Brother Bob
New Member
partial.............................skypair said:
BBob,
-
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!
Dispinsationalist vs. Preterist
- Thread starter Grasshopper
- Start date
BBob,
Wonderful --- show me when God kept the Abrahamic covenant! How about the Davidic one? And the Palestinian? I will eagerly look forward to your offering regarding these covenants that you say are "fulfilled."grasshopper said:
Impossible because the OT saints have not received the new covenant "heart of flesh" that they were promised ---- and all means ALL. Here's the true picture of Rom 11:26: OT Israel will be resurrected from their graves to receive the new covenant in Jesus kingdom. And again, that would be ALL of them, not just a smattering as in Mt 27:52.
Physical kingdom offered is Mt 5-7. Kingdom rejected is Mt 12:14 and 24. Spiritual "kingdom of heaven" offered in its place in Mt 13. What you are constantly describing to me is the spiritual kingdom of the church of Jesus Christ and it makes God look as if He has lied to and then abandoned Israel having never carried out His stated "program" for them.
Therefore, the church is shown it as the eternal kingdom but Israel as a time of sin and death. Notice: Israel's "new heavens/new earth is ended with the releasing of Satan from the pit and the surrounding of Jerusalem. But for the church's "New Heavens/New Earth," Satan is in the eternal lake of fire rather than the "bound in the pit."
I gave you the straight answer that even the preterist must acknowledge --- Mt 5:18 -- that "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." When do blood sacrifices end? Just exactly when Jesus said they would -- Rev 20:11 -- when "the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them." That is the end of the MK. We ought, therefore, to be offering blood sacrifices if this is the kingdom. Not one jot or tittle has passed, grasshopper! (Or just maybe the "jots and tittles" have been interrupted, eh?)
What would be ridiculous according to Jesus is that this "heaven and earth" are not already destroyed if any "jot or tittle" has been changed! Please reconsider Jesus words and your own deconstruction of them.
skypair
So we are on the same page, which specific OT promises are you referring to?
You really think the dead OT saints will receive a heart of flesh in the future so they can believe? And I thought Catholics had weird views. The promise was made to Old Covenant Israel and was being fulfilled according to Paul:
2Co 3:1 Are we beginning again to commend ourselves? or need we, as do some, epistles of commendation to you or from you?
2Co 3:2 Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men;
2Co 3:3 being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Well using you previous logic, all Jews who ever lived will be resurrected, given a new heart, and then be saved. Does that about sum it up? No lost Jews in the OT?
Who is Israel according to Paul’s previous argument?
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
How could someone not be Israel if they were of Israel?
Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Who does Paul say are the seed:
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
If you are in Christ, you are Abraham’s seed. If you are Abraham’s seed then you are heir’s to the promise.
Could you be more specific as to where this earthly, 1000 year Kingdom is offered? Does this sound like an earthly Kingdom:
Mat 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:
Mat 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
Jesus was offered your earthly physical Kingdom but declined:
Joh 6:15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
Why did Jesus decline? It isn't what He came to do.
Jesus is rejected. Why is He rejected, Albert Barnes comments on verse 17:
Mat 12:14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
Mat 12:15 But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;
Mat 12:16 And charged them that they should not make him known:
Mat 12:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
That it might be fulfilled ... - Matthew here quotes a passage from Isa_42:1-4, to show the “reason why he thus retired from his enemies and sought concealment.” The Jews, and the disciples also at first, expected that the Messiah would be a conqueror, and vindicate himself from all his enemies. When they saw him retiring before them, and, instead of subduing them by force, seeking a place of concealment, it was contrary to all their previous notions of the Messiah. Matthew by this quotation shows that “their” conceptions of him had been wrong.
So the 1st century Jews and the modern Dispies have the wrong “program”.
Forcing Jesus into your preconceived “program” makes Him a complete failure. What did Jesus say He came to do:
Joh 5:36 But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
Joh 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work.
Joh 6:38 For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
He came do to the work and will of the Father. Did He accomplish His task? What did Jesus say on the matter:
Joh 17:4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.
Jesus said He accomplished what the Father sent Him to do. So who are we to believe, Jesus or a message board theologian? If He was sent to establish an EarthlyKingdom, He failed. Was Jesus a failure?
Which brings us back to the previously unanswered question, to which New H&E is Peter referring to in 2 Peter 3? The New H&E of Isaiah or Revelation since you believe they are different?
Once again you label Jesus a failure.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
The Law would not pass till it was fulfilled. If it all was not fulfilled then the entirety of the Law is still in effect. What did Jesus say in the preceding verse:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Again, since you believe the Law has not been fulfilled then you believe Jesus failed in His task to fulfil the Law and the prophets. If the Law was fulfilled and Jesus fulfilled it, then “heaven and earth” have passed away eh?
Let me close with the words of a real Theologian CH Spurgeon:
"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under a new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it."
Ah! The smell of bus fumes in the morning! :laugh: Didn't I just ask about the Abrahamic covenant (all the land God showed to Abraham would be his and his people's)? Or the earthly kingdom promised to David's distant Son? Or the Palestinian one where God promised to return them to the land in belief? These should be first considerations for you in deciding whether to believe preterism, grasshopper.Grasshopper said:
Actually, they receive it because the DID believe. But infants would fall into the category you just mentioned.
No doubt. But Paul was talking to Gentiles about this. Again I say --- it is Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Noah, Rahab, etc. who will be receiving these "hearts of flesh." And again --- you are seeing the SPIRITUAL fulfillment of a literal promise. We had to believe before we received ours. They have already believed but will be resurrected to theirs.
No, you're grasping at straws no, grasshopper. Those OT saints were spiritual Israel but they never received hearts of flesh as promised in Jer 31:31.
"The meek shall inherit the earth" sound familiar? And somehwere in there is the means -- BELIEF on Christ --- by which to receive it in that day.
Declined it from SATAN! He knew God had promised it and He wasn't Jacob that He should try to "take a shortcut" to receiving it from God Himself.
skypair
I wanted scripture references. I guess I’ll do that for you as well:
Question 1:
Gen 15:18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
Gen 15:19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
Gen 15:20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
Gen 15:21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
Fulfilled:
Jos 21:43 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
(Didn’t you say earlier “all” means all?)
Neh 9:21 Yea, forty years didst thou sustain them in the wilderness, so that they lacked nothing; their clothes waxed not old, and their feet swelled not.
Neh 9:22 Moreover thou gavest them kingdoms and nations, and didst divide them into corners: so they possessed the land of Sihon, and the land of the king of Heshbon, and the land of Og king of Bashan.
Neh 9:23 Their children also multipliedst thou as the stars of heaven, and broughtest them into the land, concerning which thou hadst promised to their fathers, that they should go in to possess it.
Neh 9:24 So the children went in and possessed the land, and thou subduedst before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gavest them into their hands, with their kings, and the people of the land, that they might do with them as they would.
Question 2: (I have to guess since you didn’t provide scriptures)
Psa 89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
Psa 89:4 Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah.
Jesus told us His Kingdom was near during His ministry:
Mar 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
What do you think is meant by “the time is fulfilled”? How does a literalist like yourself define that phrase?
Peter speaks of this as well:
Act 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;...........
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Act 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
So I’ll choose to believe scripture on this matter if you don’t mind too terribly much.
Question 3:
Please provide scripture references for God promising to restore them to the land in unbelief.
It’s sure not this:
Deu 4:29 But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
Deu 4:30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;
Deu 4:31 (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God
he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them. Or this,
Read Lev. 26-14. Then notice verse 40-42:
Lev 26:40 If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;
Lev 26:41 And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:
Lev 26:42 Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.
Sound like unbelief to you? How about this:
Deu 30:2 And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul;
Deu 30:3 That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.
No, Thomas Ice sold you a bill of goods in his “Charting the End Times” fiction work.
Page 2
So salvation precedes the giving of a heart of flesh? Precedes by thousands of years?
Once again you fail to understand that a promise fulfilled “spiritually” can be a literal fulfillment. The “heart of flesh” is a perfect example. Or this could be a very painful experience for these dead saints: “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts”. I bet those dead Saints are hoping my definition of literal rules the day and not yours.
Then what is the purpose of turning a “heart of stone” into a “heart of flesh”? Obviously in your view it is not enable salvation or obedience since the OT saints had not yet received it yet believed and had faith. So why?
Thus the fatal flaw of dispensationalism, they deny the New Covenant has been established.
So the 1st century Jewish audience would understand the phrase "The meek shall inherit the earth" to mean a 1000 year earthly Kingdom. Incredible.
Unbelievable! You once again back yourself into a corner. Now you have Jews, who believe Jesus to be the foretold prophet, equal to Satan.
Joh 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
Joh 6:10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
Joh 6:14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
Joh 6:15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
Just what exactly was Jesus waiting on in your twisted view? You say He came to establish an earthly Kingdom but couldn’t because of Jewish rejection. Yet here He is with at least 5000 Jews ready to accept Him as King and make Him King yet Jesus refuses. What more do you want???
Now, let me restate questions you chose to ignore:
1.
Did Jesus fail to do the works and will of the Father??
2.
Which did Peter refer to?
3.
If the Law was fulfilled and Jesus fulfilled it, then haven't “heaven and earth” have passed away? Or did Jesus fail to fulfill it?
So salvation precedes the giving of a heart of flesh? Precedes by thousands of years?
Once again you fail to understand that a promise fulfilled “spiritually” can be a literal fulfillment. The “heart of flesh” is a perfect example. Or this could be a very painful experience for these dead saints: “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts”. I bet those dead Saints are hoping my definition of literal rules the day and not yours.
Then what is the purpose of turning a “heart of stone” into a “heart of flesh”? Obviously in your view it is not enable salvation or obedience since the OT saints had not yet received it yet believed and had faith. So why?
Thus the fatal flaw of dispensationalism, they deny the New Covenant has been established.
So the 1st century Jewish audience would understand the phrase "The meek shall inherit the earth" to mean a 1000 year earthly Kingdom. Incredible.
Unbelievable! You once again back yourself into a corner. Now you have Jews, who believe Jesus to be the foretold prophet, equal to Satan.
Joh 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.
Joh 6:10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
Joh 6:14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
Joh 6:15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
Just what exactly was Jesus waiting on in your twisted view? You say He came to establish an earthly Kingdom but couldn’t because of Jewish rejection. Yet here He is with at least 5000 Jews ready to accept Him as King and make Him King yet Jesus refuses. What more do you want???
Now, let me restate questions you chose to ignore:
1.
Did Jesus fail to do the works and will of the Father??
2.
Which did Peter refer to?
3.
If the Law was fulfilled and Jesus fulfilled it, then haven't “heaven and earth” have passed away? Or did Jesus fail to fulfill it?
Grasshopper,
I'm sorry. I was either in too much of a rush to play golf or you didn't specify scripture. In answering the first question, I yet notice that Abraham. himself, ("I give unto THEE...") never received the land. God reaffirmed that same covenant with Isaac and Jacob and neither of them received it either! That was part of God's promise in Gen 17:7-8. That promise MUST be fulfilled in the future if it is to be seen at all -- wouldn't you agree?
The second promise was in 2Sam 7:10, 16 (cf Psa 89:3-4). Where is David's "house" (meaning his "physical line of descent")? Where is the "kingdom" God would "establish before thee forever?" Luke 1:32-33 tells us that the angel Gabriel promises this throne to Jesus even though promise had existed for some 400 years "unclaimed" and even though Jesus would not take it up in His lifetime!!
The third promise, the Palestinian covenant, is in Deut 29:12-13. The promises thereof are found in Deut 30:1-10 and will succeed the period of "blessings and cursings" in Deut 28 (which is the coming tribulation described in detail), then He will 1) gather them from all the world, 2) restore them to the land of their ancestors, 3) "regenerate" the gathered and restored, and 4) judge their enemies. This is clearly (isn't it) the 2nd coming of Christ yet future!?
I guess being a preterist you haven't to now grasped the magnitude of these promises and how utterly the call for LITERAL fulfillment. I hope Brother Bob will notice this as well.
skypair
I'm sorry. I was either in too much of a rush to play golf or you didn't specify scripture. In answering the first question, I yet notice that Abraham. himself, ("I give unto THEE...") never received the land. God reaffirmed that same covenant with Isaac and Jacob and neither of them received it either! That was part of God's promise in Gen 17:7-8. That promise MUST be fulfilled in the future if it is to be seen at all -- wouldn't you agree?
The second promise was in 2Sam 7:10, 16 (cf Psa 89:3-4). Where is David's "house" (meaning his "physical line of descent")? Where is the "kingdom" God would "establish before thee forever?" Luke 1:32-33 tells us that the angel Gabriel promises this throne to Jesus even though promise had existed for some 400 years "unclaimed" and even though Jesus would not take it up in His lifetime!!
The third promise, the Palestinian covenant, is in Deut 29:12-13. The promises thereof are found in Deut 30:1-10 and will succeed the period of "blessings and cursings" in Deut 28 (which is the coming tribulation described in detail), then He will 1) gather them from all the world, 2) restore them to the land of their ancestors, 3) "regenerate" the gathered and restored, and 4) judge their enemies. This is clearly (isn't it) the 2nd coming of Christ yet future!?
I guess being a preterist you haven't to now grasped the magnitude of these promises and how utterly the call for LITERAL fulfillment. I hope Brother Bob will notice this as well.
skypair
That being said, you raise some good questions of your own. :thumbs:
Peter speaks of this as well:
skypair
Absolutely! But what about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Even Stephen knew (Acts 7:5-7) as he preached his martyr's sermon, that Abraham had not received the land promised to him.Grasshopper said:
I maintain that the Christ's physical kingdom was not only "near" but "here" when He said those words (works better dispensationally so far as the "seal" judgments are concerned). But it was like David's before he took the throne ---- though Jesus commanded His 12 and 70 disciples, He did not receive the thone at that time.
Peter speaks of this as well:
See, there's the promise of the literal, physical kingdom all right! But you, yourself, can read it, right? The passage never says Jesus DID actually sit on David's throne. Acts 2:30 is what is called a "referrant" verse that merely adds perspective to the real thrust of the message. David's throne is definitely NOT in heaven. That's GOD'S throne, grasshopper.
Actually, it also sounds like PROPHECY to me -- like Deut 28. in fact, Lev 26:38 sounds like the diaspora, no? Yup, and 26:40-41 sounds like midtrib -- like Joel 2 and Zech 12:10! And 26:43 the MK! You've stumbled, unwittingly, on more proof for MY thesis! :laugh:
skypair
Why would I specify the scriptures? It was your question.
Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
It’s a heavenly Kingdom.
Heb 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
You say they are put back into the land in unbelief then offer these verses to prove it:
Deu 29:12 That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day:
Deu 29:13 That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
Where is such a promise in those verses?
I dealt with Dt.30:1-10, apparently you don’t bother to read my posts. It says the exact opposite of what you claim:
Deu 30:2 And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul;
Deu 30:3 That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.
Deu 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
What does “if” mean to you? Nothing I guess.
In the case of those who are only "justified," yes. We take it for granted that the "just" are also "sanctified" with the indwelling Holy Spirit like we are. That was NOT always the case.Grasshopper said:
Of course, in whatever way it becomes literally true, it will also have to be spiritually true as well.
"Heart of flesh" merely means "Holy Spirit indwelling." It is called "heart of flesh" because it imparts life to the flesh just like a heart does by pumping blood to the flesh. This is called "quickening" of the flesh and it is also the necessary process of SANCTIFICATION of the body prior to glorification (that is, our ultimate salvation).
Add the words "...with Israel" and we agree. :laugh: We are NOT the Israel of Jer 31:31, grasshopper.
It appears that, like David, Jesus must be received by the priesthood, no? It isn't until Joel 2 (which I suspect is midtrib) that we actually see the priests turning to God again.
Sure He did! He did all that God asked of Him at that time.
The present one must be destroyed. The one in Isaiah. I had only hoped you could discern that from my other comments.
The new covenant of the law --- the 2 operating concurrently -- has not been fulfilled. Remember, it is the LAW God is going to put in their hearts to do. We do the commands of Jesus, do we not? And that "suffices" for the law for this age when Messiah is not enthroned.
And, no, "heavens and earth" have not passed away. How could you propose such an obviously false assertion?
skypair
Abraham did receive the physical land, but that was a type or shadow of the ultimate fulfillment. It wasn’t ultimately about a strip of land, it was about a Heavenly inheritance.
What do you think is meant by “the time is fulfilled”? How does a literalist like yourself define that phrase?
What does the term, ”the time is fulfilled” mean to a literalist?
John Gill:
but here it intends not his throne, in a literal, but in a figurative sense; for as David was a type of the Messiah in his kingly office, hence the Messiah is called "David their king", Hos_3:5 so his throne was typical of the Messiah's throne and kingdom; which is not of this world, but is in his church, and is set up in the hearts of his people, where he reigns by his Spirit and grace; and this is a throne and kingdom "given" by the Lord God. The kingdom of nature and providence he has by right of nature, as the Son of the Highest; the kingdom of grace, or the mediatorial kingdom, the kingdom of priests, or royal priesthood, is a delegated one; his Father has set him as king over his holy hill of Zion; and he is accountable for his government to him, and will one day deliver it up complete and perfect,
Albert Barnes:
To sit on his throne - To be his successor in his kingdom. Saul was the first of the kings of Israel. The kingdom was taken away from him and his posterity, and conferred on David and his descendants. It was determined that it should be continued in the family of David, and no more go out of his family, as it had from the family of Saul. The unique characteristic of David as king, or what distinguished him from the other kings of the earth, was that he reigned over the people of God. Israel was his chosen people, and the kingdom was over that nation. Hence, he that should reign over the people of God, though in a manner somewhat different from David, would be regarded as occupying his throne, and as being his successor. The form of the administration might be varied, but it would still retain its prime characteristic as being a reign over the people of God. In this sense the Messiah sits on the throne of David. He is his descendant and successor. He has an empire over all the friends of the Most High. And as that kingdom is destined to fill the earth, and to be eternal in the heavens, so it may be said that it is a kingdom
which shall have no end. It is spiritual, but not the less real; defended not with carnal weapons, but not the less really defended; advanced not by the sword and the din of arms, but not the less really advanced against principalities, and powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places; not under a visible head and earthly monarch, but not less really under the Captain of salvation and the King of kings.
They are all conditional. “If” is used over and over again. You said they would be put back into the land in unbelief, the verses say just the opposite.
He lived "in the land of promise" as a stranger. Does that sound to you like "possession?" But it does show that the "land" being spoken of is LITERAL, not "spiritual," doesn't it.Grasshopper said:
And why not quote the whole thing, gh? It was a "strange country" -- not his. 11:10 -- "For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. ... These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." You're only making your own case more and more untenable, gh. :laugh:
Apparently you mean that, despite scripture to the contrary, it's what YOU say it is?
Yeah -- AT THAT TIME it was true. Do we really have to go through spiritual vs. literal instances of every statement in scripture for you to understand the difference? Can't you think about it before you try to spiritualize or literalize the text inappropriately for me to correct for you?
Well, let's just look at "Prophecy 101" :laugh: -- Ezek 36. After a considerably long time, God is going to give Israel back the land. Viola! There they are 1948! In belief? No. Zech 10 is pretty much the same.
You probably dealt falsely" with it -- "spiritualized" it -- and my protests to the contrary usually fall on deaf ears.
In this case, "if...then" clause refers to Jesus return at which time they will be resurrected, have "hearts of flesh" and obey God's law. You, never seeing a time when law and grace coexist, would obviously deny such a literal world, but it will come nonetheless.
skypair
Last edited by a moderator:
And that because YOU say it is not, right?Grasshopper said:
You probably ought to lend a little CONTEXT to that question so I can answer it.
I am aware that all who deny the literal will claim the spiritual -- even amillennialists. The "fatal attraction," BTW, is their belief that the church is Israel everywhere literal Israel would have got the literal or spiritual blessings. It's probably an early form of anti-Semitism that hangs on to this day among people who blame the Jews for Jesus death.
See, now this is just blatant PRESUMPTION. There is NOTHING in scripture to suggest that Messiah won't rule a literal kingdom same as David. All the rest Barnes offers is a description of the church age, not of the MK nor of the eternal kingdom.
I am sorry you are so engaged in this "Hymeneaus thesis." Your remaining earthly future does not bode well for you.
skypair
Any scripture reference for this definition or do you just make it up as you go?
So now not only is Jesus a failure in your view, He also lies:
Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
What new covenant do you think He’s speaking of? He’s speaking of Jer. 31. The writer of Hebrews even quotes Jer. 31 saying the the new covenant of Jer 31 was established:
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
At least you’re an honest dispie. Most will actually contradict their eschatology and say the new covenant of Jer. 31 was established by Jesus and the old has passed away.
Where was Jewish acceptance ever a prerequisite to establishing the Kingdom???? You'll have to do better than "it appears that".
So Jesus wasn’t to establish the Kingdom at that time? If not then why do you insist that Jewish rejection kept it from happening?
Most of your comments are incoherent. So you are saying the “present” heavens and earth that Peter speaks of is the one found in Isaiah? Yet Isaiah calls it a New Heavens and Earth. Was Peter living in a New H&E when he wrote yet predicting another New H&E?
To clarify. Your view seems to be: Peter is saying the New H&E of Isaiah must be destroyed so that the New H&E of Revelation can be ushered in. Correct?
See what I mean about incoherent? Perhaps Ed will get off the sidelines and explain it to me. Probably not, that requires thought, study and scripture references.
The same way John Owen, John Lightfoot, and many others did. If you would actually read my posts you could at least see how I propose such. Jonathan Edwards hints at it as well:
"Thus there was a final end to the Old Testament world: all was finished with a kind of day of judgment, in which the people of God were saved, and His enemies terribly destroyed." (History of Redemption, vol. i. p. 445)
You see, your problem is you think God needs to do things the way you see fit. Just remove yourself off His Throne and actually read His word and do so with a little comprehension. Now I’ll type this slowly so you can read it carefully:
Jos 21:43 And Jehovah gave to Israel all the land which He swore to give to their fathers. And they possessed it, and lived in it.
Did you see it this time?
They received the land and possessed it, yet the writer of Hebrews says never receiving the promise. Why? Because the physical land was NEVER meant to be the ultimate fulfillment or reward.
Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit! For theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 5:10 Blessed are they who have been persecuted for righteousness sake! For theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 5:19 Therefore whoever shall relax one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 5:20 For I say to you that unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven.
Those just from the section you said was speaking of an earthly kingdom.
How quickly you forget the memorial sacrifices of Eze. 40-48.
I ask for verses but you just remain very non-specific and throw out entire chapters. Let me give an example on how to do it:
Eze 37:14 And I shall put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. And you shall know that I Jehovah have spoken and have done it, says Jehovah.
See how easy it is? Now read the verse, what precedes being put back into the land?
I guess you didn’t read it. Or decided you couldn’t offer an argument against it without make God’s Word a lie so you just skipped it.
No, because the writer of Hebrews says so. Ever read Hebrews? Did Thomas Ice teach that in Prophecy 101?
I gave the context the first time I asked.
Finally we get to the anti-Semitic slur. By the way, Paul blamed the Jews for Jesus’ death. Paul, the anti-Semite.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I've been arguing preterism on BB for nearly 6 years (at least over 5½-years). During that time I've see about six posts on what Preterists believe. (By contrast some 80 posts showing what various and sundry pre-Millinnialisms (including Dispensationalist pre-Mill viewpoints). Another 8,000 posts were written anti- to what the pro- posts said. That would be 86 pro-posts and 7,848 anti-posts. I consilder this a bit out of order.
Well, I made those numbers up, but the idea is right: more anti- than pro- posts.
If you search on Google today you will get 356 hists for // dispensational site:baptistboard.com //
95 hits for // preterism site:baptistboard.com //
// dispensationalism site:baptistboard.com //
69 hists for // dispy site:baptistboard.com //
38 hists for // a-millennialists site:baptistboard.com //
30 hits for // amillennialists site:baptistboard.com //
-- note the lack of conformity of the spelling of a-mill(etc.) ...
etc for pre-mills & it's variants
and other theories of the End Times, End of Days, Last Days, etc.
Can someone post some pro-posts like being FOR SOMETHING? Scriptural support is always a plus. Thank you.
Well, I made those numbers up, but the idea is right: more anti- than pro- posts.
If you search on Google today you will get 356 hists for // dispensational site:baptistboard.com //
95 hits for // preterism site:baptistboard.com //
// dispensationalism site:baptistboard.com //
69 hists for // dispy site:baptistboard.com //
38 hists for // a-millennialists site:baptistboard.com //
30 hits for // amillennialists site:baptistboard.com //
-- note the lack of conformity of the spelling of a-mill(etc.) ...
etc for pre-mills & it's variants
and other theories of the End Times, End of Days, Last Days, etc.
Can someone post some pro-posts like being FOR SOMETHING? Scriptural support is always a plus. Thank you.
Pullleeeese! A little respect! It's REALLY hard to make this stuff up!!! :laugh: Where should I start? At "quickening?" At "sanctification?" What exactly don't you understand?Grasshopper said:
STOP, already!! You're making accusations you don't even understand and invoking fonts and colors you can't even manage!
Gh --- the new covenant was given spiritually because it wasn't accepted by its "target audience," Israel. NO. This is NOT Jer 31! Israel did NOT accept it nor receive it!
Yes, absolutely! But the first was NOT acceptable to its "target audience." Did you notice "house of Israel/house of Judah?" That is NOT "house of the church!" Go back and look at what I said "house of David" meant.
Deut 30, right? You said YOU reviewed this for me -- what did you see?
It gets to the very heart of what God knows and what His Son knows. Jesus, at His first advent, read the word just like you and me. He knew His time had come! He offered the kingdom just as prophecy in Daniel 9:24 said He would in the "69th week." What do YOU make of 9:25? "Cut off but not for Himself?" Kinda easy to see now but what would you read if you were Christ?
Incoherent on account of your naivete'. Look -- it is a "new heavens and new earth" to Isaiah because HE was expecting it for all the OT saints. Read Isa 26:19-21. When he would walk out of his grave, that would be the new earth to him.
Is it the time of Peter? No. Peter's time was a time Isaiah never saw -- unless he understood Isa 57:1 in which he "saw" the rapture. Do you see God calling Israel "sons of the sorceress?" That's Israel bowing down to A/C!
Si!
Gh, I see that very clearly. It just is not the truth. Where do you see His enemies destroyed? Rome was victorious!! The Pharisees and Judaism continued! What enemies are you and John Owen, etal. talking about?
No need to act so condescending with your brothers, gh. I suppose you are saying, in essence, "remove yourself so that I may take your place on 'His throne,'" right?
That's a good verse -- good analysis. Was Abraham there? Isaac? Jacob? Was it "forever?" Are you satisfied with partial fulfillment (I guess I needn't have asked that question, right? :laugh
?Ah ha! now it is me that requests proof! :laugh: WHERE do you get this presumption from?
skypair
And the "kingdom of heaven" is ---------------------- THE EARTH and 1st and 2nd HEAVEN!! Wow! How simple is THAT!!!Grasshopper said:
Gh, have I not rendered sufficient obiesence to the truth you stated? OK, I "flip-flopped" in the face of truth. Is there any other penance I can offer that will make you see that you were right and I was conceding your point? Is there anything else I can offer to show you that in spite of your "lucky shot" your thesis is still wrong?
Good example! "I will put My spirit in YOU..." What YOU is God talking about? THE VERY PEOPLE EZEKIEL WAS ADDRESSING! How? By resurrecting them into Messiah's kingdom!! "FROM THEIR GRAVES" He says!! Are you starting to get the "texture and feel" of prophecy, gh??
See how easy it is? Now read the verse, what precedes being put back into the land?
I guess you didn’t read it. Or decided you couldn’t offer an argument against it without make God’s Word a lie so you just skipped it
Paul blamed all sinners, including himself, for Jesus death. You got a lot to learn, gh, and I fear the rapture may "interrupt" our "lessons" before I am done with you! :laugh: If so, just remember, you are to overcome "by the blood of the Lamb, by the word of [your] testimony, and [you are to] love not your life till [your] death." Rev 12:11
kypair