Featured The nature of God's Kingdom

The only reason it is off topic is because I refuse to accept a verse like Josh.2:11 as evidence for your "kingdom theology." Whether or not it talks of Rahab's salvation may even be irrelevant. It does not speak of the kingdom. Yet you say it does. That simply is taking scripture out of context, and that is my main objection here. In that respect I am not off topic, for you originally posted the scripture. And I believe it is wrong.

Joshua 2:11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.
--Now let's assume for argument's sake that the majority here is right, and that the above verse is indicative of her belief in God as her Savior and this is the point of her salvation.
This is a basic non-Cal position.
1. She called upon the Lord and was saved. It was her faith; God didn't give it to her.
2. This is not Lordship Salvation. Almost immediately she lied. This is not the fruit of Lordship Salvation.

Let me put this in a modern day scenario.
A Muslim comes to you. He says that he doesn't want to be a Muslim any longer--not after what ISIS has done in Syria, or Saudi Arabia has done recently, or what Iran is threatening to do, or what the Taliban have done, etc. He has heard of the God of Christianity. His name is Jesus Christ. He has done miracles. He died and they say he rose from the dead. Beyond that he knows almost nothing.
So you take "the sinners prayer," probably that same one written by Billy Graham, and have him pray that prayer. Then you pronounce him a Christian, providing he prayed the prayer sincerely.

That is what happened. She saw all the wickedness of Egypt and other nations. She saw how God judged it. She knew her nation was next. She heard of the God of Israel, but did not know much about this God. She prayed a prayer and now is pronounced "a believer." Not much difference.

We tend to read our own cultural backgrounds back into Biblical history. It skews our thinking and understanding of the passage. America and Canada are secular, not religious nations. We tend not to talk about religion in public, whereas in eastern nations, and in most nations of the first century, the entire nation was or is religious. One could hardly carry on a conversation without religion being a part of it. Everybody is religious. Everyone can perform "religious acts" such as prayer.
Saved or unsaved, most people in most religions were able to act like this:

Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
--Even a prostitute could do this.
It was a religious nation. A beautiful prayer is not evidence of a believer; it is only evidence of one who has been very religious in the past.

Your claim: She believed. She became a theologian the day she believed and suddenly knew more theology than most of us posting on the board. Incredible!!

Your statement:
The heathen prostitute was saved by God.....she knew more about God and His reign than you do.

God may have saved her. She said nothing about God reigning. She did not become a theologian all of a sudden. She made a statement of belief. She called upon the name of the Lord. In OT terms "she prayed the sinner's prayer," and was saved. I am happy for you that you are no longer a Calvinist.
There is no Total Inability here.
There is free will here.
There is no LS. here.
There is sin almost immediately after salvation.
This is a carnal Christian (at least to begin with). Most new believers are. They haven't become disciples yet. They must learn, and so did Rahab. It is a process.

She simply "called upon the name of the Lord" and was saved. Isn't salvation simple?

But there is no kingdom here.
They had just wandered in the desert for 40 years. They were just now entering into the Promised Land. 40 years ago Moses had formed these 12 tribes under one God into a theocracy. They were a nation whose God was their Lord. They were His servants, and they had just entered the Promised Land. There is no kingdom here, and Rahab had not expressed anything about a kingdom.

 

Stop trying to make this into a cal v Armin debate. This is not the forum nor it nor what the OP set up. If you want to debate if Rehab was saved or not, and the implications that may or may not have on Biblical theology start a thread if your own in the appropriate forum.

 

Psalm 98.

1 O sing to the LORD a new song,
For He has done wonderful things,
His right hand and His holy arm have gained the victory for Him.
2 The LORD has made known His salvation;
He has revealed His righteousness in the sight of the nations.
3 He has remembered His loving kindness and His faithfulness to the house of Israel;
All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.
4 Shout joyfully to the LORD, all the earth;
Break forth and sing for joy and sing praises.
5 Sing praises to the LORD with the lyre,
With the lyre and the sound of melody.
6 With trumpets and the sound of the horn
Shout joyfully before the King, the LORD.
7 Let the sea roar and all it contains,
The world and those who dwell in it.
8 Let the rivers clap their hands,
Let the mountains sing together for joy
9 Before the LORD, for He is coming to judge the earth;
He will judge the world with righteousness
And the peoples with equity.​

Would not a view that discards the national/political Israel ("house of Israel") have a support problem with thinking of the Psalmist? Is not the Psalm pointing to (imo) the millennial reign and the response of the people of that time?

In this Psalm, there is clearly a kingdom on the earth in which the world and people of this world are rejoicing in praise before the Lord.

Such statements, as are in this Psalm, does not correspond with the past nor current history of humankind. Neither does this Psalm correspond with what John presents as the new heaven and earth.

Therefore, the only application, that one should perhaps conclude, is that the conditions this Psalm present are to be met in the future during the Millennial reign.

A literal kingdom rule of Christ upon the earth is in no way diminishing the building of the kingdom from the time of Eden. Just as God purposed to place the family in Egypt to grow into a nation and then take the nation into a literal "promised land," the growth of the "family of believers" is taking place now, that the kingdom promised be realized both as a kingdom of believers, and a kingdom of rule over all nations in which the believer's rule with the Lord.

I do not hold that "all nations" is what one would view the family of believers. The family has a single identity, and that is "believer," and we are a singular group. The believers are to go into all the nations, but that does not mean that all nations at this time or at any time in the past have, as presented in this Psalm, worshiped the Lord - certainly not the farthest eastern groups.

"All nations" in the Psalm must be the national / political groups who will shout joyfully and praise the Lord. Again, there is no account of John in the Revelation, in which this occurs outside of the Millennium.

So, I do support the earthly physical restoration of the literal national / political Israel is found in Scriptures, and the literal return of Christ to rule all nations during the millennium.

But then folks on the BB already knew my views on the matter, so it is both old news and dumb of me to post.

 

Why do you say that this cannot be the new heaven and new earth? John mentions kings and nations walking the earth in Rev. 21:24

 

The Psalm is one of a group of Psalms called "The Royal Psalms" and are attributed to David. David was a king, and he had a kingdom. He wasn't speaking of a future kingdom but his own kingdom. He was a monarch, and the government here is a monarchy.

David, as a man after God's own heart, exhorts all the earth to sing and praise the Lord who reigns. It is David that reigns, but the Lord who reigns over David. He was a Godly man.

Psa 98:2 The LORD hath made known his salvation: his righteousness hath he openly shewed in the sight of the heathen.
--The Lord had made known his salvation to David and therefore to Israel. They as a nation were a light to the heathen around them. There is no worldly kingdom here. There is no millennial kingdom here. It would take two generations. After David would be Solomon. Then Reheboam would come and reign carnally, and the kingdom would be split. Only two tribes would follow Reheboam; it would be a divided kingdom.

 

I hope this does not take the OP off the rails...

Jesus stated in John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” He also stated in John 14:1-3 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God believe also in me. My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am."

It appears that He has left us here to toil in His footstool until He returns.

 

I agree.

But I also see that there are those that do not consider that the literal King will rule a literal Kingdom in the Millennium.

So, that begs the question, upon what definition of "kingdom" is the Lord using in John 18:36.

The previous verse (35) says:

Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?”​

The response to the question is Jesus statement comparing "Your own nation" and the rulers of that nation to His own "kingdom."

Christ did not deny that He was a member of the nation, only that His servants don't fight over the realm in which Pilate wants to assign Him. And what is also important is that Christ does not say that His servants don't fight (struggle), nor that His kingdom will be brought to the world. These cannot be assumed by reading the statements, yet I do think that some do, do.

Paul makes the similar statement, "We wrestle not against flesh and blood..." And Paul states that the struggle is "against the world forces of this darkness," as well as that "wickedness in the heavenly."

So, the "kingdom" struggles. Such struggle does not occur in the place prepared by Christ for believers - the new heaven and earth. By then the battles are over and the kingdom established.

The kingdom will extend control aver all creation, BEFORE that new heaven and earth appear and the passing of this heaven and earth. That the wrestling and struggling will cease both on THIS earth and in THIS heavenly place.

The prophets speak of a literal King, sitting at the literal seat of government in this literal place called Israel. The promise of the suffering messiah was specifically and accurately fulfilled and so will the majestic ruling messiah. The ruling king prophecies are just as valid and to be taken just as literal as the one takes the birth and suffering messianic prophecies.

Therefore, the "kingdom" will come, and the battles will cease. There is no battle ending the millennial reign, but the fiery destruction of all that the current kingdoms struggle and fight over. When there is nothing to struggle and fight over, such contentions cease to have any importance. The kingdom of the wicked have their separate place of eternal abode that was specifically prepared, and the believing kingdom has the new heaven and earth as the abode specifically prepared by Christ.

I am too old and dumb to believe any differently.

 

I had thought about stating it like that but decided not to. I did not know how others would feel about that line of thought.