The Narrow Path Ministries

I thought I would post my correspondence with a man who wrote with questions after reading my statement of faith at thenarrowpath.com. His comments are in red, mine in black:

-------------------------------


Hello Jim,

I will try to answer your questions to your satisfaction, though I have a feeling that my answers may not be satisfying to you:

In your statement of faith #7, ….does “at the end of the age include the “taking up” (rapture) before, midway or the end of the 7 yr period during the ascent and reign of the anti-Christ. I.e. do you subscribe to a (pre-trib) rapture approximately when a peace treaty is consummated with Israel by the ascending anti-Christ (which promises Israel peace, security and safety); followed by a 7 yr period including the betrayal of Israel half way through and then the war of Armageddon ….. and then those days being cut short for the sake of the elect (at the end of the 7 yr. period, Christ returns, judges and sets up his kingdom in Jerusalem. Is this your position?

My views about the end times have undergone a number of changes during the forty-two years of my teaching ministry, and may possibly have further room for improvement—something I am open to. I began as a full-dispensationalist—that is, a pre-tribulation rapturist. This was what I was taught and what I read in popular books on eschatology, and (since I was in my teens) I was initially in no position to vigorously critique the view on the basis of thorough acquaintance with the scriptures. Over the years, as a result of much biblical study, I eventually moved to the position called "historic premillennialism"—which embraces a post-tribulational rapture and a future millennium. With the passage of more years and study, I became a convinced amillennial futurist. Later still, as I became more aware of biblical history, I shifted to a partial-preterist amillennialist—with an openness to postmillennialism.

In the course of this development, I was surprised to learn that there were no scriptures that spoke of a seven-year tribulation, nor of a peace treaty made between antichrist and Israel, nor of a violation of said treaty after 3.5 years, nor of a statue of antichrist placed in a rebuilt Jerusalem temple, nor of a post-advent kingdom being established in Jerusalem. Of course, I was thoroughly aware of the passages that were reported to teach such things, but I was shocked, upon reading them in context, to see that none of these things was ever actually predicted in the seemingly relevant passages of scripture. Once I took my eyes off of Scofield's notes and looked at the actual text of the Bible, it got me thinking differently. If you are of the opinion that these things are taught in the Bible, I would encourage you to make the same kind of critical exploration.

How do you stand on these two issues of end of the age...?

I believe that the Bible speaks of a day called "the last day," or "the day of Christ," or "the day of God," or "the day of the Lord." These terms are used interchangeably in scripture. Looking at the biblical information, I find that "in that day" there will be the physical descent of Christ with His saints and angels, accompanied by a resurrection of all the dead, the catching up of the living saints, The destruction of all opposition to Christ, the final judgment, the destruction of the earth in flames, and the creation of a new heavens and a new earth. There are many verses that directly state that these things will happen on that day, and there are none that contradict this. Thus, my eschatological outlook is very simple: Jesus will return at the end of history ("on the last day") and will fix everything.

Though I did not know anyone else who held such a simple view, at the time I arrived at it, I was very relieved, upon studying church history, to learn that this was the majority view of Christians throughout most of history, and those who held such a view included Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Jan Hus, William Tyndale, John Wycliffe, and just about everybody else who taught the church prior to the year 1830, at which date a man named John Nelson Darby introduced the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture, along with the rest of the views I had been taught in its train.

...and divisions based on conviction of theological differences?

As for my opinion of Christians dividing over doctrines, I believe that there are, of course, important doctrines that are non-negotiable. In other words, if they are not believed, there is no salvation. These would be doctrines about who God is and who Christ is, and what His death and resurrection accomplished. I would not be able to enjoy Christian fellowship with people who were very far off in their understanding of such matters.

However, most doctrines that become the subjects of controversy are not of this non-negotiable sort. What I mean is, they are of the sort that one might be mistaken about without being considered unsaved. Specific doctrines about predestination, the nature of heaven and hell, the proper mode of baptism, eternal security, the perpetuity of certain spiritual gifts, the proper alignment of eschatological events, etc., are all matters upon which true Christians have historically differed. In fact, on most of those just listed, the church fathers during the first 300 years, all held beliefs that differed significantly from those of most modern evangelicals—yet we can hardly say that they were not true Christians. If agreement on doctrine is what makes people true Christians, then it would be we, not they, who would have to wonder if we were truly saved.

In each stage of development in my views of eschatology, I remained a true follower of Christ, regardless of my changing opinions. Now, if I could be a Christian who believed in pre-trib, at one point, and could, at another point, be a Christian who believed in post-trib, it means that a person can be a Christian believing either of these views. Thus, being a true Christian is not measured by one's possessing one or another view on such subjects. If this is so, then I would expect to find true brothers and sisters who hold views in these areas very different from my own.

Then there is the question of fellowship with such people. If it is true that one man can be a true follower of Christ, while believing in Calvinism, and another man can be a true follower of Christ, while believing in Arminianism, we must assume that God recognizes both men as His children, and Christ accepts both as true disciples, and as members of His body and His bride. The last step in my reasoning is, can I shun one whom Christ accepts?

Whom Christ receives, I cannot refuse! We don't even have to speculate about this, since Paul spoke directly to this subject and answered it for us, in Romans 14:1-5 and 15:7 (Jesus taught, essentially, the same thing in Luke 9:49-50). If every believer, regardless of doctrinal variation, is a true member of Christ, then it is a sin to divide Christ by denying any brother fellowship on the basis of his difference upon a non-essential doctrine. Such artificial divisions in Christ's body are clearly seen as evil by Paul, in 1 Corinthians 1:10ff.

Those are my thoughts. Thanks for asking.

In Jesus,

Steve Gregg

Steve,

I appreciate you posting this correspondence and especially giving us a good example of speaking the truth in love (at least the truth as you see it). In reading between the lines, I can imagine that Jim may not have ever been exposed to teaching other than the dispensational model of eschatology. It has been my experience that people in such a circumstance find it hard not to respond with incredulity when they hear teaching, contrary to their's, of the sort which you (and I) embrace. Personally, when I was finally exposed to the Amillenial view of things, I felt kind of angry. Not at the persons presenting this "new" view to me, but rather, to the many pastors and teachers who, because of the nature of things, never presented me with a fair view of the historical alternatives to the dispensational scheme of eschatology. I would have appreciated the chance to weigh the different views for myself, something that I hope Jim will do.

I'm not sure if I ever thanked you personally, but your teaching played an important role in my spiritual journey (and continues still), not only regarding my eschatology but, more importantly, the way you exemplify the christian walk on a daily basis. And if more teachers of the Word were like you, I'm sure the church would be better off. So, thank you.

In Christ,

l2j

Thank you kindly, Bro.

I was wondering if you had had any kind of response from Jim?

I too, appreciate the manner in which you answered the man. My mother was a staunch dispensationalist who followed the whole system in her Scofield bible. She also received Arno C. Gabelein's little publication called "Our Hope." My paternal grandfather once made the comment, "Those hope magazines are Hazel's bible!"

My mother, sisters, brothers, and aunts all subscribed to dispensationalism, so I am sure it's not much of a surprise to say that I, too, as a teenager accepted it, thinking it was the norm in Christian belief. In my early twenties, as I began reading second century literature, I realized that they did not teach it, but taught the "historic pre-millenialist" view. I thought that they were probably in a better position to understand Paul and others on the issue than moderns who live about 2 milleniums after they were written.

So I, too, entered into stage 2 of your journey, the " historic pre-millenialist" view. I have not been convinced by amillenialism which developed much later, nor preterism, partial or full. Of all these positions, I think full preterism is furthest from Biblical truth. It takes a lot of spiritualizing of scripture to affirm that it is taught in the Bible.

So... I remain a "historic pre-millenialist", and the fact that most people on the forum are amillenialists doesn't bother me a bit. I really enjoy the THEOS forum, especially the gracious attitudes which are usually expressed. I think you, Steve, have provided a good example which many others emulate, people who have been attracted to a forum where mutual respect is practised.

I, for one, appreciate you Paidion and I enjoy reading your take on things. It's never boring around here!

I have to say, I haven't seen such in depth and rigorous biblical debate as I've seen on this forum. After seeing it, I realize now that the reason its possible is because of the mutual respect, I'm sure born out of love, that the participants show. I say this because on most other boards what I find is a bunch of like minded people. There may be some disenters, but rarely does it bring respectful debate. When you can get people together like this with varying opinions who are seeking after the Lord, that is where steel can sharpen steel.

Probably the deepest I've seen anyone get with the bible is looking at the greek word or looking at a passage in context, but around here you have people referencing word usage in the old vs. new testament, the meaning of a word to jews of Jesus' day vs the meaning of the word via word usage in the old testament. You guys are just incredible!

I have to say Steve that our paths of understanding of Scriptue has many simularities. I was influenced by the Jesus Movement and have also traveled the same theological path to partial preterist amillenialism. Your answers and the expression of the why of your viewpoints are very edifying. I stand alone so much of the time and appreciate your ministy so much...Thanks for being you brother...

Steve, I bought your book this past spring but I haven't got around to reading it yet. I've benefitted a ton from your teachings and I'm sure I will from your book as well, but the truth is I primarily bought the book because I feel a bit guilty that I'm so ignorant when it comes to eschatology. Nevertheless, I don't have a huge interest in this area. My dad says he's a panmillennialist; he believes it will all pan out in the end. And I guess I'm a lot like my dad.