Posted on 10/11/2001 8:44:26 PM PDT by sola gracia
"Everything has changed." That refrain has become as common in the post-9/11 world as "God bless America."
America's culture-makers—many of whom live in New York City—are deeply shaken. The intellectual movements, artistic styles, and entertainment fads now seem obsolete.
True, left-wing academics like Noam Chomsky and Susan Sontag treat American values with a disdain second only, perhaps, to Osama bin Laden. But in insisting that the terrorist attacks were justified because of America's imperialism, its support of Israel, and oppression of the developing world, the post-Marxists on university campuses are making fools of themselves, to the point that it is evident even to college students.
As Andrew Sullivan, senior editor of The New Republic, points out, the leftists are putting themselves in the uncomfortable position of supporting an ideology that brutally subjugates women (to the point of flogging them for walking by themselves in public), executes homosexuals, and outlaws nearly every human freedom. People who have made their careers by condemning America for being anti-woman, homophobic, and oppressive are now defending a regime that really is all of these things. And anyone who compares New York City to Afghanistan has to admit that America is a free country, after all, that it has ideals worth defending.
Hollywood, with a guilty conscience, is toning down its violence. The art world is calling for an end to irony and nihilism.
So what changes can we expect on the cultural scene? If irony, cynicism, and nihilism have become irrelevant, what next?
Possibly we may see a new appreciation for America's heritage. Patriotism is back, big time. Churches are full. The terrorists hate America's freedom and they hate Christianity. This is reason enough to stop taking them for granted and to build on them once again.
But there are other possibilities. An excess of freedom, warned Plato, is often followed by an excess of tyranny. Could the culture go from the extreme of anything goes to the other extreme of social oppression?
Liberals are crowing that the era of distrust of government is over. There are calls for national ID cards and the suspension of constitutional rights. Many in the timorous public seem willing to give up freedom for security—just as the great Christian cultural critic Francis Schaeffer warned about decades ago.
Perhaps more dangerous in the post-postmodernist era is what may happen to religion. Suddenly the cultural hostility to faith went up in smoke, when Americans faced real pain and real spiritual need. This was a good sign. And yet, in the well-intentioned "interfaith prayer services," a more disturbing note was sounded. Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus were all worshipping together, praying, it was said, "to the same God."
The Bible strictly forbids syncretistic worship, the mingling of biblical and pagan religions, a violation of the First Commandment. When the Israelites brought idols of Baal into the Temple, presumably because they thought they and the Canaanites worshipped "the same god," the real God was not pleased.
Such multi-faith worship may be the beginning of the much-anticipated "one-world religion," which, though filled with pious emotionalism and religiosity, will be far different from Christianity.
Another theological possibility is a militant secularism. Salman Rushdie, the novelist who has been under an Islamic death sentence, wrote a column for The Washington Post in which he takes to task the anti-American left but also urges the exaltation of everything the Islamic "fundamentalists" are against.
"The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings," Mr. Rushdie writes. "Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex."
It is easy, he says, to be against terrorism. "But what are we for? What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we unanimously concur that all the items in the above list—yes, even the short skirts and dancing—are worth dying for?"
Just as the Romans were unwilling to die for their orgies in the face of the barbarian onslaught, Americans, though open to many things on that list, are probably unwilling to die for such things as evolution, homosexuality, and short skirts.
The point, though, is that, in some circles, people are already lumping conservative Christians together with the Muslim terrorists as "fundamentalists," as the enemy who deserves to be stamped out.
The "legalism" and/or "religiosity" of emotionally or spiritually IMMATURE professing Christians might be one excuse many who are "turned off to Christianity" use, but it's not a valid "reason".
There is only one valid reason for why people reject the Scriptural, historic, *Christian* religion, and that is the FACT that the natural man HATES the Sovereign, Triune GOD.
BTW! Ever notice how so many of those who don't attend church services "because there are too many hypocrites there", have no problem going to the ball game, the grocery store, and other places where "the hypocrites" go? :)
I think the route is fairly clearly laid out. . . Islam insanity . . . perhaps the much predicted rise of Christian wealth and much increased quality and intensity of spirituality with incredibly dramatic signs and wonders accordingly . . . dead being raised and other more dramatic things un-thought of as yet . . .
The enemy gets increasingly outraged at the above and his darkness grows as well as his own counterfeit demonstrations of power. . . at some point the Christians increased wealth and the increased natural catastrophes and man made disasters also increasing will likely result in the kind of blame on "those fundamentalist Christians and Zionist Jews" much as Hitler blamed the troubles of Germany and the world on the Jews and their money holdings.
At some point in the assorted mayhem, the evil man of pseudo peace will step up and offer in a plausible but incredibly deceptive proposal to bring peace and harmony under a new world religion syncretizing and outlawing all others at the same time. And the weary stubborn, rebellious of the world will go yippie kai yai yea all the way to the black hot hole, cursing God in the midst of reaping what they've sown.
But that rough scenario--whatever degree it turns out to be accurate is too easy. . . the Manual says as much in so many words, to my understanding anyway. I'd be interested if others have come up with different or similar scenarios from their reading of The Bible and the newspaper.
And what did Luther think about this passage? He regarded James as an "epistle of straw."
I have been taught to appreciate Romans recently *a grin here for all good Calvinists*
Romans 3And may I add that works without faith damns a man to hell
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.Romans 9
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.
But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 3 who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
That rant should have been directed to "the American people" themselves. It should have also been directed toward the preachers in the churches in America who claim to be "spiritual guides to the blind", but who instead, are hirelings and soothsayers telling people what they want to hear.
These are the emasculators of God AND America. They are responsible for making America weak and vulnerable to attack. Now they want to blame President Bush for not doing something about it???? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
I have always used a Scofield bible,which of course uses a dispensational system in it teaching.
I have thought of that primarily as a way of dividing up time and events..not so much a base of a theological viewpoint
I may have heard of covenant theology at some point,but it never meant much to me..
Dispensationalists, on the other hand, believe that God has two people - Isreal and the Church. They believe that Isreal is an earthly people, and the church his heavenly people.I am trying now to digest the differences..it would seem to my simple mind that both hold some truth.
PI..I am trying to learn,this is not a challange (because on its surface Covenant theology appears sound) but I dont understand how end times are viewed from that direction
So only someone who "accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior" is saved? Are all Muslims damned? All Hindus? All agnostics?
Yes as are Catholics and Protestants that think they are saved by works.
And with that, I say adieu.
Good point!
I guess I'm really talking about scandal. Things like being abused by a "religious" parent, etc.
A theologian friend of mine (whose mother is Jewish) spoke to this subject not long ago in response to someone's question. I'll post from my email archives, what he wrote. Please note that we are in full agreement with the US government's support of Isreal, but just *not for Scriptural reasons*, so don't misinterpret what is written here:
Question: "Should Christians ___use the Scriptures___ to justify supporting our government as it backs Israel?" Joel 3:1-17 is referenced.
His answer: "Let's look at the situation.
Should we be supporting the modern day state of Israel because...they utilized the name "Israel" as the name of their political state? Hal Lindsey certainly thinks so ... that they rejected their covenant and had the kingdom taken from them seems to escape the more zealous of the dispensationalists.
Peter considered Joel's prophecy (at least part of it) to have been fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, as he clearly stated:
"But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. "For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: 'AND IT SHALL BE IN THE LAST DAYS,' God says, 'THAT I WILL POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT ON ALL MANKIND; AND YOUR SONS AND YOUR DAUGHTERS SHALL PROPHESY, AND YOUR YOUNG MEN SHALL SEE VISIONS, AND YOUR OLD MEN SHALL DREAM DREAMS; EVEN ON MY BONDSLAVES, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, I WILL IN THOSE DAYS POUR FORTH OF MY SPIRIT And they shall prophesy. 'AND I WILL GRANT WONDERS IN THE SKY ABOVE AND SIGNS ON THE EARTH BELOW, BLOOD, AND FIRE, AND VAPOR OF SMOKE. 'THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME. 'AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED'"(Acts 2:14-21).
The Jews were to lose the kingdom and be cast out for their utter breaking of the covenant and rejection of God completely in the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ:
"Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. "I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 8:10-12).
The Jews rejected their covenant with God ultimately and finally in their rejection of their Messiah, Jesus Christ. The kingdom was *taken from them* and given to those that would bear the fruit of it, i.e., Christians, made up of former Gentiles and Jews, making the new man, the Israel of God under the New and *everlasting* Covenant.
"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. "And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust." When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them" (Matthew 21:43-45).
"The end" in the context of the New Testament was not the end of the world, but the end of the Jewish covenant, profoundly marked by the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem and the total ending of the old covenant system of religion as it had become obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).
Jesus Christ foretold:
"This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come" (Matthew 24:14). He spoke these words circa A.D. 33.
The New Testament context for this usage is provided by Paul, who conclusively stated it had been fulfilled:
"Because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of THE GOSPEL, which has come to you, AS IT HAS ALSO IN ALL THE WORLD, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth" (Colossians 1:5-6). Accomplished by circa A.D. 61.
The Jews committed the ultimate apostasy in their rejection of their King, Jesus Christ, and for this God's wrath was to be poured upon them to the uttermost:
"Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost" (1 Thess. 2:16).
1 Corinthians 10:11 states the *end of the ages* had come upon the disbelieving Jews that had lost the kingdom and were cast out.
There is absolutely no significance to being an ethnic Jew (even *if* the present mixing of various persons that have Israeli citizenship are to be literally equated with either ethnic Israel or the people of the old covenant, which the former is very suspect and the latter is conclusively not true in any sense) under the New Covenant:
"For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED" (Romans 10:12-13).
"a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all" (Colossians 3:11).
Suggested Reading:
O. Palmer Robertson, *Israel of God--Is the modern state of Israel the fulfillment of ancient prophecy?* (P&R Publishing).
R.C. Sproul, *The Last Days According to Jesus* (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998).
Hope that answers your question.
You could also use a reading lesson and one in humility.
In covenant theology, we believe that God has but one place for his people, since he has but one people, one plan, and one plan of salvation. His people will be in his presence for eternity.
In dispensational theology there is disagreement regarding the future state of Isreal and the church. Many believe that the church will sit with Christ on his throne in the New Jerusalem during the millennium as he rules over the nations, while Isreal will be the head of the nations on earth.
Another difference is in regards to "The birth of the church":
In covenant theology we believe that the church existed prior to the New Terstament era, including all the redeemed since Adam. Pentecost was not the beginning of the church, but the empowering of the New Testament manifestation of God's people.
Dispensationalists believe that the church began on the day of Pentecost and did not exist in history until that time. The church, the body of Christ, is not found in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament saints are not a part of the body of Christ.
We differ on "The purpose of Christ's first coming", too:
In covenant theology, we believe that Christ came to die for our sins and to establish the New Isreal, the New Testament manifestation of the church. This continuation of God's plan placed the church under a new and better covenant, which was a new manifestation of the same Covenant of Grace. The kingdom that Jesus offered was the present, spiritual, and invisible kingdom. (Some covenantialists ... esp. postmillennialists... also see a physical aspect to the kingdom).
Dispensationalists believe that Christ came to establish the messianic kingdom. Some dispensationalists believe that this was to be an earthly kingdom in fulfillment of the Old Testament promises to Isreal. If the Jew's had accepted Jesus' offer, this earthly kingdom would have been immediately established. Other dispensationalists believe that christ did establish the messianic kingdom in some form in which the church participates but that the earthly kingdom awaits the second coming of Christ to the earth. That Christ always intended the cross before the crown. More following.
Regarding, "The fulfillment of the New Covenant":
In covenant theology, we believe that the promises of the New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31ff. are fulfilled in the New Testament.
Dispensationalists differ over whether only Isreal is to participate in the New Covenant, at a later time, or whether both the church and Isreal jointly participate. Some dispensationalists believe there is one new covenant with two applications: one for Isreal and one for the church. Others believe that there are two new covenants: one for Isreal and another one for the church.
Re: "The problem of amillennialism and post-millennialism versus pre-millennialism":
Covenant theology has been amillennial historically, believing the kingdom to be present and spiritual, or postmillennial, believing the kingdom is being established on earth with Christ's coming as the culmination. In *recent* years some covenant theologians have been premillennial, believing that there will be a future manifestation of God's Kingdom on earth. However, God's dealings with Isreal will be in connection with the church. Postmillennialists believe that the church is bringing in the kingdom now, with Isreal ultimately to be made a part of the church.
All dispensationalists are premillennialists, though not necessarily pretribulationalists. Premillenialists of this type believe that God will turn to the nation of Isreal again apart from his work with the church and that there will be a thousand-year period of Christ's reign on David's throne in accordance with, and in fulfillment of, the prophecies of the Old Testment.
Regarding "The second coming of Christ":
In covenant theology, we believe that Christ's coming will be to bring final judgement and the eternal state. But those who are premillennial assert that a millennial period will precede the judgement and eternal state. Postmillennialists believe that the kingdom is being established by the work of God's people on the earth until the time when Christ will bring it to completion at his coming.
Dispensationalists believe "the rapture" will occur first, according to most, then a tribulation period, followed by a thousand-year reign of Christ, after which there will be judgement and the eternal state.
Try this "reading lesson". Only a "dictator" could comply with this request:
"Mr. President, would you consider putting prayer back in the schools and letting us pray at social functions? Could we pray in restaurants and could we have reminders of the Lord God? Can we put a crib back on our lawns and not be afraid of being ridiculed? Mr. President, would you consider having prayer back in the schools? Would you consider taking that horrible law with permission to kill, to terrorize the innocent? ...But would you consider, saying no more abortion is allowed in this country?"
If the hearts and minds of the "majority" of American citizens aren't in agreement with what that woman wants President Bush to do, whose fault is that??? His???
It is the fault of the so-called "spiritual leaders" who claim to speak for God, but who are nothing but religious left-wing hirelings and soothsayers.
If the people in a so-called "Christian" nation are immoral/a-moral ... the blame can be laid right at the door of the so-called Christian churches and seminaries , most of which have become feminized right along with all of our other once-great institutions.
You already had it in black and white..it is written in the bible
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Read Romans 2:6-11 for another angle.
And, by the way, it doesn't say "If you confess Jesus Christ with your lips and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, but are a Catholic, you're damned to hell." Although you have damned me, and my one billion co-religionists, to eternal hellfire already on this thread, I hope to see you in heaven. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I have not damned anyone..I said anyone that thinks they will get to heaven through works is lost..if that is you well it is you..
That was a broad statement that included all religions..go back and read it again
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.