The Dispensations and the Book of Acts

[@@Paul@@]

I feel i need to clear up one more thing too...

This question also pertains to us mid-acters as we follow pretty even with Acts 28 dispey, except that we believe all Pauls epistles are for the Church and not just the prison epistles. etc..

I only align myself with the Acts 28 group (even though my church is somewhere between 10 & 28) because i believe Water Baptism AND the Lord's Supper as something we were NOT asked to do. (but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with doing it).

Salvation was offered to Gentiles prior to Acts 28, one cannot reject those portions of Paul's epistles, even as an Acts 28'r...

Lots of people were dropping like flies, due to lieing, partaking of the Lord's Super, fornicating.........

1Co 11:27-30 KJV
(27) Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
(28) But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
(29) For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
(30) For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.​

None of this happens today ^^^

Nor does any of this...

Mar 16:15-18 KJV
(15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
(16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
(17) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
(18) They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.​

.............but it ALL happened ALL the way through the Acts of the Apostles, which is WHY i think they just cut it out!!! cause they couldn't explain it.

 

[BT]

Well, it was not called a "kingdom". It was called the "Day of Rest" - when Israel would occupy the land from the Nile to the Euphrates (which they have never inherited fully YET). So, seeing how it's a literal peice of land, pertaining to a literal kingdom - which ALL the OT looked forward to, which is why Israel was called, I see no reason to say it's a spiritual kingdom.

Oops sorry Paul I wasn't saying it was a spiritual kingdom at all. It is an earthly rule. The 1000 years part is the issue that I have. The "kingdom" was not supposed as a limited time...

 

[BT]

Part 2: Did Paul offer the Kingdom to the Jews until he "turned to the Gentiles"?

Neither Paul nor Peter offerred the kingdom to anyone. I think I'm starting to understand where @@Paul@@ is coming from. I think he's in the "progressive dispensationalism" category (please correct me if I'm way off there @@Paul@@).

The common (classic, normal, traditional) dispensationalist will say that the dispensation of Grace began exactly at Acts 2:1. That the kingdom offer - rejection - postponement was in the Gospels, in specific during Matthew, even more specific following the Sermon on the Mount. Now there are some convincing arguments here and some hermeneutical gymnastics going on. Which I'm trying to address.. there is just a lot coming in and I'm trying to stay on track. Which is hard for me at the best of times

 

[@@Paul@@]

Seeing how any line past Acts 2 is "progressive"... I guess that's me.

but I prefer "Hyper".

 

[BT]

Rather than just go through the multiple posts on what the "kingdom" is and was and when it was offered and rejected etc. I thought it best since you have had your opportunity to present, it would be better for me to present rather than rebut (<- that's a funny word). So here I go:

First I will start with what I am sure is an agreement between us all. That, the kingdom of God is something future to the present age (e.g. 2 Tim. 4:1,18):

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Timothy 4:18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

No matter what interpretation you put on the "mystery kingdom" of the present age, it cannot be an entity or be said to have any kind of real existence as though it had a king, subjects, and the exercise of the regal function (which is the meaning, definition or result of a "kingdom") in any Messianic sense. This puts the question back to @@Paul@@ regarding the kingdom that he feels was offered late in Acts. In order for this kingdom to be offered.
Christ would have to return immediately (upon acceptance) thus the church would end practically before it even started. So if you see a clear prophetic teaching of the church in the teachings of Jesus you must admit that there was a necessity of a fullfillment of the "Time of the Gentiles".

We can see that the kingdom was no longer offerred if we consider Jesus' own eschatological prophecies:

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Luke 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

We also know that in the first chapters of Acts the temple had not been destroyed (Acts covers a period of roughly 30 years from AD 33 - AD63, the temple was destroyed in AD 70) and so the prophecies of Jesus Himself prevent the kingdom from having returned at anytime during the book of Acts.

The fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles is the 70th week of Daniel. The Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory is the prophetic "second coming". We know that the rapture must occur first:

Luke 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

So if you think that Peter or Paul could "offer the kingdom" you must admit that there was a chance that it would be accepted because God's offer is sincere. The Jews could not accept this offer in Acts because the rest of history needed to unfold, namely the end time (eschatological) prophecies of Christ, which were given during the Gospels after the kingdom was rejected.

While I feel that the above argument is sufficient (I trust in Christ ) to show that the kingdom could no longer be offerred. I will address the "keys" given to Peter in Matthew 16:19.

We will begin at vs.18 because it is important in understanding this verse..

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Ok so here's where the other theory that the "keys" gave Peter the authority to offer the kingdom falls apart.

vs. 18 "I will build my church" The church must be built...

vs. 19.

1. Keys speak of authority
2. This authority is given to the church as represented by Peter.
3. This authority is exercised in HEAVEN not earth.

Thus it is through Jesus Christs own eschatological prophecies, secular history and hermeneutical prinicples that we see the kingdom could not be offerred by Peter or Paul in the book of Acts.

 

[@@Paul@@]

THanks for the thoughts BT,

I'm not really sure how to go about this, and frankly i'm a little nervous after your post about "LETS LEARN HOW TO DEBATE!!!" .........J/K I think we could ALL learn something here, if we do it right.

I see wholes in the "classical" stance - mainly the assumption that the grace of God would not be offered to Israel before the church... and that the church which Christ WOULD build, had to have then begun at Acts 2....

God's grace was never mentioned until Paul came on the scene, to whom Jesus Christ gave a NEW revelation, through which to build - "something"...

That could very well be when Christ began building.

I agree the "keys" represent authority, which is first excercised in HEAVEN / then on Earth...


Maybe we could just "rebut" each others ideas, and let the others respond with their thoughts?

 

[BT]

THanks for the thoughts BT,

I'm not really sure how to go about this, and frankly i'm a little nervous after your post about "LETS LEARN HOW TO DEBATE!!!" .........J/K I think we could ALL learn something here, if we do it right.

I'll "Amen" that. There is much to learn. Let's remain teachable, all of us, and we'll attain understanding!

I see wholes in the "classical" stance - mainly the assumption that the grace of God would not be offered to Israel before the church... and that the church which Christ WOULD build, had to have then begun at Acts 2....

God's grace was never mentioned until Paul came on the scene, to whom Jesus Christ gave a NEW revelation, through which to build - "something"...

Grace is mentioned before the book of Acts (Joh 1:14;John 1:16;John 1:17

That could very well be when Christ began building.

I agree the "keys" represent authority, which is first excercised in HEAVEN / then on Earth...


Maybe we could just "rebut" each others ideas, and let the others respond with their thoughts?

Thinking .........

 

[TheScottsMen]

Seeing how any line past Acts 2 is "progressive"... I guess that's me.

but I prefer "Hyper".

Hyper? Nah! Rightly Dividing the Word is not hyper As for Progressive Dispensationalism, a main tenet is the doctrine that Jesus is now RULING from Davids throne in heaven, which I'm sure your do not agree with?

 

[@@Paul@@]

Hyper? Nah! Rightly Dividing the Word is not hyper As for Progressive Dispensationalism, a main tenet is the doctrine that Jesus is now RULING from Davids throne in heaven, which I'm sure your do not agree with?

There is no "ruling" in that sense going on now...

The only one ruling is the prince and power of the air. Unless Christ is ruling from where i am "Hidden in God"!! - but i doubt it.

------------------------------

Regarding the question of what is a dispensation:

...........I believe it's best described an administration (or stewardship) of God. It's how God, dispenses His will. OR as i like to call it: "Present TRUTH".

 

[BT]

Regarding the question of what is a dispensation:

...........I believe it's best described an administration (or stewardship) of God. It's how God, dispenses His will. OR as i like to call it: "Present TRUTH".

Yeah I think this is the best place to start since I'm not sure we agree on the definition of a dispensation.

So here's mine (actually the modified textbook definition):

Dispensationalism is an approach to theology and the Bible that is based on dividing history into "dispensations" or "economies", which are seen as different phases of God's progressive revelation. The word comes from the Greek oikonomeo and its derivatives, which are found about twenty times in theNew Testament and refer to the management or regulation of a household. When used of God, the word means "God's sovereign plan for the world" (see Lk 16:1-2; Eph 1:10, 3:2,9; and Col 1:25)

The dispensation theologian sees God's revelation and man's history as a demonstration of God's graciousness, with God's main purpose being to glorify Himself rather than just redeem man. It chooses a much more literal interpretation of Scriptures, and makes the clearest of distinctions between Israel and the church.

This is not just an academic exercise carried out by obscure theologians. Some great practical implications are at stake. Both eschatology (study of prophecy, end times) and ecclesiology (study of the church) are brought into question.

@Paul@ is a:

Ultradispensationalists:
1. The movement of Bible students who push the dispensational approach beyond the point where most other dispensationalists would stop is generally called ultradispensationalism. The distinctive feature of ultradispensationalism is its view concerning the beginning of the church. In contrast to mainstream dispensationalism (BT is "mainstream"), which holds that the church began at Pentecost in Acts 2, ultradispensationalism believes the church began much later -- the moderate group suggesting Acts 9 or 13 an the more extreme group, Acts 28.

2. The apostle Paul was solely given the pure unmixed revelation of the gospel of Grace (doctrine of the church). Peter and the eleven proclaimed a mixture of Jewish nationalism and Messianic hope.

3. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not essentials of this dispensation. Some do not observe these as necessary ordinances.

4. A fundamental distinction is made between the baptism in Acts 2 (baptism by Christ for empowering) and 2 Corinthians 12:13 (baptism by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ).

5. Strong emphasis is given to the distinction between John's baptism (Acts 1-8) and Christian baptism. Acts has the same stress as the Gospels.

_____

The Characteristics of a Dispensation:

A. The revelation from God (or additional revelation)

B. The governing relationship between God and the world or portion thereof.

C. The corresponding responsibility of man.

D. A Test (similar to the human responsibility. In a sense the test is the same in every economy: Will man obey God and discharge his responsibility in faith?)

E. Failure on mans part(failure is a part of each dispensation (even climactically so), but need not have a necessary part. According to some the dispensation of Promise had no climactic failure.) The failures in each economy occur in at least two realms: (1) Governmental - in which man generally failed to discharge his responsibilities: and (2) redemptive -- in which the majority failed to believe God.)

F. Judgment. (Judgement is also a part of each dispensation (even climactically so) but in not endemic to a dispensational program.

The Sine Qua Non of Dispensational Tenets

(Sine Qua Non means "without which that is not" aka "absolutely critical")

A. Consistent use of literal or normal interpretation of Scripture.

B. Distinction between Israel and the church.

C. An eschatological and doxological unity in Scripture and goal for history.

D. The resultant definition of dispensationalism:

"Dispensationalism is a theological system which harmonizes the results of a consistently literal or plain interpretation of Scripture noting the distinctives as well as the eschatological and doxological unity of the biblical dispensations with special attention to the unique roles of Israel and the church."


That is the definition of dispensationalism and a dispensation (believe or not that is the brief definition )

 

[@@Paul@@]

I think ULTRA was a bit harsh..

There is a difference between hyper and ultra!! I think the the most part, i'll just agree.

 

[BT]

I think ULTRA was a bit harsh..

There is a difference between hyper and ultra!! I think the the most part, i'll just agree.

Sorry Paul I didn't mean to offend you. In theological studies there is no such thing as "hyper-dispensationalism" persay. Hyper-dispensationalism is just another name for ultradispensationalism. Now these are text-book definitions and what you learn at a Seminary at the Masters level so they are pretty inclusive. But just because that's what the theologians tag them doesn't mean that a person can fit into one or more.. From all the posts that we've had on this I just put you in that category (not expecting that you would have considered yourself that) because of these differences that you've stated as your beliefs which oppose "mainstream" dispeys:

- late beginning of the Church
- Paul being given the pure unmixed revelation of the gospel of Grace (which I believe you posted about 3 posts ago "grace wasn't even heard of until Paul)
- Baptism and the Lord's Supper as not essential (necessary)
- An emphasis between John's baptism and Christian baptism (which I'm pretty sure you've used in a few posts.)

So out of the 5 beliefs of ultradispensationalism (which is aka hyper-disp. ) you score 4/5 (to my knowledge). That is the only reason that I said that you fall under that category. The definition itself was almost verbatim from my course textbooks and notes. I wasn't trying to be harsh.

I only meant it like this. Let's say that I bump into you in a coffee shop someday and we've never met before. And let's say that somehow I learn that you are a dispensationalist (natural coffee-shop chit-chat LOL). If you and I were to have a conversation and I asked you some questions about your dispensational beliefs, I would (based on Seminary training) call you an ultradispensationalist. Because this (unfortunately) is something that we are trained to do in Seminaries. We figure out a persons beliefs and then ascribe to them a name-tag (theologically) that helps us understand the scope of that persons beliefs in a certain area. I normally detest this line of thought, because I hate to tag anyone (unless we're running around in the backyard). So I, in my last post, broke my own rule and I apologize... Just because the dudes with the degrees say that you fit into that class doesn't mean that you do.. (in much the same way that they may say that one is either a calvinist or an arminian period.. which btw is a load of hooey).

Sorry about that.

 

[@@Paul@@]

Sorry Paul I didn't mean to offend you. In theological studies there is no such thing as "hyper-dispensationalism" persay. Hyper-dispensationalism is just another name for ultradispensationalism. Now these are text-book definitions and what you learn at a Seminary at the Masters level so they are pretty inclusive. But just because that's what the theologians tag them doesn't mean that a person can fit into one or more.. From all the posts that we've had on this I just put you in that category (not expecting that you would have considered yourself that) because of these differences that you've stated as your beliefs which oppose "mainstream" dispeys:

- late beginning of the Church
- Paul being given the pure unmixed revelation of the gospel of Grace (which I believe you posted about 3 posts ago "grace wasn't even heard of until Paul)
- Baptism and the Lord's Supper as not essential (necessary)
- An emphasis between John's baptism and Christian baptism (which I'm pretty sure you've used in a few posts.)

So out of the 5 beliefs of ultradispensationalism (which is aka hyper-disp. ) you score 4/5 (to my knowledge). That is the only reason that I said that you fall under that category. The definition itself was almost verbatim from my course textbooks and notes. I wasn't trying to be harsh.

I only meant it like this. Let's say that I bump into you in a coffee shop someday and we've never met before. And let's say that somehow I learn that you are a dispensationalist (natural coffee-shop chit-chat LOL). If you and I were to have a conversation and I asked you some questions about your dispensational beliefs, I would (based on Seminary training) call you an ultradispensationalist. Because this (unfortunately) is something that we are trained to do in Seminaries. We figure out a persons beliefs and then ascribe to them a name-tag (theologically) that helps us understand the scope of that persons beliefs in a certain area. I normally detest this line of thought, because I hate to tag anyone (unless we're running around in the backyard). So I, in my last post, broke my own rule and I apologize... Just because the dudes with the degrees say that you fit into that class doesn't mean that you do.. (in much the same way that they may say that one is either a calvinist or an arminian period.. which btw is a load of hooey).

Sorry about that.

No Worries, i was not offended... I thought the difference was that ULTRA's reject the early writings of Paul... Hyper's do not.

My Baptist church is far from "ultra"... but we believe the "church" began late in acts.

 

[BT]

No Worries, i was not offended... I thought the difference was that ULTRA's reject the early writings of Paul... Hyper's do not.

My Baptist church is far from "ultra"... but we believe the "church" began late in acts.

No the ULTRA's actually have a very distinct doctrine concerning Paul. Just to be clear I'll put out the full idea of the ultras:

The extreme group (ultras) follow E.W.Bullinger (1837-1913), a scholar of some renown; earlier dispensationalism, in fact, was sometimes called Bullingerism. Others in this group include Charles H. Welch of London, successor to E. W. Bullinger; E.E. Knoch: Vladimir M. Gelesnoff: and Otis Q. Sellers of Grand Rapids. Bullinger taught that the Gospels and Acts were under the dispensation of law, with the church actually beginning at Paul's ministry after Acts 28:28. The New Testament books that set forth the revelation concerning this concept of the church are Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. Bullinger identified three periods in the New Testament: (1) the time of the gospels when the gospel was preached to the Jews only and authenticated by water baptism; (2) the transitional period in Acts and the corresponding earlier New Testament epistles when the offer still went to the Jews, offering them participation in the "bride church" and authenticated by two baptisms, water and Spirit; (3) the period of Jew and Gentile as one body in Christ and aauthenticated by Spirit baptism alone. Because the Gentile church is related to Christ through the Spirit, baptism and the Lord's Supper have no significance for the church. Those rites relate to the flesh, according to Bullinger (this last view is not held by all ultras).

The Moderate Group

The moderate group, holding that the church began in Acts 9 or Acts 13, is identified by J.C. O'Hair, Cornelius R. Stam, and Charles F. Baker, author of "A Dispensational Theology". Grace Bible College of Grand Rapids is the ultradispensational school leading to ministries with Grace Gospel Fellowship and World-wide Grace Testimony.

Stam taught that the church began in Acts 9, with the conversion of Paul. The "Body Church" could only begin with the beginning of Paul's ministry because Paul was the minister to the Gentiles. Because after that time there was no further offer of the kingdom to Israel, J.C. O'Hair taught that the church begain in Acts 13:46 with the statement: "We are turning to the Gentiles." Because O'Hairs followers begin the church within the time frame of Acts, they observe the Lord's Supper but not water baptism.

____________________

So the disagreement is far bigger than you and I . I remember when I took this course that our Prof. was saying that concerning Progressive Dispeys there was surely alot more smoke than fire (an idea that I'm not sure I agree with). I'm not sure what his opinion was on ultras, though I know that he was not one, nor am I, or my church. However there are churchs who follow that train of thought, such as your own (and I don't consider them a bunch of heretics). I think the long and short of it is that we could go back and forth for a long long time. Heck I could go back and forth with myself on these two ideas for a long time . At the very least we have given the members of the Baptist forum about a month and a halfs worth of reading material, that will, in some cases, be a sure cure for insomnia.

 

[Iosias]

The common (classic, normal, traditional) dispensationalist will say that the dispensation of Grace began exactly at Acts 2:1.

I think most would say that is when the church started but most (I believe) would place the beginning of grace at the cross.

 

[Iosias]

First I will start with what I am sure is an agreement between us all. That, the kingdom of God is something future to the present age (e.g. 2 Tim. 4:1,18).

<AV1611 shakes his head> No thbe kingdom of HEAVEN is future but the kingdom of God is here now...See the Scofield Notes

The kingdom of God is to be distinguished from the kingdom of heaven in five respects:

(1) The kingdom of God is universal, including all moral intelligences willingly subject to the will of God, whether angels, the Church, or saints of past or future dispensations (Luk_13:28-29); (Heb_12:22-23) while the kingdom of heaven is Messianic, mediatorial, and Davidic, and has for its object the establishment of the kingdom of God in the earth

(2) The kingdom of God is entered only by the new birth (Joh_3:3); (Joh_3:5-7) the kingdom of heaven, during this age, is the sphere of a profession which may be real or false.

(3) Since the kingdom of heaven is the earthly sphere of the universal kingdom of God, the two have almost all things in common. For this reason many parables and other teachings are spoken of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew, and of the kingdom of God in Mark and Luke. It is the omissions which are significant. The parables of the wheat and tares, and of the net (Mat_13:24-30); (Mat_13:36-43); (Mat_13:47-50) are not spoken of the kingdom of God. In that kingdom there are neither tares nor bad fish. But the parable of the leaven (Mat_13:33) is spoken of the kingdom of God also, for, alas, even the true doctrines of the kingdom are leavened with the errors of which the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Herodians were the representatives.

(4) The kingdom of God "comes not with outward show" (Luk_17:20) but is chiefly that which is inward and spiritual (Rom_14:17) while the kingdom of heaven is organic, and is to be manifested in glory on the earth.

(5) The kingdom of heaven merges into the kingdom of God when Christ, having put all enemies under his feet, "shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father" (1Co_15:24-28).

 

[bleechers]

Just to clarify a point I made in another thread re: Gaebelein and the rejection of the Kingdom... he also makes this statement commenting on the parable of the marriage feast in Matthew 22:

"The Kingdom was offered to the nation; had the jews repented, there would have been a marriage feast for them, a feast of fat things, as promised by the prophets. God's mercy would have been manifested upon them. The invitatationcontained in the third verse was given in the preaching of the Kingdom before the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Between the third and fourth verses these great events, as well as the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, must be placed. The preaching of the Kingdom with its gracious blessings stopped... with the twelfth chapter. In the thirteenth chapter the Lord teaches the mysteries of the Kingdom, that which takes place during this current dispensation. Now in the fourth verse we read of a second invitation. When was this second invitation given to the invited guests, that is, to Israel? Not before the cross, but immediately after, with the Holy Spirit come doen from Heaven. These servants were to tell them which were bidden, that all things are ready. The work of redemption accomplished, God in His infinite mercy gives another call and now He can say that indeed all is ready, even for the people who had rejected the Son of His love and had crucified him. The opening chapters of the Book of Acts give us the history of this invitation. There we find the record of the second call to Israel.

"The preaching of the Kingdom is resumed for a brief period and with this preaching is the promise of the forgiveness of sins and the times of refreshing and restitution. The invitation, which went out after the Lord had taken His place at the right hand of the Majesty on High, is clearly stated by Peter in the third chapter of Acts. 'Repent, therefore and be converted, for the blotting out of your sins, so that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and He may send Jesus Christ, who was foreordained for you, whom heaven indeed must indeed must receive until the times of restoration of all things, of which God has spoken by the mouths of His prophets since time began.' (Acts 3:19-21)

"No Gentile heard this message, nor was it meant for a Gentile; it was exclusively addressed to Jerusalem. It is a mistake to teach otherwise. The times of restoration of all things, refer us to that which is promised to Israel when converted, with the Kingdom restored... Most of the soul-destroying errors taught in these last days spring from a wrong division of the Word of Truth. If this new invitation had been accepted by the Jews, then the Lord would have returned and the restoration of all things, spoken by the prophets and promised to His earthly people; would have come to pass. But the call was not heeded; the restoration of all things, promised to Israel, has been postponed..."

Excerpt: The Gospel of Matthew (c) 1910 A.C. Gebelein

He goes on to state that the punishment for the rejection as stated in the parable culminated in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

Gaebelein continues about the wedding feast, and the great risk of doing him an injustice, I will leave it here. I post this as a clarification on my earlier post and perhaps as an introduction to any brave soul who may actually be looking for a basic timetable to work with.

"By their fall, salvation is come to the Gentiles." - Paul

 

[BT]

<AV1611 shakes his head> No thbe kingdom of HEAVEN is future but the kingdom of God is here now...See the Scofield Notes

The kingdom of God is to be distinguished from the kingdom of heaven in five respects:

(1) The kingdom of God is universal, including all moral intelligences willingly subject to the will of God, whether angels, the Church, or saints of past or future dispensations (Luk_13:28-29); (Heb_12:22-23) while the kingdom of heaven is Messianic, mediatorial, and Davidic, and has for its object the establishment of the kingdom of God in the earth

(2) The kingdom of God is entered only by the new birth (Joh_3:3); (Joh_3:5-7) the kingdom of heaven, during this age, is the sphere of a profession which may be real or false.

(3) Since the kingdom of heaven is the earthly sphere of the universal kingdom of God, the two have almost all things in common. For this reason many parables and other teachings are spoken of the kingdom of heaven in Matthew, and of the kingdom of God in Mark and Luke. It is the omissions which are significant. The parables of the wheat and tares, and of the net (Mat_13:24-30); (Mat_13:36-43); (Mat_13:47-50) are not spoken of the kingdom of God. In that kingdom there are neither tares nor bad fish. But the parable of the leaven (Mat_13:33) is spoken of the kingdom of God also, for, alas, even the true doctrines of the kingdom are leavened with the errors of which the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Herodians were the representatives.

(4) The kingdom of God "comes not with outward show" (Luk_17:20) but is chiefly that which is inward and spiritual (Rom_14:17) while the kingdom of heaven is organic, and is to be manifested in glory on the earth.

(5) The kingdom of heaven merges into the kingdom of God when Christ, having put all enemies under his feet, "shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father" (1Co_15:24-28).

You can shake your head until it falls off. Scofield is not the end authority on the subject of Kingdom vs. Kingdom. I have a Scofield Ref. Bible and use it as my main copy that I bring to Church etc. There are plenty of valid disputes against Kingdom vs. Kingdom, some of which were not realized until after Scofield. So if you want to follow Scofield's idea feel free, but just admit that there are valid disputes, is all.

 

[Iosias]

All classical dispys (that I have come across) keep the kingdoms separate...hence your assertion that we believe the KoG is futurist is wrong. It was not a criticism but rather "For your information".

 

[BT]

All classical dispys (that I have come across) keep the kingdoms separate...hence your assertion that we believe the KoG is futurist is wrong. It was not a criticism but rather "For your information".

I don't know how many you've come across, but if you've met 10 of them then by all means you must be correct. LOL.

Go to your nearest seminary and check out papers from say the last 15 years by classical dispensationalists and you'll see what I'm talking about. I didn't take it as a criticism. It's hard to judge these things either way right? Because let's look at the two of us right? I don't know what your level of education in theology is (and that is not important to anything), but I know what I'm taught in Seminary. So what I've been taught is what I've stated (that was not "my" statement it was copied out of my course notes and text). What I've stated is what is taught in Seminary, the text and course notes refer to over 100 classical dispensationalist books & papers. There are scads of references to "hostile" argumentive papers and books. But then in walks you and simply says, "Nope that's wrong 'cause this is what Scofield says in his ref. Bible." Well, what am I supposed to say to that?

Back to the topic....

An argument against that postion is this...

The Kingdom of Heaven is only mentioned in 1 book. Some say that it is still a reference to the Kingdom of God. Why then would Matthew term it the "Kingdom of Heaven" instead of the Kingdom of God? (I hate writing this out because it is a great 'question of the week'.. so you owe me 200 blessings now! jk).

The Gospel of Matthew was written to a Jewish audience (True or False)?

True.

The Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (True or False)?

True. (Blast! another good question ruined! that's another 200 blessings! jk)

The Jews were not permitted to write or say the name of God or God (True or False)?

True. (Heck you can check out Pastor George, or the Messianic forum to see this)

Therefore Matthew substituted "Kingdom of God" for "Kingdom of Heaven" (True or False)?

I have no idea but it is an argument worth considering. Especially if you consider that the other synoptics do not use the phrase...

so anyway I have no problem with you disagreeing with me or what I've been taught, but we all must be careful when we claim to know what "every" person believes even in a fairly well defined theological system... right?