For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[Andy Curry]

I was raised Agnostic but then found faith in Christ and have never been more happy, I know MAD believes speaking in tongues has seized so my question comes now...I have recieved healings and have spoke in tongues many times, was this all in my head or did the Lord have his hand in it? The only person that will lead me away from my Pentecostal experience is the Lord so until then I will keep experiencing Pentecost daily. I am just very interested in Theology.

God bless CM.

 

[chickenman]

I gotta make more time for this. It's getting away from me.

Let's also try to keep this as a cordial, informative thread. Too much back and forth on any particular topic would work better as a spin-off thread. I hope you all understand, I'm just trying to stick to the intended purpose of the thread.


Hi, Sheila. :wave2:

It seems to me that when Jesus "breathed on the Eleven" before His ascension John 20:21,22 that it was a breath of life similar to when Jesus breathed the breath of life into Adam "and he became a living being."

There seems (to me anyway) a need for there to be a connection -that Paul most definitely received something from the church elders and apostles in order to pass on this "Breath of life". If not, then anyone can pass on the Spirit, and somehow we all know we cannot pass on the Holy Spirit.

And Paul definitely passes on a gift of eldership to Titus and Timothy and probably many others.

I Timothy 4:14
I Timothy 5:22
II Timothy 1:6
Titus 1:5

Numbers 27:18-23 If the old priesthood had the powers of sanctification, forgiveness, atonement, and so on that it had, how could there be less power from the Cross- the True Lamb? Paul passes on this power to "his" elders. It had to have come from Christs' breath. The Apostles themselves were not brought into the church the Kingdom way. They received much more: the root of the power. Matthew 28:18,20
Mark 16:19,20

John 20:23 Paul must have gotten these powers from the church.

It is not until Acts 13:2 that Barnabas and Paul are called apostles. This "being separated" leads to Acts 14:14

If I understand you correctly (please, please correct me if I'm not understanding your point), you're saying that Paul was bestowed his apostleship by the Antioch church. And therefore, he would be a product of the work of God through the Twelve, further carrying out their commission. Am I reading too much into what you said? If I'm understanding you correctly...

I disagree. Paul isn't called an apostle until after he is sent out on his first journey from Antioch at the beginning of Acts 13. However, it is clear that he was called by Jesus Himself to go to the Gentiles and, therefore, an apostle, as the Lord made this clear to Ananias in Acts 9. And the Spirit, in Acts 13, said:

"Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." Acts 13:2
​

So he was already called, but is now publicly sent out. It doesn't appear to me that the Antioch church, by "laying hands on them", passed along any special commission, power, or anything like that to Saul. It looks to me like it was something similar to the "right hand of fellowship" extended to Paul by Peter, James, and John told about in Galatians 2:9. God gave Saul/Paul his commission, not the church.

I agree about the basics being a necessary foundation. Somehow I got immediately hung up on MAD's idea of Paul not being saved through the Kingdom program. I can see no Scriptural basis for that viewpoint, and it seems to be a foundational point which I must agree with to proceed. Is that so?

I don't know that it's a foundational point. If his official calling and the dispensation of grace began at Acts 13, then that's fine. I do believe that I Tim. 1:15-16 shows that Saul's conversion in Acts 9 was unique, however...unlike those before him. God showed mercy/longsuffering to many others before Saul. Yet in that passage, Paul says he was the "first" to whom the Lord showed longsuffering and mercy. And He did it so Paul would be a pattern. Nevertheless, the point I've been trying to drive home is not the moment of the end of the kingdom program or the beginnng of the Body of Christ or dispensation of grace. I've been trying to drive home what seems abundantly obvious from the text: that the kingdom program was without a doubt on track, progressing exactly according to what one would expect according to prophecy FOR ISRAEL, until Saul is converted. Then things start changing. They're subtle at first, but there are notable changes for sure.

Here's where I see differently. It seems to me that until Paul and Baranbas are "separated" by the Holy Spirit and sent out by the Church elders of Antioch, they are still merely "prophets and teachers" no different than any other disciple or deacon. Acts 13:1

It seems that this ordination they receive from the Anticohean Church is an apostleship- they become on par with the Twelve. From this point, they are not only ranked as apostles, but they move about freely now. Acts 13:2,3

Prior to this ordination to apostleship, Barnabas goes to Tarsus to get Paul and they spend a full year with the Church in Anticoh.
First Barnabas is sent by the Jerusalem apostles to Antioch-
Acts 11:22
As the Church in Antioch is a large number Acts 11:24,25,26

From Acts 13:1,2,3 they have a new "gift" or new powers given by the church.

They also now for the first time have their own "company" so we see Barnabas and Paul are leading the way now. So, they are now "The Church" as far as now they are the ones doing the "sending" versus having been always "sent" prior to Acts 13:1-3

Acts 13:5 ...and they had John to assist them... So, John Mark is Barnabas' and Paul's assistant.

The whole chapter 13 is about the synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia.

Acts 14:1 The are largely rejected at Antioch of Pisidia so go on to Iconium.
Here they again are in the synagogue; but here a great multitude believed both Jews and Greeks.

Up to Acts 14 The message has not changed. Or at least the distinction is not as great as it will be soon.

Here's a key point for me also:
Acts 14:22 ...continue in the Faith, and through many tribulations we must enter the Kingdom of God. Their message has not yet changed as far as we can see.

And this is the biggest part:
Acts 14:23 Now the apostles Barnabas and Paul are ordaining elders in every church... That is an activity that ony apostles (elders) can do. deacons cannot ordain anyone, not even another Deacon. Only an elder (apostle) has the powers or gift to ordain so high an office, indeed the highest office in the church.

It seems to me the change comes after Acts 15 when the Church declares what is necessary for gentiles to belong to their company and what is not.

I THINK my previous posts spoke to this, at least to some extent. Shortly (whatever that means for me :chuckle, I'll progress the thread forward into Acts 14 where it should address the rest of your notes.

It seems to me also no accident that Barnabas and Saul are paired up for their special mission by the Holy Spirit.

Barnabas is a Levite. Acts 4:36 He has a name change by the apostles (common at Baptism) and is also an owner of land. Levites are not to own any land. It must have been a big boost in church income for he is named Son of Encouragement. Acts 4:37

More important is that Barnabas is influential in the arena of the Old Priesthood, the Aaronic priesthood which is dying away since the New has come. Jesus calls them old wineskins and New Wine must be poured into new wineskins. That way, Jesus says "both will be preserved." This could be important to MAD.

Barnabas has an influence over the Levites that an outsider could not. Acts 6:7 a great many of the priests are now "obedient to the Faith".

To the Jews, the apostles Barnabas and Paul emphasize Acts 13:39 But to all the Jews, to be "freed" of all that they had might not be desirable. The Levites in particular would have much to give up in terms of their whole life style. Income, housing, animals, food, prestige and their very personhood is wrapped up in being Aaronic priests daily serving in the Temple.

We see envy of this new sect is fierce. Acts 13:44,45

Interesting observations, Sheila. Thanks for noting that. I've not considered that before.

Acts 14:23 Is a key turning point. Perhaps.

Are these elders, ordained by the apostles Barnabas and Paul, all Jews? Or are they now ordaining Gentiles to head roles in the church?

The Church has made the hurdle through Peter and Cornelius that Gentiles can receive the Holy Spirit at baptism Acts 10:47

but it is quite another thing for a gentile believer to receive the powers of soul that an apostle has to pass on the Breath of Life that the Eleven got from Jesus John 20:22
and to be a leader of this new Order of Melchisedek.

Maybe the epistles will tell us who and what is happening here?

Can you clarify why you're equating the laying on of hands to passing on the "breath of life". I know that's how you see it, but I'm trying to understand the biblical basis for that connection.

Verse Acts 14:27 does not seem to indicate that they would ordain Gentiles, since it only calls it "a door of faith being opened for the Gentiles." Not exactly a resounding call to Gentile leadership, yet.

It seems to me that gentiles receiving salvation by water and spirit (tongues of fire) is still something they are marveling over.

Acts 15 opens with the Jewish Believers (of the Circumcision Party, they are named) debating circumcision as needed by these new Gentile Christians.

Thanks for all your comments. I appreciate your participation very much. I'll get to my thoughts on chapters 14 and 15 as soon a possible.

Randy

 

[chickenman]

So, no one is going to directly correct me?

Oh well. I stand corrected anyway.

What did I miss? What did you say that needs to be corrected?

 

[chickenman]

Hey, T-bone. :wave2: Welcome aboard!

Hi Sheila:

I think I understand what you are asking, and I see where you get the word "dilemma".

Hypothetically, if Kingdom believers and Body believers existed at the same time (MAD doctrine), and one of the Kingdom believers did not “endure”, or simply renounced his or her religion, why couldn’t that Kingdom believer just become a Body believer?

IOW, if Kingdom believers had to endure with Faith + Works, and the Kingdom believer failed to uphold the required works, why couldn’t the Kingdom believer just “switch” to a Body believer after he fell away from being a Kingdom believer?

If I was a Kingdom believer in the first century, and new that I had to have Faith + Works for eternal life, and was sitting in the same church as a Body believer who only had to have faith for eternal life, I would want to switch. Who wouldn’t want to switch?

That's an interesting thought. I don't know if they could switch or not. But I'd wonder WHY they would want to switch, even if they could. The promises to Israel were glorious. A promised land in which they would have living waters to drink and healing fruits to eat (Ez. 47:1-12), the mountains will drip drip with wine and the hills flow with milk (Joel 3:18) and wine (Amos 9:13); a land in which they would be reunited with their brethren and have the Lord Himself in their midst (Ez. 37:15-28) and have everlasting peace (Ez. 37:28); a kingdom in that land in which they'll receive their new covenant that will wipe away their sins forever (Jer. 31:34) and and make them eternally righteous (Dan. 9:24); where the resurrected saints will shine like the brightness of the firmament (Dan. 12:3) and all the descendants of Israel will be justified (Is. 45:25).

God didn't announce to Israel how long they would be in their state of national blindness (Rom. 11:25). And the circumcision epistles of Heb-Rev present the 2nd coming of the Lord and the kingdom as being imminent. So with such a glorious hope in view, I can't imagine why any faithful kingdom believer would even consider the thought of giving it up.

The other part of your question is pretty interesting. What about a kingdom believer who sinned willfully and was removed from the promises...was he then able to one day become a grace believer? No clue here. Pretty thought provoking, though.

I acknowledge that there is a difference between Kingdom doctrine, and Body doctrine. However, I have a hard time believing that both doctrines existed at the same time, and a really hard time believing Kingdom believers sat in the same church with Body believers.

Do you see the same doctrine taught in Rom-Phil as you do in Heb-Rev?

Thanks, T!

Randy

 

[chickenman]

I was raised Agnostic but then found faith in Christ and have never been more happy, I know MAD believes speaking in tongues has seized so my question comes now...I have recieved healings and have spoke in tongues many times, was this all in my head or did the Lord have his hand in it? The only person that will lead me away from my Pentecostal experience is the Lord so until then I will keep experiencing Pentecost daily. I am just very interested in Theology.

God bless CM.

Hello, my friend. Semper Fi...oops...I mean, Be All That You Can Be!

Praise God for you turning from your rejection of Christ! I'll refrain from giving my thoughts on the sign gifts. We would need to first come to agreement on the distinctions between Israel and the Body before there would even be a possibility of coming to agreement on something like the more emotional, experiential doctrines (like tongues and miraculous healings). So rather than address your question...

What do you think of the early pages of this thread? More specifically, what's going on in the gospel accounts, and does the information in them represent doctrine by which the Body of Christ is to live?

Thanks, bud!

Randy

 

[chickenman]

Thought I'd throw in a sanity check as we move farther along, farther from Pentecost, and more into the details. Here are a couple of early posts. Does anyone take any issue with this information? To see merit in the MidActs position, it's important for one to recognize these things

As MidActs Dispensationalists, we refuse to accept a traditional belief just because it is popular, has a long line of tradition, etc. One such very traditional and popular belief that we challenge is the idea that the Body of Christ began at Pentecost. This is an idea that, when tested, comes up sorely lacking.



If one accepts that Israel was promised a literal, earthly kingdom in the promised land, and if one accepts that the kingdom is being proclaimed as at hand in the Gospel accounts, then it is hard to understand the position that that all disappeared on the day of Pentecost. Here are some reasons why that is a difficult notion the accept:

• Pentecost is a Jewish feast (Feast of Weeks). Why would a non-national entity (Body of Christ), in which there is neither Jew nor Gentile, begin on a distinctly Jewish holiday?
• The Spirit is poured out at Pentecost. Ezekiel 11 prophecies that the Israel and Juda will be given a spirit that enables them to walk in God's statutes.
• Joel prophecied that the outpouring of the Spirit would be the beginning of end, that it would precede the Day of the Lord.
• Peter (after having just received the Spirit) announced that the outpouring of the Spirit was just what Joel spoke of.
• In Peter's sermon to the Jews (including Hellenists) in attendance, he preaches that Jesus was raised from the dead to sit on David's throne, and that that promise (bringing to mind the II Sam 7 kingdom promise) was for "you [men of Israel in Judea], your children [self-explanatory], and all who are afar off [the dispersion of Israelites, to whom the promise was given]."

In my opinion, people need to say that Peter was dead wrong if they want to say Pentecost marks the beginning of the Body of Christ. So in light of these bullet points, not the least of which is what Peter clearly says the event is, if one insists that Pentecost represents the "birth of the Body", then he must answer the question: What in the text demands that to be so?

I've literally never received a straightforward answer to the question.

Randy

blah blah blah



So far in our Acts study, we've covered the first 7 chapters where we've seen no evidence of the Body of Christ and tons of evidence that God's prophetic program is progressing along as planned. Of note, we've seen:

• After 40 days of Jesus teaching His chosen apostles things pertaining to the kingdom (Acts 1:3), they ask him if it is at this time that He would "restore the kingdom to Israel". After 40 days of training, we have to assume that they were asking an appropriate question based on an accurate understanding of the kingdom.
• Matthias is chose to replace Judas, bringing the number of apostles to sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes (Matt. 19:28) back up to the necessary 12.
• The Spirit is poured out, according to prophecy.
• Peter, having just been filled with the Spirit, makes it abundantly clear that the event is that of which Joel spoke. It's the beginning of events leading up to the Day of the Lord and the end.
• Peter preaches to the Jews that the one they murdered had risen to life, and He is the One promised to sit on David's throne, the promise that is to them, their children and to all who are afar off (their dispersed brethren).
• All believers begin living communally, selling all they have and dispersing to the needy, in keeping with the Lord's command of Luke 12:33 and in preparation of the coming kingdom.
• Peter's second sermon is like his first: you (his audience of Jews) murdered Jesus, who was raised back to life. Repent so that you can receive: 1) blotting out of sins (according to prophecy); 2) times of refreshing (as described in prophecies about the kingdom); 3) the return of Jesus, who was waiting in heaven until the times of restoration of all things (brining to mind the Ez. 37 prophecy about Him restoring Israel and Judah to the land and being their Prince and One Shepherd forever).
• Persecutions growing, beginning with Peter and John taken into custody and question, then imprisoned and beaten, then Stephen stoned and killed.
• Jesus stands, apparently ready to begin His judgments (see Mark 16:19 and compare with Ps. 110:1, Is. 3:13).

 

[chickenman]

I'd be crazy to not re-post this one at this time. We MUST understand the foundation before we can even take a shot at the details. STP lays it out masterfully.

Here's the initial promise to Abraham:

Genesis 12
1: Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Immediately, we can see that there are two groups involved. A "great nation" and "the families (or nations) of the earth".

Fast forward a little.

Genesis 15
4: And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5: And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6: And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

So, Abraham, a heathen, yet uncircumcised, was counted as righteous by faith alone. No action was required in believing God's promise.

Moving ahead, God changes his name from Abram to Abraham and...

Genesis 17
10: This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11: And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12: And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

14: And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

The covenant of circumcision is given to Abraham, and an action IS required to remain in this covenant.

So, within the umbrella of the Abrahamic covenant, Gen 12:1-3, God is now beginning to set apart the "great nation" within that covenant.

From Gen 17 forward, it's all about the circumcision. It's all about getting that "great nation" through whom the nations of the earth would be blessed.

Well, the Messiah comes to the circumcision. The majority reject him, he's crucified, buried, risen, and ascended. Israel continues to reject the ministry of the Holy Spirit in early Acts, Israel is fallen.

But, God raises up another apostle with a message that was hidden in the scriptures concerning Gentiles, the uncircumcision.

Gal 3
5: He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6: Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7: Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8: And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9: So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

So, instead of blessing the nations of the world through the rise of that "great nation", they are blessed through the fall of that "great nation"...and, he can do it by their faith alone.

During Acts, you have two groups. Both are the children of Abraham, and both fall under the umbrella of the Abrahamic covenant. One group, a nation, are children of Abraham (in circumcision). The other group, a Body, are children of Abraham (in uncircumcision). The covenant of circumcision requires action, works. No action is required of the uncircumcision.

You can follow these two groups through the book of Acts. You can see the circumcision being diminished, you can see the uncircumcision growing.

The two groups are clearly seen here,

Gal 2
7: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8: (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles: )
9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

In Galatians, Paul contrasts the two covenants which spawn these two groups. He contrasts the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic (the circumcision). The promise is unto both, the Jerusalem above which is free, is the mother of them all.

Hope this helps...

 

[Ktoyou]

I was raised Agnostic but then found faith in Christ and have never been more happy, I know MAD believes speaking in tongues has seized so my question comes now...I have recieved healings and have spoke in tongues many times, was this all in my head or did the Lord have his hand in it? The only person that will lead me away from my Pentecostal experience is the Lord so until then I will keep experiencing Pentecost daily. I am just very interested in Theology.

God bless CM.

No one can speak for Christ, but we can speak of Christ and we can speak of what Paul had revealed to the Body of Christ. Now these gifts of tongues’ was a miracle to speak foreign languages, it was not what is done today. I can only tell you that the attraction to these charismatic acts is more an emotional release than being filled with the Holy Spirit through Faith. Grace is not an instant emotional experience for most of us, rather a leading towards righteous understanding.
God bless you to
Kat

 

[chickenman]

Acts 14

Acts 14

Moving along...

In Acts 13, we saw the effects of Paul's preaching to the Gentiles. It infuriated many of the Jews. They played the role of Elymas, who stood in strong opposition to Paul preaching the gospel to Sergius Paulus. The chapter concludes with Paul heading to Iconium.

At Iconium, it's no different. Even worse. As was his custom (according to his calling) he went to the synagogue and preached to the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles. Many of both believed. Many of the Jews also rejected his preaching and stirred up many Gentiles against Paul and Barnabas.

After some time, becoming aware of an attempt against their lives, P&B leave for Lystra and Derbe to preach. In Lystra, pagan Gentiles witness Paul's healing of a cripple and think he and Barney are gods. So the message to these guys isn't the gospel of God, as was the norm. To them, it was more fundamental: the God of the universe has made Himself manifest to you through His creation and you need to turn from your useless gods to Him, the one true God. For whatever reason, this causes the pagans to attempt to sacrifice to them.

But the good ol' dissenting Jews from Iconium tracked them down in Lystra, stirred up these multitudes against Paul, stoned him, and dragged him out of the city. Amazingly, Paul gets up and GOES BACK INTO THE CITY. Perhaps this is when Timothy was converted, seeing Paul's endurance and zeal in spite of his sufferings. Timothy was from Lystra (Acts 16:1), already a disciple when Paul makes his second trip to Lystra. Timothy was a witness to many of Paul's sufferings (II Tim. 3:10-11), so maybe this contributed to his conversion. Regardless, Paul's sufferings, not the least of which was this in Lystra, taught him to boast and rejoice in his infirmities, rather than to beg and pray that they be gone. For in doing so, the power of Christ rested upon him (II Cor. 12:7-10...AWESOME scriptures). Great lesson for us today.

We can't get through the chapter without considering Paul's exhortation to the disciples during his route back to Antioch. He tells them:

"We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God." Acts 14:23
​

This is another point of disagreement even within the MidActs camp (as well as in others). Is Paul preaching entrance into the promised earthly kingdom of Israel? I don't think so. Here's why...

It is undeniable that there was a promise of an earthly kingdom. We've already looked at those scriptures and how the command in the gospel accounts was for Israel to repent in preparation for that coming kingdom. In Matthew, it was called the "kingdom of heaven", for it would be a place like heaven upon the earth (Deut. 11:21, cf. the many descriptions of the kingdom the describe an Eden-like place). The other gospel accounts refer to the "kingdom of God". STP and tetelestai will have some good input here. I see the "kingdom of God" as something that CAN be synonymous with the "kingdom of heaven", but it is a bit broader and is not ALWAYS that specific earthly kingdom. It contained the earthly kingdom, but was/is more.

Paul comments on the kingdom elsewhere:

He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love. Col. 1:13
​

So in a spiritual sense, the kingdom is a place where we gain immediate entrance as believers, for we have been "blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" (Eph. 1:3). Additionally...

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. I Cor. 15:50
​

So in another sense, it is a spiritual realm one enters upon death (or the redemption of our bodies).

In both of these cases, "kingdom" is different than the promised earthly kingdom for Israel. So I would say that Paul, in Acts 14, is referring to the fact that they will endure great sufferings (recall Jesus' words in Acts 9:16) until death and entrance in that spiritual realm that flesh and blood cannot inherit.

This we know: the promised earthly kingdom for Israel would contain flesh and blood bodies. So Paul is NOT referring to that one in I Cor. 15 and, therefore, is likely not referring to that one in Acts 14, either.

STP or tetelestai, I'd love your comments on the difference between the kingdoms as you understand it. I know you've spent time studying that specifically.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[Lighthouse]

What did I miss? What did you say that needs to be corrected?

That there were no Gentile apostles.

 

[Ktoyou]

Drat, I posted in this forbidden thread again. Sorry, I need a new brain. I will delete my post (even though I am a sincere, unconvinced inquisitor.....I will believe truth even if it is not popular or traditional).

If you back door on me and give me a negative rep, I think you are being a sneak. I have always defended you; perhaps you have too many enemies?

I think you should post your objections openly, let everyone have a look at your point, because I stand by mine, but I could be persuaded by an open argument, not back dogging me.

 

[Totton Linnet]

No one can speak for Christ, but we can speak of Christ and we can speak of what Paul had revealed to the Body of Christ. Now these gifts of tongues’ was a miracle to speak foreign languages, it was not what is done today. I can only tell you that the attraction to these charismatic acts is more an emotional release than being filled with the Holy Spirit through Faith. Grace is not an instant emotional experience for most of us, rather a leading towards righteous understanding.
God bless you to
Kat

*
This is a perfectly reasonable and valid opinion, however it is not my personal experience of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, the ecstacy of the Holy Spirit must not be equated with human emotion, Peter said it was an exalted joy full of glory, inexpressible in words. The great trap many Pentecostal and charismatics get led into is to try to explain these manifestations whereas they are to be recieved in faith and experienced in exactly the same way we recieve salvation. If you are saved you know it, if you are baptized in the Holy Ghost you know it.
And if you have the gift of tongues glory to God.

 

[tetelestai]

STP or tetelestai, I'd love your comments on the difference between the kingdoms as you understand it. I know you've spent time studying that specifically.

Hi cm:

(Matt. 4:17 KJV) From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Above Jesus refers to a literal, racial, political kingdom on earth (Kingdom of Heaven).

(Mark 1:14 KJV) Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Here we see Jesus preaching the gospel of the “Kingdom of God”

(Acts 1:6-8) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

In Acts the literal, racial, political kingdom on earth is referred to as “the kingdom” .


So, are they synonymous and interchangeable? Is one an “earthly” kingdom, and the other a “Heavenly” kingdom? Is one spiritual, and the other literal?

Amillennials and covenantals believe the church has replaced spiritual Israel, and therefore the two kingdoms are one in the same.

Most dispys are split down the middle, whereas some see them as different, and some see them as the same.

If they are different, then the million dollar question is when did the shift from a literal earthly kingdom to a spiritual kingdom take place? Here the A2D’s have the advantage over MAD (my opinion). The obvious shift point would be the cross.

The A2D’s make the argument that the Kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom that began at the cross or on Pentecost. They would go on to say that Christ came to set up the literal, racial, political kingdom on earth, but when Israel rejected Him, the shift then went from an earthly kingdom to a spiritual kingdom. Again, the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost signifies the "shift". They then believe the earthly kingdom will happen, but not until the millennium.

I would guess that MAD sees it as the earthly kingdom starting at Pentecost, but put on hold somewhere in Acts, and resumed again after the tribulation. ?????

Then there is the question of what happens after the millennium. Some say one kingdom, some say two kingdoms.

The phrase “kingdom of God” occurs 68 times in 10 different New Testament books, while “kingdom of Heaven” occurs only 32 times, and only in the Gospel of Matthew.

The fact that "kingdom of Heaven" only occurs in the book of Matthew, makes a strong case for them being interchangable, but I think most would agree that a spiritual kingdom made up of Body believers is different than a literal physical kingdom on earth made up of Jews.

 

[chickenman]

Thanks for your comments, tetelestai.

Regarding this particular note...

I would guess that MAD sees it as the earthly kingdom starting at Pentecost, but put on hold somewhere in Acts, and resumed again after the tribulation. ?????

That's right. Except it's not that the earthly kingdom itself was starting at Pentecost and then put on hold. The kingdom was simply being offered, and it was "on schedule", so to speak, according to prophecy and to be delivered soon. But the plan was put on hold.

If they are different, then the million dollar question is when did the shift from a literal earthly kingdom to a spiritual kingdom take place? Here the A2D’s have the advantage over MAD (my opinion). The obvious shift point would be the cross.

That's the consistent position I've heard from classical dispensationalists for sure. The problem I have with that position is that the cross (Messiah cut off) was foretold (Dan. 9:26, e.g.) as part of Israel's timeline. The suffering of the Servant (Is. 53) was indeed pivotal, but if it was prophecied for His people (Is. 53:8; Dan. 9:24), then calling it the dividing line between the program for Israel and the program for the Body doesn't make sense. That traditional position is further harmed when Jesus Himself tells the apostles that His blood will be the basis for the new covenant (which was prophecied for Israel/Judah specifically, Jer. 31:31-34) in Matt. 26:28. Jesus came to minister specifically to Israel, He came to die so the New Covenant could ultimately be fulfilled in the kingdom, and there's not any indication in the gospels or Acts that the cross started something different. The cross was ultimately pivotal for the entire world. But it fulfilled prophecy pertaining specifically to the kingdom program.

Additionally, AFTER the cross, we see the Spirit-filled Peter announcing that the outpouring of the Spirit is the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy about the beginning of the end events leading to the Day of the Lord. There is no indication at all that it represents something for the unannounced Body of Christ.

So the Acts 2 Dispensationalist needs to demonstrate from scripture how those points are wrong, rather than simply saying that it makes sense as a pivotal point. The scriptures, not reasoning, must dictate what we believe.


Thanks for your comments, T.

Be good!

Randy

 

[Totton Linnet]

Thanks for your comments, tetelestai.

Regarding this particular note...
That's right. Except it's not that the earthly kingdom itself was starting at Pentecost and then put on hold. The kingdom was simply being offered, and it was "on schedule", so to speak, according to prophecy and to be delivered soon. But the plan was put on hold.


That's the consistent position I've heard from classical dispensationalists for sure. The problem I have with that position is that the cross (Messiah cut off) was foretold (Dan. 9:26, e.g.) as part of Israel's timeline. The suffering of the Servant (Is. 53) was indeed pivotal, but if it was prophecied for His people (Is. 53:8; Dan. 9:24), then calling it the dividing line between the program for Israel and the program for the Body doesn't make sense. That traditional position is further harmed when Jesus Himself tells the apostles that His blood will be the basis for the new covenant (which was prophecied for Israel/Judah specifically, Jer. 31:31-34) in Matt. 26:28. Jesus came to minister specifically to Israel, He came to die so the New Covenant could ultimately be fulfilled in the kingdom, and there's not any indication in the gospels or Acts that the cross started something different. The cross was ultimately pivotal for the entire world. But it fulfilled prophecy pertaining specifically to the kingdom program.

Additionally, AFTER the cross, we see the Spirit-filled Peter announcing that the outpouring of the Spirit is the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy about the beginning of the end events leading to the Day of the Lord. There is no indication at all that it represents something for the unannounced Body of Christ.

So the Acts 2 Dispensationalist needs to demonstrate from scripture how those points are wrong, rather than simply saying that it makes sense as a pivotal point. The scriptures, not reasoning, must dictate what we believe.


Thanks for your comments, T.

Be good!

Randy

*
Do you not think that the kingdom was being fully established in the early days before the dispersion broke it up?
When the gospel came to the British Isles the religion was pagan, the main sacrifice was offering children as burnt offerings, the Island was ruled by fierce tribes each at war with the other, darkness hung over the land. Then the gospel light shone. The church conquered all before her. Don't you think this is the establishing of the kingdom of God?
The message of the gospel message preached was a limited message but it swept the whole realm into the kingdom.
In the last hundred years we have witnessed the self-same thing in Africa, the whole continent was in utter darkness, trbes and tribal warfare, poverty, misery. But look at those nations that have turned to the gospel, surely the kingdom has come and IS coming in those lands.
God can only bring about the measure of the kingdom which is preached and believed, that is how He works.
What I am saying is that nothing has changed whatsoever since the earliest days except that place where the gospel was preached and believed in to it's fullest measure is no more. The only change has been the measure of the fulness in which the message is preached.

 

[chickenman]

Hi, Totten.

If you're referring to the prophecied kingdom, which is what I've mostly been talking about, then no. It has not been established on earth. It is yet future.

 

[Totton Linnet]

Hi, Totten.

If you're referring to the prophecied kingdom, which is what I've mostly been talking about, then no. It has not been established on earth. It is yet future.

*
Hello to you Randi, I have been following your posts [yuh never know who's watching] I think you believe that the kingdom will be established upon Christ's return, I believe so too. But I see it as the same kingdom, if it were fully preached and fully believed in in the world then it would come to pass now, never will happen. In other words the prophesied kingdom is the one Jesus came announcing and also the one Paul preached that the Gentiles were now co-inheritors with the Jews in to be made manifest "in the fulness of time" MMMMillennium [she stammered]

 

[chickenman]

Thanks for joining in, Totten. Glad to know you've been following the thread.

And by the way, it's Randy with a "y". Randi is a girlie spelling.

Thanks,
RandY

:chuckle:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

And by the way, it's Randy with a "y". Randi is a girlie spelling.

each:

 

[Sheila B]

Nobody has ever been saved by keeping the law. Even the OT people. If it were possible then Jesus would not have needed to die on the cross.

Paul tells us:

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,


And James says the same:

Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Very true. Yet what was Abraham's faith? What did it consist of? He believed God and so left his family and his father's house and his country...he left all and did not know where he was going. Now that's faith!

Action does not imply faith. To imply is a weak word. Abraham headed out, with a complete darkness of understanding. He went by faith to a land he did not know. Action is faith.

This is the message of the Gentiles too, then, since Abraham is the father of many nations.

How do we act, leaving all in an unknowing of where we are going, and so have the faith of Abraham?