Posted on 12/19/2010 11:05:46 PM PST by bibletruth
Martin Luther wrote: I am much afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures...
You were proven incorrect on certain points of that original belief and rejected all elements of that belief system?
I was asked to prove "Free Will" was taught. Valiant struggle but I couldn't be honest with the Word and continue to skip over Election. Talked confidently about the "Rapture", couldn't prove it either without wresting Scriptures. One thing after another, from the "God helps those who help themselves" to the child's song "Jesus loves Me this I know". Things I spouted off as true where challenged. What this did do is get me to scour the Bible intensely looking for proof-texts, digging through STs, commentaries and whatever I could find that would support my claims. It is a pattern that has benefited me greatly to this day.
If you don’t believe in the dispensational view which view did you adopt?
I went from Dispensational, to pan-millennial because of the many doctrinal contradictions in Dispensationalism, and because I still didn't know enough Scripture to recognize types and symbols in OT and Revelation prophecies. I am fully aware that Ezekiel's Temple, when isolated from Scripture and read plainly as literal text screams future physical temple. So was Isaac Newton's Historicist view, which put Ezekiel's Temple in the intertestamental period, correct? You and I can see that there are too many pieces missing for Newton's Full Preterism to be correct. So because temple sacrifices nill out Dispensationalism, and the historical record doesn't agree with Full Preterism Post Mill, what else is there?
It is problems like that where trying to discover what is meant that drew me to history's theologians who with clarity and confidence described the various interpretations, pros and cons and offering their own view which almost always was cast in the light of contemporary circumstances. I must thank greatly the work of Partial Preterist Post Mills who seem to have a very good grip on unifying and harmonizing the prophecies with sound biblical doctrine, but I don't share their optimism because that part of their interpretations are rather forced and one is sort of guilted into accepting it.
For these and many more reasons, I consider myself a cautious neo-Amillennialist. Cautious in that even the greatest theologians went to the grave with certain prophecies left unexplained - so who am I to know for sure? "Neo" because even my "Realized Millennialist" pastor thinks I am nuts concerning some of my own interpretations.
What you are quoting are examples of individual charity not social justice. Clearly Jesus calls us all to individual altruism. But Jesus NEVER suggested that Christians should collectively steal from some to give to others. Paul never forced anyone to give to the Church in Jerusalem. But, he did say that if you are truly regenerate you will have a burning desire to do so and be a "happy giver". You cannot outsource your Christian moral obligations by seeking to have "society" do it for you; which is what the "social justice" crowd seeks to do. It must be an individual voluntary act of personal love.
Maybe a bottom line look at the Bride of Christ? That personal relationship to Jesus that so few within the Denominational divide focus on.
The awakening of the Bride and the end of denominations
There will be no Baptist seating area in the Kingdom. Nor will there be a German, French, or Chinese section, American flags, or any other special arrangements to pacify the prejudices and narrow-mindedness of sinful and carnal mortals (I Corinthians 3:3!) We will live there the way we have been called and commanded to live here, but with much better success! (To dwell with saints in Heaven above, oh it ‘twil be glory, but to dwell on earth with saints here below is quite another story!)
And so, as the day approaches there is a growing awareness among believers that such divisions are not to be permitted to keep true believers from coming together and fellowshipping. The Bride is rising up and stepping forth to take her place on the end-time stage. She is learning to simply step over the denominational, doctrinal and theological hedges, fences and walls that have kept her divided, dazed, and confused for nearly two millennia.
As a young woman entering puberty, she is growing increasingly self-conscious and aware of something stirring in her. She is beginning to look at herself in a new way, and seeks the fellowship and companionship of her peers. She is beginning to have a mind of her own, and it is focused on her Lover, her Prince Charming, her Friend (Song of Solomon 5:16). She is rapidly outgrowing the traditional Christian paradigm, which is a lot like religion. She will have none of religion. She is interested only in relationship. She is coming together. Born again believers all over the globe are beginning to see that they have an innate organic relationship, and all denominational, theological, and doctrinal matters are becoming increasingly irrelevant to them. They just want to be together to share their love for their Lord and their anticipation of His soon return to receive them and consummate the relationship at the Marriage of the Lamb.
Because they are comprised of both believers and unbelievers, denominations and other Christian religious institutions and organizations will continue to exist along side end time Believers as they begin to walk in the truth of the Bridal paradigm. As the Bride (consisting of true believers) begins to grow increasingly radical in her passion for her beloved, it is quite likely that the leaders of the denominations and other institutions (which — it cannot be emphasized enough — are irrelevant to the Bridal paradigm aside from the fact that some members of the Bride may still be found within them) may very likely raise up persecution against the Bride out of jealousy. This remains to be seen. Such would be an interesting fulfillment of Song of Solomon 5:7.
Regardless, movements such as the house church movement, which encourage relationship rather than ritual, transformation rather than theology, and love rather than liturgy, will continue to bring all true believers together as the Lord stirs in their heart and creates a new hunger within them which can only be satisfied by more of Him, which can only be experienced through His corporate Body, which is the true Church spoken of in the New Testament.
Maybe a bottom line look at the Bride of Christ?
All great and edifying, but the last paragraph is a non sequitor. What is being described in the opening paragraphs probably includes many things in Christ, including, but not limited to service, exhortation and teaching. What the last paragraph speaks of is exclusively koinonia which has its place, and according to John is the glue that keeps us strong during times of distress.
I think we need to respect the fact that we have differing spiritual gifts and more importantly, very different personalities such where some may like High Church and liturgy where others may be heavy on the Experiential Charismatic side. Perhaps your home group plan is great for attracting similar tastes and aspirations, whereas I think the Church has pretty much made the evening Sunday Service the thing that you are looking for - time for corporate teaching and fellowship without the burden of entertaining the interloping goats that occasionally attend and profane the morning version.
>> I think we need to respect the fact that we have differing spiritual gifts and more importantly, very different personalities such where some may like High Church and liturgy where others may be heavy on the Experiential Charismatic side.<<
Oh, I agree fully. It’s when the “extras”, for lack of a better word at present, is something that begins to mean “Jesus atonement plus something extra” for salvation it begins to detract from the true gospel.
Just to clarify the term - when I say “Social Justice” I’m speaking of the overall fairness of a society in its sharing of sustenance and burdens, all people (created by God) are entitled to basic human needs regardless of the superficial things that divide us.
The Deuteronomy passages are to a society (the people of God); the words of the prophets - Isaiah, Amos, Micah - are directed to the religious and civic leaders of the day...
I agree that when government agencies get involved it generally screws it up and most of the time perpetuates the cycles of poverty and injustice, however, the church (followers of Jesus, Christians) should do such a good job of dealing with these issues that the governments need not get involved. And as you say, Paul never makes this compulsory but posits that we are such huge recipients of the blessing of God that we should be pretty fired up about sharing. After all, we do worship him as the One who owns it all anyway, right?
By the way, I believe that Jesus calls us not to “individual altruism” but rather “communal altruism”, this seems to be the pattern of the early church.
How do you feel about the work that Martin Luther King, Jr. did? In the will of God or outside the will of God (as best we can tell)?
How do you feel about the work that Martin Luther King, Jr. did? In the will of God or outside the will of God (as best we can tell)?
What a prophet he turned out to be. Years later along comes Karl Marx advocating "free education for all children in government schools".
What does "fairness of a society" mean apart from coerced redistribution of property? The Deuteronomy passages in any social sense are to a theocracy that doesn't exist anymore. "Sharing" is an individual voluntary act, today and as Paul recommended it. Yes, we should be pretty fired about sharing as individuals, it is a mark of justification. But compelling another to share as we deem fit is nothing but a form of coveting. Again, "communal altrusim" is an individual voluntary act done in a corporate setting. In the early Church everyone had the right to walk away.
I believe that M.L. King, Jr. was closely connected with communists and other radicals, and, had he lived long enough, it would have become more clear that Mr. King favored a Marxist-socialist society. He was using race as a means to that end.
I must have missed it...
where’s the part about empowering Caesar to take from all people, or even just the rich, and give it away as “Christian” charity?
You must have also missed that part where charity is not to be coerced, but given freely and cheerfully.
Here it is, 2 Cor 9:7
“Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
Martin Luther King Jr. Was Not A Good Man!
Published Nov 25, 2005
By Don Boys, Ph.D.
Martin Luther King’s statement that a person should be judged by his character not the color of his skin is a majestic thought. I will do that as I look at King, and I wonder if radical leftists, King worshipers, white liberals, black non-thinkers, media moguls and others will do the same? Some “conservatives” need to do likewise!
In my lengthy report (from which this column is taken) I look at the whole man and all the circumstances that made him what he was: The Person, the Preacher, the Politician, the Party, the Plagiarist, the Prevaricator, and the Philanderer, and the Protectors. To be fair, balanced, and accurate we must look at every facet of his life. Some will object to my research, questioning my motives but do my motives really matter? Isn’t it the truth that is important? Don’t people of character care about truth anymore?
Richard John Neuhaus said of King: “Dr. King was, for all that was great about him, an adulterer, sexual libertine, lecher, and wanton womanizer.” Neuhaus is a well-known liberal theologian and writer. My research also indicates that King was a drunk, plagiarist, bisexual, and Marxist. Try to remember that we are not concerned with his race or complexion, but his character.
If you read my King report with his name substituted with another, maybe Bill King, most decent, honest people would be repulsed and disgusted. Why not the same reaction with Martin Luther King?
If you read my King report with his name substituted with another, maybe Bill King, most decent, honest people would be repulsed and disgusted. Why not the same reaction with Martin Luther King?
If we were looking at David Duke and did not deal with his past involvement with the Nazi movement, I would be accused of bias or poor research. In the interest of truth am I not required to do the same with King? If not, then why is he exempt from a careful, honest look at his past to make a decision about him in the present? If I am wrong, please correct me.
No person deserves to be called a journalist if he refuses to look at both sides of an issue or if he/she refuses to give proper weight to all arguments because of prejudice. If a writer is fearful of where the truth will lead him, he should be selling insurance.
During the eight years I wrote columns for USA Today, I asked the editor if I could do a column on King’s plagiarism, however, I never got permission. I had read the story of King’s thievery in the London papers during a stopover from one of my trips from the Middle East. The editor of USA Today either did not believe me or more probably did not want to take the heat for breaking the story. The Wall Street Journal broke the story a couple of months later although they did so gingerly.
It is noteworthy that the American media was then forced to deal with King’s plagiarism, but even then they defended him! One main defense was that it was a “black thing,” which was an insult to honest, decent Blacks. When you quote King you don’t know whom you are quoting!
Why is there little debate in the King controversy? During the eight years I wrote columns for USA Today, the editor would not permit me to do a column on King although every year in early January, they always did a page dealing with him. I have one issue that has five columns dealing with King without one critical word on the whole page about him! That is a disgrace to all honest journalists everywhere.
Evidence proves that King had numerous affairs with various women plus numerous one night stands with prostitutes; two black columnists reveal that FBI tapes support the charge that King was bisexual having been heard during a sex orgy with his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy. King was also caught running naked after a woman down a Norway hotel hallway during his trip to accept the Nobel Peace Prize! The night before he was killed he spent the night with two women and fought with a third, according to his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy. If a man will not keep his marriage vows, he is not worthy to walk my dog.
According to the Bible, King was not even a believer in Christ! He rejected Christ’s deity, His virgin birth and his physical resurrection so according to II John he should not be honored; instead no one should “bid him God speed.” Furthermore, I challenge anyone to produce one example of King, a Baptist preacher, ever seeking to get lost men to accept Jesus Christ as Savior. Never happened because he did not believe that was essential.
King, like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Rudy Giuliani and assorted Republicans was a man without character, and informed, honest, decent Americans should not be honoring him with a special day each year.
While I was a member of the Indiana House of Representatives, a member introduced a bill to memorialize King before we had his national holiday forced upon us. The memorialization meant nothing since we did them almost every day as routine.
When the King vote came up (it was a voice vote since it was no big deal) mine was the only negative vote out of a hundred. No one in the senate voted no. I wondered where all the conservatives were. Soon they surrounded me saying that they should have voted with me but didn’t think it was worth the flack. I was told that had I demanded a recorded roll call vote and spoken against the memorialization, there would have been repercussions with my legislation!
The following year the same thing happened in exactly the same way! I started to speak to the issue and demand a recorded vote but did not do so. Why? I don’t know. Some might say it was peer pressure. My conservative friends told me, “Don, it won’t do any good and could hinder your chances of getting your bills even assigned to committee.” It was the only time I did not follow my principles while in office.
King does not deserve a national holiday but instead he should be exposed as a fraud, a fake, and a fool, and I would feel the same about a white conservative! As for celebrating January 15, I will do so since it is my birthday!
Six salient articles about Martin Luther King, Jr. at:
http://heckahost.com/cgi-bin/moxiebin/bm-search.cgi/q/12?bmq=King&bms=12
Coerced redistribution of wealth is a misguided effort at creating “a fair society”, it is not the definition. The USAmerica system of forced redistribution of wealth irritates the snot out of me because they have proven ineffective in everything but perpetuation of the problem. It supplies only for the physical need and ignores or minimizes the other basic needs of humans - identity, belonging and purpose - all of which are needs that the church has answers to. But the church has become too inwardly focused in most cases...
Without regard to the form of government - theocracy, monarch, republic, democracy, etc. - based on the Deuteronomy passages it is evident that God is concerned about those that can’t care for themselves...most of us believe in the unchanging nature of God, so I think it is a relevant question(s) for the church today: does God still have compassion on the needy today and does he expect his people to reflect that compassion?
Coerced redistribution of wealth is a misguided effort at creating “a fair society”, it is not the definition. The USAmerica system of forced redistribution of wealth irritates the snot out of me because they have proven ineffective in everything but perpetuation of the problem. It supplies only for the physical need and ignores or minimizes the other basic needs of humans - identity, belonging and purpose - all of which are needs that the church has answers to. But the church has become too inwardly focused in most cases...
Without regard to the form of government - theocracy, monarch, republic, democracy, etc. - based on the Deuteronomy passages it is evident that God is concerned about those that can’t care for themselves...most of us believe in the unchanging nature of God, so I think it is a relevant question(s) for the church today: does God still have compassion on the needy today and does he expect his people to reflect that compassion?
I didn’t ask what you thought of MLK,Jr. but what you thought of his work...
Maybe he wasn’t the best example...let me re-phrase the question:
Do you think racism and oppression of any people group is in God’s will?
I didn’t ask what you thought of MLK,Jr. but what you thought of his work...
Maybe he wasn’t the best example...let me re-phrase the question:
Do you think racism and oppression of any people group is in God’s will?
His work, in it's outcome, as seen today in inner cities, was as poor as his character.
The entire civil rights movement associated with Mr. King is responsible for keeping a substantial segment of people of his own race under oppression to the socialist welfare state.
So, you are correct, the racist Mr. King was out of God's will.
I agree with everything in your last post. Nothing you say there departs from traditional concepts of Christian charity which should be practiced by ALL Christians both in their private lives and corporately through their Churches. This is not what is generally meant by the idomatic term “social justice” which always pursues socialistic practices. To the extent you are saying that the Church should be more involved with the welfare of the community it serves, I could not agree more.
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.