Theology Brings Paralysis, Death To Tennessee Temple - And Response (7)

The collapse of Tennessee Temple University in Chattanooga tells of a faltering faction in Christianity that had its heyday in the 1960s in American fundamentalism's peak.

The school was a bastion of conservative Baptist thinking styled premillennial dispensationalism that yanks Christianity out of its optimistic dynamism and steeps it in pessimism. The Tennessee Temple theory in Christianity is a historic novelty about 200 years old, but it is a majority report in the conservative wing of evangelical Christianity. Its ideas are reflected in Christian radio stations such as WMBW with Moody Radio and WDYN, and national ministries such as The John Ankerberg Show. Theologically, it argues for cultural withdrawal, dislikes God’s law as a grid for economics and national life, shuns the public square, cheers modern-day Israel as if its people were God’s chosen and leaves a paltry theological record.

Despite its origins, Tennessee Temple (founded in 1946) in its latter years seems to have abandoned its posture of shrinking back to await the return of the Lord Jesus in a second coming. Professors at the seminary are said to be mostly Calvinistic, holding to the doctrines of sovereign grace. Danny Lovett, head of the university (2005 to 2011) and Highland Park Baptist Church, is a graduate of Reformed Theological Seminary. The academic program has shifted to account the necessity of a “Christian worldview” on a growing list of topics.

Temple’s inward-looking fundamentalist origins, its financial distress and its position overwashed by the digital economy’s demolition of the university model of centralized education — all combine to spell the end of Tennessee Temple University.

Lack of financial support
Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Hammond, a trustee of the school, is dismayed that so few alumni responded to a plea for financial support. “My first thought was that of the 15 to 20 thousand alumni that's within a couple hundred miles of here — why did so little respond?” Mr. Hammond says. It would've taken F$3 million to F$5 million to help the school relocate. But non-trustee alumni gave less than F$65,000. “We knew that we could pray for a miracle,” Mr. Hammond says, “but we also had to be ready to pick up our swords and be ready to move. There was a day and time that we knew that we could not go beyond this date and have the money to do an honorable closing. And that date came.”

The trustees met the same day that Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the federal congress in Washington to stoke interest in more American military intervention in the Middle East. His speech was greeted with noisy enthusiasm. Americans are hawkishly allied to their federal government’s client, Israel. To that nation they are attached by the theological glue that oozes from across the lecterns at Tennessee Temple University.

Israel first and other new ideas
Temple University grads love modern-day Israel on the grounds that it is a reconstitution of the Hebrew republic of the Old Testament, and that Israelis are God’s people. This belief is called Judeo-Christianity, and is a cult within Christendom that disregards teachings of Christ about the object of God’s affection and favor. God rejected national Israel and honored its self-maledictory oaths when its chiefs clamored for Christ’s crucifixion. God divorced Israel, destroyed it as a nation in 70 AD, scattered His enemies among the Israelites far and wide, and remarried Himself — to the church. Judeo-Christianity or Christian Zionism denies passages in the scriptures showing that the church is Israel now and recipient of all the promises made to God’s people during their minority. The distinction between Jew and Gentile, invalid today, is largely of historically interest. To claim Israelis are God’s people is to propose God has two routes to salvation.

Christian Zionism is pervasive in American Christianity but is perhaps less significant upon culture than other aspects of fundamentalism. These would include its subjectivism and its privatization of Christianity, its rejection of God’s law (antinomianism), its defeatism and pessimism as to the claims of Christianity on society, and its rejection in its nonsystematic theology of key biblical principles such as that between justification and sanctification.

The shrinking world of Tennessee Temple circ. 1980
Premillennial dispensationalism began retreating in the 1980s before the onslaught of reformed authors such as Ken Gentry, Gary North, Ray Sutton, R.J. Rushdoony, James Jordan, Gary DeMar, David Chilton, Greg Bahnsen,  and George Grant.

— Gloomy outlook. Tennessee Temple represents dispensational premillennialism, which is pessimistic regarding efforts of Christians to build culturewide God’s kingdom on earth. A much older view of the church and the progress of time is post-millennialism, which holds that the word of God will eventually conquer every tongue, tribe and land before the last day. It holds that man has a responsibility to rebuild a world broken by sin for God’s glory. It teaches that by sovereign grace and the validity of God’s law as a standard for human conduct, Christendom will bring the people’s to the throne of God. In contrast, Tennessee Temple’s theology, more so 50 years ago than today, lets men off the hook for rebuilding and reconstruction. Christ is coming soon, and the Christian should think only of his own soul and converting his neighbor. God and the church have lost the war, satan is sovereign on this earth, and there is no time to think about rebuilding the arts, psychology, economics, medicine, sheriffing or to worry too much about recombinant genetics or the coming end of the welfare-warfare state.

— Subjectivism. If we had to name a single most encompassing error in the Tennessee Temple paradigm it would be this one. Pelagius the English monk said man is born neutral and that is will is not bound by original and actual sin. Salvation is an assertion of will. Pelagius concentrated on man, the subject, and man’s efforts. His idea is subject oriented. “Salvation leads to sanctification,” Ray Sutton says. “If salvation takes place by subjective efforts, the will and emotion, then so will sanctification. It too becomes a process of internalization. Therefore, subjective theology from start to finish emphasizes a man as an individual and his inner efforts. It is inward theology. *** The historic church sided with Augustine, who refuted Pelagius. His emphasis, to the contrary, was the objective nature of salvation.”

Christianity grows by the conversion of one soul at a time, so that by the end of time nations belong to God. But it operates by the external principle. “Man is not saved by conjuring effort from within. He can not. His help comes from the Lord who is external to him. Salvation is therefore objective, because the righteousness of Christ which saves is outside of man. This objective emphasis extends throughout the Augustinian approach to the major issues of Christianity. Ethics, for example, centers on the objective standard of  God’s Law. *** All of these issues and many others are viewed from this external principle. Subjective theology looks at them from an internal principle. *** Anabaptist theology individualizes the covenant. Consequently, the covenant becomes subject oriented.”

“Dispensational theology leads to moral paralysis. Moral paralysis produces intellectual paralysis,” says Gary North in Rapture Fever; why Dispensationalism is Paralyzed (1993) (click the link and download this volume). “Intellectual paralysis produces institutional paralysis. Institutional paralysis produces extinction through attrition. Dispensationalism is now at this final stage. We appear to be witnessing the birth of the terminal generation — not the terminal generation of the Church of Jesus Christ but of dispensationalism.”

— Defeat of the church, hopeless of progress. Dispensationalism of which Tennessee Temple was a bulwark followed the ideas of such writers as John Walvoord, who assures his readers, “We know that our efforts to make society Christianized [are] futile because the Bible doesn't teach it.” While premillennialists might be oriented to helping those hurt by a system rather than addressing systemic evils, the postmillennialist believes the system can be eventually be made more holy — sanctified. The reformed faith teaches that of the increase in Christ’s government there shall be no end. For decades Tennessee Temple inhibited and discouraged its students from having a comprehensive and systemic worldview based on revelation down to the details, and discouraged them from claiming the value of God’s grace and His rules as a standard for reformation and reconstruction.

— Dispensationalism is a novelty in Christianity. Dr. North relates its recent origins. “Dispensationalism was invented around 1830, either by 20-year-old Margaret Macdonald, who received a vision regarding the pre-tribulation Rapture while in a trance, or by John Nelson Darby. It escalated in popularity in the United States after the Civil War (1861-65), especially when William E. Blackstone *** wrote Jesus Is Coming in 1878. Prophecy conferences became the order of the day. Then came C.I. Scofield’s immensely successful Scofield Reference Bible (1909). After the widely publicized embarrassment of the Scopes’ “Monkey Trial” of 1925, Protestant evangelicals retreated into a kind of cultural shell. Dispensational theology was used to justify this withdrawal.”

— Antinomianism. Antinomianism is part of the dispensationalist paralysis that comes with a rejection of basic biblical tenets. If one sees no distinction between justification (God’s act to save) and sanctification (the Christian’s obedient walk as he seeks dominion), one will have no use for God’s law. Antinomianism rejects the 10 commandments as the basis for a people or nation, though it allows their use in private piety. Old-fashioned Baptists often accuse reformed people of legalism, meaning an effort to obtain salvation by law keeping. That claim is rarely true, because among the reformed one thanks God for sovereign grace saving man from total depravity. All sides admit no one can perfectly obey God’s law and attain salvation. But the reformed faith favors the use of God’s law because it identifies sin and accuses the sinner, opens the sinner to God’s grace and is a light on the path of life, both for individuals and cultures.

Many biblical statutes pertaining to ancient Israel and modes of worship are of no effect today, having been fulfilled by Christ. But the general equity of God’s law, and many specific statutes, remain binding and a pattern upon which every field of human endeavor is elevated and restored.
Dispensationalist David Schnittger in 1986 freely admitted his group’s retreatism.

[Gary] North and other postmillennial Christian Reconstructionists label those who hold the pretribulational rapture position pietists and cultural retreatists. One reason these criticisms are so painful is because I find them to be substantially true. Many in our camp have an all-pervasive negativism regarding the course of society and the impotence of God's people to do anything about it. They will heartily affirm that Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth, and that this must indeed be The Terminal Generation; therefore, any attempt to influence society is ultimately hopeless. They adopt the pietistic platitude: “You don't polish brass on a sinking ship.” Many pessimistic pretribbers cling to the humanists' version of religious freedom; namely Christian social and political impotence, self-imposed, as drowning men cling to a life preserver.

Whence liberty, free markets, prosperity?
Fundamentalism for decades was paralyzed by sensationalism and culture-retreating pietism. That began to change in the 1970s, Dr. North says, when these Christians began to rethink their views of end times and became active in the national political process and the Moral Majority. I suspect that in the last few years the tone has sharply changed in favor of the Calvinism believed by the seminary professors. My evidence for an increasing relevance at Temple is an interview with Ace Stafford, a student in 2012 and a former gang member (“Grace wipes scar on gangster’s heart, could solve growing problem in city”).

What’s the effect of Tennessee Temple’s shutdown on local economy? Bad in the sense that a local center and employer is closing shop and people will be out of jobs. Good in another sense. If indeed in its final hour it clings to the most neutralizing parts of its theological heritage — that of its pietism and disengagement with culture.

Thirty percent of Southern Baptist ministers tell pollsters their churches are Calvinistic — holding to the doctrines of the sovereignty of God and sovereign grace. The reformed faith is the most vigorous defender of political liberty, free markets, limited civil authority, and capital. It esteems God as a mighty king and man a utterly fallen, and it does more than any other segment of Christianity to dignify the individual. The draw of Calvinism is natural as dispensationalism more steadily appears a theological ruin.

What is the effect of the Tennessee Temple shutdown upon the concepts of liberty, free markets and a decentralized political and economic order? Even though the university went only partway to Calvinism, its demise is a loss to the ideals John Calvin espoused. Even at its weakest, Christian education is better than secularist alternatives.

* * *

If I understand the argument by Mr. Tulis correctly, Tennessee Temple University failed because it was not "Reformed" enough.  So, I guess it was not the fault of anyone associated with the University.  It was all predestined.

James Rox, Jr.
Chattanooga

* * *

* * * 

I suppose it’s okay to express an opinion on a subject, even when that opinion reeks of religious and theological bias and misinterpretation of history.  This is how I would characterize David Tulis’ religious spin, which seeks to explain the reason for the closing of Tennessee Temple University. 

In full disclosure, let me divulge that I am a graduate of TTU.  My association with the ministry of TTU and the Highland Park Baptist Church goes back to 1955.  Further, to qualify my views on this subject, since they contain a theological refutation of Tulis’ view of ecclesiastical history, let me also say that I have lived and worked in both Western and Eastern Europe, which is the home and heartland of Reformed Theology, for over 50 years.  Not only have I taught theology during these years, but I have also had the opportunity to observe the historic fruit of this destructive theology on those countries and their churches as well as our own.

Tulis cannot hide his own bias on this subject.  He cites a list of theological cohorts as proof of his views, and all happen to be well-known voices on Reformed Theology and vocal critics of the pre-millennial point of view.  I point this out just so readers may be clear of where Tulis is coming from.

According to Tulis, TTU closed because it represented “a faltering faction of Christianity that had it heyday in the 1960’s in American fundamentalism’s peak.”  Having been close to TTU for many years and therefore aware of the impending demise of its influence, I can affirm that the things which led to Temple’s closing were not principally theological or the result of its adherence to its pre-millennial viewpoint.  The causes were much more human.  A strong leader passed off the scene without preparing the schools for a continuation of leadership.  The pastor and President, who had made himself famous by the axiom, “Everything rises and falls on leadership,” failed to wisely prepare the ministry for a transfer of leadership.  The constituency had been allowed to idolize Dr. Roberson, and moving ahead without him was destructive to its future.  

Tennessee Temple Seminary did not exclusively represent a pre-millennial viewpoint.  The Reformed view was put forward by some professors with Roberson’s knowledge.  Candidly, one must accept that the emphasis on God’s love for the individual and the individual’s response to the gospel were strongly emphasized, and this produced the kind of growth numerically that occurred in the Book of Acts, i.e. thousands were converted to Christ, and many other churches were established in the environs of Chattanooga, as well as around the world.   It was the Reformed Churches that were showing little growth and failing to impact the area for Christ.  I wouldn’t conclude, as Tulis does, that TTU represented a “premillennial dispensationalism that yanks Christianity out of its optimistic dynamism and steeps it in pessimism.”  The facts do not warrant such a conclusion. 

Tulis alleges that the Christianity represented by TTU was a “historic novelty about 200 years old.”  History does not support this view.  It is quite easy to show from Scripture and from the writings of the early church fathers that early Christianity affirmed its expectation of the return of Christ that represented a pre-millennial position.  In fact, a-millennialism, or the eschatology held by Reform Churches, had been the view the Roman Church embraced from the time of Augustine, and it had displaced the early church’s view.  Indeed, it was after the Reformation of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli that pre-millennialism was revived in the same way that many other doctrines that were nearly lost during the Dark Ages of the Roman Church’s religious hegemony. 

As for Israel, the Roman Church had become anti-semitic.  It believed, as the Reformers of then and now believed, that God had rejected Israel entirely.  It based its near hatred of the Jews on the notion that God “divorced Himself” from Israel, owing to the crucifixion of Jesus by Jewish leaders.  It doesn’t surprise me that Tulis embraces this viewpoint since he also embraces the same Reformed theology of Luther and Calvin, and principally the latter.  It shouldn’t surprise us that the holocaust occurred in Germany – a country that had held these ideas about the Jews since the time of Luther.  In fact, it wasn’t until after Vatican Council II in the time of Pope John XXIII (the early sixties) that Roman Catholicism rejected their long-held antipathy to Israel, confessing that Rome recognized its error in holding the Jews solely responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus.  

Tulis’ view is called “Replacement Theology.”  It holds that “God divorced Israel, destroyed it as a nation in 70 A.D., scattered His enemies (the Jews) among the Israelites far and wide, and remarried Himself – to the church.”  He continues: “Judeo-Christianity or Christian Zionism denies passages in the scriptures showing that the church is Israel now and recipient of all the promises made to God’s people during their minority.”  Tulis continues: “The distinction between Jew and Gentile, invalid today, is largely of historical interest.  To claim Israelis are God’s people is to propose God has two routes to salvation.” 

There are few statements that confuse and fail to “rightly divide” the Scriptures more than these offered by Tulis.  First, there is no statement in Scripture that says that God “divorces Himself from Israel” and replaces Israel and all the promises made to her with the Christian Church.  Only a wholesale abuse of Scripture could conceive of such a thing.  In Malachi, God says “He hates divorce.”  Further, what is this nonsense that connects pre-millennialists with “two routes to heaven.”  

I recommend the reader consider the following: (1) God says He will never forsake His people whom He chose.  Only if the sun and moon should cease to shine would God abandon them (Jeremiah 31:35-36); (2)  only if the heaven above can be measured will God cast off the seed of Israel for all that they have done; (3)  God promises that He will not make a full end of Israel, though he wipes out all the other nations of earth (Jeremiah 30:11).  The promise of an eternal kingdom, made by God to Israel, yes, that Israel that departed from God and even rejected their Messiah, will be established.  God will bring them out of all the nations where He has scattered them (the scattering did happen in A.D. 70 and following, and the regathering did begin after WWII when Israel became a recognized nation) (Jeremiah 23:5-8).  Ezekiel Chapter 37 is being fulfilled right before our eyes.  Reformed Theology has gotten it wrong, Mr. Tulis. 

The New Testament confirms this Old Testament Covenant made between God and Abraham and his seed through Isaac (that’s Israel, Mr. Tulis) (Gen. 12:1-3; 13:15; 17:7).  Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ and the primary theologian among early Christians, made clear that God sees the world since Jesus’ Ascension as composed by three groups – the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church (1 Cor. 10:32).  In the principle doctrinal treatise of Christianity, Paul affirmed the eternal relationship that Israel has with the eternal God in Romans chapters 9 through 11.  His conclusion in Romans 11:1, is that God has “not cast away His people” – Israel.  He goes on to say that Israel’s present spiritual condition may be characterized as one of temporary blindness, and this condition t will last only until God has finalized His objective with Gentiles (Rom. 11:25).  After that, “all Israel will be saved” (i.e. , the Israel that exists in that time.” 

Reformed theologians, who wax eloquent with allegorical interpretations, totally mistreat this passage in Romans that spells out just how God will bring His covenant with Abraham’s son of promise (Isaac) to fruition, and how He will merge His purposes of the Church with the nation of Israel.  

The final kingdom will have implications touching Israel.  Jesus will come back to earth and sit on the “Throne of David” (Luke 1:32).  Abraham, Isaac, and David will sit down in the future kingdom with King Jesus.  In the last days God will destroy all nations that come against Jerusalem.  God will pour out on the “House of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem…they shall look upon Him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for his only son (Zachariah 12:9-10).  “In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and uncleanness” (Zech. 13:1).  Sounds like Israel has a future to me.  None of this fits with any millennial eschatology. 

If indeed the alumni of TTU refused to raise the $3-5 million that was needed to go forward with a new TTU, maybe Mr. Tulis is right in one thing.  He alleges that TTU was becoming more and more Reformed.  Certainly, as an alumnus, I and many  whom I know would not want  that to go forward.  That was not the TTU we knew or wanted anything to do with.  

Indeed, the graduates I know would object to building “God’s kingdom on earth.”  This is the terminology of a-millennialists, i.e. “building the kingdom.”  And it doesn’t mean a spiritual kingdom, but an earthly kingdom, which is prepared by man for Jesus to rule over when He returns.  The Bible teaches that Jesus will bring a kingdom with Him.  It will be a kingdom that He subdues and rules over with a “rod of iron.”  That’s what it will take for a kingdom to be established in the earth that opposes God. 

Tulis, and the theologians to which he looks for support, believe that “the word of God will eventually conquer every tongue, tribe  and land before the last day…that by sovereign grace and validity of God’s law as the standard for human conduct, Christendom will bring the people’s to the throne of God.”  I have lived in those countries which have followed Reformed theology for centuries.  They are farther away from the Reformed ideal than ever.  In most of those European countries, it is rationalism and atheism that reigns, not Jesus Christ.  I know this must be very discouraging to these theologians. 

Tulis believes that people who follow pre-millennial theology and eschatology make no impact on society.  All they supposedly are interested in is the sweet bye and bye.  He says, “their attempt to influence society is ultimately hopeless.”  History denies this.  It is exactly those who believe Jesus Christ is coming soon who have led out in social endeavors – hospitals, rescue missions, orphanages, etc.  It borders on slander to write off these accomplishments in order to score a few theological points.  Tulis may not know, but Dr. Lee Roberson passed up opportunities to move the school out of the Highland Park area because he felt a dedication to the physical revival of the area.  In light of the current situation, it might have been a bad decision on his part. 

Tulis would do well to study the situation of all small colleges in America to understand the special challenges they face – challenges that faced TTU.  Instead, he attempts to ignore these challenges and explain the demise of TTU in a way that is consistent with his own theology.  He cannot explain how it is that the Moody Bible Institute, with its nationwide network of Moody Radio, how Liberty Baptist University, with a student body of 16,000 – neither of which are Reformed institutions of learning – are thriving.  He finds no pleasure in this for the Cause of Christ.  He cannot explain why so-called “denominational missions” are diminishing, while mission agencies of the  pre-millennial slant are expanding.  He takes pleasure in knowing that some Southern Baptist institutions of higher learning are being infiltrated by Reformed theology, even though these formerly non-Reformed schools were instrumental in making this denomination the largest body of Baptists in the world. 

In my opinion, this is a shameful attempt to pass judgment on an institution that has been a blessing and benefit for the City of Chattanooga, for the nation at large, and for the cause of Christianity that has been favorably impacted by the influence of TTU.  

Those of us, who have benefited from the ministry and influence of TTU, probably know better than anyone else the causes for its loss of influence.  Doubtless we understand the weaknesses that have led to this moment.  Please, Mr. Tulis, let us mourn our loss without having to defend ourselves from unjust reasonings. 

James West
Ringgold 

* * * 

Mr. Tulis, 

I don't think most readers here care about theology debates,  but I think it important to correct some of the ridiculous statements you made, for those that do care. 

Firstly, I think common sense blows your reasoning out of the water regarding its impact on the closure of Tennessee Temple.   Here are some more practical reasons as to why Tennessee Temple closed. 

1.  Highland Park was not an attractive neighborhood to go to college.   As the neighborhood deteriorated, so went the enrollment, and... 

2.  Colleges are suffering financially everywhere, religious or not, Calvinist or not.  

You are correct in saying that Tennessee Temple lost alumni support,  but when a Christian college's doctrine or vision changes, for good or for bad, that is expected.   The fact is that many of the alumni encouraged their children to go to more likeminded schools, which are not about to close their doors anytime soon. 

You call Christian supporters of Israel as a special nation set aside by God, as a "cult."  Well, you can count me in on that, because as I see it,  the Bible foretold the diaspora of physical Israel to all of the nations, which is a historical fact, and it prophesied  their literal return to their homeland.   There has never been a group of people more persecuted than the Jewish people, who have had their homeland taken from them, but yet remained a distinct group, unable to be destroyed.   I believe God wants them to see that Jesus Christ is still reaching his hand out to them, asking them to believe in Him as their Messiah, so that they may be saved, just as he wants every other person to be saved.   And the Bible supports that belief clearly and specifically. 

I believe, even though we break our promises,  God doesn't.  He will fulfill all of his promises that he made to them, exactly as He said He would.  There is no room for veiled anti-Semitism in biblical Christianity.  So please don't use God's name to justify it. 

Finally, let me remind you of a couple  of Calvinist groups many believe are "cults."  How about Westboro Baptist Church?  How about the Christian Dominionists like Vision Forum, recently defunct because of the immorality of its founder, that encourage Mosaic law to take over the government, all while keeping their women uneducated, children homeschooled and away from other kids at church, and choosing their spouses through a courtship process?  It was Calvinism that justified slavery.   It was also a form of Calvinism and replacement theology that encouraged Martin Luther to write the anti-Semitic "On the Jews and Their Lies," which was later used as Nazi propaganda.     

Not all dispensationalists are perfect, and neither are all Calvinists.   But you clearly misrepresented mainstream dispensationalism as a novelty, which it isn't. I am not a Calvinist,  but some great friends of mine are.  But we respect and love each other, even when we disagree, and we don't resort to saying that the other one is not a "real" Christian.  

Respectfully, you should get over yourself and any theological snobbery you might have.    Your type of mean-spirited argument for Calvinism is definitely not a selling point.    Maybe you should rethink it.   

Michael Lyons 

* * * 

“Premillennial dispensationalism” “optimistic dynamism “ “ cultural withdrawal “ “Christian worldview” “Antinomianism is part of the dispensationalist paralysis.”  Twenty-one hundred words including everything but a clear point.

Steve Campbell 

* * * 

This brings to mind another great controversy in Christianity:  "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?" 

Steve Daugherty
Red Bank 

* * * 

One important fact that Mr. Tulis overlooked is the existence of a university in Virginia called Liberty University.  A massive, fundamental Bible university.  We recently visited it in Lynchburg and that is an awesome school.  Liberty has been attracting students for many years that would have come to Tennessee Temple here in Chattanooga.  This was a fear of Dr. Robertson's when Jerry Falwell founded Liberty.  Tenn Temple has lost students to Liberty for many years.  

Mr. Tulis spent a lot of time expressing his soul on this subject.  Perhaps it was a way to vent his feelings about Calvinism or a way to motivate fundamental Christians to defend the gospel.  This article is just another sign for us to believe we are living in the last days.  

I will leave you with one scripture; Jesus said in Mark 13:31  "Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away." 

Mike Harvey