Andrew, the Baptist, is convinced that the Scriptures teaches pre-millenialism and that preterism is simply liberal theology. Read below how Sippo corrects Andrew's beliefs. Andrew's comments are in italics. Art responds in bold text.
Hello, Dr. Sippo...thanks for the prompt and thorough reply.
Dear Andrew:
The passages I used were chronologically ordered.
That is not as easy to prove as you may think. The exact date of composition of the Biblical books is a matter of intense debate among scholars. You cannot assume this.
You know why the scholars debate the chronology of the writings, don't you, Art? It has nothing to do with honest intellectual concern for establishing the historical veracity of scripture. The "scholars" all want to place the synoptic gospels AFTER 70 AD in order to prove that Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 were written AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem.
Rubbish. The exact date when the OT and the NT books were written has been a valid area of inquiry for several centuries. No one knows exactly when any of these books were written and the question of the order or date in which they were written cannot be settled definitively.
I also do not agree with your dismissal of biblical scholarship. There are many so-called biblical scholars who do not accept the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture. Their work is therefore of limited use to those of us who do believe these things. But it is grossly unfair to accuse all biblical scholars of being dishonest or of having a secret agenda. My Lord and Savior cautioned that we should not judge people lest the standard we use to judge them be used against us.
I personally hold that the Synoptic Gospels were completed before 70 AD though there may have been editorial redaction thereafter (e.g., John 8 seems to have more affinity to Luke than to John).
Even though the passages actually refer to the events that shall happen prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ in accordance with ALL the prophecies of the Second Advent found within the Old Testament (Zechariah 12-14, Isaiah 24-27, Ezekiel 37-39, Daniel 9:27, 11:31-12:13, etc.), the "scholars"; do not like the fact that the Bible proclaims to tell the future before it happens, because that would verify its supernatural nature.
I am afraid that you are misinformed. Preterism is NOT a liberal theory but one that is faithful to Scripture as the word of God. Among its advocates are Greg Bahnsen, Ken Gentry, David Chilton, and Scott Hahn. It is related to the concept of "realized eschatology" proposed by C. H. Dodd and held by many believing scholars in both the prot and cath camps. I would remind you also that the destruction of Jerusalem DID occur before the Second Coming albeit not that long after the First Coming!
The "scholars" pretend that the Olivet Discourse was predictive of the destruction of 70 AD only (which it wasn't)...
Sez who? How do YOU know? That is only your opinion and I think it is a poor one. Note the following:
Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matt. 16:28)
I believe what Jesus said and I further believe that this points to 70 AD as the fulfillment of his prophecy. This is one of the REAL reasons why so many good scholars accept preterism.
Now, if we are to accept the opinion of the "scholars" that Christ was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD during the Olivet Discourse, then we plainly have evidence that Jesus Christ is a religious sham and a liar, for He stated in Matthew 24:21- For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. History has recorded enough for us to verify that there have been much greater moments of tribulation on the earth than occurred in Jerusalem, circa 70 A.D.
Rubbish. That is only your opinion and nothing more. It was God who inflicted his vengeance on unbelieving Israel in 70 AD and I am sure that He did a good job of it. Besides if you read the passage CAREFULLY it only says that there had been and would be no GREATER tribulation than this. It doesn't mean that some tribulation to come cannot be equally horrific. It is generally accepted by the Preterists that the destruction of Jerusalem was a "dress rehearsal" for the End of the World.
The "scholars" are atheists, Art.
No, Andrew, they just disagree with your views. It is a typical pre-mill tactic to condemn everyone who has the temerity NOT to buy your paranoid delusions as if they were not REAL Christian. Grow up. Your view is only one among many and not everyone who disagrees with you is an atheist.
Furthermore, though it has been accepted throughout church history that the writings of John came much later than the rest of the revelation of scripture, the "scholars" are back at it again, setting an earlier date for the writings of John than the historically accepted years of 90-96 AD. Again, the reason is obvious. If John was written in 70 AD, then a reasonable argument could be made that the Beast of Revelation 13 is Nero, and that John is merely writing an allegorical tale to help the Christians of that time period cope with their persecutions.
There is no "historically accepted" date for the composition of any part of the Johnannine corpus let alone Revelation. Your opinion here is no better than that of the scholars whom you vilify.
The case for Nero as the Beast is virtually ironclad no matter when the book was written. He was universally accepted as the beast in the early Church. St. John could have written his allegory in the 90's while looking back on the event in 70 AD.
No doubt, a great spiritual benefit of the book of Revelation (or Apocalypse) as spiritual encouragement for the first century Christians. The "scholars" want to limit the book to that application, and that application alone. Nero is the 666 Beast that John was writing about, and the book is largely fulfilled in the events of the first century, thereby eliminating the need to worry about any future application of such grisly descriptions as are found in the Book of Revelation.
Rubbish. The Church Fathers all held that the events depicted in Revelation foreshadowed the End of the World. Historic Catholic Christianity is expecting a Great Antichrist and always has. Your reasoning here is incorrect.
Of course, the problems that arise from this interpretation are greater than the answers that it provides. When did the whole world look at the two witnesses and view their ascension into heaven? (11:9-12)
For three days and a half men from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb.. (Rev.11:9)
The Bible says nothing about "the whole world." Rather it says that people from diverse ethnic backgrounds would see their bodies. You are reading into the text and not out of it.
Who were the 200,000,000 coming across the Euphrates River in 70 AD? (9:16)
This is likely an allegorical number like the 144,000 who would be sealed against harm. Only the Jehovah's Witnesses ever held that number to be exact. You really have a lot to learn about hyperbole and apocalytic literature.
Did all the inhabitants of the earth really worship Nero in the first century?(13:8)
The Greek word for "earth" is "ge" which means "land." The proper Greek word for "world" is "kosmos" and is not used here. The passage is talking about the Roman Imperial Cult and how it corrupted the inhabitants of Israel.
Of course, I suppose you could allegorize all of these passages in some fashion, but I still submit to you that the "scholars" want to take the supernatural out of the Bible, and their dating is the work of hirelings.
You have not right to dismiss the work of all scholars based upon your personal prejudices. That is pure slander on your part and you need to repent of it.
I firmly believe that the Bible calls for a reign of Christ over the earth from the nation of Israel, and that this reign shall be fulfilled during the 1000 year period spoken of in the 20th chapter of the book of Revelation, coming after the event designated in the 19th chapter, which is the Second Coming
That is your opinion. The rest of Christendom is divided on this issue. I hold to a preterist view of Rev. The second coming spoken of in Rev 19 was Jesus' coming to punish Jerusalem for its rejection of him.
Jesus will come in the same manner as he left the earth. Acts 1:11. He did not show up in any way, shape, or form in 70 AD.
And you were there to witness this? You have No proof for this contention of yours at all. In fact St. John was writing about the destruction of Jerusalem and he said that Jesus DID come. I believe St. John. I don't believe you.
It is Jerusalem that is the city described in Rev 17 as the whore of Babylon this identification comes from Rev 11:7 And when they have finished their testimony, the beast that ascends from the bottomless pit will make war upon them and conquer them and kill them, and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified. There is also the clear parallel between the picture of the whore in Rev 17 and the images from Ezekiel 16. The woman in Ezekiel 16 is clearly Jerusalem. There is no doubt that Jerusalem is the city that is destroyed in Rev 18. It is my opinion that this represents the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is supported by the fact that the OLD Jerusalem is now replaced by the NEW Jerusalem in Rev 21. The so-called millennium then would represent the reign of Christ in his Church.
There are many points of issue whereby I could argue against your claim, but I will stick to the most obvious problem with the identification of Jerusalem 70 AD as Mystery, Babylon the Great. "And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all" (Revelation 18:21). The great city that is destroyed in Revelation 18 is thrown down so as to be a city no more at all. Jerusalem, as we can see presently, is still a city, and even more amazingly, it is presently occupied by Jews!
Jerusalem is no longer the city of the Temple and the sacrifices mandated by the Torah can nevermore be performed there. The Jewish priesthood has been forever extinguished and the necessary genealogies to establish priestly credentials were burnt up in the Temple in 70 AD. The "Jews" currently occupying Israel and Jerusalem are secular Jews most of whom are not observant and many of whom do not believe in God. They are not Jews in any biblical sense since the religion of Moses can no longer be practiced and has in fact been superceded by the Christian Church. This is all speculative. The Catholic Church takes no particular position on the end times scenario. One thing which Sacred Tradition seems to confirm is that the end of the world will be preceded by a mass apostasy from the Gospel and the rise of a Great Antichrist who will be destroyed at the Second Coming of Christ. After that will come the Resurrection of the dead and the final judgement.
Now, I know that the Catholic Church accepts this much, insomuch as this is the Pauline Apocalypse, as it were. But please note that you used the term Antichrist to describe a figure that would appear before the end of the world. Antichrist is a term found only in the writings of the Apostle John (I & II John). Does this mean that the Beast of the Revelation of John is the same Man of Sin and Son of Perdition that is referred to by Paul, and that these are various titles for the same individual, that being THE Antichrist?
If you actually READ St. John's epistles you will see that he refers not to ONE Antichrist but to many:
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2 John 1:7)
Multiple fulfillments are required of this passage. We have no need to explain anything away.
You have no authority to do so. There are SO many millennial positions and variations that are based on such useless speculation that can be defended in this way.
Not quite true, Art. As I have demonstrated, the reason for interpreting scripture in this fashion is based on a comparison of scripture with scripture.
You have done nothing of the sort. Where did you confront the material in Ezek 16? You have done exactly what I accused you of doing a long time ago. You accept only those passages OUT OF CONTEXT that support your views and ignore all of the contrary evidence. For a real review of the book of Revelation, you should check out the commentaries of David Chilton, Austin Farrer, Joephine M. Ford, Fr. Consini, and Dr. Swete. They give well presented refutations of all of your views in depth.
Some methods of interpretation simply do not hold water, and pre-millenialism can stand up to a thorough examination of the entire revelation of scripture. I submit to you that pre-millenialism is right because it takes the whole of prophecy into consideration, and it alone is the system whereby a genuine harmony arises.
Sez YOU. The vast majority of Christians (scholars and otherwise) throughout history have not agreed with your interpretations. You are not making a scholarly point here, but merely stating your personal preference. You have no authority to promulgate your views as anything more than that.
The whole pre-mill program is based upon an overly literal and sensationalistic attitude towards Scripture that does not take into account the nature of apocalyptic language. Frankly, the pre-mill view is bizarre and owes more to Steven Spielburg and Cecil B. De Mille than to the Bible.
The basic Amillennial position (which has generally been that of the Catholic Church since St. Augustine) is that we don't know exactly what all these prophecies mean. There are predictions of good things and bad things.
This is the sure word of prophecy that Pope Peter was speaking about (I Peter 1:19)? Sounds rather muddled and vague in this fashion.
It is precisely what Pope St. Peter meant. We don't go off half-cocked tilting at windmills. It is your fantasies that are muddled. Bizarre and delusional interpretations of the Bible are very unlikely and folks with normal reality testing will not favor them. You should also recall that Jesus warned us that we would not know the time of his Coming in glory so he advised to be ready for him at anytime. THAT is the real focus of true prophetic witness: preparing God's people to meet the Lord when he comes and showing them how to do His will in the interim. Pre-mills are hung up on signs and wonders and have a low priority for actually doing the will of God. Besides, when the end actually comes and the Great Antichrist is revealed, we have a sure guide to point him out to us. More than likely, your millennial "christ" will actually be THE Antichrist who will deceive you and your kind by lying wonders. We will not be fooled.
All you have is your own opinions.
That is all that you have in the final analysis as well, Art.
No. I have the witness of the Church founded by Jesus Christ and which is under the superintendance of the Holy Spirit. I have submitted myself to the authority which Jesus himself established. You on the other hand are in rebellion against the authority of Christ and his ministers. You are promulgating your own personal opinions without any authority to do so.
The authority that Jesus established was the word of God, and the fruit of genuine service. Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: (II Corinthians 3:1,2) But wisdom is justified of her children (Matthew 11:19)
More ransom notes! You are quoting out of context again. Jesus founded a CHURCH and gave the authority to its ministers to teach to sanctify and to rule in his name. He told them that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven (Matt 16:18 & 18:18). He gave them the power to forgive sins (John 20:23). He told them, "He who hears you hears me." (Luke 10:16) You are ignoring the parts of Scripture that contradict your views and misrepresenting the ones that you wish to promote.
I only submit the righteousness of God to you by way of examination, Art. That is to say, examine the words that I send to you for consideration. I would let the veracity of any arguments that I make from scripture speak for itself rather than an appointed office.
THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT AND CAN NOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!!!! The Bible is a book and it cannot talk. People speak, not books. The Bible must be interpreted before it is comprehensible. There is no such thing as self-evident veracity. Unless you have the anointing of the Holy Spirit and are empowered to preach in the name of the Lord, you have NO RIGHT to interpret the Bible for anyone, not even yourself. You are a victim of self-deception. The only authority you have is your own carnal nature and the desires it has given you for the religion you want to believe. Anything that is beyond your personal comprehension is from those horrible atheistic "scholars" and you reject it. There is no such thing as a mystery to you that you must accept even if your inclination is otherwise. That is why you can never truly have faith. You believe only what seems right in your own eyes.
Not to disregard authority, of course, but we are allowed to discuss the scriptures, nonetheless.
But that is PRECISELY what you are doing! Jesus gave Church the authority to teach in his name under the guidance of the Holy Spirit:
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. (John 14:26)
You and your kind have ignored the Holy Spirit and set yourselves up as judges against the Word of God and his ministers. By ignoring God's own will with regard to the Church, you have placed yourself outside it and have no right to speak in the name of Jesus.
The Catholic Church produced the Bible, which you misrepresent, and your prot belief in its inerrancy actually comes from the Catholic Church. In other words you have to assume the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church in order to challenge it. By attacking Catholicism, you actually contradict your own position because without us there is no canon of Scripture nor is there any teaching concerning the nature of the Bible.
That is not true.
Oh yes it is! Your ancestors were Catholics who decided that it was to hard living in the Church God founded, so they invented self serving excuses to justify disobedience to the ministers of God and selected some doctrines to believe and discarded others based SOLELY on their own personal preferences! If there is ANY truth to your beliefs it is stolen from us.
Jesus himself told us that anyone who attempts to enter the sheepfold by any way other than the sheepgate is a robber. Anyone trying to concoct their own Church apart from the Papacy and the Bishops is in the same boat. Your ancestors invented their own churches and then tried to claim that they alone were legitimate 'christians.'
Your ancestors wiped out any Christian competition, and then claimed that they alone were legitimate Christians.
I see. Christianity is an economy with different businesses in competition with each other? Rubbish! READ THE BIBLE! Jesus founded ONE Church, and he prayed for absolute unity within it. (John 17) Those who would compete with the one true Church were false prophets:
And then many will fall away, and betray one another, and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. (Matthew 24:10-11)
Then if any one says to you, `Lo, here is the Christ!' or `There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. (Matthew 24:23-24)
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep. (2 Peter 2:1-2)
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:8-12)
Andrew, your man-made religion is condemned from Scripture itself. You have no right to resist the Holy Spirit and are obliged to submit to His authority.
That is the equivalent of me setting up an office in London and declaring myself the TRUE ambassador to England by my own personal interpretation of the Constitution. I am amazed that prots just don't see the ludicrousness of their position.
They do not believe that that is a fair analogy, and I will tell you why in a minute.
Okay, where is your explanation? You never got back to this at the end of the letter. I will tell you why the analogy is both fair and accurate. Just reading the Bible does not give you the right to assume that anything in it is written to you. Prots assume that the words giving authority to the Apostles and disciples apply to them but that is an anachronistic fraud. Those words were announced to SPECIFIC PEOPLE at a SPECIFIC TIME in history. The words established the credentials of the ministers who succeeded the apostles by the laying on of hands. The only reason that the Pope and the Bishops have authority today is because their ancestors in the ministry received it originally from Christ through His Apostles. Without the clear succession of the laying on of hands from Apostolic times, you and your ministers are in open rebellion against God. I defy you to establish any right on your part whatsoever to preach or teach in the name of Jesus!
There is only one Church founded by Jesus and you do not belong to it. Period. Your cult has no historical credentials and no ordained officers. Your kind broke faith with the historical Church in the 16th Century and began preaching new doctrines that contradicted both the Bible and Tradition. It is only by arrogance, pride, and hatred of Christ that you allow this situation to persist. If you were a follower of Christ you would submit to his WHOLE word and not just to the parts you like.
Of course, Art, there is nary a mention of the perpetuation of the Petrine office anywhere in scripture, so you had better be careful when you say we should submit to the WHOLE word.
Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:16-19)
Read verse 18 VERY CAREFULLY. It says that Simon was to be called by the TITLE of "Peter" and that the gates of Hell would NEVER prevail against it. This was assignment to an office, not a name change. That is why even St. Paul calls him "Simon Peter" so often in the NT. "Simon Peter" is short for "Simon who is the Rock" in the same way that "Jesus Christ" is short for "Jesus who is the Christ." Since the gates of Hell will NEVER prevail against the Church FOREVER, that implies a succession in office. In fact Jesus later tells his Apostles:
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." (John 20:21)
In the Greek text, Jesus literally told them "As the father APOSTLED me I LIKEWISE APOSTLE you." Since Jesus passed his authority on to his disciples, they LIKEWISE would do so to their disciples.
Furthermore, Jesus said to the apostles:
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matt 28:18-20)
The term "disciples" means "students." Here Rabbi Yeshua was saying to his the students in his shule that he was giving them smicha (i.e., rabbinic ordination empowering them to be rabbis in their own right) and that they were to go to ALL of the Gentiles and make students from among them for ordination as well. The term "disciple" in the NT does not refer to the ordinary Christian layman but only to the candidate studying for ordination. Check it out with a concordance. (The only exception is Tabitha in Acts 9:36f who was a postulant in the religious order of the widows and virgins. The term disciple applied to her as a student awaiting full membership in the order.)
So Scripture itself shows that you are wrong.
Besides, Andrew, let's be real. If a 1st Century Church composed of a few thousand people needed a ROCK, how much more does one with 1 billion people? Why would God overkill at the beginning and skimp at the end? It makes no sense.
As Jesus Christ said, wisdom is justified of her children. Perhaps you can dismiss the events of the 16th Century as a work of frustration with the powers that be, and a rebellion that occurred because of intellectual and sociological conditions in Europe at the time.
I do so dismiss it and further claim that it was a demonic deception that was not of God but of the evil one.
However, Art, you are greatly stressed to explain away the Great Awakening that occurred in England and the Americas in the 18th Century, and extended into the 19th Century at various times. The fruits of the Great Awakening cannot be so easily dismissed. Even secular historians call that period of history The Great Awakening, because they are at a complete loss to explain what took place under the ministries of the Wesleys, Whitefield, Edwards et al. separate from the SPIRITUAL content of the movement! Worth considering, I should think...
You obviously know very little about the period. The squabbling and arguments from the Great Awakening led to sectarian splits and the demise of the Congregational Church. Denominations rose and fell. Wesley decided to set up his own Church in defiance of his Bishop. Arguments between Baptists, Calvinists, Methodists, Anglicans and others had a short-lived effect on America which remained dominated by deists, Freethinkers, and Masons. Most modern historians see the GA as an attempt by people who were disaffected from their own history to find some roots for themselves apart from Europe. This movement was hopelessly POST-MILLENIAL! But the effects did not last long and in the transition form the 18th to 19th Centuries, apostasy once again became rampant. The effects of the GA have been misrepresented by prots for 200 years. The effects did not last anymore than the "conversions" that happen at revivals. While the effects of the GA did last for some people, they were a minority. Today, there is no remnant of that effect left.
There is nothing of any interest there for a man of God to be troubled with.
Art Sippo
The Catholic Legate