Revelation 20 part 3

The third area needing to be addressed in determining the interpretation of the 1000 years in Revelation 20 is understanding the ‘First Resurrection’ and the ‘Second Death.’ In Revelation 20:4b-6 we read, “…They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.”

These questions must be answered. What does it mean for the people to ‘come to life’? What is the first resurrection? What is the second death? We have already discussed the condition of those who are reigning with Christ in this passage. They are martyrs who are seen standing in the throne room of God. A Premillennialist believes that the phrase coming to life indicates a physical resurrection of the believers that are then brought into the 1000 year kingdom. Walvoord says,

At the end of the church age, the rapture of the church will take place and the dead in Christ will be raised. At the end of the great tribulation, the tribulation saints will also be raised from the dead. It would seem clear from these facts that the term “the first resurrection” is not an event but an order of resurrection including all the righteous who are raised from the dead before the millennial kingdom begins. They are first in contrast to those who are raised last, after the millennium, when the wicked dead are raised and judged. Just as there are two kinds of physical death, namely, the first death which results in burial, and the second death which is described as being cast into the lake of fire (20:14).¹⁰

Walvoord’s interpretation does not leave us with a resurrection of type but of number. Both are physical. He sees the difference being in whom is being resurrected not what character (type) of resurrection is being described. First is a resurrection of the saints and second a resurrection of the ungodly. But what of those who live through the millennial kingdom as saints but have yet to receive their physical bodies? If the resurrection at the end of the millennium is distinctive because it is for the ungodly, then how will those saints experience physical resurrection? The resurrection for the Godly would have already happened. Another problem for the Premillennialist is that there is a seven year gap between the Rapture and the Second Coming. This is distinctive to Dispensationalism (including Walvoord) not Historic Premillennialism. According to Dispensationalism, all Christians who would be considered part of the church age or the Dispensation of Grace will be raptured secretly by Christ and brought to Heaven. All of the Christians who fit into this category will be resurrected and given their eternal, glorified bodies. So for Dispensational Premillennialism, the resurrection at the time of Revelation 20 is actually the second resurrection of believers.

While Ladd, a Historic Premillennialist, doesn’t agree with the Dispensational doctrine of the Rapture, he does agree with Walvoord on Revelation 20.

In Revelation 20:4-6, there is no such contextual clue for a similar variation of interpretation. The language of the passage is quite clear and unambiguous. There is no necessity to interpret either word spiritually in order to introduce meaning to the passage. At the beginning of the millennial period, part of the dead come to life [the martyrs], at its conclusion, the rest of the dead come to life. There is no evident play on words. The passage makes perfectly clear sense when interpreted literally.¹¹

The Amillennialist would say that the two resurrections in Revelation 20 are of contrasting types. The first is a spiritual resurrection while the second is a physical resurrection. Hendriksen says, “The first resurrection is the translation of the soul from this sinful earth to God’s holy heaven. It is followed at Christ’s second coming by the second resurrection when the body, too, will be glorified.”¹²

Many Amillennialists/Postmillenialists would agree with Hendriksen, although a more accurate interpretation would be the interpretation put forward by Kim Riddlebarger in a lecture. Pastor Riddlebarger argues that spiritual resurrection occurs earlier, at the time of regeneration.¹³ At death, the believer will be freed from his or her sin nature and will experience their spiritual resurrection in full. Just as we are reigning with Christ now, we have also been raised spiritually now. We have been united to Christ so that all that is Christ’s is ours. In this age, we experience in part what we will have in full in the age-to-come. Elsewhere in the New Testament, this doctrine of spiritual resurrection is seen occurring at the time of salvation. Biblical evidence for this would be: “Jesus answered him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:3) “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” (II Cor. 5:17) “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ, by grace you have been saved, and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Eph. 2:4-6)

Before we are saved, our spiritual condition is dead so that it takes the regeneration of the Holy Spirit to bring us to spiritual life. This is the first resurrection. We do not experience this in full until we experience our first death and go to be with our Lord. In order to understand what the first resurrection is, it would be helpful to determine the meaning of the second death.

Verse six tells us that the second death has no power over those who experience the first resurrection. Verses fourteen and fifteen tell us that the second death is experiencing the Lake of Fire. It seems reasonable that if the second death is spiritual and it is being compared to the first resurrection then the first resurrection is also spiritual. Greg Beale says,

The ongoing suffering must be considered a figurative ‘second death.’ A figurative understanding of the ‘second death’ is supported not only by the obviously non-literal ‘lake of fire’ but also by the above analysis of 20:4-6, where there was found both physical and spiritual resurrection and both physical and spiritual death. That the first and second deaths are qualitatively different is supported also by 21:4, 9. There, physical death is part of the ‘first things’ that ‘have passed away.’ Which are contrasted with ‘the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.’ The reference to ‘fire and brimstone’ in 21:8 identifies the ‘second death’ with the eternal, conscious torment by ‘fire and brimstone’ in 14:10-11 and 20:10.¹⁴

The final area that we need to examine is how other Scriptures use the term 1000. If it is always used literally in other passages, then an argument could be made for a literal interpretation here. Psalm 50:10 tells us, “For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills.” II Peter 3:8 likewise states, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.”

It is obvious in these two passages that the term 1000 is not being used literally, but figuratively. God owns all the hills and all the cattle, in fact He owns all the everything; that is what the Psalmist is trying to convey. Peter’s purpose is to show that time is of no consequence to God. The passage is specifically talking about the saving of the elect, the punishing of the wicked and the destruction of the old Heavens and Earth and the creation of the new. Martin Luther says, “Since now in God’s sight there is no reckoning of time, a thousand years must be with him, as it were, a day.”¹⁵

In conclusion, the term 1000 years in Revelation 20 should be taken figuratively. It is being used by the author to denote an undetermined period of time when Christ’s Kingdom will be spreading throughout the earth breaking down the gates of Hell. Satan is bound by the Gospel during this time until shortly before the end when he will be released to once again deceive the nations. Satan will lead a revolt against Christ Who will with one word defeat him casting him into the Lake of Fire with death and Hades and all those who are not found in the Lambs book of life; this is the second death. We are given a picture of the throne room of God where we see souls of those who have been martyred for the name of Christ standing in Heaven waiting for the day of vindication. The first resurrection is best described as spiritual since it is contrasted with the second death that is a spiritual death.

Time does not permit me to discuss the clear teaching in Scripture regarding the Two-Age model nor the parables of Jesus or the doctrine of the Second Coming as taught throughout the New Testament. Suffice it to say that before the Second coming, we are told that we live in an evil age surrounded by things that are temporary: homes, marriage, etc. In the Age-to-Come, we are surrounded by things that are eternal: righteousness, life, no pain, no sorrow, etc. The dividing line between the two ages is at the Second Coming of Christ when He will raise both the wicked and the righteous. He will separate the wheat from the tares and the sheep from the goats, casting the unrighteous into everlasting punishment and giving the righteous the new universe forever in the presence of their Lord.

Notes

1. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Findlay: Dunham, 1958), 477.

2. Simon Kistemaker, Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 534.

3. John Walvoord and Roy Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: N.T. (Wheaton: Victor, 1983), 979.

4. Leon Morris, Revelation TNTC (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009), 225.

5. Simon Kistemaker, Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 538.

6. John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay: Dunham, 1959), 271.

7. John Walvoord and Roy Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: N.T. (Wheaton: Victor, 1983), 978.

8. C.I. Scofield, Addresses in Prophecy (Greenville: Gospel Hour, 1975), 110.

9. Leon Morris, Revelation TNTC (Downers Grove: IVP, 2009), 225.

10. John Walvoord, Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 298-299.

11. George Ladd, Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 265-66.

12. William Hendriksen, More than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1940), 192.

13. Kim Riddlebarger, “Christ the true Israel”, Amillennialism 101, (Anaheim: Christ Reformed Church, 10/17/08).

14. G.K. Beale, The Book of Revelation NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1036.

15. Martin Luther, Commentary on Peter and Jude (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1982), 298.

Revelation 20 part 2

Let us now look at the rule of the saints with Christ. Verse 4a says, “Then I saw thrones and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the world of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands…” We will examine two details of this verse: the condition of souls and the position of the thrones.

John Walvoord says, “The fact that John could see them implies that they had received intermediate bodies in heaven and were awaiting their resurrections.”³

Leon Morris says, “In that he speaks of souls only and not of bodies (contrast 1 Cor. 15) it may be that he is thinking of a temporary state.”⁴

Simon Kistemaker says, “Next, let us consider the topic of souls of martyrs. John is descriptive and precise in his wording, for he is not writing the expression souls as a synonym for persons; he refers to souls without bodies. He describes martyrs beheaded by Roman executioners.”⁵

Often it is the Premillennialist that accuses the Amillennialist/Postmillennialist for not taking the Bible literally. However, here it is the Premillennialist who is using the literal language as figurative. In verse four, John clearly states that he saw souls. Nowhere are we told that he sees bodies. Yet, Walvoord interprets this verse not according to what John literally says but according to what Walvoord believes John must have meant. There are other times in Scripture when we see the spirits of dead believers like the prophet Samuel in I Kings 28 and at the transfiguration with Moses and Elijah in Matthew 17. Walvoord is developing a new doctrine here: intermediate bodies from death till our new resurrected bodies.

I believe Morris and Kistemaker are correct by taking John at face value, John saw souls before the throne of God. There is absolutely no supporting Scriptural evidence for the people of God being given temporary “intermediate” bodies before the resurrection. The original readers were facing a horrible time of persecution. Almost every Christian knew someone who had been jailed, beaten and/or killed for the name of Christ. Our Lord, in His graciousness, is pulling back the curtain so they (and we) can understand the fate of those who have gone on before us. They stand with our Lord reigning with Him. Encouragement indeed!

According to Premillennialism, the events in chapter 20 are a chronological continuation from the events in chapter 19. The Amillennial/Postmillennial interpretation is that chapter 20 begins a new vision and, therefore, is a separate unit from chapter 19. It is for this reason that the Premillennialist believes that the thrones described in this vision are on earth.

In his book The Millennial Kingdom, Walvoord, talking about Revelation 19:11-21 and the second coming of Christ says, “Further confirmation of the geographical return of Christ is found in the book of Revelation where He comes to judge the armies gathered in Palestine in rebellion against Him (Rev. 19:11-21). The geographical nature of Christ’s return serves to confirm His coming as a specific future prophetic event.”⁶ In The Bible Knowledge Commentary, he says, “The approach taken in this commentary is that the events in Chapter 20 follow chronologically the events in chapter 19.”⁷

When talking about the reign of Christ, C. I. Scofield says,

Not in Heaven. It is not a question of the reigning of God in heaven. His throne is in the heavens, and it has never been shaken and never can be; but here we have the promise that in David’s great Son there shall be one who will reign and execute judgment and justice in the earth….Was there any fulfillment of this promise then? Do you not see that the fulfillment of this prediction imperatively requires the return of David’s Son to this earth?⁸

The Amillennial/Postmillennialist believes that the thrones are in Heaven because throughout the book we are told the thrones of God and those that rule with Him are in Heaven. In his commentary on Revelation, Leon Morris says, “John saw thrones (cf. Dan. 7:9). He does not say where they were. Those who see a literal millennium usually place them on earth (cf.v.I). But John does not say this. He uses ‘throne’ forty-seven times in all, and except for Satan’s throne (2:13) and that of the beast (13:2; 16:10) all appear to be in heaven.”⁹

John is giving us a picture of Heaven. In a book where the throne room of God is always seen in Heaven and with the additional description of the “souls” of the martyrs standing before it, the clearest interpretation is that we are being given a picture of Heaven.

Revelation 20 part 1

The Meaning of 1000 Years in Revelation 20

I find it interesting that the book of the Bible that has been the most neglected in church history is also the most controversial. Perhaps the reasons are not all that disconnected. Such is the case with the book of Revelation, an apocalyptic writing with strange symbols and metaphors. Many have swayed from never reading it while others make it the focal point of their ministry.
There are four hermeneutical approaches used when interpreting Revelation. They are the preterist, the historical, the futurist and the idealist views. The preterist believes that most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled by AD 70. The book was written for the encouragement of the original readers and edification for future believers. Conservative advocates of this interpretation have a high view of Scripture and believe that all that is left to be fulfilled is the second coming, judgment and a new heavens and new earth. Those of liberal persuasion see this as any other apocalyptic writing from that time period.
Proponents of the historical view believe that the book of Revelation corresponds with historical events throughout history until the second coming of Christ. Using this view allows the reader to interpret the symbolic meaning of the prophecy to correspond to the current events of his own time. For example, ‘the beast’ is seen as the current manifestation of the worldly power that is persecuting the people of God at that time.
The futurist believes that the book of Revelation speaks of future events starting with Revelation 4:1 till the end of the book. They believe that these events will be literally fulfilled just before the return of Christ, so that the book will have the greatest meaning to that generation of Christians. They seek to incorporate a consistently literal hermeneutic throughout the book.
The final view of interpretation is the idealist. The idealist believes that the book of Revelation is a symbolic illustration to the work of God in the world from the first advent of Christ to the second. They see the structure of the book as seven concurrent visions. This book is God pulling back the curtain so that Christians might see beyond their suffering and be encouraged by the King that rules all.
Two of these views, the futurist and the idealist are the most commonly used today and have lead to four primary systems of Eschatology. They are: Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, Historic Premillennialism and Dispensational Premillennialism. Since the Amillennial and Postmillennial positions agree with each other regarding the interpretation of the thousand years in Revelation 20, we will treat them as one system for our purposes here. The same will hold true for the two premillennial positions.
If it is true that the book of Revelation has been neglected, it is also true that Revelation 20 has been the least neglected. From an Amillennial/Postmillennial perspective, the 20th chapter of Revelation begins the seventh and final vision of the book and describes the time period between the first advent of Christ and His second coming in judgment. The Premillennial position is that this is the beginning of a literal 1000 year kingdom where Christ will rule from David’s throne on earth after which is the final judgment.
The question between these positions hinges on the interpretation of the use of the term 1000 years. Is it a literal 1000 years, or is it a figurative term referring to a long period of time? We will look at four key areas so as to ascertain the interpretation of the term. The four key areas are, the binding and loosing of Satan (verses 1-3, 7-10), the rule of the saints with Christ, (verse 4a), the comparison of death and resurrection (verses 4b-6, 11-15) and finally, how the term 1000 is used elsewhere in Scripture.
The passage begins like this: “Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.” (Rev. 20:1-3) In order to interpret this passage, we must ask ourselves some questions. Who is the dragon? How is he bound? For how long will this binding last?
The passage itself tells us that the dragon is “that ancient serpent,” Satan. The reference to “that ancient serpent” and reminds us of the Garden of Eden when Satan possessed a snake to deceive Eve. In this passage, the Angel that was sent by God grabs hold of Satan and binds him with a great chain. A crucial question to ask would be if this is a literal binding or a metaphorical binding. A Premillennialist would say this is a literal binding and will last for 1000 years. An Amillennial/Postmillennialist would say that the binding is real but is not with a literal chain and that it will last for a long period of time. How can a spiritual being be bound with a literal physical chain? Is the chain made from iron or bronze? You cannot bind a spiritual being with a physical chain. It is impossible. The answer to this can be found in Matthew 12:25-29,
‘Knowing their thoughts,’ he said to them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.’
According to Jesus, the binding of Satan is the power of the Gospel in His kingdom as it assails the gates of Hell. It is the result of the fulfillment of Genesis 3:5 where we are told that the Seed of the woman would crush the head of the seed of the serpent. Support for this can be found in Luke 10 where Jesus sends his disciples out to tell all who would listen to the message of the kingdom. In verses seventeen and eighteen, the disciples come back to Jesus to tell Him of their experience in preaching. “The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord even the demons are subject to us in your name!’ and he said to them, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.’” In Revelation 20, Satan is thrown out of Heaven. Satan, the strong man, is said to be bound by Christ and thrown out of Heaven. This happened at the first advent of Christ not at the second. More importantly, it happened as a result of the Gospel being preached.
Earlier in Revelation 12:7-12, this event is spoken of.
Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world, he was thrown down to the earth and his angels were thrown down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, ‘Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death, therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them but woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!’
Dwight Pentecost gives us the Premillennial Dispensational interpretation of these verses.
Satan as the god of this age (II Cor. 4:4), has carried on his work to defeat the purpose and program of God. The millennial age is to be the age in which divine righteousness is to be displayed (Isa. 11:5; 32:1; Jer. 23:6; Dan. 9:24). It is also to be God’s final test of fallen humanity under the most ideal circumstances. All outward sources of temptation must be removed so that man will demonstrate what he is apart from satanic influence. So that there can be the full manifestation of righteousness and test of humanity apart from external temptation, Satan must be removed from the sphere. Therefore, at the second advent he will be bound and removed from the scene for the entirety of that millennial period.1
What the passage tells us, is that Satan is no longer allowed to deceive the nations. It does not say that he has been removed entirely. He is limited; he is not eliminated. Look at the great world powers before Christ’s coming: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece. When Satan is given free rein to deceive the nations these are the types of nations that you get. Look at the world power at the time of Christ, Rome. The standard operating procedure for Rome was to conquer a land, incorporate the people into the empire and assimilate the conquered country’s gods into the Pantheon. Rome was the collective storehouse of the world’s false religions. This is what you get when Satan is free to deceive the nations. Within three hundred years after Christ, the Emperor is a self-proclaimed Christian and the gospel has gone to every corner of the Empire. That is what you get when Satan is restrained from deceiving the nations. It is true that this world is filled with Satan’s activities, but even our sin-filled world of today is nothing compared to Rome or Babylon. Simon Kistemaker says, “Satan and his fallen angels are ‘bound as to a rope, which can be more or less lengthened.’ They can try to free themselves, but it is impossible for them to be released. John intended not a literal binding but a figurative restraint whereby Satan is unable to perform his wickedness as he did prior to his restriction.” 2 All believe that this restraining must come to an end. For the Amillennialist/Postmillennialist, the loosing will happen just before the end of the age. For the Premillennialist, it will happen at the end of the earthly kingdom rule of Christ.

Recent trends in emerging/emergent churches

In a little over a week I will be attending (in disguise) the Together for the Gospel conference at Southern Seminary. Having been a product and observer of the New Calvinistic movement I think we are at a turning point.

Running alongside the New Calvinistic movement has been the Emerging/Emergent movement. Some within the New Calvinistic movement have also been part of the Emerging movement often fighting against the Emergent movement. Point being that there has always been some crossover that has effected both movements. Let’s take a quick look at the good and the bad of where we are today. Remember these are only my observations.

The good is that there is greater separation from the emerging and emergent sides of this movement. It seems that those that used to be categorized as emerging have jettisoned the name. Which I believe is a good thing. The emerging/emergent movement for good or for bad began by fighting against dead orthodoxy, (a good thing to fight against), the danger was always to distance them from anything that resembled a N.T. church to the point that they would cease to be a N.T. church. Thankfully for the Emerging people this didn’t happen and now that they are no longer referring to themselves as Emerging we can see the evidence that they are trying to be seen (as they should be) as part of the N.T. church along with other branches of the N.T. Protestant church.

The other paradigm shift that has recently occurred is in the vehicle; “A New Kind of Christianity”, by Brian McLaren, which has been accurately described as being no kind of Christianity at all. In this book Brian leaves no doubt that he is not a Christian and is at ‘best’ a deist, even ‘Liberal’ would be a gracious description at this point. This already should have been apparent to Christiandom in his book; “A Generous Orthodoxy”, so I am thankful for Brian’s further clarification.

The accusations that the Emergent church was nothing more than repackaged liberalism was usually laughed at with wrinkled noses. It is always better when movements define themselves and given enough time they often do.

So where does this leave us? I am glad to see the Emerging church is trying not to be labeled as Emerging anymore. May I suggest something that I think more accurately describes what they have been (thankfully) trying to do all these years? Instead of ‘Emergeing they can cling to the slogan semper reformanda or Always Reforming. As for the Emergent church it is my hope that those that had been classifying themselves as Emergent will finally see that the movement has emerged itself right out of Christianity.

So where do we go from here? The idea of always reforming is supposed to lead us back to the Scriptures, constantly asking ourselves the questions; “Is what I believe Scriptural? Is my worship Christ centered and Biblically mandated?”, every church whether Old School Presbyterianism or New Calvinism should be asking these questions on a regular basis.

The dangers I see in the New Calvinism movement seems to be a straying from the Biblical model of trained Pastor led congregation. I am concerned at the campus model of a church. A pastor is supposed to be a shepherd to his people and this can only be done if the pastor actually knows his people. It is one thing to be a church plant from a larger more established church. Paul and Barnabus were sent out from Antioch to plant churches but part of that was also establishing Pastors, Elders and Deacons in each of these churches. How can a man shepherd a people when he is beamed in every Sunday on a screen? If this was a third world country and there weren’t enough pastors to go around then I wouldn’t complain but that doesn’t describe America.

The Gospel is supposed to be the driving force each Sunday, preached by a frail man of God. Should we simply find the best preacher we can get and beam his message to every church in the nation? I would say no. How would that Pastor know the individual needs of each individual congregation? Why then are churches modeling their Sunday services in this manner? I am not talking about new churches that are being planted. I am talking about churches that have been planted that are ready to be on their own.

The second area of concern for me is a seemingly downplaying of training pastors. I have heard from both Baptist and Presbyterian circles in the last few months of men who have not been to school that are pastoring churches. This baffles me. Would you go to a doctor that hasn’t been to medical school? On one hand we have churches that are not even getting a pastor going with a virtual one and on the other hand we are rushing people into the pastorate that haven’t been trained.

The conservative members of the protestant church made the same kind of mistakes in the early part of the 20^th century. In the fight against liberalism conservatives pulled out of the established schools and started their own and in many cases stopped training their pastors altogether. The mistakes that they made were the lack of training for their pastors as well as establishing many schools that were sub-par in academic standards. But what is the reason to do this today? Some of the schools that were started at that time were started in the right way leaving us with some excellent seminaries throughout this nation, Southern seminary, a few Westminsters, a few RTS’s, Mars etc. So why is the non-schooling of pastors starting to become a trend?

I have given you some observations that I have made and please feel free to comment on them. Overall I am pleased with the recent developments within the Emerging/Emergent movements. I am a strong believer in clear definitions. No movement is perfect and we always should be careful when we start to think that we can get rid of one or two things or change this or that, thus making ourselves perfect. In the end we will always be reforming.