Sep 092017

It’s all yours today…

  101 Responses to “Open Blogging”

  1. People starting to raid grocery stores here in western Georgia ahead of hurricane Irma. Got some water this morning. Pray for Floridians.

  2. Dan,

    Be safe my friend.
    We have a large number of Floridians in this community…praying.

  3. Amen! Thanks Michael. The worst we will probably see here in Newnan GA is strong winds and maybe 1-2 inches of rain, but with widespread strong gusty winds the concern is widespread power outages. Now hopefully the water treatment systems don’t fail.

  4. praying for all… for the continuing Houston and environs, for all in the path of Irma and what follows, for the folks just hit by the earthquake and for our leaders to make wise decisions…

    i have a question for the clergy who post here…
    the events listed above, plus the incredible forest and brush fires burning now, all the way from the Rocky Mountains to the coast and from California to Canada
    can we as Believers really say, “Oh, it’s just Mother Nature’s cycles?” do we thus interpret, “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” to mean that it’s all just chance?
    is there ever a time when we say, “God is showing His displeasure when nature takes these destructive turns? when we say that He has taken His hand of protection away?

  5. Dan,

    Take care, stay safe and know that many are praying for you and yours…

  6. Thanks Duane!

  7. In between Summer and Fall semester I read an old John MacArthur book “Battle for the Beginning”. I agree with most of MacArthur’s views on origins, and he actually makes some pretty good points that I hadn’t considered before.

    What I don’t get about so much coming from conservative Christianity is, why the battle mindset? Why is everything a fight, and standing our ground, and taking something back?

    Is there a time in the history of Christianity where that mindset has been successful?

  8. good observation, Josh the B… has me thinking… we are told to stand and that isn’t the same as engaging in a fight, is it?
    maybe we need some teaching on what it means to take a hit and turn the other cheek… that isn’t the same as running away, nor does it deny the hurt – standing firm isn’t always an easy thing, either… thinking about the ‘weapons of our war’… and just what our war is anyway…

  9. Fires and hurricanes happened before humans were in North America.

    People are coming out saying that these things are three earth’s punishment for trump pulling out of the climate accord. How different is this than Falwell saying 911 was God’s punishment for abortion and gays?

    The earth is angry that we’re not sequestering carbon… so the earth is starting these fires to release vast amounts of carbon. Yeah. Makes sense.

  10. #7 Josh

    Could it be that some people of a certain authoritarian mindset seem to always need an “enemy” – real or not – that they are engaging in a battle? It is a time honored way of gaining support from those on “your side”. Just a thought…

  11. Josh – there were actual battles to fight. The last was the battle for the bible late 60s to the mid 70s as described here by Harold Lindsell

    Only the LCMS and SBC showed up battle ready – all the others made an early surrender.

    Without the bible in much of christianity, there is nothing left to battle for. But I am sure we will hear something from my shadow.

  12. #10- is it an authoritarian mind? Could be, but I think it could also be a coward’s way to surround one’s self with a “like minded” army – would they stand alone? I could be wrong, but I suspect not..

  13. We don’t need a fire or hurricane to be made aware of or encounter God’s displeasure, just read his Law and look in the mirror. If that doesn’t work, read the passion stories. When that sinks in repent and believe that God forgives us for the sake of His son’s atoning sacrifice.

    We, who have been baptized into Christ, have nothing to fear from these calamities. Our lives are hidden with God in Christ. Do not be anxious. Rest in His grace.

  14. #s 9 & 11 … One comment addresses God’s interaction with His people (the Church) –
    of course He’ s not punishing the Church by sending a calamity on the human race.. at least I don’t think He would…
    and the stock answer to natural calamity is ” just nature running its course. ”
    The question remains, would God today punish a corrupted nation(s) as He did in O.T. days or is that no longer a possibility?
    I’m not suggesting that the Church needs to repent to stop the earthquakes and floods…
    Maybe we do need to repent, but I don’t think a repentant Church would quiet natute…

  15. The battle was for a particular view of inerrancy that became one of those litmus tests for faith.

    I got caught up in it…that was one of the first books i bought when I came back to active faith.

    I gave it away a long time ago.

  16. “The battle was for a particular view of inerrancy that became one of those litmus tests for faith.”

    You are correct in one area – the litmus test was ‘do you believe the Bible?’
    You are obviously ignorant of what was happening in the LCMS at the time – but it was probably in your Calvary Chapel days where Lutherans were considered unsaved even it they did believe the Bible.

    As we can see today, failing that ‘litmus test’ has led to the ELCA.

  17. We utterly fail to argue with clarity on this topic when the question is reduced to “believing the Bible”.

    The truth is that we all believe in a certain interpretation of the Bible…not in one monolithic, agreed upon interpretation.

    I believe the Bible…but my interpretation is probably different than yours.

  18. When a segment of your population intentionally gives up the formal principle and sola scriptura – are they still in your fold?

  19. MLD,

    My fold and your fold lean heavily on Augustine…Calvin also loved Bernard and Chrysostom and had memorized much of the church fathers.

    I’m more interested in being part of their fold, then whether they conform to great 16th century theologians.

    Believers have always had different methodologies for interpretation…it is not a battle, it’s a conversation.

  20. It’s not that no battle is worth fighting, I’m just not sure every battle is worth fighting. I also think it is possible to present truth without going to war.

  21. Someone mentioned the doctrine of sola scriptura. As though that would unify Christians who hold to it. LOL!

  22. What you said above has nothing to do with what we are talking about. (or at least what I am speaking of and what the LCMS and the SBC fought for.
    The Anglicans and all those under the Church of England retreated. This is how you end up with those such as the Jesus Seminar – John Dominic Crossant – John Shelby Spong and a whole host of others (along with the previously mentioned ELCA) and I am sure they are all nice guys.
    Some denominations don’t mind those associations

    I don’t know why you reject this “litmus” test and accept Packer’s of the 90’s.

  23. MLD,

    I wouldn’t necessarily affirm the Chicago Statement.

    I think it tries to say too much.

    Outside of the creeds, I’m bored with litmus tests for fidelity…

  24. #22 MLD

    “The Anglicans and all those under the Church of England retreated.”

    Wrong again, but that is to be expected. You criticize those who are “ignorant of what was happening in the LCMS at the time” and go on to blast other traditions of which you have only perfunctory knowledge. You even criticize those who do know your very narrow tradition and were actually there… I think you might want to ditch that comic book on Church history that you’re using… it’s not serving you well.

  25. MLD,

    Are there not plenty of card carrying Chicago Statement affirmers who if officiating communion would gladly say that the elements are not Christ’s body and blood?

    Are there not plenty of card carrying Chicago Statement affirmers who say that many of the “baptism” passages in the NT refer to a Spirit baptism divorced from water?

    Isn’t the real problem unbelief, not an intellectual affirmation?

  26. Jean, unbelief is my initial claim. The battle for the Bible was belief vs unbelief.

    Michael argued in favor of mere litmus test.

  27. Hi Duane,
    You are wrong again.

  28. #27

    Hi MLD,
    Silly and uninformed… again

  29. Speaking as a pew sitter during the 60s and 70d there was grave concern that the churches were falling away from reverence for the Bible. Justified by academia as honest, intellectual higher criticism? I think those of us not educated had to fall back on the concept of Biblical inerrancy … when you think on it that’s better than the alternative. ๐Ÿ˜Š

  30. “The battle for the Bible was belief vs unbelief.”

    That may be true, but it was a battle over a particular interpretation of the Bible. And that required interpretation is tangential to the faith that saves.

  31. Jean, you started out saying ; “That may be true…”
    Just leave it there

  32. That would be perfunctory.

  33. It wasn’t an interpretation – it was, and this is always the case – did the events God spoke of happen or not?
    Was Jonah just a nice story?
    Did Joshua’s long day actually occur?
    Was the flood a factual event? Was there really a Noah?

    To others it may be – but at the time, to the LCMS it was not a coin flip.

  34. But after you say “that may be true” – you then take it away with the last part of the phrase.

  35. The fact of a matter cannot be divided from interpretation. The issue is what the author desired to communicate to the listener.

  36. If it were just variances of interpretation, there would not have been years of committes, 1,000s of pages written etc.and have gain national media coverage.
    We see today people debating interpretations in the LCMS – in fact you and I are many times on opposite ends. This is not what was happening in the 60s and 70s. Again, I point to the ELCA as the goal of one side.

  37. I’m not engaging here in regard to Seminex. I was commenting on inerrancy in general and mentioned the Chicago Statement.

    I will say again that there are literal interpretations of the Bible from diehard Chicago Statement adherents which would not get even close to passing a doctrinal review in our Synod.

    But they would pass with flying colors down at Ham’s Ark Encounter theme park.

  38. Some of the foremost inerrancy folks here will tell you that the Beatitudes are not for the church and that the pre trip rapture is clearly taught in Scripture.

    It’s not worth parsing out the myriad definitions of ‘inerrancy’ to bother with.

    This is sufficient for me…

    VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
    Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

    VII. Of the Old Testament.
    The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

  39. My comments were not about inerrancy at all. Inerrancy is a term used by people who are insecure. Its like those who insist on calling themselves bible believing christians – as if you can be a bible denying christian.
    The original question dealt with doing battle. The battle came and went and was pretty much lost. Duane’s point that battles today are only conducted by authoritarian figures is sadly true.
    Back to Josh – read the book I recommended – the SBC comes out as the good guys.

  40. “Inerrancy is a term used by people who are insecure.”

    Not at all. My Synod uses the term, and many of us are not insecure.

    “The Bible is Godโ€™s inerrant and infallible Word, in which He reveals His Law and His Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. It is the sole rule and norm for Christian doctrine.” –

  41. Why can’t it just be God’s word? Is there such a thing as God’s non inerrant, non infallible word? Of course not, so why the extra descriptors if not out of insecurity that you can’t convince others of the validity of God’s word.

  42. MLD

    Paul said

    And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

    Did he make a mistake by using descriptors for God’s will?

    For the same reason, when there are counterfeits the authentic needs descriptors

  43. Dan, be careful.

  44. #16
    Martin Luther…you are quite wrong on the issue of Calvary according to CCCM and its history. Pastor Chuck moved into the Lutheran church on Cliff street in Newport Beach after CCCM sold their church on Church street in Costa Mesa. Pastor Chuck was good friends with (Lutheran) Pastor Blaine and they had wonderful fellowship up until Pastor Blaine died of cancer.
    In fact some of the Calvary people also attended the Lutheran church and vice versa. When Calvary moved to their new church in Santa Ana some Calvary people stayed at the Lutheran church and others followed Pastor Chuck with the blessing of both pastors.

  45. Yes, outside the creeds, boredom with litmus tests–thank you, Michael, for your gift of succinctly stating what many of us experience. What will always grieve me is not that we have differences in the doctrines peripheral to the creeds, but the delight at which so many take in excluding others because of these differences.

    We live in interesting times–unfortunately, the old curse “May you live in interesting times” appears to be operative in the cultural church at present…

  46. The cultural church in America, in my view, is much like the church following Constantine’s declaration of Christianity as the state religion. The identification of the cultural church with the American political power structure has had profound consequences, as idolatrous practices always do. Young people, especially, struggle with the contradictions of what we say we believe and what we approve of in terms of politics. It is tempting to think that it is because of what we would view as the conservative strain of this cultural church identification being totally at fault–but I think identification of left or right that leads us to verbally abuse, exclude and judge those who embrace Jesus simply because they voted for the opposite party is utterly wrong. Jesus invited both Simon the Zealot and Mathew the Tax Gatherer into His community. If we are either or, instead of both and, I think we look less like Jesus and more like Constantine–we have embraced the idolatry that the Kingdom of God is advanced through political power, something that Jesus in Scripture rejects without equivocation.

    The only way at this point either the left’s or right’s vision of Kingdom advancement through the acquisition of and coercive expression of political power is by embracing an authoritarian paradigm. We embrace the idea of peace through conquest rather than the biblical model of peacemaking; the voluntary laying aside of power and entitlement and a commitment to reconciliation and conversation.

    There is only one Table I am interested in being at–it is not political. It is the Table where on my left and right will be those who are currently on the left and right. It is the Table of invitation, not coercion, of trust, not authoritarianism, of every tribe and tongue and nation including democrats, republicans, libertarians, progressives and whatever self-limiting labels we tag ourselves, and others with.

  47. #46 Rick

    Yes, yes and yes….

  48. So back to the battle for the bible that ran through the LCMS in the late 60s early 70s as I offered up in Lindsell’s book of the same name.
    Michael blew it off as “was a particular view of inerrancy that became one of those litmus tests for the faith.”

    So I went back through my comic books of church history, as my shadow likes to describe it, and came up with just several of the false teachings that were abounding through the St Louis seminary.
    The principals being offered at the time came out of the historical critical method – they were denying the following;
    the verbal inspiration of the scripture.
    the messianic nature of Isaiah 53
    the historical existence of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
    they denied Jesus cursed the fig tree
    the denial that neither Jesus nor Peter walked on water
    the virginity of Mary at the time of Jesus’ birth

    These along with the old standbys of the day;
    the non existence of an actual Adam & Eve
    the non existence of an actual Noah and Ark and flood
    Joshua’s long day, and,
    Jonah and the great fish

    In light of this being supported by the seminary president and 40 of the 50 teachers, yes a battle did follow. I just don’t see how this can be sluffed of as a disagreement about inerrancy – as if folks can have 2 different but equal views of God’s word in the areas listed.

    Michael said he was ‘tired of the litmus tests’ – so I ask, none of these issues being taught in the seminary would give you heartburn to the point of walking away and calling out such teachings?

  49. Jeez,
    MLD’s list of LCMS denials looks like Thomas Jefferson’s bible.

  50. Descended – but some don’t think they are worth fighting for any longer as it may cause trouble in the unity department.

  51. I agree whole-heartedly with MLD on this issue.

    Denying the Scriptures is not the same as a disagreement of interpretation.

    And in the case of the apostate branch of Lutheranism, look at the fruit thereof.

  52. Would denying that the new covenant is for the Church be denying scripture or a disagreement of interpretation?

  53. #48 MLD

    Did you get your info from the ghostwritten “Blue Book”?

  54. Nope
    But are you denying what I laid out as the issue? LOL — heck, double LOL

  55. I would also offer up A Seminary in Crisis

  56. Kurt thought it was equally about “closed fellowship” and the Third Use of the Law in his account… although I never thought his account was very good.

  57. Zimmerman has loads of critics for his account…

  58. I also assume that you have read the other side of the story in Tietjen’s “Memoirs in Exile”, just in the interest of a fair and balanced view?

  59. You still have not answered – are you denying that the items I mentioned as being denied was a true and valid list? Add what other issues you want, but address my list.

  60. Duane, although I have not read that particular memoir, most of the media on the internet is produced from that sides point of view. It is not difficult to study their position. In the eyes of the larger church, they are the winners and out populate us almost 3 to 1.
    Scripture denial is always the popular position. ๐Ÿ™‚

  61. Additionally, I assume you are familiar with the varied methodologies and schools of thought regarding the Modern Historical-Critical approach to Scripture? It is not a monolith. There are, for instance, many conservative biblical scholars who believe that a “Q” document was in circulation. Also, almost all OT scholars see the varied JEPD strands in the Torah, to the extent that the hypothesis has helped in harmonizing accounts…

  62. I don’t know the source of your list. To affirm or deny its accuracy I would have to compare it to the materials of the time, from both sides involved in the controversy. That’s how scholarship is done – both sides, primary documents – and only then and evaluation of the claims.

    For example, simply because an OT scholar uses documentary hypothesis as a tool says nothing about his view of Scripture… But, because documentary hypothesis came out of the historical-critical school, fundamentalists will accuse him of denying Scripture. This sort of thing is not limited to LCMS. The Baptists dealt with it as well…

  63. Duane, “the Baptists dealt with it as well”
    If you would ever read what I write instead of just shadowing me to raise some crazy point, you would have noticed that was my very first comment on this topic as I recommended Lindsell’s book to Josh saying that the LCMS and the SBC went through the same mess at the same time. Check it out.

  64. I saw your comment. By the way, I happen to know that Lindsell regretted writing that book.

    I do not object to your comments. I do object to the abusive personalization of your comments and throwing out your opinions as though they are established facts. There is a difference. Theology is not about throwing it against the wall like spaghetti to see what sticks. Again, it is a careful examination of varied sides of an issue making use of primary sources, then secondary sources and coming to a considered evaluation of the claims… and even then one can be wrong.

  65. “I happen to know that Lindsell regretted writing that book.”

    Sometimes I think you are the biggest BSer in the world. Unless he regretted it on his deathbed, we had Lindsell speak at my SBC church around 1994 – and he spoke on his book, it’s relevance then and today (1994) — he died a few years later.

    The issues I listed at #48 are a coin toss to you … not to me.

    As to Q – I am pretty neutral – but there is no evidence at all that a singular document like that existed or was used — it’s kind of a god of the gaps tool. Have a hole in your documentation?, throw it in the Q pile.

  66. His daughter is a friend of mine and we have discussed it at length as I did with his son-in-law who was a very close friend…

    As I said, “I do object to the abusive personalization of your comments…” Once again you live up (or down) to expectations.

  67. I’ve had the great pleasure in life to have known two people who have known many of the important figures in Christendom of the last forty years.

    Duane is one of those people.

    I have photographic evidence…folks here don’t even know the half.

    These folks are great resources for us and I’m grateful for all that Duane brings to the table.

    God puts some people in the midst of His work…and they come and share what they’ve seen.

  68. On a completely separate note…this is what goes out on our airwaves daily.

  69. @ #7
    So, you have noticed the battle mindset.
    Remember what the scriptures have said. If
    you answer the questions below, you have the source of the battle mindset.

    I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

    Who is the seed of the serpent?
    How does the woman’s seed get a wound in the heel?

  70. OK, totally off topic and very tangential, but with Hurricane Irma at this time aiming it’s eyewall at the Florida Keys and Key West, FL in about a day…how soon before some jerk pastor says it’s because of gays and lesbians that they Keys will get hard hit? Who are the most likely candidates to publish such crap? And if the “Bible Belt” is so Godly, why are tornado outbreaks and hurricanes so deadly in the south? Sorry, just ranting.

  71. Dan, I wonder how long it will be before some idiot Hollywood actress claims nature is “raging” because of Dobald Trump? LOL

  72. “Dobald”, Donald, same thing ๐Ÿ˜‰

  73. Hey Scooter. Ha! Just like clockwork it’s already begun. I remember back after 2001 when everything, and I mean EVERYTHING bad that happened was Bush’s fault.

  74. Two apologies for comment 70…1) not trying to derail current topic…and 2) didn’t mean to impugn pastors….should be anyone with a platform that people follow.

  75. Dan

    First and foremost… thinking and praying for you and yours. Stay safe, stay dry!!!

    I can imagine all of the sermon illustrations… time for a night cap…

  76. Thanks Duane, gas stations in Newnan, GA ran dry and I am sure the grocery stores are out of water. NWS is calling for winds over 50mph here and 2-6 inches of rain here. Yikes! Can’t image what it’s like in south and west Florida.

  77. when the winds get over 50 the trees start coming down… hadn’t really thought of Georgia taking a big hit from this storm
    hurricanes and fires should remind us that we’re not in charge…
    i remember standing outside (we lived on a little hill) watching the wind blow – enjoying the strength of the wind and nature’s power until big trees started falling over and the roofs literally began to lift and blow off of the houses below… i’ve been thru earthquakes, been on evacuation alert from forest fire and hidden from tornadoes, but standing there watching the city being blown to pieces oddly made me feel very humble and … puny…
    “sun, moon and stars in their courses do run” … unless God takes His off the controls, praying to the God of grace for all to stay safe thru these storms now…

  78. Josh, the point to my question is that I think Peter’s Sermon in Acts 2 does not allow for the dispensational view of the millennial kingdom.
    Peter is speaking in his present day (the last days which continue to today) and he is announcing that while David is still in his grave, Jesus is sitting on David’s throne – which we describe as the time of the millennium described in Rev 20. However, in Acts 2 this event of Jesus sitting on David’s throne is a heavenly scene – not earthly.

    In the dispensational scheme this is not possible. If the millennium is future and if David’s throne on which Jesus will sit is earthly – how can David still be in his grave? Or I could ask, in the dispensational view, will David still be in his grave when Jesus rules on earth?

  79. You skipped to the wrong Open Blogging thread, MLD ๐Ÿ™‚

    I disagree that Acts 2 is concerned with the millennial kingdom, but appreciate yourthoughts on it.

  80. the other Open Blogging is closed.

    What is it talking about if not the Millennial Kingdom? What is this designation of Jesus ruling from David’s throne that Peter is speaking of if not the Millennial Kingdom?

    See, I have no problem – Jesus rules his kingdom, present day from David’s throne while David is still in his grave — just like the Bible says.

    In the dispensational world this cannot be because Jesus rules on earth from David’s throne, but David cannot be in his grave because he would have been raptured 7 years earlier and be alive and well, ruling in the kingdom.

  81. No, we believe that Jesus is ruling now at the right hand of the father. Already, not yet, and all that.

  82. At the right hand of God on David’s throne as Peter says or is that a different event?

  83. I haven’t disagreed yet with anything Peter said.

    You’re barking up some tree with a new gotcha verse, but you’re missing wildly.

    Do you maybe have a link to some decent commentaries on Acts that connect Acts 2 to the Millennium so that I might get an idea what you are talking about?

  84. Josh – no links. Your millennium and my millennium are 2 completely different events that appear to be for 2 different purposes. I won’t even argue which is correct – but just to point out the complete difference as nothing in common.
    My millennium is a heavenly event happening between the 2 advents.
    Your millennium is a precise 1,000 year period happening on earth at a future date.

    When you read Peter’s sermon, he is speaking of my millennium.

  85. “My millennium is a heavenly event happening between the 2 advents.
    Your millennium is a precise 1,000 year period happening on earth at a future date.”

    Agreed! You have precisely stated our difference.

    “When you read Peterโ€™s sermon, he is speaking of my millennium.”

    I think you are REALLY straining the text to find the millennium at all.

  86. as i read the comments here from time to time that question the dispensational approach to the history (and future) of God’s dealing with mankind one fact stands out… whether the approach is one to accept or not, it is very poorly, if at all, understood by those who reject it – both in interpretation and application of Scripture… but too many half-baked “theologians” writing their private interpretations and alarmists have not helped, i know…

  87. apologies, for my scrambled words at #86 … it’s all there, but not very clear to the casual and quick read, which is the way i scan the comments… suffice to say, i don’t very many who post here even have a good grasp on the subject of disp.
    must be the moose and cow sighting this morning that has my mind

  88. It was clear, and you are absolutely right.

  89. Josh,
    “I think you are REALLY straining the text to find the millennium at all.”

    I know you will say “I already told you” – but can you tell me the event being described by Peter if not Christ’s everlasting kingdom reign?

  90. Em, I agree that no one has a good grasp on dispensational thought or timeline. This is why no matter what you bring up someone will say “that’s not what I believe.”

    I think that most who claim to be dispensationalists are really just rapturists and that is all they know – and cannot even state how many dispensations there are let alone name them. They say I am a dispensationalist and I believe in the rapture.

    I am with our good friend Steve Wright who defends the position that Dispensational Theology is just that – a whole system of theology and the end times stuff is just on element. I understand it – been there, done that and I have the tee shirt. ๐Ÿ™‚

  91. It is more of a hermeneutical framework than a systematic theology.

  92. MLD or Josh,

    In terms of the dispensationalist framework or system, why do the end times and prophesy conferences and prophets all seem to consist of dispensatioonalists? Since everyone believes in a 2nd coming (even if not 3rd or 4th), why don’t amillenialists, for example, also have these end times predictors, etc.?

  93. I did not say a systematic theology – I said a system of theology where one thing builds on another. You don’t get to a rapture or a 1,000 year earthly kingdom without having built up a bunch of stuff before that.

  94. Probably several reasons. 1 of which would be that many con-men have taken up shop among the premillenialists. No question about it.

  95. “1,000 year earthly kingdom”

    Sure you can. You can read one verse, or many early church fathers and see a future millennial kingdom.

    That doesn’t mean that it is wrong or right, but you can definitely be premil without being dispie.

  96. Jean – we do
    1.) Jesus returns
    2.) Jesus judges the believers and the unbelievers.
    3.) Jesus dispatches each to their eternal destiny
    4.) Some live happily ever after.
    5.) End of story – end of conference – let’s open the bar.

    What was that if I spoke slowly – a 10 min conference and everything fits on one page with no charts with a Bible verse to give it legitimacy – Matt 25:31-46

  97. Josh, I have often said that if I was not Amil I would be Historical Premil — which is as different as night is from day to premil dispensationalism.

  98. I know what Historic Premil is. And of course they believe in a future 1,000 year kingdom.

  99. Right but none of that tribulation / Israel stuff

  100. why donโ€™t amillenialists, for example, also have these end times predictors, etc.?<<<

    The Orthodox are amillenialists, and we do have a goodly number of people who make dire predictions and prophecies. The difference is, ours come true. ๐Ÿ™‚

    For an example, in 1902 St. John of Kronstadt had an apocalyptic vision of the holocaust that was to descend upon Russian 15+ years later. There are elders on Mt. Athos who make such predictions.

    If you hang around certain monastics, you hear a lot about how current events are leading up to the coming of Antichrist and the end of the world. Some of them are nuttier than the Rapture Ready folks, although I am more inclined to believe the monks.

    Amil believes that things are going to get worse and worse so some people like to keep an eye on the newspapers, just like pre-mil folks. We have that in common. The difference is that we believe we will be given the martyric honor of living through this time of tribulation whereas pre-mil folk believe they will depart the earth before things get too bad.

    I imagine both groups- the monks and the Rapture Ready folk- are looking with interest at the recent spate of storms, earthquakes, and threat of nuclear warfare.

  101. To add to my above, the attitude of the two groups couldn’t be more different, if I can say this without being too offensive.

    The rapturists seem to have a certain glee about the worsening of world conditions. They will recite a list of current “signs” and then rub their hands together and say “But we’re gonna be outta here!” There is not much empathy for the people Left Behind who will be going through a literal unfolding of the horrors of Revelation. Of course, this attitude is not universal among their tribe but I have seen it plenty of times, even from pulpits. I always found this to be a distasteful side effect of rapturism, even when I believed in it.

    The EO amils see worsening conditions as a warning to gird up one’s loins and to become serious about one’s Christian faith because we are going to need God’s help, big time, to get through the years to come without apostatizing. It is a warning for the nominalists to wake up. It is a call to prayer. We might be made martyrs…. if not us, some future generation.

    Sorry for the caricature, just reporting what I have seen and heard.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



%d bloggers like this: