Featured Progressive Dispensationalism

Hi RL, rather than "trying to be nice to me" why not address the topic rather than my behavior?

Your charge that I engage in "deliberate distortion" is utterly false. Again, no quote will be forthcoming. None, zip, nada. The charge is slander.

I charge the Calvinists who post on this forum with habitually engaging is subject change tactics, addressing my behavior, rather than the topic. And these ad homenims are slanderous, and calculated to avoid discussion of the topic.

 

Like Greektim, now RL denies the use of Ad homenims. Greektim said his was not an attack, it was an observation. Word games to avoid truth.

Here is your charge against me, "You repeatedly misrepresented me personally in the Arm/Cal debate section last week/earlier this week."

Note the lack of any substance, any quote, anything other that a charge tied to the unreferenced past. This behavior is SOP for Calvinists.

 

Oh grow up...

There was no ad hominem, not from me anyway.

You denied your misrepresentation in the thread immediately after you made it. You will not own it now and you know it.

I have addressed the topic multiple times. Whether you are talking about the OP on PD or the topic of Calvinism. I've addressed both.

If you rather I not be nice to you I can do that too.

 

Folks, note the number of posts addressing my behavior, rather than the topic. This highjacking of the thread to evade discussion of PD has been orchestrated by mostly Calvinists, who are mostly amillennialists.

Has the Davidic Covenant been inaugurated in heaven at the present time?

Some PD proponents, including myself, say no.

 

RL actually claims that to charge a person with repeatedly misrepresenting him personally is not addressing the man, rather than the topic. Then he says "grow up." Nuff said.

Here is the sort of thing I say about Calvinism. Note the lack of misrepresentation of Calvinism.

I present Calvinism as published, rather than the denials of its doctrines posted on this forum.

1) If Total Spiritual Inability were true, then Paul could not be zealous for God unless altered by Irresistible Grace. But since he still rejected Jesus, the revelatory grace he experienced was not irresistible. So Calvinism says Acts 22:3 does not mean what it says.

2) If Unconditional Election were true, then we would not be chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. So Calvinism says 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not mean what it says.

3) If Christ did not die as a ransom for all, then the false prophet would not have been bought with the blood of the Master. So Calvinism says 2 Peter 2:1 does not mean what it says.

4) If the Calvinist doctrine of Irresistible Grace were true, then men could not have been entering heaven, yet be blocked by false teachers. So Calvinism says Matthew 23:13 does not mean what it says.

 

You are hijacking the thread more than anyone bud. I've discussed PD on here, and while I am a Calvinist, I am not amill nor am I hijacking the thread. Give it a rest.

As to your question. I say the Davidic covenant was inaugurated at Christ's ascension. Christ is currently on the throne, over the Israel of God and in another way, over the whole earth. He is the true Son of David whose Kingdom will endure forever.

Now who is hijacking the thread?

 

:BangHead:

The Davidic Covenant cannot be instituted yet, given its key tenet is that it reaffirms the promise of the land that He made in the first two covenants with Israel, those being the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. That renewed promise is given to the judge and prophet Samuel.

2 Samuel 7, NASB
10 "I will also appoint a place for My people Israel and will plant them, that they may live in their own place and not be disturbed again, nor will the wicked afflict them any more as formerly,
11 even from the day that I commanded judges to be over My people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. The LORD also declares to you that the LORD will make a house for you. ​

It is completely unreasonable to attempt to make the promise be passed to the church, given God never put judges over the church, and that God uses the phrase "My people Israel" twice. When a thought is twice expressed, it's for a reason: "Pay attention to this" is what it's saying. As they are already in the land, this is not a promise of their occupancy of the Promised Land the first time. It is a promise that they will be returned to the land after leaving it, or being forced off it. This happened several times, but there was only view to the final fulfillment of this prophecy, and that is to the faithful nation Israel after the Tribulation.

Now ...

... let the outcry begin ...

 

If we only had 2 Samuel 7 then you might be right. But Peter clearly sees the Ascension of Christ as the beginning of the Christ's Kingdom in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant.

Act 2:24-36 NASB - [24] "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. [25] "For David says of Him,

'I SAW THE LORD ALWAYS IN MY PRESENCE;
FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, SO THAT I WILL NOT BE SHAKEN.
[26] 'THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED;
MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL LIVE IN HOPE;
[27] BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES,
NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.
[28] 'YOU HAVE MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE;
YOU WILL MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH YOUR PRESENCE.'

[29] "Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. [30] "And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, [31] he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. [32] "This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. [33] "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. [34] "For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:

'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
[35] UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."'

[36] "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified."​

Peter points out that David prophesied of Christ's resurrection, saying of himself, but really speaking of Christ, "YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY." Peter says that David was prophesying of Jesus' resurrection and immediately ties this to the Davidic Covenant promise that God had sworn an oath (Covenant) to David that one of his decedents would sit on his throne. This was completed, according to Peter, when God not only raised Jesus from the dead, but also exalted him (referring to the ascension) to the throne at the right side of the Father and proving it by pouring out the Spirit. This exaltation of the Son to the right hand of the Father is clearly seen to be the fulfillment of the promise to David.

Verse 34-36 prove this further when Peter refers to the OT promise that the Messiah, as God, would sit at the right hand of God until all his enemies are overcome. This siting at God's right hand is tied to Jesus ascension at the beginning of verse 34 when Peter says, "it was not David who ascended into heaven" meaning that instead of David, Christ did this and has now sat at the right hand of God taking his throne. Then verse 36 says, "God has made Him both Lord and Christ" - Christ,the Messiah, referring to his role as the promised savior and Lord, referring to his Kingship over all things, fulfilling the promise that a son of David would rule forever. Peter says this has already happened and it is sure, "know for certain that God has made [Jesus] both Lord and Christ."

This shows, IMO, why a strictly literal interpretation, particularly of prophecy, fails. It doesn't take into account how the apostles and NT writers interpreted the OT. Literarily not literally many times.

BTW, using the indent to differentiate scripture is a good idea. I like it. Hope you don't mind I borrowed your idea.

 

Now, the issue for me, is does the present reign of Christ, in accordance with the Davidic Covenant, eliminate the "need" or purpose a literal future millennium?

I don't know. I still read the millennium passages as referring to a literal future reign, but since Jesus currently reigns, what would the point be?

I'm currently thinking that Jesus reigns now, but in a veiled fashion, only manifesting his reign to his people. The millennium then is when he forcefully invades the earth and has a open, visible reign over the nations. Just my thinking.

 

Wrong. We've been here before. Nothing lacking or unfilled in the promises God made to Israel. Why do you keep harping on that point? To blindly support Zionist stealing land from the hapless Palestinians?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2058536#post2058536

43 So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
44 And Jehovah gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Jehovah delivered all their enemies into their hand.
45 There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. Josh 21

And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which Jehovah your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, not one thing hath failed thereof. Josh 23:14

Blessed be Jehovah, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by Moses his servant. 1 Ki 8:56

My bible says there are no unfulfilled promises, it's a long done deal from ancient times under the Old Covenant. It also says that under the New Covenant:

For how many soever be the promises of God, in him is the yea: wherefore also through him is the Amen, unto the glory of God through us. 2 Cor 1:20

 

Which would make it pointless to revisit a subject upon which we will never, ever agree, right? Good. Thanks.

Let's talk SEC football. :laugh:

 

As long you as you keep repeating that falsehood that God still owes Israel land, I'll keep countering with the truth that no, He does not owe Israel anything.

 

Be prepared to tire out posting falsehood to counter the truth that ...

The promises God gave Abraham, Moses, Samuel and David will yet be fulfilled.

... then. :thumbsup:

 

Boy it is nice to see an actual discussion of an actual topic related to PD, the issue of whether the Davidic Covenant has been inaugurated at the present time. Some PD proponents and Covenant Theology proponents claim the answer is yes, while other PD proponents and Traditional Dispensationalists say no.

 

At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established. The promises made to DNA Israel are a long done deal from ancient times under the Old Covenant, there are no unfulfilled promises concerning Israel after the flesh.

43 So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
44 And Jehovah gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; Jehovah delivered all their enemies into their hand.
45 There failed not aught of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. Josh 21

And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which Jehovah your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, not one thing hath failed thereof. Josh 23:14

Blessed be Jehovah, that hath given rest unto his people Israel, according to all that he promised: there hath not failed one word of all his good promise, which he promised by Moses his servant. 1 Ki 8:56

For how many soever be the promises of God, in him is the yea: wherefore also through him is the Amen, unto the glory of God through us. 2 Cor 1:20

 

:applause::applause:

 

Jesus is the Lord over all creation, yet he also is still permitting evil and sin to go on, so he will NOT be fully ruling in the sense that all the earth is running the way he intends it to be until His second coming!

he inaugurates his kingdom over earth, and THEN it is His kingdom come, Will getting done just on earth as in heaven!

 

The reason that that is the Kingdom is here in part, but not yet in full until His second coming!

 

Right. That's what I'm thinking also. However one could argue that the millennium is still unnecessary since God will reign on the New Earth in eternity.