This blog post is shorter than usual because I will request additional reading.
Gary DeMar provoked me to make this appeal. One of his recent blog posts reminded me of a traumatic period in my life. I felt like the Israelites during their Exodus from Egypt, trapped between two powerful forces. My Red Sea was an unorthodox Christian faith. The hostile army in my dilemma was atheism. I saw no way to escape both. One or the other would slay my Christianity.
This was an unexpected situation. I was a newly ordained minister serving in my first pastorate. My preparation for ministry had led me to a reformed understanding of Scripture. The 1689 London Baptist Confession (LBC) of faith expressed my beliefs. I had settled many of my previous theological questions.
Interpreting prophecy was another matter. The LBC did not include a definitive position regarding eschatology—the study of last things. I was content to live with an ill-defined position regarding Christ’s second coming and related matters.
My contentment lasted until I encountered full preterism. This view teaches that God has already fulfilled all Biblical prophecies. James Stuart Russell’s book The Parousia1 introduced me to this position.
Almost all of Russell’s arguments were persuasive. He explained dozens of prophetic passages that had puzzled me. I could soon predict how he would explain other difficult passages. I admired the consistency of his approach to such Scriptures.
My trauma began when I realized where Russell was taking me. As a full preterist, he believed the resurrection of the dead occurred in AD 70. He said it happened when the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple.2
Russell was drawing me toward a position that denies the future bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and a final purging of sin from God’s creation. It was an unorthodox expression of the Christian faith.
My heart trembled when I considered these conclusions. I went to great lengths to discover where Russell’s arguments went astray. I read many books about prophecy. I spoke with scholars, well-known authors, and fellow pastors. They did not relieve my mounting anxiety. It seemed I was on a road to unorthodoxy.
Then, an alternative presented itself to my mind. What if the Scriptures themselves were wrong? What if Jesus and the apostles had predicted things that did not happen? In that case, I would not need Russell’s logic to explain them. The proper action would be to reject the Bible itself.
So, I had two options—unorthodoxy or atheism. Either choice meant my previous worldview was a sham. I had believed the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Was I on the verge of refuting such notions?
That is where I found myself in the late 1990s.
I rejoice to report there was a third alternative that I could not see at that time. The Lord allowed me to discover it over the next few years. This third way was a prophetic model I call inmillennialism. It accepts many of Russell’s arguments but remains orthodox.
This brings me back to Gary DeMar. His writings3 played a vital role in the development of inmillennialism. His book Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church was a special blessing.
And, now, DeMar has touched me again. He has done so through his response to a blog post by a self-described “black nonbeliever.” The post to which he is responding is Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return. It is on a site called Black Nonbelievers, Inc. The blog’s byline is “walking by sight, not by faith.” It espouses an atheistic, secular worldview.
I read the atheist’s post before reading DeMar’s response. Its reasoning reminds me of the choice I faced many years ago. The author has taken one of the only two options I thought were available during my trauma. Had I not found inmillennialism, the arguments this author uses might have led me to his atheistic conclusions.
I am thankful now to see the problem with such logic. And I want others to see why it is wrong. That is one important aim of this blog.
So, here is the reason for this abbreviated post. I am asking my readers to do the following:
- Read the atheist’s article here.
- Consider the arguments the writer advances and test their merits.
- Decide whether your understanding of Scripture would allow you to answer these arguments.
If you have difficulty with the last request, please take two additional steps. First, read DeMar’s response (here). Second, consider whether inmillennialism can help you respond to objections like those posed by the Jesus’ Failed Prophecy post.
Please leave a comment in the box below. I am interested in your response to the atheist’s post. How do you show Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords when faced with such challenges?
Footnotes
- J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999).
- Russell, The Parousia, 547.
- His material is available through The American Vision.
6 comments
What an outstanding post!
Thank you, this was an encouraging first response!
Greetings Sir
Just a quick thought. As a trucker that is out in 80-hour work-weeks, I don’t have much time or energy for detailed study
But when Christ said there were some standing there who would not taste death until they see the coming of Christ and His kingdom …….
Would not the apostle John have fulfilled that, who was transported in the spirit, to view the final days, and the kingdom, and the return of Christ…before he physically died? And perhaps others of the apostles, that we are not told of, also were given such visions
I find it interesting, that a simple premill position (futuristic premill) was taught by the early church for the first three centuries, and was considered as the orthodox doctrine by the very church father’s who declared it was the doctrine taught them by the apostles
Just a thought
Grace and Peace in Christ
Btw, I did read the other articles
Thank you for taking the time to respond! And, I appreciate the fact you read the other articles I mentioned in the post.
You are right, premillennialism—also called chiliasm—was the dominant, but not the only, view in the early church. But this is not the final criteria for our beliefs and practices. The early church held several views many Christians would reject today. I’m thinking of infant baptism/baptismal regeneration, no musical instruments, etc. We should prove (or disprove) these positions from the Scriptures before accepting them. I suspect you agree with this statement.
You suggest that John’s visions may have fulfilled the prophecies of Jesus and the apostles. This is problematic. Visions do not fulfill prophecies. Only actual events can do that. For example, the writer of Hebrews did not say John would see a vision. He said, “for yet a very very little, He who is coming will come, and will not tarry” (Heb 10:37 YLT). Jesus and the apostles were prophesying about actual events, including the coming of Christ. These events would happen in their near future. They were not talking about visions of events in their distant future.
I would welcome further interaction about these ideas if you wish to correspond further.
Your questions and comments reveal a deep concern for the things of God. May he bless you as you continue to grow in knowledge and wisdom.
Yours in Christ,
Mike
But, we are told it was more than a vision. He was literally there, is my understanding. He was called upward and saw these things. So if it was more than a vision, the Christ’s prophecy was indeed fulfilled. Paul said said he was carried up to the third heaven and saw and heard things unutterable. I suspect other apostles may have had experiences we are not told
Further, when a direct disciple of the apostle john, said a futurist premill position was the doctrine handed down by the apostle (I think it was ireaneus) then that pretty well settles it. The fact it was so dominent also speaks volumes. Yes the early church had an influx of heretics attempting to corrupt the gospel and bring in false doctrine, but those were the same people, who started bringing in false views of eschatology
If one maintains a consistent literal hermenuetic, you will always arrive at a simple covenant premill (not dispensational). George Ladd wrote a wonderful book on covenant premill
Every single other system of eschatology MUST switch to allegorical interpretation of various verses in order to sustain itself. Pull on this thread, and the superstructure falls apart, for those same scriptures are given in very literal language. The bible will always let the interpreter know when it speaks literally or not and for a system to allegoricalize literal language for the sake of maintaining the system…is wrong (eisegesis)
Literal promises spiritualized, are exegetical fraud.
And keep in mind, John was transported outside the realm of time and space, he was able to view actual events from heavens perspective that are yet to us, still future.
Thanks for the continued interaction!
Let me re-emphasize my point about visions not fulfilling prophecies. God gave the Revelation “to show … things that must soon take place” (Rev 1:1 ESV). He distinguishes the revelation from the things themselves. They (the events) would happen soon after it. The Revelation was not the fulfillment of Jesus’s prophecies (e.g., Matt 16:27–28).
John himself speaks of “my vision” (Rev 9:17), so I will accept his description. George Ladd—whom I also respect—describes the Revelation as a series of visions. He says Rev 4:2 means John “entered into a trance. … It is possible the visions in the Revelation were not all received at one and the same time but that the book embodies the written record of a group of visions received on Patmos on different occasions” (Revelation, 71; emphasis added). Ladd does not believe the command “come up here” implies a literal movement. Nor does any other commentator of whom I am aware!
I grant Irenaeus, whom you mention, may have believed some elements of a premil position. He also believed in baptismal regeneration: “We are made clean, by means of the sacred water” (ANF, 1:574). He endorses infant regeneration by this means: “For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (ANF, 1:391). I reject these positions and feel at liberty to reject his eschatological positions, too, where they contradict Scripture.
We may wish some church father transmitted the eschatology that “was the doctrine handed down by the apostle.” This is not the case. As far as I know, no one church father held all the elements of modern premillennialism. And, almost all of them held positions with which you and I would disagree. The situation is much more complex and requires more than just listening to the church fathers and accepting their position. If you can point me to an early church father who held all elements of the modern premil position, I will gladly acknowledge the fact.
No prophetic system maintains the literal method of interpretation you describe. We all use figurative language when we think the context demands it, whether there is an explicit non-literal marker or not. Premils do this, too. I will be happy to provide examples if you wish.
Literal promises spiritualized are not necessarily an exegetical fraud. Like I said, premils, including Ladd, do this.
Again, I like George Ladd and think the historic premillennial position has much to commend it. However, it does not provide a satisfactory apologetic for the Christian faith.
So, what about the main point of my blog post? How do you answer the atheist’s arguments? Saying you believe in “a futurist premil position” would not go far toward a solid refutation. How do you respond to his/her specific arguments?
~ Mike