Eternal Perspectives

Location, location, location; culture, culture, culture.

A lot of what I’ve read in the comments at Tim Challies’ post “Confessions of a Reformission Rev.” about the Bible’s use of offensive or less-than-discreet language reflects – not the vulgarity of the Bible but – the difference between a culture of concrete and steel and the culture of the Bible.

Most of you likely grew up in the city, where you didn’t get the opportunity to see animals doing what animals do with the equipment God gave them – in some cases, most generously – on a daily basis. For people that grew up on a farm or ranch – or merely in the proximity of domestic or wild animals – there’s nothing offensive about the Bible’s language, whether in the OT or NT. In fact, it was probably a rare week or even day that went by without seeing cattle, sheep, horses, or goats engaging in sex.

People living during the period of time described by the Bible, and people who lived in those times who were utilized by God to inscribe the Bible, weren’t prudes when it came to sex and basic bodily functions. Nowadays we blush if we see two dogs making puppies in the park, but not so the people of that period. Too, since people didn’t “curb their camels” back then, stepping in excrement was not uncommon (albeit no less unpleasant) and a reference to it would not have been regarded as horrific or shameful. We need to read and exposit Scripture based on the culture in which and to which it was written, not our own.

Have you ever wondered about Isaiah wandering around with his butt hanging out for three years?

1 In the year that the commander came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him and he fought against Ashdod and captured it,
2 at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, ‘Go and loosen the sackcloth from your hips and take your shoes off your feet.’ And he did so, going naked and barefoot.
3 And the LORD said, ‘Even as My servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot three years as a sign and token against Egypt and Cush,
4 so the king of Assyria will lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush, young and old, naked and barefoot with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.’”¹

I doubt that it was terribly uncommon in those days to see the backside of others; for those of us who have visited nursing homes regularly, it’s not so infrequent now, either. It’s not pretty, but it happened and happens, and we need not go shrieking off in a pseudo-spiritual, maniacal frenzy like three monkeys that see, hear, and speak no evil – when it isn’t evil at all.

As far as Paul’s reference to the Judaizers’ castrating themselves, it was not an uncommon or unheard of thing for such a thing to happen during the rite of circumcision during those times. A slip of the knife and a man was barred from the Temple for life. It happened then (and even now) and Paul’s comment, in addition to being apt, may also illustrate that such people were unfit for the Kingdom of God. To the people of that day, however, such a reference wasn’t as shocking as it might be to us. Might crude comments have been made to men who were made eunuchs by men? Sure, but that doesn’t show up in the Bible.

It is only with considerable ignorance of OT and NT culture that someone can read the Bible and come away thinking that it is vulgar, crass, or crude. If you learn to read through the lenses of the people to whom a particular passage or verse was written – not that I have perfected this, but I’m working on it – then the notion of God using inappropriate words, allusions, or metaphors disappears.

The Bible spoke to everyday people about everyday things that everybody was familiar with and only the most Pharisaical were offended by. And, for what it’s worth, there is a big difference between the Bible or people giving offense and others taking offense. As someone who works with sexually addicted Christian men and women, I don’t find their language or descriptions offensive. I find it sad and tragic that they practice – and perfect – such behavior, but I try to listen compassionately and not worry about my own tender little ears.

Neither, however, do I respond in similar fashion in order to “connect” with them. To “speak their language” is no different than a forty-something mother dressing like her fourteen year old daughter: it’s ugly and results in disgust, not intimacy. I wonder if Driscoll and others, in order to “connect” with others, fart in public if their audience does? What a wonderful, shared experience that would be, eh?

Paul said that he became like those without the law but was quick and careful to add, “though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9.21).

Not so, I’m afraid, with those today who know that the quickest way to draw a crowd is to set yourself on fire. If you – and I mean you, not God – want to build a church quickly then go outside the parameters of what is prescribed and proscribed in the Bible and people will come by the busload. Espousing correct theology is nothing – even if it is the idol of Reformed, Baptist, Dispensational, Charismatic, Catholic, or any other doctrine – if it is not manifested in a life that reflects the holiness of God in Jesus Christ.

People like Driscoll, Campolo, or McLaren are not all that dissimilar to Howard Stern: their audiences are superficially different but beneath it all the titilation of flirting with sin is exactly the same.

None of what I have said should be construed to imply that I have not, cannot, or do not use profanity at times: I do. But I don’t try to buttress (vague pun intended) it with untenable arguments based on misunderstood passages in the Bible. It’s my issue, my problem, my sin – and by the grace of God I’m getting better. And I’m getting better not by defiling the holiness of God and bringing Him down to my level of ungodliness, but by allowing the Spirit to continue the enormous amount of work He has to do on me.

_______

¹ If you want to try to argue that the “shame of Egypt” refers to bare buttocks, then you’ll have to make it refer to being “young and old” and being “barefoot,” too, since the phrases are in apposition. The shame of Egypt was its defeat and the capture of its people, who were then paraded off to exile in poverty.

Most of the time Tim Challies and I see things pretty similarly; in fact, today is the first time I’ve read one of his posts and found myself scratching my head and wondering about what he was saying and how he came to such conclusions. (Not that my disagreement is important or noteworthy to Tim: he gets more hits in an hour than I get in a week.)

The puzzling post is The Obligation to Assume, which is a reaction to a post by Joe Carter at evangelical outpost entitled My Problem with Sullivanism. I find myself in the unusual position of having issues with both Tim and Joe, a rare occurrence. I’ll address both through Tim’s post since he is reacting to Joe’s post in his own.

Still with me?

By way of introduction, let me explain that the “Sullivan” in question is Andrew Sullivan, a professed Christian and proponent/practitioner of homosexual behavior. Joe writes in response to Sullivan’s article in Time magazine, My Problem with Christianism.

Early in his post, Tim writes,

I can’t imagine why Joe began this article with a comparison of the intolerance of Fred Phelps (the ‘God Hates Fags’ preacher from Topeka, Kansas) and Andrew Sullivan.”

This is merely a passing comment Tim makes and not at all the subject of his post, but I thought I would try to clear up any confusion about Joe’s reference. It seems to be nothing more than a study in contrasts: Sullivan and Phelps are polar opposites, Sullivan being an advocate of homosexuality and Phelps the self-appointed judge of all things homoerotic. The irony that Joe may be hinting at is that Sullivan and Phelps do have something in common, albeit to different degrees: intolerance of others.

The focus of Tim’s post, though, is the matter of whether Joe is correct in his acceptance of – or giving the benefit of the doubt to – Sullivan and his claim to being a Christian. I agree with Tim in his concerns about whitewashing Sullivan, but disagree with his reasoning and means of dealing with the whitewashed.

Whitewash

Tim takes issue – rightly so – with Joe’s reference to Sullivan as a brother in Christ. From his post, Joe seems to base his assumption of salvation on some vague assertions made by Sullivan in an interview. Sullivan’s statements possess “plausible deniability,” however, and do not explicitly refer to Jesus Christ as much more than a spiritual guru or guide; nowhere in the quoted portion of the interview does Sullivan talk about Christ as the Savior, the Atonement for our sins, God, or anything else. In short, Joe’s basis for an assumption of Sullivan’s salvation is flimsy if based only on his remarks in the interview.

Personally, I would rather be wrong about someone not being a believer than to assume that they are, only to find out later that I’ve been wrong. In the former situation, the person is temporarily offended; in the latter, eternally damned. Big difference.

Joe, however, approaches the dilemma quite differently:

Let me clarify what I mean by a ‘brother in Christ’ by defining what I don’t mean when I use that term: I don’t mean that I know their salvation is assured (only God knows the answer to that one); I don’t mean that I have evidence of his regeneration (he appears to have a long way to go on the road to sanctification); and I don’t mean that he is not on the road to apostasy. All it means is that I take him at his word: that he confesses to being a follower of Jesus Christ.”

To “take him at his word” seems remarkably naïve for Joe, who typically demonstrates much greater wisdom and discernment. Am I to assume he also takes the word of numerous celebrities and the uncelebrated hoi polloi who claim to be Christians although practicing unbiblical behaviors and promoting unbiblical beliefs? Joe seems to be channeling Brian McLaren in this regard.

The litmus test that Christians are allowed – or commanded – to utilize in determining the validity of someone’s salvation is the fruit they bring forth; the fruit is not a lifestyle, as many believe, but rather the teaching to which they adhere and espouse. Clearly Sullivan’s teaching, regardless of his lifestyle, is unbiblical; this puts him in the category of false prophets (Mt 7.15-20). The sin of homosexual behavior is not a difficult thing to establish: only creative – that is, demonic – hermeneutics can dismiss the practice of homosexuality as “not clearly condemned” by the Bible.

Joe’s position is a reflection of cultural tolerance, baptized under the waters of “it’s not my place.” This is nonsense: the Bible calls upon Christians to be discerning and to evaluate the behaviors and teachings of those who claim the Name of Jesus Christ. To fail to confront or identify false teaching is to fail Christ at that point. As Luther allegedly stated,

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.” (Quoted in Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, p. 18

Joe’s equivocating, however, raises a question; Tim, for his part, answers the question. It is this: Are we going to hold Joe to the same standard as N.T. Wright and his comments about Marcus Borg? There was no small amount of castigation and verbal abuse of Wright for his comment that he regards Borg as a believer, despite the latter’s denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ. Will the same voices that so roundly denounced Wright do the same with Joe? If not, a lot of bloggers owe Tom Wright an apology.

I happen to believe that what many said about Wright was judgmental and wrong, but if that is the standard then it needs to be applied evenly and fairly to all. It might be maintained that Borg was denying an essential of the gospel of salvation whereas Sullivan (and Joe) are not guilty of sin of the same magnitude, but that’s untenable. False teaching is false teaching and the consequences should be the same.

Turpentine

As should be evident from the preceding, I agree with Tim in his rejection of Joe’s position. It is when Tim turns to proposing a solution to the problem of such whitewashing that I disagree. Tim says,

As I understand it, there are two main issues here. The first concerns a profession of faith made by someone who is outside the authority of a ‘true’ (a term I will define shortly) local church. The second concerns a profession of faith by someone who is involved in ongoing, unrepentant sin.”

He then goes on to quote from Dave Swavely’s book Who Are You To Judge? (not to be confused with Erwin Lutzer’s book of the same name):

[R]egarding who are the wheat and who are the tares, they [the apostles] left that judgment to God – except in the case of those who were under church discipline. The biblical writers did not attempt to determine or distinguish true believers from false believers within the church . . .

“I would suggest that when someone has professed personal faith in Christ, been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and identified with the church, we are then under obligation from Scripture to make no negative judgment about the validity of his faith. “

(Swavely’s interpretation of this parable – the wheat and the tares – is curious. Obviously the disciples did determine and distinguish between true and false believers: they obviously saw the difference between the wheat and the tares. What Jesus is saying is that it is not their place to implement punishment and final judgment on unbelievers. While a full exposition of the parable is beyond the scope of this post, suffice it to say that the disciples made the very distinctions Swavely denies.)

Tim explains that a “true” church has three distinguishing and determinative marks: preaching the gospel, administration of baptism and communion, and discipline. He concludes,

If a person has professed faith, been baptized and been received into membership his claim to be a believer has a certain level of credibility. Conversely, if he has refused to be baptized and to be received into membership we would have a good reason to be concerned about his profession.”

To his credit, Tim does not swallow Swavely’s teaching without some modification. Swavely seems to miss instances in the New Testament when believers did make “negative judgments” about others. Those judgments were necessarily predicated on whether or not the person was a Christian: in many cases – but not all – the assumption was that they were. There is no reason to doubt the eternal salvation of Ananias and Sapphira – Peter didn’t question it before bringing their earthly lives to an abrupt end. Certainly he would not have judged unbelievers in this manner (cf. 1 Cor 5.9-13).

What of John’s comments?

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.” – 1 Jn 2.18-19

The fact that these false apostles or antichrists left the true apostles indicates (a) that they were at one time in the community of believers, and (b) that John was making a determination about their spiritual status and the validity of their claims to be Christians – unless somehow one can be a Christian and an antichrist at the same time! (Before anyone accuses me of eisogesis because (a) and (b) are not in the text, let me say that these are logical conclusions to be derived from the text. That is not eisogesis but common sense.)

And what are we to make of Paul’s deliverance of the believer to Satan (1 Cor 5.1-5)? In disagreement with Swavely, I think it is evident that Christians are called upon to judge the sinful behaviors and false teachings of other Christians – to make “negative judgments – even to the extent of concluding that they were not believers.

I begin to part company with Tim when he makes the following statement with regard to Sullivan:

Like everyone else in North America where churches abound, he has had every opportunity to place himself under the authority of a biblical church. And this is exactly what we would expect of a person who has been indwelt by the Holy Spirit. We would assume that such a person would be naturally drawn towards other believers.”

Either Tim is being naïve about the sin nature and the ploys of the enemy, overly simplistic, or a doctrinal belief in perseverance and/or temporary believers is emerging here. Do people in unbiblical churches choose them because they believe they are unbiblical? Or do they choose or remain in a church because of what they have been taught or led to believe by others?

Is it true that every true Christian will be “naturally drawn” to a biblical church or to other believers, as Tim maintains? I must confess that I am not at all drawn to a great number of believers: this is due not to doctrinal differences but to attitudes of smugness, arrogance, and superiority that they display. I’ve no doubt that an equal number are repulsed by me for the same reasons. I love these snot-nosed, self-righteous brothers but I don’t like them and don’t choose to fellowship with them. That’s a reality. Tim’s statement is far too broad to be useful.

With regards to a “biblical church,” Tim seems to be defining “biblical” as a church whose doctrinal positions are acceptable to him, even though he may not completely embrace the positions himself. But by his own definition of what constitutes a “true church,” he cannot introduce additional requirements. Sadly, there are churches that do preach a gospel that facilitates the work of the Spirit in salvation, faithfully baptize and regularly observe communion, and hold to some form of church discipline – but at the same time promote practices and beliefs that are clearly unbiblical.

When Tim writes,

If he was not convicted of his sin and did not turn in repentance, it would be assumed that he was not saved and the church would bear the sad responsibility of excommunicating him in the hope that this drastic action would cause him to repent”

Again, it is clear that his Reformed doctrine is leading him to these conclusions. That is fine – I applaud him for have studied so diligently as to have a deep theological belief and understanding of soteriology and ecclesiology – but I wonder about (a) how this unsaved person slipped under the radar of a biblical church and became a member, thus creating (b) the necessity of excommunicating an non-Christian. Does the church excommunicate unbelievers? This is an area of Reformed theology I have not studied, but it seems peculiar to me, to say the least. I had always believed that excommunication was limited to believers, to the exclusion of unbelievers.

The most troubling comment from Tim comes at the end of his post. Concerning Sullivan, he writes:

I feel that we have no obligation to assume that he is a true believer. Of course this does not necessarily mean that he is unsaved. By God’s grace he may be. Neither you nor I can know for certain. But neither do we bear the obligation of assuming that he is a brother in Christ.”

This is fence-straddling. It is incumbent upon the local church – which consists of individual members – to come to a conclusion about people such as Sullivan or, for that matter, Borg. Otherwise, church discipline is impossible: if Sullivan is a believer, then church discipline is necessary – and if Sullivan is not commited to any local church, then some church (perhaps his last one) still needs to deliver him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh (again, 1 Cor 5). If Sullivan is not a Christian, then we need to pray for his salvation and careful explain the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Equivocation is not an option in such cases. If the former condition exists and church discipline fails, Paul commands,

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” – 2 Th 3.6

Since this is obviously not to be our reaction to a non-Christian, we simply must come to some conclusion about whether a person is a believer or not. There is a reason and purpose for ascertaining, based on behavior and teaching, the spiritual condition of others. Otherwise, we have no way of knowing how to conduct ourselves or how to treat other people, whether in or out of the Kingdom of God.

States I’ve visited and/or through which I’ve travelled (FWIW, I’ve lived in Indiana, Colorado, and Texas, in that order):

create your own personalized map of the USA

If you look carefully, you’ll notice that the northern boundary between Texas and Loiusiana is erased, as is a small portion of the line between Texas and southwest Arkansas. This is because Texas is in the earliest stages of an aggressive takeover of the entirety of the United States.

In an earlier post, I noted that Jesus failed (as best I could determine) a test that rendered Him 14% likely to go to hell. I then offered my own test that involved two questions and a simple scoring method:

(a) I have been saved by the Blood of Jesus Christ
(b) I have not been saved by the Blood of Jesus Christ

Scoring:

If (a), your chances of going to hell are 0%.
If (b), your chances of going to hell are 100%.”

Eric, whom I regard as a brother in Christ who happens to be Catholic, left the following comment (complete with the winking smiley face, as befits his pacific nature):

That presupposes belief in ‘once saved, always saved’. It also rejects the notion of mortal sin. Obviously, as a Catholic I’d have a problem with both. ”

Eric is corrrect: it does presuppose “once saved, always saved”; it makes that presuppositions based on my belief that the Bible – in both the Old Testament and the New – teaches that truth. It is important to note the verb tense and voice in Eric’s phrase: it is in the past tense and the passive voice. Both are significant. The tense is vital because it reflects the biblical teaching: our salvation was not only determined in the past (Eph 1.3-6) but also accomplished in the past (Rom 8.29-30). We are working out, i.e., fulfilling and consumating, our salvation (Php 2.12) but we are not adding anything to it or assuring it in any way. We have already been saved and already will be saved always; our present conduct either confirms that truth or contradicts it. But the truth remains unchanged.

The passive voice reinforces the biblical concept: salvation is something that has been done to and for us: our part is passive and receptive. Salvation is wholly a work of God and we are the beneficiaries of His work. Certainly we make a choice (even though that choice seems to be facililitated by God’s grace – Eph 2.8-9) but that does not contradict nor negate the fact that salvation is God’s work, not ours.

In agreement with Eric, I must say that my test and belief does exclude the possibility of mortal sin if by that you mean the loss of eternal salvation. If mortal sin only referred to loss of temporal, physical life and/or the possibility or hope of rewards in heaven, then I would agree with the notion. But that is not what is in view and thus I do reject the idea of mortal sin. This does cause problems for Catholics (even as other biblical teachings cause problems for other denominations) but it does not change what Scripture states.

Finally, neither objection addresses the point of the post: Jesus fails the test. If Jesus fails the test then we have a choice of believing that the Bible is wrong or that the test is wrong. I do not see how, with the test and teaching as it stands, Jesus Christ or anyone else can pass the test. Since He fails we need to reject the test and seriously question the doctrinal beliefs that undergird such a result.

Yesterday John at Blogotional found, took, and wrote about a quiz titled How Sinful Are You? that seems to be based on the Seven Deadly Sins. John used it as a springboard for some introspection and reflection:

When I first ran across this little quiz at If I should fall from grace with god . . . I thought it a bit trivial – I took it on a lark. While it is not ultimately revealing or anything when the results appeared, my response was not giggles, but conviction.”

Being as I am, I focused not on where the springboard might take me but on the springboard itself, i.e., the quiz. I took it and wound up with 14% chance of going to hell (which gives me an 86% chance of not going, I guess), but then I wondered how Jesus would fare on the quiz. So, as best I could, I took the quiz for Him based on what I know about Him through Scripture and three decades of being His child.

Well, He didn’t do so well:

To be fair, you have to give the quiz this much: Jesus did die at the hands of jealous lovers, and it was ironic that the people He came to save wound up killing Him. Too, I suppose, Jesus did go to hell (1 Pet 3.18-20) but it was more of a drive-by preaching than a house-shopping expedition. I think this quiz is looking at something different.

In short, this quiz is representative of so many quizzes (except the ones that are flattering to me) that slant the questions so as to achieve an inevitable response. There is no way, other than not taking the quiz, to avoid having a “chance to go to hell” and it reflects the bias of the person who designed the quiz.

John ignored the folly and used it profitably, but for those who might take it to heart I say: put down the whip and don’t indulge yourself with self-flagellation. Either Christ paid the price for our sins or He didn’t; the results are not relative. A better quiz might look like this:

(a) I have been saved by the Blood of Jesus Christ
(b) I have not been saved by the Blood of Jesus Christ

Scoring:

If (a), your chances of going to hell are 0%.
If (b), your chances of going to hell are 100%.”

A much better quiz, don’t you think?

Gee, and I had always believed such quizzes were fluff!

You’re the University of Oxford!
Ancient in your perspective, wise in your judgment, and revered by your peers, you command respect. You know more about speaking English than perhaps anyone you could imagine. This reverence has made you a bit stodgy, however, and there are those who say you’ve outgrown your own legacy. Nevertheless, many consider it an honor just to spend time with you. You have been down many roads, but it seems that all roads lead to you.

Take the University Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

This thought has been roaming around in my head for the last several days and since I believe (like most people with blogs) that any thought I have – well, almost any thought – is worthy of being unflicted upon the unsuspecting world, here goes.

I have been amazed, almost to the point of being speechless (although, obviously, not quite) about the breadth and depth and width and height (heighth?) of general expertise exhibited on scores of Godblogs. I do not have in mind those individuals who are highly trained or very experienced in a particular discipline (such as Dembski or Groothuis) but rather those individuals who do not give evidence of either specialized training or intense experience but nevertheless are able to write with great confidence, authority, and (at times) dogmatism on a wide range of topics.

It truly befuddles me that they can do so.

It would appear that these individuals possess profound knowledge and near-infallible expertise on matters as diverse as

Second Temple Judaism;
The Emergent Church;
Intelligent Design;
Philosophy (in all its flavors);
Popular culture;
Exegetical matters (both Hebrew and Greek);
The History of the Church;
Linguistics;
International Politics;
Economics;
Criminology;
Apologetics, and
Theology (including the Nature of God, Soteriology, Anthropology, Eschatology, Ecclesiology, and Hamartiology).

I have spent the better part (and the worse part, too, I suppose) of two decades studying and trying to understand the harmonization of what is known about the physical properties of the brain with the human mind, the spirit of individuals, and the Holy Spirit. My dissertation (such as it was: they are almost always embarrassments in retrospect) sought to integrate these matters and find practical application for the church for the purpose of facilitating sanctification and discipleship. In spite of – or perhaps because of – all my study, I would not consider myself to be an expert on this subject. There is simply far too much that I do not know and likely far more than I or anyone will ever be able to know.

So I stand (or sit) amazed at the apparent expertise of these numerous bloggers. They go at it hammer-and-tong (or, as we say in Indiana, “hammer-and-thong”) with writers who have not only dedicated their lives to the study of a particular discipline (e.g., Alvin Plantinga or Douglas Moo) but have been recognized by their peers as experts and authorities in their respective fields.

Such reputations and credentials do not impress, faze, or dissuade the blogging generalists in the least: not only do they reject the arguments of the authorities, they do so with a gusto and bravado bordering on arrogance and hubris. But, I suppose, if one is an expert in all things, one has the right – nay, the duty – to oppose those who have foolishly and erroneously been identified as reputable scholars in their disciplines.

I am humbled by such bloggers as I reflect upon their confidence and boldness. I wonder why I bother to read books or listen to lectures of the identified authorities when so much information and wisdom is available from such universal experts.

Truly the church is enriched and edified by such people. I know that I, for one, have learned a lot from their examples.

The following is old but still worth a smile. I got it via email.

A very proper lady began planning a week’s camping vacation for her and her Baptist Church group. She wrote to a campground for reservations. She wanted to make sure that the campground was fully equipped and modern, but couldn’t bring herself to write the word ‘toilet’ in her letter. So, she decided on the old-fashioned term ‘Bathroom Commode.’ Once written down she still was not comfortable. Finally she decided on the abbreviation ‘B.C.’ and wrote, ‘does your campground have its own B.C.?’

“When the campground owner received the letter, he couldn’t figure out what she meant by ‘B.C.’ He showed it to several of the campers, one of whom suggested the lady was obviously referring to a Baptist Church since there was a letterhead on the paper which referred to a Baptist Church. So he sent this reply.

Dear Madam:

The B.C. is located nine miles from the camp ground in a beautiful grove of trees. I admit it is quite a distance if you are in the habit of going regularly. No doubt you will be pleased to know that it will seat 350 people at one time, and it is open on Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday of each week. Some folks like to take their lunch and make a day of it. The acoustics are very good, so everyone can hear even the quietest passages. It may interest you to know that my daughter met her husband there. We are also having a fund-raiser to purchase new seats, as the old ones have holes in them.

Unfortunately my wife is ill and has not been able to attend regularly. It’s been a good six months since she last went. It pains her very much not to be able to go more often. As we grow older, it seems to be more of an effort, especially in cold weather.

Perhaps I could accompany you the first time you go, sit with you, and introduce you to all the other folks who will be there. I look forward to your visit.

We offer a very friendly campground.

Turn in your bibles to the New Testament, the Book of Acts. We’ll begin reading in chapter one, verse one. Now, I’m going to be reading from the NASB so if you have a different translation you might want to listen rather than read. Here’s the passage:

1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach,
2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.
3 To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.
4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, ‘Which,’ He said, ‘you heard of from Me;
5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.’
6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, ‘Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?’
7 He said to them, ‘It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority;
8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.’” – Ac 1.1-8

A week or so ago, Dan decided to give one of his ignominious Cowbell Awards to “hyperkinetic dispensationalists” who have done considerable damage to the Body of Christ as well as the Name of Christ. These “formerly rational blogs,” Dan warns, are threats to the sobriety of good Christian people: “Hyperkinetic dispensationalism run amok is threatening to drive hardcore orthodox amil- and premillennialists to drink. Maybe now’s a good time to be a Preterist!” he advises.

In a comment elsewhere, he especially points to the writings of Edgar Whisenant (this was well before he died of nerve gas poisoning on 24) and specifically his book 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988. In fairness to Eddie, the title of his “book” – it’s really hardly more than a brochure – says “Could Be” and not what Dan recalled, i.e., “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Occur in 1988.” Whisenant was even able to ensnare the discerning darlings of the frenetic charismatics, Paul and Jan Crouch, and to get them to run taped programs during Sept 11-13, 1988, the time he had determined for the rapture to occur.

For non-Christians who might be watching, the revised programming included specific instructions on what to do in case Christian family members or friends disappeared and the world was thrust into the tribulation. ” – Field Guide to the Wild World of Religion

Yeah, that’s what I’d do if I were a non-Christian and millions of people had just disappeared from the planet: I’d watch TBN so I could hear the Gospel according to Paul and Jan! – and get some hairstyling pointers from them. Or I would make a bee-line to their home: their stash of hairspray and gel alone must be worth a fortune!

What Dan didn’t say is that Eddie came back in 1989 – when either the Rapture hadn’t happened or he and a lot of us got Left Behind^® – to say that he had miscalculated and that the rapture would be in – you guessed it! – 1989. He then changed the title of his book and came out with The Final Shout–Rapture Report 1990, followed by . . . 1991 . . . 1992 . . . 1993 and so on. Oh, that Eddie!

It is my intention in this post to address this “amokness” that someone left running. I should, however, first state my so-called qualifications for doing so.

First of all, I am dispensational in my theology (although “hyperkinetic” is probably not a term likely to be associated with me; perhaps “hyperlethargic” is closer to the truth). I did not become a dispensationalist through tradition – I did not grow up in any church, dispensational or otherwise – nor through education – both seminaries from which I graduated viewed dispensationalism as the bane of Christendom at best or an outright heresy at worst. In both instances I was challenged (from within, not without) to examine my beliefs and determine whether or not they were biblical; in both cases, I came away believing dispensationalism more firmly, albeit less dogmatically, aggressively, or arrogantly.

At times in the past, I have studied and yearned to be a Covenant Theologian but could never quite get over the hump of their reasonings and/or arguments. This is not to say that their positions cannot be supported Scripturally but only that I could not, in good conscience and with conviction, agree with them. They just didn’t fit, sort of like a Wal-Mart suit or my old Beatle suit. Just not me, you know?.

Inevitably and inescapably, I kept and keep coming back to dispensationalism. I’ve been one since my early days as a Christian, despite my ignorance: not knowing any better, the first Bible I ever bought was a Catholic one and the first church I joined was a liberal Methodist congregation that perhaps wasn’t even sure about the First Coming of Christ, let alone the Second.

So I am a dispensationalist but, as noted above, hardly hyperkinetic or frothing-at- the-mouth over prophecy and future things. Now, I do have and have used charts – to my great shame and embarrassment – and have a copy of Erich Sauer’s From Eternity to Eternity on my bookshelf. I also have books by Ryrie and Walvoord but have also read Ladd and Reformed theologians on the matter of eschatology. By the grace of God, there may be some balance – if not hope – for me.

But to return to our text: the verse I want to zero in on is 7. I’ll provide it in several translations to make sure we’re getting a good feel for what Jesus is saying to the disciples (and us) at this critical moment:

It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority . . .” – NASB

“It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.” – NIV

“It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” – AV

“It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.” – ESV

“‘The Father sets those dates,’ he replied, ‘and they are not for you to know.’” – NLT

There seems to be a general agreement in the translations here, although I may be wrong (being dispensational and all). It would appear that Jesus is saying that it is not for us to know the time of his return, i.e., the Father is not going to tell us or even allow us to discover it. That’s the official dispensational position as I understand it: we don’t know and can’t know the time of Christ’s return. Our charts and eschatologies may indicate that everything is in place for His return, but we don’t have a countdown clock or an hourglass that tells us exactly when.

Dispensationalism does, historically, believe in a pre-trib, pre-mil rapture but that is not an essential or fundamental point. Personally, when I look at the New Testament I understand the basis for that teaching; when I look at the Old Testament, however, there seems to be a different pattern in God’s dealing with His people.

Obviously this is not a hill I’m willing to die on. I hope no one else will, either.