Pre-mil? Post mil? Amil? Rapture?

Let me start right off with this disclaimer: I am not a Left Behind dispensationalist. I find that view to be far outside Scripture with very little basis in proper exegesis and hermeneutics. It makes for great Hollywood, but poor eschatology. For one thing, it dismisses the idea that God is no respecter of persons, because it separates national Israel as a uniquely favored group of people based on their nationality alone, and that view is strongly condemned in the NT epistles. I view the nation of Israel as a foreshadowing of things to come (as much of the OT is), specifically in Christ, and a microcosm of how men generally appear before God (stubborn and rebellious against God).

Having said that, I haven't landed firmly in any millennial camp yet, but I am hovering closely over amillennialism.

First, I think it's wise to give a brief description of the differing types of millennial views regarding Israel and the church.

• Amillennialism: The church is the eschatological fulfillment of Israel.
• Dispensational Premillennialism: Views church and Israel as two distinct peoples of God with two individual redemptive plans.
• Historic Premillenialism: The church is the fulfillment of Israel.
• Postmillennialism: The church is the fulfillment of Israel.

Handy Dandy chart: http://www.theologue.org/MillennialChart.html

I think that to distinguish Israel as a distinct nation is to miss the point Paul makes in Romans 9:6-7. Israel, in my estimation, is a TYPE while Christ (not the church) is the fulfillment of that type. In that regard, I disagree with each of these camps. See Matt 2:15 for one Scripture proof.

Now to argue the larger eschatological issue:

A while back, my pastor said in one of his sermons that amillennialists don't believe in a millennium. This is not exactly true. This camp does believe in a millennium, just not a literal 1,000 year period. We (they) believe it is a figurative number that describes a PERIOD of time, or an age. The reason I'm closing in on amillennialism is mainly because I believe we are now in this period of time, and the following is my reasoning from Scripture and history.

First of all, history. Regarding the tribulation of Christians: I recently listened to the Foxe's Book of Martyrs audio book, and if you would have told any Christian up until perhaps the founding of the United States that there would be a FUTURE tribulation of Christians, they would have called you naively uninformed at best and outright crazy at worst. The Christians of the first 17-1800 years underwent some of the most gruesome and inhumane tortures that man could devise. These faithful Christians endured through a VERY GREAT tribulation, and it is only now in this western comfort that we can complacently claim that there is a "still-to-come" tribulation. Even today, in many parts of the world, Christians are going through tribulations of terrible kinds! http://www.persecution.com/

Now from Scripture: This is by no means exhaustive, just preliminary. First of all, the tribulation has been going on since Stephen was stoned as recorded in Acts 7. John also said that he was in the tribulation at the time of his writing the letter at the end of the FIRST century. Rev 1:9a - "I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom..."

Next, I believe the first resurrection spoken of in Rev 20:5 is speaking of regeneration, or spiritual birth.

"Scripture teaches us of two principle resurrections of the dead. It speaks of the resurrection in Christ (John 11:25, Ephesians 2:5) which is the called the first. But it also speaks of another resurrection at the last day (John 11:24, 1st Corinthians 15:52). Only one can be the first resurrection of the saints. And I want to say that again for emphasis. ONLY ONE can be the first Resurrection. And that is what many theologians cannot seem to comprehend. You cannot have two separate events, both called the first resurrection in scripture. That is confusion and God is not the author of confusion. In Revelation 20:5, the First Resurrection refers to what has occurred that made those souls who have died able to live and reign with Christ, while the souls of those who were unsaved (the rest of the dead) could not go to live and reign with Christ. The rest of the dead (unsaved who died) "they lived not again" until the second resurrection when they must be raised from death to stand for judgment before the throne of God. What the chapter is doing is contrasting the souls of the saved, which though they are dead, yet they still live and reign with Christ in heaven, with the souls of the "rest of the dead" (the unsaved) who didn't have life again until the second Resurrection. The ones who reign with Christ after death are those who have had part in the first resurrection. The expression, the First Resurrection clearly refers to the souls of the saints that are raised first, in distinction from the raising of these wicked (rest of the dead) that occurs after the millennium. This is at the the second resurrection."

Source: http://is.gd/GPF3

Thirdly, I believe Christ's kingdom is not a literal physical kingdom as taught by premil dispensationalists: Christ Himself said so in John 18:36 - "Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.""

And to repeat, John believed he was in the kingdom as well in Rev 1:9a - "I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom..."

What kingdom do you suppose John was speaking of?

I also believe the rapture, a phrase coined by John Nelson Darby near the end of the American Civl War, is unbiblical. The text most commonly referred to in defense of this theory is 1 Thess 4:15-17. If I may, another quote regarding this text:

"the New Bible Commentary: Revised:
"'To meet the Lord' (Gk. 'eis apantesin tou
kyriou'): When a dignitary paid an official visit ...
to a city in Hellenistic times, the action of the
leading citizens in going out to meet him and
escorting him on the final stage of his journey was
called the 'apantesis'; it is similarly used in
[Matthew] 25:6; Acts 28:15. So the Lord is pictured
as escorted to the earth by His people--those newly
raised from death and those who have remained
alive.""

I believe this historical context helps paint a better picture of what Paul is referring to. He is saying that this second coming is the FINAL and ONLY second coming. What is commonly explained as "the rapture of the church" in 1 Thess 4:15-17 is imagery of the servants of the Lord meeting and joining with their King as he comes to reign and conquer His enemies. It is not a secret rapture which ushers in a tribulation, or predates the final second coming (how many second comings are there?) The coming of Christ in 1 Thess 4:15-17 IS THE second coming of Christ in judgment. That day is THE Day of the Lord.

This, of course, is just a primer on my view of end times. If it sparks discussion, then perhaps we can fill in some of the details (if anyone reads this blog, that is).

I'm also researching Covenant Theology, which I hope to do a blog entry on in the near future.

Soli Deo Gloria

Some Thoughts from Luther on Galatians 1:4

Who gave himself for our sins.

Note especially the pronoun "our" and its significance. You will readily grant that Christ gave Himself for the sins of Peter, Paul, and others who were worthy of such grace. But feeling low, you find it hard to believe that Christ gave Himself for your sins. Our feelings shy at a personal application of the pronoun "our," and we refuse to have anything to do with God until we have made ourselves worthy by good deeds.

This attitude springs from a false conception of sin, the conception that sin is a small matter, easily taken care of by good works; that we must present ourselves unto God with a good conscience; that we must feel no sin before we may feel that Christ was given for our sins.

This attitude is universal and particularly developed in those who consider themselves better than others. Such readily confess that they are frequent sinners, but they regard their sins as of no such importance that they cannot easily be dissolved by some good action, or that they may not appear before the tribunal of Christ and demand the reward of eternal life for their righteousness. Meantime they pretend great humility and acknowledge a certain degree of sinfulness for which they soulfully join in the publican's prayer, "God be merciful to me a sinner." But the real significance and comfort of the words "for our sins" is lost upon them.

The genius of Christianity takes the words of Paul "who gave himself for our sins" as true and efficacious. We are not to look upon our sins as insignificant trifles. On the other hand, we are not to regard them as so terrible that we must despair. Learn to believe that Christ was given, not for picayune and imaginary transgressions, but for mountainous sins; not for one or two, but for all; not for sins that can be discarded, but for sins that are stubbornly ingrained.

Practice this knowledge and fortify yourself against despair, particularly in the last hour, when the memory of past sins assails the conscience. Say with confidence: "Christ, the Son of God, was given not for the righteous, but for sinners. If I had no sin I should not need Christ. No, Satan, you cannot delude me into thinking I am holy. The truth is, I am all sin. My sins are not imaginary transgressions, but sins against the first table, unbelief, doubt, despair, contempt, hatred, ignorance of God, ingratitude towards Him, misuse of His name, neglect of His Word, etc.; and sins against the second table, dishonor of parents, disobedience of government, coveting of another's possessions, etc. Granted that I have not committed murder, adultery, theft, and similar sins in deed, nevertheless I have committed them in the heart, and therefore I am a transgressor of all the commandments of God.

"Because my transgressions are multiplied and my own efforts at self-justification rather a hindrance than a furtherance, therefore Christ the Son of God gave Himself into death for my sins." To believe this is to have eternal life.

Let us equip ourselves against the accusations of Satan with this and similar passages of Holy Scripture. If he says, "Thou shalt be damned," you tell him: "No, for I fly to Christ who gave Himself for my sins. In accusing me of being a damnable sinner, you are cutting your own throat, Satan. You are reminding me of God's fatherly goodness toward me, that He so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. In calling me a sinner, Satan, you really comfort me above measure." With such heavenly cunning we are to meet the devil's craft and put from us the memory of sin.

St. Paul also presents a true picture of Christ as the virgin-born Son of God, delivered into death for our sins. To entertain a true conception of Christ is important, for the devil describes Christ as an exacting and cruel judge who condemns and punishes men. Tell him that his definition of Christ is wrong, that Christ has given Himself for our sins, that by His sacrifice He has taken away the sins of the whole world.

Make ample use of this pronoun "our." Be assured that Christ has canceled the sins, not of certain persons only, but your sins. Do not permit yourself to be robbed of this lovely conception of Christ. Christ is no Moses, no law-giver, no tyrant, but the Mediator for sins, the Giver of grace and life.

Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535)
by Martin Luther

Overview sermons of the bible

I've been listening to this guy, Mark Dever, who put together an overview of the entire bible, the OT, the NT and each book in the bible.

And as he puts it, there are some things you can get from a greater height that you don't necessarily see up close. Well worth the investment of time, if you ask me.

Click me for the OT sermons

Click me for the NT sermons

May the LORD bless you as you study.

Reclaiming the Mind ministries

An excellent theology resource. Got questions? They've answered 263 of 'em!

And here's the full length course, where the above questions were clipped from, that is a comprehensive and in-depth theological training program for lay people. Available in both streaming video and mp3 download.

Some fantastic material at this site! The webmaster, Michael Patton, also hosts a blog: Parchment and Pen. And if my children's pastor, Joel, ever reads this blog ... he's a Sooner. :)

Have a look!

Blessings

AW Pink on 1 John 2:2

And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world - I John 2.2

I just love how Arthur Pink has addressed this verse! I think he makes it so obvious. He has several solid points. Each of which validate the limited scope of the atonement in and of themselves, but this has got to be BY FAR the most convincing (I'd say compelling, but it's more than compelling) argument he raises. He does the unthinkable - he interprets Scripture with Scripture. And not only that, but he lets John interpret John. Have a look:

...

In the fourth place, when John added, "And not for ours only, but also for the whole world", he signified that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of Gentile believers too, for, as previously shown, "the world" is a term contrasted from Israel. This interpretation is unequivocally established by a careful comparison of 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51,52, which is a strictly parallel passage: "And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad". Here Caiaphas, under inspiration, made known for whom Jesus should "die". Notice now the correspondency of his prophecy with this declaration of John’s

1 John 2:2	John 11:51, 52
"He is the propitiation for our (believing Israelites) sins".	"He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation".
"And not for ours only".	"And not for that nation only".
"But also for the whole world"— That is, Gentile believers scattered throughout the earth.	"He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad".

Is that beautiful or what! Side by side we've got the precise interpretation right there! It is not the "whole world of every single individual ever" as if Christ's blood is some sort of magic potion you just apply as needed. John himself tells us that Christ is the propitiation for not only the Jewish children of God, but for the children of God in EVERY nation!

I urge you to read the entire article. It's perfect and pithy.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/appendix_04.htm

And if you like that, you'll LOVE the rest of that book -- The Sovereignty of God. It's a top read on my list.

This, for me, is the absolute end of the argument. What a comfort I take in the definite atonement our Lord has made for those who believe. It's such a surety that there is NOTHING that I can do to lose it, and on the flip side of that coin, there is nothing I can do to KEEP it. Think on that one for a second. It is solely because of the propitiation and advocation of Jesus Christ that I am accepted before a just and holy God.

Amen!

Reformed Confessions on mp3

http://urclearning.org/creeds-and-confessions-audio/

This link includes:

Apostles Creed
Nicene Creed
Athanasian Creed
Chalcedonian Creed
Heidelberg Catechism
Belgic Confession
Canons of Dordrecht (Dordt)

For the most part, I agree with these. There are a few points, such as infant baptism mentioned in the Heidelberg Catechism, which I don't understand enough to agree or disagree. For instance, I understand that it doesn't intend to be the same as the Catholic baptism. It seems to be more like the typical type of "dedication" only with water.

In fact, it is my understanding now that Calvin also believed in infant baptism. And I've found out that some reformers still practice it today. As a sort of covenant thing ... akin to circumcision. How odd.

I have yet to listen fully to the Belgic Confession, so I have no comment on that yet.

Lessons on Romans

This series, taught by Tom Browning - Arlington Presbyterian Church (PCA) - is a must have for any serious Christian.

One of the best teachings on the book I've heard. A series of 43 downloadable MP3's.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/mp3/romans_browning.html

Blessings

Well, here we go ...

I've been thinking about this for a little while now ... starting to record my thoughts in a blog for all to enjoy :)

I think that initially this blog is going to focus on resources that I've acquired that I'd like to share with you. Who knows? If God wills, this site will become a good resource for those who desire to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18)

I also hope to have time to develop my own theology here. I want to see how my growth progresses over time, and this might be a good learning experience for me.

So let's get started ... I've been learning about the history of the church lately, and it has given me great insights into how God moves in and through His people. It has also given me insight into what happens when men put more emphasis on what they see and experience instead of what the word of God says.

Two resources:

Dr. David Calhoun of Covenant Theological Seminary

Ancient & Medieval Church History
Reformation & Modern Church History

Tom Browning of Arlington Presbyterian Church (PCA)

The History of the Reformation - How Christ Restored the Gospel to His Church

Blessings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ