You've Gotta Be Kidding . . . Right? chronicles Brian L. Martin's (Editor of Fulfilled! Magazine) eschatological journey. His view of the "last things" (eschatology), though it may be new to you, is soundly rooted in Scripture. Join Brian as he encounters scriptural principles (hermeneutics) like "audience relevance", "apocalyptic language", "cloud-comings", and much more. Prepare to be challenged!
(to view full screen, click on the 4 tiny arrows in the toolbar)
Everyone has a paradigm (worldview) even if it's not well-defined. When we encounter that which differs from what we have been told, we often immediately jettison the new view without serious consideration. Before even carefully analyzing the facts, we ask skeptically, "Who else believes this?" Have you ever wondered why we're unwilling to take up the task of being faithful Bereans? I think it's a matter of confidence. We lack the boldness to push commonly help presuppositions aside, especially when those more learned and spiritually astute, oppose that which is sitting before us.
And this is tragic, especially for a generation that has access to more Scriptural tools than any generation in history. Certainly we are at a disadvantage with those who have a working knowledge of Greek or those who have a boatload of seminary training in their background. There is no substitute for hard work and diligence but we must realize that even pastors and seminary professors interpret the Bible through a lens that may be filled with errant presuppositions. This is the reason the Bereans were lauded. They took their responsibility to "see if these things are so" very seriously. Should we do any less?
Acts 17:11 (ESV) Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
J.I. Packer made a rather intuitive statement that sheds a great deal of light on the plight of the today's Christian. And I suppose this is really not a problem confined to our modern world. Consider this:
We do not start our Christian lives by working out our faith for ourselves; it is mediated to us by Christian tradition, in the form of sermons, books and established patterns of church life and fellowship. We read our Bibles in the light of what we have learned from these sources; we approach Scripture with minds already formed by the mass of accepted opinions and viewpoints with which we have come into contact, in both the Church and the world. . . . It is easy to be unaware that it has happened; it is hard even to begin to realize how profoundly tradition in this sense has molded us. But we are forbidden to become enslaved to human tradition, either secular or Christian, whether it be "catholic" tradition, or "critical" tradition, or "ecumenical" tradition. We may never assume the complete rightness of our own established ways of thought and practice and excuse ourselves the duty of testing and reforming them by Scriptures. (Fundamentalism and the Word of God, by J.I. Packer. [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958.] pp. 69-70)
It's not a matter of if we read the Scriptures with built-in biases that we're not aware of. It's a given that we do. It's only natural. However, what's of vital importance is recognizing that our current presuppositions (which may be errant) can prevent us from understanding the truth. In order to maintain sanity we often ward off all views that oppose our own and allow only that which corroborates and sanctions our paradigm to enter our minds. Our defense mechanisms, valuable in many ways, do at times insulate us from the truth.
With these things in mind, consider for a moment a view of eschatology that may be foreign to you. And do you best to be objective. Brian Martin, the producer of "You've Got to Be Kidding....right?" and author of"Behind the Veil of Moses, presents a solidly Biblical view of eschatology. Know this. Brian is deeply committed to the authority and inspiration of Scripture. So his view emanates from a very high view of the Bible. So much so, that he challenges those who so flippantly cast off the many eschatological passages tied to such blatantly imminent language i.e. "soon", "at hand", "shortly"and "in a very little while".
My recommendation is that you watch the video in two sessions. Then revisit the video jotting down all verses used so you can better understand the context. Well, enjoy and be prepared to smile. Brian has a wonderfully refreshing sense of humor. =)
Yes, Grupa MoCarta is a Polish group and I can’t understand a lick of what they’re saying, but I had a blast watching them (videos below).They’re all well educated instrumentalists who graduated from prestigious Academies of Music in Warsaw and Łódz, but they decided to play classical music in a humorous way. "What’s more, they created something like a musical cabaret, one in which the music, not the words were the source of laughter."
The power of their jokes can be characterized like this: they take a classical composition as canvas, analyze its structure and theme, and surround it with musical associations. So while listening to the final product one is constantly surprised by various musical quotations. Classically trained, they explain their intentions this way:
"We exist despite the sober formality of great concert halls, despite the boredom of classical musicians' life, despite fanatic lovers of classical music, despite fans of rock, rap or pop who are afraid of classical music. We treat our Muse with a humorous irony and we're sure, she will have nothing against it!"
In a dispute between science and the Scripture, which side would you choose? Most would at least say they'd side with Scripture. Although most evangelicals believe the Bible is the inspired Word of the living God (2 Tim 3:16), few, in my opinion, recognize the pressure and impact outside influences bear on their interpretation of Scripture. In the following sermon, David Curtis exposes what I believe is an issue most of us are unaware of, that science is a controlling factor in Biblical interpretation.
When we say "Sola Scriptura" (by Scripture alone) what exactly do we mean? Is the Bible only authoritative on matters of faith, salvation and holiness? In other words, does the Bible only regard spiritual matters while science is left to elucidate truth on the physical side of the equation?
Do you believe Scripture should be the foundational source of ALL truth? If so, what does that mean? I think that question is no more clearly highlighted than when we read the first 3 chapters of the Genesis. Do you believe the earth is billions of years old? If you were on a desert island with only a Bible and no influence from science, what would you conclude about the age of the earth? Is there anything in the Genesis account (chapters 1-3) that would lead you to believe the earth is 20,000,0000,000 years old? I can't see how.
Yet, there are many Christians today who think those who adhere to a relatively young earth, must be flat-earth Neanderthals who skipped science class. They say a day in Genesis is clearly not literal and therefore equates to millions if not billions of years. Some even believe Genesis 1-3 is allegorical. So let me ask you a question. Is science or Scripture controlling your view of the "day" in Genesis? I will argue that no one reading the Genesis account would come to an old earth theory...that is without scientific influence. So the reality is, for those who believe the earth is billions of years old, science, not Scripture is driving your conclusions.
Now, let's consider another issue that also speaks to this issue of Scriptural authority. Do you believe the earth rotates and revolves around the sun? Of course, right? Heliocentricity as it's called, is accepted as a scientific fact that very few challenge. But again, let's rerun the same test. If you had nothing but your Bible, would you arrive at the heliocentric position? At this point I'm not suggesting you are wrong, but for argument's sake, what drives the heliocentrici view, the Bible or science?
From our earliest recollections, we've been told that geocentricity, which is the view espoused by Scripture over sixty times, is merely a function of accomodative type language i.e. from our point of view. So when we read that the sun rises or sets, we automatically assume that, from our point of view, the sun is rising.
Notice again that this heliocentricity vs. geocentricity argument is the same as the young vs. old earth origin theories. Did you know that all theologians prior to the 1600's when Copernicus came up with his heliocentric theory, were geocentrists? That's because we don't know what we know today, right? Yes, but consider this fact. Did you know that heliocentricity is a theory not a fact. Matter of fact, it has NEVER been proven. When I first heard that about a year ago I almost choked on my granola. Of course it's proven, I thought. Not so.
Without a doubt David Curtis will push the limits of your paradigm. The bottom line is, if we truly believe Scripture is the ONLY source of truth, few are practically applying that fact. And no more are we put to the test than in the examination of the heliocentric vs. geocentric theories.
Enjoy the sermon, but before you do, let me offer a disclaimer of sorts. Some have suggested that Pastor David Curtis has no business discussing science from the pulpit. They condescendingly mock him for even considering such. Why? Because, in their view, science can and in fact does bring us truth. They have a very high view of science and in so doing, they unwittingly lower the Scriptures. You see, in their world, when we are chided for daring to place the scientific evidence below the authority of God's Word, they have a major problem. Because they too are non-scientists, they have handed over the entire realm of science to a group who, has for the most part, excluded spiritual influence.
Are we truly bound by what the scientists tell us truth is? If so, then why don't these people believe the theory of evolution since that theory has risen to the fact level? If they aren't allowed to tread in the caverns of scientific exploration, who are they to pick and choose which theories to accept and which ones to reject? They accept an old earth and heliocentricity but not evolution or geocentricity. On what grounds?
I'll tell you what grounds. Because the Bible is preeminent in ALL areas of life including science. Double gasp! Yes, I made the audacious claim that the Bible is not subject to anything. It is the beginning and ending of truth. How ignorant! How foolish! Anyone with a high school education knows the Bible isn't a science textbook. Again, let me challenge your paradigm. The Bible doesnt' merely contain truth, it is our source of truth and is in no way confined to the spiritual realm. The Bible is authoritative over ALL areas of life, not the least of which is science. So, without further ado, please enjoy the sermon. :)
