The Kingdom is visible

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I'm an orthodox (sometimes called "partial") preterist. Partial preterism denies a futuristic conception of the kingdom. There are various ways to construe a futuristic conception of the kingdom, but basically it means that the kingdom of God is a political entity, probably based in Jerusalem, for the millennial reign.

From time to time I hear/see futurists make claims about preterists and amillennialists in order to show that those views are mistaken. Once such claim is that they involve an invisible kingdom, which came but cannot be seen.

There's a ready response to this: It's just not true. The kingdom of God, while not a political empire, was established though Christ, and grows on the earth as more people come into it. It is very visible. Therefore the accusation of belief in an invisible kingdom is false.

But then what's this? Some people who advocate what they called preterism deny this. here are examples, supplied to me by technomage:

* James Patrick Holding (http://www.tektonics.org/esch/kingpret.html): "...it is a Kingdom truly 'invisible' on earth inside the hearts and heads of believers...."
* Mike Blume (http://mikeblume.com/partpret1.htm): "As opposed to a visible temple and physical Kingdom, His Kingdom is invisible and is in you. And it came at Pentecost, but was confirmed as God's only concern in 70 AD."
* D. H. Hume (http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/2005_hume_resurrection.html): "One nation was in its Last Days and about to see its demise, as the messengers had already been sent forth to gather the guests of the wedding supper to form the nucleus of the new nation. One nation was a visible Kingdom in its death throes. While the other nation were to form part of the invisible Kingdom of Heaven. This duality of the two kingdoms in contrast with one another forms the backbone of these sayings of Christ."

Why do these rpeterists say that? It's just not true. What's worse, James Patrick Holding actually says it as part of an article to help people come to terms with what preterism teaches about the kingdom!

Are there any invisible Christians at this forum? Are there any who can read history books and not see the kingdom on earth? What is this talk of an invisible kingdom? Invsible to whom?

[Sheepdog]

I'm invisible! :wink:

i suspect they are conflating "invisible" with "not of this world." Jesus himself made the point to Pilate that the Kingdom is not of the same quality as the nations of the world; otherwise his followers would be fighting for him.

I would be interested to see JP comment on this.

But I agree. To call the Kingdom "invisible" is a category error.

[dizzle]

There is an inherent ambiguity in the words. Sheepdog is correct - it is invisible if your frame of reference is comparison to a political kingdom. Knowing those authors, I believe that is what is in view.

but I further agree, the kingdom is not invisible, and if I had used that wording, I would clarify it. In writing sometimes it is hard to anticipate what the reader will bring to the table because it seemed so clear to us in what we bring, if that made any sense.

the same thing happens with discussions with futurists on the coming of Christ - they claim we believe in an invisible coming - from their presuppositions, that may be somewhat correct in that we don't think Jesus saddled up a stallion and led the Romans - in toto that is incorrect since the coming was the judgment, which was anything but invisible.

[rhutchin]

There is an inherent ambiguity in the words. Sheepdog is correct - it is invisible if your frame of reference is comparison to a political kingdom. Knowing those authors, I believe that is what is in view.

but I further agree, the kingdom is not invisible, and if I had used that wording, I would clarify it. In writing sometimes it is hard to anticipate what the reader will bring to the table because it seemed so clear to us in what we bring, if that made any sense.

the same thing happens with discussions with futurists on the coming of Christ - they claim we believe in an invisible coming - from their presuppositions, that may be somewhat correct in that we don't think Jesus saddled up a stallion and led the Romans - in toto that is incorrect since the coming was the judgment, which was anything but invisible.

Maybe it is that so many people who say that they are Christians blend in so well with the world that they might as well be invisible.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The thing that I don't get is: "Invisible" is not any kind of antonym for "political." It makes no sense to insert that unrelated term. Why not just say "non-political"? Invisible, to a normal reader, just means that it can't be seen.

The answer to the claim that we believe Jesus came invisibly is not that we do, in the sense that he didn't saddle up a stallion. It's that we don't at all, because we don't believe He personally returned at all - we literally reject that belief altogether. It's simply not what we take the coming to refer to. I don't think there's a comparison there.

So I don't see it at all as a matter of ambiguity. Some words are ambiguous, because they have a range of meaning. But in what world does "invisible" have "non-political" as one of its meanings? Seriously, theologians do stuff like this sometimes, they just words that a totally misleading, literally incorrect, and not helpful or informative in any way.

It leaves open the opportunity for grotesque mischaracterisations, and when people make statements like that, it leaves other preterists at the mercy of cynical critics. Just today i challenged somebody to find one, just one, preterist source that claimed that the kingdom came - but invisibly. I thought I was safe, because no preterist would say such a ridiculous thing, as it denies important aspects of a preterist view of the kingdom. But then what happens? He's able to turn around and quote gobbledygook, not from the critics of preterism, but from preterists themselves, saying such things.

I think this is a reasonable plea to my fellow pretrists, especially those planning on doing any writing or speaking on the subject: Have a little wisdom. Think about the meaning of the words you use, and don't needlessly hand ammunition to people, so that the rest of us will have to spend time saying "Yes, I know that some other preterist said that, but trust me, it really isn't what we believe!"

Rant over.


For now, anyway.

[Geek Eclectic]

I read the following in today's Pyromaniacs (http://teampyro.blogspot.com) blog post:
The universal Church, which may be called invisible (in respect of the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) consists of the entire number of the elect, all those who have been, who are, or who shall be gathered into one under Christ, Who is the Head. This universal Church is the wife, the body, the fullness of Him Who fills all in all.
I think that is pretty much the answer when people ask what someone means by the invisible kingdom. I know I've read similar answers from other people over the years -- people who claim the KoG is both visible and invisible.

[Theolog]

I too think the Kingdom is very visable.

To make it simple to understand try this; God/Jesus was the Old Covenant King but the Jews wanted to have a Human King like everyone else. God obliged and Israel went to hell in a hand basket. John the Baptist proclaimed the Kingdom of God is at hand. The Jews didn't have a clue so they killed the new King. The King was resurrected. Jesus is still the King of Israel for all that believe.

I am pretty comfortable with the Gospel "The kingdom of God is at hand, repent and enter in and let God/Jesus be your king". Endless blessings

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

I would go with invisible. The effects are visible, no doubt, but the kingdom itself is invisible.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

I'm an orthodox (sometimes called "partial") preterist. Partial preterism denies a futuristic conception of the kingdom. There are various ways to construe a futuristic conception of the kingdom, but basically it means that the kingdom of God is a political entity, probably based in Jerusalem, for the millennial reign.

From time to time I hear/see futurists make claims about preterists and amillennialists in order to show that those views are mistaken. Once such claim is that they involve an invisible kingdom, which came but cannot be seen.

There's a ready response to this: It's just not true. The kingdom of God, while not a political empire, was established though Christ, and grows on the earth as more people come into it. It is very visible. Therefore the accusation of belief in an invisible kingdom is false.

But then what's this? Some people who advocate what they called preterism deny this. here are examples, supplied to me by technomage:

* James Patrick Holding (http://www.tektonics.org/esch/kingpret.html): "...it is a Kingdom truly 'invisible' on earth inside the hearts and heads of believers...."
* Mike Blume (http://mikeblume.com/partpret1.htm): "As opposed to a visible temple and physical Kingdom, His Kingdom is invisible and is in you. And it came at Pentecost, but was confirmed as God's only concern in 70 AD."
* D. H. Hume (http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/2005_hume_resurrection.html): "One nation was in its Last Days and about to see its demise, as the messengers had already been sent forth to gather the guests of the wedding supper to form the nucleus of the new nation. One nation was a visible Kingdom in its death throes. While the other nation were to form part of the invisible Kingdom of Heaven. This duality of the two kingdoms in contrast with one another forms the backbone of these sayings of Christ."

Why do these rpeterists say that? It's just not true. What's worse, James Patrick Holding actually says it as part of an article to help people come to terms with what preterism teaches about the kingdom!

Are there any invisible Christians at this forum? Are there any who can read history books and not see the kingdom on earth? What is this talk of an invisible kingdom? Invsible to whom?

What is your definition of the "Kingdom of God"? The Church? People who show Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Spirit? A definition might help to clarify what you mean for some (like me) reading this thread.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

:hi: Futurist here!!

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I would go with invisible. The effects are visible, no doubt, but the kingdom itself is invisible.
Et Tu, Nick?

What do you think the kingdom consists of?

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

Et Tu, Nick?

What do you think the kingdom consists of?

I think the kingdom consists of things that aren't visible, but whose effects are visible. It consists of the reign of Jesus Christ on the throne and his will being carried out around the world. You can't look and say "Here it is", or "There it is." I see it the same way as the invisible church.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I think the kingdom consists of things that aren't visible, but whose effects are visible. It consists of the reign of Jesus Christ on the throne and his will being carried out around the world. You can't look and say "Here it is", or "There it is." I see it the same way as the invisible church.
:huh: I always thought that a kingdom consisted of the things that were in the kingdom.

So perhaps I should phrase it that way: What things, in your view, are in the kingdom?

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

:huh: I always thought that a kingdom consisted of the things that were in the kingdom.

So perhaps I should phrase it that way: What things, in your view, are in the kingdom?

Which I was sure was what I stated. You can see the visible effects as it comes to fruition, but to say that you can see the reign of Christ itself in the lives of believers I am hesitant to say. You cannot tell by sight who is and who isn't of the body.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

So the reign of Christ is what's IN the kingdom? I really don't know if that answers the question I posed: What is IN the kingdom?

Here's what I mean: My view is that the kingdom consists of people.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

So the reign of Christ is what's IN the kingdom? I really don't know if that answers the question I posed: What is IN the kingdom?

Here's what I mean: My view is that the kingdom consists of people.

And my view is that its effects can be seen in people. It is the same way I speak of the invisible church, but that does not mean church people are invisible.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

So you don't believe that the kingdom is invisible, you merely believe that it is unknown who is part of it and who is not. Well, it is not infallibly known. I have to say that this is just really unhelpful talk. Nick, are you part of the kingdom?

Talk of the "church invisible" is, I'll confess, sometimes also unhelpful, but I think talk of the invisible kingdom is even moreso, because the term "kingdom of God" is so importantly tied to the VISIBLE manifestation of God's rule, namely the community of His people. Calling it invisible plays directly into the outright confusion that critics accuse preterists of.

I continue to think that sometimes the language many Christians choose to adopt must seem like utter nonsense to someone who really wants to understand what we believe.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

What is your definition of the "Kingdom of God"? The Church? People who show Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Spirit? A definition might help to clarify what you mean for some (like me) reading this thread.The kingdom of God consists of those who are under God's rule as King. it is on the earth, and growing.

Now, I am sure that some of the preterists I have quoted would say, at times that this kingdom is visible (indeed, JPH has accused me of lacking reading comprehension, because at some point he DOES say this!). But my point is that they do say that the kingdom is invisible, which is not true in any helpful sense, and really adds confusion tot he mix, and employs language that does not accurately convey what preterism takes to be true.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

um arent the people the subjects of the kingdom, not the kindgom itself. The King (Jesus) is ruling from heaven and is not here physically on earth right now. So I kinda go with the "invisible" angle right now. One day Christ will return physically and rule physically on this earth. Then the kingdom will be visible and extant. I believe both futurists and partial preterists believe that, don't they?

To say the the kingdom is just the followers of God would mean that the kingdom was always here, since there have always been followers of God on earth. Even before Jesus came the first time.

[dizzle]

um arent the people the subjects of the kingdom, not the kindgom itself.

Then what is the kingdom itself? The territory? Well the earth is visible. Is the King the Kingdom? Jesus is still in a physical body, he isn't invisible just because we can't see Him any more than China is invisible because I can't see it from my porch.

One day Christ will return physically and rule physically on this earth. Then the kingdom will be visible and extant. I believe both futurists and partial preterists believe that, don't they?

Ummm no.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

Then what is the kingdom itself? The territory? Well the earth is visible. Is the King the Kingdom? Jesus is still in a physical body, he isn't invisible just because we can't see Him any more than China is invisible[quote]

Heaven is invisible to us, is it not? The kingdom is the whole heavenly government, from God down to the subjects. Part of that kingdom is not visible to us now. thus it is "in"visible.






[quote]Ummm no. You don't think that Jesus is coming back physically to rule the new Earth one day? What do you believe?

[dizzle]

Heaven is invisible to us, is it not? The kingdom is the whole heavenly government, from God down to the subjects. Part of that kingdom is not visible to us now. thus it is "in"visible.

And part is visible, thus not "in" visible.

You don't think that Jesus is coming back physically to rule the new Earth one day? What do you believe?

Jesus is coming back physically to consummate His present rule and turn the Kingdom over to the Father as per 1 Cor 15. Your language is a premillennial language and I don't accept premillennialism in any shape or form.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

um arent the people the subjects of the kingdom, not the kindgom itself. The King (Jesus) is ruling from heaven and is not here physically on earth right now. So I kinda go with the "invisible" angle right now. One day Christ will return physically and rule physically on this earth. Then the kingdom will be visible and extant. I believe both futurists and partial preterists believe that, don't they?Then all kingdoms are invisible! You can't see the reign of G W Bush, can you?
To say the the kingdom is just the followers of God would mean that the kingdom was always here, since there have always been followers of God on earth. Even before Jesus came the first time.And in a sense, sure, that's true. Jesus established a kingdom, in the sense that he won it, He legitimaised its authority etc, and - importantly for eschatological purposes, He inaugurated a new, international and exapanding era of it.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

Then all kingdoms are invisible! You can't see the reign of G W Bush, can you?

I can't? Ever hear of CSPAN? :rofl:

so basically it all boils down to semantics and what a person means by "visible"

I can't see you so you are invisible to me. sheesh.

And in a sense, sure, that's true. Jesus established a kingdom, in the sense that he won it, He legitimaised its authority etc, and - importantly for eschatological purposes, He inaugurated a new, international and exapanding era of it.

[dizzle]

Sparko, are you even reading what you post?

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

Sparko, are you even reading what you post?

:burrito:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I can't? Ever hear of CSPAN? :rofl:

so basically it all boils down to semantics and what a person means by "visible"

I can't see you so you are invisible to me. sheesh.Sparko, I would ask that you use words consistently. You said that we can't see God's kingdom, because the people who are in it are not the kingdom itself, but merely subjects thereof.

Using words in exactly the same way, you cannot see the reign of GW Bush.

If you think you can, then tell me: What colour is it?

Now, if you turn around and say "well, we can see the white house, and the military commanded by Bush, and citizen's of the nation under Bush, so we can see his reign!" Then I would answer: We can see churches, church services, the spread of the influence of the Gospel, and the people in the kingdom, so we can see Christ's reign in the same way.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

Sparko, I would ask that you use words consistently. You said that we can't see God's kingdom, because the people who are in it are not the kingdom itself, but merely subjects thereof.

Using words in exactly the same way, you cannot see the reign of GW Bush.

If you think you can, then tell me: What colour is it?

Now, if you turn around and say "well, we can see the white house, and the military commanded by Bush, and citizen's of the nation under Bush, so we can see his reign!" Then I would answer: We can see churches, church services, the spread of the influence of the Gospel, and the people in the kingdom, so we can see Christ's reign in the same way.

I said that the kingdom is not just the subjects but the king and the whole government. Now you can go to the whitehouse and see Bush, and you can watch the whole government in action on Cspan. But last time I looked I couldn't see heaven or Jesus sitting on his throne on TBN, although Benny Hinn does have a really nice gilded chair he sits on and he claims to heal and raise the dead so who knows.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I said that the kingdom is not just the subjects but the king and the whole government. Now you can go to the whitehouse and see Bush, and you can watch the whole government in action on Cspan. But last time I looked I couldn't see heaven or Jesus sitting on his throne on TBN, although Benny Hinn does have a really nice gilded chair he sits on and he claims to heal and raise the dead so who knows.
The kingdom is EVERYTHING reigned over by the King. The phrase "a kingdom with no king" is a phrase that makes sense, as is "a king without a kingdom." The reason they make sense (even if no such thing exists) is because there is a conceptual distinction between a king and his kingdom. A king reigns over a kingdom.

You can't see his reign, but you can see the thing he reigns over. This is true whether you can see the king or not.

Look at it this way: If Henry VIII had been zapped by aliens and became invisible, his kingdom would still be visible, right?

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

I think my stance and Sparko's are quite similar. We cannot see the reign itself, but we can sure see the effects of the reign. The same is true in Romans 1. I cannot see God's invisible attributes, but they are clearly made known in the creation.

In the same way, the kingdom consists of loyalty and devotion to YHWH. Now you cannot look at me and take me apart and find that devotion, but I would hope that when people look at my life, they can see the effects of that devotion.

Can we see the hearts and minds of believers? No. We can see though by their actions what is in their hearts and minds to a degree. That is the difference.

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

Nick is explaining things a bit better than I was.

[dizzle]

Sparko, I would ask that you use words consistently. You said that we can't see God's kingdom, because the people who are in it are not the kingdom itself, but merely subjects thereof.

Using words in exactly the same way, you cannot see the reign of GW Bush.

If you think you can, then tell me: What colour is it?

Now, if you turn around and say "well, we can see the white house, and the military commanded by Bush, and citizen's of the nation under Bush, so we can see his reign!" Then I would answer: We can see churches, church services, the spread of the influence of the Gospel, and the people in the kingdom, so we can see Christ's reign in the same way.

Not if you don't have CNN you silly Kiwi

[dizzle]

BTW, I don't agree that it cannot also be called invisible - but not to the exclusion of the very visible. Even for those who don't have CNN

[Secretary of the Navy Sparko]

BTW, I don't agree that it cannot also be called invisible - but not to the exclusion of the very visible. Even for those who don't have CNN

That's pretty much all I was trying to say. except I watch Fox News and Cspan. CNN is of da Devil.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

That's my stance. The effects are visible, no doubt, but how can we say that we see the reign of God? We see the effects of his reign, but it itself is not a physical thing we can see. How can we see the devotion of believers? We cannot see it, but we can see its effects.

It could be we're saying the same thing but emphasizing different sides.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

That's my stance. The effects are visible, no doubt, but how can we say that we see the reign of God? We see the effects of his reign, but it itself is not a physical thing we can see. How can we see the devotion of believers? We cannot see it, but we can see its effects.

It could be we're saying the same thing but emphasizing different sides.No, you're not saying the same thing.

Can you see the reign of G W Bush? Sparko laughed this off with a reference to CSPAN, but I'd like a real answer.



Moreover, here is a rebuttal:

1) If "kingdom" = "reign," then "the king reigns over His kingdom" is linguistic nonsense.
2) However, "the king reigns over His kingdom" is not linguistic nonsense, but a meaningful sentence.
2) Consequently, it is not true that "kingdom = reign."

The Kingdom is that over which the King reigns. I think people - for reasons that I have no explanation for - are resorting to stange uses of language to avoid saying that the Kingdom of God is visible.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

BTW, I don't agree that it cannot also be called invisible - but not to the exclusion of the very visible. Even for those who don't have CNNAs far as I can tell, the only sense in which a person might say that the kingdom is invisible is a sense in which every earthly kingdom is also invisible. Unless they say something silly like "The kingdom IS the king," which is just untrue.

[dizzle]

As far as I can tell, the only sense in which a person might say that the kingdom is invisible is a sense in which every earthly kingdom is also invisible. Unless they say something silly like "The kingdom IS the king," which is just untrue.

I simply disagree with that. The Kingdom is invisible in the sense that what binds it is an invisible Spirit and a spiritual King who is not visible Himself in His body on earth presently the way an earthly king would be. Further the "land" to which it ultimately is a citizen is heaven - a not currently visible realm. The battles it does are against invisible forces and the battle is often invisible.

With all due respect Jack, I think you are taking an unnecessary stand. It is both, depending upon which way you are looking at it. I understand your concern because it often seems as if many Christians want to invisiblize everything and rejected the current presence of the Kingdom, but I don't think jettisoning the reality of the invisible element is the answer.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

I simply disagree with that. The Kingdom is invisible in the sense that what binds it is an invisible Spirit and a spiritual King who is not visible Himself in His body on earth presently the way an earthly king would be. Further the "land" to which it ultimately is a citizen is heaven - a not currently visible realm. The battles it does are against invisible forces and the battle is often invisible.

With all due respect Jack, I think you are taking an unnecessary stand. It is both, depending upon which way you are looking at it. I understand your concern because it often seems as if many Christians want to invisiblize everything and rejected the current presence of the Kingdom, but I don't think jettisoning the reality of the invisible element is the answer.

DDW. I agree entirely. I think one of the problems is that every kingdom we compare it to has demarcations. I can point to a map and say "Here's where America is" and "Here's where France is" and "Here's where Zimbabwe is." Can we do that with the kingdom of God? Can you find it on a map? Not at all. It exists in the minds and hearts of believers. That is what the Lord reigns over. Those in the kingdom are those who have submitted to his reign.

Thank you though DDW. I don't see what the big deal is about really.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I simply disagree with that. The Kingdom is invisible in the sense that what binds it is an invisible Spirit and a spiritual King who is not visible Himself in His body on earth presently the way an earthly king would be.That is not the same sense of "visible" or "invisible" in which we would normally speak of any kingdom anywhere on earth being visible.
Further the "land" to which it ultimately is a citizen is heaven - a not currently visible realm. The battles it does are against invisible forces and the battle is often invisible.I agree that the kingdom of God does not wage carnal warfare. But the former claim is actually not true. The kingdom of God exists wherever its members exist. That's not "ultimately heaven," any more than it is ultimately earth.
With all due respect Jack, I think you are taking an unnecessary stand. It is both, depending upon which way you are looking at it. I understand your concern because it often seems as if many Christians want to invisiblize everything and rejected the current presence of the Kingdom, but I don't think jettisoning the reality of the invisible element is the answer.All I am saying is that there is no way to truthfully call God's Kingdom "invisible" while following ordinary canons of the English language. I believe theologians often adopt a parallel vocabulary that is unhelful and not conducive to gebnuinely conveying their ideas, and that's what I think people do when they go along with the "invisible" language.

Are there parts of the kingdom that can't be seen? Well, God as King is part of the kingdom, so sure. But then, parts of an iceberg cannot be seen either, but we would think it very unusual to literally call icebergs invisible!

Besides, the claims that were made in response tot he OP by both Nick and Saprko were that in fact the kingdom is invisible. Ineed, while they may now be softening, it was clear early on that what they were denying is that the Kingdom is visible. Throughout the course of such denials, what they mean by "the kingdom" itself has been very difficult to pin down. Sometimes it is the King Himself, sometimes it is His reign. The most obvious answer is: That over which a king reigns (which, I concede, includes Himself). The "reign" of any king is invisible.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

DDW. I agree entirely. I think one of the problems is that every kingdom we compare it to has demarcations. I can point to a map and say "Here's where America is" and "Here's where France is" and "Here's where Zimbabwe is." Can we do that with the kingdom of God? Can you find it on a map? Not at all. It exists in the minds and hearts of believers. That is what the Lord reigns over. Those in the kingdom are those who have submitted to his reign.If you're using "invisible" to simply mean non-geographical, then I wouldn't be so quick to assume that DDW will go for it (I could be wrong).

It also needs to be pointed out how clear unbiblical it is to say that the Lord rules over our hearts and minds and therefore whatHe reigns over is invisible. This is perhaps the consequence of a shockingly strong dualism, but Nick, doesn't the Lord reign over your body?
Thank you though DDW. I don't see what the big deal is about really.Some of us are truth freaks, and will pursue getting people to speak in a way that we consider truthful, even if those people disagee with our claim about what is true. Moreover, Calling the kingdom invisible betrays other preterists when those words are quoted back at them by anti-preterists.