End Time: How Christians Lose

youtube ^ | Feb. 3, 2011 | "Molotov" Mitchell

[RJR_fan]

Molotov Mitchell hits another one out of the ballpark!

Click HERE.

[The Unknown Republican]

I agree that there is debate over these very issues...which is why people making it an issue of faith are so wrong. Good and decent educated scholars disagree in this area...so for people to insist that those who disagree with them are essentially idiots is at best mean spirited and at worst damaging to the cause of Christianity.

My issue as I’ve stated is that people ridicule those who disagree with them on non-fundamental doctrines. This is wrong and I will call anyone out on it. Christian brothers can agree to disagree on such issues, but the minute we start diminishing the faith of people because they may hold a particular non-fundamental viewpoint...well we’ve ceased to project the glory and love of Christ. I find Mr. Mitchell shameful...not because I disagree with his position, I find him shameful because he takes so much pleasure in lampooning people who have honest differences of opinion regarding the end-times. My interpretation is that this video was not made to advance the Kingdom of God...it was made to advance the cause of Mr. Mitchell.

[RJR_fan]

It is a pleasure to converse with someone who avoids denigrating and insulting rhetorical adversaries. I do invoke God's favor upon your house, and appreciate the grace in your posts.

Let's take a closer look at this:

you all appear to disdain your Christian Brothers who hold viewpoints that bear not one ounce of relevancy to the issue of salvation.

I think the key concept here is "the issue of salvation." For some people, of the pietistic disposition, the goal / end of the gospel is a moment of gnosis, which they define as "salvation." The world of men falls neatly into the camps of the saved and the unsaved, and we know who's who: the saved are those who have had this mystical experience. Pietism makes the individual soul the center of the universe. To cite Mr. Chesterton again,

In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law—all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the centre of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung.

If you look through the tracts in the rack at the back of a typical evangelical church, you will see with depressing monotony the same idea over and over again: salvation is the goal, the end. Jesus is a salvation appliance, the means to the all-important end, the happiness of our own precious selves. Just push these buttons, pull these levers, and bazinga! Out pops one serving of personal gnosis!

Yet, suppose the universe of God's glory and purposes is somewhat larger than our own navels?

What if God intended to make us the means to His ends? What if our conversion was not the goal / end of life, but rather, the beginning of the truest life we could ever ask for? A life in the court and service of the Great King, who conscripts us to use in His ongoing project of reclaiming His creation?

One view of salvation is perfectly content to let the world go to the devil, my soul is happy, and that's all that matters. The other view of salvation takes umbrage at those things which mar the image of God in us, and in the world around us, and wages war upon personal sins, and upon offenses to God's majesty in the world at large.

I doubt that you are satisfied with a world where abortion is considered normal, where pornography and violence are standard entertainment fare, where children are sold into sexual slavery. So now the question is -- do we piously sigh, and chalk it all up to the soon coming of our Lord, who will return in disgust to wind up the whole sorry charade? Or do we rise up on our hind legs, act like men, and get moving? Your answer will to a large extent reflect your understanding of what salvation is, and what it's for, and WHO it's for.

[topcat54]

I resigned myself to the fact that this is probably an issue that will only be resolved once Jesus returns, so I tend not to focus all of my energies on developing a hardened belief system.

How do you views on eschatology impact the way you conduct your Christian life, if any?

[The Unknown Republican]

Just because Justin Martyr didn’t mention it doesn’t mean he didn’t hold the viewpoint. It is just a likely that Justin Martyr believed that it was such an obvious point that it didn’t need to be stated. It would go hand-in-hand with the “a thousand years in Jerusalem” statement and anyone reading it in context and contemporaneously would understand his viewpoint.

What I find interesting that the first person to outspokenly argue against a premillenial position was the heretic Marcion.

[topcat54]

I agree that there is debate over these very issues...which is why people making it an issue of faith are so wrong.

Just curious, but who do you see making this a matter of faith? Do you see simply challenging, even ridiculing, making it an issue of faith?

I agree it is wrong to ridicule people, but I have no problem ridiculing their positions, esp. the ones that are not logically or biblical coherent.

[The Unknown Republican]

They don’t and they shouldn’t. Paul warned us about such things in 2 Timothy 2:23: “But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels”.

I’m inclined toward evangelism to save the lost...not to endless speculation on the end times. I find it interesting to discuss, but not to the extent that it detracts from the Great Commission. People have honest disagreements that need to be respected. Although I tend to a premillenial bias, I really have a position that I’ve heard others call “pan-millenialism”....it will all pan out.:)

Charles Spurgeon wrote: “O that Christ crucified were the universal burden of men of God. Your guess at the number of the beast ... your conjectures concerning a personal Antichrist—forgive me, I count them but mere bones for dogs; while men are dying, and hell is filling, it seems to me the veriest drivel to be muttering about an Armageddon ... and peeping between the folded leaves of destiny to discover the fate of Germany. I would sooner pluck one single brand from the burning than explain all mysteries.”

I agree with Spurgeon...ultimately this speculation is has no bearing on the Saving Grace of our Lord Jesus.

Christ clearly commanded us to preach the Gospel unto the ends of the earth. I know that Christ will come again and that it is imperative that the Gospel message spread forth.

[topcat54]

Just because Justin Martyr didn’t mention it doesn’t mean he didn’t hold the viewpoint.

How would you know he held that viewpoint, or how could you claim he held that viewpoint, is he never mentioned it?

It is just a likely that Justin Martyr believed that it was such an obvious point that it didn’t need to be stated.

That’s not an argument, it just presumption.

What I find interesting that the first person to outspokenly argue against a premillenial position was the heretic Marcion.

And one of the first to argue for the premil view the heretical sect of the Ebionites, and Cerinthus, who was a Gnostic, that even before Marcion. That’s called guilt by association, BTW.

[The Unknown Republican]

You say you have no problem ridiculing their positions. I’m not sure that is a very Christ-like position to take when their positions are not on issues elemental to the saving blood of Jesus. Ridicule is not a weapon to be used with our brothers in Christ when there are honest disagreements. You may not see the “logic” or “coherency” of their position, but if a brother has a solid understanding of Jesus’ work on the Cross...brother we need to respect the differences. For example, I am not a full cessationist, but I have major issues with the Pentecostal movement’s view of the exercise of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But I’m going to respect that we have differences on that point and not ridicule them. That said, the minute someone’s positions on “non-fundamental” issues begin to skew their understanding of the fundamentals...well then all bets are off.

[topcat54]

They don’t and they shouldn’t. Paul warned us about such things in 2 Timothy 2:23: “But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels”.

I’d be all for this, but it would mean that most modern premils would have to give up writing books and appearing on television and radio, since it’s all about the speculation. Just look at any number of recent newspaper events that premils have tried to prove are the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, e.g., the unrest in Egypt and Isaiah 19.

I appreciate the honest premil who will say that there is absolutely nothing on the current events horizon that in any way indicates Jesus is about to return. But sadly most are infected with the newspaper exegesis that started mainly when modern, secular Israel became a political state. The prophecy gurus went nuts. And uninformed Christians have been eating up the stuff.

Christ clearly commanded us to preach the Gospel unto the ends of the earth. I know that Christ will come again and that it is imperative that the Gospel message spread forth.

Christ’s command to the Church was to make disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching to obey His commands. It involves more than mere preaching, although that is an important component. Christ is expecting a large “welcoming committee” at His return.

[The Unknown Republican]

And your position that he didn’t hold a viewpoint is mere presumption as well. I can just as easily draw one conclusion as another.

Again, I’m not debating the merits of either position. What I take issue with is calling out believers for holding different viewpoints. I see from you tag line that you have a distinct fascination with proving the dispensational position wrong. Sir...might I suggest that your focus would be better served winning souls for Christ rather than trying to disprove that which is not fundamental? I exhort you again with 2 Timothy: “But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels”.

[The Unknown Republican]

Funny thing is I agree that the speculation of dispensationalist authors is over the top. But why let them suck you in? We have a task that our Lord gave us...that should be first in our hearts and minds. The other stuff is just noise.

[topcat54]

brother we need to respect the differences.

But suppose the differences are worthy of ridicule? Suppose, for example, a person misses the context and history of Rev. 13 and believes and teaches that the “mark of the beast” is a radio transmitter implanted under a person’s skin so they can be tracked and controlled by some future “antichrist?” There’s absolutely nothing in the Bible to support that idea, yet they teach it. In fact, they get all excited and are quite vocal when they read an article in the newspaper about such transmitter for pet dogs and cats, and see it as “proof” of their idea.

What’s wrong with a little ridicule when they insist on the correctness of their position?

[topcat54]

Let me ask it another way, is every view worthy of respect? Not the person, the view?

[The Unknown Republican]

Let me answer this way...non-fundamental positions deserve respect so long as they don’t lead people to fundamental error.

[The Unknown Republican]

Loving correction perhaps...ridicule no.

[caww]

News flash...N.Korea people in streets protesting for Kimbo to step down...need confirmation...just so you know.

[The Comedian]

Everything else, including things that might interfere, is prohibited. This is the position of the Reformed churches.

I worship Him in spirit and in truth. That is the position of the saved. But in order to not offend you, I'll give your framed version of the Jesus Hunter to someone else...

Today is a good day to die.
I didn't say for whom.

[topcat54]

Let me answer this way...non-fundamental positions deserve respect so long as they don’t lead people to fundamental error.

Why, and how would you articulate that principle from Scripture?

(I don’t mean to push. You can stop at any time.)

[Rashputin]

Isn't that getting a bit ahead of yourself? What scripture has a list of non-fundamental positions vs fundamental ones? If there are essential and non-essential doctrines but no exhaustive list that specifies which is which within the Word, then there goes Scripture Alone and that's a fundamental part of the whole dispensational view.

[topcat54]

Isn't that getting a bit ahead of yourself? What scripture has a list of non-fundamental positions vs fundamental ones? If there are essential and non-essential doctrines but no exhaustive list that specifies which is which within the Word, then there goes Scripture Alone and that's a fundamental part of the whole dispensational view.

You are correct. We would need to reverse direction eventually.