July 29, 2007

Thessalonian Nuggets - 1Th 4:14
Jesus' Resurrection, the Foundation for Ours

“For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.” (1Thessalonians 4:14)

Paul begins this verse with the conjunction gar ("For"). The most common use of this conjunction is to introduce a "ground" clause, which in this case introduces the reason why they should not be uninformed about the dead in Christ and consequently grieving in the manner they are. This first statement as well introduces a possible primitive confession of the church, "We believe that Jesus died and rose again."

Though v. 14 introduces Paul's teaching to correct the defective eschatology of the Thessalonians, it will be in vv. 15ff that his main point will be clarified. V. 14a is a reminder of what the Thessalonians already believe with the apostle Paul, and thus he uses it as a premise to begin his teaching and reassurance.

This verse contains a form of a conditional construction. The "if" (ei) clause is called the protasis; the "even so" (houtos kai) clause is what is called the apodosis. However, on the surface, the apodosis does not seem to follow or correspond to the protasis as you can see here as we break it down:

"if we believe that Jesus died and rose again"

"even so [thus] God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus."

What is most likely going on here is that Paul has an ellipsis in the second part leaving out the implied phrase, "we believe." This is the sense that the New English Translation has rendered it,

“For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so also we believe that God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep as Christians.”

I. H. Marshall notes,

It is sometimes suggested that the line of Paul's thought is: "Since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so we also believe that God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep," but in fact Paul omits the italicised words. Paul is not making a declaration of what God will do provided that we believe...but rather saying, 'If this is what we believe about Jesus, this is what follows from it;' he is drawing out the implication of belief in the resurrection of Jesus (p. 123, 1 and 2 Thessalonians).

Nicholl adds, "Certainly the apodosis does presuppose the truth of the protasis and communicates absolute certainty that God will in the future intervene on behalf of the deceased Christians. This may suggest that Paul is seeking to assure his converts that their deceased will be 'with Jesus’" (p. 26, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica).

In a separate future article, I will devote exclusively on the important debate in this verse among commentators on how to interpret "axei" ("will bring," or "will take"). Is the movement upward or downward? "Lead away (take)" or "bring"? Since this discussion has implications for the Prewrath view and other views, I will spend substantive space on this question.

July 23, 2007

Thessalonian Nuggets - 1Th 4:13a
What Was the Cause of Their Ignorant Grieving?

We continue our Thessalonian Nuggets series.

“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.” (1Th 4:13)

In the previous article we first examined the second part of the verse dealing with what Paul means by "hope." I have noted that this verse is arguably the most important verse in this first epistle for two reasons: (1) it informs us of the purpose why Paul writes to the Thessalonians which is their ignorance or a defective eschatology (2) and it introduces Paul's teaching or corrective of the relationship between the resurrection and the Parousia (Coming) of Christ.

In this article we investigate the possible reasons why the Thessalonians were ignorant (uninformed), which led to unwarranted grieving. Did they believe that their loved ones would be at a disadvantage at the Parousia, or possibly not participate at all? Or were they uninformed about something else?

The contrast that Paul makes between pagan sorrow and Christian sorrow is antithetical. In the previous article we noted that most Greeks believed that death was the complete end, not even a continued existence of a soul. And since the Christian hope of the after-life is much more than mere continued existence, but rather fellowship with Christ the Lord of the universe, it is then unwarranted to grieve as the pagans who do not have this hope.

Indeed, Paul does not admonish them for grieving. There is nothing wrong for a Christian to grieve for their lost loved ones. We are not called to have some stoic disposition in the event of death. It is necessary and natural to grieve in those situations. But grieving for lost loved ones is not the issue that Paul is addressing in this passage. It is grieving as if those who die in Christ have no future hope in Christ in light of the Parousia.

It bears repeating in a previous article of what I have said about Biblical hope in light of this grief. If your believing loved ones die before the Parousia, be hopeful and cling tightly to our promised hope--in which the pagans can only despair. It is not mere worldly hope with no promise of fulfillment. It is not simply a word of encouragement. Nor is it a temporal hope that only repeats itself. It is promise-fulfillment hope; it is the true Word; and it is eternal hope.

We must live daily with eschaton-love, eschaton-faith, and eschaton-hope.

Incidentally, Marshall notes that we should distinguish between two kinds of grief,

[B]etween mourning which laments the sad fate of a person who has been cut off from the enjoyment of life and the mourning which is due to the rupture caused in one's own life by the loss of a loved one. The former is overcome by the Christian belief that to be with Jesus is 'far better' (Phil. 1:23). The latter is a natural psychological reaction to the gap created in one's own life, although this too can be overcome not only by the lapse of time and adjustment to a new way of life but also by the reality of spiritual comfort from God and other Christians (Mt. 5:4; Rom. 12:15; 1 Pet. 5:10). (1 and 2 Thessalonians, p. 120)

Concerning our verse, Paul uses the term hina (“so that”)," which introduces a purpose clause. In other words, he is saying that if the Thessalonians were in fact informed properly concerning the fate of the dead in Christ, they would not have been grieving in the manner of those who have no hope.

But what then was the cause of their being uninformed? Why were they not prepared theologically to deal with the reality of the death of members in the church? Marshall outlines five different theories that have been offered to explain the cause of their ignorance that led to their grief. The following is an abridged outline of reasons provided by Marshall followed by a summary of responses to each one.

1. It has been argued that because of the nearness of the parousia and its prominence in his thinking and his message Paul had given no instruction about the resurrection of the dead at Thessalonica (even though he must have spoken about the resurrection of Jesus). In the early days for the church the problem of death before the parousia had simply not arisen [Marxsen and Becker propose this suggestion].

This view says Marshall is simply not plausible since by the time of the Thessalonica mission the question of the destiny of dead Christians would have certainly been reflected on by the apostle Paul, and therefore not some new phenomena in the church. The only way to overcome this objection says Marshall is to give an idiosyncratic dating of the mission unreasonably early to about nine to fourteen years from the death of Jesus (so Ludemann).

In addition, since Paul in vv. 16ff gives an existing "saying" about the resurrection of the dead only demonstrates that it is not plausible that Paul had not yet formulated his teaching of the resurrection of the dead.

[Further Ernest Best also notes that the reference "the dead will rise" in v. 16 is "surely insufficient as a first introduction (to the resurrection)...The conclusion that Paul was not now introducing the resurrection for the first time is confirmed by his reference to the 'hope' of believers (v. 13); if not of the resurrection what is this hope?" p. 181, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians.]

2. It remains possible, however, that the Thessalonian Christians had not yet fully understood this doctrine. In view of his belief that the parousia was imminent [not in the pretrib sense of the term, but in the historical sense] and as a result of the brevity of his visit to Thessalonica it is possible that Paul had not mentioned, or at least had said little about, the resurrection of the dead. What he did say may not have been fully understood by the Thessalonian Christians, and it is quite possible that their emotional response to the death of some of their number had blunted their apprehension of the doctrine of the resurrection. It is, after all, one thing to have a theoretical belief in resurrection and quite another to maintain that belief in the actual presence of death and physical decay.

This view, or a form of it, says Marshall, is the most satisfactory that the resurrection of the dead has simply not become part of the thinking of the church. And only until some members of the church died, would lead them to grief, thinking that the dead would not participate in the Parousia.

3. Another possibility is that, instead of the dead being absolutely at a disadvantage compared with the living in that they had no hope at all of the future salvation (view 2.), the Thessalonians regarded them as being only relatively at a disadvantage. This view is generally expressed in the form that the Thessalonians believe in the resurrection but held that it would not take place until after the parousia, with the result that the dead would be excluded from the joyful reunion with the Lord at his return.

Marshall responds to this theory by noting that the obvious objection is that if the dead were ultimately going to be raised, then that is incongruent with the high level of grief that the Thessalonians were experiencing that was understandable for pagans "who have no hope."

4. [It is argued] that something had happened to disturb the Thessalonians' belief in the resurrection. The church has been infected by Gnostic teachers who insisted that the resurrection was a spiritual experience which had already taken place in the lives of the Gnostic... Paul's concern is to point out polemically the implications of such a view: if it is correct that there is no future resurrection, then the readers' departed relatives and friends are obviously excluded from salvation.

The weakness of this argument is that Paul would have certainly reacted much more strongly if there were false teachers present which the epistle does not suggest. Not to mention there is no evidence of Gnosticism in Thessalonica at this time.

5. [The last common explanation that is proposed by commentators is] that the problem which Paul was dealing with in 1 Th. 4:13-18 was not primarily concerned with the resurrection of the dead. Rather the Thessalonian Christians' hope that Christ would come and take them while still alive to be with him had been shattered by the deaths of some of their members; from these deaths they concluded that the hope of the parousia was a delusion. Paul responded to this loss of hope by showing that at the parousia the dead would be in no way disadvantaged but would participate alone with the living; consequently, there was no need to abandon hope in the parousia.

On the surface, Marshall argues, this explanation may make sense of the grief. However, he says, there is nowhere in the epistle that Paul believes that the Thessalonians have lost hope in the Parousia itself or is doubting its future reality. Paul is not defending the doctrine of the Parousia itself.

(1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Commentary, I. Howard Marshall, pp. 120-22).

All of these explanations do not fully explain the cause of ignorance that brought about this grief. But I do think that a form of the second view is very plausible. I agree with Gene Green when he says,

The reconstruction of greatest merit argues that at the moment of confronting the reality of death, the Thessalonians did not allow their confession to inform their reaction to this human tragedy. Alternately, they may simply have not understood fully the reality of the resurrection from the dead, especially in light of the general Gentile consensus that such things simply do not happen (The Letters to the Thessalonians, p. 215).

So as been discussed above, it is implied in vv. 13-18 that Paul did teach them the resurrection of the dead in Christ at least minimally given his brief visit, but not necessarily a precise connection or sequence to the Parousia. So either they did not fully understand Paul's teaching, or they did understand how the theology translated into a consistent application when the reality of death occurred in their church. And is that not the case with many of us? We must experience something first before we really begin to learn the theology behind it.

It could be objected that if Paul did teach them about the resurrection of the dead during his first visit, why did he not characteristically say in this passage that they should know this already and he is reminding them again? This is a good point, but if Paul did not spend substantial amount of time teaching about the resurrection of the dead when he was with them, then there is no need to admonish their memory. Further, given the sensitive and reassuring tone and context of the situation, Paul easily would have seen no need to explicitly say he taught this before when he was with them.

Paul's primary purpose was to be pastoral, "Therefore comfort one another with these words" (v.18). It was not intended for end-time speculation by appealing to our imagination. It was to reassure believers in one of the most grieving situations that humans encounter: death.

July 22, 2007

Why We Eschew Sensationalism and Speculation Here at PRDC...

Click Here to find out.

July 22, 2007

Significant O.T. Archaeological Discovery...

"The British Museum yesterday hailed a discovery within a modest clay tablet in its collection as a breakthrough for biblical archaeology – dramatic proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament." Read more...

July 21, 2007

From the Mail Bag...

"I just wanted to drop you a note to say thanks for all you are doing with PRI. You are such a bold witness...for the prewrath position. Thanks also for keeping the articles and especially the audio links available on the website. I have devoured them as fast as you have made them available, and am looking for more." - Jim

July 21, 2007

Renald Showers Turns Down Debate with Charles Cooper

Pretribulationism is in a no-win dilemma. On one hand they know that ever since the Prewrath position emerged, by far, most of the Prewrath adherents came over from the pretrib position. So the immediate response in the 90's from the pretrib teachers was not an attempt to engage Biblically with the Prewrath position, but mainly to discredit Rosenthal and Van Kampen personally.

This approach may have worked in the mind of the most die-hard pretribber, but it did not bode well for many pretrib thinkers who were more concerned with what the Bible teaches than attacking godly men for challenging the tradition of pretribulationism. And consequently, many of these pretribbers embraced prewrath--and continue to do so.

The other side of the dilemma from pretrib teachers is just as demonstrable. When they actually do attempt to engage with Prewrath literature, writings, and exegesis, they have notoriously misrepresented the Prewrath position. Their modus operandi is extensive. They have built as many strawmen to feed cattle on a thousand hills. Frequently they read their pretrib assumptions back into the prewrath position and thereby avoiding prewrath premises. I even came across two pretrib books that could not even get the most basic prewrath chart reproduced correctly!

These misrepresentations cannot be accounted by simply mistakes. They have had the facts before them for twenty years; not to mention they have been corrected many times over. Why can they not represent the Prewrath accurately and fairly? Honest research and scholarship should strive to not only address the best arguments the other side has, but to represent them accurately. Failing to do so, is the sign of an untenable position.

This brings me to Renald Showers recent decline of a debate challenge with Cooper. For those who may not know, Showers wrote one of the more popular books critiquing the Prewrath position, The Pre-Wrath Rapture View. Sadly, though this book attempted to address the prewrath view in a meaningful manner, it failed on a number of levels. (We hope to have a critique review of the book here on the blog in the near future.)

One common error of the book was reading back pretrib assumptions into the prewrath position. This is simply called begging the question, or assuming the conclusion as a premise, or others know it by another term, circular reasoning.

You will also find a lack of any meaningful interaction of the actual exegesis of prewrath interpretation. This is very important to note. In other words, good research requires one to not only explain what they believe, but why. Therefore, you will frequently see in their writings statements such as, "The Prewrath position believes XYZ." Then they proceed to just skip right over the very reasons, arguments, and exegesis of why we believe what we do, and then they go right into what they believe. Sorry, but that is not how you critique and engage in any meaningful fashion an opposing viewpoint.

So would Renald Showers have any desire to defend his pretrib claims under the scrutiny of cross-examination in a public moderated debate? Nope. It is one thing to write books and articles, but the medium of a public debate with cross-examination would not allow pretribbers to get away with their misrepresentations, assumptions, and errant exegesis. This is why the medium of public debate in my opinion is the most glorifying to God because falsehood and tradition is held accountable, and truth can be revealed and communicated in this orderly manner, which is often evaded in the written medium.

“The first to state his case seems right, until his opponent begins to cross-examine him.” (Proverbs 18:17)

Case in point. Although I would have liked to see a one-on-one debate and with cross-examination, this rapture debate in Dallas a number of years ago demonstrated that pretribulationism fails on the platform of public debate, and prewrath demonstrates to be a cogent Biblical position when it is given a hearing.

The prewrath position is willing to place their claims under the scrutiny of a public moderated debate. And for the record there still has not been any significant pretribulational teacher that is willing to defend their position one-on-one in public with a prewrath teacher.

In my correspondence with Showers, I want to note and respond to a few of his reasons for his decline to debate, which I do not find legitimate.

1. One of the reasons he gave for his decline was that the ministry demands will not allow him to have the time to debate.

Ok... I can understand that we are all busy with the demands of our work and ministry, but surely it took hundreds of hours to write his book critiquing the prewrath position, not to mention that he took time to even write a second edition. Participating in a moderated debate that is planned in advance is nominal compared to the time it would take to write a book and a second edition.

Further, this is an opportunity for him to debate one of the most articulate and influential prewrath exponents. Here is a chance to discredit the prewrath position on a significant public platform (audio and videotaped as well), and to defend publicly those same pretrib claims that are made in the book. But this lack of willingness on his part is indicative of the inconsistency and resistance to allow believers to evaluate Pretribulationism and Prewrath side-by-side. But this observable fact only bodes well for the Prewrath position.

2. Another reason he gave was, "My observation has been that in that format of debate most people walk away forgetting the arguments that both debaters have presented and, therefore, often misquoting the arguments, and misrepresenting what each debater said."

i. Apparently Showers has a low view of the compentency of believers who would be in the audience. To be sure, individuals may forget specific arguments, but substantially they are able to follow an argument and can discern when one of the debaters is evading an argument or making a bad argument.

ii. And the same could be said about sermons and conferences. Should church members stop going to church and wait for the sermon to be transcribed?

iii. As far as misquoting and misrepresentation, the debate would be audio recorded, which would deter individuals from misquoting. And using the sermon example again: Individuals can misquote and misrepresent sermons as well. So the reason does not follow.

3. "In my estimation the best way to avoid those problems is to have the arguments of both views in written form that people can resort to repeatedly in order to have a more accurate understanding of the opposing views."

i. Audio recording accomplishes the same thing.

ii. Also, the written format does not have the benefit of cross-examination. Here is where misrepresentation is held accountable. Written form allows a degree of immunity from criticism, whereas in a debate someone cannot get away with certain arguments as they can in writing.

4. "I have already debated the Prewrath Rapture View in written form in my book The Pre-Wrath Rapture View : An Examination And Critique."

That is not "debate" in any meaningful sense of the term. He can call it a "critique" but certainly not a debate, since a debate requires two sides interacting with each other's views. And as explained above, the written format is limited. It has its benefits, but indeed, only one perspective is given.

I would like to conclude this article with a very revealing statement that Showers concluded our correspondence with. Regarding what prompted him to write his book against the prewrath view, he says,

"A few years after that book was published [a different pretrib book], a Christian leader who speaks at pastors' conferences told me that pastors were telling him that the Pre-Wrath Rapture View was coming into their churches and causing confusion, conflict, and divisions. They said, 'We need help, and no one is addressing this view.'"

What do you find most amazing about that statement? Two observations. First, all these "confused" pastors who are supposed to know the Bible admitted they could not defend the pretribulational position themselves! They could not go to their Bibles and correct these so-called "divisive" prewrath laity. Rather, they needed someone to "write a book." That is very telling.

Second, and just as much disturbing was the implicit admission that these pastors did not have a Berean spirit to find out if the prewrath position was Biblical in the first place. They were reactionary by assuming that their laity was wrong and they were right--without any desire to understand the position. All the pastors knew in their mind was that it was not pretrib; therefore let's not engage it Biblically ourselves and provide any meaningful interaction. Rather, let's find someone to write a book against it so we can tell the laity to read it and quit being "divisive" and causing "conflict."

Indeed, Tradition nullifies the Word of God.

July 19, 2007

"Parousia Conference" Audio is Available, including Marvin Rosenthal

For the first time on the internet, we are offering for free the following eight lectures by Marvin Rosenthal, Charles Cooper, and Roger Best, which were recorded at a "Parousia Conference" in Holland, Michigan.

If you have never heard Marvin Rosenthal speak, you can hear him give an instructive panorama of Israel's history, as well as his exposition of the 70 Weeks of Daniel.

We have added these mp3 lectures to our Free Prewrath Resource category of our Shopping Cart. Click here to be taken to them. Enjoy.

July 18, 2007

Damaged Foundations of Pretribulationism - Part 1 - Revelation 3:10

In this episode of Prewrath Radio Online, we examine the loss of Revelation 3:10 as foundational support for a pretrib rapture.

Click here to listen to the program.

July 17, 2007

Prewrath Conference: What I Will Be Teaching in Particular on 1&2 Thessalonians

Where: Orlando Marriott—Lake Mary 1501 International Pkwy Lake Mary, FL 32746

When: January 10-12, 2008

What: Information and Registration

For those who have or will be signing up for the 1&2 Thessalonians lectures of the 2008 Prewrath Conference, here is a sneak preview of what I will be covering:

Introduction to the Thessalonian Situation—What is Really Going On In the Thessalonian Church?

1 Thessalonians 4—The Classic Rapture Passage, and a Response to Postribulationism

2 Thessalonians 1—Both the Rapture and the Onset of the Day of the Lord Occur on the Same Day.

2 Thessalonians 2—The 800-Pound Gorilla Sitting on the Pretribulationist’s Desk.

2 Thessalonians 2:6-7—Michael the Archangel, the Restrainer Removed: Distilling Colin R. Nicholl's seminal article "Michael, The Restrainer Removed (2 Thess. 2:6-7)," April 2000, The Journal of Theological Studies.

Excursus: The Consistency Between the Teachings of Paul and Jesus on the Coming (“Parousia”)—Comparing the Parallels Between the Both of Them.

July 15, 2007

The Two Witnesses Minister During the Second Half of the 70th Week of Daniel

God has carved out a future chunk of history by ordaining a 7-year period commonly called the "70th Week of Daniel" (and misleadingly called "The Tribulation Period"). This 7-year period is divided in two halves of three and one half years each (1,260 days, or 42 months).

It is noteworthy that in Daniel and Revelation there is only one half of this 7-year period that is the focus of key events--the latter three and one half years. Further, both Jesus and Paul in their discourses on the end of the age use Daniel as a source of their exposition. And the astute student will observe that both Jesus and Paul focus on the events that will unfold during the second half with an emphasis on the midpoint event: the revelation of Antichrist and the genesis of his plan to persecute the Church.

In Revelation we are introduced to two individuals known as the "Two Witnesses" who will minister on behalf of God and whose ministry has a particular purpose. There are often two discussions about these witnesses: their identification, and the time frame they minister in.

It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the former, only the latter. We are told that their ministry will last three and one half years (Rev. 11:3). Though the book of Revelation gives us precise correspondence that their time frame of ministering will be in the latter half of the 70th week of Daniel, there are some, especially with pretribulational assumptions, that force them to minister in the first half of the 70th week of Daniel with no Biblical warrant.

Given the information of when they will die (Rev. 11:7-10), it is demonstrated that they minister during the second half. Consequently, they die and are resurrected after the sixth trumpet is blown (9:13; 11:7) and after the second woe (9:12), but before the seventh trumpet (11:11,14,15).

And since their days of ministering is 1,260, the day of their death signals that the 70th week of Daniel was completed the day before. Thereby, it necessarily follows that the seventh trumpet is blown after the completion of the 70th week, in which the bowls of God's final wrath will unfold in rapid succession.

There are many who have assumed that the seventh trumpet and the bowls must occur within the 7-year period, but a natural reading does not allow for this; hence the reason why it is common to see forced readings of these events placed in the 70th week. However, numerous students of prophecy are not aware that Scripture teaches an extra 75-day time frame that follows the 7 years, which is made up of a 30-day period and a 45-day period (Daniel 12:11-12). Incidentally, Robert Van Kampen did an exceptionally good job in expounding on these extra 75 days in his book The Sign.

Giving all this as a preface to this subject, I will direct you to this article in which the author unpacks it further.

July 14, 2007

Olmert Allows Muslims to Dig on Temple Mount

JERUSALEM – Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has quietly granted the Waqf – the Muslim custodians of the Temple Mount – permission to dig unsupervised on the sacred site, WND has learned.

The permission was granted in spite of longstanding fears from leading Israeli archeologists the Waqf might hide or dispose of Jewish Temple artifacts discovered during any Muslim digs.

The last time the Waqf conducted an unsupervised excavation on the Temple Mount, in 1997, the Muslim custodians ultimately were caught by Israeli authorities disposing truckloads of Mount dirt that contained Jewish Temple artifacts. Read more...

July 11, 2007

Health and Wealth "Gospel" Exported to Africa

Pretribulationsim is not the only false teaching that America exports overseas; the prosperity "gospel" is now corrupting Africa and bringing disgrace upon the name of Christ and Biblical Christianity. (I suppose there is more money to be made in the preaching of prosperity than persecution.)

Here is a sad and disturbing article from Christianity Today.

Here are some excerpts from it,

Pastor Michael Okonkwo rises from his gold-coated throne before 4,000 onlookers in Lagos, Nigeria. "Hallelujah!" bellows the self-proclaimed "father of fathers, pastor of pastors," wearing a glittery green gown. The crowd stands and roars....

...Similar scenes unfold every day in countless venues throughout sub-Saharan Africa, where prosperity-tinged Pentecostalism is growing faster not just than other strands of Christianity, but than all religious groups, including Islam. Of Africa's 890 million people, 147 million are now "renewalists" (a term that includes both Pentecostals and charismatics), according to a 2006 Pew Forum on Religion and Public life study. They make up more than a fourth of Nigeria's population, more than a third of South Africa's, and a whopping 56 percent of Kenya's. . . .

In its 2006 survey, Pew asked participants if God would "grant material prosperity to all believers who have enough faith." Eighty-five percent of Kenyan Pentecostals, 90 percent of South African Pentecostals, and 95 percent of Nigerian Pentecostals said yes. Similarly, when Pew asked if religious faith was "very important to economic success," about 9 out of 10 Kenyan, Nigerian, and South African renewalists said it was...

The worst brand of African prosperity teaching is, perhaps unsurprisingly, an American export. Experts cite various reasons for the spread of this kind of renewalism, better known as health-and-wealth, including:

• American lifestyles have led African believers to equate Christian faith with wealth.

• Traditional African values often link material success and spiritual success.

• The African "Big Man" ideal honors rich, powerful leaders such as prosperity preachers.

And then there is television. As Pentecostal-charismatic programming has flooded Africa, renewalist numbers have risen from 17 million in 1970 to 147 million in 2005. The continent's largest religious broadcaster is Santa Ana, California–based Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), followed by Europe's GOD TV.

As TV sets grow common in African cities, these broadcasters are gaining huge audiences. People who lack a TV often watch with neighbors, and viewing options are limited. In Zambia, only three stations click on: MUVI TZ, which airs reruns of U.S. shows and old movies; ZNBC, the Zambian National Broadcasting Company; and TBN. Television is becoming the continent's religious classroom.

"People turn it on and assume that TBN is American Christianity, and Americans know everything, so why not listen to it?" says Bonnie Dolan, founder and director of Zambia's Center for Christian Missions, a Reformed school for pastors. "[W]e have Zambians looking to the West for direction, and they associate TBN with the West. And it's killing our churches."...

July 3, 2007

Amillennialism - Examining its "Origens"

(This instructive article by Gary Vaterlaus was written for Parousia magazine on the origins of Amillennialism in the early church.)

The early church fathers were very prolific in their writing. Many of these early documents have been preserved for us today. Their writings give us a picture of the beliefs, lifestyle and struggles of the early church. While not all of the early church fathers wrote on the return of Christ and His subsequent kingdom to follow, those that did left us a clear picture of the eschatological hope of the early church. In reading the earliest fathers, one quickly learns that regarding the temporal kingdom of Christ, the fathers were chiliastic. Chiliasm (pronounced “kileeazem”) is the correct term for designating the theological position of the earliest fathers concerning the Lord’s temporal kingdom. Chiliasm comes from the Greek word that means a thousand. Therefore, to be chiliastic is to believe that Christ is going to establish a temporal kingdom on earth after His return, one thousand years in duration. Citing numerous sources and historical references, Larry V. Crutchfield, professor of Early Christian History & Culture at Columbia Evangelical Seminary, lists numerous church fathers and early church documents as proponents for chiliasm. (1)

In contrast to this “great cloud of witnesses” for the chiliastic (one thousand year kingdom) view of the early church, there are virtually no early church documents prior to AD 325 which support a different view. In fact, the writings of the early church are so overwhelmingly chiliastic, that it led the great church historian, Phillip Schaff, to write:

The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age [before the council of Nicea] is the prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. (2)

The historical evidence indicates that chiliasm (premillennialism, as it is called today) was the predominant belief of the church of the first three centuries. “And to make few words of it,” as Thomas Burnet, royal chaplain to king William III of England, said, “we will lay down this conclusion, that the Millennial kingdom of Christ was the general doctrine of the Primitive Church, from the times of the Apostles to the Nicene Council; inclusively.” (3) (emphasis added)

Continue reading... »