Posted on 06/07/2007 11:23:25 AM PDT by topcat54
IMHO, the article manifests the mindset of many “reformed” believers who attempt to find solace by rationalism, worldly club attendance, and adversarial attacks upon those who simply believe in God through faith in Christ who aren’t members of their club.
IMHO, insofar as we remain faithful to God through Christ, all we need to know is what is available in the younger earth interpretation. Likewise, we know His return is imminent, not immediate. Those pastors associated with dispensationalism come closer to grasping His Word from the work of the Holy Spirit, than those who attack ‘dispensationalism’.
Since when did Christians like DeMar take it upon themselves to do the work of the Holy Spirit?
The shark deMar jumped is now a blip on the horizon in his rear-view mirror.
So, in othe words, Christian apologists can speak as irrationally as their wish, and as long as we have the Holy Spirit they are off the hook. Curious position, but it explains a lot, esp. why dispensationalism is so popular. It matches the irrational times we live in
It may look like a game to some. The difference is that plainly not every occurrence of "all" means literally "all", e.g., "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered." (Luke 2:1) Did Caesar really expect his lackeys to travel to what is modern Bolivia or Iceland to conduct the census? So, context helps us to understand the intent of the word
Which demonstrates why “this” means “that” is a forced explanation with no contextual support at all. And what happens when theologians allow their preconceptions about the text dictate what they think the text is saying.
They will be judged in accordance with the knowledge and wisdom with which they have been entrusted.
Beyond that, as a Calvinist in the Tradition of Arminius, I would have to say... no harm, no foul.
Skeptics will not be excused at the judgment for failing to respond to the call of the Holy Spirit because some dispensationalist confused them. Nor is there anything any one of us can do to somehow use our own powers of persuasion to convince some skeptic of the truth of scripture.
God will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy and if he chooses to show mercy to some skeptic, then he will obviously convince that skeptic of the truth of scripture as part of the process.
FWIW there is nothing logical or reasonable about the gospel message. Skeptics do not need to point to the words of irrational dispensationalists to find a reason NOT to believe. They can point to the arguments of preterists and reconstructionists and replacementarianists as well. To the natural man all of this stuff is foolishness. You will be barking at the moon if you think that your version of eschatology is any more rational to a skeptic than that of the dispensationalists. They think we are all nuts and if you think you can convince them that you are not as nutty as a dispensationalist and therefore they should follow Christ because your gospel is more reasonable, then you are nuts.
We cannot convince the skeptic of the truth of the gospel. Only God can do that. And if God has determined to convince some skeptic of the fact, then there is nothing Tim Lahaye or Gary DeMar or topcat or Marlowe can possibly say that will dissuade them from that decision.
The Bible says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Jesus placed equal emphasis on Spirit and Truth (John 4:23). God does not call his people to preach an irrational message. So, while it is true that no one will be convinced apart from the operation of the Spirit, it is equally true that God intends the message to be accurate and in accordance with the Word of God.
Your initial comment stand as a testament to irrationality in bringing the gospel message.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV)
We can struggle to make it as rational as possible, but in the absence of the work of the Holy Spirit, we are not going to convince anyone that what we are preaching is anything other than nonsense.
People may try to use Henry Morris as an excuse not to believe in Christ, but that ain't gonna fly. Especially if we someday find out that Henry Morris was right.
The foolishness is because of a defect in the hearers, not in the speakers. The gospel is quite rational to rational people. Unfortunately, the unsaved are by definition irrational. Thus the rational gospel is foolishness to their (dead) ears.
Let's not loose track of your initial suggestion.
Since when did Christians like DeMar take it upon themselves to do the work of the Holy Spirit?
By this statement you were clearly insinuating that gibberish could come out of ones mouth and they would be preaching the gospel according to the will of God, since all one needs to believe is the Holy Spirit.
The wise crack backfired.
IIRC something like that happened on the day of Pentecost.
When I wrote that I thought to myself, “He won’t bring up Pentecost, will he?”
In case you missed the details of the story, the men heard the Word preached in their own, known languages (Acts 2:6,11). They were not speaking heavenly gibberish.
It is not the power of the preacher or even the eloquence of the message that will bring a skeptic to understanding, but the power of God's word and the moving of the Holy Spirit.
You act as if Henry Morris, by contending for the truth of the flood, is somehow going to be responsible for some skeptic going to hell because he didn't believe Henry Morris. Well that ain't gonna happen. If that skeptic wants to use Henry Morris as an excuse for not believing the Bible, then that skeptic will have nobody but himself to blame when he stands before God on Judgment day.
Personally while I am open to just about any interpretation of the creation, I tend to believe that since the creation was a miracle and since God affirmed in Exodus Chapter 20 that he created the heavens and the earth in six days, that, in fact, God created the heavens and earth and all that in them is in 6 days.
You got a problem with that?
That's absolutely not true. The men all heard the message in their own native language. It was not gibberish to them.
6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs--we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." 12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "Whatever could this mean?" 13 Others mocking said, "They are full of new wine." (Acts. 2)With their natural ears they heard the message in their own language. Of course, God also needed to sovereignly open their spiritual ears to apply the message. God saves those whom He wills to save.
You got a problem with that?
You sound like a presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetics.
Translated by the power of the Holy Spirit in a manner in which each who heard it was convicted. Are you suggesting that the men who spoke the words were men of strong persuasive oratorical skills and that is why there was such an intense and unparallelled response to the gospel, or was it that these men simply spoke what they believed and the holy spirit convicted those who heard.
Does not the Holy Spirit have the power to turn hearts and minds at the preaching of an imbicile? Should credit be given to the speech writers or should it be given to the subject of the message?
You sound like a presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetics.
I offer no apologies for the gospel. I presuppose only that the Bible is true and that the facts presented in that book are facts and not fables. I have no reason to doubt that when God wrote upon the tablets that he made the heavens and the earth and all that in them is in 6 days, that God did exactly as he said. If that makes me a presuppositionalist, then by gosh I'm proud to accept that title.
All I'm saying is that it was a plain, clear, sound Word of the Lord. No more, no less. It was not gibberish. God does not expect His people to speak gibberish. After all, if He came make an ass speak clear intelligible words, He does not need us to speak gibberish and expect the Holy Spirit to do some mystical translation on the fly.
So, want to retract your statement about DeMar now that we have beaten this horse to death?
As soon as you retract any negative posts you've posted about Henry Morris.
BTW what did I say that was negative about DeMar?
I don't recall ever mentioning Henry Morris.
Since when did Christians like DeMar take it upon themselves to do the work of the Holy Spirit?
Now, was DeMar really taking the work of the Holy Spirit upon himself? Or were you just itching to make a comment about him?
If he thinks that with the power of logic he can turn a skeptic into a believer, then yes.
You’re not seriously trying to equate DeMar’s legitimate criticism of Morris’ scholarship with your backhanded slam of DeMar, now are you?
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.