QUESTION:

When Lazarus died, he went to "Abraham's bosom." He "lifted up his eyes," but his body was in the grave. The thief on the cross died and went to "Paradise" with Jesus "in the heart of the earth." Christians who die go to be with Christ in heaven but won't get glorified bodies until the resurrection. In the millennium, a child will die being 100 years old and will go...where? After the millennium, the New Jerusalem descends to earth. This is not for all believers but only the church. Can you sort this out?

RESPONSE:

Our spirits that separate from our bodies at death and go to be with Christ to await glorified bodies at the resurrection are not blind, deaf, and dumb until then. God, angels, Satan, and demons are all spirits and can see, think, hear, speak-and so can the human spirit, separated from its body, whether in heaven or in hell. "There is a natural [physical] body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:44 [1]). Such was the condition of the rich man, (conscious, in torment, seeing, speaking). Lazarus and Abraham were in the place Christ called "paradise," where He, the believing thief, and Old Testament believers went upon death.

At His resurrection, our Lord emptied paradise and took its occupants to heaven. Since then, at death, believers' souls and spirits have gone directly to be with Christ in His Father's house of many mansions (Jn 14:2 [2]). Souls and spirits of all those "who sleep in Jesus" [i.e., died in faith in Christ] are waiting in heaven for the resurrection of their bodies that will be transformed into His likeness at the Rapture.

To speak of a hundred-year-old as a "child" does not mean that person is immature physically or mentally but that to die at 100 during the Millennium would be like being cut off in childhood. Those dying that "young" must be wicked and taken instantly to hell to join the "rich man" and multitudes of others in torment.

Revelation 21 [3] reveals the "new heaven and new earth" after the final judgment of the wicked (Rv 20:10-15). They will then all be in the Lake of Fire, not intended for mankind but "prepared for the devil and his angels" (Mt 25:41). Jews or Gentiles who believed on Christ, but not until they saw Him at the Second Coming, are not in the church but will dwell on earth eternally: in their natural bodies during the Millennium and in new bodies on the new earth with access to the new Jerusalem but not as its residents (Rv 21:24). Jews saved at the Second Coming will eternally dwell in the promised land of Israel on the new earth (Gn 17:8; 1 Chr 16:14-18 [4]; Ezk 32:21-28; 39:27-29; Zec 12:10 [5]).
Jews or Gentiles who believed on Christ before His visible appearing ("blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" - Jn 20:29 [6]) are the bride, the church. They inhabit the new Jerusalem, are always with Christ, and have full access through Him to the throne of God in heaven.

This is how I "sort this out." But you Bereans must search the Scriptures daily to come to your own conclusions.

QUESTION:

How will the world (especially the Antichrist) explain the Rapture-particularly in light of so much publicity around the Left Behind series?

RESPONSE:

The sudden mass disappearance worldwide of 100 million (or maybe more) of earth's inhabitants will cause a panic beyond anything we can imagine. I believe that all of the babies and small children (of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc.) will also vanish, taken to heaven at the same time.

No matter how familiar with the Left Behind series, whoever "received not the love of the truth...believed not the truth...God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned..." (2 Thes 2:10-12 [7]). I don't think that necessarily means they have specifically rejected the gospel of Christ. It could also mean they have rejected the witness of creation and conscience.

Neither the Left Behind series nor any other books or DVDs will benefit any such person. Of course, hundreds of millions (almost all Muslims, most Roman Catholics, multitudes of followers of other false religions, and atheists) who never knew and rejected the truth will have the opportunity to believe and will be martyred for their faith under Antichrist.

Antichrist's explanation of the Rapture is not important. What is important is the fact that all will be deceived by it who oppose the truth.

QUESTION:

One of our staff who reads incoming letters writes, "After reading your articles, Dave, and responses to letters about Calvinism, a Calvinist writes that your theology confuses him. He says that you don't understand the L in TULIP, that Calvin held the same interpretation as you do on John 3:16 [8]-that Christ did indeed die for all mankind but that, of course, His sacrifice on the Cross only benefited those who believed on Him.

He claims that your eschatology says that everything that happens has been predetermined by God based upon His foreknowledge-a contradiction of your view that we act by free will. He also charges that to teach that the Rapture could happen at any moment leads to a "why bother?" attitude, promotes apathy in the church, and results in the deterioration of society because it causes the church to cease from being salt and light as the Lord commanded"-and asks you, what love is this that you approve?

Referring to Christ's statement that no one knows the day or hour of His return, he asks why you seem so obsessed with trying to figure out exactly that and implies that you emphasize this because it sells books. He asks why you work so hard at dividing God's people rather than uniting them. He is concerned that you cut up those who stand for sound doctrine and says that instead you ought to expose the Benny Hinns, Copelands, Schullers, et. al., and the Da Vinci Code.

RESPONSE:

Such letters are helpful. It is discouraging, however, that someone could have been reading my books and articles in our newsletter, yet have missed so fully what I have said. I have never tried "to figure out...the day or hour of Christ's return," much less been obsessed with such a pursuit. I have often pointed out how unbiblical and foolish that would be.

His accusation that I have failed to expose and warn the church about the Hinns, Copelands, Schullers, et al., is most astonishing. I have devoted entire books and newsletters to doing that-so much so that I have been criticized for spending too much time in such exposés.

My teaching that Christ could take His church to heaven at any moment is biblical, as I have often documented. Anyone who knows the Bible ought to agree, so I won't go over that again. Furthermore, how could believing that the Rapture could occur at any moment cause "apathy in the church, resulting in the deterioration of our society"? It does the opposite. It tells us to work day and night, spread the gospel far and wide, oppose apostasy and awaken the church because our opportunity to do that could end at any moment!

Nor have I ever worked "hard at dividing God's people rather than uniting them." Jesus himself caused "a division among the people" wherever He preached (Jn 7:43, 9 [9]:16, 10:19). In fact, Christ said He came to bring division (Lk 12:51 [10])! By teaching sound doctrine, we bring division between those who stand for truth and those who oppose it. And in the process, we endeavor to "keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" in the only biblical way-in the "one body...one___Spirit...one__hope...one__Lord...one faith...one baptism...one God and Father of all..." (Eph 4:2-6 [11]).

As for his complaint that I misrepresent John Calvin, perhaps he hasn't read the third and expanded edition of What Love Is This? After the first printing of that book, Calvinists threw numerous false charges at me, including that I misquoted Calvin, Spurgeon, Arminius, and others. The third edition responds specifically to each of the Calvinists' complaints, sprinkling my answers throughout the book in the very places where they claimed I was in error (See offering list). I expanded my quotations of Calvin, Spurgeon, Arminius, et al., to show that I had not misunderstood nor had I misquoted any of them.

Yes, at times Calvin said that "world or many" (Is 53:12, Mk 14:24 [12], Jn 3:16 [13], etc.) meant all of mankind. But he so often said the opposite that he could not have meant what this man thinks he meant the few times he seemed to include not just the elect but all mankind (as in his Commentary on John 3:16 [14]). For example, Calvin said, "for, (as he [God] hates sin) he can only love those whom he justifies [i.e., the elect]."1 Then John 3:16 [15] could not mean that in love God gave His Son to die for the sins of the entire world.

I agree that Calvinists deserve credit for much of the Christianity of early America, for founding Christian universities, etc. But one cannot praise Calvinism by contrasting the spiritual condition of the church of that day with the apostasy in the church today without including the apostasy in the majority of today's Calvinist churches.

It is not true that I teach "that everything that happens has all been predetermined by God based upon His foreknowledge." That doesn't even make sense. God wouldn't need foreknowledge to predetermine everything. He would just predetermine it. But God has not predetermined everything that happens in our world. That is Calvinist doctrine. Its denial of man's free will makes a holy God the author of all evil.
Both Paul and Peter link election and predestination with God's foreknowledge but not the way he suggests. Paul writes, "Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren" (Rom 8:29 [16]). Peter declares, "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...unto obedience..." (1 Pt 1:2 [17]). Those whom God, by foreknowledge, knew would receive Christ were elected/predestined to certain blessings. The Bible does not teach that God causes some to believe and refuses to give saving faith to others.

QUESTION:

In What Love Is This? you quoted Tozer on page 102: "So when man exercises his freedom [of choice] he is fulfilling the sovereignty of God, not canceling it out." In the May issue you gave statistics about the moral depravity of American society and said the judgment of God cannot be long in coming upon them....By your definition...are Americans not fulfilling the sovereignty of God? And if so, wherein lies the justification of the impending judgment of God on them? How different is such a God from the Calvinistic God who refuses salvation to some people, only to turn around and condemn them for rejecting the salvation He withholds from them?

RESPONSE:

You misunderstand Tozer. He was saying that in exercising free will, man uses the power of choice that God gave him. That does not mean (as you seem to think) that what men choose to do is caused by God's will because He sovereignly gave them the power of choice. That can't be true, or the free will God gave to man wouldn't be free after all.

That same misunderstanding of sovereignty and free will (the latter expression is used 17 times in the Old Testament) clouds what you say about God's judgment upon America. You seem to think that what Americans do must be according to God's will because He sovereignly gave them freedom to choose. Not so. Man is accountable to God for what he willfully does and will be punished for the sin he freely chooses. The fact that God allows man to choose does not mean that God is the author of what he chooses.

The huge difference between the biblical God and the Calvinist God is clear. The biblical God punishes men for rejecting the salvation He provided for everyone, which all could have accepted by their free will-and punishes them for their sins, which are contrary to His will, none of which they had to commit but chose to do so.
But the Calvinist God condemns to hell those whom He could save if He so desired but for whom He sovereignly chose not even to have Christ die and from whom He deliberately withholds the salvation He pretends to offer them-and punishes them for not accepting. Yes, that's a huge difference.