The A.D. 70 Doctrine Examined
INTRODUCTION
One of the strangest, complex, and novel systems of
doctrine to be recently spread among our brethren
is the A.D. 70 doctrine. To put it mildly, it is a
revisionist view of prophecy. It is very popular
and highly regarded by many and condnues to be an
issue since its introduction. Our institutional
brethren have dealt with it extensively. We need
to be informed of this doctrine and determine its
truthfulness by a study of the word of God.
I) NAMES/TERMS GIVEN TO THIS DOCTRINE
A) A.D. 70 Doctrine
B) Realized Eschatology (doctrine of completed last things)
C) Fulfilled Eschatology
D) Covenant Eschatology
E) Preterist
(past) Fl Kingism (The Max King Doctrine)
H) SOURCES FOR FURTHER STUDY (See sources for study on final
page)
III) CENTRAL THESIS OF THE A.D. 70 DOCTRINE
A) All prophecy is fulfilled as of A.D. 70 and there is
~Q event referred to in Scripture that is yet future.
1) The key period of time is the forty years between the cross
of Christ and the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 which is called
the "eschaton." The significance of this period and its
events are the soul of all Biblical study and God's
redemptive scheme.
2) Consider how central A.D. 70 is to their understanding of
God's plan: "The fall of Judaism (and its far reaching
consequences) is, therefore, a major subject of the Bible.
The greater portion of prophecy found its fulfillment in that
event, including also the types and shadows of the law. It
was the coming of Christ in glory that closely followed his
coming in suffering (1 Pet. 1:11), when all things written
by the prophets were fulfilled (Luke 21:22; Acts 3:21). It
corresponded to the perfection of the saints (1 Cor. 13:10)
when they reached adulthood in Christ, receiving their
adoption, redemption, and inheritance.
The eternal kingdom was possessed (Heb. 12:28) and the new
heaven and earth inherited (Mart. 5:5; Rev. 21:1,7)" (Max
King, The Spirit of Prophecy, p. 239).
IV) HERMENEUTICAL "KEY"
A) "Until this issue of'method of interpretation' is settled,
there can be no hope of a true and consistent interpretation
and application of prophecy" (King, Ibid., p. 1).
B) Two methods of interpretation: "literal"
(material) and "spiritual" (non- material).
1) "It is the belief of the author that the spiritual
method of interpretation is firmly established in the
Bible, and that it is the basic and primary method of
interpretation involved in end-time prophecy" (King, Ibid.,
p. 1-2) 2) Literal (material)
relates to fleshly Israel; Spiritual (non-material)
relates to spiritual Israel (see King, Ibid, p.2)
C) This hermeneutical approach is King's own invention; it
is not based on established hermeneutical approaches nor is
it offered with solid Biblical evidence.
1) This is a perfect example of bringing a predetermined
doctrine and hermeneutic to the Bible and forcing passages
into it to create an impression of truthfulness.
V) BACKGROUND OF RISE OF A,D. 70 DOCTRINE
A) A 17th century Jesuit friar, Luis de Alcazar, taught
that the book of Revelation related exclusively to first
century events (Stanley Paher, "A Critical Review," The
Examiner, January 1993, p. 7).
B) James S. Russell, a Congregational minister, wrote The
Parousia (1878).
C) C.D. Beagle and son-in-law Max R. King
first introduce this doctrine to our brethren at a Cuyahoga
Falls, Ohio, preacher's meeting on April 22, 1971. Max King
becomes leading proponent.
1) King publishes The Spirit of Prophecy (1971)
2) Debates Gus Nichols (July 17-20, 1973)
3) Written debate with Jim McGuiggan (1975)
4) Northeast Ohio Bible College established (1977)
5) Publishes The Cross and the Parousia of Christ (1987)
6) Current journals Search the Scriptures and Studies in
Bible Prophecy
D) See W. Terry Varner, Studies in Biblical Eschatolonv,
pp. 1-12, 32-77, for more background information.
VI) MAJOR TENETS OF THE A.D. 70 DOCTRINE
A) Eschaton Period
1) The forty year period between the cross and the
destruction of Jerusalem.
2) The is the period of time in which the covenants
changed. The first Age (Mosaic) wasn't fulfilled until 70 A.D.
and the Christian Age (the eternal age wasn't established until
70 A.D.
3) Christ was enthroned on Pentecost and kingdom
e~dsted, but it was not completely established in glory and
power (the "coming" of the kingdom) until 70 A.D.
4) "The cross and the parousia of Christ are in biblical
eschatology what alpha and omega are in the Greek alphabet
-- the beginning and
the end. Our primary aim in this volume, as indicated by the
title, is to show that Christ's cross and parousia (i.e., His
presence oi arrival commonly called the second coming) are the
two foci of one complete, indivisible eschaton (end time) that
pertain to the fulfillment of all redemptive history and
prophecy within the closing period ('the last days') of the Old
Testament aeon (age)" (Max King, The Cross and the Parousia of
Christ, p. ix).
a) Note forty year period called end time, last days.
B) Covenants (Age, World, Body)
1) Biblical dispensationalism has only two ages: Mosaic
(Jewish) and New Testament (Christian).
a) Mosaic = began at Sinai, ends in 70 A.D.
b) N.T. = began in 70 A.D., has no end
C) Transitional
period between cross and A.D. 70 (eschaton) when Old Covenant
transformed into New Covenant.
d) With the death of Christ, Mosaic Covenant began to vanish
away until 70 A.D. It was "dying" to be "resurrected" as
New Covenant.
e) The people of the eschaton (Jewish
Christians) also "die" and are "resurrected" in the
eternal age. Gentiles can share in this by dying to the
Law in baptism.
2) Main passages: Gal. 4:21-31; 2 Cor.
3:11; Heb. 8:13.
3) "It is these two worlds which constitute a major
portion of Bible teaching, and occupy a
prominent place in prophecy. Failure to see these two
worlds as they unfold in the scripture, and to make proper
distinction of them, is a major source of error in the
interpretation and application of scripture" (King, The
Spirit of Prophecy, p. 33).
4) "Why have men concluded that the last days refer to
the gospel dispensation? Since
there is some basis for every interpretation of scripture,
it is interesting to observe the reasoning behind this
application. It is based upon another erroneous concept,
namely that the Jewish age came to a close on Pentecost
day. This is assumed on the basis that Pentecost was the
beginning of the Christian age. The error is in failing to
see the overlapping period of these two ages or
dispensations. Ishmael and Isaac co-ercisted in Abraham's
house for a time before Ishmael was cast out. The Jewish
age did not end untfl their city, temple, and state fell
under Roman invasion in A.D. 66-73" (King, Ibid., pp.
78-79).
1) Please note his misrepresentation of our
position; the old covenant ended at the cross, not on
Pentecost.
2) Note also that he accuses us of assumptions
when his own interpretation is based on his assumed
understanding of Gal. 4:21- 31.
C) The Kingdom
1) "The harmony and unity of all prophecy and scripture
bearing on the subject, can be maintained only in the
concept of a spiritual kingdom's being established or
perfected at the end of Judaism [A,D. 70, MWG]"
(King, Ibid., p. 154).
2) "The second stage of the resurrection takes place in
conjunction with the Messianic reign of Christ, which we
have placed in the period of time between His ascension
and His parousia in the A.D. 70 consummation of the age.
This means that Christ's reign was an age- ending reign, a
transition to 'the age to come.'" "Christ's pre- parousia
reign had a two-fold objective that was interrelated, and
therefore accomplished concurrently He reigned to
consummate the old aeon, which in turn was bound up with
the coming in of the new aeon." "The concept of
consummation at the cross rather than by means of the
cross has led to a distortion of the real meaning and time
frame of Christ's pre-parousia reign, and consequently the
whole biblical scheme of Messianic eschatology in the
establishment of the kingdom of God had been thrown into
total disarray" (King, The Cross and Parousia of Christ.
pp. 415, 417, 418).
3) "This means that during the eschaton the believers
lived in a tension of experienced and anticipated
eschatology; between 'the already' and
'the not yet.' They were already in the kingdom of Christ
(Col. 1:13), but still waiting for the coming of the
kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:24-28). But this waiting was not
passive, as seen in Heb, 12:28 where the 'receiving of the
kingdom' is presented as a present, active experience, as
was also the case in their experiencing the powers of the
age to come (6:5)" (King, Ibid., p. 32).
4) Some main passages: 2 Tim. 4:1,18; Heb. 12:28
D) The Second Coming
1) "When the temple is destroyed, the world ends. The
ending of the world is the coming of Christ. The coming of
Christ is the fall of Jerusalem, or the destruction of the
temple, etc....ALL would come to pass before that
generation passed into history, and that included the
coming of Christ, as well as the passing of heaven and
earth" (King, The Spirit of Prophecy, p. 39).
2) "There is no scriptural basis for extending the
second coming of Christ beyond the fall of Judaism"
(Ibid., p. 105).
"...the end of the Jewish world was the second coming of
Christ" (p. 81). "Prophecy found its complete fulfrllment
in the second coming of Christ, and now may be regarded as
closed and consummated" (p. 65).
3) Emphasis on the imminence of His coming in N.T.
writings: Jas. 5:8; 1 Pet.
4:17; Lk 21:28; 1 Pet 1:5; Lk 21:31
E) Resurrection
1) Not in any sense literal; must be understood
spiritually.
a) Physical bodies discarded forever at death.
b) At moment of death, an individual receives a
"spiritual" body in which he will dwell immediately
and eternally in heaven.
This body is a new creation, so nothing is resurrected.
2) "The resurrection period is confined to the forty years
between the cross and A.D. 70. All biblical teaching
about'resurrection' is fulfilled during that period. No
one was ever'resurrected' (in the full biblical sense)
before or after A.D. 70" (Jim McGuiggan, A.D. 70
Revisited, p. 17).
3) "Resurrection" refers to "covenant bodies."
a) A resurrection of the Old Covenant into the
New Covenant. The New Covenant, therefore, is the Old
Covenant resurrected. The New results from the death of
the Old.
4) King, though, insists on "process"
resurrection, a simultaneity of dying and rising,
therefore, able to have both covenants around in some
sense between the cross and A.D. 70. The people of this
period (Jewish Christians) are the "firstfruits" of this
resurrection.
5) Christ's individual body resurrected
third day after death; Christ's spiritual "Body"
resurrected in A.D. 70.
6) Passages interpreted in this way: 1 Cor. 15; 2
Cor. 5:1-8
a) King did argue once for
possible two-fold meaning for these passages, but now
rejects anything but spiritual meaning.
F) End of the World/Judgment
1) "World" not literal, but spiritual in
meaning: covenant, age, aeon, body (Jewish ends, Christian
begins).
2) In New Testament, the second coming was
imminent; therefore, the resurrection, judgment, and end
of world had to imminent, too.
3) "Applying the last days to the Christian age is a
misapplication fostered by a misconception of such
terms as 'this world' and the 'world
to come.' While Pentecost, in a sense, was the beginning
of the Christion Esic] dispensation, yet the New Testament
writers often spoke of it asa world or age to come,
because the Jewish age had not ended at the time of their
writings. (The right of primogeniture belonged to until he
was cast out.) Therefore, statements such as 'this world'
are interpreted as meaning this present material world
rather that [sie] the Jewish age, and the 'world to come'
is interpreted as meaning what follows the end of this
present material world rather than the new heaven and
earth, or Christian age that followed the end of the
Jewish age" (King, The Spirit of Prophecy, p. 79).
G) Dating of New Testament Canon
1) All New Testament books
must date to before A.D. 70, for that is the consummation
of all prophecy demanded in their doctrine.
VII) ANALYSIS OF A.D. 70 DOCTRINE
A) Biblical terms redefined
1) "Like neo-orthodoxy, it uses many biblical terms, but nearly
all of them are being used with changed defmitions" (Cecil
Willis, "The Bill Reeves Articles," Truth Magazine, January 4,
1973, p. 131).
2) "If the foregoing theory seems to make no
sense at all, it is because the novice does not understand how
these common biblical terns have been redefined to fit the King
theory. The 'second coming' does not denote a Literal return of
Christ in the future, but a spiritual, invisible coming in A.D.
70.'Resurrection' hasn't anything to do with the human body;
rather, it refers to a resurrection of the Christian system
from the persecution inflicted by the Jews between A.D. 30 and
70. The 'judgment day' is not a time when all men will give
account to God, it is the destruction of Judaism. And the 'end
of the world' is not the passing of the earth; it supposedly is
a reference to the dissolution of the Jewish world" (Wayne
Jackson, The A.D. 70 Theory, pp.
3) Tunnel-vision problem =
understanding a term the same way every time it is used
irregardless of context and/or obvious difference in usage.
Example: "World" = Jewish or Christian Age (never literal) in
Lk. 20:35; Jn. 18:36; 2 Pet. 3:7,10. Where is the evidence to
support this practice other than a presupposed doctrine?
4) "Many seem disposed to regard themselves as at liberty to make
anything out of the Bible which their theology may demand or
their whims require. And if, at any time, they find a passage
that will not harmonize with that view, then the next thing is
to find one or more words in the text used elsewhere in a
figurative sense, and then demand that such be the Biblical
dictionary on the meaning of that word, and hence that it must
be the meaning in that place" (D.R. Dungan, Hermeneutics, p.
217).
B) Pre-70 A.D. Dating of All New Testament Books?
1) Turns matter of opinion on date of Revelation and other books
into an absolute necessity to know.
2) The problem is we cannot know for sure, and this casts a
dark cloud of great uncertainty over their doctrine. In fact,
the evidence is strong against their position,
3) "Let us get to our point about the AD 7O
doctrine's pre-AD 70 dates for all NT books, Can this thesis be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt? I, although I am a
joint-believer in this view and would not ordinarily, in any
other context, like to admit it so freely, do now most
unhesitatingly say,'No!' and frankly confess my view here to be
nothing bur an opinion. In other words, so long as any
proponent of some NT books' post-AD 70 origin can present
agruments [sic] which are as persuasive or even nearly so as
those of the pre-AD 70 advocate, the latter has not gotten
close to proving his view beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt
... In conclusion, to argue for the pre-AD 70 date of all NT
books as a personally satisfying opinion is one thing, but to
argue for such as an absolute necessity to uphold one's basic
belief about the new covenant and the only true meaning of
divine truth is, to say the least, quite another thing. In
short, it is an opinion -- pure and simple!" (Almon Williams,
"AD 70: The End?" The Doctrine of Last Things, [1986 Florida
College Lectures], p. 215).
4) See also Stanley Paher, "A
Critical Review: The 'A.D. 70 Doctrine' and the Dating of the
The New Testament," The Examiner, January, 1993, pp. 7-12.
C) Lack of Evidence in Church Fathers
1) They are silent as to contention that all Bible
prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70.
2) In fact, much evidence can be found that they looked to a
future fulfillment of the resurrection, the judgment, the
second coming of Christ, and the destruction of the heavens and
earth (see Williams, op. cit. pp. 216-219).
3) "...since there
is not even a single extant voice among them in favor of
realized eschatology, most people will find it very difficult
to believe that this third generation could all be wrong about
these matters, especially when some of them, for example,
Polycarp, probably knew some of the apostles. That is, if the
AD 70 doctrine were the NT doctrine, to believe that by AD 90
to AD 150, a complete blackout of such had taken place is very
difficult to believe, if not impossible" (Williams, op. cit. p.
219).
4) See also Varner, Studies in Biblical Eschatolonv, pp.
78-97, where he calls it a "missing link in Kingism."
D) Some Scriptural Objections
1) Acts 1:9-11; Rev. 1:7 -- Did not
happen in AD. 70.
2) 2 Pet. 3:5-7, 10-11 -- Cannot spiritualize
the meaning of "fire" because "water" is Literal.
3) 1 Cor. 15
-- The problem dealt with (v.12); central thought (w.20- 23);
further explanation of literal resurrection (vv.35ff).
Resurrection cannot be changed into a spiritual meaning here
since this would violate the whole purpose of Paul's argument,
for he is arguing it on a literal basis.
4) Rom. 7:1-6 -- No
"process"dying and resurrection of covenants here. Takes death
of one to begin another.
5) Col. 2:13-15 -- Cross is focal
point of removal of old covenant, not A.D. 70. Also Heb.
9:16-17
6) 2 Cor. 3:14 -- Old covenant already done away before
A.D. 70.
7) Heb. 8:13 -- Vanishing started in Jeremiah's day
and completed at cross; Heb. 10:9 -- first had to end in order
to start second.
8) Eph, 2:13-18 -- Christ brought full redemption and
unity to Jew and Gentile in His death, not in
A.D. 70.
9) Gal. 4:21-31 -- Key is in v. 21 (desire out of
place) and the point of the allegory is that they were not
under the law but under promise. King contends that Ishmael had
right of primogeniture until cast out (SP, pp. 29-30). This is
entirely wrong. Isaac was always intended by God to be heir to
the promise, not Ishmael. King twists allegory to fit his
purposes.
10) Acts 2:38 -- Remission of sins available; King denies,
sayssins not taken away until second coming (A.D. 70)
(SP, p. 63).
11) Isa 2:2 -- House of God fully
established in "last days," not in "eternal days."
12) 1 Cor. 11:26 -- To observe Lord's Supper proclaiming His
death "until He comes." Are we to stop observing it now?
King quibbles (C&P, pp. 716-724) that this is only
referring to remembering what Christ's death did in bring
about the change of the covenant aeons and that it is now
a "fulfilled memorial" for us today. Who would ever get
this understanding from this passage or any other
passage? Jesus said it would be for a remembrance of Him
and His death.When or how does He ever change this even
slightly?
13) Matt 26:29 -- Kingdom of God Is, therefore,
in existence in Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11, not after
A.D. 70. King just assumes this is in reference to the
Lord's Supper after A.D. 70.
E) Unanswered Questions
1) Is this doctrine a matter of opinion or faith?
2) Is A.D. 70 more important than the cross? Pentecost?
3) Are we in a perpetual "eternal days" of struggle
between sin and righteousness?
4) Can we truly understand and defend a
literal resurrection of Jesus' physical body in light of
this doctrine's teaching about resurrection:,
5) Was no post-A.D. 70 sermon or book by an apostle
inspired since spiritual gifts were supposed to end in
A.D. 70?
6) How far will they go in forcing this interpretation
on other practices of Christians today such as the
Lord's Supper, elders, baptism, etc.?
7) Where does evil originate if Satan is already consigned
to the lake of fire (SP, p. 356)?
CONCLUSION What are we to say concerning this
doctrine?
1) "Highly questionable and speculative view"
(Williams, op. cit. p. 238).
2) "It is not a harmless, private conviction
which can be held without hurting oneself and others,
but a pernicious theory of error which engulfs
the soul of men in destructive heresy!"
(Joe Price, "The Second Coming of Christ: Did it Already
Occur'! (3)," Guardian of Truth. November 2, 1989, p.
650).
3) I heartily agree! We must oppose this doctrine
as false and damning to men's souls. It is complete
mistreatment of God's holy word and the promises we are
to take hope in. The following statement about King and
his doctrine sums it up well:
4) "He then sets out to
boldly force literal passages into his own mold.of
spiritualizing, and dares call one 'fleshly' if he does
not agree with him. He switches terms and plays with
English words, and employs his sophistry in the most
subtle of ways. He adds a word or phrase, or otherwise
makes some small change, to misrepresent his opponent. He
quotes only part of an authority which would appear to
agree with his position, and thus leaves wrong
impressions. He has built up his own peculiar lingo to
support his doctrine. He ignores contexts wholesale, and
presses them into his service. His book is difficult to
read and monotonously repetitious. Paragraph after
paragraph is but a conglomeration ofjumbled and unrelated
references which he has arbitrarily applied to fit his
doctrine. No one, without King's help, would ever have
guessed that inspired writers were trying to get such a
message across!" (Bill Reeves, "The Preterist View
Heresy," Truth Magazine, February 2, 1973, p. 249).
===== TIM
================================ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _____
_Mail to:Timmc@citynet.net
=================================================================
Response to the Above:
From copeland@magicnet.netSat Apr 13 12:51:28 1996 Date: Sat, 13
Apr 1996 08:07:05 -0500 From: "Mark A. Copeland"
Reply to: markslist@jackson.freenet.org
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: 70 A.D. Doctrine reviewed by Marc Gibson
Mark Copeland here...
On 12 Apr 96 at 16:43, Tim McPherson wrote:
> THE A.D. 70 DOCTRINE EXAMINED > by Marc W,
Gibson
Dear Tim,
Thank you for sharing the material referenced above by Marc
Gibson. I believe it serves as a good introduction into this
issue which I believe has damnable consequences.
Yes, the word "damnable" is strong, but I have seen its effects
in the lives of individuals and congregations. A young preacher
who got his start working along me (he came before Steve Rudd)
followed this teaching to its logical conclusion, and eventually
lost his faith in the Bible and the Lord Jesus altogether.
But even if one maintains his "faith" while holding to this
doctrine, I still believe his soul will be lost. Why? Because
he has denied the one "hope" (Ep 4:4), which clearly includes the
literal resurrection of the body from the dead (cf. Ac 23:6;
24:15; 26:6-8; Ro 8:23-24). To deny the one "hope", or to
substantively change its meaning, is as damnable to one's soul as
to change the one "baptism", the one "Lord", or the one "God".
Since the consequence of the doctrine so seriously disrupts the
"unity of the Spirit" (Ep 4:3-6), I do not know how fellowship
can be maintained with those who espouse this doctrine, just as I
cannot have fellowship with those who teach a different
"baptism", "Lord", etc.
But the real reason for writing is to offer a suggestion on how
to refer to the doctrine. Marc Gibson in his introduction listed
different names by which it has been come to be called:
> I) NAMES/TERMS GIVEN TO THIS DOCTRINE > A) A.D. 70 Doctrine >
B) Realized Eschatology (doctrine of completed last things) >
C) Fulfilled Eschatology > D) Covenant Eschatology > E)
Preterist (past) > Fl Kingism (The Max King Doctrine)
Of the five above, I believe either "realized eschatology" or
"fulfilled eschatalogy" are the ones most descriptive and lest
likely to impugn innocent brethren.
Many people not familiar with the issue are likely to confuse
"A.D. 70 Doctrine" or "preterist" with those brethren who simply
hold to the view that Revelation was written in A.D. 70. The
term "Kingism" smacks of "Campbellism" and I know how we all feel
when people through that one at us. I've never heard of "covenant
eschatology", so I don't know if it can possibly be confused with
some other teaching that is not the same.
Finally, for the benefit of others on ML, just a thought on how
best to approach this issue. In my limited efforts to study with
others who subscribe to the doctrine of "realized eschatology"
(which includes not only the preacher referenced to above, but
some members of the Presbyterian Reformed church who were well
versed in the doctrine), I have focused on the Biblical teaching
of the resurrection of the body. Including the passages mentioned
above, I emphasize 1 Corinthians 15, where I believe the doctrine
of "realized eschatology" is most weak in its efforts to explain
the Scriptures.
I also depend heavily on the Book of Revelation. Subscribing to
the early date (A.D. 70) myself, this puts me one up on those who
hold a later date that have to deal with this issue. I try to
illustrate how all of the events "realized eschatology" purports
to have occured in A.D. 70 could not have occurred at one time.
Events that supposedly occurred in A.D. 70 are separated in the
Book of Revelation by other events occuring over long periods of
time, and to propose that all these events happened in one event
is ludicrous to any who come to the book with an open mind.
That leads to a final point. I have found that it is almost
impossible to make any headway with someone who is strongly
enamoured with this doctrine. The reason pertains to how one
studys the Bible and treats the Biblical evidence. I see a great
similarity in how the Bible is handled with those who are JW's.
Presuppositions, limiting definitions, ignoring context, etc.,
all making it difficult to reason together.
Unfortunately, it is an approach to the Scriptures that is
endemic among faithful brethren, which is one reason why the
"realized eschatology" has appealed to so many. I call this
approach "concordance theology" with a degree of "reactionary
theology" thrown in. Allow me to define my terms...
CONCORDANCE THEOLOGY:
This is where one lists all the Scriptures that use a particular
term or phrase and draw conclusions based upon the presumption
that the term or phrase means the same thing in every text. This
is a mistake the JW's make with their use of "soul" and "spirit",
and I have seen brethren make the same mistake with the
expression "eternal life" and other terms. "Realized eschatology"
make the same mistake with expressions like "the day of the
Lord", or the "coming of the Lord".
I propose the Scriptures should be studied the way they were
written. Verse by verse, chapter by chapter, etc., with an
awareness that in most cases the original readers were expected
to understand the writer without the benefit of other epistles or
books that had not been written or generally available at the
time. Therefore the answer to most questions about a troublesome
verse are likely to be found in the context of the verse or book
itself. Certainly there are exceptions to this rule, but we must
be careful not to apply a Bible author's use of a phrase or word
in one context to determine what he or someone else might mean in
a totally different context (whether in the book itself, or in a
totally different book).
REACTIONARY THEOLOGY:
This is where one studies the Scriptures, not so much to learn
what it says, but to prove that what others teach can't be true.
The danger is that we are likely to accept any argument that
seems to support our position, and indeed we may even go looking
for arguments to support our cause.
When brethren begin to say their position is right because it
makes one better able to defeat the denominationalists, that
tells me "reactionary theology" has been taking place.
Personally, I try to study the Bible to find out what God wants
me to do, not to prove someone else wrong.
I view "realized eschatology" as an over-zealous reaction to
pre-millenialism. But because brethren often engage in a
"reactionary approach" to the Scriptures (i.e., studying to prove
the others wrong rather than studying to find out what I am to
do), they are very susceptible to those doctrines whose appeal is
how effective they appear to dealing with other forms of error.
Enough for now. May you and all on ML have a wonderful Lord's
Day tomorrow...
Brotherly,
Mark (eagerly awaiting the redemption of his body - Ro 8:23-24)
Mark A. Copeland 1537 E. Jason Street
Kissimmee, FL 34744-4048
(407) 931-1725
copeland@magicnet.net
The "EXECUTABLE OUTLINES" Series http://users.aol.com/exeout/
|