tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post6845581581329735840..comments2023-05-26T10:55:27.696-04:00Comments on Jc_Freak: Dealing with the End of the WorldJc_Freak:http://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-40888105245840066992009-04-02T11:00:00.000-04:002009-04-02T11:00:00.000-04:00To anonymous,Please look at my blog rule provided ...To anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Please look at my blog rule provided here: <A HREF="http://jcfreak73.blogspot.com/2008/10/some-simple-rules-of-engagement.html" REL="nofollow">Some Simple Rules of Engagement</A>. I agree with you that Darby and Dispensationalism are wrong, hence my comments above, so I actually agree with your comments. But as you can see under the third rule, your comment (which is more of an essay) would amount to elephant hurling/lecturing. Additionally, since I am not sure whether or not you are Dave McPherson, it may also plagiarism.<BR/><BR/>In the future, please provide a link to any relevant material, such as that essay, along with a brief synopsis and your thoughts on the matter. <BR/><BR/>I thank you for your interest in my blog, and I do encourage you to share your thoughts on the matter.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-13028274951331888452009-04-02T02:49:00.000-04:002009-04-02T02:49:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-72206158674971756072009-03-31T06:12:00.000-04:002009-03-31T06:12:00.000-04:00Just for the sake of recording, I went back throug...Just for the sake of recording, I went back through and reedited this post a bit. Mostly, I corrected some grammar, which I often miss (sorry about that). However, and this is the only thing which you guys might want to review) I added a point to the list in the last section. In what is now point 9, I mentioned that I view the events in Revelation as primarily taking place in the future, not the past (with the exception of the birth of Christ or course). I was worried that I wasn't clear on this point, and that this is a rather important point.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-54107277829005229422009-03-30T04:47:00.000-04:002009-03-30T04:47:00.000-04:00Hi Jc-Freak,Interesting post as always. fow what i...Hi Jc-Freak,<BR/>Interesting post as always. fow what its worth here are my thoughts:<BR/>I am an historic amillenialist. In other words I agree with you pretty much up to the literal thousand year reign. I believe the 'Anti-christ' as he is often know (although that term is never used in the book of revelation) is actually Nero and empire (Rome). I believe that you are correct in the teaching that it was written to seven literal churchesd under persecution and that revelation is a collection of heavens perspective on literal, present (at the time) events with various re-tellings of the same story. I am not expecting and millenium or 'rapture'.<BR/>I belive that the church has been grafted into Israel, so that in a way we are the new Israel, the new Jesusalem (Rev 21).<BR/>I would also call myself a covenant theologian but one does have to be careful as there are various forms of this.<BR/>Thanks again,<BR/>PeterAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01522794031978733696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-57296374156142804002009-03-29T00:13:00.000-04:002009-03-29T00:13:00.000-04:00bethyada,I would have to examine those things with...bethyada,<BR/><BR/>I would have to examine those things with more detail before I could really comment. Like I said, I don't know much about covenant theology. It has always seemed to be associated with Calvinism, so I haven't really looked into it for that reason, since I know there are other things that I'm already going to disagree with. Additionally, this is one area which I am rather comfortable with my views, and though I am willing to look at someone else's opinion, I have not real compulsion to set other topics aside that I am wrestling with to engage it (unless I run into someone who is really into it).Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-53352509571840755032009-03-29T00:10:00.000-04:002009-03-29T00:10:00.000-04:00Mason, I am unfamiliar with the historic premillen...Mason, <BR/><BR/>I am unfamiliar with the historic premillenialist position, but the name of it sounds a lot like what I believe. It is possible that I can identify with that position if I read more. Are there any works you would recommend?Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-12098992767758220052009-03-28T19:45:00.000-04:002009-03-28T19:45:00.000-04:00Okay, I have read the 2 wikipedia articles I linke...Okay, I have read the 2 wikipedia articles I linked to. Obviously only a brief overview.<BR/><BR/>The problem I have is that one can view the nature of works versus grace differently from Israel versus the church; and though these are related, the systems perhaps force connections. The article on <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant_Theology" REL="nofollow">New Covenant Theology</A> has a somewhat middle ground though I think one can hold to a stronger or weaker concept of Israel within this.<BR/><BR/>I tend to think that the entire Law was dealt to at the cross, not just the ceremonial.bethyadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990677679970591625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-7149423277595326252009-03-28T16:23:00.000-04:002009-03-28T16:23:00.000-04:00Sorry jc_freak, I may have got those 2 back to fro...Sorry jc_freak, I may have got those 2 back to front. Like I said, I never fully grasped these (or studied them actually). Anyway, apparently one emphasises the similarities and one the differences.<BR/><BR/>The 2 of them on wikipedia. <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism" REL="nofollow">dispensationalism</A> and <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology" REL="nofollow">covenant theology</A>bethyadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990677679970591625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-12774352387749888392009-03-28T12:36:00.000-04:002009-03-28T12:36:00.000-04:00JC, I must say that your take on those points in R...JC, I must say that your take on those points in Revelation seems quite reasonable, even where I may see it a little differently.<BR/><BR/>I'd be curious if as a chilialist who isn't dispensational you'd fall more in line with Ladd and other 'historic premillennialists'? I picked up new book by Blomberg on Historic Premillennialism, and I find my sympathies to be an amalgamation of Historic Premil and preterism, though with more of the later.<BR/><BR/>The classic old school Dispensational eschatology (ala Ryre and the rest) with its excessive literalism and pre-trib additions and its take on Israel and a number of other distinctive always seems to be doing violence to potential eschatological texts, Revelation in particular due to the poor handling of the apocalyptic genre.Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12865044615971862266noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-18880988860021184742009-03-27T21:56:00.000-04:002009-03-27T21:56:00.000-04:00I've never really looked into what constitutes "co...I've never really looked into what constitutes "covenant theology", but I dont think that I hold to it. I've never particularly liked the name since every theology says something about covenants.Jc_Freak:https://www.blogger.com/profile/14780031497091443526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5021346565171482910.post-71007789693035555212009-03-27T20:27:00.000-04:002009-03-27T20:27:00.000-04:00I don't have strong eschatological views. I usuall...I don't have strong eschatological views. I usually say that I have some sympathy with both preterism and futurism, though not a great understanding of them.<BR/><BR/>I tend to think there will be a reigning of Christ on earth before the final judgment. There seems some logic in us ruling ourselves for 6000 years or so, and seeing the mess, then seeing what the world can be like with Jesus at the helm for another 1000. <BR/><BR/>But it also seems to make sense with other passages such as Jesus coming as a suffering servant then as a king; rewarding men who are faithful with leadership positions. Also prophecies such as Isaiah and Zechariah about a future peace. It seems to be the earth rather than heaven in these passages.<BR/><BR/>In terms of dispensationalism and covenant theology, I have never fully grasped these. I heard a helpful comment that the first emphasises the differences between pre and post Christ and the latter emphasises the similarities. I think perhaps one doesn't have to hold either firmly, but accept there and similarities and differences.<BR/><BR/>I tend more toward covenant theology more myself. All men everywhere at all times are saved by faith.bethyadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08990677679970591625noreply@blogger.com