Introduction
An article entitled, “The Error of Amillennialism” by Andrew D. Robinson was featured in the November-December 2011 issue of The Lamplighter Magazine. This magazine published by Lamb & Lion Ministries, which is an end-times prophecy ministry that was founded by Premillennialist Dr. David Reagan in 1980.
Dr. Reagan prefaced Andrew Robinson’s article with an editor’s note establishing that Amillennialism is a belief that is “held by the vast majority of professing Christians, both Protestant and Catholic.” If we are looking at the full spectrum of Christendom, I would be inclined to agree with Dr. Reagan. However, when speaking of the Evangelical segment of Christianity in today’s times, I would say Premillennialism would be the predominate eschatology.
I think we need to keep in mind that there is difference between someone who is either uninformed or misinformed about their denomination’s eschatological position, than someone who has pro-actively adopted an eschatological position. I suspect there are quite a few Roman Catholics and Mainline Protestants who may not even be aware that their denomination is Amillennial. Of those who do have some degree of eschatological awareness, it seems to me that most of them are not as dogmatic about it and do not put a whole lot of emphasis on the end times as their Evangelical Premillennial counter-parts do.
Dr. Reagan closed his editor’s note by stating that Pastor Robinson’s article was originally published in the “journal of the Prophetic Witness Movement International” and that he was re-publishing an abbreviated edition of his article with permission. So, having said that, please note that the abbreviated re-printed edition of the article consisting of about 3,500 words and 16 footnotes is what I will be reviewing.
All In The Family
I have always believed that eschatology is a subject where there is room for disagreement within the ranks of the Christian community. Unlike abortion, same sex marriages, evolution or other similar subjects where we Christians usually debate those outside our community, eschatology is what I would consider to be an intramural matter. Judging from the tone of Pastor Robinson’s article, his attitude was anything but cordial. He characterized his eschatological opponents with phrases such as, St. Augustine being the “Charles Darwin of the church,” “doctrine of demons,” “cowboy exegesis,” and of course the usual charge of, “anti-semitism.” Pastor Robinson is not the first Premillennialist to play the “anti-semitic” card against those whom do not agree with him on eschatology. I did not sense any kind of, “we are all brothers in Christ and we can agree to disagree” attitude from Pastor Robinson’s article.
What Is Pastor Robinson’s Standard?
When I read an article written by a Christian who is criticizing a belief system held by another group of Christians, I would expect the author to use the Scriptures as his/her standard when criticizing the opposing view point in question. For example, I would expect the critique process to go something like this: This is what they believe… Here is what the Scriptures teach about that… Here is how they are either misinterpreting the Scriptures or ignoring what the Scriptures teach… and so on. Pastor Robinson did not follow that process. Instead, he criticized Amillennialism based on his biased and subjective Premillennial worldview as opposed to objectively using the Scriptures.
The only Scripture that was cited by Pastor Robinson was the following:
Thus says the Lord, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer divided into two kingdoms …And they will be my people, and I will be their God” (Ezekiel 37:21-23).
Pastor Robinson follows up this Scripture with the following commentary before he charges his opponents with, “cowboy exegesis”:
“Writing from the depths of exile, Ezekiel foresaw the glorious day when the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel would be reunited in their ancient homeland, under the Kingship of the Lord . . . “
“History teaches us that Israel and Judah were never restored to their predicted nationhood in Bible times, and this has led some scholars to conclude that Ezekiel’s prophecy failed. But we must look beyond the biblical horizon to the present day, some 2500 years later, to see the fulfillment of God’s Word.”
“In our day, the world has witnessed scenes of unprecedented historical significance, as Jews in their hundreds of thousands have returned to the land of Israel. They have made aliyah (the Hebrew term for emigrating to Israel) from over one hundred nations . . . Judah and Israel, the “twin sticks” of Ezekiel’s prophecy (Ezekiel 37:15-23), are fast becoming one in God’s hand, and it is only a matter of time before Messiah makes His own aliyah and establishes His throne in their midst in Jerusalem.”
A History Lesson For Pastor Robinson
Where Pastor Robinson went wrong in his commentary was that he errantly arrived at the conclusion that Ezekiel’s prophecy has not yet been fulfilled based on his perception of History. This passage of Scripture simply stated that there will be a united Israel that will no longer be divided. Ezekiel never said that Israel would be restored to their previous size and proportion as they were in David and Solomon’s time. Ezekiel’s reunification prophecy was fulfilled in the context of remnant proportions. The reason this prophecy was actually was fulfilled at the time the Jews began their return from their exile in Babylon in 538 BC is because that would have been the only time in History that this prophecy could have been fulfilled.
In 722 BC, the Assyrian Empire conquered the 10 northern tribes of Israel.
These deportations from the Promised Land actually began under the Assyrians as early as 733. These were deported to Ninevah. More deportations to Babylon occurred in 605, 597 and 582. Many of the Israelites had chosen to flee voluntarily and had settled in Syria, Egypt and Turkey. This was a very dark period in the history of Israel. There was no king and no temple. (See Psalm 137) 1
By the time the remnant of Judah began returning from their Babylonian exile beginning in 538 BC, the remnants of the 10 northern tribes could have quite easily migrated to Judean territory. The return of Judah was only 184 years and 4 to 5 generations after Israel’s exile by the Assyrians. Here are some Scriptures that would suggest that this very scenario actually played out:
…in company with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispar, Bigvai, Rehum and Baanah): The list of the men of the people of Israel: Ezra 2: 2
The priests, the Levites, the singers, the gatekeepers and the temple servants settled in their own towns, along with some of the other people, and the rest of the Israelites settled in their towns. When the seventh month came and the Israelites had settled in their towns, the people assembled as one man in Jerusalem. Ezra 2: 70/3: 1
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary stated the following on the two previous passages of Scripture:
It is certain that all twelve tribes were represented in this expedition, for refugees from the northern tribes had been pouring into Judah for centuries before the Babylonian captivity. 2
Some of the Israelites, including priests, Levites, singers, gatekeepers and temple servants, also came up to Jerusalem in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes. Ezra 7: 7
Now I decree that any of the Israelites in my kingdom, including priests and Levites, who wish to go to Jerusalem with you, may go. You are sent by the king and his seven advisers to enquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to the Law of your God, which is in your hand. Ezra 7: 13 & 14
Then the exiles who had returned from captivity sacrificed burnt offerings to the God of Israel: twelve bulls for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven male lambs and, as a sin offering, twelve male goats. All this was a burnt offering to the LORD. Ezra 8: 35
According to Pastor Robinson’s perception of History, the unification of Israel and Judah happened during the formation of modern day Israel beginning in 1948. This is totally ridiculous. The Jews as we know of them today are more of a remnant now than they were back in 538 BC. Back then, tribal identity and distinctions could still be made. This would be impossible to do today.
1. Halley's Bible Handbook, Zondervan, 2000 and William Neil's One Volume Bible Commentary, Hodder & Stoughton, 1962
2. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Moody Press, Chicago, 17th printing 1979), page 425.
Historical Grudges
Pastor Robinson spent a fair amount of verbiage going down the path of digging up grudges that go as far back as 1,600 years. He cited a few historical events starting around the 5th century all the way to the reformation era where the Premillennialists supposedly received a raw deal from the Amillennialists.
At the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 AD, the Amillennial debate team made a stronger case for their side than their Premillennial counter-parts and subsequently, the judges declared the Amillennial debate team to be the winner. Apparently, Pastor Robinson is still smarting from Premillennial debate team’s bitter defeat. To make matters even worse, not only did the judges declare the Amillennial debate team to be the winners, but Pastor Robinson claims that they “condemned Premillennialism as superstitious.”
I can understand Pastor Robinson’s disappointment over the Premillennial debate team’s very poor performance at the Council of Ephesus. However, he then jumped forward all the way to 1646 and complained that the Westminster Confession of Faith is has a, “zero tolerance for Premillennialism.” What? Among the 12,000 plus words contained in The Westminster Confession of Faith, there are no sections or clauses in this document that declares a specific eschatological position, whether it be Amillennial, Postmillennial or Premillennial.
The closest the Westminster Confession comes to addressing the end times is in the 33rd and final chapter entitled, “Of the Last Judgment.” The scope of the chapter deals with how there will be an appointed day when Christ will judge the world. If I am not mistaken, I think the Premillennialists believe in an appointed judgment day. The chapter does not go into any detail in describing or predicting any events that will transpire before or after the appointed day of Christ’s judgment. I cannot imagine the Premillennialists objecting to the final phrase of the Westminster Confession of Faith which reads:
because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.
The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds do not specify any millennial positions either. Why doesn’t Pastor Robinson complain about that? The only way you can make a case that any creed has a “zero tolerance” for any kind of belief system is if it explicitly says so by denunciation or it explicitly endorses the opposite belief. Although most of (if not all) the framers of The Westminster Confession of Faith were not Premillenial, it’s a far stretch to accuse them of having a “zero tolerance” for Premillennialism when they never declared a millennial position in the first place.
The KJV Grudge
After Pastor Robinson accused the Amillennialist of “cowboy exegesis” he goes on to make an issue with the publishers of the earlier editions of the 1611 King James Version of the Bible. He further demonstrates his fixation with this Church-Israel distinction by making an issue with 3 chapter heading in the book of Isaiah:
Isaiah 30: “God’s mercies towards His Church.”
Isaiah 33: “God’s judgments against the enemies of the Church.”
Isaiah 43 & 44: “God comforteth the Church with His promises.”
Keep in mind these are just, CHAPTER HEADINGS that Pastor Robinson is taking issue with. We are not talking about the actual text in the chapters themselves. Even though most if not all the publishers of the KJV have since removed or replaced these headings, Pastor Robinson uses this to make the case that those chapter headings were a part of Amillennialist conspiracy to influence people away from Israel and toward the Church.
It is common knowledge among Bible Scholars that the word, “Church” is also a general macro term that comes from the Greek word, Ekklēsia and the Hebrew word, qāhāl that is defined as an assembly, congregation or gathering. This concept was around long before the birth of the New Testament Church on the Day of Pentecost.
The term ekklēsia describes an actual assembly, a gathering of people together. The same is true of the Old Testament term qāhāl that is translated by ekklēsia in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. The words themselves do not have the restricted meaning of the word, ‘church’. Yet, when Jesus said, ‘I will build my church’…, he was not simply saying, ‘I will bring together a gathering of people’. Rather, he was using a well-known term that described the people of God. The ‘assembly in the desert’ (Acts 7:38) was the definitive assembly for Israel, the covenant-making assembly when God claimed his redeemed people as his own’ (Dt. 4:10 LXX; 9:10; 10:4; 18:16). 3
Dr. Reagan inserted an editor’s note in this section of the article emphasizing that the “Church had not even been established when these chapters were written.” (Duh!) And that, “they are addressed to Israel, not the Church (Here, Dr. Reagan is talking about the post Pentecost NT era Church, another duh!) — unless, of course, you spiritualize them by applying them to the Church.” Does Dr. Reagan and Pastor Robinson actually think that anyone with half a brain who read those chapter headings thought that the NT Church had not been established when the book of Isaiah was written? Or, that the book of Isaiah was not addressing Israel? If both Pastor Robinson and Dr. Reagan understood the broader definition of “Church” based on the original Greek and Hebrew definitions, they would have known that those chapter headings were not talking about the NT Church. This is a no brainer. What if the earlier editors of the KJV had inserted, “Assembly” or “Congregation” in those chapter headings as opposed to, “Church”? Do you think Pastor Robinson and Dr. Reagan would have made an issue out of that?
3. Edmund P. Clowney, “The Biblical Theology of the Church,” The Church in the Bible and the World: An International Study, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987), 17. (This research was compiled by Gary DeMar, 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed, The Last Days Might Not Be as Near as You Think (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2nd printing 2010), page 16)
Premillennial Misconceptions
Another area where Pastor Robinson has gone wrong is that he criticizes Amillennialism based on Premillennial misconceptions. The paragraph from Pastor Robinson’s piece illustrates this point:
Although it (the Church being the new Israel) is hotly denied by Amillennialists, there is no question that Amillennialism is rooted in the soil of Augustinian Roman Catholicism, and as such has a tendency towards anti-Semitism. The Jewish people have been twice robbed by the Amillennial Church: first of their prophetic Scriptures, and then of their land. If Amillennialists want to protest their innocence, then I invite them to tell the Jewish community that the biblical Land promises still apply to Israel. (Emphasis mine)
So, according to Pastor Robinson, if you don’t believe that the Biblical land promises still apply to Israel in today’s times, you are anti-Semitic or have, “a tendency toward anti-Semitism.” I have some questions for Pastor Robinson and Dr. Reagan:
1. Where in the Scriptures does it indicate that the formation of modern day Israel has anything to do with a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy?
2. While I stand with them in their support of statehood for modern day Israel, how far beyond that would they like to go with this whole Zionist cause?
3. Do they advocate Israel gaining full control of the temple mount in Jerusalem and building a 3rd temple?
4. If so, where in the Scriptures does it say that a 3rd temple will be built?
5. If they advocate the building of a 3rd temple, do they also advocate the Jews reinstituting the sacrificing of animals?
6. Do they believe that God wants to govern the Church and the Jews under two different redemptive standards?
7. Do they believe that two-thirds of the Jews living in Israel will be killed after the rapture?
Pastor Robinson has made it quite clear that he has a problem with the idea of the Church being the, “New Israel of God.” Of course that phrase was coined at a time in History when the Jews were scattered all over the world and Israel did not exist as a geo-political entity. Pastor Robinson went on to characterize the belief of the Church being the torch bearer for God as opposed to Israel as, “replacement theology” on two occasions. The term, “replacement theology” is a term contrived by the Premillinialists who subscribe to a Church-Israel distinction. Those non Premillennialists who don’t make a distinction between the Church and Israel don’t characterize their belief as replacement theology. I think a better label would be inclusion or attachment theology. Gary DeMar explains it this way:
As anyone who is familiar with the Bible knows, Christianity does not “supersede Judaism.” The genealogies found in Matthew and Luke clearly show that Jesus is “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1). The first New Covenant believers were from the nation of Israel (Luke 1–2) with hints of a later expanded redemptive role for Samaritans (John 4:7–45), Greeks (John 12:20–22), the nations (Luke 2:32), and the world (John 3:16; 4:42). At Pentecost, we see that “to the Jew first” (Rom. 1:16) predominates—“Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5)—but later extends “also to the Greek” (Rom. 1:16) as Peter’s encounter with Cornelius shows (Acts 10). Notice Peter’s evaluation of these events and the response of his fellow Jews:
“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:15–18).
“The Gentiles also.” Gentile believers were grafted into the Jewish assembly of believers and were given “the same gift,” the Holy Spirit (see Acts 1:8; 2:38). 4
If Pastor Robinson wants to correctly use the phrase, “replacement theology” in its proper context, I would advise him to remember what it is that is being replaced and by whom. Christ himself is inherently replacement agent, because it is His work on the cross that has enabled Him to replace the OT sacrificial and ceremonial laws. I think that’s a pretty good replacement.
4. Gary DeMar, 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed, The Last Days Might Not Be as Near as You Think (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2nd printing 2010), 82.
First Take The Plank Out of Your Own Eye
Pastor Robinson’s criticism of Amillennial theology well illustrates what Jesus taught in Matthew 7: 2-5. The following is another excerpt from his article:
Amillennialism is a laundered system, which has bleached out the plain meaning of Scripture. The doctrine cannot be deduced from Bible study but must be taught. It is my belief that anyone reading the Scriptures for the first time, without tutoring, would never arrive at an Amillennial position. Conversely, I know people who came to the Bible for the first time, and instantly understood God’s purposes for Israel.
To the contrary, I would replace Amillennial(ism) with Premillennial(ism) in the previous paragraph and it would be spot on. The Premillennialist have the biggest eschatological “tutoring” program going on in this day and time. Have you ever heard an Amillennialist or Postmillennialist teach their view points on Christian radio or TV? How many Amillennialists do you know of that:
• Have made false predictions concerning the Lord’s return? (I am not suggesting that an Amillennialist has never done this. If so, I will bet there are far fewer false predicting Amillennialists than Premillennialist.)
• Believe and have predicted that two-thirds of the Jews in Israel will be killed after the rapture? (If that is not anti-semitism, I don’t know what is. What kind of “tutoring” do you think one would have to go through to arrive at that conclusion?)
• Supports a belief system that condones and enables the re-instituting the animal sacrifices for the remission of sin? (What kind of “tutoring” do you think one would have to go through to arrive at that conclusion?)
I don’t hear the Amillennialist fervently insisting that Jesus is coming “soon” and then not say what exactly they meant by “soon” when you ask them to give you a general time frame. Take Dr. Reagan for example, the following is on his Lamb & Lion Ministries web site:
“The Ministry was established for the purpose of proclaiming the soon return of Jesus. We do not believe it is possible to know the date when Jesus will return. But we do believe it is possible to know the season of the Lord's return, and it is our conviction that we are living in that season.”
Dr. Reagan and I go back a ways because I used to listen to his daily 15 minute radio broadcasts throughout the 80s and I remember him uttering the above quote many times. Now that Dr. Reagan has been proclaiming the “soon” coming of Jesus for over 30 years now, I would be curious to know what his definition of “soon” is. I always get amused when the Premillennialist throw around words such as, “soon,” “near,” and “eminent” without associating any kind of time frame to them.
Suppose an employee would say, “soon.” when his employer asked when he will receive the upcoming quarterly report. If the employer was unsure what his employee meant by “soon” and asked for a specific time frame, suppose the employee would say, “Well, I do not believe it is possible to know the date you will get the report. But I do believe it is possible to know the season of the arrival of that report, and it is my conviction that we are living in that season.” How far do you think the employee preparing that report will get with that company? When using the word soon in everyday life situations, most people using that term don’t have a problem associating a specific time frame to the word when asked. However, why do Premillennialists not apply this same rule when discussing eschatology?
How many Premillennialists have made false predictions? Here are just a few examples:
• In 1975, Jack Van Impe wrote an article entitled, “Messiah 1975? The Tribulation 1976? While he insisted that, “We do not believe in setting dates concerning the return of Christ.” He went on to assert that Christ’s coming is “near” based on the “signs.” 5 (Van Impe is the same guy who predicted that the Soviet flag would be flying over Independence Hall in Philadelphia by 1976.) 6
• In 1980, Hal Lindsey wrote, “We are in the last generation that will see the end times … and the return of Christ.” 7
• In 1987, Lester Sumrall wrote in his book I Predict 2000 A.D, “I predict the absolute fullness of man’s operation on planet Earth by the year 2000 A.D. Then Jesus Christ shall reign from Jerusalem for 1000 years.” 8
• In 1988, Edgar C. Whisenant wrote a book entitled, “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Is in 1988. 9
• In 1992 of December 27, Jerry Falwell said in a television broadcast: “I do not believe that there will be another millennium…or another century.” 10
5. Jack Van Impe, “Messiah 1975? The Tribulation 1976” The Jack Van Impe Crusade Newsletter (April 1975), 1. *
6. Ed Hindson, “The End Is Near … Or Is It?,” World (24 November 1990), 12. *
7. Back-cover copy of Hal Lindsey, The 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon (King of Prussia, PA: Westgate Press, 1980). *
8. Quoted in Ron Rhodes, “Millennial Madness,” Christian Research Journal (Fall 1990), 39 and in Lester Sumrall’s book I predict 2000 A.D. *
9. Edgar C. Whisenant, 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Is in 1988 (Nashville, TN: World Bible Society, 1988)
10. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness, Obsession of the Modern Church (Atlanta, GA: American Vision 1997), 24. www.americanvision.org
(An asterisk (*) at the end of a footnote denotes that the research was compiled by Gary DeMar of American Vision and published in his book, Last Days Madness, Obsession of the Modern Church.)
Redefining Orthodoxy
Pastor Robinson’s article also consisted of a parade of 10 supposed Premillennial Champions whose lives ranged from the 16th century to the early 20th century. Two of them in particular were Sir Henry Finch (1558 -1625), and Thomas Fuller (1608-1661) who were supposedly unjustly persecuted for their advocacy of Israel and Jewish restoration. Another interesting name that Pastor Robinson dropped was that of J. C. Ryle (1816-1900) who was credited for writing a creedal statement concerning the end times entitled, “The Chief Articles of My Prophetical Creed.” This creed that Pastor Robinson raved about has eleven articles and I find it interesting that he only emphasized articles 7 and 8.
Articles 7:“I believe that the Jews shall ultimately be gathered again as a separate nation, restored to their own land, and converted to the faith of Christ, after going through great tribulation.”
Article 8: “I believe that the literal sense of the Old Testament prophecies has been far too much neglected by the Churches . . . and that under the mistaken system of spiritualizing and accommodating Biblical language, Christians have too often completely missed its meaning.”
Anyone familiar with Premillennial eschatology would know that those two articles pretty much tout the Premillennial party line. However, I did not read anything in the entire work that said anything about two-thirds of the Jews living in Israel being killed during the so called “great tribulation,” or the building of the 3rd temple and the re-instituting of animal sacrificing.
I find Article 10 of this creed to be interesting. It reads:
“I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the great predicted apostasy from the faith, and is Babylon and Antichrist, although I think it highly probable that a more complete development of Antichrist will yet be exhibited to the world (2 Thess. 2: 3-11; 1 Tim. 4: 1-3).”
This has been somewhat of a Historically held Premillennial belief. However, I am not so sure that today’s Premillennialist are as fixated with the Pope being the Antichrist as the earlier Premillennialists were.
Pastor Robinson stated that this 755 word creed is “worth reciting.” Where exactly does Pastor Robinson think that this creed should be recited? The Roman Catholics and most of the mainline Protestants recite the Apostles (114 words) and/or Nicene (226 words) Creeds in their church services. Those Historic creeds center around the basic tenants of the Christian faith and nature of who Jesus is. I wonder if Pastor Robinson thinks they are worth reciting? Whereas, J. C. Ryles’s creed centers around the end times and does not address the central themes of Christianity. Since Pastor Robinson pastors a church, does this mean that J. C. Ryle’s creed is recited in his services? If so, does his church recite J. C. Ryle’s creed in addition to or instead of one of the Historic creeds?
Conclusion
Pastor Robinson in particular failed to provide a consistent Biblical argument against Amillennialism or in favor of Premillennialism. Holding historical grudges and citing supposed past injustices against Premillennialists at the hands of Amillennialists does not pass for a valid Biblical argument. Even if the supposed unjust events that Pastor Robinson cited were true, that in and of itself does not necessarily make Amillennialism an errant belief system.
Premillennialists are in no position to be criticizing other eschatological systems when their own house is built on very shaky unbiblical ground. Instead of running down the Amillennialists, I think Pastor Robinson would have been better off making a Biblical argument for some of the Premillennial distinctive such as:
• A 3rd temple in Jerusalem;
• A 7 year tribulation period and that the church will be raptured prior to that tribulation period;
• A supposed antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews at the beginning of that 7 year tribulation period and then break that same covenant later in that same 7 year tribulation period.
If Pastor Robinson and Dr. Reagan really want to take on the Amillennialists (and even the Postmillennialists), why don’t they engage them in an actual live debate? They both can talk a big game when they are unopposed. However, how many times has either of them gone head to head against their eschatological opponents?
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Saturday, December 17, 2011
How Many Times Have You Voted?
Every so often when an election is held, I will go to an early voting location in order to avoid the rush and hassle of voting on the actual election day. These early voting locations combine several precincts into one location and they too can have some heavy voter traffic as well. While standing in line waiting, I would hear an election clerk sing out, “First time voter! First time voter!” anytime a time a first time voter came up to check in with the election clerk. Then, most of the people standing in line would applaud upon hearing this announcement. This happened on about four or five occasions while I was waiting in line. After hearing these goofy first time voter announcements for the second or third time, I began to ask myself, what’s the big deal about being a first time voter? The ones who have voted on multiple occasions are the ones who are making our democracy work, not the first timers. What about the 25th, 50th, 75th and 100th time voters? Why aren’t they get any props and recognition.
As I began to ponder this situation further, I realized that it is fairly easy for election clerks to spot a first time voter whereas it would be impossible for them to know the voting history of one who has voted on multiple occasions. That prompted me to wonder how many times I have voted. So I called my county election office and asked. Unfortunately, they did not start keeping records on a voter’s individual history until 1994. So they emailed me a copy of my voting history as far back as 1994 and it was up to me to reconstruct my voting history prior to 1994. So according to my best estimate from the time I became of voting age to the date of this article, I have voted 58 times.
As I began to ponder this situation further, I realized that it is fairly easy for election clerks to spot a first time voter whereas it would be impossible for them to know the voting history of one who has voted on multiple occasions. That prompted me to wonder how many times I have voted. So I called my county election office and asked. Unfortunately, they did not start keeping records on a voter’s individual history until 1994. So they emailed me a copy of my voting history as far back as 1994 and it was up to me to reconstruct my voting history prior to 1994. So according to my best estimate from the time I became of voting age to the date of this article, I have voted 58 times.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
ARTICLE REVIEW: A Response To Andy Woods
Introduction
Dr. Andy Woods is an Associate Professor at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, Texas. He holds a BA from Univ. of Redlands, a J D from Whittier Law School, and a ThM, and PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary. In the Spring of 2008, Dr. Woods published a 12,300 word article with 134 footnotes and a bibliography with 62 listings and 8 tables or illustrations in the Chafer Theological Seminary Journal (No. 13, 2-26) entitled, “A Case For The Futurist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.” Dr. Woods subscribes to the premillennial/dispensational point of view on eschatology. For the Premillennialist, the futurist interpretation on the scriptures they use to construct their position is everything. They have nothing to hang their eschatology on if they can’t sell the futurist interpretation angle.
A Case For Futurism Or Against Preterism?
Given Dr. Woods position in the Christian academic community, it makes perfect sense that he would write a piece in defense of his position. However, Dr. Woods defends his position by repudiating his eschatological opponents who are identified as preterist. I think the title of Dr. Woods’ paper, is misleading. A more appropriate title would have been, “A Case Against The Preterist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.” Most of Dr. Woods’ paper is devoted to refuting preterism as opposed to making a case for futurism. He mentions preterist, preterists or preterism 75 times and futurist, futurists, futuristic, or futurism just 21 times. Also, in the body of his work, Dr. Woods mentioned his preterist opponents by name 25 times and he only mentioned his futurist colleagues by name 5 times.
Dr. Woods’ identified five of his preterist opponents in his opening footnote. Of those five, he cited the works of three of them 53 times in subsequent footnotes. The three that were cited were: Dr. David Chilton, Hank Hanegraaff and Dr. Kenneth Gentry. Of those three, Dr. Gentry was cited the most with 39 footnoted references. Dr. Woods mentioned Dr. Gentry by name 22 times throughout the body of his work where the other two were mentioned a combined total of 3 times. Being that Dr. Gentry was the foremost singled out preterist, it is quite obvious who Dr. Woods had in his cross-hairs when he wrote this paper. Evidently, Dr. Woods would prefer to grind his axe with the preterists as opposed to making a case for his futurist position.
For whatever reason, the scope of Dr. Woods’ paper is limited to the Book of Revelation, even though the whole futurist/preterist debate covers other prophetic Scriptures like the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24 for example. Being that Dr. Woods was so eager to refute preterism, he could have addressed Matthew 24:34 where Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” This verse is one of the main defenses for the preterists. They believe that, “this generation” means those whom Jesus was addressing at that time he gave the discourse and not some generation way off in the distant future. If Dr. Woods really wanted to debunk preterism, he could have given his readers the futurist position of “this generation.”
Who Is Dr. Woods’ Audience?
Another enigma about Dr. Woods’ paper is his audience. To whom was Dr. Woods trying to make his case to? This article was originally published in a journal where most (if not all) of those who actually read it already subscribe to premillennial/dispensational eschatology and the futurist interpretation. If you go online to Chafer Theological Seminary’s web site, you will find that their official eschatological position is pre-tribulational/premillennial. Furthermore, most of the average rank and file Evangelical Christians in general already subscribe to his view on eschatology.
Dr. Gentry himself was not even aware that Dr. Woods wrote this paper until October of 2011 (1) Why was Dr. Gentry not afforded a fair opportunity to respond to Dr. Woods’ critique at the time this paper was published? How much of an effort did Dr. Woods make in presenting his work to an audience who does not agree with his position? Or, at the very least, to those who might be on the eschatological fence? What is the point in preparing a lengthy and annotated paper if you are just going to preach to the choir?
1. On October 22, 2011, I emailed Dr. Woods’ paper in pdf to Dr. Gentry.
Dispensationalism’s Short History
Dr. Woods began his paper with this sentence:
While previous generations of dispensational interpreters may have enjoyed the luxury of the widespread assumption that the Book of Revelation primarily concerns future events, such a “golden age” has now come to an end.
How many previous generations of dispensationalist does Dr. Woods think there are? Gary DeMar wrote the following concerning dispensationalism’s short history:
Everybody prior to around 1830 was a non-dispensationalist, so I don’t see why being a “non-dispensationalist” today carries with it such negative connotations. Furthermore, until the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, there was no agreed upon dispensational system among even a minority of Christians. (2) It’s rather surprising that notes written by one man who had no real theological training would end up creating a brand new prophetic movement wherein the notes more often than not supplant the text of Scripture. (3)
When considering almost 2,000 years of church history, 181 years is not all that much of a time frame for any kind of theological system. How did the Church survive almost 1,800 years without the wisdom and insight of the premillennial dispensationalist? Did all the believers living before 1830 have skewed theologies because they did not interpret the Scripture they way they do?
2. Dispensationalists like to claim that the mere use of the word “dispensation” makes someone a dispensationalist. This is hardly
the case. See Ronald M. Henzel, Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism: Reassessing the Nineteenth-Century Roots of a Twentieth-Century Prophetic Movement for the Twenty-First Century (Tucson: Fenestra Books, 2003), 25–29. (This footnote was originally referenced by Gary DeMar.)
3. Gary DeMar, 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed, The Last Days Might Not Be as Near as You Think (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2nd printing 2010), 3.
Dr. David Chilton & Preterism
Dr. Woods correctly defines the term “preterists” for his readers. Unlike a futurist who believes a prophetic Scripture is yet to be fulfilled, a preterist believes a prophetic Scripture has already been fulfilled. To Dr. Woods’ credit, he did make the distinction between a full preterist and a partial preterist. (The problem with the full preterists is that they don’t believe in the upcoming 2nd advent of Christ as stipulated in the orthodox creeds.) In the third paragraph of page 6, Dr. Woods wrote this:
the designations “partial preterist” and “full preterist” are misnomers. Rather, partial preterists should be labeled “inconsistent preterists” while full preterists should be referred to as “consistent preterists.” This inconsistency is evident even to some partial preterists, such as David Chilton, who abandoned his partial preterist system in favor of full preterism.
It is true that Dr. David Chilton changed from partial to full or hyper preterism, none of his colleagues that I know of have ever denied that. But, here are some facts about Dr. Chilton that Dr. Woods conveniently left out of his paper as he unfairly characterized Dr. Chilton’s change to full preterism: (4)
• Dr. Chilton died in 1997, which means that he had been dead for more than ten years at the time Dr. Woods published his paper;
• Dr. Chilton changed to full preterism AFTER he suffered a massive heart-attack in 1994 that left him in a coma for six weeks where he was brain dead for a portion of that time;
• Dr. Chilton miraculously recovered from his coma blind and with a total loss of his memory.
I certainly don’t condone or excuse heresy and straying from the orthodox tenants of the faith. However, I do think that the circumstances surrounding Dr. Chilton’s health in the last three years of his life are a legitimate reason to afford him a little bit of latitude. Before Dr. Chilton changed his position on preterism, he first had to re-learn what preterism was. At the time Dr. Chilton changed is position, he was not even half of what he was before his heart-attack. If one of Dr. Woods’ colleagues were to suffer the same misfortune as Dr. Chilton, and then stray off the reservation, I would imagine that Dr. Woods would want his opponents to take those mitigating circumstances into consideration before passing judgment.
If a formerly brain dead guy who was ailing for three years before he died is the best example of a partial to full preterist that Dr. Woods can come up with to illustrate his point, then I would say that his point is quite weak. Apparently there are not very many partial to full preterist converts available for Dr. Woods to use as an example. In the end, the premillennial dispensationalist are also partial preterist to a small extent. I have never heard any of them try to recycle Isaiah 53 or any other prophecy about the coming of the Messiah.
4. Here my internet sources that I used for documenting Dr. Chilton’s declining health before he died:
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=2378; http://vftonline.org/xmaspiracy/1/northvschilton.htm and Wikipedia.
The Temple
Being that I support the statehood of modern day Israel, I suppose that would make me a Zionist sympathizer. However, the premillennial dispensationalist go way beyond that. Just as there are distinctions between partial and full preterism, I make the distinction between partial and full Zionism. For example, the premillenialists support modern day Israel and their retaking of the temple mount so they can build a 3rd temple. Remember the 1st temple that was built by King Solomon was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B. C. Then, the 2nd temple was built in 515 B.C. only to be destroyed by the Romans in 70. A. D. So, the Jews have been without a temple for over 1,900 some odd years. Even though the Jews have maintained their religion, culture and identity over the centuries, they have not been able to fully practice their religion because they are without a temple.
The building of a 3rd temple on the temple mount in Jerusalem is a big part of premillennial eschatology. Dr. Woods devotes a segment of his paper repudiating the idea of the temple referred to in Revelation 11 as being the 2nd temple as the preterist argue, but rather, a future 3rd temple. I think this is where Dr. Woods’ zeal to repudiate his preterist opponents (mainly Dr. Gentry) got the best of him. He was so pre-occupied with disproving his opponents case that he failed to prove his own. There is a dispute among the futurist and preterist as to when the Book of Revelation was written. The preterist contend that it was written prior to 70 A.D., while the futurists contend that it was written sometime in the 90s. Even if the futurists can conclusively prove that the Book of Revelation was written on their time table, they cannot provide a verse in the Book of Revelation or in the New Testament for that matter where it explicitly states that a 3rd temple will be built.
It is possible for one to make a theological argument stick without having a Scripture verse that explicitly supports it, as long as you can support your argument from a conceptual standpoint. Take the Trinity for example. The word “Trinity is not in the Bible. There are no verses in the Bible that explicitly says there is a Trinity. However, there are many Scriptures that support the concept of the Trinity. Therefore we orthodox Christians accept the Trinity as a part of our theology. The reason the futurist argument concerning the construction of a 3rd falls completely apart is because there is no Biblical support for it from a conceptual or literally explicit standpoint. Here are just four Old Testament verses that explicitly supported the rebuilding of 2nd post-exilic temple:
2 Chron. 36: 23: 23. “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: “`The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you — may the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.’“
Ezra 6: 3: 3. In the first year of King Cyrus, the king issued a decree concerning the temple of God in Jerusalem: Let the temple be rebuilt as a place to present sacrifices, and let its foundations be laid. It is to be ninety feet high and ninety feet wide,….
Ezra 6: 7–8: 7. Do not interfere with the work on this temple of God. Let the governor of the Jews and the Jewish elders rebuild this house of God on its site. 8. Moreover, I hereby decree what you are to do for these elders of the Jews in the construction of this house of God:
Ezra 6: 14–15: 14. So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia. 15. The temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.
If the construction of a 3rd temple is as legitimate of a concept as the premillennialist would have us believe, why are they not able to produce any explicit Scriptures on it when it can be done on the 2nd temple? The preterists on the other hand, have at least one Scripture that I know of that would support literally or explicitly support their case in Matthew 24:34. However, there are a lot of New Testament Scriptures available to make the conceptual argument as to why there is no need for a 3rd temple. Here are just five of them:
Matt. 21: 42: Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “`The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; [Or cornerstone] the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? [Psalm 118:22,23]
Matt. 24: 1–2: 1. Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down.”
John 2: 19–21: 19. Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20. The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21. But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
Eph. 2: 20-21: 20. built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
Rev. 21: 22: I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
Animal Sacrifices
Another thing Dr. Woods totally ignored concerning the temple is the purpose for having the temple in the first place. Under the Old Testament Mosaic code, the temple was established in order to facilitate a provisional animal sacrificial system for the remission of sins. Given that fact, I pose this question: If Jesus’ work on the cross made him the ultimate and final sacrifice for our sins and has rendered the Old Testament sacrificial system obsolete, what exactly would we be using this 3rd temple for?
To the orthodox Jews, re-building the temple and re-instituting the animal sacrificial rites is one in the same thing. The orthodox Jews do not take the Gospels as gospel as we Christians do. The Jews did not stop sacrificing animals sometime in the late 60s of the first century because of Jesus’ finished work on the cross. They stopped sacrificing because they were ran out of Jerusalem and the Romans demolished the temple in 70 A.D.
When I talk about eschatology with my premillennial brothers and sisters, one question that I always ask is, “How far do you want to go with the Zionist cause?” Most of them will not go so far to support the concept of reinstating the sacrificing of animals. Some of them have said that there just needs to be a temple because Jesus needs a place to reign from and be worshipped. For those who are pro-temple, but anti sacrificing, I would call them partial Zionist. For those who are pro-temple and pro-sacrificing, I would call them full Zionist.
Now that I have established the difference between a partial and full Zionist, I would like to know how far does Dr. Woods want to go with the Zionist cause? Is he a partial or full Zionist? Are the premillennial dispensationalist and the orthodox Jews on the same page on the issue of re-building the temple? Is Dr. Woods and his premillennial colleagues okay with the continuance of an obsolete sacrificial system that orthodox Christians do not observe? Here are just five New Testament verses that explicitly supported the concept of Jesus being the ultimate and final sacrifice and therefore rendering the old sacrificial system obsolete:
John 1: 29: The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Ro. 3: 24-25: 24. and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished —
1Co. 5: 7: Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast — as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
He. 7: 27: Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
1Jn. 2: 2: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Why would Dr. Woods want to be associated with any kind of theology that enables or condones an obsolete sacrificial system? In the first paragraph of page 7, Dr. Woods wrote this:
….. “in order for partial preterists to be consistent, they also must believe that the Second Advent and final judgment have already taken place. Such a belief is at odds with the great ecumenical church creeds, which teach a future bodily appearing of Christ. Denying the Second Advent takes one outside the pale of orthodoxy and into the camp of heterodoxy or heresy. Thus, the partial preterist understanding of Revelation’s timing texts flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy.”
Now, if Dr. Woods want to play the, “flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy” card, fine. But remember, two can play that game. Let’s take Dr. Woods quote and replace partial and full preterist and its related concepts with partial and full Zionist and its related concepts and see how it reads:
….. “in order for partial Zionist to be consistent, they also must believe that the sacrificing of animals under the Mosaic Las needs to take place. Such a belief is at odds with the great ecumenical church creeds, which teach that Christ is the ultimate and final sacrifice. Denying Christ as the final and ultimate sacrifice takes one outside the pale of orthodoxy and into the camp of heterodoxy or heresy. Thus, the partial Zionist understanding of Biblical texts concerning the temple flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy.”
Conclusion
My review of Dr. Woods’ paper, was not intended to give a point by point rebuttal to everything that was critical of Dr. Gentry’s positions or preterists in general. I will leave it to Dr. Gentry and the preterists to fight their own battles if they so choose. However, if I were Dr. Woods’ Professor, and he turned this paper in to me for a grade, I would have given him a failing grade, simply because he failed to make his case for futurism. Dr. Woods reminds me of the negative campaigning politician who would rather run down his opponent as opposed to telling the voters why they should vote for him.
It’s unfortunate that Dr. Woods had a fixation for refuting preterism as opposed to making a case for futurism. Premillenial dispensationalism has a lot of inconsistencies of its own that need addressing. Had Dr. Woods stayed on point, perhaps he could have explained how a futurist interpretation helped the premillennial dispensationalist arrive at the conclusion that that there will be a rapture followed by a 7 year tribulation period. And, that the antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews and then break that same covenant later. I for one would like to know where those texts are found and interpreted in the Book of Revelation.
I don’t have a problem with Dr. Woods writing a paper refuting preterism per se. However, if he chooses to take that path, then he needs to state that in his premise in the beginning and then go from there. Of course, if Dr. Woods really wants to refute preterism, I would suggest that he debate a preterist in a formal debate setting in front of his students. What would be a better way for him to educate his students?
Post Log
On November 14, 2011, Dr. Gentry sent me an email stating the following:
Good work! Thanks for keeping me posted. Due to my ridiculous time constraints, along with the relative obscurity of the paper to which you respond, I won't be able to give time to rebutting it. But I am thankful you have done a nice job on it.
.
Dr. Andy Woods is an Associate Professor at the College of Biblical Studies in Houston, Texas. He holds a BA from Univ. of Redlands, a J D from Whittier Law School, and a ThM, and PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary. In the Spring of 2008, Dr. Woods published a 12,300 word article with 134 footnotes and a bibliography with 62 listings and 8 tables or illustrations in the Chafer Theological Seminary Journal (No. 13, 2-26) entitled, “A Case For The Futurist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.” Dr. Woods subscribes to the premillennial/dispensational point of view on eschatology. For the Premillennialist, the futurist interpretation on the scriptures they use to construct their position is everything. They have nothing to hang their eschatology on if they can’t sell the futurist interpretation angle.
A Case For Futurism Or Against Preterism?
Given Dr. Woods position in the Christian academic community, it makes perfect sense that he would write a piece in defense of his position. However, Dr. Woods defends his position by repudiating his eschatological opponents who are identified as preterist. I think the title of Dr. Woods’ paper, is misleading. A more appropriate title would have been, “A Case Against The Preterist Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.” Most of Dr. Woods’ paper is devoted to refuting preterism as opposed to making a case for futurism. He mentions preterist, preterists or preterism 75 times and futurist, futurists, futuristic, or futurism just 21 times. Also, in the body of his work, Dr. Woods mentioned his preterist opponents by name 25 times and he only mentioned his futurist colleagues by name 5 times.
Dr. Woods’ identified five of his preterist opponents in his opening footnote. Of those five, he cited the works of three of them 53 times in subsequent footnotes. The three that were cited were: Dr. David Chilton, Hank Hanegraaff and Dr. Kenneth Gentry. Of those three, Dr. Gentry was cited the most with 39 footnoted references. Dr. Woods mentioned Dr. Gentry by name 22 times throughout the body of his work where the other two were mentioned a combined total of 3 times. Being that Dr. Gentry was the foremost singled out preterist, it is quite obvious who Dr. Woods had in his cross-hairs when he wrote this paper. Evidently, Dr. Woods would prefer to grind his axe with the preterists as opposed to making a case for his futurist position.
For whatever reason, the scope of Dr. Woods’ paper is limited to the Book of Revelation, even though the whole futurist/preterist debate covers other prophetic Scriptures like the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24 for example. Being that Dr. Woods was so eager to refute preterism, he could have addressed Matthew 24:34 where Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” This verse is one of the main defenses for the preterists. They believe that, “this generation” means those whom Jesus was addressing at that time he gave the discourse and not some generation way off in the distant future. If Dr. Woods really wanted to debunk preterism, he could have given his readers the futurist position of “this generation.”
Who Is Dr. Woods’ Audience?
Another enigma about Dr. Woods’ paper is his audience. To whom was Dr. Woods trying to make his case to? This article was originally published in a journal where most (if not all) of those who actually read it already subscribe to premillennial/dispensational eschatology and the futurist interpretation. If you go online to Chafer Theological Seminary’s web site, you will find that their official eschatological position is pre-tribulational/premillennial. Furthermore, most of the average rank and file Evangelical Christians in general already subscribe to his view on eschatology.
Dr. Gentry himself was not even aware that Dr. Woods wrote this paper until October of 2011 (1) Why was Dr. Gentry not afforded a fair opportunity to respond to Dr. Woods’ critique at the time this paper was published? How much of an effort did Dr. Woods make in presenting his work to an audience who does not agree with his position? Or, at the very least, to those who might be on the eschatological fence? What is the point in preparing a lengthy and annotated paper if you are just going to preach to the choir?
1. On October 22, 2011, I emailed Dr. Woods’ paper in pdf to Dr. Gentry.
Dispensationalism’s Short History
Dr. Woods began his paper with this sentence:
While previous generations of dispensational interpreters may have enjoyed the luxury of the widespread assumption that the Book of Revelation primarily concerns future events, such a “golden age” has now come to an end.
How many previous generations of dispensationalist does Dr. Woods think there are? Gary DeMar wrote the following concerning dispensationalism’s short history:
Everybody prior to around 1830 was a non-dispensationalist, so I don’t see why being a “non-dispensationalist” today carries with it such negative connotations. Furthermore, until the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909, there was no agreed upon dispensational system among even a minority of Christians. (2) It’s rather surprising that notes written by one man who had no real theological training would end up creating a brand new prophetic movement wherein the notes more often than not supplant the text of Scripture. (3)
When considering almost 2,000 years of church history, 181 years is not all that much of a time frame for any kind of theological system. How did the Church survive almost 1,800 years without the wisdom and insight of the premillennial dispensationalist? Did all the believers living before 1830 have skewed theologies because they did not interpret the Scripture they way they do?
2. Dispensationalists like to claim that the mere use of the word “dispensation” makes someone a dispensationalist. This is hardly
the case. See Ronald M. Henzel, Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism: Reassessing the Nineteenth-Century Roots of a Twentieth-Century Prophetic Movement for the Twenty-First Century (Tucson: Fenestra Books, 2003), 25–29. (This footnote was originally referenced by Gary DeMar.)
3. Gary DeMar, 10 Popular Prophecy Myths Exposed, The Last Days Might Not Be as Near as You Think (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 2nd printing 2010), 3.
Dr. David Chilton & Preterism
Dr. Woods correctly defines the term “preterists” for his readers. Unlike a futurist who believes a prophetic Scripture is yet to be fulfilled, a preterist believes a prophetic Scripture has already been fulfilled. To Dr. Woods’ credit, he did make the distinction between a full preterist and a partial preterist. (The problem with the full preterists is that they don’t believe in the upcoming 2nd advent of Christ as stipulated in the orthodox creeds.) In the third paragraph of page 6, Dr. Woods wrote this:
the designations “partial preterist” and “full preterist” are misnomers. Rather, partial preterists should be labeled “inconsistent preterists” while full preterists should be referred to as “consistent preterists.” This inconsistency is evident even to some partial preterists, such as David Chilton, who abandoned his partial preterist system in favor of full preterism.
It is true that Dr. David Chilton changed from partial to full or hyper preterism, none of his colleagues that I know of have ever denied that. But, here are some facts about Dr. Chilton that Dr. Woods conveniently left out of his paper as he unfairly characterized Dr. Chilton’s change to full preterism: (4)
• Dr. Chilton died in 1997, which means that he had been dead for more than ten years at the time Dr. Woods published his paper;
• Dr. Chilton changed to full preterism AFTER he suffered a massive heart-attack in 1994 that left him in a coma for six weeks where he was brain dead for a portion of that time;
• Dr. Chilton miraculously recovered from his coma blind and with a total loss of his memory.
I certainly don’t condone or excuse heresy and straying from the orthodox tenants of the faith. However, I do think that the circumstances surrounding Dr. Chilton’s health in the last three years of his life are a legitimate reason to afford him a little bit of latitude. Before Dr. Chilton changed his position on preterism, he first had to re-learn what preterism was. At the time Dr. Chilton changed is position, he was not even half of what he was before his heart-attack. If one of Dr. Woods’ colleagues were to suffer the same misfortune as Dr. Chilton, and then stray off the reservation, I would imagine that Dr. Woods would want his opponents to take those mitigating circumstances into consideration before passing judgment.
If a formerly brain dead guy who was ailing for three years before he died is the best example of a partial to full preterist that Dr. Woods can come up with to illustrate his point, then I would say that his point is quite weak. Apparently there are not very many partial to full preterist converts available for Dr. Woods to use as an example. In the end, the premillennial dispensationalist are also partial preterist to a small extent. I have never heard any of them try to recycle Isaiah 53 or any other prophecy about the coming of the Messiah.
4. Here my internet sources that I used for documenting Dr. Chilton’s declining health before he died:
http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=2378; http://vftonline.org/xmaspiracy/1/northvschilton.htm and Wikipedia.
The Temple
Being that I support the statehood of modern day Israel, I suppose that would make me a Zionist sympathizer. However, the premillennial dispensationalist go way beyond that. Just as there are distinctions between partial and full preterism, I make the distinction between partial and full Zionism. For example, the premillenialists support modern day Israel and their retaking of the temple mount so they can build a 3rd temple. Remember the 1st temple that was built by King Solomon was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B. C. Then, the 2nd temple was built in 515 B.C. only to be destroyed by the Romans in 70. A. D. So, the Jews have been without a temple for over 1,900 some odd years. Even though the Jews have maintained their religion, culture and identity over the centuries, they have not been able to fully practice their religion because they are without a temple.
The building of a 3rd temple on the temple mount in Jerusalem is a big part of premillennial eschatology. Dr. Woods devotes a segment of his paper repudiating the idea of the temple referred to in Revelation 11 as being the 2nd temple as the preterist argue, but rather, a future 3rd temple. I think this is where Dr. Woods’ zeal to repudiate his preterist opponents (mainly Dr. Gentry) got the best of him. He was so pre-occupied with disproving his opponents case that he failed to prove his own. There is a dispute among the futurist and preterist as to when the Book of Revelation was written. The preterist contend that it was written prior to 70 A.D., while the futurists contend that it was written sometime in the 90s. Even if the futurists can conclusively prove that the Book of Revelation was written on their time table, they cannot provide a verse in the Book of Revelation or in the New Testament for that matter where it explicitly states that a 3rd temple will be built.
It is possible for one to make a theological argument stick without having a Scripture verse that explicitly supports it, as long as you can support your argument from a conceptual standpoint. Take the Trinity for example. The word “Trinity is not in the Bible. There are no verses in the Bible that explicitly says there is a Trinity. However, there are many Scriptures that support the concept of the Trinity. Therefore we orthodox Christians accept the Trinity as a part of our theology. The reason the futurist argument concerning the construction of a 3rd falls completely apart is because there is no Biblical support for it from a conceptual or literally explicit standpoint. Here are just four Old Testament verses that explicitly supported the rebuilding of 2nd post-exilic temple:
2 Chron. 36: 23: 23. “This is what Cyrus king of Persia says: “`The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you — may the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.’“
Ezra 6: 3: 3. In the first year of King Cyrus, the king issued a decree concerning the temple of God in Jerusalem: Let the temple be rebuilt as a place to present sacrifices, and let its foundations be laid. It is to be ninety feet high and ninety feet wide,….
Ezra 6: 7–8: 7. Do not interfere with the work on this temple of God. Let the governor of the Jews and the Jewish elders rebuild this house of God on its site. 8. Moreover, I hereby decree what you are to do for these elders of the Jews in the construction of this house of God:
Ezra 6: 14–15: 14. So the elders of the Jews continued to build and prosper under the preaching of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah, a descendant of Iddo. They finished building the temple according to the command of the God of Israel and the decrees of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia. 15. The temple was completed on the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius.
If the construction of a 3rd temple is as legitimate of a concept as the premillennialist would have us believe, why are they not able to produce any explicit Scriptures on it when it can be done on the 2nd temple? The preterists on the other hand, have at least one Scripture that I know of that would support literally or explicitly support their case in Matthew 24:34. However, there are a lot of New Testament Scriptures available to make the conceptual argument as to why there is no need for a 3rd temple. Here are just five of them:
Matt. 21: 42: Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: “`The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; [Or cornerstone] the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? [Psalm 118:22,23]
Matt. 24: 1–2: 1. Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down.”
John 2: 19–21: 19. Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20. The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21. But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
Eph. 2: 20-21: 20. built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
Rev. 21: 22: I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.
Animal Sacrifices
Another thing Dr. Woods totally ignored concerning the temple is the purpose for having the temple in the first place. Under the Old Testament Mosaic code, the temple was established in order to facilitate a provisional animal sacrificial system for the remission of sins. Given that fact, I pose this question: If Jesus’ work on the cross made him the ultimate and final sacrifice for our sins and has rendered the Old Testament sacrificial system obsolete, what exactly would we be using this 3rd temple for?
To the orthodox Jews, re-building the temple and re-instituting the animal sacrificial rites is one in the same thing. The orthodox Jews do not take the Gospels as gospel as we Christians do. The Jews did not stop sacrificing animals sometime in the late 60s of the first century because of Jesus’ finished work on the cross. They stopped sacrificing because they were ran out of Jerusalem and the Romans demolished the temple in 70 A.D.
When I talk about eschatology with my premillennial brothers and sisters, one question that I always ask is, “How far do you want to go with the Zionist cause?” Most of them will not go so far to support the concept of reinstating the sacrificing of animals. Some of them have said that there just needs to be a temple because Jesus needs a place to reign from and be worshipped. For those who are pro-temple, but anti sacrificing, I would call them partial Zionist. For those who are pro-temple and pro-sacrificing, I would call them full Zionist.
Now that I have established the difference between a partial and full Zionist, I would like to know how far does Dr. Woods want to go with the Zionist cause? Is he a partial or full Zionist? Are the premillennial dispensationalist and the orthodox Jews on the same page on the issue of re-building the temple? Is Dr. Woods and his premillennial colleagues okay with the continuance of an obsolete sacrificial system that orthodox Christians do not observe? Here are just five New Testament verses that explicitly supported the concept of Jesus being the ultimate and final sacrifice and therefore rendering the old sacrificial system obsolete:
John 1: 29: The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Ro. 3: 24-25: 24. and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished —
1Co. 5: 7: Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast — as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
He. 7: 27: Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
1Jn. 2: 2: He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Why would Dr. Woods want to be associated with any kind of theology that enables or condones an obsolete sacrificial system? In the first paragraph of page 7, Dr. Woods wrote this:
….. “in order for partial preterists to be consistent, they also must believe that the Second Advent and final judgment have already taken place. Such a belief is at odds with the great ecumenical church creeds, which teach a future bodily appearing of Christ. Denying the Second Advent takes one outside the pale of orthodoxy and into the camp of heterodoxy or heresy. Thus, the partial preterist understanding of Revelation’s timing texts flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy.”
Now, if Dr. Woods want to play the, “flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy” card, fine. But remember, two can play that game. Let’s take Dr. Woods quote and replace partial and full preterist and its related concepts with partial and full Zionist and its related concepts and see how it reads:
….. “in order for partial Zionist to be consistent, they also must believe that the sacrificing of animals under the Mosaic Las needs to take place. Such a belief is at odds with the great ecumenical church creeds, which teach that Christ is the ultimate and final sacrifice. Denying Christ as the final and ultimate sacrifice takes one outside the pale of orthodoxy and into the camp of heterodoxy or heresy. Thus, the partial Zionist understanding of Biblical texts concerning the temple flirts dangerously with unorthodoxy.”
Conclusion
My review of Dr. Woods’ paper, was not intended to give a point by point rebuttal to everything that was critical of Dr. Gentry’s positions or preterists in general. I will leave it to Dr. Gentry and the preterists to fight their own battles if they so choose. However, if I were Dr. Woods’ Professor, and he turned this paper in to me for a grade, I would have given him a failing grade, simply because he failed to make his case for futurism. Dr. Woods reminds me of the negative campaigning politician who would rather run down his opponent as opposed to telling the voters why they should vote for him.
It’s unfortunate that Dr. Woods had a fixation for refuting preterism as opposed to making a case for futurism. Premillenial dispensationalism has a lot of inconsistencies of its own that need addressing. Had Dr. Woods stayed on point, perhaps he could have explained how a futurist interpretation helped the premillennial dispensationalist arrive at the conclusion that that there will be a rapture followed by a 7 year tribulation period. And, that the antichrist will make a covenant with the Jews and then break that same covenant later. I for one would like to know where those texts are found and interpreted in the Book of Revelation.
I don’t have a problem with Dr. Woods writing a paper refuting preterism per se. However, if he chooses to take that path, then he needs to state that in his premise in the beginning and then go from there. Of course, if Dr. Woods really wants to refute preterism, I would suggest that he debate a preterist in a formal debate setting in front of his students. What would be a better way for him to educate his students?
Post Log
On November 14, 2011, Dr. Gentry sent me an email stating the following:
Good work! Thanks for keeping me posted. Due to my ridiculous time constraints, along with the relative obscurity of the paper to which you respond, I won't be able to give time to rebutting it. But I am thankful you have done a nice job on it.
.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
My Debate with John Lofton
PREFACE
From April 20, to May 6, 2010, I engaged in a hot political debate on John Lofton’s Face Book page. I would like to commemorate the one year anniversary of this debate by making it available to my readers. For the benefit of those of you who may not know who John Lofton is, he is a well established journalist both in print and electronic media. He has written and edited for several publications such as: Monday, the weekly publication of the Republican National Committee; The United Features Syndicate whose columns appeared in 100 newspapers; The Washington Times; The Chalcedon Report; Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture; and he currently has his own blog with The American View.
John’s background also includes commentating on The American View radio program. He has also made numerous appearances on political talk shows including, The Political Cesspool, Politically Incorrect, Scarborough Country, and The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart and Crossfire. Lofton advised Pat Buchanan's Presidential campaign and was the Communications Director for the 2004 Michael Peroutka Presidential campaign.
There were others who posted to this thread on John’s FB page. However, their posts were edited out because John and I were the main participants. In order to keep the debate more reader friendly I broke it up into several segments. Debating online is a lot different that an actual live debate. In this debate John and I copied and pasted each other’s previous comments before responding in order for the reader to know exactly which comment we were responding to. Previous text that has been copied for contextual purposes will be in italic font. I realize this adds redundancy and makes the debate seem longer than it actually was. However, it makes for an easier read in the long run. Enjoy the debate, I will let you decide who won.
INTRODUCTORY SEGMENT:
John Lofton
See, this is the kinda thing that drives me even nuttier than I am. Form message from Gary DeMar: "Join me for a private dinner on May 3rd at 7:00 PM and I will show you what American Vision is doing behind the scenes to train Christians for dominion." Christian "dominion"? He urged us to VOTE FOR McCAIN.....ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Matthew A. Jackson
John, take a deep breath here. You are going after Gary, your Recon bother just because he recommended McCain in the last election? I agree that McCain was way less than ideal. The only other options that were available were to vote for Obama or don't vote at all. Which one did you do?
John Lofton
Recommending an unGodly, anti-Godly persons, Matthew, such as McCain/Palin is no small matter. Christianity is measured by God's Word NOT by relation to other politicians.
Matthew A. Jackson
John, if you think McCain/Palin are ungody and anti-godly, then you must think Obama is the devil incarnate. You never answered my question. Who did you vote for? Or did you not vote at all?
John Lofton
Not talking about "perfect ideal candidate," Matthew. Saying Christians can vote only for those who meet GOD'S QUALIFICATIONS. Read, please, this article: http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=693
Matthew A. Jackson
John, Whether we use the terms "perfect ideal candidate," or “those who meet GOD'S QUALIFICATIONS” we are talking about the same thing here. In either case the candidate has to meet a standard of some sort.
As for Scott’s article, as interesting as it was, he was talking about the system of government that God established for the ancient Hebrews. In that system, only the godly could even be considered a candidate for public office. In our system, anybody (godly or ungodly) can seek public office. Scott is comparing apples to oranges here. I wished we had a system where we could choose the best from the best as opposed to the best from the worst.
John, let me ask you this. When was the last time that you voted for a candidate that you thought met “God’s qualifications”? I would imagine that you and Scott don’t vote very often.
John Lofton
NOT talking about the same thing! "Idealism" very different from God's Word, God's qualifications for rulers. And so what if we don’t vote "very often." This proves NOTHING -- other than almost no Godly men running for anything. Your method of arguing is not Christian/Biblical....As for your "Why Not The Best," that was Jimmy Carter's slogan. I like better "Why Not Just Godly Men" -- as God commands, for ALL time, not just for OT Israel.
Matthew A. Jackson
John, In order for you to make the charge that my method of arguing is not “Christian/Biblical,” you first need to make a “Christian/Biblical” argument yourself. After all, you are the one who began this thread by taking a swipe at Gary DeMar all because he endorsed McCain. The only thing you have brought to this debate so far is an article by Scot T. Whiteman. If this is the best you have, then this will be one debate that you can record in your loss column.
As a general rule, Recons have done a good job of laying out arguments and theories as to how we can apply OT principles and case law to our current times and culture. However, in the case of Scot’s article making the argument that there are OT commands from God that prohibit voters (who are living in a modern day democratic constitutional republic) from voting for the “lesser of the two evils,” I am going to part ways with you and Scot on this one.
The system of government during Moses’ time functioned from the top down. In two of the scriptural passages that Scot cited (Ex 18:13-36 and Deut 1:12-18) were directives FOR MOSES for selecting leaders who will be working UNDER HIM. These leaders were put in office by an EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENT, NOT by a democratic election from the people. Now, if you want to make the case that Executive office holders in today civil governments should use those scriptures as a template for making their appointments, then you might have a valid argument.
As for Deut 17:14-20, God only established two prerequisites for a candidate being considered to be King: 1) That he be chosen by God; and 2) The he be a natural born Israelite. All the other commands in that passage are commands for the King after he has assumed office. The first one would be difficult to implement in our current system today. As for the second, we have kinda-sorta implemented that principle by virtue of the fact that those running for President must be natural born Americans.
I think you and Scot have lost sight of the bigger picture here. And that is, any kind of civil governmental system that is ran and maintained by man will always have some flaws in it to one degree or another. So, even though an office holder may meet “God’s qualifications for rulers,” this is not necessarily an absolute guarantee against injustice. Take Saul for example, he was chosen by God to be King (I think it would be fairly safe to assume that Saul met “God’s qualifications for rulers”) and look at the kind of dud he turned out to be.
If you think voting for the “lesser of the two evils” is a political compromise that Christians should not engage in, well, God himself made a political compromise by establishing a monarchy for Israel. Israel had a referendum as to whether or not they should be governed by a King and the people voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. God’s preference was to continue with the theocratic/judicial model that they were already using.
Take Paul himself. I would imagine that he was very familiar with the OT passages of scripture that Scot referenced. After all, he is the one who told Timothy that all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching and etc. When he wrote that, he was addressing the OT specifically. He also wrote in Romans 13 that we are to submit to the civil governing authorities. I think Paul was very well aware that the all the office holders in the Roman Empire did not meet “God’s qualifications for rulers.” Paul even used his rights as a Roman citizen to appeal his personal case to Cesar. I am pretty sure Paul did not think Cesar met “God’s qualifications for rulers.” So, if Paul had no problem with a Christian submitting and using the civil government of a pagan society, why would you think that he would have a problem with a Christian voting for the “lesser of the two evils” when the voter had limited options to begin with?
“The King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases. Pr 21:1
John Lofton
I repeat (and you have not addressed it directly): God's qualifications for those who hold offices in the civil government He created are qualifications for ALL TIME. They do NOT change. A Christian may NEVER "vote"or be complicit in ANY way for a Godless, anti-Christian ruler to be a ruler -- NEVER.
Quoting MJ: In order for you to make the charge that my method of arguing is not “Christian/Biblical,” you first need to make a “Christian/Biblical” argument yourself.
JL: We HAVE made such arguments. Scott’s article is full of them. It is YOU who have cited NO Biblical arguments for the absurd notion that Christians may vote for “the lesser of two evils.”
Quoting MJ: After all, you are the one who began this thread by taking a swipe at Gary DeMar all because he endorsed McCain.
JL: Sure did. And you have, from a Biblical perspective, replied to not ONE THING I said critical of DeMar.
Quoting MJ: The only thing you have brought to this debate so far is an article by Scot T. Whiteman. If this is the best you have, then this will be one debate that you can record in your loss column.
JL: To the contrary, Biblicalquotewise, thus far, it’s a forfeit. You haven’t showed up and taken the field.
Quoting MJ: As a general rule, Recons have done a good job of laying out arguments and theories as to how we can apply OT principles and case law to our current times and culture. However, in the case of Scot’s article making the argument that there are OT commands from God that prohibit voters (who are living in a modern day democratic constitutional republic) from voting for the “lesser of the two evils,” I am going to part ways with you and Scot on this one.
JL: You sure do! We believe no Christian can ever vote for “a lesser evil” – or any kind of “evil,” for that matter – NEVER.
Quoting MJ: The system of government during Moses’ time functioned from the top down. In two of the scriptural passages that Scot cited (Ex 18:13-36 and Deut 1:12-18) were directives FOR MOSES for selecting leaders who will be working UNDER HIM. These leaders were put in office by an EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENT, NOT by a democratic election from the people. Now, if you want to make the case that Executive office holders in today civil governments should use those scriptures as a template for making their appointments, then you might have a valid argument.
JL: Making the case that Christians can vote for ONLY CHRISTIANS, ONLY GOD-FEARING MEN to rule us in elected offices. Period. This is not rocket science. If this is not done, we get GODLESS government. Can Christians for Godless governors? Of course not. Ridiculous! In the NT we’re told that all we as Christians do must be “of faith.” Is voting for a non-Christian/an anti-Christian, a child of the devil (John 8:44ff) “of faith?” Does voting for a unbelieving evil God-hater (non-anti-Christian) glorify God, as all we do must? No!
Quoting MJ: As for Deut 17:14-20, God only established two prerequisites for a candidate being considered to be King: 1) That he be chosen by God; and 2) The he be a natural born Israelite. All the other commands in that passage are commands for the King after he has assumed office. The first one would be difficult to implement in our current system today. As for the second, we have kinda-sorta implemented that principle by virtue of the fact that those running for President must be natural born Americans.
JL: King, scheming! God’s qualifications in OT/NT apply to all who rule – ALL, regardless of what you call them. You attempt to shrink God’s Word and limit its meaning and application to only one time, one place is an example of your NON-Christian/Biblical thinking.
Quoting MJ: I think you and Scot have lost sight of the bigger picture here. And that is, any kind of civil governmental system that is ran and maintained by man will always have some flaws in it to one degree or another.
JL: Not talking about “flaws.” Not talking about voting for only “perfect” candidates. Talking about what God says about what must be the kind of person to rule, what God says constitutes a good ruler, a Godly ruler.
Quoting MJ: So, even though an office holder may meet “God’s qualifications for rulers,” this is not necessarily an absolute guarantee against injustice.
JL: Haven’t said Christians can vote only for Godly, SINLESS men. And of course there would be mistakes/injustices under even Godly men ruling. But, at least a Godly man will have the right (Biblical) standard of justice. No way with a non-anti-Christian ruler which you think is OK to vote for.
Quoting MJ: Take Saul for example, he was chosen by God to be King (I think it would be fairly safe to assume that Saul met “God’s qualifications for rulers”) and look at the kind of dud he turned out to be.
JL: Who God chooses I do not criticize.
Quoting MJ: If you think voting for the “lesser of the two evils” is a political compromise that Christians should not engage in, well, God himself made a political compromise by establishing a monarchy for Israel. Israel had a referendum as to whether or not they should be governed by a King and the people voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. God’s preference was to continue with the theocratic/judicial model that they were already using.
JL: God is my judge I am not His judge. As I say, you are not thinking Christianly.
Quoting MJ: Take Paul himself. I would imagine that he was very familiar with the OT passages of scripture that Scot referenced. After all, he is the one who told Timothy that all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching...and etc. When he wrote that, he was addressing the OT specifically. He also wrote in Romans 13 that we are to submit to the civil governing authorities. I think Paul was very well aware that the all the office holders in the Roman Empire did not meet “God’s qualifications for rulers.” Paul even used his rights as a Roman citizen to appeal his personal case to Cesar. I am pretty sure Paul did not think Cesar met “God’s qualifications for rulers.” So, if Paul had no problem with a Christian submitting and using the civil government of a pagan society, why would you think that he would have a problem with a Christian voting for the “lesser of the two evils” when the voter had limited options to begin with?
JL: So, Paul would have “voted” for Caesar and urged his fellow Christians to “vote” for Caesar (our topic, remember?)? No. Your positions and thinking are not Biblical and you’ve still offered no Scripture to support them – NONE.
John Lofton
Anyone reading our exchange can see clearly that Scot and I have both quoted numerous Scriptures; you have quoted none to support your view that Christians are allowed to vote for anti-Christians, to vote for "the lesser of 2 evils." And you have quoted no Scripture because there is no Scripture to support your view. You also ignored my Question regarding whether voting for anti-Christians is "of faith." Is it? Answer please.
SEGMENT 1:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting JL: I repeat (and you have not addressed it directly): God's qualifications for those who hold offices in the civil government He created are qualifications for ALL TIME. They do NOT change. A Christian may NEVER "vote"or be complicit in ANY way for a Godless, anti-Christian ruler to be a ruler -- NEVER.
MJ: I have directly addressed Scot’s arguments. And on the same token, YOU or Scot have never addressed directly from a Biblical standpoint why a Christian can’t vote for a “lesser of the two evils” candidate when he faces limited options in the voting booth.
Quoting MJ: In order for you to make the charge that my method of arguing is not “Christian/Biblical,” you first need to make a “Christian/Biblical” argument yourself.
Quoting JL: We HAVE made such arguments. Scott’s article is full of them. It is YOU who have cited NO Biblical arguments for the absurd notion that Christians may vote for “the lesser of two evils.”
MJ: We? Who is we? John, YOU have not constructed any kind of Biblical argument yourself in this debate up to this point. Instead, you cited Scot Whiteman’s article. To me, that is kind of bush and unbecoming of a man of your journalistic credentials and accomplishments. If you think that you have constructed a Biblical argument just because you cited a 2000 word article written someone other than you, then you must not have a very strong desire to win this debate. Just because Scot has “Esq.” after his name and cites scriptures and uses footnotes, does not mean his arguments are Biblical. You should be embarrassed over the fact that you gravy-trained Scot’s article. By saying “we,” does this mean you want to take some of the credit for Scot’s work now? Earth to John Lofton, the reason I have cited “NO Biblical arguments” in favor of Christians having the liberty to vote for the “lesser of the two evils” is because there is no Biblical prohibitions to the contrary. And the dog that you and Scot are trying to use to make that argument will not hunt.
Quoting MJ: After all, you are the one who began this thread by taking a swipe at Gary DeMar all because he endorsed McCain.
Quoting JL: Sure did. And you have, from a Biblical perspective, replied to not ONE THING that I said critical of DeMar.
MJ: John, you began this thread by impugning DeMar’s ability to train Christians for dominion on the sole grounds that he endorsed McCain. You did not cite any Biblical grounds in your opening statement. Since you are the one who fired the first shot here, it behooves you (not Scot Whiteman) to make the Biblical argument against Gary as opposed to me having to make a Biblical argument on his behalf.
John Lofton
I "impugned" nothing but did note the irony (sinfulness?) of someone with a "Christian worldview" ministry urging a vote for John McCain WHO HAS NO CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW! My point: In politics, Gary should practice what he preaches.
SEGMENT 2:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: The only thing you have brought to this debate so far is an article by Scot T. Whiteman. If this is the best you have, then this will be one debate that you can record in your loss column.
Quoting JL: To the contrary, Biblicalquotewise, thus far, it’s a forfeit. You haven’t showed up and taken the field....
MJ: Up to this point in the debate, I have not seen any “Biblicalquotes” out of you either. And you have put Scot’s article out on the field instead of you showing up yourself. Scot is not the one who started this thread by cracking on DeMar.
SEGMENT 3:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: As a general rule, Recons have done a good job of laying out arguments and theories as to how we can apply OT principles and case law to our current times and culture. However, in the case of Scot’s article making the argument that there are OT commands from God that prohibit voters (who are living in a modern day democratic constitutional republic) from voting for the “lesser of the two evils,” I am going to part ways with you and Scot on this one.
Quoting JL: You sure do! We believe no Christian can ever vote for “a lesser evil” – or any kind of “evil,” for that matter – NEVER.
MJ: You are being redundant. You have already established this as your position in this debate.
SEGMENT 4:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: The system of government during Moses’ time functioned from the top down. In two of the scriptural passages that Scot cited (Ex 18:13-36 and Deut 1:12-18) were directives FOR MOSES for selecting leaders who will be working UNDER HIM. These leaders were put in office by an EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENT, NOT by a democratic election from the people. Now, if you want to make the case that Executive office holders in today civil governments should use those scriptures as a template for making their appointments, then you might have a valid argument.
Quoting JL: Making the case that Christians can vote for ONLY CHRISTIANS, ONLY GOD-FEARING MEN to rule us in elected offices. Period. This is not rocket science. If this is not done, we get GODLESS government. Can Christians for Godless governors? Of course not. Ridiculous! In the NT we’re told that all we as Christians do must be “of faith.” Is voting for a non-Christian/an anti-Christian, a child of the devil (John 8:44ff) “of faith?” Does voting for a unbelieving evil God-hater (non-anti-Christian) glorify God, as all we do must? No!
MJ: Now you are saying that “Christians can vote only for Christians?” Interesting! Did you vote for Pat Robertson back in ’88 when he ran for President in the Republican primary? Did he meet God’s qualifications? Instead of cursing the darkness, why don’t you light a candle and tell us how you prepare for an upcoming election. When was the last time you have been in a voting booth? How do you determine which candidates on the ballot meet God’s qualifications? Tell us who you voted for in the last election and how you determined whether or not they met God’s qualifications.
SEGMENT 5:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: As for Deut 17:14-20, God only established two prerequisites for a candidate being considered to be King: 1) That he be chosen by God; and 2) The he be a natural born Israelite. All the other commands in that passage are commands for the King after he has assumed office. The first one would be difficult to implement in our current system today. As for the second, we have kinda-sorta implemented that principle by virtue of the fact that those running for President must be natural born Americans.
Quoting JL: King, scheming! God’s qualifications in OT/NT apply to all who rule – ALL, regardless of what you call them. You attempt to shrink God’s Word and limit its meaning and application to only one time, one place is an example of your NON-Christian/Biblical thinking....
MJ: If you and your man Scot are going to make a conceptual argument using a given body of Scripture, it would be a good idea to first acknowledge the literal context the passage was originally written in and then go from there. You guys did not do this. Furthermore, in the 5th paragraph of Scot’s article, he made the suggestion that the Israelites elected their magistrates. Where in the Bible does it say that those magistrates were elected by the Israelites? They were EXECUTIVELY SELECTED! You and Scot’ didn’t even get that basic fact right and you have the gall to tell me that I have NON-Christian/Biblical thinking?
SEGMENT 6:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: I think you and Scot have lost sight of the bigger picture here. And that is, any kind of civil governmental system that is ran and maintained by man will always have some flaws in it to one degree or another.
Quoting JL: Not talking about “flaws.” Not talking about voting for only “perfect” candidates. Talking about what God says about what must be the kind of person to rule, what God says constitutes a good ruler, a Godly ruler.
MJ: You are the one who is establishing “God qualifications” as a standard for a godly ruler in this debate. If that is the standard a candidate must measure up to, then that must be the “ideal” or “perfect” (I never meant sinless) candidate.
SEGMENT 7:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: So, even though an office holder may meet “God’s qualifications for rulers,” this is not necessarily an absolute guarantee against injustice.
Quoting JL: Haven’t said Christians can vote only for Godly, SINLESS men. And of course there would be mistakes/injustices under even Godly men ruling. But, at least a Godly man will have the right (Biblical) standard of justice. No way with a non-anti-Christian ruler which you think is OK to vote for.
MJ: At least with McCain, we would have stood a much better chance of him getting the right standard of justice. Now, we have Obama. What do you think the odds are with him coming around to the right standards?
SEGMENT 8:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: Take Saul for example, he was chosen by God to be King (I think it would be fairly safe to assume that Saul met “God’s qualifications for rulers”) and look at the kind of dud he turned out to be.
Quoting JL: Who God chooses I do not criticize.
MJ: I would hope not. Yet, you held DeMar to a higher standard and criticized him.
SEGMENT 9:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: If you think voting for the “lesser of the two evils” is a political compromise that Christians should not engage in, well, God himself made a political compromise by establishing a monarchy for Israel. Israel had a referendum as to whether or not they should be governed by a King and the people voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. God’s preference was to continue with the theocratic/judicial model that they were already using.
Quoting JL: God is my judge I am not His judge. As I say, you are not thinking Christianly.
MJ: If God is your judge, then that would also make Him Gary DeMar’s judge too. Right?
SEGMENT 10:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: Take Paul himself. I would imagine that he was very familiar with the OT passages of scripture that Scot referenced. After all, he is the one who told Timothy that all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching...and etc. When he wrote that, he was addressing the OT specifically. He also wrote in Romans 13 that we are to submit to the civil governing authorities. I think Paul was very well aware that the all the office holders in the Roman Empire did not meet “God’s qualifications for rulers.” Paul even used his rights as a Roman citizen to appeal his personal case to Cesar. I am pretty sure Paul did not think Cesar met “God’s qualifications for rulers.” So, if Paul had no problem with a Christian submitting and using the civil government of a pagan society, why would you think that he would have a problem with a Christian voting for the “lesser of the two evils” when the voter had limited options to begin with?
Quoting JL: So, Paul would have “voted” for Caesar and urged his fellow Christians to “vote” for Caesar (our topic, remember?)? No. Your positions and thinking are not Biblical and you’ve still offered no Scripture to support them – NONE.
MJ: If the Emperor of Rome was an elected office and the average Roman citizen were able to vote for in the Emperor’s race. Who is to say that Paul would have not voted in that election? In a pagan culture like that, I would say it would have been a safe bet that no Godly men would have been running in that race. However, we will never know because it’s all hypothetical. The point I was trying to make was, as a Roman citizen and a Christian, Paul acknowledged the legitimacy of a civil government of a Godless(or anti-Christian) pagan society and even used, his rights as a Roman citizen to plead his case. What about Abram in Genesis Chapter 14? He formed an alliance with the King of Sodom in order to rescue Lot. I know that passage of Scripture does not address the election or the appointment of rulers, but it does well illustrate the association with a lesser of the evils in order to achieve a practical end. If the King of Sodom was not a lesser of the evils, then I don’t know who is.
John Lofton
Quoting MJ: Now you are saying that “Christians can vote only for Christians?” Interesting! Did you vote for Pat Robertson back in ’88 when he ran for President in the Republican primary? Did he meet God’s qualifications? Instead of cursing the darkness, why don’t you light a candle and tell us how you prepare for an upcoming election. When was the last time you have been in a voting booth? How do you determine which candidates on the ballot meet God’s qualifications? Tell us who you voted for in the last election and how you determined whether or not they met God’s qualifications.
JL: Been saying what I'm saying all along. And of course not, I did NOT vote for Robertson. He's a false prophet and did not/does not meet God's qualifications for a good, Godly ruler. When I was last in a voting booth utterly irrelevant to the issue: Does God have qualifications for rulers. And you still have not told me if voting for an unbeliever, an anti-Christ, is "of faith." Is it? Answer the question.
John Lofton
Quoting MJ: Who is to say that Paul would have not voted in that election? In a pagan culture like that, I would say it would have been a safe bet that no Godly men would have been running in that race.
JL: Which is why Paul would NOT Have voted! Wake up, pls.
John Lofton
Quoting MJ: What about Abram in Genesis Chapter 14? He formed an alliance with the King of Sodom in order to rescue Lot. I know that passage of Scripture does not address the election or the appointment of rulers.
JL: Sure doesn't. But I understand why you continually attempt to avoid the real issue: You have no Scripture to support the notion that it is OK for believers to vote for unbelievers as rulers -- NONE.
John Lofton
Quoting MJ: At least with McCain, we would have stood a much better chance of him getting the right standard of justice. Now, we have Obama. What do you think the odds are with him coming around to the right standards?
JL: McCain/Obama equally Godless, anti-Christian. That you don't see this is more of your non-Christian thinking. Your non-Biblicalview would force us to vote for Stalin over Mao, Hitler over Stalin; absurd. Your thinking is moral relativism, NOT Christian; situation ethics, NOT Christian.
John Lofton
Simple question: If, as Christians, EVERYTHING we do is to be "of faith" (because wht is not of faith is sin, Romans 14:23), and everything we do is to glorify God, how could voting for unbelievers, non-Christians, anti-Christs, possibly be "of faith" or glorifying of God? Obvious answer: Such voting cannot be "of faith" or glorifying of God.
SEGMENT 4 (Follow Up)
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting JL: Been saying wht I'm saying all along. And of course not, I did NOT vote for Robertson. He's a false prophet and did not/does not meet God's qualifications for a good, Godly ruler. When I was last in a voting booth utterly irrelevant to the issue: Does God have qualifications for rulers. And you still have not told me if voting for an unbeliever, an anti-Christ, is "of faith." Is it? Answer the question.
MJ: In due course, I fully intend to answer your question. However, your personal voting history is very relevant to this debate. You are the one who has been playing the, “meets God’s qualifications” card, and the “Christians should only vote for Christians” card. I think it is very relevant to ask how you put that into practice when you vote. I think you are experienced enough in politics to know that there are several dozen (depending on where you live) races to vote on in an even year election in November.
MJ (cont’d): Christian Reconstructionism is not just about telling everyone about how unbiblical they are. Its also about giving constructive and practical Biblical oriented solutions in every area of life. Which includes life in the voting booth. Since you seem to think that your thinking is more Christian and Biblical than mine, I would like to know how you do your research to determine if all the candidates running in all of these races meets “God’s qualifications.” If you don’t put all of that into practice when you vote, then what credibility do you have in debating this issue with me and criticizing others on how they vote?
MJ (cont’d): Being that you were an advisor to Pat Buchanan's Presidential campaign and that you were the Communications Director Michael Peroutka’s 2004 Presidential campaign, obviously you had some involvement in voting. Obviously, you thought those two met God’s qualifications for a ruler.
SEGMENT 7 (Follow Up)
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting JL: McCain/Obama equally Godless, anti-Christian. That you don't see this is more of your non-Christian thinking. Your non-Biblicalview would force us to vote for Stalin over Mao, Hitler over Stalin; absurd. Your thinking is moral relativism, NOT Christian; situation ethics, NOT Christian.
MJ: Earth to John! You are going off point. We are not debating the merits of voting for one of two equal evils. We are debating the merits of voting for the LESSER of two evils. Even that article by Scot that you gravy-trained for this debate established that. The issue of voting for one of two equal evils is another debate altogether. Don’t try to change the parameters of the debate. Obama vs McCain is not quite the same thing as Hitler vs Stalin.
SEGMENT 10 (Follow Up)
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting JL: Sure doesn't. But I understand why you continually attempt to avoid the real issue: You have no Scripture to support the notion that it is OK for believers to vote for unbelievers as rulers – NONE//.
MJ: John, the Scriptures that your man Scot (not you) gave to support the notion that believers can’t vote for an unbelievers in a bottom-up Democratic Constitutional Republic does not make your argument. You guys can’t even make the distinction between top-down selection and bottom-up election. There is a HUGE difference between Moses making judicial selections in a society where everyone is of the same religion and culture, than a believer who lives in a multi cultural society where there are dozens upon dozens of races at the all the various levels of civil government and anyone from any religious persuasion is free to run for public office.
MJ (cont’d): Now as to your question as to whether or not a believer can in faith (according to Romans 14:23) vote for an unbeliever in a Democratic Constitutional Republic when he faces limited options.... Speaking only for myself, I voted against an anti-God, unchristian candidate by voting against Obama. I could not in faith stay home and not vote at all. To me, that would have been a sin. In the same way that Abram was not thrilled about making an alliance with the King of Sodom, I too was not thrilled about having to vote for McCain in order to vote against Obama. I wished the Republican party would have fielded a better candidate. However, that does not mean I think McCain is the devil.
MJ (cont’d): John, if you could not in faith vote for either candidate because you think they are equally bad, and you think that you better glorified God by not voting at all, then fine. I respect that if that is what is your conscience is telling you to do. But get off your –I’m more Biblical than thou- high horse about it. Try offering some constructive advice for believers on how they can better choose who to vote for in this much more complicated political process than what Moses had to deal with.
CONCLUSION SEGMENT:
John Lofton
Questions regarding my personal voting behavior could, at most, establish only that I am a hypocrite --- which would have NOTHING to do with the rightness or wrongness of what I'm saying.
Matthew A. Jackson
John, I agree. Truth is truth, regardless of whether or not the messenger practices what he preaches. However, if you know there is a certain level of inconsistency between your voting practices and your criteria for choosing a candidate, don’t you think it might be a good idea for you to cut Gary DeMar a little bit of slack?As far as the criteria that Moses used to choose his judges, I agree with you that it’s a good criteria for voters in our time to use as well. The problem I have with your premise is the implementation side of it. When God instituted a law in the OT there was always a practical and doable way for the people to implement it. If there can be a practical and doable way to implement the principle that you and Scot are advocating in today’s current political situation, then I am with you.
John Lofton
Not talking about a "principle." Talking about God's clear qualifications for those who hold His civil government offices. And McCain/Obama equally Godless. You are not thinking Christianly from a Biblical worldview.
John Lofton
And you, Matthew, continue to ignore answering directly this point: Simple question: If, as Christians, EVERYTHING we do is to be "of faith" (because wht is not of faith is sin, Romans 14:23), and everything we do is to glorify God, how could voting for unbelievers, non-Christians, anti-Christs, possibly be "of faith" or glorifying of God? Obvious answer: Such voting cannot be "of faith" or glorifying of God.
Matthew A. Jackson
It’s all about principle. How can you say it’s not? It was out of principle that you chose not to vote for either candidate because you thought they were both equally bad. It was out of principle that you could not in faith vote for either because you thought that in so doing you would not bring glory to God. I respect and acknowledge your right to do that and I am not going to accuse you of thinking unChristian or unbiblical because you took a different path than I. I think the crux of our argument here is that you see McCain as equally bad where I see him as not as bad. If I actually thought that McCain was equally as bad as Obama, then I probably would have not voted for either as you did.
Quoting JL: “And you, Matthew, continue to ignore answering directly this point: Simple question: If, as Christians, EVERYTHING we do is to be "of faith" (because wht is not of faith is sin, Romans 14:23), and everything we do is to glorify God, how could voting for unbelievers, non-Christians, anti-Christs, possibly be "of faith" or glorifying of God?”
MJ: Not true, I have not ignored answering that question. The answer is in the last two paragraphs of SEGMENT 10 in my April 28th post. What do you want me to do? Copy and paste those paragraphs to this post so you can read them again? I fully understand that you don’t agree with my answer and I already know that you don’t think I think Biblically or Christian. Judging from your, -I’m more Biblical than thou- attitude that I have been getting from you throughout this entire debate, I would imagine that you think that any believer who disagrees with you does not think Biblically or Christian. So what’s new here?
John Lofton
You need to answer this Q which I've asked you several times, Matthew: Simple question: If, as Christians, EVERYTHING we do is to be "of faith" (because which is not of faith is sin, Romans 14:23), and everything we do is to glorify God, how could voting for unbelievers, non-Christians, anti-Christs, possibly be "of faith" or glorifying of God? Obvious answer: Such voting cannot be "of faith" or glorifying of God.
John Lofton
You have NOT directly answered this question
John Lofton
And anyone who thinks voting for unbelievers is "of faith" and glorifies God is NOT thinking Christianly.
Matthew A. Jackson
John, I think a good speech therapist can help you with your studdering problem.
John Lofton
And you need a spelling therapist -- it's "stuttering"...
Matthew A. Jackson
Touché! I'll give you that one.
John Lofton
Now, answer my questions...here
Matthew A. Jackson
The reason I voted for McCain is: First, I obviously am not as smart as you are and I did not see him as being as bad as Obama. Secondly, I did not violate any Biblical laws that had any subsequent moral sanctions by voting for McCain. Thirdly, my voting for McCain was not in violation of Romans 14:23 because it was not an external John, there are a lot of good principles in the OT that Christians would be behooved to follow if there was a practical way to implement them in today’s times. However, just because a Biblical principle can be applied to today’s times does not mean that it should be a Biblical Law with moral sanctions. Take the dietary laws for example. Even though eating pork today is not in violation of Biblical Law, it would still be a good idea to abstain from pork if an individual believer wanted to adopt that for his own personal dietary policy.
Judging from the tone and attitude that I have been getting from you, and Scott, it sounds as if you guys think that the ruler qualification criteria as stated in Exodos 18:21 should become Biblical Law. Even Mr. Biblical Law himself, RJ Rushdoony did not go that far. Rush wrote about Ex. 18:21 on three different occasions and Deut. 17 one time in his, Institutes of Biblical Law and he never advocated what Scott wrote about. I have no doubt that he would have agreed with you on not voting for the “lesser of the two evils.” But, I don’t think that he would have made a Biblical Law out of it.
Now that I have answered you question (twice), show me your good faith and answer mine as to how you implement the ruler qualification criteria in your personal voting practices.
John Lofton
Quoting MJ: Now that I have answered you question (twice), show me your good faith and answer mine as to how you implement the ruler qualification criteria in your personal voting practices.
JL: Simple --- I vote only for those who are God-fearing, Christian, Bible-believing MEN.
Matthew A. Jackson
How do you go about finding out if there are any God fearing, Christian, Bible believing, MEN running in the local races such as, City Council, State Representative, Justice of the Peace, County Commissioner, Sheriff, School Board and etc.? How do you research ALL the male candidates running for office in ALL the races? Or, do you just ignore the low profile races and vote (or write in) on the major high profile races?
John Lofton
If a Christian is serious about his faith and voting, which you are not, you are allowed to actually email, write, talk to, interview candidates. Not all that hard re: local, state candidates. But you're still not answering questions: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God?
Matthew A. Jackson
John, I don’t know what the November 2008 general election ballot looked like in your voting precinct where you live in Maryland. As for the average precinct in Harris County, Texas where I live, the ballot contained about 55 different races with about 120 candidates running for those offices.
So, since you obviously consider yourself to be more “serious” about your “faith and voting” than I, how would you advise me and all the Christians who vote in Harris County to research all 120 candidates on their respective ballots? Do you expect every Christian voter in Harris County to individually “email, write, talk to, interview” ALL 120 candidates? Do YOU “email, write, talk to, interview” ALL the male candidates that appear on the ballot in the precinct where YOU vote?
What kinds of questions do you propose that we ask these candidates to ensure that they have passed the John Lofton litmus test of being a true Christian? Most candidates (especially in the South) will tell you that they are a Christian. Obviously, the questions are going to have to go deeper than, Are you a Christian? Give us some practical pointers. How do you do it?
John Lofton
I have no litmus test other than GOD'S TEST. You continue to treat the topic snidely with no serious discussion FROM SCRIPTURE. And you've still not answered the questions DIRECTLY: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God?
Matthew A. Jackson
Hold on here! Let me get this straight. You began this thread by making a snide comment about Gary DeMar; you have repeatedly stated that my thinking is not Biblical and Christian; and then you said that I was not serious about my faith and voting; and yet you are accusing me of being snide toward this topic? Thou doth protesteth too much, me If anyone is failing to discuss this topic from Scripture, IT IS YOU. You can hold me accountable to Romans 14:23 and I Cor 10:31 all you want by asking me those two questions. The fact of the matter is, they don’t mean anything if you can’t provide a practical way to implement those Scriptures in today’s voting circumstances. In order to not vote for an unbeliever, or vote for a believer, you first have to know whether or not they ARE ONE. Until you cross that hurdle, how can you claim to be more serious about your faith and voting than I? And most importantly, how can you claim to be glorifying God in your voting?
John Lofton
Answer please the questions: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God? Simple questions.
Matthew A. Jackson
Those questions have already been asked and they already have been answered. You are the one who made the charge that I was not serious about my faith and voting. In order for you to criticize my method of evaluating and selecting candidates, you must first have a better method. Now answer my question. What is your method for evaluating and selecting over 100 possible candidates running in over 50 possible races in a major general election year in November?
John Lofton
Copy and paste here now the direct answers you say you have given to these questions.
Matthew A. Jackson
John your demand for me to copy and paste my answers is by default an admission on your part that you have not really taken the time to read and digest what I wrote. It seems as if you were more interested in locking and loading, and firing off your two poorly premised and redundant questions than having an honest debate.
You will find the answers to your questions in the last two paragraphs in my April 28th post addressed to you and titled Segment 10. And the first three paragraphs in my May 6th post addressed to you. If you want me to copy and paste those past those paragraphs, I will gladly do it for a modest administration fee of $25.After you back scroll through this thread to read my answers, make sure you find the time to answer my question... What is your method for evaluating and selecting over 100 possible candidates running in over 50 possible races in a major election year in November?
John Lofton
NONE of your postings have DIRECTLY answered the questions: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God? In fact, you have revealed, with a vengeance here, that you are incapable of expressing yourself succinctly on ANY topic. There is, however, an easy way to prove that I am wrong. Just post here, now, your DIRECT replies to my DIRECT questions.
Matthew A. Jackson
The reason you will never get the direct and succinct answer that you are expecting is because the premise that your questions are based on are off. Your premise doesn’t take into account today’s political parameters that a Christian voter has to deal with. i. e. multiple levels of civil government with multiple offices and multiple candidates running for those offices in a society that is open to all religions. Those parameters did not exist in OT Israel.
In fact, you have revealed with a vengeance here, that you are incapable of telling me how you go about evaluating and selecting which candidates that you will vote for under the parameters that I just outlined. There is, however, an easy way to prove that I am wrong. Just post here, now, your method of culling through the several dozen candidates running for office and determining whether or not they meet God’s qualifications for being a ruler after your have eliminated all the women candidates first.
This should not be difficult for you, because you were the one who told me that I was not serious about my “faith and voting.” In order to make that charge, that means you must be serious about your faith and voting. So tell me, how you glorify God when you vote?
John Lofton
FINALLY! Your admission that you have not, and will not, directly answer my questions after you have said you did. How does what you have done differ from lying?
Matthew A. Jackson
LOL... John, is that your best rebuttal? Is that all you have? Anyone with an 8th grade reading level would be able to decipher the phrase, “The reason you will never get the direct and succinct answer THAT YOU ARE EXPECTING...” and know that it did not constitute an admission that I have not or will not directly answer your question.
How does that weak rebuttal differ from someone who is getting desperate because he is losing the argument? Better yet, how does the fact that you have accused me of not being serious about my “faith and voting,” yet you are unwilling to reveal your voting practices to demonstrate your seriousness differ from hypocrisy?
John Lofton
Fine. So, answer my direct questions directly: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God? If you do not respond directly you are through posting here. This is a Wall for serious, responsive conversation about big, important issues.
Matthew A. Jackson
Again, you will find the answers to your questions in the last two paragraphs in my April 28th post addressed to you and titled Segment 10, and the first three paragraphs in my May 6th post addressed to you. We will just have to agree to disagree as to the extent of their directness.
However, let’s keep this playing field level and fair. I have answered your questions with a lot more directness and with much detail than you have mine concerning your method for evaluating and selecting multiple candidates running in multiple races at multiple levels of Government in a major election year. Remember, this thread began with you criticizing and G. DeMar for endorsing McCain and accused him of being “double mined.” Subsequently, at a later point, you said that I was not serious about my “faith and voting. If you are going to fault other people on their voting habits, then YOU HAD BETTER have something better to offer as an alternative. The only direct answer you gave me was that you vote for MEN that meets God’s qualifications and that you can write, email and talk to them. That is hardly an answer given the complexities of our whole voting system they we face in today’s times.
So, if you want to play the “serious, responsive conversation” card, then the ball is in your court. Start practicing what you are preaching.
John Lofton
No, directness is directness so there can be no disagreement re: this. In fact, you can even be direct about "directness." So, no more posting here, please. Thank you.
Matthew A. Jackson
If one has to answer a direct question in order to qualify to post on this thread, then perhaps you should live up to your own standards and not post on this thread either. Because you have not given a direct answer to my question. Don’t start a debate that you can’t finish.
John Lofton
You're finished. No more posting, please...thank you.
From April 20, to May 6, 2010, I engaged in a hot political debate on John Lofton’s Face Book page. I would like to commemorate the one year anniversary of this debate by making it available to my readers. For the benefit of those of you who may not know who John Lofton is, he is a well established journalist both in print and electronic media. He has written and edited for several publications such as: Monday, the weekly publication of the Republican National Committee; The United Features Syndicate whose columns appeared in 100 newspapers; The Washington Times; The Chalcedon Report; Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture; and he currently has his own blog with The American View.
John’s background also includes commentating on The American View radio program. He has also made numerous appearances on political talk shows including, The Political Cesspool, Politically Incorrect, Scarborough Country, and The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart and Crossfire. Lofton advised Pat Buchanan's Presidential campaign and was the Communications Director for the 2004 Michael Peroutka Presidential campaign.
There were others who posted to this thread on John’s FB page. However, their posts were edited out because John and I were the main participants. In order to keep the debate more reader friendly I broke it up into several segments. Debating online is a lot different that an actual live debate. In this debate John and I copied and pasted each other’s previous comments before responding in order for the reader to know exactly which comment we were responding to. Previous text that has been copied for contextual purposes will be in italic font. I realize this adds redundancy and makes the debate seem longer than it actually was. However, it makes for an easier read in the long run. Enjoy the debate, I will let you decide who won.
INTRODUCTORY SEGMENT:
John Lofton
See, this is the kinda thing that drives me even nuttier than I am. Form message from Gary DeMar: "Join me for a private dinner on May 3rd at 7:00 PM and I will show you what American Vision is doing behind the scenes to train Christians for dominion." Christian "dominion"? He urged us to VOTE FOR McCAIN.....ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Matthew A. Jackson
John, take a deep breath here. You are going after Gary, your Recon bother just because he recommended McCain in the last election? I agree that McCain was way less than ideal. The only other options that were available were to vote for Obama or don't vote at all. Which one did you do?
John Lofton
Recommending an unGodly, anti-Godly persons, Matthew, such as McCain/Palin is no small matter. Christianity is measured by God's Word NOT by relation to other politicians.
Matthew A. Jackson
John, if you think McCain/Palin are ungody and anti-godly, then you must think Obama is the devil incarnate. You never answered my question. Who did you vote for? Or did you not vote at all?
John Lofton
Not talking about "perfect ideal candidate," Matthew. Saying Christians can vote only for those who meet GOD'S QUALIFICATIONS. Read, please, this article: http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=693
Matthew A. Jackson
John, Whether we use the terms "perfect ideal candidate," or “those who meet GOD'S QUALIFICATIONS” we are talking about the same thing here. In either case the candidate has to meet a standard of some sort.
As for Scott’s article, as interesting as it was, he was talking about the system of government that God established for the ancient Hebrews. In that system, only the godly could even be considered a candidate for public office. In our system, anybody (godly or ungodly) can seek public office. Scott is comparing apples to oranges here. I wished we had a system where we could choose the best from the best as opposed to the best from the worst.
John, let me ask you this. When was the last time that you voted for a candidate that you thought met “God’s qualifications”? I would imagine that you and Scott don’t vote very often.
John Lofton
NOT talking about the same thing! "Idealism" very different from God's Word, God's qualifications for rulers. And so what if we don’t vote "very often." This proves NOTHING -- other than almost no Godly men running for anything. Your method of arguing is not Christian/Biblical....As for your "Why Not The Best," that was Jimmy Carter's slogan. I like better "Why Not Just Godly Men" -- as God commands, for ALL time, not just for OT Israel.
Matthew A. Jackson
John, In order for you to make the charge that my method of arguing is not “Christian/Biblical,” you first need to make a “Christian/Biblical” argument yourself. After all, you are the one who began this thread by taking a swipe at Gary DeMar all because he endorsed McCain. The only thing you have brought to this debate so far is an article by Scot T. Whiteman. If this is the best you have, then this will be one debate that you can record in your loss column.
As a general rule, Recons have done a good job of laying out arguments and theories as to how we can apply OT principles and case law to our current times and culture. However, in the case of Scot’s article making the argument that there are OT commands from God that prohibit voters (who are living in a modern day democratic constitutional republic) from voting for the “lesser of the two evils,” I am going to part ways with you and Scot on this one.
The system of government during Moses’ time functioned from the top down. In two of the scriptural passages that Scot cited (Ex 18:13-36 and Deut 1:12-18) were directives FOR MOSES for selecting leaders who will be working UNDER HIM. These leaders were put in office by an EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENT, NOT by a democratic election from the people. Now, if you want to make the case that Executive office holders in today civil governments should use those scriptures as a template for making their appointments, then you might have a valid argument.
As for Deut 17:14-20, God only established two prerequisites for a candidate being considered to be King: 1) That he be chosen by God; and 2) The he be a natural born Israelite. All the other commands in that passage are commands for the King after he has assumed office. The first one would be difficult to implement in our current system today. As for the second, we have kinda-sorta implemented that principle by virtue of the fact that those running for President must be natural born Americans.
I think you and Scot have lost sight of the bigger picture here. And that is, any kind of civil governmental system that is ran and maintained by man will always have some flaws in it to one degree or another. So, even though an office holder may meet “God’s qualifications for rulers,” this is not necessarily an absolute guarantee against injustice. Take Saul for example, he was chosen by God to be King (I think it would be fairly safe to assume that Saul met “God’s qualifications for rulers”) and look at the kind of dud he turned out to be.
If you think voting for the “lesser of the two evils” is a political compromise that Christians should not engage in, well, God himself made a political compromise by establishing a monarchy for Israel. Israel had a referendum as to whether or not they should be governed by a King and the people voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. God’s preference was to continue with the theocratic/judicial model that they were already using.
Take Paul himself. I would imagine that he was very familiar with the OT passages of scripture that Scot referenced. After all, he is the one who told Timothy that all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching and etc. When he wrote that, he was addressing the OT specifically. He also wrote in Romans 13 that we are to submit to the civil governing authorities. I think Paul was very well aware that the all the office holders in the Roman Empire did not meet “God’s qualifications for rulers.” Paul even used his rights as a Roman citizen to appeal his personal case to Cesar. I am pretty sure Paul did not think Cesar met “God’s qualifications for rulers.” So, if Paul had no problem with a Christian submitting and using the civil government of a pagan society, why would you think that he would have a problem with a Christian voting for the “lesser of the two evils” when the voter had limited options to begin with?
“The King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases. Pr 21:1
John Lofton
I repeat (and you have not addressed it directly): God's qualifications for those who hold offices in the civil government He created are qualifications for ALL TIME. They do NOT change. A Christian may NEVER "vote"or be complicit in ANY way for a Godless, anti-Christian ruler to be a ruler -- NEVER.
Quoting MJ: In order for you to make the charge that my method of arguing is not “Christian/Biblical,” you first need to make a “Christian/Biblical” argument yourself.
JL: We HAVE made such arguments. Scott’s article is full of them. It is YOU who have cited NO Biblical arguments for the absurd notion that Christians may vote for “the lesser of two evils.”
Quoting MJ: After all, you are the one who began this thread by taking a swipe at Gary DeMar all because he endorsed McCain.
JL: Sure did. And you have, from a Biblical perspective, replied to not ONE THING I said critical of DeMar.
Quoting MJ: The only thing you have brought to this debate so far is an article by Scot T. Whiteman. If this is the best you have, then this will be one debate that you can record in your loss column.
JL: To the contrary, Biblicalquotewise, thus far, it’s a forfeit. You haven’t showed up and taken the field.
Quoting MJ: As a general rule, Recons have done a good job of laying out arguments and theories as to how we can apply OT principles and case law to our current times and culture. However, in the case of Scot’s article making the argument that there are OT commands from God that prohibit voters (who are living in a modern day democratic constitutional republic) from voting for the “lesser of the two evils,” I am going to part ways with you and Scot on this one.
JL: You sure do! We believe no Christian can ever vote for “a lesser evil” – or any kind of “evil,” for that matter – NEVER.
Quoting MJ: The system of government during Moses’ time functioned from the top down. In two of the scriptural passages that Scot cited (Ex 18:13-36 and Deut 1:12-18) were directives FOR MOSES for selecting leaders who will be working UNDER HIM. These leaders were put in office by an EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENT, NOT by a democratic election from the people. Now, if you want to make the case that Executive office holders in today civil governments should use those scriptures as a template for making their appointments, then you might have a valid argument.
JL: Making the case that Christians can vote for ONLY CHRISTIANS, ONLY GOD-FEARING MEN to rule us in elected offices. Period. This is not rocket science. If this is not done, we get GODLESS government. Can Christians for Godless governors? Of course not. Ridiculous! In the NT we’re told that all we as Christians do must be “of faith.” Is voting for a non-Christian/an anti-Christian, a child of the devil (John 8:44ff) “of faith?” Does voting for a unbelieving evil God-hater (non-anti-Christian) glorify God, as all we do must? No!
Quoting MJ: As for Deut 17:14-20, God only established two prerequisites for a candidate being considered to be King: 1) That he be chosen by God; and 2) The he be a natural born Israelite. All the other commands in that passage are commands for the King after he has assumed office. The first one would be difficult to implement in our current system today. As for the second, we have kinda-sorta implemented that principle by virtue of the fact that those running for President must be natural born Americans.
JL: King, scheming! God’s qualifications in OT/NT apply to all who rule – ALL, regardless of what you call them. You attempt to shrink God’s Word and limit its meaning and application to only one time, one place is an example of your NON-Christian/Biblical thinking.
Quoting MJ: I think you and Scot have lost sight of the bigger picture here. And that is, any kind of civil governmental system that is ran and maintained by man will always have some flaws in it to one degree or another.
JL: Not talking about “flaws.” Not talking about voting for only “perfect” candidates. Talking about what God says about what must be the kind of person to rule, what God says constitutes a good ruler, a Godly ruler.
Quoting MJ: So, even though an office holder may meet “God’s qualifications for rulers,” this is not necessarily an absolute guarantee against injustice.
JL: Haven’t said Christians can vote only for Godly, SINLESS men. And of course there would be mistakes/injustices under even Godly men ruling. But, at least a Godly man will have the right (Biblical) standard of justice. No way with a non-anti-Christian ruler which you think is OK to vote for.
Quoting MJ: Take Saul for example, he was chosen by God to be King (I think it would be fairly safe to assume that Saul met “God’s qualifications for rulers”) and look at the kind of dud he turned out to be.
JL: Who God chooses I do not criticize.
Quoting MJ: If you think voting for the “lesser of the two evils” is a political compromise that Christians should not engage in, well, God himself made a political compromise by establishing a monarchy for Israel. Israel had a referendum as to whether or not they should be governed by a King and the people voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. God’s preference was to continue with the theocratic/judicial model that they were already using.
JL: God is my judge I am not His judge. As I say, you are not thinking Christianly.
Quoting MJ: Take Paul himself. I would imagine that he was very familiar with the OT passages of scripture that Scot referenced. After all, he is the one who told Timothy that all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching...and etc. When he wrote that, he was addressing the OT specifically. He also wrote in Romans 13 that we are to submit to the civil governing authorities. I think Paul was very well aware that the all the office holders in the Roman Empire did not meet “God’s qualifications for rulers.” Paul even used his rights as a Roman citizen to appeal his personal case to Cesar. I am pretty sure Paul did not think Cesar met “God’s qualifications for rulers.” So, if Paul had no problem with a Christian submitting and using the civil government of a pagan society, why would you think that he would have a problem with a Christian voting for the “lesser of the two evils” when the voter had limited options to begin with?
JL: So, Paul would have “voted” for Caesar and urged his fellow Christians to “vote” for Caesar (our topic, remember?)? No. Your positions and thinking are not Biblical and you’ve still offered no Scripture to support them – NONE.
John Lofton
Anyone reading our exchange can see clearly that Scot and I have both quoted numerous Scriptures; you have quoted none to support your view that Christians are allowed to vote for anti-Christians, to vote for "the lesser of 2 evils." And you have quoted no Scripture because there is no Scripture to support your view. You also ignored my Question regarding whether voting for anti-Christians is "of faith." Is it? Answer please.
SEGMENT 1:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting JL: I repeat (and you have not addressed it directly): God's qualifications for those who hold offices in the civil government He created are qualifications for ALL TIME. They do NOT change. A Christian may NEVER "vote"or be complicit in ANY way for a Godless, anti-Christian ruler to be a ruler -- NEVER.
MJ: I have directly addressed Scot’s arguments. And on the same token, YOU or Scot have never addressed directly from a Biblical standpoint why a Christian can’t vote for a “lesser of the two evils” candidate when he faces limited options in the voting booth.
Quoting MJ: In order for you to make the charge that my method of arguing is not “Christian/Biblical,” you first need to make a “Christian/Biblical” argument yourself.
Quoting JL: We HAVE made such arguments. Scott’s article is full of them. It is YOU who have cited NO Biblical arguments for the absurd notion that Christians may vote for “the lesser of two evils.”
MJ: We? Who is we? John, YOU have not constructed any kind of Biblical argument yourself in this debate up to this point. Instead, you cited Scot Whiteman’s article. To me, that is kind of bush and unbecoming of a man of your journalistic credentials and accomplishments. If you think that you have constructed a Biblical argument just because you cited a 2000 word article written someone other than you, then you must not have a very strong desire to win this debate. Just because Scot has “Esq.” after his name and cites scriptures and uses footnotes, does not mean his arguments are Biblical. You should be embarrassed over the fact that you gravy-trained Scot’s article. By saying “we,” does this mean you want to take some of the credit for Scot’s work now? Earth to John Lofton, the reason I have cited “NO Biblical arguments” in favor of Christians having the liberty to vote for the “lesser of the two evils” is because there is no Biblical prohibitions to the contrary. And the dog that you and Scot are trying to use to make that argument will not hunt.
Quoting MJ: After all, you are the one who began this thread by taking a swipe at Gary DeMar all because he endorsed McCain.
Quoting JL: Sure did. And you have, from a Biblical perspective, replied to not ONE THING that I said critical of DeMar.
MJ: John, you began this thread by impugning DeMar’s ability to train Christians for dominion on the sole grounds that he endorsed McCain. You did not cite any Biblical grounds in your opening statement. Since you are the one who fired the first shot here, it behooves you (not Scot Whiteman) to make the Biblical argument against Gary as opposed to me having to make a Biblical argument on his behalf.
John Lofton
I "impugned" nothing but did note the irony (sinfulness?) of someone with a "Christian worldview" ministry urging a vote for John McCain WHO HAS NO CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW! My point: In politics, Gary should practice what he preaches.
SEGMENT 2:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: The only thing you have brought to this debate so far is an article by Scot T. Whiteman. If this is the best you have, then this will be one debate that you can record in your loss column.
Quoting JL: To the contrary, Biblicalquotewise, thus far, it’s a forfeit. You haven’t showed up and taken the field....
MJ: Up to this point in the debate, I have not seen any “Biblicalquotes” out of you either. And you have put Scot’s article out on the field instead of you showing up yourself. Scot is not the one who started this thread by cracking on DeMar.
SEGMENT 3:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: As a general rule, Recons have done a good job of laying out arguments and theories as to how we can apply OT principles and case law to our current times and culture. However, in the case of Scot’s article making the argument that there are OT commands from God that prohibit voters (who are living in a modern day democratic constitutional republic) from voting for the “lesser of the two evils,” I am going to part ways with you and Scot on this one.
Quoting JL: You sure do! We believe no Christian can ever vote for “a lesser evil” – or any kind of “evil,” for that matter – NEVER.
MJ: You are being redundant. You have already established this as your position in this debate.
SEGMENT 4:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: The system of government during Moses’ time functioned from the top down. In two of the scriptural passages that Scot cited (Ex 18:13-36 and Deut 1:12-18) were directives FOR MOSES for selecting leaders who will be working UNDER HIM. These leaders were put in office by an EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENT, NOT by a democratic election from the people. Now, if you want to make the case that Executive office holders in today civil governments should use those scriptures as a template for making their appointments, then you might have a valid argument.
Quoting JL: Making the case that Christians can vote for ONLY CHRISTIANS, ONLY GOD-FEARING MEN to rule us in elected offices. Period. This is not rocket science. If this is not done, we get GODLESS government. Can Christians for Godless governors? Of course not. Ridiculous! In the NT we’re told that all we as Christians do must be “of faith.” Is voting for a non-Christian/an anti-Christian, a child of the devil (John 8:44ff) “of faith?” Does voting for a unbelieving evil God-hater (non-anti-Christian) glorify God, as all we do must? No!
MJ: Now you are saying that “Christians can vote only for Christians?” Interesting! Did you vote for Pat Robertson back in ’88 when he ran for President in the Republican primary? Did he meet God’s qualifications? Instead of cursing the darkness, why don’t you light a candle and tell us how you prepare for an upcoming election. When was the last time you have been in a voting booth? How do you determine which candidates on the ballot meet God’s qualifications? Tell us who you voted for in the last election and how you determined whether or not they met God’s qualifications.
SEGMENT 5:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: As for Deut 17:14-20, God only established two prerequisites for a candidate being considered to be King: 1) That he be chosen by God; and 2) The he be a natural born Israelite. All the other commands in that passage are commands for the King after he has assumed office. The first one would be difficult to implement in our current system today. As for the second, we have kinda-sorta implemented that principle by virtue of the fact that those running for President must be natural born Americans.
Quoting JL: King, scheming! God’s qualifications in OT/NT apply to all who rule – ALL, regardless of what you call them. You attempt to shrink God’s Word and limit its meaning and application to only one time, one place is an example of your NON-Christian/Biblical thinking....
MJ: If you and your man Scot are going to make a conceptual argument using a given body of Scripture, it would be a good idea to first acknowledge the literal context the passage was originally written in and then go from there. You guys did not do this. Furthermore, in the 5th paragraph of Scot’s article, he made the suggestion that the Israelites elected their magistrates. Where in the Bible does it say that those magistrates were elected by the Israelites? They were EXECUTIVELY SELECTED! You and Scot’ didn’t even get that basic fact right and you have the gall to tell me that I have NON-Christian/Biblical thinking?
SEGMENT 6:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: I think you and Scot have lost sight of the bigger picture here. And that is, any kind of civil governmental system that is ran and maintained by man will always have some flaws in it to one degree or another.
Quoting JL: Not talking about “flaws.” Not talking about voting for only “perfect” candidates. Talking about what God says about what must be the kind of person to rule, what God says constitutes a good ruler, a Godly ruler.
MJ: You are the one who is establishing “God qualifications” as a standard for a godly ruler in this debate. If that is the standard a candidate must measure up to, then that must be the “ideal” or “perfect” (I never meant sinless) candidate.
SEGMENT 7:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: So, even though an office holder may meet “God’s qualifications for rulers,” this is not necessarily an absolute guarantee against injustice.
Quoting JL: Haven’t said Christians can vote only for Godly, SINLESS men. And of course there would be mistakes/injustices under even Godly men ruling. But, at least a Godly man will have the right (Biblical) standard of justice. No way with a non-anti-Christian ruler which you think is OK to vote for.
MJ: At least with McCain, we would have stood a much better chance of him getting the right standard of justice. Now, we have Obama. What do you think the odds are with him coming around to the right standards?
SEGMENT 8:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: Take Saul for example, he was chosen by God to be King (I think it would be fairly safe to assume that Saul met “God’s qualifications for rulers”) and look at the kind of dud he turned out to be.
Quoting JL: Who God chooses I do not criticize.
MJ: I would hope not. Yet, you held DeMar to a higher standard and criticized him.
SEGMENT 9:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: If you think voting for the “lesser of the two evils” is a political compromise that Christians should not engage in, well, God himself made a political compromise by establishing a monarchy for Israel. Israel had a referendum as to whether or not they should be governed by a King and the people voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. God’s preference was to continue with the theocratic/judicial model that they were already using.
Quoting JL: God is my judge I am not His judge. As I say, you are not thinking Christianly.
MJ: If God is your judge, then that would also make Him Gary DeMar’s judge too. Right?
SEGMENT 10:
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting MJ: Take Paul himself. I would imagine that he was very familiar with the OT passages of scripture that Scot referenced. After all, he is the one who told Timothy that all Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching...and etc. When he wrote that, he was addressing the OT specifically. He also wrote in Romans 13 that we are to submit to the civil governing authorities. I think Paul was very well aware that the all the office holders in the Roman Empire did not meet “God’s qualifications for rulers.” Paul even used his rights as a Roman citizen to appeal his personal case to Cesar. I am pretty sure Paul did not think Cesar met “God’s qualifications for rulers.” So, if Paul had no problem with a Christian submitting and using the civil government of a pagan society, why would you think that he would have a problem with a Christian voting for the “lesser of the two evils” when the voter had limited options to begin with?
Quoting JL: So, Paul would have “voted” for Caesar and urged his fellow Christians to “vote” for Caesar (our topic, remember?)? No. Your positions and thinking are not Biblical and you’ve still offered no Scripture to support them – NONE.
MJ: If the Emperor of Rome was an elected office and the average Roman citizen were able to vote for in the Emperor’s race. Who is to say that Paul would have not voted in that election? In a pagan culture like that, I would say it would have been a safe bet that no Godly men would have been running in that race. However, we will never know because it’s all hypothetical. The point I was trying to make was, as a Roman citizen and a Christian, Paul acknowledged the legitimacy of a civil government of a Godless(or anti-Christian) pagan society and even used, his rights as a Roman citizen to plead his case. What about Abram in Genesis Chapter 14? He formed an alliance with the King of Sodom in order to rescue Lot. I know that passage of Scripture does not address the election or the appointment of rulers, but it does well illustrate the association with a lesser of the evils in order to achieve a practical end. If the King of Sodom was not a lesser of the evils, then I don’t know who is.
John Lofton
Quoting MJ: Now you are saying that “Christians can vote only for Christians?” Interesting! Did you vote for Pat Robertson back in ’88 when he ran for President in the Republican primary? Did he meet God’s qualifications? Instead of cursing the darkness, why don’t you light a candle and tell us how you prepare for an upcoming election. When was the last time you have been in a voting booth? How do you determine which candidates on the ballot meet God’s qualifications? Tell us who you voted for in the last election and how you determined whether or not they met God’s qualifications.
JL: Been saying what I'm saying all along. And of course not, I did NOT vote for Robertson. He's a false prophet and did not/does not meet God's qualifications for a good, Godly ruler. When I was last in a voting booth utterly irrelevant to the issue: Does God have qualifications for rulers. And you still have not told me if voting for an unbeliever, an anti-Christ, is "of faith." Is it? Answer the question.
John Lofton
Quoting MJ: Who is to say that Paul would have not voted in that election? In a pagan culture like that, I would say it would have been a safe bet that no Godly men would have been running in that race.
JL: Which is why Paul would NOT Have voted! Wake up, pls.
John Lofton
Quoting MJ: What about Abram in Genesis Chapter 14? He formed an alliance with the King of Sodom in order to rescue Lot. I know that passage of Scripture does not address the election or the appointment of rulers.
JL: Sure doesn't. But I understand why you continually attempt to avoid the real issue: You have no Scripture to support the notion that it is OK for believers to vote for unbelievers as rulers -- NONE.
John Lofton
Quoting MJ: At least with McCain, we would have stood a much better chance of him getting the right standard of justice. Now, we have Obama. What do you think the odds are with him coming around to the right standards?
JL: McCain/Obama equally Godless, anti-Christian. That you don't see this is more of your non-Christian thinking. Your non-Biblicalview would force us to vote for Stalin over Mao, Hitler over Stalin; absurd. Your thinking is moral relativism, NOT Christian; situation ethics, NOT Christian.
John Lofton
Simple question: If, as Christians, EVERYTHING we do is to be "of faith" (because wht is not of faith is sin, Romans 14:23), and everything we do is to glorify God, how could voting for unbelievers, non-Christians, anti-Christs, possibly be "of faith" or glorifying of God? Obvious answer: Such voting cannot be "of faith" or glorifying of God.
SEGMENT 4 (Follow Up)
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting JL: Been saying wht I'm saying all along. And of course not, I did NOT vote for Robertson. He's a false prophet and did not/does not meet God's qualifications for a good, Godly ruler. When I was last in a voting booth utterly irrelevant to the issue: Does God have qualifications for rulers. And you still have not told me if voting for an unbeliever, an anti-Christ, is "of faith." Is it? Answer the question.
MJ: In due course, I fully intend to answer your question. However, your personal voting history is very relevant to this debate. You are the one who has been playing the, “meets God’s qualifications” card, and the “Christians should only vote for Christians” card. I think it is very relevant to ask how you put that into practice when you vote. I think you are experienced enough in politics to know that there are several dozen (depending on where you live) races to vote on in an even year election in November.
MJ (cont’d): Christian Reconstructionism is not just about telling everyone about how unbiblical they are. Its also about giving constructive and practical Biblical oriented solutions in every area of life. Which includes life in the voting booth. Since you seem to think that your thinking is more Christian and Biblical than mine, I would like to know how you do your research to determine if all the candidates running in all of these races meets “God’s qualifications.” If you don’t put all of that into practice when you vote, then what credibility do you have in debating this issue with me and criticizing others on how they vote?
MJ (cont’d): Being that you were an advisor to Pat Buchanan's Presidential campaign and that you were the Communications Director Michael Peroutka’s 2004 Presidential campaign, obviously you had some involvement in voting. Obviously, you thought those two met God’s qualifications for a ruler.
SEGMENT 7 (Follow Up)
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting JL: McCain/Obama equally Godless, anti-Christian. That you don't see this is more of your non-Christian thinking. Your non-Biblicalview would force us to vote for Stalin over Mao, Hitler over Stalin; absurd. Your thinking is moral relativism, NOT Christian; situation ethics, NOT Christian.
MJ: Earth to John! You are going off point. We are not debating the merits of voting for one of two equal evils. We are debating the merits of voting for the LESSER of two evils. Even that article by Scot that you gravy-trained for this debate established that. The issue of voting for one of two equal evils is another debate altogether. Don’t try to change the parameters of the debate. Obama vs McCain is not quite the same thing as Hitler vs Stalin.
SEGMENT 10 (Follow Up)
Matthew A. Jackson,
Quoting JL: Sure doesn't. But I understand why you continually attempt to avoid the real issue: You have no Scripture to support the notion that it is OK for believers to vote for unbelievers as rulers – NONE//.
MJ: John, the Scriptures that your man Scot (not you) gave to support the notion that believers can’t vote for an unbelievers in a bottom-up Democratic Constitutional Republic does not make your argument. You guys can’t even make the distinction between top-down selection and bottom-up election. There is a HUGE difference between Moses making judicial selections in a society where everyone is of the same religion and culture, than a believer who lives in a multi cultural society where there are dozens upon dozens of races at the all the various levels of civil government and anyone from any religious persuasion is free to run for public office.
MJ (cont’d): Now as to your question as to whether or not a believer can in faith (according to Romans 14:23) vote for an unbeliever in a Democratic Constitutional Republic when he faces limited options.... Speaking only for myself, I voted against an anti-God, unchristian candidate by voting against Obama. I could not in faith stay home and not vote at all. To me, that would have been a sin. In the same way that Abram was not thrilled about making an alliance with the King of Sodom, I too was not thrilled about having to vote for McCain in order to vote against Obama. I wished the Republican party would have fielded a better candidate. However, that does not mean I think McCain is the devil.
MJ (cont’d): John, if you could not in faith vote for either candidate because you think they are equally bad, and you think that you better glorified God by not voting at all, then fine. I respect that if that is what is your conscience is telling you to do. But get off your –I’m more Biblical than thou- high horse about it. Try offering some constructive advice for believers on how they can better choose who to vote for in this much more complicated political process than what Moses had to deal with.
CONCLUSION SEGMENT:
John Lofton
Questions regarding my personal voting behavior could, at most, establish only that I am a hypocrite --- which would have NOTHING to do with the rightness or wrongness of what I'm saying.
Matthew A. Jackson
John, I agree. Truth is truth, regardless of whether or not the messenger practices what he preaches. However, if you know there is a certain level of inconsistency between your voting practices and your criteria for choosing a candidate, don’t you think it might be a good idea for you to cut Gary DeMar a little bit of slack?As far as the criteria that Moses used to choose his judges, I agree with you that it’s a good criteria for voters in our time to use as well. The problem I have with your premise is the implementation side of it. When God instituted a law in the OT there was always a practical and doable way for the people to implement it. If there can be a practical and doable way to implement the principle that you and Scot are advocating in today’s current political situation, then I am with you.
John Lofton
Not talking about a "principle." Talking about God's clear qualifications for those who hold His civil government offices. And McCain/Obama equally Godless. You are not thinking Christianly from a Biblical worldview.
John Lofton
And you, Matthew, continue to ignore answering directly this point: Simple question: If, as Christians, EVERYTHING we do is to be "of faith" (because wht is not of faith is sin, Romans 14:23), and everything we do is to glorify God, how could voting for unbelievers, non-Christians, anti-Christs, possibly be "of faith" or glorifying of God? Obvious answer: Such voting cannot be "of faith" or glorifying of God.
Matthew A. Jackson
It’s all about principle. How can you say it’s not? It was out of principle that you chose not to vote for either candidate because you thought they were both equally bad. It was out of principle that you could not in faith vote for either because you thought that in so doing you would not bring glory to God. I respect and acknowledge your right to do that and I am not going to accuse you of thinking unChristian or unbiblical because you took a different path than I. I think the crux of our argument here is that you see McCain as equally bad where I see him as not as bad. If I actually thought that McCain was equally as bad as Obama, then I probably would have not voted for either as you did.
Quoting JL: “And you, Matthew, continue to ignore answering directly this point: Simple question: If, as Christians, EVERYTHING we do is to be "of faith" (because wht is not of faith is sin, Romans 14:23), and everything we do is to glorify God, how could voting for unbelievers, non-Christians, anti-Christs, possibly be "of faith" or glorifying of God?”
MJ: Not true, I have not ignored answering that question. The answer is in the last two paragraphs of SEGMENT 10 in my April 28th post. What do you want me to do? Copy and paste those paragraphs to this post so you can read them again? I fully understand that you don’t agree with my answer and I already know that you don’t think I think Biblically or Christian. Judging from your, -I’m more Biblical than thou- attitude that I have been getting from you throughout this entire debate, I would imagine that you think that any believer who disagrees with you does not think Biblically or Christian. So what’s new here?
John Lofton
You need to answer this Q which I've asked you several times, Matthew: Simple question: If, as Christians, EVERYTHING we do is to be "of faith" (because which is not of faith is sin, Romans 14:23), and everything we do is to glorify God, how could voting for unbelievers, non-Christians, anti-Christs, possibly be "of faith" or glorifying of God? Obvious answer: Such voting cannot be "of faith" or glorifying of God.
John Lofton
You have NOT directly answered this question
John Lofton
And anyone who thinks voting for unbelievers is "of faith" and glorifies God is NOT thinking Christianly.
Matthew A. Jackson
John, I think a good speech therapist can help you with your studdering problem.
John Lofton
And you need a spelling therapist -- it's "stuttering"...
Matthew A. Jackson
Touché! I'll give you that one.
John Lofton
Now, answer my questions...here
Matthew A. Jackson
The reason I voted for McCain is: First, I obviously am not as smart as you are and I did not see him as being as bad as Obama. Secondly, I did not violate any Biblical laws that had any subsequent moral sanctions by voting for McCain. Thirdly, my voting for McCain was not in violation of Romans 14:23 because it was not an external John, there are a lot of good principles in the OT that Christians would be behooved to follow if there was a practical way to implement them in today’s times. However, just because a Biblical principle can be applied to today’s times does not mean that it should be a Biblical Law with moral sanctions. Take the dietary laws for example. Even though eating pork today is not in violation of Biblical Law, it would still be a good idea to abstain from pork if an individual believer wanted to adopt that for his own personal dietary policy.
Judging from the tone and attitude that I have been getting from you, and Scott, it sounds as if you guys think that the ruler qualification criteria as stated in Exodos 18:21 should become Biblical Law. Even Mr. Biblical Law himself, RJ Rushdoony did not go that far. Rush wrote about Ex. 18:21 on three different occasions and Deut. 17 one time in his, Institutes of Biblical Law and he never advocated what Scott wrote about. I have no doubt that he would have agreed with you on not voting for the “lesser of the two evils.” But, I don’t think that he would have made a Biblical Law out of it.
Now that I have answered you question (twice), show me your good faith and answer mine as to how you implement the ruler qualification criteria in your personal voting practices.
John Lofton
Quoting MJ: Now that I have answered you question (twice), show me your good faith and answer mine as to how you implement the ruler qualification criteria in your personal voting practices.
JL: Simple --- I vote only for those who are God-fearing, Christian, Bible-believing MEN.
Matthew A. Jackson
How do you go about finding out if there are any God fearing, Christian, Bible believing, MEN running in the local races such as, City Council, State Representative, Justice of the Peace, County Commissioner, Sheriff, School Board and etc.? How do you research ALL the male candidates running for office in ALL the races? Or, do you just ignore the low profile races and vote (or write in) on the major high profile races?
John Lofton
If a Christian is serious about his faith and voting, which you are not, you are allowed to actually email, write, talk to, interview candidates. Not all that hard re: local, state candidates. But you're still not answering questions: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God?
Matthew A. Jackson
John, I don’t know what the November 2008 general election ballot looked like in your voting precinct where you live in Maryland. As for the average precinct in Harris County, Texas where I live, the ballot contained about 55 different races with about 120 candidates running for those offices.
So, since you obviously consider yourself to be more “serious” about your “faith and voting” than I, how would you advise me and all the Christians who vote in Harris County to research all 120 candidates on their respective ballots? Do you expect every Christian voter in Harris County to individually “email, write, talk to, interview” ALL 120 candidates? Do YOU “email, write, talk to, interview” ALL the male candidates that appear on the ballot in the precinct where YOU vote?
What kinds of questions do you propose that we ask these candidates to ensure that they have passed the John Lofton litmus test of being a true Christian? Most candidates (especially in the South) will tell you that they are a Christian. Obviously, the questions are going to have to go deeper than, Are you a Christian? Give us some practical pointers. How do you do it?
John Lofton
I have no litmus test other than GOD'S TEST. You continue to treat the topic snidely with no serious discussion FROM SCRIPTURE. And you've still not answered the questions DIRECTLY: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God?
Matthew A. Jackson
Hold on here! Let me get this straight. You began this thread by making a snide comment about Gary DeMar; you have repeatedly stated that my thinking is not Biblical and Christian; and then you said that I was not serious about my faith and voting; and yet you are accusing me of being snide toward this topic? Thou doth protesteth too much, me If anyone is failing to discuss this topic from Scripture, IT IS YOU. You can hold me accountable to Romans 14:23 and I Cor 10:31 all you want by asking me those two questions. The fact of the matter is, they don’t mean anything if you can’t provide a practical way to implement those Scriptures in today’s voting circumstances. In order to not vote for an unbeliever, or vote for a believer, you first have to know whether or not they ARE ONE. Until you cross that hurdle, how can you claim to be more serious about your faith and voting than I? And most importantly, how can you claim to be glorifying God in your voting?
John Lofton
Answer please the questions: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God? Simple questions.
Matthew A. Jackson
Those questions have already been asked and they already have been answered. You are the one who made the charge that I was not serious about my faith and voting. In order for you to criticize my method of evaluating and selecting candidates, you must first have a better method. Now answer my question. What is your method for evaluating and selecting over 100 possible candidates running in over 50 possible races in a major general election year in November?
John Lofton
Copy and paste here now the direct answers you say you have given to these questions.
Matthew A. Jackson
John your demand for me to copy and paste my answers is by default an admission on your part that you have not really taken the time to read and digest what I wrote. It seems as if you were more interested in locking and loading, and firing off your two poorly premised and redundant questions than having an honest debate.
You will find the answers to your questions in the last two paragraphs in my April 28th post addressed to you and titled Segment 10. And the first three paragraphs in my May 6th post addressed to you. If you want me to copy and paste those past those paragraphs, I will gladly do it for a modest administration fee of $25.After you back scroll through this thread to read my answers, make sure you find the time to answer my question... What is your method for evaluating and selecting over 100 possible candidates running in over 50 possible races in a major election year in November?
John Lofton
NONE of your postings have DIRECTLY answered the questions: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God? In fact, you have revealed, with a vengeance here, that you are incapable of expressing yourself succinctly on ANY topic. There is, however, an easy way to prove that I am wrong. Just post here, now, your DIRECT replies to my DIRECT questions.
Matthew A. Jackson
The reason you will never get the direct and succinct answer that you are expecting is because the premise that your questions are based on are off. Your premise doesn’t take into account today’s political parameters that a Christian voter has to deal with. i. e. multiple levels of civil government with multiple offices and multiple candidates running for those offices in a society that is open to all religions. Those parameters did not exist in OT Israel.
In fact, you have revealed with a vengeance here, that you are incapable of telling me how you go about evaluating and selecting which candidates that you will vote for under the parameters that I just outlined. There is, however, an easy way to prove that I am wrong. Just post here, now, your method of culling through the several dozen candidates running for office and determining whether or not they meet God’s qualifications for being a ruler after your have eliminated all the women candidates first.
This should not be difficult for you, because you were the one who told me that I was not serious about my “faith and voting.” In order to make that charge, that means you must be serious about your faith and voting. So tell me, how you glorify God when you vote?
John Lofton
FINALLY! Your admission that you have not, and will not, directly answer my questions after you have said you did. How does what you have done differ from lying?
Matthew A. Jackson
LOL... John, is that your best rebuttal? Is that all you have? Anyone with an 8th grade reading level would be able to decipher the phrase, “The reason you will never get the direct and succinct answer THAT YOU ARE EXPECTING...” and know that it did not constitute an admission that I have not or will not directly answer your question.
How does that weak rebuttal differ from someone who is getting desperate because he is losing the argument? Better yet, how does the fact that you have accused me of not being serious about my “faith and voting,” yet you are unwilling to reveal your voting practices to demonstrate your seriousness differ from hypocrisy?
John Lofton
Fine. So, answer my direct questions directly: Q: Is voting for unbelievers to rule over us "of faith?"; Q: Does voting for unbelievers to rule over us glorify God? If you do not respond directly you are through posting here. This is a Wall for serious, responsive conversation about big, important issues.
Matthew A. Jackson
Again, you will find the answers to your questions in the last two paragraphs in my April 28th post addressed to you and titled Segment 10, and the first three paragraphs in my May 6th post addressed to you. We will just have to agree to disagree as to the extent of their directness.
However, let’s keep this playing field level and fair. I have answered your questions with a lot more directness and with much detail than you have mine concerning your method for evaluating and selecting multiple candidates running in multiple races at multiple levels of Government in a major election year. Remember, this thread began with you criticizing and G. DeMar for endorsing McCain and accused him of being “double mined.” Subsequently, at a later point, you said that I was not serious about my “faith and voting. If you are going to fault other people on their voting habits, then YOU HAD BETTER have something better to offer as an alternative. The only direct answer you gave me was that you vote for MEN that meets God’s qualifications and that you can write, email and talk to them. That is hardly an answer given the complexities of our whole voting system they we face in today’s times.
So, if you want to play the “serious, responsive conversation” card, then the ball is in your court. Start practicing what you are preaching.
John Lofton
No, directness is directness so there can be no disagreement re: this. In fact, you can even be direct about "directness." So, no more posting here, please. Thank you.
Matthew A. Jackson
If one has to answer a direct question in order to qualify to post on this thread, then perhaps you should live up to your own standards and not post on this thread either. Because you have not given a direct answer to my question. Don’t start a debate that you can’t finish.
John Lofton
You're finished. No more posting, please...thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
