Being a man of strong conviction and forceful argument that he was, Chambers did justice to his amillennialist eschatology in his article “Messianic Nationalism and the Credibility of the Bible”, published in the Christian Standard, January 10, 1982. Never one to pull any punches, he challenged his audience to objectively evaluate his position on the role of Israel in Bible prophecy:

“If you care about the subject, you will either sentence this essay to the stake as a piece of heresy or consign it to the efficient oblivion of the file cabinet. In either case, it will be remembered on earth no more. Please, neither flame nor file! Perhaps a ten-year time capsule? Any significance of this piece is in its survival more than its approval.”

Well, the “ten-year capsule” has come to an end. We are on the verge of a third world war and guess what nation is at the central focus of global attention. Not even New York and 9/11 have been able to overshadow the enormous significance of recent events in the Middle East. I am absolutely convinced that, unless God decides to postpone fulfillment of prophecy for a little while longer, we will soon witness the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and the physical appearance of the man of sin as prophesied by Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians.

Was Roger Chambers simply wrong about his views on Israel in prophecy? Yes, I believe he was. Well I do not condemn Chambers’ end-time views as “heresy”, I care enough about this subject (as should all those who truly love God’s Words and anxiously await his literal and visible second-coming) to beg to differ with his conclusions. Though I agree with Chambers on most of the subjects he covered, I believe that his end-time views were somewhat unfortunate. I dare to say this with all do respect - with fear and trembling. I used to be an amillennialist myself until I got tired of constantly trying to explain away uncomfortable texts. Undoubtedly, all of my beloved conservative and amillennialist brethren in this form will have a heart-attack over what I have just said, but I am confident that history will prove them to be in the dark and unprepared for what is to come.

Chambers: “Here it is. The state of Israel does not fulfill prophecy, so if it falls, the Bible will not fall with it.”

This simplistic statement flies in the face of an overwhelming amount of Biblical evidence to the contrary. This thread is too limited to deal with this issue at length, but if Israel does not fulfill prophecy than we have just thrown out ľ of the Bible out the window. The fact is that either the Bible stands together or falls together, and the pending prophecies regarding Israel’s role in the end-times will show this to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact, my most effective rebuttal of the amillennialist and preterist views is history itself.

Chambers: “With God there is no longer a distinction between Jew and non-Jew, in or out of the church, and He gave no signs for the immediate return of Jesus. There. Right or wrong, it's in the record. Ten years from now it might be important to remember that a teacher of eschatology said it in 1982.”

Yes, it is indeed important to remember that Chambers said this because he might just end up having to swallow his own words. As a matter of fact, I am sure he knows better now that he has gone to be with his Lord. Replacement Theology, as it is called in eschatological circles, ignores that many pending OT and NT prophecies regarding the remnant of the people of Israel as Paul so clearly establishes in his letter to the church in Rome. Replacement theologians base their argument on three false premises:

1) Since the Jewish nation rejected her Messiah, the Church is the new spiritual Israel. Thus, all promises made to the nation of Israel have been transferred over to the Church. 2) Since the Jewish nation rejects Christians, she had forfeited her prophetic role. 3) Others go so far as to assert the modern-day Jewry is no more Jewish than the man on the moon and are therefore usurpers of ancient Israel.

I’m not so naďve as to believe that anything I might say in this forum will change anybody’s mind concerning the end-time. I know it wasn’t easy for me to see the light either.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2002

Answers

Well Philip, you got me to respond to you. That's something I decided shortly after Christmas that I would no longer do.

To respond to just one point that you hold, I've cut & pasted an article I wrote about a year ago. _____________________________

The New Jew

We all know that the Jews were God’s chosen people through whom the Messiah would come. Jews are Hebrews, which is a term used for the descendants of Abraham. The term “Jew” was a slang term given the Hebrews which first appeared sometime during the exile. It was a shortened and slurred form of “Judean.” Messiah came through the Jews, of the line of David, of the tribe of Judah, born of the virgin Mary, while Caesar Augustus was reigning and Quirinius was governor of Syria. Of that there is no doubt.

The Messiah established a new Kingdom, the Church. Since the Jews were a special chosen people, how does the Jew relate to this new Kingdom of the Messiah? Wasn’t the promise to Abraham concerning his descendants an eternal promise? It most certainly was. But it was always for those who had the FAITH of Abraham. Just having the FLESH of Abraham meant very little.

The New Testament has some very interesting things to say concerning the New Testament Jew. Jesus made it very clear that the Hebrew nation of Israel would no longer be the Kingdom of God. Listen to Jesus as He speaks to the Jewish leaders, “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.”(Mt 21:43) Or again, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!”(Mt. 23:37, 38) The special status the Jews had as God’s nation was coming to an end. But there is more to be learned in the New Testament than just this.

Paul begins to clarify things when he writes his letter to the Romans. He says,

“For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.”(Rom 2:25-29)

It is not what is on the outside that makes a person a Jew. It is what is inside. In other words, it is not the flesh of Abraham that makes you his descendant, it is having the faith of Abraham that does. It does not matter what your genealogy is. A Jew is anyone who has the faith of Abraham. What kind of faith did Abraham have? The kind of faith that was obedient in all things. When God called Him out of his homeland, Ur, and told him to go to a strange land, Abraham simply complied. When God told him that he would have a son even though he was an old man, he believed. After the son was born and was becoming a young man, the pride of his father’s eye, and God said to sacrifice that one and only son, he didn’t ask why, he simply made the proper preparations and was ready to obey. The writer of Hebrews tells us this amazing tidbit of information:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, “IN ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS SHALL BE CALLED.” He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type. (Heb 11:17- 19)

Abraham had the kind of faith that when God told him to sacrifice his own son he believed that God would raise him back to life again. He believed God when God said that through Isaac the promise would be fulfilled. Abraham had an amazing faith, yet it’s the kind of faith God desires out of each one of His people.

Paul wrote some more about the New Testament Jews. In Galatians he states:

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise.”(Gal 3:26-29)

There is no longer a distinction between Jew and Gentile. If a person is in Christ he is a descendant of Abraham. A descendant of faith according to the promise that God made with Abraham. Once again we see the New Testament Jew is NOT according to the flesh. The New Testament Jew is the Christian. Hear the Apostle Paul once again when he writes: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: ‘THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.’ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. For this is the word of promise: ‘AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.’”(Rom 9:6-8) Just because a person was born with an Israelite pedigree does not make him a descendant of Abraham!

In fact, the entire theme of the letter to the Romans is that there is not a special fleshly people. God shows no distinction. Consider these verses out of Romans and notice Paul’s emphasis on words like “each,” “everyone,” and “all.”:

1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 2:6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 2:9-11 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. 3:9-12 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.” 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. 10:12, 13 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.” 14:11 For it is written, “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.”

An Old Testament Jew had the sign of circumcision. Christians too have something similar, only better.

“For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”(Col 2:9-12)

Christians have a circumcision that, though it does not remove the foreskin, it instead removes sin. It is not performed by hands, but instead occurs at baptism, when, by faith, a person surrenders his will to the will of God. God works in baptism to remove our sin and set us apart as His very own.

Who is the new Jew? It is anyone, regardless of genealogy, who has faith in God to live according to His will by following after His only begotten Son Jesus the Christ. (Other passages to consider: Romans 4:1-18; 8:14-17; 11:16-31; Galatians 6:14-18; Philippians 3:2- 4; et al.).

Many people still claim to be Jews physically descended from Abraham. That claim is meaningless. It is not by flesh we are saved, it is through faith. God no longer makes a distinction between Jew and Gentile. We are saved by grace, not race – by faith, not flesh. No matter what a person’s background or genealogy, God, through faith, makes us one, the Body of Christ. May we all stand united and be God’s people, the New Jews. _____________________________________________________

I'm sure you'll accuse me of being brainwashed by McGarvey, Chambers, or some other such nonsense - you usually do (I find it interesting how you know my positions better than I do), but don't tell me I have to ignore or dance around Scriptures to answer in a Scriptural way. I don't dance! I don't ignore the clear teachings of Scripture either! There were indeed things Chambers was wrong about. This is not one of them. Btw, we've dealt with the premil silliness in several other threads. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

Premils can never let go of the newspaper headlines. Even you have done it to try and reenforce your argument, "We are on the verge of a third world war and guess what nation is at the central focus of global attention. Not even New York and 9/11 have been able to overshadow the enormous significance of recent events in the Middle East." Similar words were spoken in 1990 when Iraq was lobbing missiles into Israel and Hussein was the antichrist. Before that it was the Libyans and Qadafi was the antichrist. Before that it was Breznev (sp?) and the Russians. Before that that it was Stalin, Hitler, and on and on and on and on and on. And I'm sure I missed more than a few. Please dont lecture me about being in the dark.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2002

Philip....

Give me your phone number so I can call you in ten years!!

I'm pretty dog-gone sure that number will not have a 1000 year "Messianic Kingdom in Jerusalem" prefix!!

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2002

The entire article can be read here: www.cccflorida.org/Messianic% 20Nationalism.htm

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2002

Scott, Thank you for proving me to be a prophet (tongue-in-cheek). I said you would have a “heart attack” over this issue and you did. Seriously, I am glad I got you to respond because I firmly believe that our brotherhood ought to be able to discuss these subjects openly without branding each other as “heretics” or other similar epitaphs. Let me get something clear Scott, I do not make end-time views a matter of salvation or fellowship. As a matter of fact, in our own little church in Mexico you could probably find all four major eschatological views represented and we get along just fine. You say that you are tired of hearing the same premill rehash over and over again. Well, I am tired of hearing the old amill rehash over and over again, specially when it seems to fly in the face of the apostle Paul’s doctrine on the faithful remnant of Israel. You amills keep doing what Paul warned us not to do: ignore that God is not finished dealing with Israel and that the gentile church is a branch that was grafted into the main trunk of Israel, not the other way around. You say: “I'm sure you'll accuse me of being brainwashed by McGarvey, Chambers, or some other such nonsense - you usually do (I find it interesting how you know my positions better than I do), but don't tell me I have to ignore or dance around Scriptures to answer in a Scriptural way. I don't dance! I don't ignore the clear teachings of Scripture either! There were indeed things Chambers was wrong about. This is not one of them.” I have never accused you of bein “brainwashed” by anybody. I have pointed out the obvious coincidences between your thinking on certain issues and McGarvey’s views. Your standard argument is that you have arrived at those conclusions ex nihilo, i.e. without any outside influence. That is quite unbelievable in light of the facts. Time will reveal who is wrong about end-times, in the end of course. All I am saying is that the amill position doesn’t seem to jive with the full counsel of God’s inspired Word, in my view. I have just as much of a right to express this misgiving with amillennialism as you do about premillennialism. The question is, can we be both adults about and accept that we can remain as Christian brethren in spite of our opposing viewpoints on eschatological subjects? Your answer seems to say “NO”.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2002

Danny,

Don't be silly. There will be no phones in Christ's kingdom. You must be referring to the other kingdom.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2002

Hi Philip, I've had the opposite experience. I started out a dispensationalist and switched to amillenialist. I got tired of trying to defend all the unjustifiable speculation in the dispensational position. Could you define what position you hold? Are you premill-pretrib- dispensational or what?

Thanks,

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2002

Barry,

I sincerely appreciate and honest enquiry.

Please allow me to preface my following statements by making a few pertinent clarifications first.

1. I do not ignore the high caliber of scholarship of many of my amillennialist brethren in Christ. Probably the most outstanding proponent of this particular school of thought was B. B. Warfield of well know Evangelical fame. Those who hold to this view are never lacking in credentials.

2. I firmly believe that, in matters of end-time study, we can freely agree to disagree without branding each other as "heretics" or even worse things. I understand that much vitriolic debate has gone on between the various camps and I am not so naive as to think that my view will necessarily win the day. My main concern is that conservative brethren, of which I consider myself to be a part, have virtually hijacked the Restoration Plea by imposing their eschatological views on the rest of us as the only "sane" and "Biblical" approach to the study of eschatology. That is what I lament the most, namely that a movement that began with a spirit of tolerance regarding non-essentials has fast become polarized and fragmented by those on the left as well as those on the right. Both are guilty of making their pet beefs the mainstay of the Movement.

3. The historic fact is that Campbell was neither amill or premill, but postmill as his Millennial Harbinger testifies. This fact has been overlooked far too long by our people. If Campbell were alive today, he would be embarrassed by our bickering over end-time theories.

4. Those on the right in our movement rightly bemoan the horrible inroads that Calvinism has made in the Movement. So do I, with all of my heart, mind and strength. At the same time, they seem to ignore that it was precisely Calvinism that gave us amillenialism in the first place. Calvin continued embracing the Roman Catholic position on Church-State relations and he envisioned the Church eventually taking over the governments of the world. Not in vain was he dubbed the "Pope of Geneva". All major modern-day proponents of amillenialism (B B Warfield, Jay Adams, Hockema, et al.) are rabid Calvinists.

5. A common and highly unfortunate notion among amills is that all premills are dispensationalists. That is far from being true. They seem to ignore the fact that premillennialism predates Darby's dispensationalism and all other eschatological schools. Although hotly debated, premillennialism is the historic position of the Church throughout the centuries.

6. Premillennialism is not at all at odds with so-called Covenant Theology. On the contrary, it is acutely aware of the different covenants through which God has dealt with man throughout the ages. What some call Covenant Theology today is nothing more than a modern- day hybrid called Reconstuctionism. I'm sorry, but Roger was a border- line reconstructionist as attested to by his statements regarding church involvement in social issues.

7.

Now to answer your question. I am not an amillennialist and certainly not a post-millennialist (not to be confused with post- tribulationist). But neither am I a dispensationalist by any stretch of the imagination. I have decided to cast my lot with the post-trib premills because I am convinced that this system of interpretation best fits the Biblical data. Having said that, I don't expect that I will convince anyone in this thread of my position. That is all too obvious. What I do plead for is a more open-minded and mature attitude on behalf of my amill brethren towards those of us who disagree with them on these issues.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2002

Hi Philip, Would you say you fit into the Historic Premillenial camp, rather than the dispensational one? If so, that view makes a whole lot more sense to me. The extreme dispensationalists such as Hal Lindsay have really given the whole view a bad name, and unfortunately most people think that all premillenialists are also dispensationalists.

I would never use differences on eschatological views as a means of determining fellowship. Of course, my lines are not drawn nearly as clearly as some others on this board on any number of issues, including charismata, women's roles, etc...

Here in Minnesota, as far as I can determine, most of the ministers are amillenial, and most of the church members are dispensationalists (although they don't really know what they are). In Kentucky, where I served previously, most of the ministers were dispensationalists which really surprised me. Most were older and from talking to them about this very subject, the majority had had absolutely no training on these issues at all in Bible College/Seminary and took to the popular view at the time.

I do agree that most Calvinists hold to the amillenial position, or to a preterist viewpoint. I don't see how this effects the truth or falsehood of the position, however.

While I do think it is a valid and interesting study, the most I delve into this subject from the pulpit is an exhortation to be ready when Jesus comes. I am not quite as concerned about the how.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2002

Phil;

There are 2 issues that always seem bizarre to me in dealing with premils. First, they say that there is a second chance for the wicked. But at closer look, it is not for all the wicked, it is only for those who are alive at Christ's return. How bizarre is that, one merits a second chance based on that one being fortunate to have birth at the right time. That would truly demonstrate a God who is a respector of persons and not of true justice.

Second,I hold that Revelation was written by the apostle John to the church in the first century. I hold that every thing he wrote was symbolic but yet they clearly understood all of his symbolism as they were the specific recipients of the letter. Having said this, it makes no sense to me what soever that modern day events applies to the Revelation (most often North America and her interests world wide). If they do, the first century people would have no clue. Thus logically speaking he would be writing an empty letter to the intended readers.

Finally, I am not a ah, or pre, or post millenialist. I am pro- millenial. I don't care how it happens, I am for it.

BTW, just a thought, but the term "dancing with scriptures", has been used enough on this forum. Shall we stop the use of the term, as any one who uses multiple scriptures to prove his point can easily be said to be dancing. Pejoratives don't work. Simply say I disagree. AS I apologized for mine, I would hope that you would do the same and walk on a higher level.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2002

Barry, You ask me: “Would you say you fit into the Historic Premillenial camp, rather than the dispensational one?” My answer would be a tentative YES. As you know Barry, there exist many subdivisions within each eschatological camp. While some historic premills have run into the same muck of speculation as many in the dispensational school, I believe that the overall system of interpretation is sound. Of course, I don’t expect either Scott or Danny to agree with that. You say: “I would never use differences on eschatological views as a means of determining fellowship. Of course, my lines are not drawn nearly as clearly as some others on this board on any number of issues, including charismata, women's roles, etc... “ I appreciate that Barry. You say: “Here in Minnesota, as far as I can determine, most of the ministers are amillenial, and most of the church members are dispensationalists (although they don't really know what they are).” I suspect that if were to take a national poll, this would be true as well. The question is why? We can blame it on all the propaganda in favor of pre-trib premillennialism but I think that the problem has a deeper origin, namely that a premill position (of whatever brand) makes more sense the amill spiritualization of problem texts. You say: “In Kentucky, where I served previously, most of the ministers were dispensationalists which really surprised me. Most were older and from talking to them about this very subject, the majority had had absolutely no training on these issues at all in Bible College/Seminary and took to the popular view at the time. “ Well, if it takes a Bible College training to help us explain away the obvious meaning of Scripture that would be a logical expectation. The smugness and elitist mind-set of so many College trained leaders leaves much to be desired in my view.

You say: “I do agree that most Calvinists hold to the amillennialist position, or to a preterist viewpoint. I don't see how this affects the truth or falsehood of the position, however. “ Of course that is true Barry, but it ought to raise a few more eyebrows than it does. Those of us who oppose Darby’s pre-trib rapture wouldn’t think twice to point out it’s questionable origin, why should we stop at dispensationalism? You say: “While I do think it is a valid and interesting study, the most I delve into this subject from the pulpit is an exhortation to be ready when Jesus comes. I am not quite as concerned about the how.” I agree 100%

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2002

Just for the record, I have just posted most of the articles written that I possess on the Crown Hill web site in a pdf format. It will grow (as will the entire site) as I put together more material. You can access them them here:

www.crownhillchurch.com/Studies/Articles/Chambers/chambers.htm

If someone, who knows how, would like to make that a hypertext, it would't offend me.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2002

The above is supposed to read "the articles that I possess written by Roger Chambers..."

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2002