The Foreign Policy of 20 Million Would-Be Immortals

Ken,

Thanks very much for the link. I'm going to send it to several people who are mystified by the whole fundamentalists/Israel connection.

Joshua

 

Ken

Thanks. Several things in that article I didnt know,nor did I expect to read. Would a pre-mill person give a critque of it?

Jeff.

 

OK, all I have time for is to critique the second paragraph:

We may die, we may not die. THe possibility exists that we may not die, but will be caught up into the air with Jesus when the Trumpet blows. However, that will be after the "dead in Christ" go first and then "we which are alive and remain" shall be caught up with Him in the air.

Now, here is the first statement of your article that is utterly false:

My belief rests entirely on the existence of Jesus and what the Bible says:

So since the first statement of the article was false, then this next statement is false, as well:

Obviously, the author of this piece does not understand the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine since these first two statements are in error.

That is NOT why I regard the affairs in the Middle East as a life-and-no-death matter. The reason I regard the affairs in the Middle East has to do with the fact that the Land was originally given by God to Israel. It has nothing to do with my doctrinal belief about the pre-tribulation rapture!

OKAY, this is a chain, may another pre-tribber step up to the plate? I'm usually the pre-tribber these guys beat up on....

 

Quote by Jeff:

Would a pre-mill person give a critque of it?
______________________________________________

Somehow I doubt it, Brother Jeff. They might have to admit Israel is what it is. Just another country in this old world.

Cheers,

Jim

 

As a dispesnationalist, I will say that my beliefs(and the beliefs of other dispensationalists I know) does not come from current events. I really am not concerned (from a theological point) about what is going on in Israel. I am not encouraging Jews to return there. This article (although I only breezed through it) seems based on a lot of plainly false ideas. You can tell this writer was not objective when he wrote. As for hte content, it is just like any other man's writings. It is merely an opinion.

It is not up to us to encourage Jews to move back to Israel. The Scripture teaches God will regather his people to the nation and this was promised from the book of Deut right on through. Those promises have not changed. But with regards to the destruction of people, the Jews will be regathered to the land after the destruction of those who reject Christ.

He bases his eschatology on current events rather than on Scripture. How ironic is that?? Unfortunately it is all too prevalent. Basing escahtology on current events is what brought us postmillennialism and amillennialism. What we need is a robust return to Scripture, separated from all the hype from both sides--the covenant hype and the dispensationalist hype. Once we get this return, only one position will remain. But alas, to dream of that return is only a dream. It will never happen because people are too entrenched and too uninterested to read and study, as this fellow admits.

Why is it that someone thinks that a dispensationalist ought to answer an ill-informed and poorly stated proposition??? Just because something can be voiced does not mean that it is worthy of attention. This has been the great downside of hte internet. You used to have to be somewhat credible to get a hearing. Now you just have to have a computer and phone line.

 

Well said, Pastor Larry.

Don't know why people insist on creating confusion about doctrine they really don't know anything about.

 

He is quoting the leading proponents of modern dispensationalism. A return to the Bible will lead you directly to amil or realized millennialism, and NOT current events.

We are not the ones who insisted that Russia must have loads of horses so the Big Bear of the North can ride its horses into whatever......they were dispensationalists, and they still teach that.

Cheers,

Jim

 

No he is not. Look at the names he is quoting. If you think those are leading proponents of modern dispensationalism, then you are way behind. The only quotation he gives from a knowledgeable dispensationalist is John Walvoord and he misrepresents him as encouraging a genocide by sending Jews back to Israel. You get your view of dispensationalists from a bunch of whackos who publish these fictional books. There are better sources for it.

Both of these are wrong. No one ever became an amil from the Bible alone. That position started from reading the Bible in light of current events.

You fail to make a distinction between dispensationalism and dispensationalists. Some people are stupid. That doesn't make them representative. The amil position has a number of stupid proponents as well, but I don't see you running from that becuase of it. Don't confuse what some people say as their interpretation with what dispensationalism teaches as it sine qua non.

 

Yes ... ... Actually, in academic circles, which is where my training is, Hal Lindsey is not an issue. There is a well-studied and well-defended side of dispensationalism that does not involve the foolishness of "Left Behind." It is unfortunate that all most people know of dispensationalism are these stupid caricatures of people with Bible in one hand and newspapers in the others. That frustrates me. But the reality is that their unfounded opinions will never persuade me from what I believe is the only position that can consistently deal with all of Scripture. If others disagree, that is fine with me. If they come to my church, they will hear what I believe. I just hate the caricatures.

 

I can relate to Pastor Larry's comment "It is unfortunate that all most people know of dispensationalism are these stupid caricatures of people with Bible in one hand and newspapers in the others. That frustrates me."

Gary North is frequently an extremely similar irritant for postimillenialists and partial preterists who feel that other eschatological points of view are biblically based and have merit as I do. I am amil, but I regularly have to defend respectible partial preterism in light of the arrogance with which Gary North writes. In my opinion he regularly shows little understanding of alternative points of view and as a result his writings are rife with inflamatory assertions and little or no backing for them.

This doesn't exactly answer the original question, but I do think that it is fair to look at the author of the article in question and ask if he has a history of being fair and balanced in his evaluation of other systems. My opinion is that Gary North's record demonstrates this not to be the case and that his articles should be read with that in mind. Please feel free to read his other works and agree or disagree with me. This is just my $.02.

In Christ,
Ron