Free Republic

Leithart is not a liberal, he’s a Federal Visionista... which is a different kind of wrong.

The wind blowing from the direction of Auburn Avenue smells of popery.

Long time no see.

Yeah, I have been fairly quiet on most of the interwebs for a good long while. Nice to see some familiar names still around.

Well, if one can say nothing else about Doug Wilson at least he can be called unifying. I mean, who else can so effectively unite Rachel Held Evans with the truly Reformed.

Good on Doug!

I’ve been busy but lurking. Spending most of my online time on theology sites.

Thanks for the welcome.

The Christian plea in the Middle East to Palestinians and Jews is: “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). This is the path to peace. “Jesus himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:14).

By the way, Tchividjian’s blog is an outstanding blog.

Except for the one’s he hates, right?

Predestination talks of God's choosing. The concept is there over and over and over, regardless of the amount of times the word "predestine" is used (though it is used). As for purgatory, our complaint isn't for the lack of the word, but to the fact that it just ain't there.

For your peace of mind, though, here.

Now, for my peace of mind, a more thorough explanation of the doctrine of Unconditional Election (with Scriptural Proofs), here, here, and here.

You just have to hope that this lady:
Charlotte Bergmann

Shows up at one of this guy's


rallies while he is tossing around gold like, "Neither she nor Sidney Chism understand the African-American voter. If she understood (them), she wouldn't be running on an extreme, right-wing, tea party platform that works totally against the interests of the African-American community."

In essence, this establishes secularism as the only acceptable basis for moral judgment on the part of voters. The judge’s statements condemning religious opposition to homosexuality speak for themselves in terms of animus.

This, I think, is the "new" big deal of this decision. The precedent based rulings of the federal courts have tended towards overt secular humanism as the sole "rational" basis for governance. This, I believe, is the case which sets that very overt precedent.

I don't think it will stand (I hope, let's say) but the precedent is there, now.

If we use Scripture as the basis of our discussion and not historical interpretations that benefited Rome you can see there are distinctions between the Body of Christ and Israel.

Ummmm... two things:

Firstly, I wasn't making an argument against dispensationalism. I could, but I wasn't. What I was showing was that your conflation of historic pre-millennialism with dispensationalism was incorrect. You said:

It should be pointed out that during the Apostolic Era and the century following premillenialism (dispensationalism) was a view held by many

I explained that that conflation was incorrect. You said:

I can't find any indication of Covenant Theology prior to Origen. The inherent problem with Covenant Theology is it requires Romans 9-11 to be twisted all out of shape...

I believe both Justin Martyr and Ireaneus thought there were dispensations and believed in a premillenial rapture...

I showed that an attempt to fit Justin Martyr's and Ireaneus' pre-milliannialism into dispensationalism was incorrect - specifically by showing that Justin Martyr's view of the Church was directly at odds with interpretation that defines dispensationalism.

Secondly, don't think for a minute that I would support any sort of Papist view. In fact, just the opposite. Besides, your history would be all wrong. The preeminence of any bishop wasn't an issue at the time of Justin Martyr. The preeminence of Rome wasn't an issue until the time of the Nicene council, and Roman papal authority over the other bishops wasn't an issue until some seventy years after that. So, Justin Martyr's understanding of the "true spiritual Israel" doesn't even play a role.

That may be, my interest is in what Scripture reveals and teaches. Covenant theology fails on several counts. It has to twist Scripture beyond recognition to reconcile Romans 9-11 and in Revelation I don't see the Church in chapters 4-19.

Yeah, yeah whatever. Just to make this clear, I'm not arguing this here, and neither were you. You changed the bar. You made a specious claim based on a poor understanding of history. All I was attempting to do was correct your error concerning the historical church. You can disagree with historical premillennialism, that's fine, but it's at the very least an error and at worst dishonest to conflate it with dispensationalism.

You know, when I've learned that I was incorrect about something - that is, when I have been shown to be in error about something - say a misinformed claim about the position of 2nd century Christians - I thank the brother or sister that corrected my error, and I discontinue that error - lest I intentionally make dishonest and fallacious arguments.

I can't find any indication of Covenant Theology prior to Origen.

Perhaps, but I did say similar. The defining point being that there is no sharp distinction made between the Church and Israel. In fact, some might call the early pre-millennialists adherents to Replacement Theology:

If, therefore, God proclaimed a new covenant which was to be instituted, and this for a light of the nations, we see and are persuaded that men approach God, leaving their idols and other unrighteousness, through the name of Him who was crucified, Jesus Christ, and abide by their confession even unto death, and maintain piety. Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. XI - this is how he closes the chapter, I recommend further reading)

>
I believe both Justin Martyr and Ireaneus thought there were dispensations...

I hope so, otherwise it would be impossible to explain the different administrations of the God's Grace through the various covenants made in the Old Testament.

There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch.7, Para. 6)

You would be hard pressed to show that the early understanding dispensations is at all comparable to modern Dispensationalism. Given Justin Martyr's position on "true spiritual Israel," I'm pretty sure his dispensations would not have the same eschatological effect as yours.

believed in a premillenial rapture based on their reading of Scripture

Yeah, but like I said, they did not teach the rapture as a separate event from the Second Coming. AND, they were decidedly post-trib. (See Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. CX and Ireaneus' Against Heresies, Book 5, Ch. 26 - I'm out of time, sorry).

Historic premillennialism and chiliasm (a form of pre-mil) both rejected two very distinct qualities of dispensationalism:

Firstly, historic pre-millennial eschatology operated within a theological system similar (and often the same) as covenant theology. The big defining factor (and Spurgeon is a great example of this) is that historic pre-mil rejects outright a definite distinction between the Church and Israel. This is especially true in that there was never, in any of the early pre-millennialism, a focus on national Israel nor an expectation of a restoration of national Israel. To the historic pre-millennial, the relationship of Israel and the church is exactly like the amillennial view. This is why C.H. Spurgeon rejected dispensationalism vehemently.

Secondly, as a detail of the end-times, historic pre-millennialism never taught a rapture of believers to leave the rest to suffer tribulation. In fact, it expected that all would experience tribulation followed by Christ's return, then a "Golden Age" of a literal 1000 year rule of Christ on earth, followed by the Last Judgement. Historic pre-mil is decidedly post-tribulational and treats the rapture very similarly to how an a-mil treats the rapture - that is that the rapture is part of the Second (and final) Coming of Christ (historic pre-mil says 1000 years of reign on earth after that event, a-mil says that the 1000 will be over when the event happens and the Judgement will immediately follow).

This is the reason that a post-mil or an a-mil will have no problem with an historic pre-mil (even if they don't agree on the details of the Final Things) in the same way that an a-mil will have no problem with a post-mil. The reason being that none believe the other have an over realized eschatology that seriously and negatively affects their ecclesiology.

Pinging Lee N. to see if their is anything else to offer to further clarify.

Just because someone may be on a ping list doesn't mean that they subscribe or agree with everything on a particular topic. I don't know why you felt compelled to 'ping' anyone other than the poster herself.

Because I got pinged from that list. I only assumed that WKB thought it was pertinent to everyone on the list. That is all.

Replying to the Baptist ping.

From the article:

Let's go back to the Jewish traditions for a second, and I will show you how all this is ties together. During the time that the Jewish Temple was standing when Jesus was here the first time, the high priest and the captain of the guard were known as the “thief in the night” and, this is why. There were watch posts at the Temple where the priest had to be watching. One of the things they had to watch for was that the fire on the altar would not go out. This was a Godly fire that fell on the altar and it was commanded by God that this fire never go out. The priest had to watch this fire. If her priest was found to be sleeping when the captain of the guard checked on his rounds, the captain of the guard would take his torch, which was next to the altar fire, and set the priest’s garment on fire with the torch. The priest would be awaken by the fire, he would get up run through the Temple tearing off the garments that were on fire, and the shame of the priest’s nakedness would appear.

Meh... from where in the world did this come? This discounts, completely, the history of Sardis(the impenetrable city/state center of the Greek Kingdom of Lydia) and Thessalonika's relationship to Sardis. Also, why would the Greek believer's in Sardis and Thessalonika be so familiar with this obscure practice of embarrassing discipline at the Temple?

No, that's not what "the thief in the night" means at all. Poor, poor hermeneutics.

Depicting Jesus at all is bad enough, and these pics are in poor taste... but the "Jesus" in the pics is always fully clothed.

The pictures were comparable to these crappy art depictions. The difference (from the redacted pics at the site linked in the OP) is there's topless women in need of Jesus' comfort.

It should be pointed out that during the Apostolic Era and the century following premillenialism (dispensationalism)

Chiliasm =/= Dispensationalism

Premillennialism surely =/= Dispensationalism. C.H. Spurgeon, for example, was a premillennialist but outright rejected dispensationalism (and amillennialism and postmillennialsism).

The point is, don't conflate pre-mil with dispy. They just ain't the same.

Ignoring the playing of the Servetus Card in the comments I think that I may go ahead and address the OP.

Thanks, Fru, for the repost. Very good stuff. When I read those quotes, and the context from which they are drawn, I am reminded that when looking at Calvin through the lens of today we often see the great theologian or the defender of the faith or the Reformer or the historical bulwark that he's become or (as seen by the caricatures here) a villain. What we often forget is that Calvin was first, foremost, day in and day out a pastor.

He officiated baptisms, weddings, and funerals. He oversaw the application of the Lord's Supper every Lord's Day. Calvin ministered his flock regularly, visiting the sick and counseling the afflicted - he was known to visit daily the bedside of dying congregants, assuaging their fears, praying with them regularly, and reading to them from the Psalms. While doing this, Calvin found the time to preach five different sermons a week, conduct catechism classes for his flock, and teach lectures to Geneva's students of theology.

"How deep a wound, the death of your wife must have inflicted upon your heart, I judge this from my own feelings, for I remember how difficult it was for me seven years ago to get over a similar sorrow… Our principle source of consolation, consists in this, that by the good, and admirable Providence of God,that things which we consider adverse, somehow contribute to our salvation….We defraud God, unless each of us lives and dies, in utter dependance, upon his sovereign and good will." - John Calvin from a letter to a congregant that lost his wife to the plague