Matt. 25:30

[Craigbythesea]

Craig, what's your point with those passages?

Brother Bartholomew,

I do not have a point with these Scriptures. I believe, however, that it is certain that none of them found in the four Gospels or Paul’s epistles are a reference to the millennium Kingdom. I have posted these Scriptures as objectively as I could to illustrate the use of the word “kingdom” in the New Testament so that each of you could read them together, comparing one with the other.

I think most of them support the idea that the kingdom of God means the millennium.

Why do you believe that?

What do you think of the theology of Zane C. Hodges?

What do you think of the theology of J. D. Faust?

What does your pastor believe about these things?

Because He Lives,

Craig

 

[av1611jim]

Craig;
And you have the freedom to insert your theology into passages where it does not belong.

I have a Bible, and I know very well these passages. The only point you have proved to me by posting all these is that a) you have a lot of time on your hands, or b) you think I don't read my Bible, or c) I don't have a "real" education, or d) I don't have a concordance.
I any case, you have failed miserably to prove your assumption that the Kingdom of God is not a temporary 1000 year reign ON THIS EARTH.
1 Cor 15:23-25
"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet."
Interesting Craig's own proof passage witnesses against him.
As this thread is about the subject of Matt 25:30, I cannot see the relevance of your arguement anyway.
The aforementioned passage is dealing with unprofitable servants of a rich man and their subsequent punishment for their lack of due diligence in carrying out the directives of their Lord.
As to the location of the "outer darkness", I admit, I do not know. I do not think Scripture gives much of a clue. (Though I have been wrong before, like when I believed in conditional salvation).
This much I do know; the Bible is clear here, the millenial reign of Christ is TEMPORARY, on this earth, "until He hath put all enemies under His feet."
Jim

 

[DeafPosttrib]

My understanding of 1 Cor. 15:24 speak of Christ's reign is continuity, and we are in this present kingdom of God since Christ brought it while he begun the ministry - Matt. 5:17. He already start it. It is a spiritual, not visibly or physical. Jews require visibly and physical of the kingdom, also, Jews demand Messiah to thrown Roman Empire out and take over the world. Christ told them, this world is not his kingdom. His kingdom is from above. This kingdom is eternality, not a temporary. 'have delivered up the kingdom to God' does not mean that Christ done with it and give it to His Father. This kingdom is never end, it is eternality - Dan. 7:14,27.

Also, notice 1 Cor. 15:24 does not saying, 'a thousand years' there. Verse 24 speaks of this currently kingdom, at the end(end of the age), Christ shall deliver it to His Father, for He shall judge the world (great white throne). Verse 25 tells us Christ is now reigning TILL he hath out all enemies under his feet. Verse 26 tells us, the last enemy shall be destroyed is death, my understanding it speaks of Christ shall destroy the enemy of the death at the end of the age. So, there shall be no more death again in the next age to come.

Again, all of these verses speak of 'kingdom of God' or 'kingdom of heaven' never mentioned it is 'a thousand years'. It speaks of eternality kingdom from above.

Craig does the right thing to put verses on kingdom of God/heaven. Notice, none of these speak of 'a thousand years'.

Many of these warning to us, if we do wicked, we cannot enter the kingdom of God, that mean, we shall spend eternality punishment without make repent.

No way that anyone can prove 'kingdom of God/heaven' represent millennial kingdom, because all of these are not mentioned 'a thousand years'. I rather to understand and accept what God's Word saying so, than listen what any man intepreting kingdom of God represents millennial kingdom.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[av1611jim]

Craig, DPT, et al;I will allow you to be in burger king if you want.
Have it your way
Jim

 

[DeafPosttrib]

av1611jim,

Does 'kingdom of God/heaven' actually meaning millennial kingdom?? Show us and prove verse saying 'kingdom of God/heaven' is 1,000 years, please.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

[Craigbythesea]

And you have the freedom to insert your theology into passages where it does not belong.

You really do have a wild imagination!

I have a Bible, and I know very well these passages. The only point you have proved to me by posting all these is that a) you have a lot of time on your hands, or b) you think I don't read my Bible, or c) I don't have a "real" education, or d) I don't have a concordance.

Wrong again! I copied that list of Scriptures from a data base that had nothing to do with either you or your theology.

I any case, you have failed miserably to prove your assumption that the Kingdom of God is not a temporary 1000 year reign ON THIS EARTH.

As I said, you really have a wild imagination. I didn’t post that list of Scriptures to prove anything. I simply posted them so that they could be conveniently viewed together and compared with one another. Some of them may possibly be a reference to a future millennial kingdom.

Personally, I am more interested in studying the Scriptures than trying to prove a theology. The ones in that list that are from the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, from my perspective, are clearly speaking of something very different than a future millennial kingdom. If you have any data that refutes that perspective, I would like for you to post it so that we can all take a look at it.

 

[Craigbythesea]

1 Cor 15:23-25
"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet."
Interesting Craig's own proof passage witnesses against him.

I never posted 1Cor. 15:23-25 as a proof passage. I hope that you are not so careless in reading the Bible as you are in reading my posts. But let’s take a look at 1 Cor. 15:23-25 in context,

20. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (KJV)

20. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
21. For since by a man {came} death, by a man also {came} the resurrection of the dead.
22. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
23. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,
24. then {comes} the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
27. For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
28. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (NASB, 1995)

Although I am essentially premillenial in my thinking, this passage more easily fits into a postmillennial scheme. According to that scheme, Christ is reigning now and must continue to reign “until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” Then, when “the end” comes, “when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power,” “He (raptures the church and) hands over the kingdom to the God and Father.”

Even if the premillenial view is correct, and I believe that it is, I don’t see the slightest hint of it in this passage. And of course the following verse sheds a whole lot of light on the subject,

29. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? KJV

29. Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? (NASB, 1995)

1 Cor. 15 is a proof text for the resurrection; it is NOT a proof text for your view that the kingdom of God is the premillenial reign of Christ. Nor, of course, is it a proof text for my view of the kingdom of God.

 

[Bartholomew]

Hi Craig,

I said I'd be back - sorry it took me so long! On page 4 of this thread you wrote:

ALL of the church fathers for the first 400 years after Christ believed in conditional security. Except for Augustine, who wavered on the issue, and a few unknowns, the entire church continued to believe in conditional security until John Calvin (1509-1564) got confused about the sovereignty of God and the implications involved.

How do you know this? Do you have any quotes that show Tertullian, etc. believed in conditional security?

Also, on page 4 I made the following post. What do you think of what I said?

Thanks,

Bartholomew

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Craig,

I was interested in your quotation of Turtullian on the previous page. I have not read any of his books, only quotes, so I do not want to make too rigid a point. But look at part of your quotation:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />For although this is not allowed to the sparrows, yet "we are of more value than many sparrows," for the very reason that, when fallen, we rise again. He affirms, lastly, that "the very hairs of our head are all numbered," and ir the affirmation He of course includes the promise of their safety; for if they were to be lost, where would be the use of having taken such a numerical care of them? Surely the only use lies (in this truth): "That of all which the Father hath given to me, I should lose none," not even a hair, as also not an eye nor a tooth.

By these words, Tertullian seems to be clearly talking of the SAVED - those who the Father gave to Jesus; those who he loves; those whose hair will not perish. It is of these (apparantly) SAVED people that Tertullian is arguing will not lose a tooth. And why does he argue that they will not lose a tooth? Because...

And yet whence shall come that "weeping and gnashing of teeth," if not from eyes and teeth? even at that time when the body shall be slain in hell, and thrust out into that outer darkness which shall be the suitable torment of the eyes. He also who shall not be clothed at the marriage feast in the raiment of good works, will have to be " bound hand and foot," as being, of course, raised in his body. So, again, the very reclining at the feast in the kingdom of God, and sitting on Christ's thrones, and standing at last on His right hand and His left, and eating of the tree of life: what are all these but most certain proofs of a bodily appointment and destination?

Like I say, I could be wrong, but the context you gave certianly seems to show that Tertullian is refering to the saved, and how that their destination is based on works.</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I think most of them support the idea that the kingdom of God means the millennium.

Why do you believe that?</font>[/QUOTE]I don't have time to discuss that in detail, but basically because the Jews were expecting a physical kingdom in Israel, ruled over by Messiah, which was persistently foretold in the OT. The fact Jesus never defined the "kingdom of God" suggests his audience knew what he was refering to; and what else could that be than the Israelite kingdom they were expecting and which was prophesied? Also, where in the scheme of history can such a kingdom be, but in the millennium? The fact that so many of those scriptures indicate that the kingdom of God is both future and physical is therefore the other reason I think that (at least the majority of them) refer to the millennium.

What do you think of the theology of Zane C. Hodges?

From what little info you have given me about him, I think there is a great deal of merit in what he teaches.

What do you think of the theology of J. D. Faust?

I have read much from brohter Joey - books, e-mails and articles. I agree with a great deal of what he teaches.

What does your pastor believe about these things?

I don't know. I've been away from my home church for the last few months, at university. Before I left I gave our pastor some info about this, and he said he'd look at it. I'll be interested to hear his reaction.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Like I say, I could be wrong, but the context you gave certianly seems to show that Tertullian is refering to the saved, and how that their destination is based on works.

Hey, Brother,

It is good to hear from you again!

Tertullian, as did the other Ante-Nicene Church Father, believed in conditional security. I do not have the time to post quotes from Tertullian to support this statement right now, but I will later. I hope that you don't vanish again in the mean time.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Brother Bartholomew,

Please find below a quote in which Tertullian expresses his understanding of Heb. 6:4-6:

"The discipline, therefore, of the apostles properly (so called), indeed, instructs and determinately directs, as a principal point, the overseer of all sanctity as regards the temple of God to the universal eradication of every sacrilegious outrage upon modesty, without any mention of restoration. I wish, however, redundantly to superadd the testimony likewise of one particular comrade of the apostles, — (a testimony) aptly suited for confirming, by most proximate right, the discipline of his masters. For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas — a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence: "Or else, I alone and Barnabas, have not we the power of working?" And, of course, the Epistle of Barnabas is more generally received among the Churches than that apocryphal "Shepherd" of adulterers. Warning, accordingly, the disciples to omit all first principles, and strive rather after perfection, and not lay again the foundations of repentance from the works of the dead, he says: "For impossible it is that they who have once been illuminated, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have participated in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the word of God and found it sweet, when they shall — their age already setting — have fallen away, should be again recalled unto repentance, crucifying again for themselves the Son of God, and dishonouring Him." "For the earth which hath drunk the rain often descending upon it, and hath borne grass apt for them on whose account it is tilled withal, attaineth God's blessing; but if it bring forth thorns, it is reprobate, and nighest to cursing, whose end is (doomed) unto utter burning." He who learnt this from apostles, and taught it with apostles, never knew of any "second repentance" promised by apostles to the adulterer and fornicator.” Tertullian “On Modesty,” chapter 20.

Here is another explicit quote from Tertullian regarding OSAS:

“But the world returned unto sin; in which point baptism would ill be compared to the deluge. And so it is destined to fire; just as the man too is, who after baptism renews his sins: so that this also ought to be accepted as a sign for our admonition.” Tertullian “On Water Baptism,” chapter 8

And here is another explicit quote from Tertullian regarding OSAS:

For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? is not this gift taken away from many? These, no doubt, are they who do steal a march upon (the treasure), who, after approaching to the faith of repentance, set up on the sands a house doomed to ruin. Let no one, then, flatter himself on the ground of being assigned to the "recruit-classes" of learners, as if on that account he have a licence even now to sin. As soon as you "know the Lord,[12] you should fear Him; as soon as you have gazed on Him, you should reverence Him. But what difference does your "knowing" Him make, while you rest in the same practises as in days bygone, when you knew Him not? What, moreover, is it which distinguishes you from a perfected[1] servant of God? Is there one Christ for the baptized, another for the learners? Have they some different hope or reward? some different dread of judgment? some different necessity for repentance? That baptismal washing is a sealing of faith, which faith is begun and is commended by the faith of repentance” Tertullian “On Repentance,” chapter 6.

Do the expressions “whose end is (doomed) unto utter burning” and “destined to fire” sound to you as though they are merely speaking of being denied entrance into the Millennial Kingdom. To me they sound as though they are speaking of the fires of hell.

 

[DeclareHim]

How could this be talking of heaven there will be no knashing of teeth and weeping there.