Recently, I have listened to several very popular Bible scholars as they defended their position on eschatology (the study of end-times Bible prophecy). There has been a vast resurgence of the original premillennial and the traditional postmillennial doctrine over the past decade and a half. Both of these views deny the pre tribulation rapture of the church and were the most commonly held views of organized Christianity prior to 1900. The majority of these scholars uniformly cite this fact as being their strongest argument for their belief that the church will endure the great tribulation period. The problem with this argument as their primary defense of their stated interpretation or any doctrine for that matter, is the fact they are placing historical interpretation over what the Bible actually says. One could just as easily use historical interpretation as a major argument defending sprinkling as the true mode of scriptural baptism. If we are going to use historical interpretation as our guide or major source for truth, we might soon find our self embracing heretical interpretation!
The truth is, history, when it is truthfully related, simply confirms truth, it does not nor has it ever, created truth. Truth is declared in the Bible. The Bible is truth! The Bible does not contain truth nor does it merely possess truth, it is truth! The criterion for interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself. Every doctrine of truth is always supported by truth within itself. False doctrine or doctrines that purport a lie are always discredited by the Scriptures themselves.
There can be no substitute here. If true church history has taught us anything it has taught us this. Every error in doctrine that has been declared since the Apostles has come from someone who has substituted the Bible as their argument for what they believed. Harry Emerson Fosdick is a perfect example. Priding himself as a liberal in theology, this able pulpiteer, who so eloquently expounded his liberal views from his pulpit and across our country for a great many years did so because he primarily based his theology on personal experience, rather than the Bible itself. Very early in his Christian experience, as a youth, he became attracted to the new theology being introduced in America from, at that time, some current leading theologians from Germany. These men sounded scholarly, they sounded reasonable, and they made fun of fundamentalist Christianity by deriding the authority of the Bible with their so called, higher critical methods of Biblical interpretation. Which meant basically, they treated the Bible on the same basis that they treated all other forms of ancient literature, simply as just another ancient book. They did not believe in the full inspiration of the Bible by the Spirit of God and they certainly did not believe in Biblical inerrancy. As a result, naturally, their opinion of God deteriorated to that of all natural philosophy along with every other major doctrine of the faith, until, they had no faith at all. Fosdick said in his sunset years, not long before he died, that his theology was one of despair. Little wonder, there were no basis for hope in anything he believed! He denied the virgin birth, the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ and His bodily resurrection and ascension into Heaven, for starters, and when you call yourself a Christian and do not believe these truths, you become as the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, "if Christ be not raised from the dead, we are of all men, the most miserable!" All he had left was a theology of despair! In pitiful fashion, that is indeed the consequence of basing one's theology upon anything but the Bible.
Dale Carnegie accurately stated the truth of human experience and our interpretations of our experiences in his book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People". In speaking of listening to the opinions of others and showing charity and good manners when visiting in another's home, one should never contradict the opinion or the statement of his host. To do so reveals the ignorance and poor manners of a person. He said of opinions, that he himself hardly held any of the same opinions he had embraced as a youth. Age and experience themselves change as life progresses and we mature. If our theology is based upon our personal experience, it is at best going to be an ever changing theology! Satan himself, and our own sinful, carnal nature will see to that!
Now for a charitable statement. The doctrine of the endtimes or eschatology, is not a primary doctrine of the Christian faith, it is a secondary matter. I simply chose this as an example of how some popular, current Bible scholars are using the historical interpretations of organized Christianity as the primary basis of their interpretation, rather than the Bible. I might add, that most of the scholars I am referring to have a solid Scriptural theology regarding issues of the primary doctrines of the faith, such as their doctrine of the Bible itself, of the deity of Jesus Christ and related doctrines such as the virgin birth of Christ, His sinless life, His blood atonement, His vicarious death on the cross and his bodily resurrection and ascension. Their positions on these matters are impeccable and are solidly based upon the Bible itself. It is because of this that I refused to call them by name. I do not want to create diversity among Christians over a secondary matter. In all honesty, I must add, that the reason for the resurgence of these views over the past decade or decade and a half has been for the most part the dishonesty of so many well known scholars who do believe in the pre tribulation rapture of the church. By that I mean many well meaning scholars who have projected dates for the rapture based upon far reaching conclusions that go well beyond the revelation of the Scriptures. These men, for whatever their reason or motivation, have violated every rule of traditional conservative interpretation of the Bible and set themselves up for a fall in confidence by setting dates for things which the Scriptures have made clear that there is no date given. In consequence, our number of fellows in the pre tribulation camp have dwindled.
Let us remember to always be true to the Bible in our every interpretation, and in our every doctrine. If our doctrine fails to pass the test of Scriptural continuity, let us submit our doctrine to the scrutiny of the Bible itself and revise it accordingly.
Part of the reason of so much false interpretations of our day is the marketing of Christianity we have become so exposed to over the past two decades. But that is another topic for another day. This is simply my opinion and I welcome yours.
In His dear name,
mike moore