Posted on 10/26/2007 9:00:59 PM PDT by topcat54
[we are saved] by grace through faith ~ LC
***We are saved in believing what Christ did on the Cross, none of the Apostles were-now where they?***
It might just be me, but ftd’s gospel sounds terribly Romanistic, especially since he contradicts my assertion that salvation is by the grace of God.
“All of the tribes of the world didn’t mourn on that day and didn’t see him coming with power and great glory.”
All the TRIBES of the LAND, including “those who pierced Him,” did see Him. Jesus said they would; so I believe they did. BTW, have you ever read Josephus’ account of what happened and what he saw?
“As for the Rapture it is in 1Thess.4 and it is given to be a comfort for the believer.”
This is to comfort the believer:
John 17:15: My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.
Scripture does not contradict Scripture. Again, Scripture cannot be interpreted in a way that renders it in conflict with what is so clear in other Scripture.
And how does faith come? By the preaching of the word. Same for all of us. Romans 10.
Glad you arrived safely.
Why am I not surprised? Bullinger was a hyper-dispensationalist. So we have established that Jesus did in fact use hyperbolic language all over the gospels. Yet, in order to accept the dispensationalist scheme we must believe that He was not using hyperbole in the very place we would expect it, the prophetic/apocalyptic passages in the gospels.
This demonstrates the lengths that the dispensationalists must go in order to force their views on the passages.
"for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Rom. 14:17)
This passage does not seem to be saying what you think it is saying. Perhaps you can clarify.
And did the disciples believe him?
They were the ones that wrote the NT. What do you think?
Peter did not believe that Christ had to go the Cross, nor did the other disciples, yet they were all saved Jews.
Are you trying to deny that Peter was saved by Christ’s work on the cross? Or that the apostles and disciples did not preach Christ crucified? The fact that the apostles did not dully understand Christ’s message until after the fact does not change that Christ clearly came with a message of the suffering Christ and the cross.
I think this schizophrenic slice and dice dispensationalism is clouding a clear understanding of the gospel. E.g., you conveniently forget that the Jews wanted to take Christ and make Him the king of the dispensationalist imagination, but He would have no part of it (John 6:15). This was long before He allegedly rejected and needed to implement dispensationalist plan B.
No unsaved men can enter the Kingdom of God,but they can be in the Kingdom of Heaven as shown by the parables of the wheat and tares and fishes in Matthew 13.
Confused mumbo jumbo. This bogus interpretation has been rejected even by most thinking dispensationalists for some time now.
This passage does not seem to be saying what you think it is saying. Perhaps you can clarify.
Ofcourse it is saying what I am saying, that the Kingdom of God is a spiritual Kingdom, not a physical, literal one, which is the Kingdom of Heaven.
[ And did the disciples believe him? ]
They were the ones that wrote the NT. What do you think?
I know from those same scriptures that none of them thought He was going to the Cross.
In fact, Christ rebukes two disciples on the road to Emmaus for not believing what the prophets said.
Thomas didn't believe Christ was going to rise from the dead-now did he?
[ Peter did not believe that Christ had to go the Cross, nor did the other disciples, yet they were all saved Jews. ]
Are you trying to deny that Peter was saved by Christ’s work on the cross? Or that the apostles and disciples did not preach Christ crucified? The fact that the apostles did not dully understand Christ’s message until after the fact does not change that Christ clearly came with a message of the suffering Christ and the cross.
Stop stonewalling and evading.
The question is, what did the Apostles believe in for them to get saved, and it had nothing to do with Christ dying for them on the Cross.
They were all saved because of it, but none of them believed on it for their own personal salvation.
I think this schizophrenic slice and dice dispensationalism is clouding a clear understanding of the gospel. E.g., you conveniently forget that the Jews wanted to take Christ and make Him the king of the dispensationalist imagination, but He would have no part of it (John 6:15). This was long before He allegedly rejected and needed to implement dispensationalist plan B.
No, Christ knew what He was going to do, but the Jews had rejected the Cross and wanted only the Crown.
The disciples that stayed with Christ did so because they still believed He was the Jewish Messiah, not because they thought He was going to die for their sins on the cross.
So stop throwing up smoke.
[ No unsaved men can enter the Kingdom of God,but they can be in the Kingdom of Heaven as shown by the parables of the wheat and tares and fishes in Matthew 13. ]
Confused mumbo jumbo. This bogus interpretation has been rejected even by most thinking dispensationalists for some time now.
Well, it is still a fact, that the Kingdoms are different.
I don't know what 'thinking' dispensationistis you are talking about, more likely those who have compromised on it.
Now, if you want to have an intelligent conversation on this issue, then well and good.
If you are only going to respond with snide remarks, then we have no need to continue this discussion at all.
Why am I not surprised? Bullinger was a hyper-dispensationalist. So we have established that Jesus did in fact use hyperbolic language all over the gospels. Yet, in order to accept the dispensationalist scheme we must believe that He was not using hyperbole in the very place we would expect it, the prophetic/apocalyptic passages in the gospels. This demonstrates the lengths that the dispensationalists must go in order to force their views on the passages.
No, while Christ did use hyperbolic language at times, the context makes it clear when it is being used.
The context in Matthew 24 is that of the Great Tribulation, which will far exceed any suffering experienced by the Jews either in 70AD, or in the Holocaust, which was even worse.
All the TRIBES of the LAND, including “those who pierced Him,” did see Him. Jesus said they would; so I believe they did. BTW, have you ever read Josephus’ account of what happened and what he saw?
It doesn't say land it says earth.
You do know the difference between the two don't you?
I have read Josephus account and it has nothing to do with the events of Matthew 24, it has to do with the events of Luke 21.
[ “As for the Rapture it is in 1Thess.4 and it is given to be a comfort for the believer.” ]
This is to comfort the believer: John 17:15: My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.
Yes, that was a prayer to protect the Apostles from the evil of this world.
Now, why would Christ have to pray that to the Father, if He were the one who would be ruling?
Scripture does not contradict Scripture. Again, Scripture cannot be interpreted in a way that renders it in conflict with what is so clear in other Scripture.
That is exactly correct, so when you actually compare scripture with scripture, you find that amillennialist/postmillennial theology, simply ignores what it cannot deal with, such in the case with 1Thess.4, Rev.20, Ezek 40-48, to name just a few, or tries to palm off nonsense like in Matthew 24 where you switch the word earth to land.
LOL!
It might just be me, but ftd’s gospel sounds terribly Romanistic, especially since he contradicts my assertion that salvation is by the grace of God.
It's just you.
The Apostles did not believe that Christ had to die on the Cross for their sins and then rise from the dead.
True or not?
Thomas didn't believe in the Resurrection until he actually saw Christ, yet he was a saved man before that.
Now, don't tell me you think you can have the Gospel without the Cross?
No one contradicted any such thing.
The question is what did the Apostles believe in to be saved.
For by grace are we saved through faith
Christians have to believe that Christ died for them on the Cross and rose from the dead.
No Apostle believed any such thing for their own salvation.
And you know it.
I haven't heard this before. I don't see what you're basing this on, can you elaborate?
I am basing that on what the Apostles actually believed regarding Christ going to the Cross and dying for the sins of the world.
During His ministry they did not believe this and were shocked when He told them that He was going to the Cross.
That is why they all deserted Him and did not believe it when they were told He had risen.
You can get some books that go into greater depth.
Well put.
Have begun to have a new level of concern for the Replacementarians . . . growing out of my professional experience . . .
It is common when folks are confronted with overwhelming evidence that key aspects of their core beliefs have been built on sand; are false; do not fit congruently with ‘objective’ reality
their whole belief system can be shaken and shatter.
I’m increasingly concerned that a significant percentage of such folks may even end up with some of the core aspects of their belief in Scripture and God, Christ rattled significantly when they observe on daily news how wholesale false their eschatology has been all these years. That could be a serious thing indeed. God have mercy. May their eyes be opened before then.
"THE ORDER OF RESURRECTIONS . . .
I Corinthians 15:20-28. History records that Jesus died and that He rose again. As such, He is 'the Firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep' (v. 20). . . . In Christ, a new order began with Christ receiving the body which will last for eternity. Because He has received a resurrection body, those who are raised after Him may also receive a similar body and will not die again. "
"When human history has run its course and the millenial kingdom has been fulfilled, the final judgment on the wicked (Rev. 20:11-15) will take place, then Christ will be able to present the conquered world to God the Father, 'Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.' (v. 24). In some sense, God's kingdom will continue forever as God necessarily directs His entire rule over creation." p 463
THE MYSTERY OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE CHURCH
"I Corinthians 15:51-58; cf. I Thessalonians 4:14-17. Though the normal order for all men is to live, die, and then be subject to resurrection, there will be one grand exception at the end of the age. In hisotry, Enoch and Elijah were caught up to heaven without dying (2 Kings 2:11; Heb. 11:5). At the Rapture of the church, however, a whole generation of those who are saved will be caught up to heaven without dying. This will constitute the grand exception to the normal rule of death and resurrection.
This translation without dying was revealed by Paul, 'Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed--in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable and the mortal with immortality' (1 Cor. 15:51-52). [p464]
I think Walvoord has it as right as anyone I've read.
1. Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:1-7; Mark 16:1-7; Luke 24:1-8; John 20:1-10; Acts 2:24; 3:15; 4:32; 10:40; 17:3; Rom. 1:4; 4:25; 10:9; 1 Cor. 15:4; eph. 1:20; 1 thes 4:14; 1 Peter 3:18).
2. The token resurrection of some saints at the time of the resurrection of Christ (Matt. 27:50-53).
3. The resurrection at the Rapture (1 Cor. 15:51-58; 1 Thes. 4:14-17).
4. tHE RESURRECTION OF THE TWO WITNESSES (rEV. 11:3-13).
5. The resurrection of the Old Testament saints (Isa. 26:19-21; Ezek. 37:12-14; Dan 12:1-3).
6. The resurrection of the Tribulation saints (Rev. 20:4-6).
7. The resurrection of the wicked dead (Rev. 20:11-15)."
Actually,
Scriptural and annecdotal evidence indicates that there’s eating and drinking in heaven as well.
—The Marriage Supper of The Lamb
—The fruit trees on the sides of the River of Life.
—Reports from heavenly visitations.
All the TRIBES of the LAND, including “those who pierced Him,” did see Him. Jesus said they would; so I believe they did. BTW, have you ever read Josephus’ account of what happened and what he saw?
What a slippery UNBiblical rubber Bible response.
ALL NATIONS--ALL people groups; tribes; language groups of that obviously still future moment WILL SEE HIM COME IN POWER AND GREAT GLORY.
THAT STILL HAS ----->NOT<----- HAPPENED YET! And evidently, obviously could NOT have happened prior to the availability of world wide TV etc.
2. Josephus did not describe every language group, people group, tribe seeing Christ coming in GREAT POWER AND GLORY.
3. Christ died on Golgatha amidst great drama and demonstrations of God's power
(A) The veil was rent in the Temple--perhaps a 2 plus foot thick curtain rent supernaturally.
(B) The sun was darkened.
(C) There was a great earthquake.
(D) Some folks were resurrected.
(E) NO coming in great power and glory involved at all. Only dying in great humility, Love, shame and servant-heartedness with God providing dramatic exclamation marks to the event.
4. Christ was resurrected in quietness and largely solitude, privately. NO COMING IN POWER AND GREAT GLORY there or then.
5. Christ ministered the rest of His earthly days without a lot of great fanfare. NO COMING IN POWER AND GREAT GLORY THERE OR THEN.
6. Christ ascended in a cloud--slightly dramatic--but largely a small group thing. NO LEAVING in anything close to the POWER AND GLORY HE IS DESCRIBED TO BE COMING AGAIN IN.
7. The assertions above trying to RUBBER BIBLE, SHOEHORN into AD 33 or 70 or whatever such--ANY coming of Christ in GREAT POWER AND GREAT GLORY is YET AGAIN PROVED TO BE UTTERLY FALSE--A BRAZEN FALSEHOOD YET AGAIN, WRONG--plainly and vividly WRONG.
I realize it must be comforting to the flesh of folks to try and squeeze it all tidily into 2,000 years ago. It must be a startling prspect to imagine CHRIST COMING IN POWER AND GREAT GLORY WITH TENS OF THOUSANDS OF ANGELIC FORCES AS WELL AS THE RAPTURED SAINTS . . . such a prospect must be extremely disconcerting to folks who are so determined to rubber Bible everything into a white-washed tiny little box to fit their comfort zone of A FORM OF RELIGION BUT THE DENIAL OF THE POWER THEREOF.
quite so.
We know angels can eat since they ate when they appeared to Abraham (Gen.18)
But while eating and drinking occurs in both Kingdoms, only the Kingdom of God has the joy of the Holy Ghost in the individual believer.
Paul was emphazing that the Christian 'does not live by bread alone' and ought to be concerned with spiritual things since he now a resident of a spiritual Kingdom (Eph.2:6)
Amen.
Thank you for the excellent post.
Yes, the Kingdom does continue as Rev.21-22 clearly indicate, there still being nations that take from the trees of healing.
All of the Universe will be filled with mankind (in the flesh), but without the corruption of sin and death.
While those in Resurrection bodies will be ruling and aiding them.
I’m convinced that the
kingdom of heaven
and
the kingdom of God
are at this point in some list of senses . . . not 100% overlapping.
We have time in this time/space dimension . . . that is at least different than the ‘timelessness’ of heaven.
Is God going to more thoroughly overlap or merge the two kingdoms? I don’t know.
I believe that during the Millenium and afterwards . . . for all those ruling and reigning with Christ—there will be no barrier between the two kingdoms if they are still distinct in any sense.
I don’t know that we can reliably pontificate with any certainty about the boundaries, parameters and natures of the two kingdoms at this poitn.
We see through the glass darkly and on this topic only very tiny spots of aperture to look into such things through. Doesn’t seem to be a high priority for God for us to know a lot about the differences at this point.
Certainly all that is
is the kingdom of God in a list of very real senses.
Certainly all that is
is NOT included in The Kingdom of heaven AT THIS POINT. And likely is not slated to be so in the future.
just my 2 cents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.