This post originally appeared in the First Quarter Moriel Bulletin of 2015.
Just recently I read some very sad transcripts for some recent editions of the "Berean Call" radio show. Some wild claims were made and unsubstantiated terminologies were thrown around as if they were settled fact. It was so shocking, that I felt some of the statements in this show needed to be addressed, so I intend to follow this post with a series entitled "Pretrib Mythology" based upon the extravagant claims made in the Radio Show.
Now before I go any further, let me emphasise that what
I am about to write is about doctrines and hermeneutics, not people.
I testify from personal experience that Dave Hunt's books the
Seduction of Christianity and Beyond Seduction,
were great helps in awaking me personally to the errors of the Word
of Faith Movement in the 80's; and Dave's book "What Love
is This?" is a great resource to people who are
struggling with, or have been afflicted by Calvinitis. It
lays out very clearly what Calvinism is all about, using Calvnistic
authors own words; which is exactly why his Calvnistic antagonists hated and maligned it so much. This was Berean Call at its best.
So it was particularly tragic to read these
transcripts. Each of then was littered with scripturally
unsubstantiated claims,1
which is bad enough, (however, I have read enough Pretrib material by
now to become used to that): but, there were some
statements made, especially in the interviews with Thomas Ice,2
that were particularly problematic.
Ice: You know, it’s amazing to me that no one articulated the substitutionary atonement of Christ until a thousand years in church history with Anselm. Their view in the early church was closer to Benny Hinn, you know? It was called the “ransom to Satan” theory. No one that we know of articulated the doctrine of justification by faith until Martin Luther came along for 1,500 years! And it led to a schism, you know, within the church, thank God…
References to substitutionary atonement can
actually be found in early writers such as the 2nd letter to
Diognetus, the writings of Athanasius, Chrysostom and Eusebius
etc. But ultimately there is the testimony of Scripture.
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 1 Pet,. 3:18
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Rom. 3:23-25
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. (Rom. 4:24-25)
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood [substitutionary death], we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Rom. 5:8-11
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; . . . he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed . . the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all . . . . he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due . . . it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, . . . by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities . . . . because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
And to this we could argue that the whole OT
sacrificial system teaches us about substitutionary atonement.
In addition, what Anselm actually articulated was
not Substitutionary Atonement per se, but the
Satisfaction Theory of Atonement, where he posited that
the injury done to God's honour and glory by mankind's sin was
rectified by the death of Christ, who paid the debt to God's honour
that man owed. Perhaps Ice is confusing this with the Penal
Substitution Theory of Atonement, where Christ suffers the
punishment for every sin of man.3
However regardless of the above; it is
clear that Ice, by his claim that certain Atonement Theories were not
fully articulated for a considerable time, would thus have us accept
that there should be no barrier to our receiving a Rapture Theory
that only appeared in the 1830's. However, he is here glossing
over or omitting a fact of critical importance: whatever aspect
of Atonement is emphasised by any of the various theories; its
substitutionary nature is clearly and explicitly taught
throughout the Scriptures in numerous places, as shown above.
The same can be said for the doctrine of Justification by Faith, this
can be found throughout the Bible, and is most explicit of
course in Paul's Epistles; indeed, it is so ubiquitous in the New
Testament, that it would be superfluous to give references here. Both
Substitutionary Atonement and Justification by Faith, are explicit
teachings of the Bible, derived by exegetical method from in
context statements of Scripture. We must not forget this or
allow it to be glossed over, because this is the real issue that is
at stake.
The Pretribulational Rapture on the other hand;
never was, nor is it now, in any shape or
form, exegetically or contextually derived from any
verse in the entire Bible; all of the verses it uses as proof texts
have to be severely contorted or quoted out of context to arrive at a
predetermined Pretrib conclusion. As we have repeatedly stated, even
its own proponents readily concede that it is a doctrine based solely
upon "inference",--which brings us to another comment from
the transcripts.
T.A. McMahon: Now, however, and I want to talk about this: now, we believe in, you know, the objective Word of God. We believe in literal interpretation. But when we look to Scripture, yes, we want the verse. We want to see the verse clearly, objectively, and so on. But we also believe in extrapolation. In other words, a number of the doctrines – you know, I think you mentioned this before we started recording; we were talking about something like the Trinity and so on. You can’t find that term. But we find so many other verses that we can put together that form a clear doctrine.Now, the part that we don’t want to go – we don’t want to go beyond that to speculation. So we can accept, you know, what a verse says clearly and distinctly, but we can also extrapolate a number of other verses to put together a solid teaching, a solid doctrine of the church.Now, it’s speculation where we draw the line. Would you agree with that?
While admittedly, the teaching on the Trinity is
more scattered throughout Scripture, and it is less explicitly taught
but rather assumed as a "given" by the NT writers;
nevertheless the reasoning behind the doctrine can be
inductively derived from contextual exegesis of
explicit statements or facts made in the passages used to
support it. Here are just a few samples;
Jesus undoubtedly claimed to be the YHWH
and his hearers understood that is what he was saying.
He accepted the worship of the disciples.
The angels are said to worship him.
He explicitly claimed to one with the
Father.
He explicitly claimed to have glory with
the Father before the world began.
Many, many OT texts describing YHWH are
explicitly applied to Jesus.
The Spirit is revealed to be a personal
being, who works in concert with the Father and Son. Divine
attributes are explicitly ascribed to Him in numerous places. He
shares a name with the Father and the Son.
These
things found in the very warp and woof of the New Testament.
Scripture does not have to be twisted to arrive at some kind of
Trinitarian conclusion.
Extrapolations and Self Contradictions.
The
"extrapolation" statement is actually very revealing,
because in spite of Ice's claim that:
. . .if you remove pre-Tribulationalism from the New Testament epistles, it’s like trying to unravel a piece of cloth, or pull a thread out of the cloth, you know? It just doesn’t work because it’s embedded, and a lot of people just don’t take the time to understand that later on in 1 Corinthians, it’s called a mystery, meaning it’s a new revelation, see?
and McMahon's claim that:
" . . It was in the Bible all along" and "And there’s so many verses that support that. And the thing that shocks me, . . . is that people are saying, “Oh no, this is some kind of esoteric, secret…you know, this isn’t there, they’re making it up,” and so on. it’s as clear as it can be."
They actually admit that it is only obtainable by
extrapolations. The question is then: If it is so "clear
as it can be", not "esoteric"or "secret"
and so "embedded" why the necessity to resort to
"extrapolations" in order to arrive at it? This
is completely self-contradictory:--and why does this seem to be the
only doctrine in modern evangelicalism that is given
special dispensation to based on extrapolation/inference alone?
A doctrinal basis that is established upon
exegesis and honest handling of the biblical text, is what
separates orthodox biblical Christianity from the cults, and the
likes of "Kenny and Benny". The Pretribulational Rapture is
indeed problematic, but is it an outward symptom of an
underlying malaise that is far more disturbing; an indicator
of how willing we are to bend the Word of God to suit our wishes?
It is not biblical hermeneutics that we see in
these radio interviews, but theological propaganda
masquerading as biblical doctrine. The praises of literal
interpretation are sung, and speculation is decried;
but it is all too readily apparent that this is lip-service;
for to do homage to the Golden Calf of Pretrib theory, literal
interpretation must be deposed, context summarily executed and
"extrapolation" usurp their place to provide an apologetic
for a doctrine which orthodox hermeneutical method can not.
If this is not in actuality "esoteric" or "secret"
I don't know what is. Without the extrapolative tradition/magisterium
of the Pretrib "elders" this doctrine simply cannot be
arrived at. Scripture warns us very clearly about "making the
Word of God of none effect through our tradition."
When we try to create or sustain a doctrine with
the kind of methods exemplified in these radio interviews;--are we
not in essence saying that we love our favoured notion more than the
truth that God has explicitly stated? When we show an
unwillingness to honestly handle God's Word, because to do so would
deal a death blow to our pet theories; are we not actually revealing
that we have at least in some measure departed from love of
the truth and prefer a lie? This is serious enough for us on a
personal level, but what for teachers of the Word? --are they not
even more accountable?
There has been quite a lot written on the
"Apostasy equals Rapture" teaching that is so enthused over
in this interview. Its utterly baseless nature has been well and
truly documented;4
I am astonished that this canard keeps being repeated by Ice, as he
does again in these broadcasts. The "Apostasy equals Rapture"
is way out beyond the speculation Ice claims to want to
avoid, it is pure fantasy; but such is the nature of spiritual
deception, it will take us to places, that if we escape it to look
back from the outside, we shake our heads in wonder that we actually
ran with such nonsense. I know, because I have been in that place
myself.
Many years ago, when I was walking in the false
doctrines of the Word of Faith movement; there was a point when I
began to experience a sense of misgiving about the way WOF teachers
were handling Scripture; but at the same time the doctrine was very
appealing. Initially I tried to avoid listening to or reading
anything that would contradict it, but that internal disquiet would
not go away. One day a dear friend, who saw clearly WOF for what it
was and had been praying for me, handed me a copy of "Seduction
of Christianity". I really did not want to read that book! But
at that point I knew I was being presented with a choice: I
could ignore my misgivings and carry on in that which was exciting
and pleased my flesh; or I could read the book. The message of the
book did sting somewhat; but in its wake it brought great joy. New
light broke forth from the Scriptures as the deluding mists were
blown away, and this point in time marked the beginning of my
understanding of what it means to "rightfully handle the word of
truth". Over time since then, a serious amount of theological
demolition went on, as ideas, practices and teachings that could not
be exegetically substantiated were disposed of; but what I gained has
always been well worth the cost. The hermeneutical principles that I
began to learn at that time, when applied, have also been of
tremendous benefit in preserving and protecting me from the Apostasy
that has mushroomed in our midst since then.
These interviews worry me, because they may be a
sign that the Pretrib camp is simply ignoring calls to sharpen up on
their hermeneutic, and is instead closing its ears so that it may
blithely continue on with these cult-style interpretive methods. Will
we soon observe even sharper declinations from biblical truth, of
which this "Apostasy equals Rapture" claim is but an early
symptom? Will it come to pass that in a wilful refusal to return to
sound hermeneutics they will veer every deeper into error and
ironically, eventually be found fulfilling the prophecy of 2 Thess.
2:3 in themselves? I truly hope not, because I shudder to think where
I would be today if I had chosen other than I had;--if I had not
hearkened to the voice of the LORD. I thank God for that woman who
prayed for me and kept "getting on my case" about Word Of
Faith, even if I did not want to hear it, and who ultimately gave me
the book that was such a life changer.
I heard recently, that some, even among Pretrib's
big names,--are beginning to entertain reservations about it. This is
very encouraging, it means that God is answering prayers for these
our brethren. We need to continue to pray earnestly for them and for
friends and associates who are ensnared by this doctrine, that their
hearts be soft to the truth, that they make the right choices, even
if it costs them dearly in prestige, finance and following. Let us
also pray for courage for all those leaders who know Pretrib to be
serious error, but are afraid to come out of the closet.
Many truly godly men preach this error in
sincerity, I count a number of precious friends among them. Let us in
all humility, lift these brethren up to the LORD.
1 I
intended to deal with some of these issues on the this site,
because there are too many of them for the article in the Moriel Quarterly.
2 The
transcripts for the Radio shows in question can be found on the
Berean call site under the December 2014 boadcasts "What about
the Rapture?".
3 I
think it fair to say that substitutionary atonement is explicitly
declared in the Scriptures, and it appears that through Church
history the differing views of atonement that arose, were more to do
with the details of what substitution actually entailed not
over the fact of substitution itself. The Atonement is a
multifaceted concept and it accomplished a number of
different things; while the New Testament is clear over what
Christ's death has accomplished, the question of how it did
this is not really emphasised.
4 Yakov
has dealt with this on a number of occasions, and this was also
covered in a previous Moriel Bulletin.
No comments:
Post a Comment