As I recall, the old adage went something like this:

“In matters of faith, unity. In matters of opinion, liberty and in all things charity”. Since eschatology is certainly a speculative area of Biblical study, when did amillennialism become the un-written official end-time theory of the CC & COC?

-- Anonymous, September 11, 2002

Answers

So who says it is? I've known a number of ministers and college professors around the country who aren't a-millenial.

-- Anonymous, September 11, 2002

Phil;

I keep reading your tripe and it sickens me. You are not looking for good discussion, it is apparent to me you are looking for people to agree with you. And, if people do not you conjure fanciful name tags such as "slippery slope groupie", albeit usually pejorative. So tell me what kind of person are you, because that is certainly not Christian. I can disagree with you by just saying I do, without a label.

For example, I am neither a, pre or post millenial. I am aware that many if not most in our brotherhood lean towards amillenialism.

But one problem I have with premillenialism, is that it allows for people to get a second chance based only on the fact that they are alive at the first return of Christ.

Now you say you are post trib - and explained that it means Christ returns for all after the 7 year tribulation. This is a new concept for me. I have not heard a person take the post trib position and couple it with Christ's only return.

It seems the only difference between your belief and mine is that I don't accept a literal 7 year trib. I believe the trib is that of life. It would take a sadistic act to allow worse things than what has already happened.

By the way, get your anti-Christ theology corrected. There is no such thing as ONE anti-Christ. Read II John - there are many anti- Christs.

-- Anonymous, September 11, 2002

Bill Umstetter,

Sorry, but I have not developed a taste for “tripe” either. Seriously, I don’t expect anyone to agree with my eschatology – that is perfectly fine with me and I am at perfect peace with God and my conscience about it. The purpose of this post wasn’t to find those who would agree with me, but to attempt to establish once and for all that Mr. Barry over-reaction to my eschatological remarks in a previous post is both unnecessary and unchristian, do to the fact that his end-time views are not the norm in the history of the church. Your response has contributed to establishing that very point.

You say, “And, if people do not you conjure fanciful name tags such as "slippery slope groupie". Please re-examine previous posts and tell me who really is being pejorative. I have been called everything form Pharisee on down. Is it fanciful to state the facts as they are? “Slippery slope” is not a new expression by far when one is referring to the onslaught of apostasy in the church. I’m not sure, but I believe it was Spurgeon who first coined the expression. You say “For example, I am neither a, pre or post millenial. I am aware that many if not most in our brotherhood lean towards amillenialism. But one problem I have with premillenialism, is that it allows for people to get a second chance based only on the fact that they are alive at the first return of Christ.” This is entirely untrue of classic premillennialism. Like Mr. Barry, you are confusing premillennialism with dispensationalism. I am neither a dispensationalist nor a pre-tribulationist.

You say, “By the way, get your anti-Christ theology corrected. There is no such thing as ONE anti-Christ. Read II John - there are many anti-Christs.” Read the passage again. The apostle John is not denying a future literal Antichrist; he is only affirming that there are plenty of candidates around even during his era.

-- Anonymous, September 11, 2002

Like I said, it seems to be in unwritten creed. As Bill has said, “I am aware that many if not most in our brotherhood lean towards amillennialism.” Sam, I own most of College Press’ Bible Study Textbook series, and every single author I have read from our ranks seems to espouse amillennialism. The only exception I have found so far is Ben Merold (an avid dispensationalist) who often writes for the Restoration Herald.

-- Anonymous, September 11, 2002

Then you haven't read enough. College Press is anything but the "official organ" for the Restoration Movement. (Although I used to hear Ozark grads occasionally, and in jest, sing, "My hope is built on nothing less than Don Dewelt and College Press.") And you'll notice I didn't make any reference to printed material. I said "ministers and college professors". I reject your presumption from the start.

-- Anonymous, September 11, 2002

Sam,

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Thanks for the humor – I needed that today specially after all of the depressing 9/11 media feed of yesterday . You have no idea how relieved I am to hear you say that. Of course I know that CP is not the official organ of the RM, but I believe that it is representative of a significant cross section of the brotherhood. If I am wrong, please correct me. I would love nothing more to be mistaken on this one.

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2002

Phil,

According to your website you have received all of your education by reading College Press books. If you have such a dismal view of them, what does that say about your biblical exegesis since you learned it all from them?

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2002

I certainly am mySELF no "significant cross section of the brotherhood", and do not deem myself to be able to speak the official position of anybody but me. But in my experience, there are few ministers under the age of about 55 who ever use College Press material for more than minor reference or to "borrow" sermons or lesson outlines. I don't know the sales figures at all, but I would guess that College Press isn't even in the top 10 as far as sales to ministers of reference or study books, or Sunday School curriculum. I do stand to be corrected by more knowledgeable folks.

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2002

Since we are not a denomination, there is not an official anything.

Sam, you're probably right about the CP stuff, and it's too bad. They put out some good stuff, much of it scholarly. But they also find it necessary to print stuff that should be relgated to the bottom of the bird cage. Consistency would be nice.

Phil, nobody questioned your salvation because of premillism. But, like it or not, it does taint all your other arguments. And your comments about antichrist are simply false. John does not leave open the possibility of a future main Antichrist (or however you stated it, i'm not trying to misquote you), he stated quite clearly that there were already many antichrists and they were the ones that said Jesus did not come in the flesh, i.e., the Gnostics.

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2002

I see that Mr. Barry continues to enjoy taking pot shots at those of us who dare question his views on the CGM and the WCA. Never have I even come close to a “dismal view” of College Press. All I said was that the eschatological view expressed by many if not most of their authors is one that I don’t share. I have benefited immensely from their writings otherwise. But again, this doesn’t seem to even faze Mr. Barry because he is entirely bent on making a fool out of me. His is a strategy of hit-and-run. He likes to play cat and mouse all over this forum, as he has done repeatedly with Scott S. and others in the past. Of course, it doesn’t surprise me as he has already uttered blasphemous statements, i.e. comparing Jesus with “gurus”, et al. These CGM/ WCA groupies sure are a slippery bunch. Seldom do they speak in clear affirmations. Rather, they love to sidestep the issues at hand by constantly introducing new subject matter into the works. It seems that they will stop at nothing to defend their masters. They remind me of the followers of Samuel Juaquín, the so-called “apostle/ prophet” of the Mexican pseudo-Christian cult La Luz del Mundo (“The Light of the World”) who have been experiencing a phenomenal growth world-wide. They claim nearly 3 million followers in 29 countries. When one tries to argue with them concerning their leader’s credentials, they inevitably fall into the pattern of circular argument. It goes something like this:

Q. How do you know that SJ is a true apostle of Christ?

A. We know that he is, because of their teachings.

Q. But how do you know that the doctrine they teach is true?

A. Because he is a true apostle of Christ, and true apostles never teach false doctrine.

Now, I admit that this may be a simplistic example (although it is an accurate one regarding this particular cult), but just substitute Samuel Juaquin for the name of Bill Hybels, Robert Schuller, etc., and you have the same situation with these CGM and WCA groupies. Their argument goes something like this:

Q. How do you know that Bill Hybels (or any other CGM guru) is teaching and practicing New Testament Christianity?

A. We know that he is because of his results.

Q. How do you know that his results truly honor God and His word?

A. Because he is a true minister of the Gospel and true ministers always honor God and His word.

SAD, SAD, SAD

P.S.: groupie: An enthusiastic young fan (especially a young woman who follows rock groups around). An ardent follower

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2002

Scott,

Can we agree to disagree at least just this once? I mean, the issue at hand is not whose eschatology is right (frankly, I could care less at this juncture). There is a larger issue at stake here and I’m afraid that Mr. Barry is succeeding in his attempts to derail it by his hit-n-run tactics. Don’t you see what he is trying to do? He is trying to get us to argue among ourselves in order to side-step the original subject – a devilish trick if you ask me. Whether my premill or post-trib eschatology “taints” my other statements is entirely beside the point, as I assume that you understand. My mistake was to respond to Mr. Barry’s remarks by starting a separate thread. For that, I truly and sincerely apologize. I am interested more in your views on the CGM and the WCA than I am in an end-time theology debate.

Nevertheless, if others would care to discuss eschatology they can email me direct.

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2002

LOL Phil. I don't really give a rip what your eschatological views are. I also don't give a rat's rear end about what you think of the Church Growth Movement. You have proven that you have no idea what you're talking about on any of these issues. I would have a whole lot more respect for you if you would actually research some things for yourself rather than simply cutting and pasting a bunch of nonsense from the "Christian" National Enquirer websites. I am not putting you down because of our disagreements, but because you don't know what you're talking about. If you did, we could disagree agreeably, but since you just like to blow a lot of hot air, and change your position with the direction of the wind, you have gained no respect from anyone.

-- Anonymous, September 12, 2002

As far as I am concerned, you have just given away who you really are. You are an undercover agent for the Vatican’s ecumenical agenda (boy do we have plenty of them within our ranks). You think that you can deceive all of us into believing that you are a true brother in Christ, when in fact you are not. Your style of argumentation is typical of RC apologists – elusive and circular reasoning.

I may not know anything about the Church Growth Movement, as you claim, but you don’t know one thing about true New Testament Christianity either – you have just proven it with your foul language and demeanor. All I need to prove my case is a little time, but I highly doubt that you will ever repent of your pitiful arrogance. Just as God preserved a remnant from among his people Israel and His righteous judgment befell on the people of Edom for their wicked pride and plotting with Israel’s enemies, so will you be judged and brought down from your little Petra that you have built for yourself, unless you repent before the Lord in do time. Meanwhile, a remnant of God’s church will survive until the end, even when apostates, blasphemers, and compromisers like you attempt to destroy it.

-- Anonymous, September 14, 2002

Phil:

Let it go. You're becoming a joke. The only one being truly exposed for what he is is you. You have shown no spirit of love, no desire to honestly discuss ideas. All you've done is shout out, "I'm right and you're wrong and I have you all figured out." I shudder to think what harm you may be doing to the cause of Christ where you are working if that is the attitude with which you approach all ministry.

-- Anonymous, September 15, 2002

For those of you that are not aware, most of what College Press prints these days are self-published books. I'm not against self- publishing, but CP does not go out of its way to mention that this is the mainstay of their present book publishing business. This explains some of the inconsistencies.

Also, I must admit that I was a bit shocked that Phil has uncovered my position as "an undercover agent for the Vatican’s ecumenical agenda". Now that I've been exposed I don't know what to do?!? Where can I run for cover? Maybe some of my "slippery slope groupie" friends can help? Phil, you're a riot! Do you write for Letterman?

-- Anonymous, September 18, 2002