Posted on 09/12/2007 9:05:47 AM PDT by topcat54
What are the substantive differences between a postmil preterist’s and an amil historicist’s view of premil dispensationalism???
Lee N. Field said:
The complaint of this article is that Dobson references his eschatological beliefs every now and then.
No. The complaint of this article is that he references his eschatological beliefs in a manner that (a) suggests that he uses them to justify his political agenda - which in turn looks suspiciously like he has adopted a particular eschatology for something other than exegetical reasons; and (b) excludes others with different beliefs as “unbiblical.” To disagree with him would seem to suggest that one is not a biblical Christian. He is not part of a local church; his ministry tries to appeal to those of broader backgrounds. He should know better, and, if he’s wrong, what he’s done is concoct an entire agenda around a fiction that he labels as “bibilcal” and therefore “true.” Indeed, the announcer at the end plainly stated that today’s topic was outside of their bounds. I thought, “If that’s true, then why did you do it?” People are untaught, and this sort of presentation by FoF only feeds it.
What Rosenberg did was abuse the text of Ezekiel and then Dobson in turn used this to talk about “Radical Islam and the family,” but said NOTHING about radical Islam and the family beyond “Support the troops and keep an eye on Iran; be sure to vote in the next election.” When Rosenberg talked about Matt. 28 and the Great Commission, Dobson went so far to correct Rosenberg and tell him that we should also vote. I agree, we should vote, but what does voting have to do with Matt. 28? So, apparently, in Dobson’s mind, the Great Commission itself isn’t enough.
There are Muslims in this nation. Politics isn’t going to win them to Christ, and when I look around I see people coming from Christian homes converting to Islam, particularly in the African-American community. People, the Church in America has lost the gospel - THAT is the problem. Want to address “Islam and the family?” Fine, talk about the Church that has lost the gospel. For example, over 2/3 of the SBC’s young people apostatize when the get to college. The SBC alone says it has 16.4 million members. Less than half show up to church on Sunday. My Baptist forefathers knew that these were signs of declension, not just declension but a major problem with a church. It would have been deemed unregenerate. The pews of America are littered with baptized unbelievers and antinomians.
If FoF wants to talk about reaching Muslims with the gospel, as it seems they do, then why not have Ergun Caner on? Or James White? Or Shabir Ally? Or any number of Christians who interact with Muslims apologetically? Yes, we should share the gospel with Muslims, but, as John Piper has been pointing out for years now, we live in a world that, like it or not, does not have the categories for understanding the gospel we do in the West. In relation to Islam, Islam has answers to Christian arguments - just talk to any Christian Missionary who has been to a Muslim nation - and they bring them to the West, which is already awash in a sea of relativism and nominalism among Christians. We need to get the Gospel right ourselves; and if we are to address Islam, Christians need more than Rosenberg’s eshatological ideas and to be told in a few short sentences to “learn, send, and go.” Rather they need some real concrete assistance. “The Four Spiritual Laws” just isn’t going to cut it with a Muslim who knows his religion - and most of them do.
Does he mention eschatology and the disciplining of a toddler? Not.
How about eschatology and communication between husband & wife? Not.
In his case, Islam evokes a natural transition into a bit of eschatology.
So what? Is that threatening to someone?
If you don't like it, then listen to Hannegraf's show, and then when he references Islam he will perhaps discuss Riddlebarger and tell us all how Jesus returned in 70 AD.
I will sit there and smile, because I know that's his bent, and his show, and he's the host, and I'm not. I can turn the dial at any time.
It's time conservative evangelicals grow up. There are folks out there who have differing opinions on a variety of doctrines.
Let me put it this way, it is my understanding that most a-, post-, and historic/classic premils view dispensationalism as, at best, an aberration and, at worst, a heresy. E.g., in the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, two conservative denominations, the subject of dispensationalism has been debated and the conclusion has been that the view, as it has been popularly formulated, is out of accord with the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures. A quick take on the issue from the OPC perspective can be found here. Their position is consistent with the view developed in the Presbyterian Church in the United States (the old Southern Presbyterian Church). In 1944 they concluded:
It is the unanimous opinion of your Committee that Dispensationalism as defined and set forth above is out of accord with the system of the doctrine set forth in the Confession of Faith, not primarily or simply in the field of eschatology, but because it attacks the very heart of the Theology of our Church, which is unquestionably a Theology of one Covenant of Grace. As Dr. Chafer clearly recognizes, there are two schools of interpretation represented here, which he rightly designates as “Covenantalism” as over against “Dispensationalism.” ( Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 100, No. 399, p. 338.)The underlying problem is the faulty view of the relationship between Israel and the Church, which manifests itself in such novel theories as the pre-trib rapture and the reinstitution of old covenant worship (specifically the Levitical sacrificial system) during the future millennium on earth. Some dispensationalists have taken this matter of Israel and the Church so far as to suggest that God had two salvation programs in mind, works based for Israel and grace based for the Church.In fact, the divergence of Dispensationalism from the Covenant Theology of our Church is so obvious to Dr. Chafer that he suggests a revision of the Standards of the Church so as to make room for those who no longer hold to the Reformed tradition of a Covenant Theology. ( ibid., p. 345.)
Let me add that the modern version, the so-called progressive dispensationalism, is much less problematic than the original version. It has a much more biblical view of the covenant, and does not hold quite so tightly to the radical distinction between Israel and the Church as found in the older system. Unfortunately, progressive dispensationalism is mainly restricted in influence to only a few seminaries and bible schools, while the older more errant version is the one found taught in most churches, parachurch ministries, and on radio and television. IOW, the errant version is what most people see, read, and hear about.
People, the Church in America has lost the gospel - THAT is the problem. Want to address “Islam and the family?” Fine, talk about the Church that has lost the gospel. For example, over 2/3 of the SBC’s young people apostatize when the get to college. The SBC alone says it has 16.4 million members. Less than half show up to church on Sunday.We need to get the Gospel right ourselves
Amen.
(You might want to block off quotes from others with italics or using "blockquote" (straight html). Makes it easier to tell what's a quote and what are your comments.)
And don't forget all those non-dispensational premils.
For the dispensationalist, if you disagree with their views on Israel then you are not a "biblical Christian" because you cannot "rightly divide" their dispensational truths.
I just noticed your sign up date.
Welcome, newbie.
There are some great debates around here, but the premils always win.
:>)
However, unlike the time before Christ came when the “good news” was restricted to one small nation in the Middle East, today the gospel has literally gone out into all nations. In fact Paul was so confident, that he could state that as a fact already accomplished in Col. 1:6; “truth of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit”
This is what Christ commanded His church to do in Matt. 28:19ff, make disciples of all nations. The only way this could be done is because Satan was bound from deceiving the nations (Matt. 12:28,29, Rev. 20:3).
The problem most folks have is that they read Rev. 20 and assume that by the word “bound” that Satan is absolutely powerless during the “thousand years”. But Revelation does not teach that. It merely says that he is bound so as to not deceive the nations. Nations are coming to faith in Christ today, and have been for the last 2000 years. Empirical evidence that Rev. 20 is in effect today.
I have just discovered this site, so I don’t know that I would agree with everything presented. But, a quick scan has peaked my interest, and I’ll read more there.
I would recommend a ministry called "Church Without Walls" headed by an Egyptian Christian named Anees Zaka. He's written a book called Truth about Islam.
What does radical Islam have to do with "focusing on the family" and "turning our hearts toward home"?
Again, the appearance is that FoF is pushing a political agenda in the name of all "biblical Christians" that, quote honestly, not all Christians support.
***The problem most folks have is that they read Rev. 20 and assume that by the word “bound” that Satan is absolutely powerless during the “thousand years”. But Revelation does not teach that. It merely says that he is bound so as to not deceive the nations. Nations are coming to faith in Christ today, and have been for the last 2000 years. Empirical evidence that Rev. 20 is in effect today.
***
What does the Lord himself teach: “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the WORLD.” The greek tense makes it clear that the act of conquering is past and the present reality is that the world is in continuing subjection to the Lord. How is it possible, therefore, that Satan would still have dominion over the world? (Or, that he was ever nothing more than a servent of the Lord ~ See Job 1-2)
What is the good news that makes us cheer: I have conquered and the world is NOW my conquest. As partial Preterists, we know this. Eventually, everyone else will come on board with this simple gospel stuff.
We, therefore, need not rely on emperical evidence. We need only to believe the Lord himself as trustworthy. The world is in subjection to the Lord. There will, however, come a day when it will be cast off, burned with a ferverent heat, and remade without any sin.
Absolutely. Don’t take my comment as endorsing the idea that evidence is necessary. We take the words of Scripture as our sole authority, and based on Scripture alone we know that the gospel will have success in this age as the Holy Spirit uses faithful disciples to bring the good news to the world.
Meanwhile, the newspaper theologians are furiously rewriting all their novels and web sites to keep up with changing temporal events. What will replace Epicenter in five years?
Sad but true that every time Bin Laden sneezes the "rapture index" gets ratcheted up another notch.
In the purest sense of that comment, the IRS has found FoF entirely within the law. But, I don't think you meant in the legal sense. You mean that they tend to support conservative presidents. Fine.
Yet, it doesn't matter, TC. They're allowed to. They're allowed to make anything fit their understanding of their program and its applicable topics. They can talk about the dog food crisis and the impact on children.
It is THEIR program.
You can turn the channel and refuse to contribute to their ratings.
Islam hates Christianity. The spread of Islam is bad for Christianity. Islam desires to achieve a world-wide caliphate. To accomplish that end the will engage in overt & covert war and in the more subtle infiltration and proselytism of non-Islamic cultures.
Just what exactly is there in that that is friendly to the American Christian family? Nothing.
Speculatively, what religion holds sway over the former Roman Empire's southern tier? If you were a modern era, dispensational premillennialist, would it really be odd to comment on that????
I don't think so.
***Islam hates Christianity. The spread of Islam is bad for Christianity. Islam desires to achieve a world-wide caliphate. To accomplish that end the will engage in overt & covert war and in the more subtle infiltration and proselytism of non-Islamic cultures.***
Correction: The spread of Islam is bad for Dispensational Christianity, perhaps, and the constant need to rewrite the end of the world.
But, the spread of Islam doesn’t amount to a hill of beans for Biblical Christianity. Did you not read my post: “Be of good cheer, I have OVERCOME the world.” The Biblical Christian takes comfort: the world is currently the conquest of the Lord. You Dispies can quake in your boots if you like but I will trust in the word of the Lord.
“So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end. No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.”
Do you not yet understand this parable?
This is nothing but the fullness of the gospel. “Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” Do you believe the Bible? Do you believe that the world is currently the conquest of the Lord and remains in subjection to him? How, then, can you even fathom that the spread of ANYTHING is bad for Christianity? What is this gospel of fear that is contrary to the Comforter that does not give a spirit of fear?
Tell me, TC. Did you support Focus on the Family’s ministry before you discovered that Dobson was a dispensationalist?
WELL PUT. THX.
I don’t think so. If the show is spewing out this information than THEY better get the information right not the listener.
That's among the corny statements I've seen on FR.
I don't rank them. Maybe I should start.
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.