To Tell You The Truth

Some people do not know there are more views to Eschatology than the predominant Dispensational Premillennialism which is sad because each view has something good to offer within the discussion.  One view may emphasize one thing while another view emphasizes another- and both are important.

The topic of Eschatology has garnered much debate, and at times, ruthless and love-less arguing since even the first century.  One reason, I believe, Eschatology is dictated by our hermeneutic (the rules and method we use to read and understand Scripture).  If an Eschatological view could be shown to be false, then the hermeneutic upon which the view rests would be faulty.  From what I see, this is why Eschatology can be so contentious.

But showing the plausibility of one view over the others is a supposed insurmountable task and outside the scope of this series.  This series is a survey of the views so that we can understand them and appreciate them for what they each have to offer.

Graeme Goldsworthy wrote in his book The Gospel in Revelation - "What we should not wish to see, in my opinion, is this brilliant portrayal of the end of the conflict between Christ and Satan being made a perpetual battle ground and the cause of conflict between Christians."

Good thoughts to think about before proceeding with this series.

I am a big fan of a couple of websites which celebrate the ideals and objectives David Allen explains in his book Getting Things Done:  The Art of Stress-Free Productivity.  The website are http://www.lifehacker.com and http://www.lifehack.org - Just be careful when you're clicking around on the sites because there are unsavory elements to their "network" of websites, but if you keep to the main content, you should be OK.  I subscribe to the RSS feeds of these two sites and I don't miss the important content yet miss the junk.

The Editorial Review on www.amazon.com summarizes the book this way,

With first-chapter allusions to martial arts, "flow," "mind like water," and other concepts borrowed from the East (and usually mangled), you'd almost think this self-helper from David Allen should have been called Zen and the Art of Schedule Maintenance.

Not quite. Yes, Getting Things Done offers a complete system for downloading all those free-floating gotta-do's clogging your brain into a sophisticated framework of files and action lists--all purportedly to free your mind to focus on whatever you're working on. However, it still operates from the decidedly Western notion that if we could just get really, really organized, we could turn ourselves into 24/7 productivity machines. (To wit, Allen, whom the New Economy bible Fast Company has dubbed "the personal productivity guru," suggests that instead of meditating on crouching tigers and hidden dragons while you wait for a plane, you should unsheathe that high-tech saber known as the cell phone and attack that list of calls you need to return.)

As whole-life-organizing systems go, Allen's is pretty good, even fun and therapeutic. It starts with the exhortation to take every unaccounted-for scrap of paper in your workstation that you can't junk, The next step is to write down every unaccounted-for gotta-do cramming your head onto its own scrap of paper. Finally, throw the whole stew into a giant "in-basket"

That's where the processing and prioritizing begin; in Allen's system, it get a little convoluted at times, rife as it is with fancy terms, subterms, and sub-subterms for even the simplest concepts. Thank goodness the spine of his system is captured on a straightforward, one-page flowchart that you can pin over your desk and repeatedly consult without having to refer back to the book. That alone is worth the purchase price. Also of value is Allen's ingenious Two-Minute Rule: if there's anything you absolutely must do that you can do right now in two minutes or less, then do it now, thus freeing up your time and mind tenfold over the long term. It's commonsense advice so obvious that most of us completely overlook it, much to our detriment; Allen excels at dispensing such wisdom in this useful, if somewhat belabored, self-improver aimed at everyone from CEOs to soccer moms (who we all know are more organized than most CEOs to start with).

After being a fan of Life Hacker for so long, I decided I needed to read the book that started it all.

Two objectives are expounded and expanded in a practical how-to of productivity.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.       <!--[endif]-->Capture all the things that need to get done-- now, later, someday, big little, or in between—into a logical and trusted system outside your head and off your mind.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.       <!--[endif]-->Discipline yourself to make front-end decisions about all the “inputs” you let into your life so that you will always have a plan for “next actions” that you can implement or renegotiate at any moment.

Since I'm only on page 16, I have found only 4 key thoughts thus far:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.       <!--[endif]--> You have to think about your stuff more than you realize but not as much as you’re afraid you might.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.       <!--[endif]-->Put your thoughts in a system you trust.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.       <!--[endif]-->Until those thoughts have been clarified and those decisions made, and the resulting data has been stored in a system that you absolutely know you will think about as often as you need to, your brain can’t give up the job.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.       <!--[endif]-->…your mind can’t let go until and unless you write yourself a reminder in a place it knows you will, without fail, look.

This book is excellent.

"Mercy ministry is not the Gospel." ~Rick Philips
Download or listen online:  Christ the Center episode 30

La Shawn Barber has a good article discussing the issue of Race (or, as I like to express it, Ethnicity since we are all Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve) called, "Why Did God Make Different Races?"

This, I think, is what makes the Gospel so applicable- even to the issue of ethnic identity.

As I was reading La Shawn's article, my mind was drawn to Psalm 16:

1 Preserve me, O God, for in you I take refuge.
2 I say to the Lord, “You are my Lord; I have no good apart from you.”

3 As for the saints in the land, they are the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight.

This seems to be an apparent contradiction at first look.  How can David say he has "no good apart from" God, yet he says all his delight is in the saints?

We must understand God's glory is multifaceted, in that, He can not be completely understood from one perspective.  To bring home my point, let me use the Inklings as an example.

This is a paraphrase, but it's verifiable nonetheless.  When Charles Williams died, CS Lewis thought and wrote, "Good!  Now I can get MORE of Tolkien," but in reality, Lewis received LESS of Tolkien.  Why?  Because Williams was able to pull aspects of Tolkien's personality out that Lewis could never get.

This, I believe, is very applicable.  What does Paul say in 1 Corinthians 15:3?  "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,"

The Gospel is of First Importance which means It is the focal point of our (Christian) reality.  This means there is nothing that is as important (i.e. ethnicity, skin color, hair texture/color, geographic location, etc...) as the Gospel itself.

This is why Christians from any and every ethnicity, family, etc... can come together and fellowship; not like people discussing sports or the weather, but as A people who have been saved to the uttermost! (Hebrews 7:25) because "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

So when people in churches begin to dispute about these other trivial things (tension over length of service, style of preaching and music, and even how to address the preacher) have become of first importance and have made the Gospel trivial.

This does not mean that the issues relating to ethnicity are unimportant.  The Gospel puts them in their proper perspective and gives light to the answer.  As a white guy, I can humble myself because of Jesus and ask sincerely, "What is really bothering my black friends, and how can I help?" "How can I understand the fundamental issues that effect both of us?" "How can I understand our great God from a different perspective?"

I, as a white man, will not understand Who God is without my black brothers and sisters to show me their perspective of Who God is- and vice versa.  Because not one group of people has all the answers.

It may not be easy, but it sets us in the right direction.

Some Fundamentalists have asked, "Why are Young Fundamentalists (YF) considering leaving the Fundamentalist movement," while at the same time the YF is asking, "What benefit is there to stay in the Fundamentalist movement?"

To be honest, I attend a church which identifies itself as within the Fundamentalist movement.  But I would not count myself loyal to Fundamentalism (or even the larger Evangelical arena), per se, only faithful and loyal in so far as the Gospel Itself is concerned, as far as It is preached and applied.  And I am thankful for my Pastor's proclamation of the Gospel- in season and out of season.

My goal, as is many Fundamentalists I know, is to be faithful to Scripture, its commands, demands, and statutes in general and the Gospel specifically.  This means searching the Scriptures, asking questions, and taking God at "face value" based on what we see in Scripture.  This means, on a basic level at least, being looked down upon because we do not agree on various levels of doctrine.

That's fine by me.

This, I believe, is one of the reasons YF consider leaving Fundamentalism.  They do not see, for instance, the doctrine of separation in its typical Fundamentalist application as the right way to apply it.  This, then, can get (and does get) misconstrued by other Fundamentalists who think YF do not believe in separation at all.

YF want to be faithful to the Gospel; not Fundamentalism.  Jesus died for us.  Fundamentalism did not die for us.  The problem, as I see it, is there is an assumed equality between Fundamentalism and the Gospel.  The Gospel does not equal Fundamentalism.  But if Fundamentalism equals the Gospel- no less, no more- then I will be faithful to it.  And as long as that's the case, I'll just use the biblical term- Gospel.

Another reason I see YF consider leaving Fundamentalism is the seeming lack of scholarly and loving discourse.  How many times have I stepped into a Fundamentalist church and heard phrases like, "Be Fundamental!!" ~ whatever that really means.  Or the fact that the various Fundamentalist preachers I have sat under in years gone by were striving to be so faithful to the Written Word (which I agree!) that they leave the point of ALL of Scripture out of their messages- namely Jesus.

This is a functional denial of the Gospel, a functional denial of Jesus being our Mediator between God and man.

You will hear things like, "Be holy," "walk humbly with your God," and "take out the beam from your eye before you address the speck in another person's eye" which are all biblical things to proclaim.  But when Jesus is not proclaimed in mediation of these commands, all we hear are self-help messages in Christian-ese.

After all, the mediating command which MUST be obeyed, before any other command can be fulfilled in us, is, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ!!"  For when we obey this command, we automatically receive the righteousness of the law as if we have fulfilled every jot and tittle because Jesus fulfilled it!  Conversely our sin AND our good works (which are filthy rags in reality) are placed upon Jesus Who became sin for us!

How can I be holy if Jesus is not my holiness?  How can I be humble if Jesus is not my humility- after all, isn't humility slippery in that once we think we have it, we've lost it?  And how can I take the beams of my sin out of my eye if I am not looking to my Standard of Righteousness Who is Jesus?  Otherwise, I've exchanged my current sin-beam for a less noticeable sin- sin of and in the heart- namely pride?

Further, how can we be justified in urging people to Jesus when all we've preached is works righteousness while speaking of Jesus as a passing comment?  Even in a Gospel-Saturated context, if Jesus is not preached even one time, the hearers will begin to think that they need to do whatever the exhortation is without faith in Christ.  Think, "Lord, I believe!  Help my unbelief!"

This, certainly, is not an issue only with Fundamentalism but with any Bible preaching church- Fundamentalist or Evangelical.

How often do Fundamentalists speak against the heretical teachings of the Osteens of the world (which is needed!) but yet, they allow near heretical/heretical men who base their whole ministries on a lie and use Scripture totally out of context and misapplications!  It wasn't until the one I'm thinking of was "caught" that they "separated" from him (I am still reeling after that one- to be flatly honest- and I constantly preach the Gospel to myself to combat the effects of that situation every time I think of it).  The issue is that these people preach Scriptural things but from the wrong passages AND they do not preach Christ.  If we're faithful to Scripture, that means we should be faithful to the context from which a sermon is brought.

Fundamentalists have their own accepted associations which, from where I sit, are equal to if not worse than John Piper in the Baptist General Conference or Mark Dever in SBC.

And lastly, I believe some YF consider leaving Fundamentalism because they see that Fundamentalism is not perfect.  Granted, no church in Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism is perfect.  After all, every church is filled with sinners.  Fundamentalism, as a whole, may be categorized by legalism but many Evangelical churches can be characterized by license- Both need the  Gospel AND law- for you can not have one without the other.  If you emphasize the one without the other, you fall into error.

However, many Fundamentalists seem to give the impression that Fundamentalism is the primary group / movement in which God works.

What utter foolishness and pride.

God is faithful only unto Himself which means He is faithful to the Gospel (after all, God is the Gospel- Jesus).  And God's faithfulness to us is a result of His being faithful unto Himself.  It is the Gospel that is the power unto salvation- not Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism.  God will bless each in so far as the Gospel is rightly proclaimed and applied.

If I may be so blunt, who cares if YF consider "leaving" Fundamentalism?  IF they're pursuing faithfulness to the Gospel, then separation from the separatists may be necessary.  Ironic?  Maybe, but sometimes faithfulness to the Gospel demands ironic actions.

But then again, sometimes faithfulness to the Gospel demands you stay where it's not perfect to proclaim and practice the Gospel to all those who need It.  Because everyone needs the Gospel- not just the people you like.

I am currently working through two series for To Tell You The Truth.  The first series will be discussing the relationship between Israel and the Church of which has already been started (see here).  The second series will be discussing Eschatology, also known as the doctrine of Last Things or doctrine of Last Days- End Times.

My chart (below) is more extensive than what I'll be addressing- at least as far as which Eschatological views I will handle.  I will do an overview and comparison between the following:  Dispensational Premillennialism, Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism.  Of course, if you want to go more indepth, you can check this site for an extensive look at the subject as a whole.

The chart below is very much a broad-stroking description of each view.  I opted to use it because it was simple and easy.  My goal over all is to be as even handed (as possible) allowing each view to speak for itself, as well as, allowing each to exert effort in refuting the others.  I also do not want to present caricatures of any of the views.

With all this in mind, let's begin...

Yes, To Tell You The Truth has been Wordled.

Who are we but heirs of promise?  The bookends of Scripture, so to speak, are comprised of promise and all who believe in Jesus are partakers of promise.  Ray Ortlund explains,

"It is promise that comes first (Genesis 12), then law comes later (Exodus 20). It is promise, therefore, that defines the all-encompassing framework within which we are to read everything else in the Bible."

Scripture ends with a promise, "He [that is, Jesus Christ] who testifies to these things says, 'Surely I am coming soon.'" (Galatians 3:29, Revelation 22:20)

Law is an instrumental part of Scripture; it is that which reveals God and His character.  We need law. (Romans 3:21).  Ray Ortlund quotes Isaac Bashevis Singer from The Penitent, page 88,

"Yes, restrictions do serve as barriers. If someone has a treasure that he doesn't want stolen, he hides it in a place inaccessible to thieves and robbers. If he fears that one lock isn't enough, he affixes two locks. If he suspects that someone may try to tunnel toward them, he'll post a guard. Think of the many restrictions assumed by those who are concerned with literature, theater, music, fashions, women, or other worldly passions. I read somewhere that Flaubert never repeated a word within the same chapter. There are rich and elegant women who won't wear the same dress twice. Yes, worldliness is full of restrictions, too."

Yes, the world is full of restrictions (law), and without the Gospel, the law only condemns because the law has been disconnected from that which it should be rightly connected.

Without the Gospel, the law only tells us what to do; but with the Gospel, God's law expresses what we are to be.  This Gospel is not so much giving us a new law, but in so far as it announces that under this new law the poor in spirit are blessed, the meek will inherit the earth, those who hunger for righteousness will be satisfied.

God tells us in Promise, "this is what I am doing," while God's law tells us, "this is what I have done."  Christ explains, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."  Further, Paul expounds on this thought and relates our participation, "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." This is why the Gospel is news, not advice (Matthew 5:17, Romans 8:3-4).

God's grace is certainly amazing.  I think of God's grace as something (anything) which points us to Jesus in all of His sufficiency in our lives and more specifically His saving us.  Further, God's grace is amazing in that he uses "common" things to dispense His grace which makes these things uncommon.

It is these things which God uses to show us our sin and even keeps us from sin.

What are these uncommon/common things of which I speak that God uses as means of His grace?  What are these things of which God uses to point us to Jesus and to keep us from sin?

In no particular order...

My initial thoughts coming out of my studies as of late regarding the descendants of Abraham.  Please remember these are still forming and are not exactly concrete in my thinking, but they're close!  I reserve the right to tweak and change my thoughts as I continue.

This is part one of a multi-part series.  I'm not sure how many or when I'll write them- hopefully soon!

Comments and questions are welcome.  Just remember I may address your question in a later article but ask anyway!