<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

With All Due Respect, Hubner's Latest, Triumphalistic Screed Against Rosenberg is Just Lame

Jamin Hubner has turned his guns towards dispensationalists:
(Cross posted at AOMin)

The unsound theology of historic Dispensationalism has produced many bad fruits. There’s the rotten apple of eisegesis forged by the faulty hermeneutical principles of unnecessary literalism. The foul-smelling equivocation of cosmic escapism with the gospel. And the sour notion of two separate destinies for Israel and the church, a seven year tribulation, the re-institution of sacrifices, and so on and so forth.

Man, Oh man. Unsound theology? Eisesgesis? Unnecessary literalism? Sour notions? So on and so forth? Them dispensationalists sound like they're trouble.

He goes on to describe one of the rottenest dispensational fruits of all:

But there’s one particularly bad fruit that stems from the large tree of non-covenantal – and often anti-covenantal – thinking: hard-line Christian Zionism.

I don't think Mahmoud Abbas could have said it better.

What stirred up Jamin that he felt it necessary to expose the dark underbelly of dispensationalists?

Joel Rosenberg wrote a post.

Yep. Joel Rosenberg, political analyst and popular novelist, who happens to adhere to dispensational beliefs.

The problem, however, is two-fold: A) Joel Rosenberg didn't advocate for Christian Zionism in his post. He pointed out the wrongheaded statement made by the Vatican that Israel is no longer the chosen people of God, a sentiment Jamin happens to share as a Reformed covenantalist guy: and B) It's Joel Rosenberg, political analyst and popular novelist.

First, if one were to read the post that Rosenberg wrote for David Wheaton's Christian Worldview website, all he did was to note what a Vatican synod stated regarding the current day Israeli and Palestinian conflict. The synod officially proclaimed pretty much the same thing every wacky Jew hating leftist says about Israel: they should placate the Palestinians and give up territory they took after (and let's be honest here) Muslim hordes attacked them. No mention about the Palestinian authorities abusing and killing their own people, nor them running their territory like a concentration camp.

Anyhow, Rosenberg turned to Scripture and briefly, like in 5 or 6 short paragraphs, explained what the Bible says about the Jews and God's love for Israel. Now I guess if you are a chest thumping young Reformer guy wanting to make a name for himself, you could construe a few brief comments to mean Christian Zionism, and accuse the author of equating biblical Israel to the modern Israeli state. No matter, because what Jamin did was to merely use the post to launch into criticisms against the dispensational view of Israel and the Church.

Which brings me to my second point: it's Joel Rosenberg. You know, the political analyst and novelist. It's like shotgun blasting baby ducks in a pond. Could he had not picked a more worthy dispensational opponent to examine? Someone who has actually written at theological length on the subject of Israel, the Church, and dispensationalism. Barry Horner (and he isn't even dispensational)? Robert Saucy? Harold Hoehner? Instead he goes to a popular, Christian novelist? That would be like me being appalled at something Charles Stanley wrote against Calvinists and then launching into a rant against Arminians. C'mon.

When I left a comment at his blog pointing out the disingenuous use of Rosenberg as an example of dispensational theology, Jamin retorted that he doesn't need to be familiar with what current day dispensationalists write and his lack of familiarity with their theology is irrelevant to the overall arguments he was making. Okay, I guess. My follow-up comment got deleted. And I thought I was nice. Pointed, but nice. I think the last time I was deleted was when I was poking at some KJV-only folks. Oh, well.

If he chooses to remain safely in his Reformed, covenantal bubble that's his business. But it will only make any criticisms against dispensationalists appear to be petty and lame.

Labels: ,

42 Comments:

Blogger The Squirrel said...

"...he doesn't need to be familiar with what current day dispensationalists write and his lack of familiarity with their theology is irrelevant..."

arrogance + willful ignorance is a dangerous combination

Squirrel

7:19 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger DJP said...

Wow. Is this the same guy who's screwed up about Genesis 1? So how can we be surprised? If day one, second day, third day and so forth are impenetrable mysteries, how can we expect him to deal plainly with other plain Scriptures? Especially if they challenge his human tradition.

Hubner certainly didn't take the lesson of the 25 Stupid Reasons, at any rate.

Sounds like a lot of blow. but not much rain.

7:37 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger RazorsKiss said...

Just as long as we use "arrogance" in the comments of a post about... how the use of hyperbole is unwarranted... it's okay :)

I'd just like to note that I find it interesting that we're characterizing "covenantal" as "anti-dispensational". Is that how it works?

I think I can find a few quotes from a certain apologist about the tendency for folks to label people in that fashion. Maybe it's just me :)

7:44 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Mark Patton said...

There are places to eat that you know you will enjoy whatever they put before you. Then there are places to eat that you may have to spit some stuff out. Then there are places that you stop visiting because you get tired of the service. AOM was the first. It has easily moved to the second. I hope I don't feel the need to stop visiting.

7:46 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Mark Patton said...

PS. I don't comment on blogs very often (bother DJP and the Pyro guys ever so often), but I have a steady diet of "must reads." This is certainly one of them (always stop by after DJP then the Pyros). Thanks for the edification.

7:49 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Thanks Mark,
I happen to like great 80s hairbands, too.

8:08 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Just as long as we use "arrogance" in the comments of a post about... how the use of hyperbole is unwarranted... it's okay :)

Is it your take that Jamin is just using hyperbole in his article? I took him at his word, dispensationalists are theologically koo-koo and then appeals to Rosenberg as the prime example of where dispensationalism leads.

8:13 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger RazorsKiss said...

Nah. I was summarizing your post as a caution against "unwarranted" hyperbole - and contrasting that with the ad-hominem directed Jamin's way.

Honestly, I think it's quite interesting that the Jmac-style dispies are taking this much exception to this. Don't you distance yourself from clasical dispyism? I don't lump all of you folks together - but it's undeniable that dispyism has some incredibly kooky fruit. Jmac's move toward a more covenantal approach is undeniably better than the more classical hermeneutic, so I'm really wondering why you're feeling so compelled to defend the fruit of classical dispyism when you're an adherent of "a different animal altogether".

8:25 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

DJP,
Wow. Is this the same guy who's screwed up about Genesis 1? So how can we be surprised?

In a roundabout way. His take is that Genesis 1 is filled with too many hermeneutical difficulties for us to be so dogmatic, especially those who hold to rigid literalism, which is those fundies who also tend toward dispensationalism.

8:54 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Shamgar said...

I concur with RK here. I'm not sure why it is you're coming to the defense of this.

When you look at the political climate and see the impact of classical dispy thinking do you really see that as something worth defending? Theology matters, and it's worth pointing out that ideas are not harmless thoughts in a vacuum. They have consequences, and we can see those consequences in the people who are *not* "theologically trained" but whose thinking is definitely influenced by people who are.

It's a fair point to look at what those effects are, especially when they're so obvious, and so obviously bad, as it is with classical dispensationalism, the kind of nonsense trash taught (popularly) by the likes of John Hagee and his ilk.

I realize that modern dispensationalism has splintered a good bit, and y'all want to be considered separately but it's hard to do that when you keep coming to the defense of historic dispyism.

Interestingly, when JMac came out with his ill-informed rant against Amillenialism I didn't see many of you calling him out on it. Funny how it only matters if people address YOUR best arguments... Maybe you did and I just missed it...but I don't think so. In this case, the post was even targeted specifically at a branch of dispyism you don't subscribe to - it's not like he broad-brushed the entire dispensational spectrum.

9:20 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger TM said...

If Jamin is a CT kind of guy, I'm certainly not going to stone him. There are many more important things to squabble over (and I think Gen 1 is one of them).

The thing I am most concerned about in his post (which I originally saw at the A&O blog -- not really sure how he got space there?) is his wave-of-the-hand "definition" of dispensationalism. On the one hand, he's right: there's some wacko theology (and wacko people) that have taken the word "dispensational" and run into the ground.

But he makes no effort whatsoever to differentiate between that hyper- or traditional- brand, and the moderate, modern "version" today. So it's scary if he thinks that familiarizing himself with how the term is used today is irrelevant to his discussion. Because I see no trace whatsoever of what-we-call-dispensationalism-today necessarily taking hard turns into Christian Zionism.

He says here that he learned that "dispensationalists often question the idea that Old Testament saints are saved by faith like New Testament saints - and, further, that some dispensationalists referred to themselves as 'Reformed.'" Two destinies? Two ways to be saved? Aren't those concerns from 50 years ago? I do wonder if he has read any dispensational works at all. I am not aware of any Reformed dispensationalists who struggle with how one is saved pre- or post-Christ. Salvation is and always has been by grace through faith.

Anyway, change of topic, sorta: Fred, do you have any immediate thoughts on Dwight Pentecost's "Things to Come"?

Been following the blog for a few months... good stuff, edifying. I'm a first-time caller ;-)

Blessings
Tom

9:53 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

RK writes,
Honestly, I think it's quite interesting that the Jmac-style dispies are taking this much exception to this. Don't you distance yourself from clasical dispyism?
And Shamgar concurs,
I concur with RK here. I'm not sure why it is you're coming to the defense of this.

A couple of thoughts. If Jamin had kept his focus upon true, Christian Zionism, I wouldn't had said anything. He didn't. First, he misrepresented what Rosenberg was arguing. Maybe he has made Zionistic statements in the past, but with the post in question, he didn't. He merely refuted supercessionistic ideas presented by the Vatican and affirmed a restoration of Israel as God has promised in His Word. Next, Jamin moved immediately to lump ALL dispensationalism together as presenting poor theology, even inferring heresy, who equate the current state of Israel with the biblical ethnic restored Israel. This is mistaken and sort of dumb to do.

Second, my reaction is not that he is chasing after my team, as it were. It has been my observation, and I think I can back it up if I invested the time, that the recent generation of young Reformed apologists come from fundamentalist backgrounds who are typically un-"Reformed," Arminian, and of course, dispensational. They have an awakening to Calvinism, and over a slow, gradual process, come to think that if their church was wrong about the doctrines of salvation, they were wrong about everything else, including dispensationalism, premillennialism, etc. I think Jamin falls into this category, or at least near to it. I pointed it out to him, but alas, he deleted my comment.

9:57 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

RK writes,
I don't lump all of you folks together - but it's undeniable that dispyism has some incredibly kooky fruit. Jmac's move toward a more covenantal approach is undeniably better than the more classical hermeneutic, so I'm really wondering why you're feeling so compelled to defend the fruit of classical dispyism when you're an adherent of "a different animal altogether".

Shamgar writes,

I realize that modern dispensationalism has splintered a good bit, and y'all want to be considered separately but it's hard to do that when you keep coming to the defense of historic dispyism.

I hear this sort of thinking a lot. It is wrongly believed that if a theological system matures, that it is "splintered," which in turn is a bad thing, because it is desperately trying to save theological credibility. Dispensationalism has no more "splintered" than has covenantal theology has. I mean, there is good reason why RK is a credo-baptist and not a paedo-baptist, correct? And what are we to make of theonomists, federal visionists, new perspectivists, and a whole host of other similar loopy groups who think they are much more "covenant" minded, than the other group.

Shamgar writes,
Interestingly, when JMac came out with his ill-informed rant against Amillenialism I didn't see many of you calling him out on it.

Well. I personally don't think JMac gave an ill-informed rant against Amilliennialism. If you care to provide some specific examples, do so. People complained he cited old, dead guys like O.T. Allis, but O.T. Allis pretty much believes the same stuff Riddlebarger believes and you can't distinguish the two. In fact, I haven't seen anything specifically new from Amillennialists since the time of Augustine. Sam Waldron tried to provide something of a response with his blog that was turned into a book about MacArthur's Manifesto, but there was nothing compelling about his refutation and he sort of did the same thing Jamin did, which was to cite one or two dispensationalist authors and from articles not germane to the discussion. I have some articles addressing that book HERE

9:59 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Sir Aaron said...

Theology aside, I really don't understand why any Christian would advocate that Israel give into any of the Muslim demands. Well, I guess I know most of the reason. #1 they don't know the history of that area very well, because Jews were living there when they were given the land as a nation in the 1940s. Secondly, they don't know much about Islam theologically or historically.

And what exactly are the bad fruits of dispensationalist theology? You are going to tell me that reading Tim LaHaye has led to some major bad fruit? Is it any worse than the bad fruti from paedo-baptism or other disputed beliefs?

10:07 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Shamgar said...

Well. I personally don't think JMac gave an ill-informed rant against Amilliennialism

Unfortunately, pretty much every person (and every single one I know or follow) found JMac's depiction of the Amil position to be unrecognizable. So - here's the hypocrisy part. You take issue with Jammin because he failed to engage the particular issues and perspectives you think he should have. And because his depiction doesn't match your own particular thread.

Yet...JMAc's rant was fine, because it matches up with your own (also apparently flawed) understanding of the Amill position, and who cares what the people who subscribe to it think about the presentation.

Do you not see the conflict here?

I hear this sort of thinking a lot. It is wrongly believed that if a theological system matures, that it is "splintered," which in turn is a bad thing, because it is desperately trying to save theological credibility. Dispensationalism has no more "splintered" than has covenantal theology has. I mean, there is good reason why RK is a credo-baptist and not a paedo-baptist, correct?

That is a question of how you interpret a specific covenant sign, and is not a reflection of a difference in understanding the underlying structure. These are surface differences. When you have a theological position which its own scholars say requires you to use a biblical interpretive method that interprets the NEW testament in light of the OLD, and then you come up with a new version that abandons that core principle, that's not a surface change.

As for JMac's rant, I don't know that it's that productive to rehash the contents again. Nothing is going to be gained by it. My goal was not to convince you of what it is but to point out that you are being inconsistent on this point. If you really want a response, I believe Kim Riddlebarger provided a good one that is on MP3 somewhere on his site.

10:19 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Shamgar,
Again, it would be helpful to have some specifics. I heard and read the same thing from all sorts of guys after John gave his talk. I asked for specifics, and the response they gave went along the lines of "He didn't cite any modern proponents." Okay, that's fair. But then I ask them what do those modern proponents state that would make John's message inaccurate? Never is there any coherent response. So if I am being a hypocrite, it would be nice to see where exactly.

You write,
When you have a theological position which its own scholars say requires you to use a biblical interpretive method that interprets the NEW testament in light of the OLD, and then you come up with a new version that abandons that core principle, that's not a surface change.

My goodness. Where has anything like this taken place? I interpret the Bible according to the same principles that say for example, James White, outlines in his book "Scripture Alone." You start with the meaning of the text itself and then move out. The OT reinterpreted by the NT creates all sorts of problematic issues, the least of which is that it remolds what the original author meant to the original audience and what the original audience understood the author to mean. By the way, NCT appeals to the same set of hermeneutics you do, yet you would say they were unorthodox I am sure.

10:28 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

(which I originally saw at the A&O blog -- not really sure how he got space there?)

I've been wondering the same thing as well.

10:29 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Shamgar said...

Well, I guess I know most of the reason. #1 they don't know the history of that area very well, because Jews were living there when they were given the land as a nation in the 1940s. Secondly, they don't know much about Islam theologically or historically.

Well, some of us wouldn't really sa it that way, but we would say it's none of our business nor our problem. Because we realize that the Treaty of Versailles was flawed and because of the foolishness of it (and the bad fruit of zionistic thinking) we ended up with this never-ending bloodshed there and of course the rise of Hitler and WWII.

We realize that the right thing to do is to say, they're there now, and so it's up to them to fend for themselves if they want to remain a nation. If they want to wipe out the middle east, that's their doing, and if the middle east wipes them out, that's their own problem too. America as a nation is not the policeman for other nations' activities. (Or rather, should not be.)

10:33 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Shamgar said...

Again, it would be helpful to have some specifics. I heard and read the same thing from all sorts of guys after John gave his talk. I asked for specifics, and the response they gave went along the lines of "He didn't cite any modern proponents."

I suppose this would've been good if he were going to give a well-reasoned case for his opposition, but it's hardly my complaint, nor the primary one I've heard. If I had to pick one, I'd start with the accusation of Replacement theology.

So if I am being a hypocrite, it would be nice to see where exactly.

Again, that is not an issue of specifics. You are crying foul because you feel that Jammin did not fairly represent you and your corner of dispensationalism. Yet you find no need to cry foul against jMac when Amillenialists cry foul for the same reason, and indeed to this moment refuse to consider the need unless someone sits down with his words and (presumably) point by point lays out to you his errors.

My goodness. Where has anything like this taken place? I interpret the Bible according to the same principles that say for example, James White, outlines in his book "Scripture Alone."

Correct, and that would make you different in a significant way from classical dispensationalists, who would say that the entirety of the new testament should be interpreted through the grid of old testament passages - particularly Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks. In general, it is old testament prophecy that guys like Walvoord and others would say are the key to interpreting and understanding the New Testament.

The OT reinterpreted by the NT creates all sorts of problematic issues, the least of which is that it remolds what the original author meant to the original audience and what the original audience understood the author to mean.

Really? Interesting. So then, what do you do when Paul does this? What about when Jesus does this? If I have to choose between those two and Walvoord, I'm not going to have a lot of hesitation.

10:56 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger DJP said...

So let's sum:

1. Fred has shown that this guy didn't bother to know what he was talking about

2. MacArthur took careful aim and threw some stones, and a bunch of dogs yelped "Didn't hit me!" (Proof still forthcoming.)

3. People can twist Biblical teachings, including dispensationalism.

Did I miss anything?

I've noticed that every time you a Christian crosses swords with a Roman Catholic, they also cry out that they've been "misrepresented."

Connection?

Anecdote: an amill pastor of my acquaintance said soberly that he "didn't recognize himself" in MacArthur's talk. Fast-forward, same pastor decides to take off after dispensationalism in a sermon. Launching-point? It's an invention born of American escapism.

You can't make these things up.

11:30 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

I would also point folks to Dan's post he wrote the week after JMac gave his premillennial talk.

11:39 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Shamgar said...

Of course Dan. Since RC cry they've been misrepresented whenever they get into a conflict, that naturally means that every time anyone does, they're being disingenuous. That makes perfect sense.

Why would you need to make up an Amill going after Dispensationalism? Would you say the same thing if a calvinistic pastor went after arminianism? I think most people here are just thinking.... duh?

Did you perhaps intend to make a point here? Like maybe that you felt you didn't recognize yourself in his depiction?

11:47 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Sir Aaron said...

Shamgar:

You should check out Michael Medved's history of Israel. You might find it interesting.

Not being the the world's policeman is very libertarian. I personally despise the whole underlying thought process that you can merely turn your back while your neighbor is raped and pillaged.

Secondarily, as Europe found out, you can either fight the Muslim hordes there, or wait until they get to where you are. Either way, you will be fighting them at some point.

11:51 AM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Shamgar writes,
If I had to pick one, I'd start with the accusation of Replacement theology.

Ah yes. I remember that one, too. The reality, however, is that Replacement Theology is an accurate, historical description for amillennial theology. There are at least three book length studies demonstrating this fact. As I recall, a few of the Reformed acquaintances of mine were absolutely flabbergasted upon learning this bit of historical background. Lookit, if you believe that the nation of Israel no longer has any unique place in God's providence and decrees and they will not in any way be restored in an eschatological kingdom, except to say spiritually absorbed into the Church, then you adhere to Replacement Theology. There is no shame in that.

Continuing,
You are crying foul because you feel that Jammin did not fairly represent you and your corner of dispensationalism. Yet you find no need to cry foul against jMac when Amillenialists cry foul for the same reason, and indeed to this moment refuse to consider the need unless someone sits down with his words and (presumably) point by point lays out to you his errors.

The big difference, though, at least for me, is that the Amillers have failed to demonstrate how John misrepresented them. They certainly don't like what he said, but he isn't inaccurate.

Continuing,
Correct, and that would make you different in a significant way from classical dispensationalists, who would say that the entirety of the new testament should be interpreted through the grid of old testament passages - particularly Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks. In general, it is old testament prophecy that guys like Walvoord and others would say are the key to interpreting and understanding the New Testament.

Different? I believe exactly that. If anyone wishes to take the Bible seriously as a revelation communicating God's Mind, you have to take that way. Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy is a good example. The contortions I have read from a variety of non-premillennial sources that attempt to re-read that prophecy are amazing. By the way, I'll be getting to that section of Daniel in my blog posts here soon.

Continuing,
Really? Interesting. So then, what do you do when Paul does this? What about when Jesus does this? If I have to choose between those two and Walvoord, I'm not going to have a lot of hesitation.

Where exactly does Jesus re-interpret OT texts so that they mean something entirely different than what they originally intended to convey?

12:02 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Shamgar said...

I can't keep up with this indefinitely, so for the sake of any further conversation that may occur, I want to lay out some points from my own perspective on this.

1) I don't think the absurd stone-throwing and assumptions are helpful. I grew up in a dispy background, so I'm not unfamiliar with it. I have rejected it now, having been convinced from Scripture of the Amil position.

Dan in the linked article suggests that the reformed have accepted John because of his popularity and glossed over his dispensationalism. If so, they were fools. I was under no such delusion, nor regarding you or Phil. As you note there in the comments, not agreeing with you on this one point doesn't mean you should somehow be tossed aside. Your blogs are challenging and well worth the time investment to read, regardless of any side disagreements we might have.

There's a reason I don't anywhere in this thread engage the issue of dispensationalism directly. I don't have the time, or the desire to become familiar with every current variant of interpretation within the larger body of modern dispensationalism just so that I can engage it. I did, at one time, try to engage people I knew personally on this topic, but it doesn't really matter who you read or study, you get "Oh, that's not what I believe" and pointed somewhere else. It's almost as bad as trying to respond to the emerging church. (Not comparing the quality of the thinking, just the difficulty in nailing down what the position says and believes in any sense that you can respond to it).

Further, the issue I really wanted to underscore by coming here is that what Jammin did is not new. It happens from both sides, and it's not helpful. Neither is the kind of brash triumphalism displayed by Dan.

In fairness, neither is the kind of nonsense that went on on Kim Riddlebarger's blog. There's a lot of absurdity in this area of trying to define what it means to be "reformed". The thing is, as has been noted by many, "reformed" is never really supposed to be a past-tense target. I do think it's valid to differentiate between "calvinistic" and "reformed" as just believing the five points doesn't really mean the same thing as seeking to reform in all areas in accordance with the scriptures.

I can understand the concern a little. I mean, look at what happened to terms like evangelical. I think some people as a result naturally want to defend the term "reformed" lest it become meaningless as well. Yet, if it means we have to resort to ad-hominim and triumphalism is it really that important?

12:10 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Shamgar said...

You should check out Michael Medved's history of Israel. You might find it interesting.

Unlikely.

I personally despise the whole underlying thought process that you can merely turn your back while your neighbor is raped and pillaged.

So...now the issue of how you treat your neighbor applies to nations as well? Can you demonstrate to me where God had israel come to the rescue of every other nation that came under attack?

Secondarily, as Europe found out, you can either fight the Muslim hordes there, or wait until they get to where you are. Either way, you will be fighting them at some point.

Right...because the muslim nations are in the same state they were then. Or we're the same size as Europe was then, with the same comparative strengths. And of course, the muslims are right next door where they can level such an attack...oh wait...no...there's no comparison at all.

12:15 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Shamgar,
There were three posts I needed to post that varied like the one I posted above. I hope I got the right one.

Any how,

I appreciate the challenge. I will be getting to a discussion on Daniel 9 sometime in the future, so keep an eye out. You can offer your challenges and we can discuss exegesis.

12:21 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

BTW, Matt Weymeyer emailed me and reminded me of these relevant posts on literalism:

HERE
and HERE

12:25 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Shamgar said...

Fred,

The problem is conflating the Israel of God, with Israel the political entity. It creates all sorts of errors, particularly when trying to deal with Amil thought from the outside in. As long as you fail to separate those, you will not be able to understand why it is not the same as replacement theology, and why such a suggestion is so offensive.

They certainly don't like what he said, but he isn't inaccurate

Because you, the expert on what Amillennialism believes, have judged it to be accurate?

Different? I believe exactly that.

Well, then I guess I misjudged your position. It happens. I can never be sure from one dispy to the next what they're going to believe about biblical interpretation.

Interestingly, when you look at the Bible the way the Apostles do, and even the OT prophets, it was an unfolding revelation. The OT was types and shadows, and the mystery revealed in them was revealed in the NT. How you justify interpreting the revealed by that which is hidden in shadow is a mystery to me.

12:26 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Shamgar said...

Where exactly does Jesus re-interpret OT texts so that they mean something entirely different than what they originally intended to convey?

A nicely phrased trap of words. First, you assume that Amill of course re-interprets things to something entirely different from what they were originally intended to convey.

Then you ask me to demonstrate where Jesus did something I never said he did. A useful trick that, ...if you aren't interested in honest helpful discourse.

To answer the question you didn't ask, you don't have to look very hard to see where both Jesus and the Apostles used OT texts in ways they had have never been used before. Nor to see where people's flawed and limited understandings were expanded to understand the real meaning of texts which had been hidden from them.

While it's not a discourse on specific examples, the events on the road to Emmaus are a good example of how people had to have their eyes opened to see and understand what before was hidden from them. Many of the prophecies that now make a great deal of sense to us looking backward, made very little looking forward. Indeed, they completely misunderstood the nature of the salvation that was coming to them, despite the prophecies. So you can just start with Christ's entire purpose, and the type of salvation he brought, and the manner in which he brought it.

12:26 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger steve said...

Shamgar is a sham. He is using this dustup as a pretext to recycle his fulminations against neocon foreign policy.

But, of course, the leading neocons in the Bush administration were, at best, secular Jews (e.g. Wolfowitz, Perle), while top hawks like Cheney and Rumsfeld weren't Jewish and weren't neo-anything.

Nor have I seen any credible evidence that Bush's foreign policy was driven by the eschatology of John Hagee. Indeed, Bush is a United Methodist.

I also haven't seen any evidence that Cheney and Rumsfeld were closet dispensationalists. Not to mention Robert Gates or Gen. Petraeus.

But perhaps Obama (he of the predator drone attacks) is a wild-eyed fundy masquerading as a Bolshevik to throw us off the scent.

In addition, some of us have the odd notion that Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Quaeda, Pakistan, Iran, Syria (fill in the Muslim blank) are actually a greater threat to our national security than Jewish condos on the West Bank. Strange, I know.

1:15 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Mr. Hubner does write good articles about presuppositional apologetics, don't ya think?

2:01 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger DJP said...

Oh Shamgar, I think Fred's readers are smarter than you credit them, and none of them (nor you) is thinking "duh" nor missing my point.

As to points, if you had one (given that words ≠ points, necessarily), then there'd be no discussion, because amills wouldn't invent sensus pleniors and we'd all be agreeing with Jesus, the apostles, and Jeremiah about Israel's future (Jeremiah 31:35-37).

2:05 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Sir Aaron said...

Sham:

Now I have to read the Bible for you too? Israel was seemingly always at war. Secondarily, we aren't Israel.Duet 20 lays out the rules of war and it wasn't "defense only." When Goliath laughed at the Israelites, it was a lack of faith that kept Israel from attacking

The bottom line is that it is the Christian's responsibility to defend and protect. Watching murder and rape go on in another country when you can do something about it is no different than watching your neighbor being raped and doing nothing about it. That's not to say that aren't times we can't help or that direct intervention is the best course of action in all cases, but nonetheless, there are times we can help and should do so. It's our moral obligation.

2:09 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Sir Aaron said...

OBTW, you really should read more history of the muslim incursions. The parallels are striking.

And only a fool thinks they can't reach us. You don't have to conquer us with invading armies. You merely need to cause enough sabotage to cause us to implode internally (or take over Michigan).

2:11 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Jon said...

"You should check out Michael Medved's history of Israel. You might find it interesting."

Shamgar: "Unlikely."

And that is unlikely because you don't see any need to know or care about people other than "true" Christians?

Shamgar again:

"So...now the issue of how you treat your neighbor applies to nations as well? Can you demonstrate to me where God had israel come to the rescue of every other nation that came under attack?"

Wow. At least now we know where you stand. I hope I don't ever get mugged on your street.

5:00 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Anonymous said...

"The bottom line is that it is the Christian's responsibility to defend and protect."

Where is this in the Bible? Where is there a Christian nation to fulfill such a duty?

"Watching murder and rape go on in another country when you can do something about it is no different than watching your neighbor being raped and doing nothing about it."

They are clearly two different things as you have demonstrated in differentiating them here.

"It's our moral obligation."

Do you have a chapter and verse for this?

"Wow. At least now we know where you stand. I hope I don't ever get mugged on your street."

You are not a nation are you?

6:09 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger RazorsKiss said...

Why, are you a nation? ;)

6:54 PM, November 10, 2010  
Blogger Sir Aaron said...

I'm trying to decide whether I should reply to an "anonymous" poster. My first inclination is no.

7:44 AM, November 11, 2010  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

That's probably wise.

8:04 AM, November 11, 2010  
Blogger threegirldad said...

(which I originally saw at the A&O blog -- not really sure how he got space there?)

I've been wondering the same thing as well.

He became a regular contributor back in July.

10:56 AM, November 11, 2010  
Blogger thomas4881 said...

I read a book by Hal Lindsey called The Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad. It's a great book and really clarified the Middle East issue for me.

Hal Lindsey has another book called Vanished Into Thin Air. That book does a great job of explaining the difference between Israel and the Church. The Church is a mystery revealed in the New Testament and will be raptured before the tribulation.

11:11 PM, November 11, 2010  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home