Matt. 25:30

Brother Bartholomew,

I do not have a point with these Scriptures. I believe, however, that it is certain that none of them found in the four Gospels or Paul’s epistles are a reference to the millennium Kingdom. I have posted these Scriptures as objectively as I could to illustrate the use of the word “kingdom” in the New Testament so that each of you could read them together, comparing one with the other.

Why do you believe that?

What do you think of the theology of Zane C. Hodges?

What do you think of the theology of J. D. Faust?

What does your pastor believe about these things?

Because He Lives,

Craig

 

You really do have a wild imagination!

Wrong again! I copied that list of Scriptures from a data base that had nothing to do with either you or your theology.

As I said, you really have a wild imagination. I didn’t post that list of Scriptures to prove anything. I simply posted them so that they could be conveniently viewed together and compared with one another. Some of them may possibly be a reference to a future millennial kingdom.

Personally, I am more interested in studying the Scriptures than trying to prove a theology. The ones in that list that are from the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, from my perspective, are clearly speaking of something very different than a future millennial kingdom. If you have any data that refutes that perspective, I would like for you to post it so that we can all take a look at it.

 

I never posted 1Cor. 15:23-25 as a proof passage. I hope that you are not so careless in reading the Bible as you are in reading my posts. But let’s take a look at 1 Cor. 15:23-25 in context,

20. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (KJV)

20. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
21. For since by a man {came} death, by a man also {came} the resurrection of the dead.
22. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
23. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,
24. then {comes} the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
27. For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
28. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (NASB, 1995)

Although I am essentially premillenial in my thinking, this passage more easily fits into a postmillennial scheme. According to that scheme, Christ is reigning now and must continue to reign “until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” Then, when “the end” comes, “when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power,” “He (raptures the church and) hands over the kingdom to the God and Father.”

Even if the premillenial view is correct, and I believe that it is, I don’t see the slightest hint of it in this passage. And of course the following verse sheds a whole lot of light on the subject,

29. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? KJV

29. Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? (NASB, 1995)

1 Cor. 15 is a proof text for the resurrection; it is NOT a proof text for your view that the kingdom of God is the premillenial reign of Christ. Nor, of course, is it a proof text for my view of the kingdom of God.

 

Hey, Brother,

It is good to hear from you again!

Tertullian, as did the other Ante-Nicene Church Father, believed in conditional security. I do not have the time to post quotes from Tertullian to support this statement right now, but I will later. I hope that you don't vanish again in the mean time.

 

Brother Bartholomew,

Please find below a quote in which Tertullian expresses his understanding of Heb. 6:4-6:

"The discipline, therefore, of the apostles properly (so called), indeed, instructs and determinately directs, as a principal point, the overseer of all sanctity as regards the temple of God to the universal eradication of every sacrilegious outrage upon modesty, without any mention of restoration. I wish, however, redundantly to superadd the testimony likewise of one particular comrade of the apostles, — (a testimony) aptly suited for confirming, by most proximate right, the discipline of his masters. For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas — a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence: "Or else, I alone and Barnabas, have not we the power of working?" And, of course, the Epistle of Barnabas is more generally received among the Churches than that apocryphal "Shepherd" of adulterers. Warning, accordingly, the disciples to omit all first principles, and strive rather after perfection, and not lay again the foundations of repentance from the works of the dead, he says: "For impossible it is that they who have once been illuminated, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have participated in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the word of God and found it sweet, when they shall — their age already setting — have fallen away, should be again recalled unto repentance, crucifying again for themselves the Son of God, and dishonouring Him." "For the earth which hath drunk the rain often descending upon it, and hath borne grass apt for them on whose account it is tilled withal, attaineth God's blessing; but if it bring forth thorns, it is reprobate, and nighest to cursing, whose end is (doomed) unto utter burning." He who learnt this from apostles, and taught it with apostles, never knew of any "second repentance" promised by apostles to the adulterer and fornicator.” Tertullian “On Modesty,” chapter 20.

Here is another explicit quote from Tertullian regarding OSAS:

“But the world returned unto sin; in which point baptism would ill be compared to the deluge. And so it is destined to fire; just as the man too is, who after baptism renews his sins: so that this also ought to be accepted as a sign for our admonition.” Tertullian “On Water Baptism,” chapter 8

And here is another explicit quote from Tertullian regarding OSAS:

For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? is not this gift taken away from many? These, no doubt, are they who do steal a march upon (the treasure), who, after approaching to the faith of repentance, set up on the sands a house doomed to ruin. Let no one, then, flatter himself on the ground of being assigned to the "recruit-classes" of learners, as if on that account he have a licence even now to sin. As soon as you "know the Lord,[12] you should fear Him; as soon as you have gazed on Him, you should reverence Him. But what difference does your "knowing" Him make, while you rest in the same practises as in days bygone, when you knew Him not? What, moreover, is it which distinguishes you from a perfected[1] servant of God? Is there one Christ for the baptized, another for the learners? Have they some different hope or reward? some different dread of judgment? some different necessity for repentance? That baptismal washing is a sealing of faith, which faith is begun and is commended by the faith of repentance” Tertullian “On Repentance,” chapter 6.

Do the expressions “whose end is (doomed) unto utter burning” and “destined to fire” sound to you as though they are merely speaking of being denied entrance into the Millennial Kingdom. To me they sound as though they are speaking of the fires of hell.