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!
The Davidic kingdom does not currently exist. It was the rule of a dynasty over an ethnic group of people in a specific land, all of which are parts of the Davidic covenant. If any one of those parts is missing, you do not have fulfillment. It seems illegitimate to redefine the kingdom because you don't like what the text says. It seems to me that this redefined kingdom is simply an attempt to shoehorn in an unnecessary present reign of Christ in the DAvidic kingdom. Adherence to the plain meaning of the text clearly leads to a future kingdom.Originally posted by Carson Weber:
I believe that Christ, the son of David, is ruling over the Kingdom of Heaven, which is the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom.
David's throne was more precisely his ruling authority. I agree with the rest. Yet you fail in your application. Since the kingdom does not exist, neither can the throne. There can be no authority in a non-existent kingdom; nor can we simply redefine the kingdom. We must use Scriptural terms and definitions.What is David's throne? It is a sign of the Davidic Covenant that stands for the son of David, who rules the Kingdom. There have been many of these (e.g. Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah, etc.), and Jesus is the son of David.
Christ is currently ruling over the world to be sure. But that is not what Scripture describes as the Kingdom. Spend sometime in the OT and you will find that the kingdom prophesied is not what we are living in today. Your quotation of the Lord's Prayer is most interesting here because it undermines your position. You say that Christ brought the kingdom when he came. Yet when his disciples ask how he should pray he tells them to pray for the kingdom to come. Now if Christ brought the kingdom, why are his disciples still praying for it? The obvious inconsistency should be clear. You do not pray for what you already have. Christ's teaching is clear: The kingdom had not yet come. Therefore the disciples were to pray for it. Furthermore, the whole concept of "will" is interesting. It is God's will for all to worship him (John 4:24). Yet it is clear that on this earth not all do worship him. Therefore, the kingdom cannot be here as it is in heaven because this is not happening. Further refelction on the implications of the texts you cite most often will undermine the point that you are trying to make with it.So you're still looking for Christ to return as a political Messiah like the Jews still long for? I believe that Christ currently rules over his Kingdom, which is "of God" and "of Heaven"; it's both on Earth and in Heaven, hence, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven."
Thanks for your clarification but you still have no Scripture to support this view. This is pure conjecture and breaks down on a number of points.Solomon explicitly had 12 royal ministers to provide food for the king and his household; this prefigures the 12 apostles who provide the Eucharist for the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth (as the 12 Tribes of Israel foreshadow the 12 Apostles of Jesus, the New Israel).
It only grants viability to the papal office if you misunderstand it. Yet I wouldn't expect you to grant that. Furthermore, I cannot see any relavance the DAvidic imagery to this passage. Simply because two passages use similar words does not mean that they have a relationship. We need to be very careful in this regard. I think you have participated in some sloppily argumentation here by not clearly drawing the lines that connect these two. We must remember, "Similarity does not prove identity."This Davidic imagery provides a sensible background to understanding Jesus words to Peter in Mt 16; granted, it grants viability to the Papal office if it's true, and I wouldn't expect for you to affirm that.
Here you have a problem though because the Davidic throne is not in heaven. It is the Father's throne that Jesus currently sits on. Again, you cannot simply redefine terms because you don't like the outcome or meaning of the ones Scripture uses. To understand that God fulfills his promises is not worldly. It sounds very pious to talk of a spiritual vision of eternity but in the end, it threatens the integrity of God by denying that the promises will be fulfilled as they were written.But I do see Christ clearly ruling on the Davidic throne.. in heaven. I don't have the worldly vision of the Jews; my vision has been lifted to the spiritual vision of eternity.
So?? Neither of these verses prove your point. The kingdom of heaven was at hand; the problem is that the Jews didn't repent. So the kingdom was taken from that generation and postponed. And Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven ... and most certainly the church does ahve a role in the kingdom. Yet all that does not mean that the kingdom is now. Not even the disciples believed that they were living in teh kingdom. In ACts 1, they ask when the kingdom would be established. Apparently they, living under the direct teaching of Jesus, understood it like I did.Mt 3:2 - "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Mt 16:19 - "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
I know well what the Scripture says about love. I have spent now 22 messages in the first three chapters of 1 John on Sunday mornings. If you read that book very closely you will find that right alongside of love as evidence of being born of God is holding to the truth. If anyone does not hold to the truth he is not born of God. The "faith" is the truth about God. I say what I do because I believe the "faith."Originally posted by Star:
Being obedient to the faith is "walking in love toward one another" Anyone who does not love is NOT born of God, THAT is scripture.We are to be obedient to the "faith". I could not even begin to copy paste everything that scriptures speak on love, as well as faith. Heres just a handful.
I don't believe I said there were no deep truths. What I said was that there are no hidden truths. The Scriptures speak for themselves. Many times, in an effort to find something extra, we end up missing the plain beauty of the text. There is plenty in the plain meaning of the text that we don't need to search for something that is not there.Saying there are no "deep" truths as you put it is not scriptural in that we are to see Him in them. But there were some among Jesus's day who took away the keys to knowledge and prevented others from seeing these things but jesus told them they did not enter in themselves.
I believe the scriptures speak of Him in a "mystery" and the Spirit teaches us and we are to compare "Spiritual words" expressing "Spiritual Truths". Thats what they speak of and its scriptural. The letter kills.
Are you serious with a question like this? Surely if you have read Scripture you are not serious. The faith is defined as the doctrine of Scripture and all its implications in more places than I can list here. Start with 1 John and the doctrine of Christ, sin, and salvation. Go to Romans on the doctrine of justification; Ephesians on the doctrine of the church and the new life, and on and on. All through Scripture we are warned to hold to the faith (Col 1; Heb 3; Heb 6; Gal 1; 1 John 1-5; Jude 3). We are likewise exhorted to contend for the faith (Rom 16; 2 Thess 3; Jude; 2 Peter; 2 John; 3 John; Gal 1; 2 Tim 4; Titus 1). These commands appear so often in Scripture, it is remarkable that one who has studied it would ask for proof.Originally posted by Star:
What and where in scripture speaks of the definition of "holding to the truth"? Can you please share this with us, because you left it "undefined" by the word of God.![]()
Paul did not pray that his hearers would receive revelation but that they would receive the gospel, the mystery that he was proclaiming. When he proclaimed it it was no longer a mystery. It was "Christ in you, the hope of glory." Paul opened the mystery (Eph 3) and declared it publicly and called people to respond to it.Yet we have the gospel of Christ but Paul preached the "mystery of the gospel" or the light of the gospel. Plain text still is not a revelation Paul prayed those who listened to him would recieve.
I saw no verses relating to Christ being a mystery still. Please refresh our memories.Why do I believe they speak of Him in a mystery? Because the scriptures declare they do. I provided you verses already.
What??? The one flesh relationship is no mystery. Where did Paul "hint" at this? Here you have seen a "mystery" where there is no mystery.As far as it pertains to Paul only "hinting at" Adam and the Woman becoming one flesh he never expounded on it in great detail, so in searching out what Paul said was a Mystery I found Paul to be True.
Can you do me a favor? Browse through these threads and look for my posts. You might say a lot about my posts but "lack of Scripture" is certainly not among a legitimate complaint. And you certainly haven't been in any of my services.Larry, for a man of the "cloth" (so to speak) You rarely share Gods words or speak them as we are encouraged to do. So please share from scripture YOUR POINT according to THEM so we can discuss things from His word so I understand that you first "believe" in His word and are drawing your stance from there, because I cannot find your stance on any of the words you are speaking. Can you do me that favor please?
So why doesn't this apply to you? You preface post after post with your thoughts and then misuse Scripture to support them. You need to submit your imagination to the text. That God used parables (which is what a similitude is) and visions in times of revelation is not the issue. He is no longer in the process of revelation in this age. Furthermore, the parable and visions are clearly defined in Scripture. Yet you go and find a whole bunch more. You have asserted your thoughts as superior and if anyone comes and says "That's not what the text says" ( as I have done here) you cry out "similitude similitude" and assert your own thoughts anyway. Any thinking about God must be submitted to the authority of the text that reveals God to us.Because you "think it" doesn't make it valid. I'm trying to see your points as scripture supports yet you back nothing from scripture see?
The difference between you and prophets (among others) is that they were operating under revelation from God. You are not. The rule of thumb is that Scripture cannot mean what it never meant. To understand Scripture, you need to understand what the author was trying to communicate to his original reader.If I make scripture "complicated" through scriptures I'm not the one who started it. God says in Hosea that He multiplied visions and USED SIMILITUDES by the ministry of the Prophets. So Hes using them I just see Christ in them.
Yet you do not apply this to yourself. I am simply taking the words for what they say. You are reading all kinds of stuff into them. Paul did say that many things were patterns or types. (He never uses the word similitude.) I will gladly accept what Paul says is a type. What Kim thinks is a similitude is a whole different matter and it carries no weight at all.Your reasoning of the scriptures and how YOU think they should speak doesn't hold weight with the word of God.
You have not supported your views from Scripture; you have misused it. I refuted them in another thread and you have offered nothing of substance here. You study the above passages and tell me what they say about truth. That should keep you busy for a while.YOU must support from the word you confess to believe that it speaks in the manner that you claim it does. I supported mine you support yours FROM SCRIPTURE please or it doesn't hold weight with me.
Christ is prophesied in the OT. I do not deny that. Nor do I deny any other prophecies or promises in the OT (as Carson has and apparently you agree with him). So what is your point?But let me ask you how does the Old testament speak of Christ since the summing up of ALL THINGS are IN CHRIST.
This is a great example of what I am talking about. You saved me the trouble of looking through your posts to find an example. Here, you have inserted your thoughts as authoritative. The water in John 2 is water. It is not the word; there is nothing in the text of John that would lead you to believe that. It is not a picture of anything. It is water. The point of the pericope is to demonstrate Jesus' power. Yet you have gone beyond the text and started making stuff up that Scripture never intended to teach. YOu have absolutely no scriptural basis to say this.There is nothing unbiblical about this. Kind like Jesus's servents filling the "six" clay jars with water (The word) and Jesus touches them and the water changes to Wine. Life and Spirit awakening to the fact that all these things bear witness of Him
To keep this on topic, how can you say that the Davidic covenant is fulfilled with someone besides the ones to whom it was made? Can a God of truth and verity rescind his covenant with one person or people to give it to another?Originally posted by Ian Major:
Carson is right about the Church fulfilling the promise in the Davidic Covenant
Obviously I disagree for this reason: There is no way you can read the text of the Davidic covenant and get this out of it. The text is clear. So we are left with God misrepresenting himself to David. The immediate resurrection issue is also one I dispute. I do not see any promise of immediate resurrection.Originally posted by Ian Major:
I agree with what you say about God's veracity. It is just that you misunderstand His promise - for example, David appears to be the receipient of the promise of immediate resurrection, yet Scripture shows it was of Christ he spoke. Christ is the One who sits on David's throne, even though it was promised that David would be the Shepherd of Israel, Ezek.34:23.
Here again, you make this passage say something that it doesn't say. And with this the words of the prophets agree,. This is far different than "This is the fulfillment of the words of the prophet." In fact what the disciples were testifying to and what I am espousing is agreed to by the prophets. A while back I posted an article on this where this passage was explained in its context to mean just the opposite of what you take it to mean. Here it is with another article that shoudl be of interest to this discussion.The Church is the fulfilment of the promises to the fathers:
Acts 15:14
First why is this a problem? I don't see the problem. I disagree that the Jewish believers in the NT saw the church as the continuation of Israel. I think Paul was explicit in Rom 11 that the church was not the continuation of Israel.If we see the Church as something entirely new and different from the Israel to whom the promises were given, then the promises are yet to be fulfilled. But the Jewish believers of the NT times saw the Church as the continuation of Israel, as Israel purified of her idolatries and enjoying the fulfilment of the promises.