Big Mansions, the Antichrist, and Workout Shorts
Wednesday, September 27, 2006 at 02:48PM 
Here's a gem or two that readers sent to me of late.
These shorts, quite appropriately labeled, come from the folks at the Old Lutheran Gift Shop, where you can not only buy a new pair of workout shorts, but where you can also buy a six-pack of "Sin Boldly." You'll have to look that one up! Click here: Left Behind Gym Shorts: Old Lutheran Gift Shop (h.t. Mark Tritschler).
How come the Reformed don't have an "Old Calvinist Gift Shop?" My guess is that an old Calvinist would not be near as much fun as an old Lutheran!
______________________
And then there are these two links to "photo essays" over at Rapture Ready.
The first photo essay should give you all the incentive you need to work for that three-story heavenly mansion (Click here: Photorama), while the other lays out a list of potential candidates for Antichrist (Click here: Photorama) (h.t. Mrs. Guy deBresil)
I guess the Riddleblog is a close as the Reformed get to Rapture Ready . . .
Any thoughts? Send me links to stuff you find and I'll use them if they strike me as funny (or, if someone hasn't beat me to it).
Reader Comments (26)
As far as an "Ole Calvinist Gift Shop" Reformerware seems like the best we can do: http://www.reformerware.com/
Also, instead of a Luther bobblehead, check out the Calvin counterpart: http://www.calvinstuff.com/gifts/bobbleheads.htm
Just one of the straws that broke the camel's back to bring to a biblical theology!
Connie Cumbey researches Javier Solana a lot, but I'm not sure if she'd ID him as the man of sin.
The link below may be nutty, etc., but the building in question cost half a billion dollars, has $12,000 showers in each office (which may not be slept in for security reasons), and had to have the doors widened to bring in the chairs, which are too wide to fit through a normal door. Incidentally, the building is used one week a month, save August, when Europe shuts down. (You may remember the French president didn't bother to interrupt his vacation two summers ago when 14,000 people died from the heat in France. Granted, the French healthcare system is stretched to the breaking point, with those poor souls have to work 35 hours a week, 44 weeks a year.)
http://thewatcher.co.uk/europe/europe.htm
(And perhaps all those political action "churches" should order "RIGHT BEHIND" shorts for their ilk.)
I've seen other critiques of the "Left Behind" series, but nothing that's really very good.
Frankly, the "Left Behind" series, mixing as it does (1) error, (2) speculation, and (3) fiction, with a smattering of truth, reminds me of "The DaVinci Code."
Why people derive their theology from bare fiction, I don't know. Why they are drawn to utter speculation, I don't know. Why they put up with outright error, I don't know. But when these three strands are mixed (and cf. I Tim. 1:3,4), what a powerful enemy of truth they become! No wonder one of our enemy's chief tactics is to masquerade as an angel of light!
But, hey, LaHaye really believes that a pretrib rapture is proven by one verse (Tit. 2:13!), one chapter (II Thes. 2:1-12!), and one book (Revelation, with its Rev. 4:1!)!!! Amazing. Incredible. Can you believe he chose the first two arguments in his book "No Fear of the Storm?"
The only thing left behind in such thinking is exegesis and common sense!
Oh, how I'd like to see an amillenarian (i.e., KR!) write a refutation of pretrib or prewrath theory, and in defense of the posttrib view. We need one. As powerful as all the other arguments are (cf. Ladd, Gundry, Moo), they all come from premillers. What an extra arsenal comes from the amill position! (E.g., Pretribbers say that if there's no pretrib rapture, then logistically there can be no post second advent millennium [because there will be no one left, after a posttrib rapture/advent to be in such a millennium]. They're right! There's no pretrib rapture ... and thus there's no millennium following Christ's return! And, to do a "switcheroo," if there's no millennium between the second advent and the final judgment (based on many, many two-age arguments), then, on the basis of Jn. 5:28,29; 6:39,40,44,54; 11:24; 12:48; Acts 24:15; etc., there's no pretrib rapture either! Etc. Etc. Etc.)
Oh, how a well-exegeted amill system makes pretribbers squirm.
Maybe they should order those shorts!
Speculation! Sick of it!
Re: rapture and millennial views, while many (though not all) premillenarians are pretrib, I don't know of any amillenarians who are pretrib or prewrath re: the timing of the "catching up" of believers. Thus, regardless of what one thinks of the "tribulation" (e.g., whether it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, or the course of this age, or the end time apostasy, etc. ... or even a combination of the above in an already/not yet sense), the amillenarian shares with the posttrib view this singular basic sentiment: there is no "rapture" prior to the second advent of Christ; rather, the "catching up" of I Thes. 4, the "gathering" of II Thes. 2 (and Mt. 24), the "receiving" of Jn. 14 (cf. the "taking" of Mt. 24), and the "changing" of I Cor. 15, all coincide with the singular second advent of Christ.
It's my contention that a belief in the two-age amill view leads to an even stronger case for the above scenario, than that, say, of a premillennial posttribulationism. (As an example, Gundry, who is posttrib but premill, rightly sees the end of the age in Mt. 24 as coinciding with the second advent of Christ, but wrongly, because of his premill view, assumes the end in I Cor. 15 is the end of a post second advent millennium. How much more consistent is a full-orbed amill/"posttrib" perspective! It is, in my opinion, the death-blow to pretrib theory. And I have no doubt that a two-age amillenarian like KR could make quite an argument in that regard.)
I grew up on pre-trib stuff and arminism. I very glad there are sites like the Whitehorse Inn and books from Kim.
Ken
An understatement, to say the least! Thank God for the Riddleblog!!
I'm a tad confused by your comments:
1) "I just don't think it's [i.e., posttribulationism] his [i.e., KR's]position..." - Read pp. 141-45 in "A Case for Amillennialism." It's clear as a bell that KR's position is not only diametrically opposed to the pretrib position (i.e., the secret rapture/the rapture occurs seven years before the second coming view), but is essentially identical to the posttrib position that the catching up of believers will take plae at precisely the same time as the second coming of Christ (note Kim's reasoning from the words apokalypsis, epiphaneia, parousia ... as well as his repeated reference to the fact that the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of mankind, and the renovation of the cosmos will all take place simultaneously - at the second advent, a statement that at the very least indicates KR believes that the return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead in Christ, and the rapture of the living in Christ, will all take place concurrently). Again, I realize that some posttribbers are premill. But KR is not only amill (and thus against the premill scenario), but is also against the pretrib scenario.
2) As to the idea that KR might not be passionate about this subject - Have you read the intro to "Case" ... or the opening chapter ("A Morbid Curiosity") in KR's "The Man of Sin"??? Wasn't KR raised in a dispensational environment, and hasn't he switched to the Reformed view (praise God!), and (more to the point) doesn't the fact that he's written two books ("Case for Amillennialism"/"Man of Sin") show that he's passionate about Christians thinking their way straight and biblical about eschatology? And isn't one of the chief (if not THE chief) points of the dispensational system which KR is refuting its Israel/church distinction with the church being raptured to heaven before the trib for a heavenly home? KR mentions the Left Behind series several times in his books, as well as at the Riddleblog, as well as during radio appearances and via other printed sources ... and inasmuch as the subject of the rapture and its timing is such a big deal to pretribbers like LaHaye and Jenkins, it seems to me that disclosing the error of the pretrib system and the soundness of the "posttrib" system (by that I mean nothing more or less than that the events of a passage like I Thes. 4:13-5:11 occur precisely at the second advent) is very much a part of KR's passion.
3) As for "The Last Disciple" series - No, I have not read it. But isn't it preterist? (And clearly, regardless about the debate about whether or not Daniel's 70th week is or is not to be associated with the notion of an end times "tribulation," KR is no preterist!)
{By the way, as for the idea that amillenarians wouldn't use the term posttribulationist of themselves - check out Waldron's description of his position in "The End Times Made Simple." Waldron, according to the first half of his book, is obviously a two-age amillenarian; yet in his subsequent two chapters on the timing of the rapture he associates his postion with that of posttribulationism. I'm not quibbling about words; just trying to point out that amillenarians surely agree with posttribbers that the so-called rapture occurs at precisely the time of Christ's return, and not 7 or 3.5 or 1.75 years earlier!}
And to repeat my initial reason for bringing this all up, I remain convinced that as strong as the premill/posttrib position is against the pretrib view, I believe that the amill/"posttrib" case against the pretrib view is both more consistent and ultimately stronger. Again, Bob Gundry can use Jn. 6:39,40,44,54; 11:24 to rightly refute the pretrib view, but cannot bring himself to see that Jn. 12:48 (John's other "last day" passage), when linked to the other verses, not only rules out the pretrib view but also rules out the premill view! The resurrection of believers and the judgment of unbelievers occurs not 1007 years apart, but at the same time: when Jesus returns. Time and again Gundry uses good arguments that refute pretrib theory, but fails to see that these same passages also refute premillennialism. It's almost amusing to see how he squirms trying to refute pretribulationism and to defend premillennialism at one and the same time.
So the bottom line for me is this: (1) the classic dispensational/pretrib view is an erroneous view of the end times; (2) at the heart of this erroneous view is the notion that the church will be removed from the world seven years before the glorious second advent of Jesus; (3) although premillenarians like Ladd, Gundry and Moo have done some of the best work in trying to refute the pretrib view, an even better case against the pretrib view (which stands at the heart of dispensational eschatology) can be made from a full-fledged amillennial position; and (thus) (4) I'd love to see this amill case against pretrib theory be made ... and I think someone like KR would be a great candidate for doing so.
Enjoy the day! (And I'm sure looking forward to getting those "Left Behind"shorts. Inasmuch as I'm currently trying to set the record straight at my own church --via a series on eschatology-- I'm thinking of wearing these shorts during class!!!)
MacArthur, J. 2000. The gospel according to the Apostles : The role of works in the life of faith. Originally published: Faith works. Dallas : Word Pub., c1993. Word Pub.: Nashville, TN
I agree with you re: the essence (or: sine qua non) of classic dispensationalism: it is the iron-clad distinction between Israel and the church (contra, I believe, Eph. 2/3).
But we must remember that also at the heart of this idea is the (equally false) notion that Israel and the church have two distinctly different destinies: the earth for Israel, and heaven for the church! And the pretrib rapture fits right in here. Especially when the so-called church age is regarded as an interruption in God's plan for Israel, and is seen as an age that extends between the 69th and 70th of Daniel's 70th week, beginning at Pentecost and ending at "THE RAPTURE" - and with no relationship whatsoever to God's plan for Israel.
So I agree that dispenstionalism makes the Israel/church distinction its bottom line. But part and parcel of this distinction is the pretrib removal of the church prior to Daniel's 70th week.
you guess right. grand rapids is chock full of old calvinists and not a one of them is fun! it's really hard to find an earthy lutheran in this neck of the woods. he-he.
zrim
Israel on one side, and the church on the other???
(Now who will be left and who will be right?!?!?!)
I checked that place out. Has "contemporary reformationism" come to this? Please, no. You just can't put these great doctrines like Sola Gracia on dang T-shirts!