When I hear the word “Christian-Zionist” I reach for my revolver
We are all familiar with oxymora. Some of my favorites are: military intelligence; instant classic; educational television; French deodorant; peacekeeper missile; temporary tax increase; the Patriot Act.
Unlike oxymora such as these, “Christian-Zionist” is not humorous. It is as offensive and absurd as “Christian-sodomite,” “Christian-abortionist,” and “Christian-witch.” But in an era such as ours, the absurd becomes the norm.
One of the main proponents of “Christian-Zionism” is the dispensationalist cult leader, “Rev.” John Hagee. Hagee usually performs weekly in front of his 18,000 member non-denominational Cornerstone faux Church in San Antonio, Texas. Last week he took his act on the road to the annual Israeli lovefest in Washington D.C. known as the AIPAC Policy Conference.
In his speech he assured the Judaics and Zionists in the audience that he and his followers were committed to Israel’s ongoing persecution of Arabs and Palestinians (Muslim and Christian) and, after repeating the tired comparison between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Adolph Hitler, made clear that he would like nothing better than to see the U.S. invade and destroy Iran. To cap off his performance he publically apologized to the Jews for the “anti-Semitic” attitudes and actions that Christendom has regularly been guilty of over its long and unsavory history. Not only did he feel free to speak for Protestants, but Roman Catholics as well. This man is a walking definition of audacity.
“Rev.” Hagee aside, Christianity, of course, has nothing to do with Zionism. Zionism is a modern movement organized by some Jews which has set as its main goal the stealing of land from Palestinians and Arabs through intrigue, intimidation and brute force. It is predominately a secular religion, although numerous Judaics have been willing to provide Talmudic and Cabalistic cover for the land grab. (There is a good deal of irony here. Not even the most crazy Lubavitcher rabbi would accept Hagee’s comic book version of the Old Testament.)
Wishing to be a peacemaker, let me propose a deal. Hagee and his cult can have the Zionism, those of us who are followers of Jesus Christ and are members of the Holy Catholic Church will take the Christianity. This should make all sides happy. The orthodox can get the good name of their religion back while Hagee and his kind can keep their goy religion as they like it: rabbinically-approved and kosher.
When I hear “Christian Zionist” I usually reach for something bigger than my revolver. I would say that while Hagee is the most vocal “Christian Zionist” he is certainly not the most influential… that would be Jerry Falwell in my opinion.
“[T]he Israeli government gave him a Lear jet to assist him in his advocacy of Israel. A year later in 1980, Falwell also became the first Gentile to be awarded the Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky Medal for Zionist excellence by Israel’s Prime Minister, Menachem Begin” (Christian Zionism by Stephen Sizer).
While it is true that Christianity should have nothing to do with Zionism it is a sad fact that Dispensationalism (which seems to be the major theological persuasion today)is zionistic.
You state: “Zionism is a modern movement organized by some Jews”
I would have to disagree. If Sizer’s documentation is correct it was organized predominantly by Christian premillennialists and was not immediately popular with Jewish people.
Comment by JonathanB — March 14, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
I don’t get the French deoderant.
Comment by Tim H — March 14, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
How is military intelligence oxymoron?
Just wondering
Comment by Jimmy Li — March 14, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
This blog has definitely made postmillenialism entertaining. :P
Comment by Keith — March 14, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
Tim - think of it on the order of “German spontaneity.”
Jimmy Li - Blame Groucho Marx for this one.
Comment by MRB — March 15, 2007 @ 12:11 am
The more I read of Dispensationalism and cults the more I am persuaded that Dispensationalism is a cult. Don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying every dispensationalist is a cultic; after all, I personally attend a dispensational church and college and I was raised dispensational. I’ve even been to a Tim LaHaye prophecy conference! Okay… maybe that was a little cultic. Here is my argument (Keith, feel free to have a go at all the non-sequiturs):
(1) Dispensationalism appeared mysteriously in the 19th century at the same time as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, The Mind Sciences, Spiritism, the Theosophical Society, the Bahai’ Faith (admittedly not a Christian spin-off), the American Unitarian Association, and Seventh Day Adventism.
(2) Dispensationalism along with many of the cults listed above including Rajneeshism, the (former) Jones cult, the (former) Heaven’s Gate, and a few others seem to have become popular through proclaiming the sky is falling and that one needs to embrace them in order to escape Armageddon.
(3) Along with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Moonies, and Christian Scientists, the claim is made that “the Church rapidly fell from the New Testament truth…” (Alan Boyd) and they are restoring it. This claim is made to defend the fact that their view is not supported anywhere in Church history.
(4) Characteristic of every cult they regularly bring something outside of the text itself to help shed light on interpreting the text (current events on Russia, China, Iran, prince William, etc…).
(5) They, along with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Rajnesshism, and every other apocalyptic cult have made countless wrong predictions about when the sky is falling (just one example: 1988). And, like all these other cults, they have become embarrassed and learned to be more ambiguous about when this event is going to take place (i.e. the 1988 Manifesto on Date Setting).
(6) They have a preconceived notion of what the Scriptures can say when coming to any text (literalism) instead of letting Scripture interpret Scripture.
Okay… I’ll lay off the dispys now. I don’t want to sound too harsh and I do still respect many dispensational people and their scholarship (in other fields).
Comment by JonathanB — March 15, 2007 @ 7:13 am
Jonathan -
Good points. Let’s add another.
(7) Cults are man-centered and headed by autocratic leaders who are unaccountable to any authority other than boards whose members they hand select. Take just a few of the main leaders of the dispensational heresy. John Hagee (John Hagee Ministries), Jerry Falwell (Jerry Falwell Ministries), Tim LaHaye (Tim LaHaye Ministries), Jack Van Impe (Jack Van Impe Ministries). See any pattern?
This is nothing new. Since its inception less than two hundred years ago dispensationalist leaders have typically worked outside recognized churches or in independent churches. They tend to be empire builders with no denominational accountability.
If it looks like a duck . . .
Comment by MRB — March 15, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Don’t forget Harold Camping’s cult.
Comment by ElizaF — March 15, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
When you say Holy Catholic Church, do you mean Roman Catholic Church? First remember there are many flavors of Dispensationalists; might not be fair to lump them all together. By the grace of God i have been kept separate from that movement; i agree that their zeal seems always to have something to do with Israel or if not always then often. One unfortunate part of their religion is the “Invitation System” where a man is ultimately pronounced saved without evidence of fruit as defined in God’s Word.
Comment by Frank A. Vish Jr. — March 15, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
Mr. Vish -
No. See my colleague’s article on The Holy Catholic Church. My view on Rome is, in brief, that it is not Roman, is not catholic, and is not a church.
Your point about flavors is correct. Dispensationalists range from peanut butter and pistachio all the way to banana nut cake. All are nutty, but some are nuttier than others. Hagee is at the extreme end of the nut scale. I would not lump him in with a more moderate advocate of dispensationalism such as Robert Saucy. Saucy needs a more biblical hermeneutic; Hagee needs lithium.
And yes, most who hold to some form of dispensationalism have done so because that is all they have known. Indeed, many think that if you reject disp. (which entails the Judaics’ right to steal land from Palestinians) you must be a liberal. So, we should not be as hard on the typical church-attending dispy as we are on their leaders. But there is still some degree of culpability with them.
Comment by MRB — March 15, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
“(7) Cults are man-centered and headed by autocratic leaders who are unaccountable to any authority other than boards whose members they hand select. Take just a few of the main leaders of the dispensational heresy. John Hagee (John Hagee Ministries), Jerry Falwell (Jerry Falwell Ministries), Tim LaHaye (Tim LaHaye Ministries), Jack Van Impe (Jack Van Impe Ministries). See any pattern?”
Hmmm.
I agree wholeheartedly with your assertions about C-Z, and also with the examples cited, but I cannot find it in myself to call John MacArthur a cultist.
It is, however, a continual mystery to me how he can remain so dogmatic on this issue, and be so good on others………
Comment by Mark Skeels — March 16, 2007 @ 10:16 am
Mark,
Compartmentalization?
Mr. Butler,
I was thinking about a possible 8th in that Dispys have a tendency to rationalize some parts of Scripture as most cults do. I am thinking specifically of adding gaps which are nowhere implied within the text simply because “it is necessary.” For example the gap-theory in Genesis and the gap for Daniel’s weeks. However, this seems to be rather limited, at least in the ‘gap’ respect, and for the most part the gap-theory in Gen. has been abandoned. Besides, it is a common fault of all men to rationalize to some degree or another the Word.
Comment by JonathanB — March 16, 2007 @ 10:44 am
It was Christian ministers who organized an underground railroad so that women could get safe abortions in the 50’s and 60’s — the reverends had seen too many overburdened moms in their churches die from illegal hack-jobs–which PREVAIL whenever abortion is illegal. The dead women’s husbands then were without wives and their children were without mothers! The same many ministers finally were successful in educating and lobbying for abortion to be legalized in the 70’s. Let’s face it. A woman’s life is unarguable and must be protected by safe abortion — while many fertilized eggs go, by nature, down the toilet. Abortion rights are absolutely moral, which is why indeed there are many Christian abortionists. However, I agree that Zionists (many of whom are atheists or non-religious Jews) and yes, right-wing “Christians,” are a danger to U.S. interests and world peace.
Comment by Connie Smith — March 17, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Connie–
I would be interested to see the historical claims you give documented– can you give us a book, article, or URL to look at?
The ethical claim is independent of this.
The distinction Harold O. J. Brown once made is sound: there are times that a fetus will need to be separated from the mother in order to save her life. But when that is necessary (which is quite rare) the goal must be to save both parties. This is very different from concluding that a mother would ever have the right to simply terminate her pregnancy by killing her child.
Comment by Tim H — March 17, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
I think another lithium dose is in order for Ms. Smith. She may be thinking of “Christian ministers” such as the Revs Jackson, Sharpton and Lowery. If that is the case, the claim may be plausible. In truth, though, these men are about as anti-Christian as Anton LeVay or Mitt Romney.
M.A.B.
Comment by M.A.B. — March 28, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Johnathon, I don’t know if you’ve made any non sequiturs as much as you’ve merely used smear tactics (guilt by association). Dispensationalism has a bunch of nuts. OK, great. Christianity as a whole is full of idiots.
And then, of course, there’s the bitter irony of Christian reconstructionists trying to criticize someone’s application of eschatology as nutty or bizarre…
Comment by Keith — March 28, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Keith,
“(Guilt by) association” is not always a fallacious line of reasoning… in fact it is one of the foundations to reasoning. Also, the simple fact that I have found numerous associations between dispensationalism and cults does not mean I am using an insidious smear tactic. If my associations are true and it happens to smear the dispensational image then the “smear” of their reputation may be in fact legit.
Beyond that I should point out that I also made these statements: “I’m not saying every dispensationalist is a cultic; after all, I personally attend a dispensational church and college and I was raised dispensational.” … “I do still respect many dispensational people and their scholarship (in other fields).” So you seem to think that I am being to harsh on dispensationalism as a whole but, if this is the case, you obviously didn’t read my post very well.
Also, it is not just the Christian Reconstructionists who have been critical of dispensationalism. Check out Spurgeon’s quote:
“Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement.” - ‘Jesus Christ Immutable’.
And that is coming from someone who was probably historic premillennial!
Comment by JonathanB — March 28, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
So you seem to think that I am being to harsh on dispensationalism as a whole but, if this is the case, you obviously didn’t read my post very well.
What it shows is that your argument is inconsistent, not that I didn’t read your comments. I know that you respect many dispensationalists. But then you simultaneously relegate them to the category of ‘cultist’… hmmm…
Once again, you quote Spurgeon speaking about some hyper-dispensationalist moron. Smear tactic.
Guilt by association is useful in a consideration in matters of holiness (e.g., who we must separate from) but it is of little use in a pursuit of knowledge. (in my opinion, anyway)
Keith
Comment by Keith — March 28, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
Keith,
To assert that I am being inconsistent in saying that the movement of dispensationalism as a whole has associations with cult movements and, that at the same time, not all Dispensationalists are occultist is absurd. Take for example Seventh Day Adventists or Freemasonry. If one classifies either of these groups as cultic then one must also recognize that not every 7th Day Adventist and not every Freemason is an occultist. We could do the same with Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism has some characteristics that are very strongly associated with the movements of cults (even stronger than dispensationalism) yet I must at the same time acknowledge that not every Roman Catholic is an occultist.
This seems to be where the problem is: “I know that you respect many dispensationalists. But then you simultaneously relegate them to the category of ‘cultist’”
(1) This assumes that I cannot have respect for occultists when they do work outside of that respective cult-field. (2) It assumes that everyone who is part of a movement that has cultic aspects must be himself an occultist.
Now, let me state that my original post was said tongue in cheek. While I do believe those associations are legitimate I would not be as bold as to update Walter Martin’s ‘Kingdom of the Cults’ with a new chapter amended for Dispensationalism. I certainly believe that the broader theology of Dispensationalism is unorthodox and has aspects which align themselves with cults; however, it must be recognized that on the finer points of theology I know of no dispensationalist (at least off the top of my head) that could be classified as a cultist.
“Once again, you quote Spurgeon speaking about some hyper-dispensationalist moron. Smear tactic.”
If the father of dispensationalism is what you would call a “hyper-dispensationalist moron” then my “smear tactic” is legitimate. If you want to argue with any of the points I listed (or the one Mike added) then go ahead and have at it but to simply brush it off as a smear tactic or point out that it is associative isn’t going to win me over… of course it is associative, that was my point.
For a thing to be a smear tactic it must have the goal of undermining a things reputation. I didn’t write the post to undermine dispensationalism reputation… I didn’t figure any dispensationalist read this blog anyway. As I stated, I wrote it tongue in cheek and because I thought it was interesting as I have been studying cults lately. Just because those facts which I laid out may undermine disp. reputation doesn’t mean that I was using a smear tactic. As wikipedia states, “Smears often consist of unverifiable rumors and are often distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies.” If you want to argue that any or all of my points was a distortion, unverifiable rumor, half-truth, or outright lie, then that is fine.
If you are a dispensationalist and offended then I apologize. I don’t think you’re an occultist, Keith.
Comment by JonathanB — March 28, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
I think the larger argument how does the life, death and resurrection of Jesus fit into Pastor Hagee biblical and world views? I see him still operating under an Old Testament view with the New Testament providing a supporting role. He still see a nation mentally as God chosen way to reach the world.
I think Jesus destroy the need for the temple and the nation mentality. God has chosen to redeem his world though His Son, the body of Christ - the church. His redemption comes trough weakness not military power. Just like the those waving palm branches on Jesus entry to Jerusalem who didn’t understand Jesus’ Messiahship, Pastor Hagee other Zionist have missed the discipleship boat.
God clearly reveals his heart in scripture in terms of caring for the poor, widowed and oppressed. We need to spend our time, energy and passion on what moves the heart of God. It is time for us to honor the image of God found in all peoples.
A political action group is not the answer. Jesus told Peter to put the Sword away - what is he saying to us today?
Comment by clay — March 29, 2007 @ 3:18 pm
[Jonathan:] Don’t apologize, just start using the term ‘cultist’ correctly. “Cultist” isn’t a derogatory term to use against Christians with eschatological views you disagree with. A cultist isn’t a Christian in the first place.
Comment by Keith — March 29, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Keith,
The difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism isn’t merely an issue of how one views the millennium. Strictly speaking, Dispensational premillennialism and historic/covenant premillennialism are not that different when speaking only of eschatology. However, when the broader theology is looked at in the people of God etc… there are great differences. Granted that I still disagree with a historic premiller, they don’t have near amount of peculiarities of the dispensational hermeneutic.
I’m certainly willing to have grace when it comes to eschatology. After all, the issue wasn’t that big in the church until relatively recently. Still, I must stand opposed to those who introduce such novel systems as the Dispensational take on premillennialism and the 7th Day Adventist interpretation (not to mention other parts of their theology). While we must realize that eschatology in general is not a “fundamental” we must also realize there are limits which are tied to a larger hermeneutic and issues of consistency.
Comment by JonathanB — March 29, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
I do not wish to spend too much time on fools, but the following short article is worth a read. It shows that “Rev.” Hagee has publicly repudiated the gospel.
“I believe that every Jewish person who lives in the light of the Torah, which is the word of God, has a relationship with God and will come to redemption.”
“I’m not trying to convert the Jewish people to the Christian faith.”
“In fact, trying to convert Jews is a ‘waste of time,’ he said. ‘The Jewish person who has his roots in Judaism is not going to convert to Christianity. There is no form of Christian evangelism that has failed so miserably as evangelizing the Jewish people. They (already) have a faith structure.’ Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha’i, needs to believe in Jesus, he says. But not Jews. Jews already have a covenant with God that has never been replaced by Christianity, he says.”
“There are Jewish people who have relationship with God right now according to the election of grace. (Romans 11:5) … The Jewish people are judicially blinded to the identity of Messiah… Question: If God blinded the Jewish people to the identity of Jesus as Messiah, how could He send them to hell for not seeing what he had forbidden them to see? … Inasmuch as God has blinded them to the identity of Messiah, targeting the Jewish people for mass evangelism is fruitless.”
(Houston Chronicle, April 30, 1988, sec. 6, page 1)
Comment by MRB — March 29, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
“Christian-Zionists” ask G-d and Judaics to forgive them and all of their anti-Semitic forefathers.
In other words, men who pretend to be Christians ask forgivenss of a G-d who does not exist for sins that fathers in the Christian faith did not commit.
Comment by MRB — April 2, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
I agree Jon—in terms of the overall hermeneutic I believe that these matters are very important. I certainly hope to learn more about it, especially as it concerns God’s relationship with man.
Comment by Keith — April 2, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig&eurl=
Little documentary by a Jew who visited a Christians United For Israel rally in DC. I can’t tell why this Jew is mocking Christian Zionism, though–at least publicly.
Here are some highlights (it’s worth 10 minutes of your time):
Former Rep. Tom Delay says he is “lives for” rapture, and that we need to be connected to Israel to enjoy it.
Hagee calls on Dispi-Goyim to consider pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Satan (and Islam) is trying to detroy the Jewish race and destroy God’s plan.
Israel and Christian’s have common enemy:Islam (Satan).
Jew asks Hagee about his published satements about the Jews (current) suffering because of their rejection of Christ.
Comment by Joshua — July 28, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Yes, dispensationalism is a sick joke. It is interesting that Scofield was “handled” by America’s premiere Zionist, Samuel Untermyer (#5 on my monster’s list) and that his reference Bible was published by the Zionists at Oxford University Press. The Judaics really suckered the independent “churches” with this one.
Comment by MRB — August 4, 2007 @ 4:51 am
“Christian-Zionists” are offering to pay $10,000 to any Iranian Jew who migrates to Israel.
There are many humorous angles to this story. (1) Notice that the head of the evangelical organization is a rabbi. (2) Notice also that there are no takers. This is for two reasons. First, Iranian Jews do not consider Ahmadinejad to be the latest incarnation of the cartoon version Adolph Hitler. Second, as one Iranian rabbi put it, “Ten measly thousand depreciating US dollars? What am I, Chopped ham?” (3) How much do these “Christian-Zionists” really love the Jews? With Armageddon fast approaching, they will be sending these poor souls to their graves.
Comment by MRB — October 23, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
In his new book, In Defense of Israel, a book destined to “shake Christian theology,” Pastor John “Porky Pig” Hagee powerfully reveals from Scripture:
“The sins of the [Christian] fathers in their vicious abuse of the Jewish people”
“The Jews as a people did not reject Jesus as Messiah”
“Jesus did not come to earth to be the Messiah”
“There was a ‘calvary conspiracy’ between Rome, the high priest and Herod to execute Jesus”
All this for $14.00 plus $5.00 for s&h. Call 800 845-9899.
Comment by MRB — November 8, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
I just watched the Max Blumenthal video (ref comment # 26). I’m going to go throw up now.
Comment by C Hill — January 6, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
I’m sorry man but this post really lacks …how do I put it….sensitivity, compassion, perhaps love? Maybe you should spend your time praying for Jews to come to Jesus and fellow Christians who are in error rather than writing blogs. What is it with all this jewish conspiracy theory [expletive deleted]? Even if there is one why do we just pray and evangelize? I’d appreciate a cogent response.
Comment by Michael — January 31, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
Michael,
Why don’t you just pray for me rather than writing comments on this blog? You are being inconsistent with your version of Christianity.
True Christianity calls for both prayer and action. Perhaps I am wrong about the jews. I am open to argument. Please provide me with one.
Comment by MRB — January 31, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Point taken about blogging. I actually have been praying for you guys because I consider you my brothers in the Lord and you hold to reformation doctrine as I do. I apologize for my reactionary response but well I’m just having a hard time understanding. Maybe you could write a page, (if you havn’t already, if you have you could direct me to the link) summarizing what you mean when you talk about uprooting judaism from our culture and your position on jews and judaism etc…. Sometimes when someone writes things like this one wonders if there are ulterior motives. Many of your comments really do sound similar to the arguments advanced by Hitler and the Nazi’s prior to the holocaust. Perhaps the reason why Jews are in government, hollywood, and hold economic power is a combination of their culture and God’s calling. Their culture intensely stresses success and study as opposed to non-Jewish culture which tends to be a bit more slack in these areas. They also help each other out more often such as providing opportunity for young Jews to get a start in life. Perhaps this may be the point most in dispute but they may have a divine calling (Romans 11:29) in which they receive a special providence to engage in areas of common grace. Where I’m coming from is someone who has a heart for Jewish people to come to their Messiah Jesus and a hatred for antisemitism. I’m not a dispensationalist or a zionist myself but I also find your comments above to…well they sound bitter as if John Hagee was not a true believer. What evidence do you have of a Jewish conspiracy (again refer me to a page if you have previously written on this.)? Rabbinically approved and kosher? This comment seems to me to be filled with a hate for judaism which is certainly against the apostle’s injunction to “give no offence either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the man, so that they may be saved” (1 cor 10:32-33). Not that we are not to speak truth in seeking to please man but we are not to say things that will give unneeded offence to unbelievers. The gospel itself is offensive enough to unbelieving people without needlessly insulting their culture and parts of their religious beliefs such as dietary laws which have little bearing on the gospel.
Comment by Michael — February 4, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Michael
If I may jump in while we’re waiting for MRB to reply, I have a few points and one question.
When one studies the behavior, rather than the status, of the jew as a culture influencer he discovers anything but a righteousness that we would expect from one living out “God’s calling”. I’m afraid dietary laws are the least of their problems.
A Christian’s first concern about the Jew with whom he shares a culture should not be to see him converted; rather he should be calling on the Jew to quit practicing anti-gentile behaviors that his religion calls for. I am glad to hear that you recognize the influence of the jews who “are in government, hollywood, and hold economic power”. The next step is for you to study what they are doing with it. This leads to my question.
Hypothetically, if the Jew does [possess] a “special providence to engage in areas of common grace” could you list some of the positive, common-grace fruits produced by these people?
Consider this a friendly challenge from which we all may learn.
Comment by Joshua — February 4, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Michael-
A few responses to your comments.
“Many of your comments really do sound similar to the arguments advanced by Hitler and the Nazi’s prior to the holocaust.”
(1) Please tell me what these arguments are, especially their conclusions.
(2) Arguments apart, perhaps some of my comments sound similar to Hitler’s. So what? The Hitler/holocaust rhetoric does not work here.
(3) If you are going to try to show my guilt by association, I demand that that you broaden the field of men you quote from. Here are some for starters.
“Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? the whole day long will not be enough to give you an account of these things.” -Chrysostom
“Reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.” -T. S. Eliot
“Whenever you see or think about a Jew, say to yourself as follows: Behold, the mouth which I see there has every Saturday cursed, execrated, and spit upon my dear Lord, Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with His precious blood; and also prayed and cursed before God that I, my wife and children, and all Christians, should be stabbed and perish in the most miserable manner —— and would like to do so himself if he could, that he might come into possession of our goods …… Should I eat, drink with, or speak to such a Devilish mouth? …… I would partake of all the Devils who live in that Jew, and would spit upon the precious blood of Christ —— God keep me from doing that.” -Luther
“[Your comments] sound bitter as if John Hagee was not a true believer.”
Bitterness is neither here nor there. On whether Hagee is a Christian see comment #29.
“This comment seems to me to be filled with a hate for judaism”
Of course I hate Judaism. I am a Christian. I hate all systems of thought that teach blasphemies against Jesus Christ.
As for proving a Jewish conspiracy, read all the posts under the category Judaica and after that, stick with us over the next year.
Comment by MRB — February 4, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Can someone who denies that Jesus came as the Christ [Messiah] be a CHRISTian? John said he’s an antichrist [against Christ]. I’m struggling with the concept “Christian antichrist.”
Comment by GV — February 4, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
Thank you MRB for your response and everyone else who chimed in. I appreciate your willingness to take the time and post. In regards to Hagee I would encourage anyone interested to read this review of his recent book: http://www.carm.org/misc/john_hagee.htm. I conclude that although his theology is pretty whacky calling him a non-believer is not called for. Hagee redefines Messiah to mean something other than the standard meaning. His redefinition is wrong but he is not denying the deity of Jesus, the incarnation, the atonement etc…
MRB - in regards to your first point I will read all of your posts first and then try to come to a better conclusion on what you believe before passing making up my mind. I apologize for perhaps making a hasty generalization.
With regard to guilt by association I just become concerned by your strong language. If you do a cursory study of Jewish persecution in the last 2000 years or so you will find some abominable things that have been done against Jews by so called Christians. Luther himself published a track against Jews calling for them to be made second class citizens and subjected etc… which was used by Hitler. Chrysostrom’s rhetoric against Jews was one of the some of the strongest language ever used against the Jews (I confess that upon looking at the eight homilies I’m not exactly ready to stomach reading them). With regard to the Jews crucifying our Lord I’m pretty sure we all are aware that we are no better than them by nature without the grace of God would be worse perhaps. We all have to admit that we all crucified our Lord by our sin anyways. “Twas my sin that put him there, I nailed him to the tree, I crucified the Christ of God, I joined the mockery.”
With regard to hatred for Judaism: perhaps I should have been more specific. Of course we as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus hate blasphemies against him and any denial of who he is. However there has been an undue hatred against the mere trappings of Judaism throughout church history. An example is that at the Council of Nicea, I believe, a law was passed that no christian could celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus on the passover week in a Jewish fashion. None of this is warranted by scripture since as we all know the OT believers practiced Jewish rituals and we can see how they point to Christ. God hates legalism, salvation by works, and a denial of Jesus’ deity and the need for atonement Jesus but he does not hate Jewish feasts etc… is my point and your sarcastic comment against Kosher laws I think are a bit well, focusing on the wrong area. If you are convinced that Jews are a bad influence then, ok I need to do more study, but you seem to be needlessly ridiculing parts of Jewish religion that do not appear to be a problem. It’s poisoning the well and it obscures your point.
Again I appreciate your taking the time to post Mr. Butler and I dare to read more of your blog to try to understand your point of view better. BTW thank you for your article on the transcendental argument for God. I am currently writing a paper on it and it has been helpful. Blessings.
Comment by Michael — February 5, 2008 @ 1:50 am
A serious question for anyone’s comment that came to me from #37:
Wouldn’t the continued celebration of at least certain (I was thinking all) old covenant feasts (in a “Jewish” manner) equate to a denial that Jesus was [is] the Christ?
I know that that ceremonial law continues, but we keep it entirely in Christ (thus the particulars are, Bahnsen used the phrase, “put out of gear.”) The particular administrations have in that sense been abolished. Thus, its conitnued observance would seem to be a denial of the very gospel itself.
Comment by GV — February 5, 2008 @ 7:20 am
The messianic Jews’ celebration the O.T. festivals is indicative of their xenophobia. The explicit and radical change in covenantal administrations regarding the ceremonies is still too foreign, even for Jewish converts.
Granted all races bring their culture into the church (black churches are nothing like white churches), but the liturgical celebration of ceremonies is an issue beyond cultural accidentals. It is about the regulative principle, and the precedent phenomenon that that Jew is always a Jew first.
Comment by Joshua — February 5, 2008 @ 9:36 am
In response to GV, the early Jewish Christians apparently still kept the feasts and worshiped in the temple. I agree that some messianic Jews get into a Jew-gentile discrimination thing which looks pretty unattractive to me but their’s nothing unbiblical to celebrating the passover with an eye to its fulfillment in Christ. The NT never commands that we stop celebrating the feasts but it doesn’t command that we have toeither. We have liberty to or not. Btw just a reminder but all the NT authors save Luke were Jewish and Jesus was Jewish.
Comment by Michael — February 6, 2008 @ 12:48 am
Michael,
We certainly understand that the apostles and Christ were of Jewish lineage and that the church in its infancy experienced a time a transition as it attempted to deal with its very sensitive conscience and its understanding of its freedom in Christ’s fulfillment of the old covenant rituals. However, they were encouraged to put such things away, and to embrace their freedom. The gentiles were simply told not to lord their freedom over their Jewish brothers while they transitioned. I do not see this as being parallel to either unbelieving Judaism, which keeps certain aspects of the old covenant laws purly out of unbelief. The Lord most certainly hates that. Further, much of what passes for messianic judaism is little more than jewish Christians who want to lord their heritage over the gentiles and maintain a jew/gentile distinction that at times seems tantamount to reconstructing the wall torn down in Ephesians 2. This too the lord hates. Those messianic jews who do not wish to lord their jewishness over gentile Christians simply need to grow up. We should be willing to let them do that, but that doesn’t seem to be the thrust of messianic judaism, and it certainly isn’t the thrust of apostate judaism.
I maintain the continuation of the old covenant rituals manifests at least some level of unbelief if only that inherent in the immaturity of a new Christian who has come from a jewish background. We can afford such a person time to grow up in the faith if that is their desire. My concern is when that is clearly not the attention.
Open to correction,
Comment by GV — February 6, 2008 @ 7:27 am