|
|
|
Newsletter>
THEOLOGICAL STUDIES NEWSLETTER SEPT '05
September 6, 2005
Theological Studies.org Newsletter September 2005
From the Editor:
Welcome to the September ’05 edition of the
TheologicalStudies.org Newsletter.
In this newsletter we offer five original articles:
--“New Polls Show Theory of Evolution Rejected by Most
Americans”
-- “Los Angeles—the Evangelical Capital of the United
States?”
--“Who Was Thomas Aquinas?”
--“What is Amillennialism?”
--“What is the Pretribulational Rapture View?”
CURRENT TRENDS
NEW POLLS SHOW THEORY OF EVOLUTION REJECTED BY MOST
AMERICANS
Nearly 150 years after Charles Darwin wrote his landmark
work, Origin of Species, most Americans still
overwhelmingly reject the theory of evolution. This is the
conclusion of three scientific polls done in the last year.
According to a November 2004 CBS poll, only 13% of
Americans agreed with the statement, “Humans evolved, God
did not guide the process.” In contrast, 55% affirmed the
statement, “God created humans in present form.”
Twenty-seven percent took a middle position by affirming
the statement, “Humans evolved, God guided the process.”
“This poll reveals a strong rejection of naturalistic
evolution and its assertion that humans evolved from lower
life forms by a purely naturalistic process,” says Michael
J. Vlach, Ph.D., a professor of Philosophy and Religion at
Southeast Community College in Lincoln, Nebraska.
A more recent Harris poll from June 2005 asked the
question, “Do you think human beings developed from earlier
species or not?” Fifty-four percent said humans beings “did
not” evolve from earlier species. This is an eight-point
swing from a similar 1994 poll in which 46% of Americans
affirmed that humans did not evolve from earlier species.
When asked specifically how human beings came to exist, the
Harris poll noted that 64% of Americans believed that human
beings were “created directly by God.” Only 22% said that
humans “evolved from earlier species.”
“What is significant about this Harris poll,” according to
Vlach, “is that the theory of evolution may actually be
losing ground among Americans. An eight-point swing is not
huge but it does show that this theory may be losing
influence.”
A March 2005 NBC poll asked the question, “Which do you
think is more likely to actually be the explanation for the
origin of human life on Earth: evolution or the biblical
account of creation?" Fifty-seven percent said “Biblical
account,” only 33% said “evolution.”
What can be drawn from these recent polls regarding
evolution?
“Polls like these show that most Americans simply do not
believe the theory of evolution,” says Vlach. “In each of
these polls a clear majority of Americans believe that
humans were created directly by a divine power or God. This
is especially significant since the theory of evolution is
presented as fact in nearly every secular institution of
higher learning.”
CURRENT TRENDS
LOS ANGELES--THE EVANGELICAL CAPITAL OF THE UNITED STATES?
Which city has the most evangelicals in the United States?
Surprisingly, the city of Los Angeles does. So says a
recent report by the Barna Research Group. According to the
report “there are more evangelical adults in the Los
Angeles market than there are in the New York, Chicago and
Boston metropolitan areas – combined!”
However, when it comes to the city with the highest
percentage of evangelicals in it—Little Rock, Arkansas is
the winner. In Little Rock, 22% of the population can be
considered “evangelical.”
Which cities have the lowest proportion of evangelicals?
“Of the 86 largest metropolitan areas in the nation, those
with the lowest proportion of evangelicals were Salt Lake
City, Utah; Hartford, Connecticut; and Providence, Rhode
Island.” Connecticut has the fewest adults who are
evangelical. There are 26,000 evangelicals in this state of
more than two and a half million adults (see
www.Barna.org).
CHURCH HISTORY
WHO WAS THOMAS AQUINAS?
Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274) was an Italian theologian and
philosopher who is widely regarded as the greatest
philosopher of the Middle Ages. Interestingly, “Aquinas”
actually wasn’t his last name. Thomas was born near Aquino,
so he was ‘Thomas from near Aquino.’
Thomas’s family was shocked when he became a Dominican
monk. Viewing the Dominicans as a band of beggars, his
brothers kidnapped him and held him prisoner in the family
castle for a year. It is reported that his brothers tried
to lure him away from his calling with a prostitute. He
chased her away with a burning cross.
Aquinas eventually became a professor at the University of
Paris where he resided from 1252–58. In his student days he
carried the nickname of “dumb ox” because he was quiet and
perhaps overweight. Later he became more affectionately
known as the “angelic doctor.” His most significant work
was his Summa Theologica which consists of over 1.5 million
words. The Summa was written for Christians and assumed the
truths of the Bible. Another significant work of his was,
Summa Contra Gentiles, which was written for non-Christians
and attempted to use arguments only from reason, not
relying on the Bible.
Aquinas’s contributions to theology and philosophy are
fourfold. First, Aquinas merged Christian theology with the
teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle.
Although not the first person of his time to use Aristotle,
Aquinas relied upon Aristotelian concepts when formulating
his own views of philosophy and theology.
Second, Aquinas offered five proofs for God’s existence
which upon review can be distilled into two main
arguments—the cosmological and teleological. The
cosmological argument asserts that all existing and
contingent things like the earth rely upon some uncaused
being for their existence. For Aquinas, the earth came into
existence by the Christian God who himself does not have a
cause. (Aquinas’s cosmological argument parallels
Aristotle’s concept of the “Prime Mover” who started all
things in motion.) The teleological argument, which Aquinas
also used, asserts that the incredible complexity in the
universe points to an intelligent being that created it
all. The universe, therefore, is not the result of blind
chance.
Third, Aquinas argued that there was a close connection
between faith and reason. For most of its history, the
church viewed faith as superior to reason and saw no need
to justify the truths of Christianity by the use of human
reason. Aquinas, though, viewed faith and reason as working
closely together. In fact, he believed reason could be used
to justify many elements of the Christian faith. Unlike
some theologians before and after him, Aquinas felt that
Christianity did not need to fear reason. When used
correctly it affirmed some of what God had revealed in the
Bible.
Fourth, Aquinas argued that nature reveals many truths
about God. For example, studying nature could reveal to a
person that God exists and that he is powerful. Thus,
Aquinas believed we could learn about God by studying the
world. Aquinas did not assert that everything we know about
God comes from nature. There were some matters like the
Trinity that could only be known through the Bible.
While Aquinas would be considered conservative by most
standards today, many of his views were shocking to his
contemporaries. He said that it was acceptable for a church
to accept donations from a guild of prostitutes. He claimed
that it was all right for married women to paint themselves
(use cosmetics) to try to keep their husbands’ affections.
Aquinas held that the human embryo was only a plant at
first and then only a lower animal, and only later in
pregnancy did it become human. For him, abortion was always
wrong because one could never be sure at which stage an
unborn child was at any given moment. Small wonder some of
his writings were placed on a forbidden list in Paris
during his lifetime!
St. Thomas Aquinas was canonized in 1323 and proclaimed a
Doctor of the Church in 1567.
THEOLOGY
WHAT IS AMILLENNIALISM?
Amillennialism is a theological view concerning the
1000-year reign of Jesus Christ that is mentioned in
Revelation 20:1–6. In particular, Amillennialism is the
perspective that there will not be a future literal
1000-year reign of Christ upon the earth. The inseparable
Latin prefix a means “no” and the term “millennium” is
Latin for “1000 years.” Thus, Amillennialism literally
means “no 1000 years.”
It should be noted that the term Amillennialism is a
reactionary title in that it denies the presence of a
future literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth that
premillennialists affirms. However, Amillennialists do in
fact believe in a millennium; what they reject, though, is
the idea of a future literal 1000-year reign of Christ on
earth after the second coming of Christ.
According to Amillennialism, the millennium of Revelation
20:1–6 is being fulfilled spiritually in the present age
before the return of Jesus Christ. Thus, the millennium or
kingdom of Christ is in existence now. Amillennialists
affirm that the millennium began with the resurrection
and/or ascension of Christ and will be consummated when
Jesus returns again to establish the Eternal Kingdom that
is discussed in Revelation 21–22.
For amillennialists, Satan is presently bound and
Christians are now enjoying the benefits of the millennium.
Some amillennialists claim that the millennium also
involves the reigning of saints who are now in heaven.
Amillennialists claim that the 1000-year period that is
mentioned in Revelation 20:1–6 refers to a long indefinite
period of time between the two comings of Christ and is not
a literal 1000- year period that occurs after Jesus’
return. Because amillennialists believe Christ is currently
reigning in the millennium, some, like Jay Adams, believe
the title “Realized Millennialism” is a more appropriate
title than “Amillennialism.”
In regard to the end times, Amillennialism affirms the
following chronological scenario:
-- Christ is now ruling in His kingdom while Satan is bound
from deceiving the nations.
-- Tribulation is experienced in the present age even
though Christ is ruling.
-- Jesus will return again to earth.
-- After Jesus returns there will be a general bodily
resurrection of all the righteous people and a general
judgment of all unbelievers.
-- The Eternal Kingdom will begin.
Amillennialism in History
Premillennialism, not Amillennialism, was the predominant
view in the first 300 years of church history. However, the
early church did evidence hints of what later would become
Amillennialism. For example, Origen (185-254) popularized
the allegorical approach to interpreting Scripture, and in
doing so, laid a hermeneutical basis for the view that the
promised kingdom of Christ was spiritual and not earthly in
nature. Eusebius (270-340), an associate of the emperor
Constantine, viewed Constantine’s reign as the Messianic
banquet, and he held to anti-premillennial views. Tyconius,
an African Donatist of the fourth century, was one of the
earliest theologians to challenge Premillennialism. He
rejected the eschatological and futuristic view of
Revelation 20. Instead, he said that the millennium was
being fulfilled in the present age and that the 1000 years
mentioned was not a literal 1000 years. Tyconius also
viewed the first resurrection of Revelation 20:4 as a
spiritual resurrection which was the new birth.
Augustine (354-430), who is often referred to as the
‘Father of Amillennialism,’ popularized the views of
Tyconius. Augustine abandoned Premillennialism because of
what he considered to be the excesses and carnalities of
this view. He also interpreted Mark 3:27 to be a present
binding of Satan. Augustine was the first to identify the
Catholic Church in its visible form with the kingdom of
God. For him, the millennial rule of Christ was taking
place in and through the church, including its sacraments
and offices. His book, City of God, was significant in the
promotion and acceptance of Amillennialism.
Augustine’s Amillennialism quickly became the accepted view
of the church. It became so accepted that the Council of
Ephesus (431) condemned the premillennial view as
superstitious. Amillennialism soon became the prevailing
doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and was later adopted
by most of the Protestant Reformers including Martin Luther
and John Calvin (some Anabaptists held to
Premillennialism).
While Premillennialism has experienced a great resurgence
in the last 200 hundred years, Amillennialism is widely
held by many Christian denominations. It is the official
position of the Roman Catholic Church and is held by many
Lutherans and those in the Reformed tradition.
Specific proponents of Amillennialism include B.B.
Warfield, Oswald T. Allis, and more recently it has been
defended by Anthony A. Hoekema and Robert B. Strimple.
THEOLOGY
WHAT IS THE PRETRIBULATIONAL RAPTURE VIEW?
The pretribulational rapture view has exploded in
popularity in the last century. The most visible reminder
of its influence can be seen in the success of the recent
best-selling Left Behind series written by Tim LaHaye and
Jerry Jenkins. Their book vividly portrays what conditions
might be like if Jesus removes His church prior to the
beginning of the seven-year tribulation period. But what
exactly is the pretribulational rapture view and what are
the arguments most often made in support of it?
The purpose of this article is to explain pretribulationism
and discuss the major arguments used to support this
position. Since the purpose of this article is primary
explanatory, this article will not critique
pretribulationism, offer counterpoints, or discuss in
detail alternatives rapture views.
Defining Pretribulationism
In 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, the apostle Paul stated that
there will be a snatching away of believers to meet the
Lord in the air. In the last century there has been
significant debate among Christian theologians concerning
when this snatching away will take place in relation to the
tribulation period that is discussed in several Bible
passages (ex. Matthew 24–25, 2 Thessalonians 1–2, and
Revelation 6–19).
Pretribulationism holds that the snatching or “rapture” of
the church will take place before the seven-year
tribulation period begins. This contrasts with
midtribulationism which states the rapture will take place
at the midway point of the tribulation period and
posttribulationism which states that the rapture will take
place at the end of the tribulation.
There are certain beliefs that form the foundation of the
pretribulational rapture view. We will mention these before
moving specifically to arguments made on behalf of the
pretrib view.
1. Consistent literal interpretation. Pretribulationists
claim that they interpret all portions of the Bible,
including its prophetic and apocalyptic elements, in a
normal, plain way. Thus, they often understand prophetic
portions of the Bible literally and not figuratively.
2. Distinction between Israel and the Church. All
pretribulationists believes that the Bible keeps a
distinction between the nation Israel and the church. While
the two groups share much in common, God’s plan for Israel
is not identical to His plan for the church. Nor is the
church ever identified as “Israel.”
3. Futurism. Pretribulationists believe that the major
prophetic events discussed in passages such as Daniel
9:24-27, Zechariah 12-14, Matthew 24–25, 1 Thessalonians
4–5, 2 Thessalonians 1–2 ,and Revelation 4–22 are still
future from our standpoint.
4. Premillennialism. All pretribulationists are
premillennialists in that they believe that a literal
1000-year kingdom of Christ will be established on the
earth sometime after the tribulation period but before the
beginning of the eternal kingdom.
Arguments for Pretribulationism
Those who affirm pretribulationism make several arguments
in support of their position. Below we will discuss eight
of their most common arguments. In listing these, we are
not claiming that all pretribulationists have used all
eight of these arguments or that they have worded these
arguments in the exact same way we have. Nevertheless, we
believe the arguments presented represent the most common
arguments made on behalf of pretribulationism.
1. Pretribulationists claim that God has promised the
church physical deliverance from divine wrath. First
Thessalonians 1:9-10 says that the Thessalonians were
waiting for Jesus “who delivers us from the wrath to come.”
First Thessalonians 5:9 declares, “For God has not destined
us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord
Jesus Christ.” Since the context of 1 and 2 Thessalonians
deals with the Day of the Lord, the “wrath” referred to in
these two passages must be the wrath that is poured out
during the tribulation period according to
pretribulationists. Believers are promised deliverance from
this wrath so the church will not be a part of the
tribulation.
Pretribulationists also claim Revelation 3:10 as evidence
for their view: “Because you have kept the word of My
perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of
testing, that hour which is to come upon the whole world,
to test those who dwell upon the earth.” They say that this
verse promises the church deliverance from the time period
(“hour”) of divine wrath. Thus, this rules out the
possibility of the church being on earth during the
tribulation.
2. Pretribulationists claim that there are significant
differences between rapture passages and second coming
passages; thus, the rapture and second coming of Christ are
different events happening at different times. According to
pretribulationists, the rapture passages are John 14:1–3; 1
Corinthians 15:51–58, and 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18. The
primary second coming passages are Zechariah 14:1–21;
Matthew 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-27; and
Revelation 19. Pretribulationists claim that an analysis of
the rapture and second coming passages reveals the
following:
--The second coming is preceded by signs but the rapture is
presented as imminent with no signs preceding it.
--The rapture is presented as a coming in blessing while
the second coming is presented as a coming for judgment.
--Second coming passages are in the context of the setting
up of the kingdom while the rapture passages make no
mention of the kingdom.
--The rapture passages speak of the receiving of glorified
bodies while the second coming passages do not.
3. Pretribulationists claim that the rapture has a
“mystery” element that is not true of the second coming. In
1 Corinthians 15:51-54, Paul speaks of the rapture as a
“mystery.” A mystery is something being revealed in the New
Testament era that was not revealed in the Old Testament.
The second coming, however, was spoken of much in the Old
Testament and does not qualify as a “mystery.” Thus, the
rapture must be something different than the second coming.
4. Pretribulationists claim that the church is nowhere to
be found in Revelation 4–18 which describes the tribulation
period. Their argument goes like this—“If the church is in
the tribulation, why is it never mentioned in this large
section of Scripture that describes the tribulation in
great detail?” For pretribulationists, the church is not
mentioned because it has already been raptured before the
tribulation.
5. Pretribulationists claim that pretribulationism best
explains the presence of non-glorified saints that enter
the millennial kingdom. The Bible indicates that living
unbelievers will be removed from the earth and judged at
the end of the Tribulation. Yet the Bible also teaches that
children will be born during the millennium and that people
will be capable of sin (Isa. 65:20 and Rev. 20:7-10). How
can this be? Pretribulationists say the pretrib view allows
for people to be saved after the rapture and during the
tribulation who will then enter the millennial kingdom in
non-glorified bodies. Thus, the pretrib view best explains
how there can be saved people in non-glorified bodies who
populate the millennium.
6. Pretribulationists claim that the nature and purpose of
the tribulation excludes the church from being a part of
it. According to pretribulationists, the tribulation is a
time of preparation for Israel’s conversion and restoration
(cf. Daniel 9:24-27; Deuteronomy 4:29, 30; Jeremiah
30:3-11; and Zechariah 12:10). Thus, the church has no
purpose for being in this period. Plus, Revelation 3:10
says the purpose of the tribulation is for the testing of
the unbelieving world. For pretribulationists, this purpose
excludes the church being present in this period.
7. Pretribulationists claim that the expectation of the
church is the imminent coming of Christ not the tribulation
period. Pretribulationists believe that if the church were
supposed to go to through the Tribulation then there would
be instructions concerning how to deal with it. Instead,
the church is not told to look for the events of the
tribulation. It is instructed to look for the imminent
return of Jesus.
8. Pretribulationists claim that the expectation of the
Thessalonians is proof for pretribulationism. In 2
Thessalonians 2:2-3, Paul notes that the Thessalonians had
been “shaken” and “disturbed” because they had been led to
think that they were presently in the day of the Lord (or
tribulation). The fact that they were disturbed is
significant to pretribulationists. If Paul had taught that
the rapture took place after the Tribulation, the
Thessalonians would have no reason to be upset since they
should be expecting certain signs and persecution before
the coming of the Lord. However, the fact that the
Thessalonians were shook up indicates that they did not
expect to be in the Day of the Lord at all. According to
pretribulationists, then, the Thessalonians fully expected
to be raptured prior to the Day of the Lord. The
expectation of the Thessalonians, then, is viewed as proof
for pretribulationism.
Other arguments have been made on behalf of the pretrib
view, but the eight listed above appear to be the one’s
most commonly made by pretrib scholars.
|
|
