Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Archive for the ‘postmillennialism’ Category

Is Your Eschatology Political Or Biblical?

Posted by Job on March 12, 2011

Sorry for the disproportionate emphasis on the endtimes lately. Rest assured, I am not reverting back to my “Heal The Land With Spiritual Warfare” angry Pentecostal days when I was given to much speculation concerning anti-Christ new world order conspiracies. It is merely that I have finally gotten around to reading an excellent book recommended by the Irish Anglican, which is “Interpreting Revelation: A Reasonable Guide to Understanding the Last Book in the Bible” by the late Merrill Tenney, an evangelical theologian who at one point was under the employ of Wheaton College. Now this Tenney was not nearly objective; rather it was quite easy from reading the book to discern that his beliefs tended towards premillennial dispensationalism/pre-tribulation rapture. Fortunately (for me anyways) Tenney pays little attention to his rapture beliefs beyond “gently” mentioning it as a possibility now and then, and instead deals with other issues using my own preferred methodology, which is literal-historical-redemptive interpretation of Bible texts (a hermeneutic that relies mostly on literal interpretation but allows for symbolic and figurative interpretation where appropriate) supported by responsible prooftexting (interpreting scripture with scripture without using verses out of context in order to support some agenda or bias) and appeals to church history. This makes it possible for me to (mostly) agree with Tenney’s scholarship in “Interpreting Revelation” in spite of my disagreement with his belief in (and in this book advocacy of, however mildly) a pretribulation rapture.
Of particular interest are chapters 8 and 9 of his text, which are “The Chronological Approach” and “The Eschatological Method.” In those, Tenney makes the case – though oddly enough this case was not his intention to make – that premillennialism was the eschatological view adopted based on the Biblical (and extrabiblical) text, and that other systems, particularly preterism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism, were developed for political reasons. (Regrettably, Tenney fails to distinguish between his own modern premillennialism – which includes dispensationalism – and historic premillennialism, or chiliasm. His case would have been much stronger, and dare I say more honest, had he done so. That, and his shocking failure to deal with the objections to premillennialism – his own view – as thoroughly as he did with the systems with which he disagrees actually constitute a greater shortcoming than his occasional stumping for the pretribulation rapture.)
First, preterism. Tenney convincingly credits its development with Alcazar, a Roman Catholic Jesuit friar. This Alcazar was a counter-Reformer, which was a duty of The Society of Jesus in general. He developed preterism in order to refute Protestant attacks on the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church, as the Reformers polemically used Revelation to refer to this church and its pope as “Babylon” and “anti-Christ.” His method: claiming that Revelation was written in reference to the early church’s struggle with the Jews (chapters 1-12) and paganism (13-19) and had no contemporary or future application whatsoever. Thus, Alcazar followed after a long line that began at the very latest with Eusebius in marginalizing Revelation for political purposes. What is amazing is that Protestant theologians soon began to adopt for themselves a Roman Catholic system created for the very purpose of opposing – and attempting to destroy – the Protestant Reformation, and many have used it ever since despite knowing its original origin and purpose! Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.
Next, Tenney deals with the political origins of postmillennialism: Augustine’s need to defend the declining Roman Empire (and the ecclesiastical arm of the church-state) along with it. The idea at the time – first proposed by Eusebius in his “official theology” created to support the political aims of Constantine, to whom Eusebius served as an “advisor” – was essentially that the Roman Empire through its making Christianity the state religion, was the earthly fulfilment of the kingdom of God, and that the empire and its church would grow (whether by conversion or coercion) to fill the earth and thereby fulfil the prophecies concerning the global reign of Jesus Christ. Of course, this doctrine JUST HAPPENED to provide a religious justification for the need/desire of the Roman Empire to wage war, conquer territory and subdue/repress people. When the Roman Empire began to crumble, Augustine had to rework his doctrines somewhat in order to arrive at the position that even though the present political order – the Roman Empire – might collapse, the visible church destined to gain global dominion (and domination) would continue by attaching itself to whatever political, social and economic order that existed (whether the Roman Empire of Constantine’s time, the feudalism of the Dark and Middle Ages, or our current political hegemony) and adapting to fit it.
To pull this off, Augustine had to use an allegorical/spiritual method of interpreting Revelation (and other texts) that allowed him to strip the text of its intended meaning and assign the meaning that suited his purposes, which of course were the purposes of the empire and its state church. In that regards, we can consider Augustine to be a postmodern reader-response deconstructionist sort whom the Marxist scholar Jacques Derrida merely followed after 1500 years later! One of the things that Augustine had to do was deny a literal first resurrection, that of the martyrs spoken of in Revelation 20:4-6, by making the amazing claim that this passage referred to Christian regeneration! Now while Augustine was technically not Roman Catholic (but rather “proto-Catholic”) it is still amazing that so many Protestants followed his eschatological groundwork when it so blatantly involved willfully denying the meaning of scripture in order to contrive an interpretation that suited his political needs. Now, the Reformers were motivated to remain basically loyal to Augustine’s eschatology because of their commitment to his soteriology. The problem is that where Augustine’s soteriology is easily confirmed by a plain reading of the Bible, one has to reject that plain reading in order to adopt his eschatology. The Reformers erred in not being consistent in their hermeneutics, and with regard to the magisterial Reformers in general, were not free of their own political needs in maintaining their own church-states.
Amillennialism, at least according to Tenney, is little more than an improved or more sophisticated and “realistic” postmillennialism. Thus, it follows the same Eusebius-Augustine theological lineage, and ultimately comes to the same conclusions, even if – again according to Tenney – it makes better use of scripture in arriving at them. For instance, amillennialism also generally denies a literal first resurrection. Which is understandable: if the church and the political/economic/military/religious/cultural systems (the world) are one and the same, then who is martyring the Christians that will be resurrected? However, it should be pointed out that amillennialists do generally acknowledge that evil will increase before the return of Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ does return to overthrow and judge a wicked worldly system, a wicked ungodly antiChrist system (as opposed to a personal antiChrist). At best, this system is an attempt to reconcile political eschatology with what the Bible actually says. As stated earlier, this was likely done because these doctrines came as part of a larger packaged doctrinal system (i.e. covenant theology).
Then, there is premillennialism. Tenney does acknowledge that premillennialism was not the consensus view of the early church, though he does regretfully understate this fact. However, Tenney does effectively make the case that premillennialism was a doctrine of many Christians from the earliest times in recorded church history, and naming such people as Papias and Justin Martyr (who wrote mere decades after the canon was completed, as early as 115 AD) as well as Irenaeus. Tenney uses the uncanny similarity between the millenarian teachings in Revelation and those in such apocryphal books as Baruch and Esdras IV as evidence of the existence of chiliast beliefs in the first century church. Of course, many throughout church history have used this fact against premillennialism, claiming that it is Jewish propaganda and misinterpretations of prophecy, but that principle is not used against apocryphal and extrabiblical references that appear in other Bible books (i.e. the book of Jasher and the book of the wars of the Lord in the Old Testament; the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses in Jude).
Of course, embrace of premillennialism was far from universal in the early church. However, some of that can be attributed to anti-Jewish bias among Gentile Christians (which scripture tells us was developing as far back as when Paul composed the epistle to the Romans), and more still to a lack of a normative canon, and in particular the fact that Revelation appears to have been among the last books to gain widespread circulation and acceptance. However, it is known that vigorous opposition to chiliasm – and in many cases to Revelation itself, including many who wanted to either explain away its meaning and application or keep it out of the canon altogether – did not arise until Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, and that this opposition was motivated by the need to depict the Roman Empire as the fulfilment of God’s kingdom. Tenney’s assertion of this point is by no means unique, but is repeated in any number of books on church history, and in particular those that deal with the debate over Revelation’s inclusion in the canon.
A final positive contribution by Tenney is his debunking the common claim that premillennialism received its modern revival thanks to the works of such spurious characters as Cyrus Scofield. The effects of this contribution is somewhat diminished by Tenney’s failure to acknowledge that at least some of the Christians who began investigating premillennialism had social and political motivations. This was true of certain radical Anabaptists in their violent upheavals in the 16th and 17th centuries, and also of Christians operating in the political, economic and social upheavals in the United States and England in the 19th century. Still, Tenney does identify a list of more reputable scholars who contributed to the revival of premillennialism (including historic premillennialism, which again Tenney regrettably does not distinguish) including Johann Albrecht Bengel, Hermann Olshausen, Heny Alford (definitely a chiliast), Johann Peter Lange (somewhat questionable because of his tendencies towards neo-orthodoxy), Andrew Fausset (another chiliast), Joseph Seiss, Franz Delitzsch and Charles Ellicott. Unfortunately, Tenney does the credibility of his effort in compiling that list great harm by including Plymouth Brethren hyperdispensationalist (a position that challenges the unity of the New Testament by setting Paul’s teachings over against those of the gospels and Acts) John Nelson Darby on his list of “reputable scholars”! (Why Darby and not Scofield, who in some respects is actually LESS problematic?)
So, Tenney’s book, despite its problems, helps one arrive at the conclusion is that premillennialism is the eschatological position that, despite is shortcomings, reflects the Biblical text according to a consistent hermeneutic and early church doctrines, and not the political need to assert that a church-state serves as the kingdom of heaven until the return of Jesus Christ. The former view integrates Revelation into a consistent schema of Old and New Testament thought – and not merely thought related to the apocalyptic/eschatological/prophetic – while the latter makes one wonder why Revelation is in the canon in the first place, and especially its application to contemporary Christians.
Advertisements

Posted in anti - Christ, anti - Semitism, antichrist, beast, Bible, catholic, Christianity, church state, church worldliness, covenant theology, endtimes, eschatology, evangelism, false doctrine, false teaching, Israel, Jesus Christ, man of sin, mark of the beast, postmillennialism, prophecy, religion, religious right, replacement theology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Is The Rider On The White Horse Of Revelation 6:2 Christ Or Anti-Christ?

Posted by Job on March 9, 2011

Revelation 6:1-2 reads “And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.”

The predominant view in modern western fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity is that the rider of the white horse is the anti-Christ. This was my view until very recently, when I read the John Bunyan allegory “Holy War“, which altered, or should I say enhanced, my view of Jesus Christ (more on that later), just as did reading “Pilgrim’s Progress Part 1” changed my view of Christian living and Part II changed my view of the pastorate and of the church.

Allow me to say that this article provides a good reason why the rider on the white horse cannot be the anti-Christ, which is that the four horsemen are released this eschatological figure is not released until the fifth trumpet. The trumpets do not occur until the seventh seal, and the white horse is released by the first seal. So, the white horse comes at or near the beginning of the events of Revelation (presuming a linear timeline with a literal interpretation) while the anti-Christ comes well into those events. Some interpretations deal with this by claiming that the reference in Revelation 6:2 is the anti-Christ’s laying the groundwork, placing everything in order, for his full unveiling to the earth that is described later.

Well, further arguments against the rider being the anti-Christ are given in this article. It deals with how those who propose that the rider is the anti-Christ deal with the fact that white is always used to represent Godly virtue by making the statement that the anti-Christ comes in this manner to deceive people into thinking that he is Jesus Christ. However, this interpretation requires starting with the idea that the rider on the white horse is the anti-Christ, and then making everything else fit, something often called thesis-driven analysis and also called eisegesis. If your starting point was neutral concerning the identity of this character, then his being on a white horse would immediately disqualify your  associating him with the anti-Christ. But if your starting point was his being the anti-Christ, that is when you have to contrive an explanation for the horse being white, one that seems to violate all rules and standards for hermeneutics used for other passages. The question is: “Why is this done?”

It goes back to one’s view of Jesus Christ. The rider of the white horse is given a bow and he went forth to conquer, and conquer he did! Modern, humanistic, enlightenment thinking does not permit viewing Jesus Christ as the Conqueror. That is, at least not until the last day when Jesus Christ comes to judge the nations for their wickedness. That is the one time that the modern church with its man-centered mindset allows Jesus Christ, who as God is the Creator, Owner and Sustainer of the Universe, to be viewed as a conquering ruler. (And for those who believe in the rapture, this happens when the church is already off the scene, and is spared having to deal with Jesus Christ in this role.) In the modern mindset, Jesus Christ can be viewed as the sacrificial lamb, advisor, “co-pilot”, best friend, psychiatrist/psychologist, enabler, helper, moneychanger (prosperity doctrine), mystic/shaman, errand boy, and even romantic lover, but NOT as a conquerer. This stark, authoritarian, militaristic view runs counter to the modernistic Jeffersonian view that exalts such ideas as civil rights, human rights, democracy etc. above all, and needs a Jesus Christ that will bow and be conformed to it. Thus, Jesus Christ as conquerer cannot exist in the mind of the modernist/postmodernist Christian except for a single day when He is forced to execute that role with respect to the wicked. With the exception of that day, Jesus Christ remains in a construct that the modern mind finds acceptable. And according to that construct, where conquest to set up authoritarian rule is undemocratic is evil, this HAS to be the anti-Christ!

It cannot be Jesus Christ according to this mindset, because this mindset makes Jesus Christ a democrat. This Jesus Christ does not conquer. No, this Jesus Christ is standing outside the human heart like a lovesick teenage loverboy knocking on the door waiting, longing, begging for His sweetheart to come in. And it is only when the person that Jesus Christ’s target makes the free will decision to open the door to his or her heart and invite Jesus Christ in that salvation occurs.

For this to happen any other way, uninvited, unasked, and without consent, is tyranny. For Jesus Christ is not a sovereign king who rules by way of His undisputed dominion over the creation that is the work of His own hands for Him to do as He pleases. No, that is tyranny. Such rule is illegitimate, based on the threat of force rather than the consent of the governed! A true, enlightened philosopher king governs not by power or divine right, but by mutual consent! So, the one who stands at the door and knocks and will not come in without the consent of the “pilot” (for Jesus Christ is merely the co-pilot, not the actual pilot who is running the show and is the true master of eternal destiny, which is man’s free will) is Jesus Christ, the genuine article. The conquerer who does not ask permission, who does not gladly (though under submission) come when asked and does not meekly leave when rejected? Now that has to be the anti-Christ! So says the modern Christian mindset.

Thankfully, John Bunyan did not live in modern Enlightenment times! Therefore, Bunyan presents a different Jesus Christ, one that is actually present on the pages of the Bible before all the modern humanist filters and constructs are placed on it. Bunyan’s rather rough allegory presents a kingdom ruled by Shaddai (God the Father), whose most prominent and prized possession is the city Mansoul, which was built by the King Himself. While the modern mindset reared on democracy would revile the idea that a city is the possession of any king, A) this was in fact the custom of monarchs in times past – the kingdom and all in it were their possessions, and in the east the subjects of the “lord-kings” were considered slaves to the lord-king, and remember the Bible is an oriental book, not a western book and B) the Bible was fully written in the mindset of this custom. Mansoul rebelled against King Shaddai due to the provocation and trickery of Diabolus (Satan) and made Satan its king instead, under the false pretense that they could exchange status as slaves under King Shaddai’s rule to free men under his rule. Of course, Diabolus immediately made the residents of Mansoul his slaves, but so thoroughly corrupted and tricked them that they mistook the slavery of Diabolus and sin for liberation. Their delusion was so strong that when King Shaddai sent His captains (difficult to tell in the allegory, my guess is that they are angels) to liberate Mansoul from Diabolus, they resisted with all their might. The story was explicit: when Mansoul was given a multitude of opportunities to make a free will choice for King Shaddai, they rejected King Shaddai each time due to the depths of their depravity.

So, King Shaddai sent His Son, Prince Emmanuel, to recapture Mansoul. In this allegory, Emmanuel did not conquer Mansoul by standing at the door knocking and being invited in. Quite the contrary, He came with an army of soldiers and overcame the recalcitrant Mansoul, who resisted Him with all the force that it could muster – as it was still dedicated and devoted to Diabolus and its own sinful passions – with mighty force. Make no mistake, in this allegory, “and he went forth conquering, and to conquer” Mansoul! After the conquering of Mansoul was done, Prince Emmanuel had the entire town confess that He took the town for Himself as His prize by force; that when the town had the chance – indeed several chances – to yield itself up to the government of the Prince and His Father by choice, they refused each time. So, Mansoul chose the rule of Diabolus, and Prince Emmanuel gained the rule of Mansoul only by overtaking Diabolus, binding him, driving him out, and “spoiling the goods of the strongman” by declaring and setting up His own rule and domain – and through it re-establishing the same of King Shaddai – by force. Mansoul had no say in the matter, because Mansoul, by decree, election and will of God the Father its Owner and Creator – had declared it to be so. Mansoul did not choose Prince Emmanuel, but Emmanuel chose Mansoul (John 15:16).

Now, Jesus Christ as He is commonly depicted in most modern gospel music is not the rider on the white horse. But Jesus Christ as depicted in Holy War and in the Bible may well be. If nothing else, it is something to consider. Another thing to consider: why would the anti-Christ have to go about conquering the world to begin with? According to the words of Jesus Christ, Satan is already the prince of this world (John 14:30)! 2 Corinthians 4:4 declares Satan to be the god of this world, Ephesians 2:2 declares him to be the prince of the powers of the air. So, the anti-Christ does not need to conquer the world. All he needs is to have Satan’s authority transferred to him. Revelation 13:2 says exactly that: “And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” Further, Revelation 17 says that the rulers of the earth GIVE their power to the beast, NOT that he conquers them and takes it from them by force.

This may seem like idle speculation, or an excessive emphasis on “last things” when other issues concerning orthodoxy and orthopraxy are more pressing: “minoring in the majors.” However, one’s view of last things often casts a shadow on one’s belief. Many theological liberals and “moderates” de-emphasize predictive prophecy because of an anti-supernatural bias. Others use apocalyptic texts to promote the political and social causes that are near and dear to them. And many Christians are attracted to the rapture doctrines because of their desire not to suffer persecution and rejection by the world as Christ suffered the same.

In a similar fashion, the idea that the anti-Christ is the conquerer on the white horse reveals the mindset of a great many Christian theologians, preachers, and laymen concerning the doctrine of original sin. So many Christians SAY that they believe in original sin, or even total depravity, but by adhering to such interpretations as this, it really does imply otherwise. If original sin is true, if total depravity is true, then why is it that Jesus Christ comes only by willing invitation, and the anti-Christ only by force? Is that not backwards? If the anti-Christ, the beast is “the man of sin”, then the fallen, wicked world, if it is not his already, will freely, gladly accept him as one of their own, a kindred spirit! Again, why would a sinful world oppose and resist a man of sin? Why would they not accept him and instead need to be conquered by him? Only if there is some inherent virtue, inherent goodness in him that would cause him to resist the evil rather than accept it.

The idea that the anti-Christ would have to conquer is based on the notion that man is basically good; that the nations are basically good. And is that not what so many seem to adhere to because of their political, cultural and social beliefs? That the nations – especially the pro-western capitalist democracies – are good, and only the exceptions – the anti-democratic, anti-western, authoritarian regimes – are bad.

Isn’t it curious how most of the theories about where the anti-Christ will come is from the “bad” nations? First it was from the “bad” communist regimes. Then it was from the “bad” secular humanist socialist United Nations or European Union. Now speculation centers on the “bad” Islamic regimes. The idea that the anti-Christ could come from – gasp! – America, the shining city on a hill, the nation founded on Christianity and is a beacon of freedom and goodness? Well, MAYBE, but only if he is not really one of us like Obama!

Again, it is based on the idea that there is some inherent virtue in man, and some inherent virtue in what man builds. It is based on a rejection of original sin, a rejection of total depravity. Even the very idea that Satan takes over the earth and installs the anti-Christ only when the church departs after the rapture is based on the notion that Satan is not the god of this world at present! Ironically, people who adhere to this belief are de facto amillennalists believing that rather than being the god of this world in this present age, Satan is currently bound by the church’s presence.

So many Christians who profess to be evangelical or fundamentalist and profess a belief in original sin based on the actions of Adam only apply that doctrine to soteriology. They only apply mankind’s fallen nature to the individual human soul! But when it comes time to apply it to a larger scale, they shrink back! Why? Because of their love of this present world and the things in it! To those people, James 4:4’s “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” applies to liking MTV and the New York Times editorial page and not the entire fallen worldly system! The parts of the world they like, they consider it good, moral, even Christian. It is only the part that they are alienated from, usually because of political or cultural considerations, that they consider to be “worldly.”

But go back to the text and view it in context. Yes, Revelation concerns the last days. But the letter to the Hebrews – and elsewhere in the New Testament – declares that the last days began after the work of Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of God’s plan and the high point of the history of creation. So, the last days – the time period that Revelation concerns itself with – is not merely the last seven years, the “great tribulation.” Instead, it concerns itself with the entire endtimes, which is now, and has been since Pentecost. That is why the letters to the churches are the first part of the Revelation. They are not introductory material to set the stage for the eschatology. Instead, they are part and parcel of the eschatology!

In that context, note that the white horse and its rider come first. It is the first seal! So, after the heavenly visions in Revelation 4-5, the white horse and its rider are the first thing that we encounter when the events shift back earthward in Revelation 6. So, why not strongly associate the white horse and rider with Jesus Christ speaking to and walking amongst the churches in Revelation 2-3? Were the material in Revelation to be arranged topically (i.e. with the things happening in heaven all together and the things happening on earth all together), that is exactly how it would appear … Revelation 6:1-2 would immediately follow the challenge to the Laodicean church!

So then, why not consider the possibility that the rider on the white horse given the bow and the crown and goes about conquering (and as this article states he does not obtain or use these things illegitimately in a manner that is against God’s will … such ideas are missing from the text) is going about to foreign lands conquering souls of sinners for God the Father? Did not Jesus Christ say in the Olivet discourse (i.e. Matthew 24:14) that the end will not come until His gospel is preached in all the world for a witness to all nations? Well, in Revelation 6, though it is certainly the last days, the end is not yet come! So, me must consider that the rider on the white horse is none other than Prince Emmanuel enlarging the domain of King Shaddai through the conquest of souls in every tribe and nation that are hardened with the total depravity of original sin.

Granted, this article does state that the rider is the Holy Spirit, not Jesus Christ. I disagree, but for my purposes the distinction is not a great one, as Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit in His Name to complete His Work through the church which is Jesus Christ’s Body, and the Holy Spirit is the One who performs regeneration. Instead, the main point is to consider the strong possibility that man-centered, humanistic thinking is the reason why the rider on the white horse was ever called the anti-Christ to begin with, especially when one has to be very inconsistent in one’s interpretation of Revelation and the Bible in general to arrive at that viewpoint.

Of course, the main point is that Jesus Christ is returning to judge the world and all its people for their wickedness. The only way to escape this judgment that is certainly to come at a time in the future that has been predetermined by God the Father is to be saved through Jesus Christ. If you have not been, I urge and entreat you that you would be so; that you too would be a conquest of Jesus Christ as was I.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan Today!

Posted in abomination, anti - Christ, anti - Semitism, antichrist, apostasy, beast, Bible, christian right, Christian salvation, christian worldliness, Christianity, church hypocrisy, church scandal, church state, church worldliness, conservatism, conservative, endtimes, eschatology, globalism, government, great tribulation, harpagesometha, Holy Spirit, Iran, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jesus Christ, Left Behind, liberal, liberal christian, liberalism, liberation theology, man of sin, mark of the beast, mid - tribulation rapture, Middle East peace process, Muslim, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim media conspiracy, New York Times, orthodoxy, orthopraxy, political correctness, politics, post - tribulation rapture, postmillennialism, pretribulation, rapio, rapture, religious left, religious right, the anti-christ, the beast, the false prophet, warning given to churches in Revelation 2 and 3 | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism

Posted by Job on August 14, 2007

Covenant and Dispensational Theology

Covenant and Dispensational Theology Part (2)

Covenant and Dispensational Theology Part (3)

Covenant and Dispensational Theology *conclusion

Spurgeon and Eschatology

Posted in catholic, Christian persecution Palestinian Israel, Christianity, dalit, endtimes, eschatology, false religion, great tribulation, harpagesometha, homosexuality, Jesus camp, Left Behind, Martin Luther King, mexico, modalism, political correctness, post - tribulation rapture, postmillennialism, pretribulation, prophecy, rapture | Leave a Comment »

R.E.A.C.H. Educational Resources For Homeschoolers (And Others)

Posted by Job on August 10, 2007

Even if your child is in a public, private, or religious school, you should STILL supplement their program with your own homebased Christian education. Your kids are your responsibility, given to you by God as your primary ministry.

It’s new and it’s for you: YEA! Let’s R.E.A.C.H. Daily companion activities for parents, students, home schooling parents, and teachers are available on this website to reinforce, extend at church and home the YEA Sabbath School books. The R.E.A.C.H. acronym stands for:

Beginners (Age 3-5)

Primaries (Age 6-8)

Juniors (Age 9-11)

Intermediates (Age 12-15)

Senior Teen (Age 16-19)

By the borntowin.net ministry. Contact at borntowin.net/newsite/ContactUs/index.aspx

Posted in Calvinism, child evangelism, Christianity, education, modalism, postmillennialism, public education | Leave a Comment »

Hey Hey Hey The NEA Wants To Make Your Kids Gay

Posted by Job on August 1, 2007

The NEA, Doing All it Can to Make Your Children Consider Being Homosexuals

Posted in abomination, child evangelism, Christianity, evangelism, gay rights, government dependency, homosexuality, Jehovah's witnesses, liberalism, Moshiach, postmillennialism, prophecy, public education, racism, social breakdown, societal decline, sodomy, universalism | 1 Comment »

A Website Promoting The Partial Rapture Theory

Posted by Job on July 13, 2007

Watchman Nee (http://watchmannee.org) believed in this doctrine as well. secretsofsurvival.com/survival/2007_rapture.html. I will not vouch for their theology or exegesis, but at least they are onto that Council on Foreign Relations worker Rick Warren.

Posted in Bible, catholic, Center for National Policy, child abuse, Christian hypocrisy, Christianity, Council on Foreign Relations, emergent church, endtimes, eschatology, evangelical christian, evangelism, feminism, Jesus camp, liberal, Martin Luther King, mexico, mid - tribulation rapture, Mormon, nepal, political correctness, politics, postmillennialism, pretribulation, prophecy, protestant persecution catholic, rapio, rapture, rapture mentioned in bible, Rick Warren, sexual violence | 6 Comments »

Three Evolution Facts That Are ILLEGAL To Teach In Public Schools

Posted by Job on June 25, 2007

1. Evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, the law of entropy increase.

2. Genetic mutation, the very engine of modern neo-Darwinism, is almost always catastrophically destructive to an organism, which severely challenges the notion that mutation with natural selection ultimately leads to higher complexity.

3a. After 140 years of digging up the earth, there still remain enormous holes in the fossil record, the missing links that account for tens of millions of years of evolution, which is why many leading paleontologists, most notably the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, argued for punctuated equilibrium – giant leaps – in evolutionary development, rather than the slow and gradual ascent argued for by scientists like Dawkins.

3b. Darwin makes it clear in The Origin of Species that evolution was not developed as a theory to explain the origin of life but as a theory to explain the fossil record. Thus, the theory had to accord with existing fossil finds.

Source: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1182409629220&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Again, this is why they are trying to keep us out of college so we will be able to talk about things like this: see THE NEW YORK TIMES FAVORS BANNING CHRISTIANS FROM COLLEGE! Now of course, I am aware that there are plenty of scientific theories that will never be proven but are still accepted as valid. I am also aware that evolution gets attacked while those theories do not because the other theories do not directly contradict a fundamentalist Christian worldview as evolution does, and therefore that is the only one that fundamentalist Christians are motivated to attack. But the fact remains: if you are able to locate an inconsistency in relativity or quantum mechanics, you are able to legally discuss it with your high school physics class. With evolution, you are not. And the reason for that is precisely BECAUSE evolution opposes fundamentalist Christianity: evolution is absolutely necessary for people who hate the Bible and want to create a social, legal, political, economic, etc. framework based on rejecting it.

Posted in child evangelism, Christian Zionism, evolution, higher education, intelligent design, media conspiracy, postmillennialism, public education | 35 Comments »

Another View On The Strong Delusion Prophecy

Posted by Job on June 21, 2007

I personally once believed that “strong delusion” was what God was going to send into the world as part of the pre – tribulation secret rapture so that the people Left Behind would not know that we were gone. Why? Because what the rest of the world will make of our disappearances is a major “issue” in dispensationalism and other pre – tribulation rapture doctrines that has not been dealt with in any serious way in anything that I have heard or read (and no, “Left Behind” does not qualify for dealing with it in a serious way). But as I recently re – read the passages of II Thessalonians 2, I saw that the strong delusion will be sent to the church, not to the world.

As stated in a previous weblog post, Mike Ratliff asserts that pre – tribulation rapture doctrines themselves are the strong delusion in What is the Great Delusion?. A hole in his theory in my opinion: believing in a rapture of any sort is a decidedly minority – and much despised – view in Christendom, even among Protestants. He also states that it is because pre – tribulationists reject truth out of the hardness of their hearts (I say “their” because I am now post – tribulationist; see Correlating Don Imus, Christians, Blacks, Women, And The Rapture) … how can that be when the rapture issue is not clearly stated in understandable language? It is not as if these are people claiming that murder isn’t a sin or that godliness is gain (at least not in this instance anyway). But for another perspective on the strong delusion prophecy, please see this Soldier Servant post Strong Delusion – The Apostate Christian Church Has Received The Curse Of The Strong Delusion Sent By God

Posted in anti - Christ, Apologetics, apostasy, CAIR, catholic, Center for National Policy, christian television, Christianity, Council on Foreign Relations, dual covenant theology, emergent church, endtimes, eschatology, evangelical christian, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, feminism, George Bush, great tribulation, Hal Lindsey, innocent blood, jainism, Jesus camp, jewish temple, Left Behind, liberal, Martin Luther King, Messianic Judaism, mexico, mid - tribulation rapture, modalism, Mormon, political correctness, politics, post abortion syndrome, postmillennialism, pretribulation, prophecy, rapture, sexual exploitation, sexual violence, social breakdown, societal decline, somalia, spiritual deliverance techniques, TBN, the beast, the false prophet, Tim LaHaye | 1 Comment »

More “Left Behind” False Doctrine Exposed

Posted by Job on June 21, 2007

Mike Ratliff, whose weblog I find fascinating despite (or perhaps because of) disagreeing with everything on it, makes the bold case that dispensationalism and other pre – tribulation rapture doctrines make up the strong delusion prophesied by Paul in his What is the Great Delusion? article. I disagree, but it is not hard to see why he feels this way. I have detailed how John Hagee is using his dispensational beliefs to justify not attempting to convert Jews and to get us to attack Iran. And Soldier Servant has a couple of posts on the false doctrine is in the “Left Behind” books, and how dangerous it can be! Should Christians Commit Murder For “The Cause”? and False Doctrine In “Left Behind”: The Remnant Teaches Against the Doctrine of the God-Sent Strong Delusion articles. Both webloggers have very strong statements about the matter. I am looking for an article or research paper that contains an unbiased view of the various endtimes doctrines, especially from a historical point of view, so that I can provide it to you. But in general, please be very suspicious of anything that is embraced by the masses and is popular in favor of things that are simple, common, detested, and rejected even by the vast majority of professing Christians.

Posted in anti - Christ, Apologetics, apostasy, CAIR, catholic, Center for National Policy, christian television, Christianity, Council on Foreign Relations, dual covenant theology, emergent church, endtimes, eschatology, evangelical christian, false doctrine, false preacher, false preachers, false prophet, false religion, false teachers, feminism, George Bush, great tribulation, Hal Lindsey, innocent blood, jainism, Jesus camp, jewish temple, Left Behind, liberal, Martin Luther King, Messianic Judaism, mexico, mid - tribulation rapture, modalism, Mormon, political correctness, politics, post abortion syndrome, postmillennialism, pretribulation, prophecy, rapture, sexual exploitation, sexual violence, social breakdown, societal decline, somalia, spiritual deliverance techniques, TBN, the beast, the false prophet, Tim LaHaye | 6 Comments »

Is This The Way To Combat Lasciviousness And Violence In Children? I Say No

Posted by Job on June 19, 2007

So, it has come to this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061701179.html Instead of having a no – touching policy in our schools because the students cannot control themselves, parents need to give their children the hope of the gospel so the students will control themselves. And no, I did not say the schools should do it; this is not another “we need prayer back in school” religious right diversion. If you want to let all those Muslims, Mormons, Wiccans, Hindus, pagans, New Agers, unitarians, etc. pray in schools, that is fine with me. But it will not put the gospel in your child, and it will not make your child a witness to the other children at school who need the gospel. Parents should stop trying to pass the responsibility for their children onto schools, churches, etc.; “society” and fulfill the role that God intended for them when He elected through His Sovereign Will to grant them charge and responsibility over children. Doing anything less is rebelling against God and resisting and grieving the Holy Spirit. Wondering why you have no peace in your life? Maybe the abrogration of your God – given parental responsibilities is why. Then again, since studies show that only 3% of Christian parents love their children in this “Christian nation” (see Do You Go To Church? If So, Why? on SoldierServant.wordpress.com to see what I am talking about), maybe “no touching policies” is a good idea. Well, the 3% of you Christians that actually love and care about your kids, now you are seeing the fruits manifested by the 97% who do not.

Posted in child evangelism, Christianity, postmillennialism, prophecy, public education, societal decline | Leave a Comment »

What The Bible Says About Government And Leaders

Posted by Job on June 19, 2007

from Dr. Tom Snyder of Movieguide.com. Original article here at Answers In Action.

What does the Bible, the fully inspired and inerrant Word of God, say about government and politics, including the modern social welfare state, public education, ownership of private property, and helping the needy?

Proverbs 8:15, 16 of the Bible, the inspired Word of God, says that governments should use wisdom to rule and to make laws that are just. Proverbs 17:7 says rulers also should not lie. Proverbs 20:26 says wise rulers always try to punish the wicked. Proverbs 28:2-4 and 29:4 urges rulers to maintain order justly, to follow God’s moral code and to avoid oppressing the poor.

Furthermore, both Romans 13:3-6 and 1 Peter 2:13-15 say that government officials, whether elected or not, are ministers and servants of God who punish and restrain wrongdoers and who commend or praise those who do good works according to God’s transcendent moral code revealed in the Holy Scriptures, the Bible. Government officials must do these things whether or not the people believe in God or the Bible.

The Tenth Commandment in Exodus 20:17 protects private property by commanding people not to covet their neighbor’s house or belongings. Exodus 23:3 says, “Do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.” Exodus 23:6 says, “Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits.” Leviticus 19:15 says, “Do not pervert justice; do not show favoritism to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” Also, Exodus 22:21 orders believers not to mistreat or oppress aliens living among them, but Lev. 18:26 also says the aliens living among us, including immigrants, must obey God’s laws, including God’s Justice. Finally, in Deuteronomy 16:18-20, Moses tells all the people of the Nation of Israel, “Appoint judges and officials for each of your tribes in every town the Lord your God is giving you, and they shall judge the people fairly. Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous. Follow justice and justice alone, so that you may live and possess the land the Lord your God is giving you.”

In other words, private property must be respected and forms of socialism, fascism, Communism, or Marxism that do not respect private property are evil or immoral. Also, the people should elect local government leaders, but those leaders must obey the moral laws of God, including God’s principle of equal justice under the law. Under such divine justice and morality, leaders who deny equal justice to the rich or the poor, and leaders who steal or who take bribes, are condemned. Thus, leaders must not oppress the poor, the rich, or the middle class, but neither should anyone get any special favors, including aliens or immigrants!

In Numbers 35:31, God says those who are guilty of committing first degree murder cannot buy themselves out of the death penalty by paying a ransom or a fee. If found guilty if first degree murder, they must be put to death by the government, no ifs, ands, or buts!

The Hebrew Scriptures condemn adultery, homosexual behavior, premarital sex, and incest. In Mark 7:20-23, Jesus calls all sex outside of marriage (also known as unlawful sex) evil, and compares such evil to murder, theft, deceit, slander, arrogance, envy, and greed, which are also evil. Thus, premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, incest, and bestiality are all evil, and all people, including all government leaders, should not promote such evil.

Regarding government, Proverbs 16:10 also says, “The lips of a king speak as an oracle, and his mouth should not betray justice.” Proverbs 16:12 says, “Kings detest wrongdoing, for a throne is established through righteousness.” Proverbs 17:7 says, “Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool — how much worse lying lips to a ruler!” Proverbs 20:18 says, “Make plans by seeking advice, if you wage war, obtain guidance.” Proverbs 20:26 says, “A wise king winnows out the wicked; he drives the threshing wheel over them.” Proverbs 20:28 says, “Love and faithfulness keep a king safe; through love his throne is made secure.” Proverbs 28:3 says, “A ruler who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops.” Proverbs 28:16 says, “A tyrannical ruler lacks judgment, but he who hates ill-gotten gain will enjoy a long life.” Proverbs 29:4 says, “By justice a king gives a country stability, but one who is greedy for bribes tears it down.” Proverbs 29:12 says, “If a ruler listens to lies, all his officials become wicked.” Proverbs 29:14 says, “If a king judges the poor with fairness, his throne will always be secure.”

Furthermore, in 1 Samuel 8:7-18, God directly tells the people of Israel that taxes of 10 percent or more are A SIGN OF TYRANNY (see Gary DeMar’s Ruler of the Nations: Biblical Blueprints for Government, Ft. Worth, Texas: Dominion Press, 1987)! God strongly indicates in that passage that the people of God should oppose such high amounts of taxation. That passage also frowns on big government of any kind, including large standing armies.

In Deuteronomy 6:4-9, God gives jurisdiction of a child’s education to his parents, not to the local church and especially not to government.

The Bible also says, in Deuteronomy 14:28, 29, Numbers 18:24, Matthew 6:1-4, and 1 Timothy 5:3-16, that help for the poor should come first from their own families and only then from individuals, churches, and private charities. Also, Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 4:9-12 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15, that people should work for their own living and not be dependent on others. Thus, nowhere in the Bible does God obligate the government to take care of the poor and needy by using the taxes that it forcibly collects!

Finally, the Bible also has some things to say about self-government. For example, it condemns laziness and praises hard work and kindness, especially kindness to the needy. Proverbs 10:4 says, “Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.” Proverbs 14:23 says, “All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.” Proverbs 14:21 says, “He who despises his neighbor sins, but blessed is he who is kind to the needy.” The basic principle for such charitable giving is established in Deut. 14:28,29, where God commands His people to give one third of all their tithes to charity to needy widows, orphans and poor people. Even then, the money was not given just to anyone who showed up to get it. Those who are able to work but don’t work, do not qualify for such help. Also, those who have families to take care of them don’t qualify, nor do widows under age 60 qualify, according to 1 Timothy 5:3-16. Furthermore, Jesus Christ says in Matthew 6 that when believers give individual charity, they should give such charity secretly: “Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.”

Posted in anti - Semitism, Bible, Bill Clinton, child evangelism, Christian hypocrisy, Christianity, church state, conservatism, George Bush, GOP, government dependency, illegal immigration, liberalism, Middle East peace process, nepal, Orthodox Church, persecution Palestinian, politics, postmillennialism, public education, rape, religious left, religious right, Republican, Serbia | 41 Comments »

Now They’re Taking Seventh Graders To Abortion Clinics On School Trips

Posted by Job on June 13, 2007

Click on this link to read story from CNN.com And since when did YMCA turn pro – murder? And of course, despite their claims of “investigating the incident”, we KNOW what side the principal is on:“Schools Superintendent Michael Ludwell said he would need to see a formal, written request from New Hampshire Right to Life before deciding whether a representative would meet with the students. Ludwell said he hoped to finish an internal investigation by the end of the week and meet with the YMCA president to draw up new program guidelines, but overall he defended the STAY program. “We have had a very long and, prior to this incident, a very positive relationship,” he said.”

But what formal written request was made before taking babies to see baby – killers? Our nation keeps getting more and more depraved. The question is what are YOU going to do about it? Ezekiel 22:30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none. Are you willing to stand in the gap? But if you want to stand in the gap for this nation lest God destroy it, you must be saved through Jesus Christ. If you are not, I urge you to do it right now by using this link to follow The Three Step Salvation Plan!

Posted in abortion, abortion rights, child evangelism, church hypocrisy, church state, murder, Pat Robertson, postmillennialism, pro choice, pro life, public education, Russia | Leave a Comment »

Man’s Genetical Hardwiring Toward Religious Belief

Posted by Job on June 7, 2007

From BornToWin.Net, a most excellent teaching ministry.

Is it true that man is “genetically hardwired” towards religion? According to Tony Blankley, some neuro – scientists think so. One thing is clear. Man is hardwired with a system of logic. I didn’t understand years ago that computers are hardwired with a logical system that included a language. If you didn’t know know the language, you couldn’t do much with the computer. Some friends gave me my first computer. I suspect because they hadn’t been able to make it work any better than I could at first. I turned it on and started pressing keys, but nothing of interest happened. I could make letters appear on the screen, but the letters didn’t do anything.

I sort of felt like the proverbial monkey at a typewriter, banging out random symbols. And them someone told me the magic word: DOS. But what was DOS? Ah well, there was the rub. DOS means “Disk Operating System.” The computer had slots for two disks, so I bought one that said “DOS” and put it in. I still couldn’t do any work, I had to get another disk that had a program. But neither disk would work in just any computer. The computer had to be hardwired with a language so that it would understand what was on the disks.

So the term hardwired entered into the language of psychology and neuro – science as a description of that part of the human mind we are all born with. Every child born into the world arrives with a built – in system of logic. We don’t have to be taught it, because it is hardwired into us. The brain itself is “wired” according to a logical system, and the mind operates on that system. We start life witih an untrained logical system with an enormous potential for development.

What makes this interesting is that, in the absence of true religion and faith in God, man will inevitably make up his onw. In primitive societies, they create wooden gods. In intellectual societies, a little more ingenuity is required. Blankley: Some neuro – scientists see evidence that man is genetically hardwired to be disposed to religious conviction. If this is so, it might explain why even among the French – the most secular culture on earth – only 25 percent claim to be atheists and a full 60 percent believe in a spiritual component to life. It might also explain why the environmental movement tends to veer towards a religious, rather than a scientific, sensibility.

There are two things I found of special interest. One is that you cannot eradicate religion from the human being by education. If you could, the French would have done it long ago. Maybe this accounts for the persistence of religious faith in this country despite of an educational system that is legally hardwired to eradicate it. I also notice the suggestion of religious sensibility in the environmental movement (*my note: the Gaia religion). The idea of a religious instinct is important. Geese are hardwired to migrate. Man is hardwired to make sense out of his world – what Viktor Frankl called a “drive to meaning.” And making sense out of the world involves some sense of direction, thus prediction. Or, in biblical terms, prophecy. Now, I pause to reflect on an obvious truth. Man didn’t wire himself. Nor did his system of logic evolve from neurons, any more than than the logic of my computer evolved from a collection of wires. Both are the works of a designer/creator. Any suggestion that man is hardwired to do anything is a suggestion of design and object.

Yours in the service of true religion, Ronald L. Dart

To sign up for their mailing list, click here borntowin.net/newsite/MailingLists/index.aspx Podcasting instructions here: borntowin.net/newsite/Audios/Podcasting.aspx?level=1

Posted in Apologetics, atheism, child evangelism, Egypt, evolution, higher education, humanism, mid - tribulation rapture, nigeria, postmillennialism, public education, salvation, salvation prayer, salvation through Jesus Christ, secular humanism, skepticism, thou shalt not murder | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: