OldRegular
Well-Known Member
That is my concern about dispensationalism. They handle Scripture in ways that Jesus Christ would not and did not!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Pastor Qualifications.
- Thread starter pilgrim2009
- Start date
- Status
That is my concern about dispensationalism. They handle Scripture in ways that Jesus Christ would not and did not!
The exact same thing could be said about covenant theology, reformed theology, and certainly of Calvinism.
The point is moot.
Sure.
You got Scripture for that? Of course you don't. It's not there.
Talk about selective memory, we have shown you lots of Scripture. You just weren't convinced by it. The truth is Jesus said that the kingdom of God was at hand. What kingdom was he talking about? The one prophesied in the OT. I think your failure is to reckon with the OT as Scripture on equal par with the NT. I think the OT is just as much the Word of God as the NT is, and it meant what it said.
If you can show this, please do. Your previous attempts fell short at proving your point. But if you have some new ones, I will be glad to take a look at them.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God. [Mark 1:14]
Jesus Christ said: "My kingdom is not of this world." [John 18:36]
Jesus Christ said: "Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." [John 3:3]
The Apostle Paul said: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God". [1 Corinthians 15:50]
And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came into him. Preaching the kingdom of God and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him. [Acts 28:30, 31]
Now Pastor Larry states: "In the Bible there is only one kingdom .... and it was an earthly kingdom. When Jesus promised the kingdom, that's the kingdom he was talking about."
If what Pastor Larry says is true then why did Jesus Christ, who came preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God, say "My kingdom is not of this world."? Why did He say a man had to be born again to see that so-called earthly kingdom? Why was the Apostle Paul preaching about an earthly kingdom when the King was no longer on earth? Why did the Apostle Paul say of that so-called earthly kingdom: "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God".
Was Jesus Christ confused? Was the Apostle Paul delusional? Was the Apostle Paul untruthful? NOT LIKELY!
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, his kingdom comes from heaven, not from this earth. His kingdom does not arise by force of an army on this earth. If so, then his followers would band together and fight. But his kingdom is from heaven. It comes from there to this earth. That is the consistent testimony of the Scritpures.
Not sure what the dispute is here. You think unbelievers can enter the kingdom? I can't imagine you do. But I don't know what else you would be questioning here.
Correct. Flesh and blood refers to fallen humanity. They die and go to hell. They do not inherit the kingdom of God (a word used often for eschatological promises). Paul's point is on the resurrection of believers and the kingdom of God that will then be on earth. The kingdom of God on earth destroys sin.
Because all unbelievers are destroyed. Only believers enter the kingdom.
Because he believed Jesus would come again just as he said, and would fulfill his promises.
See above. Already answered.
Do you really not understand these things? It is hard for me to imagine what your confusion is, and I mean that sincerely. If you have a comprehensive view of the kingdom drawn from all of Scriptures, there might be some minor debate about how exactly these apply but they aren't hard at all to deal with. I think the problem is still revealed as being this: Some people take their view of the kingdom from only certai passages instead of gaining a comprehensive view of the kingdom from all inspired Scripture. I agree that if you take the NT without the OT, you will likely come up with some sort of "kingdom only now" view. But you won't get that if you take the whole Bible together consistently.
The kingdom of God was an earthly kingdom for those who received Jesus as their Messiah. That is why they had to be born again. And Paul told of that kingdom because it was the promise of God to come. It is the same reason we preach the kingdom today.
I agree. I think you are the one who is confused.
But I see that not much has changed. You still do not seem to want to participate in genuine exchange of ideas. That's unfortunate. Even though there are answers to all these questions you come up with, you still refuse to treat dispensationalists as brothers who love the Lord and his gospel and his coming, even though we might differ on the understanding of some things. That is unfortunate.
I assume by the Kingdom of God you mean the millennium?
Some say that only believers enter the millennium, but they will give birth to children who are unbelievers. This is what confuses me. If flesh and blood (unsaved as you said) cannot inherit the kingdom, how can there be unsaved offspring of the people who enter the millennium kingdom?
I'm not arguing for or against either view, just confused.
Pilgrim, I had my reply to you ready to go when you first posted, but got sidetracked before reading this post. I will let it stand regardless of who was, is, or will be as you suppose these men to be. Jesus Christ will be the final judge in such matters as presented by you.
You posted
As you put it, No for He is a liar. But if, after correcting this statement after entering into the Body of Christ, his sin has been forgiven. He has then trusted in our Lord Jesus Christ, so I would trust him, under these circumstances.
Appling the above, he is really no different than I who was a sinner before believing on the Lord Jesus Christ for my salvation. Even though I had never done these things, I was guilty as this Pastor, in his sins. Yet if he is justified through faith by the Grace of God, and by this faith only, without any works, he most likely appreciates his salvation more than I. I believe Luke 7:41-43 would apply here.
If he has come through the Blood of Jesus Christ, YES.
Sin is sin, and until atoned for will remain. If the Blood has been applied, and the one has been circumcised, and baptized with out hands, being sealed into the Body of Christ, of course I would. But I believe the cause of Christ could be hurt, and the testimony will undoubtedly be questioned by some.
Yes, basically.
Yes, all others are destroyed in battle before the millennium.
Because we do not get our spirituality from our physical parents, but from Adam. All people, even when born to Christians, are still born sinners.
No problem.
Yes. I understand that, but these "sinners" (unbelievers) will be born into the Kingdom of God of which unbelievers do not have an inheritance in.
Help! :laugh:
Yes, and if they don't repent and trust Christ, they will be utterly destroyed. Revelation 20 reveals the end of all unbelievers who are deceived by Satan once again to assemble against Christ, and they will meet their doom.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Response to Pastor Larry's post #86
That contradicts your initial response posted below. There you refer only to an earthly kingdom promised to the Jews alone by Jesus Christ at His incarnation.
I am questioning the clever deviation from your original response to my comment. There, as shown below, you said nothing about believers or unbelievers, only that the kingdom was promised to the Jews by Jesus Christ at His incarnation.
To claim that “Flesh and blood refers to fallen humanity” is utter nonsense. Paul is talking about the body that enters the grave to await the resurrection. I suggest you study the entire chapter 15 then perhaps you will understand the necessity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and Paul’s teaching regarding the general resurrection.
Furthermore your initial response to me said nothing about the resurrection. You were clearly talking about an earthly kingdom that Jesus Christ promised to the Jews at his incarnation as shown once again below. Now you are cleverly trying to change the subject to the co-called millennial kingdom.
You say: “Because all unbelievers are destroyed.” Do you subscribe to the annihilation theory? You have reverted to the millennial kingdom again, not the earthly kingdom you say Jesus Christ promised the Jews at His incarnation. Again your initial response as shown below said nothing about believers or unbelievers only that Jesus Christ promised the earthly kingdom prophecied in the Old Testament to the Jews.
Yes but you said that Jesus Christ promised an earthly kingdom to the Jews at His incarnation. Now here we have Paul preaching the Kingdom of God to the Gentiles. I thought from your initial response that the promise was to the Jews only since my initial question [repeated below] was related to Jews.
It is you who do not understand. It is you who are confused. To argue that Jesus Chrised promised an earthly kingdom to the Jews at His incarnation is just not true. Again you have cleverly switched your argument from the promise of an earthly kingdom for the Jews at His incarnation to an earthly kingdom after His Second Coming for all believers. Just read once again my initial post and your response shown again for your edification!
No Pastor larry it is you who are confused or cleverly disingeneous. Your entire post #86 repeated above is inconsistent with your initial response to me, shown again for your edification.
That contradicts your initial response posted below. There you refer only to an earthly kingdom promised to the Jews alone by Jesus Christ at His incarnation.
I am questioning the clever deviation from your original response to my comment. There, as shown below, you said nothing about believers or unbelievers, only that the kingdom was promised to the Jews by Jesus Christ at His incarnation.
To claim that “Flesh and blood refers to fallen humanity” is utter nonsense. Paul is talking about the body that enters the grave to await the resurrection. I suggest you study the entire chapter 15 then perhaps you will understand the necessity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and Paul’s teaching regarding the general resurrection.
Furthermore your initial response to me said nothing about the resurrection. You were clearly talking about an earthly kingdom that Jesus Christ promised to the Jews at his incarnation as shown once again below. Now you are cleverly trying to change the subject to the co-called millennial kingdom.
You say: “Because all unbelievers are destroyed.” Do you subscribe to the annihilation theory? You have reverted to the millennial kingdom again, not the earthly kingdom you say Jesus Christ promised the Jews at His incarnation. Again your initial response as shown below said nothing about believers or unbelievers only that Jesus Christ promised the earthly kingdom prophecied in the Old Testament to the Jews.
Yes but you said that Jesus Christ promised an earthly kingdom to the Jews at His incarnation. Now here we have Paul preaching the Kingdom of God to the Gentiles. I thought from your initial response that the promise was to the Jews only since my initial question [repeated below] was related to Jews.
It is you who do not understand. It is you who are confused. To argue that Jesus Chrised promised an earthly kingdom to the Jews at His incarnation is just not true. Again you have cleverly switched your argument from the promise of an earthly kingdom for the Jews at His incarnation to an earthly kingdom after His Second Coming for all believers. Just read once again my initial post and your response shown again for your edification!
No Pastor larry it is you who are confused or cleverly disingeneous. Your entire post #86 repeated above is inconsistent with your initial response to me, shown again for your edification.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I assume by the Kingdom of God you mean the millennium?
Some say that only believers enter the millennium, but they will give birth to children who are unbelievers. This is what confuses me. If flesh and blood (unsaved as you said) cannot inherit the kingdom, how can there be unsaved offspring of the people who enter the millennium kingdom?
I'm not arguing for or against either view, just confused.
Amy
This is what is so ridiculous about the dispensational argument for a millennial kingdom with Jesus Christ in all the glory of the Godhead sitting on David's throne along side David as co-regent while there are mortals, and unbelievers at that, roaming the earth. Scripture clearly teaches that mortal man cannot look upon the Glory of God and live.
Consider this. During the millennium how does an unbeliever become saved. By faith or by works. If Jesus Christ is sitting on a throne in Jerusalem, ruling with a rod of iron, where is the need for faith. And Scripture tells us that works cannot save anyone. Does the means of salvation change during the millennial kingdom?
Can anyone answer why the resurrected Saints in their glorified and sinless state would want to live among sinful men?
I don't understand that either.
Good point.
I have wondered this as well. We (believers) at that time will have been justified, sanctified and glorified, only to be on earth again with the heathen. I thought we were going to escape all that at our physical death.
However, I do not understand the belief that we are in the millennium now. I do not see that Satan has been bound for 1000 years or even 5 minutes. This "world" is Satan's playground right now.
So what’s the contradiction? Christ’s earthly kingdom originates in heaven. It is not of this world. It won’t come because a bunch of Christians band together to defend Jesus from death.
Sorry for my obtuseness here. You will have to explain what you mean by “clever deviation.”
Yes, and so what is the confusion? The question, as I understood it, was not about believers or unbelievers, but about the kingdom.
What kind of body enters the grave to await the resurrection? Isn’t it the fallen body, corrupted by sin? If you look at vv. 49-50, the contrast is between the earthy—the body corrupted by sin, perishable, and the heavenly—spiritual, imperishable.
Having studied through 1 Cor 15 several times, I think I have a decent handle on it, though I know I could learn much more. Again, I am not sure what your confusion is. I am sure it is my misunderstanding of your writing, or my own lack of clarity in mine. There is much that we disagree on. I wouldn’t have thought anyone would disagree with this.
The resurrection wasn’t the topic back there. You asked about the kingdom. I was defining the kingdom. The MK is the kingdom. There is only one mediatorial kingdom. Again, I can’t help but think you are unfamiliar with the terms of the discussion here and are using terms in a way that I am not. The subject of the earthly kingdom of God includes the OT monarchy, the offered kingdom at Christ’s first coming, and the consummated and established kingdom at his second. There is only one kingdom. It is the mediatorial kingdom. (Not to be confused with the universal kingdom of God, which is his sovereign rule over all things.)
No, of course not. The biblical idea of destruction is eternal conscious torment in hell.
The MK is the earthly kingdom.
Again, unbelievers or believers weren’t the question back then. You asked about the kingdom. I didn’t say a lot of things about it because they weren’t asked.
Yes, the kingdom of God is the reign of God on earth over the Jews. The Gentiles will be rulers in that kingdom, co-reigning with Christ on his throne. To preach the kingdom of God is to preach his second coming and the fulfillment of the promises God made.
That may well be, particularly when it comes to your points here. I am very confused as to what you are confused about. It is almost incoherent to me.
No, it is true. When he said, “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” it was the promise of the kingdom, and repentance was necessary because the king was here. They did not repent. Therefore, they did not receive the kingdom. It was taken from them and will be given to a generation producing the fruits of it, which will be end time Israel.
You are the one who doesn’t understand. There was no switch. There is one kingdom. God promised it, and he will fulfill it. The earthly kingdom promised to the Jews at the incarnation is the same kingdom that the Jews will accept at the second coming. I am not sure why you don’t understand this. You claim to be knowledgeable about dispensationalism and have read Ryrie and Chafer and others, but you don’t even grasp this most basic point about it. That’s why I am confused. How are you so confused by this? Disagreement is fine. I don’t mind that. But I don’t understand your confusion.
Perhaps, but if so, please show me how. If I have been unclear, I will be glad to try to clarify. You have made the disingenuous claim before, yet I am the one who has consistently made attempts in good faith to answer your questions. You have generally ignored mine. So I have been far from disingenuous. I have probably been unwise in the use of my time since it seems once again that you are not interested in a genuine exchange of ideas. That’s unfortunate.
So what about Christ already being on earth? Was he not fully God? Was he not glorious? People looked on him and lived. So I think this objection was answered by history already.
People are saved by faith in the millennium. They will need faith that Jesus died for their sins.
Who said anything about wanting to live among sinful men, or even living among sinful men? I am not familiar with that biblical argument. The Bible says that we will rule with Jesus. Why isn't that enough? It seems like you are desperately trying to make logical arguments rather than biblical ones.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
As usual Jim you have a way with words. I certainly appreciate and agree with your post above. And Cheers to you.
Anthony A Hoekema in his book The Bible and the Future has an interesting discussion [pages 228, 229] which makes the same point you have though it takes him more words:
What is meant, now, by the binding of Satan? In Old Testament times, at least in the post-Abrahamic era, all the nations of the world except Israel were, so to speak, under Satan’s rule. At that time the people of Israel were the recipients of God’s special revelation, so that they knew God’s truth about themselves, about their sinfulness and about the way they could obtain forgiveness for their sins [though it must be admitted that this knowledge was given to them in types and shadows, so that it was incomplete]. During this same time, however, the other nations of the world did not know that truth, and were therefore in ignorance and error [see Acts 17:30]--except for an occasional person, family, or city which came into contact with God’s special revelation. One could say that during this time these nations were deceived by Satan, as our first parents had been deceived by Satan when they fell into sin in the Garden of Eden.
Just before his ascension, however, Christ gave his disciples his Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” [Matthew. 28:19]. At this point one can well imagine the disciples raising a disturbing question: How can we possibly do this if Satan continues to deceive the nations the way he has in the past? In Revelation 20:1-3 John gives a reassuring answer to this question. Paraphrased, his answer goes something like this: “During the gospel era which has now been ushered in, Satan will not be able to continue deceiving the nations the way he did in the past, for he has been bound. During this entire period, therefore, you, Christ's disciples, will be able to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations.”
This does not imply that Satan can do no harm whatever while he is bound. It means only what John says here: while Satan is bound he cannot deceive the nations in such a way as to keep them from learning about the truth of God. Later in this chapter we are told that when the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations of the world to gather them together to fight against the people Of God [Revelation 20:7-9]. This, however, he cannot do while he is bound. We conclude, then, that the binding of Satan during the gospel age means that, first, he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel, and second, he cannot gather all the enemies of Christ together to attack the church.
Is there any indication in the New Testament that Satan was bound at the time of the first coming of Christ? Indeed there is. When the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan, Jesus replied, “How can one enter a Strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man?” [Matthew 12:29]. Interestingly enough, the word used by Matthew to describe the binding of the strong man is the same word used in Revelation 20 to describe the binding of Satan [the Greek word deo]. One could say that Jesus bound the devil when he triumphed over him in the wilderness, refusing to give in to his temptations. Jesus’ casting out of demons, so he teaches us in this passage, was evidence of this triumph. One could counter that the binding of Satan mentioned here is reported in connection with the casting out of demons rather than in connection with the preaching of the gospel. But I would reply that the casting out of demons is an evidence of the presence of the kingdom of God [Matthew 12:28], and that it is precisely because the kingdom of God has come that the gospel can now be preached to all the nations [see Matthew 13:24-30, 47-50].
When the seventy returned from their preaching mission, they said to Jesus, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name.” Jesus replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” [Luke 10: 17-18]. These words, needless to say, must not be interpreted as suggesting Satan’s literal descent from heaven at that moment. They must rather be understood to mean that Jesus saw in the works his disciples were doing an indication that Satan’s kingdom had just been dealt a crushing blow--that, in fact, a certain binding of Satan, a certain restriction of his power, had just taken place. In this instance Satan's fall or binding is associated directly with the missionary activity of Jesus’ disciples.
Another passage which relates the restriction of Satan’s activities to Christ's missionary outreach is John 12:31-32: “Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out; and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” It is interesting to note that the verb translated “cast out" [ekballo] is derived from the same root as the word used in Revelation 20:3, “and threw [ballo] him [Satan] into the pit.” Even more important, however, is the observation that Satan's being “cast out” is here associated with the fact that not only Jews but men of all nationalities shall be drawn to Christ as he hangs on the cross.
The binding of Satan described in Revelation 20:1-3, therefore, means that throughout the gospel age in which we now live the influence of Satan, though certainly not annihilated, is so curtailed that he cannot prevent the spread of the gospel to the nations of the world. Because of the binding of Satan during this present age, the nations cannot conquer the church, but the church is conquering the nations.
The Bible says that Satan is not bound, but is prowling around like a roaring lion seeking someone to devour. That doesn't sound like "bound." Satan has always been restricted. But Rev 20 clearly speaks of an additional restriction, after which he is loosed and goes back out to deceive the nations. If you think he is bound now, you have to explain 1 Peter 5:8 (prowling around), Rev 20:1 (what will be different in that binding), and Rev 20:7-9 (when will Satan be released and who will he deceive). That's just a start, but it is a difficult one to be sure for those who want to claim that Satan is currently bound.
Tom Schreiner, professor at SBTS and author and pastor, recently preached from Rev 20 and explained why he changed his position (from just 30 days prior) from amill to premill. He came face to face with Revelation 20 and changed his position because of the text. You can find the sermon here: http://audio.cliftonbaptist.org/index.php. It is the sermon preached June 14.
It would be worth your time to listen for his attitude as much as his theology. Some people in this forum are, quite frankly, overbearing and rude towards those brothers who disagree with them. I am sure that I have crossed that line at times, but I do my best to be charitable, to defend my position from the Bible, and not to engage in personal attacks. I wish that others would join me in that. Schreiner does a good job of talking about the issue.
Hoekema's handling of this is a noble effort but falls short on many counts. His last statement quoted above is particularly notable for its weakness: Because of the binding of Satan during this present age, the nations cannot conquer the church, but the church is conquering the nations.
The church is not conquering the nations by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, in many places the church is persecuted and struggling. Paul says our wrestling is against spiritual powers (Eph 6) something that is hardly compatible with a bound Satan. I think Hoekema's argument stems from his precommitment. He has to handle texts in certain ways because his position requires it, not because the Bible demands that. I think that is a recurring problem, which is why I have yet to be convinced. There are simply too many holes for my conscience to jump over.
The church is not conquering the nations by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, in many places the church is persecuted and struggling. Paul says our wrestling is against spiritual powers (Eph 6) something that is hardly compatible with a bound Satan. I think Hoekema's argument stems from his precommitment. He has to handle texts in certain ways because his position requires it, not because the Bible demands that. I think that is a recurring problem, which is why I have yet to be convinced. There are simply too many holes for my conscience to jump over.
- Status