My friend Jamin Hubner has posted a list of books (from "both sides") regarding, in his terms, "Economics and Christian Zionism." Feel free to check out the list. He makes one remark that I'll address and let the rest pass: "they will at least pause when Tur and Hays’ [sic] essentially point a finger and say “propaganda” – especially as one reads all sides ... ." Some of these authors (for example, Alan Dershowitz) would be a better choice as a source when accusing Israel of "atrocities" as Hubner manages to do twice in this post. He's a more credible source on those issues than regular Sojourner's contributor, Burge, who Hubner lumps in with O. Palmer Robertson.
-TurretinFan
Friday, December 30, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
No mention of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? Quite the oversight...
Also, I wonder if the revised version of Hagee's "In Defense of Israel" offers a corrective to his claim in the original version that "Jesus Christ was not the Jewish Messiah"?
Recommending the work of rank heretic like Hagee doesn't serve to add much in the way of improving my perception of Jamin's discernment of source reliability.
Yes I agree that John Hagee is heretical. Hagee teaches some aspects of WOF doctrine too. Hagee on a number of issue is outside of mainline traditional / classical dispensationalism. Hagee is not a realible source at all.
Jamin continues to embarrass himself and be association, AOMIN. John Hagee? David Jeremiah? Is he kidding? Where's Barry Horner's "Future Israel?" What about Ronald Diprose's work, "Israel and the Church?" or "Israel: The Land and the People" edited by H. Wayne House? Anything by Michael Vlach currently of TMS? Or S. Lewis Johnson? Do any of those pro PLO books condemn the child abuse the Palestinian Muslims do against their children to turn them into suicide bombers? Or is that just a "Jewish" hoax?
Off-topic question: I forgot what the basic response to the challenge that for instance American Indians who lived and died before missionaries arrived have to be in hell without ever having a chance to hear the Gospel (i.e. they're calling God unfair). I ask because I recall fairly recently coming across a Calvinist response that was surprising for me. It was like, God doesn't condemn where there was no possibility of hearing the Gospel, and more is expected from those who do hear the Gospel and so on. Any thoughts?
This is probably along the lines of what I remember reading, this is R. C. Sproul:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/are-those-who-have-never-heard-christ-going-hell/
Specifically when he says this: "God never punishes people for rejecting Jesus if they’ve never heard of Jesus. When I say that, people breathe a sigh of relief and say, “Then we’d better not tell anybody about Jesus because somebody might reject him. Then they’re really in deep trouble.” But again, there are other reasons to go to hell. To reject God the Father is a very serious thing. And no one will be able to say on the last day, “I didn’t know that you existed,” because God has revealed himself plainly. Now the Bible makes it clear that people desperately need Christ. God may grant his mercy unilaterally at some point, but I don’t have any reason to have much hope in that. I think we have to pay serious attention to the passionate command of Christ to go to the whole world, to every living creature, and tell them of Jesus."
Those who never heard the Gospel of the grace of God are still condemned ( John 3:18 ) . Unregenerate man would be in the headship of Adam ( Rom 5 ) . They would be condemned under the light of creation in Romans 1 and under the light of conscience in Romans 2. Scripture teaches the universal sinfulness of the entire human race. There is no way around that from an honest reading of Romans 1 to 5 and other passages which teaches total depravity. While common grace is insufficient in bringing about regeneration and falls short of bringing spiritual life it still renders man guilty. It takes the work of efficacious grace to bring about regeneration. The efficacious calling / drawing procedes regeneration and faith in Jesus Rom 8:30; John 6:44,65 ) .
What about the Gospel in the stars? Just sayin'.
What about the Greeks who Paul said worshiped the real God as the 'Unknown God' (Acts 17)? I mean, maybe not them, since they heard Paul, but the generations before them, just like them, who didn't hear of the Gospel?
I'm not a 'God is not fair' type. I just know God is sovereign in creation, providence, and grace, and we perhaps don't know how He operates regarding providence and grace vis-a-vis people who to us never seem(ed) to hear the Gospel.
There is no "Gospel in the stars." While God's self-revelation in nature leaves men without excuse, it is only in the actual gospel that people find the way of salvation.
The guilt-by-association bit works more effectively when there isn't someone in the association responding to his stuff, don't you think?
True, and I am appreciative that at least you and Alan are doing some responding. Still, I wish James would be more forthright in addressing his comments than just saying "he's doing that stuff at his place, not mine." Regrettably, it does effect him more than he seems to realize.
Fair enough!
No Gospel in the stars? Read Turretin, vol. 2, page 274. He writes of the Gospel in the stars without giving a yea or a nay on his opinion of whether it exists or existed. Read it for yourself.
Just kidding.
I once mentioned the Gospel in the stars to R. Scott Clark on his old blog, and I think I could actually hear him slam his head through the surface of his desk.
One thing that's still in my memory is I remember reading in the Gospel of Matthew, or one of the other Gospels, where Jesus says more is expected from those who know more. Ring a bell to anyone? That's hard to look up. I'd have to read all the Gospels to find it.
Fred is right, TF. You and Alan responding is the correct thing. James' silence and refusal to respond is wrong.
I think this is what I had in mind:
Luk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
John Hagee is not taken seriously or considered realiable by mature dispensationalist who are informed. I personally view several of his teachings as not only heretical as far as Scripture is concerned but also contrary to dispensationalism as well.
Post a Comment