The Good News of God's Foreknowledge

This is the fifth and final article in my series on man's free will and God's foreknowledge.
If you missed them, check out part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4. 
If you enjoyed this series and want to catch future posts, 
don't forget to subscribe to the blog.

God’s foreknowledge is at the root of our election. (1 Pet. 1:2) But the question remains: what does that mean? We saw in the last article that God’s foreknowledge is not merely something He sees, but something He does. Yet that still doesn't tell us exactly what it is. In this final article in the series, I want to lay out a thorough definition of God’s foreknowledge from Scripture itself so we can see why it is such good news.

How “foreknowledge” is used in Scripture

The word is only used twice as a noun (prognosis - foreknowledge) and five times as a verb (proginosko - to foreknow) in the New Testament. These occurrences are, generally speaking, fairly spread out. But interestingly, two of the seven uses are found in chapter one of 1 Peter. The first mention of the term there is in the verse referenced at the beginning of this article, which says that we are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God.” (1 Pet. 1:2) The other use is in 1 Pet. 1:20, “[Christ] indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you…” Did you catch it? Peter is speaking of Christ and using the same word in the original text (prognosis) that is used of our election. But here it’s translated as “foreordained”—and with good reason. (ESV is consistent in translating it “He was foreknown…”) This verse obviously does not just mean that the Father “knew Christ’s autonomous decisions ahead of time.” Rather, it is speaking about the fact that Christ was “known” and ordained—appointed from eternity past in God’s redemptive plan as the Savior of all. This use of the term already shows clearly that God’s “foreknowledge” (prognosis) is more than His passive observation of the future. 

Another important passage for understanding the concept of “foreknowledge” in the New Testament is Acts 2:23, in which Peter says of Christ, “Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death…” (emph. mine) Let me rephrase that so we catch the importance and full impact of this statement. Peter says, “God’s set plan and foreknowledge delivered Jesus over to you, and you took Him and killed and crucified Him with lawless hands.” God’s foreknowledge and “set plan” were something that ordained and led to the crucifixion of Christ, though it was indeed the hands of lawless men who carried this out and bear the guilt for it. 

Now, to be fair, there are two places in the New Testament where the word prognosis is used in the sense of simply knowing something ahead of time or from the beginning. However, these two uses concern man’s “knowing from the beginning”, not God’s. When it is used of God, foreknowledge implies not simply a passive observation of future events, but rather some activity on the part of God that leads to the accomplishment of His will. In the apocryphal book of Judith the word “foreknowledge” is also used in this way. Praying to God, there is a line where Judith says, “You have designed the things that are now and those that are to come. Yea, the things you intended came to pass, and the things you decided presented themselves and said, ‘Lo, we are here'; for all your ways are prepared in advance, and your judgment is with foreknowledge.” That is, God’s foreknowledge is here again tied with God’s determined plan. They are nearly synonyms. While this book is not part of Scripture, it does give us further insight into the way they word was used and understood at that time.

In Rom. 8:29, concerning God’s election of Christians, Paul says, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.” This “foreknowing” is not merely to “know in advance”. We can see that clearly because Paul uses this term again about God's election of Israel in Rom. 11:2, saying, “God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew…” God “foreknew” His people Israel. The context emphasizes that His foreknowledge and sovereign election of Israel is the grounds of His continued faithfulness to them. If foreknowledge was merely seeing the future in advance, surely God would’ve seen that Israel as a whole would turn away from Him and reject Christ. If it were only about foreseeing, God would likely not have elected them! God's election of Israel was not based on “future faith” since, as a whole, that faith in Christ was lacking on the part of Israel. The context again clearly shows that foreknowledge is more than just knowing the future.

Why call it “foreknowledge”?

If “foreknowledge” is not simply knowledge about the future, why call it “foreknowledge”? Here it is important also to understand what “know” means in this case. There are actually a number of Greek words that are translated “know” in our English Bibles, though each has its own unique emphasis. The word “foreknowledge” (prognosis), comes from the Greek word gnosis, or “to know”. This particular Greek word primarily speaks of an experiential and personal knowledge, not just theory or information. Gnosis is the same word that is used of when a man “knew” his wife and they bore a child. Obviously this does not mean he just passively obtained information about her! To say you “know” (ginosko) someone implies a relationship, not just knowledge about someone.

In fact, we even retain this difference in English to some extent. It’s one thing to know about a person, and another to know that person. When referring to people, to say you “know” someone implies relationship with them. So when we read that God “elected us according to foreknowledge”, we must understand that it’s not merely speaking of information that God obtained by passive observance of some future choice. Rather, it speaks of God’s choice to enter into loving relationship—to love us from before the foundation of the world. It is important also to see that Scripture never speaks of unbelievers as being “foreknown”. Think about this: if God’s foreknowledge only means His seeing the future, it would be equally proper to say He “foreknew” unbelievers just as He does believers. But the word is never used like that in Scripture. It is always exclusively the elect who are “foreknown” by God. In fact, it is not even said that our decisions are foreknown—as if foreknowledge were informational—but rather that we ourselves are foreknown.

This understanding of knowledge as personal relationship is clear in the OT as well. God says to Jeremiah in Jer. 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” In other words, God had known, chosen and loved Jeremiah before he was even born. In Amos 3:2 God says of Israel, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth…” Now, does that mean God lacks information about other nations? Of course not. The knowledge God speaks of here is a personal, intimate knowledge—a choice on God’s part to enter into covenant relationship with His elect people Israel. In the New Testament in similar fashion, Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount tells of those who come to Him at the last day and say, “Lord, Lord, didn’t we do all these good deeds in your name?” Jesus answers, “I never knew you.” (Mt. 7:23) Does that mean that Christ did not see them or have information about them? No, it means these people were busy being religious, but never received Christ’s love, never had a personal relationship.

So, let’s summarize the definition of foreknowledge in the Bible. That God has “foreknown” the elect does not mean that He merely looked down the corridor of time to see the future, libertarian choice of those who will respond in faith to the Gospel and elected those. God’s foreknowledge is not just a passive observation of future decisions, and we are not the source of our election. As we saw, there are many problems with that view. Rather, God’s foreknowledge is His gracious choice to love His people, His elect—to “know” them before the foundation of the world and enter into covenant with them. It is not that we chose Him and then He elected us in response. Rather, as John says, “We love Him because He first loved us.” (1 Jn. 4:19) God’s foreknowledge is His active love—His will to enter into covenant relationship with us. And here we can already begin to understand why God’s foreknowledge is such good news.

The good news of God’s foreknowledge

The good news of God’s foreknowledge is that He has chosen to love us from eternity past. He has chosen to bring us into relationship with Himself and He is the one who draws us. The rest of 1 Peter 1:2 hashes out what exactly this election leads to, “…elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied.” We are chosen by God because He has loved us from all eternity. He foreknew us, and desired to enter into relationship with us as His own people. The Father is the source of our election. The second phrase speaks of the outworking of our election: by the sanctification of the Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who works in our hearts to bring us to God. It is He who convicts, draws and regenerates us and makes us holy by the grace of God. But how does He do this? By bringing us “to obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Christ.” It is the blood of Christ that washes us from sin and makes us holy. The Spirit applies the sacrifice of Christ to us. The Father initiates our acceptance of that sacrifice by His electing love. The whole triune God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—have collaborated together to make us His own people! How glorious! The obedience that it speaks of here is the obedience of faith in the Gospel. The Holy Spirit, sent by the Father who foreknew us, draws us to Christ and reveals the Gospel to us that we may obey and submit to it.

Make no mistake; this is real obedience and submission. Man’s natural tendency is to rely on his own strength, to try and prove himself, to make himself good enough. It was Martin Luther who taught that self-righteousness is the default mode of the human heart. Therefore, we must indeed submit to the Gospel and not resist God’s grace. We must let go of our self-confidence and place all our confidence in Christ. We must not look to any of our own works for salvation, but only to His work for us on the cross. We must obey the message of grace that He has done it all, that it is finished, and all we must do is receive. 

At this point it's likely someone would argue that I am implying something I'm not. While I do believe that God’s election is unconditional, based on His own choice to love us, I do not believe this means that the grace of God is “irresistible”. One might ask, “But how can that be if our election is from God?” I have no idea! But as I mentioned in my previous article on logic vs. Scripture, it is not our job to reconcile all points of Scripture with our fallen reasoning. Our job is to assert what Scripture does and Scripture asserts the good news of God’s foreknowledge, as well as the danger of resisting His call. In God’s election of us, in the Father’s foreknowledge of us as His children, in the Holy Spirit’s work in our hearts to make us His own, and in being washed by the blood of Christ and submitting to the good news of the Gospel—we are filled with grace and peace. They are multiplied and spill over as we grasp more and more this wonderful salvation which is all of grace—and that is truly good news! Let us rejoice then in God’s foreknowledge, by which he has chosen to love us and make us His own and give all the glory to God alone.

The Basis of God's Election

This article is the fourth in a series on man's free will and God's foreknowledge.
If you missed them, check out part 1, part 2 and part 3.
Subscribe to the blog to make sure you don't miss the rest of the series.

You are not the basis for your election. And it's a good thing—because if you were, you'd never have been elected in the first place. In the last article, we saw that God’s perfect knowledge of the future implies that the future is determined. But I left this question unanswered: on what basis is the future determined? Or, to give it a more blatantly soteriological flavor: what is the basis for your election as God's child? Answer: NOT YOU. Yet some Christians would explain it this way: “God looks down the corridor of time with His perfect knowledge of the future, sees those who will respond with faith to the Gospel, and elects them.” A more modern analogy is that God has “watched a movie of the future” and based His election on what He sees. In other words, they think that our being “elect according to the foreknowledge of God” (1 Pet. 1:2) means nothing more than that God knows the future perfectly and bases His election of us on our own future decisions. To put it in theological categories, this is an Arminian understanding of God’s election known as “conditional election”. They contend that God’s election of believers is based on His seeing in advance who will have faith when presented with the Gospel and then He elects those. Besides the fact that the real, biblical meaning of "foreknowledge" is more than just knowledge of the future (which we'll get to in the next article), there are a couple big problems with this understanding.

First, it makes man the fountainhead and foundation of his own election. It essentially implies that those who are just a little more spiritually open, more spiritually insightful or sensitive, etc.—these are the ones whom God chooses. But the Bible says that God elected us “according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:4-5), not “according to His ability to see our future choice and spiritual openness on a celestial movie screen.” God also said to Israel through Moses in Deut 7:7-8, “The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the Lord loves you…” In other words: "You are elect not because of anything in yourselves. If that were the case, you wouldn't be elect because... well, you're not that great! But you have been chosen because God has loved you. God loves you because He loves you." The same goes for us as Christians. God says that His own love is the source of our election, not anything in us. His goodness, not ours, is the basis of our identity as His children. 

Second, this theory of conditional election is really an attempt to leave some semblance of man's libertarian freedom in tact. It's as though God at some point before creation looked into a (non-existent) hypothetical future where men have libertarian freedom to choose God in their own power and then God chose the elect on the basis of this fiction. A person who upholds conditional election may very well agree that at the present time the future is set and cannot be changed. But their concept of God's election implies that it was based on a libertarian future which God supposedly saw in eternity past. The claim is that at least this way the “responsibility” is on man for his election, even if it is now determined.

But there’s a problem: The reality where man's will is not fallen and has libertarian freedom does not exist. If God's election were based on viewing some such hypothetical world, then He would be electing fictional characters instead of real people. But if God knows the actual future perfectly and precisely, then He also knew that we would NOT choose Him apart from His own, gracious drawing. As I laid out in my previous article on free will, man’s will is unable to desire God and, moreover, to believe in the Gospel unless God should initiate a work in his heart by grace. So, if God deals in reality rather than fiction (which I believe He does), there would be nothing positive in the elect to foresee that He Himself didn't graciously bring about. And if He merely foresees a person's "free choice"—the unrestricted expression of their fallen will—then there is nothing to foresee except sin and rebellion against the Gospel. And hence, no one would be elect. This is why the idea that our election flows from ourselves while God is a passive observer cannot hold up under scrutiny. 

The Bible clearly says that man is not the source of his own election. He cannot even desire to be elect without God’s supernatural work on his heart. Man’s will is not “free” in the sense that he could, in his own power, want God. Nevertheless, man does bear responsibility for his own sin. Why? Because he chooses it without any influence from God. That is, as I mentioned before, man does have a limited kind of “freedom”. We are free to choose what we want, and so we bear responsibility for our choice. The problem is, in our fallen will, we want sin. And because sin is what we want, we are responsible for it. While the Bible clearly points to God as the source of our gracious election, it just as clearly points to man as the source of his own sin and consequent damnation. Some might try to argue that, “logically”, if God predestines the elect for salvation, He must predestine the reprobate for damnation. While we might tend to reason in this way, the Bible knows of no such doctrine. Again, we must follow Scripture over our natural reasoning. We are in need of God’s gracious intervention to be saved. We don’t need any help in damning ourselves—we can manage that one on our own. It was Charles Spurgeon who wrote: "Damnation is all of man, from top to bottom, and salvation is all of grace, from first to last. He that perishes chooses to perish; but he that is saved is saved because God has chosen to save him."

So what does all this mean for the fact that God elects us “according to His foreknowledge”? It implies that God’s “foreknowledge” must be something more than simple, passive observation of our choice in advance. Our choice, by itself, is always wrong. Foreknowledge must imply not merely something that God sees, but something that God does to overcome the natural inclination of our fallen will. So what is God’s foreknowledge? This is what I’ll look at in the next and final article in this series.

If God Knows the Future...

This article is the third in a series on man's free will and God's foreknowledge.
If you missed them, check out part 1 and part 2.
Subscribe to the blog to make sure you don't miss the rest of the series.

“…elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…” 1 Peter 1:2

It’s no coincidence that Peter begins his first epistle to the suffering church with God’s election. He does so because God’s benevolent sovereignty towards us as believers should be a source of great joy and comfort, particularly in times of serious trial. How tragic it is that (apparently for some Christians) God’s gracious election of us as His children should be more a cause for argument and contention than it is for worship and joy. Nevertheless, the question of how God’s election works has haunted the church for centuries and cannot be sidestepped. A large part of the debate centers around the word “foreknowledge”, which I will be looking at in-depth in this and the next couple of posts. The greatest difficulty in understanding the Bible’s teaching on foreknowledge is in developing an accurate definition of the term. But before we come to a full-fledged, biblical definition, we need to deal with some of our assumptions about the word.

We read the English word “foreknowledge” and probably just assume that it means to know something before it happens. In other words, we think foreknowledge is a kind of synonym for prophecy. We talk as though God’s foreknowledge is just part of His omniscience. That is, because He knows everything, He must know the future as well. The Greek word used in the New Testament for “foreknowledge” is prognosis, from which we get the modern English word. But in English, a prognosis is really more of an educated guess, a forecast about the future, rather than any kind of sure knowledge. Doctors give prognoses of a disease—but sometimes they're correct, and sometimes they're not. I will show in a following article that the biblical concept of foreknowledge, or prognosis in the NT, does not refer merely God’s knowledge of the future. Nevertheless, we can at least start from the fact that God does know the future. The Bible states this clearly and there are some important consequences of God's knowledge of the future which relate to the question at hand.

First, the Bible plainly declares that God does not just guess about the future. We read in Isa. 46:9-10, “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure.’” God is unequivocal about His exact knowledge of future events. God does not just offer “prognoses” about the future, but knows the future with certainty. If He did not, prophecy of any kind would be impossible. In fact, God knows the future with such detail, that David writes in Ps. 139:4,16, “There is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O Lord, You know it altogether… in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.” God’s knows the future “altogether” as the Psalmist says. He knows the future without error and completely—and not just the big events, but in minute detail. The future which God knows meticulously is guaranteed to take place. Every day of your life, David says, is written in God’s book even before you are born. Let this blow your mind for a second: God already knows and already knew from eternity every thought you will think, every word you will say, every decision you will make, every breath you will breathe until the day you die! There is nothing hidden before Him, “but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.” (Heb. 4:13)

Open Theism: Right Problem, Wrong Conclusion

Most orthodox Christians agree on the fact that God knows the future. But there are a few Christians out there who believe in what is called “open theism”. Basically, open theism says that God does not know the future because it is contingent on our decisions which haven’t been made yet and is therefore unknowable in principle. The future, they say, is “open” for any number of alternate possibilities—hence the name “open theism”. Of course, this directly contradicts Scripture which says, for example, in 1 Jn. 3, “God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.”  “All things” would include the future as well.

So why does the open theist affirm that God doesn’t know the future? Because they correctly realize the dilemma: if God does know the future perfectly and with absolute certainty, then the future cannot be other than what God knows it to be. That implies that the future is “closed”, rather than “open”. There are no other “possible futures” than the one God knows to exist. Further, they argue that then there would be no “real free will”. If God knows the future, that means we cannot actually choose anything that would be contrary to that future which God knows will take place. Confused yet?

If you’ve seen The Matrix trilogy, perhaps this illustration will help. There is a character called “the Oracle” who can see the future. In one scene, she asks Neo (the hero of the story) if he wants some candy. Neo asks her in return, “Do you already know if I'm going to take it?” She answers, “I wouldn’t be much of an oracle if I didn’t.” And he replies, “But if you already know, how can I make a choice?” That’s exactly the problem that open theism realizes. What they are saying is, “God’s perfect knowledge of future events would destroy human libertarian free will. Things could not be other than He knows them to be. You cannot choose other than He knows you will.”

The implications of God’s perfect knowledge of the future are rightly understood by the open theists. God’s perfect knowledge of the future does destroy what is called “libertarian free will”—the possibility of a future other than the one God knows. The problem with open theism is not that they realize the contradiction of libertarian free will and God’s perfect knowledge of the future, but that they make the wrong conclusion. They would rather cling to free will and deny that God perfectly and precisely knows the future, even though “He wouldn’t be much of a God if He didn’t.” They are happy to sacrifice God's omniscience on the altar of their autonomy. This is sad, but not surprising. Man has wanted to be in the place of God ever since the Garden of Eden. We want to be the ones to determine the future. We want to put God on our level—or rather, put ourselves on His level. Despite their erroneous conclusion, open theism correctly understands what God’s perfect knowledge of the future implies.

So, before we go further in the discussion of God’s “foreknowledge”, we need to understand this: If God knows the future precisely and perfectly, then that future must take place. It cannot be other than it is. It is determined. Otherwise, God couldn’t actually know the future or at least may be mistaken about it. Therefore, God’s perfect knowledge of the future and the foreordination of that future are inextricably linked. They are two sides of the same theological coin. If God knows the future, then it must be determined.  And if it is not determined, then God cannot know it.  Of course, it’s one thing to say that the future is determined. But that does not answer the question of the basis on which it is determined. This is the question I will look at in the next post as we work towards a biblical definition of God's foreknowledge.

Lines in the Doctrinal Sand: Logic vs. Scripture

This article is the second in a series on man's free will and God's foreknowledge.  Read part 1 here.
Subscribe to the blog to make sure you don't miss the rest of the series.

“The five points of Calvinism stand or fall together!”  You may have heard that polarizing statement before (as have I) from both those who would reject all five points as well as from those who accept all five points.  But I'm going to have to cry foul for a very simple reason: I accept some points, but not others.  And there is an ever-increasing number of four-point Calvinists out there, as well as Lutherans who accept at least two of the points. Even classical Arminians accept one of the five.  So the facts show that many believers do not hold the five together.  This question has important implications for how we relate logic and Scripture to each other.  

When a person argues that the five points of Calvinism stand or fall together, what they most likely mean is that the five points of Calvinism are a whole, logical set.  One can at least see how the points do work together logically, but that doesn’t mean it’s all or none.  Why not?  To understand, we have to push a bit further.  One might continue the line of reasoning and say that the five points of Calvinism also logically imply the lack of necessity to evangelize, or the supralapsarian position (a minority position among Reformed believers that the logical order of God’s decrees first chose the non-elect for damnation and then ordained the fall to accomplish this, thereby implicating God in a sort of “cookies-made-to-burn” theology.)  These are positions more often associated with what might be called hyper-Calvinism.  They are also positions which an overwhelming majority of Reformed believers would reject.  We would do well to remember that, in engaging with believers of other persuasions, we must learn to interact with what they actually claim to believe, not with what we think their position implies.  Anything less is dishonest and only leads to division and accusation, rather than healthy discussion.

If you wanted to press this logical progression, you might argue like this: “Well, IF, as the Calvinist says, God’s grace is irresistible, then it is impossible that any of the elect should fail to receive Christ.  Therefore, it is unnecessary to evangelize.”  Now, we might say that this is a solid, logical progression.  But it is obviously not biblical, as Christ called us to preach the Gospel to the whole world (Mk. 16:15).  At the end of the day, our goal is to be ruled by Scripture, not human logic.  This is true for the Reformed believer as well as the non-Reformed.  Aside from the rare hyper-Calvinist (who traditional Calvinists usually have little patience for), you will not find a Reformed believer who thinks that evangelism is futile and unnecessary.  The Reformed believer also draws his line in the doctrinal sand at some point and says, “I can see how it might be considered logical, but it is not biblical and that settles it.”  The difference between the Reformed and non-Reformed believer is where we think that line ought to be drawn, not the basis on which it should be drawn—Scripture.  

For example, one can see how the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement is a logical consequence of the other four points.  It is claimed, “If Christ’s death truly did pay for the sins of all those for whom He died, then He must have died only for the elect, since God would be unjust to punish those sins for which Christ already bore the penalty.”  Is that a logical argument?  Sure. The problem is, in my evaluation, it is not biblical.  Clear passages like 1 Jn. 2:2 say that, “And He [Christ] Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.”  Our job is not to find a logical reconciliation for everything taught in Scripture, but rather to hold everything that Scripture teaches in faith, whether we can exhaustively explain it or not.  Sure, we try to make the best sense of it we can, but ultimately we have to humble ourselves and admit with Paul, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!” (Rom. 11:33)

We have generally learned to practice this kind of biblically faithful humility when it comes to the being of God Himself.  For example, we might concede that there is a certain humanly-logical consistency to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view of God.  Their reasoning would go, “The Bible says clearly that there is one God.  God is a personal being, not an impersonal force.  The essence of a personal being is his personality.  And if there is one God only, then it stands to reason that God is uni-personal.  To state that God has multiple personalities is to state that there are multiple gods, which is heresy.”  Is their argument logical?  Sure, to a degree (we won’t get into the incorrect assumptions this argument makes here).  But is it biblical?  Absolutely not!  The Bible states that there is One God, eternally existent in three distinct persons.  Is that “logical”?  Well, I haven’t yet met a person who has fully wrapped their head around that one.  But is it biblical?  Absolutely.  At the end of the day, we need to draw our lines in the doctrinal sand not according to the dictates of supposed human logic, but in submission to the inspired and infallible text of the Bible.  We tend to have more of a humility about this when it comes to the ineffable being of God, realizing that we finite mortals shouldn’t actually be able to fully comprehend Him.  But we ought to also realize that the principle is the same when it comes to salvation.  After all, if “salvation is of the Lord” (Jon. 2:9) as Scripture says, why would we assume that we should be able to completely figure it out any more than we could figure out the being of God?

Does this mean that God is not logical?  No, it simply means that our logic, along with the rest of our being, was distorted and broken at the Fall.  Theologians speak of the noetic effects of the Fall—that our thoughts and reason are also impaired as a result of sin.  If we cannot square the truths of Scripture with our understanding of logic, surely the problem is with our own sin-broken mind, not the Word of God.  But that means that we will likely run into Scriptural truths that defy our deficient human logic.

Returning to the original question of why the logical consistency of the five points of Calvinism doesn’t mean that they “must stand of fall together”, the answer is this: logic is not the final authority; Scripture is.  I, for one, hold that man is entirely fallen and unable of himself to come to Christ “unless the Father draws him.” (Jn. 6:44)  I also hold that we ourselves are not the cause of God’s election, but rather His own love and good will towards us is the source of His election (more on this in the next article). (Eph. 1:4-5)  But I would also say that doctrines like limited atonement or irresistible grace (the L and I of Calvinism’s TULIP), while perhaps having a measure of logical consistency, are not consistent with the biblical text. (I Tim. 4:10, Lk. 7:30 respectively.) Can I exhaustively harmonize all this?  No.  Fortunately, that's not my job.  My task—and the task of every Christian—is to hold what Scripture teaches as best I am able.  My own soteriological middle-road position (and that of many others) is proof that the five points do not have to stand or fall together. Whatever stands must stand on Scripture, not mere logic.  

So, if you are guilty of trying to caricaturize Reformed believers (or Arminians for that matter), claiming that they must believe what we think are the logical implications of their position, stop.  It is neither honest nor gracious nor productive.  Plus, it actually just makes us look ignorant of the other person's position.  We must realize that Reformed and non-Reformed Christians alike are drawing a line in the doctrinal sand where they believe the Bible to draw that line.  Granted, we draw the lines in somewhat different places, but we all hopefully acknowledge that we must be ruled by the Scriptural text, not our own understanding of logic.  This gracious acknowledgement will leave room for discussion between Reformed and non-Reformed brothers and sisters on the common foundation of Scripture.  And hopefully it will help us to stop wrongfully ascribing extreme positions to those who do not hold them.

Second, we must beware of the trap of our own fallen logic.  The Scripture is our guide to truth, not our reasoning and implications from it.  Any one doctrinal position pushed ad absurdum to its logical end will lead to imbalance and even heresy (as in the example of God’s oneness noted above.)  We must be willing to be honest with ourselves and ask if some of our doctrines aren’t built more on logic than on Scripture.  The truth is that as soon as we think we have the mysteries of the divine boxed into our own broken logic, it’s probably a good sign that we’ve got something wrong.

Why You Don’t Believe in Free Will

This article is the first in a series on man's free will and God's foreknowledge.
Be sure to subscribe here to make sure you don't miss the rest of the series.

One of the big issues in discussing soteriology (how salvation works) is the question of man’s “free will”.  Let me start right out with this plea: please stop saying that people have free will!  Not because you’re a Calvinist, but because you’re a Christian and you don’t really believe in “free will”.  Let me explain why.  During the Reformation era, a group of theologians formally made this statement:

“Man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing." 

This grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of a good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting, awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ.”

You might be thinking, “What extreme, Calvinist theologians laid out these words denying the free will of man and his innate ability to believe in the Gospel?”  Answer: the followers of Jacob Arminius.  That’s right, these words were laid out in the third and fourth Articles of Remonstrance, which became the foundational statement for the soteriological system we call Arminianism.

So first, realize that when a Christian says that we have “free will”, not only would the Calvinist adamantly disagree, but any self-respecting Arminian would as well, and so should everyone in between (which is where my own position falls.)  The problem is the term “free”.  The dictionary defines “free” as “unfettered, unrestrained, the state of not being enslaved.”  Is that what we believe? That we are not enslaved?  Jesus said that we are slaves to sin. (Jn. 8:34) Do we really believe that our will was unaffected by the fall, such that we are able to come to God on our own?  Again, Jesus counters, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” (Jn. 6:44) In other words, man’s will is not free to choose God in its own strength.

In the history of the Christian Church, there was a man who promoted the idea that humans have free will.  His name was Pelagius and he was justly condemned as a heretic in the 5^th century.  He taught that man, in his own natural ability, has the power to attain moral perfection and choose to obey God, thus attaining salvation.  A later revision called semi-Pelagianism (also condemned as heresy in the 6^th century) stated that while man could not attain perfection without the addition of God’s grace, he was yet capable of making the first steps towards God in his own power.  The Apostle Paul takes exception to this, saying, “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God.” (Rom. 3:10-11) No man, in his own strength, seeks for God or wills to come to Him.  Rather, God must graciously initiate and draw us to Christ, or we simply will not come. 

I remember reading Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will a number of years ago.  What struck me was the problem of terms.  I had heard many Christians defend “free will”, but as I read, I recognized that the “free will” Luther was arguing against was something most Evangelical believers would also reject.  Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to hear Christians today affirm that man has “free will”.  In all honesty, I’ve heard a number of pastors from my own tribe say this, though I doubt they really mean what the term implies.  As we have just defined it, we don’t actually believe in “free will”.  My guess is the majority of Christians who say they believe in “free will” don’t really believe that man can come to God on his own, or be the initiator of his own salvation.  I believe that when many Christians speak of  “free will”, they mean “real will”.  We do have a will.  It is real, but it is not free.  It is in the bondage of sin.  And, left to itself, it never chooses God.  For that we need the work of grace, the drawing of the Father upon our will to lead us to Christ.  That does not mean that the will is unimportant, but that it has no ability of its own unless God imparts it.

When the Reformed believer hears a non-Reformed believer talk about “free will”, he likely thinks we mean what’s called libertarian free will.  That is, absolute, innate freedom and power to make any possible choice, including coming to God.  It should then be no surprise that all our careless talk of “free will” makes the Reformed believer concerned that we are in serious, Pelagian-style error.  That would be a serious problem if we actually believed it!  But chances are we simply mean that we have a real will, that our will, enabled and illuminated only by the effective working of God’s grace, must respond to God’s call.  It would be helpful if we just said that, rather than tossing about the misleading term of “free will”.  While the Reformed and non-Reformed brother or sister would still likely disagree as to the exact nature of the gracious work God must do in drawing us to Himself, at least both would clearly understand that no one is promoting the heretical position of semi-Pelagianism.  We do possess a real will, but without God’s interference it will always exert itself in opposition to God.  As the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.”  Our wills are only “free” to act in accordance with their nature, but that nature is fallen and our will cannot choose what it ought (to come to God) without His initiative.    

So first, let’s realize that the differences between Reformed and non-Reformed brothers are probably not as great as we often make them seem by using improper terms.  Realize that when you say, “I believe in free will,” the Reformed believer hears “man is not completely fallen”.  And when the Reformed believer says, “Man does not have free will”, you probably hear something scary like fatalism where man’s will is completely unimportant or violated.  Don’t.  Because that’s not what either side means.  Stop speaking like semi-Pelagians, since that’s not really what you mean.  Even Arminius would scold you for affirming “free will”.*   

In reality, it is the unbelieving world that is essentially Pelagian.  Modern, western culture tells us that man is basically good and “you can do anything if you put your mind to it”.  I wonder if the modern church in the west hasn’t let its terms be dictated more by our culture than Scripture.  And if we have indeed begun to attribute any small part of our coming to God to our own ability, spiritual openness or insightfulness, rather than to God’s patient and relentless drawing of our hardened hearts to Himself—let us repent and return to a position where God gets all the glory, for He alone is the Author of salvation.

*Note: Some have suggested using the term "freed will" instead of "free will" to clarify this important distinction that man's will must be graciously acted upon by God to be free.  This term, while not clarifying exactly to whom and how that action of God applies, is still a significant improvement.  

The Myth of an Un-contextualized Gospel

You have never heard the un-contextualized Gospel. There is one simple reason: it doesn’t exist. Every Gospel conversation or presentation you’ve ever heard has already been contextualized. If it wasn't, you couldn’t hear it. In a bygone era of the foreign missions enterprise, before anyone came up with the term “contextualize”, people used to speak of “indigenizing” the Gospel. But that term implied that the missionary was seeking to take his own civilized, “pure” Gospel and smuggle it into the receiving culture in native garb. This was all temporary though. The missionaries’ cultural goal was to get the natives to adopt “sensible Christian values”. Of course, this generally meant white, individualistic European and American cultural values. But there was a problem that few missionaries seemed to realize at the time: the Gospel of American and European society had been just as contextualized for them as it had to be for anyone else. This idea only began to be explored in depth later in the 20th century. In reality, the way the Gospel is contextualized in our modern, Western society would look alien to first-century, Near Eastern Christians. Certainly we are not so naive as to think that ours is the first culture that has a grasp on the "pure" Gospel. No culture, including mine or yours, has a monopoly on the Good News. While I’m sure there are more, I want to give you three problems we bring about when we shirk a well-thought-out contextualization of the Gospel. 

A Cultural Superiority Complex

First, by thinking that we possess an “un-contextualized” Gospel, we artificially set ourselves on a plane that does not exist. This is most obvious in the fact that each one of us heard the Gospel in a language we understand. As soon as any particular language is used to convey the Gospel, contextualization has already begun. The claim falters literally as soon as we open our mouths. Nevertheless, it is tempting to assert that ours is an un-contextualized Gospel because it implies the superiority of our own culture. It tickles our pride to think that we have an exclusive claim to the “pure” Gospel. But despite our seeming conviction that the American Evangelical sub-culture is the closest thing to Eden (God save us!), there is no place for bigotry in the body of Christ. To assert that we have an un-contextualized Gospel is to say that the Gospel in its purest form meshes ideally with our Western, individualistic, consumerist way of life. Thankfully, that’s very unlikely.

Yet this underlying assumption of cultural superiority is why some Christians get fidgety when the topic of contextualization crops up. There is an unspoken belief that changing the cultural forms in which the Gospel is presented will automatically lessen or “defile” its purity. Perhaps what we are really afraid of is letting go of the privileged status we’ve given our own preferred cultural forms. We may even be willing to don the trappings of another sub-culture for a short time for the sake of getting our message out, but we are unlikely to admit that these forms are as valid as our own. Fear of contextualization is often just a thin veil for a cultural superiority complex. 

A Shallow View of the Gospel

Secondly, in refusing the endeavor of Gospel contextualization, we rob ourselves of a deeper, more well-rounded understanding of the Gospel. Lesslie Newbigin was a British missionary who lived in the 20th century and served in India for some 40 plus years.  He writes in The Open Secret of a mutual benefit for the missionary and the receiving culture. He warned that we must not see our project of contextualizing the Gospel as merely uni-directional. The missionary himself must allow the unique worldview of the receiving culture to critique his own culturally myopic view of the Gospel. The interaction between the cultures of messenger and listener must, of course, be rooted in the Word of God. We all have a tendency to read the Bible through our own cultural lens. After all, we have no other with which to view it. Sometimes a person from another culture will read the same text we do, but come to a somewhat different conclusion on its meaning or implications. This forces both missionary and “native” to continually return to the Word and re-examine their understanding. Could it be that some aspect of what the missionary had hitherto believed is actually a by-product of his own culture's bias, rather than rooted in the Word of God itself? The interchange of contextualization refines and deepens our understanding; the messenger and the receiver both grow together in the Gospel.

As an American missionary who has been on the foreign field for over a third of my life, I can attest to this reality. Only in stepping outside of our own cultural comfort zones can we come to see the flaws inherent within it. The same is true of the American Christian sub-culture. Too many Christians have begun to view the Gospel through the narrow lens of the American-Evangelical sub-culture. What we fail to realize is that ours is also a contextualized understanding of the Gospel. It's simply tuned to the cultural values of middle-class, Western individualism and consumerism. In taking on the daunting, humbling project of contextualizing the Gospel to others, we also open up the possibility of having our own misperceptions corrected. Contextualization done well and humbly leads to a richer insight into the Gospel for both messenger and receiver.

Incarnation Implications

Lastly, when we refuse to embrace the call to contextualize the Gospel, we are rejecting something in the essence of the Gospel itself. It only takes a cursory reading of the book of Acts to see that the early church took contextualization seriously from the beginning. Those parts of the church which refused the project out of a cultural superiority complex quickly cut themselves off from the power and movement of the Holy Spirit. The Judaizers were a prime example of this.

But there is more. By spurning contextualization not only do we ignore the example of the early church; we contradict the nature of the Gospel. There is no greater “contextualization” than the incarnation of Christ. When God came in the flesh, He showed that there was almost no limit to His willingness to contextualize the Gospel so that we might understand. Jesus was not an ethereal philosophy but a flesh-and-blood man who brought the salvation of God into the cultural context of first-century Israel. His message was was spoken in Aramaic, often couched in agrarian parables sensitively honed to the context of His audience.  

Early in its history, the church rejected a heresy called “docetism”. This heresy taught that Jesus didn’t really become a man. He merely had the outward appearance of a man, but certainly would never soil His perfect “heavenly culture” with the trappings of human flesh. This heresy was roundly condemned at the council of Nicea. All true Christians today readily acknowledge that God Himself unabashedly took on real flesh, conforming Himself to our cultural forms. But the ironic part is that we are often not willing to similarly humble ourselves. We only grudgingly stoop to contextualize the Gospel to others who are culturally different from us—if we do so at all—though the cost for us is much less than it was for Jesus. While we cling to the doctrine of the incarnation, we deny its implications. Christ took on our cultural forms to bring the Gospel to people who would then continue the project of contextualization to bring the Gospel to the ends of the earth. The Great Commission itself implies the challenge of astutely, winsomely, humbly contextualizing the Gospel. In the end, the call for Christians to embrace the project of Gospel contextualization is merely a call to follow the example of Jesus. “Everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher.” (Lk. 6:40)

I Can't Stand Left Behind Either, But Please Stop Bashing the Rapture: An Eschatological Co-op

This article is the final part of a three-part series on the pre-trib rapture. Be sure to check out part 1 and part 2 if you missed them.

One of the more gracious articles written on Left Behind's coattails over the last few days had this golden nugget in it: “We need to go out of our way, as Christians, to make sure we don’t explicitly or implicitly demonize the views of other believers on doctrines that are secondary to the faith.” The warning was written to those who believe in a pre-trib rapture and we would do well to heed it. Of course, it applies equally to those who disagree with the pre-trib position. But in this final article in the series, I want to encourage us to go beyond simply not demonizing other positions. I believe we ought to learn to appreciate them—to learn from one another in a sort of eschatological co-op.

Our views on eschatology ultimately come down to how we interpret various passages of Scripture. Again, we ought to each do the hard exegetical work necessary to arrive at the position we believe best lines up with scriptural evidence. We also ought to have enough humility to not only acknowledge problem passages, but also to learn from one another. I personally have friends who represent every eschatological flavor under the sun. Despite our disagreements, our conversations and gracious debates have been of great benefit to me.  Each eschatological position has its potential weak points as well as strengths. We need to learn to see both.

What We Can Learn

Disregarding questions of textual interpretation for a moment, let's focus on the emphases and strengths of each position to see what we can learn from one another. 

Classic premillennialism (post-trib) offers an emphasis on courage and patience through suffering. Of course, Christians are called to the fellowship of Christ's sufferings in general. But there is a particular boldness in the eschatology that invites Christians to suffer under the severe trials described in the book of Revelation—and says that Christ is worth it. While one might not agree on the chronology, we can certainly learn from their readiness to suffer with Christ. This strength is something often missing from the western church. 

I believe amillennialism's greatest strength is in promoting a healthy balance in our relation to the world. This position sees both the millennium and tribulation period as figuratively taking place over the whole course of church history. Nowadays, one often hears in churches of God’s kingdom being both “already” and “not yet”. It is no coincidence that this understanding was largely pioneered by an amillennial theologian, Geerhardus Vos. Again, we may not agree with their interpretations of various passages. But we should emulate amillenialism's balanced approach towards the church’s existence in the world—falling into neither isolating pessimism, nor naive optimism.

Postmillennialism sees the establishment of Christ’s “millennial” kingdom as oсcuring through the church prior to His return. Hence, they believe the return of Christ is after (post-) the millennium. Postmillennialism's hopefulness for the power of God’s work in the world through the church is inspiring. One may disagree with their statements about the consummation of God’s kingdom work through the church. Yet their vision to see God’s kingdom manifest in every sphere of life is certainly one of the strong points of this position. We would do well to learn from this holistic approach to the church’s kingdom work in the world.    

It would only be fair along side these other views to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the pre-trib position as well. One strength is the emphasis on God’s mercy and faithfulness in delivering His church from wrath. Another is the sense of urgency and expectancy that an immanent return conjures in our hearts. Besides this, the pre-trib position has a clear and strong understanding of the fallenness of the world and sets the church forth as a counterculture. Of course, there are potential weak points. If we apply the truth in a selfish way, it can lead to isolationism from the world, or an overly pessimistic expectation regarding God’s work in the world.

I personally hold to the teaching of a pre-trib rapture, believing that it best explains various, sometimes difficult, biblical texts. You may or may not agree. And yet, we all ought to remain humble towards those with differing eschatological views. Humility also means we will remain teachable and allow other views to challenge and correct us. We tend to major in our own strengths and neglect our weakness. An approach that is willing to appreciate and learn from other eschatological positions will lead to greater maturity of faith for all of us. Let's remember that reflecting Christ's character of humility and grace to one another is more important than the timing of when we meet Him. After all, they will know we are His disciples not by our eschatology, but by the love we have for one another.

I Can't Stand Left Behind Either, But Please Stop Bashing the Rapture: What the Rapture is Not About

This article is the second part of a three-part series on the pre-trib rapture.  Be sure to check out part 1 if you missed it.

Many of the Left Behind follow-up articles that have come out over the last few days seem to have a few recurring themes: the rapture is a narrow, American position; it’s all about escapism; it promotes a prosperity-theology-esque avoidance of suffering; it doesn’t care about the rest of the world but just wants a ticket out, etc.  You may have noticed that none of these arguments are based on Scripture.  And yet, they are important to deal with as commonly met objections to the teaching.  Sure, there may be some “Christians” out there who fit these very un-Christian descriptions.  But many of those who hold a pre-trib rapture stance (myself included) completely reject these ideas.  In this article, I'll deal with some of these criticisms and take a look at what the rapture is not about, before briefly concluding with what it is about.

Arguments from Geography and History

Some of the arguments being leveled against the pre-trib rapture have to do with the history of the teaching.

For example, some have called the rapture an “American idea” and seek to discredit it on that basis.  First, the argument is not exactly accurate.  American theologian C.I. Scofield is credited with popularizing the teaching of a pre-trib rapture through his Scofield Reference Bible. However, John Darby, an Irish clergyman, is generally accepted as the first modern propagator of a clearly pre-trib rapture teaching.

But even if the argument was accurate, it's a hollow argument.  It's like saying that justification by grace alone or the priesthood of all believers are “German ideas” (via Luther) and thereby discredited.  The nationality of the first major propagators of any given teaching has no bearing on its validity.  One article I read recently in the wake of the Left Behind movie inferred that almost no one outside America holds a pre-trib view and would find such a position absurd.  As a missionary who has lived in the former Soviet Union for over a decade, I can tell you this is simply not true.  Sure, there is a wide range of eschatological beliefs among Christians here, just as there is in America.  But there are plenty who hold to a pre-trib view, and certainly even more who wouldn't “laugh” at the idea, even if they might disagree.  So, whatever very limited international experience the (ironically) American writers of these articles are speaking from, I guarantee it's not a representative sampling of the worldwide church. 

In a similar vein is the historical argument.  Those who criticize the rapture often like to point to the late date of it’s widespread acceptance—as if age is inherently a proof of scriptural accuracy. Yes, it is true that the teaching was only popularized in the 19th century.  However, one might just as easily point to the relatively late widespread acceptance of the whole “justified by faith” idea.  After all, where was this teaching during the first 1500 years of the church?  As Protestants, we would likely argue that it was clearly taught in the NT.  We would also underscore that it was taught by a few individuals at various points in church history, but later on was basically forgotten.  After all, isn’t that why we needed a reformation?  But the same basic arguments could be made for a pre-trib rapture.  Understand, I am not claiming that the idea of a pre-trib rapture is anywhere near as biblically explicit or as important as the idea of justification by faith alone.  It’s not.  My point is simply that “age does not a doctrine make.”

Ad Hominem Arguments

The second class of arguments being used against a pre-trib rapture in some recent articles are ad hominem arguments—attacks against the character of those holding the teaching rather than scriptural arguments against its content.

First, let’s deal with this whole “the rapture is all about getting out of suffering” argument.  If some have drawn the false impression from works like Left Behind that believing in Christ means getting out of suffering, they are in for a rude awakening.  Jesus Himself promised His followers, “In the world you will have tribulation”—not “might”, but “will”.  To follow Jesus at all means to “take up your cross and deny yourself.”  Even more blatant are Paul’s words: “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”  None of that sounds like a fast track to the easy life.  Movies like Left Behind, especially because they are taken out of a full scriptural context, may leave the impression that receiving Jesus leads to an easy life.  But most Christians who are serious about their faith do not hold any such delusions—whether they are pre-trib or not.

Another rapture article I read inferred that those who believe in a pre-trib rapture must have a heart calloused toward the world.  This is close to libel.  I’ll concede that some “Christians” who generally buy into a Jesus-wants-you-to-drive-a-Lexus-and-win-the-state-football-championship theology may look at the rapture as the ultimate ticket to easy street.  However, I don’t honestly know of a single pre-tribulationist who even vaguely sees the rapture as a cosmic “so long, suckers!” to the unbelieving world as we fly up to meet Jesus. 

In my experience, the perceived nearness of God’s judgment upon the unbelieving world generally makes believers more zealous about calling people to repent and receive God’s mercy.  Sure, sometimes that zeal may lead to misguided use of scare-tactics, but the same is true for Christians of any eschatological stripe.  After all, hell is a real threat regardless of when the rapture occurs.  My guess is that the only people gloating over unbelievers being “left behind” are people made of straw.  In other words, there are no such Christians.  They are figments of the rapture-bashers’ imagination.  Or, if they do exist somewhere, their gloating against non-Christians shows that they themselves will also be among those “left behind”.  That is, they do not actually know Christ nor share His compassion for the lost.

A final argument I need to address is the argument from “weirdness”.  I’m referring to the argument sometimes used against a pre-trib rapture position that it is supposedly far too outlandish or “goofy” to be scriptural.  Granted, movies like Left Behind don't help the whole “goofy” stigma.  But “it’s weird” doesn't pass for a valid theological argument.  We serve a God who became a baby, walked on water, spit in people’s eyes to heal them, talked with demons, and rose from the dead.  “Weirdness” is not an argument we get to use.  

What the Rapture Is Really About

I’ve already hinted at it, but let me say it very clearly: the pre-trib rapture is about the grace of God.  Accusing those who believe in a pre-trib rapture of not caring about the lost or seeking an easy escape is missing the whole point. 

Pre-tribulationists believe that the seven-year tribulation period described in the book of Revelation is a literal time period.  We also believe that it’s a time when God pours out His wrath on the world. (Rev. 6:16-17)  1 Thes. 5:9 says, “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”  We believe that we will not be recipients of God's wrath during the tribulation period because we are delivered from it by the Gospel of grace.  Granted, other eschatological systems may have other ways of explaining how the church is protected from the wrath of God in the “tribulation”. (If they don’t, they've got much more serious problems than the timing of the rapture.)  But the rapture is not about escapism—not any more than all believers being eternally rescued from the wrath of God is a question of "escapism".  The fact that other Christians believe God will rescue them from His wrath at all puts us in the same boat.  Therefore, our differences with those of other eschatological persuasions are ones of timing and method, not of essence.  We ought to all be willing to approach the question from this common ground and drop the arguments that are not rooted in Scripture.  They only serve to alienate us from one another and do nothing to biblically support any position.

In the next and final part of this series, I'll take a look how we can learn to appreciate one another's varying eschatological positions and grow in our faith through humble dialog.

I Can’t Stand Left Behind Either, But Please Stop Bashing the Rapture: A Level Playing Field

It seems like the latest film re-incarnation of Tim LaHaye’s Christian novel series Left Behind has brought the pre-tribulation-rapture-critics out of the woodwork.  Let me say this up front: I can’t stand Left Behind.  Granted, I have not seen the latest re-hash—nor do I plan to.  But while Nicholas Cage may be mildly more talented than Kirk Cameron (probably), I really doubt that a new cast, larger budget or improved special effects will help much.  If you are one of those Christians who just loves the books or movies, sorry.  Schmaltz is not my thing.

But my biggest qualm is that this latest rendering of very poor Christian “art” has turned the idea of the rapture into the latest blogosphere punching bag.  This is known as a straw man argument—taking a weak or even caricatured presentation of a position and knocking it down triumphantly.  Discrediting the idea of a pre-tribulational (pre-trib from here on) rapture on the basis of the Left Behind movie would be tantamount to saying that we ought to reject a post-tribulation rapture position because there are plenty of people that believe we need to go through it to accomplish our full purification.  It would be like bashing postmillennialism because there are a handful of prosperity gospel teachers out there who espouse it, or picking at amillennialism because it's the eschatology of those who worship Mary and accomplish salvation by the addition of their own works.  This is, of course, all just a bunch of mudslinging which does nothing to really ground any of these teachings in Scripture.  Neither does it prove the nobility of anyone’s eschatological cause.  On the contrary, it just makes us look petty and certainly does not reflect a spirit of Christian love and unity.

Rather than trying to exhaustively prove a pre-trib rapture position, I want to look at a few of the issues surrounding the recent discussion of this doctrine and hopefully encourage a more positive dialog on eschatological (end-times) questions.  In this first post, I'll be laying out why we should approach the various viewpoints on a level playing field.  In part two of this series, I'll deal with some of the recent criticisms of the teaching of the rapture and what the doctrine is really about.  And in the third and final post, we'll look at how we can actually benefit from one another's differing eschatological viewpoints in humble dialog.

Let’s Be Honest

I’ll be the first to admit that there are biblical problem passages for the pre-trib rapture view.  But there are problem passages for all the other eschatological views as well. 

For example, the post-tribulation rapture view (or so-called “classic premillennialism”) has to deal with the issue of “not knowing the day or the hour” of Christ’s return.  This position tends to take Revelation more literally than some other views.  It generally affirms belief in a literal, seven-year tribulation period.  However, if there is a literal seven-year tribulation period, one cannot help but conclude that counting down the thoroughly quantified 1260 days/42 months/3.5 years of Revelation (the second half of the seven-year tribulation period) would lead one to know the exact day of Christ’s return. 

The amillennial position does not escape problems either.  Passages in Isaiah foretell of a time after Messiah’s return where death and other remnants of the curse are nevertheless present on earth. These are a challenge for the most creative of amillennial interpreters to explain.  If, as they affirm, the second advent of Christ is the beginning of the eternal kingdom and total restoration of creation with no intermediate millennial period, then these passages seem to imply that there are a few things Christ doesn’t fix. 

Postmillennialism also has some scriptural challenges. (I’m not including the full preterist version in this discussion, which, based on the criteria of The Apostles’ and Nicean Creeds, is probably worthy of the label “heresy”.)  Not least among these challenges is the biblical picture of the return of Christ putting an end to the tide of wickedness and destruction, destroying armies of those who are in rebellion against God.  Certainly such passages do not bode well for a position that speaks of a golden age of ever-increasing Christian faith, morality, and societal improvement on the earth prior to Christ’s return. 

So when posts about the problem passages for a pre-trib view give the impression that there are no similar problems for other views, it just seems disingenuous.  My goal in these brief points is not to lay out an exhaustive defense of the pre-trib rapture position over against other commonly held eschatological views.  Neither is it to attack any of the aforementioned positions.  It is merely to say that we all have passages that are difficult to deal with.  While we ought not shy away from working through these texts and challenging one another to dig deeper, there is no justification for pretending like any position is as biblically airtight as the existence of God or that all other positions are laughable.

Next time I'll lay out some of the points of criticism being mentioned recently against a pre-trib rapture and look at what the teaching is really about.