Israel needed more help.
The Gospel of the Kingdom and the plot twist.
- Thread starter Nick M
- Start date
It wasn't "my" terminology, and you know this if you hadn't stepped in it (the middle of a conversation. And when Paul wrote such a thing I firmly believe that he believed it.
From what I recall of your beliefs, you HAVE thrown the entire teaching of Jesus right out the window!
If that's the only options you can see, take off the blinders.
I'm sorry you were traumatized.
Rhema
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
OK but remember that right in the introduction to John, which to you and yours isn't even written to the Church which is His Body
(only to the Church which is His Bride (because you confusingly bifurcate the two in your narrative))
, John says Grace comes from Christ, and Law is from Moses. Grace is what you all call Paul's Gospel, and, the Gospel of Grace.
(I do too btw!)
But I don't distinguish it from the One Apostolic Church. I don't distinguish the Gospel of Grace and the Gospel in early Mark, even though you do. The Gospel of Grace and the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Church all go together, period. Law was from Moses, Christ provides Grace, that's John chapter one, written to, according to Dispensationalism, "Peter's Church"
(and by that you mean there are "two Churches" in the Bible, not just One, and only one of these "two Churches" is the Body of Christ, and "the other one" isn't)
. The Gospel of the Kingdom (to you all) isn't a gospel of grace, but John says otherwise. The Law was from Moses, Grace is from Christ; it says it right in John one. So therefore the Gospel of the Kingdom has to be a gospel of grace, which means there's two gospels of grace, or, either that ... or there's only One. And you're divvying them up.
It's not an unreasonable view, I want to say that plainly, and I respect you personally, but I don't buy into this narrative, because one of the logical implications of it is that there were two distinct new religious traditions, customs, liturgies which started in the first century, and they were both Christian, but "one of them" ceased shortly after it began
(you folks say it's "on hold" or paused rn, but that it will resume in the future at some point)
.
I don't buy into it because there's no proof of this in archeology. No historian identified such a division in the earliest Church----well I take that back----there were divisions early on, and divisions are even mentioned by the New Testament, and we know them as "Gnosticism." They were splinter groups, they didn't have bishops, they just interpreted the Christian faith (or their take on it) differently enough that they weren't the same thing as the historical Church.
But it isn't an unreasonable view, because there appears to be a lot of evidence of Dispensationalism in the New Testament. So it requires an answer, and not just dismissal.
And so, it's not primarily that I reject Dispensationalism as that I accept that there were many Jews who were misinformed and who misinterpreted the Old Testament, especially the understanding of the prophecy of Messiah, and this extended from the commonest people on up to the Jewish religious leaders and priests, and everybody in between. idk how much they all felt about being occupied by Rome, when Jesus was born and walked the Earth, if they expected or hoped for political liberation against Rome primarily, so idk if this was part of why everybody had a misapprehension of what He was going to be like.
As I've mentioned, the idea that part of His coming was specifically to save Gentiles, is probably not that important to people who are dreaming of a conquering hero to vanquish the oppressive Gentiles. They may even miss the overall point completely if they're only fixated on when Messiah is going to literally, physically kill them. Can't think why, right? I mean I'm joking. It's cognitive dissonance. "Ears to hear," they probably have not.
I mean it's why they killed Him. He said don't tell anybody why I'm here, because, turns out, the plan was to encourage them to kill Him, and to preach openly that He's here to die, would have or probably would have or just maybe would have, foiled the plan (which was written about in the Prophets). "Don't tell anybody why I'm here, let them kill Me," basically, He says, is the idea (He says this in the Gospels).
So He's not teaching any kind of gospel of any Earthly kingdom. He's specifically not doing that, He's not addressing the Roman occupation, I mean only rarely, and one of the most famous times He did address the Romans, it was to say, "Don't forget to pay your taxes ... to Rome." I mean He was the opposite of a rebel, He advised just go along to get along, just go with the flow with Rome (and therefore with any other politicians by extension I think).
Last edited:
Permanent ignore list.
The above post is simply ridiculous. It's just a bunch of nonsensical rationalizing to preserve your own doctrine. It doesn't even read as though it were in response to anything dispensationalists teach! You are either totally ignorant of what you're talking about or you're just being dishonest. I genuinely cannot tell which it is. Not that it really matters.
Is there anyone in all of existence, never mind here on TOL, who argues against Mid-Acts Dispensationalism in an intellectually honest manner?
I don't recall having ever seen one. They universally say things that have nothing to do with what we teach. In some cases it may be because of simple ignorance or maybe they're just parroting something they've heard some other dishonest dullard say that tickled their ears, but I doubt that accounts for most of it. It seems clear that most of it is intentional. They aren't interested in actually debating dispensationalism on its merits. They're too lazy for that! They'd actually have to learn what it is we teach first! They're interested in discrediting it and dismissing it as though it was created on a random Wednesday evening by some half drunk teenager.
It's an insulting waste of time to even engage them on the topic. If they want to be ignorant, let them!
Clete
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
No, it isn't.
No it's not.
I responded to a post by @steko which set out a number of clear propositions about what Mid-Acts Dispensationalism believes. It was one of the clearest explanations of this theology that I've seen, on TOL or anywhere else.
(I did investigate Grace Ambassadors website, engaging @Right Divider in discussion about the site's contents, and it turned out that this site was not publishing "canonical" MAD, but I have tried in honesty to understand everything MAD believes. I would love an authoritative source for the theology, because addressing points which are not held by MAD is of course a waste of everybody's time.)
It's not from lack of trying Clete.
Like I said, I'm open to any authoritative source of the theology. I have not been provided one, and it's not because I haven't asked.
Pick any of the points I set out and address it.
Yeah, that part can't be overlooked.
He didn't come in the flesh to build an earthly kingdom to fight earthly oppressors.
It wasn't the dispensation for that.
He came in the flesh to die in the flesh.
So it's because you can't make a case from scripture.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I can't make a case for MAD from Scripture, that's true. Got me there.
Again, I didn’t say that. You can’t make a case to refute it or you already would have.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
There's a lot of Scriptural evidence which supports and corroborates and comports with MAD, which is why I say it's not unreasonable to be MAD, but MAD is not proven or demonstrated anywhere in the Bible, and meanwhile there does appear, to many people, to be proof against MAD in the Bible, iow the Bible appears to many people to positively refute MAD.
This all depends on understanding exactly what MAD believes /claims. Obviously refuting something MAD doesn't believe is a straw man. I'm trying very hard to not do that. But I could use some help. If any of the points I've mentioned are not true MAD then I need to know that, in order to be fair, and to not commit straw man fallacies.
Well, yeah, it really is.
I've been a Mid-Acts Dispensationalists for decades and nothing you said comes within a mile of touching a thing I believe about anything. It's just a regurgitation of your doctrine stated within the context of a discussion about something that almost seems to be pretending to sound like Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.
Okay, I can believe that but it really isn't that complicated. The core teaching is the Dispensation of Grace didn't start until Israel was cut off and God turned instead to the Gentiles. An event that was triggered by Saul of Tarsus presiding over the stoning of Stephen. This same Saul was then stopped on his way to Damascus where the risen and glorified Jesus Christ converted him and changed his name to Paul.
Since Paul was converted in Acts chapter 9, we refer to ourselves as Mid-Acts Dispensationalist. There are also Acts 2 dispensationalists and Acts 28 Dispensationalists. The Acts 2 folks are more correct than people like yourself who think that basically nothing has changed at all since Moses came down from Sinai. The Acts 28 folks, in my opinion, take things a bit far but I don't argue with them really because I've rarely seen much of any difference in their doctrine that amounted to a hill of beans from that which the Acts 9 people preach.
The difficulty the people like yourself have in understanding it, is that they constantly evaluate it from within their own paradigm, which is doomed to failure. It is a paradigm level issue and it makes no sense - meaning that it is literally irrational - to evaluate one paradigm from within another. It would be like someone from the 1700s evaluating the usefulness of our modern interstate highway system. The routes might make some sense but the details would simply baffle them because they'd be thinking in terms of vehicles drawn by horses at speeds of less than 15 miles per hour.
There is one book that you need to read. There are others you could read but this the only book you'll ever need to read on the topic.
The Plot by Bob Enyart
That book doesn't just explain what Mid-Acts Dispensationalism teaches, it establishes it biblically. And, I mean that explicitly. I mean it so explicitly, in fact, that I'll go further than that and state that if you haven't read The Plot, you do not understand the bible. That is especially true of Americans in particular, regardless of denomination, and it is also true of any Catholic or Calvinist, regardless of nationality.
Look, I'm really not trying to insult you here. I believe you when you say that you've tried to understand what we teach but picking up the discussion based on what you said in that previous post feels to me like trying to discuss an automatic transmission with a child who just figured out how to put the chain back onto the sprocket on his ten-speed bicycle.
Just to give an example, you state the following in that previous post...
"The Gospel of the Kingdom (to you all) isn't a gospel of grace, but John says otherwise."
This is simply false! There is not one single dispensationalists that I've ever heard suggest that the Kingdom Gospel was not a gospel of grace. It absolutely was (and is) a gospel of grace! Grace came BEFORE the law, not after it! This is what Romans 4 is all about and it is why BOTH Paul and James can use Abraham as the prototype for two different systems that teach two different things about what is required to get saved.
Now, that point can be completely proven biblically but it's not super simple and it typically isn't the sort of thing that is conducive on a chat forum where everything you say has to be typed out by hand or else copy/pasted from another source which is then hardly ever, if ever, read and even when it is, it's about ten seconds before someone starts interpreting what is being said from within their own paradigm and misunderstands what is being said and dismisses the entirety based on that misunderstanding.
This is why Bob's book is so excellent. It takes it from the beginning and leads you step by step, precepts upon precepts, so that when you arrive at the conclusion, you can see the entire path taken to arrive at that destination. This is the only way paradigm level issues can be properly dealt with. It REQUIRES the so called "light bulb moment" where you're made to see something new that you now can never unsee. It's a dangerous book for anyone who is heavily vested in their pet denominational doctrines. Don't read it unless your willing to entertain the notion that something you've believed for decades might turn out to be false.
Now, having said all of that, I'm not opposed to discussing it with you! I just don't think your previous post is at all a promising place to start. Maybe it would be better if you just started asking me questions. If you do so, I'll try to address them as directly as I can.
Clete
Last edited:
This gave me a chuckle. Not because it's stupid or anything like that but because once you see it, the teaching isn't just taught somewhere in the bible, its everywhere! It's so pervasive that it seems to be on every page!
And I'm not exaggerating!
You're quite right, by the way! There's lots of people who think that the bible appears to "positively refute MAD". I don't know how to describe it except by way of analogy.
If you have a guy who, when he looks at the sky, sees a yellowish green color, he's probably got blue blocking glasses on. If another looks at the sky and sees a deep purple, chances are good that he's wearing rose colored glasses. The reason you know this is because you look at the sky without glasses! You not only see the real thing but fully understand why the others see what they see and could predict what a third person is likely to see if they show up with a different pair of glasses on. What's more, is that there's NOTHING you can say or do to convince any of the other guys what the real sky looks like if they are unwilling to remove their glasses. They very simply have to see it for themselves.
It really only comes down to one or two ideas. If you accept them as true then it changes everything. There are some very minor details that can be debated but for the most part it's pretty simple. In fact, clearing up many, seemingly unrelated, major biblical details in a super simple, read it for yourself, common sense, plain as the nose on your face, sort of manner, is one of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism's strongest arguments.
The reason I say that is because if this is a paradigm level issue, which it completely is, then the question becomes less about proof-texts and other conventional biblical arguments and more about figuring out how to evaluate the validity of one paradigm over another.
Clete
Had Israel not rejected their Messiah, God would have sent Jesus back and given Israel her Kingdom, just as Peter preached in Acts 3.
Acts 3:18 But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.
Clete
If Israel had embraced their Messiah then they wouldn't have plotted His death.
He came as a servant in the flesh to die in the flesh, the sacrificial Lamb.
And they rejected Him as a servant in the flesh.
It was the plan all along that it happen that way, but no one was aware of it.
1 Corinthians 2
(7) But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
(8) None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
There's the mystery and the plot twist.
No. Read verse 8 again.
"The rulers of the age," had they understood that being a sacrifice was Christ's intended goal, "they woud not have crucified [Christ]."
Part of the mystery? Sure.
The plot twist? Hardly.
Have you never read a novel? Never gotten to a part in the story where things are going one way, and then everything changes unexpectedly? That's a plot twist.
That's not what happened with the story in the novel of the Bible with regards to Christ being crucified. Sure, some people in the story weren't expecting it to happen, but Jesus clearly stated that he was to be killed, before he was killed. That's not a plot twist.
In fact, everything was on track for everything Jesus taught to happen, for Jesus to return bringing His kingdom.
So why didn't He return quickly, when He said He would?
Well, I was talking about the early Acts period, which, obviously, is after the death and resurrection and the point at which the Fig Tree had been "fertilized" by the giving of the Holy Spirit (see Luke 13:6-9). The official rejection of Christ as their risen Messiah didn't happen until about a year later, when the leaders of Israel rejected Stephen's "irresistible wisdom" (Acts 6:10) and stoned him to death. Had they decided differently, then the fulfillment of Israel's prophetic "destiny" (for want of a better term) would have continued on from Pentecost, which had just been fulfilled a year before Stephen's death. Israel, then, would have passed through the time of Jacob's trouble as prophesied, and Christ would have returned and reigned from Jerusalem for a thousand years.
Not really much of a plot twist since it was prophesied but if you want to call it that, I'm fine with it. It clearly came as a surprise to virtually everyone. The really big plot twist is the cutting off of Israel and the establishment of the Body of Christ! Neither event was prophesied to happen at all, as the death and resurrection of Christ definitely were (see Luke 24:32-45).
Clete
Last edited:
He was rejected both before and after His death and resurrection.
The stoning of Stephen showed their continued rejection, so I don't see why one would choose that one instance to be called their "official" rejection over all their other rejections such as killing Him, saying that they had no king but Caesar, saying that He healed by the power of Beelzebul, etc.
Their rejection continues to this day.
Well, it was also prophesied that He would be rejected by His own, that He would be in the grave for 3 days, etc.
But no one understood those prophesies as applying to Jesus either until after it happened.
Some refer to such prophesies as being "hidden in plain sight" but no one connected those dots until after it happened.
And we probably shouldn't forget that it was also prophesied that God would regather all of Israel, not because of their acceptance of Him (because they were backslidden and profaning His name) but for His own name sake as Ezekiel 36:22-38 explains.
Ezekiel 36:22-38 ESV
(22) “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came.
(23) And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.
(24) I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land.
(25) I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
(26) And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
(27) And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
(28) You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.
(29) And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you.
(30) I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations.
(31) Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations.
(32) It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.
(33) “Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be rebuilt.
(34) And the land that was desolate shall be tilled, instead of being the desolation that it was in the sight of all who passed by.
(35) And they will say, ‘This land that was desolate has become like the garden of Eden, and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are now fortified and inhabited.’
(36) Then the nations that are left all around you shall know that I am the LORD; I have rebuilt the ruined places and replanted that which was desolate. I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it.
(37) “Thus says the Lord GOD: This also I will let the house of Israel ask me to do for them: to increase their people like a flock.
(38) Like the flock for sacrifices, like the flock at Jerusalem during her appointed feasts, so shall the waste cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the LORD.”
Notice that they are not sprinkled with clean water or given a new heart until after they have returned to the land, so it's not happening because of any righteousness on their part but simply because God said He would do it.
Okay. No argument there. My point was simply to say that AFTER the resurrection and AFTER Pentecost (a Jewish holiday), the nation officially rejected Christ as their Messiah after several undeniable miracles and Stephen's arguments from scripture and that, therefore, your rebuttal about them not crucifying Christ was not relevant to the point.
There isn't any choosing about it. It's what the bible teaches, your ignorance of the relevant passages not withstanding.
Acts 7: 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”
"Standing" being indicative of pending judgment, not to mention the events in the book of Acts the immediately follow.
Irrelevant and not in dispute.
Again, not in dispute and therefore not relevant to the point.
WHAT?
There's an aweful lot you could mean by this and I'm not interested in getting into it with you. Suffice it to say that you sound like a Calvinist.
Jeremiah 18: 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.
Where there is no repentance there is no forgiveness. God IS NOT arbitrary.Clete
Fascinating. All in one post, some things on TOL never change.
All we do is show you what the Bible says. Then you say it doesn't mean what it says. That is usually the final grasp at logic, which it fails at before going to logical fallacies like the strawman, appeal to authority, or some other comical argument.