Dispensational ‘Pre-Tribulationism’: An “American Theology”

A caveat: The following post is not intended to slam or deface Evangelical Christians who are ‘Classic’ or ‘Progressive’ Dispensational, Premillennial; and as the focal point of this post, Pre-Tribulational. Instead, this post is intended to throw out somewhat suggestive reasons for why I have come to disavow the Pre-Tribulational view in particular, and the Dispensational framework in general. I attend a church where this kind of teaching is taught; I attended a Bible College and Seminary where (for the most part) this kind of thought was communicated; and I grew up as the son of a Baptist pastor where I was weened on this kind of theology as sure as I suckled on my mother’s milk (TMI ๐Ÿ˜‰ ). Thus I am no foreigner to the sub-culture and theological and exegetical assumptions that go into developing and cultivating this kind of thinking; I, in fact, up and until probably the last 6 years was as ardent of a defender of this kind of theological tap that you might ever hope to cross-paths with. I provide all of this back-story in order to let you know, the reader, that my intention is not to be one of those kind of guys who once was this, and now that I am no longer this (and instead am that); that my goal is to destroy, belittle, and beat-up my former belief (and thus all those who still hold to it) in order to make my new belief more stable and secure — and also to make my new belief more credible, while making my old belief incredible and part of my immature theological years. This is not my intention with this post; you know, like someone who grew up as a Fundamentalist Christian, who ended up attending university, becoming an atheist professor, now bent on destroying any and all Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christians who might happen upon their cross-hairs . . . you get my point by now, I gather? Good! Let’s proceed.

Today I had a great time of fellowship and discussion with my pastor, and a fellow (and awesome) brother in Christ at our local Star Bucks (where else? we live in the Pac NW). One of the topics of discussion, brief as it may have been (on this particular issue), had to do with my proclamation that I am no longer a “Pre-Tribber” (or Dispensationalist for that matter). All along, as I made this known, I am well aware that both my pastor (and I believe brother in Christ) are both dispensational and pre-trib in orientation. I simply want to expand upon ‘why’ I am no longer pre-trib . . . (for those who don’t know ‘Pre-Tribulational’ has to do with the belief that certain Christians believe that we are facing a 7 year period [Jacob’s Trouble] that will come upon this earth that will involve upheaval and global “tribulation” that the earth has never known before [cf. Mt. 24] — in particular this is tied into the dispensational teaching on Daniel’s 70th Week found in Daniel 9 — this is where the 7 year number comes from. This period is one where God’s Wrath [as ‘The Day of the LORD’] will be focused in particularly on the Jewish nation for their rejection of the Messiah — while this “wrath” is pin-pointed on the nation of Israel, it will have global implications in which the nations of the world will rise up to destroy Israel [and they will get close], ultimately seeking battle with the God of the Bible. Since according to Pre-Tribbers, this period has to do with God’s Wrath being poured out on an unbelieving world [to the Jew first, see this principle in Rom. 2.11 for example], and since Christians have not been appointed to wrath but salvation in Christ [cf. I Thess. 5.9]; the pre-tribber argues that there is no reason for us [as the Church, part of the Church-Age] to be here. It is at this point that God’s focus is turned back onto His original prophetic plan [and that has to do with the nation of Israel, the Church—according to Dispensationalists—is simply a parenthesis in God’s original prophetic plan, which was to save Israel]. And so this, then, serves as another argument for why pre-tribbers believe that we won’t be here—it serves as an alleviation of a pressure valve of sorts—the pre-trib rapture [which says that Jesus will secretly remove His Church from this earth prior to the 7 year Tribulation period] serves as a necessary mechanism which removes the Church [a ‘Mystery Kingdom’ of sorts pace Charles Ryrie] from the scene [as a subsidiary story line in the larger plot line of God’s salvation story—again, according to pre-tribbers, as having to do originally with the nation of Israel] so that God can get back to the business of dealing with Israel—sorry for this aside, but I thought I should include this for someone who might not know what Pre-Tribulationism is about.).

. . . I am no longer pre-trib because I reject the hard and fast distinction between Israel and the Church (as does the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 2.11ff). Thus, I no longer need to have a mechanism in place that needs to somehow have the Church out of the picture so that God can supposedly deal with His real aim in salvation history; that is to save the nation of Israel. 2) I am no longer pre-trib because I believe that Paul argues against the idea—in first and second Thessalonians—that there will be a removal of the Church prior to the Lawless one, being revealed (Dispies take the ‘Lawless one’ to be the Anti-Christ); he hadn’t been revealed in the first century, and as I gather he hasn’t as of yet been revealed in our context either. This is a significant point. According to the pre-trib understanding, we will be off the scene prior to the Anti-Christ revealing himself to be someone who ought to be venerated (like God). Yet, according to Paul’s argument, in II Thessalonians (if we take all of his referents to be correlative to how pre-tribbers take them) the man of Lawlessness (or the ‘Anti-Christ’) will be revealed while the Church is present. According to pre-tribbers, the Anti-Christ will not reveal himself in the way that II Thessalonians 2 says, until the middle of the Tribulation period (at the start of the last 3.5 years of ‘Jacob’s Trouble’); this is a fatal blow (in my opinion) to the pre-trib chronology and basic argumentation (and this, granting their supposition that the Church will not experience the ‘Great Tribulation’ since they make this synonymous with ‘God’s/Lamb’s Wrath). 3) I am no longer a pre-tribber because I believe that it represents a privileged understanding of reality; or, that it is an American-exceptionalist theology. What I mean is that the pre-trib position fits well with a society who has been, relatively, pampered in her ‘American’ (Western) experience; it fits well with a society that is escapist and shaped by amusement in orientation. Go and preach pre-trib theology in the Sudan, Indonesia, or any other place in the world where Christians have been suffering ‘Great Tribulation’ on the kind of scale that one would imagine the book of Revelation to be describing. This point is not so much of an argument, but more of a call to pause and think about what ‘Tribulation’ might mean within various contexts throughout the globe—Pre-Tribulationism, in light of this, could only have taken shape in a society that, at all costs, wants to avoid any persecution, suffering, or martyrdom (this all makes sense psychologically). 4) I am no longer pre-trib because I believe the exegesis, especially the exegesis of the pre-tribber’s locus classicus—I Thessalonians 4 and I Corinthians 15—to be artificial and contrived (I could never make sense of this, even as a trained pre-tribber who understood ‘how’ they were ‘trying’ to make this work). 5) I am no longer a pre-tribber because I do not believe that either Jesus or the Apostle Paul or Peter (amongst others) presupposed this kind of theology as part of their theological oeuvre’s. 6) I am no longer pre-trib because I reject the hermeneutics that one must presuppose in order to get all the way to the pre-trib position (through dispensationalism).

I have other reasons, and concerns; but ultimately I believe that the pre-trib position, in particular, is reflective of an American Theology. While I do not believe that chronological arguments are good ones; I do think that the absence of both dispensationalism and thus pre-tribism in church history is a significant point. I could say much more, with more detail; but this post is already approx. 1500 words, and so I will close. This is obviously more of a vent, and off the top, and so take it as such.

How Can you not be an Evangelical Calvinist?

For the life of me! I have no idea how every single person who reads here has not become an Evangelical Calvinist by now. I mean with stuff like this:

God loves you so utterly and completely that he has given himself for you in Jesus Christ his beloved Son, and has thereby pledged his very being as God for your salvation. In Jesus Christ God has actualised his unconditional love for you in your human nature in such a once for all way, that he cannot go back upon it without undoing the Incarnation and the Cross and thereby denying himself. Jesus Christ died for you precisely because you are sinful and utterly unworthy of him, and has thereby already made you his own before and apart from your ever believing in him. He has bound you to himself by his love in a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease. Therefore, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.” ~T. F. Torrance, “The Mediation of Christ”, 94.

How can you click away and pretend like you didn’t just read that? I continue to be amazed at folks who stay on the same old tired path of either trodding down the classic Calvinist or Arminian trail. As if this is the only alternative. The Lord had you find your way over here for a reason; it’s about time that you repent and become an Evangelical Calvinist. Once you do you’ll never look back!

On Becoming an Evangelical Universalist

If you’re interested in Evangelical Universalism, and you want something that will really challenge your trad sensibilities; forget Rob Bell’s Love Wins!, and step up to Gregory MacDonald’s (Robin Parry’s): The Evangelical Universalist.ย  MacDonald provides coherent, cogent, and honest exegesis of all of the crux interpretums in the discussion; and beyond that, he actually tells you straight up that he is a Universalist (even though he takes a pseudonym for his pen-name for his book ๐Ÿ˜‰ ). It has really provoked my thinking, and caused me to really think about my own trad position on hell. If you’re honest, it will you too. Anyway, let’s move beyond Bell (if we’re going to have this discussion), and engage MacDonald. I’ve been processing his presentation for the last couple of days, and I’m still going to continue to hold my trad views on heaven/hell (ECT, Eternal Conscious Torment); but a little bit more gingerly than before. I plan on posting on the book a little in the days to come; I have a chapter to go, then I’ll be done with the book.

The Unmoved Spirituality, Thomas and His Impact

Carl Trueman, Church historian, and faculty at Westminster Seminary (Penn.) just penned a post on the role that historians should provide in providing perspective on the intellectual history of our past. He believes that over theย  last 1,000 years there has only been 2 major paradigm shifts that have actually been intellectual (even spiritual) paradigm shifts; one of which is the following:

Enter the church historians. ย Any intellectual historian of any merit will tell you that the last 1,000 years in the West have only produced two moments of paradigm shifting significance, and neither of them was the Reformation. ย The first was the impact of the translation into Latin of Aristotle’s metaphysical works. ย This demanded a response from the thirteenth century church. ย The response, most brilliantly represented by Thomas Aquinas, revolutionized education, transformed the philosophical landscape, opened up fruitful new avenues for theological synthesis, and set the basic shape of university education until the early eighteenth century. ย Within this intellectual context, the Reformation was to represent a critical development of Augustinian anti-Pelagianism in terms of the understanding of the church and of salvation . . . . (whole post here)

This is pivotal. This is something that I don’t think most Calvinists/Arminians grasp (or want to acknowledge). I’m not talking about folks like Trueman, Muller, Clark et. al.; I’m talking about folks involved with The Gospel Coalition, folks who follow John MacArthur, folks who follow John Piper et. al. Most folks who follow these groups and teachers and pastors believe that they don’t have an apparatus in place when they read Scripture through their Calvinist (and also Arminian) categories. Most people who are in this camp believe that they “just” read Scripture. But the reality is, is that they (by-and-large) interpret Scripture through the synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology provided by Thomas Aquinas (even if Thomas and Aristotle get “Protestantized”). The moral is, is that we all read Scripture through interpretive traditions; shouldn’t we acknowledge that, and then strive to appropriate modes of inquiry that are most proximate with the categories of Scripture? Do Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas provide the best grammar to articulate the implications and teaching of Scripture? Does Aristotle’s God, the Monad, the Unmoved Mover, the Singular Substance provide the best apparatus for articulating the Christian God who is Triune, Relational, and Love in His inner-life? If not, then why would you appeal to this interpretive tradition to do the heavy-lifting for Christian thought that it clearly cannot do? Is it because you have sentimental attachment to teachers of the “old paths” that did; is it because your pastor says this is so; is it because this is the only way you think it possible to talk about God’s sovereignty; is it because you think it’s the “Orthodox” way, and any other way is heterodox or Neo-orthodox; is it because you like a God who is static, and so you’re comfortable with a static view ๐Ÿ˜‰ ?

Evangelical Calvinism eschews this approach (the one that Trueman identifies as a major paradigm shift for Christian intellectual history). Not because we (I) think being different is cool, but because we think being different in this case is sound and reflects a more orthodox way to think about God. We think that if you start (methodologically) with a wrong approach to God, then you’ll end up with a wrong approach in living to and for God. This is why I am so motivated to continue to write about this stuff! It’s not a political power play, it’s not to impress people with intellectual acuity, it’s not because I want to win an argument, it’s not because I want to polarize the body of Christ, it’s not because I’m noble; it’s because “I” have become convinced that following Thomas (in general, methodologically) leads to a spirituality that reflects the god thatย provides an “Unmoved spirituality!”

Why I Still Reject the Flower

I was just thinking, it’s not like me to not post on why I reject TULIP theology; and yet, I haven’t really posted any kind of provocative post in that vein for quite awhile — it’s like I’m almost going soft or something ๐Ÿ˜‰ .

Let me just re-affirm for those of you whom may be starting to think that Bobby is in fact going soft on popular TULIP soteriology; I AM NOT! I still think the TULIP presents serious and terrible consequences for anyone who internalizes it, and understands its theological implications. One of my primary pastoral concerns about the TULIP, is that it fosters an introspective navel-gazing spirituality (historically known as experimental predestinarianism). This is the practice wherein a totally depraved, unconditionally ย elected person seeks to verify that he/she has actually beenย limitedly atoned for, and thus a recipient of irressitable grace by discerning through their good works that they indeed are a persevering saint. If they reach a certain threshold, and sense that indeed they have met their perceived good works quota; then they can finally rest assured that they are of those who have truly believed, and have the assurance that they didn’t just receive a temporary faith, but a real and saving faith (practical syllogism). This is one of the main reasons, pastorally, that I believe that TULIP Calvinism is a blight on Christian theology. I know too many thinking, introspective Christians — who aren’t cock-sure types about their election — who have suffered psychological woes over the problem that this TULIP (and the Arminian FACTS) system has created. In fact, the fact that folks were having these psychological woes over this issue, because of the classical theistic paradigm, made me pause for a long time and take a good look at the heritage that this TULIP theology has handed to us. The reality is clear, there are pastoral problems, because there are dogmatic problems. TULIP theology suffers from a radically wrong doctrine of God, and since all subsequent theology flows from a respective doctrine of God; TULIP soteriology and thus spirituality is also heteropraxic. This is why I still reject the Flower. What about you, do you still like the smell of the tulip?

Here’s how a Purtian layman named Humphrey Mills felt once he found release from the TULIP theology taught to him by TULIP theologian par exellence, William Perkins (he found this release through the teaching of the Puritan, Richard Sibbes who taught a non-TULIP soteriology known as “Free Grace” or “Affective Theology”):

I was for three years together wounded for sins, and under a sense of my corruptions, which were many; and I followed sermons, pursuing the means, and was constant in duties and doing: looking for Heaven that way. And then I was so precise for outward formalities, that I censured all to be reprobates, that wore their hair anything long, and not short above the ears; or that wore great ruffs, and gorgets, or fashions, and follies. But yet I was distracted in my mind, wounded in conscience, and wept often and bitterly, and prayed earnestly, but yet had no comfort, till I heard that sweet saint . . . Doctor Sibbs, by whose means and ministry I was brought to peace and joy in my spirit. His sweet soul-melting Gospel-sermons won my heart and refreshed me much, for by him I saw and had muchof God and was confident in Christ, and could overlook the world . . . My heart held firm and resolved and my desires all heaven-ward. (Ron Frost. Kelly Kapic and Randall Gleason, eds., โ€œThe Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics,โ€ Frost is quoting from: John Rogers, Ohel or Bethshemesh, A Tabernacle for the Sun (London, n.p., 1653)

Caveat: To be very clear, I’m not attacking good Calvinist or Arminian people; I know there are sincere Christ loving people who are genuinely committed to TULIP Calvinism. In fact, my motivation and passion for this,ย is because I love these people, and I want to jolt them out of the slumberous spirituality that TULIP Calvinism leads someone into. Obviously, I’m very convinced that there is something really wrong with TULIP Calvinism; I think it fails on exegetical grounds as well as dogmatic/theological grounds, and thus impinges on people’s daily walks with Jesus Christ! TULIP Calvinism is much too popular in America for my liking, its over-communicated and under-communicated — just the fact that it’s communicated at all is a problem. My hope with posts like this, as snarky and punky as it is; is intended to provoke and pick a fight with anyone who endorses TULIP Calvinism. I want to fight over your doctrine of God and your subsequent view of salvation; I think it’s wacky, and (seriously) has real life consequences for folks that are not good (yet, it’s not the “consequences of belief” that shape my beef with TULIP Calvinism, it is TULIP Calvinism itself that is problematic). One more point: I am obviously not a pluralist or normative relativist (which qualifies my type of “Evangelicalism” ๐Ÿ˜‰ ); I actually believe that there is a more right view and a more wrong view, guess which side of those that I think I am on ๐Ÿ˜‰ ? I’m convinced of something, are you . . . ? [yet, I don’t also think I have it all figured out either]

"Can't We All Get Along? Nope!" Those crazy classic calvinists and arminians at it again . . .

I was alerted to a post by my Minders ๐Ÿ˜‰ over at Parchment & Pen Blog. Sam Storms wrote a post articulating the exhausting and tired old fodder that makes up the usual discussion surrounding who God is and thus what salvation looks like from a Classic Calvinist perspective. Predictably the status quo debate has now ensued in the comment meta, wherein I felt it my duty — given my Keepers ๐Ÿ˜‰ — to do due diligence and alert these somewhat well intentioned brethren to how wrong they are. Per my humble self, I have registered three comments now; and according to the normal communication loop, thus far (at the writing of this post), there has been no response to the sheer brilliance that I have evinced (for free, no less ๐Ÿ˜‰ ) on their rather pedantic and typical exchange. Here is what my last comment said over there (although I don’t know if it will remain my last comment):

Also, it is naive to assume that the only categories to work from in this debate are those represented by the polar opposites of Classic Calvinism/Arminianism. The reason you guys canโ€™t get anywhere is because you all operate from the same philosophical ground provided by Thomas Aquinas or Thomism. Let me clear it up for all of you: you are all what is called classical theists, and thus itโ€™s not a matter of offering different conceptual schemas about the nature of God or man; instead itโ€™s just an issue of shifting your referent points and emphasizing different syllAblEs with the same words. You both Calv/Arm (classics) believe God works through โ€œdecreesโ€ construed through the metaphysics and causality provided by Aristotle; you both suppose that God is a โ€œsubstanceโ€ (who has accidents, so His attributes and persons); you both believe that grace and sin are created qualities ( privatio); you both believe that by Spirit imbued grace you are enabled to cooperate (operative grace or habitus) with God in your salvation (or that youโ€™ll Persevere); you both believe that predestination and election have to do with particular people instead of a Particular person (the God-man); you both believe that eternal life and damnation have to do with quantity vs. Trinitarian relationship; you both believe that the cross represents a transactional moment wherein God buys an โ€œelectโ€ group of people (whether that be based upon his arbitrary choice or His foreknowledge) โ€” so your reductionistic view of a forensics only atonement; and you both are simply dead wrong! Can it be anymore clear than that ;-) ?

Obviously, I am being somewhat facetious with some of the tone of my post here; but in all reality it is only “some” of my tone, most of it — in principle — I am quite serious about! Classic Calvinists and Arminians simply do not get it! Most of these fine folks (who I am sure love the Lord) in this thread — have never really considered the fact that the “history” of the Reformed tradition itself has much more nuance to it than the rather sociologically popular forms of Calvinism and Arminianism that they have been taken by, actually exists — in the history! Clearly, you can disagree with me (and be wrong ๐Ÿ™‚ ), but you cannot disagree that the “history” of the Reformed tradition (and that includes Barth, Torrance, et al) has conceptual possibilities; that as of yet, most Christians who claim the name Calvinist or Arminian have never ventured into. That really is my point. Sure, you can disagree with me; but don’t forget my point!

Christian Doctrine, "A Wash?"

Do you ever get the impression that for most Christians doctrine doesn’t really matter? I get the sense sometimes, that for those for whom it doesn’t; figure that they’re saved, they’re on their way to heaven, so things like doctrine and theology really don’t matter.

I realize that some are called to “teach/preach”, but this presupposes that those who are being taught are learning; and further, that as they learn they are going out and teaching themselves (this used to be called “disciple-making”). I also realize that life is truly busy, it just is! And that for the normal American (or Western) person this leaves precious little time for serious time of Bible study and reflection. But then again, I bet we all have time to carve out of the day where we could engage in study and thought that would contribute to our growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Just a quick little reflection. I wonder what you think about Christian doctrine and growth in this area for all Christians; do you think it’s really a “wash” in the end, that we’re going to heaven anyway, so what else matters as long as I am “saved?”