“12 Reasons Why ’2012′ is Another Delusional (D)upiter Effect”

Another waste of time and money watching another dumb doomsday delusion by Roland Emmerich, who’s exploiting the gullible Rapture crowd, then laughing all the way to his bank. Read more here:

http://www.twoagespilgrims.com/doctrine/?p=5522

I don’t have Twitter, I really don’t get Twitter, so I’ll comment here. The link, Michael Patton posted on his Twitter box in the top right of the this page, linking to a Eschatological discussion between the three prominent millennial positions was great. I love discussions like that. It was pretty isolated to the millennial reign of Christ. There were many things not included about the millennial reign even though it was a 2 hour session. I enjoyed it. But now my morning is shot!

http://wbx.me/l/?p=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FnigL7

As you might have already guessed I don’t have a good grasp Rev. I have heard many preachers make the same comment (when referring to Rev.) “When I get the 4 Gospels (or New Test) down I’ll look into teaching Rev.” I do agree with the absence of Intellect in our culture. We are so spoiled with multiple choices to do things and and have other people and electronics to think for us. I personally think God has allowed us to see at a glimpse of what lays in store for the end times according to His Word. I have heard 15 different opinions that are conflicting with each other in every degree. I haven’t studied Rev. ever. I have read it and have some general thoughts but nothing where I could try and argue anything. I do agree with you on it being secondary. I am be more concerned with making sure I am going to heaven than when it is going to happen, what order things will happen and what is literally going to happen.

I appreciate, and to a great extent share, a desire to focus primarily on the basic truth of Christ’s return and the confidence, joy, and motivation that this should give us. But I don’t think we can just leave it at that when the Bible doesn’t. When the Thessalonians were becoming seriously unbalanced in their eschatological views and, consequentially, in their behavior, Paul didn’t write: “Hey, guys, you don’t need to be thinking about any of this. Just know that Christ will return and be victorious.” Instead, he appeals to what he had previously taught them and even clarified the issue further (in one of the very passages that are now frequently debated). His attitude appears to be more: “Look, I already explained much of this to you. You need to understand it. Let me clarify some of what is confusing you.” He sure seems to want them to know and understand what he’s writing concerning the end. Do we just ignore these kinds of passages? (There are quite a few!) Or do we teach them but skip over the original context and inconvenient details, and apply the text only in a very general and safe way?

I, too, have been turned off by radical, hyper-literal, date-setting, fear-inducing end times books, films, and sermons. And I think it’s silly for us to be fiercely dogmatic about something about which we know so little. I’m sure we’ll all be surprised after Christ’s return. (“Wow, I wasn’t expecting that!”). But I also think there’s a real danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater by essentially dismissing a large portion of Scripture. (Personally, this is one area where I see a real benefit of expositionally teaching through books of the Bible. I can’t obsess over or ignore any biblical topic, including the many detailed passages regarding the end of the age and the return of Christ.)

If we can discuss such topics with an irenic attitude, seeking to sharpen each other and learn from one another—what’s the problem? Wasn’t it helpful for many of us to learn that there is more than one view? Wouldn’t it be helpful for people that we teach or study with to know the same thing, rather than just telling them not to think too much about those parts of the Bible? And if we somehow can’t discuss these things with a loving, gracious attitude, the fault is not in the issue being discussed. The fault lies with us.

Regarding end times (and everything else), God will do what God will do, regardless of what I believe. Therefore, if I take an adamant pre-trip rapture position and it does not happen, how do I respond? People have been known to abandon the faith when thing don’t turn out as they believed or expected.

In the 70′s I was pretty sure 1988 would be the end of the age. After all, (famous end-times author) had it all worked out. Well, maybe he was off by a few years, but sometime in the 90′s for sure. Oops. Howzabout 2012?

It just seems better to focus on the main theme – in the fullness of God’s time, Christ will return, as promised. And we wait with joyful expectation for that day.

When I teach about end times I emphasize four things we can know with absolute certainity from Scripture: (1) Jesus will return (and it could happen at any moment); (2) There is going to be a final judgment; (3) Everyone will spend eternity either with God or separated from God (hence the need to make a decision for Christ!); and (4) No one knows exactly how or when any of this will happen; and furthermore, it is not for us to know.

Anything beyond those four things starts getting you into the realm of speculative eschatology, and I don’t see the point of going there. Jesus called us to make disciples, not convert people to certain end-times positions or postulate when the so-called rapture would happen and what would happen after that, etc.

I grew up in a pre-mil dispensational church and had that pounded into my head for years. Like the other guy above, I can still remember (with incredible relief!) when I finally learned that there were other eschatological views and other ways of reading and interpretting the Scriptures besides dispensationalism. I quickly jumped ship, though I do not dogmatically hold to any eschatological view because of my deep conviction about number (4) above.

Like one of my former pators used to say, “I’m a pan-millenialist . . . It’ll all pan out in the end!”

I actually thing that the pan-trib or pan-mill position is, in fact, quite insightful and helpful, because it reinforces that the basic point of the apocalyptic and future oriented passages is on comfort and knowing that God will win and preserve us. In addition, even Jesus did not know the times, so why should we? If comfort and solace and future hope are not as big of issues for us as it was for some of the early churches, why should we spend much time on it? There are much bigger fish to fry currently (especially the use of money in the West).

regards,
#John

Interesting post, Michael. Our church strives for a balance. We view eschatological views as non-essential, but we still study and discuss the issue from time to time. When we do, we usually deal with a few eschatomaniacs who are loudly convinced that only heretics would disagree with them. In reaction, many others take a more eschatophobic, pan-millennial kind of position (or lack thereof). We encourage serious study and even debate, but in a gracious, irenic manner. But I definitely see what you are describing.

Something else to consider: Many of us have come from a background where dispensationalism was dominant but later, through further reading and study, came to hold a viewpoint that differs to some extent with classic or revised dispensationalism (rightly or wrongly). For many that would be something like historic premillennialism or progressive dispensationalism—and this is true of a large number of scholars as well. This affects the nature of ongoing discussion in at least two ways: 1) The lines aren’t drawn as easily as they were before. There are far more nuances and potentially moderating options to think through now. 2) As you point out, there seem to be a lot fewer dispensational scholars today, at least those writing books and commentaries. Dispensationalists have always written the vast majority of books on this subject, so if this viewpoint is no longer as widespread among scholars, it makes sense that there would be a corresponding decrease in publication. And much of what is being written now on eschatology is being written on a scholarly level that isn’t accessible for many Christians.

Maybe the pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other (fever-pitch to apathy), and is now ready to swing back toward the center.

You may be right, CMP, but Luther thousands of years later had questions about its inclusion or authority, IIRC, and (again, IIRC) my understanding is that the Apocalypse’s acceptance by the whole church was also part of kind of a quid-pro-quo between East and West – i.e., we’ll accept Hebrews if you’ll accept the Apocalypse.

I find its imagery fascinating and powerful and confusing, as do many others. It’s one of the first books I tackled when reading Koinê, because it seemed to flow so easily. I especially like its “Holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy, holy (holy)” (4:8).

It really did not have THAT hard of a time making it into the canon. It had a less difficult time than 3 John and 2 Peter. And neither of those had that hard of a time either.