Fundamentalist Apocalypticism

One reason is this: This stuff is sensational and exciting. It is sad that style trumps substance.

 

My thoughts go to the Left Behind Series and the the old Jack Van Impe movies of the 70's.

I think part of the problem is lack of doctrine taught in our churches. Another problem is lack of proper Bible study. The average Christian in an IFB church just takes whatever is said from the pulpit to be "gospel" truth, especially if it is a famous guest speaker. There needs to be more teaching of comparing Scripture with Scripture, and much, much more discipleship of doctrine going on. I am amazed sometimes at what people twice my age both physically and spirtually don't know about the Bible, or what they think they do know. Much of it is based on what some preacher said, and can be parroted back with ease, but it is not what the Bible says.

Another reason for it is the emotion of fear has a "rush" affect that is exhilerating to some. If you don't believe me, just go watch folks at a theme park or a haunted house for a while! These books and movies provide that "rush" that makes people feel good, and it especially gets Christians all hyped up about it, that before they even have a chance to check it out with Scriptures, they have bought it. I wonder whose tool of deception that is?

Just my thoughts.

 

Joy,

For once we agree on something.

It takes me back to when I was in Jr. High school. I had never even heard of the preterist view of Revelation and was watching "Thief in the Night" with my youth group. Not surprisingly, the preacher who preached against the premill heresy was left behind and those who didn't disappeared like a thief in the night. It was very clear that if I didn't want to be left behind that I should never even question the premill point of view. They really played on my fears of being left behind and having my head chopped off behind the church parking lot with a guillotine. I never knew that the preterist point of view existed until about 7 years ago. And then I found out something even more shocking...this premill gospel (so called) truth was made up by men like Darby and Lehaye and had only been around for about 150 to 200 years...whereas the preterist point of view has been around since the early church fathers. It took me a long time to even be able to consider the validity of this view because of the emotional head trip the premill movies, books(Lindsey in my day), and preachers played on me. The more I study the scriptures, themore I find the premill rapture theory to be unscriptural and false doctrine meant to scare the Hell out of people by playing on their fears.

Joseph

 

Oops, I didn't mean to imply that one. Sorry Joseph, I'm still a pre-trib gal, but I have problems with the "it's too late after the rapture" philosophy, and the taking someones guess as to what it will be like for truth. Since that is not what the gentlemen was refering to in the start of this thread, I'll be happy to explain in another one if you care to hear what I believe about the rapture--JOY

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JBotwinick:
Joy,

And then I found out something even more shocking...this premill gospel (so called) truth was made up by men like Darby and Lehaye and had only been around for about 150 to 200 years...The more I study the scriptures, themore I find the premill rapture theory to be unscriptural and false doctrine meant to scare the Hell out of people by playing on their fears.

Joseph<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Joseph:

One thing George Eldon Ladd makes very clear in his book The Blessed Hope is that the pretrib, secret rapture view is very young, the early fathers did not believe in pretribulationalism, and with the advent of Darbyism and Bible prophecy meetings, it quickly became ingrained in fundamentalism that anything other than pretrib Darbyism was unorthodox.

Bear in mind that pretrib dispensationalism is not synonymous with historic premillennialism. Historically, premill was the intial belief, followed by Augustinian amillennialism, then postmill in the 18th and 19th centuries. (Of course parts of all 3 forms have existed in some sense throughout church history; I'm taking about as systematic beliefs).

Not sure that preterism existed though, outside of heretical groups.

 

Joy,

You ruined my day...I thought we actually agreed on something

Sure...I would love to here what you believe...and maybe even give you some scriptural reasons why I think the premill view is wrong.

Which forum will you post it under so I can find it?

Joseph

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hal Parker:
One reason is this: This stuff is sensational and exciting. It is sad that style trumps substance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot of truth in this statement, unfortunately.

 

Justin Martyr wrote in his "Dialogue With Trypho":

"I am not so miserable a fellow ,Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion [premill], and [believe] that such will take place, as assuredly you are aware; but on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."

"It is clear that there were 'many' whom Justin regarded as 'true Christians' ...who did not hold to his premillenialism. That he did not regard them as heretics serves to illustrate that the early church would not have agreed with...John F. Walvoord's assessment that premillenialism is of comparable importance to the doctrines of verbal inspiration, the Diety of Christ, substitutionary atonement, and bodily ressurection....Irenaeus identified the first beast of Revelation with Paul's man of sin and considered a possible identification of 666 with the Greek Lateinos (Roman), suggesting Rome. Based upon 17:12, he believed that the empire would be divided into ten kingdoms and Rome reduced to ashes.
In his tract, On Christ and Antichrist, Hippolytus identified the two witnesses of chapter 11 as Enoch and Elijah. The pregnant womam of chapter 12 was seen as the church, and the whore Babylon as Rome. He saw the first beast as the Roman Empire, to be wounded to death but restored under the Antichrist. The second beast was seen as ten kingdoms that will replace the empire.
In Rome, Tertullian understood the book similarly."

Source: Revelation: Four Views-A Parralel Commentary by: Steven Gregg

 

Personally I believe Left Behind will be the best description of what things will be like after the rapture. Keep in mind, the book comes from the perspective of the group who are in the middle of it all. I am a self proclaimed pan trib...I believe it will all pan out the way God wants it to and I'm not concered about it since I'm his child anyway.

Sue

 

Chick, which authors are you calling F/B/E?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chick Daniels: Why the apocalyptic book phenomonon?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the mighty buck ($$$$$$$$$$$$$)!