One Good Lesson from “Left Behind”

David, I am one of the few Post Millenialists in the SBC

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 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 ready” that probably introduced the phrase “left behind” popularly) about the return of Jesus including an extended tape that my dad had that “dramatized” the rapture in a similar way that Orson Wells did in his “War of the Worlds” broadcast (though not quite as breathless…more straight “news break” style story exposition.) We can be entertained and taught at the same time…but it’s easier to do one or the other (and not both) well in my opinion.

[ramble off]

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 my perspectives on eschatology. He knew all of his without ever having met me or had a discussion with me, etc. People can be either Post-Mil or A-Mil. A friend I had in NYC, a fellow who had had Billy Sunday preach for him in his pulpit one Sunday morning during Sunday’s New York Crusade (his greatest crusade) and who had left the American Baptist Convention over Harry Emerson Fosdick’s repudiation of the Virgin Birth, was an A-Mil, and he was definitely not a Calvinist. God grant us all His grace in order that we might begin to get a better understanding of what He purposes in His statements in Holy Writ, and I mean all of us, including especially myself.

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.