A caffeinated explanation of eschatology

(via Church Curmudgeon)

The greatest book on oxymorons in the world

I don't know about the "truth" part, but if you like your eschatology laid out in numerous lengthy, complicated charts, then this is the book for you:

In Case of Rapture...

End Times Anthem

(via)

A Question for Dispensationalists

Will the unborn children of non-believing mothers be included in the Rapture?

I'm not being facetious. It's just that I've never heard this addressed before, and, as excruciatingly detailed as they are, no dispensational End Times chart mentions it.

The Late Great Planet Church: The Rise of Dispensationalism

This DVD, put together by the same people who brought you Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism, is sure to cause quite a stir, even in Reformed circles:

Featured are Kenneth L. Gentry, Gary DeMar, Tom Ascol, and many others. Volume One is set to be released at the end of this month, but you can pre-order a copy here.

A Good Place to Start

Crown Him with many crowns, the Lamb upon His throne.
Hark! How the heavenly anthem drowns all music but its own.
Awake, my soul, and sing of Him who died for thee,
And hail Him as thy matchless King through all eternity.

We're all familiar with that hymn. It is one many of us have sung all our lives, and it is undoubtedly featured in thousands of churches across America on Easter Sunday -- which is one of the reasons why I believe that, to an extent, all Christians are amillennial.

Think about it. Even the most ardent dispensationalist won't deny that Christ is currently reigning. Rather, he will stand up in church and belt out praises to "the Lamb upon His throne" with every bit as much joy and enthusiasm as the amillennialist brother standing next to him.

But the most fundamental aspect of amillennialism is the recognition that Christ is (present tense) reigning. To deny that is to deny scripture. Besides, how can one be a king if one has no kingdom? As his royal title implies, Christ is reigning now.

Let's take a look at just a few passages that deal with the immediacy of Christ's kingdom. Perhaps the first thing we should note is that Jesus was worshiped as a king from the moment he was born (Matthew 2:2). From the beginning of his ministry -- even before he called his first disciples --- he preached the message, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 4:17).

Jesus himself spoke of his reign as a present reality. In Matthew 12:28-29, he said, "But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."

Jesus spoke about his death and resurrection to a crowd gathered around him, saying, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power" (Mark 9:1).

Even the thief on the cross recognized Christ's kingdom as a present reality: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom" (Luke 23:42).

The Apostle Paul was confronted by a group of people in Rome, and "he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets" (Acts 28:23).

Paul referred to his Christian brothers as "fellow workers for the kingdom of God" (Colossians 4:11).

We read in Hebrews 12:2 that Christ "is seated at the right hand of the throne of God."

Now, to be sure, you will find disagreement all across the theological spectrum as to the extent of Christ's present reign. But I think the realization that he is reigning is a good starting point on the road to understanding amillennialism, or "inaugurated eschatology."

What Is Amillennialism?

Thanks, Dad, for your inaugural post here on The Contemporary Calvinist. (Yes, folks, there are two Lee Sheltons, so make sure you are directing your complaints to the appropriate one!) And thanks to Jason Robertson at Fide-O for his short definition of Amillennialism. I look forward to exploring this issue further.

The True Israel of God

Eschatology is one of my favorite theological subjects. I was raised on the C. I. Scofield Reference Bible. Our theme song was "My hope is built on nothing less, than Scofield's notes and references." In fact, I was 23 years of age before I came to the understanding that Scofield's notes were not verbally inspired!

Over the years God graciously moved me from an ultra Pre-Trib Dispensational Pre-Mil position to where I am now. Where am I now? The book of Hebrews is a good starting point. The Old Covenant has passed away - gone, finished, kaput and the New Covenant is in place. The Lord Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all Covenants. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. He is the seed of Abraham and the fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophecies and all who believe and follow Him are the children of Abraham and heirs of all Covenant promises. We have been in the "last days" since His first advent and are looking for the "last day" - the Blessed Hope and glorious appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are the true Israel of God!!

The following article: Justification by Faith and the Israel of God best sums up what I believe. Check it out:

Justification by Faith and the Israel of God

MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto

I'm sure you're all familiar with John MacArthur's message "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is a Premillennialist," which he delivered at the 2007 Shepherd's Conference. To say that it made quite a stir in the blogosphere would be a huge understatement. Well, someone has provided us with a cogent answer to that speech in the form of a new book entitled MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.

"In this book," writes Jason Robertson, "Dr. Sam Waldron addresses the assertions of MacArthur historically, exegetically and theologically. Although his arguments are rigorous, the entire tenor of the book is level-headed and irenic. This 'friendly response' grants modern day Amillennialists the opportunity to thoughtfully engage their Dispensational brethren."

You can pre-order your copy from Reformed Baptist Academic Press.

Does Romans 11 Teach a Future Salvation for National Israel?

Dispensationalists believe that Romans 11:25-27 teaches a future salvation for national Israel:

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."

Once all the Gentiles are saved, God will once again turn his attention to the Jews and see to it that they come to Christ. Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? Perhaps -- at least until you get to verses 30-32:

For just as you [Gentiles] were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Contrary to what dispensationalists teach, Paul was speaking of salvation for the Jews in the present tense. How could the word "now" be interpreted any other way? Paul was, after all, a Jew who came to Christ.

Indeed, salvation was and is a present reality for both Jew and Gentile. In fact, Paul goes so far as to erase the distinction between the two in Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

So, no, Romans 11 does not teach a future salvation for national Israel. There was, is, and always will be one chosen people: the true Israel, the seed of Abraham, the elect, the bride of Christ.

The Importance of Having a Good Eschatology

Check out this bizarre AP story from Idaho:

A man who believed he bore the "mark of the beast" amputated one of his hands, put it in a microwave and summoned authorities, Kootenai County sheriff's deputies say.

The man, in his mid-20s, was calm when deputies arrived at his home in this north Idaho town Saturday afternoon, and neither he nor the severed hand bore any noticeable tattoo or other mark, sheriff's Capt. Ben Wolfinger.

Yet another example of the dangers of dispensationalism. :)

New Blog: The Reign of Christ

Jeremy Weaver was kind enough to invite me to post on his new blog, The Reign of Christ. Its purpose is not just to foster a better understanding of amillennialism, but to delve into what scripture has to say about Christ's kingdom, to edify believers, and, ultimately, to bring glory to the reigning King of Kings.

You can read my first post here.

Dispensationalism: Robbing Christ of His Kingdom

Ask any dispensationalist whether or not Christ is reigning now and his answer would be a definite "yes"--followed quickly by a "but." "Yes, Jesus is reigning now, but his kingdom won't be fully realized until he begins his millennial reign on the throne of David after the Great Tribulation."

That may sound at first like a reasonable theological argument. After all, we Christians who have experienced salvation, but still find ourselves in a fallen, sinful world, are familiar with the concept of "the now and the not yet." The dispensational view of the kingdom, however, is completely wrong.

One of the many complaints I have against dispensationalism is that it essentially robs Christ of his kingdom. It denies what scripture tells us is a present reality.

I ran across an interesting post at Theology Online, entitled "Dispensationalism's Kingdomless King," that addresses what Peter, Paul, and Jesus himself had to say about the kingdom. Check it out here.

Pay special attention to the quote from Peter's sermon at Pentecost. The Apostle explains to us exactly what David was foretelling in Psalm 110, a passage typically used by the dispensationalist as evidence of a physical millennial reign.

Jumping into the Eschatological Fray: Revelation and "the Rest of the Dead"

No one has done more to agitate the Christian blogosphere lately than John MacArthur. He opened the 2007 Shepherd's Conference earlier this month with a scathing little speech on the subject of "sovereign election, Israel, and eschatology," in which he implied that those who don't subscribe to premillennialism are somehow denying the doctrine of election. (For an analysis of that speech, check out Jason Robertson's Fide-O post.)

James Kime of Lion Crest Inn is one blogger who is fired up by what happened at the conference. He sees MacArthur's speech as a preemptive strike against amillennialism--a theological "shock and awe" campaign, if you will, against the doctrinally challenged.

It is clear that Mr. Kime doesn't like amillennialists. "Amillennialists should be ashamed of themselves for the reckless manner in which they treat so many biblical texts," he writes. And he thinks he has found the silver bullet capable of stopping these heretical monsters dead in their tracks.

Take a look at his March 25 post. He addresses Revelation 20:4-5 and its reference to "the rest of the dead." According to Kime, "This text presents a problem for amillennialists, but they do not seem to grasp why. Each time I engage them on this point, the conversation takes a different turn. Basically, they stop the conversation."

So, it would seem that Revelation 20:4-5 is the secret weapon in the premillennial arsenal. It is the argument to end all arguments. Let's take a look at that passage (using the NKJV as quoted on Kime's blog):

⁴And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. ⁵But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Kime argues:

According to amillennialism, when a person becomes saved he immediately starts reigning with Christ is this kingdom. Further, they assert that the coming to life in verse 4 is a spiritual resurrection.

Verse 5 says that another group of people will not live again until after the thousand years. If the second group (the rest of the dead) is supposed to be believers, then you have a group of believers who DO NOT immediately start reigning with Christ. If they are unbelievers, you have them given life at the end of the thousand years, thus teaching universalism.

There is nothing within the context to say that the coming to life in verse 4 is spiritual. Further, there is nothing within the context to say that verse 4 is spiritual and verse 5 is a physical resurrection.

The fact is, the resurrection in verse 4 is described as happening when Christ returns. To make that into a spiritual resurrection does much harm on the status of believers between their death and physical resurrection.

Kime goes on to state emphatically, "The identity of 'the rest of the dead' can only be unbelievers. Believers are already reigning with Christ. There is NO OTHER group." He is assuming, of course, that this reign takes place when Christ returns physically to earth and establishes his millennial kingdom. He is correct about one thing, however: "the rest of the dead" does refer to unbelievers.

But note his insistence that the resurrection in question can only be a physical one. Is it? If the believing dead have already been raised physically in verse 4, John could have just said that he saw "those who had been beheaded." He didn't. He wrote about seeing "the souls of those who had been beheaded."

Now, one could argue that the word "soul," as used elsewhere in scripture, means "person" or "life," but that doesn't fit the context. Is the author suggesting that he saw "the people of those who had been beheaded" or "the lives of those who had been beheaded"? No. If John's use of the word "soul" meant "person" or "life," then it would have made much more sense for John to simply refer to "the souls who had been beheaded," but that isn't what the text says. What John is witnessing in his vision in verse 4 can only be in the spiritual realm.

Before moving on, perhaps we should take a look at verse 6: "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years."

From this we know that unbelievers do not have a part in the first resurrection. After all, verse 6 says that those who take part in it are "blessed and holy." So, if the first resurrection John is talking about in verses 4 and 5 can only be physical, we must therefore conclude that when John mentions "the rest of the dead" living again at some point after the thousand years, he is referring to a second physical resurrection. However, support for two physical resurrections cannot be found anywhere in scripture. In fact, that view is refuted quite soundly.

One reason we know that the first resurrection is spiritual can be found in 1 Corinthians 15:50. Here, the Apostle Paul writes that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God." The physical resurrection comes later. When? Paul tells us in verse 52 that it will be "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet."

In Acts 24:15, we learn "there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust." This is referring to a single, final bodily resurrection.

Jesus himself spoke in terms of one spiritual resurrection and one physical resurrection: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live" (John 5:24-25, emphasis added). This is the first, or spiritual, resurrection. Jesus then goes on to say in verses 28 and 29 that "all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." This is the physical resurrection.

That is reiterated in Revelation 20:11-13, when all of the dead at once are raised physically to stand before God in judgment. Those whose names are not found in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death. And as we saw in verse 6, the second death has no hold on those who experienced the first (i.e., spiritual) resurrection.

The reigning of the saints with Christ in Revelation 20:4 is the realization of the promise made earlier in 3:21: "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." This is in direct contrast to "the rest of the dead" (i.e., the unbelieving dead) in 20:5 who are not allowed to live or reign during the thousand-year period. They are raised--that is, their souls are reunited with their bodies and they "live again"--for the final judgment (20:11-13) before suffering the second death in the lake of fire.

I am neither a scholar nor a theologian. I am nothing more than a sinner saved by grace. But I think I have read and studied enough to see that Revelation 20:4-5 can hardly be considered a refutation of amillennialism. Naturally, men like James Kime think that makes me reckless. However, I would argue that premillennialists are the ones who "should be ashamed of themselves for the reckless manner in which they treat so many biblical texts." Ripping passages out of context and rendering them inconsistent with the rest of scripture in order to justify our own preconceived notions is never a good thing.

Left Behind: The Video Game

Do you have trouble getting your kids to read? Never fear! The same bad theology you have come to expect from Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins will soon be available in an exciting, fun-filled, action-packed video game!

Introducing Left Behind: Eternal Forces, a real-time strategy game for your PC.

Don't get left behind. Pre-order your copy today!

The Pandemonium Perpetrated by the Premillennialist Paradigm

* This is an article I wrote for my website EverVigilant.net in 2002. While more political in nature, I think it addresses issues that Calvinists should take seriously--namely, a return to a more Reformed, Christ-centered view of eschatology.

Any time there is a flurry of activity in the Middle East, you can count on evangelical Christians to put on a good show. They run around proclaiming an "End of the World Is Near" gospel in hopes of scaring people into the Kingdom of God.

I refer to such Christians as "they" because I happen to be one of those Christians who believe that God is no longer dealing with national Israel and that His chosen people are those who comprise the church--essentially, all who believe in Christ. This may seem like a radical concept to those who look upon writers of doomsday fiction as prophetic geniuses, but that's what happens when people are drawn away from that boring, dust-covered, leaherbound Bible on the coffee table by novels with flashy covers and catchy titles.

When it comes to end times "prophecy," premillennialists seem to have a monopoly on the market. Hal Lindsey burst upon the scene in the 1970's with The Late Great Planet Earth. It became an international best-seller. In like fashion, the Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins has proven to be one of the most lucrative enterprises in the history of Christendom. Sure, these books are by no means examples of literary greatness, but the authors more than make up for that with pure, unadulterated prophetic sensationalism.

The success of apocalyptic authors like Lindsey, LaHaye and Jenkins stems from their ability to exploit the prevailing eschatological school of thought among evangelical Christians, that being dispensational premillennialism. (Thank you, John Nelson Darby!) When it comes to the end times, most premillennialists believe that all Christians will be "raptured," that is, taken up out of the world by Jesus Christ at his almost second coming. Those left behind will have to face the Great Tribulation, a seven-year period of unparalleled chaos which will also herald the rule of the Anti-Christ. At the end of the Tribulation, Christ will return--his actual second coming--to set up his earthly kingdom and reign on the throne of David for a thousand years. After that millennial time of peace, God will do away with evil once and for all at the Great White Throne Judgment. (How there can be a thousand years of peace with evil present I cannot say. I suppose it's one of those things that just works it self out in the premillennialist model.)

With all the hype surrounding the end times, it is certainly understandable that theological misconceptions will filter down into our political ideology. This is not a new phenomenon. In fact, ever since the arrival of dispensational premillennialism on this continent in the 19th century, our national political position has shifted to accomodate this line of thinking thanks to the efforts of evangelical Christians.

Evangelical Christian influence has been around since the founding of this nation, and the beliefs of evangelicals have spilled over into politics. Ordinarily there would be nothing wrong with this, but flawed theology has since given way to a flawed foreign policy, and U.S. interests have become inextricably tied to the interests of modern Israel.

Strong political support for a Jewish nation began in the early 1900s. During World War I, Arthur James Balfour penned the Balfour Declaration which set the stage for British support of a Jewish homeland:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Since dispensational premillennialism had already established itself as a part of the evangelical mainstream, it was only a matter of time before U.S. politicians who had been born and raised in that evangelical tradition began to let their theology affect their political ideology. In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson signaled his approval of the Balfour Declaration when he said, "The allied nations with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth."

American politicians have continued to voice their strong support for Israel, though little has been mentioned as to why Israel is such an important ally. But that really isn't the issue I want to explore. What seems to be driving the U.S.-Israel relationship, as far as evangelical Christians are concerned, is the popular belief that the nation of Israel still plays an important role in prophecy, and those not wanting to be caught facing the business end of God's wrathful sword come Judgment Day are pushing for more U.S. involvement in the Middle East. About the only reasons we hear are that we have a "moral obligation" to stand behind Israel or that it's simply "the right thing to do."

Dispensational premillennialists typically quote the Book of Psalms when speaking of our "obligation" to support Israel. "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: 'May they prosper who love you'" (Ps. 122:6). This passage has been accepted by many Christians as a universal command by which all believers are bound to pray for the physical city of Jerusalem, lest they fall out of favor with God. Of course, that isn't the case.

While it may be good and practical to pray for the peace of modern Jerusalem, we should really be praying for peace all across the world—the peace that can only come about through the Good News of Jesus Christ. So, in a spiritual sense, Psalm 122 does apply to Christians today. We should pray for the peace of the spiritual Jerusalem, the church (Heb. 12:22), for the well-being of our brothers and sisters in Christ and the furtherance of the Gospel.

Many Christians, however, are too wrapped up in their flawed eschatology to realize that their first responsibility is to the church, the body of Christ, and not to a nation of unbelievers. As a result, eyes glance up in anticipation at the eastern sky every time Israel is mentioned in the media, and the practice of interpreting Scripture through newspaper headlines becomes commonplace.

It is interesting to see the ensuing pandemonium among evangelical Christians brought about by rumors of war in the Middle East. Believers ignore sound biblical instruction and start buying up extra copies of Left Behind to use as witnessing tools for reaching their non-believing friends. Christian columnists all across America crank out editorial pieces on the Jews' divine claim to the Holy Land and the importance of remaining steadfast in our nation's support of Israel. Jack Van Impe goes on television with an air of righteous vindication and says, "See? My latest reinterpretation of my previous reinterpretation of Revelation was correct! The time of Christ's coming in the clouds is fast approaching!"

Who can blame these Christians for becoming so enraptured (no pun intended) with the idea of being whisked away in the blink of an eye while the world is left to fester for seven years in its own evil juices? It is comforting for people to believe that they will escape tribulation when the end comes.

But ask anyone who holds to the premillennialist view what Christ had in mind when he proclaimed, "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" (Matt. 24:34). Ask them what the apostle Paul meant when he said, "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham" (Rom. 9:6b-7a). Ask them why God felt it was necessary to establish a New Covenant (Heb. 8) if the Old Covenant is yet to be fulfilled. Chances are the answers you receive will be less than satisfactory.

The truth is that the covenant God had with Israel finds its fulfillment in Christ. "And if you are Christ's," Paul reminds us, "then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29). Advocating an "End of the World Is Near" gospel that appeals to gullible Christians and poll-driven politicians cannot be edifying for the body of Christ. If anything, it detracts from the work the Son of God already accomplished through his death and resurrection.

I certainly do not hold myself up as a theologian or biblical scholar, but it doesn't take one to see that the premillennialist paradigm is rather precarious. When a fundamental part of our foreign policy is based on a shaky biblical exegesis and championed by the very people who should know better, it gives one reason to question the immediate future of our nation.

At least we can rest in the fact that God is ultimately in control. His true chosen people, those who confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, will not be forsaken, and the glory of the Almighty will shine forth for all the world to see.