An email received and responded to

[Guest]

Hi Everyone,

When someone writes to me privately with questions or objections, and I take the trouble to answer them point-by-point, I sometimes like to post the correspondence here at the forum, so that the time spent answering the one inquirer might be available to be viewed by others who may have the same questions or objections. That is the case with the following post.

Some weeks ago, a sister contacted me as a result of listening to the radio program. She wanted me to consider an eschatological thesis which she had expressed in a book she had written and published, so I visited with her when I was in her area, and she presented some of her thoughts on the Book of Revelation. Her views were different from mine, and I said so, but I did not attempt to critique them or refute them.

Afterward, I received an email from her desiring to take me to task about my views. I responded that I did not have the time nor the interest in attempting to change her opinions about eschatology. She followed-up with the following email , to which I responded. Her last email and mine are pasted below, in sequence.

**************************************************

Hi Steve--

I was sorry to hear you speak of your believed doctrines on the radio, when it really wasn't necessary to answer the question of the caller.

You've written, "It doesn't matter to me what a person believes about such things. My views only come out when someone asks my opinion about them. As I mentioned to you, I am not especially interested in eschatology. I know Jesus will come, and that's all I need to know."

What you say is not entirely true and it hurts my heart on two levels. You're not being honest with yourself. You do care, and you do speak that care continually in your points of view on the air. You speak as if your understanding of scriptures is full. If an ounce of someone else's view falls into your vial, you spill it out, adding your belief as a cleansing chaser; hence, it seems you just mask your lack of interest in the stand of simple sharing. Your objective seems clear to me. It's more than sharing the Word. Your intent is to win listeners to your viewpoint, while saying you're not trying to do so, but merely sharing the Word.

You surely are aware, aren't you, that your authority speaks volumes? You know people place a great amount of stock in your knowledge of scriptures, right?

Steve, all of His Word is important. You should care for all of it. I'm not endorsing the current events mania that Calvary purports, but the text of God's breath--all given for a reason and not to be dismissed. It all reveals His heart and intent.

I've copied and pasted some text that I hope you can find time to read. I hope you can lift that lid on your vessel for just a couple of minutes and hear this viewpoint. I know you think you know it, inside out, Steve, but listen to the writer's words anyway. I find the text shows God's true heart. Why do I want you to listen to it so carefully?--because God's heart is better than yours. :-) In other words, I want the best for you. I think that's important for His Kingdom--the one in which you have the influential role as teacher. I'll leave it at that.

Blessings on your head, Steve--

A----


"It is when the Church recognizes Israel that the true distinctiveness and glory of the Body of Christ becomes evident. This called-out body, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles during the Church Age, is the highest entity the Lord has created, superior to the universe, all the Angels, the nations, and Israel. Our Head, our Husband, our Friend is the Son of God Himself. We shall reign with Him when He rules the earth, and our 12 Founding Apostles will rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. The Angels themselves will study us forever as the greatest exhibit of God's grace, and we will actually judge the Angels. This is our destiny, and this writer, for one, would not trade his position in the Body of Christ with any creature in the universe! Why, then, be disturbed over what God has promised the Jewish people? Why be jealous over the future destiny of Israel? How short sighted of us! Indeed, the Church's finest and most distinctive hour will be when Israel is restored nationally and spiritually to the Lord at the Second Coming of Christ. We will return from Heaven with Him as His glorious Bride to rule Israel and the world. What more could we ask?

So, if we are not to suffer from spiritual myopia, we must recognize what the Lord is doing with Israel, not shrinking from it as though our own interests will be overshadowed. Rather, we rejoice in these developments, with full assurance that our own redemption draws ever closer.

Replacement Theology was already around before the end of the First Century, but did not become the official position of professing Christian leadership until Augustine popularized the concept, primarily in THE CITY OF GOD, in the latter part of the Fourth Century. Augustine actually states that he was previously a Chiliast, meaning that he was a believer in the thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth after His return. This is the same as our current description of Premillennialism. However, he had come to the conclusion that this view was "carnal," and had adopted the view that the reign of Christ would be something more "spiritual," and would actually occur during the Church Age. Such a view necessitated the extinction of Israel, and the cancellation of all promises God made to the Jewish nation. These promises of blessing would now be fulfilled within the framework of the Church.

This view, which had been latent in Christendom, now flourished throughout the Byzantine world. From this point on, the theological legs were cut out from under Israel, and the predominant Christian theology was that there was no future for Israel. Replacement Theology has been the rule that has survived the Middle Ages, the Crusades and the Reformation in Church History. Only during the last Century or so has the Premillennial concept of the future of Israel come to the forefront in evangelical Christianity. Even so, it is a minority view."
-- by Thomas S. McCall, Th.D.--


*******************My response follows**********************

Hi A----,

You wrote: "I was sorry to hear you speak of your believed doctrines on the radio, when it really wasn't necessary to answer the question of the caller."

I am not sure which caller, or which question, you are referring to. I always feel some obligation to answer the questions I am asked, if the answer is known to me.

You quote me as saying: "It doesn't matter to me what a person believes about such things. My views only come out when someone asks my opinion about them. As I mentioned to you, I am not especially interested in eschatology. I know Jesus will come, and that's all I need to know."

Then you say, "What you say is not entirely true and it hurts my heart on two levels. You're not being honest with yourself. You do care, and you do speak that care continually in your points of view on the air."

I stand by my original statement. When I say, "I am not especially interested," it should be understood that this is not the same thing as saying, "I am not the least bit interested." The truth is, you have never heard me raise the subject of eschatology unless a caller has asked me about it. Nor will you hear me do so. So what is incorrect in my statement?


You perceive my methods as follows:

"You speak as if your understanding of scriptures is full. If an ounce of someone else's view falls into your vial, you spill it out, adding your belief as a cleansing chaser; hence, it seems you just mask your lack of interest in the stand of simple sharing. Your objective seems clear to me. It's more than sharing the Word. Your intent is to win listeners to your viewpoint, while saying you're not trying to do so, but merely sharing the Word."

I'm sorry that this is how things appear to you. When we discussed eschatology in person, did I give any indications to you that I hoped to convince you of my views? I think not. If I recall, you were the one seeking to present your views, and seemed disappointed that I did not immediately and whole-heartedly confirm your conclusions. I don't believe that I even presented my views to you there. Where do you find evidence of my agenda, as you describe it?

It may seem to you that I do not consider opposing opinions from other people. The opposite is true. It is my very open-minded attitude that has led me to change my views over the years about so many issues that I had once taught differently about. While I do assess and weigh the validity of every view that is presented to me by others, it often does not take me very long to see what I regard to be a flaw in some people's biblical exegesis. When I see such, I try to do them the service of pointing it out. Teaching is a service provided to the inquirer.

Indoctrination, on the other hand, is not a service to the inquirer, but it serves the interests of a school of thought, or a teacher's personal agenda. I have no theological agenda, and have nothing to gain by people finding my points convincing. I do not work for, and am not supported by, any organization, so I am free to teach what I find to be true.

If it seems that I have a sinister motive, it may be because I answer differently than you or someone else might. I can seldom answer a question without revealing my opinion in the process, and it is no part of my purpose to conceal my opinion, or my reasons for reaching it. What you perceive as indoctrination in my teaching is probably my critique of flawed exegesis and my presentation of the best biblical answer I know of.


You express the following concern:

"You surely are aware, aren't you, that your authority speaks volumes? You know people place a great amount of stock in your knowledge of scriptures, right?"

I am very forthright in telling my audience that I possess no inate authority, and that only the scriptures themselves are authoritative. I am trying to develop in my listeners the capacity to listen critically and to think biblically for themselves. If you would visit the Bible forum at our website, I think you would see that many have been learning to do just that. They are not taking my word for anything, though many of them do seem to respect my opinion.

There are no doubt weak-minded or lazy people who simply believe what I say without checking and without discernment. This is not a good thing, and no amount of my exhorting them to think for themselves is likely to change their lethargic mental habits. However, to whatever extent this may be true of me, it is no more the case with me than it is with other teachers on the radio or church pastors.

There is always some immature person who will follow a teacher or pastor blindly. Knowing this, I take my responsibility seriously not to lead such gullible people in any sense astray. The fact that there are some who have different opinions from mine does not render my understanding of scripture automatically wrong, nor does such a fact impinge upon my duty to teach what I find to be taught in scripture.

You wrote: "But, Steve, all of His Word is important. You should care for all of it."

I do not disagree with this statement at all. In fact, that is why I teach through every book of the BIble verse-by-verse (the lectures are available for free download from my website). If you listen to any of these lectures, regardless of the portion of scripture being discussed, I think you will hear unmistakable indicators of my care and my interest in the material.

You also wrote:

"I've copied and pasted some text that I hope you can find time to read. I hope you can lift that lid on your vessel for just a couple of minutes and hear this viewpoint. I know you think you know it, inside out, Steve, but listen to the writer's words anyway."

I have read the pasted material. I am not sure why you thought that my mind is not open to reading such ideas. I have been reading them all my life (and used to teach them). However, reading them does not necessarily result in agreeing with their viewpoint, and my not agreeing does not mean that my mind was not open while reading. The article is flawed, and it is this fact, not my closed mind, that prevents me from agreeing with its position.

The writer makes a number of opinion statements that have no scripture in their support, and a number of statements about church history that are simply ill-informed. I am not condemning him. We all make mistakes. I am only telling you why the reading of his comments did not lead to any advances in my understanding of the scriptures. Let me comment on his paragraphs piece-by-piece:


"It is when the Church recognizes Israel that the true distinctiveness and glory of the Body of Christ becomes evident."

I question this statement. It is asserted as if authoritative, though it has no scriptural authority behind it, and is not self-evidently true.

"This called-out body, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles during the Church Age, is the highest entity the Lord has created, superior to the universe, all the Angels, the nations, and Israel. Our Head, our Husband, our Friend is the Son of God Himself. We shall reign with Him when He rules the earth, and our 12 Founding Apostles will rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. The Angels themselves will study us forever as the greatest exhibit of God's grace, and we will actually judge the Angels. This is our destiny, and this writer, for one, would not trade his position in the Body of Christ with any creature in the universe!"

Just about everything in this paragraph is scriptural, and I am in full agreement---with one caveat: in the first sentence, he could have omitted "during the Church Age" as a qualifier. The statement is true of all ages (Eph.1:10; 3:10-11, 21).


"Indeed, the Church's finest and most distinctive hour will be when Israel is restored nationally and spiritually to the Lord at the Second Coming of Christ. "

This asserts the writer's opinion merely. There actually is no scripture to back it up (though he thinks he is representing the teaching of Romans 11). I believe, by contrast, that my opinion has the weight of the scriptures behind it. If you are interested in the scriptural basis for my views, you may find it at my website (e.g.,
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1468
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=399
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=346
http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=525
.

"We will return from Heaven with Him as His glorious Bride to rule Israel and the world..."

There is no clear teaching of scripture along these lines. It is standard dispensationalist fare, though.

"So, if we are not to suffer from spiritual myopia, we must recognize what the Lord is doing with Israel, not shrinking from it as though our own interests will be overshadowed. Rather, we rejoice in these developments, with full assurance that our own redemption draws ever closer."

Dispensationalists often mistake the motivations of amillennialists. When we say that the church is the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel (as Paul says so frequently--e.g. in Galatians 3 and 4), we are not concerned that "our own interests will be overshadowed." Becoming Christians in the first place involved the requirement that we renounce our own interests altogether, and devote ourselves to the pursuit of God's interests. The dispensationalist could as easily be accused of being afraid that Israel's interests might be compromised, if amillennialism were true.

Who cares about our interests or Israel's? Christianity is about God's interests, not man's. The New Testament everywhere places Christ and His body (the Church) at the center of God's interests, and never even mentions the interests of national Israel, after the crucifixion of Christ. Am I mistaken? I am willing to be shown any New Testament passage that mentions a future hope for the political nation of Israel (Romans 11:25-26 does not mention anything about Israel as a nation. It only mentions the salvation of a people).

"Replacement Theology was already around before the end of the First Century, but did not become the official position of professing Christian leadership until Augustine popularized the concept, primarily in THE CITY OF GOD, in the latter part of the Fourth Century."

This is historically inaccurate. Any good historical survey of the writings of the church fathers will reveal that there never was any writer in the first four centuries who believed anything other than "replacement theology." This is admitted even by the scholarly works that are written to oppose the view. For example, in his book "Israel and the Church," Ronald Diprose (who is opposed to "replacement theology") quotes from Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, Tertullian (all in the second century), and Origen (early third century) to show that they all taught "replacement theology." Why shouldn't they? Jesus Himself taught it (Matt.21:43; 22:7-8).

It should be clarified that no one who holds this view refers to it as "replacement theology." This is the derogatory term used by its detractors. Those who hold the view are more likely to label it "fulfillment theology," since the focus is not on replacement, but on the fulfillment of God's promises. I doubt that you have had much occasion to become familiar with this view. My four lectures, "What Are We to Make of Israel," (available at the website) give a thorough scriptural treatment.

"Such a view necessitated the extinction of Israel, and the cancellation of all promises God made to the Jewish nation. These promises of blessing would now be fulfilled within the framework of the Church."

It is typical of dispensationalists to criticize what they do not understand--and to thus criticize a caracature of their opponent's beliefs (it is so much easier to demolish a straw man than a real one). "The extinction of Israel" sounds incredibly antisemitic (which is another libel often wrongly used against amillennialists). Amillennialism does not have any interest in the Jews becoming extinct, as this author's mis-characterization might be taken to mean.

If he means only that the "state" or "nation" of Israel was to be abolished and its capital burned down, this is not strictly a feature of amillennialism, but of history (this occurred in AD 70) and of prophecy as well (Deut.29:24/ Dan.9:26/ Zech.14:2/ Matt.22:7/ Mark 13:1-2/ Luke 19:41-44). There is nothing antisemitic about acknowledging historical facts, nor were the prophets who predicted this antisemites, since they were themselves Jews.

"This view, which had been latent in Christendom, now flourished throughout the Byzantine world. From this point on, the theological legs were cut out from under Israel, and the predominant Christian theology was that there was no future for Israel. Replacement Theology has been the rule that has survived the Middle Ages, the Crusades and the Reformation in Church History."

This paragraph is correct, with the exception of the clause, "which had been latent in Christendom." The view was never latent. It was stated unambiguously by every generation of Christians since the apostles--until 1830.


"Only during the last Century or so has the Premillennial concept of the future of Israel come to the forefront in evangelical Christianity. Even so, it is a minority view."

This is correct also...though it should be clear that by "Premillennial," he is talking about dispensationalism. There were some premillennialists in the early church, but they were not dispensationalists, and they all taught "replacement theology" just like the amillennialists did.

Sister, I know you think I see myself as a "know-it-all," but, unless I am to compromise my integrity, I do not have the luxury of being ignorant of facts that have come to my attention. I'm sorry if this offends you.

Blessings!

In Jesus,

Steve

[Guest]

Steve, it was a joy to read your response to this sister. You responded with such a different spirit, without a hint of criticism, but yet factually, expressing your own practices and motives, and willingness to consider other points of view, although not necessarily accepting them unless there was a compelling reason to do so.

[Guest]

Paidion,

Thanks for those comments. Coming, as they do, from someone like yourself, who does not share my eschatological viewpoint, means a lot.

[Guest]

Steve,

I am not a scholar, so I don't pretend to understand thoroughly all of the points covered in the lady's charges and in your responses to them. But more than the scholarship, I am impressed with (and thankful for) the edifying lesson you taught in the art of lovingly standing fast.

Hunnicutt

[Guest]

My daughter sent me this youtube video - even though it has nothing to do with Eschatiology it reminded me of how dispensationalist read the Bible and try to convey the message. Its all about misunderstood lyrics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLd22ha_-VU

[Guest]

That's funny Allyn, especially when you compare it to the real lyrics.

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/pearljam ... etter.html

[Guest]

Thanks Steve.
When I first listened to your study on Israel it answered a couple of huge questions for me, and I did leave dispensationalism. Also I liked the fact that you have the ability to present your views, as Paidion said, "with such a different spirit, without a hint of criticism." Thank you

[Guest]

Thanks Allyn! Ryan and I laughed through the whole video!