faith changed to a dispensational position while he was pastor of fbc Dallas.
And David B’s above quote is absolute proof positive that Criswell was pre tribulational.
John
If i am correct, I would add that the change was made with great controversy, in the Truett was a “Post’.
Dr. Jw help us out here
Debbie
So true. However Criswell was a dispensationalist, I am pretty sure of my statement above. If i am not mistaken I heard him say that at the Oklahoma Baptist Evangelism Conference, held at First Southern Del City, in the mid 70’s.
Right now I do not have time to research, but I recall reading that statement in his book on Revelation.
Have not commented with you for awhile, how are you?
DL: I am doing really well. I am so busy with grandchildren(had a new little girl last November) and work, that I hardly have time to comment anymore. 🙂 Thank you for asking.
W. A. Criswell was definitely a pre-tribulational, premillennialist:
“Now, that’s the identical and exact meaning of the word here, ‘You write the things that thou hast seen.’ And that is in the first chapter of the vision of Christ, ‘and then write down the things that are…and the seven lamp stands are the seven churches.’ So he writes down the churches. You—the church of the tomorrow, the church until Jesus comes again—‘the churches.’ And then finally, he is commanded to write down the things which shall be meta tauta, the things ‘beyond’ the churches, the things after the churches are taken away, the things after. God’s people are caught up with the Lord in glory and when I turned to the Revelation, it is exactly like God has outlined it.”
“…The word, ‘church’ is never mentioned again, it is never referred to. It is never described; it is never discussed; it does not exist down here in the earth, it is caught away. There is no reference to the church beginning at chapter 4 because God is writing of things meta—beyond— ‘after’ the churches.”
-W. A. Criswell; Revelation 1:19
Criswell was pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, TX and president of the SBC.
He was also influential in the SBC Conservative Resurgence.
Dr. Criswell was not only a premillennialist, he was also very evangelistic. Contrary to the allegations of some, Premillennialism and evangelism go together.
David R. Brumbelow
I’ve seen the charge leveled (wrongly) at Calvinists, but never at premillenialists. I have problems with the doctrine, but I’ve never understood it to impair evangelism. I’ve never even seen the charge (although you can find any charge leveled at any one if you look hard enough).
Bill Mac
Exactly Pre and Evang. goes togather like cake and ice cream
David
Of course they do. No thinking person can deny that. Simply look at the Pre’s who were evangelistic in my lifetime say early 50’s on.
Dr. Crisswell outlines the book of Revelation around the three timings in chapter 1 verse 18 (1) things which thou hast seen (2) things which are (3) things which shall be hereafter. He moreover makes much of the meta tauta (not sure of spelling to lazy to look it up) phrase. This surely reveals his pre trib, pre mil stance.
Criswell not Crisswell my bad
Some may be interested in Dr. W. A. Criswell’s sermon, “The Glory of the Premillennial Faith.”
http://wacriswell.com/sermons/1987/the-glory-of-the-premillennial-faith/
All of Criswell’s sermons are found at
wacriswell.com.
David R. Brumbelow
Does he espouse a pre tribulational rapture in that sermon?
He does.
Interesting.
Guess Criswell was a MacArthur kind of Calvinist. 😉
(I couldn’t resist, I know I am a bad, bad boy.)
oh my!! 🙂
Tarheel,
Dr. W. A. Criswell was this kind of Calvinist:
http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2014/06/w-criswell-on-calvinism-predestination.html
One Criswell quote on Calvinism:
“I’ve never been able to understand how the Calvinists, some of them, believe in a “limited atonement.” That is, the sacrifice of Christ applied only to those who are the elect, but there is no sacrifice of Christ for the whole world—when John expressly says He is the sacrifice, the atoning, dedicated gift of God in our lives for the whole world [1 John 2:2]. And it is just according to whether we accept it or not as to whether the life of our Lord is efficacious for us in His atoning death.”
-W. A. Criswell
David R. Brumbelow
Yes, he rejected the idea of hyper Calvinism…as also does every Calvinist I know.
HOwever, Criswell certainly and profoundly believed and taught unconditional election…
Here is one example.
“The covenant of grace is unconditional; it is forever and ever because that covenant, that compact is made between God the Father and God the Son. The compact, the covenant of works is between God and a man, and the man breaks it, and he’s lost. But the covenant of grace is between God and His Son, and it goes like this: God says to His Son, “You die for the sins of the people. You bear their iniquities. You pay the price of their transgressions. You shed Your blood as an atonement for their sins.” And God says, “I promise You, You will not die in vain: I will give You a people. You will have converts and souls that believe in You and trust in You and receive You as Savior. You die for their sins, and I promise You a people.” Now you call that “election,” election. God’s promise to Jesus if He suffers and dies for us, God promises Him a people.
Now when I speak of that—I’m talking about heavenly language—God promises Jesus a people if He dies, if He comes down here into this world and takes a human body and suffers for our sins. God promises, that’s the compact, “I will give You a people. You will not die in vain; there will be a people who will love You and believe in You.” Now when I speak like that, I’m talking about heavenly language up there. I want to come down and talk about the earthly language. There are some always who will turn, who will believe; and there are some who will not. The elect will turn; the non-elect will not listen, they won’t hear. And I see that every day of my life.
I can talk and talk and talk and talk, and pray and pray and pray, and that man there, I had might as well be talking to a post. I might as well be preaching to a stone image, to a brass monkey. But at the same time, as I preach the grace of Jesus, there’ll be somebody who, hearing, will hear; it’ll touch his heart. And he’ll turn, and he’ll come down that aisle, and he’ll take the preacher by the hand and he’ll say, “Jesus has spoken to my heart, and I’m coming.” That’s the way I see it here in my human life. Up there in heaven, that man is one of those that God promised to Jesus: “You die for the sins of the people, and I will give You souls who will love You, and adore You, and pray to You, and call upon Your name, and someday live with You forever in heaven.”
Dear God, how could I praise Thee enough that in that Book of Life up there in glory You wrote my name before I was born? From the beginning of the foundation of the world, You wrote my name, and I praise You, Lord [Ephesians 1:4]. I couldn’t thank You enough.
And aren’t you glad that in the goodness and grace of God He elected you? When you heard the gospel message, you turned; it meant something to your heart, and you came and gave your soul in faith to the Lord Jesus. Aren’t you glad? Aren’t you glad? May we stand together?”
http://www.wacriswell.org/index.cfm/FuseAction/Search.Transcripts/sermon/3735.cfm
yes
D. L. Payton,
I’m pretty sure you are right.
George W. Truett was a postmillennialist, as were many of his generation. World Wars I and II killed off most of them.
And, of course, Criswell followed Truett at First Baptist, Dallas.
Criswell tells the following story:
“May I add a personal word?
In that day of forty three years ago when the committee, seeking a pastor for this wonderful church, was thinking of me, the committee received a word from a certain leader in the Baptist faith and denomination. And, I read the letter in these later years. And, he said to that committee, ‘You ought to know—before you call that man, you ought to know that he is a premillennialist.’
The secretary of the committee was Orville Groner, who was the treasurer of the Annuity Board [now GuideStone] across the street. And, Orville Groner—being a layman and not a theologian—Orville Groner took the letter to Dr. Walter R. Alexander, who was the executive leader of the Annuity Board. And, he laid it before Dr. Walter H. Alexander and said, ‘Dr. Alexander, look. Look. This man that we are thinking of calling as pastor of the church is a premillennialist.’
And, Dr. Walter R. Alexander, he was a Philadelphian. He looked like a Philadelphian lawyer: tall, cultured, astute, gifted. Dr. Walter R. Alexander looked back at Orville Groner, and said, ‘Orville, praise God. Thank the Lord. I am a premillennialist.’
And, Orville Groner said, ‘You are a what?’
And, Dr. Alexander said, ‘I am a premillennialist. Praise God. Praise the Lord. This man the church is considering calling is a premillennialist.’
And, of course, from then on, Dr. Alexander and Orville Groner began to work for this young fellow that later they called your pastor.”
-W. A. Criswell
David R. Brumbelow
Dr. Paige Patterson, SWBTS, has recently authored the
New American Commentary
volume on Revelation.
In the Introduction,
Patterson gives an excellent list of reasons why he is a Premillennialist,
and another list of reasons why he believes in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of believers.
http://www.amazon.com/Revelation-39-New-American-Commentary-ebook/dp/B009ES1UAI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1412017312&sr=8-2&keywords=Revelation%2C+Paige+Patterson
David R. Brumbelow
I am not a big fan of Paige Patterson (has nothing to do with the CR). However that portion of the Into as well as other portions of the 2 volume set is extremely well written.
Well, I plan to see the movie, in spite of my disagreement with the theology behind it (assuming it follows the books). I left behind the pre mil pre trib view a long time ago and ended up in the post mil camp. So there’s no big hurry to see the movie (as if the end may come before I can see it) since the consummation of all things is still a long way off. 🙂