Ed,
I would agree that the church was always in God's plan. I think that is entirely scriptural. I also would say that It was always the meaning of the scripture that the children of the promise were the faithful, not all of the physical children of Abraham. This is explained in Romans 9:6-8
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
Always clear from a careful reading of the Genesis.
Bottom line, I believe you were correct in your post
Earthly Messianic Kingdom
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by OldRegular, Mar 10, 2005.
Page 2 of 3
-
We can assume i spake God's truth here, eh? </font>[/QUOTE]Ed Edwards
It just doesn't address the question that I asked. -
to let "Lucifer" go with it? </font>[/QUOTE]Lucifer, a king of Babylon, is long dead. -
My question is still: Where does Scripture present a record of Jesus Christ offering an earthly kingdom to the Jews?
Where are all those followers of Darby/Scofield? -
The message of hte gospels was "Repent for the kingdom fo heaven is at hand." He went around doing kingdom type things. And the Jews did not repent. In Acts 3, you have the kingdom offered again based on the repentance of the Jews. They still have not repented.
Why do you ask these questions? Do you seriously not know? Or are you just trying to pick fights because you come to Scripture with different presuppositions?
BTW, speaking of followers of Darby/Scofield is really perjorative an useless. I don't call you a follow of Allis. The fact is that we all believe we are followers of Scripture. Trying to prejudice it with certain names is a bad debating tactic. -
Pastor Larry: //Why do you ask these questions? Do you seriously not know? Or are you just trying to pick fights because you come to Scripture with different presuppositions?
//
Amen, Brother Pastor Larry, he must be doing the latter.
I'm still looking for an evangelical a-mill post
from this poster. -
Earthly Kingdom????
Part #1 - The Kingdom of Chirst was always intended to be spiritual - not literal.
Question 1. Please answer this - Why would Christ set up an earthly kingdom on a sin-cursed earth that is destined to be burned and of which even Jesus doesn't deny that it is his kingdom - his rulership?
This sin-cursed earth was given to Satan. A literal co-earthly kingdom with equal possesion with Satan is a contradiction of the highest degree. When Satan tempted Jesus with "power to rule the earth," Jesus did not deny that the power to rule the kingdoms of the world had been delivered to him and that it was his territory.
</font>- Luk 4:5 "And the Devil, leading Him up into a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time."
Luk 4:6 "And the Devil said to Him, All this power I will give you, and the glory of them; for it has been delivered to me. And I give it to whomever I will."</font>
When God came down from heaven to live on earth and to take upon himself human flesh, and at only one point in the history of mankind, he came as an infant born of a woman. However, Christ left this world a spirit to return to God.
Acts 1:11 says that "Jesus, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." - as a spirit, not in the flesh. So, in any "earthly kingdom" doctrinal position, how is your king going to rule? As a spirit king or as a fleshly king?
Question 2. If it is as a "spirit king" where are your verses to support your position?
Question 3. If it is as a "fleshly king" how is God going to "take upon himself human flesh" once again?
</font>- a- As an infant?
b- As an adult?
c- Where are your verses to support his coming in human flesh rather than as a "spirit as it says in Acts 1:11?"</font>
Please keep your answers to the NT. If Acts 1:11 and other NT verses refer to his second coming as a "spirit", then your supporting texts for "in the form of human flesh" should be your basis and it should be just as clear as Act 1:11 and not in highly symbolic language.
:confused: - Luk 4:5 "And the Devil, leading Him up into a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time."
-
As far as the Jews repenting, my understanding is that all the members of the early Church were Jews. Also I checked Acts 3, there is no mention of any kingdom.
Given your response above how do you explain
John 3:16, 1769 KJV For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Luke 2:25-32
25. And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
26. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
27. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,
28. Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
29. Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
30. For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
31. Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
32. A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
There are no limitations on the declaration Jesus Christ in John 3;16 or in the prophecy of Simeon in the passage from Luke.
It is a historical fact that Darby is the father of classic dispensationalism and that that doctrine would have died with Darby had it not been for Scofield's Reference bible. -
But why do you wnat to avoid the OT? Is it not as true as the NT? The NT builds on the OT and you can't simply limit your scope. That is like saying Show me the doctrine of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone but use only 1 Chron 1. That is simply a bad way to do theology. You don't do theology by ruling out part of God's revelation as relevant to the issue. -
-
-
Was a Messianic Kingdom established by Jesus Christ at his first coming at His first coming.Click to expand...
I should have expressed more clearly that by the early Church I meant up to and including Pentecost. Having said that if Jesus came to establish a kingdom for the Jews why did he first reveal His identity as Messiah to a non-Jew, the Samatitan woman [John 4].Click to expand...
I am simply pointing out that Jesus Christ came to provide salvation to all who believe, not to establish a Messianic Kingdom.Click to expand...
Could you please provide some historical support for a pretrib removal of the Church prior to Darby.Click to expand...
The test of doctrine is not "who believed it in history," but "Is this what Scripture teaches?" On this standard, pretribulationism clearly fits the bill. -
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Was a Messianic Kingdom established by Jesus Christ at his first coming at His first coming.Click to expand...
You stated that the establishment of the Church was always in God's plan, was the establishment of a Messianic Kingdom by Jesus Christ at his first coming in God's plan? -
No, because the Jews would reject him.
-
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
No, because the Jews would reject him.Click to expand... -
Because that is what the OT teaches. Everyone basically teaches that ... Even you do, don't you? The difference is that you think he actually started his kingdom then, and it is a spiritual kingdom. We think otherwise. Amills or post mills essentially think we are in the kingdom promises or the kingdom era, although amills would say it differently.
That a king would come and establish a kingdom was the OT promise. And so Christ came for that. He also came to die. The kingdom as predicated on the acceptance of the Jews. They didn't accept. Therefore he didn't establish it. -
Question posed by OldRegular:
Then why do dispensationalists teach that Jesus Christ came the first time to establish a Messianic Kingdom?Click to expand...Response posted by Pastor Larry:
Because that is what the OT teaches. Everyone basically teaches that ... Even you do, don't you? The difference is that you think he actually started his kingdom then, and it is a spiritual kingdom. We think otherwise. Amills or post mills essentially think we are in the kingdom promises or the kingdom era, although amills would say it differently.
That a king would come and establish a kingdom was the OT promise. And so Christ came for that. He also came to die. The kingdom as predicated on the acceptance of the Jews. They didn't accept. Therefore he didn't establish it.Click to expand...
By the way where in Scripture does it say "The kingdom was predicated on the acceptance of the Jews."? -
So you are saying that Jesus Christ failed to perform His appointed mission! This is contrary to His declaration to God the Father in John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.Click to expand...
KJV John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
By the way where in Scripture does it say "The kingdom was predicated on the acceptance of the Jews."?Click to expand...
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come...
Later He said...
Matthew 21
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
HankD -
So you are saying that Jesus Christ failed to perform His appointed mission! This is contrary to His declaration to God the Father in John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.Click to expand...
By the way where in Scripture does it say "The kingdom was predicated on the acceptance of the Jews."?Click to expand...
It seems like we are losing the art of correlation. You don't appear to be willing to put any passages side by side and correlate them together. You think if there is not an explicit statement about something that it can't be true. The Bible was not written in that fashion. It was written in a historical context. Many, if not most, on your side do not adequately deal with that context and as a result end up with strange interpretations. You have to correlate these passages together. God only has one truth and it all fits together. -
Original question by OldRegular:
So you are saying that Jesus Christ failed to perform His appointed mission! This is contrary to His declaration to God the Father in John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.Click to expand...Response by Pastor Larry:
[QB] No, go back yet again and see what I said. He came to establish a kingdom but that was not God's plan. [/b]Click to expand...
Response by Pastor Larry:
His plan to harden his people so that they would reject him, which would bring in the churhc, but "he has not cast off his people Israel forever" as Paul says, though he has for a while.Click to expand...
Incidentally Jesus Christ told the Jews in Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. That nation was a reference to the Church as the Apostle Peter writes in 1Peter 2:9, But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: There is no indication that this promise was ever revoked.
Original question by OldRegular:
By the way where in Scripture does it say "The kingdom was predicated on the acceptance of the Jews."?Click to expand...Response by Pastor Larry:
This is the consistent teaching of the OT from Deut 30 right on through. Zech 12 says it will come after they repent. Acts 3 predicates it on repentance, as does the new covenant in Jer 31. It is in more passages that I can name here in a reasonable amount of time.Click to expand...
Strange repentance in Zechariah 12:
Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Isn't it a little late for repentance after they crucified Him?
I am pleased to see that you recognize Jeremiah 31:31-34 as the New Covenant. Repentence under the New Covenant is individual not national.
Page 2 of 3