1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The church didn't replace Israel, Christ did.

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Daniel David, Dec 19, 2004.

  1. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Blazer

    Glad to see you back. Not sure if I should show some of subtle flaws and serious errors in MH's reasoning or not. Do not want to wound a brother for whom Christ died.

    I like and use MH. He, nor anyone else, is above error. He was a great man of God. Of this there is no doubt. While I disagree with his interpretation (for good reasons) I do not malaign his character (even though he was post-Origen and post-Augustine).
     
  2. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    HOW ABOUT THAT!!! Larry resolved the dilemma for me! Thanks PL (check for a PM).
     
  3. trailblazer

    trailblazer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry and rj,

    Did Jesus answer directly or indirectly in Mt 17:10-13? Indirectly!!!
    Did Jesus answer this directly in Luke 17:20:21? Nooooo!
    Here Jesus answers them with a parable instead of directly concerning their misunderstanding of an earthly kingdom in Luke 19:11-27
     
  4. trailblazer

    trailblazer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    CONSIDER SCRIPTURE QUOTED! [​IMG]
     
  5. trailblazer

    trailblazer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Christ had himself told his disciples the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, and had promised that the Spirit should show them things to come concerning it, Jn. 16:13. He had likewise given them signs of the times, which it was their duty to observe, and a sin to overlook, Mt. 24:33; 16:3." Matthew Henry)

    Jesus: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.." (Jn 16:12-13)

    NOW, can you see that in Acts 1, Jesus was STILL not answering directly because his Kingdom had not yet fully COME until the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost? It was THEN that the disciples understood because they did not have to ask any more as is evident in the rest of Acts - they KNEW and understood his previous words in the gospels.

    [ January 05, 2005, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: trailblazer ]
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quoting Scripture in suppot of a premise not found in Scripture is not scriptural support. You don't have to read those texts very closely to see they don't support your premise if you don't start with your premise. In other words, if you come to those texts with your presupposition, you would never get that out of those texts.

    YOu again cite Henry in John 16, but that doesn't fly. That is not what John was talking about. That is a prophecy about coming revelation, not about the kingdom. Furthermore, it would be inconceivable for the Spirit to reveal truth contradictory to the promises already given. In other words, God gave promises in the OT that must be fulfilled. It will not work to change those promises. Let me illustrate this way: You promise your daughter you will take her to the mall on Saturday. When Saturday comes, your daughter expects to go, but you leave without her. And when you come back late that night, she asks you about it, and you say, "Well I fulfilled that promise. I took your brother to the mall." Your daughter would rightly have an objection that that was not the promise you made. In a similar way, God made a promise to the nation of Israel, specifically defined as the genetic descendants of Abraham. It will not be fulfilled with anyone but the nation of Israel. God can, and did, make promises to others, but that did not negate the promise he made to Isreal. Many object that Israel lost the promise by rejecting the Messiah, but Paul clarified that in Galatians 3 when he said that the Law did not annul the Promise.

    THe most those passages say is that the Kingdom was being experienced in the first century (Luke 17 ... in your midst) and that certain things must happen before the end, and that no one knows the time of it. So we must take those passages for what they say, understood against the background of God's unchanging promises in the OT.
     
  7. trailblazer

    trailblazer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Make up your mind please!

    What more do you want?

    I gave you a great commentator that was not tainted by Darby. I gave you scripture. I answered your questions about why Christ did not correct his disciples. It is not my stumbling block it is your. There are only problems because dispenstionalists cannot see the forest for the trees planted by Darby. Now I am off this site permanently.
     
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I refuted that great commentator by taking Scripture in its context and pointing out how inadequate his answer was. Your Scripture said nothing in support of your premise. You did not give a good reason why Christ didn't answer. In your position, Christ knowingly allowed those apostles on whose teaching the church was founded to believe an incorrect teaching. I am not stumbling at all. You have failed to use Scripture to support your position.

    I can see the forest just fine. I simply cannot accept the premise that causes you to read Scripture in the way that you do.

    We cannot abandon Scripture simply to be amillennial or postmillennial. When God promised an earthly kingdom ruled over by Jesus Christ, he meant it. He will not go back on that promise. We are the one who must change to conform our beliefs to his revelation.
     
  9. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It can be a pretty hot kitchen.

    HankD
     
  10. trailblazer

    trailblazer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, I read over your “critique” and just could not walk away without responding to the incredible notions that you laid out there first. I want to do two things.
    1) address a few of the remarks of yours.
    2) To address your claim of Peter’s promise of an earthly kingdom in Acts 3.
    First, the outlandish remarks on Acts 1:6 using Matthew Henry.

    (tb) Only complete denial of Biblical history would dismiss the fact that, even outside scripture, with the exception of the remnant, the Jews at the time of Christ expected an earthly Kingdom!

    As far as to MH’s not supporting his claim that they were “amiss in the question to Christ about their expectations with scripture goes; Matt IS basing his whole presentation on scripture! Now, even if he doesn’t inject additional scripture where YOU think he should, then let me remind you that those verse numbers were created by man!

    Now, as to why Christ did not correct them goes- he REBUKED them for asking and did give them an answer which was to tell them that THEY WERE’NT SUPPOSED TO KNOW the times or the dates because the Father has them fixed.

    (Larry) “And where did they get this “thought” or “expectation”? The anser is clear: They got it from the words of the OT and from the words of the teaching of Jesus. In 3 1/2 years, Jesus had not done anything to dispel this notion from them. After 3 1/2 years of discipleship in the school of Christ, the disciples still thought there would be an earthly kingdom, and Christ, in his last earthly chance, did nothing to correct that notion. That is very telling.”) [/quote]

    (TB) True, that they got it from the OT. And, true, Jesus did not “dispel their notion” because he knew that they did not or could not comprehend the full meanings of what he was teaching them for 3 ½ years because “THE HOLY SPIRIT HAD NOT COME YET!!!!”

    (Larry) “But again, a fatal flaw arises. The disciples did not ask about the church; they asked about Israel. Henry slyly changes words as if they don't mean anything. We should not tolerate that.”
    (TB) I cannot get into the mind of MH and speak for him but he simply does not elaborate on the usage of “Israel.” But to say that Matthew Henry slyly changes words dishonors such a highly respected theologian that has been in great regards for 300 years!
    However, I can offer this once again.
    1) They were still looking for the earthly kingdom! Once again, they had not full comprehension because the Holy Spirit had not yet come!
    2) The “church” as they would come to know it had not yet been born.

    (Larry) “But the job of a teacher is to dispel false notions.”
    (TB) They did not have false notions – their understanding was incomplete.

    (Larry) “Christ, the master teacher, did not [dispel their false notions.] Why not? We can only conclude he did not because they were right in their expectation. Christ acknowledged as much by his reply.”
    (TB) “No, you cannot conclude that unless you wish to be in error in your conclusions based on your lack of understanding of what was to happen at Pentecost.”

    (Larry)” This is a statement that cannot be verified from the text. It fits neatly, but shows that Henry (as do others on both sides) assumes certain things to support their view.”
    (TB)”Yes, it does!”….”Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel” was their question.

    (Larry)” This is a self-condemning statement from Henry. He has take the literal and made it figurative. He has condemned the disciples for doing the very thing he recommends.”
    (TB) No, I would say that this is an irony that Matthew Henry would have been writing 300 years ago about dispensationalist that take literally what is supposed to be taken figuratively!

    (Larry) “This message of a coming kingdom was the message of the church in Acts and the NT, culminating in the book of Revelation. It was never "rectified" until long after the revelatory age had ended.”
    (TB) “And you point the finger at Matthew Henry for not using scripture to support his position on a claim????”

    (Larry) ”Not true on several counts. First, his reply is an acknowledgement that their conception was a correct one.”
    (TB) O, just see all the above – it’s the lack of understanding scripture by the dispy’s again

    (Larry) “Secondly, In Acts 3, just days or weeks after the pouring out of the Spirit, when such teaching would have been fresh, Peter again preaches the notion of a coming kingdom.”

    (TB) I’m just going to move on to Acts 3. Now, I’m really going to try and be nice about this but you actually had the audacity to lay out a diatribe against Matthew Henry and then proceed to claim that;

    Where do you see any such thing? Where do you even see the words “coming kingdom” let alone the “notion” of a coming kingdom” there?” This to me means only one thing to me “The eyes of the dispensationalist are just as blind as those of the Pharisees if they see in Acts 3 a promise of a coming earthly kingdom!”

    If you are referring to Acts 3:20 where Peter says “…and that he may send the Christ appointed for you…” then I would simply say that absolutely nowhere in here does it say that Christ would be coming to set up an earthly kingdom. Once again Dispensationalism has to do a cut-and-paste job on scripture to arrive at that conclusion.

    Now, here is what a few scholars have to say about Acts 3:19-20. First of all, verse 19 is clearly talking about “repentance and the forgiveness of sins.” Refreshing is the word that is used – nothing can be altered to change that meaning!

    Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament
    Verses 20, 21
    And that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus, whom the heavens must receive until the times of restoration of all things, whereof God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets that have been of old.”
    Whereas in Acts 2:38 Peter had promised that remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit would follow their obeying the gospel, there is here assigned another consequence, namely, that (God) may send the Christ, etc. Christ had already come and completed the work of his First Advent, making this a reference to the Second Coming, which in this verse is promised as an event that would be hastened by the people obeying the gospel, indicating, as McGarvey said, that:
    A certain amount of work in the saving of men was to be accomplished before his coming. This is indicated by the qualifying remark, "whom the heavens must receive until the restoration of all things whereof God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets." F16
    There is a definite hint here that Christ's Second Advent will not appear until a certain number of souls have been redeemed; and, that being true, one of the reasons for the severe weeping of Jesus over the fate of Jerusalem due to their rejecting him is evident. IF the Jews had received Christ, there can be no doubt that Christianity would have been the choice of far greater numbers of men, and God's purpose could have been realized much sooner; and Peter definitely says as much right here. The tragic rejection of Israel, however, had the effect of extending the long agony of mankind, vastly increasing the numbers of men who would be born, and thus fulfilling the curse upon Eve that God would "multiply thy sorrow and thy conception" (Genesis 3:16). Thus, the human race blew its second chance in Israel's rejection of the Christ, the same being a disaster for humanity, fully comparable to the original debacle in Eden. Here, Peter pleaded with the people to obey the gospel that God might send the Christ, etc., in his Second Advent.
    Whom the heavens must receive ...
    means that Jesus will not appear again until a certain time future, at which time "the restoration of all things," in one sense, shall have been completed, and to be followed by certain other restorations. Here again one thinks of the primary and secondary arches of the rainbow, as so often in prophecy.
    Until the times of the restoration of all things ...
    The primary and immediate thing in view here is the accomplishment of all those things which had been prophesied by the Old Testament prophets, Acts 3:21b being a qualifier of the things to be restored; and, concerning those things, the Second Advent will be at the end, not the beginning of the restoration. The premillennial views are not supported by this text. Christ explained that John the Baptist's coming to "restore all things" was fully accomplished (Matthew 17:11,12); and men "knew him not." Also, none of the outlandish things the Jews thought would happen when Elijah "restored all things" ever took place. It is, in all probability, certain that the "restoration of all things," as taught by the prophets, is now going on under the reign of Christ, and that all shall be accomplished without the majority of mankind ever being in the slightest degree aware of it. Jesus himself made the work and the events of John's ministry, in cetain particulars, typical of his own. Just as John was killed, so would Jesus be crucified, etc.

    (Definitely nothing about an earthly kingdom here!)

    Barnes Notes on the New Testament

    Verse 20. And he shall send, etc. Acts 1:11. Under this economy of things, he shall send Jesus Christ, i.e. the Messiah, to teach men; to redeem them; to save them; to judge the world; to gather his people to himself; and to condemn the wicked. Under this economy they were then. This, therefore, was an argument why they should repent and turn to God that they might escape in the Day of Judgment.

    (Nothing about an earthly kingdom here – just Christ 2nd Coming and Judgment!)

    J. W. McGarvey’s Original Commentary on Acts

    The third promise that God would send Jesus Christ, who was before preached to them, was dependent upon their obedience, only in so far as they would thus contribute to the object for which he will come, to raise from the dead, and receive into glory, all that are his. It is qualified by the remark, "whom heaven must retain until the times of the restoration of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."… But the apostle speaks of a restoration of all things of which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets. Now, there are many things spoken of by the prophets beside those that refer to the final triumphs of the truth, and all these are included in the expression. Some of these things will not consist, individually considered, in restoration, but in destruction. Still, the prevailing object of all the things of which the prophets have spoken, even the destruction of wicked nations and apostate Churches, is to finally restore that moral law which God originally exercised over the whole earth. It is doubtless this thought which suggested the term restoration, though reference is had to the fulfillment of all the prophecies that are to be fulfilled on earth. Not till all are fulfilled will Christ come again.
     
  11. trailblazer

    trailblazer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry and RJ,

    In regards to the false assumption that because their misunderstanding of Christ's Kingdom being a spiritual kingdom rather than an earthly kingdom, let me say this; it is a very serious false claim that because Christ "didn't correct them" they were right. Yet, the truth of scripture shows that it was because Christ had not revealed everything that they were to know until after Pentecost;

    John 16:12..."I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;...and he will declare to you the things that are to come."

    John 13:7...Concerning their lack of understanding about the foot washing; "Jesus answered him, "What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand."

    Do we still not understand all things though? Yes!

    1 Cor 13:12..."For Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully..."

    Rev. 10:4..."...I was about to write, but I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Seal up what the seven thunders have said, and do not write it down."

    Finally, I find it most troubling that you dismiss stalwart commentators like Matthew Henry that has been held in such high regards for 300 years without seriously questioning the doctrines that come out of some of the Bible Institutes and seminaries like Dallas Theological Seminary where even they admit that their very foundation came through Scofield who got his theory from Darby who got his "enlightenment" from a 15 year old by the name of Margaret McDonald in Glasgow, Scotland in 1830 - less that 200 years ago! This all within the timeframe that the Jehovah's Witness got started through C.T. Russell's new "enlightenment" and Mary Baker Eddy got going, Joe Smith and the Mormons had their "divine prophet" illumination....need I say more? The historical roots of dispensationalism alone should cause you give serious consideration to the positions that defy 1,800 years of church teachings!

    Just as Jesus had the harshest words for the religious leaders of his time - he will have the harshest words of those standing in the pulpit when he returns to cleanse the present "temple" today of its false teachers that take so much "pride" in their theory that they can't humble themselves to admit that it's nothing more than human traditons of men. Even more serious are the booksellers that are in abundant supply that promote the false theory. Books are good if they expostulize existing truth but when they fabricate "new doctrine" that doesn't exist, it is VERY SERIOUS INDEED!
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is exactly what I would say about the proponents of amill/postmill ... those who compromise the faithfulness and truthfulness of God in order ot maintain their own personal theory of what must happen in the end. They take so much pride in their own theory that they cannot bring themselves to submit their minds to the teaching of Scripture.

    No one claims we understand all things. That is not the point. The point is that Scripture very clearly teaches a premill viewpoint and Christ affirmed it, both by his teaching and by his silence. The apostles preached it in th early church. We should not abandon it for the theories of well-meaning, but misguided men. We discount the "stalwart commentators" like Henry on this point because we can read the Scriptures and understand what they say. Henry was not granted apostolic status. He learned from those who had been wrong themselves. He is no longer an amillennialist. He is firmly premillennial, as we all will be. The premlll position is the position of hte early church, and has roots firmly in teh past. In addition, as we have already pointed out, church hisotyr is not authoritative. The doctrine of eschatology was not well thought out in previous times. We must give consideration to Scripture and follow that. When we do, we will be dispensationalists.

    Having said all that, I have many friends who are not, and I benefit greatly from many men who are not. I hold no animosity and do not question their salvation or love for God. You should do the same for those who disagree with you.
     
  13. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2002
    Messages:
    3,385
    Likes Received:
    23
    Kind like Scofield,Darby and LaHaye???
     
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't speak for them since I don't know them. And I doubt if you do, so you probably can't speak for them either. As a whole, the dispensational position is the result of a mind submitted to Scripture in the matters of eschatology. Some have a hard time with that, and that is fine.
     
  15. trailblazer

    trailblazer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Grasshopper,

    I find it so sad more than anything else. I was just reading a commentator that compared the similarities to this modern day fixation about the End Times to the Garden of Eden. There God told Adam that He could "..eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat..." Meaning that there are things that God does not want us to know about. Then, looking at Acts 1:7 Christ rebukes the disciples and tells them "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority." Then, Christ immediately tells them what their "fixation" is supposed to be on. It is very interesting reading.

    Also, here is a good resource for you if you are interested.

    http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/amillennial.shtml
     
  16. rjprince

    rjprince Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Blazer,

    Glad you are still here! Jesus had just spent some of His 40 day postresurrection speaking of things "pertaining to the kingdom of God." It was following this teaching that they asked "Lord wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel". Again, I contend that they did not misunderstand the fact of a literal kingdom for Israel, only the timing aspect.
     
Loading...