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 ...
So, you’re saying that the Lord has ALREADY returned???Now that is....odd.
No, I am not.
See post 39.
Post 39 was no help.
What are you trying to say?
The first cycle of judgment in Revelation 6:1-8:1–the seal judgments– covers the entire period of time between Christ’s first advent and second coming [emp. added], before culminating in the sixth seal, which is the return of the Lord. The series of seal judgments brings death and destruction upon one fourth of the earth’s inhabitants and demonstrates the Lamb’s authority to bring judgment upon the earth.He is clearly not a preterist.
Post 39 was no help.What are you trying to say?
OK, let's go slow.
So, you’re saying that the Lord has ALREADY returned???
No, I'm not. What made you think that I might have?
Post 39:
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.
On different conceptional axes, varying independently of each other. Holding to amillenialism does not imply holding to preterism, and vice versa.
You're not perceiving distinctions that you should (which is something I though dispensationalist were really good at).
Not all preterists (not even vary many, that I can see) say that everything predicted is now past. I certainly do not. I look around me, and see tears and death. This is not the eternal state.
Not good at “rightly dividing”? How can that be?
It could also be that when some people hear the word “preterist” they automatically think of hyper-preterist no matter what you might say to disabuse them of this idea.
So then he is what: an Amillenial Historicist with Preterist Leanings. Where do you fit in that classification???
If everyone who sees some fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse in AD70 as having "Preterist Leanings", then I guess that is so.
Methinks that "preterist" to you is such a dirty word that you love to tar folks with whom you disagree with it even if they are not.
Where do you fit in that classification???
I'm preterist postmil. I see much of prophecy fulfilled in the "generation" from Christ's resurrection to AD70. I also believe in a future physical second coming of Christ, before which time the gospel will have great success in the world by the power of the Holy Spirit. The general resurrection and judgment and the consummation of all things happen at the second coming.
It still has nothing to do with the point.
You suggested that Satan had been bound and is now unbound. That means that Christ has returned and the millennial reign has ended. See Ch’s 19&20 Revelation. They follow one another.
" In fact, it means Obama ain't even satanic, and that everything is peachy keen, rosey as far as the eye can see." --you"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." --me.
Satan is bound, for the express purpose of his not deceiving the nations. That does not mean Satan has no influence, nor that fallen and unregenerate humans can't be evil all on their own. You'd be justified in calling OBL's activities "satanic" either as hyperbole, or if you mean to say Satan exerted direct personal influence.
For a brief time preceeding Christ's return, he is let loose from that restriction. When that happens, you will see Bad Things happen.
Neither case requires me to believe Jesus has already returned.
Funny, I’m probably the most conservative theologue in a room at any given time, since I affirm the LBCF 2.
Is it “60’s retread” to say that a Christian ministry should, you know, talk about the gospel from time to time? A “60’s retread” would be promoting uniting politics with the gospel, namely a “social gospel.”
But, just for tickles and grins what happened in Part 2? Rosenberg was on again. We also learned that Dobson is happy that the CIA and others are turning to Rosenberg, it seems, for information on “the end times.” Also, we were told that Rosenberg represents “biblical Christians.” So, amills and postmills aren’t “biblical Christians?”
Rosenberg did say we are to learn (about the end times of course), pray, and send. This, of course, was not enough, said Dobson, we must vote as well, with the caveat that Dobson isn’t telling people who to vote for - as if we don’t already know. Dobson was sure to tell Rosenberg that his action plan - the Great Commmission no less - was incomplete unless we vote.
What I’d like to know is how, other than keep an eye on Iran and support the Iraq War, this has to do with the family in something more than these vague ways. What we heard is how Islam is threatening to America, but I’m an American, but I’m also a Christian. Islam is the enemy of the Faith and the Church, not simply “America,” and “America” is by no means synonymous with “the Church” or “the Faith.” I’d like hear them talk about how to interact with Muslims in the marketplace of life. How, in concrete terms, do we share the gospel with them? How, in concrete terms, do we deal with them apologetically? Nothing - not a word- was said.
The second broadcast was more of the same. Part 3 was Rick Santorum.
Dear Mr. Bridges,
It has a LOT to do with “the family” when you have family fighting for your very freedom of thought and religion AGAINST the enemy, who calls ALL of America, “The Great Satan”.
You want a different topic on FOF? Then write to them and SUGGEST it as a topic! Don’t just blog off and smear another CHRISTIAN because he didn’t do the kind of show YOU liked.
I listened and thought it was VERY informative.
Don’t like the show? Don’t listen.
Think you can do a better job at educating others? Then step up to the plate and swing away!
Here is a saying I learned a long, long time ago ...
“Lead, follow or get the H&$L out of the way!”
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 don’t understand the term “evangelical Christian” as only referring to the particular sub-species known as Christian Zionist or dispensational premillennialist.
FoF either doesn’t 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.
Bingo! Topcat gets it...that’s the point...The point is what is said, or rather insinuated. If you’re amill or post-mill or a partial preterist of some sort, you’re not a “biblical Christian” (or another comment). Rosenberg and Dobson were very consistent on this point: Rosenberg’s eschatology was “biblical” and they represent “biblical Christianity.”
I’m sorry, but how is this not a statement that those of us who hold to other POV’s are not “biblical,” et.al.? Do I think he meant that to come across? No, or at least I hope not, esp. since I understand he delivered Dr. Kennedy’s eulogy, and I think Kennedy was amill, but what he did was, as he seems to more and more frequently do, is open his mouth without thinking he is making comments that his audience interprets in a particular manner. That’s irresponsible. It’s one thing for us to have to put up with the IFBx churches who will say absurd things like “Calvinism messes you up dispensationally,” it’s another to have a national leader in evangelical Christianity make comments that are interpreted to mean the rest of us aren’t “biblical.” If I’m not a “biblical Christian,” and I affirm what is likely one of the most conservative theological confessions of faith ever written, who is?
Yes, and the Second London Baptist Confession of faith promotes Liberation Theology? Which one of the articles would that be?
Or would that be the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, which I also affirm? You know the part that says:he church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.
Where, pray tell, did I say that I affirm a “social gospel” or liberation theology? Nowhere, not a word. What I affirm is the gospel as spelled out by these confessional documents. I don’t see anything approaching Liberation Theology in them, do you?
Are your fingers hooked into your brain when they type these tendentious statements, or are they autonomous with respect to higher cortical functions?
To unite church and state is the heart of a “social gospel,” so, if true, your reply applies to FoF, not anything I stated.
Yeah, I'll get them, and listen to them. Got a lot of on the road time tomorrow.
Without any real desire to get into a debate on this at this time, let me just point out that the bible says Satan is active and the evidence in the world around us says that Satan is active.
Feel free to have whatever say you want on that subject.
My memory says that I’ve read someplace in the past year or so that Dobson is a member of a Nazarene Church. It is a conservative group out of the methodist movement roughly a century ago. While Wesley was post-mil, most conservative evangelical groups have tended in the direction of some form of premillennialism for about a generation or so.
The complaint of this article is that Dobson references his eschatological beliefs every now and then.
I would think it to be inevitable.
Mr. Jazzy said:
“It has a LOT to do with “the family” when you have family fighting for your very freedom of thought and religion AGAINST the enemy, who calls ALL of America, “The Great Satan”.
This is utterly unresponsive. As I pointed out in my article, how, OTHER than keep an eye on Iran and support the Iraq War, this has to do with the family in something more than these vague ways? Tell us something we don’t know already.
I noticed you didn’t tell us anything other than what I noted already. America is not the Church, nor is it the New Israel. Can you tell me what exactly, other than these things was suggested on the program, and if so, what concrete suggestions were there?
I would also remind you that Rosenberg himself said that over 1 million Muslims have converted to Christianity in Iran since the days of Khomeni and the change to a radical Shiite government; so, if your argument is that Islam in America will in some way suppress the gospel, doesn’t Rosenberg’s own account of what has happened in Iran logically tug in the opposite direction?
It isn’t without reason the Ancient Church thrived under Roman persecutions for about 300 years. It was when the church and state were indexed to each other than the Church began to deal with serious latitudinarianism, moral, and doctrinal declension.
“You want a different topic on FOF? Then write to them and SUGGEST it as a topic!”
Been there; done that.
Don’t just blog off and smear another CHRISTIAN because he didn’t do the kind of show YOU liked.
A. I have done more than “blog off.” You have no idea what I have done behind the scenes.
B. Smear another Christian? Pray tell, where did I say anything about Dobson’s character?
C. Apparently, I’m not the only one who didn’t like the show.
D. Ever notice how those who talk down to people for “blogging off” and “smearming another Christian” are usually mirror-reading?
E. 1. As a matter of principle, should we always avoid a harsh, judgmental tone?
2. Assuming an affirmative answer to (1), are there times when (1) is inappropriate.
I’d answer both in the affirmative.
My problem is with the imposition of an unscriptural speech code (eg. 1), as if Christians should always use the same tone with everyone, and that tone should always be sweet and buttery.
To insist on such a speech code is unscriptural legalism—trying to be more pious than the Bible.
I reserve the right to use harsh, judgmental language where appropriate. Invective is context-dependent. The Bible employs harsh, judgmental language for apostates, false teachers, and other enemies of the faith. The Bible is full of taunt-songs.
Remember that, in Scripture, most false teachers are professing believers. So merely calling yourself a Christian doesn’t immunize you from judgmental language where appropriate. It is our Christian duty to analogize from Biblical cases to contemporary cases.
If you think my language about Dr. Dobson was harsh and judgmental, you’ll need to document the claim; otherwise, you’re the one smearing another Christian.
“I listened and thought it was VERY informative.”
A. So I take you that you believe that Ezekiel is talking about Radical Islam? Where is this in the text? I look forward to your exegetical analysis.
B. How so?
“Think you can do a better job at educating others? Then step up to the plate and swing away!”
Here is a saying I learned a long, long time ago ...
“Lead, follow or get the H&$L out of the way!”
As a matter of fact, I do. Triablogue is an apologetics ministry. Try again.
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.