Kingdom of Heaven/God

[joelkaki]

Ok, this is for debate purposes with dispensationalists. Is the kingdom of heaven the same thing as the kingdom of God?


Joel

[Hitch]

M19;23,24

sorry couldnt resist

[undead]

I am not an expert in this, but you can find out some interesting things by using a concordance.

"Kingdom of Heaven" occurs only in Matthew.
"Kingdom of God" occurs in all the gospels, Acts, Epistles".

The two phrases seem to be interchangeable:


Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables.

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

[joelkaki]

M19;23,24

sorry couldnt resist

No problem--actually I was hoping you would bring that one up, since I didn't have that particular reference handy.

Joel

[joelkaki]

I am not an expert in this, but you can find out some interesting things by using a concordance.

"Kingdom of Heaven" occurs only in Matthew.
"Kingdom of God" occurs in all the gospels, Acts, Epistles".

The two phrases seem to be interchangeable:


Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables.

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Yes, I believe that they are interchangeable. Most dispensationalists, however, disagree. They put a dichotomy between the two. I am waiting to see how some of them will respond--I've got one Scripture passage that I found recently that I have never seen a dispy deal with.

Joel

[Hitch]

We shall see Joel. But Im afraid that many even self professed DFs dont even know this is or ever was an important DF distinctive.

H

[joelkaki]

Very true. If no one responds, I'll just go ahead and make my case.

Joel

[Hitch]

About the same as the Dispensation of Saint Luke...

H

[Act9_12Out]

Lovely.... More straw men... I can hardly wait...

:argh:

[Hitch]

03-14-2003 @ 02:30 AM
Act9_12Out:

Lovely.... More straw men... I can hardly wait...

:argh: Hmmmmmmm the mid acts mantra,, do you guys do haiku as well?

[joelkaki]

Acts9, would you not agree with the KOG/KOH distinction? I really have not heard the X9 position on this, but many many X2ers say so.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

joel,

As far as this discussion is concerned, I believe the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God are one in the same. If we are going to discuss "God's Kingdom," it is important to look at all of the references to the kingdom, and the context of the passages we reference. For example...

"Kingdom of their Father.."
"Kingdom of our Father David.." Mark 11:10
"the kingdom..." Acts 1:6
"Kingdom of Christ and God..." Ephesians 5:5
"Kingdom of the Son of His love..." Colossians 1:13
"His own Kingdom..." 1 Thessalonians 2:12
"His Kingdom..." 2 Timothy 4:1
"His heavenly Kingdom..." 2 Timothy 4:18
(Referring to the Son) "Your kingdom..." Hebrews 1:8
"Everlasting Kingdom..." 2 Peter 1:11
"Kingdom of our God..." Revelation 12:10

This is just a sampling of the over 300 times the word "Kingdom" appears in the Bible... But, it's your discussion... If you want to limit the discussion to the "Kingdom of Heaven" and "The Kingdom of God," that's up to you...

--Jeremy

[joelkaki]

The reason I initially limited it to KOG/KOH was because the form of dispensationalism that I am most familiar with, which is the most widely held form, takes that distinction. But if you want to expand on the 'other' kingdoms, then go ahead.

Joel

[adam.naranjo]

Acts9_12out,

(Having been an acts 9 dispensationalist I have an Idea as to how you will answer the following question, never-the-less I would like to hear your approach, and I would like the rest of TWEB to hear it as well)

Please only respond to the acutal questions and NOTHING written in ()'s...as this will cause us to get way off topic. ANd please respond with regard to the PASSAGES themselves, as we could get WAY of topic by discussing, for example, the O.T. prophecy regarding the Kingdom.


question:
Please tell me WHY I should not believe that at least 2 things are pressumed in the following passages:
("Kingdom of Christ and God..." Ephesians 5:5;"Kingdom of the "Son of His love..." Colossians 1:13; "His own Kingdom..." 1 Thessalonians 2:12; "His Kingdom..." 2 Timothy 4:1; "His heavenly Kingdom..." 2 Timothy 4:18)


ONE:
That PAUL and the gentile believers to whom he wrote, who were in the BODY of Christ, were also a "part of", "in", "members of", and otherwise "not excluded" from the "one-and-only" "Kingdom of Christ, God, Heaven," etc,.

In other words. It seems to me that these passages clearly teach that the Kingdom was ACTIVE at the TIME, and that those to whom Paul was writing were Involved in that KINGDOM. (most acts 9'ers accept that KINGDOM means THE PHYSICAL DAVIDIC KINGDOM, however at this point many change the meaning of kingdom ARBITRARILY -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?? That means, without sufficient REASON. Acts 9er's do this because they HAVE TO. THey interpret this passage in accordance with the presupposition of acts 9 theology.)


TWO:
That there is NO distinctions between the kingdom of light, Glory, beloved Son, etc,. and the 'davidic kingdom to which Jesus, and the "Jewish" apostles spoke. (there are no distinctions mentioned, and non seem to be assumed in language or context)


THREE:
That Paul was "part of" and was "entiltled to entrance into" the KINGDOM -- both in its earthly reality, (col 3:13 1 Thess 2:12) and in its heavenly (2 tim 4:18) (Therefore [paul] NOT being the "FIRST" of the "CHURCH" body, that is distinct from the Jewish bride, and seperated from the Kingdom promise, BUT rather was living in the kingdom promise -- as is clear in acts 2 [which you would agree with])


In other words tell my why I should not take the natural reading of these passages and believe that the one-and-only KINGDOM was at work at tha TIME, and through the ministry of Paul, and that these gentiles were part of it.

Adam.Naranjo

[PuritanD]

Joel,

Dispensationalist of all stripes do not see a distiction between the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God and would be a useless question.

A better post would be: Does dispensationalist see a distinction between the KOH/KOG and the Davidic Kingdom. This is where you will benefit the most in any discussion with dispensationalists. Most believe that the Davidic Kingdom is an aspect that literally involves the nation of Israel alone and that the millinial kingdom is the fulfillment of this particular covenantal promise to David.

PuritanD

[Woman]

Joel: Acts9, would you not agree with the KOG/KOH distinction? I really have not heard the X9 position on this, but many many X2ers say so.

I don't know if this is the proper place or time to ask this, but could you translate for those of us who might not know what you're talking about?

Thanks in advance

[Hitch]

Ok but you asked for it..

The classical read that DTS trained DFs because of their adoption of the SRB made a point of seperating the KOG from the KOH. Teaching that the KOH announced by the Babptist is orgainic and earthly , and Davidic in nature. (p 996 SRB), While the KOG is spiritual and requires the 'new birth' for entry. (p 1003 SRB) Joel's question is whether the X9 (or Mid Acts) variety of DFs adopt a similar view. clear as mud right?

In english.

The version of dispensational/futurism most commonly held in the United States is that taught by Dallas Theological Seminary using the Scofield Reference Bible. That work marks a difference in the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven, which it says was announced by the Baptist, and offerred to the Jews by Christ, an earthly and Davidic geo-political entity, and the Kingdom of God which is entirely spiritual. Joel is asking Acts 9 , (whom I refer to genericly as X9) whether his version of dispensationalsim makes a similar distinction.

As there are quite a number of differences between the classical or Scofieldist and Mid Acts (X9) versions of dispensationalism. The X9 version being the minority.

The answer to the basic question was long ago settled by none other than our Lord when he explained it thus;


Matt 19:23-25
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
(KJV)

These terms mean the same thing. there is no difference.


Take care

Hitch

[Woman]

Hitch,

Thank you for taking the time to translate/explain that to me. I do appreciate it.

[Darth Xena]

Hey Adam, I did not know you used to be an X9er. I may be coming to you for some assistance from time to time.

[PuritanD]

According to Walvoord, "...distinguishing between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God does not have any significant effect upon the doctirn of the kingdom or upon the overall relationship of the doctrint of the kingdom to prophecy."

Again he states, "Dispensationalism does not depend on recognition of the professing element in the kingdom, nor does it depend on distinguishing between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God." Bold is mine.

Quotes from "Issues in Dispensationalism" eds. Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master, p. 79

Just thought that I would help cloud the issue.

PuritanD

[Hitch]

Can ya blame him PD? Would you wnat to be defending that stuff?

Take care


Hitch

[joelkaki]

OK, since no one seems willing to defend such a distinction, let's open it up to the distinction between KOG/H and K of David.


Joel

[Darth Xena]

Good idea Joel.

[adam.naranjo]

Kingdom of God, Heaven, David.

There is NO difference.
Acts 2 clearly teaches that Christ was raised to the DAVIDIC THRONE as was prophecied by david:

Acts 2
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 upon 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 Thine enemies a footstool for Thy 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.”

Of course this matches:

Daniel 7:13
13 “I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14 “And to Him was given dominion,Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations, and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.


Check this out,

A)
Christ recieved the Kingdom when He ascended to the Father -- NOT when he will descend, he already did descend in the first advent, and brought to us the Kingdom. JESUS: "If I cast out deamons...the Kingdom of God has come upon you". of course, I could mention a ton of other versus for this.

A.5)
The Kingdom that Christ received is an ETERNAL one...( NOT a temporary one acts 9er's -- sorry It's not acts 2-9).

B)
The kingdom he received cannot be "destroyed" by Jewish rejection -- or by anything else. (Hence, Progressive dispensationalists rightly concede that Christ is reigning now on davids throne. However, its only in a spiritual sense according to them)

C)
The kingdom, dominion, and Davidic throne which Christ was given at his acsension -- not his bodily return -- was given until HIS ENEMIES BECOME THE FOOTSTOOL OF HIS FEET. Sorry acts 9er's, the text does not say, 'until the jews undo the work and will of God"... Instead, what we see is 1 cor 15, that tells us that the bodily return of Christ will bring the FINAL RESURRECTION, IN WHICH DEATH WILL HAVE BEEN DEFEATED, AND THEN WILL COME THE 'END' WHEN CHRIST HANDS OF THE KINGDOM TO THE FATHER -- HAVING ALREADY DEAFTED HIS ENEMIES. 1 cor 15 is a KILLER, for dispensationalists. It doesn't make sense in their view, and it cant be made to.

1 cor 15 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 delivers up 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."

D)
If Christ recieved the kingdom according to Davids prophecy and Daniels prophecy, which were said to have BEEN fullfilled by Peter in Acts 2, then the only consistant inference can be that Christ is NOW reigning on that davidic throne -- As it says he is.

E)
1 cor 15, says that he is reigning right now, until his enemies become his footstool. Acts 9er's have to destroy this verse and its context in order to change the simple, common, literal meaning.
Christ reigns, his DOMINION is progressive (mt. 13:31-34 and Ez 47:1-12) until his enemies become his footstool, THEN the final enemy (death) is destroyed in "the" (1) resurrection and judgement, and THEN the END when Christ hands the kingdom to the father. ETERNAL state following. Its that simple.


There is no doubt that Christ is reigning on davids throne, NOW!
All rational dispensationalists have conceded to this and become PROGRESSIVE. BUT, not long after that they will all be orthodox preterists and postmillennialists. Read the book, "A house divided: the break up of dispensationslism" by greg bahnsen.


Adam.naranjo

[Darth Xena]

Bravo Adam!! I can tell you that it was 1 Corinthians 15 that was the earth-shattering passage for me when I came to grips with the implications of what it said. In one fell swoop premill was gone and postmill (or amill theoretically if I were not preterist) came a-charging in.

Have you seen my thread here called "The Location of Christ's Reign" - no answer thus far from the dispensationalist camp, X9 or otherwise.

[joelkaki]

Extremely good post Adam. Expressed my views exactly. I have been wanting to get Greg Bahnsen's book for quite some time, but haven't yet been able to get a hold of it.


Joel

[Hitch]

LOL Well that ddint last long...

[joelkaki]

Matthew 19:14
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Mark 10:14
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luke 18:16
16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of
God.

Matt 4:12-17
12 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;

13 And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:

14 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,

15 The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;

16 The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mark 1:14-15
14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.


Matt 5:20
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

1 Cor 6:9
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,



Matt 11:11-12
11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Luke 7:28
28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.




Matt 5:3
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 6:20-21
20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.


Matt 19:23-24
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Mark 10:24-25
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


That was all just to prove my initial point. Now we can get onto the rest of the kingdom discussion.

Joel

[Act9_12Out]

Adam,

Before answering the questions on page one, I ask, if I believe that the body of Christ is "seated above the heavenlies," are not the heavens included in God's kingdom?

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Adam,

You say,A)
Christ recieved the Kingdom when He ascended to the Father -- NOT when he will descend, he already did descend in the first advent, and brought to us the Kingdom. JESUS: "If I cast out deamons...the Kingdom of God has come upon you". of course, I could mention a ton of other versus for this.I don't disagree, but wonder if you believe the 12 Apostles are seated on twelve thrones right now?Matthew 19
19:28
So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.I must have missed their ressurection... You continue,A.5)
The Kingdom that Christ received is an ETERNAL one...( NOT a temporary one acts 9er's -- sorry It's not acts 2-9).I know that you did not receive teaching from Bob Hill. We have never implied that His kingdom is not eternal. You continue,B)
The kingdom he received cannot be "destroyed" by Jewish rejection -- or by anything else. (Hence, Progressive dispensationalists rightly concede that Christ is reigning now on davids throne. However, its only in a spiritual sense according to them)Whoever said it would be destroyed? Romans 11 is very clear when it says Israel has stumbled and has fallen. However, her rejection is only temporary. The kingdom is not destroyed. You continue,C)
The kingdom, dominion, and Davidic throne which Christ was given at his acsension -- not his bodily return -- was given until HIS ENEMIES BECOME THE FOOTSTOOL OF HIS FEET. Sorry acts 9er's, the text does not say, 'until the jews undo the work and will of God"... Instead, what we see is 1 cor 15, that tells us that the bodily return of Christ will bring the FINAL RESURRECTION, IN WHICH DEATH WILL HAVE BEEN DEFEATED, AND THEN WILL COME THE 'END' WHEN CHRIST HANDS OF THE KINGDOM TO THE FATHER -- HAVING ALREADY DEAFTED HIS ENEMIES. 1 cor 15 is a KILLER, for dispensationalists. It doesn't make sense in their view, and it cant be made to.Let's look at 1 Corinthians 15 in it's context. Paul writes 1 Corinthians shortly after his run in with the philosophers on Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-34). Paul opens 1 Corinthians addressing the philosophers (lovers of knowledge) and their rejection of the cross. By the time we get to chapter 15, the issue of the ressurection comes up again. Some in Corinth are baptizing for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29), and some do not believe in the resurrection at all (1 Corinthians 15:12-18). Paul conveys the gospel that he preaches, by which we are saved.1 Corinthians 15
15:1
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
15:2
by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.
15:3
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
15:4
and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,Paul proceeds to verify the resurrection of Christ by it's witnesses (1 Cor 15:5-11). In verses 12-18, Paul addresses those who believe that there is no resurrection. If there is no resurrection, then our faith and his preaching is futile. That brings us to verses 20-28...1 Corinthians 15
15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
15:21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.The context is still the truth of the resurrection.15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.The key here is "in Christ." Some believe in UR, and attempt to use this passage.15:23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.Again, the topic at hand is the resurrection from the dead. The Corinthians understand that they will not play any role in the tribulation. They are raptured, and then comes the end for their time on earth (1 Corinthians 15:50-58). Next, Paul addresses the end of the millenial kingdom where all authority is subdued.15:24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power.
15:25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.
15:26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
15:27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
15:28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.The millenial kingdom ends. All other rule and authority ends, including satan's power and death (vv. 25,26). After the last enemy is annulled, God the Son is subject to God the Father. The Father and Son reign together.Revelation 22
22:1
And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb.
22:2
In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
22:3
And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.You continue,D)
If Christ recieved the kingdom according to Davids prophecy and Daniels prophecy, which were said to have BEEN fullfilled by Peter in Acts 2, then the only consistant inference can be that Christ is NOW reigning on that davidic throne -- As it says he is.The point is, Israel has not received the kingdom yet. They will receive their earthly kingdom after the satanic rebellion, the great white throne judgement and the destruction of death and hades (Rev 20:7-15).Revelation 21
21:1
Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.
21:2
Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
21:3
And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.You continue,E)
1 cor 15, says that he is reigning right now, until his enemies become his footstool. Acts 9er's have to destroy this verse and its context in order to change the simple, common, literal meaning.
Christ reigns, his DOMINION is progressive (mt. 13:31-34 and Ez 47:1-12) until his enemies become his footstool, THEN the final enemy (death) is destroyed in "the" (1) resurrection and judgement, and THEN the END when Christ hands the kingdom to the father. ETERNAL state following. Its that simple.That's why I addressed it in it's context.

In Christ, --Jeremy

[Darth Xena]

Again, the topic at hand is the resurrection from the dead. The Corinthians understand that they will not play any role in the tribulation. They are raptured, and then comes the end for their time on earth (1 Corinthians 15:50-58). Next, Paul addresses the end of the millenial kingdom where all authority is subdued.

Uh, uh, uh.... seems pretty fantastic that Paul skips over entirely this whole glorious Kingdom time.. but I digress. Paul makes it manifestly clear that the last enemy to be destroyed is death which is concurrent with the resurrection, not one thousand years later. Nevermind the numerous other timing verses that devastate this position... for I readily confess, some of the intracies of the X9 position are beyond my area of expertise and competency for debate, but this I know, eschatology is the Achille's heel of the position. The Biblical chronology makes it impossible as it does any flavor of premillenialism.

[Hitch]

The point is, Israel has not received the kingdom yet. They will receive their earthly kingdom after the satanic rebellion, the great white throne judgement and the destruction of death and hades (Rev 20:7-15).


LOL

[adam.naranjo]

Acts9_12out,

I will be responding to your response to me.
However, I am in the midst of writing a lengthy paper on transcenental argumentation (which I will make public for critique).

I'm giving this paper priority for the next few days, so I will not have time to answer your response -- the reason I dont have time is: It takes a lot of time to diligently refute all of the error in your position. You response was more of a non-answer then a constructive response. I can tell that you are very good at logical fallacies of distraction. I'll keep my eyes open for that.

PS. Bob Hill and I used to discuss these issues frequently. The reason I say that you believe that the kingdom is not eternal is NOT because you say that it isn't, but because you are left without any other explanation given your own assumptions regarding the kingdom. You can 'claim' whatever you wan't but....
-- Oh no, I'm starting to respond. I don't have time for this right now, I have to go

Adam.Naranjo


ps... Perhaps we ought to debate this own in the boxing ring sometime.

[Act9_12Out]

Adam,

You say,I will be responding to your response to me.
However, I am in the midst of writing a lengthy paper on transcenental argumentation (which I will make public for critique).I will continue waiting as usual... You continue,I'm giving this paper priority for the next few days, so I will not have time to answer your response -- the reason I dont have time is: It takes a lot of time to diligently refute all of the error in your position. You response was more of a non-answer then a constructive response. I can tell that you are very good at logical fallacies of distraction. I'll keep my eyes open for that.I guess I'll continue to keep my eyes open for more of your fallacies and ad-hominem attacks. Then you say,PS. Bob Hill and I used to discuss these issues frequently.More lies... Bob Hill has no idea who you are. BTW, if you're such a great advocate of your position, why haven't you convereted Bob Hill? You have supposedly spent so much time with him... You continue,The reason I say that you believe that the kingdom is not eternal is NOT because you say that it isn't, but because you are left without any other explanation given your own assumptions regarding the kingdom. You can 'claim' whatever you wan't but....More ad-hominem attacks. You have not presented a Biblical reason for your beliefs, but have wasted a lot of typing time attempting to describe what I believe, even when I have presented otherwise. Nice try Adam... I have dealt with your kind before... Obfuscation is your speciality..

--Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Act9_12Out]

Dee-Dee,

You say,Uh, uh, uh.... seems pretty fantastic that Paul skips over entirely this whole glorious Kingdom time.. but I digress. Paul makes it manifestly clear that the last enemy to be destroyed is death which is concurrent with the resurrection, not one thousand years later.Two points here... You have not shown that the destruction of death is concurrent with the resurrection. In fact, Scripture shows that the final resurrection precedes the destruction of death. Secondly, Paul skips over a lot of the end times events in 1 Corinthians 15. Why? Because the body of Christ will already be resurrected and seated "above the heavenlies." Now, because Paul fails to give an exact chronological order of events, does this make them any less true? James does not address the chronology of end time events in his epistle, so do we throw the whole thing out? Let's take a look at the events as they are recorded...Revelation 20
20:1
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
20:2
He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;
20:3
and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.Hmmmm... Paul forgot about the 1,000 years here. They must not be true.
20:4
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
20:5
But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
20:6
Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.Those who remained faithful to Christ during the Tribulation, and were martyred for Him, reigned with Him for the 1,000 years. Paul failed to mention this also in 1 Cor 15, so it must also be untrue.20:7
Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison
20:8
and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.
20:9
They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.God makes quick work of those who oppose Him at the battle of Armaggedon. Next, the Devil is cast into the lake of fire with the beast and the false prophet.20:10
The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.Next, we see the final resurrection that preceeds the destruction of death.20:11
Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.
20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
20:13
The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.This resurrection preceeds the destruction of death and hades. Paul fails to mention that hades is destroyed at the same time as death, so this also must be untrue.20:14
Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
20:15
And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.In reality, unbelievers are cast into the lake of fire after death and hades. Paul fails to mention this as well, so this also must be untrue.

The point here Dee-Dee is... Paul has a specific audience with a specific hope. Paul is confirming the power of the resurrection and the fact that it will happen. Paul explains at length what will happen to those who reject Christ and the resurrection. They will be cast into the lake of fire where death and hades are. Paul is not trying to set up a chronology of end time events, but is rather addressing what will happen to those who reject the power, authority and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

--Jeremy

[adam.naranjo]

Acts9_12out,

I do have time to make at least make a short statment:

First of all, It's "ad-hominem".
Secondly, do you know what it means?
Thirdly, where did I use and ad-hominem argument?

I didn't.

----

Regarding Bob Hill. I suppose that I must send you all of Bob Hill's letters to me, to prove it?
Just because Bob Hill does not remember me, from some time ago, does NOT mean that I did not sit under his teaching and discuss these very issues with him (and Tim McMahon). (Bob Hill teaches a lot of people, and I'm sure he doesn't remember everyone he works with)
In fact, you can find my questions on his website, my posts in his forums, and my defensive remarks of Acts 9 view.

So, in this case, it is YOU who have argued upon the Logical fallacy, "ad-hominem". Wheather or not I lied about knowing, and being taught by, Bob Hill is of little matter with regard to the issues involved in the acts 9 debate. Calling me a liar does not help your arguments, nor does it cause anyone to regard the validity of them highly.

The fact is, I was a hardcore dispensationalist. I was hardcore decieved. It took a lot of critical study, but I found the truth, so can you.

Adam.Naranjo

[Darth Xena]

Dear Acts 9:

I have got a lot on my plate for a while, but the begged question in your response is just screaming. See what you have done is taken all of your assumptions as true, tried to plop them into my belief system, and then laughed at how allegedly inconsistent I am. That is completely illegitimate. Surely you know that I believe that the "thousand years" is a present reality, so your mocking (a bit stronger than I wanted to say but, I couldn't find a better term - genuinely sorry) regarding how could I have missed the fact that Paul allegedly "skipped" the thousand years is a complete straw man bonfire. Now in your system he may have skipped them but all then you have proven is the dispensationalist distinctive of shoehorning in large gaps whenever chronologies get uncomfortable. Please know that I am meaning no personal disrespect here.

[Darth Xena]

But here is a quickie for you... when is the New Heavens and the New Earth?

[Act9_12Out]

Adam,

You say,First of all, It's "ad-hominem".
Secondly, do you know what it means?I should ask if you know what it means... In case you don't really know, here's an example...Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, his circumstances, or his actions (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

Next Adam asks,Thirdly, where did I use and ad-hominem argument?

I didn't.

Yes. you did...the reason I dont have time is: It takes a lot of time to diligently refute all of the error in your position. You response was more of a non-answer then a constructive response. I can tell that you are very good at logical fallacies of distraction. I'll keep my eyes open for that.Your presuppositions about me show that everything I have to say must be disregarded simply because I am an Acts 9 dispensationalist. You have already made up your mind and will not consider anything I have to say because "you already know everything there is to know about mid-acts dispensationalism, and how wrong it is." If we reference my example above, you toss out my arguments "because I'm the priest." Therefore, your attacks are most definitely ad-hominem.

I agree that it doesn't matter if you studied under Bob Hill or not. You have done nothing to refute his claims here anyway. You continue,The fact is, I was a hardcore dispensationalist. I was hardcore decieved. It took a lot of critical study, but I found the truth, so can you.Too bad you're too busy to share that truth. You're consumed with patting yourself on the back and tossing out personal attacks... Maybe one of these days you can enlighten us... When you're not too busy...

--Jeremy

[Act9_12Out]

Dee-Dee,

I apologize for my "mocking" earlier. The point of that discussion was to show that chronology, or lack thereof does not always prove something one way or another. Scripture does not always lay out the entire chronology of events, either in historical or in prophetic texts. 2 Peter 3:10-13 also gives us simply the return of Christ and the destruction of the heavens and earth in favor of the new heavens and new earth. The intermediate stages -- the tribulation, the millennium, and anything else that might fall in there -- are not relevant to the author's argument in either of these two texts. Paul's point is that Christ, now risen from the dead, reigns until all His enemies are eliminated and then turns the reins over to His Father. Intervening details are not germane. Peter's point is that the physical creation as we know it is to be destroyed and re-created by Christ, which should give us a perspective on the importance of pursuing holiness rather than material concerns. Again, the details have no impact on that argument.

On another note...

You seem to be starting a trend... On the "Ye must be born again" thread, you said,Dear Acts 9:

I notice that you asked me for a response... I do hope you saw where I posted to Boom that I truly did not have the time to devote to this thread as I am involved in several other very involved debates, so I apologized for butting in when I did not have the time to really devote.... I hope to return to this subject at same point in the future, but eschatology is much more my passion and where I spend the majority of my time. But I am planning on coming back to this if those others finish up without me getting entangled in others.Now, in this discussion you say,Dear Acts 9:

I have got a lot on my plate for a while, but the begged question in your response is just screaming. See what you have done is taken all of your assumptions as true, tried to plop them into my belief system, and then laughed at how allegedly inconsistent I am. That is completely illegitimate. Surely you know that I believe that the "thousand years" is a present reality, so your mocking (a bit stronger than I wanted to say but, I couldn't find a better term - genuinely sorry) regarding how could I have missed the fact that Paul allegedly "skipped" the thousand years is a complete straw man bonfire. Now in your system he may have skipped them but all then you have proven is the dispensationalist distinctive of shoehorning in large gaps whenever chronologies get uncomfortable. Please know that I am meaning no personal disrespect here.Do you not do the same? You have admitted that you do not know the mid-acts position well enough to defend against it, but somehow know it to be false? Whether you realize it or not, we are all driven by our Theology. You get into a discussion, and then slip away... But yet, you have time to ask this question...But here is a quickie for you... when is the New Heavens and the New Earth?Fine, I'll bite... It comes after the Great White Throne Judgement.Revelation 21
21:1
Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.
21:2
Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
21:6
And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts.
21:7
He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son.
21:10
And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
Revelation 22 Read This Chapter
22:1
And he showed me a pure* river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb.
22:3
And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.Dee-Dee, I mean no disrespect. I appreciate all of the work that you do on this wonderful site. I am a bit frustrated that you jump into a discussion and then leave because you are too busy. I will be the first to admit that I do not know all of the "ins & outs" of the Preterist point of view. I'm just saying that it's difficult to discuss and learn what you believe when you keep leaving the discussions.

--Jeremy

[Darth Xena]

Dear Jeremy:

You persoanl criticisms are well-taken. Your Biblical point is without merit (not a big surprise though that I think that). The "born again" thread I had no business being in in the first place, and I apologize for butting in there. It dealt with the points of X9 that I do not know well enough to debate against. But I can assure you that I DO understand your eschatology, so please do not say in that respect that I do not. I find in general (and this is not directed towards you) that a lot X9 are quite weak in their own eschatology and that I know it better than they, and eschatology as far as I am concerned, is the soft white underbelly of your position. It is hopelessly and fatally flawed.

I appreciate your compliments of this site, and yes it is the work in doing a lot of stuff for the site that draws me away from the debating... and a lot of times I simply cannot anticipate that. It is simply the nature of the beast.

Now, your point above with the chronologies was again another classic case of assuming what you need to prove, and then pointing to your assumptions as your proof. It is totally illegitimate. There is no gap in Peter, there is no gap in Paul, there is no gap in Daniel. You cannot beg the question in that fashion.

And you have a big problem with your chronology of the NH&NE. You have it happening after "death" is destroyed, and yet Isaiah tells us that there is sin and death in the NH&NE. How do you reconcile that?

[Act9_12Out]

Dee-Dee,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. You say,Your Biblical point is without merit (not a big surprise though that I think that).You're right... No surprise... :lol: You continue,But I can assure you that I DO understand your eschatology, so please do not say in that respect that I do not. I find in general (and this is not directed towards you) that a lot X9 are quite weak in their own eschatology and that I know it better than they, and eschatology as far as I am concerned, is the soft white underbelly of your position. It is hopelessly and fatally flawed.Now, if only you could find enough time to present your ideas. I do know my eschatology quite well. I would be interested in a discussion with you as to where it is flawed. I want to make sure that you can devote the time. BTW, just because you say it is flawed does not make it flawed. You have not presented anything to the contrary just yet. You continue,Now, your point above with the chronologies was again another classic case of assuming what you need to prove, and then pointing to your assumptions as your proof. It is totally illegitimate. There is no gap in Peter, there is no gap in Paul, there is no gap in Daniel. You cannot beg the question in that fashion.Again, just because you say so does not make it true. Show me from Scripture that there is no gap in Paul, no gap in Peter and no gap in Daniel's 70 week prophecy. You continue,And you have a big problem with your chronology of the NH&NE. You have it happening after "death" is destroyed, and yet Isaiah tells us that there is sin and death in the NH&NE. How do you reconcile that?I can only assume you reference Isaiah 25:8? I won't comment yet. I would like to see you present Scripture to support all above posted claims.

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[Act9_12Out]

Dee-Dee,

Here's another point regarding your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:23,24.

1 Corinthians 15
15:23
But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming,
15:24
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.

To imply that "the end" follows immediately after the resurrection of "those of Christ at His coming" would be to imply that the resurrection of "those of Christ at His coming" follows immediately upon His resurrection. Even from the Preterist view, there's an interval of some 2000 years between the first event (Christ's resurrection) and the second event (our resurrection). If there's room for 2000 years between A and B, is there not room for 1000 years or so between B and C? You seem to be doing the exact thing you accuse me of. :eek:

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[joelkaki]

Show me from Scripture that there is no gap in Paul, no gap in Peter and no gap in Daniel's 70 week prophecy.

I'm here specifically referring to the 70 week prophecy. I don't think that is proper methodology to say that we must prove that there is no gap in the prophecy. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is. The text does not tell us of such a gap, and so the burden of proof is on you.

Joel

[adam.naranjo]

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, his circumstances, or his actions (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say." ”

Next Adam asks,“ Thirdly, where did I use and ad-hominem argument?

I didn't. ”
Yes. you did...“ the reason I dont have time is: It takes a lot of time to diligently refute all of the error in your position. You response was more of a non-answer then a constructive response. I can tell that you are very good at logical fallacies of distraction. I'll keep my eyes open for that. ”


Thats exactly what an Ad Hominem argument is. Unfortunately, even while having a perfectly good definition and example in front of you, you fail realize that I never used an Ad Hominem argument. For the following reasons:

the FRIST reason:

1. Person A makes claim X.

In order to have used an Ad Hominem argument there had to have been a CLAIM (from you) to which I was responding to fallaciously. BUT, if you read my post, you will notices that I made it clear that I will respond to your CLAIMS in time, but that my post at that time was NOT a response to your claims. I was not responding to any of your claims directly. So then, I could not have made a logically fallacy, considering I wasn’t even involved in argumentation directly against any of your claims in particular. As I said,
“I will be responding to your response to me. However, I am in the midst of writing a lengthy paper on transcendental argumentation….I will not have time to answer your response”

the SECOND (AND MOST IMPORTANT) reason:

2. Person B makes an attack on person A.

Your previous mistake may have been a mistake of ignorance. But this mistake is very clear. It’s one thing to make an attack on a person, its another thing to attack the others logical fallacies with regard to their argumentation. BIG DIFFERENCE. I did not attack you. I attacked your use of fallacious reasoning in the argumentation at hand. (keep in mind, not any specific claims, but your argumentation as a whole).

Although it is VERY clear that I did not attack your personal identity, you persist in making claims regarding my presuppositions, in respect to you, and claiming that those SUPPOSED presuppositions are an Ad Hominem attack.


You say,
Your presuppositions about me show that everything I have to say must be disregarded simply because I am an Acts 9 dispensationalist.

I never said that what you say must be disregarded. MUCH LESS that your arguments must be disregarded because of the belief’s they defend. I said no such thing, and I believe no such thing.

Then you have the audacity to say:

You have already made up your mind and will not consider anything I have to say because "you already know everything there is to know about mid-acts dispensationalism, and how wrong it is."

Again, I never said that I have (or would) disregard what you say. I consider EVERYTHING On top of that you have the audacity to misquote me (or did I misunderstand those quotes?)

(Let me ask you this: Have you held both sides of the issue as I have? Have you read multiple books by authors (credible authors) on the opposite side of the issue as I have?)

Again, the facts continue to show that I have NOT involved myself in Ad Hominem argumentation.



One more reason:

3. Therefore A's claim is false.

I never made any ergo statements predicated on a SUPPOSED Ad Hominem argument.
Much Less, I made no ERGO statement in response to your claims at all.
And example of An Ad Hominem argument/response would look like this:

Your Claim:
“We have never implied that His kingdom is not eternal”

My Ad Hominem argument:
1.You are stupid.
2. ERGO, whatever you say is wrong.
3. ERGO, your claim that you have never implied that His kingdom is not eternal is wrong.


The fact is, I didn’t respond to any of your claims directly -- I did talk about your claims as a whole, a meta -- and in order to call something an Ad Hominem argument you need to show that it was in direct response to a claim. So you can’t say that I used an A.H. argument.
Another FACT is, I never made any kind of claim (ergo, therefore), in direct response to any of your claims, predicated on an Ad Hominem argument.
Look at my post again, I never made a personal attack and the predicated from it that some part of your claims were wrong. I never even said that any part of your post was wrong.

In response to the last part of your post

I do not appreciate your sarcasm in regard to my busy schedule. Just because you have more time then I do does not give you right to make light of it. I put in a hard day today. (I read two books, and used a lot of mental energy. It's not fun to get a response only to read it and get discouraged. Why am I discouraged? Because I have come to find out that you have trouble understanding simple concepts, and that you have no problem misquoting people (which makes me wonder if you misrepresent your opponents often), and that you easily misunderstand what I am actually saying in my posts.


------

Let me just say this (incase your having trouble with any of this):

When I said that your reponse was mostly a non-response I did was not responding directly to any specific argument in particular. I was involving myself in a metadiscussion. I was merely commenting on your overall post, and the logical fallacy involved.
(For the most part you didnt actually respond to what I was saying directly. Rather, you responded with side issues or unfounded comments etc...
for example:
You said
"I don't disagree, but wonder if you believe the 12 Apostles are seated on twelve thrones right now?"

"I must have missed their ressurection... You continue"

You never did respond to the actual scripture I brought up. Instead, you simply brought up another scripture. We should deal exegetically with the passage itself, and then (after dealing with the passage) you can relate that passage to others.
However, you did respond to my points based on 1 cor 15. I respect that. However your hermeneutic is weak and leads to some poor exegesis...I can't wait to respond to it. My claims will be backed up.

(PS. Your involving yourself in an anlysis of issues of logic and argumentation with a philosophy student -- but, if your a bob hill fan you probably think philosophy is the devil. [thats a joke])

Adam Naranjo

[adam.naranjo]

PS.
WHen I was Acts9, I was just like you.
I was an evangelist of the position.
I was very persuasive. And debate often.
I was decieved, BUT, I was not bad at arguing
the position -- In fact I was very successfull.
(mostly only against other forms
of dispensationalism -- comparatively acts9
is more consistant in many ways.)

MY POINT??

Simply this: I DO NOT disregard what you say
merely because you are acts9. I believe that
many people can argue their belief's well even
though they are wrong. (except Tommy Ice)

(However, I'm not sure, at this point, whether you
fit into that catagory)

I also want to tell you about plans I have in
regard to debate with the acts9 issue, but
at this point i can't....Just keep your eyes open.

Adam

[Act9_12Out]

Adam,

Wow, I must have hit a raw nerve...:bonk:

Just as you have stated that you are discouraged, so am I. I am not accusing you of this personally, but as I'm sure you're aware, it's much more difficult to debate on these forums than it is in person. I see that you live on the outskirts of Denver. Maybe we should get together sometime.:cheers:

On another note, you ask,

(Let me ask you this: Have you held both sides of the issue as I have? Have you read multiple books by authors (credible authors) on the opposite side of the issue as I have?)

That's all I do. I have read just about everything there is that is anti-dispensational and against the open view. I spent three years on the radio program "Biblical Answers" with Bob and Tim. Believe me, we had callers from the entire spectrum to debate. It was a wonderful show. We devoted many shows to responding to books written by authors of opposing views. It made for very interesting debates. You continue,

However, you did respond to my points based on 1 cor 15. I respect that. However your hermeneutic is weak and leads to some poor exegesis...I can't wait to respond to it. My claims will be backed up.

I hope you realize that there has been further discussion between Dee-Dee and myself. I did respond to your points regarding Acts 2. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I will say that I don't put the same twist on the passage that you do.

I feel at this point that it is unfair for you to say that my hermeneutic is weak and that you have, "attacked (my) use of fallacious reasoning in the argumentation at hand." You have done very little here to support your theological views, and it is difficult to say whether the same can be said of you. If you don't mind me asking, what theological position do you hold to presently?

One last thing... I spoke to Tim McMahon today. He didn't remember you either. I noticed that you asked 6 or 7 questions at Bob Hill's website, and due to the format there, you were unable to refute Bob's answers. I would be curious as to why you left dispensationalism. Was it something Bob said or did not say? Just curious...

I feel that we started off on the wrong foot. I would ask that you refrain from attacking my theological position until you do something to support your position.

In Christ, --Jeremy Finkenbinder

[adam.naranjo]

Acts9

Regarding Tim M.
Again, I'm not suprised he does not remember me.
I should say that I did not become acts 9 because of Bob Hill. I was exposed to it, originally, elsewhere. I did ask Bob questions, but not because I was challenging him. I was acts 9 at the time. I just needed someone to ask a couple questions to. Granted I wasn't "dogmatic" acts 9 until I meet Bob Hill. (I did correspond with him outside of his website.) However, I was never fully satisfied, and found myself having to go towards acts28 because of the same inconsistancy in acts 9 that is in acts 2. There is no -- absolutely no -- biblical text to support that the kingdom program was put on hold. On the other hand, continuing talk of the kingdom (by paul), and the new covenant (by paul), and the consistant soteriological agreement between Jerusalem and Paul, are all evidence that the kingdom program was still, and is still, in effect. (Summary: i didnt debate bob hill, or attempt to. In fact i agreed with him.)
So from acts9 I checked out acts 28. then I decided to take an honest look at the other side. So I read all the books, and prayed, and thought. And originally tried to argue against them.

Then one day, I had to break the news to my wife. Who I had taught dispensationalism to. I was somewhat ashamed of having been decieved by something so obvious. But I had to follow God, not men. My wife and I have been working through it together, and enjoying the TRUTH.
Praise GOD, we are NOT in the "end times"!!!

anyway,

I'll talk with you later.
Adam.

[Act9_12Out]

Adam,

So you are now Acts 28? Interesting... I will be looking forward to our discussions... One point I would like to address is when you said,

I was never fully satisfied, and found myself having to go towards acts28 because of the same inconsistancy in acts 9 that is in acts 2. There is no -- absolutely no -- biblical text to support that the kingdom program was put on hold.

The Acts 2 position differs greatly from the mid-Acts position as I'm sure you're aware. I would ask for our future discussions that we focus on mid-acts dispensationalism (Acts 9 specifically) and your Acts 28 position. BTW, which of the Pauline Epistles do you apply to the body? I know that some Acts 28 dispensationalists differ greatly as to how they apply Pauline Epistles.

Looking forward to our discussions...

--Jeremy

[AV1611]

Ok, this is for debate purposes with dispensationalists. Is the kingdom of heaven the same thing as the kingdom of God?


Joel
No they are not the same:
(1) The phrase, kingdom of heaven (literally, of the heavens), is peculiar to Matthew and signifies the Messianic earth rule of Jesus Christ, the Son of David. It is called the kingdom of the heavens because it is the rule of the heavens over the earth (Mat_6:10) The phrase is derived from Daniel, where it is defined; (Dan_2:34-36); (Dan_2:44); (Dan_7:23-27) as the kingdom which the God of heaven will set up after the destruction by "the stone cut out without hands," of the Gentile world-system. It is the kingdom covenanted to David's seed (2Sa_7:7-10) described in the prophets; and confirmed to Jesus the Christ, the Son of Mary, through the angel Gabriel (Luk_1:32-33).

(2) The kingdom of heaven has three aspects in Matthew:

(a) "at hand" from the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist (Mat_3:2) to the virtual rejection of the King, and the announcement of the new brotherhood (Mat_12:46-50).

b) in seven "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," to be fulfilled during the present age (Mat_13:1-52) to which are to be added the parables of the kingdom of heaven which were spoken after those of Mt. 13, and which have to do with the sphere of Christian profession during this age;

c) the prophetic aspect -- the kingdom to be set up after the return of the King in glory. (Mat_24:29-25); (Mat_24:46); (Luk_19:12-19); (Act_15:14-17).

The kingdom of God is to be distinguished from the kingdom of heaven in five respects:

(1) The kingdom of God is universal, including all moral intelligences willingly subject to the will of God, whether angels, the Church, or saints of past or future dispensations (Luk_13:28-29); (Heb_12:22-23) while the kingdom of heaven is Messianic, mediatorial, and Davidic, and has for its object the establishment of the kingdom of God in the earth

(2) The kingdom of God is entered only by the new birth (Joh_3:3); (Joh_3:5-7) the kingdom of heaven, during this age, is the sphere of a profession which may be real or false.

(3) Since the kingdom of heaven is the earthly sphere of the universal kingdom of God, the two have almost all things in common. For this reason many parables and other teachings are spoken of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew, and of the kingdom of God in Mark and Luke. It is the omissions which are significant. The parables of the wheat and tares, and of the net (Mat_13:24-30); (Mat_13:36-43); (Mat_13:47-50) are not spoken of the kingdom of God. In that kingdom there are neither tares nor bad fish. But the parable of the leaven (Mat_13:33) is spoken of the kingdom of God also, for, alas, even the true doctrines of the kingdom are leavened with the errors of which the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Herodians were the representatives.

(4) The kingdom of God "comes not with outward show" (Luk_17:20) but is chiefly that which is inward and spiritual (Rom_14:17) while the kingdom of heaven is organic, and is to be manifested in glory on the earth.



(5) The kingdom of heaven merges into the kingdom of God when Christ, having put all enemies under his feet, "shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father" (1Co_15:24-28).

[Terral]

Joelkaki:
Joel >> OK, since no one seems willing to defend such a distinction, let's open it up to the distinction between KOG/H and K of David.
Hold up a sec . . . First allow me to thank you for starting this thread. Describing the interrelationships between the three Kingdoms can become complicated. Please allow me to paint a little picture and stick to the topic best I can. You might label me as an X9’ner, as I see the beginning of the ‘dispensation of God’s grace’ (Eph. 3:2) with the conversion of the Apostle Paul (Acts 9:15; protos, 1Tim. 1:15+16; father, 1Cor. 4:15, etc.). Our ‘mystery’ church (Eph. 5:32, Col. 1:24-27) is totally separate from the kingdom church (Matt. 16:16-19, 18:17+18) and the Kingdom Administration under Peter, John and James. Paul’s Epistles represent the ‘Lord’s Commandment’ (1Cor. 14:37+38) to the ‘body of Christ’ (Eph. 4:12) today, while the rest of the Hebrew NT is the personal mail to the Kingdom disciples of the coming Kingdom dispensation here on the earth (late rains, James 5:7).

I also see the phrases ‘kingdom of heaven’ at hand (Matt. 4:17) and ‘kingdom of God’ at hand (Mark 1:15) as interchangeable. However, that does not make them into the ‘same’ thing. To understand the difference we must draw a simple diagram. Draw two circles on a blank sheet that overlap to create three equal parts. In the upper or left hand semicircle write the phrase “Kingdom of God (spirit)” with “Kingdom of David (water)” in the bottom or right hand semicircle. In the central ‘begotten’ section write the phrase “Kingdom of Heaven (blood)”. The kingdom of David is the one coming upon the earth as a matter of OT Prophecy with the ‘throne of David’ (Luke 1:32) and the ‘tabernacle of David’ (Acts 15:16-18) to be restored. The reason that the Spirit of God can use the phrases “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven” interchangeably is because members from the Davidic (water/earth) realm are being translated into the ‘heavenly’ (blood) realm. Note that the kingdom of heaven and God are One (John 10:30) in your diagram, and represented by one perfect circle.

While the kingdom of heaven is parenthetical to the Kingdom of God, the water and spirit sections of your diagram are being ‘summed up’ (Eph. 1:9+10) into the central ‘begotten’ Realm/Kingdom of the ‘Son’ (1Cor. 15:27). The end result is that the Son Himself is subjected back to God, so that He can be ‘all in all.’ 1Cor. 15:28. Therefore, the ‘mystery of Christ’ (Eph. 3:4, Col. 4:3) representing the ‘summing up’ of all things in the heavens (unseen) and earth (seen) is a smaller version of the larger “God’s Mystery” (Col. 2:2) which is Christ Himself. In other words, the spirit, water and blood sections of your diagram here represent a ‘heavenly man’ or Christ Jesus becoming ‘three into the one.’ 1John 5:8. When the Son actually becomes ‘one’ (1Cor. 15:27), then the kingdom of heaven central section will have enlarged to engulf the other two (tabernacle spread over, Rev. 7:15). At that instant the Kingdom of heaven, God and David (type of Adam, Gen. 2:7) shall be the same thing ‘in’ Christ Jesus. During the ages of Genesis 1:1, these three realms were ‘one.’ Ecc. 1:9-11. The Satanic Rebellion caused our creation to become broken and divided (darkness face deep, Gen. 1:2) so that angels (spirit) and men (water) were called into being. Our ‘immortality’ (1Cor. 15:53) state shall see us translated back into our Genesis 1:1 pre-fall bodies.

And interesting series of teachings can be visualized by the unfolding of the elemental components of each of these three realms. For example: each realm contains a throne for a Father. God is Father of All (Eph. 4:6), while Christ is the Eternal Father (Isa. 9:6) and David is father over all in this physical realm to rule forever. Eze. 37:25-28 (25). Your diagram is typical of all the triune relationships in Scripture, and a pattern of the tabernacle of Moses, the Temple, and Scripture itself. These things are all related to ‘the Mystery’ (Eph. 3:3) if you have eyes to see. http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44012 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44012)

In Christ,

Terral