If they are going to martyr you, don't make it cheap for them.
Today is a good day to die.
I didn't say for whom.
Posted on 02/03/2011 11:38:35 PM PST by RJR_fan
Molotov Mitchell hits another one out of the ballpark!
Click HERE.
But he did, especially throughout the OT.
But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away. (Isa. 64:6)The Hebrew for “filthy rags” indicates a woman’s menstrual cloth.
I believe Galatians 5:12. The ESV and a few other versions translate it as, “I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!”
If they are going to martyr you, don't make it cheap for them.
Second commandment violation aside, it looks like cross between Max von Sydow, Jeffrey Hunter, and Randolph Scott.
You unfairly twist my words. Just because there is an honest disagreement regarding eschatology doesn’t mean you can’t ever be incorrect with interpretations of Scripture. Eschatology will continue to be debated until Jesus returns, what can’t be debated is that Jesus will come back to a world that is not perfected.
Mr. Mitchell (or whatever his name is) states the following regarding dispensationalists: “[They] can’t shake the unbiblical idea that we can’t win on earth.” It is his underlying premise that is unbiblical…we can’t win without Jesus.
Mr. Mitchell also says he believes “We will ultimately turn this world around.” This is also clearly unscriptural.
Mr. Mitchell seems to be giving way too much credit to the power of man to defeat Satan. Man left to his own devices will not prevail without the direct intervention of our Savior.
Mr. Mitchell also unfairly attributes a defeatist world view to dispensationalists. I have known many dispensationalists and none of them believe that the blood of Jesus isn’t enough to defeat the devil as this guy tries to portray. Mr. Mitchell is way too smug in his overstatements on this point and his own self assurances that he is correct on eschatological matters are bombastic and rude. I think Mr. Mitchell would do better to love his fellow Christians brothers rather than wallowing in ridicule of them for having different end times beliefs.
I dare say that no one will miss the trumpet of God nor will there be anything secret or selective in the event described in Thessalonians. The same is true for almost all the verses quoted to support the rapture. They're out of context and woven into a straw mat of verses carefully selected to buttress that theory.
I like the way another poster described the doctrine of the "secret rapture:"
Oh, this will be fun.
Do tell us what the 2nd Commandment says.
Feel free to translate from the Hebrew, if you please.
Maybe you should spend more time witnessing to the lost than coming up with “clever” ways of ridiculing people’s end times world views? I’m just saying...you all seem way to joyful in your disdain.
Q. 107. Which is the second commandment?
A. The second commandment is, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.Q. 108. What are the duties required in the second commandment?
A. The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his word; particularly prayer and thanksgiving in the name of Christ; the reading, preaching, and hearing of the word; the administration and receiving of the sacraments; church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof; religious fasting; swearing by the name of God, and vowing unto him: as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.Q. 109. What sins are forbidden in the second commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counseling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshiping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them; all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.Q. 110. What are the reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it?
A. The reasons annexed to the second commandment, the more to enforce it, contained in these words, For I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments; are, besides God's sovereignty over us, and propriety in us, his fervent zeal for his own worship, and his revengeful indignation against all false worship, as being a spiritual whoredom; accounting the breakers of this commandment such as hate him, and threatening to punish them unto divers generations; and esteeming the observers of it such as love him and keep his commandments, and promising mercy to them unto many generations. (Westminster Larger Catechism)
Molotov Mitchell
Hmm. Never heard of him before this. Like La Palin, he does get seem to get a lot of a particular sort of people all foaming at the mouth.
I'm undecided about whether to bookmark that under /christian/eschatology or "/christian/eschatology -- bad eschatology and it's consequences". "Rapture in the nick of Tribulation" and "take over the world in the name of Jesus" aren't the only alternatives. The dispensationalists aren't wrong because they're defeatist. They're wrong because the interpret the Bible wrongly, having a flawed axiom.
Or are you condemning Michelangelo's Last Supper, as well as your family photos and the Rand McNally map in your car as violations of the 2nd?
Enlighten me.
Also, withering sarcasm is sometimes the best, kindest, and wisest way to deal with hideous things that clamp like vampires to the Body of Christ. God Himself chortles at the insane schemes of the wicked. I've got to invoke old G K Chesterton:
At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the modern sceptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance. It is exactly this intellectual helplessness which is our second problem.....
But the kings in their heavy gold and the proud in their robes of purple will all of their nature sink downwards, for pride cannot rise to levity or levitation. Pride is the downward drag of all things into an easy solemnity. One "settles down" into a sort of selfish seriousness; but one has to rise to a gay self- forgetfulness. A man "falls" into a brown study; he reaches up at a blue sky. Seriousness is not a virtue. It would be a heresy, but a much more sensible heresy, to say that seriousness is a vice. It is really a natural trend or lapse into taking one's self gravely, because it is the easiest thing to do. It is much easier to write a good TIMES leading article than a good joke in PUNCH. For solemnity flows out of men naturally; but laughter is a leap. It is easy to be heavy: hard to be light. Satan fell by the force of gravity.
However it does not jive with history..nor the present or future... and just because you think this is true does not make it true... and this while tweaking scripture to accomodate your position. Same ol story ...that's been denounced and proven false time and again.
You latch onto that part of my statement but the crux of my point was that you all appear to disdain your Christian Brothers who hold viewpoints that bear not one ounce of relevancy to the issue of salvation. I’m just saying...maybe we should all spend more time discussing how to reach the lost than belittling those with whom we disagree. Mr. Mitchell clearly wants to be provocative. I can only venture to guess his motives, but the truth of the matter is that he is only serving to cause division among the Saints. He certainly isn’t winning anyone for Christ with this video.
An interesting point was that most of the original founding church fathers were premillenial in their thinking. They would have scoffed at topcat54 and his views. My understanding is that it wasn’t until around 170AD that the amillenial concept was born. People had been expecting the imminent return of Jesus and when that didn’t appear to be playing out, people had to come up with a way to explain the delay. Even Augustine made the transition from premillenial to amillenial. I am inclined toward a premillenial viewpoint but I’m not convinced that classic dispensationalism has gotten it right. I resigned myself to the fact that this is probably an issue that will only be resolved once Jesus returns, so I tend not to focus all of my energies on developing a hardened belief system. In the grand scheme of things this is not a fundamental issue of the faith; which is why I take issue with Mr. Mitchell and his apparent contempt for believers. I also think he tends to disregard rather flippantly the impact that Satan has on this world...but that’s another issue entirely.
I've often seen that when great emphasis is placed on the areas which are not fundamental...especially when using them to justify ones position in the faith, that generally that's a yellow flag...and can indicate something else is being introduced but not as a way of building up the faithful rather causing division and strife. It often presents itself as "more" or "something special" or "hidden and secret"..and any who do not agree are lambasted for that. Which is how false religions and cults can and do take hold and treat any who dispute them...they can be nasty too.
According to God’s Word there is always that potentiality. Lawful worship is prescribed by the commands of God. We worship Him only in the way He has instructed. Everything else, including things that might interfere, is prohibited. This is the position of the Reformed churches.
Moreover, the rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunctions of him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we would have him to approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with the utmost strictness, must be carefully observed. For there is a twofold reason why the Lord, in condemning and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to his own voice. First, it tends greatly to establish his authority that we do not follow our own pleasure, but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions. Justly, therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert his full right of dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes us to do, and at once reject all human devices which are at variance with his command. Justly, too, does he, in express terms, define our limits, that we may not, by fabricating perverse modes of worship, provoke his anger against us.I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere "will worship" (ethelothreeskeia) is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate. (John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church)
There is considerable amount of debate over the truth of that statement, esp. on the matter of what exactly folks mean by “premillennial.” It is a “truth” often taken without critical examination by modern premils.
Perhaps you will like to try to answer my question. I’ve placed it before several premils and so far have not gotten any response:
[Begin quote]
If we define a premillennialist as one who believe that Christ will physically reign on the earth for a thousand years after the second coming and resurrection, what specific evidence would you use to substantiate the premil position in the early church?
In reviewing some on the ancient writers who are listed as supporting the premillenarian position, I could not find anything that could identify with this modern definition.
E.g., in Justin Martyr, we read:
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapter LXXX)You will note that in these two rather well-known “premillennial” statements there is absolutely no mention of Christ physically on the earth during the thousand years. One can certainly read one’s biases into the statement and come to that reading, but they do not literally teach what modern premillenarians teach.Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, ‘According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound’ obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, ‘They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.’ (Dialogue, Chapter LXXXI)
[End quote]
History matches up pretty well with that claim that these things transpired in the first century, within “this generation” of when Jesus spoke the words. If you wish to provide evidence to the contrary, please do.
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.