voxdan

voxdan

23p

19 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

13 years ago @ American Vision - Not Imposing Christian... · 0 replies · 0 points

I assume you are talking to me, Greg. I have been looking for awhile now and had no luck. I even know a fair number of professors, authors and other teachers, many of whom will admit to me that they do not agree with these things but none so far that can give me any good resource defending there views. Oh well. If i find something i will post it. I was hoping some of the anti-av trolls would bite. We'll see.

13 years ago @ American Vision - Not Imposing Christian... · 0 replies · +2 points

Oops. Forgot to subscribe and didn't see how to edit that in. Sorry. Subscribing to replies now.

13 years ago @ American Vision - Not Imposing Christian... · 0 replies · +1 points

Good show guys. One thing I would LOVE to have is a reference to what is considered the best critique of Reconstruction, Dominion Theology, Theonomy or whatever. I have tried to find something and have had no luck apart from works like Dominion Theology by House and Ice, and the Westminster "response" to Bahnsen, both of which were little more than embarrassing.

I admit that I am in the same camp as Demar and others around here. That said, I would be grateful for any recommendations of works that are seen as satisfactory answers to reconstruction, theonomy, etc.. Apart from books like the ones mentioned above, I am only able to occasionally find criticisms in passing that just assume their own positions without actually engaging with the topics. I'm hoping for something more to engage with. Thanks for your thoughts.

13 years ago @ American Vision - A "Howse" Built on Pro... · 0 replies · +1 points

Well, I don't know why Demar doesn't just close up shop. Obviously Howse and all the other rapture writers have all the answers....it doesn't matter what scripture references are used because Howse and friends know it all...

How was it for you?

Mike, if you have it figured out, write a few articles, maybe a book, and let it be critiqued by those who tend to agree and those who tend not to. Engage in the debate, and respect the topic. Are you honestly suggesting that people who have "scripture references" are necessarily correct? Are you suggesting that those who make proposals, particularly relating to something as important as Christian life and even eternity, should not be examined and corrected where necessary? I know this can't be your actual view.

Answer some of the many questions Demar and others pose to the rapture camp? Provide some verses that, in context and within the whole of Scripture, demonstrate your views and show how criticisms are unwarranted.

13 years ago @ American Vision - A "Howse" Built on Pro... · 0 replies · +1 points

I am not entirely sure I understand your point, Ryan, but I think I do, and I think I agree with you. Let me rephrase my thoughts in a more general sense as opposed to one directly responding to the notion of sinking ships.

One of my points in all of this has always been, even if you believe Jesus will be back tomorrow, how does that remove our responsibility to "polish" as it has been used here? Further, how does such a person distinguish biblically between polishing and saving souls? There seems to be an assumed separation between saving souls and simply living Christianly. I submit that regardless of when Christ consummates things, whether in a matter of hours or millennia , we are still called to act like Christians and one thing Christians are called to do is polish - whatever that may mean. And "polishing" is living out a Christian Worldview.

In this light, I also agree with Ryan that eschatology, from a perspective, should be largely irrelevant to the simple task, as he puts it. If more modern American Christians spent an equal amount of time developing a biblical worldview in it's largest sense, then they would find that our behavior should not be affected by our eschatology. Think of it from another perspective. If people were convinced that the Bible taught that Jesus would not return for one million years, should that mean that we should be less vigilant and active in our evangelism and Biblical love for one another? Of course not. By the same means, if believing that Jesus is coming next week means that we are all of a sudden more vigilant, then we need to question our Christian life and lifestyle right now.

Of course, as it turns out, this is one of the major arguments futurists offer up in support of their rapture theory: that expectancy encourages vigilance and keeps us on our toes, so to speak. While expecting a rapture certainly will keep many people on their toes, the question continues to be whether the Bible actually teaches a rapture as well as whether, perhaps more importantly, a rapture is intended to be the motivation for Christians to behave Christianly - which includes vigilantly. In this sense, I agree with Ryan that eschatology should be largely irrelevant in deciding our behavior. The overarching testimony of Scripture should shape our worldview, our actions.

It is worth pointing out, however, that from another perspective, our eschatology should be entirely relevant. Christianity is an eschatological faith and worldview. Once again, enlightenment thinking has done us in with its categories and divisions (for which we can thank the Germans and specifically Schleiermacher). We get so caught up in specializations (which has become the bane of many seminaries) that once we dissect the patient (ie. the Bible and Christianity) we often fail to put it back in its proper place and context, thereby allowing each part to properly influence and be influenced by the others. The modern church has, to a large extent, isolated its eschatology, and for many people, the Bible gets interpreted via the assumption of an "any moment rapture." That's when eschatology becomes a negative influence on our worldview. When we reintegrate our eschatology as a part of the larger worldview, no matter how large a portion eschatology may be of that whole, we return to a more healthy understanding and we are allowed to be informed by our whole worldview, our whole faith.

So, Ryan is correct, if I understand him correctly, that if we understand what Scripture says about Christian living, then we cannot base our actions on whether Christ is returning Thursday or in a million years. Even Christ's summary statement of the Law, to love your God and your neighbor, must, regardless of a particular eschatology, be the determining factor in how we live our lives. If there were not teaching of a rapture (which I believe there isn't in the popular sense) we should still be Christian, which includes evangelism with vigilance (after all, history has shown that people's death has always come before a rapture and that evangelism in light of the shortness of life is a much more reasonable and should be a more effective motivator than anything else).

13 years ago @ American Vision - A "Howse" Built on Pro... · 0 replies · +1 points

Well said. That said, these kinds of comments, as true as they may be, tend to come up when people are disagreeing with each other - often vehemently, and sometimes rudely. I will agree specifically with two things mentioned above, the second first. First, yes, as is probably the entire reason for the post, we should be charitable. However, the question then becomes what does it mean to be charitable? Does it mean we should simply agree to disagree, smile and walk away? While this seems to be the hope of many who make such comments - a desire to be a peacekeeper - I would rather point to a second agreeable point in the post: we should be called "to a greater diligence and persistence in seeking their solution."

I would argue that our issue here is not that we should agree to disagree or accept all viewpoints as holding some truth or any other such thing. In our effort to be diligent and persistent, charity should indeed be at the center. Specifically, charity in this case should mean actively seeking to understand the views of the other person; reading and engaging with their articles and books; making more than bald assertions which betray a defensiveness more than a desire for truth; leaning on Scripture whenever possible and admitting when one might not be sure if and where Scripture says such a thing; being firm when confident but not afraid to admit that you may not be as well read or have thought out the issue as fully as others. The list could go on, but you should get the picture.

Unfortunately, what usually passes for discourse in forums and threads like these is little more than defensive assertion, out-of-context proof texts, and emotional ramblings. If that is what generally fills up the American Vision threads, what do you think this means for the general condition of Christian dialogue elsewhere? And should we be surprised when unbelievers look at what they believe passes for mature dialogue among Christians with a laugh and a scoff.

Sofia is 100% correct in point, though I cannot speak to her intentions. But we are talking about the Lord God omnipotent and Jesus our Savior and Lord. We simply MUST immerse ourselves in Holy Scripture and pursue truth with "diligence and persistence." And when things start to get out of hand, while a brief respite may be needed, the answer is not to merely retreat and ignore each other, but to honestly engage one another responsibly.

I think it might be an interesting experiment if all Christians could, at least for a time, come at discussion and debate and dialogue with the intention of proving themselves *wrong*, instead of always assuming they are right and defending themselves often foolishly. At the very least, the conversation would be more civil, likely more productive and more helpful over all. And then, once you have maturely sifted thoroughly through the views of your "opponent" you will either be able to rejoice in new understanding or be more confident in your view having withstood the honest assault and better for it.

13 years ago @ American Vision - A "Howse" Built on Pro... · 0 replies · +1 points

I suppose it is just the nature of forum threads and post comments, but the answers to nearly all the questions that are asked could be answered usually by a quick website search and at most by reading what someone (in this case, Demar) has written over and over again in books. I realize that may not always be easy - at least the book part of things - but what it should ALWAYS mean is that the critic is slow to dogmatism, short on dogmatic proof texts, and patient in all things until the fullness of a matter is known. In this case, it should be assumed that the points and verses in question are not entirely foreign to Demar and have most likely been dealt with elsewhere.

Honestly, I am not attacking Diana here, but only placing my comment here for context. Her's is not nearly as offensive as most of the "comebacks" I've read around here. But still, it might have been more charitable and helpful to state that, "These verses seem to be saying such-and-such to me; are you suggesting they may mean something else? If so, what evidence from Scripture can you offer?"

If someone is truly interested in understanding the view of Demar and others, whether in order to come to a better understanding themselves or merely to prepare an attack, one really needs to invest time and maybe a little money in the books and articles they write.

13 years ago @ American Vision - A "Howse" Built on Pro... · 0 replies · +1 points

Funny thing really. I just finished reading House Divided again this morning where the association with pentecostal and charismatic churches is dealt with. Seemingly a million years later people are still bringing that up. It amazes me that so long after House and Ice thoroughly embarrassed themselves with Dominion Theology people on that side still refuse to engage responsibly or interact professionally or academically. Of course, I would be surprised if anyone on the "other side" ever read House Divided or just about any other similar statement or response. It's like people who appeal to Chosen But Free as a end-all reply to Reformed theology.

Anyways, just rambling and not saying anything either for or against you Jim. Your last point just got me thinking.

13 years ago @ American Vision - A "Howse" Built on Pro... · 0 replies · +1 points

1) Gary has provided a ridiculous amount of clear Scriptural references demonstrating your initially stated understanding of dominion and who has power in this world is mistaken. You seem to ignore that.

2) Your reply to the challenge, "show me a verse that says there will be a "rapture" prior to a tribulation period," is, "I can't but I bet you can't show me a verse to say there won't be." Really? REALLY??

3) So, contradictory views can both be rational and biblical?

4) Just because you do not believe Scripture has any clear references regarding eschatology does not make it so. In fact, this is the very thing up for debate. That said, that you believe it is so and then admit that your view (and apparently "all" or "most" views) are based on inferences says a lot more about your view than anything else. Even if this "inference" idea were true, it would not follow that all inferences are equally valid or supported.

5) Finally, this tendency of people to call just about any disagreement an argument and to assume that all argumentation or debate is bad again says more about the strength of their own position than anything else. No one on either side would suggest that we are all not brothers in Christ and should treat each other so. But argumentation and debate is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, properly engaged, it is an excellent way of reaching the truth of a matter, which I assume is what is important, right? It simply will not do for one person, in lieu of offering a valid response, to merely appeal to some peace treaty notion of fellowship. Mohler is correct, in so far as I read him, that certain issues are perhaps of a lesser order and should not come between Christian brotherhood. What you have not demonstrated is how disagreement - even vehement disagreement - is coming between brotherhood? What appears to actually be the case is that some people, when they do not have a satisfying reply, will take the defensive, accuse others of misrepresentation, and cry out, "Why can't we all just get along?" We ARE getting along. Brothers argue, brothers disagree. Man up.

Show with Scripture why your case is so. My goal is to love and know Christ with all of myself. I rely on fellow believers to help lead the way, set me straight when need be, and help me mature in Christ. A friend of mine refuses to even talk about some issues, including eschatology because, as he says, "You have your verses and I have mine. There's no need to argue about them." I bet that many of the people around here have that same mentality. But that is not a helpful way to think about these things. It *is* often the way people who have little more than out-of-context proof texts think about these things, but that will not do. We should all wish to be proven wrong, and surely, if it will draw us closer to Christ. Unfortunately, most people seem more interested in clinging to cherished notions, even if they are nothing more than inferences and possibilities given their own presuppositions.

13 years ago @ American Vision - A "Howse" Built on Pro... · 0 replies · +1 points

Of course, the actual question is, "can you demonstrate from Scripture that we are on a sinking ship?" Further, can you do so after engaging with the work of differing positions?

I choose to follow Christ and His Laws and commandments. Even if you believe we are on a sinking ship, how can you possibly follow Jesus' commandments and NOT polish the furniture? It seems that most Christians today have turned "love your neighbor as yourself" into "get the lost into the life boats at all costs!" But that is not primarily what Christ said nor what the Law that He was referring to said.

Of course, what will be most frustrating is when we one day discover that loving our neighbor as ourselves, in all its breadth and meaning, is actually what will bring the lost to salvation; while primarily running around waiting for a rapture will, for the most part, have been a waste of time that pushed more people away than anything else.

Also, the sinking ship/life boat thing, apart from offering a false dichotomy, does little more than betray who you read and consider authorities on these subjects.