Clarence Larkin - Revelation

[trapperhoney]

I want you to notice:

"The one thing that I disagree with Larkin's Dispensational Truth is the section entitled, "Generation," or the, "Creative Ages." This section deals with his belief of the "Pre-Adamic Earth." I feel his belief in the, "Gap Theory," and his miss-interpretation of 2 Peter 3:5 & 6, and is the only detriment to the book. Larkin also has a section entitled, "Dispensational Teaching of the Great Pyramid," that I do not entirely agree with also. But, that section is not doctrinal. So, I will not quibble over it."

*This shows the mindset of a man, lifted up by some here, that correctly understands and rightly divides the word of God?*

(I think a little more "quibbling" needs to be done.)

 

Alan points out in that quote you reference that he doesn't quibble over one section of Larkin's book he doesn't agree with because it is not doctrinal.  I take no issue with that.  There is plenty to quibble about without dragging in inconsequential matters.

It is one thing to point out potential discrepancies in thoughts or teachings if done for constructive purposes and in a loving, respectful manner, but attacking someone personally is inappropriate.  To attempt to "tear down" a brother in a personal forum is most disparaging toward one's character and puts a dark shadow over one's testimony.  Perhaps that is not what you intended, but that is certainly the way it has come across to me.  There are things that Brother Alan has posted in these forums that I do not completely agree with, but he is my brother and if I truly felt he was in serious error I would contact him privately and try to handle the matter in what I believe is the biblical manner (Matthew 18:15-17)   Personal opinions are not worth breaking fellowship over.

All one can do is highlight things you think are questionable, offer an alternate viewpoint, and leave it to the Spirit to deal with people.  If you feel that people are willingly buying into heresy and ignoring your warnings, then perhaps it is time to shake the dust from off you feet and concentrate your efforts some place they will be appreciated.  It benefits no one to persist in what might be equated as "casting pearls before swine."

[trapperhoney]

I've seen the Larkin battle before. Years ago a fine Baptist pastor advised we stay away from Larkin. As he put it, if a man can't get the first of the book (Bible) right he can't be trusted with the rest of it either. While I don't recall their names now, this pastor suggested a couple others writings on the topic who he said were more "overall scripturally sound" and thus a more reliable source to both read and refer others to.

Yes, John81, I tend to agree.  I would use Larkin personally to help research, but I certainly wouldn't recommend it to others, especially non-grounded Christians.  A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.  It is fine if you know what to watch out for, but many in our churches don't.  Hubby and I have been looking for good books to potentially use as texts as we would like to start a Bible institute, but so far haven't found any that are completely solid all the way through. *sigh*

[Genevanpreacher]

Alan points out in that quote you reference that he doesn't quibble over one section of Larkin's book he doesn't agree with because it is not doctrinal.  I take no issue with that.  There is plenty to quibble about without dragging in inconsequential matters.

It is one thing to point out potential discrepancies in thoughts or teachings if done for constructive purposes and in a loving, respectful manner, but attacking someone personally is inappropriate.  To attempt to "tear down" a brother in a personal forum is most disparaging toward one's character and puts a dark shadow over one's testimony.  Perhaps that is not what you intended, but that is certainly the way it has come across to me.  There are things that Brother Alan has posted in these forums that I do not completely agree with, but he is my brother and if I truly felt he was in serious error I would contact him privately and try to handle the matter in what I believe is the biblical manner (Matthew 18:15-17)   Personal opinions are not worth breaking fellowship over.

All one can do is highlight things you think are questionable, offer an alternate viewpoint, and leave it to the Spirit to deal with people.  If you feel that people are willingly buying into heresy and ignoring your warnings, then perhaps it is time to shake the dust from off you feet and concentrate your efforts some place they will be appreciated.  It benefits no one to persist in what might be equated as "casting pearls before swine."

I am only standing for what is right according to my understanding of the scriptures.

As for so-called personal attacking, Alan has done enough against me and others, and he is a big boy and can handle it.

As for you correcting my manners right here instead of in a pm? Nuff said.

Discussion in an open forum is subject to the whims of the individual. When I am on here and see junk like the support and encouragement to follow doctrines like Alan proposes for Larkins heretical beliefs, and watch him point out flaws in the man, after proclaiming revelational perfection, I do what I do. I stand against the common doctrine of 'askin no questions' of a man who supposedly can do nothing wrong prophetically.

Not all Baptists will sit back and let others think we believe this stuff.

Thanks!

[Alan]

I am only standing for what is right according to my understanding of the scriptures.

As for so-called personal attacking, Alan has done enough against me and others, and he is a big boy and can handle it.

As for you correcting my manners right here instead of in a pm? Nuff said.

Discussion in an open forum is subject to the whims of the individual. When I am on here and see junk like the support and encouragement to follow doctrines like Alan proposes for Larkins heretical beliefs, and watch him point out flaws in the man, after proclaiming revelational perfection, I do what I do. I stand against the common doctrine of 'askin no questions' of a man who supposedly can do nothing wrong prophetically.

Not all Baptists will sit back and let others think we believe this stuff.

Thanks!

Brethren,

The prophetical doctrinal beliefs that Larkin teaches in the book of Revelation are correct and not heretical. The Lord Jesus is coming again with out any signs and before the start of the 7 Year Tribulation Period. Larkin was entirely correct in this doctrine.

The prophetical doctrinal beliefs of the Preterists, Calvinists, a-millennialists, post-millennialists are heretical.

Alan

Edited October 24, 2015 by Alan
spelling

[Alan]

 

Not all Baptists will sit back and let others think we believe this stuff.

Thanks!

Genevanpreacher,

I understand that not all Baptists do not believe this "stuff." I have two comments.

1. The Second Coming of my Saviour is not "stuff." The Second Coming of Christ is, "the blessed hope."

2. I looked at your various posts here on OnLine Baptist and your blog and could not find  what church you attend. Do you mind  telling us where you attend church? I would like to know what kind of Baptist Church believes the doctines that you have espoused in your various posts. I have yet to find a independendent, fundamental, Baptist Church that preaches out of the Geneva  Bible and some of the other strange beliefs that your espouse.

Alan

 

 

[Alan]

Genevanpreacher,

I tried to send you, twice, a personal message to find out what type of church you attend, but, both times, a notice came up saying that you do not receive personal messages.

Alan

[John81]

Alan, I know many "Calvinists" who hold the same end-times view as you put forth with Larkin yet you say above that "Calvinists" view on this is heretical???

[Genevanpreacher]

Genevanpreacher,

I tried to send you, twice, a personal message to find out what type of church you attend, but, both times, a notice came up saying that you do not receive personal messages.

Alan

Alan, I get PM's all the time.

Just not from people I block.

As for what church I attend? I was a member of, as well as a minister in, a KJVO IBC (that stands for Independent Baptist Church, just in case you didn't know.) for 21 years, called Remnant Baptist Church in Dillsboro, IN, before being called to start a separate mission as a minister of Jacob' Well, a Genevan Baptist ministry. One I am sure you will never hear of nor attend. After 7 years of preaching and teaching in that ministry I have gone on, what I term, a 'sabbatical', leaving my ministry in the hands of my loving God and Savior. Where I attend has nothing to do with you or your beliefs. Since I have never received any compensation for my ministry, I have always relied upon the labor of my own hands to supply the needs of my family of 6. God has been very good to me and our family.

The Church we now are members of and attend do not necessarily 'follow' my particular beliefs, yet God knows all about it, doesn't he.

Any questions can be asked, and I will answer you.

You can PM if you want, I will unblock you. Or email me at genevanbeliever@aol.com.

(And, Alan, is that the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, or the third?)

Edited October 25, 2015 by Genevanpreacher

[Alan]

Thank you.

[Alan]

Alan, I know many "Calvinists" who hold the same end-times view as you put forth with Larkin yet you say above that "Calvinists" view on this is heretical???

The vast number of Callvinists that I know do not hold the same view as Larkin.

Here is on example along with the link.

 http://www.reformedspokane.org/Doctrine_pages/The second coming of Christ/Matthew_24_DJE/End_Times_SB1.html

Volume  69 - Issue 9
Editorial

The Kingdom Has Come (1)

By David J Engelsma

The need of the hour – this last hour – is that the Reformed church give clear, bold, public expression to her distinctive faith concerning the last things.

There is heated controversy in evangelical, conservative circles today over eschatology. Eschatology is the biblical doctrine of the second coming of Christ and the happenings that precede, accompany, and follow this coming. It is the fascinating answer of Jesus to the question of the disciples in Matthew 24:3, “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”

Those who profess to be Bible-believing Christians differ radically over future history as controlled by the coming of Christ. Calvinists are deeply involved in the debate.

But the controversy rages between “premillennialists” (premills) and “postmillennialists” (postmills). The former teach the rapture of the believing church into the air at any moment. This is followed by a period of’ seven years in which Antichrist comes to power and persecutes the Jews. At the end of the seven years, Christ returns personally and visibly to establish an earthly kingdom of peace and prosperity in all the world for a thousand years (“millennium”). He reigns from Jerusalem in Palestine where the nation of Israel has again become the kingdom-people of God as it was under the old covenant. Only after this thousand-year reign of Christ does earthly history end and the eternal state begin.

The Calvinist participants in the current debate over eschatology are postmills. They proclaim such a victory of the gospel and law of God in the future as shall result in the Christianizing of the whole world. A majority of the worlds population will be converted to Christ. At the very least, great numbers will believe in Christ. Christians will hold the reins of earthly power in all nations. The church should look forward to a long period of earthly peace and prosperity before Christ returns to perfect this temporal dominion in the eternal kingdom. Some say that this long period is literally one thousand years (a “millennium”). Others prophesy hundreds of thousands of years of Christian earthly dominion.

Virtually missing from the public debate is the classic, creedal Reformed doctrine of the last things. It is high time that the Reformed faith let its voice be heard.

This is all the more necessary in view of strange, dangerous developments that threaten to affect the life and behavior of Reformed saints. Doctrine never remains safely confined to speeches and books. It always takes form in the practice of those who embrace the doctrine. False doctrine creates foolish and evil conduct. Right doctrine, orthodoxy, forms wise, godly conduct.

Recently, a widely respected and influential Bible-teacher in the United States has prophesied the return of Christ and the end of the world in September, 1994 (cf. the editorial, “A.D. 1993: The Lord is Corning,” in the Jan. 1, 1993 Standard Bearer). This cannot but have effects on the lives of those who believe the prophecy. These effects will be the same as the effects of similar prophecies in the past. Men and women abandon ordinary life to wait for the great day that is so near. When the expected coming does not occur (and it ‘will not), many become disillusioned, not only with the particular Bible-teacher, but also with the Scriptures themselves which were supposed to teach there turn of Christ on the particular date. The others, ignoring the huge blunder of their master, commit themselves to him even more slavishly, so that a new cult is formed.

Other dangerous developments are the direct results of the hope that the kingdom of Christ is destined to come to earthly power in history. Calvinistic postmills are forming alliances with Arminian, charismatic, premills to bring this kingdom to pass in the United States. They are calling other Reformed Christians to join these alliances. Such alliances are fatal to the confession and practice of the Reformed faith.

There is also the strong temptation to have recourse to civil revolution and physical violence in order to bring about the earthly kingdom of Christ. The hope of an earthly kingdom is always vulnerable to this temptation. There are ominous signs that some are yielding to this temptation. Francis A. Schaeffer advocated resistance to the state as the last resort of Christians against unlawful authority in his A Christian Manifesto. That Schaeffer does not shrink from extending this resistance to all-out war is plain from his appeal to the American Revolution in which “civil disobedience led to open war in which men and women died” (p. 130).

Operation Rescue, the movement of evangelical opposition to the state-authorized murder of the unborn, is presently engaging in civil disobedience as a tactic to overthrow the kingdom of darkness and to establish the kingdom of light. It is calling all true Christians to join in this violence in the name of Christ the King.

It is time, therefore, for the Reformed view of the coming of the Day of Christ to be aired.

This view is “amillennialism.” It holds that the millennium of Revelation 20, the one passage in Scripture that mentions a thousand-year period, is the figurative description of the New Testament era from Christ’s ascension until shortly before His return. In distinction from premillennialism, which thinks that Christ will come before a literal millennium, and from postmillennialism, which thinks that Christ will come after a literal millennium, amillennialism denies that there will be any literal millennium.

On the Reformed view, the Bible teaches that the wicked world will make steady increase in its rebellion against God (Matt. 24:12; II Tim. 3). The future of the nominal, visible church in history is that there will be a great apostasy from the truth (II Thess. 2:1-3). A coming Antichrist will unite the nations in a worldwide kingdom of the devil (II Thess. 2; Rev. 13). Then will take place a severe persecution of the true church of Jesus Christ (Matt. 24:21, 22; Rev. 13). During the reign of Antichrist, Christ will come bodily and visibly “with power and great glory” to consume Antichrist with the spirit of His mouth; to raise the dead; to conduct the final judgment; and to renew the creation as the home of His eternal kingdom (Matt. 24:30, 31; II Thess. 2; I Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 20:11 ff.; II Pet. 3).

Reformed amillennialism observes that for all the sound and fury of the strife between the Calvinistic postmills and the Arminian, dispensational premills, there is striking, significant agreement between-these two eschatological errors.

Both agree that the believing church does not face a coming Antichrist and persecution. The premills rapture the church out of danger. The postmills put the Antichrist safely into the past. Some of them explain “Antichrist” as the Roman empire that persecuted the early church. Others make it the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the Reformation. We could say that, whereas the premills rapture the church upwards in space, the postmills rapture Anti- Christ backwards in time. In either case, the future of the church is rosy. This is appealing. It is also a mistake with serious practical implications for the people of God. They are not forewarned of the fiery trial that awaits them in the crucible of the kingdom of the beast.

Both premills and postmills agree also that there will be a literal millennium - a “golden age” in this world’s history for the church. This “golden age” will be the kingdom of Christ. What is especially objectionable in this agreement of both premills and postmills is the notion that the kingdom of Christ in this world is a carnal kingdom. It is a reign of Christ that dominates the nations politically, culturally, and economically. It is the exercise of Christ’s power by presidents, judges, executioners, national committees for the arts, and secretaries of the treasuries. It is a citizenry that consists of all mankind, for every man will both be subject to the rule of Christ and be beneficiary of it during the millennium. It is a peace and a prosperity that are purely earthly, as earthly as international freedom from war, booming national economies, and deliverance from crime and disease.

The glorious carnal kingdom of Jesus Christ!

This carnal kingdom of Christ is still future. It has still to come.

In the thinking of both the premills and the postmills, the kingdom of Christ has not yet come. The attempt of Jesus to establish the kingdom at His first coming was a failure. The premills cheerfully acknowledge this failure. Israel’s rejection of the offered kingdom by their Messiah effectively postponed the kingdom to the millennium.

The postmills pay lip-service to Christ’s realization of His kingdom already by the preaching of the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit. But their hearts are not in it. Especially for the “reconstructionist” postmills, prominent in the current eschatological controversy, the establishment of the kingdom that really counts is the carnal kingdom of the millennium. This kingdom represents victory. The spiritual kingdom of the confessing church with which Reformed amillennialism is content is nothing but defeat.

Some kingdom! Another carnal kingdom like the kingdoms of this world.

Some King! A failure, lo these 2000 years.

Some coming of the kingdom! After 2000 years of preaching and working in the Name of the crucified and risen Christ, the kingdom still is mainly, or even exclusively, in the future of New Testament history.

Reformed amillennialism is not impressed.

We have news for the premills and postmills, as we do for every man. It is good news. The kingdom has come. The kingdom is here and now. It is here and now as fully, gloriously, and victoriously as it ever will or can be, this side of Christ’s coming and eternity.

Do the premills and the postmills not see it?

- DJE

[John81]

As I said, I know MANY "Calvinists" who hold to the same end times view you put forth here; that leaves many others who hold to something different whether by degrees or entirely different.

I've not know any "Calvinists" who hold the view the world will become Christian. The only ones I recall encountering holding to that view were Dominionist.

My only point being that all "Calvinists" don't hold to the same end times view; many hold the same view as yourself, so if you paint all "Calvinists" as heretics for their end times view that would be painting upon your view as well. Since that wouldn't be your intent you may wish to take care in this area to avoid such an accident.

[Genevanpreacher]

Genevanpreacher,

I understand that not all Baptists do not believe this "stuff." I have two comments.

1. The Second Coming of my Saviour is not "stuff." The Second Coming of Christ is, "the blessed hope."

2. I looked at your various posts here on OnLine Baptist and your blog and could not find  what church you attend. Do you mind  telling us where you attend church? I would like to know what kind of Baptist Church believes the doctines that you have espoused in your various posts. I have yet to find a independendent, fundamental, Baptist Church that preaches out of the Geneva  Bible and some of the other strange beliefs that your espouse.

Alan

1. Yes, Alan, from the way Larkin teaches, it is 'stuff', because that is what imagination creates. Example? Just because the word says we will meet him in the clouds, doesn't mean he won't be 'landing' on earth. The word does say 'and so shall we ever be with the Lord', and that means 'where ever' he is. And that can be on earth. Hence, the second coming that the angel told the disciples when they watched the Lord ascend after his resurrection.

2. There are more people with brains to follow the Lord than you can fathom Alan.

[trapperhoney]

As I said, I know MANY "Calvinists" who hold to the same end times view you put forth here; that leaves many others who hold to something different whether by degrees or entirely different.

I've not know any "Calvinists" who hold the view the world will become Christian. The only ones I recall encountering holding to that view were Dominionist.

My only point being that all "Calvinists" don't hold to the same end times view; many hold the same view as yourself, so if you paint all "Calvinists" as heretics for their end times view that would be painting upon your view as well. Since that wouldn't be your intent you may wish to take care in this area to avoid such an accident.

Indeed.  Growing up many in my church considered themselves Calvinists, but they were definitely Dispensationalists.  Calvinists who held Reformed viewpoints were referred to as "hyper-Calvinists."  That has since changed in my area, but in others it may not have.

[Alan]

Unless anyone has any direct comments on my review of the Larkin book on Revelation I would like to conclude this thread.

Alan

[John81]

I'm good, thanks Alan.