← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · friedrich braun
Thread ID: 12043 | Posts: 46 | Started: 2004-01-27
2004-01-27 03:44 | User Profile
A few days ago I was watching the televangelist Rev. John Hagee (or, as I prefer to call him, the ââ¬ÅFat Bastardââ¬Â); during his customary and crazed foam-at-the-mouth sermon, he looked into the camera, his fat face contorted and bulging with obvious hate and screeched the following sentence: ââ¬Ålisten to me you bed sheet wearing crooks: youââ¬â¢re going straight to Hell!ââ¬Â To which his mostly African-American and Hispanic audience (I only saw a handful of humans in attendance when the camera paused on his decidedly non-White congregation) gave him a hearty round of riotous applause ââ¬â the humans in attendance remained seated and didnââ¬â¢t seem to enjoy themselves as much as the biological fauna, they remained on their seats and didnââ¬â¢t clap along.
Now, thereââ¬â¢s little doubt that Rev. John Hagee is a wild-eyed dispensationalist and overall fruitcake. Further, heââ¬â¢s an extreme Zionist, always very eager to point out that ââ¬ÅIsrael has no better friendââ¬Â than him, he constantly talks about his ââ¬Åmany Jewish friendsââ¬Â, he consults with Jewish authorities and activists regularly and goes on frequent trips to Israel in order to meet Israeli government officials. This Judeo-Christian Zionist enjoys peppering his sermons with all kinds of obsequious philo-Semitic sentiments (ââ¬ÅJews are gods in human formââ¬Â or ââ¬ÅIt is the duty of every American to make the world safe for Israel and to die for her if need beââ¬Â ââ¬â Iââ¬â¢m only slightly exaggerating).
As an aside, the Fat Bastard regularly slights real Christians by flatly stating that those unhappy beings that do not adhere to the dispensationalist heresy are doing the Devilââ¬â¢s work, because Satan hates it when the Rapture is being taught. Never mind that Catholics, the Orthodox and traditionalist, mainline Protestant denominations reject the dispensationalist doctrine, and no one even heard of it before the nineteenth century. See [url]http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-religion/1043352/posts[/url]
Now, if all that wasnââ¬â¢t enough, Rev. John Hagee also is a proponent of the ââ¬ÅTwo Covenantââ¬Â view (first introduced in the 1920s and 1930s by the Jew Franz Rosenzweig). This heresy essentially boils down to an independent ethnic salvation for Jews, i.e., the Special People donââ¬â¢t need to accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour to be saved because they already have a separate and valid covenant with God. For those who are interested in reading more about this heresy (a heresy that obviously flies in the face of standard Christian teaching that stipulates that everyone needs to accept Christ in order to be saved ââ¬â Jews included), see the following excellent (albeit lengthy) article at [url]http://www.pfo.org/jonhagee.htm[/url]
My question is mostly addressed to the Klan people: how do you feel about so-called Pastors who show you nothing but hatred and contempt?
Also, is it not a bit presumptious to claim knowing who is, and who is not, going to Hell? I thought that only God knew that.
2004-01-27 03:53 | User Profile
People like Hagee are one of the reasons I'm converting to Roman Catholic, after being raised as a Southern Baptist.
2004-01-27 04:05 | User Profile
Friedrich,
I have seen Hagee before. My comments about him are unprintable.
2004-01-27 07:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]People like Hagee are one of the reasons I'm converting to Roman Catholic, after being raised as a Southern Baptist.[/QUOTE]
Please don't hang Hagee on the Southern Baptists. The SBC may have its faults, but Hagee is no Southern Baptist. If he condemned the Klan as going to hell, which I don't doubt, then they're in pretty good company as on several occasions he has also denounced those who believe in 'replacement theology' (read Catholics, Lutherans, the Orthodox Churches and Reformed Presbyterians and Baptists) as also being agents of the devil himself.
And doctrinally sound evangelicals have taken and continue to take Hagee to task for his unsound theology. Attached is a critique of Hagee from the evangelical mainstream and doctrinally sound Christian Research Institute headed by Hank Hanegraaff.
2004-01-27 08:10 | User Profile
The first time I heard the phrase "replacement theology" was from a Jew on FR.
After he explained what it meant, I replied, "oh- you mean Christianity?"
2004-01-27 09:55 | User Profile
Hagee is also maniacal about censoring Harry Potter ("get it out of your house!!!" he screams at his congregation) and also Halloween. (He doesn't like Tolkien either, btw)
The two covenants bull*** is wide-spread. It has even found its way into post Vatican II Catholicism. Pope John Paul II has stated that the Jews are a "special ontological group". [???]
It's becoming difficult being a Christian these days; any where you turn you're faced with lies and heresies.
2004-01-27 11:30 | User Profile
I've always gotten a good laugh out of Hagee. He so embodies the corpulent cartoon of the gravy-sweating Southern preacher I'm amazed he has the following he does.
Then again, it's not as if he represents some sort of anomaly in American religion. Robert Tilton, Jerry Falwell, Gene Scott, Jim Bakker, Jan Crouch, Rod Parsley, etc...it's a long [I]long [/I] list. I find them all incredibly entertaining in a gallows-humor, black-comedy sort of way. What I'm curious about is if other nominally-Christian nations also have experienced this phenomenon of the Falstaffian tv preacher tele-panhandling the faithful for donations.
As for me, it's easy to tell who the most monstrous fakes are. Any preacher whose "church" is roughly the size of a friggin' aircraft hanger holding 10 to 20, 000 parishioners at a clip has gotta be bogus. Amusingly bogus, true; but nevertheless as jaboney as a three-dollar bill.
2004-01-27 15:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun] As an aside, the Fat Bastard regularly slights real Christians by flatly stating that those unhappy beings that do not adhere to the dispensationalist heresy are doing the Devilââ¬â¢s work, because Satan hates it when the Rapture is being taught. Never mind that Catholics, the Orthodox and traditionalist, mainline Protestant denominations reject the dispensationalist doctrine, and no one even heard of it before the nineteenth century. See [url]http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-religion/1043352/posts[/url] [/QUOTE]
These dispensationalists are the new Judaizers, crazed heretics.
-
2004-01-27 16:41 | User Profile
Does anyone know what is the percentage of American Protestants who are dispensationalist? Is George W. one? Any presidential candidates right now?
It's seems that dispensationalists rule the tv market, i.e., that's the only folks you see on tv. They go on and on and on about the Rapture. I find them frightening.
2004-01-27 17:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] As for me, it's easy to tell who the most monstrous fakes are. Any preacher whose "church" is roughly the size of a friggin' aircraft hanger holding 10 to 20, 000 parishioners at a clip has gotta be bogus. Amusingly bogus, true; but nevertheless as jaboney as a three-dollar bill.[/QUOTE]
The same is true for your idol, Linder. He wants to save the white race but hates white women and tolerates racemixing men on his site. He claims to be a man but lives in his grandmother's basement and still became bankrupt. He is just using this anti-jew enterprise to finance his addiction to porn, a jewish enterprise. Linder is just a liar and hypocrite as those fake ministers are.
For you Linder supporters, if you become a real white man with responsibilities such as a family and a real job (both of which Linder never has had), then you will see what a sissy and fake Linder is. But if you continue to let your hormones and impulses rule you, then you are a sucker for Linder and other fakes like him. He is no better than the Jews he claims to hate.
2004-01-27 18:17 | User Profile
Wait....you left out the bankruptcy thing. Remember? Linder is a Jew and a swindler because he filed for personal bankruptcy. Pretty sloppy on your part, leaving that one out.
Okay - so let me see if I got the drill now. Hagee [I]si[/I], Linder [I]no[/I]. Makes sense to me.
2004-01-27 18:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Wait....you left out the bankruptcy thing. Remember? Linder is a Jew and a swindler because he filed for personal bankruptcy. Pretty sloppy on your part, leaving that one out.[/QUOTE]
No, she got it in there with this line:
He claims to be a man but lives in his grandmother's basement and still became bankrupt.
2004-01-27 19:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE= il ragno ]I've always gotten a good laugh out of Hagee. He so embodies the corpulent cartoon of the gravy-sweating Southern preacher I'm amazed he has the following he does.
Then again, it's not as if he represents some sort of anomaly in American religion. Robert Tilton, Jerry Falwell, Gene Scott, Jim Bakker, Jan Crouch, Rod Parsley, etc...it's a long [I]long [/I] list. [COLOR=Red]I find them all incredibly entertaining in a gallows-humor, black-comedy sort of way.[/COLOR] What I'm curious about is if other nominally-Christian nations also have experienced this phenomenon of the Falstaffian tv preacher tele-panhandling the faithful for donations.
As for me, it's easy to tell who the most monstrous fakes are. Any preacher whose "church" is roughly the size of a friggin' aircraft hanger holding 10 to 20, 000 parishioners at a clip has gotta be bogus. Amusingly bogus, true; but nevertheless as jaboney as a three-dollar bill.[/QUOTE]Much like yourself I can amuse myself watching these people. But you have omitted Reverend Ike, perhaps the most amusing of all. I then get a second chuckle thinking if Mencken would laugh to the point of apoplexy. These people are much better than Seinfeld and crew.
2004-01-27 23:07 | User Profile
Linder is on record describing himself as living with/caring for his grandmother, who is either completely disabled or terminally ill (I forget which).
More to the point is what exactly is the correlation between a writer's ability - even his ability to persuade/rabblerouse - with his poverty or Dickensian living arrangements? I mean, I know there are a certain percentage of rightists who - poisoned by tv, the poor dears - demand that the lightning-rod thinkers of today and tomorrow be as photogenic and appeal to as wide an audience as possible.... nice suits, engaging manners, toothy capped grins, stately homes, attractive-but-not-[I]too[/I]-attractive wives and tribes of well-behaved, apple-cheeked kiddies....but that's [I]their [/I] delusion; and the longer they cling to it, the deeper we all sink. Instead of seeking an insightful point of view, they demand a deluxe, gilt-edged limited-edition insightful pov wrapped in tinsel or it 'obviously' is invalid crankery. He's not running for office the way PJB occasionally will, or cadging his readers continually for nickels like JimRob....so what does it matter how "pathetic" his circumstances may be?
As the devolution of the West continues, the message sent to our nominal literary lights and captains of industry is that only nice doggies get to the top while snarling ones eventually get the gas....and the cost of that to allof us was the 20th century that began with Henry Ford and Mencken and Chesterton ended with Lee Iacocca and Frank Rich and Andrew Greeley. You can still find recent incarnations of those uniquely clear-eyed thinkers and personalities, but - as they have all been vigorously phased out of production for half a century now - you're going to have to stop looking [I]up [/I] towards Olympus and start looking [I]down [/I] among we groundlings to find them.
Note to Ed Gibbon: it's been so long since I've seen Rev Ike, I'd no idea his shingle was still hanging up. My current favorite black preacher, though, is an obscure one out of Tampa, one M.B. Jefferson - whio can reliably be counted on to conduct his entire "sermons" in mushmouthed jive and who regularly rails against "fags and hoes". Preach on, Rev!
2004-01-27 23:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Does anyone know what is the percentage of American Protestants who are dispensationalist? Is George W. one?
To my knowledge Bush is a Methodist, same as his wife. The Methodists are supposedly NOT dispensationalist, but the problem is this heresy has infected so many unwary denominations, one can never be sure.
It's seems that dispensationalists rule the tv market, i.e., that's the only folks you see on tv. They go on and on and on about the Rapture. I find them frightening.[/QUOTE]
You should because they are both crazy and heretical.
So much of their theology hangs on one thing: Israel's survival. If Israel goes, their whole theology collapses like a house of cards.
-
2004-01-27 23:49 | User Profile
Also, Bush grew up an Episcopalian (a religious grouping increasingly resembling a small gay dating club).
2004-01-28 00:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]You should because they are both crazy and heretical.
So much of their theology hangs on one thing: Israel's survival. If Israel goes, their whole theology collapses like a house of cards.[/QUOTE]
I don't think so, really. If anything, in its relatively short history dispensational pre-milleniallism has proven to fairly adaptive. If the nation-state of Israel were to disappear tomorrow then I am sure van Impe, Lindsay and their traveling buddies would be quick to reformulate their eschatology to suit the new geopolitical reality. That kind of adaptability is both a strength and a weakness for them.
But frightening? I don't think so. Sure their support of Israel helps manufacture support for our foreign incursions like the recent Iraqi invasion, but if you think Bush, Jr. or his inner party send out the troops because of what Hagee, Falwell or Robertson advise theologically then you are mistaken. Sure the latter make easy targets for our criticisms of the war and American foreign policy in the Middle East, but they have no real power in the grand scheme of things. Bush and the East-coast elite establishment he represents are on a whole 'nother level of what we as mere common men in flyover country should be frightened of. If I had my druthers, I wouldn't want to take away the natural zealousness of the dispensational Christians. I would just want to re-direct it towards the proper targets.
2004-01-28 05:13 | User Profile
The reason I said that I find these preachers frightening is that they only talk about cataclysms and disasters and the upcoming end-of-the-world ("it's just around the corner folks!"). It's seems like they would do something to hasten those apocalyptic events if they could. They relish talking about end-of-time eschatology. I've been watching van Impe on tv for 14 years now and he's been saying the exact same stuff (word for word) for all those years. He must be disappointed that the end-of-time hasn't occurred yet.
2004-01-28 05:26 | User Profile
I don't know anything about Mr. Linder (however, I do visit his site once in a while), but it strikes me as immaterial where he lives, and with whom, to what he does in life.
If he's taking care of his old and ill grandmother, that only serves to prove that he's a good man, and a caring man.
As to the "race mixing" and "addicted to porn" calumnies; I won't even bother commenting.
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]First of all, why did this thread (and several others on equally unrelated subjects) turn into a Linder thread?
As anyone who has read my posts on the (often endless) pro vs. anti-VNN flame wars knows, I'm no fan of Linder's often immature ranting. However, what evidence do you have (other than conjecture) that Linder:
a) lives in his grandmother's basement b ) is addicted to porn c) tolerates racemixing men
Perhaps these are matters of record and I missed something, but it strikes me as odd that you know so much about the man. If some of my coworkers or personal acquaintances did any or all of the above, I probably wouldn't know about it, so what's your source on the guy's personal info?[/QUOTE]
2004-01-28 05:41 | User Profile
The same is true for your idol, Linder. He wants to save the white race but hates white women and tolerates racemixing men on his site. He claims to be a man but lives in his grandmother's basement and still became bankrupt. He is just using this anti-jew enterprise to finance his addiction to porn, a jewish enterprise. Linder is just a liar and hypocrite as those fake ministers are.
Oh, really? As someone who likely knows Linder's background much better than you do [via his own words/our frequent correspondence], that is quite a comment.
[But yes, porn is run by Jews for the most part....but so is everything else...]
2004-01-28 07:38 | User Profile
"Linder is on record describing himself as living with/caring for his grandmother, who is either completely disabled or terminally ill (I forget which)."
I'm not one apt to be found defending Linder, but it sounds to m as if you've just described a man who cares for his sick & aged grandmother, rather than sending her off to die in a home, as is the degenerate American trend these days. Sounds a lot like an item to his credit....
2004-01-31 03:14 | User Profile
Poor Hagee, he is in the fire and does not even care.
I find it better to just leave idiots like that in the darkness.
Proverbs 9 6. Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding. 7. He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot. 8. Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. 9. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning. 10. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding
2004-02-02 03:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I don't think so, really. If anything, in its relatively short history dispensational pre-milleniallism has proven to fairly adaptive. If the nation-state of Israel were to disappear tomorrow then I am sure van Impe, Lindsay and their traveling buddies would be quick to reformulate their eschatology to suit the new geopolitical reality. That kind of adaptability is both a strength and a weakness for them.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure the true fanatics would continue, but the lost of the Zionist state in Palestine would definitely cause a major loss of credibility and many people who move away from it.
I hear there are even people now moving away from dispensationalism. I think serious people who take an interest in the history of Christianity have to eventually see that dispensationalism is a false teaching similar in some respects to the old Montanism heresy.
-
2004-02-02 03:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] If I had my druthers, I wouldn't want to take away the natural zealousness of the dispensational Christians. I would just want to re-direct it towards the proper targets.[/QUOTE]
I have to disagree on this point. I can't advocate the spreading of grossly heretical doctrines such as dispensationalism.
The trouble with dispensationalism is more than just Christian Zionism and the Mideast. I don't see how we can accept a group that basically considers 2,000 years of Christian Tradition and all traditional churches - my church included, to be evil as some of its spokesmen have declared it.
By what authority they imagine some sheister like Darby and Scofield can concoct heretical teachings and call it Christianity is beyond my understanding.
-
2004-02-02 07:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]I have to disagree on this point. I can't advocate the spreading of grossly heretical doctrines such as dispensationalism.
That's not exactly what I was stating, bill.
I don't see how we can accept a group that basically considers 2,000 years of Christian Tradition and all traditional churches - my church included, to be evil as some of its spokesmen have declared it.
To be fair, can we state that no Orthodox spokesmen have declared Protestantism itself as evil? I don't think so, so there's plenty of finger-pointing that can be done by all sides. Now whether we like it or not, pre-millennial dispensationalists are within the pale of historic, Christian orthodoxy. As far as Hagee goes, I have just as much a problem with his deviant "word of faith" theology as I do his hard dispensationalism.
We also need to be very careful to draw a sharp distinction between dispensationalists like Hagee, Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll and Jack van Impe and historic premillennialism, an eschatological view which was held by Ireneaus (a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St. John himself) and Justin Martyr.
2004-02-02 07:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] We also need to be very careful to draw a sharp distinction between [B]dispensationalists[/B] like Hagee, Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll and Jack van Impe and historic [B]premillennialism[/B], an eschatological view which was held by Ireneaus (a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St. John himself) and Justin Martyr.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. What's the difference between the two?
Dispensationalism a la Hagee et al. is very foreign to Catholicism.
2004-02-02 08:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Interesting. What's the difference between the two?[/QUOTE]
Admittedly, sometimes it is a bit like counting angels dancing on the head of a pin, but here is a nice, though simple chart that I reference quite often:
[url]http://www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm[/url]
2004-02-02 08:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Admittedly, sometimes it is a bit like counting angels dancing on the head of a pin, but here is a nice, though simple chart that I reference quite often:
[url]http://www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
Thanks, I'll read it.
2004-02-05 04:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] To be fair, can we state that no Orthodox spokesmen have declared Protestantism itself as evil? I don't think so, so there's plenty of finger-pointing that can be done by all sides.
Actually, I've heard a range of opinion among Orthodox that runs a gamut from "heresy" to "incorrect teachings." Probably the most benign would be to label Protestantism as a "partial revelation or teaching." I've never heard any Orthodox writer label Protestantism as "satanic" like a few dispensationalists have done to traditional Christians.
Now whether we like it or not, pre-millennial dispensationalists are within the pale of historic, Christian orthodoxy. As far as Hagee goes, I have just as much a problem with his deviant "word of faith" theology as I do his hard dispensationalism.
We also need to be very careful to draw a sharp distinction between dispensationalists like Hagee, Ryrie, Chuck Swindoll and Jack van Impe and historic premillennialism, an eschatological view which was held by Ireneaus (a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St. John himself) and Justin Martyr.[/QUOTE]
There were prominent men in the early days of the Church who said some things which were determined to be incorrect. The fact that such a person said something doesn't necessarily make it true or even give it credibility. The important point is that the Church was aware of premillenialism, but rejected it, and dispensationalism wasn't part of its teachings. Even the Protestant churches picked-up and continued this traditional doctrine until dispensationalism began infecting their churches in the late 1800s.
I think that dispensationalism does stand as far from traditional Christian doctrine as does Jehovah Witnesses or even Mormonism. It represents a very serious distortion of Christianity by substituting the Jews for the Church. In regard to the dispensationalist constant obsession with Bible prophesy, this is similar to the Montanist heresy of long ago.
-
2004-02-05 05:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Even the Protestant churches picked-up and continued this traditional doctrine until dispensationalism began infecting their churches in the late 1800s.
To my knowledge, all modern manifestations of dispensationalism have roots in Baptist churches. The major Reformation-era Protestant churches (Lutheran, Presbyterian/Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican) never embraced dispensationalism and continue to reject it to this day.
2004-02-05 09:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]I've never heard any Orthodox writer label Protestantism as "satanic" like a few dispensationalists have done to traditional Christians.
I guess you haven't read Frank Schaeffer's [u]Dancing Alone[/u] then.
There were prominent men in the early days of the Church who said some things which were determined to be incorrect. The fact that such a person said something doesn't necessarily make it true or even give it credibility.
True, we must test everything in the light of the Scriptures, God's Holy Word -- the final judge.
The important point is that the Church was aware of premillenialism, but rejected it, and dispensationalism wasn't part of its teachings.
The Church went on to reject and accept many things with much less scriptural support than dispensationalism. Indulgences, for example. As far as the Orthodox Church, if Holy Tradition is infallible we would expect it to be consistent and coherent. As I have shown on another thread, there are even disagreements within the Orthodox Church on such basic matters as what comprises Holy Tradition, apostolic authority and/or ecclesiastical custom.
By pointing out these kind of inconsistencies, my point here is not to belittle other denominations, but give evidence to my response to your statement...
I think that dispensationalism does stand as far from traditional Christian doctrine as does Jehovah Witnesses or even Mormonism.
...as outrageously preposterous. JW's deny the Trinity and Mormons are perhaps even further off the reservation.
It represents a very serious distortion of Christianity by substituting the Jews for the Church.
Where does it do this? In the dispensationalist's theoretical framework, we are currently in the Church age dispensation until the Rapture of the Church. The Church consists of Christians who proclaim Jesus Christ their Lord and Saviour. Their eschatology may be in error and I believe it is, but here and now they are certainly well-positioned right smack dab in the center of historical, Christian orthodoxy.
Nevertheless in order not to inflame any intra-faith conflict, we may have to agree to disagree. I think though in Christian charity we should be very, very careful on who we denouce as outside the true faith based on beliefs on what I feel are non-essentials and then how we might go about it.
2004-02-05 13:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]To my knowledge, all modern manifestations of dispensationalism have roots in Baptist churches. The major Reformation-era Protestant churches (Lutheran, Presbyterian/Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican) never embraced dispensationalism and continue to reject it to this day.[/QUOTE]
You are largely correct, although Ovid Need describes how even some Presbyterian congregations were corrupted. The Pentecostals were dispensational from the beginning, I think.
-
2004-02-05 14:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I guess you haven't read Frank Schaeffer's [u]Dancing Alone[/u] then.
My comment was based on the Orthodox books I've read and comments I've heard from Orthodox Christians.
True, we must test everything in the light of the Scriptures, God's Holy Word -- the final judge.
The final judge according to who's interpretation? That's where the problem lies that always plagued Protestantism - that anyone can interpret the Bible to mean many things. In Orthodoxy such private interpretation is out. The Bible are to be interpreted in accordance with Tradition. This is why, for example, the Orthodox Church will never sanction sodomy because the Bible interpreted within the Church Tradition will not allow it, while Protestant churches merely have to reinterpret the Bible's teachings in order to sanction sodomy. As the Episcopal's and other denominations have shown, fashion and political correctness take precedence over the clear and unmistakable teachings of the Bible. And Despite the fact that decent people within Protestantism rightly oppose sodomy, they are actually weak to defend against it. I expect that eventually most Protestant denominations will cave to the sodomites. The few holdouts will remain so ONLY due to sheer will power. When you make the Bible your sole authority, then all that's needed is to twist the interpretation for corruption to gain hold.
The Church went on to reject and accept many things with much less scriptural support than dispensationalism. Indulgences, for example. As far as the Orthodox Church, if Holy Tradition is infallible we would expect it to be consistent and coherent. As I have shown on another thread, there are even disagreements within the Orthodox Church on such basic matters as what comprises Holy Tradition, apostolic authority and/or ecclesiastical custom.
In the Orthodox Church there is Tradition and tradition. Tradition with the capital T is consistant. Small T tradition can change depending on fashion and culture. This isn't to say that we Orthodox don't have our failings as all men do, or that errors haven't occasionally crept in, but eventually these were corrected. We understand that we're always under assault by satanic forces that seek to destroy and undermine the Church.
...as outrageously preposterous. JW's deny the Trinity and Mormons are perhaps even further off the reservation.
Where does it do this? In the dispensationalist's theoretical framework, we are currently in the Church age dispensation until the Rapture of the Church. The Church consists of Christians who proclaim Jesus Christ their Lord and Saviour. Their eschatology may be in error and I believe it is, but here and now they are certainly well-positioned right smack dab in the center of historical, Christian orthodoxy.
According to what "orthodoxy?"
They've totally Judaized Christian theology is what they've done, and that something that was always warned against by the Church. Their escatology of pre-trib rapture, secret rapture, restoration of the Jews, the Church as being constituted of all persons in some way or another claiming to be Christians, etc., is thoroughly heretical.
BTW, many dispensationalists also deny the Trinity. Most Pentecostals do.
Nevertheless in order not to inflame any intra-faith conflict, we may have to agree to disagree. I think though in Christian charity we should be very, very careful on who we denouce as outside the true faith based on beliefs on what I feel are non-essentials and then how we might go about it.[/QUOTE]
The differences between the dispensational heretics and traditional Christianity are hardly "non-essentials." These people, many of whom may be very sincere and well-meaning, are nonetheless involved in a destructive and dangerous heresy. The fact that dispensationalism was largely financed and promoted by Jews (for obvious reasons) should set-off alarm bells in every true Christian's mind.
-
2004-02-05 17:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]The final judge according to who's interpretation? That's where the problem lies that always plagued Protestantism - that anyone can interpret the Bible to mean many things.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Nothing in there about 'Holy Tradition', so is the position of the Orthodox Churches that St. Paul is wrong? Or do the Orthodox Churches simply 'cherry-pick' what suits them from the Scriptures? The Orthodox Churches can't agree on what exactly is the big 'T' and what is the little 't'. Hardly a final authority I would place all my trust in, with such disunity on such critical matters.
[QUOTE]They've totally Judaized Christian theology is what they've done, and that something that was always warned against by the Church. Their escatology of pre-trib rapture, secret rapture, restoration of the Jews, the Church as being constituted of all persons in some way or another claiming to be Christians, etc., is thoroughly heretical.[/QUOTE]
An absolute crock of bull. Sorry, but no easier way to say it.
BTW, many dispensationalists also deny the Trinity. Most Pentecostals do.
That's true.
2004-02-05 20:19 | User Profile
Pentacostals deny the Trinity? How? If they deny the Trinity they cannot be called Christian.
2004-02-05 21:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Pentacostals deny the Trinity? How? [/QUOTE]
Quick summary here: [url=http://www.carm.org/oneness/onenessteach.htm]Oneness Pentecostals[/url]
2004-02-05 23:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]2 Timothy 3:16-17
Nothing in there about 'Holy Tradition', so is the position of the Orthodox Churches that St. Paul is wrong? Or do the Orthodox Churches simply 'cherry-pick' what suits them from the Scriptures? The Orthodox Churches can't agree on what exactly is the big 'T' and what is the little 't'. Hardly a final authority I would place all my trust in, with such disunity on such critical matters.
Again we get back to the issue of the Church preceding the NT. I put my faith in the Church and its Tradition of the Scriptures over Protestanism's doctrine private interpretation. I doubt we can agree on that issue. Don't forget that Paul mentions Traditions he gave to the Corinthians, I think.
In any case, this disagreement on Tradition reflects the fundamental difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. In Orthodoxy, Tradition and the Scriptures are very intertwined. We consider both to constitute authority, since Tradition preceded the NT and the Scriptures without Tradition is very subject to subversion.
As to big "T" Tradition and little "t" tradition, maybe I should have been more specific. I didn't mean that the fundamental Orthodox doctrines on things like marriage, homosexuality, baptism, etc. fluctuate with fashion, but rather things like having the congregation segregated by sex - men on the right and women on the left. This has been a small "t" tradition for a long time in Orthodoxy and still is practiced in many parishes, but not all.
An absolute crock of bull. Sorry, but no easier way to say it.
Well, I'll just say that I respect your right to disagree.
-
2004-02-06 06:34 | User Profile
Within Orthodoxy
Does this mean that the tribulations and the Rapture are considered orthodox beliefs? Is that the Rapture where Believers are physically whisked up to Heaven?
2004-02-09 20:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Please don't hang Hagee on the Southern Baptists. The SBC may have its faults, but Hagee is no Southern Baptist. If he condemned the Klan as going to hell, which I don't doubt, then they're in pretty good company as on several occasions he has also denounced those who believe in 'replacement theology' (read Catholics, Lutherans, the Orthodox Churches and Reformed Presbyterians and Baptists) as also being agents of the devil himself.
And doctrinally sound evangelicals have taken and continue to take Hagee to task for his unsound theology. Attached is a critique of Hagee from the evangelical mainstream and doctrinally sound Christian Research Institute headed by Hank Hanegraaff.[/QUOTE]
I just read that CRI statement last night -- it's very plain that Hagee is out of the mainstream and propagating his own personal beliefs, i.e., he's a heretic who shouldn't be allowed to call himself Christian (but then again Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses also claim to be "Christians"). I especially enjoyed reading how he gets all kinds of awards from Jews and their agencies and institutions, it's clear who his masters are.
Anyone who disagrees with him on Israel (and he's to the right of Likudniks) is -- wait for it -- an anti-Semite.
2004-02-10 08:41 | User Profile
I remember a priest at my parish when I was a kid, who said similar things to this Rev. Hagee fellow. Not about the KKK specifically, but about "racists" in general. He said that racism was indeed a sin, and that there was no place for racists in the Christian faith, since the faith transcended race. He believed Christianity could put an end to the concepts of race, ethnicity, and nationalism; that the entire world could, and should be united under the Church. He was a nice guy, and a much better man than Hagee. I was shocked to learn that he recently died, after being stabbed by some Negro who tried to mug him. I'll bet as he lay dying, he forgived his murderer, too. That's the kind of man he was.
What kind of animal would rob and kill a priest?
2004-02-10 09:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kurt]He believed Christianity could put an end to the concepts of race, ethnicity, and nationalism; that the entire world could, and should be united under the Church.[/QUOTE]
Well, the Trotskyite word 'racism' is an ill-defined one as we have discussed here previously. As a Christian I must state that yes, 'at the foot of the Cross' we are all sinners in need of redemption, but I think to transfer this spiritual egalitarianism into an earthly one is a grave mistake and often serves to misinform the true Faith's enemies. In Matthew 28 where we find Jesus the Christ's 'Great Commission', he uses the term 'nations' which in the original Greek is better translated as 'ethnic' or 'ethnicities'. From this we can surmise that the world's ethnicities are themselves ordained by God, at the very least recognized as such accordingly. If the good Lord himself recognizes the separate races/ethnicities, I see nothing in a true Christian charter that would demand of us to not do the same. Christians would do well for themselves not to try and force the spiritual gospel message on temporal matters where it was not meant to apply. After all, we know that the kingdom of our Saviour is not of this world.
2004-02-10 15:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Well, the Trotskyite word 'racism' is an ill-defined one as we have discussed here previously. As a Christian I must state that yes, 'at the foot of the Cross' we are all sinners in need of redemption, but I think to transfer this spiritual egalitarianism into an earthly one is a grave mistake and often serves to misinform the true Faith's enemies. In Matthew 28 where we find Jesus the Christ's 'Great Commission', he uses the term 'nations' which in the original Greek is better translated as 'ethnic' or 'ethnicities'. From this we can surmise that the world's ethnicities are themselves ordained by God, at the very least recognized as such accordingly. If the good Lord himself recognizes the separate races/ethnicities, I see nothing in a true Christian charter that would demand of us to not do the same. Christians would do well for themselves not to try and force the spiritual gospel message on temporal matters where it was not meant to apply. After all, we know that the kingdom of our Saviour is not of this world.[/QUOTE]
Well said. And I would add that when our antagonists use this word "racist", they assume a certain definition that is not accurate. The assumption is a "racist" hates anyone not white for no reason. maybe that applies to a very small number of people, but the people I know don't oppose blacks or mestizos simply because they are of a different race. No, its what they do to us and the effect they have on our society.
Beyond that, how can any Christian really defend a group of people like the blacks who literally breathe hate, resentment, and parasitism 24 hours a day? I mean do the blacks, as a group, exemplify Christian lifestyles with their sexual immorality, laziness, irresponsibility, and mass bastardy? How can these Christian apologists respond when blacks are given every advantage and this only seems to make them worse? The more we whites give them, the more blacks hate us. I'd really like to see even one of these Christian leaders address the black attitude, but they never do. Its always the old "blame whitey" nonsense.
This is where these anti-racists really have no legitamacy. When they attack "racism", they are mouthing a propaganda term, not dealing in reality.
-
2004-02-11 13:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Pentacostals deny the Trinity? How? If they deny the Trinity they cannot be called Christian.[/QUOTE]
Been a long time since I posted here.
Some Pentacostals deny it, while others do not.
Too make a broad generaliziation: black pentecostals are the ones that are into oneness pentecostalism the most. There are some White folks into it, but not that many.
The largest Pentecostal church in the U.S., the Assemblies of God are trinitarian.
P.S. disclosure: I am an atheist.
2004-02-11 16:47 | User Profile
Rev. Hagee NEEDS to try the Caveman Diet, that saved my life.
Man.
C.S. Lewis points out that nobody preaches against gluttony anymore.
Walter
2004-02-11 20:21 | User Profile
What's dispensationalism?
2004-02-11 20:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]What's dispensationalism?[/QUOTE]
Basically it is a theological framework that views redemptive history as occuring uniquely and separately in different 'dispensations' throughout the entire Scriptures.
That's probably a pretty rough definition so you may just want to Google the word itself.