O temporas! O mores! Oh the times! Oh the customs! People just can’t think these days! They skim a Wikipedia article and think they know everything! People can’t tell you why they believe what they believe—they believe something on a whim! Idiot Trump, socialist Bernie, and liar Hillary each have real shots at being president. Christians seem to check their brain at the door when they go to church. Scenarios we used to use in our reductio ad absurdum arguments are now sincerely held positions. What happened to the times when people were more thoughtful, cared more about what they believed, and were sensible?

How many times have we heard this? In particular, how many times have we heard this and not moved any closer to a realistic solution? It is good to mention a problem that has not been mentioned before, but it is not good to continue to bemoan the state of affairs without attempting to do something about it. We cannot remain in our cliques and persist with our complaining about how the world can’t think. To do so is to be complicit in the crime. In our inaction, we allow harm to come to humanity.

Insurmountable

But, World Dumb is an insurmountable problem! No one has come up with a cure!

To this objection, I respond with the word yet. No one has come up with a cure yet. It has not been demonstrated that it is impossible, so we should carry on with the assumption that it is possible. Doing otherwise is to admit defeat and to damn untold millions to ignorance and perhaps even hell.

Even if some clever person were to construct a proof of some sort that World Dumb is incurable, we still must not surrender. There are still a great many ways we can approach the problem. But, since we aren’t there yet, I’m not going to dwell on those. (Prevent spread, reduce symptoms, or change the rules so that the limitations of the disease are irrelevant.)

I do not deny—for it is as obvious as can be—that this is a hard problem. If it were easy, we would not complain about World Dumb, we would simply solve it.

Defining the Dumb

What is the Dumb? When we say someone has the Dumb, how do we arrive at that conclusion? Are there different flavors or colors of the Dumb?

We need to define what it is. Perhaps we don’t know and need to think, research, and survey. There are probably multiple reasons, causes, and contributing factors. I don’t know how to define the Dumb, but here are some thoughts I had. They are almost certainly wrong, but maybe someone else will connect the dots with these jogging their mind.

• Apathy
• Lack of knowledge
• Different approach than we take (think Enlightenment vs Romanticism)
• Different conclusions than we make

There must be a better definition than, “People can’t think.” Use the Five Whys or other analysis tools to find the real reason people have the Dumb.

Changing Approach

Currently, much of our approach to solving World Dumb is to merely lament about how the world does not think, how little they care, and how they don’t even know any better. This is not good. We are better than the proverbial grumpy old men grumbling about today’s youngsters with no realistic progress made or attempted.

I propose we change our approach. Clearly, trying to solve World Dumb in one fell swoop is nigh impossible. Still, we can make progress by transforming the problem.

As we all learn in our math classes (particularly for me Calculus III, Combinatorics, and Algorithms), changing the form of a problem is often a good way to make progress. There are many integrals that can’t be evaluated without changing the coordinate system or order of integration. Similarly, many mathematical algorithmic proofs rely upon showing an unsolved problem is equivalent to a solved problem by changing the formation of the problem slightly.

Of course, the types of problems mathematics addresses are quite different from the problem we are trying to solve, but the techniques are used in many varied fields. I don’t expect all of these techniques to apply. The expectation is that by changing the approach, we will arrive at new ideas to combat World Dumb.

Solve a Single Case

Perhaps the lowest hanging fruit is to merely show the simplest case of Dumb is solvable. Take a single example of Dumb with a single individual and propose a method to cure the individual. The proposed method doesn’t need to solve every strain of Dumb, merely show that Dumb is curable. With a simple case solved, we can move to more complicated varieties.

If we get no farther than this, we have found a method to save one person from the Dumb. That is one more than would have been saved. With more resources, we can duplicate this and save more. With more time and practice, we may be able to optimize our technique and become more efficient.

Split Into Smaller Problems

A related problem solving technique to solving a single case is splitting a large problem into multiple smaller problems. I personally use this quite often when developing software. For example, building a autonomous automobile is a huge problem, but it can be solved if we break it up into smaller problems. Some of the smaller problems related to building a self-driving car are:

• Determine which roads to take to arrive at the desired destination (path finding).
• Detect the road boundaries, other vehicles, and obstacles to avoid (computer vision).
• Build a control mechanism to control the various automobile systems like the steering wheel, engine, transmission, and lights (robotics).

By solving each of these sub-problems (which each may be split into further sub-problems), the self-driving car project comes closer to a reality. Relating this to our endeavor, by solving the various contributing factors to Dumb, we can reduce or eliminate World Dumb. Perhaps apathy, lack of knowledge, and alternate conclusions—or whatever we identify as sub-problems.

Reduce the Unsolvable to Solvable

Say we have problem A. We don’t know how to solve A. However, we notice we know how to solve problem B. If we can find a way to reduce A to B, we then solve A. The trouble is to find B and the reduction method. This method is used frequently in computer science with advanced algorithms.

As a potential example, we have the problem of Apathy and we don’t know how to make people care. However, we are quite good at giving arguments to (hopefully) change the conclusions of our interlocutors. If we can find a way to reduce the problem of Apathy to the problem of giving arguments, we make progress. Of course, Apathy is a fairly complex problem, so we may need augment our arguments with something else to fully cover Apathy.

Simplify the Problem

What if we don’t need to do everything we think we need to do? We often overestimate what we need to do when faced with an unfamiliar scenario or when the task is large.

A small example is given in Don Norman’s classic Design of Everyday Things. Norman was annoyed with the many different locks in his apartment complex and he never knew which way he needed to turn the key. Instead of trying to change the direction of the lock mechanism, he simply added small stickers on each lock to indicate the direction. Problem solved. Instead of standardizing all the locks, it was sufficient to merely indicate the direction of turning—a much simpler problem.

Turning to the problem we are discussing, what if we only needed to make thinking valuable? (At least the type of thinking we desire for others to exemplify.) Then, regular people would naturally seek to think for themselves. It may be the case that we only need to teach a small population how to think. Perhaps we only need to teach key people—leaders of some sort—who will then go out and do more than we can alone.

In general, “make population x do y” would be a simplification when x is a population less than “the world” or y is something simpler than “think”.

When All Else Fails… Throw More Resources at the Problem

Can’t figure out how to solve a computer problem fast enough? Throw more computers at the problem. Don’t know how to make an efficient pulley to hoist the load? Get a bigger engine. Have an unfavorable tactical position in a key battle? Overwhelm your opponent with a sea of soldiers. Can’t figure out how to balance the budget? Add more money.

Some problems simply require more resources. Other times, we are not clever enough to find an efficient use of our resources to solve the issue. It is perfectly acceptable to add more resources to the mix and solve the problem. After all, the goal is to solve the problem, not do it with some arbitrary number of resources.

In our particular circumstance, we can choose to wait until we have enough resources to solve the problem. World Dumb is not going anywhere and we can use time to our advantage to maneuver into a position where we can effectively accomplish our goal.

Bringing It All Together

World Dumb is hard, pervasive, and people seem to actually like it. It won’t go away quickly, cleanly, or cheaply. It is, nonetheless, an important problem that needs bright minds, brave leaders, and steadfast supporters.

Once we move beyond complaining, we can begin to recognize the problem is not impossible. We can then start to define the problem. Finally, changing our approach can yield success.

I was recently invited to a Facebook group called Defenders of Biblical Dispensational Premillennialism in the 21st Century. Having heard about dispensationalism and premillennialism here and there, I saw this as an opportunity to learn about the view in the best possible way: going straight to those who hold it. I asked them this:

I don’t hold to Dispensational Premillennialism because I really have no understanding of it. As far as I know, I was never taught it and none of my pastors or teachers believe it. Can someone explain or link an article about the basic beliefs? How does this differ from any other eschatological view? (I haven’t seriously studied the end times.) After that, why is this important? You might be correct in your viewpoint, but why does it matter and why should I care?

To which they responded with over two dozen responses and links to various articles. I read every one of the responses and articles they posted. I also performed my own research. All the relevant articles I read are listed in the Sources section below. When I started, I intended this to be a simple response on a Facebook group, but this quickly became a summary of the dispensational premillennialism (DP) viewpoints and a discussion of what I thought about it. I thought this would be a great post for my blog. Besides, I wasn’t sure how well Facebook would handle over 2,000 words in a comment…

---

The Response

After reading through the multitude of posts and links, I have realized I was taught a premillennial view on the end times (although, I wasn’t taught too much, admittedly). Dispensationalism, I was not taught at all. Here is my summary of what DP is from the posts from the members of Defenders of Biblical Dispensational Premillennialism in the 21st Century.

Summary of Dispensationalism

1) A consistent, literal interpretation of the Bible.

This was mentioned in virtually every article. Literal to the grammatical and historical context of whatever passage being dealt with at the time. In particular, prophecy should be taken as literal statements, unless there is significant evidence literary devices are in use.

2) The literal interpretation implies a premillennialist view.

3) A clear distinction of the different periods of the Bible.

Pre-Fall Age, Post-Fall Age, Israel Age, Church Age, Tribulation Age, Millennial Age, Eternity Age

4) A clear distinction between Israel and the Church

The NT never equates the Church and Israel and always refers to them as separate entities.

5) Many OT prophecies apply only to Israel

As the Church is not Israel, Israel is the only group that can fulfill them.

6) The Church will go away and Israel will return to fulfill OT prophecies.

The rapture is the primary method of accomplishing this.

End Times Beliefs

A brief summary of the premillenialism part of DP.

1) Church Age

We are currently in this age.

2) Rapture of the Christians

This happens at an undetermined point in the future. There will be no warning.

3) Tribulation

This is most of the bad things listed out in Revelation.

4) Christ Returns

This is where the “pre” in “premillennialism” comes from. Christ returns before the millennium. There will be many signs.

5) Christ rules on the Earth for 1000 literal years

6) Judgement

7) Eternal Age

Is this an accurate summary? Did I leave anything significant out? Click here for a visual summary of the premillennial view. For an overview of some of the other views on the millennium, see Four Views on the Millennium by Blue Letter Bible.

Difficulties With Dispensationalism

Now that I understand the DP position much better now, I have several questions, along with some disagreements with the view. Hopefully, someone can provide answers.

Questions

Does DP change the way we live practically?

It seems to me it would not change anything about how I live, tell the gospel, or live as a Christian.

Does DP affect other parts of theology?

I mean outside of the specifically DP doctrines. If we hold to dispensational premillennialism, does that change or inform other parts of theology? (E.g. soteriology, theology proper, etc.)

How do we know the prophecies haven’t been fulfilled already? Or, that some of them are not dual soon-and-later prophecies (as several prophecies are in the Bible)?

Why is there such an emphasis on the different periods (dispensations) of the Bible?

What does this explain? Why is this required? It would seem only natural for there to be different periods of the Bible and wouldn’t need a full doctrine. It seems almost as obvious as Jesus existing—there’s no reason to have a doctrine saying, “Jesus existed”, because it is so obvious from the Bible, history, and other doctrines.

The Rapture

There seems to be very little support for the rapture

Within the DP viewpoint, it seems to be simply assumed. As this is the main method to move the Church out of the way of Israel’s restoration, the lack of defense here is surprising. While I was raised Southern Baptist and have been taught the rapture, I have never had someone lay out why we should believe such a thing. Notably, Dr. William Lane Craig has stated there is no scriptural support for this doctrine and that it was invented in 1827 by John Darby. (Doctrine of the Last Things (Part 2)) I should note that I am speaking of the rapture itself, not the pretribulational rapture. One must determine a rapture will take place before determining the hour. This entire topic is one I wish to study further in the future.

Distinction between Israel and the Church

I have serious difficulty seeing the distinction claimed. Many of the verses claimed as evidence for this distinction are easily refuted by looking at the context. In fact, many of passages cited are actually evidence for a unified Israel and Church, not separate. Here are some clear passages for the unified view. Some are cited by the dispensationalists as evidence for their view, but it is clear from the context their interpretation is in error.

Romans 11:17–24

Shows Paul considers the Gentiles and Israel to be the same tree, though Israel has been cut off because of their unbelief and will eventually be grafted back in.

Ephesians 2:11–22

Thomas Ice cited Eph 2:15 as an evidence that Israel and the Church are separate.

The fourth evidence that the church is distinct from Israel is the unique relationship between Jews and the Gentiles, called one new man in Ephesians 2:15″ (118). During the current church age God is saving a remnant from the two previous entities (Israel and Gentiles) and combining them into a third new object-the church. This unity of Jews and Gentiles into one new man covers only the church age, from Pentecost until the rapture, after which time God will restore Israel and complete her destiny (Acts 15:14-18). 1 Corinthians 10:32 reflects just such a division when it says, “Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.” — Thomas Ice, Israel / Church Distinction: The 4th Foundation [Emphasis original]

However, Ice completely misses a few verses later where Paul states we have been built on the foundation of Christ and now the whole building grows into a holy temple in the Lord. (Eph. 2:20–21) Clearly, Paul is making the point we are united in Christ, not divided.

1 Corinthians 10:23–11:1

Ice also asserts 1 Cor. 10:32 is evidence of a division, but the context tells another story. Paul is discussing food practices relating to various cultures. The Greeks ate food sacrificed to idols, Jews would not. Obviously, the new Christians had some questions whether they should eat the food sacrificed to the idols. Paul tells them to not worry about it unless someone else does: “Everything is lawful, but not everything is beneficial.” You, as a follower of Christ, have this freedom of eating anything, but do not upset or destroy your friendships over this freedom. Don’t offend others with this freedom: “Do not give offense to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also try to please everyone in all things. I do not seek my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved.” Paul’s point is to not offend needlessly: the ones you offend with your freedom may reject Christ because of you.

Galatians 3:28–4:7

Galatians 3:28–4:7 is a particularly damning passage for the view that there is a separation between Israel and the Church. Galatians shows we are considered descendants of Abraham and full heirs of God. If we are descendants of Abraham, how are we not Israel? Israel is made up entirely of descendants of Abraham via Isaac, and Christians are children of Sarah (Gal. 4:21–31). Ice tries to dismiss this point by saying Gentile believers only “participate in the spiritual (i.e., salvation) blessings that come through Israel (Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11, 14).” However, Romans 15:27 has no bearing here: the text is talking about providing for material needs. 1 Cor. 9:11 also is talking about material needs (such as helping the poor and hungry), but 1 Cor. 10:1 says “our fathers” are Israelites. If this isn’t proof enough the Church are now considered descendants, I don’t know what is! The amount of cherry-picking in dispensational articles is disturbing. I’ve only bothered to write out a refutation of a single point of a single article, I could go on a lot more, but I think my point has been established by now. For a group to so passionately say they are for the literal interpretation of the Bible, they consistently take single verses out of context, read their own beliefs in, and get their preconceived conclusions out. It’s eisegesis, plain and simple. All one needs to do to see this is take the verses cited and read the paragraphs before and after. You can do this in any translation, too—it’s not a matter of a more modern translation or anything of that sort.

NT Never Equates the Church with Israel

Much emphasis is placed on word studies where the NT “never equates the Church with Israel”. Given that Christians were attempting to differentiate Christianity from Judaism and show there is now a new way of operating, wouldn’t the distinction be natural? E.g.: That’s the old way of doing things, this is the new way of doing things. Besides, a good portion of Israel were set on destroying Christians, so it would make perfect sense to maintain an “Us vs Them” nomenclature.

Prophecy and Rapture

Without the preconceived notion that the Church is not considered Israel, we can now easily say the OT prophecies can apply to the Church. Furthermore, if there is a distinction, the prophecies could apply only to ethnic Jews or Israel as a nation-state. Even if the prophecies do distinguish between the Church and Israel, there is no reason to suppose the Church must be raptured away to allow Israel’s restoration, if indeed there will be such a thing. Now, there is the possibility for the rapture to be necessary to call the saints away before the tribulation so they avoid God’s wrath. This view relies on the premises that A) the tribulation is God’s wrath (as opposed to other parts of the end times or hell itself) and B) that Christians are to be spared from the tribulation wrath. Do we have evidence these statements are true?

Findings

Literal Interpretation of the Bible

Considering that I have found many of the verses to be taken out of context, I question how important the dispensationalist’s most important doctrine is: namely the historical-grammatical-contextual literal interpretation of the Bible. I’m very much concerned with what the Bible actually says, regardless of whether it fits with whatever theory we may or may not have.

Distinction Between the Church and Israel

The evidence for a NT distinction between the Church and Israel is tenuous at best, and flat-out against it at worst. All the other dispensational beliefs are constructed on this one; with this distinction having no solid evidence to stand on, everything else comes crashing down.

Prophecies Applying to Israel

With the distinction between Israel and the Church gone, we no longer need to strictly hold OT prophecies apply only to Israel. The Church can fulfill these prophecies as we are now considered full heirs to Abraham.

The Rapture

The rationale for the rapture seems to be based on very ambiguous passages, problematic premises, and have a questionable history. I find it hard to agree with a view with such dubious support, though it is a topic I need to research further before I take a hard stance against all versions of the rapture view.

Christ’s 1,000 Year Reign

I tentatively agree with Christ returning before the literal 1000 year reign, although I need to study Revelation more before I would describe myself as a premillennial.

Conclusion

I disagree with dispensationalism. Of this, I am quite certain. Separation of Israel and the Church is the linchpin of the view and the evidence is simply against it. There will need to be considerable new evidence to persuade me otherwise; as I have examined the scriptures and found passages clearly denying a separation, I seriously doubt such evidence can be gathered.

I do not favor a pre-tribulational rapture, but I am not certain. I favor premillennialism, but I am not certain.

---

Sources

Scripture quoted by permission. All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the NET Bible® copyright ©1996-2006 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. All rights reserved. http://netbible.com

Discussion from the Facebook group “Defenders of Dispensational Premillennialism in the 21st Century”

Matthew Allen, Theology Adrift: The Early Church Fathers and Their Views of Eschatology Baptist Bulletin, Why Dispensationalism Still Matters Blue Letter Bible, Four Views on the Millennium William Lane Craig, Doctrine of the Last Things (Part 2) William Lane Craig, Doctrine of the Last Things (Part 3) Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Dispensations of God Arnold Fruchtenbaum, The Wife of Jehovah and the Bride of Messiah Grace Thru Faith, Are God’s Wrath And The Great Tribulation The Same? Middletown Bible Church, Dispensationalism: A Clarifying Statement in View of the Confused Theological Climate Thomas Ice, Dispensataional Hermeneutics Thomas Ice, Futurism: The Third Foundation Thomas Ice, Israel/Church Distinction: The 4th Foundation Thomas Ice, The First Foundation: Consistent Literal Interpretation Thomas Ice, Premillennialism: The Second Foundation Thomas Ice, What Is Dispensationalism? Nathan E. Jones, Why I Believe in a Pre-Tribulation Rapture: 11 reasons why Jesus will come back before the Tribulation Michael J. Vlach, Various Forms of Replacement Theology Michael J. Vlach, Zechariah 14 and the Coming Worldwide Kingdom Michael J. Vlach, Zechariah 14 and the Timing of the Kingdom Michael Vlach, Three Categories of Supersessionism Michael Vlach, Theological Implications of Zechariah 14 Andy Woods, Dispensational Hermeneutics: The Grammatico-Historical Method Andy Woods, Dispensational Hermeneutics: The Matter of Genre Andy Woods, Israel-church Differences

I’ve wanted to start blogging again for some time now. I had been holding out trying to find a nice name I liked, but all the names I came up with sounded pretentious, negative, or egotistical. I really liked Reflecting. The English word has many qualities I appreciate:

• It is a verb, implying the action continues, unlike reflections, which implies a finite number of items that are final.
• Upon reflection, it has the meaning of thoughtfulness and serious consideration.
• The act of reflecting has the connotation that anything I write will reflect in some way my own thoughts and beliefs. As in, my works reflect myself.
• A reflection is not the real thing, but you must have a real thing to have a reflection. A reflection is grounded in reality, though it can become quite distorted.
• I am experimenting with photography as a serious business and income stream. Photography reflects the subject in a (hopefully) favorable manner.

Alas, reflecting.com is being name squatted and the squatters want $20,000 for the name… I considered thinking of another name, but I came back to my original problem: they all sounded like I was declaring my superiority over anyone who dared to read my articles. Not a good way to start a blog if I hope to garner a readership. Therefore, I settled on my name. Not that it is my legal name, mind you, but if I were to change my legal name (not that I am thinking of doing so), I would use Aerom Xundes. It’s just cool.

Originally, the full name was two names from two of my World of Warcraft characters. Aerom was a paladin tank I was quite fond of. Xundes was a warrior; I didn’t do much with him, though. One day, I put the two names together and thought it sounded pretty nice. Later, I realized it made a really good name for my online identity as it is completely unique. Before I began using Aerom Xundes as my online identity, Googling gave no results with those words together. Now, there’s several pages of my questions and contributions to the Internet over the years.

I should probably mention my previous blog: Rampant Intelligence. See what I mean about my names? It’s negative, and more than a shade pretentious and egotistical, although I was quite fond of it. I gave it a read through before creating this site. I must say my writing skills increased significantly over the years I posted there. The first two pages of posts are what I would consider decent; most everything else isn’t up to my standards anymore. I did enjoy reading through my thoughts again. It is nice to see how far I have come since then.

My intention for this blog is to be a place were I can muse about things. I take a very philosophical approach to most topics. This typically annoys most people I spend any time around as I’m constantly discussing topics they find to be “too deep”. This is a response I find to be quite deplorable. Not that I consider a particular person’s response to my actions to be deplorable, but that the vast majority of people consider my topics are “too deep”. I don’t even feel as if I am delving especially deep (most of the time); most philosophic works are orders of magnitude “deeper” than the questions I ask.

While this is a public blog, I’m not so naive to think or hope this will ever go past my friends. I might dream of having thousands of people reading the thoughts I put on the Internet, however, there is so much better content on the Internet that I’m not hopeful.