Complaint from a listener, and a website

[Guest]

I received the following email today. Since I took some time to reply, I thought I would share the exchange with our forum readers:
*****************************************

I usually stay up at night and listen to your call in show. The other night you were answering a question about why you left Calvary Chapel. I can appreciate that people have a different understanding of what scripture is saying. It's been this way for thousands of years. Yet we still seek to understand what God is telling us in His word. I don't claim to know everything the word says, but I do search it out for myself. I don't just accept what I've been taught. Heck, for many years I was a practicing Buddhist, Shamanist, Magician, etc. But I found the lord and have been consuming the word as often as I can.

Your comment that the futurist view is naïve is quite condescending and not appreciated at all. It was completely inappropriate. You seem to imply that those that are not preterists or amillenialists are not studying the word for all it's worth. Well Steve, you slipped. I challenge you if you dare to read through the following website. Read it through to completion. It's quite long, but if you are truly a seeker for the truth then you will not dismiss it. I'm not saying that the view presented is the truth, but I challenge you to check it out in the cause of truth.

http://www.geocities.com/questioningamillennialism/

I hope you do.

Allen

******************************

I sent the following reply:

Hi Allen,
I am sorry that you were offended by my frank remarks in answer to a caller's questions. I do not apologize for the content of those remarks, however. There are far more insulting things that one can say about another's viewpoint than the rather tame suggestion that it is "naive." For example, some people (including Chuck Smith) characterize amillennialism or preterism as a "dangerous heresy." I have never used such inflammatory language about futurism. I think that "naive" is a very good word to describe most futurists, and especially those of the Calvary Chapel movement, whose leaders often only seem to be able to keep this opinion dominant by preventing their people from hearing any biblical arguments for any other.

I am printing out the material from the website you recommended, and have read much of it so far. I will try to read it all, but I can already see that it probably covers no other ground than many other critiques of amillennialism that I have read over the years. So far, I have not found this woman to be making any arguments that I myself would not have made in the early years of my biblical studies. I am sorry if it offends you, but I find her to be biblically naive. She suggests that her readers actually sit down and read through the entire Bible to see what it teaches. I have done this somewhere between 35 and 40 times. I wonder if she has done so? She says to do so without the handicap of commentaries. I have very seldom resorted to commentaries. The Bible is the best commentary on itself.

If you would like for me to take the time to read this long critique of amillennialism (I have spent many, many hours reading better ones), then, in all fairness, could I request that you take the time to listen to my lectures on the subject? They can be found at my website: www.thenarrowpath.com under the "tape download" link. Two sets of lectures there may be helpful to you. One is called "When Shall These Things Be?" and the other is "What Are We To Maker of Israel?" You will find no fancy arguments there...only sound biblical exegesis.

I appreciate you calling this woman's website to my attention. Thank you for your concern.

In Jesus,
Steve Gregg

**********************************

Allen wrote back:

I appreciate your reply. I was not offended, only concerned that someone with your obvious biblical knowledge and stand for the Lord would characterize another viewpoint in a condescending manner. It comes across in an arrogant or an "I know better than you" manner. Even if you do know better. I have studied your site ever since I've been made aware of it. I listen to AM 880 every day and appreciate your work for the service of the Lord. I have been studying the word exhaustively for many many years now and I still do not see it as you have portrayed.

So I guess this is the crux of the dilemma, how can we as spirit filled Christians have such different understandings on such things. Not just on this subject but also on other ideas as well such as young earth vs gap theory vs theistic evolution, calvinism and arminianism, Jesus Only vs Trinity, etc. etc. etc. The Holy Ghost is to lead us into all understanding and show us things to come, yet we don't have all understanding. We just should not be so quick to say that someone else's understanding of the scriptures is wrong or naïve regardless of how right we feel we are even if that "rightness" comes from searching the word out as thoroughly as you have.

Again, I say, I too have thoroughly searched the word out and come to a different understanding. I'm not naïve in my study or have a predetermined dogma that I try to find scripture to support. So here we are. What are we to do then. I appreciate your work for the Lord and I love you as a fellow brother in Christ and that should be our focus. In the website I sent you, at the bottom of each page are links to the next page. The ones in particular that I found could not be reconciled with amillenialism are verses about the physical return of Christ to sit on David's throne. This cannot be taken as allegory but as an actual event in time. There are just too many verses to support this. There are others but I won't try to go into them. ]

This is not the only website and I don't support this person as a great authority, only that she's laid out the verses quite well, that was my point in pointing to this website.Also the fact that the early church fathers writings are premillenist in view. Another problem with preterism is the lack of written testimony or witness to the fulfillment of prophecy by the events of 70AD. If this date was the fulfillment of much of what Christ said, then would there not be much testimony/witness of the fact. In fact, there is no evidence that points to this time period as the fulfillment of prophecy. Anyway, thanks for responding, I find much of
your website quite good actually. Thanks

*********************************************

I wrote back (all of this was today! E-mail sure speeds up correspondence!):

Hi Allen,

I think the Holy Spirit leads us (sometimes very slowly and gradually) into all truth only so long as we continue to love the truth and remain teachable. We all have our own presuppositions at the time that we begin our journey of learning, and may also be sidetracked by making the mistake of believing teachers, rather than the scriptures. I think that the existence of so many different viewpoints can be explained by two factors:

1) That we are all at different stages in the journey from wherever we began to the destination of "all truth," even though we are still learning and progressing, each at his own pace; and

2) Sometimes we decide that we like the views we have reached, or we like the acceptance of the people who hold them, or we are professional ministers who are paid to teach them, so that we are not really open to change and have ceased to be teachable. I don't think the Holy Spirit will lead those who do not wish to be led.

I have read more of that woman's website, including the parts about the throne of David that you mentioned. I am sure that it is just a blind spot with her (and with most dispensationalists) that she keeps saying, "Just read what the Bible says without the commentaries," and then she continually gives her own commentary throughout, so as to inform the reader that the passage means something that never would have been evident from the passage itself! She even says that she doubts that anyone would reach the amillennial interpretations of the prophecies she quotes without their having read Luther's or other amillennial commentaries.

That is so funny! Because I often say just the same thing about dispensational ideas! No one would ever reach those ideas from reading the Bible alone, without the input from dispensational teachers. And I was one of them for the first eight years of my ministry, until my own study of the Bible, without ever having seen an amillennial commentary, heard an amillennial teacher, or had any idea what the word "amillennialism" referred to, reached the amillennial conclusions simply by comparing scripture with scripture.

When I reached my present conclusions, I thought I was the only person to have seen these things, because I had never been exposed to anything but dispensationalism (since I was at Calvary Chapel, which can't afford to let its people hear of anything else). I was greatly relieved, a few years later, to learn that the views I had found in the Bible were the views of the whole church through most of its history. I was very surprised, and disappointed that my teachers had never allowed me to know the options or to think for myself.

The lady at the website cites passages about the throne of David, and adds (by way of her own "commentary") "...which was always on earth," as if to overthrow the teaching of the apostles, who taught that Jesus has fulfilled these prophecies in His resurrection and ascension (e.g. Acts 2:30-36 and 13:32-34).

The literal throne of David (that is, the chair he sat on) was, of course, on earth. David reigned over the earthly Israel on an earthly throne. However, the prophecies about the throne of David (e.g., "David shall never lack a man to sit on his throne") do not necessarily refer to the very same chair that David sat on. David's descendants (including Solomon) apparently had their own new thrones designed for them (1 Kings 10:18-20). They didn't all sit on the actual chair David occupied. They occupied the same position (that is, the office of ruler of God's people) that David had occupied...a position that Jesus now occupies (Acts 2:36). Thus, Jesus now sits on "David's throne" as literally as did Solomon and his descendants, though neither may ever have ruled from David's actual chair.

Also, the original prophecy that Messiah would occupy the "throne of David" made it clear that this would be fulfilled during a time when David was dead and "sleeping with his fathers" (2 Sam.7:12ff). This means it could not be fulfilled after Jesus returns, in a future millennium, since David will have been raised from the dead at Christ's coming, and could not be said to be "sleeping with his fathers" during such a millennium.

I would just as soon skip on this lady's commentary (which implies that the reign of Messiah on David's throne is to be on earth after the second coming) and go with the commentary given by the apostles, and also to take the scripture as it actually reads, without depending upon the explanatory notes of dispensationalists, who can't stand to just let the scripture speak for itself.

The lady does the same thing with a great many prophecies, inserting explanatory comments like, "This applies to a time after the tribulation," when, in fact, there is no mention of the tribulation in the passages she cites, nor any biblical justification for her conclusions. She does not seem to realize that "the tribulation" is only mentioned twice in scripture (Matt.24:21 and Rev.7:14), and that both are in contexts that declare it to be coming in "this generation" (Matt.24:34) or else "at hand," "soon" or "about to take place" in the writer's own time (Rev.1"1, 3, 19[Gr], 22:6, 10). It is not the preterist, but the futurist who resorts to "fancy explanations" when dealing with these verses. Preterists take them quite literally.


She says that the "abomination of desolation" spoken of by Jesus could not have occurred in AD70, because, "there was no time for anyone to set up an image in the temple." However, she reveals in this comment her complete dependance upon dispensational commentaries, because neither Jesus, nor anyone else in scripture, ever mentions the setting up of an image in the temple.

Some people think that 2 Thess.2:4 and Rev.13:12, 14-15 speak of such an event, but when the dispensational glasses are removed, and the passages are actually allowed to speak for themselves, one finds no justification in scripture for equating these two passages with each other, nor any mention in either of them of an image ever being placed in a temple. And even if they did say such a thing, there is no place that equates these passages with anything called "the abomination of desolation" or equates this expression to the setting up of an image in the temple. Even Antiochus Epiphanes, whom dispensationalists describe as "a type of the antichrist," only actually placed an altar to Zeus (not an image of himself) in the temple.

One can know precisely what Jesus was referring to as "the abomination of desolation," in Matthew 24:15, simply by comparing it with the way Luke renders the same statement in his parallel account (Luke 21:20). It is clear by comparing scripture with scripture that what Matthew renders as "the abomination of desolation" is the same thing that Luke renders "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" (i.e., in AD70, since he told the disciples that some of them would live to see it). This is what is also called by that name in Daniel 9:26-27. There it is predicted that "the people of the prince who is to come [the Romans, under Titus] shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." This is mentioned as the next significant even after the "Messiah shall be cut off [killed]". Thus the abomination of desolation in Daniel 9 refers to AD70, just as it does in Jesus' comment.

This is why I call this woman, and those who argue as she does "naive." She reads the scriptures with preconceived notions that she has gotten from dispensational commentaries (because they aren't found in the Bible itself), claims that she got the ideas by reading the scripture alone (even though the ideas aren't found there anywhere) and then rejects the plain meaning of scripture as given by the apostles themselves. This is why I left dispensationalism. If teachers (like myself) are to receive the stricter judgment, I, as a teacher, need to stay as far away as possible from such man-made systems that twist and deny scripture.

I really think my lectures on "When Shall These Things Be?" would be an eye-opener to any dispensationalist who has not decided that they have no need to keep learning about the truth of scripture. Many a dispensational pastor and teacher has been convinced by the biblical presentation in these lectures that futurism and dispensationalism do not do justice to the scriptures. I hope you might have a chance to hear those lectures. They use only scripture to interpret scripture (unlike dispensationalism).

As far as there being "no testimony" of AD70 being the fulfillment of the many prophecies, how about Jesus' testimony (when predicting the Roman seige of Jerusalem): "These are the days of vengeance, that all things that are written may be fulfilled" (Luke 21:22)?

The testimony of Jesus trumps all other testimony with me. If we want to let the church fathers' interpretation of things carry the day, then we can (and must!) become Roman Catholics, because that is where such a policy leads. I am interested in the views of the church fathers, of course, but I can't allow their opinions and prejudices to cloud the clear meaning of biblical testimony that I find unambiguous.

[Guest]

Hi Steve & Allen.

Allen, if you've read through the forum here, you may have come across my own posts debating with Steve about precisely the point of contention you brought up: the throne of David. Since I've already gone over these things before, for Steve's benefit and that of others, I won't reiterate all of my own conclusions here. However, I'm interested to hear if you have anything else to add to the discussions we've had in the past here.

Take a look at the following threads:

#1

#2

#3

God bless!

Damon

[Guest]

"I have done this somewhere between 35 and 40 times. I wonder if she has done so? She says to do so without the handicap of commentaries. I have very seldom resorted to commentaries. The Bible is the best commentary on itself."

Amen. Odd, those are EXACTLY the same words I say, exactly. Amen and Amen again.

Hugh McBryde

[Guest]

I have wondered how the dispensationalist who believes Jesus will return as a King for 1000 years explains Hebrews 8:4. He is both King and a priest forever yet if He is on earth He can't priest at all?

I have little interest in eschatological arguments. I do not see how they should affect how I live. I follow my dear departed sister's advice: He's coming back and we need to be ready. Seems to be all we need to know.

Homer

[Guest]

Hi Homer.

First of all, the author of Hebrews didn't have a complete understanding of the order of Melchizedek, because King David was referred to as "a priest after the order of Melchizedek" in Psalm 110:4, even though there were Levitical priests offering sacrifices at that point in time. Secondly, what the author was talking about was the fact that there exists a heavenly worship system as well as an earthly one. Christ isn't part of this earthly system of worship! But interestingly enough, there will come a time when the Kingdom of Heaven will be joined together with the Body of Christ on earth (see Rev. 21:1-4). At that time, Christ will be both King and Priest on earth, although there will also be King David ruling under Him.

Damon
PS. As far as you having little interest in eschatological concerns, that's certainly your prerogative. I myself am interested in them because I want to be an integral part of the end-time events leading up to Christ's return.