Thanks for asking. Amazing how popular theological errors can be cured by even a single year of NT Greek study. Prepositions are very important in the Greek language, used to convey a variety of shades of meaning. Or, when translated by an inappropriate English word, capable of doing great harm. Consider ek, such a small word to exert such leverage in dethroning the King of the universe! When Jesus said that His Kingdom was not "ek tou kosmou toutou" He was speaking of His Kingdom's source, not its location. His Kingdom is not derived from an earthly combination of powers, and owes nothing to anything (or anyone) on this planet. However, Psalm 110 is the OT chapter most frequently quoted or cited in the NT, and it speaks of a reigning King who is overcoming His enemies one by one. See I Cor. 15:25-35, for example. Our God reigns now, and being in on what He is up to is the most glorious use for our brief lives.
Dispensational eschatology, by contrast, evicts God's Kingdom from the present and the local, relocating it to two inaccessible places -- the hidden inner soul, and the distant future.
One of the great delights I experienced in moving from the frantic freak show / horror show of pop eschatology into the sober, significant, and deeply joyous Reformed perspective was -- a new appreciation for corporate realities. Since we are Trinitarian, we recognize that the plural is as significant as the personal. God's Kingdom is revealed, and forwarded, through plural entities such as churches, families, and nations. Wherever godly fathers, elders, and magistrates govern their families, churches, and communities in His fear and by His Word, blessings are released.
Hey, I don't mind having a "personal" Savior. Explain to me, though, how such an artificially restricted role differs from that of guru.
It's a lot more fun to sit down at the King's table, get debriefed on how things are faring in my corner of the Kingdom, get fresh assignments, and the resources needed to pursue them. To eat His food, and don His uniform. To know that this world is better for ever day that I am in it, representing and serving the King. And that my labor is not in vain in the Lord, but contributing towards the day, directly connected with my efforts, when His glory will cover the earth as the waters fill the seas.
Well, let's read I Corinthians to see if you are right:
"20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."
Has his coming taken place yet??? When did that happen??? The kingdom is established after "his coming", according to the text. And he then reigns on this earth until all his enemies are subdued, according to the text. Let's read on to see what will happen after his second coming which is still future:
"24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."
First "His coming" and then "His reign" from the restored city of Jerusalem, according to the scriptures, Old and New.
That is absolutely not true. In Disp. theology Christ is reigning - right at this very minute - in heaven. With all the power of heaven and earth, may I add
“One of the great delights I experienced in moving from the frantic freak show / horror show of pop eschatology into the sober, significant, and deeply joyous Reformed perspective was — a new appreciation for corporate realities.”
In your move, you also seem to have picked up another unfortunate Reformed trait - a scornful sense of superiority.
“Hey, I don’t mind having a “personal” Savior. Explain to me, though, how such an artificially restricted role differs from that of guru.”
Tom, you were clearly called out and now your backpedaling. You said they Disp. Th. reduces the Lord, “to a mere guru.” I asked you for a clarification. You offered none. Can I take this as a sign that you are retracting your statement?
The use of the term “personal Savior” is meant both to educate and invite people who have only know the distant, impersonal “god” of religious formalism to a relationship with a living and active Lord. One Who may be known on a personal basis. Is that not EXACTLY what Jesus taught when he instructed the disciples to call on Abba Father???
For heaven's sake, Tom, the "personal relationship" is the central dynamic of the new covenant! "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
If you are not retracting your mischaracterization, then I again ask you to point to exactly how we “reduce [the Lord], in this present age, to a mere guru.” Please be specific.
“It’s a lot more fun to sit down at the King’s table, get debriefed on how things are faring in my corner of the Kingdom”
I’m glad for you, and hope that in an upcoming debriefing you may be instructed about the seriousness of mischaracterizing and depreciating the teaching of your fellow believers and coheirs.