At the end of part 2 I asked the question, “why is this subject important?” Why do I really want to kick up a stink about it? It’s done and dusted and lots of people have moved on. If Paul wants to teach a literalistic, fundamentalist, interpretation of end times theology, why bother to make an issue of it? The church has had a tough year, we don’t need more controversy do we ?
Firstly, I don’t think of it as causing a stink. It’s a disagreement with someone. I have a lot of time for Paul and agree with him on vast variety of issues. I think the ministry himself and Merle have brought into the church has been very valuable. I just happen to think on this issue Paul hasn’t fallen on the right side.
I do also think it’s important to debate the issue because of a number of factors, some relating to the church situation, but most relating to good theology and good biblical interpretation.
It is a distinct change in the churches historical position on the subject.
Previously the elders presiding over the teaching in the church (Roy and Rob) did not hold his viewpoint, did not teach his viewpoint, and I believe would not have allowed his viewpoint to have been aired on a Sunday morning. I believe to use the opportunity of NLC not having an elder with theological training, to bring us a new (to us) and different line of teaching was potentially divisive and a mistake .
It can undermine the authority of Preaching
I think this sort of preaching can lead to a disrespect of the pulpit. When we preach,we claim to be declaring the truth of Gods word, and as such believe we speak with some level of authority because we do so. When we say such basic bible truths such as ’God is love’, and ‘Christ died for us’ we speak with authority.
When we get up and preach inaccuracies and obvious conjecture this reduces the authority in which we speak the Bible’sbasic truths.
Paul made numbers of blatant and obvious mistakes in attempt to relate the book of Revelation to the 21st century modern geo political situation. For example, China’s army is 1.8 million, not 200 million like stated (I did encounter a couple sources claiming otherwise, but they were all trying to justify this viewpoint. Anything neutral or not theological was referring to the smaller figure ).
Relating the 10 headed beast to EU, may have been believable in 1980 when the EU had 10 countries, but becomes ridiculous in 2010 when the EU has over 20. It becomes laughable when you claim it relates to countries with full voting rights.
The declaration that Jesus will return exactly 7 years after the rebuilding of the temple would also be rejected by most Biblical scholars in contradiction to the direct teaching of Christ, when he said ‘no man knows the day or hour’
If we make these basic errors from the pulpit, on even off side or irrelevant points,we reduce the authority of preaching in our church.
It focuses a believer on the Kingdom of God in the future millennium, and not in the a present reality.
Of the two major themes of Jesus ministry was the Kingdom of God (the other was the cross). He spoke about both the future tense and the present tense, many of his miracles and training of the disciples was about the present tense of the Kingdom of God.
Many of the Pharisees (and at times the disciples) didn’t get what Jesus was saying and doing because they could only see the Kingdom as a physical entity involving Jerusalem and the Jewish state, rather than a current reality based on the presence of the King of Kings.
A viewpoint that believes that God will institute a future earthly and temporal kingdom (doesn’t his Kingdom have no end?) starts peoples minds focusing towards the fulfilment of Gods Kingdom being focused more in the future age than the now,we start to defer the blessings of God to a future age.
It creates an unbalanced view of Israel’s roll in the future
The stance that Paul preached is a stance that can lead to an over emphasis on the role of Israel in the future. On the whole, there are only one or two chapters in the letters which speak in any depth of Israel’s future role and purpose in Gods Plan. Talk to some people who take the stance and you would believe it was the central thrust of the New Testament.
On top of this, Pauls view looks to restablishment of the temple, which is a complete anathema to my theology. The temple was at the heart of the old covenant which
The book of Hebrews tell us that now as Christians, we have a better temple, a better covenant and a better high priest. At the point of the crucifixion God choose to destroy the temple by ripping the curtain from top to bottom. Why do we believe that in any way he wishes to reinstitute it?
It creates an overly complex view of the end times.
The pre-millennial view creates a viewpoint which has 2 judgements, numerous tribulations, a 2nd coming in two parts, an many other complex and somewhat cumbersome events to fit into your end times calendar. All which can be very difficult to reconcile with each other, and quite often when people do so they end up compromising other more central doctrines.
Dangerous methods of interpreting the bible are justified by this theology.
Dispensationalism which effectively disregards the teaching of Jesus as being relevant to Christians today (as it belongs to the Jews in the millennium,we only need to bother with the teaching of Christ.) is justified by the premillenial position which was put forward to the church.
Even though Paul Williams does not hold this view, the end times position he supports is the basis for it. Darby, the person responsible for this view point is also known as the father of dispensationalism.
There are a few other downsides to this theology but for the moment ill sign off as the post has become very lengthy.
Next time the final point part 4. what do I believe about the end times?
Just found this, and read it, interesting stuff. Good Theology, like it John.
John nice to hear from you, I have been very quiet on this for few months and nice to see you feedback as I have come back to it.
We should be living back in Congleton in a few weeks (hopefully), we will have to get you and Jane over for a meal when we get setteled.