Replacement Theology

[Grasshopper]

I doubt if the Lord's Table is the fulfillment of the covenant that the prophets spoke of. That is the context of those words.

Jeremiah 31:33-34 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

It seems quite evident that the "new covenant" that the prophets spoke of will never be fulfilled until Christ comes and sets up his kingdom.
"They shall ALL know me" Has this taken place yet?

See that wasn't so hard was it?

So let everyone know, if you believe we are under the New Covenant you cannot hold to dipsensationalism.

So Baptist who calls themselves a New Covenant Christian and hold to dispensationalism are a walking contradiction.

Thank you, I'm done.:wavey:

 

[DHK]

See that wasn't so hard was it?

So let everyone know, if you believe we are under the New Covenant you cannot hold to dipsensationalism.

So Baptist who calls themselves a New Covenant Christian and hold to dispensationalism are a walking contradiction.

Thank you, I'm done.:wavey:

No, it wasn't difficult once you clarified your question "that the prophets spoke of."

 

[Allan]

I would say He's no respecter of persons with regard to anything -- BUT that doesn't mean He doesn't choose one person over another for this or that purpose. It only means His choices are for His own reasons. He chooses whomever He will according to His good pleasure -- not because of anything about us that recommends one person over another. He chose Abraham for multiple purposes, and Abraham had reason to rejoice and feel blessed about it. Nothing wrong with that. He chose the Jews for multiple purposes, etc.

Ok, but let me ask you a question if I may.

Who was chosen that was not saved?
He chose Abraham for many reasons, granted. But was Abraham considered one of Gods chosen? Of course.

 

[npetreley]

Ok, but let me ask you a question if I may.

Who was chosen that was not saved?

I'm not sure what you're asking. "Chosen" simply means chosen for some purpose. It doesn't always mean to salvation.

 

[Aaron]

See that wasn't so hard was it?

So let everyone know, if you believe we are under the New Covenant you cannot hold to dipsensationalism.

So Baptist who calls themselves a New Covenant Christian and hold to dispensationalism are a walking contradiction.

Thank you, I'm done.:wavey:

I know I said I made my last post, but this was too good to let go! DHK walked into that one standin' straight up. The New Covenant has yet to be made! It's absolutely mind boggling.

 

[DHK]

I know I said I made my last post, but this was too good to let go! DHK walked into that one standin' straight up. The New Covenant has yet to be made! It's absolutely mind boggling.

Are you confused Aaron. Not once did I ever call myself a "new covenant Christian" as was inferred. Why was that ever inferred? Shall I call it a false accusation. I won't, but that is the way that you are taking it. I am a dispensationalist. I was the one that quoted the Jeremiah 31 passage. I was the one that said it was a covenant made to Israel that would yet be fulfilled in the future, during the Millennial Kingdom. It doesn't apply to the Gentile Christians of today. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[EdSutton]

According to this article, there will be three temples...

The Tribulation Temple - (article above)--built by unbelieving Jews

The Millennial Temple - will be built by Christ (Zech. 6:12-13), redeemed Jews (Ezek. 43:10-11), and representatives from the Gentile nations (Zech. 6:15; Hag. 2:7; cf. Is. 60:10) at the beginning of the Messianic kingdom (Ezek. 37:26-28).

The Eternal Temple - The final Temple revealed in prophecy is that which will occupy the New Jerusalem throughout the eternal state (Rev. 21:2, 10).

Hmmm! Three future Temples? Yes? No? Which?

Were there three 'historic' Temples, as well. Yes? No? Which?

Solomon's Temple - The First Temple? - (I Chr. 6:10)

'Zerubbabel's' Temple - The Second Temple? - (Ez. 5:2; Hag. 1:14)

'Herod's' Temple - The Third Temple? - The one Jesus physically walked in, built from ~ 20 BC 'til ??? . (John 2:20)

Any others?

Yep! There was the Temple in heaven, that Isaiah saw. (Isa. 6:1) John also saw this one. (Rev. 11:19; 14:17)

How about the Temple that preceeded any of the above? The Temple Eli sat in or by, and Samuel was familiar with, and slept near? (I Sam. 1:19; 3:3) Is this not the same as Tabernacle, and spoken of as " heykal", in the Hebrew?

In the NT, Jesus' body is spoken of as a temple. (John 2:21)

How about us, individually, as believers, as the Temple of God? (I Cor. 3:16)

How about our bodies as a temple of God? (I Cor. 6:19)

How about the church,which is the Body of Christ, collectively, also spoken of as a Temple? (Eph. 2:21)

But I will have to disagree about that "The Eternal Temple" the article suggested in Rev. 21:2,10. Both those two verses speak of what is, I believe, the same city - "the holy city, New Jerusalem" is the wording in Rev. 21:2; and "the great city, the holy Jerusalem" in Rev. 21:10. But no temple is mentioned, in either of these two verses. In fact, there is no Temple of that sort at all, there, as John describes it, just as there will be no sun or moon there, either. But there is a different sort of temple.

22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it,[j] for the glory[k] of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. (Rev. 21:22-23 - NKJV)

Looks like I see about 13, at least so far. I wonder if I may have missed any, as I suspect there is at least one more I probably did miss. Thirteen seems a bit like a strange number, but fourteen would not be so strange, being a multiple of the 'perfect' number of seven.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

I never knew any Baptist who did not believe we are living under the New Covenant.

Also, sounds like there will be a temple on every street corner. Scripture says, there will be no need for a temple for God and the Lamb will be the temple of that City.

Rev 21:22¶And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.


Who was that said if you are not "insane" before you read Rev, you will be after you have read it.

 

[Linda64]

Hmmm! Three future Temples? Yes? No? Which?

Were there three 'historic' Temples, as well. Yes? No? Which?

Solomon's Temple - The First Temple? - (I Chr. 6:10)

'Zerubbabel's' Temple - The Second Temple? - (Ez. 5:2; Hag. 1:14)

'Herod's' Temple - The Third Temple? - The one Jesus physically walked in, built from ~ 20 BC 'til ??? . (John 2:20)

Any others?

Yep! There was the Temple in heaven, that Isaiah saw. (Isa. 6:1) John also saw this one. (Rev. 11:19; 14:17)

How about the Temple that preceeded any of the above? The Temple Eli sat in or by, and Samuel was familiar with, and slept near? (I Sam. 1:19; 3:3) Is this not the same as Tabernacle, and spoken of as " heykal", in the Hebrew?

In the NT, Jesus' body is spoken of as a temple. (John 2:21)

How about us, individually, as believers, as the Temple of God? (I Cor. 3:16)

How about our bodies as a temple of God? (I Cor. 6:19)

How about the church,which is the Body of Christ, collectively, also spoken of as a Temple? (Eph. 2:21)

But I will have to disagree about that "The Eternal Temple" the article suggested in Rev. 21:2,10. Both those two verses speak of what is, I believe, the same city - "the holy city, New Jerusalem" is the wording in Rev. 21:2; and "the great city, the holy Jerusalem" in Rev. 21:10. But no temple is mentioned, in either of these two verses. In fact, there is no Temple of that sort at all, there, as John describes it, just as there will be no sun or moon there, either. But there is a different sort of temple. Looks like I see about 13, at least so far. I wonder if I may have missed any, as I suspect there is at least one more I probably did miss. Thirteen seems a bit like a strange number, but fourteen would not be so strange, being a multiple of the 'perfect' number of seven.

Ed

Clear as mud, Ed. Did you bother to read the entire article? This is talking about the temples AFTER the rapture of the Church--and there are 3--not 14!

 

[EdSutton]

God really said that Hagar and Sarah are an allegory of the Old and New Covenants, and Ishmael is the Jews by blood, and Isaac is the Jews by faith. Gal. 4:24

The conclusion? " Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman, " vs 30.

I'm wondering. Do you guys ever read the Bible?

What I am wonderng is what Bible you are reading. That is not in te real one anywhere. And your conclusion is a complete misapplication. Context is king.

While you are no doubt correct that one may well question the conclusion Aaron (or anyone else, for that matter) has come to, at least there is something said about this in the verse no one has yet bothered to quote, even if discussing it, namely Gal. 4:24. I'll quote it and all the way through v. 31, to be in some semblance of context, hopefully, starting with verse 21.

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the[d] two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written:


“ Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”[e]

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.”[f] 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. (Gal 4:21-31 - NKJV)

So while this has some merit, there are two things here this passage does not, and cannot say. It never says that Ishmael OR Isaac were Jews. Nor does it say that either one of the two are Israelites, either. Neither are, as the word "Jew" come from Judah, the grandson of Isaac, and "Israelite" comes from Israel, the other name God gave Jacob, who is the son of Isaac.

And FTR, the NKJV is a "real" Bible, and the wording in the verse 30 quote of Aaron, where I took the liberty of inserting quotation marks around his quoting of the verse, shows that He did quote vs. 30 accurately. (If one wants to discuss the 'validity' of a translation, as opposed to whether or not a word or verse is accurately rendered, one might want to get that question into another forum, here.) But I would offer that the NKJV, at least, does not render verse 27 identically here, with Isa. 54:1, where I assume the verse "is written".

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Ok, but let me ask you a question if I may.

Who was chosen that was not saved?

I'm obviously not the one addressed, but I will take a stab at this one.

Judas comes to mind. (John 6:70)

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

I never knew any Baptist who did not believe we are living under the New Covenant.

Also, sounds like there will be a temple on every street corner. Scripture says, there will be no need for a temple for God and the Lamb will be the temple of that City.

Rev 21:22¶And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.


Who was that said if you are not "insane" before you read Rev, you will be after you have read it.

There are at least two senses in which we are living under the New Covenant. The first is in the words of Jesus, at the "last supper" where he instituted "the Lord's Supper", as He spoke of his death and blood, as "the New Covenant". (Matt. 26:28; Mk. 14:14, and others)

The second sense is that of a covenant of 'law' contrasted to a covenant of 'grace'. (II Cor. 3:6-8)

But there is still a third sense, that is yet future. This is that spoken of in Jer. 31, specifically, "after those days", and is described in Jer. 31:31-34.

Here, yet still future. A "double portion", so to speak.

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

A Prophet Like Unto Moses" Yet, in one of his most specific predictions, Moses declared that God would raise up another Jewish prophet in the future whose life would closely resemble his. This prophecy of Moses that the Messiah would be like him is important to Israel in determining the credentials of the Messiah. Moses prophesied of "a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear....And the Lord said to me: I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him" (Deuteronomy 18:15,18-19).

Jhn 1:11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Jhn 1:12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

Jhn 1:17For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.


Jhn 1:31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.


Jhn 1:45Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Are you saying that Israel cannot accept Christ now, but He has to come as the Messiah again???? Do you not believe that He has already come to Israel??



Mat 10:5¶These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:


Mat 10:6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Does Isreal get two different comings of the Messiah??

Where in OT prophets does it say that the Messiah will come to Israel twice for salvation??

Are we not living in the days now that Israel can accept Christ and be grafted back into good olive tree?

Rom 11:24For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural [branches], be graffed into their own olive tree?

 

[EdSutton]

Jhn 1:11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Jhn 1:12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

Jhn 1:17For the law was given by Moses, [but] grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.


Jhn 1:31And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.


Jhn 1:45Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Are you saying that Israel cannot accept Christ now, but He has to come as the Messiah again???? Do you not believe that He has already come to Israel??

Not exactly sure who this is directed to without re-readng, but I'll take a little stab at this one. Yes, the Messiah has definitely already come to Israel, as per John 1:11-12, which you have just cited. However, according to Jesus' own words, there is some more to this, than merely 'appearing', even including the offering of Himnself as the once, for all time blood sacrifice of "the Lamb of God".

16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
18 “ The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,[j]
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.”[k]
20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Lk. 4:16-21 - NKJV)

As has been offered on the Bible versions forum, (and several more times than once, I would add, Guess, I'll just add one more time of quoting the verses, but hoipefully, for a slightly different purpose. :thumbs, what Jesus read does not seem to be exactly the same wording as what we read in the OT text for this, but also it is not a complete quote of the passage, for He stopped in the middle of the verse, leaving out the last half of the passage, which appears to be one sentence and thought, in Isaiah. The Isaiah 61:1-3 verses reads thusly in the NKJV.

1 “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,
Because the LORD has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
3 To console those who mourn in Zion,
To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning,
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;
That they may be called trees of righteousness,
The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified.”

The words of Isa. 61: 2&3 that are underlined, but not emboldened, are the words of the thought that Jesus did not read, and did not say were "fullfilled in your hearing". And the two phrases emboldended and underlined in the two passages represent realistic differences in the text that Jesus read, and the one found in Isa. 61, at least in the NKJV. So Jesus did not "proclaim...the day of vengeance of our God: here nor did he "comfort all who mourn" at this time, either, although He did again predict a future 'comforting' in the Sermon on the Mount. (Matt. 5:4)

Mat 10:5¶These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

Mat 10:6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Does Isreal get two different comings of the Messiah??

Where in OT prophets does it say that the Messiah will come to Israel twice for salvation??

So, I would say Yes, Israel does get two different comings of the Messiah, in that all promised was not fulfilled in teh "first coming'. As to do the OT prophets specifically say this. Not that I'm aware of, off the top of my head, but they do speak of differing 'phases' of His coming, as per Isa. 61:1-3, and Apollos (whom I believe to be the author of Hebrews), speaks of this (and Paul correlates this 'appearing', as well, in another passage.

but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. (Heb. 9:26b-28 - NKJV)
Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing. (II Tim. 4:8 - NKJV)

So I submit there are two "appearings" in view. Gotta' run.

Ed

 

[skypair]

Bob,

That Messiah comes 2 times to Israel is abundantly clear. Only thing is, the first time they made Him a "Suffering Savior." But the 2nd time He will be the Glorious King.

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Bob,

That Messiah comes 2 times to Israel is abundantly clear. Only thing is, the first time they made Him a "Suffering Savior." But the 2nd time He will be the Glorious King.

skypair

Israel has an opportunity now to choose Christ and His second coming will be to pass judgement on the whole world. IMO

Jhn 21:25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Ed; Maybe He did quote it all, we have no way of knowing. Seem to me, you would have to agree that the underline could of been said also, just not recorded?

Sky; You say it is clear that the Messiah will come twice to Israel for salvation, but I believe it is all going on now, and the second coming is for the judgement for all, including Israel.

All Israel is not Israel.

There are so many theories I have heard and who is right, I say Jesus and thats why I always refer to Him and "the hour is coming when all that are in the grave shall come forth, unto them that have done good the resurrection of life and unto them that have done evil, the resurrection of damnation. One resurrection for both, just and unjust. I know some separate them by a thousand years, but I just do not see it that way at all. Your theories don't seem to make room for how Jesus said it would be. IMO

 

[EdSutton]

Israel has an opportunity now to choose Christ and His second coming will be to pass judgement on the whole world. IMO

Jhn 21:25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Ed; Maybe He did quote it all, we have no way of knowing. Seem to me, you would have to agree that the underline could of been said also, just not recorded?

Sky; You say it is clear that the Messiah will come twice to Israel for salvation, but I believe it is all going on now, and the second coming is for the judgement for all, including Israel.

All Israel is not Israel.

There are so many theories I have heard and who is right, I say Jesus and thats why I always refer to Him and "the hour is coming when all that are in the grave shall come forth, unto them that have done good the resurrection of life and unto them that have done evil, the resurrection of damnation. One resurrection for both, just and unjust. I know some separate them by a thousand years, but I just do not see it that way at all. Your theories don't seem to make room for how Jesus said it would be. IMO

All who I consider anywhere close to being orthodox would agree that the second coming of Jesus will include the act of passing judgment on the world. And certainly, "Israel now has an opportunity to choose Christ", as well. But it would seem obvious that Israel does not, for the most part, "choose Christ" these days, any more than does "all the world", where we are to go preaching the gospel. I would offer that, on a percentage basis, I doubt that there is a lot of difference, however.

However, be that as it may, Rom. 9-11 yet speaks of a future for Israel, as a people, and Ro. 11:25-26 specifically speaks of a future, including a future salvation of all of Israel, as I read it. And just because Scripture states that "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6b - NKJV), it does not conversely follow that the 'ethnic' or 'national' Israel has been 'replaced' by the church, at all, as Rom. 11 should serve to show.

In fact, one could fairly well divide Romans 9-11 as describing the past, present, and future of Israel, in these consecutive chapters.

And I see no contrast or contradiction with that and "how Jesus said it would be", any more than I see any contradiction anywhere between Paul and Jesus.

Let me here "tack on" that I consider it extremely dangerous ground to speculate, except in what I would consider "a fun way", as to what Jesus may have said and done, of which we have no Biblical record. And Luke 4:16 does say that Jesus "stood up to read". The verses after that clearly show, IMO, that He did read a specific portion of Scripture, for "Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down." (Lk. 4:20a). That ended the reading part of it. Once He had their attention, then the 'preachin' part began. (Lk. 4:20b-27) Created a little stir, I noticed, as well. (Lk. 4:28-29)

Ed

 

[Brother Bob]

However, be that as it may, Rom. 9-11 yet speaks of a future for Israel, as a people, and Ro. 11:25-26 specifically speaks of a future, including a future salvation of all of Israel, as I read it. And just because Scripture states that "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6b - NKJV), it does not conversely follow that the 'ethnic' or 'national' Israel has been 'replaced' by the church, at all, as Rom. 11 should serve to show.

Romans 9:
25: For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. Depends on what the fullness of the Gentiles is, or what is is... Does it mean until each and ever Gentile is saved that believes, or does it mean : Luk 22:32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Act 10:28And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

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

Romans 9: 10: And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11: (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth I think this is already fulfilled for sure. Jacob and Essau

I know there is nothing stopping Israel from believing now, except their own unbelief.
When He comes in the clouds of Glory. Everyone will believe that He is the Christ, for every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess. That is when He will tell a great number "I never knew you", but the believer will meet Him in the air.

Eph 2:14¶For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];

Eph 2:16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Rom 10:12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.


IMHO,
BBob,

 

[bubba jimmy]

Israel indeed rejected its Savior, and suffers as a result. However, God's promises remain and we have seen them in action during many of our lifetimes. I think sometimes, though, we make distinctions that aren't really distinctions at all. Let me give you an example.

In researching Rick Warren, Saddleback, Calvary Chapel, etc. in order to catch up with this thread I came upon a distinction they make. CC's Chuck Smith holds the view that Christians are to be alert and ready for the return of Jesus. He teaches that the Kingdom of God will be established only when Jesus Christ returns to the earth, and that this will happen after conditions have become "as it was in the days of Noah" so the world will get worse and worse, not better and better. Rick Warren, on the other hand, seems to teach that we as Christians should spend our time and energy on the here and now, spreading Christ's love to win souls to Christ and make the world a better place in the here and now for everybody. He points out that when Jesus' disciples wanted to talk about prophecy, Jesus switched the conversation to evangelism. He wanted their focus to be on their mission in the world.

I'm sorry, but I don't see these as opposing points of view. Is it possible that we, as Christians, draw distinctions out of pride and competitiveness? In this one regard, I agree with everything I've read that Chuch Smith teaches on it and I also agree with everything Rick Warren teaches on it, because I see support for both views in scripture.

There is one quote I came across from Rick Warren, however, that I can see causing some concern. He said:

"I stand before you confidently right now and say to you that God is going to use you to change the world. Some will say, “That's impossible,” but I heard that line 25 years ago, and God took seven people and started Saddleback Church. Now we have a new vision and a whole lot more people to start with. The great evangelist Dwight L. Moody said, “The world has yet to see what God can do with a man fully consecrated to him.” I'm looking at a stadium full of people who are telling God they will do whatever it takes to establish God's Kingdom 'on earth as it is in heaven."

If it is Rick Warren's goal to bring about God's Kingdom on earth, he is somewhat mistaken in his marching orders, I think. But I don't use that to dismiss him by any means whatsoever. And, I don't care really which one is a Baptist and which one is a Calvary Chapel subscriber.

 

[EdSutton]

Depends on ... what is is...

Who do I look like, "Slick Willie"??

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed