Posted on 09/12/2007 9:05:47 AM PDT by topcat54
Today as I drove my Mom home from her dental appointment, we listened to Focus on the Family. All this week, FoF is focusing on "Radical Islam and the Family." I'd like to make a few observations.
1. Granted, we only caught the last fifteen minutes, but at no point was there any discussion of "the family and Islam," unless by this, one means something like, "Radical Islam wants to overthrow America and we should support the Iraq War."
2. Most, if not all, of the broadcast focused on Joel Rosenberg's bestseller Epicenter.
3. Consequently, we were treated to a short discourse on Ezekiel 38 - 39 on Gog and Magog.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that, except the words "evangelical Christians should..." were repeated several times. The insinuation, in my opinion, was that if you don't believe as Rosenberg and Dobson say, you aren't really an evangelical Christian. Further, no alternative view was ever presented.
Of course, none of this ever got around to topics like:
a. How do we interact with Muslims in evangelism?
b. How do we interact with them in apologetics?
c. How does Muslim family structure / relationships within said structure, fall short of the biblical standard and how can we show this when evangelizing Muslims or discipling those coming out of Muslim backgrounds who are now Christians?
Rather, it was "We must protect ourselves from Islam by supporting President Bush," who, as we know, has Dobson's approval - which he was sure to state many times.
(Excerpt) Read more at triablogue.blogspot.com ...
IMO a very good point. While I understand why FoF has become more "issue of the day" driven, they aren't the same program they were twenty years ago. I find myself listening to Family Life Today with Dennis Rainey, for the kind of content I used to listen to FoF for.
I have met Jim at Christian Psych Assoc type meetings when he used to have time for such. He’s authentic.
He can be . . . challenging . . . for his editors to work with as he knows precisely what he wants and insists on it being his way, period . . . as I understand it. But he does tremendous good for our Nation and for the family. And I praise God for his ministry and work.
He cares deeply for the family and our Nation.
I’m glad he’s doing the job he’s been more or less pressed into doing. No one else was doing quite what needed to be done in terms of activism in behalf of major political issues and forces impacting the family and our family values.
I don’t know that there are enough folks spouting family life help sorts of things . . . which he still does from time to time. But there are more than one or two at this point in time.
LOL!
Hah!! Thats funny.
Not to get side-tracked, but you seem unable to differentiate between the Church and a parachurch ministry like FoF.
Most churches have a confession of faith that defines pretty clearly what the Bible etaches in certain areas and, therefore, what is acceptable teaching within that church or denomination. Mine happens to exclude MacArthur-style dispensational premillennialism. Similarly, Grace Community Church would probably not invite Ken Gentry to preach on the subject of the Book of Revelation.
On the other hand, FoF looks to a broader audience and support base and claims to speak for a broader Christian community. Most people dont understand the term evangelical Christian as only referring to the particular sub-species known as Christian Zionist or dispensational premillennialist.
FoF either doesnt get it, or is so confused by their political agenda that they view end times Israel and radical Islam as principle barometers of the signs of the times, a view not shared by many knowledgeable and politically active Christians.
And taking a week of shows to discuss radical Islam helps this effort how?
You seem to be missing the perhaps subtle shift in emphasis that has occurred at FoF since they started seeing themselves as the mover and shaker within Christian Republican Party(tm).
Kind of like a Fairness Doctrine for Preterists, right.
Shows what you know. Neither Robertson nor Riddlebarger are preterists.
Horse puckey, tc, and you know it.
These ministries all have their doctrinal positions, too.....and those of their leadership. Dobson appears to be an evangelical, conservative premiller.
He just beat one witch hunt from the IRS. Are we going to initiate one now by the preterists?
"Yer honor...he dared speak his theology. Can we take away his tax status, his donations, his car, his house, his wife, and his wrist watch....oh yeah...almost forgot....take his bible, too!"
By your definition, of course.
And what definition would that be?
FoF has difficulties with the IRS because it wants to be tax exempt while at the same time advocating specific political positions that seem to run in parallel with the Republican Party. As long as they want to be a 501(c)(3) organization, they need to learn to play the tune the IRS wants them to play.
"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
But the issue here is not the IRS, but the emphasis by FoF on radical Islam in support of the Bush/Republican political agenda. Same kind of nonsense we get from the Christians United For Israel crowd.
Apparently, you don't keep up with FoF very much. The IRS was launched against them by more of the bitter enemies, and the IRS found the charges ALL unfounded, spurious.
So, I'd say that FoF has that perfectly in hand.
As to their unjust critics. They will eventually answer to God for any false accusations.
Apparently, you don't keep up with FoF very much. The IRS was launched against them by more of the bitter enemies, and the IRS found the charges ALL unfounded, spurious.
So, I'd say that FoF has that perfectly in hand.
As to their unjust critics. They will eventually answer to God for any false accusations.
And what definition would that be?
Your definition -- which you think somehow excludes amillenialists like Kim Riddlebarger. Here from Kim Riddlebarger's Blog:
I have written on this matter in my book A Case for Amillennialism. Here is a section which deals with your question (taken from pages 168-173)
In verse 15 of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus answers the disciples original question about the destruction of the temple, when will these things happen? ... Jesus now speaks of a period of great tribulation unsurpassed throughout the history of Israel. Dispensational writers argue that this passage must be interpreted in light of Daniel 9:27, which is assigned to a future seven-year tribulation period. If true, Jesus is here speaking of some distant future event yet to come. According to John Walvoord, Christ was not talking here about fulfillment in the first century, but prophecy to be related to His actual second coming to the earth in the future.
But there are good reasons to think that Jesus is speaking about the events of A.D. 70 .... [blah ... blah ... blah]
And that statement is different from Preterism how???? Preterists and Amillenialists and Replacement Theologians all drink from the same well despite their pretenses to the contrary.
Since Satan is bound, that means that we can't be the Great Satan.
Iranian Shiite rhetoric is not directly relevant to the question.
It also means that Obama, if you remember the Satan head in the smoke of the WTC burning, can't be Satan.In fact, it means Obama ain't even satanic, and that everything is peachy keen, rosey as far as the eye can see.
No it doesn't. What does John's Apocalypse say about Satan's bound condition? Note also that the great enemy will be let loose from his restrictions for a brief time at the end.
So, you’re saying that the Lord has ALREADY returned???
Now that is....odd.
Thanks for the ping!
You are confused, so let me help you clear things up.
Amil and preterist are orthogonal to one another. The sets are (amil, postmil, premil,dispensational) and (preterist, historicist, futurist, idealist). One can be a preterist postmil or a preterist amil or even preterist premil. The only thing one cannot be is a preterist or historicist dispensationalist. (Dispensationalism require an association with futurism.)
Riddlebarger is a historicist amil who happens to interpret a portion of the Olivet Discourse as referring to AD70. This is not uncommon, but it does not make him a preterist. In fact there are many dispensationalists who also happen to interpret portions of the Olivet Discourse as referring to AD70. (They usually are the ones who push for a double fulfillment, AD70 and the future great tribulation).
I hope this explanation will help you to carry on a reasonable discussion on the subject in the future.
What makes you think that Dobson, Sr. was not premil, or that Dobson, Jr. holds to the same eschatology as his father's denomination? Is Dobson, Jr. still in the Nazarene denomination?
As I reviewed Church of the Nazarene Articles of Faith, it seems to me that it would allow any view; pre-, post-, or amil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.