Different Views..

[bauerpauer]

I'm so confused on eschatology that i'm not sure where to begin. I have read through revelation but always have been taught that we are awaiting a rapture at any moment now and we will all be caught up in the sky etc etc.

What are the major different views on eschatology and whats a brief defintion of each one regarding the rapture and trib? Also I don't recall where but doesn't it say somewhere in the bible something to the effect of God doesn't want anyone taken from his church? Wouldn't a rapture defeat that and therefore cause a contradiction?

I'm sorry, i'm sure you guys are tired of my petty questions. I'm just really trying to get a better grasp here considering I can't do that at my church. Not a fan of my church.. Its hardcore arminiast and we have 20 minute alter calls.. I almost fall over every day.

[wildboar]

I found this chart very helpful: http://www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm

There is a tendency for most arminian baptists to hold to dispensationalism. Dispensationalism divides the Bible into various segments and forces its interpretation upon it. The idea of the pretribulation rapture which seems to have triggered to a large extent the other dispensational teachings as we now know them did not exist until the early 1800's when a young girl in Scotland had a vision of this happening. You can read about that here: http://www.geocities.com/pvrosman/Di...e_Origins.html

Darby and Scofield popularized the teaching. Darby was one of the Plymouth Brethren and his teachings were initially rejected by many of the Plymouth Brethren but eventually caught on. Authors such as Tim LaHaye try to equate historic premillenialism with dispensationalism and so say this was the teaching of the early church. The two are quite different and historic premillenialism is not filled with anywhere near the number of heresies that dispensationalism is. Historic premillenialism did not teach what dispensationalism does about Israel, the tribulation, or the dispensations, it merely taught a 1000 year reign on the earth prior to the judgment. Dispensationalism makes the crucifixion unnecessary since it teaches that if the Jews had not rejected Christ He never would have been crucified and would have just begun His reign.

The majority of Arminian Baptists and Pentecostals tend to be Dispensational. Reformed and Presbyterian groups tend to be either postmillenial or amillenial though there are exceptions. And Lutherans are at least confessionally amillenial.

Postmillenialism in its modern form has wrecked havoc in the reformed and presbyterian churches lately. It is now closely tied to what is called reconstructionism where it is believed that eventually the majority of the people in a country (usually Scotland or the U.S.) will be converted and usher in the millenial kingdom. The government would then punish those who are not postmillenialists. This teaching has also been spread in the form of Dominion theology into pentecostal bodies.

Although I disagree with his interpretation of Romans 11:26, for an easy to read discussion of eschatology and the various views I highly recommend A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times

You can also read this article on-line: http://members.aol.com/twarren13/amil5.html

[doctr_of_grace]

Charles ... Thanks for the chart and other article. I have been somewhat persuaded to the "postmill" position but realize that there are some problems with it. I have read some of Gentry and I especially like his comments and writings on the Book of Revelation. The timing and the theme of the book being the "divorce of national israel".

The teaching of theonomy is probably the least understood part of the modern postmill camp. I have read differences in how it is actually applied in "real life". I am not sure that the "ceremonial" ie sacrificing of animals is what these guys ascribe to but I am not all that well read on it either.

Thanks for the suggested book as well. I may pick it up when I have some extra cash.

Jan

[doctr_of_grace]

I'm sorry, i'm sure you guys are tired of my petty questions. I'm just really trying to get a better grasp here considering I can't do that at my church. Not a fan of my church.. Its hardcore arminiast and we have 20 minute alter calls.. I almost fall over every day.

bauer ... please don't be concerned about asking questions ... it is when we STOP asking questions that we are in trouble .

God Bless ......... Jan

[wildboar]

Jan:
You may want to read the series of articles which were assembled into a book which you can read on-line called A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism by David Engelsma. It is largely a critique of the Christian reconstructionist/theonomist movement based on the Scriptures and the reformed confessions. In the midst of this series DeMar in challenged Engelsma to a debate in Grand Rapids in a letter to the Standard Bearer. DeMar did not respond. DeMar wrote another letter challenging Engelsma to a debate in the Standard Bearer which he also posted on the internet. Engelsma responded saying that he would make the arrangements for the debate in a suitable auditorium large enough to contain anyone interested, but as a condition wanted DeMar to do the same in Atlanta for the benefit of DeMar's supporters which he sent to DeMar by certified mail. DeMar never responded.

In the rather lengthy and thorough article entitled
The Messianic Kingdom and Civil Government

David Engelsma gives the best explanation of the proper Biblical relationship between the church and the state that I have seen.

I don't know how one could read the book of Revelation and think that the main theme is the divorce of national Israel. The entire book speaks of how God's people conquer through persecution. There's an on-line pdf file that critiques Gentry's dating. Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation by Robert L. Thomas

The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter XI
Of Jesus Christ, True God and Man, the Only Savior of the World

The Sects. We therefore condemn all who deny a real resurrection of the flesh (II Tim. 2:18), or who with John of Jerusalem, against whom Jerome wrote, do not have a correct view of the glorification of bodies. We also condmn those who thought that the devil and all the ungodly would at some time be saved, and that there would be and end to punishments. For the Lord has plainly declared: Their fire is not quenched, and their worm does not die (Mark 9:44). We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different.

[doctr_of_grace]

Thanks Charles ... I will look this all over. If I have some questions I am sure you will be a good resource.

[BrianSH]

I just love how Robert L. Thomas, in the article/book listed above, flatters himself that he could not be wrong, but only Gentry could be wrong. I am no theonomist, but I do believe that Revelation was written pre AD70. It just makes me smile to see such men flaunt themselves as "irrefutable."

Which makes me to shun the Helvetic confession (in the above quote at least), whose writers, set themselves as judges among men, using the words "we condemn." Such language is reserved only for God. For whom men condemn, God may well JUSTIFY! And we are not the judge of men's eternal destiny.

In Christ
BrianSH

[wildboar]

Which makes me to shun the Helvetic confession (in the above quote at least), whose writers, set themselves as judges among men, using the words "we condemn." Such language is reserved only for God. For whom men condemn, God may well JUSTIFY! And we are not the judge of men's eternal destiny.

Paul pronounced anathema upon those who held to specific beliefs and spoke of handing those over to Satan who had heretical eschatological beliefs (1 Tim. 1:20).

I just love how Robert L. Thomas, in the article/book listed above, flatters himself that he could not be wrong, but only Gentry could be wrong. I am no theonomist, but I do believe that Revelation was written pre AD70. It just makes me smile to see such men flaunt themselves as "irrefutable."

The evidence is pretty weak for a pre 70 AD date. I've heard many argue that the temple must have still been standing because Paul speaks of it in the vision. That's ludicrous, Paul was having a vision, nobody assumes that every other thing he mentions would have had to have been there. Moreover, the temple he speaks of is larger than would ever fit where the temple stood pre 70 AD.

The pre 70 AD seems motivated more by a desire to preserve some type of preterist interpretation rather than a thorough examination of the evidence. But what's really at stake is what purpose Scripture serves and how we are to interpret prophecy. Is Scripture written for the church of all ages or for those during a specific time. This is the place where futurists, preterists, and liberal scholars all fall into the same hole. Prophecy must be interpreted in the way in which we find examples of prophecy being interpreted in the Scriptures. We ought not invent our own way of interpretation.

The modern postmillenialist is really just an inconsistent preterist. He sees the danger of teaching that the resurrection has already passed, so he adopts the same method of interpretation as the preterist but does not carry it through consistently.

[bauerpauer]

dumb question .. what is theonomy. I keep seeing that word come up and i'm confused as to what it is. Is it related to theology?

[wildboar]

Here's a statement of general beliefs of theonomists taken from http://www.apocalipsis.org/reconstr.htm

• The law still applies today - (Mat 5:17-19)
• The OT Law is to govern over society as well. Since we are called to subdue the earth i.e. take dominion over it (Gen. 1:28), Dominion Theology teaches that God's Law should rule (or dominate) all aspects of society. This view is known as Theonomy (or God's law).
• The Law was divided into three sections: civil, moral, and ceremonial. The ceremonial law has been fulfilled by Christ and is no longer incumbent upon the believer, but not so the moral and civil parts of the law. Therefore, we are to live under the moral law and seek to establish, in our society, the civil system of OT Israel. The implication is that the death penalty would become far more widespread and restitution would have a greater emphasis.
• Reconstructionists teach that the mission of the church goes beyond the spiritual transformation of individuals, i.e. preaching the gospel and making disciples, to a mandate to change society.
• It is postmillennial, seeing the victory of the gospel on earth before Christ returns. It is therefore optimistic about the future rather than pessimistic like the premillennial and amillennial eschatological views.
• Home schooling is one of the methods for implementing the change in society.

Theonomy seeks to reestablish a theocracy in which the OT moral and civil laws are enforced. New Testament statements about the proper relationship between the church and the state are almost completely absent from their writings. As Engelsma writes:

Many Presbyterians have taken and still do take the position that the state is called to promote the true church by establishing and supporting it as the official church of the realm. This position is known as the “Establishment Principle.” These Presbyterians vehemently condemn the position that denies that the state has any duty to establish a church, promote the gospel with physical force, or punish heretics. For some obscure reason these Presbyterians call this position “voluntaryism.” According to William Cunningham, voluntaryism, or the voluntary principle, which he rejected, holds “entire separation” of state and church. “Nations, as such, and civil rulers in the official capacity, not only are not bound, but are not at liberty, to interfere in any religious matters, or to seek to promote the welfare of the church of Christ, as such.” The alternative, which Cunningham espoused, is “the doctrine of national establishment of religion.”1
In recent years, the issue has come to the attention of Reformed Christians in North America through the movement known as Christian Reconstruction. As an aspect of its postmillennial eschatology, Christian Reconstruction teaches that in the future a majority of people will become Christians. Civil government then will be in the hands of Christians, indeed, Presbyterian Christians. It will be the duty of civil government to establish the Presbyterian church as the one church of the realm, to throw the whole weight of the government behind the true church, to decree the political laws of the Old Testament (“theonomy”), and to punish idolaters, vocal heretics, and other transgressors of the Old Testament statutes with physical punishments, including death.

[BrianSH]

[QUOTE=wildboar]Paul pronounced anathema upon those who held to specific beliefs and spoke of handing those over to Satan who had heretical eschatological beliefs (1 Tim. 1:20).


So are you equating Paul's DIRECT REVELATION from God with Robert Thomas' INTERPRETATION of Scripture? Paul was not/could not have been mistaken because of inspiration, but Robert Thomas could be (I believe he is) wrong.

[wildboar]

So are you equating Paul's DIRECT REVELATION from God with Robert Thomas' INTERPRETATION of Scripture? Paul was not/could not have been mistaken because of inspiration, but Robert Thomas could be (I believe he is) wrong.

My comments were in reference to what was said about the Second Helvetic Confession. Remember what you wrote?

Which makes me to shun the Helvetic confession (in the above quote at least), whose writers, set themselves as judges among men, using the words "we condemn." Such language is reserved only for God. For whom men condemn, God may well JUSTIFY! And we are not the judge of men's eternal destiny.

So you believe that people are saved who deny the resurrection? and that we should pass judgment upon them? If the Scripture condemns those who teach a certain doctrine, is it wrong to condemn those who teach that doctrine?

[wildboar]

bauer:

Have you considered switching churches? The following of churches are in Kansas City:

Christ Presbyterian Church of Kansas City
Denomination: Presbyterian (PCA) Indexed: Sun Mar 11 19:43:37 2001
Address: 940 W Santa Fe Trail
City: Kansas City, State: Mo. Zip: 64145-1033
Pastor: Thomas Talbot Ellis E-mail: cpchurch@cpchurch-kc.org
Phone: 816-941-4644 Phone 2: Pastor's Study: 816/941-3855
Information: PCA-Heartland
http://www.cpchurch-kc.org </B>

Northland Reformed Church
Denomination: N/A Indexed: Fri May 19 14:16:27 2000
Address: 2900 NW Cookingham Blvd.
City: Kansas City, State: Mo. Zip: 64164
E-mail: thepastor@kcnrc.org
Phone: 816-420-9700
Information: Amillennial eschatology, Reformed Church in the United States
</B>
Given what I know about these two denominations, the 2nd might be preferable.

[wildboar]

I came across one more church in Kansas City. This would probably rival Northland for my top choice.

Covenant Reformed Church

Kansas City, Missouri, U.S.A.

Affiliated with: Classis Central United States

Former Name(s): Lane Avenue Christian Reformed Church

Important Dates: Organized 1972, Seceded from CRCNA 1997, Joined URCNA 1997

Worship Service Times: Sundays 9:30 AM and 6:00 PM.

Address: (Church Location) 9511 Lane Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 64134, U.S.A.

Telephone: (Fax) (816) 943-7109
(Voice) (816) 765-0882

E-Mail: bdejong@planetkc.com

Web Site: http://www.covenantreformed.org/

Minister: Rev. A. William De Jong

Address: (Home) 9519 Lane Ave., Kansas City, Missouri 64134, U.S.A.

Telephone: (Fax) (816) 943-7109
(Home) (816) 761-4412
(Study) (816) 765-0882

E-Mail: bdejong@planetkc.com


Council Chairman: Mr. Wil Postma

Address: (Home) 5039 S.W. Widgeon Way, Lees Summit, Missouri 64082, U.S.A.

Telephone: (Home) (816) 537-0077

E-Mail: (Home) wilpostma@juno.com


Council Vice-Chairman: Rev. A. William De Jong

Address: (Home) 9519 Lane Ave., Kansas City, Missouri 64134, U.S.A.

Telephone: (Fax) (816) 943-7109
(Home) (816) 761-4412
(Study) (816) 765-0882

E-Mail: bdejong@planetkc.com


Clerk: Mr. Dave Bousema

Address: (Home) 400 W. 109th St., Kansas City, Missouri 64114, U.S.A.

Telephone: (Home) (816) 943-0507




Treasurer: Mr. Yoshi Sato



Telephone: (Home) (816) 361-8294




Youth Contact: Mr. Wil Postma

Address: (Home) 5039 S.W. Widgeon Way, Lees Summit, Missouri 64082, U.S.A.

Telephone: (Home) (816) 537-0077

E-Mail: (Home) wilpostma@juno.com

[bauerpauer]

I cannot switch churches. My parents will not allow me to. They believe it is important for a family to go to church together. They believe what my church teaches. I however do not. So i'm stuck at the church until i'm 18.. But when I turn 18, by golly, i'll be outta there. Thanks for looking at those though. I'm really looking at the Reformed Presbyterian of Shawnee.. Its about 2 minutes from my house. Right next to my high school actually. I'm 16, 17 in January. Hoorah.

[bauerpauer]

Oh, and another quick question. Is one sin worse than another? IE: Murder vs lying.

[wildboar]

Oh, and another quick question. Is one sin worse than another? IE: Murder vs lying.

If we were to conclude anything, I think it would be that breaking the laws in the first table of the law is worse than breaking those laws in the second table. More emphasis is given against blasphemy than murder. Of course all sins are the result of unbelief. The Bible does also speak of sins against the body such as fornication and adultery being worse in some way than other sins. Ultimately we sin any time we do not do what we do to the glory of God. Our love for our neighbor flows out of our love for God.

[LoverOfLiberty]

Greetings, all, new member here... At the suggestion of my good friend, Jan, a.ka. "doctr of grace", I have decided to contribute a few posts to what appears to be a very interesting discussion forum. These days I tend avoid such discussion forums, since I tend to see them as mostly (although not entirely) unprofitable. I will keep my involvement relatively minimal, and will try to avoid entangling myself in pointless and endless debate. Generally speaking, people tend to have entrenched and unmoveable convictions on their own position (it's always the OTHER guy that's wrong and in need of change, notice; never the one making the assertion - and, no, I don't detach myself from this criticism) However, if there are those who are sincerely interested in pursuing anything I say here, I invite you to email me at any time.

Some of my focus in this forum will be to clarify the reconstructionist viewpoint (which I will summarize shortly). I get pretty frustrated to see so many critics misrepresent this system of thought and then dismiss it with a straw man argument. If it's wrong then it needs to be refuted; but at least represent it, or any other view, for that matter, in its most favorable light. So this will be part of my focus, to represent the view so that it can be properly understood.

Much of my own influence in Christian Reconstructionism was based on the exposition of the late Greg L. Bahnsen, who I think gave the best and most clear expression of it. Having come out of a background which emphasized emotion over substantive understanding, I found Dr. Bahnsen's analytical approach most refreshing. Secondly, Kenneth L. Gentry, who besides being a true southern gentleman, is what I would consider a very thorough and fair minded scholar. Interestingly, Gentry studied for a while under Dr. Bahnsen at Reformed Theological Seminary, and it was there through Bahnsen's instruction, that Gentry became convinced of the theonomic position. His exposition of the postmillennial eschatology has been particularly influential to me. Ok, so enough of the background. I hope I didn't bore anyone.

The system of thought known as Christian Reconstructionism may be summarized by three main disctinctives, as summarized by Greg Bahnsen himself in one of his taped lectures (if anyone needs the exact reference, let me know and I'll find it). Although there is disagreement among Reconstructionists as to the details, all reconstructionists affirm the following three points:

(1) Christian Reconstructionists are postmillennial in their eschatology;
(2) Christian Reconstructionists are theonomic in their view of ethics;
(3) Christian Reconstructionists are presuppositional in their approach to apologetics

Obviously, each of these points would be a topic requiring detailed discussion and explanation, but hopefully this summary will be found helpful. I'll try to bring up some points on each of these as I feel led.

Having read some of the previous posts on this thread, I would make one observation, especially to "wildboar". I notice that you give people references to certain entire books and various other literature favorable to your amillennial position. My own feeling is that in a discussion forum, this approach should be avoided. For every reference you give, I could simply reply by giving a counter one favorable to my own view. This is not an argument, but simply an appeal to authority. If you have a good reason for holding to a certain view, then state it and give an argument for it. The sea of literature on the different millennial positions is about as vast as the ocean sea, so I don't think that approach is all that helpful, unless someone specifically asks for them. I would encourage you to make your argument in written form here in the forum using your own words; then if you need to quote something or refer to someone's writings, then that's fine. People in here may or may not have time to read entire volumes on a certain point of view, so you need to be sensitive to that. Anyway, just an observation, right or wrong. I hope I didn't offend. That's it for now. Thanks, y'all, for letting me be a part of this discussion.

In love,
BK

[wildboar]

LoverofLiberty:

If there is anything which I have said which has misrepresented the reconstructionist position I would like to know. I'm familiar with Bahnsen, Rushdoony, and DeMar and to a lesser extent Gentry. If I could find articles with arguments that actually supported the Reconstructionist position over against the amillennial position, I would not only post the articles but become a reconstructionist. I provide the articles for those that are interested. I'm sure the vast majority of those who read the posts do not read the articles but it does no harm posting them. I think Engelsma's article articulates the Scriptural position on the proper relationship between church and state better than anything else I've seen. When I see an article which explains something better than anything else I've read and which makes me rethink things I like to share it with others so that they may benefit as well.

I've had friends who became covenanters and moved to New York in hope of joining the movement, others who burned out and even went into mania over it and wound up in a mental hospital.

Any movement which takes the focus off of Christ and puts it on eschatology is doomed theologically which is why reconstructionists have also made heretical statements about justification. The unreformed belief in common grace is also essential to the reconstructionist movement.

I would you to partake of the discussion in the forum. All can then benefit by seeing the strengths and/or weaknesses of both sides. I have found that many who tell people to email them privately for discussion cannot answer specific questions and so are hoping to lure away weak Christians without them being able to hear the objections from the other side.

[doctr_of_grace]

Hello Liberty ...

I hope to see you in here some. I have been looking at some of the material that Wildboar has posted and you and I have had several discussions on these things. They are indeed fascinating. I would hope we could discuss them with love and a desire to learn. Eschatology isn't something that I feel is an issue to discontinue fellowship over. It is certainly something that has many opinions and many ways of looking at scripture. hahaha silly statement I know.



I still consider what Gentry has said about the Book of Rev to be something worthwhile to consider. I am what some people would call a "partial" preterist and due to our conversations I am very strongly leaning to the post mill position. I haven't studied much on "reconstructionism" and hope to learn more about what it teaches.



Liberty ... This forum is pretty hard core when it comes to the "common grace" issue and "free offer" of the gospel. I hope that even those issues can be discussed in love and not something that breaks down to name calling or likewise. I feel we must all remember (contrary to Harald's belief) that none of us has the TOTAL truth or perfect knowledge of scripture. We are all of course effected by our past, current presuppositions and influenced by others in our understanding of scripture and most definately our sin still plays into our understanding. It is my goal in this forum to hear other points of view and to be lead to scripture where I pray and study things out for myself. I have and will continue to learn and grow with the help of others.



Welcome to the forum



your sister In Christ ......... Jan