Here's the most recent oddity from Family Radio. If you go to Family Radio's website, they have a new web page. But the old webpage is still up and running as well.
This story claims:
“It has been a really tough weekend,” Camping, 89, said in front of his Alameda, Calif., home to The San Francisco Chronicle Sunday afternoon.
“I’m looking for answers,” he said, admitting that he was “flabbergasted.”
The Family Radio president had proclaimed that May 21 (at 6 p.m. in each time zone) would be the start of Judgment day and the rapture.
He said he had nothing else to say and that he would be back to work on Monday, when he will have more to say about the failed end of the world prediction.
I was going to post a number of recent video clips, etc., but after viewing a dozen or so, it really didn't seem worth it. Obviously, non-Christians are enjoying mocking Camping and his followers. We knew that was coming.
In responding to Harold Camping, most Christians have been focusing on (and rightly so) on: Matthew 24:36, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." I would like to add a different perspective.
Gary DeMar refers to those who think the end of the world is near at hand as those engaging in "Last Days Madness." I'm not post-millennial like DeMar, but I do share his view that those reading the newspaper in one hand and the Bible in the other often are theologically unbalanced. Camping's view was a bit different of course. As far as I understand it, he didn't see an increase in earthquakes or such as a sign that it was the end.
I do long for the return of Christ, and I can see that even in my short life, evil has increased. DeMar though goes through history and points out other times when things were worse than they are now. His most convincing example is the outbreak of the bubonic plague. Estimates vary, but one-third to one-half of Europe's population was wiped out. There have been barbaric and hedonistic societies that flourished long before 21st century America. If I were living in one these societies, would I think the world had reached its zenith of evil? Maybe. Am I now living in the last generation? Does the state of things currently scream that Christ will rerun in my lifetime? I don't know.
Consider the creation mandate:
Genesis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.
When a person is fixated on the end, I think they often do so at the expense of the creation mandate. They do so at the expense of the fact that God created the world, and this is a good thing. Sure, the world is fallen, but that doesn't mean the creation mandate is not still in place. We are to fill the earth and subdue it, all to the glory of God. This is what was intended from the beginning. I'm not convinced the Garden of Eden was the be all to end all. Mankind was to advance creation by subduing it. When Christans think of Paradise Restored, I think it's not simply a return to the Garden, but a return to the advancement of creation as was intended in the first place. Speculation, I know.
I do look forward to the return of Christ, to see creation restored. To see the "already" go from "not yet" to fulfilled. I think those like Camping or Dispensationalists that are waiting to be raptured, in effect, undermine the creation mandate. One can still long for the return of Christ, but one need not despise creation, even in its fallen state. Christians are not supposed to be gnostics. We're not supposed to be looking to flee the material and dwell in the spiritual. We can still look for the blessed hope described in Titus 2:13, but till then, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
I'm glad to see some covenant theology in these posts, though I have a question: is the "creation mandate" a command which applies to present day Christians?
I don't think so. Paul and Jesus didn't fulfill it, at least not in the sense in which the command was originally given. Some theologians argue that Christ did fulfill that covenantal stipulation in a spiritual sense in that He came to redeem men unto spiritual birth and adoption through His work and that of His bride.
I do long for the return of Christ, and I can see that even in my short life, evil has increased
I am older than you and I have seen enough - don't need to see anymore, so I long for Jesus to end this all.
So can pray, even now Lord Jesus, come.
LPC
I think the creation mandate does apply to us today; that seems the basis for Paul's admonition to the Thessalonians to not quit their jobs and be busybodies or gossips and "freeloaders". ( in light of the second coming of Christ - people have been tempted to be imbalanced on this issue from the beginning of church history.
I Thessalonians 4:11-12
"make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and work with your hands, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders, and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.
see also I Thess 5. 14 and 2 Thess. 3:6-12
Harold Camping said,
“I’m looking for answers,” he said,
Uh oh!
Mr. Camping - Don't look deep in your own mind, don't look in hidden meanings of numbers, and don't connect verses together out of context that have nothing to do with each other.
repent of the false teaching and admit you were wrong and return to Christ alone as Savior and Lord and restore yourself to the church that disciplined you; humble yourself and confess that they were right. Stop predicting the end or the rapture or judgment day. Come back to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, and repent of annihilationism and your wrong views that the church age ceased.
admitting that he was “flabbergasted.”
Be Amazed!
The God of the Bible said:
"Be still and cease striving and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations; I will be exalted in the earth." Psalm 46:10
I am sorry that I have been tempted to mock, and I'm glad I didn't go any further than calling Campings followers "those nuts" in passing. I regret having even done that. It's really tragic that this has happened, too tragic to be funny.
But this is a tragic world and we are pilgrims in it--LPC is right, "even now, Lord Jesus, come."
Ken,
I was specifically questioning the "be fruitful and multiply" aspect of the mandate.
Ryan, you refer to "Some theologians" whom do you mean as representing each view?
"be fruitful and multiply" aspect - oh; I see your point that Paul and Jesus did not participate in that aspect of the whole "creation mandate" or "cultural mandate". It includes managing the earth and creation also; economics, work, etc.
But I think Jesus going to the wedding in Cana and turning water into wine shows His approval of the joy of marriage and the necessity of a wedding ceremony before witnesses. Also, His teaching on marriage and divorce - very important - Matthew 19, etc.
The comment about spiritual offspring is right - Isaiah 53:10 - The Messiah will have spiritual offspring; and it goes on into Isaiah 54:1-3, which Paul applies to the church in Galatians 4:27.
James,
J. V. Fesko in his book "Last Things First" (pgs. 169-175 in particular) covers this topic pretty well in my opinion. Judging by his citations and footnotes:
- Some prominent theologians who consider the mandate to continue to extend to modern believers include Douglas Wilson, John Murray, Henry Morris, and William Einwechter.
- Some prominent theologians who consider the mandate to be one of the covenantal stipulations fulfilled or secured by Christ's work include Fesko himself, James Dunn, Herman Ridderbos, and D. A. Carson.
I don't by any means want to give the impression that children ought to be regarded as something other than a blessing (Psalm 127). But we aren't commanded to procreate. We are to spread the gospel and make disciples of all nations, and in this way even Paul could refer to those whom he "watered" and God caused to "grow" (1 Corinthians 3:1-7) as his children (1 Corinthians 4:14; cf. Galatians 4:19, 1/2 Timothy 1:2, etc.).
Some prominent theologians who consider the mandate to continue to extend to modern believers include Douglas Wilson, John Murray, Henry Morris, and William Einwechter.
Some prominent theologians who consider the mandate to be one of the covenantal stipulations fulfilled or secured by Christ's work include Fesko himself, James Dunn, Herman Ridderbos, and D. A. Carson.
I would be interested in seeing some this argumentation, particularly Ridderbos, Carson, and Murray.
Ridderbos - Paul: an outline of his theology (pgs. 81 and 224-225).
Quick summary: in the same way Adam gave birth to children who bore his image, regeneration is a birth unto conformity to the image of Christ.
Carson - Matthew 13-28 (pg. 596)
Quick summary: The parallel between Genesis 17, 18:18, 22:18 and Matthew 28:19 shows a progression from a covenantal mandate ("be fruitful" - Genesis 1:27, 9:1, 7) with a physical telos to a covenantal promise (e.g. "I will make you a great nation"; "I will bless you"; "I will make you exceedingly fruitful") with a spiritual telos such that "all nations" shall be salvifically blessed (cf. Galatians 3:8).
Murray - The Principles of Conduct (pg. 78 for summary).
Quick summary: the creation mandate hasn't been repealed so it is still in effect.
Fesko's reply: While the aforementioned authors are correct to argue that the dominion mandate is still in effect, they fail to interpret the dominion mandate in the light of the revelation and work of Christ as the second Adam.
...while the dominion mandate is still in effect, it is fulfilled, neither by the nations, nor by Christian husbands or wives, nor by the Church, but by the second Adam, by Christ... the second Adam has successfully passed his own probation in perfect obedience to the will of his Father, has paid the penalty for the broken covenant of works for the people of God through his death on the cross, and is now the firstborn from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit, the cornerstone of the new creation. Christ has taken up the work of the dominion mandate and with the assistance of his helpmate, his bride, the second Eve, the Church, is now fulfilling it...
I'll need time to work through some of those sources. Thank you.
I found Ridderbos' argumentation on how Christ bears spiritual children, (and thus fulfilling the law of Genesis 1:28) cogent. Ridderbos though (at least from quick scan) doesn't address your secondary concern, the requirement of children. Thanks for the interesting links.
Perhaps I read into it more than was there, but I thought it was clear he believed Christ fulfills the role of eschatological Adam in part by bearing children in His image. That this isn't a reference to a physical birth but rather a spiritual one goes without saying. If the command to "be fruitful and multiply" in the sense given in Genesis 1:28 doesn't apply to Christ, who is the head of the covenant - and it couldn't have, or Christ would have obeyed it - how much less can it apply to us?
My initial reason for using Genesis 1:28 in this post was merely to point out that people should simply live each day as it comes, rather than living as some Millerite in a white robe on a hill waiting for the rapture. This usage itself doesn't require the need for the verse to be understood as an express command, (though, if I recall, that's how the Jews understood it). There are plenty of other verses that say as much. I could have used Romans 12-15, or passages from Proverbs. Camping was telling people not to get married. I heard this with my own ears. People were quitting their jobs. If there was ever a denial of Genesis 1:28, whether understood as law, blessing, practical advice, or a general path to follow, Camping and followers did so.
I realize I used the term "creation mandate," and that this term itself comes with significant controversy. I do though believe that people are to fill the earth and subdue it. I would posit though: they can do no other, for by design general humanity wants to procreate, and they want to subdue the earth. For people to willingly cease to do either because they believe it's the end of the world- this is like asking a fish to breath air and sunbathe.
Perhaps I read into it more than was there, but I thought it was clear he believed Christ fulfills the role of eschatological Adam in part by bearing children in His image. That this isn't a reference to a physical birth but rather a spiritual one goes without saying.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my last comment as well. I think you've been very clear, and helpful, and I do very much appreciate the source material you've provided. My comment on Ridderbos having cogent argumentation was only to point out that if Genesis 1:28 is viewed as law, there is indeed a sense in which Jesus did fulfill Genesis 1:28 as a command (as per your first comment on May 23). There's also a sense in which he subdued the earth. He literally was not a farmer. But he did have a vocation, and did subdue nature by his many miracles.
If the command to "be fruitful and multiply" in the sense given in Genesis 1:28 doesn't apply to Christ, who is the head of the covenant - and it couldn't have, or Christ would have obeyed it - how much less can it apply to us?
If Genesis 1:28 is part of the law needing to be fulfilled, then Christ could fulfill it any way he chooses. If he is the fulfillment generally of the entirety of the Old Testament, and the entirety of the Old Testament was about him, then by default he has fulfilled it. Think of all the ceremonial law that Christ fulfilled: animal sacrifices, temple rituals, and laws for the Aaronic priesthood. Think of all those laws that were specific to women. Christ fulfilled all of these well. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I don't see why Christ having literal genetic offspring needs to be the defining factor of whether Genesis 1:28 is law or not.
A few years back before RC Sproul JR started getting into trouble all the time, he did a 2 day seminar at my church. The first session on Friday night, if I recall, was like a Reformed Promise Keepers. It was directed towards men only. If I recall, this issue came up, and Sproul Jr. argued that the creation mandate was still in effect in the sense that Christian couples were required to procreate. I'm sure he probably nuanced it by pointing toward adoption or foster children for those who for -whatever reason- could not physically produce children (I don't remember). Sproul Jr. has quite a number of children. I recall not enjoying the lecture all that much, and leaving with the view that Sproul was a Post-mil reconstructionist fanatic. Curiously, the following week he was defrocked. As far as I've studied this (which isn't much), a bunch of the post mil crowd think similarly to Sproul on this issue.
I do greatly appreciate you provoking the discussion. I find it quite fascinating.
Your point that we ought to be focused on the present condition of ourselves and our loved ones rather than passively, blissfully awaiting for some future rapture is valid. But since I don’t find much of an opportunity to discuss the relation between protology and eschatology on the blogosphere – and it seems you agree! – forgive me for taking advantage of a point minor relative to the intention of your post :)
I do though believe that people are to fill the earth and subdue it. I would posit though: they can do no other, for by design general humanity wants to procreate, and they want to subdue the earth.
Well, I don’t know that I agree all people want to procreate so much as they want to experience the pleasure derived from the means of procreation. As for subduing the earth, I think there is a difference between Machiavellian conquering and what God meant. I’ll address this in a minute:
My comment on Ridderbos having cogent argumentation was only to point out that if Genesis 1:28 is viewed as law, there is indeed a sense in which Jesus did fulfill Genesis 1:28 as a command (as per your first comment on May 23). There's also a sense in which he subdued the earth. He literally was not a farmer. But he did have a vocation, and did subdue nature by his many miracles.
I think it’s deeper than that. Fesko’s book explores the idea Eden was a primeval holy of holies in the cosmic tabernacle in which Adam wasn’t merely a farmer; he was a priest. The purpose of the dominion mandate was to spread the garden-temple to the end of the earth. The means through which this would be accomplished if found in Genesis 1:28, 2:16-17: obedience to God’s law by 1) not eating of the tree of knowledge, 2) procreation, and 3) expanding the order of the garden-temple to the ends of the chaotic world such that it could be lived on for fellowship with the special presence of God.
Jesus fulfills each of these as high priest: He actively and passively obeyed God’s law [for the elect]; He fills the earth with spiritual children in His image with the help of His bride, the church; He puts all enemies under His feet and rules over all with complete authority; because Christ gives us direct access to the presence of God, having torn the veil, Christ has extended the temple of God to the ends of the earth through the salvation of men from every tribe, tongue, nation, and people, as they are themselves temples for the Holy Spirit.
There are other connections which could be made, but it’s an incredibly dense topic. See here more. If you’re as interested in the subject matter of our conversation as I am, the best investment you could make is, in my opinion, in G. K. Beale’s book The Temple and the Church’s Mission. I will post some excerpts from it on Genesis 1:28 as it relates to its import and to whom it applies to if you like. I don’t want to blow up your comment box, though, if you want to keep the dialogue more concise.
If Genesis 1:28 is part of the law needing to be fulfilled, then Christ could fulfill it any way he chooses. If he is the fulfillment generally of the entirety of the Old Testament, and the entirety of the Old Testament was about him, then by default he has fulfilled it. Think of all the ceremonial law that Christ fulfilled: animal sacrifices, temple rituals, and laws for the Aaronic priesthood. Think of all those laws that were specific to women. Christ fulfilled all of these well. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I don't see why Christ having literal genetic offspring needs to be the defining factor of whether Genesis 1:28 is law or not.
Well, I think you would agree that the way in which Jesus fulfills all the OT types has to be recognizably analogous to the types themselves, or we wouldn’t know how something could function as a type.
That Genesis 1:28 was/is law was never in question, but for whom was/is it law? The command to “be fruitful and multiply” was always given to specific individuals, all of whom in some form or other were typologically connected to [the last] Adam.
Ok, let’s try a different tack. Matthew 19:12c – there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven – is pretty clear that it cannot be the case Genesis 1:28 applies to all believers. Eunuchs can’t reproduce, and even if, as some (including myself) think, Jesus is speaking figuratively, He is referring to a celibate life. One who lives such a life for the sake of the kingdom of heaven also can’t reproduce. If Genesis 1:28 applied to all believers, it would not be the case that one could become a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, because he would be disobeying a divine command.
Paul is a good case example. He didn’t marry. He didn’t think people needed to marry (1 Corinthians 7), so he must have believed some Christians don’t need to procreate.
It’s also worth asking under what conditions one ought to marry and attempt to reproduce if it is a command to be fruitful and multiply. Should we be having pubescent teenagers marrying each other ASAP so that they can attempt to obey Genesis 1:28?
Sproul Jr. argued that the creation mandate was still in effect in the sense that Christian couples were required to procreate. I'm sure he probably nuanced it by pointing toward adoption or foster children for those who for -whatever reason- could not physically produce children (I don't remember).
Huh. Well, at present I’m anti-contraceptives since I intuit contraception is opposed to the archetypal relationship between the way in which Christ and His bride bear children, but I wouldn’t go as far as Sproul Jr. Just because a doctor told me I or my hypothetical wife couldn’t bear children wouldn’t incline me to believe it is impossible for I or my wife to bear children, but then that stems from the fact I am a constructivist with respect to a philosophy of science.
James Swan says: “… reading the newspaper in one hand and the Bible in the other …”
James,
Ever since you struck upon that phrase around last year (if memory serves), you have used it a number of times as a rhetorical device that seems fundamentally dishonest. You seem to paint those who “read the newspaper in one hand and the Bible in the other” as those who hold the two in equal regard. From what I’ve seen, that is not in fact the case.
And besides, they are following, at the very least, a precedent set by Jesus Christ. For what saith the Scriptures? “When you see the Abomination of Desolation … know then that … and let not anyone who has …” And elswhere, Paul says “This will not be … until the man is revealed …”
How would these people know the pointers of which the Bible speaks, if not by news? How do you know about the earthquakes, wars and rumours of wars, famine, pestilence? So what I want is that you tell me exactly what it is that you find “theologically unbalanced” about this using news(papers) to see these things that people may believe to be prophecy. If you cannot show that, then stop bullying your brothers like that.
I recognise now that organised, modern theologians, like you (singular and plural, both senses) tend not to be very much in touch with these more-basic truths about the faith, and so they belittle and chastise them. Hence cessationism, and a general laxity towards the parousia, which is most-important for those who call on the Name of God, wherever they may be, whoever they may be. You (plural) pay the obligatory nod in the direction of this hope to see Jesus return, but once that is past—say, if Camping dies—it will be the last we hear about the parousia from your (plural) direction.
Harold Camping is a sign of what is right about Western Christianity, not what is wrong. He is wrong, but that fanaticism is actually correct. What do read in the urgency and (honestly) weirdness of the letters of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles, if not such fanaticism—even an apocalyptic fanaticism? If such apocalyptic madness is unpalatable for (your) civilisation, logical and collected and reasonable and Baconian as it is, well now you know why your predecessors, when they were correct and uncorrupted, were burnt to light up the Roman cities, and our Lord pinned to a pole with nails.
This Genesis “command” to go and multiply and subdue the Earth, is it a Law? Or is it a blessing? Although it seems to be in the imperative tense, it comes after “And God blessed them and said …”
Even in the case of Noah, the “be fruitful and multiply” comes after the comma recognised as the “Noahide Laws”.
Nobody has ever been commanded by law to reproduce—perhaps Onan is an exception—but everybody has been so blessed. Just as nobody has ever been commanded to eat of any of the fruits of the Earth, while everybody has been so blessed.
forgive me for taking advantage of a point minor relative to the intention of your post :)
You don't need to apologize, I really have enjoyed thinking about this, and it's obvious to me you've considered the issues surrounding all this at a much deeper level than I have.
Well, I don’t know that I agree all people want to procreate so much as they want to experience the pleasure derived from the means of procreation.
Agreed for young people in general. But I do see that a large portion of society eventually produces some sort of offspring. Those people that say, reach their senior years and have not participated in producing children are a far less number than those who have. Simply do a quick inventory of seniors in your life: how many have not produced children? That why I stated people are to fill the earth and subdue it- they can do no other, for by design general humanity wants to procreate. Of course, I'm speaking generally. There are always exceptions to the norm.
I think it’s deeper than that. Fesko’s book explores the idea...
Not meaning to cut you off as an insult, but since I haven't read Fesko's book, I don't have much to say other than thank you for directing me to this source. I do though agree at least with your summary of Fesko: "The purpose of the dominion mandate was to spread the garden-temple to the end of the earth." I think there's a great number of Christians who think that eschatology is simply creation restored, or a "return to the Garden" as the teleological fulfillment we were destined for. Rather, I think the Garden was simply a beginning to a much greater reality. Without reading Fesko, I'm tempted to think we both have the same thing in mind.
expanding the order of the garden-temple to the ends of the chaotic world such that it could be lived on for fellowship with the special presence of God.
This language unnerves me a bit (particularly the word "chaotic"), but perhaps I'm reading more into it than it intends. This though is a bit off subject.
There are other connections which could be made, but it’s an incredibly dense topic. See here more.
Well your link got a 404. And yes, it is a dense topic!
G. K. Beale’s book The Temple and the Church’s Mission.
Thanks.
Well, I think you would agree that the way in which Jesus fulfills all the OT types has to be recognizably analogous to the types themselves, or we wouldn’t know how something could function as a type.
Sure. Christ declares himself the temple. He is the fulfillment and meaning of the Temple. I don't see though, how such a construct of Christ having literal genetic offspring needs necessarily to be the defining factor of whether Christ fulfills Genesis 1:28 or not.
That Genesis 1:28 was/is law was never in question
Again, my apologies for cutting you off mid-sentence, I hate when people do this to me. I simply must go back to your original comment: "is the 'creation mandate' a command which applies to present day Christians? I don't think so. Paul and Jesus didn't fulfill it, at least not in the sense in which the command was originally given." I don't see how, given the construct of your words, Genesis 1:28 was not up for scrutiny as to whether or not it was/is law. Perhaps though I'm not understanding you. This is indeed possible since it's obvious you've thought about all this in much greater detail than I have.
-continued-
it would not be the case that one could become a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, because he would be disobeying a divine command.
I think we actually may agree on all this, but may be speaking past each other, or it may be the case I'm not following you. I don't believe that people without physical children are breaking the law of God. I haven't worked all this out (I sound like Camping now), but if Genesis 1:28 is law (note: "if"), and it must need be followed by Christians (in the sense of the third use of the law), I would assume that producing spiritual children by proclaiming the Gospel would in a sense be a reasonable application of the text. Even as I wrote this, I realize it would need to be fleshed out and reworked, because, let's face it Ryan, we are not Arminians, and we do not change the heart of dead sinners to life. Knowing theologians, I'm sure someone has already written a massive work that follows the trail I think I've discovered. There is nothing new under the sun, so to speak.
I didn't respond to the remainder of your comments, not out of disrespect, but because I thought they reemphasized the eunuch point. Thanks again for a great discussion, I'm glad I had some time to follow up on your insights. I'm not usually this lush with time, but i am this week.
Blessings! James
James, Ever since you struck upon that phrase around last year (if memory serves), you have used it a number of times as a rhetorical device that seems fundamentally dishonest.
27,
I'm not the inventor of this phrase, and I've used it for more years than I can count. I'm tempted to say I stole it from R.C. Sproul, and if my memory serves, I first heard it on his Eschatology teaching series (cassettes), that date back to either the early 1980's, or late 1970's. As to me seeming "fundamentally dishonest" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not meaning to be disrespectful, but rather are simply disagree with me. If this was the case, it was a poor choice of words on your part. If it is though the case you really do think I'm "fundamentally dishonest" I would respectfully ask you no longer comment on my blog, but go elsewhere and fellowship with those you think are fundamentally honest.
You seem to paint those who “read the newspaper in one hand and the Bible in the other” as those who hold the two in equal regard. From what I’ve seen, that is not in fact the case.
My experience is not your experience. I was raised in a dispensational church, and was regularly victim to such movies like "A Thief in the Night" "A Distant Thunder," as well as being subject to the early CCM artists who were overtly singing about the soon arriving end of the world, and let's not get into early Chick tracts. This is simply the tip of the iceberg in the 1970's Christian subculture I embraced. 1980 came and went. 1984 came and went. Russia turned out not to be the bear from the North. All those folks whose names added up to 666 turned out not to be the Antichrist. Every time something in the news happened, the Hal Lindsay crowd saw it as a sign. The entire "Israel becoming a nation again" was a sure sign that the newspaper was reporting events foretold in the Bible. I'm of the opinion that Israel becoming a nation again has nothing to do with Biblical prophecy.
And besides, they are following, at the very least, a precedent set by Jesus Christ. For what saith the Scriptures?
Given the wide range of eschatological opinions, I won't be cornered into a historic or dispensational hermeneutic. I won't even be cornered into a Preterist or partial Preterist hermeneutic, but those folks would circle your wagon and shoot arrows through your every argument.
How do you know about the earthquakes, wars and rumours of wars, famine, pestilence? So what I want is that you tell me exactly what it is that you find “theologically unbalanced” about this using news(papers) to see these things that people may believe to be prophecy.
First of all, let me state up front, I hold to an amillennial eschatology, and even with that, I'm not dogmatic. I'm convinced though by the Partial Preterists like DeMar and Gentry (who are post mil), that an increasing amount of evil or catastrophe is hard to prove from a contemporary vantage point. There have been generations with worse conditions than the present, as I mentioned. There's no way to know therefore that this very generation is that described by futurists. The unbalance is dogmatically thinking the events we live in now have to be that described in the Bible. Past history alone should show you that smarter people than you and I have erred by reading current events into Biblical prophecy. Even the post mil folks in the early 1900's got quite a wake up call from WWI and II.
If you cannot show that, then stop bullying your brothers like that.
Having lived through a dispensational experience, I'd rather simply let the Lord do what he wants to. I'm going to live each day, to the best of my ability, corum deo, and I typically remind myself each day is a gift, and could be my last. I'm not looking to see if the Bear from the North is descending upon Israel.
-continued-
I recognise now that organised, modern theologians, like you (singular and plural, both senses) tend not to be very much in touch with these more-basic truths about the faith, and so they belittle and chastise them.
I am not a theologian, but I have done my fair share in studying eschatology. I'm not at all convinced by Dispensationalism. The Left Behind folks are those who ignore "the more-basic truths about the faith" like mankind enslaved to sin, and salvation from this sin (as opposed to the gospel of being "left behind").
if Camping dies—it will be the last we hear about the parousia from your (plural) direction.
The blog is a small representation of who I am. I recently spent months at much church teaching on Eschatology. The blog was originally intended to focus on Reformation related issues, however, I do address other topics from time to time. Besides, there are enough voices clamoring to be heard on eschatology. I suggest visiting Kim Riddlebarger's blog and interacting with someone more interested in eschatology than I am.
“As to me seeming "fundamentally dishonest" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not meaning to be disrespectful, but rather are simply disagree with me.”
Of course, James, I wouldn’t disrespect my favourite Martin Luther researcher. It’s just that the impression I get from what you wrote about (see the subjectiveness of the ruling) “… seems fundamentally dishonest. You seem …” et cetera.
“I'm of the opinion that Israel becoming a nation again has nothing to do with Biblical prophecy.”
My friend, nothing will ever happen to the body of believers as a whole, and (separately) to the Jews as a people, that is not part of Biblical prophecy. Nothing, ever. Something happens when God chooses you.
“There have been generations with worse conditions than the present, as I mentioned.”
Yes. No cities have been burnt by sulphur yet. :o)
“The unbalance is dogmatically thinking the events we live in now have to be that described in the Bible.”
Actually, the unbalance is mistaking subjective uncertainty with objective uncertainty. I don’t know where it comes from (into the apocalyptic fanatic’s heads) that the end-time signs have to be superlative. And knowing that, say, “exceedingly evil” doesn’t mean “most-evil ever”, it suffices to see evil and see a sign. Of course, the problem with the date-setters is that they set a date. All you have to know is that it is imminent; narrowing it down is un-necessary. Still, you can read your Bible with a newspaper in the other hand and not set dates.
“Past history alone should show you that smarter people than you and I have erred by reading current events into Biblical prophecy.”
Perhaps their problem was being too clever. At any rate, if Camping lives very long, he will one day be correct by saying “tomorrow” consistently and constantly. And that is what the Bible requires, after all.
Anyway, why does being wrong setting a date imply that events do not point at the event that you miscalculated?
There is too much in the way of cautiousness regarding these things, which is entirely due to the Baconian science/skepticism/mathematisation mindset of modern thinking making it into theology (as was inevitable). Of course, the numerological nonsense of the date-setters is itself a symptom of the same disease. But I’ll let Iain McGilchrist write that book for me.
“Having lived through a dispensational experience, I'd rather simply let the Lord do what he wants to. … I'm not looking to see if the Bear from the North is descending upon Israel.”
Why is the most-central prophecy of Christianity less-central to you than, say, at what age it is okay to baptise one’s children? Or, to keep it oranges-to-oranges, why is the most-important prophecy of New Testament less-central to you than the prophecies of the Messianic prophecies Old Testament?
If I had to point at someone here who qualifies for being theologically unbalanced, I would point at myself and my few pub friends (one of them is a rabid, intolerant atheist). But if I had any spare fingers, I would point at you as well.
“The Left Behind folks are those who ignore "the more-basic truths about the faith" like mankind enslaved to sin, and salvation from this sin (as opposed to the gospel of being "left behind").”
Well, the Left Behind types are obsessed with what Paul was obsessed with. So they are not ignoring these details; au contraire, being obsessed with the parousia is the correct default for a believer.
And you say that they ignore the Total Depravity, for example; but why would they invest their faith in a hope of Jesus’ return, if they did not despair of what there is now? The response to recognising that mankind is enslaved to sin is not, as you do, cheering on the creation mandate (what good is subduing the Earth, when all you are going to do is tarnish it with your fallen-ness?); rather, their response is actually what fits in better with a realisation of the desperate dead-end depravity of man.
“I suggest visiting Kim Riddlebarger's blog and interacting with someone more interested in eschatology than I am.”
I am not very interested in eschatology, either. Merely that I respect those who are fanatical about it, because—as one who believes in the impending parousia—I believe they have the right default.
In the comment that has been taken to the quarantine, I made this unclear statement. I am reworking it:
Or, to keep it oranges-to-oranges, why is the most-important prophecy of New Testament less-central to you than the Messianic prophecies Old Testament?
(In other words, this laxity towards Biblical prophecy is why the Second-Temple Jews missed their Messiah; even when they could set an accurate date—an advantage, admittedly, that we do not have—from Daniel 9. You care about the Messianic prophecies, but you do not care about the prophecy that came from the mouth of this self-same Messiah?)
Agreed for young people in general. But I do see that a large portion of society eventually produces some sort of offspring. Those people that say, reach their senior years and have not participated in producing children are a far less number than those who have. Simply do a quick inventory of seniors in your life: how many have not produced children? That why I stated people are to fill the earth and subdue it- they can do no other, for by design general humanity wants to procreate. Of course, I'm speaking generally. There are always exceptions to the norm.
That the majority of people procreate wouldn’t imply those people wanted to procreate. I don’t think that can be substantiated unless you have a Scripture in mind. But then again, I don’t think the negation could be substantiated either.
I think there's a great number of Christians who think that eschatology is simply creation restored, or a "return to the Garden" as the teleological fulfillment we were destined for. Rather, I think the Garden was simply a beginning to a much greater reality. Without reading Fesko, I'm tempted to think we both have the same thing in mind.
Cool.
This language unnerves me a bit (particularly the word "chaotic"), but perhaps I'm reading more into it than it intends. This though is a bit off subject.
It is a bit tangential, so I’ll just mention I don’t mean that any part of the world was or is ungoverned by God.
Sure. Christ declares himself the temple. He is the fulfillment and meaning of the Temple. I don't see though, how such a construct of Christ having literal genetic offspring needs necessarily to be the defining factor of whether Christ fulfills Genesis 1:28 or not.
I agree.
I don't see how, given the construct of your words, Genesis 1:28 was not up for scrutiny as to whether or not it was/is law. Perhaps though I'm not understanding you. This is indeed possible since it's obvious you've thought about all this in much greater detail than I have.
In that context, I was speaking of obedience to Genesis 1:28 in terms of producing physical progeny, which is what I thought you were doing in the OP. Jesus and Paul never produced any such offspring nor even attempted to, which was my point at the time.
I equate God’s law with His commandments. I therefore believe that the command to produce physical offspring in Genesis 1:28 was law for Adam (and subsequently Noah and Jacob). I believe that Jesus fulfills Genesis 1:28 as the last Adam in a spiritual sense. I simply believe this command (whether in taken spiritually or physically) doesn’t extend to all men without exception. I hope that clarifies things.
Even as I wrote this, I realize it would need to be fleshed out and reworked, because, let's face it Ryan, we are not Arminians, and we do not change the heart of dead sinners to life.
Yes, exactly. We do not cause spiritual growth. At best, we provide the occasion by which spiritual growth takes place: "watering" by preaching the word. It might also be correct to say that we don’t cause physical growth either. At best, we provide the occasion by which physical growth takes place: sex.
This isn’t to say what we do isn’t a necessary precondition for spiritual/physical growth, it’s to admit that the sufficient condition must be present: God’s determinative purpose. I think we're on the same page.
I’ll post thoughts by G.K. Beale later.
And, of course, to re-affirm it, Mr. James Swan, far be it from me to think you “fundamentally dishonest.” If anything, one the reasons I read you—the Luther things—is the business of challenging fundamental dishonesty. Currently, there are few people who qualify less for the label of “fundamentally-dishonest” than you do. But do not identify yourself too much with phrases you write; so that a charge leveled at the phrase (“reading the Bible in one hand and the newspapers in the other”) doesn’t automatically apply to you. It is merely that phrase of the newspapers and the Bible that I find fundamentally dishonest, in the way I read it and understand it, regardless of the source thereof.
So, perhaps, I should be calling it fundamentally dishonest in reference to R. C. Sproul, and then you will take no offence.
I find that Sproul phrase fundamentally dishonest, because it seems to paint these eschatologists as holding the newspaper in equal authority with the Bible, which is quite provably not the case.
And also, you didn’t explain to me how you are supposed to see the signs—the earthquakes, famines, pestilences, wars and rumours of wars, nation rising against nation, and kingdom rising against kingdom—if you do not have newspapers.
27,
You quoted Swan's words “I'm of the opinion that Israel becoming a nation again has nothing to do with Biblical prophecy.”
I am also like Swan on this.
The Scripture used to point to this seems to have suggest double fulfillment and I seriously doubt that.
However let us say for the sake of that it is in Ezekiel etc. Then now so what? What is it then in the light of the believer since Jesus said to his disciples, preoccupy till he comes.
When Peter asked him if Christ was now restoring the kingdom, Jesus replied that it is not for him to know the times and the seasons, but to have the HS come upon them and they become witnesses.
LPC
I simply believe this command (whether in taken spiritually or physically) doesn’t extend to all men without exception. I hope that clarifies things.
Thanks for the discussion, very thought provoking. And now, on to 27's eschatology. I don't normally have a chance to spend so much time in comment boxes, but I'm fortunate to have free time this week.
LPC says:“The Scripture used to point to this seems to have suggest double fulfillment and I seriously doubt that.”
I don’t know of any particular passage, but the thing is that God has not forgotten His promises to Israel, the man, and to Israel, the people. As Isaiah rudely notes (and after him Paul, Benjamin D’Israeli, and the 27th Comrade), if it weren’t for God keeping this His promise, there would be no Jews today—and consequently no Israel, the nation. Just by their existence alone, there is a running fulfillment of prophecy.
“However let us say for the sake of that it is in Ezekiel etc. Then now so what? What is it then in the light of the believer since Jesus said to his disciples, preoccupy till he comes.”
Yes, I am not saying that, if people realise that Jesus’ return is imminent, they should sit about and run a countdown. Nowhere does the expectation of Jesus’ return require that we do nothing but wait; if anything, it should spur some action of some sort. This not-doing-anything-but-waiting seems to me to be peculiar to the Western World only, and those elsewhere who are culturally influenced by it, in apocalyptic matters.
27
I don’t know of any particular passage, but the thing is that God has not forgotten His promises to Israel, the man, and to Israel, the people
I do agree - Romans 9-11 teaches this of course.
LPC
27,
I think I'm going to bail on this conversation. I'm losing interest in responding to you point by point over eschatology. I will though probably be doing some eschatology related posts in the future, and perhaps we can take it up again in the future.
Post a Comment