Home » Posts tagged 'perspicuity'

Tag Archives: perspicuity

The Dovetailing of Biblical Eschatology and United States Foreign Policy

September 23, 2024 / 10 Comments on The Dovetailing of Biblical Eschatology and United States Foreign Policy

Religious Influence on Government

Virginia Baptists under the leadership of John Leland influenced James Madison and his writing of the Bill of Rights. They wouldn’t vote for ratification of the Constitution in Virginia without freedom of religion in a first amendment. This was a quid pro quo situation for the Baptists and Madison. After the consequences of the Great Awakening, Virginia had so many Baptists that they needed their support to pass legislation.

Religious folk still influence both domestic and foreign policy in the United States. In particular, the eschatology of American evangelicals affects politicians and lawmakers. Overall, Jews are no friend of evangelicals. A large majority of Jews treat evangelicals like trash. They hate and disdain them. Jews most often vote just the opposite as evangelicals and even try to ruin most of what they like. They direct caustic verbiage toward evangelicals, insulting them in a hateful manner. Nevertheless, a large number of evangelicals eagerly continue supporting Israel. Why?

Premillennialism

Many genuine, born-again Christians take the Bible literally. They approach the prophetic portions of scripture grammatically and historically. Even though prophecies contain figurative language, they interpret them according to their plain meaning. They believed like this from the first century until today. In more recent historical times, Christians established a literal method of interpretation of scripture, called dispensationalism. Dispensationalism systematized a belief already held by Christians, titled premillennialism.

Premillennialism is a theological perspective within Christian eschatology that asserts that Jesus Christ will physically return to Earth (the Second Coming) before the establishment of a literal thousand-year reign known as the Millennium. This belief corresponds to a literal interpretation of Revelation 20:1–6, which describes a period during which Christ reigns on earth following His return. The premillennial view emphasizes a literal reading of biblical texts, particularly those concerning end-time events. This approach maintains that prophecies regarding Christ’s second coming and the ensuing kingdom should be understood in their plain meaning unless context suggests otherwise.

A critical aspect of premillennialism is the belief that Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church are distinct entities with separate roles in God’s plan. Promises made to Israel, especially regarding land and kingdom, are viewed as not fulfilled by and in the church. Like Paul confirmed in Romans 11:26, “Israel shall be saved.”

A Voting Bloc of Premillennialists

Sixty-five percent of evangelical leaders identify as premillennial. According to various surveys, a substantial number of evangelicals hold premillennial beliefs, particularly in conservative circles. This aligns with the findings from an evangelical leaders survey, suggesting that premillennialism is indeed the dominant perspective within evangelicalism. Even among non-believers in non-evangelical churches and even non-church goers believe premillennialism.

Many evangelicals don’t identify as Baptist and many truly saved Baptists don’t identify as evangelicals. Many Charismatics do not consider themselves as evangelicals and evangelicals don’t consider themselves Charismatic. Without overlap, all evangelicals, Baptists, and Charismatics come to about 35% of the population of the United States. A higher percentage of Charismatics are premillennial than even evangelicals and Baptists.

65% of 35% is 23%. That would make twenty-three percent of Americans as premillennial. Twenty-tree percent of the 340 million Americans is 78 million premillennialists. That’s a very large and influential voting bloc and their eschatology affects their foreign policy.

Support of Israel and Opposition to Globalism

Premillennialists will support Israel. They also oppose globalism because they think this world will end with a one world government. This affects their position on borders and foreign wars. Part of the support of an American first agenda relates to opposition to the globalist perspective that involves the United States in unending foreign entanglements and wars.

I can see why a 35% voting bloc at least wants the United States to give Israel a free reign to defeat their enemies in the Middle East. Also, I understand why these same voters do not support the war in the Ukraine. This isn’t hatred of the Ukraine, but it is a distrust in an administrative state within the United States that wants globalism. These same characters villainize Russia to undermine the candidate that most champions their causes.

Opposition of the Biblical Views

A particular United States foreign policy dovetails with biblical premillennialism. The premillennial voters have an agenda which they see as within the will of God. That makes the left crazy. It wants to censor and even imprison these people as political enemies. The left sees them as complete kooks. The leftists don’t think anyone should depend on the Bible for any political decisions. I think we would find a fairly large percentage that would prefer the death of premillennialists, whom they see as a scourge of the earth.

The Bible is true. God expects us to know what it means, called the perspicuity of scripture. He wants us to believe it and live according to it. This includes all the prophetic passages. What He says will occur in the future will in fact occur in the future.

How Evangelicals Now Move the Goalposts on Bibliology

March 20, 2024 / 2 Comments on How Evangelicals Now Move the Goalposts on Bibliology

The Study of Bibliology

People who read here will associate me with the doctrine of preservation of scripture, because of the book, Thou Shalt Keep Them. I and others argue the biblical and historical doctrine of the perfection preservation of scripture in the language in which it was written. The Bible teaches its own preservation and it shows perfect preservation. The doctrine of preservation falls under the general category of the doctrine of bibliology. What does the Bible say about itself?

The study of bibliology includes sub-categories of doctrines. Early on in the Bible, we read Satan attack God’s Word (Genesis 3:1-5). From his attack, we see his desire to undermine or destroy God’s Word. We suppose that Satan wants to do this, and then in observation of history, we see this occur also with his using the world system. Satan uses people to destroy the Bible by undermining and destroying biblical teachings about the Bible, which includes the sub-categories of doctrines under bibliology.

Presupposing What the Bible Says About Itself

Being an evangelical presupposes belief in and from the Bible, what it says. Truly saved people believe the gospel, which is in the Bible. Evangelicals have believed the Bible for salvation to be evangelicals. Saying they believe the Bible means they believe the Bible on the doctrines as subcategories of bibliology. What are those? Among those are the inspiration, preservation, canonicity, and perspicuity of scripture.

From where at one time in the past evangelicalism supported scriptural bibliology, I contend that they move the goalposts. What was inspiration is no longer inspiration, what was preservation is no longer preservation, and so on. The serious modification of the doctrine of bibliology does destructive damage.

Attacks on the Doctrine of Scripture

The major bad outcome of the attack on categories of the doctrine of scripture is the undermining or elimination of the authority of God’s Word. This effects both belief and practice of scripture. I have observed especially these four attacks.

Inspiration

One, people attack the inspiration of scripture. A common attack on inspiration is that the Bible is written only by men. There are variations of this attack, as I see it, accommodated or supported by those calling themselves evangelicals. They would even say they believe in inspiration, but I’m saying that they moved the goalposts on inspiration.

Preservation

Two, people attack the preservation of scripture. There are a few common attacks on the doctrine of preservation. First, the Bible doesn’t teach its own preservation. Second, God preserved scripture in heaven, not on earth. Third, God preserved all the Words of God in the preponderance of the hand copies or manuscripts, but they both haven’t all been available or identified and there is no settled text. Fourth, the Words of God in the original languages were lost (not preserved) but restored in translations even like the King James Version.

Perspicuity

Three, people attack the perspicuity of scripture when they say that we are not sure of what the Bible means. It’s now mostly an opinion as to what the Bible says. It’s only men’s interpretations anymore. So many interpretations exist, it’s impossible to know the right one. Today people are shut out or shut off from the meaning of words and what men meant when they wrote them. These are ways that men today undermine the doctrine of perspicuity.

Application

Four, people attack the ability to apply scripture in many different ways, so that no one is sure about the application of the Bible. That was a different era, culture foreign to us today, so that even if we knew what passages meant, it doesn’t apply today, especially cultural issues.

The Bible is a very old book written for a people that lived thousands of years ago that does not apply in any significant way today. Even if you try to apply it, you can’t do that with any authority, because it could only be your opinion or preference. The gap in history is too monumental to bridge from then to now. These are various types of attacks today on the application of scripture.

Variations occur of the above four attacks with many different arguments employed. The attacks take away from the authority of scripture. Someone may call the Bible, the Word of God, but it no longer has the same authority as a book from God, because we are so unsure or uncertain about it. In its usefulness, the Bible possesses a level something more akin to an important historical or philosophical resource.

Cutting Losses

Someone may say that it’s to their credit, that evangelicals today do not want a mass scale rejection of Christianity, so they invent new positions about the Bible to hinder an exodus. They may use someone like Bart Ehrman as an example, who pushed the eject button Christianity when he dug deeper into the trustworthiness of scripture. He could not square the guarantees of God and the certainty expressed in scripture with what the evidence presented to him in class and through his own investigation.

Evangelicals and others more conservative than Ehrman say that his former fundamentalist position caused his apostasy. Someone cannot treat the Bible with an absolutist or purist stance. Today even evangelicals would say that God didn’t even intend for the readers or audience of scripture to treat the Bible with such assurance. Evangelicals now modify the former positions to rescue or spare the next generation.

As an Example

Just as an example, a Bart Ehrman argues against the historical reliability of the gospels. He asks the question, “Do the gospels report or represent what really happened?” His answer is “No.”

Many evangelicals now are afraid to say that everything in the gospels is reliable, but a high enough percentage is verifiable to the extent that the gospels are reliable. They are at least as or more reliable than other extant writings from the same period. The gospels are amazingly reliable for a historical document and that is good enough.

Moving the Goalposts

Evangelicals are moving the goalposts now on bibliology. Mostly they see this as necessary to cut their losses. If they try to take what they would call a strict fundamentalist view on the Bible, they’ll get exposed by scholarship. In this era of the internet, they’ll lose the next generation. Very smart men will steal these young people. The idea of “cut losses” is reducing them. Instead of saying that scripture is absolute, to say there is sufficient confidence or suitable confidence without absolute full confidence.

Are evangelicals and even professing fundamentalists right or true in their assessment of the conditions of the proof or evidence for the Bible and Christianity? Are these recent modifications and adaptations of scriptural, historical, or classical bibliology outdated? Do the evangelicals move the goalposts on bibliology and if they do, should we join them?

More to Come

WHAT IS TRUTH