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.

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.

[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:

Scripture Verse:

“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
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
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.

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.

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
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
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
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
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
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...


Jacob