Health Care for America Now

[Andre]

And from John 19:

12From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."

13When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
"Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews.
15But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!"
"Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked.
"We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered. 16Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.

Clearly, the people understand that a claim to kingship by Jesus establishes Jesus as a replacement for Caesar as king of this present world. Now, the crowd has no doubt been coached to call for Jesus' curifixion. But, and this is the key point, the rhetoric they use clearly is this: "you need to crucify this man since he is setting himself as a replacement king for Caesar". This rhetoric would not work if the kingship claim were not a claim about this present world.

And did Jesus agree that He was a King? From the previous chapter:

Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king.

 

[donnA]

Until the law is changed you will, at age 65, have no choice but to go onto Medicare. If you can you will want to also buy a Medi-gap insurance to help you pay for your medical bills. There is no other choice and it is government run. And our wonderful current administration and former Republican majority Congress really did a job on us with their Medicare part D.

I am not arguing with you, simply telling you how it will be when you turn 65 ... unless the law is changed. Not surprisingly Congress exempted its self from Medicare and Medicare part D. If you really want good health insurance get yourself elected to Congress.

you continue to miss what I said.

 

[Andre]

Jesus kingship - His present kingship mind you - over the entire world has been, I suggest, demonstrated scripturally. And I have barely begun to list the scriptures where Jesus talks about the kingdom of God coming into being through His own ministry, death, and resurrection. And Jesus teaches extensively on the nature of the kingdom. Check it out - search for "kingdom of heaven" or "kingdom of God" in the gospels and see how many matches you get.

So why do so many simply deny the present kingship of Jesus over the world, arguing that we need to wait for His second coming for its initiation? Or, alternately, why do many assert that while He is indeed "king", His kingship extends only to one's inner life and does not have any authority at all over what kingdoms usually have authority over - the institutions of government?

That is a good question. Certainly, many have been unwittingly duped by the enlightenment's efforts to secularize society. Proponents of this view will say "religion is bad, it causes wars, we're better off without it. Keep it for your personal life but it has no place in governance".

I suggest that, even for people who claim to be Christians, efforts to deny or minimize the kingship of Jesus over the present world lie in the cost.

Many want to say Jesus is King but limit his Kingship to the vague and fuzzy world of their interior spirituality. If his kingship were to extend to the public domain - to how we actually run our society, the demands would be too great. For example, higher taxes to subsidize care for "the least of these".

I suggest that what is going on is this: people push God out of areas where He indeed is King so that they can re-assert their own agendas in those areas - "with God upstairs where He belongs, now we can make some real money".

 

[Pastor Larry]

Andre,

You continue to post without any seeming sense of the Bible as a whole. You are prooftexting, and using the texts wrongly at that. Let's consider a couple of things:

Let the Scriptures speak as to whether the Kingdom of God is here and should inform how we run our societies, that is whether it is political:

This has been my contention from day one, but you want to pick and choose passages. You omit all the passages that describe the kingdom in a way that does not now exist. For instance, Jesus says that his kingdom will be one of peace and righteousness. Yet all we need do is look around the world and see that that is not currently the case. So we are left with two options: either the kingdom isn't here yet or God lied. Which do you prefer?

If Pastor Larry is correct, the kingdom that is being proclaimed is "on hold" for a few thousand years (or is being announced only to be soon taken away).

Yes, if you read the gospels with some thought, you will see that the kingdom was offered and rejected. This is plainly stated: Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it (Matthew 21:43).

Is it at all sensible that Jesus sends men out to proclaim a kingdom that lies thousands of years in the future?

Yes, it make perfect sense because the kingdom was not thousands of years in the future at that point. It was there for the receiving, and they refused (again just read your Bible for proof). Second, the kingdom is still being proclaimed.

I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."

Boy, there must be some rather elderly types walking around if the following statement is correct:

Either that, or we could just believe the Bible that immediately records the Transfiguration as the seeing of the kingdom of God. You see, there is no need to make it up. All we need do is read the Scripture.

And when Jesus said "all authority on earth has been given to me", somebody took the wording down incorrectly.

I don't believe so.

Jesus says that some standing in his presence will see the Kingdom of God before they die. This absolutely rules out the possibilty that the Kingdom of God has not yet made its appearance.

I already explained this.

Pastor Larry will have us believe that such authority does not cover the way we order and structure our societies. You are free to judge how plausible that is.

No I wouldn't have you believe that.

The kingdom is here or Jesus and the other writiers of scripture are mistaken.

And I have plainly shown the opposite.

And what does Psalm 2 go on to say a few breaths later in respect to this "annointed one"?:

I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill

You said that Jesus was king and the kingdom started after the resurrection. Yet here, in support of your position, you cite a passage that says he is king some 900 years or so prior to that. Surely you can see the problem there.

So you continue with theological incoherency. You have not addressed 1 Cor 15 sufficiently. You have not addressed 2 Tim 4:1 that plainly says the kingdom and the appearing are together. You have not addressed Acts 3:19ff where the kingdom is still future. You have not addressed Acts 1:6 where the kingdom is still future and Christ does nothing to disabuse his followers of the notion that the kingdom was not here yet.

You are confusing the universal kingdom of God with the mediatorial kingdom of God. Alva McClain's The Greatness of the Kingdom will be a great help to you in this regard. It has virtually no peer in this topic.

Simply put, you have not dealt with Scripture. Your position is woefully inadequate to do so.

 

[Crabtownboy]

you continue to miss what I said.

Now you are sounding like my wife. LOL

Ok, tell me what you said. Thanks.

 

[Andre]

You omit all the passages that describe the kingdom in a way that does not now exist. For instance, Jesus says that his kingdom will be one of peace and righteousness. Yet all we need do is look around the world and see that that is not currently the case. So we are left with two options: either the kingdom isn't here yet or God lied. Which do you prefer?

These are simply not the only options at our disposal. Another option - the correct one I believe - is to adopt a "structural" template that undergirds so much of New Testament theology. And this is the notion of inaugurated eschatology - that there is a real sense in which "bits" of the future world - the world where Jesus will reign in person - has already been translated in to present. This theme is all over the place:

1. Paul sees God as doing for Jesus during the middle of history what He (God) has promised to do for Jesus at the end of history. Christ, in the present, has been the recipient of the eschatalogical blessing of justification that Israel expected to get when history wraps up. And yet history has not wrapped up. Hence the notion that part of the future has been realized in the present.

2. The giving of the Holy Spirit is described as a down payment of the coming renewed world. We need to take that seriously and realize that a little bit of the promised future has been translated in the present.

3. James describes the church as the first fruits of the coming world. But the church is here right now. So there is again this theme of the future becoming present.

4. Even in the Old Testament, we have spies bringing grapes from the promised land. The Israelites then eat those grapes. What are they really doing? They are eating food from the future in their present.

There are lots of other examples of this theme. So things are not as simple as your question suggests. The kingdom is already here - the texts I have provided prove this beyond doubt (not least the statement from Jesus: I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.Regardless of what specific event Jesus is referring to, it is in an event that has already happened - unless there are 2000 year olds walking around).

So the kingdom has indeed been inaugurated with all that this implies. And we of course still wait for the final consummation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Another option - the correct one I believe - is to adopt a "structural" template that undergirds so much of New Testament theology.

I am well familiar with “inaugurated eschatology” which is why I reject it. It simply does not account for the biblical evidence in any meaningful way. You have to essentially abandon virtually everything the Bible says about the kingdom in order to make it work. There is a better option.

1. Paul sees God as doing for Jesus during the middle of history what He (God) has promised to do for Jesus at the end of history. Christ, in the present, has been the recipient of the eschatalogical blessing of justification that Israel expected to get when history wraps up. And yet history has not wrapped up. Hence the notion that part of the future has been realized in the present.

I note your lack of scriptural support. Furthemore, justification is not eschatological. That is part of the heresy of NT Wright that has been so ably refuted.

2. The giving of the Holy Spirit is described as a down payment of the coming renewed world. We need to take that seriously and realize that a little bit of the promised future has been translated in the present.

This has nothing to do with the kingdom, as you can tell by looking at the NT teaching on this downpayment.

3. James describes the church as the first fruits of the coming world. But the church is here right now. So there is again this theme of the future becoming present.

I am not aware of any place where James does any such thing. You must have a different Bible. The only thing that is even remotely close to this is Acts 15, which is clearly talking about the fact that the church was anticipated by the prophets. There are very significant differences if you actually compare what is being said.

4. Even in the Old Testament, we have spies bringing grapes from the promised land. The Israelites then eat those grapes. What are they really doing? They are eating food from the future in their present.

Now, this is just absurd as an argument.

The kingdom is already here - the texts I have provided prove this beyond doubt (not least the statement from Jesus: I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.Regardless of what specific event Jesus is referring to, it is in an event that has already happened - unless there are 2000 year olds walking around).

I must have missed a post somewhere. The posts I have seen and responded to give no indication whatsoever of a kingdom now. The passage you keep citing has been pretty irrefutably answered simply by looking at the context. Have you ever even read the very next passage?

 

[Andre]

I am well familiar with “inaugurated eschatology” which is why I reject it. It simply does not account for the biblical evidence in any meaningful way. You have to essentially abandon virtually everything the Bible says about the kingdom in order to make it work/

This is merely a statement of your position. I have done likewise to this point, really only stated a position. The reader will expect us both to make cases. That's fair.

Furthemore, justification is not eschatological. That is part of the heresy of NT Wright that has been so ably refuted.

Justification is an eschatological doctrine. Justification involves the lawcourt and entails the declaration that someone is "in the right". When this happens, they are declared to be justified. The justified person is accorded the status of being righteous.

This lawcourt metaphor is extensively used in the Scriptures to elaborate God's dealing with Israel. In the Old Testament, justification denotes God's actions in restoring the fortunes of Israel after her oppression:

Vindicate me, O God,
and plead my cause against an ungodly nation;
rescue me from deceitful and wicked men.

For the LORD will vindicate his people
and have compassion on his servants

He who vindicates me is near.
Who then will bring charges against me?
Let us face each other!
Who is my accuser?
Let him confront me!

(The context of the above from Isaiah 50 is clearly Israel)

These promises are made to Israel and they are clearly eschatological - they describe an event in the future.

Now look at what Romans 2 has to say:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Paul is describing a future judgement at which all humans will be judged. Some will be found to be righteous - that is to say justified - and others will not. Justification for the Christian has an eschatological component as Romans 2 clearly shows.

My initial point, though, was that justification for the Jew was an eschatological blessing - and the texts bear me out on this. It was what God promises to do for Israel at the end of her long history.

 

[carpro]

No use in including other readers in your mess. You are out there all by yourself with your unorthodox and unscriptural interpretations.PL and I have been the only ones with any amount of energy to engage you on your heresy.

I cannot help but believe such gross "misinterpretation" of scripture is intentional and the work of the devil.

 

[Andre]

The giving of the Holy Spirit is described as a down payment of the coming renewed world. We need to take that seriously and realize that a little bit of the promised future has been translated in the present

This has nothing to do with the kingdom, as you can tell by looking at the NT teaching on this downpayment

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory

My point was that the fact that the gift of the Spirit is a down payment means that part of the future has been indeed brought into the present. This establishes a structural pattern for us to think about "kingdom". We are not, after all, forced in the choice you assert:

So we are left with two options: either the kingdom isn't here yet or God lied. Which do you prefer?

If the Spirit is a deposit, a down payment, we already have it. But the full inheritance lies in the future - our full redemption lies in the future.

This is absolutely foundational - here we have clear scriptural evidence for the very "here and yet future" character that I assert also characterizes the kingdom. We are not forced to say "since the full kingdom is not present, it is not present in any sense".

 

[Andre]

I cannot help but believe such gross "misinterpretation" of scripture is intentional and the work of the devil.

Why are you simply claiming that I am a minion of the devil? If my arguments are unscriptural, perhaps you can set me right.

Where specifically am I mistaken? What is my specific error of interpretation?

 

[Andre]

Either that, or we could just believe the Bible that immediately records the Transfiguration as the seeing of the kingdom of God. You see, there is no need to make it up. All we need do is read the Scripture

Well, my copy of the Bible says this:

42And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"
43And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise

The repentent thief could not be equating Jesus' "coming in his Kingdom" to the transfiguration which has already happened. The event which manifests Jesus "coming in his kingdom" is clearly bound up in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

And this:

James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying, "Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You."
36And He said to them, "What do you want Me to do for you?"
37They said to Him, "Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory." 38But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking.

Although the word "kingdom" does not explicitly appear here, it is clear what James and John are asking - to be enthroned on Jesus' left and right in his kingdom. And why do they not know what they are asking? Again, it is because the event that heralds the coming of the Kingdom has to do with Jesus' death and resurrection, not the transfiguration (which has already happened). It is the two thiefs who end up on Jesus' left and right when He comes in His Kingdom.

Besides, the transfiguration argument does not really work for other reasons. When Jesus utters the words about people not tasting death until they see the kingdom, it is is as part of a discussion of his imminent death and promised resurrection:

From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.

22Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You." 23But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, (AG)Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's." 24Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and (AH)take up his cross and follow Me. 25"For (AI)whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27"For the (AJ)Son of Man (AK)is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and (AL)WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS. 28"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the (AM)Son of Man (AN)coming in His kingdom."

 

[Andre]

Yup. Joe Botwinick had to go, and this creep stays. Very sad. Enough people have tried to engage him, yet he still spews his abominable doctrine, straight from the pit of hell, undaunted, uncorrected, unteachable. You nailed it, carpro. He's doing it on purpose, and causing exactly the kind of troublethe bible says he will. 1Corinthians 5 says he's gotta go.

I will ask you the same question I asked carpro.

I have provided Scriptures and made claims about what they mean. I have not appealed to rhetoric. I have responded to those who indeed are serious about this discussion (e.g. Pastor Larry).

If my position is unscriptural, why are you not demonstrating it to be unscriptural? Why the name-calling? Why not make your point with the scriptures?

 

[dragonfly]

Yup. Joe Botwinick had to go, and this creep stays. Very sad. Enough people have tried to engage him, yet he still spews his abominable doctrine, straight from the pit of hell, undaunted, uncorrected, unteachable. You nailed it, carpro. He's doing it on purpose, and causing exactly the kind of troublethe bible says he will. 1Corinthians 5 says he's gotta go.

I wondered why Botwinick was gone.

Honestly, I have not been reading this back-and-forth between Andre and others, but I would like to know what he reportedly believes that you think makes his beliefs heresy? You many well be right, I just would like to know what is at the core of these beliefs that qualify it to be heresy.

 

[Andre]

So you continue with theological incoherency. You have not addressed 1 Cor 15 sufficiently. You have not addressed 2 Tim 4:1 that plainly says the kingdom and the appearing are together. You have not addressed Acts 3:19ff where the kingdom is still future. You have not addressed Acts 1:6 where the kingdom is still future and Christ does nothing to disabuse his followers of the notion that the kingdom was not here yet.

I have not addressed all your texts. But I think the reality is this:

The model I have put forward accepts and accomodates the mysterious dual-nature of the kingdom. It is here now and it will be more fully realized in the future. I therefore can work any texts that talk about the futureness of the Kingdom into the model I am presenting.

You seemingly deny any sense in which there is a kingdom in place right now. This clearly cannot be correct, unless, perhaps, the kingdom "came" 2000 years ago and was taken away after that. That is your the only position that has a prayer. We know that the kingdom "came" 2000 years ago:

40But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

42Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[f]" 43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise

37They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."
38"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said

The clear implication of the last text - it is the thieves who will be at Jesus' left and right at the coming of His kingdom. This happened 2000 years ago.

Surely you are not simply denying that the "kingdom" came 2000 years ago? These, if not other texts, show clearly that the kingdom did break into the world 2000 years ago.

Perhaps you can mount an argument that it was "taken away" - as in when Jesus was taken into heaven, He took his kingship away with Him.

My first response would be this text, of course:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me

This is part of his instructions to his disciples - to implement his Kingship over the nations.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I wondered why Botwinick was gone.

Honestly, I have not been reading this back-and-forth between Andre and others, but I would like to know what he reportedly believes that you think makes his beliefs heresy? You many well be right, I just would like to know what is at the core of these beliefs that qualify it to be heresy.

I think you should read thru some of them, DF. Note, I don't want him banned simply because he disagrees with me, rather, his posts are that of someone who absolutely refuses to treat scripture with reverence. I find his posts insulting, and am stunned that he is still here.

Once upon a time, The BB cared about doctrine. And I'm not talking left/right. I'm talking being a representative of the one who died for us.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I will ask you the same question I asked carpro.

I have provided Scriptures and made claims about what they mean. I have not appealed to rhetoric. I have responded to those who indeed are serious about this discussion (e.g. Pastor Larry).

If my position is unscriptural, why are you not demonstrating it to be unscriptural? Why the name-calling? Why not make your point with the scriptures?

Better folks than I have given you plenty of scripture. You have had your ideas slammed with scripture, so stop saying it hasn't been. Nobody has been disproven more than you, Andre. Your arrogance perhaps is the problem, not our lack of scriptural base.

Name-calling ? You are a heretic. No matter what name they gave you.

 

[Revmitchell]

I cannot help but believe such gross "misinterpretation" of scripture is intentional and the work of the devil.

It is a result of to much time spent worshiping at the alter of N.T. Wright

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Who made it the way it is ?

Quite a few people can accept the blame, including those who have stood in the way of real reform.
But we should simply leave things the way they are.........

Regards,
BiR

 

[Pastor Larry]

If my arguments are unscriptural, perhaps you can set me right.

Where specifically am I mistaken? What is my specific error of interpretation?

I haven't said you area minion of the devil, but I have clearly and quite easily shown the specific mistakes, both theological and exegetical. I have shown the specific errors of your interpretation and you have not been able to answer them. You only keep repeating the same stuff you said that was refuted.