Christians anxiously anticipating the rebuilding of the Jewish temple….we’re going to need something a lot stronger and more than a question mark for this job.
I grew up dispy, and I’m very glad I got out.
Should we be thankful for a mosque on the temple mount?
speaking of … is it necessary to rebuild the temple to reinstitute the yearly sacrifice? couldn’t they just construct one of those beautiful tabernacles? (IMO this is a sad and sorrowful lack for the stubborn, faithful orthodox jew – wake up Hebrews, the final sacrifice for sin was the lamb that God, Himself provided: Immanuel)
another thing – yes, the sacrifice of living creatures isn’t very “civilized,” but why does a felt need for such a thing (to reconcile to god(s)) permeate the human race to the extent that it does?
the more civilized we get, the less we feel a need to reconcile to God and the more civilized we get, the more feelings of superiority we feel when we reconcile to our fellow man … we are very complicated machines, but we cannot generate our own software, i don’t think … artificial intelligence? sounds right to me 😎
Messianic ‘cults’ abound in Albuquerque, none of them agree, each of them believes they have the repository of truth. One thing they are all doing is drawing gullible believers who will no longer call themselves Christians into greater and greater observance of Torah. Once a believer embraces the need to obey for example Shabbat then it is GAME ON, the law is never satisfied and they creep into more and more observance.
The driving force of so much of the whole thing is people in search of identity. People need to be unique, special, ‘chosen.’ The reformed guys, of course already provide that vehicle in their conviction that God chose them arbitrarily over against those he eschewed. In my crazy charismatic circles the quest for identity is never ending with all kinds of ramifications. In these Messianic, yes I call them ‘cults’ they get the ultimate prize of joining the nation who they believe are God’s own favorite people over against all other nations. This is a powerful phenomenon.
Nowadays they further press to see who has real Jewish blood and then they search for ‘markers’ in the genetic code that allow them to claim to be of the tribe of Judah, or the runner up prize of Levi. The rest are still ‘in’ but they get relegated to back rows in the most prestigious celebrations. It is all very self-congratulating.
If they ever get that temple going just remember there is no bloodier religion in history than Judaism. Expect all kinds of strangeness to ensue.
I still believe God cursed the whole system in AD 70 offering a new and better way. But we do love our tangible here and now, place centered concrete religions. I am so glad that our faith has no holy days, no holy places, no holy sacrifices, no religion. Life in the Holy Spirit as the body of Christ enjoying the kingdom of God is just fine.
Once a believer embraces the need to obey for example Shabbat then it is GAME ON
—————————————
That’s one reason why I find it both laughable and tragic that for centuries the Church has changed the Sabbath to Sunday and then proceeded to command a new set of ‘thou shall not do on the Sabbath’ obligations upon the Body of Christ.
there is no bloodier religion in history than Judaism
——————————————
I think Christianity gives it a run for the money. True, no more animal sacrifices but our entire faith is dependent on blood (which obviously Judaism is not, as seen in the last 1943 years.
We have SONGS that focus on nothing but the blood. Power in the blood. How odd to someone on the outside to be asked ‘Are you washed in the blood?” Blood makes you whiter than snow?
And of note, everytime I have access for some reason to a pseudo-Christian group, I take time to flip through the hymnals to see if ANY of the songs of the faith that mention the blood are included.
God has not inhabited the Temple since before the Babylonian captivity. He brought the exiles back to Jerusalem and let them play their religious games in the Temple – but he was not there.
The significance of Jesus being brought to the Temple for his naming and circumcision was the return of God to the Temple.
The whole idea of a new Temple and sacrifices should be repugnant to all Christians
I think the moving of the worship day to Sunday completed the logical and necessary move away from Torah. If Christians were still worshiping on Shabbat then it would have been ‘game on’ much earlier and Shabbat would have been the leverage to other things much earlier.
Christ is my sabbath, the book of Hebrews along with Galatians releases us fully from the yoke that our predecessors could not bear.
As for the tragic new set of ‘laws’ well that goes on and on. Churches regard their buildings as the house of God while they desecrate people, the lust for law never ends it is at least as pervasive as the lust of the flesh. People love to replace a clean heart for a clean record on a few “Thou shalt nots…” we never quit fighting the law-mongering hordes.
and Steve is shifting the focus on 10 I was just musing at the spectacle of a Temple with all those bloody sacrifices. Christians rejoicing in the blood of Christ is hardly comparable.
Dread, to be clear, I have not the slightest objection to worship on Sunday, and I think it makes total sense that from the very beginning in Acts we see that take place – in connection to our Lord’s resurrection.
What I object to is naming this day ‘the Sabbath’ – we don’t see that transition anywhere in the New Testament, and frankly, I think a large motivation for doing so is so Christians can continue to preach on the 10 Commandments (rather than preaching on the New Testament).
I am in agreement with you about the lust for law – and the significance of Galatians especially for the Church’s study.
It may be that in the last days, the Jews will build a temple. This would be nothing more than a sign of the times, not a step in the right direction for the Jews. It is a herald of the end of the age. We can “encourage” it if we are wanting the Lord to hurry up and come back but if we do encourage it, we are participating in a false religious practice that will harm, not help, the Jews.
And yes, I find it significant that Mormons have “communion” using water. And that JWs, Unity School, and Christian Science don’t have communion at all.
Morning all…or actually afternoon here! I’ve spent too long sitting at a local coffee shop reading and writing and just vegging. So need to get moving…so nice to sit and do not much!! Hope all have a good Saturday!
Dread said, “Messianic ‘cults’ abound in Albuquerque, none of them agree, each of them believes they have the repository of truth. One thing they are all doing is drawing gullible believers who will no longer call themselves Christians into greater and greater observance of Torah. Once a believer embraces the need to obey for example Shabbat then it is GAME ON, the law is never satisfied and they creep into more and more observance.”
I think Paul the Apostle summed this one up in a very colorful manner 🙂
“I wish those who unsettle you would cut their balls off!”–Paul the Apostle.
Steve, you have created a Strawman re: the Mormons. This is what they teach re: the Atonement:
“Through His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and by giving His life on the cross—that is, by performing the Atonement —Jesus Christ saves us from our sinsas we follow Him. Because of the Atonement, you can be forgiven of your sins when you sincerely repent”
Now there is nuance, as there is with 9,000 to 30,000 denoms in protestantism, but you seem to imply that Mormons reject the Atonement through the blood of Christ…and they teach otherwise in their official communications.
A Mormon member responds to what they say they believe (not what you say Steve):
“We believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, it’s through his sacrifice and atonement that we can return and live with Heavenly Father where we are all his children.” –Nicki
Now, I’m not saying I know for sure whether Mormons are saved or not, blah, blah, blah, but I do try to be intellectually honest and not make statements about them that seem to be contrary to what they publicly state and is readily available to view in their own words.
Benny’s doing the right thing, good for him. I still think his miracles are fake and that he is this guy:
“In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.”
But, repenting and honoring ones marriage covenant will always get a big AMEN from me…no matter who it is.
Yes is the Jesus who said “I am the Good Shepherd” the same shepherd that Ezekiel foreswore as saying “I myself will shepherd my people” … I would not mind hearing the Mormon take on it. Probably some confused Mormons are lovers of the real Jesus but Mormonism is a false religion and a damnable heresy.
I’ve gone down this Philosophical Logic trail many times…it always uncovers some pretty startling assumptions that folks take for granted…but I dare not unfold that discussion here…it is a long path that requires a series of questions and responses and leads to most folks getting frustrated and tuning out and that’s not the goal.
I’ll just say that I dunno…if what MLD seems to be articulating…that one must have a “correct understanding” of the “correct Jesus of the OT” (which is quite subjective and there is much disagreement as to every last thing regarding Christology among the many denoms and mainlines) then the Path is extremely narrow and if you are wrong on your “understanding” of one part…you’re Hell fodder.
The crux of this argument (as I’ve been down the trail many times) leads to a very interesting Philosophically Logical trichotomy: Hyper-Calvinism or a more Universalist (Universal Reconciliation) type thing going on where sincerity of belief, Conscience and trying to be good is the key to Salvation….or that “one” particular Group has the “correct understanding” and the “correct Jesus” and all the others are wrong and toast.
I guess I can’t even make the simple observation, in context of the importance of the blood of Jesus, that Mormons use water for communion – without Alex wanting to argue with me.
Steve, I’m sorry you perceived it as wanting to argue with you. I will try to refrain from disagreeing with you on the forum if it bothers you that much. No offense intended on my part, I just disagreed with what you seemed to imply.
I’ll bow out as well so as not to dominate the discussion. It’s a beautiful day here in Boise….60 degrees and sunny, softball try-outs with my baby girl, Turkey Federation dinner tonight, life is GOOD! Peace to the PP Folks, Dread you’re a great moderator/discussion leader, thanks!
Alex, not necessarily the correct understanding, because it does get confusing. However, what you end up by denying is very critical.
The Mormon Church does deny that Jesus Christ is almighty God – now whether all individual Mormons reject that is a different story as many Mormons are converts from good Christian training.
Jim Jr.,
Some Mormons are Christian. They were Christians before joining the Mormon church and still hold the correct christian views, just got side track into a non christian religion.
“In Mormonism, Jesus is a creation, the product of relations between god and his goddess wife who used to be people from another world (McConkie, Bruce, Mormon Doctrine, p. 192, 321, 516, 589). Jesus is the literal spirit brother of the devil and of you and I (McConkie, p. 192, 589). Also, in Mormon theology, God has a body of flesh and bones (Doctrine & Covenants 130:22) as does his wife and together they produce spirit offspring in heaven who inhabit human bodies on earth.”
You might as well say that some satanists are Christians. Words mean things.
I think if you are a Mormon who adheres to LDS teaching, then no you are not saved. There I said it. I know some want to, but I will move out and draw fire.
Thank you, Derek. Just know that Alex doesn’t agree with you. But there are a lot of mormons where he lives. I think their sales pitches have warped his brain. There I said it. I know some want to, but I will move out and draw fire.
Alex can have his own opinion. That is cool with me. I just think Alex has warped your brain a bit. You are sort of like a stalker to him. Do you actually realize how weird that is?
The Mormon church, in an act of theological asymptosis, has backed off from the 1958 McConkie book. So it may not be an up-to-date statement of the constantly asymptoting theological position of the Mormon church.
“Turkey” is just part of one of our latest PP features: Play-by-play bowling narrative. Three in a row is a turkey. In bowling, that is when the score starts moving up.
Four is a hambone. None yet today.
Not sure this feature will catch on so enjoy it while it lasts. 🙂
I was hoping this topic would be discussed. I really appreciate what Xenia said:
“It may be that in the last days, the Jews will build a temple. This would be nothing more than a sign of the times, not a step in the right direction for the Jews. It is a herald of the end of the age. We can “encourage” it if we are wanting the Lord to hurry up and come back but if we do encourage it, we are participating in a false religious practice that will harm, not help, the Jews.”
As a young Christian, I remember hearing many Bible teachers talking very happily, joyfully and excitedly about the temple being re-built and how there is a group in Jerusalem making preparations. Like it was something very positive.
Weren’t there Christians in So. Cal. giving money to this group? Anyone know???
I don’t remember the name of the group being given money. I do remember the information about them being excitedly shared so one could support them as “the Lord leads you”.
I’m going to ask my Jewish friends of wwe.occsp.org
what they think of all the talk of rebuilding a temple.
I will be surprised if any have the fascination that Dispensational Christians do.
“So it may not be an up-to-date statement of the constantly asymptoting theological position of the Mormon church.”
So when do Christians get to start backing off of the Bible? I see mormons as infiltrators that are bent on polluting the church from the ground up.
But maybe I’m just a conspiracy theorist.
I just don’t remember in my childhood so many Christians trying to argue other Christians in to regarding mormonism as an offshoot of Christendom.
Anne, you broke up my turkey.
Nonnie,
I don’t know if Chuck Smith was a leader of the group but I do know that throughout the 80s he spoke quite often of his support to buy the proper utensils etc and the breeding of the red heifer.
In 1991, Don Stewart and Chuck Missler wrote the definitive book on the topic titled “The Coming Temple” published by Dart – which I think was Don Stewart’s private label at the time.
Nonnie – as my memory is sometimes flaky, I started searching for info to confirm what I remembered. Here’s what I have found so far. Actually trying to find primary sources, “out of the horse’s mouth”.
Grendal – interesting you would ask that. In my searches, ran across some articles re: Jews who don’t want it re-built because it plays into maintaining and excellerating conflict in the area rather than being conducive to peace building. I’ll see if I can come across it again and link it for you. Or you may find it faster than this ole lady googling it as well.
Jim J,
So that I am clear, I do not consider Mormons who follow the teachings of the Mormon church to be Christian by any stretch of the imagination. I just said that there are some Christians in the Mormon Church.
I do not call Mormons a cult, because they are not some “offshoot” of Christianity. the are a false religion just as is Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc.
Nonnie, please forgive the sarcastic tone of my #56. It was not directed at you, but rather the overflow of angst I experience remembering the source and results of the rhetoric.
“Should we just absorb them gradually?”
To my mind, they are the worst enemy of the American Church. They don’t tell you what they really believe…ask any mormon that has left, and they will tell you of all kinds of nutty beliefs that mormons would never admit in public.
At least Christians have nutty beliefs backed up by a 2,000 year-old text.
Having a discussion about Mormonism being Christian makes as much sense as satanists being saved. Has the Mormon church thrown out the Book of Mormon, Doctrines & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price? These books contradict themselves and the Bible.
Mormons are famous for using Christianese when they talk and that can trip up the unprepared. I have spoken with many Mormons through the years and when I have pinned them down as to the Trinity and Jesus being God the Son as opposed to the son of God their true colors show.
I agree there very well may be saved people in the Mormon church but it has zero to do with what the Mormons teach.
The worst thing we could do is act in any way that leads a Mormon to believe they are saved with the beliefs they hold. Sadly in the days we live everything is up for discussion when God has already stated His never changing truths.
You and I come from opposing views on the Moses Model and few other important issues, though we are brothers in Christ, which puts us naturally at odds with one another in pertinent conversations. This should be fine since this is a forum for differing perspectives. But because we agree on the Gospel, we are both bound to civility & to love one another. I’ve endeavored to disagree with you respectfully and am committed to continue doing so.
Having said that, I want to point out one thing that -due to it’s repetitive nature- has caught my attention. This is NOT an attack on your person, but a suggestion that you consider whether or not this may be true, and if you might want to consider changing your tactic. I’m referring to how you tell us you are going to bow out of a conversation. It seems to regularly involve your telling us how you said something that was simple and good, yet someone else disagreed with you, so you must now stop talking … as if dissent is perceived as being mean to you. It … well … for lack of a more gentle term … seems manipulative.
This conveys a call to others to come and back you, build you back up, ask you to stay, remind you that you are loved, etc… Do you really need this? Or can you take dissent to your ideas (I’m not talking about personal attacks, which is another matter,) without the manipulative ploy? Many of us do so regularly.
Chile, I’ll speak my piece concerning Steve. In #34 he bowed about specifically because of Alex. Alex has been terrible in the things he has said about Steve and revealing his identity when he was anonymous. There’s history there that should be taken into consideration and renders your last paragraph pretty unfair to say the least. I’m only addressing this instance. I will say that your last paragraph is an attack on his person in spite of what you stated.
I notice something that often happens here. Whenever I make a list of false religions, I always include Judaism – but when other refer to false religions, they never include Judaism.
Will other here agree with me that Judaism is a false religion as much as Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism?
Man, MLD that is rough!
I’d say no to you primarily because the God we serve as Christians is the same God of the OT and the covenant with the Jews, which is still in effect, if my understanding is correct.
This is the reason why I believe that Judaism is not to be classed with those other belief systems you mentioned.
Judaism false? is that the same as replaced? fulfilled? a new dispensation? ? or is it :mr.green: ?
corner? feels more like coroner tonight … coming back from outer space and being subject to debriefing must be the worst part of the trip … for over 2 hours i explained this house to a lady who, i think, is actually dummer than me
since this is open blog, here’s a morality question…
if you were a believer whose son turned out to be the area firebug and you turned him in and you received a handsome reward that was out for his capture – which of course you didn’t want – should you give it to your church or to the elderly woman whose house was one of the targets (burned to the ground) and she’d lost everything because her skinflint husband didn’t believe in fire insurance … or … should you give it to your church which, incidentally your son had also burned down, but did have complete insurance coverage? and more importantly, perhaps, how should that pastor react? should he take the money and set up a counseling program for the church’s troubled souls or should he say to the dad, take that money and give it to that poor woman who lost everything?
yes, this was an event long ago and far away that i’ve often puzzled during times when i don’t want to think about important things that are my business
That’s because Judaism isn’t false in the same sense that other false religions are false. It was 100 percent correct until Messiah came. It is in a special category by itself, I would say. Still, it’s false in the sense that without the Messiah there is no salvation.
I don’t think anyone will be saved except through Jesus, be it Muslim, Jew, JW, Mormon, etc.
But, I think, with Romans 11 as my basis, that they have a partial hardening right now so that more gentiles might come to God. I think at some point this hardening will be gone and more of the Jewish people will come in, because the truth in the OT is there for them to see Jesus, but they have blinders on right now.
The question isn’t if the Jews are savable – everyone is savable, the muslim, the Dali Lama even me.
But the question is about the religion of Judaism. Is it not a false religion? Just think, if Judaism is not a false religion, then it must be a true religion and their path is just as good as Christianity.
As to Romans 11, everyone is blinded to the truth about God until the Holy Spirit releases them from that blindness. So, the Peruvian who rejects God is blinded in the same way the Jew is blinded.
But look, Jews do come to Christ – me and Marty Goetz – along with millions of others – those who don’t are just rank Christ rejectors… right?
“everyone is blinded to the truth about God” True. But, it seems to me that Romans 11, is not talking about everybody is it? It seems that quite a bit of Romans addresses questions about the Jews. I don’t pretend to understand it all. I just feel uncomfortable calling the religion false.
This is how I personally view it, it might be right or wrong, but it is how it all works itself out in my head. I guess it would be to me like saying that the OT was false, just because a Mormon has a bad understanding of it. It isn’t the religion, in the case of the Jews, that is false, it is the people that are hardened to their understanding of it.
And yes, all reject Christ that are not called to Him, but like you said, that is everyone. We as Christians are lucky to have the OT, but in NT times Jesus was shown to the Jewish people through the OT by the apostles. I think this is what will help the Jewish people in the future when God opens their eyes to the truth in the religion they have.
” I think this is what will help the Jewish people in the future when God opens their eyes to the truth in the religion they have.”
Why is it future? How did I slip through? I used to be a Jew and Christ found me, opened my eyes through the Holy Spirit.
This is why I tell dispensationalists that they have a God with 2 plans.
Plan A was his original plan with the Jews – but the Jews wouldn’t play by God’s rules so he put them in time out and turned to Plan B
Now with Plan B he would work with the gentile world through a new organization called the Church. Once he finishes Plan B, which ends with the rapture, he can then go back to his original plan – known as Plan A and do his real work with “his chosen people.”
Hmm… gonna use two examples here to make sure my statement isn’t used to support Mormonism.
Jewish People have a true religion. But their understanding is obscured. Everything they need to see the truth is in the OT and has nothing added to obscure truth.
Mormon’s have a false religion. Their understanding is also obscured. Everything they need to see the truth is in the OT and NT which they have. But, more books have been added to obscure truth and contradict it.
I am not talking dispensations at all. I am no theologian and only loosely understand that. Just a layperson here, but I can read Romans and it isn’t written in the same type of genre as Revelations and it seems pretty clear to me that at some point, God will call the Jews to Himself.
How?
Through Jesus, just like everyone else.
Do I know why He hardens the majority of them at this time?
No.
I know God has a plan and it is the same plan He had from the foundation of the world, Jesus Christ.
I don’t much go for all the end times nonsense that is peddled these days anymore. I have lived a while and see that those guys change their story anytime the world stage changes.
Derek, I am not necessarily addressing you – I am just talking out into blog land.
The “hardening” of the Jews seems so cruel on God’s part. All the Jews who have died outside of the faith since Jesus’ day never had a chance – God blinded them so they would have go to hell. But one day in the future, he will unharden them so those can go to heaven.
No to John Hagee
No to not telling them about Jesus. Jesus illuminates the OT. But if you are made blind by God then you still won’t see.
So, are you saying Abraham, David, Moses and a hos of other OT saints weren’t saved because Jesus wasn’t preached then in a NT sense?
Like I said I don’t understand it really. Why does God harden? Why does He have mercy? Those are God things that I don’t understand fully if at all.
I was not saying though that the un-hardening frees Jews that never accepted Christ to go to heaven. i know some say that, but I don’t.
“So, are you saying Abraham, David, Moses and a hos of other OT saints weren’t saved because Jesus wasn’t preached then in a NT sense?”
They were saved by faith and they were not hardened.
I don;t understand the hardening either – but I do feel that it is misunderstood in a wrong way. I don’t think that Jews are prevented from saving faith any more or in any different way than anyone else = I think if a Jew and a Peruvian both hear the gospel preached they both have an equal chance to be saved.
Also, I don’t think that it is any more important that a Jew be saved vs a Peruvian. I take great offense when some evangelical calls me a “completed Jew” – and I let them know.
“until the fulness of the gentiles has come in”. Partial, meaning not all Jews. Until, meaning it will be lifted at some point. That point being when the fullness of the gentiles has come in. See, to me that makes it some kind of act of God, that at some point in the future will be lifted that will lead to a massive amount of Jews being called to Him. I admit that it may be exactly the same hardness, no more or less, than gentiles have, but the time limit seems to imply good things for the future at some point.
When will this happen? I have no clue. I used to be into prophecy and such, but that stuff is tiresome. My hope is just in His return. Enough for me.
LOL. “completed Jew”. Just use the internet meme on them and tell them “This isn’t even my final form!”
My mother is Jewish. She was fortunate to barely escape Nazi Germany in 1940 with her parents and sister. Many extended family members stayed and perished in the camps. My mom and her family ended up in Shanghai for eight years before coming to America. Look up Shanghai Jews and there’s a story to be told that many don’t know about.
As my mother is a Jew technically that makes me a Jew. My Grandmother, my mother, and my aunt all came to Christ as Messiah. All four of my mother’s children are believers and I know my aunt isn’t alone on that side of the family.
What we all came to believe is that Jesus is the Messiah spoken of throughout the OT. He stated He was the I Am we read of in Exodus 3:14. He fulfilled scores of specific OT prophecies of the coming one.
All of us are born with a sin nature and in need of salvation. If a Jew hears and understands the Gospel there is nothing preventing them from receiving Jesus as their Messiah.
The God of the Jews is the same God that is triune.
The Jews never recognized it, but before Christ they were God’s Chosen, despite their unawareness of Trinity.
Most dispensationalists today understand that there is no such thing as a Plan A and Plan B. The days of strong influence by Darby, Scofield and others within the realm of dispensational is long gone. And incidently, Scofield did not believe in two plans. You should read broader than relying on your faded, jaded memories of sitting in the pews of dispensational teaching churches.
Same moniker posted from same IP address with two names, the name Derek mentions above. Cold fact.
Re: Mormonism, my position is “dunno”…not yes or no. I think that like many in Christianity, there is nuance and if the “correct Jesus” is the key to Salvation, then Chuck Smith is in trouble with his weird view of Anthropology and Jesus being a spirit-being vs. flesh.
I think Benny Hinn’s version of the trinity is quite whacky, and I think if you examine the Christology and Doctrine of the Trinity of many of the 9,000 to 30,000 denoms in “Christianity” you will find a ton of different “correct Jesus’s”…
…and then you’ve got the RCC etc who many in the Evangelical Tent would say are outside the Camp b/c of their view of Mary and her Immaculate Conception and then Jesus being born from a sinless human mother and spirit vs. a sinful human mother and spirit. It’s an interesting disagreement, but would make Jesus not the “correct Jesus” for many Evangelicals once they understood the thesis.
JJ said, “The God of the Jews is the same God that is triune.
The Jews never recognized it, but before Christ they were God’s Chosen, despite their unawareness of Trinity.”
Unawareness is the same as “not a correct understanding”…
I am assuming the Jews had the “correct” God by your statement above, no?
“Same moniker posted from same IP address with two names, the name Derek mentions above.”
Who are you talking about? JJ?
Sorry, I don’t understand the context on that one.
Another example: A person living in ancient America, a Native American…who never heard the Gospel and the “correct Jesus”…could they be saved? If folks never heard the Gospel message and never heard the “correct Jesus”…then aren’t they born, lived and died with no real choice in the matter? Wouldn’t they have been born with no chance of heaven? No real choice for salvation?
If the answer is (and I’ve heard this answer to this question many times) that “Jesus appears to them in a dream” or “God revealed Himself to them in their hearts” etc etc…it is still not a “correct understanding” of the “correct Jesus”.
If God can save some folks w/o them having a “correct understanding” of the “correct Jesus”…if God can save some folks who have a whacky view of Christology, Anthropology etc….if God can save some folks in the deep jungles who never hear the Gospel message…if God can save some folks who mentally unable to understand much of anything (like the mentally retarded or severely mentally ill)…then couldn’t God save some other folks who believe in Him and in Jesus, but have an incorrect understanding or they are “unaware” of some aspects of Jesus?
A “no” answer is to assert a hyper-calvinist position that some are born with no chance for salvation, some are born hell-fodder….or a position that assumes that all are saved, whether they hear the Gospel or not…or a position that those who don’t hear a “correct Gospel” and a “correct Jesus” get some sort of exemption from responsibility and hell.
“…see the implication here?”
If you are trying to tie this in to mormons being Christians, it’s not something that can be discussed with you.
You think not taking a position is taking a position, and it is absolutely impossible to dialogue with someone that insists that ignorance is knowledge.
“it is still not a “correct understanding” of the “correct Jesus”.”
If the dream contained instruction on theological prerequisites, then it is possible to get such a correct understanding from a dream.
That answer sounds so kooky it leads me to believe that the question it is seeking to answer is still kookier.
If YOU are a Native American, if YOU are currently living in a jungle, then I can see how this concern is fruitful.
But if YOU live in America and have heard the Gospel message preached, I’m afraid you are wasting time speculating about something that we’ll have to wait for heaven to discover the answer to.
Actually, it is a position by definition. It is the negative to the affirmative “I know”
“I don’t know” is as legit a position as “I know the answer is yes” or “I know the answer is no”.
Laurence A. Moran, Professor in Department of Biochemistry, University of Toronto: “I teach a course on critical thinking about scientific issues such as evolution/creationism. Most (all?) of the “scientific” debates that enter the public realm can be divided into two groups: those where one side is right and the other side is wrong, and those where the issue is controversial. From a personal perspective, that means you can have three responses when asked if you agree with a scientific argument: “yes,” “no,” and “I don’t know.””
“I don’t know” is a Position. I can post a zillion more examples to prove such.
From All About Philosophy: “Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all “I don’t know” theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics “sitting on the fence,” and skeptics capitulating to ignorance”
Again, “I don’t know” is a “position”
Dave Yount, Ph.D. Philosophy: “Part of philosophy is critical thinking, which is the ability to question your (or anyone else’s) assumptions, discover and hopefully articulate good reasons for your position, no matter what your position is. Everyone has a position on every issue, even if it is, “I don’t know.”
“it is absolutely impossible to dialogue with someone that insists that” I don’t know is “not” a position, when the world of the Philosophical Logic and Science Community agree that it is a position.
You are in the vast minority that “I don’t know” is not a “position”….
JJ, do you see your error? Do you agree that you are wrong and that “I don’t know” is a position? If so, we can move forward in a discussion…if not, there’s no sense in dialoguing with you if you don’t agree to Universally accepted definitions of terms.
Ixtlan
“Most dispensationalists today understand that there is no such thing as a Plan A and Plan B.”
No, it’s that most dispensationalists don’t want to admit that that is the road their thought has taken.
Look, if God is not dealing with the Jews today like he deals with all the rest of mankind and he plans to deal with the Jews later – specifically after the “so called” rapture that places all Christians in heaven – then my friend, you have 2 plans.
So since A & B are sensitive terms to you, let’s just call them Plan 1 & Plan 2
This notion that the “hardening” of Jews is to be taken on any big scale is ridiculous.
There are more “believing Jews” just in America than there are Jews in Israel. The Jews are being dealt with by God today. Jesus tells us that as soon as he returns, judgement of all people occurs and people go directly to heaven or hell.
Do your Jewish friends a favor and do not teach the dispensational view of the 2nd chance for Jews.
Here is how it get’s taught – and I know because my Jewish relatives tell the the evangelism stories thrown at them.
“God loves his Jewish people and after he raptures the Christians, he is coming back to work with the Jews.”
And now we are going to help the Jews build a new temple so they can go back to plan A – the slaughter of animals to sacrifice to THEIR god.
Progressive Dispensationalism may be the position of places like Biola and other educational institutions, but if your church is pastored by someone who was taught by someone who went to Bible College in the 1950’s then you may think that your position is state of the art in Dispensationalism. These places tend to be unchallenged in their positions because the practice models of church government which discourage the asking of questions.
Bad ideas take a lot longer to die than most of us realize. Quoting a recent scholar shows that the locus of teaching may have moved from where it was long ago, but that doesn’t mean that people in the pulpit are reading the recent scholar.
Not only is it unlikely that the local “old school” Dispensational pastor is reading a Progressive Dispensationalist but if he’s in some groups he may be disincentivized from changing his view – in concrete terms of being booted out if he changes his view and that’s not a hill that many would die on – particular when it’s “in the Distinctives”.
day late – but please don’t talk about what you *think* dispensationalism is all about without hearing out what is being taught today
a quick listen to this teacher (start at minute 7 to cut to the chase, if you must) makes it pretty clear that a lot of what is said about what is being taught isn’t true …
i think it is important to realize that this isn’t, in my understanding, a doctrine so much as it is a questioning – honest questioning and comparing of the scriptures in the context of the unfolding of history … is it an absolute truth? does it need to be? is it a disciplined and academic approach to the truth of scripture? in my ever ongoing not-so humble view, the answer is yes … dunno, tho – do i?
“I know, I know. We are Your chosen people. But, once in a while, can’t You choose someone else?” – Tevya in “Fiddler on the Roof”.
I listened to the MacArthur quotes provided above – “God has preserved them to save them as a nation” sounds pretty Dispensational to me.
When do they “look on Him as the one whom they have pierced”? To save them or to judge them? Revel. ch 1 v 7 answers the question – “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.”
The “New Covenant with the house of Israel” – Who is Israel in this context? MacArthur says “that’s the conversion of the [Jewish] nation”. Jesus said, “this is my blood” : the token of the Covenant. MacArthur mixed this up as he goes along. Still seeing a national promise and that the same time the church coming into that new covenant. Yet still believing in a special time yet to come for Israel. One again presupposing what he attempts to prove, but failing.
I don’t buy his argument. It’s still classic Dispensationalism. Feels like one big shell game to me.
Dispensationalism isn’t a “questioning”, it’s a purported lens through which Scripture gets viewed. And, as with any other lens, it’s a distortion.
mrtundra, the topic has nothing to do with our life in Christ, so i have no problem with someone who is a child of God not buying it … but, i am not stupid and it’s an interpretation that i find very logical and acceptable
That said, it is a mistake to focus on our end times kooks as defining the theory … still … God does use our foolishness to confound the wise 😀
The topic does affect how we evangelize Jewish person to Christ. As noted previously, if our method of evangelism involves a message intended to “tell someone what to do after the rapture”, we are missing the mark and keeping Jewish people from Christ.
If our view of the end times is that we are the “terminal generation” then are we building old folks homes and hospitals? In fact, Dispensationalists have always been weak in that area since they don’t think they’ll be around anyway.
And, if I was going to quote a source on Progressive Dispensationalism it would be from a scholar, not a Bible teacher. For me, I’d be quoting something like:
“The topic does affect how we evangelize Jewish person to Christ.” in some cases, you may be right, Mr.tundraman – but it is a distortion of the theory and is no different than any other distortion
“The topic does affect how we evangelize Jewish person to Christ.” …? … NO, NO a thousand times: NO (can’t do exponentials from my keyboard 🙂 )
dispensationalism has been grabbed, exploited and distorted by sensationalists – perhaps, those who, at some point were sucked into the excitement are better off backing away – better protesting until they’ve purged their souls of what they thought that they understood and now realize is wrong
just sayin – cuz i can – apologies, if not well stated as i’ve got a big to-do list that i’m sitting here – enjoying Christ – avoiding … the Martha in me calls
There is much I find disturbing in your recent posts, Alex.
Here are some examples to make my point.
Since you’ve taken a fancy to macroeconomics, we’ll go there first.
If you are going to trade GBP/USD, you must have an opinion about whether the chart will go up or down.
You take the position (spend your money) based upon your opinion about the likely direction of the chart.
If you have no opinion about the future direction of the chart, there is nothing determining your decision; it is a coin flip.
Regarding atheism, the atheist has POSITIVE REASONS for believing that God does not exist.
The theist has positive reasons for believing that God does exist.
The agnostic (recall that ‘a’ before ‘gnosis’ means “no knowledge) finds reasons for disbelieving the atheist and reasons for disbelieving the theist.
This is not an open question for eternity, and at some point (maybe even in death) the agnostic will be presented with evidence that will force them to come to a conclusion about God’s existence or non-existence. In precisely this way, agnosticism is not a ‘position’ in the same way that either theism or atheism are bona fide ‘positions.
From law, since you’ve taken a fancy to the legal field as well.
The only position adopted in a courtroom is the position taken by the prosecutor.
The defense attorney is in this sense agnostic; they have no opinion regarding their client’s guilt or innocence. Their position is that the DA is mistaken, and they are only required to do such.
At some point in the future (if you are a theist), the defense attorney could ask God about the client’s guilt/innocence.
Thus agnosticism in a courtroom is not the same kind of thing as taking a positive stance regarding a claim. Only the DA does that.
It is not incorrect in English to say that
THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAS NO POSITION REGARDING THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF HIS CLIENT.
And so that I am absolutely clear, let’s go to the pawn shop.
You have a lawnmower on your shelf for sale.
You put a price tag on it.
If your account of position were correct, it would be possible for you to HAVE NO OPINION ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE LAWNMOWER TO THE CONTINUED PROFITABILITY OF YOUR BUSINESS, and yet you still engage in the trade?
No.
You must, as a pawnshop owner, take a position regarding the value of the lawnmower if you are to conduct business/communicate with your customers at all.
“Actually, it is a position by definition. It is the negative to the affirmative “I know”
Here is the problem as I see it.
You don’t just “know.” You know THAT.
And that is the source of your error.
“I don’t know that” is the opposite of “I know that.”
“I don’t know that not” is the opposite of “I know that not.”
The only “positions are “I know that” or “I know that not.”
You are trying to sell Derrida-like deconstruction, and that’s why my blood pressure is rising.
I’d also like to add that your “Big 5” precludes mormonism, for their understanding of Jesus as Messiah is in direct contradiction with YOUR understanding of what it means to say that Jesus is Messiah.
It seems then that according to your Big 5 a ‘correct understanding’ of Jesus is a requirement of salvation.
It’s either that, or admit that your big 5 aren’t as necessary as you would like.
Jr., you seem to know an awful lot about Alex and what he says, believes, does, etc. Are you a stalker? At the very least, you have too much time on your hands.
I find the #8 comment to be too near the anti-semanticist ways which have led to suffering and pain over the centuries.
Additionally this statement, “each of them believes they have the repository of truth. One thing they are all doing is drawing gullible believers… ” can also be applied to the post’s author’s church. His arrogance and heart is revealed.
Romans 11:18-21
” …do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.”
No matter how you twist it, If after “the so called rapture” if God is dealing with the Jews in a special way – and not including the left behind Peruvians in the exact same way, then that is a different plan. Dispensationalism has 2 separate plans for the Jews and the Gentiles… even if it is not kosher to own up to it.
I don’t care who you listen to, whether it be Chuck Smith in his 5000 series, John MacArthur in his 1978 series in Revelation, or Jon Courson’s 2002 Revelation series that contained 86 CD’s, they all claim the same thing I am saying – they teach God’s separate plan, to come later for the Jews.
I don’t want to hear “that’s not real dispensationalism as taught by the DTS scholars” – because Hal Lindsey and Tommy Ice were both DTS students.
1. Yes, JJ is a stalker, I have a stalker, I don’t know what that means, but it is what it is.
2. JJ, you dodged the “I don’t know is a position” truth which I showed as Universally accepted in several examples, I could post many more. You are intellectually dishonest by dodging that issue. Do you see your error? Is “I don’t know” a “position”? Or, do you still insist it isn’t a position, despite the ample examples that is is?
Your inability to acknowledge when you are wrong and your inability to be intellectually honest and concede a point of fact is why there can be no meaningful discussion with you. Stalk away, but don’t claim I don’t want to have meaningful discussion, it’s not that I won’t with you, it’s that I can’t due to your inability to agree to Universally accepted definitions of terms like a “position” etc.
I’m going to ignore you now so as not to drag down the community into an endless senseless argument with someone who doesn’t participate in a mutually intellectually honest manner. Unfortunately, I’ve tried with you many times and again and again you move goal posts and display a propensity for poor understanding (either intentional or unintentional). It will only produce frustration for the Group and I’m not going down that path again.
Frozen dirt dude is correct, Ontology is different than Epistemology. I think some may not understand that for some reason.
Great day here in the BOI! Sunny, crisp, fun day with the kiddos! Just taking a brief break in between some awesome family time.
“JJ is a stalker,”
“JJ, you dodged”
“You are intellectually dishonest”
“Your inability to acknowledge when you are wrong ”
“your inability to be intellectually honest ”
“I can’t due to your inability to agree ”
“I’m going to ignore you now ”
” I’ve tried with you many times and ”
” you…display a propensity for poor understanding “
“Ontology and epistemology are two different things.”
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. They aren’t as different as you may think, and belittling my ontology (with insults) instead of my epistemology betrays ignorance.
“Jr., you seem to know an awful lot about Alex and what he says, believes, does, etc. Are you a stalker? At the very least, you have too much time on your hands.”
Not. I just happen to value truth.
#130 “The frozen one makes some good points IMO…” while the man of the tundra may well be frozen, speaking scientifically, tundra and permafrost are not interchangeable terms 😆
“I think the oddest thing about the advanced people is that, while they are always talking about things as problems, they have hardly any notion of what a real problem is.”
― G.K. Chesterton
Pastor John, i must disagree with Chesterton – the **oddest** thing is that they **want** to talk about problems – it isn’t intellectually honest – mature even – to be unquestioning and joyful? guess not 😐
Alex, just wait till you see John in Eternity – and Debbie – i can’t wait to see the things that the Lord has prepared for the Saints that have taken the blows for Christ – wonder what those who’ve been beheaded for the Faith will look like in their glorified bodies … is that silly to think about?
FTC, I hope you’re right, that’s my hope and faith. I feel badly for those like the Duncan’s who suffer so much physically while here in this existence. This existence holds little joy and good for them at this stage in their journeys.
For most of us, this existence is a mix of good and bad, but so much good, so much to enjoy and so much to be thankful for.
Rereading the thread, I noticed that my last fifteen posts to Alex were in response to a discussion regarding mormonism and Christianity.
Why does that topic keep getting reintroduced by you-no who ?
If the PhxP cannot universally declare that mormons are outside of the faith and that mormon doctrine in no way approximates Christian doctrine, then the community should not label itself as Christian.
The points I raised about “taking a position” were in response to this point.
And since it’s central to the faith, forgive me for striving for clarity.
Who keeps bringing up the ‘mormons-as-Christians’ narrative again?
Oh that’s right. It’s that guy in Idaho that keeps bringing it up.
Jim Jr,
Here’s the thing, this is Michael’s blog, not yours, mine or any one or group of voices, so just because you engage a person or persons in a discussion doesn’t therefore conclude that the blog must or must not declare itself “Christian”, that definition and domain are solely reserved to Michael. A discussion is no more or less “Christian” than a section at Peet’s Coffee because a group of diverse theists might be occupying the space, it’s all about the declaration of the owner.
I am quite thankful that Michael allows a wide diversity of thought and outlook here, as are the greatest majority of participants.
Hey Alex, definitely praying that you and Tim prevail and that a new chapter of reconciliation might begin within your family, as impossible to imagine as that might be.
Jesus Christ is the God of the impossible, empowering the powerless.
i sense that, if B.Grenier is God’s man and guilty, he will be broken, humbled and contrite – reconciled – if he is not, then joining in prayer that God have mercy on that family
sometimes all the satisfaction we get is in the knowing we tried – an old saw, but true
there is a peace that passes understanding, eh? Philippians 4:6-8
It’s all yours today.
Does that mean I can run the blog today? I will shape this zoo up! Moderation powers, editorial powers, and nucular yes nucUlar powers!
Babs, go for it!
My computer is blowing up these last couple of days with my crazy pre mil dispensational friends who can’t wait to set up a new sacrificial system.
I have seen this from at least a dozen dispey friends – funny, not a single Jewish friend has sent this to me.
Christians anxiously anticipating the rebuilding of the Jewish temple….we’re going to need something a lot stronger and more than a question mark for this job.
I grew up dispy, and I’m very glad I got out.
Should we be thankful for a mosque on the temple mount?
speaking of … is it necessary to rebuild the temple to reinstitute the yearly sacrifice? couldn’t they just construct one of those beautiful tabernacles? (IMO this is a sad and sorrowful lack for the stubborn, faithful orthodox jew – wake up Hebrews, the final sacrifice for sin was the lamb that God, Himself provided: Immanuel)
another thing – yes, the sacrifice of living creatures isn’t very “civilized,” but why does a felt need for such a thing (to reconcile to god(s)) permeate the human race to the extent that it does?
the more civilized we get, the less we feel a need to reconcile to God and the more civilized we get, the more feelings of superiority we feel when we reconcile to our fellow man … we are very complicated machines, but we cannot generate our own software, i don’t think … artificial intelligence? sounds right to me 😎
scott…. uh… no………..
Read your Hebrew prophets.
and I’m not a dispensationalist, at least not in the classical sense. I’ll let you ponder it from here.
Whether this is really something significant or not is yet to be seen. I’ll stay tuned and not listen to extremism on either side……
off to Shabbat service.
Messianic ‘cults’ abound in Albuquerque, none of them agree, each of them believes they have the repository of truth. One thing they are all doing is drawing gullible believers who will no longer call themselves Christians into greater and greater observance of Torah. Once a believer embraces the need to obey for example Shabbat then it is GAME ON, the law is never satisfied and they creep into more and more observance.
The driving force of so much of the whole thing is people in search of identity. People need to be unique, special, ‘chosen.’ The reformed guys, of course already provide that vehicle in their conviction that God chose them arbitrarily over against those he eschewed. In my crazy charismatic circles the quest for identity is never ending with all kinds of ramifications. In these Messianic, yes I call them ‘cults’ they get the ultimate prize of joining the nation who they believe are God’s own favorite people over against all other nations. This is a powerful phenomenon.
Nowadays they further press to see who has real Jewish blood and then they search for ‘markers’ in the genetic code that allow them to claim to be of the tribe of Judah, or the runner up prize of Levi. The rest are still ‘in’ but they get relegated to back rows in the most prestigious celebrations. It is all very self-congratulating.
If they ever get that temple going just remember there is no bloodier religion in history than Judaism. Expect all kinds of strangeness to ensue.
I still believe God cursed the whole system in AD 70 offering a new and better way. But we do love our tangible here and now, place centered concrete religions. I am so glad that our faith has no holy days, no holy places, no holy sacrifices, no religion. Life in the Holy Spirit as the body of Christ enjoying the kingdom of God is just fine.
Once a believer embraces the need to obey for example Shabbat then it is GAME ON
—————————————
That’s one reason why I find it both laughable and tragic that for centuries the Church has changed the Sabbath to Sunday and then proceeded to command a new set of ‘thou shall not do on the Sabbath’ obligations upon the Body of Christ.
there is no bloodier religion in history than Judaism
——————————————
I think Christianity gives it a run for the money. True, no more animal sacrifices but our entire faith is dependent on blood (which obviously Judaism is not, as seen in the last 1943 years.
We have SONGS that focus on nothing but the blood. Power in the blood. How odd to someone on the outside to be asked ‘Are you washed in the blood?” Blood makes you whiter than snow?
And of note, everytime I have access for some reason to a pseudo-Christian group, I take time to flip through the hymnals to see if ANY of the songs of the faith that mention the blood are included.
They never are.
God has not inhabited the Temple since before the Babylonian captivity. He brought the exiles back to Jerusalem and let them play their religious games in the Temple – but he was not there.
The significance of Jesus being brought to the Temple for his naming and circumcision was the return of God to the Temple.
The whole idea of a new Temple and sacrifices should be repugnant to all Christians
I think the moving of the worship day to Sunday completed the logical and necessary move away from Torah. If Christians were still worshiping on Shabbat then it would have been ‘game on’ much earlier and Shabbat would have been the leverage to other things much earlier.
Christ is my sabbath, the book of Hebrews along with Galatians releases us fully from the yoke that our predecessors could not bear.
As for the tragic new set of ‘laws’ well that goes on and on. Churches regard their buildings as the house of God while they desecrate people, the lust for law never ends it is at least as pervasive as the lust of the flesh. People love to replace a clean heart for a clean record on a few “Thou shalt nots…” we never quit fighting the law-mongering hordes.
MLD is spot on at 11
and Steve is shifting the focus on 10 I was just musing at the spectacle of a Temple with all those bloody sacrifices. Christians rejoicing in the blood of Christ is hardly comparable.
Dread, to be clear, I have not the slightest objection to worship on Sunday, and I think it makes total sense that from the very beginning in Acts we see that take place – in connection to our Lord’s resurrection.
What I object to is naming this day ‘the Sabbath’ – we don’t see that transition anywhere in the New Testament, and frankly, I think a large motivation for doing so is so Christians can continue to preach on the 10 Commandments (rather than preaching on the New Testament).
I am in agreement with you about the lust for law – and the significance of Galatians especially for the Church’s study.
Sunday is really a feast day. Feast days involve church services, a big meal, and a nap.
That’s what I do.
Steve … YES! And thanks… doing a happy dance.
I sing, rejoice, pray, and preach about the blood constantly.
Which makes me a very weird person in the eyes of the world – which was my ‘focus’ for the above comment
There is no Christianity without it. (Now, how many professing Christians at least in this country would argue with that. Many)
What Xenia said is about what we are up to as well.
It may be that in the last days, the Jews will build a temple. This would be nothing more than a sign of the times, not a step in the right direction for the Jews. It is a herald of the end of the age. We can “encourage” it if we are wanting the Lord to hurry up and come back but if we do encourage it, we are participating in a false religious practice that will harm, not help, the Jews.
Dread is hitting home runs.
And yes, I find it significant that Mormons have “communion” using water. And that JWs, Unity School, and Christian Science don’t have communion at all.
Morning all…or actually afternoon here! I’ve spent too long sitting at a local coffee shop reading and writing and just vegging. So need to get moving…so nice to sit and do not much!! Hope all have a good Saturday!
Blessings Sarah,
My day is just beginning but it should be exciting. Blessing to all as well.
Dread said, “Messianic ‘cults’ abound in Albuquerque, none of them agree, each of them believes they have the repository of truth. One thing they are all doing is drawing gullible believers who will no longer call themselves Christians into greater and greater observance of Torah. Once a believer embraces the need to obey for example Shabbat then it is GAME ON, the law is never satisfied and they creep into more and more observance.”
I think Paul the Apostle summed this one up in a very colorful manner 🙂
“I wish those who unsettle you would cut their balls off!”–Paul the Apostle.
Dread, you’re a good discussion leader 🙂
Steve, you have created a Strawman re: the Mormons. This is what they teach re: the Atonement:
“Through His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and by giving His life on the cross—that is, by performing the Atonement —Jesus Christ saves us from our sinsas we follow Him. Because of the Atonement, you can be forgiven of your sins when you sincerely repent”
Now there is nuance, as there is with 9,000 to 30,000 denoms in protestantism, but you seem to imply that Mormons reject the Atonement through the blood of Christ…and they teach otherwise in their official communications.
Benny is retying the knot with his wife. Probably a sign of the times, (wink) but I am happy for them.
http://www.bennyhinn.org/articles/9190#.UTJFm7uBfho.facebook
A Mormon member responds to what they say they believe (not what you say Steve):
“We believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, it’s through his sacrifice and atonement that we can return and live with Heavenly Father where we are all his children.” –Nicki
Now, I’m not saying I know for sure whether Mormons are saved or not, blah, blah, blah, but I do try to be intellectually honest and not make statements about them that seem to be contrary to what they publicly state and is readily available to view in their own words.
Benny’s doing the right thing, good for him. I still think his miracles are fake and that he is this guy:
“In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.”
But, repenting and honoring ones marriage covenant will always get a big AMEN from me…no matter who it is.
The question one needs to ask the Mormon – Is Jesus Christ God Almighty? Is He Yahweh of the OT?
Look that up and see what answer you get.
MLD, is a “correct understanding” of the “correct Jesus” the key to Salvation?
Yes is the Jesus who said “I am the Good Shepherd” the same shepherd that Ezekiel foreswore as saying “I myself will shepherd my people” … I would not mind hearing the Mormon take on it. Probably some confused Mormons are lovers of the real Jesus but Mormonism is a false religion and a damnable heresy.
I’ve gone down this Philosophical Logic trail many times…it always uncovers some pretty startling assumptions that folks take for granted…but I dare not unfold that discussion here…it is a long path that requires a series of questions and responses and leads to most folks getting frustrated and tuning out and that’s not the goal.
I’ll just say that I dunno…if what MLD seems to be articulating…that one must have a “correct understanding” of the “correct Jesus of the OT” (which is quite subjective and there is much disagreement as to every last thing regarding Christology among the many denoms and mainlines) then the Path is extremely narrow and if you are wrong on your “understanding” of one part…you’re Hell fodder.
The crux of this argument (as I’ve been down the trail many times) leads to a very interesting Philosophically Logical trichotomy: Hyper-Calvinism or a more Universalist (Universal Reconciliation) type thing going on where sincerity of belief, Conscience and trying to be good is the key to Salvation….or that “one” particular Group has the “correct understanding” and the “correct Jesus” and all the others are wrong and toast.
I guess I can’t even make the simple observation, in context of the importance of the blood of Jesus, that Mormons use water for communion – without Alex wanting to argue with me.
Have a nice day PP community.
Steve, I’m sorry you perceived it as wanting to argue with you. I will try to refrain from disagreeing with you on the forum if it bothers you that much. No offense intended on my part, I just disagreed with what you seemed to imply.
I’ll bow out as well so as not to dominate the discussion. It’s a beautiful day here in Boise….60 degrees and sunny, softball try-outs with my baby girl, Turkey Federation dinner tonight, life is GOOD! Peace to the PP Folks, Dread you’re a great moderator/discussion leader, thanks!
Alex, not necessarily the correct understanding, because it does get confusing. However, what you end up by denying is very critical.
The Mormon Church does deny that Jesus Christ is almighty God – now whether all individual Mormons reject that is a different story as many Mormons are converts from good Christian training.
Mormon theology seems to me to be asymptotic to evangelical positions.
Asymptotic is one of my favorite theological terms.
Wow. So according to Alex mormons are Christians?
“I’ll just say that I dunno”
Which is worse than saying nothing at all. Such a waste of words…
@ 11:51
passive-aggressive much?
Turkey
Are Turkeys Mormon or Christian?
Jim Jr.,
Some Mormons are Christian. They were Christians before joining the Mormon church and still hold the correct christian views, just got side track into a non christian religion.
“In Mormonism, Jesus is a creation, the product of relations between god and his goddess wife who used to be people from another world (McConkie, Bruce, Mormon Doctrine, p. 192, 321, 516, 589). Jesus is the literal spirit brother of the devil and of you and I (McConkie, p. 192, 589). Also, in Mormon theology, God has a body of flesh and bones (Doctrine & Covenants 130:22) as does his wife and together they produce spirit offspring in heaven who inhabit human bodies on earth.”
You might as well say that some satanists are Christians. Words mean things.
I think if you are a Mormon who adheres to LDS teaching, then no you are not saved. There I said it. I know some want to, but I will move out and draw fire.
“Turkey”
If that’s an opinion, I’m not sure what it is. It certainly isn’t a sentence.
Thank you, Derek. Just know that Alex doesn’t agree with you. But there are a lot of mormons where he lives. I think their sales pitches have warped his brain. There I said it. I know some want to, but I will move out and draw fire.
Hey, Jim Who your wattle is showing. 🙂
Alex can have his own opinion. That is cool with me. I just think Alex has warped your brain a bit. You are sort of like a stalker to him. Do you actually realize how weird that is?
The Mormon church, in an act of theological asymptosis, has backed off from the 1958 McConkie book. So it may not be an up-to-date statement of the constantly asymptoting theological position of the Mormon church.
Wow! Can you be any more wrong and any more disrespectful? it’s truly not worth responding more than this.
“Turkey” is just part of one of our latest PP features: Play-by-play bowling narrative. Three in a row is a turkey. In bowling, that is when the score starts moving up.
Four is a hambone. None yet today.
Not sure this feature will catch on so enjoy it while it lasts. 🙂
I was hoping this topic would be discussed. I really appreciate what Xenia said:
“It may be that in the last days, the Jews will build a temple. This would be nothing more than a sign of the times, not a step in the right direction for the Jews. It is a herald of the end of the age. We can “encourage” it if we are wanting the Lord to hurry up and come back but if we do encourage it, we are participating in a false religious practice that will harm, not help, the Jews.”
As a young Christian, I remember hearing many Bible teachers talking very happily, joyfully and excitedly about the temple being re-built and how there is a group in Jerusalem making preparations. Like it was something very positive.
Weren’t there Christians in So. Cal. giving money to this group? Anyone know???
Have no idea what you are talking about, Derek. Perhaps you are drinking too much of his kool-aid.
Uh, yeah, Nonnie. You may have heard of them…..CCCM.
He thinks everyone that disagrees with him on the internet is me. That’s a little too self-absorbed for my taste, but to each their mormon own, right?
I don’t remember the name of the group being given money. I do remember the information about them being excitedly shared so one could support them as “the Lord leads you”.
I’m going to ask my Jewish friends of wwe.occsp.org
what they think of all the talk of rebuilding a temple.
I will be surprised if any have the fascination that Dispensational Christians do.
“So it may not be an up-to-date statement of the constantly asymptoting theological position of the Mormon church.”
So when do Christians get to start backing off of the Bible? I see mormons as infiltrators that are bent on polluting the church from the ground up.
But maybe I’m just a conspiracy theorist.
I just don’t remember in my childhood so many Christians trying to argue other Christians in to regarding mormonism as an offshoot of Christendom.
Anne, you broke up my turkey.
Nonnie,
I don’t know if Chuck Smith was a leader of the group but I do know that throughout the 80s he spoke quite often of his support to buy the proper utensils etc and the breeding of the red heifer.
In 1991, Don Stewart and Chuck Missler wrote the definitive book on the topic titled “The Coming Temple” published by Dart – which I think was Don Stewart’s private label at the time.
Nonnie – as my memory is sometimes flaky, I started searching for info to confirm what I remembered. Here’s what I have found so far. Actually trying to find primary sources, “out of the horse’s mouth”.
http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com/2011/01/those-who-want-temple-rebuilt.html
Grendal – interesting you would ask that. In my searches, ran across some articles re: Jews who don’t want it re-built because it plays into maintaining and excellerating conflict in the area rather than being conducive to peace building. I’ll see if I can come across it again and link it for you. Or you may find it faster than this ole lady googling it as well.
Jim J,
So that I am clear, I do not consider Mormons who follow the teachings of the Mormon church to be Christian by any stretch of the imagination. I just said that there are some Christians in the Mormon Church.
I do not call Mormons a cult, because they are not some “offshoot” of Christianity. the are a false religion just as is Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc.
As I finished reading the link I posted above, I realized it has confirming links, the names of the groups CCCM was sending money to, etc.
Thanks for the information, Anne.
As things are going, Mormonism will soon be doctrinally indistinguishable from evangelicalism.
How to handle that is problematic.
Should we just absorb them gradually?
Nonnie, please forgive the sarcastic tone of my #56. It was not directed at you, but rather the overflow of angst I experience remembering the source and results of the rhetoric.
Ixtlan, thanks for the heads up on Deer Tick, I really enjoy listening to them. My son likes them as well.
Anne, no offence taken at all!
you’re welcome covered!
“Should we just absorb them gradually?”
To my mind, they are the worst enemy of the American Church. They don’t tell you what they really believe…ask any mormon that has left, and they will tell you of all kinds of nutty beliefs that mormons would never admit in public.
At least Christians have nutty beliefs backed up by a 2,000 year-old text.
You know there’s that saying that “it’s like riding a bicycle once you know, you never forget.
I just bought a two wheel bike and I want to set the record straight … You can forget.
Having a discussion about Mormonism being Christian makes as much sense as satanists being saved. Has the Mormon church thrown out the Book of Mormon, Doctrines & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price? These books contradict themselves and the Bible.
Mormons are famous for using Christianese when they talk and that can trip up the unprepared. I have spoken with many Mormons through the years and when I have pinned them down as to the Trinity and Jesus being God the Son as opposed to the son of God their true colors show.
I agree there very well may be saved people in the Mormon church but it has zero to do with what the Mormons teach.
The worst thing we could do is act in any way that leads a Mormon to believe they are saved with the beliefs they hold. Sadly in the days we live everything is up for discussion when God has already stated His never changing truths.
Steve @34,
You and I come from opposing views on the Moses Model and few other important issues, though we are brothers in Christ, which puts us naturally at odds with one another in pertinent conversations. This should be fine since this is a forum for differing perspectives. But because we agree on the Gospel, we are both bound to civility & to love one another. I’ve endeavored to disagree with you respectfully and am committed to continue doing so.
Having said that, I want to point out one thing that -due to it’s repetitive nature- has caught my attention. This is NOT an attack on your person, but a suggestion that you consider whether or not this may be true, and if you might want to consider changing your tactic. I’m referring to how you tell us you are going to bow out of a conversation. It seems to regularly involve your telling us how you said something that was simple and good, yet someone else disagreed with you, so you must now stop talking … as if dissent is perceived as being mean to you. It … well … for lack of a more gentle term … seems manipulative.
This conveys a call to others to come and back you, build you back up, ask you to stay, remind you that you are loved, etc… Do you really need this? Or can you take dissent to your ideas (I’m not talking about personal attacks, which is another matter,) without the manipulative ploy? Many of us do so regularly.
erunner…you are right on target. I also agree with MLD, they aren’t a cult because they are so different from christianity that they pretty much classify like Islam or Buddhism.
BTW, this is a good book on how to helpfully reach Mormons.
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Mormons-Christ-Latter-day-ebook/dp/B00B8584AY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1362272456&sr=8-2&keywords=i+love+mormons
Chile, I’ll speak my piece concerning Steve. In #34 he bowed about specifically because of Alex. Alex has been terrible in the things he has said about Steve and revealing his identity when he was anonymous. There’s history there that should be taken into consideration and renders your last paragraph pretty unfair to say the least. I’m only addressing this instance. I will say that your last paragraph is an attack on his person in spite of what you stated.
Erunner, you can feel free to take out all the instances in which Steve has done this with Alex and consider only the others.
I notice something that often happens here. Whenever I make a list of false religions, I always include Judaism – but when other refer to false religions, they never include Judaism.
Will other here agree with me that Judaism is a false religion as much as Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism?
Chile, As I stated I was only addressing this instance. Hopefully you and Steve can work this out.
Man, MLD that is rough!
I’d say no to you primarily because the God we serve as Christians is the same God of the OT and the covenant with the Jews, which is still in effect, if my understanding is correct.
This is the reason why I believe that Judaism is not to be classed with those other belief systems you mentioned.
Judaism false? is that the same as replaced? fulfilled? a new dispensation?
? or is it :mr.green: ?
corner? feels more like coroner tonight … coming back from outer space and being subject to debriefing must be the worst part of the trip … for over 2 hours i explained this house to a lady who, i think, is actually dummer than me
since this is open blog, here’s a morality question…
if you were a believer whose son turned out to be the area firebug and you turned him in and you received a handsome reward that was out for his capture – which of course you didn’t want – should you give it to your church or to the elderly woman whose house was one of the targets (burned to the ground) and she’d lost everything because her skinflint husband didn’t believe in fire insurance … or … should you give it to your church which, incidentally your son had also burned down, but did have complete insurance coverage? and more importantly, perhaps, how should that pastor react? should he take the money and set up a counseling program for the church’s troubled souls or should he say to the dad, take that money and give it to that poor woman who lost everything?
yes, this was an event long ago and far away that i’ve often puzzled during times when i don’t want to think about important things that are my business
That’s because Judaism isn’t false in the same sense that other false religions are false. It was 100 percent correct until Messiah came. It is in a special category by itself, I would say. Still, it’s false in the sense that without the Messiah there is no salvation.
I was sitting here trying to figure out what to say to MLD’s #78, but Xenia said it far better.
Don’t they worship a false God like Islam does.
The true God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – that is not the God of the Jews.
I don’t think anyone will be saved except through Jesus, be it Muslim, Jew, JW, Mormon, etc.
But, I think, with Romans 11 as my basis, that they have a partial hardening right now so that more gentiles might come to God. I think at some point this hardening will be gone and more of the Jewish people will come in, because the truth in the OT is there for them to see Jesus, but they have blinders on right now.
The question isn’t if the Jews are savable – everyone is savable, the muslim, the Dali Lama even me.
But the question is about the religion of Judaism. Is it not a false religion? Just think, if Judaism is not a false religion, then it must be a true religion and their path is just as good as Christianity.
As to Romans 11, everyone is blinded to the truth about God until the Holy Spirit releases them from that blindness. So, the Peruvian who rejects God is blinded in the same way the Jew is blinded.
But look, Jews do come to Christ – me and Marty Goetz – along with millions of others – those who don’t are just rank Christ rejectors… right?
“everyone is blinded to the truth about God” True. But, it seems to me that Romans 11, is not talking about everybody is it? It seems that quite a bit of Romans addresses questions about the Jews. I don’t pretend to understand it all. I just feel uncomfortable calling the religion false.
This is how I personally view it, it might be right or wrong, but it is how it all works itself out in my head. I guess it would be to me like saying that the OT was false, just because a Mormon has a bad understanding of it. It isn’t the religion, in the case of the Jews, that is false, it is the people that are hardened to their understanding of it.
And yes, all reject Christ that are not called to Him, but like you said, that is everyone. We as Christians are lucky to have the OT, but in NT times Jesus was shown to the Jewish people through the OT by the apostles. I think this is what will help the Jewish people in the future when God opens their eyes to the truth in the religion they have.
” I think this is what will help the Jewish people in the future when God opens their eyes to the truth in the religion they have.”
Why is it future? How did I slip through? I used to be a Jew and Christ found me, opened my eyes through the Holy Spirit.
This is why I tell dispensationalists that they have a God with 2 plans.
Plan A was his original plan with the Jews – but the Jews wouldn’t play by God’s rules so he put them in time out and turned to Plan B
Now with Plan B he would work with the gentile world through a new organization called the Church. Once he finishes Plan B, which ends with the rapture, he can then go back to his original plan – known as Plan A and do his real work with “his chosen people.”
Hmm… gonna use two examples here to make sure my statement isn’t used to support Mormonism.
Jewish People have a true religion. But their understanding is obscured. Everything they need to see the truth is in the OT and has nothing added to obscure truth.
Mormon’s have a false religion. Their understanding is also obscured. Everything they need to see the truth is in the OT and NT which they have. But, more books have been added to obscure truth and contradict it.
I am not talking dispensations at all. I am no theologian and only loosely understand that. Just a layperson here, but I can read Romans and it isn’t written in the same type of genre as Revelations and it seems pretty clear to me that at some point, God will call the Jews to Himself.
How?
Through Jesus, just like everyone else.
Do I know why He hardens the majority of them at this time?
No.
I know God has a plan and it is the same plan He had from the foundation of the world, Jesus Christ.
I don’t much go for all the end times nonsense that is peddled these days anymore. I have lived a while and see that those guys change their story anytime the world stage changes.
John Hagee preaches that – we do not need to evangelize the Jew because they have their own covenant with God.
Derek, do you tell a Jew to just read his OT,that it is all in there and that he does not need to hear about Jesus?
Derek, I am not necessarily addressing you – I am just talking out into blog land.
The “hardening” of the Jews seems so cruel on God’s part. All the Jews who have died outside of the faith since Jesus’ day never had a chance – God blinded them so they would have go to hell. But one day in the future, he will unharden them so those can go to heaven.
No to John Hagee
No to not telling them about Jesus. Jesus illuminates the OT. But if you are made blind by God then you still won’t see.
So, are you saying Abraham, David, Moses and a hos of other OT saints weren’t saved because Jesus wasn’t preached then in a NT sense?
Like I said I don’t understand it really. Why does God harden? Why does He have mercy? Those are God things that I don’t understand fully if at all.
I was not saying though that the un-hardening frees Jews that never accepted Christ to go to heaven. i know some say that, but I don’t.
Everything gets out of order, cause I type to slow and have to correct too much. 🙂
Oh and FTC, I would say the elderly woman, even with a skinflint husband.
“So, are you saying Abraham, David, Moses and a hos of other OT saints weren’t saved because Jesus wasn’t preached then in a NT sense?”
They were saved by faith and they were not hardened.
I don;t understand the hardening either – but I do feel that it is misunderstood in a wrong way. I don’t think that Jews are prevented from saving faith any more or in any different way than anyone else = I think if a Jew and a Peruvian both hear the gospel preached they both have an equal chance to be saved.
Also, I don’t think that it is any more important that a Jew be saved vs a Peruvian. I take great offense when some evangelical calls me a “completed Jew” – and I let them know.
“until the fulness of the gentiles has come in”. Partial, meaning not all Jews. Until, meaning it will be lifted at some point. That point being when the fullness of the gentiles has come in. See, to me that makes it some kind of act of God, that at some point in the future will be lifted that will lead to a massive amount of Jews being called to Him. I admit that it may be exactly the same hardness, no more or less, than gentiles have, but the time limit seems to imply good things for the future at some point.
When will this happen? I have no clue. I used to be into prophecy and such, but that stuff is tiresome. My hope is just in His return. Enough for me.
LOL. “completed Jew”. Just use the internet meme on them and tell them “This isn’t even my final form!”
My mother is Jewish. She was fortunate to barely escape Nazi Germany in 1940 with her parents and sister. Many extended family members stayed and perished in the camps. My mom and her family ended up in Shanghai for eight years before coming to America. Look up Shanghai Jews and there’s a story to be told that many don’t know about.
As my mother is a Jew technically that makes me a Jew. My Grandmother, my mother, and my aunt all came to Christ as Messiah. All four of my mother’s children are believers and I know my aunt isn’t alone on that side of the family.
What we all came to believe is that Jesus is the Messiah spoken of throughout the OT. He stated He was the I Am we read of in Exodus 3:14. He fulfilled scores of specific OT prophecies of the coming one.
All of us are born with a sin nature and in need of salvation. If a Jew hears and understands the Gospel there is nothing preventing them from receiving Jesus as their Messiah.
“Now with Plan B”
How about
Plan B Jews like anyone else must come to The Cross.
The God of the Jews is the same God that is triune.
The Jews never recognized it, but before Christ they were God’s Chosen, despite their unawareness of Trinity.
Beautiful story e.
Excellent explanation X.
I thought John Hagee backed off on that alternate salvation path for Jews teaching after being publicly and very graciously rebuked by Rick Joyner.
Most dispensationalists today understand that there is no such thing as a Plan A and Plan B. The days of strong influence by Darby, Scofield and others within the realm of dispensational is long gone. And incidently, Scofield did not believe in two plans. You should read broader than relying on your faded, jaded memories of sitting in the pews of dispensational teaching churches.
Same moniker posted from same IP address with two names, the name Derek mentions above. Cold fact.
Re: Mormonism, my position is “dunno”…not yes or no. I think that like many in Christianity, there is nuance and if the “correct Jesus” is the key to Salvation, then Chuck Smith is in trouble with his weird view of Anthropology and Jesus being a spirit-being vs. flesh.
I think Benny Hinn’s version of the trinity is quite whacky, and I think if you examine the Christology and Doctrine of the Trinity of many of the 9,000 to 30,000 denoms in “Christianity” you will find a ton of different “correct Jesus’s”…
…and then you’ve got the RCC etc who many in the Evangelical Tent would say are outside the Camp b/c of their view of Mary and her Immaculate Conception and then Jesus being born from a sinless human mother and spirit vs. a sinful human mother and spirit. It’s an interesting disagreement, but would make Jesus not the “correct Jesus” for many Evangelicals once they understood the thesis.
JJ said, “The God of the Jews is the same God that is triune.
The Jews never recognized it, but before Christ they were God’s Chosen, despite their unawareness of Trinity.”
Unawareness is the same as “not a correct understanding”…
I am assuming the Jews had the “correct” God by your statement above, no?
…yet they were “unaware” of the Trinity…no?
…see the implication here?
“Same moniker posted from same IP address with two names, the name Derek mentions above.”
Who are you talking about? JJ?
Sorry, I don’t understand the context on that one.
“my position is “dunno”…not yes or no.”
That is not a position. When you don’t say yes or no, you are saying nothing.
“JJ”
Please refer to me using my full name, Jim Jr. Thank you. “JJ” makes me think I used to be on ‘good times.’
Another example: A person living in ancient America, a Native American…who never heard the Gospel and the “correct Jesus”…could they be saved? If folks never heard the Gospel message and never heard the “correct Jesus”…then aren’t they born, lived and died with no real choice in the matter? Wouldn’t they have been born with no chance of heaven? No real choice for salvation?
If the answer is (and I’ve heard this answer to this question many times) that “Jesus appears to them in a dream” or “God revealed Himself to them in their hearts” etc etc…it is still not a “correct understanding” of the “correct Jesus”.
If God can save some folks w/o them having a “correct understanding” of the “correct Jesus”…if God can save some folks who have a whacky view of Christology, Anthropology etc….if God can save some folks in the deep jungles who never hear the Gospel message…if God can save some folks who mentally unable to understand much of anything (like the mentally retarded or severely mentally ill)…then couldn’t God save some other folks who believe in Him and in Jesus, but have an incorrect understanding or they are “unaware” of some aspects of Jesus?
A “no” answer is to assert a hyper-calvinist position that some are born with no chance for salvation, some are born hell-fodder….or a position that assumes that all are saved, whether they hear the Gospel or not…or a position that those who don’t hear a “correct Gospel” and a “correct Jesus” get some sort of exemption from responsibility and hell.
“…see the implication here?”
If you are trying to tie this in to mormons being Christians, it’s not something that can be discussed with you.
You think not taking a position is taking a position, and it is absolutely impossible to dialogue with someone that insists that ignorance is knowledge.
“it is still not a “correct understanding” of the “correct Jesus”.”
If the dream contained instruction on theological prerequisites, then it is possible to get such a correct understanding from a dream.
That answer sounds so kooky it leads me to believe that the question it is seeking to answer is still kookier.
If YOU are a Native American, if YOU are currently living in a jungle, then I can see how this concern is fruitful.
But if YOU live in America and have heard the Gospel message preached, I’m afraid you are wasting time speculating about something that we’ll have to wait for heaven to discover the answer to.
Actually, it is a position by definition. It is the negative to the affirmative “I know”
“I don’t know” is as legit a position as “I know the answer is yes” or “I know the answer is no”.
Laurence A. Moran, Professor in Department of Biochemistry, University of Toronto: “I teach a course on critical thinking about scientific issues such as evolution/creationism. Most (all?) of the “scientific” debates that enter the public realm can be divided into two groups: those where one side is right and the other side is wrong, and those where the issue is controversial. From a personal perspective, that means you can have three responses when asked if you agree with a scientific argument: “yes,” “no,” and “I don’t know.””
“I don’t know” is a Position. I can post a zillion more examples to prove such.
From All About Philosophy: “Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all “I don’t know” theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics “sitting on the fence,” and skeptics capitulating to ignorance”
Again, “I don’t know” is a “position”
Dave Yount, Ph.D. Philosophy: “Part of philosophy is critical thinking, which is the ability to question your (or anyone else’s) assumptions, discover and hopefully articulate good reasons for your position, no matter what your position is. Everyone has a position on every issue, even if it is, “I don’t know.”
Again and again, “I don’t know” is a “position”
“it is absolutely impossible to dialogue with someone that insists that” I don’t know is “not” a position, when the world of the Philosophical Logic and Science Community agree that it is a position.
You are in the vast minority that “I don’t know” is not a “position”….
JJ, do you see your error? Do you agree that you are wrong and that “I don’t know” is a position? If so, we can move forward in a discussion…if not, there’s no sense in dialoguing with you if you don’t agree to Universally accepted definitions of terms.
Ixtlan
“Most dispensationalists today understand that there is no such thing as a Plan A and Plan B.”
No, it’s that most dispensationalists don’t want to admit that that is the road their thought has taken.
Look, if God is not dealing with the Jews today like he deals with all the rest of mankind and he plans to deal with the Jews later – specifically after the “so called” rapture that places all Christians in heaven – then my friend, you have 2 plans.
So since A & B are sensitive terms to you, let’s just call them Plan 1 & Plan 2
JJ said, ” I’m afraid you are wasting time speculating about something that we’ll have to wait for heaven to discover the answer to.”
Which is just another way of you saying, “i don’t know” 😉
This notion that the “hardening” of Jews is to be taken on any big scale is ridiculous.
There are more “believing Jews” just in America than there are Jews in Israel. The Jews are being dealt with by God today. Jesus tells us that as soon as he returns, judgement of all people occurs and people go directly to heaven or hell.
Do your Jewish friends a favor and do not teach the dispensational view of the 2nd chance for Jews.
Here is how it get’s taught – and I know because my Jewish relatives tell the the evangelism stories thrown at them.
“God loves his Jewish people and after he raptures the Christians, he is coming back to work with the Jews.”
And now we are going to help the Jews build a new temple so they can go back to plan A – the slaughter of animals to sacrifice to THEIR god.
MLD’s 119…..
Yes, I have heard it taught that way.
At least that is what I have walked away with. Maybe I misunderstood.
Progressive Dispensationalism may be the position of places like Biola and other educational institutions, but if your church is pastored by someone who was taught by someone who went to Bible College in the 1950’s then you may think that your position is state of the art in Dispensationalism. These places tend to be unchallenged in their positions because the practice models of church government which discourage the asking of questions.
Bad ideas take a lot longer to die than most of us realize. Quoting a recent scholar shows that the locus of teaching may have moved from where it was long ago, but that doesn’t mean that people in the pulpit are reading the recent scholar.
@117
wrong….
@121
bad ideals do take a lot longer to die…..
Not only is it unlikely that the local “old school” Dispensational pastor is reading a Progressive Dispensationalist but if he’s in some groups he may be disincentivized from changing his view – in concrete terms of being booted out if he changes his view and that’s not a hill that many would die on – particular when it’s “in the Distinctives”.
day late – but please don’t talk about what you *think* dispensationalism is all about without hearing out what is being taught today
a quick listen to this teacher (start at minute 7 to cut to the chase, if you must) makes it pretty clear that a lot of what is said about what is being taught isn’t true …
http://www.gty.org/video/Television/T8290-440
i think it is important to realize that this isn’t, in my understanding, a doctrine so much as it is a questioning – honest questioning and comparing of the scriptures in the context of the unfolding of history … is it an absolute truth? does it need to be? is it a disciplined and academic approach to the truth of scripture? in my ever ongoing not-so humble view, the answer is yes … dunno, tho – do i?
Got a chance to hang out with Daniel Fusco yesterday. What a breath of fresh air that guys is!
“I know, I know. We are Your chosen people. But, once in a while, can’t You choose someone else?” – Tevya in “Fiddler on the Roof”.
I listened to the MacArthur quotes provided above – “God has preserved them to save them as a nation” sounds pretty Dispensational to me.
When do they “look on Him as the one whom they have pierced”? To save them or to judge them? Revel. ch 1 v 7 answers the question – “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.”
The “New Covenant with the house of Israel” – Who is Israel in this context? MacArthur says “that’s the conversion of the [Jewish] nation”. Jesus said, “this is my blood” : the token of the Covenant. MacArthur mixed this up as he goes along. Still seeing a national promise and that the same time the church coming into that new covenant. Yet still believing in a special time yet to come for Israel. One again presupposing what he attempts to prove, but failing.
I don’t buy his argument. It’s still classic Dispensationalism. Feels like one big shell game to me.
Dispensationalism isn’t a “questioning”, it’s a purported lens through which Scripture gets viewed. And, as with any other lens, it’s a distortion.
mrtundra, the topic has nothing to do with our life in Christ, so i have no problem with someone who is a child of God not buying it … but, i am not stupid and it’s an interpretation that i find very logical and acceptable
That said, it is a mistake to focus on our end times kooks as defining the theory … still … God does use our foolishness to confound the wise 😀
The topic does affect how we evangelize Jewish person to Christ. As noted previously, if our method of evangelism involves a message intended to “tell someone what to do after the rapture”, we are missing the mark and keeping Jewish people from Christ.
If our view of the end times is that we are the “terminal generation” then are we building old folks homes and hospitals? In fact, Dispensationalists have always been weak in that area since they don’t think they’ll be around anyway.
And, if I was going to quote a source on Progressive Dispensationalism it would be from a scholar, not a Bible teacher. For me, I’d be quoting something like:
http://www.amazon.com/Progressive-Dispensationalism-Craig-A-Blaising/dp/0801022436/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362331512&sr=8-1&keywords=progressive+dispensationalism
I don’t see much of a difference between Hal Lindsey and John MacArthur.
“The topic does affect how we evangelize Jewish person to Christ.” in some cases, you may be right, Mr.tundraman – but it is a distortion of the theory and is no different than any other distortion
“The topic does affect how we evangelize Jewish person to Christ.” …? … NO, NO a thousand times: NO (can’t do exponentials from my keyboard 🙂 )
dispensationalism has been grabbed, exploited and distorted by sensationalists – perhaps, those who, at some point were sucked into the excitement are better off backing away – better protesting until they’ve purged their souls of what they thought that they understood and now realize is wrong
just sayin – cuz i can – apologies, if not well stated as i’ve got a big to-do list that i’m sitting here – enjoying Christ – avoiding … the Martha in me calls
The frozen one makes some good points IMO…
There is much I find disturbing in your recent posts, Alex.
Here are some examples to make my point.
Since you’ve taken a fancy to macroeconomics, we’ll go there first.
If you are going to trade GBP/USD, you must have an opinion about whether the chart will go up or down.
You take the position (spend your money) based upon your opinion about the likely direction of the chart.
If you have no opinion about the future direction of the chart, there is nothing determining your decision; it is a coin flip.
Regarding atheism, the atheist has POSITIVE REASONS for believing that God does not exist.
The theist has positive reasons for believing that God does exist.
The agnostic (recall that ‘a’ before ‘gnosis’ means “no knowledge) finds reasons for disbelieving the atheist and reasons for disbelieving the theist.
This is not an open question for eternity, and at some point (maybe even in death) the agnostic will be presented with evidence that will force them to come to a conclusion about God’s existence or non-existence. In precisely this way, agnosticism is not a ‘position’ in the same way that either theism or atheism are bona fide ‘positions.
From law, since you’ve taken a fancy to the legal field as well.
The only position adopted in a courtroom is the position taken by the prosecutor.
The defense attorney is in this sense agnostic; they have no opinion regarding their client’s guilt or innocence. Their position is that the DA is mistaken, and they are only required to do such.
At some point in the future (if you are a theist), the defense attorney could ask God about the client’s guilt/innocence.
Thus agnosticism in a courtroom is not the same kind of thing as taking a positive stance regarding a claim. Only the DA does that.
It is not incorrect in English to say that
THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAS NO POSITION REGARDING THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF HIS CLIENT.
And so that I am absolutely clear, let’s go to the pawn shop.
You have a lawnmower on your shelf for sale.
You put a price tag on it.
If your account of position were correct, it would be possible for you to HAVE NO OPINION ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE LAWNMOWER TO THE CONTINUED PROFITABILITY OF YOUR BUSINESS, and yet you still engage in the trade?
No.
You must, as a pawnshop owner, take a position regarding the value of the lawnmower if you are to conduct business/communicate with your customers at all.
“Actually, it is a position by definition. It is the negative to the affirmative “I know”
Here is the problem as I see it.
You don’t just “know.” You know THAT.
And that is the source of your error.
“I don’t know that” is the opposite of “I know that.”
“I don’t know that not” is the opposite of “I know that not.”
The only “positions are “I know that” or “I know that not.”
You are trying to sell Derrida-like deconstruction, and that’s why my blood pressure is rising.
I’d also like to add that your “Big 5” precludes mormonism, for their understanding of Jesus as Messiah is in direct contradiction with YOUR understanding of what it means to say that Jesus is Messiah.
It seems then that according to your Big 5 a ‘correct understanding’ of Jesus is a requirement of salvation.
It’s either that, or admit that your big 5 aren’t as necessary as you would like.
JIm throws a wild turkey! Not a new record, but rare. Good work.
PP Vet you said “Four is a hambone” so what is six?
Ha! They were short.
Ontology and epistemology are two different things.
Jr., you seem to know an awful lot about Alex and what he says, believes, does, etc. Are you a stalker? At the very least, you have too much time on your hands.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
1 Corinthians 1:19-26
I find the #8 comment to be too near the anti-semanticist ways which have led to suffering and pain over the centuries.
Additionally this statement, “each of them believes they have the repository of truth. One thing they are all doing is drawing gullible believers… ” can also be applied to the post’s author’s church. His arrogance and heart is revealed.
Romans 11:18-21
” …do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.”
No matter how you twist it, If after “the so called rapture” if God is dealing with the Jews in a special way – and not including the left behind Peruvians in the exact same way, then that is a different plan. Dispensationalism has 2 separate plans for the Jews and the Gentiles… even if it is not kosher to own up to it.
I don’t care who you listen to, whether it be Chuck Smith in his 5000 series, John MacArthur in his 1978 series in Revelation, or Jon Courson’s 2002 Revelation series that contained 86 CD’s, they all claim the same thing I am saying – they teach God’s separate plan, to come later for the Jews.
I don’t want to hear “that’s not real dispensationalism as taught by the DTS scholars” – because Hal Lindsey and Tommy Ice were both DTS students.
1. Yes, JJ is a stalker, I have a stalker, I don’t know what that means, but it is what it is.
2. JJ, you dodged the “I don’t know is a position” truth which I showed as Universally accepted in several examples, I could post many more. You are intellectually dishonest by dodging that issue. Do you see your error? Is “I don’t know” a “position”? Or, do you still insist it isn’t a position, despite the ample examples that is is?
Your inability to acknowledge when you are wrong and your inability to be intellectually honest and concede a point of fact is why there can be no meaningful discussion with you. Stalk away, but don’t claim I don’t want to have meaningful discussion, it’s not that I won’t with you, it’s that I can’t due to your inability to agree to Universally accepted definitions of terms like a “position” etc.
I’m going to ignore you now so as not to drag down the community into an endless senseless argument with someone who doesn’t participate in a mutually intellectually honest manner. Unfortunately, I’ve tried with you many times and again and again you move goal posts and display a propensity for poor understanding (either intentional or unintentional). It will only produce frustration for the Group and I’m not going down that path again.
Frozen dirt dude is correct, Ontology is different than Epistemology. I think some may not understand that for some reason.
Great day here in the BOI! Sunny, crisp, fun day with the kiddos! Just taking a brief break in between some awesome family time.
Blessings and peace to my fellow PP’ers!
“JJ is a stalker,”
“JJ, you dodged”
“You are intellectually dishonest”
“Your inability to acknowledge when you are wrong ”
“your inability to be intellectually honest ”
“I can’t due to your inability to agree ”
“I’m going to ignore you now ”
” I’ve tried with you many times and ”
” you…display a propensity for poor understanding “
“Ontology and epistemology are two different things.”
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. They aren’t as different as you may think, and belittling my ontology (with insults) instead of my epistemology betrays ignorance.
“Jr., you seem to know an awful lot about Alex and what he says, believes, does, etc. Are you a stalker? At the very least, you have too much time on your hands.”
Not. I just happen to value truth.
“Universally accepted definitions of terms.”
THAT’S a hoot ! Universally defined terms as defined by Alex.
Hambone!!
#130 “The frozen one makes some good points IMO…” while the man of the tundra may well be frozen, speaking scientifically, tundra and permafrost are not interchangeable terms 😆
“I think the oddest thing about the advanced people is that, while they are always talking about things as problems, they have hardly any notion of what a real problem is.”
― G.K. Chesterton
FTC, LOL!
JD, true that. All a matter of perspective. You are a man of many sorrows and real-life struggles. I hope peace for you and yours someday.
Pastor John, i must disagree with Chesterton – the **oddest** thing is that they **want** to talk about problems – it isn’t intellectually honest – mature even – to be unquestioning and joyful? guess not 😐
Alex, just wait till you see John in Eternity – and Debbie – i can’t wait to see the things that the Lord has prepared for the Saints that have taken the blows for Christ – wonder what those who’ve been beheaded for the Faith will look like in their glorified bodies … is that silly to think about?
past my bedtime, God keep
“In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence”
“but test (question) everything; hold fast what is good.”
FTC, I hope you’re right, that’s my hope and faith. I feel badly for those like the Duncan’s who suffer so much physically while here in this existence. This existence holds little joy and good for them at this stage in their journeys.
For most of us, this existence is a mix of good and bad, but so much good, so much to enjoy and so much to be thankful for.
Rereading the thread, I noticed that my last fifteen posts to Alex were in response to a discussion regarding mormonism and Christianity.
Why does that topic keep getting reintroduced by you-no who ?
If the PhxP cannot universally declare that mormons are outside of the faith and that mormon doctrine in no way approximates Christian doctrine, then the community should not label itself as Christian.
The points I raised about “taking a position” were in response to this point.
And since it’s central to the faith, forgive me for striving for clarity.
Who keeps bringing up the ‘mormons-as-Christians’ narrative again?
Oh that’s right. It’s that guy in Idaho that keeps bringing it up.
…says the creepy Stalker in typical twisted fashion
G’nite PPeeps. We get the prelim ruling tomorrow in the BG lawsuit, hoping for the best, prepared for the worst.
Alex, I know so many of us are praying for truth and justice to prevail.
Jim Jr,
Here’s the thing, this is Michael’s blog, not yours, mine or any one or group of voices, so just because you engage a person or persons in a discussion doesn’t therefore conclude that the blog must or must not declare itself “Christian”, that definition and domain are solely reserved to Michael. A discussion is no more or less “Christian” than a section at Peet’s Coffee because a group of diverse theists might be occupying the space, it’s all about the declaration of the owner.
I am quite thankful that Michael allows a wide diversity of thought and outlook here, as are the greatest majority of participants.
Hey Alex, definitely praying that you and Tim prevail and that a new chapter of reconciliation might begin within your family, as impossible to imagine as that might be.
Jesus Christ is the God of the impossible, empowering the powerless.
Amen to G’s number 163!!
Ditto Amen to G, thank you G
Thanks G! Great hope and prayer! Amen!
Thanks Nonnie! Very much appreciated. That’s all I hope for, so then there might be hope of reconciliation, but it would take a literal miracle.
Praying for the Greniers today.
i sense that, if B.Grenier is God’s man and guilty, he will be broken, humbled and contrite – reconciled – if he is not, then joining in prayer that God have mercy on that family
sometimes all the satisfaction we get is in the knowing we tried – an old saw, but true
there is a peace that passes understanding, eh? Philippians 4:6-8
Praying for Alex today
Thanks lxtlan, FTC and Derek, very much appreciated. We’ll see what happens later today.