Lets vote for the Bible to be our form of government- #vote for God

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
they may be similar but I don't think God makes mistakes, I think if he differentiated different titles, he meant different things, here is a summary in an image:View attachment 271995
(click to enlarge)
"It is clear from the Scriptures that God has been trying to set up a "visible" Kingdom on this earth ever since the creation of man, to whom He gave dominion. Gen. 1:26-28. But that dominion was lost by the "Fall," and Satan set himself up as the "Prince of this world." Matt. 4:8-10. John 14:30.

In the "Call" of Abraham God took the first step toward the setting up of a "visible" Kingdom on this earth, which assumed an outward form in the "Jewish Commonwealth," under Moses, and during the administration of Moses, Joshua, the Elders that outlived Joshua, the Judges, David, Solomon, the kings of Israel and Judah down to the Babylonish Captivity, God reigned through these men under the form of a "Theocracy."

Under the Judgeship of Samuel there was a revolt against the "Theocracy," and Saul was chosen by the people as King. 1 Sam. 8:6,7. This was followed by God's selection of David. But the misrule of his successors, and the idolatry of the people, caused the cessation of the Theocratic reign in B.C. 606, and the "Times of the Gentiles" began."

from clarence larkin book...
“From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17)

“And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” (Mark 1:15)

Lots more if interested...........
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
and no answer to the questions posed. what a shock

no, just you

sir I answered your questions, but not liking the answer does not mean I didn't answer them. I would teach creationism, as found in the literal bible interpretation of genesis chapter 1-5. God specifically does not teach evolution, He created the fully formed. That is VERY VERY clear. So to answer your question, yes creationism will be taught. There are plenty of creationists out there. And there will be training for them. You have to remember, to be a teacher YOU WOULD HAVE TO TEACH IT. You don't have a choice. So people would teach it for a paycheck, sort of like how christian creationist teach evolution at work monday through friday, but teach the Bible on sunday. It would be the opposite. Did I miss any of your other questions? Just repost them. But if you keep calling me a dictator, I will move my discussions more toward the friendly and away from your posts.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
“From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17)

“And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” (Mark 1:15)

Lots more if interested...........
well they are similar but not exact, you have to remember mark was not luke. Luke was a doctor, and mark was much younger. So they depict the events in their own personality. There is no evidence they are both talking about the same exact aspect of the kingdom. As the image shown the kingdom of God was more of a macro and the kingdom of heaven was a more micro aspect of the Kingdom of God. Anyway this section may help your studies:

"The biblical concept of kingdom has at least five different senses.
  1. First, there is God’s universal kingdom, His overall, invisible, and everlasting reign over the entire universe.
  2. Second, there is Christ’s messianic kingdom, a visible, earthly, political kingdom promised to Israel in which Messiah reigns over the whole earth from a throne in Jerusalem.
  3. Third, there is God’s spiritual kingdom (in the broad sense), including both good and evil, announced by Jesus in Matthew 13 and sometimes called the mystery form of the kingdom.
  4. Fourth, there is God’s spiritual kingdom (in the narrow sense), God’s invisible reign only in the hearts of believers; this began when the first person was saved (John 3:3, 5) and will continue throughout eternity.
  5. Fifth, there is God’s spiritual reign in the church; Peter used “the keys of the kingdom” (cf. Matt. 16:19) to open the door of the church to the Jews (Acts 2; cf. 11:15) and to the Gentiles (Acts 10).

With regard to the messianic kingdom, several comments are in order. From Genesis to Revelation there are promises of a literal, political kingdom in which the Ruler (King), who is Christ, will reign on earth. This kingdom (1) was promised in the Old Testament, (2) was offered by John the Baptist, Jesus, and His disciples to the Jews in the Gospels, (3) was rejected by the Jewish authorities, (4) was, in accord with God’s eternal plan, put on hold while He brought Gentiles into a new body (the church), (5) will be offered again by Jesus at His return, and (6) will be accepted by the Jewish nation and fulfilled in the Millennium (Rev. 20:1–6). Any attempt to spiritualize away these yet unfulfilled prophecies is a violation of literal, historical-grammatical biblical interpretation;121 if this same allegorical hermeneutic were applied to the rest of Scripture, it would undermine the fundamentals of the historic Christian faith."

above section from Norman Geisler Systematic Theology volume 4 page 458, conclusion of chapter 13

but if you wish to debate kingdom of God and heaven more strictly I may have to use my software on my home computer tomorrow night and look up some of bullingers works on it, as well as chafers.
 
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
well they are similar but not exact, you have to remember mark was not luke. Luke was a doctor, and mark was much younger. So they depict the events in their own personality. There is no evidence they are both talking about the same exact aspect of the kingdom. As the image shown the kingdom of God was more of a macro and the kingdom of heaven was a more micro aspect of the Kingdom of God. Anyway this section may help your studies:

"The biblical concept of kingdom has at least five different senses.
  1. First, there is God’s universal kingdom, His overall, invisible, and everlasting reign over the entire universe.
  2. Second, there is Christ’s messianic kingdom, a visible, earthly, political kingdom promised to Israel in which Messiah reigns over the whole earth from a throne in Jerusalem.
  3. Third, there is God’s spiritual kingdom (in the broad sense), including both good and evil, announced by Jesus in Matthew 13 and sometimes called the mystery form of the kingdom.
  4. Fourth, there is God’s spiritual kingdom (in the narrow sense), God’s invisible reign only in the hearts of believers; this began when the first person was saved (John 3:3, 5) and will continue throughout eternity.
  5. Fifth, there is God’s spiritual reign in the church; Peter used “the keys of the kingdom” (cf. Matt. 16:19) to open the door of the church to the Jews (Acts 2; cf. 11:15) and to the Gentiles (Acts 10).

With regard to the messianic kingdom, several comments are in order. From Genesis to Revelation there are promises of a literal, political kingdom in which the Ruler (King), who is Christ, will reign on earth. This kingdom (1) was promised in the Old Testament, (2) was offered by John the Baptist, Jesus, and His disciples to the Jews in the Gospels, (3) was rejected by the Jewish authorities, (4) was, in accord with God’s eternal plan, put on hold while He brought Gentiles into a new body (the church), (5) will be offered again by Jesus at His return, and (6) will be accepted by the Jewish nation and fulfilled in the Millennium (Rev. 20:1–6). Any attempt to spiritualize away these yet unfulfilled prophecies is a violation of literal, historical-grammatical biblical interpretation;121 if this same allegorical hermeneutic were applied to the rest of Scripture, it would undermine the fundamentals of the historic Christian faith."

above section from Norman Geisler Systematic Theology volume 4 page 458, conclusion of chapter 13

but if you wish to debate kingdom of God and heaven more strictly I may have to use my software on my home computer tomorrow night and look up some of bullingers works on it, as well as chafers.
The phrase “kingdom of Heaven” occurs thirty-two (32) times and only in the Gospel of Matthew. The phrase “kingdom of God” occurs thirty-two (32) times in the Gospel of Luke, the most of any book in the Bible.

An examination of Synoptic parallels will demonstrate that the two phrases refer to the same idea.

“the kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17) || “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15)

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 5:3) || “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20)

“Among those born of women there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist, notwithstanding he who is least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than him.” (Matt. 11:11) || “Among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than him.” (Luke 7:28)

“the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 13:11) || “the mysteries of the kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11 cp. Luke 8:10)

“the kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed” (Matt 13:31) || “the kingdom of God...is like a grain of mustard seed” (Mark 4:30-31 cp. Luke 13:18-19)

“The kingdom of Heaven is like leaven” (Matt. 13:33) || “the kingdom of God...is like leaven” (Luke 13:20)

“Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 18:3-4) || “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein” (Mark 10:15)

“Allow little children, and do not forbid them to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matt. 19:14) || “Allow the little children to come to me, and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:14 cp. Luke 18:16)

“a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 19:23) || “How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” (Luke 18:24)

In other words, “kingdom of God” = “kingdom of Heaven.” If this is so, then “God” = “Heaven,” which leads us into my next point.

“Heaven” as a Circumlocution or Substitute for “God”
The reason why Matthew uses the phrase “kingdom of Heaven” more often than “kingdom of God” (which he uses only five (5) times in his gospel, although there are textual variants) is because he wrote to a Jewish audience, and the Jews did not pronounce the Tetragrammaton יַהְוֶה (Yahveh), and sometimes not even the word אֱלֹהִים (elohim). For example, today, Jews do not say אֱלֹהִים (elohim), but rather, אֱלֹקִים (elokim), and certainly never the Tetragrammaton. Rather than pronouncing those, they used “substitutes.” Some of these substitutes include:

Taken from; What is the difference in the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God?
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The phrase “kingdom of Heaven” occurs thirty-two (32) times and only in the Gospel of Matthew. The phrase “kingdom of God” occurs thirty-two (32) times in the Gospel of Luke, the most of any book in the Bible.

An examination of Synoptic parallels will demonstrate that the two phrases refer to the same idea.

“the kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17) || “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15)

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 5:3) || “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20)

“Among those born of women there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist, notwithstanding he who is least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than him.” (Matt. 11:11) || “Among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than him.” (Luke 7:28)

“the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 13:11) || “the mysteries of the kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11 cp. Luke 8:10)

“the kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed” (Matt 13:31) || “the kingdom of God...is like a grain of mustard seed” (Mark 4:30-31 cp. Luke 13:18-19)

“The kingdom of Heaven is like leaven” (Matt. 13:33) || “the kingdom of God...is like leaven” (Luke 13:20)

“Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 18:3-4) || “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein” (Mark 10:15)

“Allow little children, and do not forbid them to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matt. 19:14) || “Allow the little children to come to me, and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:14 cp. Luke 18:16)

“a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 19:23) || “How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” (Luke 18:24)

In other words, “kingdom of God” = “kingdom of Heaven.” If this is so, then “God” = “Heaven,” which leads us into my next point.

“Heaven” as a Circumlocution or Substitute for “God”
The reason why Matthew uses the phrase “kingdom of Heaven” more often than “kingdom of God” (which he uses only five (5) times in his gospel, although there are textual variants) is because he wrote to a Jewish audience, and the Jews did not pronounce the Tetragrammaton יַהְוֶה (Yahveh), and sometimes not even the word אֱלֹהִים (elohim). For example, today, Jews do not say אֱלֹהִים (elohim), but rather, אֱלֹקִים (elokim), and certainly never the Tetragrammaton. Rather than pronouncing those, they used “substitutes.” Some of these substitutes include:

Taken from; What is the difference in the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God?
You may be correct, or my view may be correct. But you have a good link to study this out. But say you are right, that does not make dispensationalism wrong, only hyper dispensationalism. Dispensationalists make a lot of errors, just WAY less than covenant theologians over interpreting texts. I mean I can find some if you wish, but that would not be a pretty discussion. Anyway, I don't like how hyper dispensationalists say that the beatitudes is for the millenium. To me I see commandments all over scripture. They are not just for the kingdom of the millenium. So I am not a strict dispensationalist. I think I tend to agree with your take on the kingdom of heaven and God, but honestly I have not studied it for myself. If I did it's been ten years. But I am curious now as to what bullinger says and chafer. I will continue this when I can. I will take the critical view of your point for now to see if anything comes up, but I think you are correct. But like I said I don't agree with everything about dispensationalism, I am even open to calling it ages, instead of dispensationalism. The importance of their work however was to spur on bible studying, and from then on people started reading scripture as dispensational apologists poured over scripture and created the worlds first study bible, the scofield study bible. before that time, there were no study bibles. But from then on, it caught on.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The phrase “kingdom of Heaven” occurs thirty-two (32) times and only in the Gospel of Matthew. The phrase “kingdom of God” occurs thirty-two (32) times in the Gospel of Luke, the most of any book in the Bible.

An examination of Synoptic parallels will demonstrate that the two phrases refer to the same idea.

“the kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17) || “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15)

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 5:3) || “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20)

“Among those born of women there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist, notwithstanding he who is least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than him.” (Matt. 11:11) || “Among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than him.” (Luke 7:28)

“the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 13:11) || “the mysteries of the kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11 cp. Luke 8:10)

“the kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed” (Matt 13:31) || “the kingdom of God...is like a grain of mustard seed” (Mark 4:30-31 cp. Luke 13:18-19)

“The kingdom of Heaven is like leaven” (Matt. 13:33) || “the kingdom of God...is like leaven” (Luke 13:20)

“Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 18:3-4) || “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein” (Mark 10:15)

“Allow little children, and do not forbid them to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matt. 19:14) || “Allow the little children to come to me, and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:14 cp. Luke 18:16)

“a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of Heaven” (Matt. 19:23) || “How hardly shall they who have riches enter into the kingdom of God!” (Luke 18:24)

In other words, “kingdom of God” = “kingdom of Heaven.” If this is so, then “God” = “Heaven,” which leads us into my next point.

“Heaven” as a Circumlocution or Substitute for “God”
The reason why Matthew uses the phrase “kingdom of Heaven” more often than “kingdom of God” (which he uses only five (5) times in his gospel, although there are textual variants) is because he wrote to a Jewish audience, and the Jews did not pronounce the Tetragrammaton יַהְוֶה (Yahveh), and sometimes not even the word אֱלֹהִים (elohim). For example, today, Jews do not say אֱלֹהִים (elohim), but rather, אֱלֹקִים (elokim), and certainly never the Tetragrammaton. Rather than pronouncing those, they used “substitutes.” Some of these substitutes include:

Taken from; What is the difference in the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God?

one thing I may agree with clarence is that the kingdom of God may be a more macro view of the kingdom, and kingdom of heaven was a more micro view. That could be why they are all in the same verses together. So that will be the take I have on it. However I tend to agree with your assessment, but I want to read bullinger and chafer first. To make sure. Thanks for the talk. (update I read on that same link some others that support my view, so I am undecided really on this matter)
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Dave L
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
“Heaven” as a Circumlocution or Substitute for “God”
The reason why Matthew uses the phrase “kingdom of Heaven” more often than “kingdom of God” (which he uses only five (5) times in his gospel, although there are textual variants) is because he wrote to a Jewish audience, and the Jews did not pronounce the Tetragrammaton יַהְוֶה (Yahveh), and sometimes not even the word אֱלֹהִים (elohim). For example, today, Jews do not say אֱלֹהִים (elohim), but rather, אֱלֹקִים (elokim), and certainly never the Tetragrammaton. Rather than pronouncing those, they used “substitutes.” Some of these substitutes include:

Taken from; What is the difference in the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God?

I did read this comment on the same site you referred to:
"In addition to the 5 uses of God in Kingdom there are 52 other uses of God in Matthew. If Matthew used Kingdom of Heaven to avoid using God then why does he use God in other places? For example, why is the throne of God (5:34 & 23:22) acceptable? Or the things of God (22:21)? Or the power of God (22:29)? Or children of God (5:9)? What is the rationale for Matthew's inconsistency? Kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God may be synonymous but given the number of times God is used in other contexts, it seems unlikely kingdom of heaven is used to avoid offending their sensibilities. – Revelation Lad Nov 29 '16 at 7:44"

further down in comments this is mentioned:

"
While this passage indicates the two kingdoms are interchangeable, it is obvious either Matthew or Jesus chose to make a distinction and recorded them differently. In fact, the passage is purposeful to make the point there is something of significance which is different between the two.

A second reason offered is that Matthew substituted Heaven for God to avoid offending the Jewish people who do not use “God” or His Name. A thorough analysis of this reason is found in this answer: [“Heaven” as a Circumlocution or Substitute for “God”] This approach fails to explain why Matthew still uses “God” (frequently) and in some cases where “Heaven” should be used:"

then this is mentioned:

Other passages mark differences between the two Kingdoms:

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (5:20)
But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. (6:33)


Righteousness:
Kingdom of heaven - righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.
Kingdom of God - the righteousness of God.

The consequence of righteousness:
Kingdom of heaven - enter the kingdom.
Kingdom of God - all things will be added to you.

Required response to each Kingdom:
Kingdom of heaven - have righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees.
Kingdom of God - Seek first...

In the fourth Gospel Jesus teaches:

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (3:5)

The Gospel delineates two means of entrance into a kingdom:

Matthew: Kingdom of heaven - righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees.
John: Kingdom of God - be born of water and the Spirit.

A good picture to understand the difference is that the Kingdom of God encompasses all creation, while the Kingdom of the Heavens encompasses less. That is, the Kingdom of the Heavens is a smaller kingdom within the Kingdom of God. As Genesis 1 states, man has some measure of authority over the earth and life on the earth (part of the Kingdom of God). The unchanging nature of God accounts for the similarities and man’s rebellious nature with what God has given man dominion explains the differences.

Simply, the earth (at present) is outside the Kingdom of the Heavens but remains a part of the Kingdom of God. One day there will be a new heaven and a new earth on which the Father's will will be done. Essentially the Kingdom of the Heavens will cease to exist it that it will no longer be distinguishable from the Kingdom of God.


Notes:
1. The correct translation is Kingdom of the Heavens (plural) not Heaven (singular).
2. George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom 1959, p. 32
3. All Scripture using the English Standard Version.
4. Ibid p 24

so again there is a reason for why the same ideas are recorded differently and it could be that there is a difference of audience, or a difference of kingdoms, so I am unsure which is correct at this point...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I did read this comment on the same site you referred to:
"In addition to the 5 uses of God in Kingdom there are 52 other uses of God in Matthew. If Matthew used Kingdom of Heaven to avoid using God then why does he use God in other places? For example, why is the throne of God (5:34 & 23:22) acceptable? Or the things of God (22:21)? Or the power of God (22:29)? Or children of God (5:9)? What is the rationale for Matthew's inconsistency? Kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God may be synonymous but given the number of times God is used in other contexts, it seems unlikely kingdom of heaven is used to avoid offending their sensibilities. – Revelation Lad Nov 29 '16 at 7:44"

further down in comments this is mentioned:

"
While this passage indicates the two kingdoms are interchangeable, it is obvious either Matthew or Jesus chose to make a distinction and recorded them differently. In fact, the passage is purposeful to make the point there is something of significance which is different between the two.

A second reason offered is that Matthew substituted Heaven for God to avoid offending the Jewish people who do not use “God” or His Name. A thorough analysis of this reason is found in this answer: [“Heaven” as a Circumlocution or Substitute for “God”] This approach fails to explain why Matthew still uses “God” (frequently) and in some cases where “Heaven” should be used:"

then this is mentioned:

Other passages mark differences between the two Kingdoms:

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (5:20)
But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. (6:33)


Righteousness:
Kingdom of heaven - righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.
Kingdom of God - the righteousness of God.

The consequence of righteousness:
Kingdom of heaven - enter the kingdom.
Kingdom of God - all things will be added to you.

Required response to each Kingdom:
Kingdom of heaven - have righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees.
Kingdom of God - Seek first...

In the fourth Gospel Jesus teaches:

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (3:5)

The Gospel delineates two means of entrance into a kingdom:

Matthew: Kingdom of heaven - righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees.
John: Kingdom of God - be born of water and the Spirit.

A good picture to understand the difference is that the Kingdom of God encompasses all creation, while the Kingdom of the Heavens encompasses less. That is, the Kingdom of the Heavens is a smaller kingdom within the Kingdom of God. As Genesis 1 states, man has some measure of authority over the earth and life on the earth (part of the Kingdom of God). The unchanging nature of God accounts for the similarities and man’s rebellious nature with what God has given man dominion explains the differences.

Simply, the earth (at present) is outside the Kingdom of the Heavens but remains a part of the Kingdom of God. One day there will be a new heaven and a new earth on which the Father's will will be done. Essentially the Kingdom of the Heavens will cease to exist it that it will no longer be distinguishable from the Kingdom of God.


Notes:
1. The correct translation is Kingdom of the Heavens (plural) not Heaven (singular).
2. George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom 1959, p. 32
3. All Scripture using the English Standard Version.
4. Ibid p 24

so again there is a reason for why the same ideas are recorded differently and it could be that there is a difference of audience, or a difference of kingdoms, so I am unsure which is correct at this point...
Scripture uses the terms interchangeably. The Dispensationalist would agree if they didn't need to support their eisegesis.
 
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You may be correct, or my view may be correct. But you have a good link to study this out. But say you are right, that does not make dispensationalism wrong, only hyper dispensationalism. Dispensationalists make a lot of errors, just WAY less than covenant theologians over interpreting texts. I mean I can find some if you wish, but that would not be a pretty discussion. Anyway, I don't like how hyper dispensationalists say that the beatitudes is for the millenium. To me I see commandments all over scripture. They are not just for the kingdom of the millenium. So I am not a strict dispensationalist. I think I tend to agree with your take on the kingdom of heaven and God, but honestly I have not studied it for myself. If I did it's been ten years. But I am curious now as to what bullinger says and chafer. I will continue this when I can. I will take the critical view of your point for now to see if anything comes up, but I think you are correct. But like I said I don't agree with everything about dispensationalism, I am even open to calling it ages, instead of dispensationalism. The importance of their work however was to spur on bible studying, and from then on people started reading scripture as dispensational apologists poured over scripture and created the worlds first study bible, the scofield study bible. before that time, there were no study bibles. But from then on, it caught on.
Dispensationalism is not based on scripture. It is eisegesis based on a gap scripture never mentions. And goes from there cutting and pasting scripture they think supports their theory.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: panman
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Often, God is blamed for the problems of this world. Yet it's people who have failed to realize that we human beings are the problems creating more problems by sinning. If we truly followed God & His laws, there wouldn't be so many problems.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Scripture uses the terms interchangeably. The Dispensationalist would agree if they didn't need to support their eisegesis.

Dispensationalism is not based on scripture. It is eisegesis based on a gap scripture never mentions. And goes from there cutting and pasting scripture they think supports their theory.

well sir I don't think you know the scriptures as well as you think you do, even at the very end of your very link the guy refutes the whole page, and I noticed no more comments happened. While you have a strong argument, my view seems to be the most accurate, because while they are somewhat intercheangable they are not identical. For example a man and a woman are both human, but they are different still, so when God loved the "world" it was a word of man and a word of women. Two worlds combined into a whole world. So this I believe is sort of what is happening with the kingdom of heaven and God. I don't think they disagree that the terms are not somewhat intercheangable, but why would God say two different words? The idea that the Jews did not say the name of God was refuted later on the same page, matthew records the name of God dozens of other times in mathew. So really you have not answer for why heaven and God is different. Why didn't God just use one or the other? Why confuse us like this? I think the Bible is so easy that a baby can understand and so complicated that the smartest theologian can't comprehend it's depths. The milk of scripture is easy to understand and yet the meat of scripture, I don't see rarely ANY seminaries that have the meat of scripture correctly. I have posted threads, and while normal students of scripture can understand what I say, most theologians won't. That is because schools of thought have bias. And dispensationalism sort of removed us from the calvinist stronghold that was on the church for hundreds of years. So you talk of bias, they freed the church from bias. I am still learning and I am open to seeing different things, but I don't feel that you are as open as I am. Maybe it's because there is a viewpoint that you need that relies on a falsification of dispensationalism, calvinism perhaps or something else. But the point being we are all biased. So we MUST be open minded toward correction and not just say....."if you read the Bible you would know." or "dispensationalism is not based on scripture." Again even if you were right about the kingdoms that doesn't falsify dispensationalism, but larkin, bullinger and maybe chafer. There are many dispensationalists that are moderate. For example norman geisler didn't differentiate between the two kingdoms in his work I quoted above. So I am not saying one group is better or more accurate, I am just saying that just as you have political far right people, and moderate republicans, so you you have far hyper dispensationalists and moderate dispensationalists. So just saying ALL dispensationalism is wrong, is really just a sort of silly statement.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
well sir I don't think you know the scriptures as well as you think you do, even at the very end of your very link the guy refutes the whole page, and I noticed no more comments happened. While you have a strong argument, my view seems to be the most accurate, because while they are somewhat intercheangable they are not identical. For example a man and a woman are both human, but they are different still, so when God loved the "world" it was a word of man and a word of women. Two worlds combined into a whole world. So this I believe is sort of what is happening with the kingdom of heaven and God. I don't think they disagree that the terms are not somewhat intercheangable, but why would God say two different words? The idea that the Jews did not say the name of God was refuted later on the same page, matthew records the name of God dozens of other times in mathew. So really you have not answer for why heaven and God is different. Why didn't God just use one or the other? Why confuse us like this? I think the Bible is so easy that a baby can understand and so complicated that the smartest theologian can't comprehend it's depths. The milk of scripture is easy to understand and yet the meat of scripture, I don't see rarely ANY seminaries that have the meat of scripture correctly. I have posted threads, and while normal students of scripture can understand what I say, most theologians won't. That is because schools of thought have bias. And dispensationalism sort of removed us from the calvinist stronghold that was on the church for hundreds of years. So you talk of bias, they freed the church from bias. I am still learning and I am open to seeing different things, but I don't feel that you are as open as I am. Maybe it's because there is a viewpoint that you need that relies on a falsification of dispensationalism, calvinism perhaps or something else. But the point being we are all biased. So we MUST be open minded toward correction and not just say....."if you read the Bible you would know." or "dispensationalism is not based on scripture." Again even if you were right about the kingdoms that doesn't falsify dispensationalism, but larkin, bullinger and maybe chafer. There are many dispensationalists that are moderate. For example norman geisler didn't differentiate between the two kingdoms in his work I quoted above. So I am not saying one group is better or more accurate, I am just saying that just as you have political far right people, and moderate republicans, so you you have far hyper dispensationalists and moderate dispensationalists. So just saying ALL dispensationalism is wrong, is really just a sort of silly statement.
Link Dispensationalism to anything other than a non existent gap supposedly in Daniel, then proceed speaking with authority.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Link Dispensationalism to anything other than a non existent gap supposedly in Daniel, then proceed speaking with authority.
I am not sure what you mean? Like I said if you don't like the word dispensation, don't use it. No one said you had to use it. But you must clearly see that there were ages in scripture. God told different commands to noah that He did to moses, than he did to abraham, than he did to joshua, than he did to david. Yes they were all following God with a pure heart, but they had different covenants and they also had different things to do to be saved. Adam and eve to be saved, all they had to do was NOT EAT THE APPLE. So the way of salvation changed literally at that point. So that is one age. Note adam and eve were not saved by faith. It does not say that. They didn't have faith, they KNEW God existed. They had direct proof of God, that is different than faith. They were saved literally by their obedience, and when the sinned they died. Every man was not saved by "faith alone" in fact I make a case that no man is saved by "faith alone." We must have an act of faith, at salvation we must cast down the other idols and false Gods we are worshipping, and turn to God in faith. It is a free gift, but not without repentance. What I am getting at is that no one in history was saved by faith without any type of acting on their faith. It was not faith alone (It was a faith that was NOT Alone.) But the act of faith changed in every dispensation or age, even the faith changed. Some believed in the God the father in the old testament, in the New testament the accept the son as saviour.

(@Dave L) I tagged you because I updated this post.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Dave L
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Link Dispensationalism to anything other than a non existent gap supposedly in Daniel, then proceed speaking with authority.
one more link, I was able to find bullinger's appendix online, your welcome to browse these links, now he is ultra dispensational and I don't agree with all of his views, but I do agree with probably 80-90% but no one is perfect you know. anyway here is his stuff on the kingdom:

the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven:
The Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God - Appendix to the Companion Bible

the kingdom and the church:
The Kingdon and the Church - Appendix to the Companion Bible

Synonomous expressions for the kingdom:
The Synonymous Expressions for Kingdom - Appendix to the Companion Bible


that takes care of bullinger, i will check chafer next. (update) here is chafer a section on the kingdom of God and heaven.....chafer was a genius, but some of his writing is hard to follow but anyway here it is:

"Under Ecclesiology, already treated (Vol. IV), the distinction in meaning between the terms kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven has been pointed out. Suffice it to say here that the authority of God over the entire universe is a dominant theme from Genesis to Revelation. And such, indeed, is the kingdom of God. It extends to all intelligences—angels and men—wherever there is loyal subjection to divine authority. That there are angels as well as men who disown this authority is clearly taught in the Word of God, and as clearly is it asserted that before the millennial, Messianic reign of Christ is ended all opposition to God's rule will have been crushed by the theocratic King (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:24-28), and then the kingdom of God will be “delivered up” to God in the sense that His rightful supremacy, government, and empire will resume their former unchallenged sway of ages past. This universal exercise of authority is properly styled the kingdom of God, and should not be accounted the same as the Davidic theocratic rule over Israel and the earth, which rule is brought to its consummation and established in the earth before the transformations and restorations which belong to the kingdom of God have begun. Broadly speaking, the Kingdom of God—as defined above—is the universal authority of God from everlasting to everlasting, while the term Kingdom of Heaven is fittingly applied to God's rule in the earth—it is heaven's rule on the earth—and is restricted, with respect to time, as has been seen, to limited periods and well-defined situations. The prayer for and in the kingdom of heaven includes the words: “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” While that kingdom appears in various forms, it had its tangible beginning in the Davidic Covenant and will be fulfilled and consummated with a perfected social order in the earth under the beneficent reign of the King of kings. When the vast distinctions between these two spheres of divine authority are observed there is a solving of many problems in the interpretation of the Bible which would otherwise exist. Faithful recognition of these dissimilarities is beginning to be held by expositors generally as the most effective key to the understanding of the Scriptures. So Dr. Auberlen quotes R. Rothe as saying: “Our key does not open—the right key is lost; and till we are put in possession of it again, our exposition will never succeed. The system of biblical ideas is not that of our schools; and so long as we attempt exegesis without it, the Bible will remain a half-closed book. We must enter upon it with other conceptions than those which we have been accustomed to think the only possible ones; and whatever these may be, this one thing at least is certain, from the whole tenor of the melody of Scripture in its natural fulness, that they must be more realistic and massive” (Divine Revelation, p. 387, cited by Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, I, 21). This is a confession which is at once both humiliating and significant. That this millennial discussion to follow is related only to the earthly, Davidic, Messianic kingdom of heaven need hardly be pointed out. Consideration of the kingdom of God in its restored, final form will be the theme of the next and closing chapter of this work on Christology. Why, indeed, after centuries of study should so great a proportion of good men be in dire confusion over the divine program for the earth while others are informed and to that extent delivered from such difficulties, unless it be that some hold and use the key to which Rothe refers while others do not? Men of commendable scholarship do hold the key and for them these specific problems are really solved. There are now two schools of orthodox men. For one school, having imbibed the concoction of Whitby which proposes a man-made millennium and, having been run into the idealistic, cramping mold of Cocceius' one covenant of grace, there is little hope that a deliverance will be wrought. Such theological systems, seminaries, and individuals muddle on, transmitting idealism which is unsustained by the Word of God to succeeding generations. On the other hand, those who hold the key are increasing in number; they have their schools and system of theology which generates exposition of the Bible and promotes Bible study over the whole land."

He then goes on to describe like ten pages of the kingdom of heaven.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Dave L
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
sir I answered your questions, but not liking the answer does not mean I didn't answer them. I would teach creationism, as found in the literal bible interpretation of genesis chapter 1-5. God specifically does not teach evolution, He created the fully formed. That is VERY VERY clear. So to answer your question, yes creationism will be taught. There are plenty of creationists out there. And there will be training for them. You have to remember, to be a teacher YOU WOULD HAVE TO TEACH IT. You don't have a choice. So people would teach it for a paycheck, sort of like how christian creationist teach evolution at work monday through friday, but teach the Bible on sunday. It would be the opposite. Did I miss any of your other questions? Just repost them. But if you keep calling me a dictator, I will move my discussions more toward the friendly and away from your posts.


Well, as for me, I will oppose your heresies with votes, with arms if necessary.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: panman
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well, as for me, I will oppose your heresies with votes, with arms if necessary.

well unfortunately for you, one of the things I would do is legalize most fire arms, legalize open carry, and concealed carry upon permit. See if anyone can have a gun, you won't see things like school shootings etc. So I would not really be affraid of a few bad guys with guns. Because hopefully I would have someone who would stick up for me as well.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
the same logic would apply to a theocracy...... a democracy never works fully. And the reasons given below to support a republic could also be used to support a theocracy:

"
But the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other of our founding documents.

How about a few quotations expressed by the Founders about democracy?

In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

John Adams warned in a letter, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

Edmund Randolph said, “That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators.

The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.

To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. It makes sure that the highly populated states—today, mainly 12 on the east and west coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.

Those Americans obsessed with rule by popular majorities might want to get rid of the Senate, where states, regardless of population, have two senators.

Should we change representation in the House of Representatives to a system of proportional representation and eliminate the guarantee that each state gets at least one representative?

Currently, seven states with populations of 1 million or fewer have one representative, thus giving them disproportionate influence in Congress.

While we’re at it, should we make all congressional acts by majority rule? When we’re finished with establishing majority rule in Congress, should we then move to change our court system, which requires unanimity in jury decisions, to a simple majority rule?"

above section from:
Why We Are a Republic, Not a Democracy
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
another thing I would do is make congress have the same healthcare as everyone else, and make term limits on all congressman and judges. None of this...."your in for life." But you can get appointed for unlimited terms. Just not a "one and done" thing.

Term limits will drain the swamp and stop career politicians
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Quartermaine

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2019
2,794
1,615
48
Alma
✟73,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
sir I answered your questions, but not liking the answer does not mean I didn't answer them. I would teach creationism, as found in the literal bible interpretation of genesis chapter 1-5. God specifically does not teach evolution, He created the fully formed. That is VERY VERY clear. So to answer your question, yes creationism will be taught. There are plenty of creationists out there. And there will be training for them. You have to remember, to be a teacher YOU WOULD HAVE TO TEACH IT. You don't have a choice. So people would teach it for a paycheck, sort of like how christian creationist teach evolution at work monday through friday, but teach the Bible on sunday. It would be the opposite.
I teach a course at the local community college so i can speak as a teacher. I would not compromise the truth or my integrity and teach junk science. you say i wouldn't have a choice...Will you place one of your faithful in the classroom with a gun pointed at me? Will you threaten the lives of my children if i don't comply?

Did I miss any of your other questions? Just repost them.
why repost? you don't answer questions

But if you keep calling me a dictator, I will move my discussions more toward the friendly and away from your posts.
do i have a choice or must i comply with your dictates?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.