TEs on the End.

[theIdi0t]

I remember when I was young, I had to watch one of those old Christian movies about the rapture, and the tribulation, and fear would settle in. It was always difficult for me to reconcile this loving, merciful God, and see those events portrayed in the film.

It was only much latter, perhaps just a year or so ago, that I realized that the whole concepts behind the Left Behind series, and the like, comes form man's stretch of the imagination, and how he wills the end to be like, and not as how it is written.

I'm surprised at how many supposed literalist buy into this, because I for the life of me, can't understand where the scriptural support for these ideas even stem from. I find it much more easier to believe Behemoth is a dinosaur, than believe in that good old dispenstionalist end of the world thing.

I guess from that view, there is no purpose for mankind, and our life together is only a trial, to see if we are admitted into the next life, and man is not here to make a mark on the world, but he is just here to survive and continuing believing, so that he gains admittance.

But when I read the Bible, from Isaiah, to Micah to Jesus, to John in Revelation, I see hope, not just for myself, but for others, and that the purpose of mankind is to make the world a better place, by not only spreading the Gospel, but by living it.

But I wonder sometimes, if it's just me projecting what I want in the Bible, rather than what is written. Perhaps the Bible does tell us that life here is just a trial, but I've become so resistant to believe, that I see hope, even when it isn't there.

So what is it? Is there a divine purpose for all existense, is life here more than a trial?

I wonder what the response is from other individuals who try their hardest to not project what they want to see, but try their darnest to see what is really there.

 

[gluadys]

I remember when I was young, I had to watch one of those old Christian movies about the rapture, and the tribulation, and fear would settle in. It was always difficult for me to reconcile this loving, merciful God, and see those events portrayed in the film.

I can relate. Some of my family are Jehovah's Witnesses and we always had some JW literature around as well as some pressure to join them. I decided when I was about 14 that I needed to make a decision one way or the other. At the time I had few answers to JW (mis)interpretations of scripture and they actually sounded as if they knew scripture better. But I did not join them. And the basis of my decision was that at Sunday school I was learning that God loved me. But as presented in JW literature God was a very scary dude.

Later I learned the fallacies behind JW theology. But I didn't really need those to understand the conflict between their god and the God Jesus called Father.

So what is it? Is there a divine purpose for all existense, is life here more than a trial?

Certainly. God doesn't need to put us on trial. He already knows the heart. And God does not create without purpose.

I do believe God's purpose is to redeem all of creation, not just his human creation: not that non-human creation has sinned, but all creation is affected by human sin. The rape and despoliation of nature by war and lust for profit exemplifies that. The restoration of harmony between God and humanity includes the restoration of harmony between humanity and creation. So we have Isaiah's vision of the peaceable kingdom and Paul speaking of how creation groans in anticipation of the birth of the children of God.

So I very much agree that there is a future for this world in God's plan. Do we not pray "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" How can that prayer ever be fulfilled if creation is nothing but a testing ground?

I like the perspective with which the childrens' hymn "This is my Father's world" concludes:

Jesus who died shall be satisfied
And earth and heaven be one.

That I think is the point. Not to take us out of earth into heaven, but to bring heaven (i.e. God's reign) to earth.

btw have you read John Polkinghorne? Very insightful on this topic. One way he expresses it is that this world is a "creatio ex nihilo", (creation out of nothing) but the next will be a "creatio ex vetere" (creation out of the old). In short, the new world will be a glorification of this world with all that is evil and sinful and hurtful removed.

Have you ever noticed that when Jesus speaks of one being taken and one being left, he does not specify which one is blessed? Why do we assume that being left behind is a terrible fate? Maybe the one taken is one taken by the angels to the pit of hell, while the one left will be the citizen of the coming heavenly kingdom. For example, in the parable of the wheat and the weeds, it is the weeds that are removed and burned. Just so, Jesus says, God's angels will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and evildoers, and then the righteous who remain will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. (Matthew 13: 41-43)

 

[shernren]

Something that I hold on to is that whenever the Bible speaks of eternal life, it speaks not just of the duration of life, but of the quality of life. I used to look at verses that promise long life and wonder: "I don't care about living a long life. I want to burn bright and fast!" But as I think about it, I don't think that the length of a life is measured merely in years alive. Of course, any Christian's life will ultimately be endless. But to not look so far, my life won't be measured just in the number of years I live, but in the number of years over which my contributions for good are felt in the world.

As Christians, we believe in both the createdness and the fallenness of this world. It is created by God; it has been brought low by man. The tension is quite difficult to manage. We must do everything we can to patch our ship; we must always remember that despite all our efforts, someone will remake this ship into a better one that will sail forever, quite independently of anything we try.

 

[MrSnow]

I really don't see a correlation between being TE and rejecting "Left Behind" theology, or being YEC and embracing it. I know plenty of people who are YEC and reject it, and many who are not YEC and embrace it.

Gluadys, I liked your point that it is God's intention to bring Heaven to earth. That is just what God did in the Incarnation.

 

[peteos]

I think there is a little correlation between dispensational theology and YEC, though YEC is more wide then dispensationalism (I personally don't know anyone for whom the reverse is true, who strongly believes in dispensationalism but not YEC). I think this correlation stems from two things.


1) YEC is strongest in the Bible Belt, which is also where dispensational theology is still the norm (people still reading Scofield who have never been exposed to anything else). So there is just a natural correlation on this ground.


2) As for actual theology, dispensationalism is in part based on taking a good many passages in the Old Testament and in Revelation quite literally. Taking some of these OT passages literally at times even seems to conflict with New Testament interpretation of them (such as Acts 3:16's interpretation of Joel 2:28-32); but they persist anyway. Anyone who will take these prophetic passages, some of them quite obscure, literally, is definitely going to take Genesis literally.


3) I'm adding a third, though it is somewhat related to the first. Dispensationalism tends to be weakened in more academic and educational circles, the very places you would learn the reality about common descent.

In College when I began to study the Bible more carefully for myself, I didn't find a strong case for the rapture. I also didn't find a strong case for a strict division between Israel and the Church in the end times. I do go to a Dispensational Church now, though it is not an emphasis of the church to stress on the end times. Reaching other people with the good news of Jesus is the emphasis of the church. I don't know that dispensationals would agree that life is only a trial for the afterlife. God's saving activity has already broken into this age and began to alter our lives. It is true though, and stressed often by Paul, that we will not be complete until the life to come, and he longed for that day.

 

[theIdi0t]

I really don't see a correlation between being TE and rejecting "Left Behind" theology, or being YEC and embracing it. I know plenty of people who are YEC and reject it, and many who are not YEC and embrace it.

I don't know of a single "TE" who embraces dispensationalism (perhaps someone can prove me wrong?), but I know of many YECs and OECs that embrace it. I think the correlation exists because of a YECs and OECs penchant for stretching scripture to support their views. Though I also do believe that embracing dispensationalism involves a great deal more stretching than being a YEC, I just think it is reasonable to assume that those who stretch it a mile are more likely to stretch it two miles, than those who are reluctant to stretch it even a mile.

2) As for actual theology, dispensationalism is in part based on taking a good many passages in the Old Testament and in Revelation quite literally.

I've always been curious about this, I have never found a satisfying verse of scripture that could be taken literally to support dispensationalism (particularly pretribulation rapture). When I inquire about the scriptural support, I am told that it is part of the "divine mystery" something hidden in scripture, rather than literalism. I think dispensationalism finds it support among those who are reacting to something in what they see in the world among them, more so than scripture. I also believe that YECism is also such a reaction, because I don't find it all that difficult to squeeze evolution into an inerrant bible, but there is something else that makes them reluctant to do so, perhaps it has a lot to do with the militant Athiests use of science as support for the non-existence of God?

 

[peteos]

I've always been curious about this, I have never found a satisfying verse of scripture that could be taken literally to support dispensationalism (particularly pretribulation rapture).

Its true, there is no direct statement about the pretribulation rapture (if there was, I would believe it!). But there are direct statements in the OT about a future Golden age for Isreal. About a rebuilt temple, about people being redrawn into the land, and about a time of peace. If one were to take these literaly then they clearly have not taken place and await a future time. The pretrib rapture grows out of dispensational theology to connect some of the dots of other prophecy and is mostly based on statements of the second coming, albiet ones that seem to conflict with what they expect the final second coming to be. The millinium itself is prophecied in Rev 20 and I am undecided (and mostly don't care ) whether that is to be taken literaly.

In the dispys defense, some of those OT passages are quite specific. In everyone else's defense, it would appear the NT writers believed that the events of their age, Christ and the spread of the Church, was fullfillment of those prophecies. I for one, can't make a consistent picture of it.

I also believe that YECism is also such a reaction, because I don't find it all that difficult to squeeze evolution into an inerrant bible

Wow, I do! I guess I would have no problem having evolution take place, God deciding at a certain place to give a soul, and calling that dude Adam, and everything else being historical right after that. It is when we start to question the flood, and babel, and etc after that that I struggle with inerrancy. Thats what I have come to this forum to discuss.

 

[theIdi0t]

Its true, there is no direct statement about the pretribulation rapture (if there was, I would believe it!). But there are direct statements in the OT about a future Golden age for Isreal. About a rebuilt temple, about people being redrawn into the land, and about a time of peace. If one were to take these literaly then they clearly have not taken place and await a future time.

Well, I also believe in a future "Golden Time", and as Augustine believed that Jews will come to believe in Christ. So I guess you can say that I take these portions of scripture literally (though I don't believe that these things come about because of supernatural intervention, I believe they come about by radical discipleship), but I'm far from a dispensationalist? Or perhaps I'm unaware of what it even means to be a dispensationalist? Does it only take a literal reading of the above mentioned passages to be one?

The pretrib rapture grows out of dispensational theology to connect some of the dots of other prophecy and is mostly based on statements of the second coming, albiet ones that seem to conflict with what they expect the final second coming to be. The millinium itself is prophecied in Rev 20 and I am undecided (and mostly don't care ) whether that is to be taken literaly.

I think there are strong cultural underpinnings that allowed dispensational theology to arise, and remain, and I don't think it comes from a reading of scripture at all, but what someone wanted to see in scripture. I believe no matter how you read scripture, literally or allegorically, you will not find a bankrupt theology. There is something else that led them to see a Demon in the ink spot.

I also worry about the end times obsession that sweeps the churches. It seems they are more caught up by the shock and awe, than the message of the Gospels. Perhaps the allure is similar to what makes a Gladiator battle or a public execution alluring, then I get queasy. I care only for the end times, because of what affect it has on believers, and where exactly it is taking them. I care only because I worry.

Wow, I do! I guess I would have no problem having evolution take place, God deciding at a certain place to give a soul, and calling that dude Adam, and everything else being historical right after that. It is when we start to question the flood, and babel, and etc after that that I struggle with inerrancy. Thats what I have come to this forum to discuss.

Well, I wasn't trying to say that I would have no problem with it. I'm just saying if you believe in an inerrant Bible, and a literal word, the amount of stretching it takes to make it work, would easily accommodate evolution.

If an inerrant believer can tell me when Job speaks about the edges of the earth that he is referring to a sphere with limitless edges, and that Genesis 1 and 2 are not in contradiction with each other, it shouldn't be all that hard to squeeze in evolution somewhere. The global flood, and the tower of babel are other things, that some creative creationist has to figure out. If scripture fails to accommodate all too well, that I guess you can stretch the outside evidence, but I still feel evolution is much easier to squeeze than the flood and the tower of babel.

 

[staveoffzombies]

I believe that eventually God reconciles all to Himself, there are many MANY verses that speak about Jesus being the Saviour of ALL.

However, as to the end of the Earth, I honestly don't know. But I know that God has a plan for it, so I'm not too worried.

 

[peteos]

Well, I also believe in a future "Golden Time", and as Augustine believed that Jews will come to believe in Christ. So I guess you can say that I take these portions of scripture literally (though I don't believe that these things come about because of supernatural intervention, I believe they come about by radical discipleship), but I'm far from a dispensationalist? Or perhaps I'm unaware of what it even means to be a dispensationalist? Does it only take a literal reading of the above mentioned passages to be one?

I think the barebones definition of a dispy would be a future distiction between an ethnic Isreal and the Christian Church. The prophecies of the OT would still apply to a purly racial people. The rapture comes a long for the ride, in part, to remove the Christian church to allow for God's people to be an ethnic group once again. But, as for the regular joe on the street, he probably does know enough about it to realize this, nor has he ever heard the turm dispensational. But to him the prominant feature is the rapture.

I agree we have an overfasiniation with the end times. We should have a good eternal perspective for sure, but lets let that perspective encourage us to spread the good news and not keep making prouncements from every bit of news coming from the mid east.

I also, btw, agree with you concerning a future time when most of Isreal will come to know Jesus, via Romans 9-11

 

[FranciscanJ]

I remember when I was young, I had to watch one of those old Christian movies about the rapture, and the tribulation, and fear would settle in. It was always difficult for me to reconcile this loving, merciful God, and see those events portrayed in the film.

It was only much latter, perhaps just a year or so ago, that I realized that the whole concepts behind the Left Behind series, and the like, comes form man's stretch of the imagination, and how he wills the end to be like, and not as how it is written.

Lol, my parents bought me the left behind series for Christmas when I was about 20. Funny, I hadn't asked for it but my mom started reading them, "for now, when you're not reading them". That was like, 5 minutes after opening the present!

Yeah, that was one part of my fundamentalist upbringing that I never quite agreed with. The whole thing just seemed a bit misinterpreted. Every war in Iraq signified the whole world ending for my pastor. Last I heard he thinks God told him he was coming back in his lifetime. I muttered to myself, "Yeah, when you lifetimes over that is".

Married couples heading toward old age were often more gleeful at the prospects for armaggedon than us youngsters who hadn't had a chance to live life yet.

I notice so many people don't go to college because these ministry leaders convince them they may not have time to finish...sigh.
I began to figure they were wrong early on, but just about God's timing.

When I became TE about 1 1/2 years ago, I decided to start studying up on eschatology a bit too. I now lean towards an amillenial / preterist view.

I often think about how the pharisees thought they had the whole Messiah prophesy down, just like we often think we have eschatology all mapped out.

But they were wrong in a lot of ways (interestingly they took some prophesies a bit too literally). So, we could be wrong too in some ways.

 

[dukeofhazzard]

Yeah, that was one part of my fundamentalist upbringing that I never quite agreed with. The whole thing just seemed a bit misinterpreted. Every war in Iraq signified the whole world ending for my pastor. Last I heard he thinks God told him he was coming back in his lifetime. I muttered to myself, "Yeah, when you lifetimes over that is".

I totally agree. And I heard a pastor say that JUST THIS PAST SUNDAY, lol. Why is it that so many pastors believe that?

Even my hubby, the other day was commenting (with a distinctive "doom and gloom" tone) on all the "unnatural weather events" going on. I mean, if we read all of the supposed proof that the rapture was right around the corner, we'd find MANY places in history that would've fit the bill quite nicely.