• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Left Behind (The Series)by Tim LaHaye & Jerry B. Jenkins.

I'm a Christian, and I've read or heard most of the series. While the basic storyline is interesting, the writing is awful and I'm bothered by fellow believers who treat these books as if they're nonfiction..as in "this is THE way this will all pan out." Like the DaVinci Code, these books are works of fiction. Tim Lahaye is a pastor and has written other works on endtime prophecy, but this is all two guys' ideas of how it MIGHT be. I refuse to get caught up in the hoopla and hype surrounding these books. The movie was ok I guess. The soundtrack was great. As much interest as this series received, I just wish the writing could have been better, so as not to be a source of embarrassment for the Christian community.
 
This post begins on a note of despair. Despair if the book's Christians really say, do and believe all the things they are accused of in the earlier posts, and despair that anatgonistic people extend their reactions to the book to all whom they disparage as Fundies. It seems to me the one attitude is as stupid as the other.
I can only say that I began reading with the last volume because I expected it to be the most spectacular of all. I didn't especially notice things in that volume that would justify the previous accusations, or their vitriol. But I did find the book spectacularly boring and never finished it.
Peder
 
In theory, a curse is upon Lahaye & Jenkins

The "Left Behind" series is a team effort by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. Just the other day, I was musing how great novels are the singular effort of one author, but all movie versions are corporate undertakings. How often do we encounter a great work which has several authors in collaboration?

My wife is a devout Roman Catholic from the Philippines who has purchased and read every book in the LaHaye/Jenkins series, and were a new one to be published tomorrow, would instantly place an order for it. The series is not entirely pleasing to Roman Catholics, since it mentions in passing that no Roman Catholics were deemed worthy to be taken in the Rapture, but only Protestants.

The thoughtful and scholarly reader should be aware that there have been many changes over the centuries in the theology stressed by various denominations. There was not always an emphasis on Last Days and the Rapture. Also, during the 18th and 19th centuries, in predominantly Calvinist America, there was no emphasis on “friendship with Jesus” or developing a “personal relationship” with Christ. Jesus was considered to be a figure who played a certain key role in the process, but the emphasis was upon God the Father and not upon Jesus the Son.

Personally, I have always felt that those who dwell excessively on meditations of the last times miss out on the fundamental message of Jesus in the Gospels, namely, that it is how each and every one of us personally lives each day, from moment to moment, with the choices we make, which matter and are our "working out" of our salvation with fear and trembling, as Paul and Kierkegaard put it. Remember, the Lord's prayer reads "give us this day our daily bread" and also the verse "sufficient undo the day are the evils thereof." The bulk of humanity over time span of countless millennia will have already lived their lives and died when the events in the Book of Revelation finally take place.


In theory at least, a curse is upon LaHaye and Jenkins for making additions to Revelation


The Book of Revelation begins with a blessing promised for those who read it aloud, and those who hear, and ends with a curse upon anyone who dares to add to or subtract from the Revelation. It might reasonably be argued that the Left Behind series by LaHaye and Jenkins does add to the account in the Book of Revelation.


It is a curious fact that, in the yearly cycle of services of the Eastern Orthodox church, there are reading drawn from every book of the Old and New Testament EXCEPT from the Book of Revelation. The topics of the Book of Revelation were considered inappropriate for the faithful laity to dwell upon. There is a large Russian Cathedral in upstate New York, Jordanville, near the Mohawk valley. The walls and pillars of the cathedral are covered with iconography. There is one wall which is not visible to the congregation, but only to the clergy as they stand facing the congregation, serving the Vespers and Liturgy. The mural on that wall is scenes from The Book of Revelation concerning the Judgment. The purpose of such architecture is to remind the clergy the severe responsibility which has been placed upon them, and the manner in which they must answer and pay for any shortcomings.

Below are some useful excerpts explaining the origin of the terms and something of the diversity of beliefs concerning them.


http://yephiah.com/rapture.html

" Rapture " is a transliteration (a 'borrowing' of a word from another language without 'translating' it into an existing word) from the simple Latin verb " rapturo ", a derivative of which is the word you read in the Latin Bible at 1 Thess 4:17, at the place it says in your English bible "caught up ." It is a way for us English speakers to assign a 'noun' to the 'event' of the " catching up " described in 1 Thess 4:17.

Despite that website author's assertion, the word " rapture " is simply an English transliteration of the Latin word "rapiemur" as found in the Latin Vulgate at 1 Thess 4:17, and is the word translated " caught up " as found in modern English translations. So " rapture " simply refers to the "catching up" described in 1 Thess 4:17. When any person says they believe in the " rapture ", they are 'simply' saying they believe the bible when it says we will be " caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air ..."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/millenni.htm

All of the Premillennialist beliefs teach that the Tribulation is followed by 1000 years of peace when all live under the authority of Christ. Afterwards, in a brief, final battle, Satan is permanently conquered.


Fascinating Internal Conflict

Dispensational Premillennialism contains an internal conflict. Its advocates generally believe "that the moral conditions of the world and the church are destined get increasingly worse. When they get almost unbearably bad, the Lord Jesus will return in the clouds to 'rapture' the living saints up to heaven." However, they tend to be very outspoken and active in their opposition to many behaviors that they consider to be extremely sinful: abortion access, equal rights for homosexuals, same-sex marriage, pre-marital sex, adultery, sex education in schools, access to physician assisted suicide, the use of embryonic stem cells in healing, etc. By their opposition to these "hot" religiously controversial topics, they are delaying Jesus' return to earth, the rapture and the 1000 year millennium.
 
Dear StillILearn,

I am quite possibly a kindred spirit with you, and I admire Buddhism, but IF we all launch into a thread of "this religion is better than that religion", then we shall be in violation of forum rules, and the thread will get locked, which will be a shame, since it will mean that we do not have the wisdom and self-control to stay within acceptable boundaries and discuss only the Left Behind series in question, by citing facts about its subject matter, namely The Book of Revelation and that abovementioned Epistle which coins the term. If we can demonstrate some interesting internal conflict with the fictional series, or in the underlying scripture, then we have done something truly exciting, provocative and intellectually stimulating.

To focus on the fear and trembling is understandable but misguided, when the real point of focus should be the phrase and concept "to work out", i.e. the significance of works as opposed to salvation by faith alone which is where Luther of the 16th century Reformation may be criticized, and why the Epistle of James, with its emphasis on the importance of works is such a thorn in Luther's side. The picture painted by the LaHaye series has some theological problems inherent, aside from the obvious one I have discovered that the final verses of The Book of Revelation curse anyone who adds to or embellished the concepts of the prophecy.

By the way, an argument might easily be made that there is indeed much "fear and trembling" in both Mahayana and Theravadin Buddhist theology, but such a discussion would be beyond the scope of this thread, and in violation of forum guidelines.

The other very neat point, which I found with a google search, is the notion of an internal conflict in the movement which relishes this left behind series, namely, that they fight against things which they find objectionable, and yet it is the very process of moral decay which will hasten the coming of the millennial reign of God on earth which, one would assume, they so ardently desire.
 
One extremely sticky theological wicket which this series presents is the notion that, at a certain point in time, after the righteous or "saved" have been swept away into the clouds, there remain upon earth vast numbers of human beings who continue to live, but have now no possibility of repentance or salvation. Now there are those who will object that there will still be a final judgment and at the final judgment those who remain for the tribulation will have a hope of salvation and forgiveness. But we are presented with a notion that those who are "taken" and spared the tribulation are already guaranteed their salvation. In fact, it is very common for Protestants of certain denominations to approach people in an evangelical spirit and ask "are you SAVED?".

I attended a 4 year (one night a week) Bible study with my wife, covering the Old and New Testaments, conducted by a Marist brother who served as guidance counselor and history teacher in a Catholic high school. I once asked Brother Gerry, "When someone asks you if you are saved, how do you respond?" He smiled and said, "I answer that I am redeemed." We then launched into a complex discussion of the difference between salvation and redemption, employing a simple analogy as an illustration. Imagine a prison in which 10 people are sitting in their cells because they cannot pay the fine. Someone comes and pays the fines for all ten people. The jailor opens the cell doors. Only two depart to enjoy their new freedom, while eight remain in their confinement. Now, all ten were redeemed, but only two made the freewill choice to avail themselves of that redemption and make the journey to true freedom and salvation.

Those Christian denominations who stress predestination and election will have no problem with the idea that those who are left behind are condemned and beyond hope, since, for them, God foreknew and foreordained from before the foundation of the world each and every soul which would ever be born, some created for salvation, irresistible, ineluctable salvation, will-he nil-he, while others were created for eternal damnation. Such denominations embrace such a theology because for them the absolute sovereignty of God is so essential that were human freewill choice and co-operation to play a part in the process of salvation, then God's absolute sovereignty would be diminished. These same notions are present in Islamic belief. The Qu'ran expressly states that those who reject Allah shall be blinded and deafened by Allah and deceived and misled into even further error, in order to increase their punishment in the afterlife.

Kierkegaard was such a genius to realize that it was Abraham's freewill choice which elected to believe and accept as genuine the voice of God, commanding that he sacrifice Isaac, rather than dismiss it as a demonic temptation or a product of his own psychotic imagination.

There is no religion in the world which is free from rhetoric, and the sole purpose of rhetoric is to persuade those who have freewill choice make a certain choice.

In recent years, a Southern Baptist convention condemned certain Calvinist notions of election and predestination which had crept in, since Baptists emphasize proselytizing, and why would someone choose to join if they believed that everything is pre-ordained and our choices do not matter.
 
There are two verses in the New Testament which make for an interesting analysis of the Left Behind series. The most interesting is Revelation chapter 10, verse 6:

And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer.

- from King James translation

The King James translation renders accurately the Greek "kai xronos ouketi estai" as that there should be time no longer. Other modern translations incorrectly translate this as there should be no more delay.

The correct translation of the Greek implies that time itself ceases. This fits right in with Chapter 6, verse 14, which states: "And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together." If we combine these two interesting verses, we have the familiar Stephen Hawking notion of time-space continuum as something which can do some strange things inside of a black hole singularity. There is only one other Biblical passage which speaks of the heavens being rolled up like a scroll, and that is in the Book of Isaiah.

The other interesting passage is in the second Epistle of Peter, Ch. 3, verse 16: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

What Peter is saying here contradicts another verse which states that all scripture is suitable for discussion and beneficial to all. Peter's verse also contradicts the notion of Luther that all scripture is a matter of private personal interpretation.

My Roman Catholic wife has a childhood friend, Meg, who became Protestant.
Meg often drops hints about the advantages of conversion, and makes criticisms of the Pope. I pointed out to my wife that the only difference between the Catholics and the Protestants is that the Catholics have only one Pope, while the Protestants have countless popes, in the sense that, in large cities, one often sees two or three store-front churches on a single block, and each of those has been set up by someone who is convinced that they know the truth, and desires to pontificate, and, as Peter puts it, "are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." Tim LaHaye and his partner, Jerry Jenkins, eagerly join the ranks of these store-front popes.

Kurt Vonnegut was so insightful to point out that Americans are always clamoring to erect stone tablets with Moses' Ten Commandments in public buildings, but no one ever thinks to erect a plaque with Jesus beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount. Every wonder why that should be. The answer will help you to understand the popularity of the Left Behind series in the Bible Belt.
 
Tim Lahaye does not claim to be a theologian. He is a pastor who has done some Biblical research and written books based on his understanding of what he has learned. That's what writers do. In this instance he has partnered with a fiction writer to tell a story based on their views of how the end times might be. Yes, they are Protestants, with all the biases that statement emplies. I don't know about Jerry Jenkins, but Lahaye is a Southern Baptist, I believe. That slant colors the whole series, and explains certain elements of plot. Regardless of their understanding of scripture, from a literary standpoint, the series is poorly written, and that's a shame.
 
I don't have any interest in getting into the theology of these novels. Having read the first few because so many of my students were reading and asking questions about them, I've found myself with some issues with the series.
1. Without getting into it, I'm not a fan of the branch of dispensationalism presented by LaHaye / Jenkins.
2. The writing is pretty bad, especially the dialogue.
3. When one of the books covered only a single day, it became obvious that the folks behind this project were working to milk every penny out of their target audience. (LB for teens, LB the CD, LB the breakfast cereal, etc.)
I didn't read all the way through the 20th book (or however many there are), I decided I liked the source material better.
 
abecedarian said:
Tim Lahaye does not claim to be a theologian. He is a pastor who has done some Biblical research and written books based on his understanding of what he has learned. That's what writers do.

With all due respect:

Every pastor is, or should be, a theologian, since they attempt to interpret the meaning of Scripture to others. Not every theologian is a pastor, since the term pastor implies guiding or nurturing a flock or congregation. Some theologians restrict their activity to writing.

Kazantzakis steped into the theologian arena when he wrote "The Last Temptation of Christ."

http://www.sunypress.edu/details.asp?id=53718

"Dombrowski ranges widely over Kazantzakis's works in various genres--novels, poetry, travelogues, letters, treatises--and therefore has a complete, broad picture. He also treats Kazantzakis in relation to process theology, thereby greatly illuminating Kazantzakis's religious vision. Kazantzakis, well ahead of many, was a 'process theologian,' combining a view of God with a Darwinian assurance that everything (even God) evolves. This work is the first book-length study of this aspect of Kazantzakis." -- Peter Bien, Dartmouth College

Time Magazine refers to LaHaye as "an influential theologian."

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020701/books.html

(quote)
LaHaye has devoted much of his career—and 13 of his nonfiction works—to puzzling out what the Bible's prophecies mean. He has explained it all in dense tomes for fellow theologians as well as in the accessible 140-page Charting the End Times: A Visual Guide to Understanding Bible Prophecy (written with Thomas Ice, 2001). "The future is settled, and not open to change," LaHaye says. There is comfort in that message.
(end of quote)

http://www.bushwatch.com/rapture.htm

(quote)

A 2002 profile in Time magazine pronounced Dr. LaHaye an "influential theologian." (Academic titles are very big among graduates of Bob Jones University.) "Within a few hours after we met for the first time," its author enthused, "LaHaye gave me advice about my career, my love life and my salvation-and yet his questions didn't feel intrusive.

(end quote)

I am certain that LaHaye was careful to consult with Baptist theologians to assure that his fictional series, Left Behind was Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur with his target Bible Belt audience.

There is one hymn in the Greek Orthodox Church which states "He has made theologians of simple fishermen (meaning, of course, the Apostles)." It is not some degree or certification as Theologian which enables or entitles a person to write about theological matters, but rather it is the body of our own writings on spiritual or scriptural matters, whether expository and didactic or fictional, which brands a person as a theologian in the minds of our audience. We become theologians by virtue of our reading, writing and speaking about theological subjects for a period of years.

One hallmark of a theologian is to quote many other theologians from antiquity, and to quote scriptural verses in order to make certain points or arguments.

Former President Jimmy Carter is a talented theologian who has written several popular books, such as Living Faith. One reviewer states:

(quote)
"The book keeps coming back to its unifying purpose well stated in its title, Living Faith. Stemming from the early experience of accepting Christ, Jimmy Carter explains succinctly how this relationship came about. One of the most helpful parts o the book is his painful sharing of the reality of doubt as he matured and confronted the challenges of a highly technical and mechanistic age. An intensive questioning correlated with serious study about the issues produced deep insight about these realities. Quotations abound from Reinhold Niebuhr (his favorite theologian), Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth, Martin Buber, Paul Tillich, Hans Kung, Soren Kierkegaard. Any student of theology realizes that one does not move with ease through these ponderous and profound writers. "
(end of quote)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=
define:theologian

Someone who is learned in theology or who speculates about theology

http://www.answers.com/topic/theologian

Theologian: One who is learned in theology.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/theologian

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719547/theologian.html

Specialist in theology: an expert in, or student of, theology

http://dict.die.net/theologian/

A person well versed in theology
 
I've read all of the original 12 novels. I was in a strange mode one summer where I would switch between those books and the Harry Potter series.... I've been reading the new prequel series that LaHaye and Jenkins have started The Countdown to the Rapture. I have the first book The Rising: Birth of the Antichrist. Most people, or at least according to the official LB website, were disturbed by how dark this novel was, but I wasn't perturbed by it. That's probably because I prefer to read dark things... Right now I am half through the second novel The Regime. I'm starting to wonder if these new books were written for Nicolae fangirls... I am one! *raises hand* I was feeling sorry for Nicolae during the last book.

My main problem with the books in the LB series is the preachiness and, of course, the writing style. It just irks me, but that could be because I like to read more descriptive prose. However, I like end-of-the-world stories so I continued reading the books.

Granted that it has been a spell since I read Armageddon and Glorious Appearance, but I believe there was discrepancy in the flow of the story. Rayford was said to die at the end of the former and Buck was on the verge of death, but in the beginning of the last one Ray survives. I think this might be because the beginning of the series was said that one of the four original members of the Tribulation Force would see the coming of Christ. I suppose it was easier to keep someone in the desert alive as opposed to someone trapped in a city with the enemy. *shrugs*
 
Dear StillILearn,

I am quite possibly a kindred spirit with you, and I admire Buddhism, but IF we all launch into a thread of "this religion is better than that religion", then we shall be in violation of forum rules, and the thread will get locked, which will be a shame, since it will mean that we do not have the wisdom and self-control to stay within acceptable boundaries and discuss only the Left Behind series in question, by citing facts about its subject matter, namely The Book of Revelation and that abovementioned Epistle which coins the term. If we can demonstrate some interesting internal conflict with the fictional series, or in the underlying scripture, then we have done something truly exciting, provocative and intellectually stimulating.



Excellent point(s), Sitaram. I think maybe the devil made me do it
 
(I should point out that, personally, my beliefs are Buddhist and Hindu, so no one will feel that I have a vested interest or some ideological ax to grind. I was raised with no religion, but became Greek Orthodox Christian in my early twenties, and remained that for 20 years before changing my views.)

This morning, I read this entire thread aloud to my wife, who has read every volume of the “Left Behind” and we discussed it. I was incorrect yesterday in stating that those who are left behind have no hope for salvation. Apparently, they are still free to accept Christ and be saved, but they must suffer all the trials and tribulations and temptations of the Great Tribulation of the last days. I am correct in pointing out that those who are “taken up” in the rapture are presumed to be “saved”, and there is a real problem scripturally with such a teaching as it conflicts with other parts of the Bible. Many Protestant denominations stress the notion that, if you do certain things, then your salvation is guaranteed to you in this lifetime. The big problem with guaranteed salvation is that it is in conflict with Jesus words in the Gospels. Jesus describes a scene from the final Judgment where some approach and say “Lord, Lord, we did miracles in your name…” and he replies to them, “Go away, I never knew you.” Others approach and he says to them, “I was hungry and you fed me. I was naked and you clothed me, etc.” This other group is quite perplexed and exclaims “when did we do all these things?” Jesus answers, “When you did these things to the lest of your brethren (the poorest of the poor in Mother Theresa’s terms) then you did them to me. It is quite obvious from Jesus’ words that those who presumed themselves saved were sadly mistaken, while those who were truly saved were not even conscious of what it was they had done to deserve salvation.


I had previously quoted from this link and one phrase stands out for me with unique significance:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020701/books.html

(quote)
LaHaye has devoted much of his career—and 13 of his nonfiction works—to puzzling out what the Bible's prophecies mean. He has explained it all in dense tomes for fellow theologians as well as in the accessible 140-page Charting the End Times: A Visual Guide to Understanding Bible Prophecy (written with Thomas Ice, 2001). "The future is settled, and not open to change," LaHaye says. There is comfort in that message.
(end of quote)

What catches my attention is the word COMFORT.
When we are assured of things like the eternal security of our salvation by people like Charles Stanley, then we are comforted that we have nothing to worry about. When we are assured that "The future is settled, and not open to change" we are comforted. But with such comfort comes a dangerous complacency.

Yet a crucial verse from the Old Testament: “Wisdom begins in fear of the Lord”.

Gandhi, in his autobiography, describes how, as a college student in Great Britain, he voluntarily made a careful study of Christianity together with a certain pastor there. Gandhi said he rejected Christianity because he noticed that Christians would sin in the most casual fashion. When Gandhi questioned them, they explained that they were forgiven and saved and continually cleansed by their baptism and the substitutional atonement of Christ on the cross. Gandhi stated that he did not desire simply to escape the consequences of sin, but, if possible, to extinguish sin itself, at its very source.

A depressed youth came to his pastor, who subscribed to Charles Stanley’s doctrine of the eternal security of salvation, which states that, once you accept Christ as your personal savior, then there is nothing you can do to lose your salvation. The depressed youth asked the pastor if he would go to hell for committing suicide. The pastor comforted him by reminding him of Eternal Security, that nothing he could do would affect his guaranteed salvation. So, being thus comforted and reassured, the youth went and committed suicide.


Consider the following verses which fly in the face of doctrines of eternal security of salvation and in the comfort which Tim LaHaye endeavors to bestow:

Phil. 2: 12 “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

Why would Paul tell the people of Corinth to work out their salvation if it were already guaranteed and eternally secure?

I Corinthians 9:27 “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection [through fastings and vigils], lest that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.”

Even Paul states that his own salvation is not a sure thing, but he must work at it.

II Corin. 5:10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he had done, whether it be good or bad.”

Sounds like works count to me here, and one does not learn the verdict until the judgment. If one could know they are saved before the judgment, then what is the purpose of a judgment?

Romans ch 5-6: “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God: Who will render to every man according to his deeds (works).”




"We are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end" (Hebrews 3:14).

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" (James 2:14).

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).

"And ye shall be hated of all men for My Name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved" (Mark 13:13).

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under Heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister" (Colossians 1:12-14, 23).


In closing this post, I would like to quote from the sixth century theologian, Maximus the Confessor, in the Philokalia:

"You believe there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe and tremble." James 2:19
The demons believe but they do not love God and His Creation. St. Maximus the Confessor c. A.D. 580-662 quotes Jeremiah :" " Do not say you are the Temple of the Lord,"(Jer.7:4); nor should you say that faith alone in Our Lord Jesus Christ can save you, for this is impossible unless you acquire love for Him through your works."(The Philokalia Vol. II p.5)
And John Climacus, also of the Philokalia, states that “At the Judgment you shall recognize the righteous, for their heads shall be hung low, and they shall say, “We have done nothing worthy.”
Another word to describe this attitude is humility which seems to be absent from the vocabularies of people like Tim LaHaye.
I listed on the radio to Dr. James Dobson reviewing Mel Gibson’s movie. Dr. Dobson exclaimed (paraphrasing), “I did not think it was possible for me to love Jesus any more than I do, but seeing this movie about the Crucifixion made me love Jesus even more.” For the ancient orthodox Christians of the early centuries, these words of Dr. Dobson would be considered quite proud. He believes himself to be perfect in his love for Jesus, flawless. The ancient Greeks called such an attitude, “planemenos” which comes from the same word as planet, meaning “wanderer”. A planamenos person is someone who has strayed away from the genuine teachings of the Gospels and is sick with the disease of pride. The Russians translate the Greek term, planamenos, into Slavonic as “prelest”.
 
No one, including Tim Lahaye, would say that works are unimportant. What he would say(I'm a former Southern Baptist) is that works do not save. Faith in the saving work of Christ is what saves. Good works are evidence of that saving grace. If a person claims to be saved, but lives a life without visible proof(good works), its fair to question their claims. The passage quoted about Jesus saying, "I never knew you" are referring to false brethren, people who had no personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but counted on their good deeds to be 'good enough'. Those types of works are often compared to "filthy rags."
We need to be careful in this discussion, to stay on topic and remember to discuss the book and not follow the lure of all those wonderful, but illicit bunny trails:)
 
I feel that I am perfectly "on topic" to raise a question about whether those "taken up" in the rapture are already saved, or must face a Judgment in which they shall possibly be condemned, since this is a question raised by LaHaye in his books.

I am perfectly justfied in evaluating Tim LaHaye and his fiction in the light of the history of Christian doctrine, a two thousand year history which includes the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics as well as the Protestant reformation.

I sympathize with the fact that some ideas may grate against the beliefs of others, just as a writer's style or grammar or vocabulary may grate against one person's tastes, but be pleasing to another person. That grating does not render something "illicit".

LaHaye's series, and LaHaye as a pastor, is situated in a the larger context of what is going on in America, with all the various radio and TV evangelists. His works are criticized by other popular media figures such as Hank Hannegraff, the "Bible Answer Man". Therefore I feel that it is appropriate to discuss those other personalities and teachings, and how they may agree or clash with LaHaye.

And finally, I believe that I can bring something to the discussion by contrasting these theologians with the very different piety and mood of the first 1000 years of Christianity, prior to the schism of 1054, the mood and understanding of the first 7 Ecumenical counsels.

I realize that this thread will ultimately be locked, because people do not feel comfortable considering all these things.

Silence and censorship is one viable solution to things that displease us, but I do not think it is the best solution.

If I mention The Book of Revelation, am I off topic? If I bring up contemporary media evangelists who agree with or disagree with LaHaye, am I off-topic. If I compare LaHaye's position with the 2000 year history and development of doctrine, as outlined by scholars such as Jaroslav Pelikan's "History of Christian Doctrine", am I going off-topic? I think not.

And, if you look at the initial post, by the person who started this thread, they are asking "what do you think." And I am only honestly sharing my thoughts about Tim LaHaye and his series.

We have to be mature enough to accept the fact that the thoughts and opinions of some will displease us.

I do agree with you that LaHaye would turn about and say that works are important. I see these answers by such people as rhetorical tricks and sophistry. In one breath, they will say that someone is guaranteed their salvation because they have accepted Christ as their personal savior. But in the next breath, should you point to some individual who did accept Christ but whose live does not measure up to what a Christian should be, then you will hear, "well, they were not really saved to begin with." At least that is my experience when arguing with such people.

I was shocked the day that I learned that the Southern Baptists split from the Northern Baptists, because the Northern Baptists felt that it was wrong for a pastor to own slaves, but the Southern Baptists disagreed.
 
... the lure of all those wonderful, but illicit bunny trails.

I'm following this thread with intense interest, fellow seekers. I'm getting an education (my exact mission here.) Sometimes I contribute the most when I keep my lips zipped, but I'm wholeheartedly here!

Pray continue. :)
 
The point has been made here, by some, with good reason, that LaHaye's books are not the best of prose, that the characters are stereotyped, and that the reader is lured onward simply out of curiosity to see "what will happen next."

I have made the point that there is a certain sophistry in the arguments of people like LaHaye. His books imply that no Roman Catholic will be taken up in the rapture. He does not state this outright. If you listen to the 24/7 Protestant AM radio stations, as I did for several years, you hear such a continual innuendo. One former Catholic will state, "Oh I used to think that I had to have a priest in order to pray. I did not realize that I could pray alone in my room." Of course, Jesus advises that people go in secret in their "closet" to pray.

I used to work with a brilliant woman who was phi beta kappa, with a dual major in theology and mathematics. She was married to the pastor of a nearby church.

I once asked her, out of curiosity:

"Suppose a Roman Catholic began to attend your services, and after a few months, requested to join your church. What would you do? Would you accept their Roman Catholic baptism, or would you re-baptize them."

She explained that since Catholics are not Christians, they would need to be baptized. But, she said, first, they must present several witnesses from the community, to testify that they are already living a moral life.

This attitude, of demanding the fruits of works as a proof of worthiness to be admitted to a church, is rather bizarre, but is commonly encountered. And yet, we see Jesus accepting dreadful sinners, harlots, etc., immediately upon their demonstration of repentance.

I think that one must examine the church and teachings of people like LaHaye to get a better understanding of the sophistry, if indeed there is sophistry and double talk.

We seem to have already agreed that these books are not the best of literature, and boring to many.

But they are not meant to be literature for entertainment so much as a tool to lure people into doctrinal discussions and to proselytize. I think it is appropriate to investigate the series from this theological perspective.

Folks who love these books are fascinated by questions such as, "when a person is taken, are they taken with their clothing, or does one see a pile of shoes and clothes left on the floor."

It is perhaps more spiritually beneficial for people to ponder their daily actions in business, and in their relations with family and neighbors, rather than to ponder sartorial residues.
 
sartorial residues

Sitaram, this phrase brought to mind a Gahan Wilson cartoon that I saw in one of the last New Yorker magazines. It showed a judge inquiring of a chairful of empty clothing: "Are you now, or have you ever been?"

Now I will never be able to see a reference to TLB series without visualizing that chairful of "sartorial residues".

Okay. I'll be quiet.
 
Just a question; I have forgotten.
Does the book teach or preach its world view to the reader or do the characters merely discuss and assert it among themselves? :confused:
Just wondering,
Peder
 
Back
Top