Four Views of Revelation

Posted by Dan C. on

– Dr Patrick Zukeran, Probe Ministries, Used with Permission

image

The Debate

One of the most intriguing books of the Bible is the book of Revelation. The imagery of the cosmic battle in heaven and on earth makes it a fascinating book to study. However, much debate surrounds the proper interpretation of this apocalyptic work. Is this book a prophecy of future events yet to take place, or have the prophecies of this book been fulfilled?

Two popular authors highlight the debate that continues in our present time. In his hit series Left Behind, Tim LaHaye writes a fictional account based on his theological position that the events of Revelation will occur in the future. Popular radio talk show host Hank Hanegraaff responded by attacking the theology of LaHaye. In his book The Apocalypse Code, Hanegraaff asserts that the events of Revelation were largely fulfilled in AD 70 with the fall of the Jerusalem Temple. He criticizes theologians like LaHaye for taking a hyper-literal approach to Revelation.{1} The debate has raised some confusion among Christians as to why there is such a debate and how we should interpret the book of Revelation.

The issues at the core of the debate between Hanegraaff and LaHaye are not new. Throughout church history, there have been four different views regarding the book of Revelation: idealist, preterist, historicist, and futurist. The idealist view teaches that Revelation describes in symbolic language the battle throughout the ages between God and Satan and good against evil. The preterist view teaches that the events recorded in the book of Revelation were largely fulfilled in AD 70 with the fall of the Jerusalem Temple. The historicist view teaches that the book of Revelation is a symbolic presentation of church history beginning in the first century AD through the end of age. The prophecies of Revelation are fulfilled in various historic events such as the fall of the Roman Empire, the Protestant Reformation, and the French Revolution. The futurist view teaches that Revelation prophesies events that will take place in the future. These events include the rapture of the church, seven years of tribulation, and a millennial rule of Christ upon the earth.

Each view attempts to interpret Revelation according to the laws of hermeneutics, the art and science of interpretation. This is central to the debate about how we should approach and interpret Revelation. The idealist approach believes that apocalyptic literature like Revelation should be interpreted allegorically. The preterist and historicist views are similar in some ways to the allegorical method, but it is more accurate to say preterists and historicists view Revelation as symbolic history. The preterist views Revelation as a symbolic presentation of events that occurred in AD 70, while the historicist school views the events as symbolic of all Western church history. The futurist school believes Revelation should be interpreted literally. In other words, the events of Revelation are to occur at a future time.

The goal of this work is to present a brief overview of the four views of Revelation and present the strengths of each view as well as its weaknesses. It is my hope that the reader will gain a basic understanding and be able to understand the debate among theologians today.

The Idealist View

The first view of Revelation is the idealist view, or the spiritual view. This view uses the allegorical method to interpret the Book of Revelation. The allegorical approach to Revelation was introduced by ancient church father Origen (AD 185-254) and made prominent by Augustine (AD 354-420). According to this view, the events of Revelation are not tied to specific historical events. The imagery of the book symbolically presents the ongoing struggle throughout the ages of God against Satan and good against evil. In this struggle, the saints are persecuted and martyred by the forces of evil but will one day receive their vindication. In the end, God is victorious, and His sovereignty is displayed throughout ages. Robert Mounce summarizes the idealist view stating, “Revelation is a theological poem presenting the ageless struggle between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. It is a philosophy of history wherein Christian forces are continuously meeting and conquering the demonic forces of evil.”{2}

In his commentary on Revelation, late nineteenth century scholar William Milligan stated, “While the Apocalypse thus embraces the whole period of the Christian dispensation, it sets before us within this period the action of great principles and not special incidents; we are not to look in the Apocalypse for special events, both for the exhibition of the principles which govern the history of both the world and the Church.”{3}

The symbols in Revelation are not tied to specific events but point to themes throughout church history. The battles in Revelation are viewed as spiritual warfare manifested in the persecution of Christians or wars in general that have occurred in history. The beast from the sea may be identified as the satanically-inspired political opposition to the church in any age. The beast from the land represents pagan, or corrupt, religion to Christianity. The harlot represents the compromised church, or the seduction of the world in general. Each seal, trumpet, or bowl represents natural disasters, wars, famines, and the like which occur as God works out His plan in history. Catastrophes represent God’s displeasure with sinful man; however, sinful mankind goes through these catastrophes while still refusing to turn and repent. God ultimately triumphs in the end.

The strength of this view is that it avoids the problem of harmonizing passages with events in history. It also makes the book of Revelation applicable and relevant for all periods of church history.{4}

However, there are several weaknesses of this view. First, this view denies the book of Revelation any specific historical fulfillment. The symbols portray the ever-present conflict but no necessary consummation of the historical process.{5} Rev.1:1 states that the events will come to pass shortly, giving the impression that John is prophesying future historical events.

Second, reading spiritual meanings into the text could lead to arbitrary interpretations. Followers of this approach have often allowed the cultural and socio-political factors of their time to influence their interpretation rather than seeking the author’s intended meaning.{6} Merrill Tenney states,

The idealist view . . . assumes a “spiritual” interpretation, and allows no concrete significance whatever to figures that it employs. According to this viewpoint they are not merely symbolic of events and persons, as the historicist view contends; they are only abstract symbols of good and evil. They may be attached to any time or place, but like the characters of Pilgrim’s Progress, represent qualities or trends. In interpretation, the Apocalypse may thus mean anything or nothing according to the whim of the interpreter.{7}

Unless interpreters are grounded in the grammatical, historical, and contextual method of hermeneutics, they leave themselves open to alternate interpretations that may even contradict the author’s intended meaning.

The Preterist View

The second view is called the preterist view. Preter, which means “past,” is derived from the Latin. There are two major views among preterists: full preterism and partial preterism. Both views believe that the prophecies of the Olivet discourse of Matthew 24 and Revelation were fulfilled in the first century with the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Chapters 1-3 describe the conditions in the seven churches of Asia Minor prior to the Jewish war (AD 66-70). The remaining chapters of Revelation and Jesus’ Olivet Discourse describe the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans.

Full preterists believe that all the prophecies found in Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70 and that we are now living in the eternal state, or the new heavens and the new earth. Partial preterists believe that most of the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem but that chapters 20-22 point to future events such as a future resurrection of believers and return of Christ to the earth. Partial preterists view full preterism as heretical since it denies the second coming of Christ and teaches an unorthodox view of the resurrection.

Church historians trace the roots of preterism to Jesuit priest Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613).{8} Alcazar’s interpretation is considered a response to the Protestant historicist interpretation of Revelation that identified the Pope as the Anti-Christ. However, some preterists contend that preterist teachings are found in the writings of the early church as early as the fourth century AD.{9}

Crucial to the preterist view is the date of Revelation. Since it is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, preterists hold to a pre-AD 70 date of writing. According to this view, John was writing specifically to the church of his day and had only its situation in mind. This letter was written to encourage the saints to persevere under the persecution of the Roman Empire.

Preterists point to several reasons to support their view. First, Jesus stated at the end of the Olivet Discourse, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Mt. 24:34). A generation usually refers to forty years. The fall of Jerusalem would then fit the time Jesus predicted. Second, Josephus’ detailed record of the fall of Jerusalem appears in several ways to match the symbolism of Revelation. Finally, this view would be directly relevant to John’s readers of his day.

There are several criticisms of this view. First, the events described in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse and in Revelation 4-19 differ in several ways from the fall of Jerusalem.

One example is that Christ described his return to Jerusalem this way: “[A]s lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Mt. 24:27). Preterists believe this refers to the Roman army’s advance on Jerusalem. However, the Roman army advanced on Jerusalem from west to east, and their assault was not as a quick lightning strike. The Jewish war lasted for several years before Jerusalem was besieged, and the city fell after a lengthy siege.{10} Second, General Titus did not set up an “abomination of desolation” (Mt. 24:15) in the Jerusalem Temple. Rather, he destroyed the Temple and burned it to the ground. Thus, it appears the preterist is required to allegorize or stretch the metaphors and symbols in order to find fulfillment of the prophecies in the fall of Jerusalem.

Another example of allegorical interpretation by preterists is their interpretation of Revelation 7:4. John identifies a special group of prophets: the 144,000 from the “tribes of Israel.” Preterist Hanegraaff states that this group represents the true bride of Christ and is referred to in Rev. 7:9 as the “great multitude that no one could count from every nation, tribe, people, and language.” In other words, the 144,000 in verse 4, and the great multitude in verse 9 are the same people.{11} This appears to go against the context of the chapter for several reasons. First, throughout the Bible the phrase “tribes of Israel” refers to literal Jews. Second, John says there are 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is a strange way to describe the multitude of believers from all nations. Finally, the context shows John is speaking of two different groups: one on the earth (the 144,000 referenced in 7:1-3), and the great multitude in heaven before the throne (7:9). Here Hanegraaff appears to be allegorizing the text.

Robert Mounce states,

The major problem with the preterist position is that the decisive victory portrayed in the latter chapters of the Apocalypse was never achieved. It is difficult to believe that John envisioned anything less than the complete overthrow of Satan, the final destruction of evil, and the eternal reign on God. If this is not to be, then either the Seer was essentially wrong in the major thrust of his message or his work was so helplessly ambiguous that its first recipients were all led astray.{12}

Mounce and other New Testament scholars believe the preterists’ interpretations are not consistent and utilize allegorical interpretations to make passages fit their theological view.

Second, the preterist position rests on a pre-AD 70 date of writing. However, most New Testament scholars date the writing of the book to AD 95. If John had written Revelation after AD 70, the book could not have been a prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem. This presents a significant argument against the preterist position.

Preterists point to several lines of evidence for a pre-AD 70 date of writing. First, John does not mention the fall of the Jerusalem Temple. If he had been writing two decades after the event, it seems strange that he never mentioned this catastrophic event. Second, John does not refer to either Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the Temple (Mt. 24, Mk. 13, Lk. 21) or the fulfillment of this prophecy. Third, in Revelation 11:1, John is told to “measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there.” Preterist argue that this indicates that the Temple is still standing during the writing of Revelation.{13}

The preterist view, particularly the partial preterist view, is a prominent position held by such notable scholars as R. C. Sproul, Hank Hanegraaff, Kenneth Gentry, and the late David Chilton (who later converted to full preterism after the publishing of his books).

The Historicist View

The third view is called the historicist approach. This view teaches that Revelation is a symbolic representation that presents the course of history from the apostle’s life through the end of the age. The symbols in the apocalypse correspond to events in the history of Western Europe, including various popes, the Protestant Reformation, the French Revolution, and rulers such as Charlemagne. Most interpreters place the events of their day in the later chapters of Revelation.

Many adherents of this position view chapters 1-3 as seven periods in church history. The breaking of the seals in chapters 4-7 symbolizes the fall of the Roman Empire. The Trumpet judgments in chapters 8-10 represent the invasions of the Roman Empire by the Vandals, Huns, Saracens, and Turks. Among Protestant historicists of the Reformation, the antichrist in Revelation was believed to be the papacy. Chapters 11-13 in Revelation represent the true church in its struggle against Roman Catholicism. The bowl judgments of Revelation 14-16 represent God’s judgment on the Catholic Church, culminating in the future overthrow of Catholicism depicted in chapters 17-19.{14}

There are several criticisms of this approach. First, this approach allows for a wide variety of interpretations. Adherents have a tendency to interpret the text through the context of their period. Thus, many saw the climax of the book happening in their generation. John Walvoord points out the lack of agreement among historicists. He states, “As many as fifty different interpretations of the book of Revelation therefore evolve, depending on the time and circumstances of the expositor.”{15} Moses Stuart echoed the same concern in his writings over a century ago. He wrote, “Hithertho, scarcely any two original and independent expositors have agreed, in respect to some points very important in their bearing upon the interpretation of the book.”{16}

Second, this view focuses mostly on the events of the church in Western Europe and says very little about the church in the East. Thus, its narrow scope fails to account for God’s activity throughout Asia and the rest of the world. Finally, this view would have little significance for the church of the first century whom John was addressing. It is unlikely they would have been able to interpret Revelation as the historical approach suggests.

Prominent scholars who held this view include John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, C. H. Spurgeon, and Matthew Henry. This view rose to popularity during the Protestant Reformation because of its identification of the pope and the papacy with the beasts of Revelation 13. However, since the beginning of the twentieth century, it has declined in popularity and influence.

The Futurist View

The fourth view is the futurist view. This view teaches that the events of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation chapters 4-22 will occur in the future. Futurist divide the book of Revelation into three sections as indicated in 1:19: “what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.” Chapter 1 describes the past (“what you have seen”), chapters 2-3 describe the present (“what is now”), and the rest of the book describes future events (“what will take place later”).

Futurists apply a literal approach to interpreting Revelation. Chapters 4-19 refer to a period known as the seven-year tribulation (Dan. 9:27). During this time, God’s judgments are actually poured out upon mankind as they are revealed in the seals, trumpets, and bowls. Chapter 13 describes a literal future world empire headed by a political and religious leader represented by the two beasts. Chapter 17 pictures a harlot who represents the church in apostasy. Chapter 19 refers to Christ’s second coming and the battle of Armageddon followed by a literal thousand-year rule of Christ upon the earth in chapter 20. Chapters 21-22 are events that follow the millennium: the creation of a new heaven and a new earth and the arrival of the heavenly city upon the earth.

Futurists argue that a consistently literal or plain interpretation is to be applied in understanding the book of Revelation. Literal interpretation of the Bible means to explain the original sense, or meaning, of the Bible according to the normal customary usage of its language. This means applying the rules of grammar, staying consistent with the historical framework, and the context of the writing. Literal interpretation does not discount figurative or symbolic language. Futurists teach that prophecies using symbolic language are also to be normally interpreted according to the laws of language. J. P. Lange stated,

The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted – that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded.{17}

Charles Ryrie also states,

Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.{18}

Futurists acknowledge the use of figures and symbols. When figurative language is used, one must look at the context to find the meaning. However, figurative language does not justify allegorical interpretation.

Futurists contend that the literal interpretation of Revelation finds its roots in the ancient church fathers. Elements of this teaching, such as a future millennial kingdom, are found in the writings of Clement of Rome (AD 96), Justin Martyr (AD 100-165), Irenaeus (AD 115-202), Tertullian (AD 150-225) and others. Futurists hold that the church fathers taught a literal interpretation of Revelation until Origen (AD 185-254) introduced allegorical interpretation. This then became the popular form of interpretation when taught by Augustine (AD 354-430).{19} Literal interpretation of Revelation remained throughout the history of the church and rose again to prominence in the modern era.

The futurist view is widely popular among evangelical Christians today. One of the most popular versions on futurist teaching is dispensational theology, promoted by schools such as Dallas Theological Seminary and Moody Bible Institute. Theologians such as Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and Dwight Pentecost are noted scholars of this position. Tim LaHaye made this theology popular in the culture with his end times series of novels.

Unfortunately, there have been and continue to be popular preachers who mistakenly apply the futurist approach to connect current events to the symbols in Revelation. Some have even been involved in setting dates of Christ’s return. Although their writings have been popular, they do not represent a Biblical futurist view.

Critics of this view argue that the futurist view renders the book irrelevant to the original readers of the first century. Another criticism is that Revelation is apocalyptic literature and thus meant to be interpreted allegorically or symbolically rather than literally. Hank Hanegraaff states, “Thus, when a Biblical writer uses a symbol or an allegory, we do violence to his intentions if we interpret it in a strictly literal manner.”{20}

One of the key elements in the debate, particularly between preterists and futurists, is the date of writing for Revelation. Preterists argue for a pre-AD 70 date while futurists hold to a date of AD 95. There are several reasons for the later date. First, Irenaeus, in his work Against Heresies, states that John wrote Revelation at the end of Emperor Domitian’s reign, which ended in AD 96. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. He thus had a connection with a contemporary of the Apostle John.

Second, the conditions of the seven churches in Revelation appear to describe a second-generation church setting rather than that of a first-generation. For example, the Church of Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7) is charged with abandoning their first love and warned of the Nicolaitan heresy. If John had written Revelation in AD 65, it would have overlapped with Paul’s letter to the Ephesians and Timothy. However, Paul makes no mention of either the loss of first love or the threat of the Nicolaitans. Ephesus was Paul’s headquarters for three years, and Apollos served there along with Aquila and Priscilla. The church of Smyrna did not exist during Paul’s ministry (AD 60-64) as recorded by Polycarp, the first bishop of the city. Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22) is rebuked for being wealthy and lukewarm. However, in his letter to the Colossians, Paul commends the church three times (2:2, 4:13, 16). It would likely take more than three years for the church to decline to the point that chapter 3 would state there to be no commendable aspect about it. Also, an earthquake in AD 61 left the city in ruins for many years. Thus, it is unlikely that in a ruined condition John would describe them as rich.

Preterists who favor the AD 70 date pose the question, “Why doesn’t John mention the fall of the Temple which occurred in AD 70?” Futurists respond that John wrote about future events, and the destruction of the temple was twenty-five years in the past. He also wrote to a Gentile audience in Asia Minor which was far removed from Jerusalem. Preterists also point to the fact that the Temple is mentioned in chapter eleven. Futurists respond that although John mentions a temple in Revelation 11:1-2, this does not mean it exists at the time of his writing. In Daniel 9:26-27 and Ezekiel 40-48, both prophets describe the temple, but it was not in existence when they described a future temple in their writings.

What did Jesus mean in Matthew 24:34 when He said, “[T]his generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened”? The common futurist response is that Jesus was stating that the future generation about which he was speaking would not pass away once “these things” had begun. In other words, the generation living amid the time of the events He predicted will not pass away until all is fulfilled.

Conclusion

The book of Revelation is a fascinating book, and the debate regarding its interpretation will continue. Despite our various views, there are some common threads upon which Christians agree.{21} All views believe that God is sovereign and in charge of all that occurs in history and its ultimate conclusion. Except for full preterism and some forms of idealism, all believe in the physical second coming of Christ. All views believe in the resurrection from the dead. All believe there will be a future judgment. All believe in an eternal state in which believers will be with God, and unbelievers will be separated from Him. All agree upon the importance of the study of prophecy and its edification for the body of Christ.

Unfortunately, the debate among Christians has often been harsh and hostile. It is my hope that the debate would continue in a cordial, respectful manner which will challenge every believer to accurately study and interpret the Word. We all await the return of our Lord and together with the saints of all ages say, “Amen, come Lord Jesus!” (Rev. 22:20)

Notes

1. Hank Hanegraaff, The Apocalypse Code (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 20.

2. Robert Mounce, The New International Commentary of the New Testament: The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 43.

3. William Milligan, The Book of Revelation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1889), 153-4.

4. Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Revelation (Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 20.

5. Robert Mounce, 43.

6. Robert Thomas, Revelation: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 31-2.

7. Merrill Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), 146.

8. Steven Gregg, 39.

9. Ibid., 39.

10. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, ed., The End Times Controversy (Eugene, OR.: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 377.

11. Hanegraaff, 125.

12. Robert Mounce, The New International Commentary of the New Testament: The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977), 42.

13. Evidence for the AD 95 date of writing will be presented in the futurist section.

14. Steven Gregg, Four Views of Revelation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 31, 217, 309, & 399).

15. John Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), 19.

16. Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Apocalypse (Edinburgh: Maclachlan, Stewart & Co., 1847), 35.

17. J. P. Lange, Commentary of the Holy Scriptures: Revelation (New York: Scribner’s, 1872), 98, quoted in Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 91.

18. Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 91.

20. Hanegraaff, 14.

21. Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, Conviction Without Compromise (Eugene, OR.: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 333.

© 2009 Probe Ministries

Online Source: Four Views of Revelation (probe.org)

Yet Another Faulty Argument. . .?

Posted by Dan C. on

image

The following is something I found online in a FB discussion group I’ve continued to read, but am not allowed to respond or comment. The post began with a passage of scripture:

John 20:30-31 NKJV

30And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

Author comment:

“The Apostle John lived until AD99. He was there to witness all the events Jesus told him about, including the return of Christ.”

John 21:20-24 NKJV

20Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?” 22Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.” 23this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?” 24This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

Author Comment:

“Now you can make these verses say what you want them to say, or you can believe what they say. What they say is John lived to witness the return of Christ, and we know his testimony is true.”

Now that’s a pretty strong statement, but is it true? Before we tackle the veracity issue, let me say that the original post was made by someone (who is not alone) dedicated to fiercely claim/adamantly assert that Jesus’ return to earth has already taken place. I guess she could be called a ‘partial’ preterist, because ‘full’ preterists believe Christ returned in 70 A.D., when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.

To restate the claim, we are told that since John lived until @ 99A.D., and Jesus said “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”, John witnessed Jesus’ return, the return of Jesus is in the past! The words of Jesus to Peter, are proof positive, we are told!

Well, is it true? Sadly (for the lady who made the claim), It’s not true, and a single term that Jesus used in in his reply to Peter, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”

Just to make sure that the hypothetical “IF” was actually in the text, I consulted BibleHub, since I could examine all English translations at a glance. The term “If” appears in forty-five of the forty-six translations listed.

Then, to make sure I wasn’t in error about “if” being a conditional, or hypothetical term, I consulted two excellent Greek concorddances, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and Thayer’s Greek Lexicon for the definition of “if”.

Strongs, G1437 ἐάν, ean, eh-an’

From G1487 and G302; a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty: – before, but, except, (and) if, (if) so, (what-, whither-) soever, though, when (-soever), whether (or), to whom, [who-] so (-ever). See G3361.

Total KJV occurrences: 297

Thayer Definition:

1) if, in case

Part of Speech: conjunction

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1487 and G302.

It’s that simple. Jesus simply asked Peter, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?” Period. End of story. In fact, Jesus was telling Peter, who had asked a question about Jesus’ betrayer, basically told him “That’s none of your business, Pete!”

The author of the original post then quoted more scripture that had little to do with Jesus’ return, but why so many don’t believe that Jesus returned in the 1st century, why they just couldn’t see the truth! She actually said that she had been struggling lately about “Why some people can see things and some do not.” . . . “Some just do not believe that Jesus did all He said He would do.”

She had a lot more to say that I’ll not repeat here because it’s really not relevant for this post. I’ll add that I really wanted to respond to her actual post, but alas, I’m banned. But I can message her personally and send her the link to my post here at The Battle Cry.

I am greatly saddened that those that hold to the belief that that Jesus has already returned (sometime in the 1st century) will not even consider that His return might still be in the future. It’s quite similar to those who believe the church didn’t start until sometime in the middle of or late in the book of Acts and that Paul preached a completely different gospel than Jesus and the Apostles.

So there’s my attempt at thinking something through again and writing it down.

Be Blessed!

Jacques Lefèvre D’Etaples – An Early French Reformer

Posted by Dan C. on

by Simoneta Carr

Image result for Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples – An Early French Reformer imagesThe life of Jacques Lefèvre D’Etaples ran almost parallel to that of Martin Luther. Born around 1455 (28 years before Luther), Lefèvre died in 1536, when Luther was still teaching, preaching, and establishing churches.

            In 1512, when Luther received his doctorate and became a professor of biblical studies, Lefèvre had already established himself as an esteemed scholar. The same year, he published a commentary to the Epistle to the Romans that explained justification by faith alone as clearly as any Protestant reformer could later do: “Let every mouth be stopped; let neither Jew nor Gentile boast that he has been justified by himself or by his own works. For none are justified by the works of the law, neither the Gentiles by the implanted law of nature nor the Jews by the works of the written law; but both Gentiles and Jews are justified by the grace and mercy of God …. …. for it is God alone who provides this righteousness through faith and who justifies by grace alone [sola gratia] unto life eternal.”[1]

            This is just an example of Lefèvre’s writings, that included all the five solas of the Reformation (Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, and Soli Deo Gloria), as well as the doctrine of assurance of salvation and perseverance of believers that so irritated Cardinal Robert Bellarmine almost a century later. He affirmed in fact that “‘the forgiveness of our sins, our adoption as children of God, the assurance and certainty of life eternal, proceed solely from the goodness of God’ through faith in ‘our blessed Saviour and Redeemer Jesus,’ and that thanks to God’s love ‘we have complete confidence in him and the certainty of the forgiveness of our sins and of eternal life, and we have no fear of the day of judgment or of being condemned for our sins.’”[2]

In 1521, when Luther was excommunicated and declared an outlaw at the Diet of Worms, Lefèvre was attacked by the authoritative faculty of theology of the University of the Sorbonne, who had already viewed him with suspicion. (This was the same faculty that condemned a speech written by John Calvin, forcing him to go into exile).

The professors of the Sorbonne then forced Lefèvre to close an experimental school in Meaux, near Paris, that he had been leading under the auspices of Cardinal Guillaume Briçonnet to lead for the reform of preaching. And yet, many seeds had been planted. From this community in Meaux (known as Circle of Meaux) sprung a new generation of preachers, including Guillaume Farel, the reformer who firmly encouraged John Calvin to move to Geneva..

In the meantime, Lèfevre had also been working on a translation of the New Testament from the Latin vulgate into French. The complete translation appeared in 1524, two years before Luther’s publication of the New Testament in German. Once again, Lèfevre’s efforts met the disapproval of the doctors of the Sorbonne, who ordered the destruction of every copy of his translation. And once again, by providing a translation of Scriptures in the language of the people, Lèfevre contributed to the start of the Reformation in France.

Recalled by King Francis I of France in 1526, Lèfevre was assigned to serve as tutor at the court of Francis’s sister, Marguerite de Navarre, who became one of his most loyal followers and supporters. Lèfevre spent the last part of his life there, teaching, writing, and translating until his death in 1536.

Besides Marguerite of Navarre and William Farel, Lefèvre influenced many of his contemporaries, including Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII, who lived in France during her teenage years; Renée of France, daughter of Louis XII; Martin Luther, who based his Pauline lectures on Lefèvre e remained in correspondence with him; and John Calvin, who most likely met Lefèvre during his travels in incognito.

While Lefèvre’s writings include many of the teachings of the Reformation, they are not always consistent – possibly due to his desire to remain in the Roman Catholic Church and reform it from within. But they were influential enough that Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza allegedly spoke of Lefèvre as the man “who boldly began the revival of the pure religion of Jesus Christ”[3] in France.

[1] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Lefèvre: Pioneer of Ecclesiastical Renewal in France, W.E. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984, 74 [Quoting Lefèvre’s commentary, published in 1512].

[2] Hughes, Lefèvre, 191-192.

[3] Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, vols. 1-5, New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1856, 441

_____________________________

Online Source:

Jacques Lefèvre D’Etaples – An Early French Reformer – Place For Truth

The Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ

Posted by Dan C. on

Just another FB conversation…………

clip_image002_thumb2From a Facebook post:clip_image004_thumb8

“Never once in the King James Bible do we find the term, “the Bride of Christ.” That is a religious term, and frankly, it is a core doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, never once does the Bible refer to the Church the Body of Christ as “the Bride of Christ.” This should indicate to us that it is nothing more than a man-made concept, a tradition of men, aimed at deceiving and robbing us of the clarity of God’s Word, and furthering a man-made theological system. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

We do find in our King James Bible the following phrases and terms: “the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:7,9), “the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Revelation 21:2), and “the Lamb’s wife” (Revelation 21:9). A marriage is certainly occurring in the closing chapters of the book of the Revelation, but who is marrying whom? We should not rip these verses out of their contexts and fabricate the identity of the bride and the groom (unless, of course, we seek to advance a denominational system rather than the simple teachings of Scripture!).”

Reader (Dan) Response:

So what is your exact point in all of that? You must have said it for a reason. We should never take passages out of their natural context, however given the many scripture passages with references to Christ and his Bride, it’s undeniable that Christ has a Bride. Eph 5:25-27 clearly identifies Christ’s bride as the church (called out body of all believers).

You said: “We should not rip these verses out of their contexts and fabricate the identity of the bride and the groom (unless, of course, we seek to advance a denominational system rather than the simple teachings of Scripture!).

The identity of Christ and His bride are CLEARLY defined in scripture, so again, what is your point?

NEVER MIND………….I just read that the purpose of this group is “TO PERSUADE BELIEVERS TO RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH…Persuade – to cause someone to do or believe by ‘reasoning’. Your point has to do with Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, and it begin with a gross misrepresentation of 2 Tim 2:15, literally “ripping it out of its context”.

Author Response:

Then why are you here Dan. Best you find a suitable group to join, instead of coming in here with your insults. If you believe the body of Christ is the Bride of Christ then you believe in Replacement Theology which is a damnable heresy.

Reader (Dan) Response:

First of all, I am NOT defending a personal opinion. I’m trying to get clarity. It wasn’t until some months ago that I first learned about Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and its definition of “Rightly dividing the word of truth.” I am not attacking M.A.D. doctrine nor defending it. I am however comparing its teachings with I believe the Bible teaches.

Concerning your statement, “If you believe the body of Christ is the Bride of Christ then you believe in Replacement Theology which is a damnable heresy.”:

Heresy is a strong word and one that I use sparingly. Replacement theology is the belief that the church has replaced the church in God’s plan. At best it’s just wrong and at worst it’s heresy, in my opinion, no matter who teaches it or believes it. God still has a plan for Israel.

I understand, from what seems to be plain in scripture, that the terms Body of Christ and Bride of Christ describe two aspects of the relationship between Jesus and His followers. Perhaps the clearest expression of the church as both the body and bride of Christ is in Paul’s own words:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.” (Eph 5:25-29)

That marriage metaphor also appears in Jesus’ own words:

“In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” (John 14:2-3)

However, M.A.D. doctrine tells us that Jesus was only speaking to the Jews and not to us Gentiles, which could support only Israel being the Bride. Or can it?

Back to Ephesus. It’s significant that when Paul visited Ephesus, he spent three months teaching in a synagogue in an effort to bring the Jews to accept union with the gentiles in Christianity, but without success. For the next two years he stayed in Ephesus seeking to convert Jews and gentiles and appears to have made many converts. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that, in his letter to the Ephesian church, he was speaking to both Jewish and Gentile believers.

The mystery of the gospel, revealed to Paul, along with the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit (v.5), is summed up in Eph 3:6:

“That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”

Paul was telling his Ephesian audience that right then and there, when He wrote that letter (60-61 A.D.), and from that day forward, Jews and Gentiles are one body, united in Christ.

Dan’s Conclusion: The church, the Body of Christ, which is composed of all of Jesus’ followers, will also the Bride of Christ at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

NOTE: I am not trying to convince anyone of anything; you will believe what you believe. My only goal here is to have clearly explained what I believe and why I believe it. When it comes to spiritual matters, the Holy Spirit is the grand persuader.

Have a nice day!

What blew me away was the insistence that believing that Christ is the Bride of Christ meant that I believed in Replacement theology, until I realized that M.A.D. doctrine was humming in the background. I used the KJV because it’s the only version some will even consider as a valid version. I guess I’m still trying to find at least one M.A.D. type who might be open to honest impartial, objective discussion. I’m batting .000 so far. Sadly I am adding preterists and KJV Only types to the list of those whose minds seem to be ‘rusted shut’. I know that sounds harsh, but it’s true. I’m getting better at just trying to talk things through………I hope.

Thoughts?

Twisted Logic

Posted by Dan C. on

image

That question was found online in a FB group professing to be about Pauline Doctrine. The name was interesting, so I popped in. Turns out it’s run by a couple of ladies who seem to be advocating for full preterism (Jesus returned in judgment in 70AD) in interesting ways. There will be a post that asks a leading question and makes a ‘logical’ suggestion that unwary readers will naturally accept. I’ve been blocked from commenting until the end of January, partly because I suggested that their preterism was showing, and they hated that. Another reader caught on before I did and has since disappeared. He had also been attempting polite conversation about things.

What I have found out is that I can read these seemingly innocent posts, do a little research study and merely respond to them and see what happens, which is what I had been doing and ended up in ‘purgatory’ for a month. I was actually responding to the above question when I found out about my suspension.

If I assume that the above statement telling me “Since messengers of God told those present (at the Ascension) that they’d see His return” was true, the answer could be ‘yes’, however………

The answer is no, because the messengers didn’t tell them they would see Jesus’ return: Here is Acts 11, along with a couple of other passages to add context. The scene is the ascension of Christ after his resurrection.

“Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:9-11, NKJV)

The two messengers didn’t tell those present that they would ‘see’ his return. That passage just says the Jesus would come again to Earth in like manner (in the same way) he left. So how did he leave? What does “in like manner” mean?

1. Well, since Jesus ascended after his resurrection, He left in a glorified body and will return in his glorified body.

2. He ascended in clouds, so He will return in clouds, which was an Old Testament Prophecy Daniel 7:13, as well as something Jesus told a Jewish High Priest at his trial Matthew 26:64.

That means that the assertion (it wasn’t an ‘IF’ statement), “Since messengers of God told those present (at the Ascension) that they’d see His return” was false on its face.

Pretty slick! Start with a false assumption, combined with a partial truth in order to suggest your ‘logical’ conclusion. It’s true that ‘someone’ told the disciples that some of them would “see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (See Matt 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27) but that doesn’t necessarily mean Jesus was talking about his return to at His second  coming. There are alternative interpretations, and since I’m merely suggesting here, I’ll leave further research to you. Isn’t Bible study fun?

So there it is. A false assertion was made, leading to a ‘logical’ conclusion. There was no direct assertion that Jesus returned in judgment, just a nice little question based on a false statement. The reader is supposed to realize ‘logically’ that Jesus return to earth was in 70 AD. That was the point of the meme and exactly what “full preterism” teaches, as opposed to other interpretations of prophecy that claim that the 2nd coming of Christ is still in the future (partial preterism, historicism, futurism). Why a couple of FB group admins would bristle at my mentioning preterism, I’ll probably never know.

So call this an academic exercise. Along the way, I really dug into scripture, commentaries, as well as articles I could find online, therefore enhancing my knowledge concerning Bible prophecy!

Be Blessed!

When Did the Church Begin?

Posted by Dan C. on

image

Ask almost anyone who professes Christianity, from master theologians with lots of letters behind their names to us common laypeople in the pews, when the church was born and they will tell you that the birth of the church was on the day of Pentecost, as recorded in Acts, chapter 2. However, there are some who will tell you that the church began with Paul’s conversion (Acts 9), when he began his first missionary journey (Acts 13), or while he was in prison (Acts 28),. We won’t get into the reasons for the mid to late Acts positions in this article, suffice it to say that it can get rather complicated.

I’ve never really understood exactly why any time other than the Day of Pentecost is even considered as the birthday of the church, because it seems to be quite clear in the text of Acts, chapter 2, verses 41 – 47. Here is that passage:

“41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. 44And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:41-47, KJV)

That passage describes the response of many of those in the mostly Jewish crowd who listened to the Apostle Peter’s sermon after the Holy Spirit had come and filled the disciples and Apostles of Jesus who had been praying in an upper room in Jerusalem.

We are told that there were some who heard Peter preach that “gladly received his word and were baptized.” What word was that? Well, they had just heard Peter’s reveal some rather startling (to put it mildly) news!:

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (v 36)

Peter had told them that they had killed their promised Messiah! No doubt, some must have been angry at that accusation, however there were some who, when realizing exactly what they had done, responded quite differently:

“Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (v37)

Peter’s instruction:

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (v 38)

Then comes Luke’s (the author of Acts) concluding remarks about the day’s activities, followed by a description of how those who ‘repented and were baptized’ continued going about their lives as newly born Christian believers.

The answer to our main question, “When did the church begin?” can easily be answered by revisiting just two verses:

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls 47bAnd the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:41-42b)

To whom does the “them” in v.41 refer? None other than those who “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” Then we are told in v. 47 that more people were being saved and were added to the same company of those who were “continued steadfastly”, and were called the church!

So if you are ever challenged about the birth of the Christian church, you can just point Acts, chapter 2, and specifically only two verses, Acts 2:41-42!

Can it possible be any clearer that the birthday of the church was in the Day of Pentecost, as recorded in the 2d chapter of Acts? I think not.

Sadly, there are those who would rather cling to teachings developed by mere mortals in the 19th century – undisputable facts of history, than the actual text of scripture, all the while telling us that they only use and trust the Bible! All I can suggest to that is, “We believe what we WANT to believe?”

Let the Bible Speak!

Posted by Dan C. on

image

A blogger recently asserted the following:

“The scriptures confirm two distinctly different plans of salvation.. . . .Our (church age believers) plan of salvation is found only in Romans through Philemon, the 13 books written by the apostle Paul.” (Emphasis mine)

You might recognize that quotation as being one of the teachings from a segment of Christianity that promotes a system of interpreting the Bible called Mid-Acts Dispensational Right Division. That system tells us that “The key to understanding the Bible hinges on our ability to discern what is written to us and what is not. This is what is meant by right division of the Bible.”[i]

A central tenet of that system is the belief that “While the entire Bible was inspired by God for our benefit, it is not all written to the same people.”[ii]  Therefore, scripture must be ‘rightly divided’ into the portions written only the Jews, and that which is written only to Gentiles (church age believers). Since portions of the Bible were written to different people groups, there are different plans of salvation for each group.

The application of that principle results in the claim that the plan of salvation for Gentiles (church age believers) is found only in Romans through Philemon. The entire rest of the New Testament was written only to Jews.

With that background information in mind, let’s return to the purpose of this blog post, which is to let the Bible, and only the Bible speak to the issues at hand. What follows is a direct response to the blogger who provided the introductory quotation.

You  (the blogger) say:

“The scriptures confirm two distinctly different plans of salvation. . . .Our plan of salvation is found only in Romans through Philemon, the 13 books written by the apostle Paul.”

Here is the Apostle Paul’s definition of the gospel:

1Co 15:1-4  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 1Co 15:2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;   And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

I invite you to consider the following passages of scripture recorded by the Apostles, and prayerfully ask yourself if they speak of the same gospel message that Paul preached, that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ (Eph 2:8-9).:

Luk 24:44-47 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Joh 3:14-17  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Joh 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Joh 8:24  I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Joh 14:6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Joh 20:28 -31 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Act 10:39  And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

Act 10:40-43  Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Act 15:7-11  And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

1Pe 1:3 -5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,   To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,   Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1Pe 1:10-12  Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

1Jn 5:10-13  He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

I am not adding any personal opinions concerning the above passages, or what I think they teach or do not teach. It is not necessary that you reply to me concerning the above passages of scripture. I don’t want to argue about them or engage in personal debate. I offer them to you for own prayerful consideration, to let them speak for themselves.

May God bless you in your journey through this life and into the next!

Dan

I confess that I really struggled with not inserting any personal opinions or interpreting any of the above passages, as well as not responding to various forms of gaslighting. I sincerely hope that I am improving in the “gentleness and respect” department! My personal Bible study isn’t hurting either!

[i] Introduction to Mid-Acts Dispensational Right Division (graceambassadors.com)

[ii] Ibid.

A Few Foibles of Social Media

Posted by Dan C. on

clip_image002

Please excuse my feeble attempt at alliteration. Having begged the reader’s pardon, allow me to define the word ‘foible’ before I proceed further. Simply put, a ‘foible’ is defined as:

  • a minor weakness in someone’s character (Oxford Dictionary)
  • a strange habit or characteristic that is seen as not important and not harming anyone (Cambridge Dictionary):
  • a minor flaw or shortcoming (Webster’s Dictionary)
  • a small fault or foolish habit (American Dictonary)
  • a minor weakness or failing of character (Dictionary.com)

Synonyms for ‘foible’ include eccentricity, fault, failing, frailty, infirmity, and shortcoming. The word comes from 16th century French, as an adjective meaning ‘feeble’.

Why do I claim that there are ‘foibles’ associated to social media? I’m glad you asked. Actually, based on recent, and not so recent experiences using social media (primarily Facebook), it just seemed to pop up in my tired old brain. Now you know.

Additionally, I need to say that my remarks here are specific to self-professed “Christian” FB groups dedicated to enlightening the rest of us concerning the truth of a certain ‘pet’ doctrine. For the purposes of this blog post allow me to use a specific example of one the several groups dedicated to ‘rightly dividing’ the text of scripture. The actual names of FB groups are omitted here in order to protect both the innocent and the guilty (concerning the aforementioned ‘foibles’, or weaknesses).

First, let me say that to ‘rightly divide’ the text of Scripture means, in simple terms, to properly handle God’s word, Literally, to ‘rightly divide’ means ‘to cut straight’. The Apostle Paul told young Pastor Timothy, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 3:15).

For some however, the term ‘rightly dividing’, or ‘rightly divide’ has taken on a life of it’s own and become almost a mantra used frequently and often in ways never intended by the Apostle Paul.

But I digress. We’ll get back to our example, I promise. The topic here is the ‘foibles’, or weaknesses of social media that hinder intelligent, rational, and respectful dialogue. Here are a few that come to mind:

1. You can sit (and hide) behind a computer screen (or Ipad, Ipod, Iphone, etc.) all alone, by yourself, without seeing another face, hear a human voice, or recognize heartfelt emotions. You lose significant aspects of human communication that are present in face-to-face dialogue. In my opinion, this is at the heart of other serious issues.

2. Sitting alone behind your screen lets you make all of your opinions (about anything) known to everyone in the ‘room’, as adamantly as you want, without having to actually consider other’s opinions, or intelligently substantiate your own. You know you are right, you let others know that fact, and you can easily dismiss others’ contributions to a discussion, even calling them names, using pejorative adjectives to their faces, and refusing to even consider any opinions other than their own

3. Face-to-face communication allows for reading the Bible together, carefully examining relevant passages of scripture relevant to the matter at hand. Ripping passages out of their natural contexts to ‘prove’ one’s point is much easier when you are behind the ‘screen’. Sadly, that also occurs during face-to-face dialogue, but hopefully not as easily.

4. When you are sitting in the same ‘real’ room (as opposed to a ‘digital’ one) with other believers, discussions (especially with good leaders/facilitators) tend to be more organized and can flow much more smoothly than the online ‘free-for-alls’ we are faced with on social media.

Those are just a few weaknesses (foibles) of communicating via social media. I’m sure you can think of more. Back to our FB Group example focused on ‘rightly dividing’ the word of truth.

To many who use the term ‘rightly dividing’ (and variations thereof) in every other sentence. It means that the only NT scripture that pertains to Gentiles is from the middle of Acts through Paul’s letter to Philemon. The rest, including the synoptic gospels, Jesus’ own teaching, and Hebrews through Revelation was written to and for Jews only. Furthermore, Peter and Paul preached completely different gospels.

I’ve made it a project of mine to demonstrate, with as much gentleness and respect than I can muster up, and using excellent resources, as well as scripture itself, their ‘interesting’ beliefs. The responses I have received clearly demonstrate ‘social media foible #2, mentioned earlier.

“Sitting alone behind your screen lets you make all of your opinions (about anything) known to everyone in the ‘room’, as adamantly as you want, without having to actually consider other’s opinions, or intelligently substantiate your own. You know you are right, you let others know that fact, and you can easily dismiss others’ contributions to a discussion, even calling them names, using pejorative adjectives to their faces, and refusing to even consider any opinions other than their own.”

At this point I must freely admit that the attitudes and behaviors described above are not unique to those who claim to really truly ‘rightly divide’ scripture. We can find them all over social media, especially where individuals opinions are shared. Face it, people can be really ugly. Being able to hide behind a computer screen, etc. makes it worse. At least when we are sitting with one another, face-to-face, there’s a better chance of honest, intelligent, and rational dialogue.

So now the question for this old soldier is whether or not to just completely ditch some social media venues or keep trying to reason with unreasonable people. One thing I know for sure is that the amount of time I spend researching topics raised on social media, in support of finding the truth or a matter or issue is good for spiritual clarity in particular and my soul as well!

We Believe What We Want to Believe Redux

Posted by Dan C. on

I recently joined a private Facebook group that claimed the following purpose:

“Promoting the Reformation that Luther started and supported by the reformers Calvin, Vermigli, Hooker, Bucer and connection to the fathers, creeds, councils which is ultimately supported by the infallible Scriptures.”

I read the purpose statement several times. Something seemed a bit off. Then I cut out much of the middle portion to leave “Promoting the Reformation that Luther started . . . which is ultimately supported by the infallible Scriptures.”, which helped me get to the questions bouncing around in my old brain. “Would this FB group focus on examining the reformers (particularly Martin Luther) and comparing what they taught with the text of scripture?” Since that seemed like a worthy endeavor, having been at one period of my life a worthy endeavor, I joined the group.

I spent a few days primarily discussing two topics before I left the group for reasons that will hopefully become clear. Those two topics were 1) infant baptism and 2) salvation by faith alone (sola fide).

Infant baptism was significant because the group’s creator and main admin came to the conclusion that infant baptism was the correct method of performing the rite. At the same time, I read a lengthy post talking about how one of the group members had also come to believe that infant baptism was the correct method. Reasoning was based on what was taught during the Reformation, which is, according to group members, clearly taught in scripture, even though the Bible nowhere commands it, but neither is it prohibited.

Salvation by faith alone, specifically Martin Luther’s views was the other topic I discussed, mostly with one of the other group members, a Lutheran, who told me that “Luther’s sola fide requires extra nos outward means of grace, or it isn’t sola fide.” The outward means of grace is of course, baptism (infant or adult). Although my Lutheran friend understood faith as an inward gift, baptism as an outward means of grace, while maintaining that they were completely compatible. The multitude of passages telling us that “faith alone” is the sole requirement for salvation do not matter. Perhaps he meant that since they don’t specifically omit baptism, baptism can be added to faith in order to be saved.

I politely left the group when it became apparent that he wouldn’t respond to questions I asked or to specific passages of scripture I offered. Other specific details of our lengthy discussion aren’t relevant to this article, although they were valid points of debate/argument.

What did I learn from my experience? I’m glad you asked.

1. Well, I added significantly to my digital library concerning the beliefs of Martin Luther concerning baptism and salvation by faith alone. At best, I can say that the great Reformer believed different things at different times, partly because of his Roman Catholic background. I found differing opinions from various resources.

2. My own views did not change concerning either topic. The Bible does not clearly teach infant baptism, nor does it prohibit the practice. Examples of Christian baptism in the New Testament include repentance from sin and trusting in Christ for salvation. “Faith alone” means “faith alone”.

3. We should follow the same advice the Apostle Paul gave to young Timothy:

“Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.” (2 Timothy 2:23)

4. While it’s certainly interesting to find out what certain Reformers thought about various points of doctrine, scripture must be the final authority in all doctrinal matters. If scripture isn’t crystal clear about a particular issue (modes of baptism) we should let that which is clear interpret what is unclear or less clear.

5. Sometimes it’s necessary to politely disengage and move along down the road.

clip_image002

Did Peter and Paul Preach Different Gospels? – Pt. 2

Posted by Dan C. on

image

While it’s true that our salvation does not rest on our works, but on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:1-4), to state that Peter and Paul preached different gospels is entirely false. There has always been and forever will be only one gospel message concerning the salvation of men:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Eph 2:8-9)

Peter’s different “gospel of the Kingdom” referred to above is clearly described by a group called Grace Ambassadors (and others):

“The message taught by Peter, James, and John was that Jesus was the promised Son of God, and whomever believed this truth and followed the commandments would be counted worthy of eternal life (Acts 3:26, 1 John 5:12).”[i]

Note that both the Ephesians passage and the Grace Ambassadors’ definition of being “counted worthy of eternal life” are both talking about salvation! To be ‘saved’ and ‘counted worthy for eternal life’ are to be considered “righteous” before a just and holy God. Lest there be any shadow of doubt, consider the following:

“And he (Abraham) believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” (Gen 15:6)

“For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” (Rom 4:2-3)

William MacDonald, in the Believers Bible Commentary, tells us that there is one gospel with different features/emphasis:

“While there is only one gospel, there are different features of the gospel in different times. For instance, there is a different emphasis between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God. The gospel of the kingdom says, “Repent and receive the Messiah; then you will enter His kingdom when it is set up on earth.” The gospel of grace says, “Repent and receive Christ; then you will be taken up to meet Him and to be with Him forever.” Fundamentally, they are the same gospel—salvation by grace through faith—but they show that there are different administrations of the gospel according to God’s dispensational purposes.”

Those who maintain the ridiculous notion that there are two separate gospels, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles will even propose to us that the only portion of scripture that pertains to believers today range from somewhere in the middle of the book of Acts through Paul’s letter to Philemon and that the remainder of scripture was spoken only Jews. However, we need only to consider the Council at Jerusalem for clarity.

The record of the Jerusalem Council is recorded in Acts, chapter 15. To summarize, The Jewish leaders of the believers in Jerusalem, along with the missionary team of Paul and Barnabas met in 49/50AD, to discuss the attitude some of the Jewish believers in Jesus towards Gentile believers. Apparently, there were Jews who believed that Gentile believers must be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses in order to be saved.

Luke, the author of Acts, records the post-debate words of Peter:

“7And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” (Act 15:7-11)

Additionally, the Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, spoke of the Council meeting in Jerusalem and the acknowledgement by all that Paul had been entrusted with proclaiming the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles (uncircumcised) and Peter having been entrusted with proclaiming the gospel to the Jews (circumcised).

“7On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8(for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” (Gal 2:7-9)

There is absolutely no indication that Peter and Paul had different gospels, but only different primary missions.

If that isn’t sufficient to settle the issue of different gospels, we can look at how Peter and Paul described redemption:

Peter:

“For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.” (1 Peter 1 :18-21).

Paul:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

So What?

It seems abundantly clear that Peter was entrusted with sharing the gospel of salvation by faith in Christ primarily with a Jewish audience and Paul’s mission was to preach that same message to Gentiles. They were both chosen by God for their ministries and had the blessing of the Apostles for their respective tasks. To maintain otherwise is in error. What are we do to with these truths?

It’s quite simple, actually! First, continue to share the glorious message of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Christ. Secondly, if you are approached by someone or come across the idea that Peter and Paul preached different gospels, be ready to give an answer with gentleness and respect (1 Pet 3:15).

[i] Did Paul Preach a Different Gospel? (graceambassadors.com)

_____________________________

NOTES:

1. The earlier post with the same title can be found here: Did Peter and Paul preach different gospels? | The Battle Cry (thebattlecry49.com)

2. The Grace Ambassadors teach what is called Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.  Their basic teachings can be found here: What is Mid-Acts Pauline Dispensational Right Division? (graceambassadors.com)