Gospel of the Kingdom - no Acts9ers please

[Dee Dee Warren]

I need some assistance, drawing upon the work of others. I know that Acts9ers erroneously try and say that the Gospel of the Kingdom preached by Christ is a different Gospel than that preached by Paul. Please give me some thoughts, arguments, etc in dismantling this. I spend so much time on the preterism stuff I lose my sharpness on this one.

[Hitch]

[post#152]

It revolves around the notion that Jesus was completley successfull in establishinghing the King of God on earth. J17;4. And Paul with his great understanding of the ancient text and personal dealings for and against the spirit of antichrist simpified the Kingdom down to its prime factors. Righteousness ,Peace and Joy ,in the Holy Spirit.

Which by neccessity are all based on the finished work of the cross, and nothing else.

In contrast to futurist views its gloriously simple. Much like accepting what Jesus said about the Resurrection.

A text I like to use ,as you know ,is Luke's Acts of the Apostles.
Luke takes care to bracket this entire work between Christ himself teaching of the Kingdom of God, and his representative ,Paul ,teaching on the Kingdom of God.


Acts 1:1-3
1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
(KJV)


Acts 28:30-31
30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.
(KJV)



Take care

H

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Dee Dee,

A few thoughts:

I'd say that, considered from a dispensational standpoint, whether Acts 9 or otherwise, the assumption behind the concept of "gospel of the kingdom" involves an eschatological kingdom, that is, chiliasm. The parts of the four gospels that pertain to the millennium would be considered part of the gospel of the kingdom in contradistinction to the gospel of Paul.

The sermon on the mount is probably the most significant example because it seems to involve more strident commands that would appear to violate Paul's gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone as it has been understood in protestant thinking. Also, certain passages in the four gospels seem to emphasize a privileging of Israel and the Law over against other people groups in a way that appears to run counter to the ostensible de-emphasis of these things within Paul's gospel.

It is thought that a more rigorous ethical standard shall be enforced during the millennium, eg, as when one refuses to forgive someone who sins against one, one's own sins shall remain unforgiven by God. Or, if one were to call one's brother a fool, perhaps hellfire might be in order, etc, etc. While in Paul's gospel of grace, by contrast, one's salvation wouldn't be seen to rest upon such ethical considerations according to the distinction between the gospel of the (eschatological or millennial) kingdom and Paul's gospel of grace. Along these lines, much of what Christ propounds within the four gospels might not apply directly to the current dispensation of grace, but rather to that of the millenium, where the law will hold greater sway as it did in the OT. This is related to the attendant dispensational notion that the kingdom (read, the millennial kingdom) was postponed because the Jews rejected their Messiah at his first advent, thereby giving way to the "church age" or the dispensation of grace.

It is supposed that some elements of the four gospels present a kind of throwback to the OT where obedience to certain commands somehow factor into a person's being saved in a way that such obedience wouldn't in the gospel of grace. The dispensation of grace is preceded by that of law and followed by that of the kingdom in the dispensational schema, and, while faith remains the operative means of receiving God's promises throughout, the exact salvific significance of one's obedience to law within these economies might be seen to differ somewhat as God's plan unfolds.

So, if one finds reason to reject dispensational eschatology, one would naturally find attendant reason to dismiss the dispensational distinction between the gospel of the kingdom and that of grace. The rest is a theological dispute about how law relates to gospel, antinomianism, etc....

[Glenn P]

Dee Dee

The classic dispensational view of the two Gospels revolves around the idea that Jesus’ mission did not work out as planned. The Jews rejected the Gospel of the kingdom, so the kingdom promises were put on hold for the future millennium. In the meantime, the new Gospel, the invitation to Gentiles, unseen by the prophets, was given as a temporary substitute until God turns again to Israel. :huh:

In other words, once you topple the erroneous dispensational view of the fulfilment of prophecy, you have destroyed their erroneous view of the Gospel. If the promises made to Israel in the OT are in fact being fulfilled for the church of Jew and Gentile in the NT, then there is only one Gospel for all, and not two for Jews and Gentiles respectively. :cheers:

[Bib Lit Major]

One thing that is of interest to me, which I need to research, is that, it appears the purpose of miracles in the Synoptics is to show that the Kingdom is already manifesting (because Jesus the King is present). Here's a snippet from a take home portion of an exam for my Johannine Lit class. This particular snippet contains comparisons and contrasts between John's use of miracles and the Synoptics:


The miracles in all of the Gospels have been used many times as “teaching aids� that reveal something deeper theologically. Some Synoptic miracles used as such include the feedings of the 5,000 and the 4,000 (Matt 16:8-12) and the withered fig tree (Mark 11:20-25). All of the Johannine miracles, as signs, as used to reveal something about Jesus, though this is not always explicitly stated. A major difference though is the focus. The Synoptic focus appears to be best summed up by Jesus: “But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you� (Luke 11:20; cf. Matt 12:28). The focus appears to be the Kingdom of God made manifest. Though some miracles obviously pointed to Jesus’ identity, the main thrust of the miracles portrayed in the Synoptics regards the way of the Kingdom (cf. again Mark 11:20-25). However, the Johannine focus is on who Jesus is:

“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name� (John 20:30-31).

Thus, the “signs� of John reveal aspects of the identity of Jesus.

Related to this, whereas the miracles in John are short and precise, the Synoptic accounts of miracles tend to happen in clusters (e.g., see the various miracle stories of Matt 8). In addition, the Synoptics have many “mass miracle events� where many are healed, exorcised, restored, etc. (Matt 8:16; Mark 3:10-12; Luke 4:40-41). This might be because, whereas John wants to be clear in the miracles’ significance, the Synoptic miracles in vast amounts help to underscore that the Kingdom of God is present.

As I said, I have not researched this exhaustively, so I wouldn't take it as conclusive. However, if it were more reseacrhed and better thought-out, it might prove a decisive argument, since it could be showing that the Kingdom was already a reality and not a potentiality prior to the Jewish rejection, which Acts 9 dispensationalists claim caused a postponement of the Kingdom.

Don't know if that might give you a lead, or help at all, but I find it interesting.

Kevin

[John Reece]

Today @ 07:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146304#post146304)
Bib Lit Major:

One thing that is of interest to me, which I need to research, is that, it appears the purpose of miracles in the Synoptics is to show that the Kingdom is already manifesting (because Jesus the King is present). Here's a snippet from a take home portion of an exam for my Johannine Lit class. This particular snippet contains comparisons and contrasts between John's use of miracles and the Synoptics:

As I said, I have not researched this exhaustively, so I wouldn't take it as conclusive. However, if it were more reseacrhed and better thought-out, it might prove a decisive argument, since it could be showing that the Kingdom was already a reality and not a potentiality prior to the Jewish rejection, which Acts 9 dispensationalists claim caused a postponement of the Kingdom.

Don't know if that might give you a lead, or help at all, but I find it interesting.

Kevin

Very interesting, indeed. Thanks for sharing that.

Blessings,

John

[Ted]

07-08-2003 @ 01:47 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142626#post142626)
Theonomy:

Dee Dee

The classic dispensational view of the two Gospels revolves around the idea that Jesus’ mission did not work out as planned. The Jews rejected the Gospel of the kingdom, so the kingdom promises were put on hold for the future millennium. In the meantime, the new Gospel, the invitation to Gentiles, unseen by the prophets, was given as a temporary substitute until God turns again to Israel. :huh:

In other words, once you topple the erroneous dispensational view of the fulfilment of prophecy, you have destroyed their erroneous view of the Gospel. If the promises made to Israel in the OT are in fact being fulfilled for the church of Jew and Gentile in the NT, then there is only one Gospel for all, and not two for Jews and Gentiles respectively. :cheers:


The above is quite incisive and correct. But I would like to extend this thought.

Consider the premise that God set up a plan for the Jews, but it didn't work out the way he planned. Instead, up pops the church. It gets in the way, so he has to work around it. What does this say about God's foreknowledge? After all, in Isaiah he clearly asserts that he tells the end from the beginning. The idea that the church was an "unforeseen intercalation" (Dispy language from their technical works!) says that God has dirty glasses. But 1 Cor 13 says that we are the ones who can't see well.

I propose that the Dispy premise makes God out to be a bumbler who can't get his act straight. I certainly don't want to serve that kind of God!

[Hitch]

Very interesting, indeed. Thanks for sharing that.

Blessings,

John


Whathesaid..

H

[Jacob]

06-29-2003 @ 03:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135483#post135483)
Dee Dee Warren:

I need some assistance, drawing upon the work of others. I know that Acts9ers erroneously try and say that the Gospel of the Kingdom preached by Christ is a different Gospel than that preached by Paul. Please give me some thoughts, arguments, etc in dismantling this. I spend so much time on the preterism stuff I lose my sharpness on this one.

You can address this either from a preterist position or from a progressive Dispensational position. Who are you trying to persuade? The Acts9er's will most readily dismiss a perterist perspective, just as you dismiss their perspective. They will have more difficulty dismissing a progressive Dispensational position.

The closer you come to their position, in the presumptions of your argument, the more difficulty they'll have in refuting or dismissing them. So move the argument away from the distinction between Jesus & Paul, and look at the Gospel "of the Kingdom".

I'd suggest arguing for the Gospel of the Kingdom as always having been:
- unattainable by law/obedience,
- based on unmerited grace,
- based on faith in God's provision for sin,
- requiring repentance & faith,
- etc...

Also argue for Calvinism (If TULIP is true, then our need and the cure has always been the same) and for unity in the Kingdom of God (OT to NT).

If you dismiss or minimize all distinctions between Israel & the church, it will be easy for them (& others) to ignore your larger argument. If you show that the the OT, Jesus, and Paul, all agree on the need for repentance + faith in God's provision, they'll be taken out of their usual comfort zone (which is Jesus vs Paul).

I hope this is helpful.

Jacob

[Jacob]

07-11-2003 @ 07:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147103#post147103)
Ted:

I propose that the Dispy premise makes God out to be a bumbler who can't get his act straight. I certainly don't want to serve that kind of God!

Pretty poor characterization, unless you're only looking at the oldest forms of dispensationalism. But, from your perspective, one would have to characterize the lack of 100% of people converting before death to indicate that God is a bumbler, or that Jesus was a bumbler for picking Judas (or Peter), or that God was a bumbler for sending Moses to Pharoah to ask for freedom for the Hebrews, etc....

Who would want to serve the kind of God that prefers to NOT choose the wise, the mighty, and the noble, showing preference to the foolish, weak, base, and despised members of humanity?

1Co 1:26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;
1Co 1:27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
1Co 1:28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,
1Co 1:29 so that no man may boast before God.

Jacob

[Glenn P]

Today @ 07:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148546#post148546)
Jacob:
Pretty poor characterization, unless you're only looking at the oldest forms of dispensationalism. But, from your perspective, one would have to characterize the lack of 100% of people converting before death to indicate that God is a bumbler, or that Jesus was a bumbler for picking Judas (or Peter), or that God was a bumbler for sending Moses to Pharoah to ask for freedom for the Hebrews, etc....

That is not a good comparison. In classic dispensationalism, we have a case of prophecy actually failing to be fulfilled as God intended it because of the failure of Jesus' primary mission. This isn't just the failure of a person chosen by God, it is the failure of the Lord Himself! Did he not foresee this? more to the point, could he really have made a wrong prediction about what would happen? The dispensational answer is yes.

Progressive dispensationalism is just a way holding on to the name as though the view had not been destroyed. Progressive dispenationalism is not dispensationalism.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Today @ 06:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149074#post149074)
Theonomy:


That is not a good comparison. In classic dispensationalism, we have a case of prophecy actually failing to be fulfilled as God intended it because of the failure of Jesus' primary mission. This isn't just the failure of a person chosen by God, it is the failure of the Lord Himself! Did he not foresee this? more to the point, could he really have made a wrong prediction about what would happen? The dispensational answer is yes.

I'd be interested to see explicit quotations from classic dispensationalists espousing that the Lord had somehow "failed." Did the classical dispensationalists actually affirm that the Lord himself had failed, as if such a doctrine were a staple of their theology? Or is it rather that you believe classic dispensational thought would lead to such a position if its inner logic were allowed to unfold consistently?



Progressive dispensationalism is just a way holding on to the name as though the view had not been destroyed. Progressive dispenationalism is not dispensationalism.

Wouldn't you say that PD is still quite a distance away from Reformed Theology? Aren't there substantive differences between classical dispensationalism, PD, and covenant thinking?

[Hitch]

I'd be interested to see explicit quotations from classic dispensationalists espousing that the Lord had somehow "failed." Did the classical dispensationalists actually affirm that the Lord himself had failed, as if such a doctrine were a staple of their theology? Or is it rather that you believe classic dispensational thought would lead to such a position if its inner logic were allowed to unfold consistently?

' The new message of Jesus. the rejected king now turns from the rejecting nation and offers not the kingdom but rest and service to such in the nation as are conscious of need

SRB p 1011

If you cant see this a pointing out fail;ure on Christ's part to establish the temporaal kingdom compare to what Jesus actually said wrt the nation and the kingdom;


John 6:45-47
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
(KJV)

This comes right after the promise of Resurrection and as you see comes with a reiteration of the promise of eternal life.

This is not the same Jesus changing plans and making a new deal as found in the SRB.

Wouldn't you say that PD is still quite a distance away from Reformed Theology? Aren't there substantive differences between classical dispensationalism, PD, and covenant thinking?


For the most part PD ignores and /or retreats from so many long held 'dispensational truths' the there remains little resembelance. What PD and Scofieldist do retain is the curious inablity to define and delineate from Scripture the very 'dispensations' forming their namesakes.


Take care

Hitch

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Hitch,
Your quote from the SRB doesn't mention "failure" at all. Nor does it establish that Scofield or later editors regarded God as having explicitly "failed" in any sense of the word---which is what I'm after.

Do you have any more explicit quotes?

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 12:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149224#post149224)
pereynol:



I'd be interested to see explicit quotations from classic dispensationalists espousing that the Lord had somehow "failed." Did the classical dispensationalists actually affirm that the Lord himself had failed, as if such a doctrine were a staple of their theology? Or is it rather that you believe classic dispensational thought would lead to such a position if its inner logic were allowed to unfold consistently?



Thanks... I was letting those who are blinded by hatred re-define the views of those who are no longer here to defend their positions.



Wouldn't you say that PD is still quite a distance away from Reformed Theology? Aren't there substantive differences between classical dispensationalism, PD, and covenant thinking?

Some people cannot comprehend progress in theology or distinctions between positions...
:no:

Jacob

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 06:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149535#post149535)
Hitch:
' The new message of Jesus. the rejected king now turns from the rejecting nation and offers not the kingdom but rest and service to such in the nation as are conscious of need

SRB p 1011

If you cant see this a pointing out fail;ure on Christ's part to establish the temporaal kingdom compare to what Jesus actually said wrt the nation and the kingdom;


I'm not wearing my "Let's conjure an anti-dispensational argument" secret decoder glasses, so I guess I fail to see what you're suggesting.

The quote says that the Jews rejected Jesus as their King.

There is nothing here ... keep moving ... nothing to see ...




Wouldn't you say that PD is still quite a distance away from Reformed Theology? Aren't there substantive differences between classical dispensationalism, PD, and covenant thinking?


For the most part PD ignores and /or retreats from so many long held 'dispensational truths' the there remains little resembelance. What PD and Scofieldist do retain is the curious inablity to define and delineate from Scripture the very 'dispensations' forming their namesakes.


The PD & Schofieldist recognizes that some things are not totally spelled out in scripture - oh the shame...

Answer the question please!

Is PD still quite a distance from Reformed Theology? Aren't there substantive differences between classical dispensationalism, PD, and covenant thinking?

Jacob

[Hitch]

Hmmmm so God sent Jesus to set up a temporal kingdom in the first century.

Did Jesus set up the temporal kingdom?

But Jesus did claim to have done all God sent him to accomplish...

The conclusion is therefore; Christ failed and did not 'sell' the kingdom well enough, as is implied, but as you say, not directly spelled out in the quote.

Or Christ was truthful and did indeed accomplish all God sent him to do and no temporal kingdom was ever in the works.


Now thats simple enough even for Jacob to grasp... nahh

Take care

Hitch

[Jacob]

STRIKE TWO


Yesterday @ 11:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150725#post150725)
Hitch:

Hmmmm so God sent Jesus to set up a temporal kingdom in the first century.

Answer the question -- provide explicit quotes from Dispensationalists saying that Jesus failed. And the quote you did supply says nothing about a "temporal kingdom" -- that's your interjection.




Did Jesus set up the temporal kingdom?

But Jesus did claim to have done all God sent him to accomplish...

The conclusion is therefore; Christ failed and did not 'sell' the kingdom well enough, as is implied, but as you say, not directly spelled out in the quote.

Why is it that Hitch must look to his own twisted logic, not the written views of classical Dispensationalists, in order to see Jesus failing?


Or Christ was truthful and did indeed accomplish all God sent him to do and no temporal kingdom was ever in the works.


Now thats simple enough even for Jacob to grasp... nahh

Take care

Hitch


IF we assume that Jesus was supposed to offer the kingdom to the Jews, and the Jews rejected it, it does not follow that Jesus failed. In this scenario, He successfully presented the kingdom -- there was no failure by Jesus.

Applying Hitch's "logic" to redemption, Jesus died that all who believe might be saved -- but he failed since all do no come to salvation -- evidently He didn't "sell" it well enough (to quote Hitch). Or, Jesus came to establish a church which was unified as His body -- but he failed since we have denominations. Or, Jesus came to establish the kingdom, but He failed since the Kingdom is not completely established over all of creation.

Hitch, get a real argument.

Jacob

[adam.naranjo]

DeeDee has aksed me to jump in on some of these threads and give my two cents. I'm working on a response, but I won't be posting it until later this afternoon. Expect something thorough.
(I'm an ex-acts 9 dispensationalist) I may just add my own thread and take comments.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 10:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=151076#post151076)
adam.naranjo:

DeeDee has aksed me to jump in on some of these threads and give my two cents. I'm working on a response, but I won't be posting it until later this afternoon. Expect something thorough.
(I'm an ex-acts 9 dispensationalist) I may just add my own thread and take comments.

Where did the Acts 9 position go wrong?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Hey guys, I see this turning into a dispie-nondispie debate which is what I don't want. I guess I should have been more specific in my request, but I want to hear on my question from those with whom I share doctrinal agreement.... of course any disagreements with comments said here can rightly be the subject of another thread. So I do repeat my request that Acts9ers not participate and for it not to be a dispie v. nondispie thread, but if the dispies have anything to offer contra Acts9, I would be appreciative. I am not trying to muzzle the Acts9ers and would encourage them to start a thread on anything here they take issue with, but I have a specific focus with this thread.l. thanks.

And thanks Adam for jumping in, i look forward to hearing more.

[Glenn P]

Today @ 01:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=150864#post150864)
Jacob:
Applying Hitch's "logic" to redemption, Jesus died that all who believe might be saved -- but he failed since all do no come to salvation -- evidently He didn't "sell" it well enough (to quote Hitch).
Brother Jacob, that's a misunderstanding of dispensationalism on your part, as far as I can tell. In classical dispensationalism (although maybe not in so-called "progressive" dispensationalism, which isn't dispensationalism), Jesus actually came to establish the Kingdom with Jerusalem at its centre IN FULFILMENT of Old Testament prophecy (and not merely "offer"people a chance to allow prophecy to be fulfilled). It wasn't just an offer to the Jews in the sense of "Hey, let's try this and see how it goes," it was the unfolding of God's intention all along, and it did not hapen as God planned because of an unexpected reaction, hence the move into the parenthesis period of the church.

So Hitch's argument seems reasonable. If Classical Dispensationalism is true, then Jesus did not achieve what He was meant to achieve. Now it may well be that no dispensationalist has gone to print and said "I think jesus failed." Of course they wouldn't! But Hitch's claim is that this is what their position actually entails. He appears to be correct.

And so my point about how to topple the "two Gospels" view seems sound. Once we can show that Jesus' plan was always to establish a Jew and Gentile church, we have toppled the dispensational house of cards with it's two Gospels.

Inflamatory remarks like "get a real argument" are not helpful. "Please defend your argument in light of my critique" is probably better suited to a disagreement between brothers.

[Glenn P]

07-16-2003 @ 06:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149224#post149224)
pereynol:
Did the classical dispensationalists actually affirm that the Lord himself had failed, as if such a doctrine were a staple of their theology? Or is it rather that you believe classic dispensational thought would lead to such a position if its inner logic were allowed to unfold consistently?
The latter. Of course no Dispensationalist wants to concede that their position would lead to the view that Christ somehow failed, so no, they don't explicitly say that.


Wouldn't you say that PD is still quite a distance away from Reformed Theology? Aren't there substantive differences between classical dispensationalism, PD, and covenant thinking?
Yes. I can say with reasonable clarity that PD isn't really dispensationalism, but you're right, I'd never say that it is covenant theology either.

[Jacob]

Today @ 04:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=151940#post151940)
Theonomy:

Brother Jacob, that's a misunderstanding of dispensationalism on your part, as far as I can tell. In classical dispensationalism (although maybe not in so-called "progressive" dispensationalism, which isn't dispensationalism),


If only "classical dispensationalism" is REALLY "dispensationalism", then why use the word "classical"? Hitch, yourself, and many others, like to attack "dispensationalism" with a broad brush, pointing to Covenant Theology or classical Reformed Theology as the obvious alternative. Well, when you paint with that broad brush, you hit me, a progressive dispensationalist (as far as I can tell). It is begging the argument to say that PD is not "D".



[snip]
So Hitch's argument seems reasonable. If Classical Dispensationalism is true, then Jesus did not achieve what He was meant to achieve. Now it may well be that no dispensationalist has gone to print and said "I think jesus failed." Of course they wouldn't! But Hitch's claim is that this is what their position actually entails. He appears to be correct.

Perhaps no Dispensationalist has said Jesus failed because that is a distortion of their position. But no, you & Hitch won't consider this, choosing instead to infer that this error is part & parcel of "dispensationalism"...

No, Hitch does not appear to be correct. He appears to have an agenda based on his bias.



And so my point about how to topple the "two Gospels" view seems sound. Once we can show that Jesus' plan was always to establish a Jew and Gentile church, we have toppled the dispensational house of cards with it's two Gospels.


As an approach for debating with Acts 9'ers, I can partially agree with this. Their views are not representative of classical dispensationalism.



Inflamatory remarks like "get a real argument" are not helpful. "Please defend your argument in light of my critique" is probably better suited to a disagreement between brothers.

Police your own first, and then you'll have some credibility.

Hitch said:

"Now thats simple enough even for Jacob to grasp... nahh"

No rebuke for Hitch's inflammatory remarks? Perhaps that's because you have no problem with inflammatory remarks as long as they're not directed at your camp. Like I said, police your own FIRST and then you might have some credibility in this criticism.

Jacob.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I am genuinely interested in the integrity of this discussion, thinking carefully, and keeping it true to the facts. The problem with most interchanges between dispensational and Reformed advocates stems from their tendency not to hear one another out and not to grant each other the basic courtesy of articulating their own positions. Rather, we hear something like: What your position really teaches is this (insert some tremendously frustrating reductio ad absurdum or misrepresentation). When opponents use this type of move, they cease speaking with each other, and the conversation often becomes unproductive, IMHO. And after one has virtually memorized the polemical moves and countermoves, all that's left is a stale excercise.

As for the "dispensationalists really teach that Christ failed when he didn't set up the kingdom," objection, one must recognize that they overtly taught no such thing. To say that their doctrines must entail this dictum on the grounds that Christ's setting up an earthly kingdom at his first advent was a prohetic fulfilment and hence, a violation of God's plan if left unestablished at that time, is, to me, begging the question. If God could plan that the covenant of works be violated by Adam's fall, should we reason that the covenant of works had "failed" and that, consequently, Reformed theologians must be said to teach that God's further actions in salvation history were stop-gaps? No, of course not; God's plan always embraces and includes the apparent contigencies introduced by human choices whenever such choices appear to violate the divine plan.

And the often repeated objections to Christ's merely offering the kingdom at his first advent have been best answered by Ryrie. He stated in his Dispensationalism Today the following:

It is particularly astounding that a Calvinist....should stumble at this matter when he would not even suggest questioning the sincerity of God in offering salvation to nonelect people. One may grant that in the final analysis such matters are inexplicable, but one does not need to charge God with insincerity.

Before saying this, he quotes Chafer, who wrote in his Systematic Theology:

With reference to other situations in which God's sovereign purpose seems for a time to depend on the free-will action of men, it will be remebered that God ordained a Lamb before the foundation of the world and that Lamb to be slain at God's appointed time and way. By so much it is clear that God anticipated the sin of man and his great need of redemption. God, however, told Adam not to sin; yet, if Adam had not sinned, there would have been no need of that redemption which God had before determined as something to be wrought out. Was God uncertain whether he would save life on earth until Noah consented to build an ark? Was the nation of Israel amatter of divine doubt until Abraham manifested his willingness to walk with God? Was the birth of Christ dubiety until Mary assented to the divine plan respecting the virgin birth?
...Was the death of Christ in danger of being abortive and all the types and prophecies respecting his death of being proved untrue until Pilate made his decision regarding that death?... Could God promise a kingdom on the earth knowing and so planning that it would be rejected in the first advent but realized in the second advent? Could God offer a kingdom in the first advent in sincerity, knowing and determining that it would not be established until the second advent?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I intimated earlier, I think the gosple of the kingdom concept in dispensationalism is soteriologically driven as much as it is eschatologically motivated. If one wants to get to the bottom of things, one cannot proceed by lampooning the teachings of the classic dispensationalists, concocting straw men (inadvertently or not), and rehashing stock polemical interchanges. All that will result from that approach is two camps preaching to their respective choirs in impotent isolation. I think that, if we are to address Dee Dee's thread properly, we'd need to delve fairly deeply (and calmly) into the underlying soteriological issues....

[adam.naranjo]

Sounds like a little confusion going on. I'm writing a mini-paper on a number of issues involved. I had planned on posting it last night. However, I had an unexpected out of state visit from my dad.All the way from Alaska (where I'm from) to Kentucky! So, I'm not going to get the mini-paper done today. I'm SORRY!!
I hate putting it on hold, but I'd rather spend needed time with my dad. I'll be back soon!! I may be able to post it tomorrow.

Adam

[Bib Lit Major]

Perfectly understandable Adam

[Glenn P]

[i]Today @ 01:11 AM
Police your own first, and then you'll have some credibility.
Jacob.
jacib that's unkind and unfair. I have never used inflammatory talk toward you. Do you think it is warranted to say "but somebody else did it, and you didn't rebuke them?"

I addressed you because when I first encountered you in this forum you struck me as someone who disagreed with me, yet had integrity and character in the way he interacts with people he disagrees with. I wish I could say I still saw you this way, but I'm prepared to still assume the best.

Don't treat this like a fight where you've got to score "points" against others. If hitch was rude then he was rude, and he should reconsider his attitude. When I am specifically rebuked for instances of my own uncharitable conduct, i take it very seriously, and generall respond as graciously as posssible. I'm sure you're big enough to do the same.

[Apollos]

I use Ephesians 3:8-11 to help others (those that say the church was a "substitute" for something else that God had in mind) see that the church was always in the mind of God and part of His eternal purpose.

[Hitch]

07-16-2003 @ 01:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149581#post149581)
pereynol:

Hitch,
Your quote from the SRB doesn't mention "failure" at all. Nor does it establish that Scofield or later editors regarded God as having explicitly "failed" in any sense of the word---which is what I'm after.

Do you have any more explicit quotes? I knew I had this whopper somewhere but it took me a while to find it;




In fact, dominion – taking dominion and setting up the kingdom
for Christ – is an impossibility, even for God. The millennial
reign of Christ, far from being the kingdom, is actually the final
proof of the incorrigible nature of the human heart, because
Christ Himself can’t do what these people say they are going to
do. . ..11



11. Hunt, “Dominion and the Cross,” Tape 2 of Dominion: The Wwd and New
World Order (1987),


Rapture Fever p 99

[Jacob]

07-18-2003 @ 10:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=152829#post152829)
Theonomy:


jacib that's unkind and unfair. I have never used inflammatory talk toward you. Do you think it is warranted to say "but somebody else did it, and you didn't rebuke them?"

I addressed you because when I first encountered you in this forum you struck me as someone who disagreed with me, yet had integrity and character in the way he interacts with people he disagrees with. I wish I could say I still saw you this way, but I'm prepared to still assume the best.

Don't treat this like a fight where you've got to score "points" against others. If hitch was rude then he was rude, and he should reconsider his attitude. When I am specifically rebuked for instances of my own uncharitable conduct, i take it very seriously, and generall respond as graciously as posssible. I'm sure you're big enough to do the same.

Theonomy,

My comment about credibility had to do solely with your criticism of my response to Hitch. In that post, I wrote:

"Like I said, police your own FIRST and then you might have some credibility in this criticism."

I still stand by that. It is neither an unkind nor an unfair statement -- though it may make you uncomfortable. Hitch became insulting (somewhat typically, from what I've seen on this board) and I slapped him in return. Perhaps you didn't correct Hitch because you know something about him that I don't know. That is no fault of mine. Instead of a PM to me, you rebuke me publicly. It is indeed unkind and unfair to publicly rebuke the one who was defending himself while defending the instigator of hostilities.


Jacob

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 12:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=153823#post153823)
Hitch:

I knew I had this whopper somewhere but it took me a while to find it;


Sorry that you wasted time finding this "whopper"....




In fact, dominion – taking dominion and setting up the kingdom
for Christ – is an impossibility, even for God. The millennial
reign of Christ, far from being the kingdom, is actually the final
proof of the incorrigible nature of the human heart, because
Christ Himself can’t do what these people say they are going to
do. . ..11



Hitch, all you found was a quote by someone who believes that God cannot contradict His word in the Bible. His interpretation may be erroneous, but he is saying nothing damning. You would be quick to say that it is impossible for God to lie, because that is clear in the word. Same thing happening here.

Also, you presume that this quote, with little context, is representative of "dispensationalism" (of course, by this you mean classical dispensationalism). Hunt is one man, and this quote is not given in context.

There's nothing here.

Jacob

[Jacob]

07-19-2003 @ 11:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=153675#post153675)
Apollos:

I use Ephesians 3:8-11 to help others (those that say the church was a "substitute" for something else that God had in mind) see that the church was always in the mind of God and part of His eternal purpose.

Good passage. Good point. Doesn't address the viewpoint of the majority of dispensationalists.

Jacob

[Glenn P]

Today @ 01:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=154348#post154348)
Jacob:
Hitch, all you found was a quote by someone who believes that God cannot contradict His word in the Bible. His interpretation may be erroneous, but he is saying nothing damning. You would be quick to say that it is impossible for God to lie, because that is clear in the word. Same thing happening here.
Jacob, even a cursory reading of that quote along with Hunt's work in general will show that Hunt is not just saying "it is impossible for God to do what scripture says He will not." It's not about whether God can contradict Himself, all agree that He cannot. Hunt's point was made against postmillennialists like Gary Demar. There is no doubt if one has read Hunt's interchanges with these people. He DOES in fact believe that it is impossible for God to bring about such dominion on earth prior to the rapture and then the millennium etc.


Also, you presume that this quote, with little context, is representative of "dispensationalism" (of course, by this you mean classical dispensationalism). Hunt is one man, and this quote is not given in context.
That's a very easy thing to say - "ah but there's no context here." But making a quip like that does not actually show that Hunt didn't mean what Hitch is suggesting. The fact is, Hunt DID mean that.

And are you trying to now say that Hunt is not a good representative of dispensational thought? You must be aware that this is not correct. Hunt is one of the most popular dispensational writers of the last 20 years.


(By the way - The reason I singled out your abrasive comments and not Hitch's is that my post was a response to your post, and not to Hitch's. My observation was public, just as your rudeness was public. Since I have not engaged in vitriol on this forum (as far as I am aware), I have integrity when I tell others not to do so. It's about logs and specks, and I'm pretty sure I checked my own eye first. It will do no good saying to the cop - "Hey buddy, you better give all those other speeders a ticket if you want to maintain your integrity...." let's just keep that stuff out of our posts OK? As Christians we have a hard enough time with the world thinking we're no different from them, we don't need to be giving them ammunition. :smile: )

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=154756#post154756)
Theonomy:


Jacob, even a cursory reading of that quote along with Hunt's work in general will show that Hunt is not just saying "it is impossible for God to do what scripture says He will not." It's not about whether God can contradict Himself, all agree that He cannot. Hunt's point was made against postmillennialists like Gary Demar. There is no doubt if one has read Hunt's interchanges with these people. He DOES in fact believe that it is impossible for God to bring about such dominion on earth prior to the rapture and then the millennium etc.

"Even a cursory reading" is not a very clear argument. I have not read Hunt's works. Please show me where he says why he believes what you and Hitch say he does. Unless more content is given, supporting your opinion, I stand by my position that this is probably Hunt saying that God will not violate what He has revealed in scripture.



That's a very easy thing to say - "ah but there's no context here." But making a quip like that does not actually show that Hunt didn't mean what Hitch is suggesting. The fact is, Hunt DID mean that.

Correct, I did not show that Hunt does not mean what Hitch suggests. But neither did Hitch or yourself provide any marginally convincing reason to assume that this passage doesn't mean what I think it means. "The fact is" is not an argument, it is simple presumption.


And are you trying to now say that Hunt is not a good representative of dispensational thought? You must be aware that this is not correct. Hunt is one of the most popular dispensational writers of the last 20 years.

Hunt is a good representative of some dispensational thinking. He may be "popular", but that does not mean that he represents the best of dispensational thinking. I doubt that anything he's written has been used as a textbook in any credible dispensational Bible College or Seminary.



(By the way - The reason I singled out your abrasive comments and not Hitch's is that my post was a response to your post, and not to Hitch's. My observation was public, just as your rudeness was public. Since I have not engaged in vitriol on this forum (as far as I am aware), I have integrity when I tell others not to do so. It's about logs and specks, and I'm pretty sure I checked my own eye first. It will do no good saying to the cop - "Hey buddy, you better give all those other speeders a ticket if you want to maintain your integrity...." let's just keep that stuff out of our posts OK? As Christians we have a hard enough time with the world thinking we're no different from them, we don't need to be giving them ammunition. :smile: )

Theonomy, you responded to my response to Hitch, ignorning His rudeness and focussing on my response. Now you presume the role of "cop"... You want to make it look like you did nothing wrong. I didn't do anything wrong, but I do believe that you did (which is why I mentioned it). We disagree. Now, if you're truly concerned about stopping the vitriol, then simply stop bringing it up.
:smile:

Jacob

[Hitch]

Jacob type DAVE HUNT in to your favorite search engine.


H

[Manasseh]

Speaking of Dave Hunt, here is an extract from a paper witten about Dave Hunt by Miles Stanford ( a real dispensationalist).

What Dispensationalism there has been in the fundamental/evangelical realm of the Church during the past 150 years has not only been betrayed, but virtually decimated in the house of her friends. ("Decimated": nine parts Covenant; one part dispensational [i.e., pre-millennial]). This seduction is [was] fostered primarily by leading dispensational schools, such as Dallas Theological Seminary.

There are also a number of highly influential leaders who are contributing to this dispensational devastation, such as Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr. He still claims to be a dispensationalist, and is accepted as such in the IFCA, and elsewhere. But he has been "reformed" by the Reformers--his associations and doctrines make the fact all too evident.

David Hunt, another front-line leader, is hand-in-hand with Dr. MacArthur in his doctrinal contradiction of dispensationalism--all the while in good-standing fellowship with the very source of Darby-dispensationalism, the Plymouth Brethren assemblies

Can we post URL's? cause the whole thing is worth reading if you want to understand real dispensational teaching.

http://withchrist.org/MJS/huntdavid.htm

Regards
M

[Hitch]

Very much the same could be said of Lindsey, and a host of others.

Of course it has been said and the various departures from classical DF teachings have been pointed out, an action for which the Jacob's of this world love to criticize. There is no question that when Lindsey changed decades of DF teaching, specificly the 'stopped clock of prophecy' he was A . Contrary to the old line ,including DTS, teachings. And B. He was wildly popular, and became a spokesman for DF .


So powerful was the popularity of Lindsey's books that it eventually led to Walvoord's about face and sellout of nearly 100 years of DF dogma. ( Most DFs I run into devoutly believe in a Millennium in which Jesus returns with his saints, its a very popular notion, though contrary to official DTS teaching)

I reckon you could trace is all back to the money and the influence Lindsey rapidly gained compare to that of Walvoord following decades of labor. Vastly more people today recognize Lindsey ,than Walvoord.and his bank book is fat.

The fact that a Lindsey could cause a 180 degree turn at the worlds leading DF seminary (whether it fits your definition of 'real DF' doesnt matter at this point) reveals as much about the system as about DTS individually.

That popularity exceeded scholarship this way ,involving the world's formost self proclaimed DF seminary, should have never happened. And it could not have happened had DTS stood her ground. As she would have if her feet were on anything solid.

Take care

Hitch

[Manasseh]

Very much the same could be said of Lindsey, and a host of others.

Of course it has been said and the various departures from classical DF teachings have been pointed out, an action for which the Jacob's of this world love to criticize. There is no question that when Lindsey changed decades of DF teaching, specificly the 'stopped clock of prophecy' he was A . Contrary to the old line ,including DTS, teachings. And B. He was wildly popular, and became a spokesman for DF .


So powerful was the popularity of Lindsey's books that it eventually led to Walvoord's about face and sellout of nearly 100 years of DF dogma. ( Most DFs I run into devoutly believe in a Millennium in which Jesus returns with his saints, its a very popular notion, though contrary to official DTS teaching)

I reckon you could trace is all back to the money and the influence Lindsey rapidly gained compare to that of Walvoord following decades of labor. Vastly more people today recognize Lindsey ,than Walvoord.and his bank book is fat.

The fact that a Lindsey could cause a 180 degree turn at the worlds leading DF seminary (whether it fits your definition of 'real DF' doesnt matter at this point) reveals as much about the system as about DTS individually.

That popularity exceeded scholarship this way ,involving the world's formost self proclaimed DF seminary, should have never happened. And it could not have happened had DTS stood her ground. As she would have if her feet were on anything solid.

I agree with what you say about Lindsey and the others of today popular writers, they were all cut from the same mould.

However.....


That popularity exceeded scholarship this way ,involving the world's formost self proclaimed DF seminary, should have never happened. And it could not have happened had DTS stood her ground. As she would have if her feet were on anything solid

The above quote doesn't stack up to scripture or Church History......

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Is the truth sound doctrine? of course it is, yet the above verses say that the time would come that sound doctrine would not be endured and people would turn away from truth to fables. All you have to do is look at this board to see that. So it's quite easy for people to go from solid ground to the dung heap.

As for Church history. During the dark ages the light of the truth of justification by grace through faith was just a dim flicker up until the reformation. So this, "And it could not have happened had DTS stood her ground. As she would have if her feet were on anything solid", doesn't stand up to any amount of honest scrutiny. The Church itself was built on the solid ground of truth and as I said, look at Church history.

Regards
H

[Hitch]

LOL Been takin Jacob lessons?

I was referring to the dearth of opposition and/or correction from DTS wrt Lindsey's trashing of 'dispensational truth' in the face of his popularity. You have confused this specific with something else.

But feel free to spin all ya want.

[Manasseh]

LOL Been takin Jacob lessons?

I was referring to the dearth of opposition and/or correction from DTS wrt Lindsey's trashing of 'dispensational truth' in the face of his popularity. You have confused this specific with something else.

But feel free to spin all ya want.

Nope I haven't been taking Jacob lessons. As a matter of fact haven't read anything similar by Jacob. I'll have to start having a good look around. Jacob must be a very bright fellow indeed. :wink:

If that was what you were refering to then you didn't make your point very clear, as my response would indicate. Never the less I'm sure you got my point.

Regards
M

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 08:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155706#post155706)
Hitch:

Jacob type DAVE HUNT in to your favorite search engine.


H

Hitch,

I don't really care about David Hunt. You do, to the extent that it appears very much like you have some sort of pre-occupation.

Jacob

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 09:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155764#post155764)
Hitch:
Of course it has been said and the various departures from classical DF teachings have been pointed out, an action for which the Jacob's of this world love to criticize.


Hitch, you are revealing that you have no clue as to my beliefs. When have I ever criticized departures from classical DF teaching? You're losing it.


So powerful was the popularity of Lindsey's books that it eventually led to Walvoord's about face and sellout of nearly 100 years of DF dogma.

The fact is that Lindsey was a student of Walvoord's. Instead of baseless accusations, how about documenting your attacks instead of playing pope.


I reckon you could trace is all back to the money and the influence Lindsey rapidly gained compare to that of Walvoord following decades of labor. Vastly more people today recognize Lindsey ,than Walvoord.and his bank book is fat.

Lindsey has never represented DTS. There is no financial pipeline from Lindsey's books to DTS. You must be getting quite desperate to tie these together in such a sloppy, but typical fashion.


The fact that a Lindsey could cause a 180 degree turn at the worlds leading DF seminary (whether it fits your definition of 'real DF' doesnt matter at this point) reveals as much about the system as about DTS individually.

So Linsdey is a progressive dispensationalist? :no:


That popularity exceeded scholarship this way ,involving the world's formost self proclaimed DF seminary, should have never happened. And it could not have happened had DTS stood her ground. As she would have if her feet were on anything solid.

Take care

Hitch

Hitch continues to provide only baseless arguments. Typical, and sad.

Jacob

[Hitch]

Yesterday @ 01:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=156216#post156216)
Jacob:


Hitch, you are revealing that you have no clue as to my beliefs. When have I ever criticized departures from classical DF teaching? You're losing it. Please show from my post where I made such a claim about you.

The fact is that Lindsey was a student of Walvoord's. Instead of baseless accusations, how about documenting your attacks instead of playing pope. LOL Actually its when I document with direct quotes you get most upset. I dont understand your questions wrt the pope. If you like I can quote Walvoord supporting both sides of the 'ticking clock' issue, but I dont believe its is facts you are concerned with. Lindsey's view is well known.[/b]

Lindsey has never represented DTS. There is no financial pipeline from Lindsey's books to DTS. You must be getting quite desperate to tie these together in such a sloppy, but typical fashion. Please show from my posts where I claim Lindsey ever represented DTS, excepting that he was a student there. Please show from my posts where I made a claim of some sort of financial pipeline wrt Lindsey/DTS

So Linsdey is a progressive dispensationalist? :no: Once again you prove to cunning to be understood


Hitch continues to provide only baseless arguments. Typical, and sad.

Jacob Im begining to think you dont read very well.

[Jacob]

Yesterday @ 10:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=156726#post156726)
Hitch:



Hitch, you are revealing that you have no clue as to my beliefs. When have I ever criticized departures from classical DF teaching? You're losing it. Please show from my post where I made such a claim about you.

The fact is that Lindsey was a student of Walvoord's. Instead of baseless accusations, how about documenting your attacks instead of playing pope.


LOL Actually its when I document with direct quotes you get most upset. I dont understand your questions wrt the pope. If you like I can quote Walvoord supporting both sides of the 'ticking clock' issue, but I dont believe its is facts you are concerned with. Lindsey's view is well known.[/b]


I get upset with your quoting out of context and twisted "interpretations" when providing direct quotes.

The RCC thinks anything the pope decalares to be true "ex cathedra" is therefore true & can't be questioned, even if it is baseless.

You are the one not concerned with facts.





Lindsey has never represented DTS. There is no financial pipeline from Lindsey's books to DTS.

You must be getting quite desperate to tie these together in such a sloppy, but typical fashion. Please show from my posts where I claim Lindsey ever represented DTS, excepting that he was a student there. Please show from my posts where I made a claim of some sort of financial pipeline wrt Lindsey/DTS


You're the one who tied them together when you suggested that the success, financially & popularly, led to Walvoord & DTS changing their theology. You bring it up repeatedly to show why DP theologians & institutions have changed their views.



So Linsdey is a progressive dispensationalist? :no: Once again you prove to cunning to be understood


I made a mistake in that I confused your shorthand DP with DF (I had not noticed that these were used to distinguish between camps), and whatever significance you attatch to each of these.






Hitch continues to provide only baseless arguments. Typical, and sad.

Jacob


Im begining to think you dont read very well.



Again, baseless arguments and personal attacks.

Cheers.

Jacob