Tozer's eschatology

Post by **_darin-houston** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:52 pm

I've been enjoying some of Tozer's sermons lately (one of my all-time favorites) -- he's made a few side comments that would lead me to think he is pre-millenarian if not dispensational (which surprises me a bit). Steve's comment below would suggest he wasn't -- I've never heard him directly preach on the subject or read anything he wrote on it, but how would you classify his eschatology?

It may put this divisive stance into perspective when you consider that the following people would not be allowed to remain in Calvary Chapel, if they ever were to express their eschatological views there:

Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, any of the Christian martyrs prior to 1830, St. Francis of Assissi, Thomas a'Kempis, John Hus, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Menno Simons, the King James Version translation committee, Madame Guyon, Count von Zinzendorf, the Puritans, George Mueller of Bristol, Charles Finney, Jonathan Edwards, David Brainerd, William Booth, C.H. Spurgeon, Alfred Ederscheim, Andrew Murray, J. Gresham Machen, C.S. Lewis, Frances Schaeffer, A.W. Tozer, Richard Wurmbrandt, F.F. Bruce, J.I. Packer, Mother Teresa, Keith Green—ad infinitum.

A denomination that would not welcome such saints and conservative theologians into their fold is, without question, folded too tight.

Post by **_Derek** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:35 pm

I've been enjoying some of Tozer's sermons lately (one of my all-time favorites) -- he's made a few side comments that would lead me to think he is pre-millenarian if not dispensational (which surprises me a bit). Steve's comment below would suggest he wasn't -- I've never heard him directly preach on the subject or read anything he wrote on it, but how would you classify his eschatology

?

If I am not mistaken, I think he was premillenial, but not dispensational. He has a chapter in "Man the Dwelling Place of God" entitled "The Decline of Apocalyptic Expectation" that would lead me to believe this.

He also makes the point in this essay, that it isn't really the "doctrine" of the second coming that's so important, but it is the "hope" of His coming.

God bless,

Post by **_Sean** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:24 am

If anyone has anymore information on this, I'm also interested. Maybe Steve could chime in.

Post by **_darin-houston** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:11 am

I've never understood quite how you could be premillinarian and non-dispensational. That would be a useful discussion also.

Also, while I agree with Tozer that it is only the "hope" that matters in a fundamental sense, it is still useful for understanding the rest of scripture to have a sound eschatology. I think if your eschatology is wrong it can affect how you view the rest of scripture and vice versa, so maybe it's a good "test" of doctrine. Besides, it's just downright interesting, and The Revelation says internally that you will be blessed by studying it.

Post by **_Paidion** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:44 pm

I've never understood quite how you could be premillinarian and non-dispensational. That would be a useful discussion also.

As a non-dispensational pre-millenialist, I may be able to help you a bit with your understanding.

I do not believe in the classic "seven dispensations" which seems to mean 7 periods in history in which God's method of administration, or oversight of His people differs drastically. For example, there are the dispensations of "innocence","human government", "law", "grace", and "kingdom". I can't remember the other two. Most dispensationalists believe that Christ's second coming consists of two phases, "the rapture" which supposedly occurs before a seven-year Great Tribulation, and a coming in glory which follows it. They often refer to these two comings (or "phases" as they prefer to call them) as "His coming for His saints" and "His coming with His saints." This concept of a two-phase coming separated by a number of years was never taught in all of church history prior to the nineteenth century.

My belief is what is often today called "historic pre-millenialism". It was the position of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and most or all of the second-century Christian writers. Of course, I believe it to be the teaching of the apostle Paul, also.

I believe that there is a period of Great Tribulation coming such as has never occurred in history, or ever will occur again afterward. I undertand that the first part will be the persecution of Christ's people by a personal Antichrist, and the second part be God's judgment on the wicked. Christ's coming (only one phase) will immediately follow. No one knows when Christ will return, presumably not even Christ. It is written that the Father alone knows the day and the hour. The Father revealed to His Son the things that would take place (Rev 1:1). So the Son must not have known them before that.

The scriptural word for "dispensation" means "administation" and does not refer to a period of time.

Post by **_darin-houston** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:51 pm

So, what's your view of Israel (vs. the church) and waht role do you see for them in the future coming kingdom?

Post by **_Paidion** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:40 pm

Yahweh called Abraham, and chose his descendants as His people Israel. From the early days of Israel there were always rebels against God. These were often the majority. But there was also a remnant that truly served their God, Yahweh. This remnant formed "the true Israel", "the Israel of God." They comprised "The olive tree" of Romans 11.

When Yeshua Maschiach (Jesus the Messiah) was born, lived, and taught among His people, his disciples were the remnant, the Israel of God.
Israel didn't cease and become replaced by the Church. Rather Israel continued in Christ's disciples, whereas the Jews who rejected Him were not "the Israel of God" but "a synagogue of Satan." Gentiles were grafted into the "olive tree" so that the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile was broken down. The two became one in the Messiah. Together they became the Church. Together they continued as the Israel of God.
Though the physical descendants of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved. But when we understand how the remnant forms the true Israel, we can understand the words of Paul in Romans 11: "In this manner, all Israel will be saved."

Post by **_psychohmike** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:18 pm

Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”who is Christ. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

As far as I know there is and has only ever been OT or NT, on ecclesia of God.

The idea of there being a distinction between Israel and the church is erroneous. A distinction put there by fundamentalists to further their doctrine.

No replacement theology...just grafting in.

Replacement theology = Fundi Scarecrow

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 8:40 pm

I am not sure why you posted that, Mike.

Are you saying anything different from what I said in my last post?

Or are you agreeing with me?

Post by **_psychohmike** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 5:41 pm

Paidion wrote:I am not sure why you posted that, Mike.

Are you saying anything different from what I said in my last post?

Or are you agreeing with me?

Im in agreement. Just adding my little fundi scarecrow comment.

8)

Finally we agree on something.