that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains,

[Tim71]

Any thoughts what this is in reference to
Psalm 72:16, Micah 4:1, Isaiah 2:2)

 

[Iconoclast]

Any thoughts what this is in reference to
Psalm 72:16, Micah 4:1, Isaiah 2:2)

Jesus is ruling and reigning from the Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem now.
The Kingdom reign is from Heaven....

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.

27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

29 For our God is a consuming fire.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Any thoughts what this is in reference to
Psalm 72:16, Micah 4:1, Isaiah 2:2)

What Icon said really. Christ is the One greater than the Temple (Matthew 12:6). He is even now exalted above all (Psalm 110), and all nations shall stream to Him (cf. Philippians 2:9-11 etc.).

 

[HankD]

Being a "sort of" dispensationalist these passages IMO are references to the earthly millennial physical administrative office of our Commander in Chief Jesus Christ after His Return to earth outlined in Zechariah 14.



HankD

 

[Jope]

Any thoughts what this is in reference to
Psalm 72:16, Micah 4:1, Isaiah 2:2)

Here's some from George Peters (prominent premillennialist). There's many typos because the text version doesn't fit well into kindle, where I grabbed it from on my phone.

"The language of the Apostles confi/i^med tlie Jews in th^ir Messianic hopes of the Kingdom.
...
This is seen (1) from their employing the Jewish phraseology used to designate the Messianic times; (2) from their applying these to the future advent of Je^us, ajid urging their hearers to expect that such a Coming will fulfil the prophets ; (3) from the fact that the Christianized Jews, in their respective congregations, held both to this Sec. Advent (having received Jesus as the Messiah), and to the restoration of the Davidic throne and Kingdom at the second apx)earing of Jesus. Obs. 1. This is admitted by the ablest writers, not only infidels * but by such men as Neander. It is corroborated by the church history of the earliest period, informing us, without any dissetU, that, so far as known, all the Jewish believers held precisely the views that we are defending. Before we can permit our doctrine to fall even under unjust suspicion, it would be well if our opponents would candidly consider this historical fact, and ask themselves a few questions suggested by it. How does it come that under the directj per807ial preachi7ig of the apostles such views of the Kingdom were entertained, unless it resulted from the manner of teaching .'' How does it come that such opinions were so gefierally received utider apostolic nurture^ that the modern views and ideas are not found even stated ? If these people were in error on so important a point, was it not the duty of the apostles and the Elders to enlighten them—to leave, at least, a protest against it on record? Is it reasonable, that churches under the direct pastoral care of iyispired men should be so wholly given up to alleged grave error? These, and similar cj^uestions, ought to bo considerately answered before these early Christians are branded as ** gross" and '* camar* errorists. If the idea of the Kingdom now generally entertained, is the correct one, it certainly is exceedingly strange, utterly itiexplicable, that it was not then ifitroduced, and that it required uninspired men to produce it. If the early church was in error on so leadirig a7id fundaynental a doctrine, then the teachers of the same a7*e justly chargeable with both introducing and continuing this error, for instead of contradicting the Jewish views of the people, the apostles use the very words and phrases most eini-nently calculated to confirm the Jeiaish belief. This is seen in employing, as e.g. ** the times of restitution," ** the world to come," " redemption,^' " salvation," " the age to come," " the day of the Lord," ** the day of Christ," etc., and without any indicated change of meaning apply them to the Sec. Advent of Jesus, who is the Messiah. 17ns application culturally a7id logically led the Jewish believers to fix their fond expectations of the Kingdom upon the Sec. Comifig, and not on the First, In this, as we have shown in preceding Propositions, thoy only legitimately followed the diviyie teaching of Jesus Himself who declared that His Kingdom was postponed (e.g. Prop. 66, 58, etc.) to the time of His Coming again. Our opponenti have either failed in accounting for this featnre, or in attempting it hare onl^ succeeded in lowering the standing of the apostles as teachers. Onr position enforces no necessity for abject apologizing, because of each a belief in the early church, induced by the instruction received. We cordiaUj accept of it aa highly indicative of the truth—nay, as its essential sequence, the truth itself It is the identical faith, enforced by covenaut and prophecy, by tne preaching of John, Jesus, disciples, and apostles, which, above all others, we should find in the Primitive Church.'
...
Many writers have noticed this peculiar usage of Jewish phraseology and that the phrases *' end of the age," ** last days," ** last times," etc., were regarded by the Jews aa the period just previous to and immediate to the establishment-of the Messianic Kingdom. The apostles continue their use, referring them to the still future, including this dispensation, so that in their estimation these times could not possibly include an ex-istuig covenanted Kingdom, aa e.g. in Heb. 1 :2 etc. Comp. Olshausen's CV»a.. vol a, p. 229, who quotes Acts 2 : 17 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 20 and 1:6; John 6 : 39, 40 ; 1 John 2 : 18 ; Bom. 2:6; Rev. 6 : 17, and 9 : 18, saying this corresponds with the Old Testament expressions ; Gen. 49 :1 ; Isa. 2:2; Mio. 4:1; Dan, 12 : 13, and 8 : 17. and 9 : 40. which again answers to " the end," Matt. 24 : 6, 14."

Theocratic Kingdom, prop. 71.​

The apostles adopted the Jewish phrase "last days" found in Isaiah 2:2 which only meant "the period just previous to and immediate to the establishment-of the Messianic Kingdom" in those days, as found in Jewish writings.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jope]

Proposition 121, especially observation 10, is a worthy section discussing this topic too, @Tim71

The work can be found on biblesupport.com or on archive.org (without the typos ).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jope]

The reference to prop. 121 is specifically about the literal fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and God's special manifestation in the messianic kingdom dispensation.

Here's a good section on Micah 4:1's usage by Justin martyr to prove that the destruction of the antichrist happens with the second coming of Christ, a doctrine that many opponents of premillennialism have even believed. The significance of which proves that a great tribulation must happen before the millennial age, disproving the postmillennial theory. Not to mention the fact that even revelation 20 describes satan being released from hell and wreaking havoc just before the millennium comes to an end too, also disproving the postmilllennial theory.

"Thus, e.g., Barnabas (martyred about A.D. 75) fiays {Apost, Fath,, p. 186) : ** The day of the Lord is at hand, in which all things shall be destroyed together with the Wicked one." On the Creation week he adds : " And what is that He saith ' and He rested the seventh day ;' He meaneth this : that when His Son shall come and abolish the Wicked one and judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun, and moon, and stars, t?ien He shall gloriously rest on the seventh day," alluding to the Millennial era. Ire-nesus {Adv, H(bt,, 8 v. c. 35) takes the same view, and declares that when ** Antichrist" has reiened his allotted period " then the Lord shall come from heaven, in the clouds with the glory of His Father, casting him and that obey him into a lake of fire, but bringing to the just the times of the Kingdom, that is, the Rest or Sabbath, the seventh day sanctified, and fulfilling to Abraham the promise of the inheritance." Justin Martyr (Dial, with Trypho, referring to Micah 4 : 1, etc., see Bh. Kay's Justin) pointedly unites the Second Coming of Jesus in glory with the destruction of ** the man of apostasy."" JI, Even after the allegorizing interpretation, introduced by the Alexandrian school, by which such passages as these are so readily transformed into various meanings, the Divines still insisted that this Scripture taught a personal coming to destroy Antichrist. In fact, so general was this opinion, that both Millenarians and their opposers held to it. The names of Cyprian, LactantiuB, Tertnllian, Hippolyius, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Hilarian, Theodoret, and a host of others, embracing variona classes, etc., clearly teach this, referring to the phrase itself, adducing it as a warning, etc. Thus to illustrate : Augustine, on 2 Thesfl. 2 : 8, wrote : ** No one doubts that the apostle said these things of Antichrist, and that the day of judgment, which he here calls * the day of the Lord,' will not come, unless he whom he calls an apostate, that is to say from the Lord God, shall first come." {City of God, B. 20, c, 19, B. 18, c. 53.) " Truly Jesus Himself shall extinguish by His presence that last persecution which is to be made by Antichrist," quoting as confirmatory Isa. 9 : 4 ; 1 Thess. 1 : 9. How tne passage was regarded is proven, not only by the writings and commentaries handed down to us, but by the prevailing looking for of the Antichrist as stated by history ; and this continued until some suggested, in order to avoid making prof essedly Christian Rome the seat of the Antichrist (as alleged by many, although' some confined it to Jerusalem), that Pagan Home was said Antichrist and the coming a spiritual one, etc. But few even of those dared, in the face of the general testimony to the contrary, to tamper with 2 Thess, 2 : 8, and admitted that it also referred to the future day of judgment and a literal coming of Christ. So that of the great number who adopted anti-mille-narian views, nearly all, so far as we have any record, indorsed our meaning of the phrase, ** the brightness of His Coming." It was only when the modern Whitbyan theory came in vogue that men were found bold enough to interpret the verse in such a manner as to make it consistent with that theory, and then insist upon such an interpretation as the true one. But even many of the advocates of the Whitbyan theory (as we have shown under this and previous propositions), unable to oppose the express word^ with any degree of candor, have lionestly confessed its legitimate meaning without any effort to reconcile it with their system of belief. Those also who have been Anti-Millenarian, opposed to a Millennium in the future (either locating it in the past, or denying that any shall be witnessed on earth), freely (saving perhaps *" Grotius, Bossuet, Hammond, and a few others) admit the force of the passage, and locate it in the future. Dr. Greswell {Exp. of Parables), a Patristic student, says : *' That Antichrist must come and must be destroyed by the Advent of Christ; iu this perfectly agree all, whether friends or foes of*the doctrine of the mill-Millennium, The only distinction was that the advocates of the Millennium expected their Kingdom to begin and proceed after the destruction of Antichrist; the opponents of the doctrine expected the same of the Kingdom of heaven."
...
The opinions of the Reformers, although making the apostasy and the man of sin to be one and the same, are distinctly in our favor. Thus to ve a few illustrations : Luther, as is well known, making the Pope orPapacy Antichrist, frequently expresses his belief that the Papacy was t not to be destrojed by human agency or by the power of the truth, but by the personal Advent of the Chriet. Thus e.g. " Our Lord Jesus Christ yet livetn and reigneth, who, I firmly trust, will shortly come and slay with the spirit of His mouth, and destroy with the brightness of His Coming, that man of sin" (D'Aubigne's His, Eef*, vol. 2, p. 166). ** The apostle expresses this Pope's destruction thus: * When the Lord shall consume,' etc. The laity, therefore, shall not destroy the Pope and his Kingdom. No, he and his wicked rabble are not deserving of so light a punisiiment They shall be preserved until tJie coming of Christ, wnose most bitter enemies they are and ever have been {Pope Confounded, p. 177)."
...
The sentiments of the other Reformers are given in Elliott's Horm. Apoc, Voice of the Church, including Zwingle, Latimer, Calvin, Knox, Cranmer, etc., and require more space than is really necessary to show a continuous line of interpretation. They are, however, as pointed as the following ; Beza, Notes on Nl T.^ '* Thus I have deemed it best to translate the name inujiavda, which Paul designedly used in order to represent to our eyes that most brilliant splendor of JE^s last Coming," " At length by the word of the Lord that impiety will be exposed, and by the Advent of Christ wholly abolished."
...
The opinions of eminent Divines who indorsed the Whitbyan theory. Having already given a number, an illustration will suffice to indicate the spirit: Dr. Kuapp, Ch, Tlteol, s. 156, 6, p. 643, says : ** The Christian Church will hereafter be subjected to great temptation from heathen pro-faneuess, from false delusive doctrine, and extreme moral corruption, and will seem for a time to be ready to perish from these causes ; hut then Christ will appear, and, according to His promise, triumph over this opposition ; and then, and not till then, will the end of the world come ; Christ will visibly appear and hold the general judgment and conduct the pious into the Kingdom of the blessed. This is the distinct doctrine jtf Paul, 2 Thess. % : 3-12, and is taught throughout the Apocalypse." The reader will notice the admission made in the last sentence ; and we may well ask if 2 Thess. 2 synchronizes with Rev. 19, etc., how can it be fitted without violence into Knapp's system ? *•
...
[Dr Brown, Postmillennialist, says] 'Those of our elder divines who looked upon the Millennium as past already, and considered the destruction of Antichrist as the immediate precursor of the eternal state, understood this * coming of the Lord' to destroy Antichrist, of His Sec, personal coming. There are other opponents of the Millennial theory, who explain this coming to destroy the man of sin, of ChrisVs Sec. Coming* They make * the apostasy/ * the man of sin/ *the lawless one/ here spoken of, to embrace all the evil, apostasy, and opposition to Christ, which are to exi^t till the consummation of all things; in which case the destruction of it will, of course, not be till the Sec. Advent, In neither of these views, however, can I concur," Here we have the frank, manly admission that our interpretation is '* a consistent and good explanation," and that many others, beside Millenarians, concur in making this coming a personal one. Dr. Brown, however, in viewing the ground upon which the Whitbyan theory rests, was too wise and prudent to admit our interpretation, well knowing that it would be fatal to his own theory (Whitbyan); for had he admitted that this coming, taught by Paul, was a personal one, then the necessary and inevitable conclusion would follow that uo such a Millennium of holiness, happiness, security and blessedness as predicted, could possibly arise before it, seeing that that would make the apostasy and subsequent man of sin contemporaneous with it Hence, while he rejects Whitby's theory of ** the Coming" as inconsistent, he frames one to suit the case, viz., that Christ comes providentially to inflict judgments on the apostate Roman Empire, etc. But this theory of *• the Coming" is also so unreasonable, even to many who adopt the Whitbyan Millennium, that they refuse to accept of it, and continue to hold (as Barnes, etc.) to the old view of a personal Advent*'
..."

Theocratic Kingdom, Prop. 123, Obs. 2​

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Here's some from George Peters (prominent premillennialist).

May I say in the nicest way possible that I would sooner see your own arguments. I don't have the time to read a great indigestible lump of prose by someone I've never heard of.

What Icon said really. Christ is the One greater than the Temple (Matthew 12:6). He is even now exalted above all (Psalm 110), and all nations shall stream to Him (cf. Philippians 2:9-11 etc.).

Perhaps I need to qualify this a little. I am not Postmil. The nations are indeed streaming to Christ, and the Gospel is being preached to all nations, but this is accompanied by terrible times in the last days and the love of the greater number growing cold, which is what we see in Britain today. Also, Rev. 20 and other texts point to a brief period when Satan is released to deceive the nations and oppress the people of God.

 

[Jope]

May I say in the nicest way possible that I would sooner see your own arguments. I don't have the time to read a great indigestible lump of prose by someone I've never heard of.

Tell that to your friend @Iconoclast


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jope]

The presence of an antichrist just prior to Christ's second advent proves premillennialism. Amillennialism denies the apocalypse as literal (Eusebius, Origen, Jerome, all treated the book with contempt and wanted it out of the canon, not to mention Luther).

Amillennialists teach that we are now in the blessed peaceful millennium free of satan's tyranny and antichrist. He is bound in hell, how could an antichrist exist if Satan is bound in hell?

The apocalypse ties satan unbound hovering, so to speak, over the antichrist.

True, revelation 20 tells us that satan gets unbounded from hell, but we don't read anywhere that an antichrist exists during the end of the millennium. In fact, verse 10 tells us that the antichrist is already in hell at the end of the millennium, and nowhere do we read that he comes out of hell during the end of the millennium: only satan, whom John carefully distinguishes from the antichrist (the beast). We do read that the antichrist exists prior to the start of the millennium, however (verse 4 necessitates this).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Iconoclast]

Jope, .

"The language of the Apostles confi/i^med tlie Jews in th^ir Messianic hopes of the Kingdom.
...
This is seen (1) from their employing the Jewish phraseology used to designate the Messianic times; (2) from their applying these to the future advent of Je^us, ajid urging their hearers to expect that such a Coming will fulfil the prophets ; (3) from the fact that the Christianized Jews, in their respective congregations, held both to this Sec. Advent (having received Jesus as the Messiah), and to the restoration of the Davidic throne and Kingdom at the second apx)earing of Jesus.

scripture determines truth, not what ideas people came up with apart from scripture.

Obs. 1. This is admitted by the ablest writers, not only infidels * but by such men as Neander. It is corroborated by the church history of the earliest period, informing us, without any dissetU, that, so far as known, all the Jewish believers held precisely the views that we are defending. Before we can permit our doctrine to fall even under unjust suspicion, it would be well if our opponents would candidly consider this historical fact, and ask themselves a few questions suggested by it. How does it come that under the directj per807ial preachi7ig of the apostles such views of the Kingdom were entertained, unless it resulted from the manner of teaching .'' How does it come that such opinions were so gefierally received utider apostolic nurture^ that the modern views and ideas are not found even stated ? If these people were in error on so important a point, was it not the duty of the apostles and the Elders to enlighten them—to leave, at least, a protest against it on record? Is it reasonable, that churches under the direct pastoral care of iyispired men should be so wholly given up to alleged grave error? These, and similar cj^uestions, ought to bo considerately answered before these early Christians are branded as ** gross" and '* camar* errorists. If the idea of the Kingdom now generally entertained, is the correct one, it certainly is exceedingly strange, utterly itiexplicable, that it was not then ifitroduced, and that it required uninspired men to produce it. If the early church was in error on so leadirig a7id fundaynental a doctrine, then the teachers of the same a7*e justly chargeable with both introducing and continuing this error, for instead of contradicting the Jewish views of the people, the apostles use the very words and phrases most eini-nently calculated to confirm the Jeiaish belief. This is seen in employing, as e.g. ** the times of restitution," ** the world to come," " redemption,^' " salvation," " the age to come," " the day of the Lord," ** the day of Christ," etc., and without any indicated change of meaning apply them to the Sec. Advent of Jesus, who is the Messiah. 17ns application culturally a7id logically led the Jewish believers to fix their fond expectations of the Kingdom upon the Sec. Comifig, and not on the First, In this, as we have shown in preceding Propositions, thoy only legitimately followed the diviyie teaching of Jesus Himself who declared that His Kingdom was postponed (e.g. Prop. 66, 58, etc.) to the time of His Coming again

.

Where is this postponement?
​

Many writers have noticed this peculiar usage of Jewish phraseology and that the phrases *' end of the age," ** last days," ** last times," etc., were regarded by the Jews aa the period just previous to and immediate to the establishment-of the Messianic Kingdom. The apostles continue their use, referring them to the still future, including this dispensation, so that in their estimation these times could not possibly include an ex-istuig covenanted Kingdom, aa e.g. in Heb. 1 :2 etc. Comp. Olshausen's CV»a.. vol a, p. 229, who quotes Acts 2 : 17 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 20 and 1:6; John 6 : 39, 40 ; 1 John 2 : 18 ; Bom. 2:6; Rev. 6 : 17, and 9 : 18, saying this corresponds with the Old Testament expressions ; Gen. 49 :1 ; Isa. 2:2; Mio. 4:1; Dan, 12 : 13, and 8 : 17. and 9 : 40. which again answers to " the end," Matt. 24 : 6, 14."

Theocratic Kingdom, prop. 71.​

The apostles adopted the Jewish phrase "last days" found in Isaiah 2:2 which only meant "the period just previous to and immediate to the establishment-of the Messianic Kingdom" in those days, as found in Jewish writings.

WRONG

Hebrews 1King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds
wrong...

The last days was since the cross...see Hebrews1

 

[Jerome]

Benjamin Keach of the 1689 London Baptist Assembly:

Benjamin Keach, Gospel Mysteries Unveiled

"It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it,” Isa. ii. 2. That is the time when birds shall dwell in her branches : the mountain of the Lord's house is the regal power and authority of the church; and this shall be established in the top of all earthly powers, governments, and preeminence whatsoever; viz. the saints shall have the supreme authority and rule over all powers and governments of the earth; “ And the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” Dan. ii. 35. This is expounded by Daniel, “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed ; and the kingdom shall be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” ver. 44. See Micah iv. Some, through ignorance, have thought that this kingdom refers to the gospel church set up by Christ and his apostles in the primitive time..."

 

[Tim71]

Benjamin Keach of the 1689 London Baptist Assembly:

How do you find books like this on the internet? Everything I look up they want me to buy it.
I bookmarked this website on my iPhone. Hopefully I can remember what the books main topic is when I return back to it for future studies.
Since I joined the Baptist Board I have gathered so much material. At times it gets overwhelming. Especially when you have information but cannot find it
Maybe I can sort all the websites and books on OneNote. So I can remember what they are about. Very thankful for the people who share this valuable information

 

[Jope]

Jope, .

scripture determines truth, not what ideas people came up with apart from scripture.​

Good day sir. All of your historians tell us that the amillennial idea came from the very late church father, Origen who introduced many heresies into the church. Why does your view require an uninspired 3rd century heretic to promulgate it?

Where is this postponement?

Look at the very text that you responded to: "Prop. 66, 58, etc."

WRONG

Hebrews 1King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds
wrong...

The last days was since the cross...see Hebrews1

Why am I not surprised with your response? Do you not see how this term or text is ambiguous and can be interpreted from my offered position?
Yet again, you are using flimsy ambiguous terms or texts (removed from how the first century Jewish audience would have understood them, I might add), to argue positions. Still scoffing those who condemn logical fallacies? Hey I guess anything can happen when one disdains the covenants of God though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jope]

Where is this postponement?

Ask and ye shall receive, dear sir.

"According to very much prophecy, the anticipated Messiah would come as a resistless Lion and as a sacrificial Lamb. Peter testifies to the perplexity of the prophets over this seeming paradox (1 Pet. 1:10-11). Isaiah blends the events connected with the two advents into one vast, all-inclusive expectation (Isa. 61:1-5); and even the angel Gabriel was not permitted to disclose the fact of two advents separated by the present age, but refers to the events of both advents as though they belonged to one uninterrupted program (Luke 1:31-33). However, to David were given two important revelations, namely, (a) that God's eternal Son would die a sacrificial death (Ps. 22:1-21; 69:20-21), and (b) that He would occupy David's throne forever (2 Sam. 7:16-29; Ps. 89:34-37). David reasoned that if all this were true, God's Son must first die and be raised again from the dead and thus be free to reign forever. This conclusion on the part of David was one of the most vital features of Peter's Pentecostal sermon (Acts 2:25-36), in which he is proving that the Lord Jesus is, in spite of His death, the eternal Messiah to Israel. Thus it was disclosed that the Son of David would first die and then be raised again, that the Davidic promise of an eternal occupant of David's throne might be fulfilled. However, it was as definitely predicted that Christ would at His first advent offer Himself to Israel as their King, not in the role of a resistless conquering monarch, as He will yet come (Rev. 19:15-16), but "meek" and 'lowly' (Zech. 9:9; cf. Matt. 21:5). Yet, in spite of prediction that Christ would make a precross offer of Himself to Israel as their King, coming in 'lowly guise,' Dr. Allis in his article on "Modern Dispensationalism" (quoted above) refers to the belief which dispensationalists hold -- that Christ offered the kingdom to Israel and that it was rejected and postponed -- as a theory characterized by intricacies and impossible. He states that this theory seriously minimizes 'the value and centrality of the Cross in Biblical Revelation' (Ibid., p. 34). Likewise, a Presbyterian minister of the south has written an article which has been published by a reputable Presbyterian journal also accusing the late Dr. C.I. Scofield of modernistic teaching because he seemed to minimize the cross by his advocacy of the theory that the kingdom was offered to Israel before the death of Christ. These men are Calvinists, yet they are disturbed over the seeming conflict between divine sovereignty and human will. If the ground of their objection to the 'postponement theory' stands, then there was no assurance that there would be a Jewish nation until Abraham made his decision to obey God; there was no certainty that Christ would be born until Mary gave her consent; there was no assurance that Christ would die until Pilate so ordered. In the light of two determining facts, namely, (a) that Jehovah's Lamb was in the redeeming purpose slain from the foundation of the world and (b) that had Adam not sinned there could have been no need of a redeemer, why did Jehovah tell Adam not to sin? And what would have become of the redemptive purpose had Adam obeyed God? These objections to the so-called postponement theory do not take into consideration the fact of the divinely purposed test involved and the necessary postponement resulting from the failure under testing, the failure itself being anticipated. These are evidently very serious problems for some Calvinists to face. If it be claimed that the birth and death of Christ were predicted and therefore made sure, it is equally true that the precross offer of the earthly Messianic kingdom to Israel by her Messiah in the days of His 'lowly guise' was also made sure by prediction. It is equally made sure by prediction that Christ would be crucified, which was Israel's official rejection of their King (Ps. 118:22-24 with 1 Pet. 2:6-8; Matt. 21:42-45; Luke 19:14, 27; Acts 4:10-12), be raised from the dead (Ps. 16:8-10), and ultimately sit on David's earthly throne and reign over the house of Jacob forever (Isa. 9:6-7; Matt. 2:6; Luke 1:31-33). The prophet declared of Christ that He would be 'despised and rejected of men,' and John states, 'He came unto his own, but his own [Israel] received Him not' (John 1:11). The truth set forth in this last passage is of utmost importance. The 'rejection' on the part of the nation Israel was not the personal rejection of a crucified and risen Savior as He is now rejected when the gospel is refused. It was a nation to whom a Messiah King was promised, rejecting their King. They did not say, 'We will not believe on this Savior for the saving of our souls'; but they did say in effect, 'We will not have this man to reign over us.' This distinction is important since it determines the precise character of their sin.

Two years after their departure from Egypt, God offered to Israel an entrance into their land at Kadesh-Barnea. They rejected the offer. God knew they would reject it, yet it was a bona fide offer He made to them. Yea, it was in the divine counsel that they would reject, become guilty of that specific sin, and, as a punishment, be returned to thirty-eight more years of wilderness experience" (Lewis Chafer, Dispensationalism, ch. ii, iii).​

If you are so hung up on the concept of a bona fide kingdom offer removing the certainty of the cross, why aren't you also hung up on Mary's necessity to consent to Christ's birth in order for His birth to happen and fulfill prophecy? His birth meant a lot of shame for her, being out of wedlock. On another line of the same reasoning, Christ could not have been condemned to death if Pilate did not order it.

The postponement of Christ's kingdom is, in his own words, "when the son of man shall come in His glory" (mt 25:31b): that is when He shall sit on David's throne (mt 25:31a).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Iconoclast]

Ask and ye shall receive, dear sir.

"According to very much prophecy, the anticipated Messiah would come as a resistless Lion and as a sacrificial Lamb. Peter testifies to the perplexity of the prophets over this seeming paradox (1 Pet. 1:10-11). Isaiah blends the events connected with the two advents into one vast, all-inclusive expectation (Isa. 61:1-5); and even the angel Gabriel was not permitted to disclose the fact of two advents separated by the present age, but refers to the events of both advents as though they belonged to one uninterrupted program (Luke 1:31-33). However, to David were given two important revelations, namely, (a) that God's eternal Son would die a sacrificial death (Ps. 22:1-21; 69:20-21), and (b) that He would occupy David's throne forever (2 Sam. 7:16-29; Ps. 89:34-37). David reasoned that if all this were true, God's Son must first die and be raised again from the dead and thus be free to reign forever. This conclusion on the part of David was one of the most vital features of Peter's Pentecostal sermon (Acts 2:25-36), in which he is proving that the Lord Jesus is, in spite of His death, the eternal Messiah to Israel. Thus it was disclosed that the Son of David would first die and then be raised again, that the Davidic promise of an eternal occupant of David's throne might be fulfilled. However, it was as definitely predicted that Christ would at His first advent offer Himself to Israel as their King, not in the role of a resistless conquering monarch, as He will yet come (Rev. 19:15-16), but "meek" and 'lowly' (Zech. 9:9; cf. Matt. 21:5). Yet, in spite of prediction that Christ would make a precross offer of Himself to Israel as their King, coming in 'lowly guise,' Dr. Allis in his article on "Modern Dispensationalism" (quoted above) refers to the belief which dispensationalists hold -- that Christ offered the kingdom to Israel and that it was rejected and postponed -- as a theory characterized by intricacies and impossible. He states that this theory seriously minimizes 'the value and centrality of the Cross in Biblical Revelation' (Ibid., p. 34). Likewise, a Presbyterian minister of the south has written an article which has been published by a reputable Presbyterian journal also accusing the late Dr. C.I. Scofield of modernistic teaching because he seemed to minimize the cross by his advocacy of the theory that the kingdom was offered to Israel before the death of Christ. These men are Calvinists, yet they are disturbed over the seeming conflict between divine sovereignty and human will. If the ground of their objection to the 'postponement theory' stands, then there was no assurance that there would be a Jewish nation until Abraham made his decision to obey God; there was no certainty that Christ would be born until Mary gave her consent; there was no assurance that Christ would die until Pilate so ordered. In the light of two determining facts, namely, (a) that Jehovah's Lamb was in the redeeming purpose slain from the foundation of the world and (b) that had Adam not sinned there could have been no need of a redeemer, why did Jehovah tell Adam not to sin? And what would have become of the redemptive purpose had Adam obeyed God? These objections to the so-called postponement theory do not take into consideration the fact of the divinely purposed test involved and the necessary postponement resulting from the failure under testing, the failure itself being anticipated. These are evidently very serious problems for some Calvinists to face. If it be claimed that the birth and death of Christ were predicted and therefore made sure, it is equally true that the precross offer of the earthly Messianic kingdom to Israel by her Messiah in the days of His 'lowly guise' was also made sure by prediction. It is equally made sure by prediction that Christ would be crucified, which was Israel's official rejection of their King (Ps. 118:22-24 with 1 Pet. 2:6-8; Matt. 21:42-45; Luke 19:14, 27; Acts 4:10-12), be raised from the dead (Ps. 16:8-10), and ultimately sit on David's earthly throne and reign over the house of Jacob forever (Isa. 9:6-7; Matt. 2:6; Luke 1:31-33). The prophet declared of Christ that He would be 'despised and rejected of men,' and John states, 'He came unto his own, but his own [Israel] received Him not' (John 1:11). The truth set forth in this last passage is of utmost importance. The 'rejection' on the part of the nation Israel was not the personal rejection of a crucified and risen Savior as He is now rejected when the gospel is refused. It was a nation to whom a Messiah King was promised, rejecting their King. They did not say, 'We will not believe on this Savior for the saving of our souls'; but they did say in effect, 'We will not have this man to reign over us.' This distinction is important since it determines the precise character of their sin.

Two years after their departure from Egypt, God offered to Israel an entrance into their land at Kadesh-Barnea. They rejected the offer. God knew they would reject it, yet it was a bona fide offer He made to them. Yea, it was in the divine counsel that they would reject, become guilty of that specific sin, and, as a punishment, be returned to thirty-eight more years of wilderness experience" (Lewis Chafer, Dispensationalism, ch. ii, iii).​

If you are so hung up on the concept of a bona fide kingdom offer removing the certainty of the cross, why aren't you also hung up on Mary's necessity to consent to Christ's birth in order for His birth to happen and fulfill prophecy? His birth meant a lot of shame for her, being out of wedlock. On another line of the same reasoning, Christ could not have been condemned to death if Pilate did not order it.

The postponement of Christ's kingdom is, in his own words, "when the son of man shall come in His glory" (mt 25:31b): that is when He shall sit on David's throne (mt 25:31a).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for this link...you know Allis is Amillenial right?

now look here;

However, it was as definitely predicted that Christ would at His first advent offer Himself to Israel as their King, not in the role of a resistless conquering monarch, as He will yet come (Rev. 19:15-16), but "meek" and 'lowly' (Zech. 9:9; cf. Matt. 21:5).

The King came to Zion...consider this Jope;
2sam5;
David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.

5 In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah.

6 And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither.

7 Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David.

Jope.....what if there is no postponement?

Yet, in spite of prediction that Christ would make a precross offer of Himself to Israel as their King, coming in 'lowly guise,' Dr. Allis in his article on "Modern Dispensationalism" (quoted above) refers to the belief which dispensationalists hold -- that Christ offered the kingdom to Israel and that it was rejected and postponed -- as a theory characterized by intricacies and impossible.

 

[Jope]

Thanks for this link...you know Allis is Amillenial right?

Yes. You know that Chafer rebuts him right?

now look here;

The King came to Zion...consider this Jope;
2sam5;
David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.

5 In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah.

6 And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither.

7 Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David.

I don't know what point you're trying to prove...are you trying to say the kingdom already came under David? If so, you should read the Davidic covenant again. First of all, the covenant demands that David's descendant, not David himself, shall sit on his throne; second of all, no son of David ever sat on the throne eternally, as the covenant demands; and third of all, why do the gospels bother declaring that Christ came to fulfill the Davidic covenant (Luke 1:31-33), if David already fulfilled it?

Jope.....what if there is no postponement?

What if we aren't in the Covenanted messianic kingdom, requiring David's son to sit on his throne that was on earth in Jerusalem and never described to be anywhere else?

What if texts like matthew 25:31, proving that Christ's kingdom is postponed until his second advent, were never in the bible?

Yet, in spite of prediction that Christ would make a precross offer of Himself to Israel as their King, coming in 'lowly guise,' Dr. Allis in his article on "Modern Dispensationalism" (quoted above) refers to the belief which dispensationalists hold -- that Christ offered the kingdom to Israel and that it was rejected and postponed -- as a theory characterized by intricacies and impossible.

Again, Chafer rebuts this...usually when you have nothing left to say when an opponent makes a rebuttal it shows your position has been defeated, is that where you're at?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Iconoclast]

Jope,

Yes. You know that Chafer rebuts him right?

he tried....

I don't know what point you're trying to prove...are you trying to say the kingdom already came under David?

David was the type...Jesus the fulfillment...try reading the first sermon in Acts 2...by Peter....

If so, you should read the Davidic covenant again. First of all, the covenant demands that David's descendant, not David himself, shall sit on his throne

;

That's what Peter said...see the pattern;
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.

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;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

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.

second of all, no son of David ever sat on the throne eternally

,

What if we aren't in the Covenanted messianic kingdom, requiring David's son to sit on his throne that was on earth in Jerusalem and never described to be anywhere else?

Clearly it is the heavenly Jerusalem and Zion....not the earthly type..

What if texts like matthew 25:31, proving that Christ's kingdom is postponed until his second advent, were never in the bible?

This is not postponed...this is the White throne judgment on the last day.

Again, Chafer rebuts this...usually when you have nothing left to say when an opponent makes a rebuttal it shows your position has been defeated, is that where you're at?

Wrong....but nice try..

 

[Jope]

Clearly it is the heavenly Jerusalem and Zion....not the earthly type..

So you brazenly teach that the covenants are not fulfilled literally as the speaking party, God, made clear. It's gravely alarming that you don't see anything wrong with this. Wake up!

"No title deed of human construction could be more explicit than Jehovah’s promise to Abraham regarding the land.
...
Language could not serve in any legal transfer if this covenant does not stand" (Lewis Chafer, Systematic Theology, ch. xvii).

In the same line of reasoning, language could not serve in any legal transfer if the davidic covenant does not stand.

In fact, your posts are all non literal and what you really mean when you post is Barney is awesome. I don't know why you bother talking about Barney on a theology board.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[percho]

Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. 1 Chronicles 29:23 KJV
Let Jehovah thy God be blessed who hath delighted in thee, to put thee on His throne for king for Jehovah thy God; in the love of thy God to Israel, to establish it to the age, He hath put thee over them for king, to do judgment and righteousness.' 2 Chronicles 9:8 YLT

Luke 1:32 KJV He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. Luke 19:12 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Dan 7:13,14 BTW Were these clouds of heaven concerning judgement?

And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. Luke 19:13 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.Rev 3:21

Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom. Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. Dan 7:22,23 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.Dan 2:29 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. Dan 2:44,45 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. Dan 7:27 ---------- On the earth.----- And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Luke 19:15 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.Luke 19:17

Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.


There is your mountain folks, and it did not appear in 33 AD nor 70 AD nor yet, IMHO.

The Son of David isn't reigning on the earth today nor are we reigning with him on the earth, today.


The first time anyone hears Jesus say to them, "well done my good and faithful servant," will be when that person is either raised from the dead or at his change in a moment in the twinkling of an eye, at the coming of the Lord. IMHO

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thes 4:16,17

καὶ οὕτως --- What does that mean?