Outbound.

Well, I think this Jackalope has danced his last jig. 

I will probably not be updating this blog again. 

I am setting out for “Deeper Waters” and you are welcome to join me. 

Thank you for reading! 

May the Lord bless you and keep you!

(Use the link below to come aboard)

"Outbound for Deepening Waters"

Life in Transition.

It has been seven months since I last posted on this blog. Much has happened in that time. My ambition over the last few months has been to write up a series of articles observing, evaluating and critiquing dispensationalism and its many problems. Unfortunately I haven’t got much further than writing an outline or two. I have been distracted by several more pressing matters. For one I have been blessed with an opportunity to teach a high school Sunday school class. On top of that, I have been actively looking for ways to change my occupation from my worthless dead end job in insurance to something with a little more purpose and hopefully a little more money.


Above and beyond all of these, my beautiful wife and I are preparing for our new baby daughter (we think) due to arrive in mid October! This has required several adjustments to our lives (all of which we are thrilled to make)! What with studying, writing studies, contemplating college or another job, all the overtime at work and not to mention the long debates over what the most perfect name ever given to a human girl might be and how best to top it a little (I still like “Queen of the universe on the twenty first,” but that would only work if she was born ON the 21st) I have had little energy and even less time to write anything for my blog.


In addition to all of this I am currently collaborating with a prominent professional and highly skilled web developer on a new venue for my blog (ok, it’s Gera, but he is a pro and he is very highly skilled and I would not be surprised to see his clever grin on the cover of several high tech magazine with in the next five years). A new name, a new face and hopefully, someday, new content! I will at least have some of my written sermons up for people to see. It will be a blog for patient readers. I’m not fond of snippets and lots of pictures, but you probably knew that. Even so, as it is still in process, I am not handing out invites just yet. I will leave a message here when it’s all up and running. All in all, I am as determined as ever to finish “My Journey Out of Darbia” and respond to the comments I have received; all two of them (not bad considering it constitutes three quarters of my audience). At any rate I will update you when the new blog is ready. God bless. 

Article 1 Rules and Terms.

Synopsis. As I begin to discuss dispensationalism I want to extend an invitation to the readers to comment on and question what I am saying. Debating has become very taboo for a number of reasons, due largely to the prevalence of postmodernism. But it is an indispensable tool in the process of critical thinking and when done correctly will generate unity.

____

Perhaps you are familiar with the scenario. Outside it’s a cold and wet November evening but the house is so full of people that many have discarded their jackets and sweaters for the heat as they all gather excitedly around the word to listen and learn. The early folks get the comfy seats. Others suffer the kitchen and fold out chairs and still others have to sit among the paper plates and Styrofoam cups which litter the carpet. Never the less, most of them quite forgot their situation as the pastor expounds on the scriptures. That is until a young man starts asking questions. Questions which sparked still more questions and eventually ignited differing views in the room and soon the evening is consumed in a “debate.”

Half an hour later one of the older people, seated on the soft plush couch just opposite the TV, has fallen asleep. Two of the people in folding chairs have a headache. They and 3 others like them have given up on trying to track with the discussion. One is doodling, one is texting a friend and one, who keeps checking her watch, is thinking “when is this gonna end? I should have just stayed home.”

Finally the pastor prays and people began leaving. Some even leave in a huff of frustration. If you asked them why, they might say that they felt like those who participated in the discussion had successfully managed to hijack the entire evening away from the pastor to argue about impractical non-essential differences in doctrine. They may even say things like “Doctrine divides,” “doctrine is for the scholars.” “debating causes division and Christians should be focused on unity and on evangelism not squabbling over some lofty ideas.” and perhaps if you have been in an “end times” study where differing views exist, you may hear something like “The end times are too complicated to understand.” or “Its controversial and it seems like everyone disagrees on something. How can anyone really know for sure what the bible means or what is going to happen? Besides if we are just going to get raptured why does it even matter?”

Over the years I’ve seen similar situations on a number of occasions to varying degrees. And I have heard all of these objections voiced by a verity of people. This illustration represents a very real and growing negative attitude in the church toward discussions about any kind of doctrine whether it be essential or not. There are, I think, several reasons for this. Our culture has adopted an entertainment centered mind set and suffers from severely deficient attention spans, biblical illiteracy and skepticism. All of these ailments, I think, stem from the widespread acceptance of the postmodern and existentialist philosophies we have all been indoctrinated with; either in the world of academia or in the media.

Now you may be thinking “what the heck is postmodernism and existentialism?” That’s an excellent  question! You can learn more about these and other terms by clicking here. For the sake of continuity I will define postmodernism here as a type of Skepticism (the belief that absolute truth is unknowable). At the heart of postmodernism is a view which says that there is no absolute truth, truth is different for everyone and is therefore relative (relativism).

Another key element of postmodernism is its commitment to what it calls “tolerance.” The traditional meaning of tolerance is the enduring of an action or belief that is not agreed with or approved of. The old tolerance saw that there was a difference between identity and ideas or behavior. Thus a Pastor might teach that we should “love sinners and hate sin.” The “New Tolerance” actually defines identity by behavior and says that all behaviors and ideas are equally valid; they are all equally right and true. Now if a Pastor says “love sinners and hate sin,” he is, at best, speaking nonsense, at worst, he is a bigot. Why? Because there is no distinction between a person and their ideas or their behavior.

For instance, many people are under the false notion that a homosexual is a type of person. Homosexuality is treated as a third gender or a particular ethnicity. In reality homosexuality is not an identity but a deviant sexual behavior based the false idea that if one has an attraction or affection for some one of the same sex they are a homosexual. The truth is that we are gender specific human beings who are tempted to do things contrary to our nature. We are never the less wired to function in a particular way regardless of our feelings -  but that’s another blog. The point is that, whereas traditionally, who a person was (i.e. a male human) determined their behavior (a romantic relationship with a female) and feelings would eventually catch up to the reality. Now it’s the exact opposite: feelings rule behavior and behavior determines identity. Thus postmodernism and existentialism demand that we must now love the sinner AND his sin. And to say something like “homosexuality is wrong” is to say that a homosexual is wrong for “being who they are.” To stand in judgement of them, is totally out of line. There is no room for any exclusive claims to truth in postmodernism - except the claim that those who hold to “exclusivistic views” (like absolute truth) ought to be excluded. I don’t blame you if you’re confused, the idea is self referentially absurd.

“But,” you ask, “what does this have to do with debating ideas?” EVERYTHING! If people believe that all ideas are equally right, regardless of whether or not those ideas fundamentally disagree with each other or fail to correspond to reality, then where is the sense in debating them? “Of course,” says the postmodernist “there is nothing wrong with explaining your beliefs, but trying to convince some one else of its truth is  presumptuous! You are saying that “their truth” is not true, which... is not true.” By erasing a standard for absolute truth and equalizing ideologies this view has sought to eliminate the tensions associated with disagreements within the realm of religion and philosophy; but really all it has done is eliminated any real meaning for any ideology.

How so? Well when truth becomes purely subjective, when it’s something we create rather than discover, it no longer has any firm grounding in reality. Everything becomes a matter of personal preference and “the will to power” wins the day; that is, whoever is the strongest ends up deciding what is true for everyone. Why is that a bad thing? Well, logically - rationally, there are good ideas ( like “eating vegetables is healthy” ) and there are bad ideas (like “eating poison is fun” ). And ideas have consequences because they fuel our actions.

Take the holocaust. Its not as though Hitler just didn’t like Jewish people so he killed six million of them. Long before he started carting Jews off to death camps he became convinced of a world view which came straight out of Darwin’s cosmogenic mythology. Hitler took Darwin’s system of “natural selection” and his assertion that there existed a hierarchy of racial purity, to its logical conclusion. The result? Massive genocide, ethnic cleansing for the furtherance of the human race. Very bad idea.

Hinduism asserts the existence of transcendent gods, which is better because at least then you have a rational standard for right and wrong. But it’s still a bad idea because it imprisons people in their respective classes so that they can never rise above the standard of living they were born into. Generation after generation of people in the low class will always have to suffer poverty, exploitation and oppression. The only way up is reincarnation.

Christianity views all people born under heaven as being equally intrinsically valuable having been fearfully and wonderfully crafted in God’s image. Thus Jesus commands his disciples “love one another just as I have loved you.” and “who ever wishes to be great among you must be the servant of all.” The manifestation of this ideology has nurtured western culture through the ages and has produced the greatest most free culture the world has ever seen.

So clearly, while we would say that all humans are created equal, we would not say all ideas are created equal. There are ideas which are better and more valuable than other ideas.  The more an idea corresponds with true truth, the better the idea is; and, as ideas do have consequences, we want the very best ideas we can get. Postmodernism’s assertion that all ideas, or world views are equaly vaild and that truth is relative changes the value system around so that ideas are equal and certain people are superior to others (like men and women who are supposedly superior to unborn children because they have a more developed “personhood”).

So let us keep these rules at the forefront of our thinking when it comes to the issue of discussing and debating philosophical and theological ideas:

1. There IS absolute truth and it IS knowable.

2. Human beings are equally valuable regardless of what they know or believe.

3. Certain ideas are superior to other ideas, that is, there are good and right ideas that are true and there are bad and wrong ideas that are false.

4. Ideas have consequences because they lead to and fuel our actions (thus good ideas are preferable).

5. True tolerance allows equal people to agree to disagree respectfully and agreeably with out degrading those with whom they disagree.

“But wait,” you say, “what is so great about debating? Isn’t it just a lot of people arguing about ethereal, impractical ideas? If all it does is generate contention, what is it good for?” A valid question considering the previously described perspective.

Firstly, debating and discussion exist because humans are a society of finite beings seeking to discover infinite truth. Many of us know a great deal about certain things but to know all is far beyond our capacity. Mystery is an integral part of the human experience. We are and ever will be learners and discoverers chasing each other deeper and deeper into the infinite depths of those Truths which are bound up in the God whence comes all wisdom. God has not created just one person to fill them up with all truth and knowledge (and by knowledge I mean both intellectual and experiential) he has designed mankind to consist of vastly divers persons. We are all part of a network of discoverers and learners. We are made to form a community, we are social creatures designed for relationship. And it is in the context of community that we share our understanding of reality and learn what we do not know from those who do know. In addition to this God has designed reality to function as a unit with a variety of parts that we don’t always immediately understand. Truth is scattered all over the place and its meaning or how it fits together is not all explained for us; we need to figure it out. Some people start with better pre-suppositions than other and discussion and debate are an invaluable tool for learning and discovering truth.

Secondly, debating must exist because humans are sinful and live in a fallen world. Unfortunately mankind has more than a knowledge of what is good. Our eldest grandparents, Adam and Eve, embraced the knowledge of evil as well. We, being their children, have become extremely proficient in evil. As I have already shown there is no shortage of bad and false ideas and information all inextricably tethered to hellish consequences. Discussion and debate are the process where by we not only discover truth and develop good ideas it also the method where by we weed out those ideas that are bad; for wickedness is subtle and often masquerades as an angel of light. Thus debating and discussion work as a safeguard against the seductions of heresy. This is why fellowship is so vital to the Christian. Believers who isolate themselves make themselves a target for the enemy and often develop strange ideas, which, if not checked by a brother or sister, may lead them into all kinds of error and apostasy leaving them shipwrecked.

I think one reason why the idea of debate is so taboo is the prevalent misconception that if some one disagrees with me they are saying that I am stupid. Certainly there are cases where this is true, but not always. Being wrong doesn’t mean someone is stupid it just means that they are wrong. It seems to me that behind the assertion “To disagree assumes someone is stupid or someone is better than someone else” is just raw arrogance. Why? Because some one who would assert such a thing is suggesting that they are incapable of being wrong and last I checked the only infallible person in existence is God. When discussion and debate are done correctly and respectfully it actually generates unity. Abstaining from discussion on deeper issues breeds error and division. Not just from the body of Christ but also the mind and work of Christ.

There is much more to consider in this issue. Like the difference between arguing and fighting; the importance of  listening and loving; balancing between your convictions and having an open mind; having honest answers for honest seekers; making a point and taking a hint; and kind words and respectful tones. All of these I would love to discuss some day in a future article but I do not space or time now to do so. Sill these I think are a good outline of what debate and discussion should look like. I do want to point out that it is vital that we balance between maintaining our convictions and having an open mind.  There must be a clear line between these two. Being open minded on the issue of dispensationalism is one thing but we must not compromise on something like the deity of Jesus Christ.

The old maxim says it best I think “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity.” It is not my intention to separate myself from my brothers and sisters that I know and love because I disagree with them on certain non-essential issues. Such things we can, and I believe, should, debate vagariously as we seek to develop the best ideas, the best understanding of what is true. But we mustn’t divide over them. Never the less I do not want to minimize the importance of what can be considered “non-essential” doctrines. Essential and non-essential do not necessarily mean important and not important. As I hope to discuss in my next article non-essential views are still important and we should still try to come to sturdy, defendable, conviction about such things. The above phrase really is saying that we don’t want to make such convictions the test of true orthodoxy. After all when you are considering the great width and breadth and depth of theological truth you will find that certain “non-essentials” just don’t fit well in the greater scheme of what scripture says. Even in non-essentials we still want to have the best ideas. We want the best understanding of Gods truth because only the best good can flow from the best truth.

Nothing generates unity more than the purest love and truth. But there, is I think, some confusion on what unity really is. I want to highlight this because there is a big difference between unity and uniformity. Look at marriage. In the marriage of a man and a woman you have the unification of two vastly different and independent creatures to form a new and different person. It is a dreadful tragedy when one spouse confuses unity with uniformity and insists that the other conform to their will, preference, and personality in everything so that their true character and personality is discarded and the other person crafts their spouse in their own image. This is a violation of their person hood and a disgusting and damnable sin. Many Christians are, I think, of an unconscious opinion that those who don’t agree with them completely on everything are out in left field or down right heretics. Unity recognizes and celebrates diversity as it seeks to harmonize. Of course there can be no unity with out truth and love and there we must be conformed to Christ. But where there is an incomplete understanding of truth, love covers and binds like bricks and mortar. In a marriage both people must recognize the beauty of the other persons person and seek how to strike a harmony between the Lord the husband and the wife.

Likewise in the church we all must learn to appreciate the diverse perspectives and preferences that exist with in the pale of orthodoxy. Some of us like to pray in “King James English,” Some of us like to pray with simple words, either way Christ is clearly more concerned with sincerity than aesthetics. Some of us like stain glass windows and the awe inspiring ambiance of a cathedral, some are only concerned with the practicality of having a place to worship, even if it’s just a school gym. Both sides have good reasons for why they do what they do. It is sad to think that some are so against the other that they don’t even bother to consider why those of the same Spirit would do such things. I don’t agree with infant baptism but at least I understand why it was the standard for so many believers for so long. And I am, frankly slow to condemn the practice as sinful.

We are a diverse people seeking unity of spirit not uniformity where we all think exactly alike with out variation; that would be degrading to our very identity. No, in the worship of Christ we come together as a symphony of many vastly different instruments who are being played into a harmonious melody. I tend to think that there are places where God intentionally made the scriptures a little vague so that we have to work it out, think it through and talk about what is meant. Otherwise we would never get past a superficial understanding of the word or the Lord or each other.

So where does debating fit in with unity? Debating ideas, even non-essential ideas, is not intended to separate people form each other. debate and discussion are intended to separate people from error and those who are committed to error and heresy. Love longs for unity but it also lives for truth. Truth with out love is often cruel but love with out truth is a mockery. Debate and discussion are tools we use to find truth. Debate and discussion applied with love and respect can generate that necessary environment where one can learn, teach and yet remain convinced of their convictions without being ostracized. When no agreement can be reached we still have love and the Spirit of Christ holding us together  We can agree to disagree agreeably. We still ought to be seeking the best in one another.  How great would it be if Christians sought more so for reasons to dwell together in unity than reasons to part? How great would it be if we could graciously love and appreciate one another for the person we are regardless of the various perspectives we hold? Maybe we could even learn something from each others differing perspectives.

There was a time when men could enjoy a spirited discussion or debate, hold almost polar opposite views and at the end of the night go and have dinner together as friends because they could see past their differences to their essential equality. Now the view of ideologies being elite and human beings being equal has been turned upside down so that we view ideologies as all being equally valid but we view certain people within the human race (whether the intellectual community or some minority) as being elite in some way. This brakes down unity among people and progress in ideas.

Debating and discussion are a crucial part of critical thinking and the development of good ideas. It also helps us to weed out those ideas which are false and damaging. Humans were never meant to figure everything out on their own. We were meant to work together as we seek to understand the unsearchable depths of Gods wisdom and truth. Though many hold debating and discussing to be dangerous tools of division, it is really a tool meant to divide truth from error. When done in love with gentleness and respect it actually generates unity by allowing us to agree to disagree agreeably. Therefore, let us, as equal men, discern elite Ideas.

This is my invitation to you to speak up. The issue at hand, namely dispensationalism, is not an essential doctrine, but that does not mean it is not important. It touches every other doctrine and we want the best doctrines we can have, even in non-essentials. Your thoughts matter here and I know most of you will have opinions and questions. I implore you to share them, however long or short. I can’t promise to respond to everyone but I know that if you are willing to participate the most interesting part of this blog will become the comments sections. These are my rules, seek the truth, stick to your convictions, keep an open mind, above all respect and love one another and at the end of it all lets still be brothers and sisters. Amen?


Beyond that I have included a glossary of terms for the more obscure terms that may be used. If you find a word used that isn’t explained please let me know I will update the glossary. Thank you and may the Lord bless you and keep you in his name.

Glossary of Terms

A-millennialism:
The teaching that there is no literal 1000 year reign of Christ as referenced in Revelation 20. It sees the 1000 year period spoken of in Revelation 20 as figurative. Instead, it teaches that we are in the millennium now, and that at the return of Christ (1 Thess. 4:16 - 5:2) there will be the final judgment and the heavens and the earth will then be destroyed and remade (2 Pet. 3:10).

Antinomianism (an-ti-no-me-an-ism)
refers to teachings and people that hate gnomes.... No! Actually the word “comes from the Greek words ‘anti’ which [in this case] means ‘against’ and ‘nomos’ which means ‘law’ and signifies opposition to law. It refers to the teaching that the moral law is not binding upon Christians as a rule of life2.”

The biblical law consisted of 3 parts, the civil, the ceremonial and the moral law. These were all fulfilled in Christ whose righteousness is imputed to all true believers. The civil and ceremonial laws existed primarily as types and shadows which pointed forward to the coming Messiah. Now that the antitype, the Messiah, has come the types and shadows are retired and we look back to Christ thorough baptism and communion. Thus these aspects of the law are not generally followed by Christians now. The moral law, however, remains the standard and quality of the life believers are saved unto (Eph 2:10). For the moral law is the revealed character of Christ into whose likeness we are being conformed by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

Antinomianism is not the teaching that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works. Antinomianism teaches that since all has been fulfilled in Christ there is no longer a standard of living to which we should adhere and that every man in Christ is a law unto himself. Thus the Christian is “free” to continue living in sin and Christ is bound by the law of grace to forgive the unrepentant professor of faith.

Apocalypse:
Literally an unveiling, that is, a revealing of a person or thing in its true character. Synonymous to revelation, and an alternate title for the book of Revelation. Because of its association with the “end of the world,” apocalypse is sometimes used to denote a radical destruction or purge.

Christian Zionism or Restorationism
is a view held by some Christians especially Dispensationalists that people of Jewish decent are entitled by divine covenant and prophetic promises to all the land promised to Abraham in Genesis 15. It is further held that they must and will eventually have a rebuilt temple (where the Muslim dome currently stands) and re-instituted sacrifices. This vew has played and significant roll in the restoration of Jews to the area of their forefathers homeland. It is sometimes asserted that Israel has every right to wipe out anyone who stands in the way of this restoration and that anyone who is opposing the nation of Israel is opposing Gods chosen people and therefore opposing God, who will, according to Gen 12:3, “...bless those who bless [Israel], and... will curse him who curses [Israel]...”
Cosmogenic:
Cosmos refers to the universe or the whole of existence. genic refers to origin. Thus Cosmogenic refers to the origin of the universe.

Dispensationalism:
A system of theology (formally) developed and popularized in 1830 by John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren. In the Scofield Reference Bible a dispensation is "a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God" Dispensationalism says that God uses different means of administering His will and grace to His people. These different means coincide with different periods of time. Scofield says there are seven dispensations: of innocence, of conscience, of civil government, of promise, of law, of grace, and of the kingdom. Dispensationalists interpret the scriptures in light of these (or other perceived) dispensations.

Central to this view is the idea that Gods work and relationship with the nation of Israel is separate and distinct from the work and relationship He has with the gentile church. In the Old Testament God made certain promises to the nation of Israel which have not yet been fulfilled. When Christ came and was rejected by the nation of Israel God put his covenant with them on hold and began a new and different work with the gentile nations. When that work is finished He will again return to his work with a restored Israel. It is believed that their ultimate destinies in Gods plan are different as well. Some view the nation of Israel as being Gods eternal earthly people and the church being the eternal heavenly people.

Another central idea is the literal interpretation of scripture, meaning that everything in scripture ought to be taken as literally as possible unless it is otherwise designated or absolutely cannot be so interpreted. Thus dispensationalism must hold to a futurist view of the end times as such things that happen in revelation (like a third of the sea turning to blood killing a third of the fish and sinking a third of the ships in revelation 16) have never literally happened in human history.

Dispensation
The English word dispensation has a variety of meanings all of which pertain primarily to the act of dispensing or dealing something out. It also refers to a plan or system of administration or the office of an administrator as a manager.

Theologically it can refer to the distribution of good and evil by God to man or, more generically, the acts and modes of His administration; the divine ordering of the affairs of creation (I had to read this definition a couple of times before it made sense).

The English word ‘dispensation’ appears in 1Cor 9:17;  Eph 1:10; 3:2, 9; and Col. 1:25 where it translates the Greek word ‘Oikonomia.’ Oikonomia is also translated ‘stewardship’ in Luke 16:2-4. Bakers Dictionary of Theology says “Charles Hodge” [whoever he is] “points out the double use of the word: (1) with respect to one in authority, it means a plan or scheme; (2) with respect to one under authority, it means a stewardship or administration. The theological interest of the term belongs to the former of these uses. When God is the Dispenser the term dispensation refers to the purpose he has in view and the way he intends to execute it.” so you may be wondering, like me, how this all relates to C. I.  Scofield’s definition of dispensationalism. According to vines, who mostly agrees with baker: “A ‘dispensation’ is not a period or epoch (a common, but erroneous, use of the word), but a mode of dealing, an arrangement, or administration of affairs... ” it seems to me that Darby and Scofield (assuming they, being a lawyer and a scholar, had a fair grasp of what the word dispensation meant) must have been referring more so to the system of God’s administration of grace in a given time period and less to the actual passage of time. But that is pure speculation on my part.

It is important to note that neither reformed theology nor dispensationalism are monolithic. These views are multifaceted and there exist within each camp a variety of differing views. The general definition above reflect generic historical definitions and do not speak to all the particulars of even the commonly perceived views.

Dual-Covenant theology
is a teaching which actually comes out of Judaism. It says that Jews are saved by “simply” keeping the Mosaic law and covenant. Gentiles on the other hand will be saved if they keep the Noahic covenant (the covenant made with Noah) or become Christian. Some Jewish Scholars have even suggested that this was Jesus and Paul’s message and purpose in evangelism and why the early church targeted a gentile audience. This, of course, fly’s in the face of the clear teachings of scripture that there is only one way to the Father whether one is a Jew or a Gentile (that being through Jesus the Jewish Messiah). This teaching has at times been associated with Dispensationalism. And though it may seem to be compatible with dispensationalism it is NOT compatible with Christianity. A dispensationalist which holds to this view has put himself out of orthodox bounds.

Eschatology:
The study of the teachings in the Bible concerning the end times, or of the period of time dealing with the return of Christ and the events that follow. Eschatological subjects include the Resurrection, the Rapture, the Tribulation, the Millennium, the Binding of Satan, the two witnesses, the Final Judgment, Armageddon, and The New Heavens and the New Earth.

Eisegesis (ice-a-je-sis)
is the method where by one imposes their own preconceived ideas onto a passage; ideas that differ from the intended meaning of the passage.

Exegesis (Ex-a-je-sis)
is the method where by one draws the intended meaning out of a passage; in order to discover what the author was trying to say.

Existentialism:
Has to do with our existence. It is unconcerned with ethereal ideas and tends to overemphasizes the value of our experience. With relation to modernism and post modernism it is often the method where by one discerns what is moral or valuable. Very much more can and will be said, this is a particularly difficult and nebulous ism to describe, but for now this will do.

Futurism:
A theory which came out to the 16th century catholic church as it reacted the reformers historicist view of eschatology and the assertion that the pope was the Anti-Christ. It was eventually introduced into protestant circles in 1827 by Samuel Matiland and later popularized by John Darby in 1830 and on. It is the view that most of the events of Revelation, and the 70th week of Daniel 9, are to be fulfilled sometime in the future.  Futurists generally believe that an individual will appear on the world stage who will usurp the place of Christ as the head of the Church. This individual, they anticipate, will deceive many people into believing that he is some kind of messiah.  He will become a world-leader, and through his influence persecute Christians and Jews for a period of time.  This person, futurists believe will be the Anti-Christ.
-     Some Futurists believe that Christ will return at the beginning of Anti-Christ's reign to rescue the faithful Christians and take them to heaven so that they are spared the seven years of "great tribulation."  After these seven years Christ will return to earth with His saints to destroy Anti-Christ and establish His Kingdom on earth to last a thousand years.
-     The other main view of Futurism holds that Christians will not be spared from the tribulation under the Anti-Christ.  These Futurists believe that Christ will only return to rescue His Church and destroy the Anti-Christ at the end of seven years of persecution.  Most Christians today hold one of these two Futurist views.

Hermeneutics (Hur-ma-new-tics)
Is often defined as “The art and science of biblical interpretation.” Actually, it can and should be applied to all forms of literature, but it is typically associated with the study of scriptures. It is the process where by one may properly draw out the intended meaning of a given passage. It has been said that “it is a science in that certain rules apply and it is an art in that the more you do it the better you get at it1.”  

Historicism:
Historicism is the view that most of Revelation describes history as it has been unfolding over the last 20 centuries. This view united all Protestants throughout the Reformation and has largely been replaced by Futurism as the dominant eschatology (belief about the end-times) of evangelical Christians. To put it another way, Historicism is the method of interpreting Biblical prophecy by comparing history to the prophecy in question. Historicists believe that prophecy is history pre-written. Therefore prophecy can be understood by looking to the past to discover what has, and hasn't, been fulfilled. Historicism, as a school of thought, like futurism, contains many differing opinions as to details of prophetic interpretation.

Idealism (also called the spiritual approach)
An interpretation of Revelation that sees all of the imagery of the book as non-literal symbols. These symbols are perpetually and cyclically fulfilled in a spiritual sense during the conflict between the Kingdom of God and the forces of Satan throughout the time from the first advent to the Second Coming of Christ. As such it is distinct from Preterism, Futurism and Historicism in that it does not see any of the prophecies (except in some cases the Second Coming, and Final Judgment) as being fulfilled in a literal, physical, earthly sense either in the past, present or future.
 
Millennium:
Literally, this word means 1000 years. In the study of end time doctrines the millennium is the period of time of Christ's rulership. The debate has been over when the millennium will take place and what form will it actually be. The terms that have arisen out of this debate are as follows.

Post-millennialism:
The teaching that through the preaching of the word of God, the entire world will be converted to Christianity and this will usher in the kingdom of Christ. This is when Christ will return.

Postmodernism
A philosophical backlash against modernism that holds to an extreme form of skepticism. This is a complicated and illusive ideology which is not so much  a comprehensive world view as it is a cynical philosophical mood. Some of the basic tenants of this view are as follows.

-None of us think independently, without bias; we have all been molded by our culture to think in certain ways.

-You cannot judge (pronounce wrong) the thoughts, ideas of actions of another culture or another person because his or her idea of reality is different from yours.

-Each person’s reality is in his or her own mind. You construct your own reality. Whatever is real to you is your reality.

-None of us can “prove” anything, whether we use science history or any other set of facts.

One of the most powerful and dangerous characteristic of the post modern mind is an absolute dedication to its concept of tolerance. To be tolerant in the traditional sense is to see a difference between what a person things or does (which you may not necessarily think is right) and the person himself. While you treat that person with respect you are also free to say how he things talks or acts is wrong and, in your opinion, should be changed. Today the new definition of tolerance... gives all values and beliefs equal respect and [denies] categorically that there is any such thing as a “hierarchy of truth.”

Pre-millennialism:
The teaching that the millennium is yet future where Christ will rule and reign over the earth. At the beginning of the millennium Satan and his angels will be bound and peace will exist on the entire earth. At the end of the 1000 years Satan will be released in order to raise an army against Jesus. Jesus will destroy them and then the final judgment will take place with the new heavens and the new earth being made. There are several applications of this term:
-     The popular Dispensational view is that the church will be raptured by Jesus Christ prior to the start of a seven year Tribulation period mentioned in Revelation - also prior to the millennium. This belief is pre-tribulation, pre-millennial.
-     The church is raptured (taken away to heaven) by Jesus Christ half way through the seven year Tribulation period mentioned in Revelation - also prior to the millennium. This belief is mid-tribulation, pre-millennial.

Preterism:
Also a view which came out to the 16th century catholic church as it reacted the reformers historicist view of eschatology and the assertion that the pope was the Anti-Christ, though some trace elements of a Preterist view back as far as the early 4th century in the writings of Eusebius. It is a variant of Christian eschatology which holds that most or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days or End Times refer to events which already happened in the first century after Christ's birth.
-     Full Preterism: All of Christian prophecy was fulfilled in the first century, including the return of Christ and the resurrection of believers. The resurrection is interpreted to mean receiving a spiritual body after death, with no promise of a physical resurrection for any besides Christ (this view falls outside the pale of orthodoxy and is generally considered to be a heresy.)
-     Partial Preterism: Most of prophecy was fulfilled in the first century, except Christ's return then was as a judge of Israel, but not his final literal coming. He is still to return and literally raise the believing dead.

Reformed or Covenant theology.:
A system of theology which came out of the Protestant Reformation and views God's dealings with man in respect of covenants. It represents the whole of scripture as covenantal in structure and theme.

Generally 3 chief covenants are distinguished.
The first is the ‘Covenant of Redemption’ where from all eternity the Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are in perfect unity and cooperation as they implement the work of redemption. The second is ‘The Covenant of Works’ which was established between Adam and Eve and God in the garden where God set up a law and a consequence (Genesis 2:15-17) and by obedience to the law Adam and Eve and their progeny would be justified. As it happened Adam and Eve (and their children) broke that covenant.

Thus The Third covenant is ‘The Covenant of Grace’ given to man in the promise of the messiah which is reiterated to the various patriarchs down through the ages until it finds its culmination and maturation in the “New Covenant” made in the blood of Christ. This view holds that there is only one people of God, the true Israel, which is now the Church, since national Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah.

Rapture:
The rapture is an eschatological (end times) event whereupon the return of Christ the true believers who are "alive and remain shall be caught up together with them [those who already died as Christians] in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air..." (1 Thess. 4:17). This is the time of the resurrection where the Christian receives his resurrected body

Secular Humanism or Modernism
A Philosophy born of the renaissance, reared through the so called  “Enlightenment” era becoming dominant until about World War 2 when its basic tenants came to full maturity and manifested itself in the most cruel and unusual forms of carnage the world has seen, namely the holocaust and the development and use of weapons of mass destruction.

This view sought to dethrone God by declaring him dead then setting mankind at the center of everything. It states clearly that “Man is the measure of all things.”  The earliest version of this view was deistic (meaning that it held to there being a God which created and wound up the universe like a clock and then took off and we haven’t seen him since). Later this view was discarded in favor of Darwinian evolution and the notion that the universe is actually eternal.

Modernism put its hope and faith in the power of scientific discoveries, technological developments, and social programs to lead man kind into utopia where all mankind exists harmoniously with one another and with the natural universe. It saw mankind as “essentially good” but often corrupted by culture. Man’s purpose was the development of the human personality in this life which is all there is. Because there is no God in this view there is no objective way to determine what is, true, moral, valuable, or  useful. The only ethical standard is human experience and experimentation. In short there can be no moral absolutes, no true right and wrong. After World War 2 post modernism began to gain a significant following both in the halls of academia and in the arts and the media and has since become prominent.

Skepticism:
Essentially it is the belief that ultimate truths (like whether there is a God or a heaven or hell or even an afterlife or what is truly right or wrong) are ultimately unknowable.

Systematic theology:
The organization of biblical theology (those truths which have been drawn from the scriptures) based on the belief that the mind of God is coherent and orderly and therefore his truth will be also. Some have a negative view of systematic theology and distinguish it from biblical theology. Generally the fear is that a presupposed system is being foisted upon scripture to make it say something it doesn’t. There are systems of theology that do this but the idea of systematic theology is that once the truths of scripture have been drawn out they should fit together and form a system of truth which is coherent so that details can be understood in the broader context of the big picture.    

(The Great) Tribulation:
According to pre-millennialism, this is a seven year period that immediately precedes the return of Christ and the millennial kingdom of His rule which lasts for 1000 years. It will be a time of great peace (the first 3 years) and great war (the second 3 years) when the Anti-Christ rules over many nations. The second half of the tribulation is called the Great Tribulation. It will involve the whole world (Rev. 3:10). There will be catastrophes all over the world. (See Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 17.)

Types and Antitypes
A type of something is always understood in relation to its antitype. A type is a model or pattern of some greater reality (usually manifested in the form of something like an event, a person or a practice). The antitype then is the greater reality to which the type points. Just as a shadow points to something which obstructs the light so too an type points to an antitype. A good example is the Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws (the types) which pointed to the coming Christ (the antitype).

__________

The above article and definitions are a mix of various teachers, books, web sites and my own understandings. The following were my primary contributors.

People:

Steve Gregg 

Hank Haneagraaff

John MacArther 

Stewart Mc Alister 

C. I. Scofield 

Chuck Smith 

R. C. Sproul

R. C. Sproul Jr.

Ravi Zacharias

Books:

Bakers Dictionary of Theology (Article on “dispensation” by Alexander M. Renwick). 

Fritz Ridenours (Who Defines Modernism and Postmodernism in His Book “So What’s the Difference?” )

Vines Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

Webster’s New International Dictionary Second Addition 

Websites:

Wikipedia.com

Historist.com

and various other websites I can’t remember now. Hey I’m a GED not a Ph D.

My Journey Out of Darbia.

This is an introduction to a 9 or 10 part series of articles I hope to share on the subject of  what is known as Dispensationalism (dis-pen-say-shun-al-is-am) or Darbyism. I know that some have urged me to be brief in this regard but I have both the complexities of the view and a complete lack of talent for brevity to contend with. However I will try to add some diagrams and pictures for flare.

  
I remember the night it all came together in my head for the first time. I had grown up in both the Assembly of God and Baptist evangelical protestant church traditions. I had always had an interest in theology and, like any 13 year old boy would, I found the question of the end of the world to be particularly enticing. I had heard of the rapture, I  had heard of the second coming of Jesus Christ and some foreboding character ominously referred to as “the anti-Christ.” and of course a great many things that didn’t make sense to me, like terrible beasts coming up from the sea and mountainous asteroids falling to the earth, unimaginable earthquakes where untold numbers of people died. All of these images would swirl around my colorful imagination. But how these mysterious puzzle pieces fit together was illusive at best. Their meaning lay ever beyond my reach locked away in a book called Revelation.

That night, however,  as I attended a bible study with my dad and mom, a conversation sprang up about when exactly the “end times” had begun or if they had begun. It was a spirited but light hearted discussion between (as I recall) two or three of the more out spoken men (which is typical). The rest of us listened in and occasionally someone would interject a question here or there. Through the discussion one of the spectators expressed some frustration with the whole issue of the end times. She felt that it was too complicated for the “non- scholar” to understand. Further this person felt that the whole study and debate was quite impractical and may even be dangerous in that it might cause division. At this point one of the 2 out spoken gentlemen, Phil, took the opportunity to explain to any one who would listen an overview of how everything was going to play out in the end times. 

He drew a crude time line on a piece of paper for us explaining that the next thing we are looking for on the prophetic time line is the rapture of the church, a time when all believers, past and present will “rise”, or be “caught up” into the clouds with the Lord Jesus. Jesus would then take these resurrected believers (meaning those who have received new imperishable eternal bodies) to a great 7 year “wedding feast” where He and the church will celebrate their union. This would be followed by the rise on earth of some devilishly handsome, debonair political personality who would manage to establish a peace treaty with the nation of Israel for 7 years signaling the beginning of the tribulation. The first 3 and a half years of the tribulation, this cunning and charismatic leader would weave the threads of human culture together in an astounding tapestry of lies and false peace. At the end of the first 3 and a half years the anti-Christ would enter a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and declare himself to be God in the holy place (this is known as the “abomination that causes desolation” and signals what is called “the great tribulation”). The Holy Spirit would then withdraw himself as a restraining power against evil in the world. For the next 3 and a half years all hell would brake lose on earth as God poured out his wrath on man kind. Eventually things would come to a head in the “Valley of Megido” where a great battle would be interrupted by Christ descending in the culmination of the second coming. After wiping everyone out he would set up a kingdom for exactly one thousand years (this is called the “millennial rein of Christ or just “the millennium”). At the end of this golden age the devil would be released from his temporary prison and would deceive enough people to lead another rebellion against God and his people. But, of course, the Lord would have the victory. He would resurrect the wicked for judgement (the believers of course were resurrected at the rapture.) And then the Lord would do away with heaven and earth and make a new heaven and a new earth that we would inhabit in the eternal state.

I was enthralled! Phill had just laid out how the world would end! It was all so clear and in that moment I, like any child would, accepted this teaching without question. After all, every man I ever respected and loved - even my own father - who were present gave no objection to this doctrine. Indeed they all seemed to concur on the issue. The deal was sealed. 

Over the next few years this particular view was reinforced with every sermon I heard (and that was a lot). I remember, in my mid teens, participating in a lengthy, in-depth study of the book of revelation which was led by none other than my father. At the end of it my perspective on the issue was that it was firmly grounded in scripture. Oh, I knew there were other views. Some people thought that the rapture happened half way through the tribulation or even right before the second coming of Christ. Some people thought Jesus wouldn’t come back until we had had a thousand years of peaceful Christian rule on the earth and some really crazy liberal fringe thought there wasn’t a millennium at all. They just allegorizedpre-millennial pre-trib rapture” view was based on a “literal” exegetical interpretation of the bible.

And then came “left behind.” It was a phenomenon. At last! Someone finally put it all together in the form of a compelling dramatic story. It was brilliant! We fell upon it like starving children upon fresh pancakes and warm syrup. I personally remember the growing suspense as I waited for the next book to come out. Everybody was reading them and talking about them, wondering how the portrayal of the seal  or the trumpet judgements would be played out. Fortunately the novelty of the LaHaye books wore out before the series was finished and I never made it to the 80th book, or however many they wrote. I think the Jabez fad stole a fair sized portion of their audience near the end as people started running with that. But that’s another story. 

Some time in my early 20's I was visiting with my friend Dan, a very close friend of my late father. Dan was, in fact one of the two out spoken guys who were talking about the end times that night I was first shown the pre trib time line. He and I were discussing theology and he asked me the fateful question; the question that would eventually lead me to actually test this closely held view (and several other views) in light of scripture.

  “Are you a dispensationalist?” he asked

  “A dispah-wha?” I said.

  “A dispensationalist.” he laughed.

  “I don’t know. What is... it?” I replied. He went on to explain that it is a somewhat complicated view which teaches, basically, that God has dealt with man kind in different ways through various dispensations of time. He said that there were a broad range of ideas within dispensationalism but the primary interest centered on its view of the end times. It seemed to me that this was the view he held to. Beyond that I don’t recall any details of the conversation. But it set me asking the question: “what exactly is dispensationalism?” 

I asked a lot of people and I think I got as many different answers as people I asked. One thing was clear at the outset: the typical everyday Christian layman really did not and does not know what dispensationalism is all about. I remember picking up a book called “The Apocalypse Code” by Hal Lindsay at the Christian book store and reading about 3 chapters. I had heard of Hal Lindsay but had never really read anything of his or listened to any of his messages. The only thing I actually remember from his book was his notion that the way to read revelation was to realize that John, as he was writing, was seeing visions of the 20th century. And all such things as we would be familiar with, like a helicopter or a tank, would be really strange to some one living in the 1st century. So John, not knowing what he was seeing, was trying to explain them the best he could using language that the people of his day could understand; likening things to beasts and locust and what not. Later in the book he was talking about how some government run research and development program called HAARP in Alaska was trying somehow to use the radio frequencies generated by the northern lights to read peoples minds (see chapter 3 of his book Apocalypse Code" if you can find it that is). I wasn’t sure what to think about the overall message of the book but that last point was kind of an obvious red flag so I didn’t waste my money on it. 

Later on I heard a message by Hal Lindsay. He was explaining that the reason we know there is a pre-trib rapture is because we see how most of the New Testament is dealing with the church. After a point, however, it seems like the book of revelation shifts focus back to Israel. This tells us that there are yet future dealings with Israel and that we, the church will be taken out of the picture.  This, at the time sounded perfectly reasonable to me and I felt like I had just put a big piece of the end times puzzle together. How ever I was disturbed to learn that Hal Lindsay was some how connected with chuck Missler. 

I was not (and am not) a big fan of Missler. I think it was his message on how the Nephilim of Genesis 6 were now malicious disembodied half breed spiritual beings who had managed to slice through the fabric of our dimension.  They were, in his estimation, currently posing as aliens who abduct people in order to perform all manner of grotesque experiments on them. The current popular view (which he was disputing)  held that aliens were actually creatures from another planet who traveled the vast distances of space just to see what we were up to. To Missler, It seemed more reasonable to suppose that these creatures had escape the prison of God by breaking into our universe, somehow taking on a physical form and flying around in spaceships they had brought with them from the other side. If I had to take sides I would likely prefer the late Douglas Adams interpretation. In his book “The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy” He described the UFO/Abduction phenomenon as being the work of what were known throughout the galaxy as “Teasers.” Teasers were rich kids with nothing to do. They would land their shiny space cruiser next to some unassuming farmer who no one would ever believe and strut up and down their ships walk way making “beep beep” noises. It certainly seems to be just as plausible a theory and just as provable. But I digress.   

As outrageous as all of that may sound I must credit Mr. Misler with his consistency in qualifying his hypotheses as just that - an hypotheses. One largely based on speculation. And I will say for both Lindsey and Missler that I could not accuse them of any damning heresy. As far as I know they are my brothers in Christ. Strange folk they may be, we are yet kin. And I have on rare occasion found some elements of their teaching to be edifying. But really this is all completely off topic.

In spite of all the aforementioned nonsense, Hal Lindsey’s teaching that revelations focus on Israel was a proof of a pre-trib raptured took root in my brain as being almost a sure thing. Further his method of interpreting scripture in light of current events was so reinforced by people I held in high regard that it seemed to me a compelling argument. Besides I really had no other choice. It was the only end times view I knew. Indeed dispensationalism, in all its views, was all I had ever been taught.

So here I was, a wondering modern conservative protestant evangelical Christian in the thick of dispensational teaching. I was looking for the rapture at any minute. I was sure that the tribulation was getting closer everyday and that I was going to miss it. I was part of a Calvary Chapel congregation, teaching youth about all these things. And, really, dispensationalism wasn’t just part of the culture, it was the culture. We had it all figured out. It was so plain and clear. I even remember trying to explain the pre-trib rapture view to a pagan co-worker who thought I was off my rocker. But what did he know? He was a pagan and a stoner. Still, my point is that I was convinced. Convinced enough to teach others unashamedly. 

But that all changed one day as I was driving through Sonoma County. I was listening to a man, I believe it was Steve Gregg, author of the book “Revelation. Four views.” but I am not sure. Who ever he was, he had my attention as he was explaining what it was that dispensationalism actually teaches. All I remember him saying was that this view held that national Israel in the old testament was a completely separate work and entity from the church. That God was doing a work with Israel, but, because they rejected Him as their messiah, He essentially put this work on hold and decided to do a work with the gentiles which He called the church. Eventually, when the age, or dispensation, of the church is finished, God will rapture his church and begin dealing again with the nation of Israel. This was a significant blow to my theology because I have never believed this. I have always understood that the fulfilment of Gods promise to Abraham that through his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed, was made manifest in Christ. As I had gone through Ephesians and Romans I felt it was pretty obvious that the church has been grafted into Israel and is the continuation, even the culmination of that chosen people now spread to every tongue and tribe and nation.

As my mind began to unpack the ramifications of this belief of mine I realized that if I didn’t hold to this foundational view (and therefore rejected dispensationalims) what foundation did I have for believing in a pre-tribulation rapture? If the church is the continuation of the remnant of spiritual Israel there is no reason for God to return to a separate work. Where then does that leave my beliefs about the end times? In a big confusing mess, that's where. So I went back and started studying and asking more questions. I started looking closer at what I was being taught about certain passages. And I began to see even more inconsistencies.

On one occasion I was listening to a study by a pastor who was teaching on 1 Cor 15:51-53 where Paul says “Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.” (Coupled with 1 Thess 4:15-17 which describes the same event) and he spent a great deal of time explaining why, when Paul said “at the last trumpet” he didn’t really mean the “last last” he meant the “last before all the others.” his argument was not compelling.

Later I attended a bible study on revelation and noted frequently that portions of several passages would be sectioned in a most peculiar way. The first part would be interpreted literally, the second part would be interpreted symbolically, and then the end of the passage would, again, be interpreted literally. I was mystified to learn that this might happen within the space of a paragraph. I could not figure out how they chose what was literal and what was symbolic. Later I learned that this is done to uphold dispensationalism doctrine of interpreting the whole of scripture literally unless it can not be so interpreted. This is a second primary doctrine which I disagree with. That may seem crazy to you but please bare with me until I have an opportunity to make my case. You may find it more reasonable than you think. More can and will be said on the issue of dispensationalisms convenient interpretations of select passages in future articles. 

Another feature of this view I have found to be highly suspicious is its ambiguous systematic nature. It is not taught as a “systematic theology” but as an “exegetical exposition of the Bible.” One who investigates this claim would find quickly that the former classification is far more fitting than the latter (and perhaps better still would be the class of an eisegetical exposition of the bible). But it is not taught as a system. One example of this is a conversation I had with a man I greatly respect who, though he is not a pastor, has taught many studies in scripture. I asked him what he thought about dispensationalism and he stated to my pleasant surprise that he thought it was not so. Later on in the conversation, however, he was stressing to me his earnest hope in a pre-tribulation rapture. He had apparently not yet made the connection between the two. But my hope is that you will see that the pre-trib rapture view is inextricably grounded in the assumptions of dispensationalism.  

It seems the vast majority of modern evangelicals that I have known and spoken to (primarily the laity)  believe the doctrines of Darby without question. As far as they know dispensationalism has always been the prevailing view and is the only orthodox view. They swallow it just like I did from the time I was a child. This was clarified for me in another conversation I had with a brother, whom I love, where, as I explained some of what I had been reading and hearing and thinking about Israel, the church, prophecy and the end times , he interrupted me with the objection that these ideas sounded like some kind of new fad. He cautioned me against taking seriously ideas which were not firmly grounded in the traditional biblical interpretation we had always held too. Further he encouraged me to get a good grasp on the whole of scripture before I made any decision about this issue. Wiser counsel I have not been given and to be sure I took it to heart. I don’t want to make it sound as though these brothers were gullible or simple minded. I honestly don’t know two sharper swords but it still serves as a powerful testimony to the obscurity of the doctrines in question. Here two very knowledgeable seasoned Christian laymen were yet uninformed of the origin and basic tenets of the views they believed so firmly. 

Teachers, I pray you take care to be clear and honest about whatever system you hold to. If you seek the truth you have nothing to lose by thinking critically and objectively and by sharing all of details of a doctrine including its origin and history. Christians today (including me) are woefully ignorant of most of what has happened in the church over the last 2000 years. Most don’t know anything about those people who came after the apostles. Most people aren’t going to read Josephus or Esubius. At best they might learn about people like Nero or Diocletian from the history channel. But that’s like eating food approved by the FDA. They approve what they want to sell, not what’s healthy. 

This introductory article has turned out to be a general history of my journey out of that strange Darbian country I was born into. My intention with this article is to introduce a topic I hope will generate discussion and deepening exploration of scripture and history. I do not wish to speak ill of any one who hold to the views of dispensationalism. Indeed I do not currently know anyone who does not hold to this system in some way or another. I am, myself, still finding, as  I explore these ideas, that most of what I have always held too has been sketched and colored by the same hand (and I do not mean the hand of the Almighty). The purpose of this and subsequent article is to ask those who read it to carefully consider what they believe. If what you believe is true then you have nothing to fear by testing it in light of scripture. If nothing else it should only reinforce the truth of your view. It should not be threatening. If, however, what you believe is not true than you must test it so that you are not believing something that is false. That would be a sin for we are commanded to test all things and hold fast to that which is true (1 Tim 4:16 1 Thes 5:21). I do not claim to have figured everything out, I feel like I know just enough to be dangerous. I am still not prepared to subscribe to any of the various other views I have explored just yet. I am still in the process of investigation. But I am interested and willing to discuss, consider and debate all the issues which surround dispensationalism.

It is not generally an easy thing to lay aside all of your standing pre-supposition and re-examine all that you have held to. It is even harder to walk in the truth of what you learn. It is at times a lonely road. It will test friendships, your own maturity, and the maturity of those you respect, when you begin to challenge the common reining system of thought. People will not understand you. They will question your motives, your ability to discern and reason even the genuineness of your faith. You may be accused of being contentious, litigious and even arrogant. Fortunately for me I have suffered very little alienation because, while my brothers and sisters don’t necessarily agree with me, they are still mature enough to see that we are ever born of the same Spirit. Even so it is hard for me at times to find the courage to challenge people I respect. Despite what some may think I do not enjoy disagreeing with people or being the guy with the “weird view” on things.

Never the less, the more I study the more convinced I become that the tradition I have been brought up in is not consistent with the clear teaching of scripture. And whatever the masses may teach, no matter how they passionately articulate this view, no matter how much I may love and respect them as men and women of wisdom; unless I am convicted by sacred scripture and plane reason I cannot accept the popular modern views of Darby “for” to quote Martin Luther (rather dramatic, I know) “they have frequently erred and contradicted themselves. My conscience is captive to the word of God... ...To deny conscience is neither right nor safe. [so] Here I stand. I can do no other.”

Looking for something to read?

Well let me recommend some of my links!
(located on the left of this page under the menu labled "LINKS")

-Find out what is going on at the good Calvary chapels in Sonoma county (I’m kidding! ...Mostly).

-Have you ever read "Created To Be His Help Meet?" By Debi Pearl? Did you love it? Did you hate it? Or did something just not sit right with you? Well consider this help meet blog. I found the blog to be very fare and balanced while pointing out the very serious and dangerous flaws the book contains. Be sure to read some of the comments as well. It’s very interesting. For my part I feel this couple’s argument is kind, well reasoned and biblically sound (unlike the pearls argument). But that’s me and I can say so because it’s my blog. Got a problem with that? Great! Let me know in the comment section.

-There have been few authors and speakers that have contributed more to my spiritual education than Hank Hanegraaff. He was, at a crucial time of my life, both a tutor and a doorman to deeper truths and a wide selection of great resources. I think what I appreciate the most about his ministry is his not being quite so concerned with answering bible questions but teaching people the principles of the faith. He doesn't just hand out answers he shows you how to figure things out on your own. The Prayer of Jesus, The Covering, The Resurrection and The Apocalypse Code have probably had the greatest impact of all his books. You can check out his blog or go to the Christian Research Institute (C.R.I.) website to find great articles and resources like the Christian research journal which I also highly recommend.

-John Ankerberg is another apologist which has had a great impact on my life. This website has all kinds of great articles and resources as well as filmed and audio debates with every biblical or religious issued under the sun. There is plenty to learn there.

-“The Daily Nice” is just a fun little picture. Check it out it will explain it self. Its safe I promise.

-Lastly I would VERY HIGHLY recommend to anyone that uses the internet, anyone that can read, anyone who enjoys any kind of gaming or on line community networks, and especially those of you who feel the internet "is not going anywhere and is probably always going to be around." READ THIS STORY! Ok so its not biblical prophecy; and in fact it was written by a humanist. But keep in mind it was written a hundred years ago by a humanist who was concerned about the rapid exponential growth in industry and technology. It’s a short story, only 20 pages and well worth the time it takes to read it. Plenty of food for thought there and some very surprising insights about what was the future of technology. And let me know what you thought when you are finished. Well that's gonna do it for me. Happy exploring and reading. Peace to all 2 of you who actually read this thing.

The Right Tools For The Job

Recently my sister asked me if I would mind replacing the faucet in her kitchen. I agreed and showed up at her house the next Saturday with some of the appropriate tools in my beat up old tool box. As I worked, her young son did his best to give me a hand. He even brought some of his own tools! He crawled under the sink with me and as I disconnected the old faucet (which consequently is the hardest part of installing a faucet) he was busy tapping away at the drain pipe with a plastic hammer and trying to twist some parts on it with his plastic pair of pliers. At one point he even brought out his little hand saw to try and cut through it; all while explaining to me how we had to get it fixed and how hard it was but we had to do it. “Its broken but I can fix it, we can fix it uncle Jake” he would say.

After all the work was done and I was cleaning up I noticed how he eyed my tools with envy. He liked his tools but he wanted the real thing. I would have loved to indulge him too but unfortunately everything he wanted would have caused considerable damage either to him or to my sisters house. Later as my mind was wandering around the events of my day I had the funniest thought. What if I had shown up to fix the faucet and all I had in my box were plastic toy tools? What a great plumber I would be! Even if I knew how to use them really well they just wouldn’t hold up. Maybe I could get the plastic pliers to loosen a fitting but I probably would have broken them in the process.

Following my thought it occurred to me that there are a lot of people out there who actually do that sort of thing all the time; even professionally. They approach all of life with a set of tools that aren’t even real. tools like “believing in your self,” “believing in the power of (what they call) love,” “positive thinking” or even things like ignoring a problem hoping it will go away or telling some one off rudely because your right and everyone knows it. Everyday countless numbers of pagans run around thinking they have very practical solutions for the problems of their lives all based on the latest fads of pop psychology or some dramatic sentiment they learned from a sitcom or reality show. But the Christian should know how such tools are of no more use or purpose then a child’s toy. They are just cheap imitations of the real thing. Nothing can replace the real power of God’s love to heal a broken heart or the fear of the Lord which, proverbs 14:26 says, produces strong confidence.

Our tool box has been the same for the last 2000 years and longer. We have always had in hand those truths which God has revealed to us which, if we actively trust in and are willing to use, may move mountains. But it seems like anymore we are right in there with the rest of the pagans using the same plastic toy’s. Still, even if we aren’t I think many times we might be something like a small child trying to use real tools which we do in fact have but don’t know how to use. And if we are, as sad as that may be, it is better I think than if we were to use a counterfeit. For just like my young nephew had his uncle to explain what all the tools were for and how to use them, so too we have Gods spirit to grow us up in knowledge and give us strength to do those good works he has prepared for us to do before hand.

My question to you is: are you using the tool box God has given you? Are you using His Word? Or are you using carnal tools given to us by foolish men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness? Have you even looked in your tool box lately? If not the best time to check yourself is always now.

Matthew 14:31 vs Matthew 15:28

"... Jesus Stretched out His hand and took hold of him and said to him "oh you of little faith, why did you doubt?" Matthew 14:31

vs.

"...Then Jesus answered and said to her "oh woman your faith is great. Be it done for you as you wish." Matthew 15:28

Two things that can be observed of faith between these two passages are, first, that faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. If you trust a taco to satisfy your craving for a taco then your faith is well placed. If you trust a taco to fly you to Mexico City then your faith is poorly placed because tacos don't fly people places, planes do. When Peter stepped out of the boat onto the Sea of Galilee he didn't sink, not because he had a secret super power called faith, but because the Person he had placed his faith in was able to keep him upon the waves.

Peter's walking on the water was not a demonstration of "great faith" it was a demonstration of the greatness of the object of Peter’s faith; namely Jesus; even in that even Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of faith. Indeed Jesus frequently admonished his disciples for their having "little faith" but He marveled at the faith of the gentile woman. Why? Because the disciples were constantly doubting Him and worrying about the things of this world (Matthew 6:25-34 & Colossians 3:1-5). The gentile woman persistently believed and it had so altered her perspective that it compelled her to action. Jesus testing of her faith showed everyone that, unlike the disciples, whose faith was as stable as the shifting sand beneath the churning surf, her faith was able to be tested, it was solid as a rock and this allowed Christ to operate more freely in her life.

Simply stated Great faith is not defined in an isolated moment of intense or dramatic trust. It is defined in a consistent, diligent, abiding conviction of trust in some one or something that is true and worthy of faith. It so permeates our perspective that it determines how we actively live our lives every day. When you face daily struggles how do you respond? With faith or with fear? Do you worship or do you worry? Is prayer your first or your last resort?

Surely this is an area in which we all have some growing to do. The best place to start that I know of is with communicating with the Lord (which requires both talking and listening). Prayer is a discipline and, that being the case, practice is the key to maturity (see Matt 6:5-15 to see how Jesus taught us to pray). It has been said that "prayer is the life of the believer reduced to its barest essential*" and it is the best way to start fresh with Him.

Secondly great refreshment comes from reflecting on who God is and what God has done in history, in the lives of others and in our own personal lives and what He has promised He WILL do in the future and for eternity. We do this mainly by spending time reading and studying His word, investing in good fellowship with our brothers and sisters in Christ but also in things like getting into ministry (like sharing the gospel or edifying the brethren) and even journaling. Many good Christian saints have embarked upon long and miserable journey’s into the wilderness (and some never return) by wandering away from these essentials. All and all it is, I think, encouraging to know that, be it great or small, if your faith is in Christ Jesus, it IS well placed.
---
*"The Prayer of Jesus"
By Hank Hanegraaff.

On Worship.

One of the greatest losses the church has sustained in our age is an understanding of what it means to worship a holy God. Perhaps this is why we have lost our sense of reverence, unity and purpose. We tend to over emphasize his grace and minimized his holiness bringing him down to our size. we relegate him to the status of any other congregant we may see but once a week at church; struggling for his name if we encounter Him in public. Thus we compartmentalized and privatized our relationship with Him till it’s so limited that it is effectively worthless. It is as if we have removed the founding pillars of our faith to make room for a play place and are surprised to find our spiritual experience crumbling into some lifeless rituals that mean very little to us and nothing to God. But shouldn’t our worship be a response to His holiness?

The break down, I think, is between private and public worship. if a saint spends his week living as he wills, then comes to sing songs on Sunday, it amounts to little more than the “Hand Jive.” But when a saint daily denies himself, takes up his cross, and follows Jesus, his worship is of worth; both to him and to his Father in heaven; for he is always with Christ.

On the one hand if you don’t come to understand what it means to worship God in spirit and truth, God will become tiresome – boring because you will end up not coming to him on his terms but on your own and you will use him as a means to an end. Weather to raise a banner for your own glory and power or to comfort yourself with some legalistic ceremony you feel justifies you with him. Your relationship will become vain religion and will be unacceptable; unlivable.

On the other hand if you do understand what it means to worship in spirit and in truth and how it binds us together, heart, mind, soul and body, how it gives us purpose, unity and dignity as it honors our Maker and can turn the ever so trivial into an eternal treasure, you will realize that worship is not merely external or a time on Sunday morning. It is a lifestyle. It is moment by moment, being coextensive with life. So I encourage you; when ever you are where ever you are, what ever you do, do all to the glory of God.

_____________

“Worship is the submission of all our nature to God.

It is the quickening of conscience by is holiness,

Nourishment of mind by his truth

Purifying of imagination by his beauty,

Opening of the heart to his love

And submission of will to his purpose

And all this gathered up in adoration

Is the greatest of human expressions of which we are capable”

William Temple

Three Guys Camping In Innimrie For Who Knows Why.

Where and what is Innimrie?
Its a haunted forest on top of the magical sea mountain known as Silic'udoru!

Leif is an Elf.

Bardo is a Habear who "...Were among the silliest and most interesting creatures in Silic’udoru. Covered in bluish gray hair with the form and stature of a man, they were often of the same noble character and wisdom of an elf or a man. They were ever the ally of good and were faithful in hard times." (Something like a blue Wookie)

Jeter is a Nomie which is something "...Closely akin to a gnome though a bit taller and longer lived. They were generally a cheerful and helpful creature."
______________

Leif, Bardo, and Jeter huddled around a warm fire as the night deepened in Innimrie forest. At length their conversation trailed off into silence. Bardo, still mildly annoyed with Jeter’s fidgety quarks, had taken to picking his teeth and grooming some of the thick blue fir that covered his body. Little Jeter was fiddling with a giant bird mask he had purchased in a village a few days before. It had for some time been used as a bowel for the merchants corn nuts and had long proven to be quite the conversation piece. The merchant was reluctant to let it go but Jeter’s powers of persuasion prevailed (to the great disgust of Bardo).

The mask sat upon the shoulders and covered the whole neck and head as one piece. The wearer could only see out of the large glass eyes until they became fogged with breath. Jeter was small, even for a Nomie, and the mask stood half as tall as him. He had been working very hard to dislodge a solitary nut that had taken up residence in the inner fold of the mask and was about to puncture some ventilation holes in the top when he caught site of Leif staring though the fire into some distant memory. Leif’s eyes lifted to meet Jeter’s and held his steady gaze for a moment. This made Jeter, who was already fairly uneasy about being this deep in Innimrie forest after dark, very nervous.

“I had, on a time, a most peculiar dream while passing through this very wood.” Leif began. Bardo looked up and, realizing he was about to hear the telling of a dream, went back to what he was doing shifting only his ears to hear. “I have often wondered at its meaning.” continued Leif. “As I lay down to sleep that night the wood grew eerily silent and just as I was passing in to the realm of dreams I heard, as if all around me, some one whispering my name. I was suddenly aware that I was no longer laying but sitting in a comfortable armed chair with my head down at a wooden desk. I lifted my head and struggled to focus my blurred vision for it was as though I had just awoken and my head was still in a hazy spin. As the blur began to clear I saw before me a wall made of gray fabric trimmed with some kind of metal frame up to which the desk was pushed. Indeed it looked like fabric and to the touch it seemed fabric but the wall was squashy like a dried sponge. The desk bent to my left and continued along the adjacent wall. Walls were on either side of me as I face the first. so that I was enclosed before, to my left and to my right. For a moment it occurred to me that I might be a prisoner but I could see that the walls did not go to the ceiling.

To my right there was nothing save a picture and some writings in an unknown language pinned to the wall. Upon the desk before me I saw several rather foreign objects: A metal tray and beside that an odd looking box standing on it side with a few small holes and a glowing green light on the face. To the left of that I beheld a wonder. It was something like a mirror chiseled from stone. The face of it was flat and smooth as glass. It was mounted on a short stand to face me but it did not reflect my face. Instead it portrayed many strange images and words that I did not understand. Before this, upon the desk, was a rectangular structure with many many buttons. It was then that I noticed two things. One, my chair seemed to swivel and roll, and two, there was an opening in this cell to the left of all these strange contraptions on the desk.

I saw other desks all likewise arrayed inside similar cells. Suddenly a short man walked by seemingly heedless of my presence. Above me I saw the ceiling inlaid with tubes of liquid white light which seemed to be draining my life force from my very eyes. At this point I stood and as I did my head raised up just above the walls around me to see a vast maze of walls in every direction with strange people running around frantically. My attention then turned to a shelf which stood above the desk. I saw there different books and far to the right I saw something familiar to me and therefore more mysterious than all else. It was one of the crowned rabbit folk standing nobly clad in deep black fir bearing two tall and proud white antlers on his head.

The creature absorbed my focus as he stared me down unblinkingly. My mind began to race with questions. “Have you brought me here? Why? Is this your world I am in? What is the meaning of all these things?! What do you want with me?!” My heart was gripped with terror from confusion. My mouth gaping wide with wonder and my arms upraised for protection, I backed away with a shriek and fell into the chair! Suddenly one of the contraptions on the desk burst into a repetitive musical noise! All was consumed in white light!

Thus I awoke to the song of a morning bird. And coming to myself I could not discover the reason why I had traveled to the forest. To this day I do not know. I had a reason, I know. It seemed very important at the time but I cannot remember why.. That is why now I travel here always with a companion. Lest I forget my errand.” So he ended his story and Jeter, now staring at Leif through the un-fogged eyes of a giant bird mask, rolled back in his seat with some amazement and fear and replied in his small kiddish voice yet muffled by the mask,

“WOW! THAT IS SO WEIRD LEIF!!! don’t you think so Bardo??!” Bardo just looked at Jeter with subtle irritation, gave a disgusted puff and went back to his grooming...