Skip to comments.
Are These the End Times? (Newsweek Interviews Tim LaHaye)
Newsweek ^
| August 2, 2006
| Brian Braker
Posted on 08/02/2006 5:37:46 AM PDT by rightwingintelligentsia
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 461-465 next last
To: wideawake
You began by calling Schofield (editor of the Schofield Bible) a crackpot. That took alot of nerve. Believe it or not, dispensationalists and reformers have been able to discuss things amicably in the past.
Regarding the speculation about the time of the Second Coming -- you are absolutely right. It is silliness and very superficial. It is contrary to Scripture and does great damage to serious dispensational thinkers..
But let's change the tone of the discussion. I think you'll agree that RC Sproul ( an articulate sokesman of the covenant school) would handle these discussions with tact and grace and NEVER ever slander Schofield like you did so let's not say such things.
To: Marcaurelio
"And God saw the light, that it was good." Ie, He wasn't sure that it would be good?
Doesn't necessarily follow. God cannot be moved, so all attributions of human characteristics to God in Scripture are figurative.
202
posted on
08/02/2006 12:06:30 PM PDT
by
Aquinasfan
(When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
To: wideawake; woollyone; Zechariah11
Let's see how long it takes for the Religion Moderator to reprimand woollyone and Zechariah11 for "making it personal". My guess is never.
To: Zechariah11
Thanks for the ping. MSM stories are normally pitiful. The interview sits there snickering the whole time.
204
posted on
08/02/2006 12:08:48 PM PDT
by
Tim Long
(I spit in the face of people who don't want to be cool.)
To: Zechariah11
t.y.
Recent?...yes...and no...it really is as old as Mt. Sinai I suppose, but it certainly is resurgent in our churches lately and certainly is a stumbling stone to God's grace.
I saw that earlier post too, but didn't comment, as it wasn't directed at me, but was handled well.
The balance between grace and law seems to be laid out quite clearly by Paul, but some, just don't get it.
In all fairness, I began my Christian walk very legalistic and I too didn't see it in myself. Chuck Swindol wrote an EXCELLENT book on the topic, titled "THE GRACE AWAKENING". It is an outstanding read and really helps to put Paul's writing on the topic of grace into perspective.
I'm not certain that I will say this clearly...but here goes...
I sometimes think that grace (unmerited favor) is a concept that while we are in the flesh will consistently be something of a enigma to us. Maybe it is our flesh nature..I dunno. But, to me, it is a fascinating topic.
His peace to you.
205
posted on
08/02/2006 12:09:36 PM PDT
by
woollyone
(Preacher; "If there was more love in the world, there'd probably be a lot less dyin'")
To: Marcaurelio
I don't understand what this has to do with what I wrote. A Jew had fallen among robbers and was beaten within an inch of his life. He's lieing there on the side of the road, dying.
Two Jews walk by and ignore him as they don't want to get involved. A Samaritan (A foreigner, despised by Jews then), comes along and rescues the guy. Takes him to the nearest town, and pays for his care, room ,and board out of his own pocket.
The question Jesus asked was "Who was this guy's neighbor?" The answer was, of course, the Samaritan. The foreigner. The despised, non-person who helped the guy.
Your posting of Jesus meaning that Jews are supposed to love only Jews, etc. is totally disproven with this parable that Jesus Himself told and taught.
206
posted on
08/02/2006 12:10:56 PM PDT
by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: Rutles4Ever
No. I reject it because it's theologically bankrupt. The fact that it's not in the Bible.... Yeah. I Thessalonians 5:16-17 is theologically bankrupt and it;s not in the Bible, either.
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
207
posted on
08/02/2006 12:13:00 PM PDT
by
Skooz
(Chastity prays for me, piety sings...Modesty hides my thighs in her wings...)
To: Rutles4Ever; wideawake; woollyone; Zechariah11
My guess is that wideawake and I will have agreed to disagree in an agreeable way long before there is a reprimand. Things get heated when bedrock principles are discussed. Just ask James and John, the Sons of Thunder, whom the Lord chastised. It happens. We recognize it , confess it, and move on from there.
I think that LeHaye is making a mistake in a way that hasn't been identified yet. He is discussing eschatology with unbelievers. Why?? A Christian needs to nfront the unbelieving world with soteriology, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."
To: RinaseaofDs
I know....he made no secret that he wanted to be the head of the UN back when he left office.
209
posted on
08/02/2006 12:15:53 PM PDT
by
Hildy
To: Aquinasfan
God cannot be moved, so all attributions of human characteristics to God in Scripture are figurative. I think I understand where this comes from, scripturally. However, how would you explain prayer (supplication) and a couple of times God repented (Ninevah, etc)?
210
posted on
08/02/2006 12:16:20 PM PDT
by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: wideawake
You are the theologian, not me, but "obligation" seems to be a really strong word. It implies Jesus wants us to pay him back for the gift he gave us. I look at it this way (tell me if you think I'm wrong):
Once the gift of salvation is received, the Holy Spirit enters, beginning the process of sanctification. The recipient, because of the Holy Spirit, wants nothing more than to worship Jesus with all his heart. He wishes to use his time, talents, money, his very soul, and offer them as Gifts to the One he adores. He does not do this out of obligation, but out of great, overflowing joy. This is where Christian "works" come from.
The passages from James about faith without works being dead seem (to me) to be saying, "If you aren't so overflowing with joy over what Jesus has done for you that you have no interest in pleasing Him, perhaps you ought to revisit whether you know Him at all.
This is a lay person's interpretation. Thoughts?
211
posted on
08/02/2006 12:16:51 PM PDT
by
Warren_Piece
(Smart is easy. Good is hard.)
To: JamesP81
This is only partially correct: Correct that Jesus explicitly said that He was "in the Father" and the Father was in Him; and Genesis certainly implies a plurality of persons in God, but the Holy Spirit is not applied likewise. Of course the Church Fathers were able to discern in the first century that there was triunity in the Godhead, but the equality among all three persons is not explicit. Further, there were plenty of heresies simmering to a boil in the early days of the Church because these issues simply weren't black and white. It took the Council of Nicaea for the Church Fathers to come together and define infallibly that the Godhead is triune, and of one substance - not just three persons immediately related to each other.
To: Skooz; Rutles4Ever
That's 1 Thess 4:16,17.
Are we talking about the secret, pretrib, "Left Behind"-style rapture of dispensational origins which has no support in Scripture, or are we talking just about the simple translation from mortal to immortal of those found alive on the earth at Christ's return?
The two ideas are not the same.
To: topcat54
I have never read the "Left Behind" books and know little about them, so I suppose we are talking about Scripture. At least I am.
214
posted on
08/02/2006 12:20:07 PM PDT
by
Skooz
(Chastity prays for me, piety sings...Modesty hides my thighs in her wings...)
To: JamesP81
I don't agree at all. The two things that come to mind is when the Pharisees asked Christ if he was the Son of God, and he answered them saying, "I am." Christ also stated that He and His Father were one. There's also Genesis, where the Scriptures show God as saying let us create man in our image. There is much in the Bible to suggest a triune God. There is. Nevertheless, the matter was not settled definitively until the year 325 A.D. at a Church Council.
I believe that the passage in Genesis constitutes a reference to the Trinity. This interpretation has a long tradition in Christian history. But the Jews, to this day, regard the passage as a reference to God and the angels.
The two things that come to mind is when the Pharisees asked Christ if he was the Son of God, and he answered them saying, "I am." Christ also stated that He and His Father were one.
But there is no direct reference to Christ, The Father and The Holy Spirit being one, is there? Nevertheless, the command to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" should suffice as proof.
Nor is Christ's dual nature immediately obvious from these passages. Arianism was a very widespread heresy at one time in the history of the Church.
215
posted on
08/02/2006 12:21:12 PM PDT
by
Aquinasfan
(When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
To: Zechariah11
Then allow me to agree to disagree with you. I bear no ill will.
Let's just say there was a recent thread where there was some grotesque, downright nasty insults being hurled at Catholics, and when the Catholics told them to knock it off, they were accused by the moderator of making personal attacks on the people insulting them. It was shockingly transparent and disappointing.
To: Zechariah11; Rutles4Ever; wideawake; woollyone
He is discussing eschatology with unbelievers. Why?? A Christian needs to nfront the unbelieving world with soteriology, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." That doesn't sell his books down at the local Barnes and Nobles.
To: Skooz; Rutles4Ever
I have never read the "Left Behind" books and know little about them, so I suppose we are talking about Scripture. At least I am. OK, so when someone says thhe word "rapture" to you, what comes to your mind? What theological baggage do you bring to the table?
To: wideawake
You forgot the part about having a chip on your shoulder. Come on...get over yourself.
If you broadcast legalistic, Pharisaic mantras, don't be suprised if someone calls you a legalist or a Pharisee.
Kinda simple...no?
219
posted on
08/02/2006 12:26:36 PM PDT
by
woollyone
(Preacher; "If there was more love in the world, there'd probably be a lot less dyin'")
To: Gamecock
Ask Lindsey's defenders on FR. And all the FReepers who still listen to Gary North, even after 12/31/99.During the first week of the year 2000, Gary North issued a public apology to the world at large, and a blunt confession that he had been wrong about Y2K. He took a sabbatical from public life for a while, but later began publishing essays on culture and economics on lewrockwell.com.
Now it is possible that the Y2K hype was a self-canceling prophecy. To some extent, the "dot com bubble" was fueld by Y2K remediation, a massive preventive investment in Information Technology.
Being a dispensationalist means never having to say you are sorry. As each marriage and book ages out, Hal Lindsey recycles it. Re-writes the book, with new names and dates to carry the same tired plot line. Trades in the wife for a younger model. He's on marriage number 4 at the moment -- but I've lost count of how many times he's re-written The Late Great Planet Earth.
There is apparently a market for that kind of tripe. Something about being a cheerleader for Satan's team must engage our imaginations, and appeal to the fallen Adam within us all.
220
posted on
08/02/2006 12:27:05 PM PDT
by
TomSmedley
(Calvinist, optimist, home schooling dad, exuberant husband, technical writer)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 461-465 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson