There is so much NOT to like about the new “Left Behind” movie starring Nicholas Cage.
Of course, first among them is the theological framework from which the movie springs. In our current SBC world, most reject premillennial, pretribulational eschatology. Many disdain it, quite a few ridicule it and some have labelled it a heresy. Obviously, those folks are not going to like the movie. That’s not my quarrel with the movie. Even from a pre-trib viewpoint, there are some nits to be picked about the movie. I’d like to share a few of the things I found most troubling or confusing about this production.
1) It’s more of an adventure movie than a movie about the end times.
While I had some issues with it, I thought the original book, “Left Behind,” was in interesting read – a good story. This is not. The whole issue of the Rapture is just an excuse for a boilerplate dystopian adventure/disaster flick with a sweet romantic twist. It was Revelation meets Poseidon Adventure, Airport or Independence Day (I guess I’m dating myself there).
2) Jesus is pretty much absent.
In a movie about the Rapture, my memory is that Jesus was only mentioned once. They talked a few times about God, and there were hints of the necessity of turning to God, but it was veiled and subtle. I don’t know if they were bowing to political correctness or attempting to avoid offending non-Christians, but there was very little of Christ in the movie.
Actually, one criticism of the books were that they were fictional excuses for sermons which were somewhat unnaturally forced into the mouths of the main characters. And the original Kirk Cameron movie based on the same book was heavy with his “Way of the Master” evangelistic presentations (which I like). There was, I’m pretty sure, no mention of Christ’s death and resurrection, the atonement, or any of that in this movie.
3) The Christian characters were a little crazy.
That was an odd thing(which leads into my main point below). This was a “Christian movie” about a definitively Christian book (whether you agree with the theology or not). There were only two significant Christian characters in it, prior to the Rapture event.
They were both a little nutty.
The lady in the airport was a little wide-eyed and scary. She approached Buck and started telling him that all the disasters he’s reported on are signs of the times (wondered if her last name was Van Impe). Ray’s wife had been converted a year or two before and was evidently so belligerent about her faith that she drove her daughter away and was driving her husband into the arms of another woman.
Odd to see the Christian characters caricatured in typical Hollywood fashion in a purportedly Christian movie.
4) Of course, the movie focuses on the disaster of the Rapture.
Have you ever seen the famous Rapture painting from the 60s and 70s, with car crashes and plane crashes? The movie was absent of any significant development of theology, doctrine or truth, and was really all about the horror of the moment. Within 30 seconds of the Rapture, people run amok in the mall and start vandalizing and looting. I don’t know what the Rapture will bring, but it kind of annoyed me that all they focused on was the disaster aspect. I guess that was necessary for a major motion picture with at least one big time actor.
Again, I could give several nit-picking little criticisms, but there is little profit in that. I would not recommend you see it in the theaters. It’s not worth the 20 bucks my wife and I spent to see it. It might be worth a DVD rental or purchase down the road when it hits the bargain bin at Walmart.
But there was one aspect of this movie I really liked, and it stemmed from one of the criticisms above. The Christian people were really annoying and the non-Christian and anti-Christian people had some pretty good speeches about why the Christians were crazy and misdirected and annoying. They made some good arguments against Christianity.
And still the Rapture came.
The Point: Christ is Victor. He is Lord. You can hate him, disdain Christians, deny the truth, but nothing can stop Christ.
You don’t have to share my eschatological position to appreciate this detail. Jesus wins.
- Ray was rushing headlong toward adultery, driven by his aggravation with his annoyingly evangelistic wife.
- Buck and Chloe laughed about the crazy woman in the airport who assaulted them with her end times nonsense.
- Chloe and her mother had it out about her pressure tactics.
I remember thinking at one point that the non-Christians were more sympathetic and more sensible than the Christians in this movie. And still, the end came. They could deny, disdain, ridicule and reject Jesus. They could not avoid him.
I found that to be the most encouraging and inspiring part of this otherwise less than sterling movie. We should avoid behaving like the obnoxious Christians presented in this movie, but we ought also remember that our Lord stands supreme. Whether it is before the tribulation (also known as the “biblical position” – sorry!) or after the tribulation or just all in one big cataclysmic event, there is an ending already written to the history of the world. Jesus wins. He is King of kings and Lord of lords, who will ride out in the clouds with the hosts of heaven following him and will judge the world, the living and the dead. He will cast Satan into the Lake of Fire, along with all who reject him and will take all the Father’s children, purchased by his own blood, to glory forever.
You may not like it, but one day you will have to deal with it.
Addendum: There was one more blessing in this movie – a moment of nostalgia. As a child of the 60s and 70s (born in 57) I was moved listening to Larry Norman’s “I Wish We’d All Been Ready” over the credits. Just wish it had been his original from what is widely viewed as the first true Christian rock album. That was worth the price of admission, though I guess I could have just searched the song on YouTube.
This is not really the response I promised Joel Rainey about two weeks ago, but I do what I can!
Can this be true? Until I started hanging out in Calvinist circles, premil pretrib wasn’t just the majority, it was the default position. People who spoke of the end times didn’t even hint that there were any other viewpoints. The pretrib rapture, the rise of the antichrist, the one-world government and one world church were as much a part of our doctrine as the virgin birth and the resurrection.
There are still a lot of us around. And I’m guessing that in a lot of pews there is still a dispensationalist momentum. But I’m speaking of pastors, leaders, seminary profs, etc. And, of course, those who participate in blogging.
We are a pretty small minority in that group.
I’m with Bill Mac. There are plenty of Dispensationalists left in the SBC. We just don’t get all the press, speaking engagements, book deals and rock star treatment that all of the young, ahem, *Post-Millennialists* receive.
Who is postmillennial?
I know very few that hold that position. I think the predominant position today is historic premill – among the seminaries, pastors, etc.
David, I am one of the few Post Millenialists in the SBC
Well, there are quite a few Amills around too!
From my limited knowledge, probably not a lot of posties in the SBC. Not a large % in the PCA either. Mostly amills.
But take your time checking out our post mill views. After all, there’s plenty of time. 🙂
Its hard to see how you meant anything but “Most of the SBC” but I’ll take your word for it. But if that’s the case how much of the rest of this blog is so poorly communicated? 😉 Actually, its a good article and I appreciate the heads up. I never could read the series, and I read a lot! Neither could I watch the early series.
So I wasn’t really planning on seeing this.
I cringe a little when church members ask me what I believe. I usually say I’m an historic pre-mill because the last time I studied Revelation, ca. 1996 that’s where I landed. But there’s another reason folks may say they are “Pan-millenialists.” Its not due to not studying the issue, its because a clear choice did not present itself.
That’s really where I am.
I’m afraid that many have adopted the position that aggravates me the most (even more than amillennialism!) and that is “panmillennialism” – eschatology doesn’t matter and it will all “pan” out in the end.
I’d rather someone take a position I disagree with than take no position at all.
Of course, it is best if they take my position, as you can imagine.
I’m premillennial. I do not hold a firm, unswerving position on the timing of the rapture, primarily because (a) I don’t find a clear statement on this question in the New Testament, and (b) it bugs Dave Miller and quite a few of my other friends that I don’t hold any convinced position on this question.
But I lean pretribulational, if for no other reason than the fact that it is so much more pleasant of a thought. 😉
I tend to feel the same way you do, Bart, but I lean post-trib for precisely the same reason you lean pre-trib: I think believers should be emotionally prepared for the potential for extended persecution that is demonically inspired at a level and extent that it simply is not practiced today even by the Chinese or North Korean governments (more along the lines of ISIS, which is more of a metastasized version of a mob-rule movement–though well-organized–than a “government”.)
Dave: re-read the first book. Both the characters you mentioned were depicted exactly that way by the book, especially Ray’s wife. Now Hollywood very likely exaggerated it, but the book had that element in it. The whole conceit of the book is being purely post-rapture from a “central casting” point of view, so there really aren’t any believers present other than those that convert afterwards. The conceit continues in the idea that without access to the “crimson thread”, the post-rapture believers still develop a relatively healthy theology. The authors explain that in terms of either relationships with authentic Christians pre-rapture or people who portrayed themselves as believers who were in roles where they had to act out true faith and remembering what they practiced. I thought that was an interesting conceit and probably was what hooked me into reading the whole series.
I prefer the enthusiasm of the post-millenial eschatological viewpoint. And it’s worth noting that the SB leaders leading into the turn of the 20th century–like B.H. Carroll–leaned strongly towards postmillenial viewpoints with the oddball amillennialist in there. Dispensationalism is more a product of the early 20th century and arguably is tied to the defense of Fundamentalism as a counter-modernist movement. If there is a specific cause for the success of dispensationalism in the US, it wasn’t the Plymouth Brethren so much as the Scofield Reference Bible published in 1917 and it’s popularity as a “study” Bible.
I do have one pet peeve: I strongly dislike one specific aspect of premillenial eschatology: it’s tendency to look for grievances from “the world” and to latch onto them and take on victimhood-style responses to them. I think that’s just awful and very bad for our primary kingdom responsibilities of evangelism and discipleship. I’ve mentioned that several times here without exactly explaining it.
Greg,
I lean post trib as well. In fact I completely reject pre-trib. Maybe I would lean somewhat in the direction of the church enduring much of the tribulation as the world directs it against us and then the rapture before God starts taking it out on the world. But it has been so long since i studied all of it, i couldn’t make the case without digging back into it.
But, I think that if we were to enter the tribulation years, the pre-trib people would be just fine. One reason is that they wouldn’t think it was quite yet the start of the 7 years, so they would find comfort in knowing that soon their Redeemer comes to rescue them.
And God will see His people through the trying times even if their doctrine has left them “emotionally unprepared.” They are His after all.
-mike
I think Peter also was disappointed in his denial at the very same moment that he realized that his proclamation that “you are Christ, the son of the Living God” was never more true than when Jesus prophesied his denial. So I’m sure you’re correct. Though the thought that better teaching would better prepare the flock is also almost certainly true.
Again if you study the ministry of the most contempory evangelistic pastors you ail fid that they are almost without exception pre mil pre tribe.
I agree with you about the “conceit” or problem of the left behind books. Might I add one pretty major problem of the books. In my understanding of the teaching of the Rapture, when the rapture happens the church is called up to Heaven and the Holy Spirit is removed from the world. If that is true then there would be no way that anyone could be saved post-trib. Salvation is not possible apart from the work of the Holy Spirit to convict, quicken, and regenerate the heart. Yet in these books there are converts post-trib. This says that the authors believe people can be saved without the saving work of the Holy Spirit. This is highly dangerous for even an Arminian to hold. It makes Salvation a work of man and not of God.
Joseph: conceit in the literary sense I agree that lacking witnesses and the Holy Spirit that salvation is impossible. What is less clear is exactly what the “Rapture” concept is scripturally. It takes pieces from different places and sews them together into a doctrine that has some speculative features to it and then has a lot of additional speculation including fictional narrative around it. As far as describing the variations, the Wikipedia article on the Great Tribulation is surprisingly detailed.
For there to be so many “viewpoints” active at the same time means fairly precisely that the Bible isn’t clear. My favorite–though not one I’m quite agreeing with–is the semi-Preterist view. It is so “out there” compared to what we ought to be able to understand from Scripture that we could easily make sense of it. And of course those who hold to that view are very confident that their interpretation is not only potentially valid but actually true. And…so…it…goes…
Greg,
You said, …”the semi-Preterist view. It is so “out there” compared to what we ought to be able to understand from Scripture that we could easily make sense of it. And of course those who hold to that view are very confident that their interpretation is not only potentially valid but actually true. And…so…it…goes…”
I’m a partial Preterist (along with Edwards, the Wesleys, maybe Spurgeon…he was all over the pace at times), Sproul and others). Just wondering what you mean when you say that is is so “out there.”
Thanks brother.
Les
Re no witnesses this is no problem. the Bible is still present after the Rapture. The idea that the Holy Spirit leaves is simply erroneous.
From a Post-Mil side that is covering your backside. There seem to be plenty of the folks who said the Holy Spirit left, too, and they had the Jews that were converted afterwards winning the world without any Divine aid. Strange! Wonder about that Catholic Archbishop and the Jesuit and their writings on the issue which eventually got the Roman Catholic Church off the hook of being the Antichrist and started everyone in the 20th century (well, practically everyone) looking for someone who would be the Antichrist. Anyone every read about the Present Coming in the Bible…like as in Jn.14 where our Lord in the KJ is reported as saying, “I will come,” when the original says, present tense in the Greek, folks, “I am coming to you.” While definitely believe in a bodily, physical return of our Lord, for us the important thing now is His Present Spiritual Coming. So John can say, Great is He that is in you, than he that is in the world.
I am pre-trib because that is what the Bible teaches
🙂
Seriously i stand with Dave on the “pan” or “pro” (all for it) issue. That is simply intellectual laziness. A good interpretation of Revelation and other prophetic writings can be gained, it just takes a little more study than other doctrines.
DL,
Really.
Is it so clear?
Then how is there such a wide range of different beliefs?
Why should a person just pick one?
In fact, the last time I studied the subject hard and carefully, I completely ruled out the pre-trib position.
So I think it is wrong to call a person intellectually lazy because they might see many unanswered questions in each view and instead of closing one’s eyes and just picking, they would rather trust in God.
-mike
[ramble on] While I agree, I’m not sure that we can disambiguate the meaning of portions of Scripture that God has intentionally hidden. And I’ve heard probably 20 or 30 pastors make the same claim from the pulpit about how we can understand all of the apocalyptic passages if we study them enough. I’ve studied those passages at length and the claimed certainty they’ve conveyed–often using rather well-prepared charts–doesn’t come neatly and loudly off of the page of Scripture. And the mystery of it all actually makes it better in my opinion. As it does with most prophecy. God in charge without explaining exactly how it works out. Take the disagreement on soteriology. How has more study made that less ambiguous? If anything, more study just makes it more divisive. Perhaps “more study” is human arrogance trying to horn in on God’s prerogatives? (No, references to “horning in” isn’t either an allusion to the Beast nor a pun…though I guess I protest too loudly??) I say that thinking of a key SB leader who has made the public claim in front of others that there aren’t any key sections of the Bible that cannot be directly understood. I understand why he would make that claim, but when there is a serious disagreement that leads to major division in the Body, then perhaps that claim is a bit specious even if well intended. And, no, the fact that one group asserts they know what it “really means” isn’t exactly a cause for certainty in my opinion. Even if they’re exactly, precisely right specifically because there isn’t a heavenly affirmation of prophetic utterance–or in this case interpretation of prophetic utterance–that helps us determine correctness v. incorrectness. We’re all essentially making faith claims with very little to back up what we say other than the overcompensation of surety. And as I said in Mike’s thread: overcompensation via surety isn’t more sexy. Which reminds me: Joel Rainey did a pretty good article on the problem of theological speculation and I don’t think I ever posted thanking him for it. Perhaps this is a good time to do that? Thanks, Joel! P.S. Yes, I bought and read every one of the Left Behind series books while finding the theology a little disappointing. They reminded me of some of the dramatic presentations from the early 70s (not to mention the song “I wish we’d all been… Read more »
Our problem is with the Book, the fact that it is a work inspired by Omniscience and therefore reflects the depth of wisdom commensurate with that fact. This leads (and here I compliment you, Greg, for introducing me to a word that I had never encountered hitherto), disambuate. Wonder if you have heard of the term, ambiguity tolerance? Our problem is further complicated by the fact that sometimes God expects us to develop a great degree of ambiguity tolerance by His presenting of ideas that are apparently opposed for purposes that might not become obvious and evident until events occur which are revealed to be the intention involved in the apparently contradictory ideas. Another way of looking at such things is that the aim is, as I have said, in other places, not to be resolved but impressed for the tension such ideas create in the mind, thus enabling us to become balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic. There are other purposes involved in statements than just the seemingly plain and obvious liberal sense. Just consider the idea of the Puritan who said, “Our problem with the Bible is its perspicuity,” or, as we would say, its clarity. Because it is so simple, we think we can easily understand it, but it is so deep that we have not the depth perception in our minds unless God works a miracle of understanding or providence which will enable us to grasp His intention therein. Joseph’s understanding might well have been of this nature, when we read what he said in Gen.50:20. Providence helped him to understand it and to forgive his brothers for their evil plots to murder or, as it turned out, to sell him into slavery which led to the saving of the people of Israel. All he had for his faith to feed on were the dreams of his youth which had so enraged his brothers and even made an impression on his father which was questioned by the latter. These challenges to our minds and thus to our hearts will prove to be beneficial to our faith and trust in the Lord; they will enlarge our perceptions and understandings, empower our beliefs, renew our grasp of the value of the words and what is actually being said. Some fellow on another blog accused me of being lazy and using Calvinist Kool-Aid, when I set forth some of… Read more »
Mike
Christendom if full of a variety of beliefs. Yet we adopt a position after much study. To fail to do so is to say that scripture is confusing and not understandable. Failure to adopt a position in salvation, baptism etc would gut the gospel. I would rather be wrong than to say scripture can’t be understood.
And yes, to me after 50 years of study end times is very clear. Like any doctrine one studies, prays, listens to the Holy Spirit until he understands.
Are we really going down the “if only you studied as hard as me, you would come to the same conclusion” road?
Like Mike, after much study, the only firm conclusion that I’ve come to is that premil dispensationalism is wrong. See where that line of thinking gets us?
I am a post trib, post mil, because the Bible says that we all must past through many or much tribulations (Acts 14:22) enter the Kingdom. However, the stone cut out of the mountain without human hands will be smiting the old image in its feet of clay and iron, and, eventually, it will reduce the world conspiracy to chaff and dust to be carried away with the wind. During that process the stone becomes the great mountain which fills the whole earth. And none of this will be done without a whole lot of blood, sweat, and tears on the part of believers in all the generations just as it has been now for two thousand years. It will also involve, as it always has, prayer of the most agonizing kind, sufferings like those of Dr. John Thomas and William Carey. Thomas, accused of being a hyper-Calvinist, went insane with joy over the first convert, Krishna Pal, when he realized that the latter was going to go all the way and be baptized, an act that would open him to the possibility of being murdered by his fellowmen in India. Lots of folks have died, whose deaths advanced the cause of Christ. Why should we be surprised at the issues which face us of suffering for and in His name. After all, if God is pleased, it shall be used to advance His cause throughout the whole of human history and human expansion throughout the universe. You all should check out John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, cited by Andrew Fuller. It implies the possibility of multitudes of peoples of multitudes of planets being converted. O, and every one preaches Limited Atonement, even the Universalist, because his doctrine cannot get the person saved in this life. And if it won’t work now, it is doubtful that it will work later. We should expect to win people like our Lord did, by opposites, by contrarieties, by paradoxes. Man, the intellectualism of the Bible, which is a reflection of the omniscience of God, is matter of wonder to behold.
Greg
It is erroneous to say that God has hidden these truths. While they are veiled they can be interpreted. If we cannot understand it why would John receive a revelation, especially one of such importance.
DL, you are absolutely correct. As teachers of the word, we must be able to rightly divide the scriptures. It is not good enough to punt! Its one thing to say “I don’t know” and “will need to get back to you” with a sound hermeneutically based answer, than to just punt to the position “its too complex or ambiguous” because everyone has a different kite flying in the same sky.
It really all depends upon how one defines the terms tribulation and great, relative to the events that John is seeing. It appears that John is viewing a wide swath of time. Some place more emphasis on intensity, and not on time, and visa versa.
Additionally, the appearance of kai throughout the text and how the groups of interpreters render it in English is part of the struggle, I believe. It appears that as Christ had John turn to see and write what he saw, it was continuous sprint. Many of the interpreters replaced “and” (kai) with “then” in an attempt to help us. I’m not so sure they succeeded in that task.
Bart, I lean toward post trib/premil single event return … But I agree – it’s not a closed fist conviction as the scriptures aren’t as specific as many wish (pretend).
Question, were there any church fathers who held to a Part A and Part B to the return of Christ?
Isn’t pre trib a “new” belief in regard to church history?
“But there’s another reason folks may say they are “Pan-millenialists.” Its not due to not studying the issue, its because a clear choice did not present itself.”
I thought it was they extract understanding from the Bible: the same way miners “pan” for gold? The secret to panning for earthly gold is to not be fooled by the pyrite.
I hope it is true. The danger of the dispensational pretrib secret rapture is that it can cause people to throw their hands up and welcome defeat on cultural issues. In fact it can almost make some root for the world to get worse. It also can lead to an unmitigated support for everything the country Israel does not regardless if it is Christlike or not. I know this is not true of all who hold this view but I do see a great many who do.
Myself, I go back and forth between postmill and amill. I really want it to be postmill, just not completely sure the scriptures warrant that view completely. So I guess that makes me an optimistic amill.
Joseph
I have been around Dispensationalist all my life and have not known any to “throw their hands up” or give in to “cultural” problems. In fact if you will study the ministry and total theological perspective of those who hold that view I think you will find just the opposite.
No one should view the world issues through one Doctrine unless it is the Doctrine of Salvation through the blood of Jesus.
Again, I didn’t mean to disparage all dispys but I do think it is a pretty serious error. It seems to make God’s work of the church into a plan b that only happened because Jesus failed at converting the Jews of his day. I think it causes a false dichotomy between nation of Israel and the Church. It teaches that the OT sacrifices really were Salvific in some way and thus they will need to return so that the Jews can be saved.
Joseph, you have made an interesting comment with respect to how the assent of the bride will take place at Christ’s return. There seems to be a progressive walk away from the newly minted theology of Darby known as Dispensationalism during the last 100 years, which has impacted the SBC to some degree. And I think for the reasons you bring forward. The bifurcation of church into two separate classes of people, Jew and Gentile, is a difficult thing to defend; no matter the extent. If that bifurcation is done away with…as the Apostle Paul would contend, then that does shed more light on what a term that Christ provided to the Apostle John of 1000 would indicate with respect to His reign. It would also clear up what the bride consists of now,…and the make up of the bride that returns with Christ.
A good question might be… if dispensationalism had not been invented a short time back, what else would have been taught?
Joseph
A clear understanding of the theology cannot possibility be made into the creation of plan b. Why is it that as Baptist we are so sure of salvation by grace, eternal security, inherency of scripture, Cal or non Cal. yet say we cannot understand the book of Revelation. There are good serious scholars who disagree with Baptist on all points of our distinctive theology. Yet we say they are wrong. There is no more difficulty interpreting Revelation that other books yet we say you cannot be sure. The same Holy Spirit that gives us conviction as to the truth of Salvation by grace can give us conviction re. Revelation.
DL, if I may,
“Why is it that as Baptist we are so sure of salvation by grace, eternal security, inherency of scripture, Cal or non Cal. yet say we cannot understand the book of Revelation.”
Well the matter or prophecy apparently is not so clear. Others here have pointed out that very good scholars and preachers come to quite different conclusions. Spurgeon himself was loathe to declare with absolute certainty his view on all matters related to prophecy. Spurgeon,
“A man says to me, “Can you explain the seven trumpets of Revelation?” No, but I can blow one in your ear, and warn you to escape the wrath to come. Another says, “Can you tell me when the end of the world will come?” No, but I can tell you how to be so prepared for it that you need not be afraid if it were to come tonight. I can urge you to trust the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior, so that you can await it with holy joy.”
“Nothing shall induce me to attempt to interpret the prophecies. By God’s grace I will be content to expound the gospel. I believe it to be one of the most fatal devices of Satan to turn aside useful gospel ministers from their proper work into idle speculations on the number of the beast and the meaning of the little horn. The prophecies will interpret themselves by their fulfillment, but no expositor has yet arisen who has been able to do it.”
Gotta love that Spurgeon.
Go Charles! I have to remember that quote. (well, no I don’t, but I have to remember to Google it when I need it).
Les
I can certainly see your point. However good bible scholars come down on all sides of many theological issues. We are currently involved in a Cal/non Cal debate within our convention with good scholars on both sides.
I guess I wonder why eschatology is set aside as being different. For many eschatology may be unclear or unconvincing, for of others it is as clear as other doctrines. To answer my own question, I suspect that the difference might be that historically the discussion of last things has been rather harsh and even bitter, which is very unfortunate. It is a sin in my judgement that we become somewhat hostile when we differ on theological issues be it the Mil issue, the Cal issue or any other issue.
I love good hearted theological debate. I am saddened when it goes sour.
Joseph, did your view of Dispensationalism come from reading scholarly dispensationlists or from reading those who oppose it?
Dave, I can agree with your statement about scholarly. There are a buses loads of dispensationalist defenders that take the concept to the ultimate extreme, and create all kinds of ugly scenes with additions to the scriptures. And, that also occurs in the non-dispensationalist view as well.
What I have seen of late is a resurgence of church members wanting to understand the book of the Revelation and know its blessing. That can be accomplished most assuredly. And, it is a blessing to continue to dig into the details of the simple message of Revelation.
I agree that we can have some understanding of Revelation and prophesy which is one of the reasons I reject dispensationalism and a pretrib rapture. I just do not think it is biblical and consider it an error with the possibility of some harmful conclusions. That said, I do however know a good many faithful Christians who hold to it.
Joseph, I think you are being very reasonable here. I was raised on the Pre-trib, Dispensational thought, yet could not find consistent enough evidence of such in the scriptures without bringing in a whole lot of conjecture. That is not to say that I could probably assemble something that might convince some of the validity of its merits though.
One other thing that gets left out in these discussions is the fulfillment, or lack thereof, revealed in Daniel 9. How one understands the 70 weeks as fulfilled or yet to be fulfilled, is another matter of exegetical importance.
I lean toward either historic pre-mil or post-mil, but I am afraid I’m more firmly in the pan-mil camp. The only one I reject completely is dispensationalism. I suspect a lot of people are pan-millenial because none of the available theories seem to completely fit the biblical record. It’s not intellectual laziness to study the issue and decide you just don’t know.
I have to say that my experience with dispy pre-mil folks is like Josephs: blind and unwavering support of national Israel, cultural pessimism, almost a gleeful pessimism, as oxymoronic as that sounds. Disdain for any form of environmentalism.
Now, having said that, in my neck of the woods dispy fervor seems to be abating. That doesn’t mean fewer dispys necessarily but the things I’ve described above seem to be waning, with the possible exception of rabid support for Israel. Luckily the age of blogs and social media demonstrates that all dispys aren’t like this.
Amen, Bill. As I said I lean toward historic pre-mill but I hold that with “loose hands” and not a firm conviction as you pointed out the Bible it is just not as concise and clear in scripture as some people argue regarding eschatology.
I also tire of accusations of intellectual laziness that is levied most often by dispys …. Anytime someone says “hey, I see validity and problems with all of the major positions…so I’m just content with the Baptist Faith and message statement of “God will in his own time and way….”
My only problem with you comment Tarheel is that God has given us His revelation for a reason, for us to investigate it and try to know it. We should never be “content” in not knowing what God has revealed.
John: I agree that we should try to figure it out, but there’s no shame in admitting that we haven’t yet.
Yes Bill I agree with that.
Bill
I certainly agree 100%. I do think there is an issue however, when one gives up trying because it may be a little difficult.
Tarheel
I used the words”intellectually lazy”. Those were ill chosen words, and far too harsh. I do apologize.
I don’t know that people give up trying exactly, but I think there are good reasons not to get too worked up about eschatology.
1. Many great minds have puzzled over this for 2000 years and haven’t agreed on a conclusion, other than Christ will return.
2. People can become obsessed with eschatology and bring embarrassment upon themselves and Christianity (e.g.: Harold Camping)
3. Can people truly say they have as much confidence in their interpretation of Revelation as they do in the Resurrection?
4. One’s eschatology does not (or should not) greatly affect their daily lives as Christians. This might shock some people, but I cannot imagine how a day in the life of a pretribber should significantly differ from a postmiller or amiller.
I’ll be honest. I think adopting (or not) an eschatological view is fine. Teaching it as the only possible view makes me a little nervous.
Its all good, DL. While I personally never articulate ill chosen words – but I understand that others have that shortcoming. 😉
Seriously, no worries at all!
BillMac, you have nailed it again – sir.
John,
Do you understand all doctrines and “Ologies” that are taught in scripture?
When I Say I am “content “I mean that I acknowledge that God’s ways are higher than my ways and his thoughts higher than my thoughts -and that there are some things that I will not fully understand.
Sure, That does does not grant excuse from study – but I tend to think that those who claim to completely understand eschatology and can without equivocation hold to a particular theory, to the dogmatic exclusion of all others are, shall we say, perhaps a bit overconfident.
Amen, Tarheel. A bit overconfident, indeed. I can remember my days as a pre-trib, pre-mil., and then I ran into contradictory evidence. Today I am a post-mil, with a whole lot less confidence as to when, where, and why. Some of the ideas that I have encountered in the Word of God takes my breath away. Just think of doing God’s will on earth under these conditions just like it is being down in Heaven under the most propitious conditions, and yet that seems to be what God is shooting for…even with truths that seem so contradictory, so irritating, so opposed, turn-offs, until one remembers that there are such things as therapeutic paradoxes and even opposites in God’s spiritual and medical resources for treating the sinfulness of man, a medicine bitter in the mouth but sweet to the belly. How about winning the whole earth by telling someone, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. I say this not to get a controversy going. Rather, my aim is to get folks to think about the realities of how God deals with man in his lost condition with what seems most unlikely to achieve His good purposes. In other words, what our Lord says is impossible. That is what He demands of man, and the impossible becomes possible, when man admits he can’t perform, is unworthy and unable of commitment. Like the woman in response to the idea of being a dog, “Truth, Lord, but even the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”
Tarheel
A question re. over confident. You and I both hold views on various doctrines with great confidence, i.e. Salvation by grace, eternal security etc. There are good scholars who would disagree with us. Why would we set aside eschatology and say we cannot be confident?.
BTW love this discussion, I have having fun with it! 🙂
Oh my Dr. jw, tell me it ain’t so 🙂 How could you do this to your own sister? 🙂
BTW gentlemen, some years back I bought this commentary: http://smile.amazon.com/Revelation-Four-Views-Parallel-Commentary/dp/0840721285/ref=smi_www_rcolv2_go_smi?_encoding=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
Revelation: Four Views: A Parallel Commentary
From a review: “It offers very clear, unbiased descriptions of the Historicist, Preterist, Futurist, and Spiritual/Idealist views of Rev. 1-19, as well as Premillennial, Postmillenial and Amillennial interpretations of Rev. 20”
I agree. It is really difficult to determine the author’s own view. Very even handed and gives very good insight commentary by proponents of each major view of Revelation in commentary form.
Les
I have this book it is excellent!
How about them Cards!!!
Accepting cultural defeat, along with the Pietism which added to it, is just what they did. They gave up the leadership of Western Civilization, and someone else moved in. Guess who? You might want to consider the latest pronouncements about gays.
I am one of those Dave wishes would pick a position…after growing up in dispensationalism, I learned about other views enough to know I’m not smart enough to figure out the timing…I hold NO eschatological position!
I once heard that a well-known pastor didn’t have an eschatological position, and my respect for the man raised up a few notches. ????
Oh my!! Does he have a position on creation, salvation, the reality of hell?? 🙂 🙂 🙂
Sorry couldn’t resist!
“In our current SBC world, most reject premillennial, pretribulational eschatology.”
I’m surprised to hear that. I thought it was the predominant view in the Southern Baptist Convention.
Bill
It is.
I would point out that there is a difference between those of us who may hold to post tribulational “rapture” (really a one event second coming) and those who hold to a post Mill second coming.
I feel almost certain that there are many of us SBCers in the first camp…and very, very few in the latter one. I further bet there are few amills in the SBC as well – but I do know that there are some.
Tarheel,
I agree with what you said except for the amill thing, there are lots of SBCers who are amill. Although the post trib (hist. premil) seems to be gaining a lot of ground. I might add historic premil was default eschatological view of the early church for the first 300 years of Christianity.
Tarheel
This thing changes about as often as we change socks. Those of us who were seminarians prior to the CR (c. mid 60’s) understood that the majority of New Testament profs were “A”. Of the several profs I had only one was a pre. Dr. Hobbs was the noted “A” of the day. The older pastors of that same period (mid 60’s) were almost all pre mil and pre trib. The CR brought us back to a Pre Mil position. However with the still lingering influence of the “A’s” the “historic pre found much favor. It is fluid to say the least.
SBC Life a few issues ago had a good synopsis of each position written by a contemporary well known Pastor or Prof who accepted that position.
Thanks for the great review of the movie! When I first saw the trailer, I was really excited about seeing a much more epic telling of the story. I’m still looking forward to it, although I should have known it would be less kind to Christianity.
I myself lean heavily toward being pre-mil and post-trib, although I might easily be persuaded to believe in a mid-trib rapture sometimes. But in my preaching ministry, I often sound more like a pan-mil simply because it’s not the focus of Scripture. The point is, God wins, and therefore He gives us hope and strength in our present trials through Jesus.
Dave, You seem to be pretty accurate about the movie IMHO. It is pretty much a dud, and never even rose to the premise or excitement put out by the first group many years back.
I don’t really see the SBC churches so much trending away from an understanding of pre-trib / pre-mil. That is what was (and is) on the menu for a long, long time….and most SBC pastors don’t spend a great deal of time approaching the book exegetically anyway. I was definitely one of those guys until about 15 years ago. Revelation is generally taught by using arguments from other well know authors or theologians that we respect. One of those name droppers, “because he preaches it”,…it must be ok type affirmations.
I personally came to the point of forcing myself to take a different approach,… and finally embarked upon a thorough exegetical study just to get my head around the blessing. It was worth the time. Before I reached the famous 1000 year passage,… which captures most all the headlines, it became clear to me that was not even close to the focus of the Revelation. Praise the Lord, the book is not all that complex, unless we like to make it so, in order to dazzle the congregation.
This Left Behind movie is like the blind leading the blind into a thick fog, with a weak script, and without a Savior.
I have no plans to watch the movie, and I did not read the books. I even passed up opportunities to add them to my library on the cheap, hard bound copies in the local Goodwill store. In case anyone wants to know, I have a huge collection of pre-mil, pre-trib works, probably about 200 volumes. Having been raised under preachers who had been on the staff of Bellevue under Dr. R.G. Lee, you can imagine the indoctrination I have had. In fact, I heard Dr. Lee at the SBC in Kansas City preach a famous sermon on the Millenium, when he said, “The dentist said, “Say Ah!” I answered back, “I am not going to do it, I have used that word, and I don’t plan to start now.” When we got back home, the pastor of one of the FBCs in our Association, The Dixon in that day, got up and preached an a-mil sermon, showing how Dr. Lee was wrong. All of us pre-mils smiled politely, kept our mouths shut, and went back to our churches and continued our mistaken preaching on the subject. While I will not trace out my change on the subject, I will relate a story with reference to a work written on C.I. Scofield, “The Praise of Folly,” by the late David Lutzweiler. His father was one of the early preachers of Scofield’s understandings on the millennium. When David found out how wrong Mr. Scofield was, he wrote a work that involved a great deal of research. You can google the work and also access the criticism of Ev. Robert L. Sumner. In my opinion, for what it is worth, Mr. Lutzweiler wins the day, and I heartily recommend his work. The heartbreak that can result from folks with folly can act as an incentive to persons who will do the research to establish. A friend started to tell me what was wrong with the book, never having read it at all. I will mention an example from another noted pre-mil, pre-trib writer. The Late Great Planet Earth financed the building of a quarter of a million dollar home (at least that is what was reported along with color pictures of the same). There are reasons for eschatology, soteriology, and etc., reasons that have nothing to do with what the Bible teaches, reasons that have more to do with someone else’s political… Read more »
Please forgive the typo on disambiguate. I think it got me excited.
R. L. Sumner’s review of David Lutzweiler’s book against C. I. Scofield and the Scofield Reference Bible is found here:
http://www.biblicalevangelist.org/index.php?id=947&issue=Volume+40%2C+Number+6
Pretty interesting stuff.
David R. Brumbelow
Dr. JW
Love ya anyway, you rascal!! What would Dr. Campbell think? 🙂
Brother DL: He just chuckled. He was a class act.
Unfortunately, the caricaturization of authentic Christians as wild-eyed kooks is a reflection of a very real misperception secularists have today. You can bring up your faith in the most becoming manner and many unbelievers will immediately change the way they treat you. You will become less of a person to them and more of the stereotype that they have been conditioned by pop media and atheistic teachers to believe is true. I haven’t seen the move yet, but I’d wager that the idea of portraying Christians this way is to inform secular watchers to believe that a Christianity that is less than orthodox (i.e. the “Coexist” bumper sticker crowd) is more tolerable and what we know to be authentic Christianity is held only by the crazies.
R. L. Sumner has written on the subject of ancient quotes concerning the Pre-Tribulational Rapture of the church.
“For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins.” -Ephraem the Syrian, AD 323
“This ancient scholar believed that ‘sore affliction’ would last one week of seven years, with ‘the great tribulation’ being 3 ½ years. He based that on Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy sevens.” -R. L. Sumner, Biblical Evangelist, November/December, 2009.
“The same author [Grant Jeffrey] in the same book quoted the illustrious John Gill (Spurgeon’s predecessor) as teaching the pretrib rapture in 1748 in his First Thessalonians commentary. He even called the snatching up of saints ‘the rapture,’ and said it would ‘be sudden, and unknown before-hand, and when least thought of and expected.’ While he is not as clear as a Tim LaHaye would be, perhaps, his language leaves no doubt about what he is arguing.” -R. L. Sumner
“There is the fourth vision in The Shepherd of Hermas (c. AD 110) which said ‘the elect’ would escape the Great Tribulation.” -R. L. Sumner
“The Biblical Evangelist” is found at
biblicalevangelist.org.
David R. Brumbelow
That Ephraim quote has been proven as a late forgery but even at that the context is islamic conquest and the gathering of Christians to leave the areas before the muslims came to attack. It is hardly an early church quote for pre-trib rapture.
http://www.bible.ca/rapture-pseudo-ephraem-latin-syraic-texts.htm
You can view the text of the ephraim quote here in context to see the escape he is referring to is death and not a rapture. The Christians are escaping torture at the hands of muslims by being taken home to be with Christ in their deaths.
Here is an article on Pseudo Ephraem from a scholar who does believe it is speaking of a pre-tribulation rapture:
http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/rapture-in-pseudo-ephraem
David R. Brumbelow
More early examples of those who believed in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture:
http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/history-of-the-rapture-update-part-2
David R. Brumbelow
The link for R. L. Sumner and The Biblical Evangelist:
http://biblicalevangelist.org/
David R. Brumbelow
Look if Miss St. is number one in the AP and Ole Miss is number three (almost #2), and UK (Univ. Kentucky) is 5-1, then we must have been “left behind.”
I will probably see the movie at some point for the same reason I saw “God is not Dead”…so that I can discuss it with those who bring it up…but I am not looking forward to it. I only made it about half way through the Left Behind series before I lost interest.
Like the book series, the movie might make it easy to broad-brush the dispensationalist viewpoint but not everyone who holds a premil pre-trib eschatology is a cultural pessimist. Just because we don’t promote Dominion Theology or a Reconstructionist theonomy in which the church imposes God’s Kingdom on earth complete with a codification of Old Testament regulations into civil statute by a few self-designated “apostles” doesn’t mean we’ve given up on society. Sure, things get bad after the rapture but that doesn’t mean things have to get bad before the rapture or that Christians can’t have a positive influence on the culture before and up until the rapture. The goal is to get as many people included in the rapture as possible. And like the post says, God wins in the end no matter what. That does not seem pessimistic to me. Just sayin’.
Joseph Spurgeon,
Here is a premillennialist who
does not believe the Holy Spirit is absent during the Tribulation:
“The tribulation period is a time of God’s judgment on the earth. Second Thessalonians 2:7 suggests that he who restrains will no longer restrain. While some have assumed that the Holy Spirit is removed from the world during the tribulation, this seems impossible, first; because the Holy Spirit of God is omnipresent and; second, because redemption is still taking place during the tribulation period, and the Holy Spirit is uniquely involved in such redemption. However, the explanation from Paul in Thessalonians constitutes one of the almost unnoticed works of the Holy Spirit in the church age (i.e., the restraint of evil). During the seven years of the tribulation, not only is evil rampant to an extent never before experienced but also that evil is part of God’s judgment on the earth.”
-Dr. Paige Patterson, SWBTS. The New American Commentary, Revelation, B&H.
David R. Brumbelow
Yeah, to be fair, even though I’m not a dispensationalist, I never thought of the rapture as the complete removal of the Holy Spirit, but only in the sense that all Spirit indwelt believers are removed.
Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.
-Revelation 1:3
David R. Brumbelow
I haven’t seen the movie, and I’m not a true Dispensationalist. But, I do believe that a Pre-Trib., Pre-Mil view is the most accurate to the Scriptures. But, I do not call anyone a heretic for holding to other views. I just say that they are sadly, mistakenly wrong.
David
Dave,
Why “sadly”?
Volfan
Amen to both statements
I suspect the objection to dispensationalism is not so much the timing of the rapture as the idea of dispensations.
How about the idea of the Gospel winning the day for a 1000 generations/20,000-900,000 years (depending on how long you make a generation) the old-fashioned way, that is, by a whole lot of suffering and dying and just persuading? There are depths to the Book that we have yet to fathom. John Robinson, the pastor of the Pilgrims, had it right, when he said something to the effect, “Who knows what new light is getting ready to break forth from God’s word?” He had been one of the participants in the Synod of Dordt, where the five points became evident. And then consider how John Owen spoke of the atonement of Christ as being sufficient for the inhabitants of a multitude of worlds in his limited atonement (some folks think that he started that idea, not realizing that everyone preaches it) tract, The Death of Death in The Death of Christ. The determination to have one’s view in theology, soteriology, or eschatology is definitely a factor in his or her understanding and interpretation of every scripture. Clearly, we must have a method of understanding which can deal adequately with the rule and the exceptions where both are true and seemingly irreconciliable. Our problem is our analytical methodology, the so-called scientific method, lends itself to prejudicial understandings. They have a term for it in leadership ideas, namely, group think. And in the biblical Christian ministry the problem is compounded by the effort of everyone to be sure he is right and can therefore trounce everyone else. As to the pre, a, or post, Southern Baptists have learned to accept variances here without breaking fellowship (though individual cases have involved such). Dr. Campbell, whom my brother-in-law, DL, mentioned, was a gung ho pre-trib, pre-mil. I can still remember his chuckle, when he heard me say I had become a post-mil. Interestingly enough, the same has been done in soteriology, as per, of all people, Ev. George Whitefield and John Wesley, and Southern Baptists in the case of the allowance for the idea of preaching Christ tasted death for every man being no bar to communion in the union of Separate and Regular Baptists, 1787-1800. The problem was a few Separate Baptist (most were just as strong and firm believers in Sovereign Grace and Particular Redemption as the Regular Baptists) who also were willing to sacrifice for the Baptist cause during the persecutions… Read more »
Well, for all the Amil’s out there who feel left out, the International Mission Board now has an Amil president. Of course he could always do like Tom Schreiner and switch to Historic Pre as he gets older.
Tom’s reasoning was well seasoned as well… I like the tone he established when he said this…
“Everything in God’s Word is important, isn’t it? Still, good Christians have different views on the millennium. A month ago, and during the whole series, I would have said, “I’m an Amillennialist.” But I’ve actually changed my mind as I studied this passage. So, I mean, how much trust are you going to put in me, tonight? Right? I’m not very stable on this issue.
You know, that’s a good thing to be reminded of; that our confidence is not in a preacher, but in God’s Word. It’s in the truth of God’s Word. That’s what matters; not my opinion towards something.
I think we also learn from this to be charitable towards different views. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind, at least if you can be. We must distinguish between central issues of the faith and issues which aren’t central. Some people have a hard time doing that. Everything for them is of equal importance in the Bible. But that’s not true, is it? There are some things that are non-negotiable in our faith.
The Trinity is non-negotiable. The authority of Scripture is non-negotiable. The substitutionary atonement, justification by faith alone, the deity of Christ, and, of course, I could mention other things.
But there are less clear matters in the Bible as well; things like when the rapture will take place and what we’re looking at today regarding the millennium.
We must beware of being divisive, and schismatic, and inflexible on matters that are less important. That really shows, I think, a character flaw in us–something that God wants to work on in us. And we need to be aware of being namby-pamby; don’t we. That’s another problem, isn’t it? Not to hold strong convictions. We want to speak the truth of the gospel in love. That’s what’s crucial, isn’t it?
We need balance. I need balance that comes from the Holy Spirit. We all need that. We need the Holy Spirit to be our teacher.”
Just for the record, I was not knocking Platt or Schreiner. I was a member of The Church at Brook Hills and was there when David preached through Revelation. When he came to chapter 20 he actually quoted those words from Schreiner. I actually would be Amil if I had to choose but I see much to appreciate and respect on all sides. Grace and peace.
Aww man! You weren’t attacking Dr. Platt?!
….And there goes the pretense for a good food fight!
😉
End Snark.