The Gospel

[LightLoveHope]

I agree with most of what you posted, LightLoveHope, but I'm not so sure about these points:


Was Rahab an Israelite? Since she is considered to have "betrayed her people" by assisting the Israelites - I would take that to mean she *wasn't* an Israelite...correct? Yet these passages seem to suggest that she was "saved" (the text says " considered righteous" "by faith") - she was even privileged to be included in Jesus' family tree.

Hebrews 11:31
James 2:25


I wouldn't say the law has actually changed - just that in the fulfillment of the law it was made more clear what the purpose was. IOW.....God's nature was revealed in Jesus (but there were some that God's nature was revealed to prior to Jesus - like David for instance).

This point about Rahab is interesting. God considered her faith in Him as righteousness. But we are not told this was present before Israel appeared.

Cornelius was a God fearing roman who God regarded and looked on with favour. He sent Peter to teach him about Jesus.

So these examples are of people God called to His faith. How far God calls people who have not heard the word yet believe in Him, I do not know. I do know the word brings life, so this is what I must share. And it implies if one rejected Israel, the nation to witness to the world, where else is their hope before Jesus?

 

[mkgal1]

This point about Rahab is interesting. God considered her faith in Him as righteousness. But we are not told this was present before Israel appeared.

If we think of "Israel" to mean "people of God" (which is the actual meaning) - I think it helps to keep things a bit squared properly.

As far as Rahab goes specifically - she must have chosen faith over fear because of what she knew about God through the biological Israelites. The biblical text reads:

Johshua 2:9-13 ~ I know that the LORD has given you the land, and that dread of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt in fear before you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites that were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed. As soon as we heard it, our hearts melted, and there was no courage left in any of us because of you. The LORD your God is indeed God in heaven above and on earth below. Now then, since I have dealt kindly with you, swear to me by the LORD that you in turn will deal kindly with my family. Give me a sign of good faith that you will spare my father and mother, my brothers and sisters, and all who belong to them, and deliver our lives from death.

​

 

[FineLinen]

My mom would say and ....fools seldom differ....lol
So maybe me and Scotus's (my name is Scott by the way)are just fools for Christ. lol



A.P. Adams has some good thought's on this that you might enjoy but I can't seem to fined the link.

Dear Scott: does this help?

A.P. Adams>>>>>>

A.P. Adams

Judgment

Probation

The Atonement

Why did Christ Die?

Purpose In Creation

The Purpose Of Evil

The Purpose Of The Law

The Purpose of Trial

We Are God's Workmanship

Free Moral Agency

Faith and Works

Bible Corrections

The True Basis Of Redemption

ARTICLES BY

 

[Pneuma3]

Dear Scott: does this help?

A.P. Adams>>>>>>

A.P. Adams

Judgment

Probation

The Atonement

Why did Christ Die?

Purpose In Creation

The Purpose Of Evil

The Purpose Of The Law

The Purpose of Trial

We Are God's Workmanship

Free Moral Agency

Faith and Works

Bible Corrections

The True Basis Of Redemption

ARTICLES BY

more then I asked for brother, Thank you. I have read some of them but not all

 

[hedrick]

Okay, now here's a question that may throw some for a loop.

Why would Jesus have died for the church?

Suppose we look at a framework where Jesus' primary job is bringing the Kingdom, both present and future. That implies defeating evil. both individual and corporate.

All versions of the atonement have Jesus dealing with sin. However theories older than PSA tend to view it more broadly as defeating evil, whereas PSA sees it more in terms of making it possible for us to be forgiven. The older theories probably fit better with a thorough-going Kingdom orientation, though I think PSA would work if you really want it to.

 

[ladodgers6]

Romans 2:14-15 ~ Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them. ​

Thank you, exactly. The Law of God was written on their hearts, so that they are without excuse, and their consciences bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them.

So even though the Gentiles did not receive the Stone Tablets. They still had the Law written in their hearts!

 

[ladodgers6]

And now the controversy begins. Or it would if I were to answer, but that's not the subject of this thread.

And I'd rather just play it safe.

There's no controversy. Read Romans 2: 14For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. (The Gentiles who were not given the Stone Tablets of the Mosaic Law; still have the Law of God written on their hearts; that their consciences and thoughts bear witness to it).

15They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Now nobody has an excuse before a Holy Righteous God. All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God! Romans 3

Just sharing knowledge.

 

[mkgal1]

Actually NT Wright has departed orthodox beliefs.

This means nothing without support. Perhaps you'd like to start another thread to address that?

 

[mkgal1]

Suppose we look at a framework where Jesus' primary job is bringing the Kingdom, both present and future. That implies defeating evil. both individual and corporate.

Maybe a good place to begin is to wrestle with what is meant by "advancing the Kingdom"? Ray Vander Laan (I think) makes an excellent point here:

Quoting Ray Vander Laan----->"Even in Jesus' day, many Jews looked for such things in a messiah. They wanted political deliverance and a political kingdom. They wanted someone who could physically rescue them from Caesar’s rule, and they weren't all that interested in the Messiah who offered forgiveness and deliverance from sin and ushered in the kingdom of God by sacrificing His own life.

Kingdom, in the Jewish mind, usually refers to a place and a situation where the king's will is done. That distinction is key to understanding what Christ's mission is for His followers. Jesus wants to extend His reign on earth, to extend it through His sons and daughters. But His will is not for us to pursue power and influence and territory. His will is for His followers to do the will of the King, to put God's Word and love into flesh, just as He did.

Almost daily, I present two challenges to my students. The first is to try to obey God in every way — to reclaim one situation, one moment, one inch of territory whenever the opportunity arises. The second challenge I give them is to not give away something that is part of God’s kingdom. Every time we succumb to the will of the evil one instead of the Lord, we give away one situation, one moment, one small piece of the kingdom of heaven. Every day, regardless of our position, we have the choice to extend the kingdom or contract the kingdom

This is the real mission of Jesus that we must help our young people see, to be the presence of God in a broken world. The kingdom is extended not through the positions we hold or the power we wield, but by doing the will of the Father. By loving our neighbors, by loving our enemy, by caring about sinners. " ~ The Real Mission of Jesus​

 

[redleghunter]

This means nothing without support. Perhaps you'd like to start another thread to address that?

Sure I’ll find some time.

 

[mkgal1]

To be clear, @mkgal1, no one here is denying that the Kingdom has come in Christ and that God's Kingdom is already present on the earth. And a significant part of the gospel message is that God's eschatological kingdom has come and the doors to heaven are open now.

Okay.....I'm with you here.

What the OP seems to be saying is that the Kingdom is present now in its fullness. Apparently there are no more kingdom developments to come. This is what myself and @redleghunter are pushing back against. Of course Jesus brought in the Kingdom and had victory over Satan, sin, and death on the cross. But the age of the church is an age in which this victory and kingdom of Jesus breaks into the present age and permeates the nations until Jesus finally returns in the flesh to completely consummate his Kingdom in its fullness.

The "age of the church" is without end (there's also not a parenthesis that I see anywhere). You seem to have bought into dispensationalism - is that correct? If any theological system "parts ways" from early Christianity (meaning non-heterdox) it's that one.

Luke 1:32-33 ~ He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he will reign over Israele forever; His Kingdom will never end!”​

 

[mkgal1]

Jesus breaks into the present age and permeates the nations until Jesus finally returns in the flesh to completely consummate his Kingdom in its fullness.

There's a 40 year transition period from when Jesus "broke into" the timeline (to borrow a phrase from you) at His resurrection/ascension in 30 A.D. until 70 A.D. That transition period was an overlap of Old Covenant and New.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

With and without dispensationalism, sensationalism , or any denomination,

in the world to come, there is no "church" building, denomination, or any such separation of people .
There IS EKKLESIA, called out ones of God, by God, for God, born again by God from heaven and set apart (EK) by God for His Purpose, Plan and Gospel in Christ Jesus.

 

[redleghunter]

Okay.....I'm with you here.


The "age of the church" is without end (there's also not a parenthesis that I see anywhere). You seem to have bought into dispensationalism - is that correct? If any theological system "parts ways" from early Christianity (meaning non-heterdox) it's that one.

Luke 1:32-33 ~ He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he will reign over Israele forever; His Kingdom will never end!”​

It has nothing to do with Dispensational theology.

Christ is King now on His Throne. What has been argued is that the fullness of the Kingdom will not be ushered in until His second Coming to judge the quick and the dead. That’s credal not Dispensationalism.

As an aside not even Dispensationals believe the Kingdom of God comes to any end. That’s usually a misconception of the millennial kingdom which is part of the Kingdom that never ends. Just as we are in His Kingdom but pilgrims on Earth. That portion of time will end when He comes again to resurrect us. The Kingdom does not end there but enters another manifestation.

 

[hedrick]

Maybe a good place to begin is to wrestle with what is meant by "advancing the Kingdom"? Ray Vander Laan (I think) makes an excellent point here:

Jesus opposed violence towards the Romans. But you can overplay the non-political nature of his teachings. Jesus' opponents were political leaders, and he objected not to their personal morals, but to how they led the people. He had a different idea about what power is and how it should be used. I believe that should affect our institutions as well as our piety and our personal relationships.

 

[Residential Bob]

Okay.....I'm with you here.


The "age of the church" is without end (there's also not a parenthesis that I see anywhere). You seem to have bought into dispensationalism - is that correct? If any theological system "parts ways" from early Christianity (meaning non-heterdox) it's that one.

Luke 1:32-33 ~ He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he will reign over Israele forever; His Kingdom will never end!”​

You’re getting to the crux now. The point I wanted to make with this thread. The church is forever, and the kingdom is forever. The Bible affirms both of these.

Think about that.

Daniel says that God will establish His kingdom in the days of empire that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed about, and that it will not be destroyed (2:44). And as we know, these days ended with Rome. Paul affirms that this kingdom is Christianity. To God “be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever,” he says (Eph 3:21). Daniel and Paul both aver the everlasting nature of the kingdom, or of the church. These two bodies are one and the same.

Radical, eh? Although not new.

Long before the later Hebrew writers attest to the coming of the end of the age, Daniel envisions its arrival. The Apostle Paul corroborates the words of this Prophet. The kingdom would be here forever, Daniel says. The church is here forever, Paul says. The kingdom is the church. When Jesus promised Peter that he would build his church, he also promised to give him the keys to the kingdom (Mt 16:18-19). In that one breath, did Jesus promise two different things? A church and also a kingdom? And if only one of these is forever, is the other one temporary or unnecessary? And a lie? How confusing and pointless, if those were the cases.

We’re 21st-century Westerners. We make many erroneous assumptions about the Bible, one of the biggest being that the end of the age is the end of the Christian Age. Let’s look at a couple of verses:

And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Mt 12:32)

[A]nd have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come. (Heb 6:5)​

The age to come. The big bum steer in the traditional church. Is the age to come the Christian Age? Yes, it is.

The New Testament was written in the Jewish Age. The apostles were writing of the end of the Jewish Age. The next age - the age anticipated in the first century - was the Christian Age.

The age to come was the Christian Age. The church was the rock built by no human hand (that Christ built) that filled the earth (Dn 2:34-35). The church crowded out pagan Rome and apostate Judea. It shattered these empires and now stands in their place (Dn 2:44).

Thy kingdom come, Jesus prayed. And so it did.

 

[Tree of Life]

Okay.....I'm with you here.


The "age of the church" is without end (there's also not a parenthesis that I see anywhere). You seem to have bought into dispensationalism - is that correct? If any theological system "parts ways" from early Christianity (meaning non-heterdox) it's that one.

Luke 1:32-33 ~ He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he will reign over Israele forever; His Kingdom will never end!”​

I am the furthest thing from a dispensationalist.

 

[ladodgers6]

This means nothing without support. Perhaps you'd like to start another thread to address that?

Yes, please start another thread on this. I will participate.

 

[mkgal1]

It has nothing to do with Dispensational theology.

Christ is King now on His Throne. What has been argued is that the fullness of the Kingdom will not be ushered in until His second Coming to judge the quick and the dead. That’s credal not Dispensationalism.

I'm trying to figure out what this underlying disagreement is, because on one hand it seems as if we agree (but I get the sense that you and Tree for Life are coming at us with burning torches - trying to sniff out heresies).

I've repeated a few times in this thread that I (personally) don't deny a future coming (that's recited in the creeds).....but I believe what the OP is trying to point out is that is a separate issue from the full Gospel message (right, @Residential Bob ?). If Residential Bob doesn't see it that way, then I do. I believe there needs to be a distinction made between the "coming in power and glory" that's mentioned in the Bible to what people understand as a "second coming" that's physical (and future). He CAME in power already. His shekinah glory has returned - just as the ancient Jews had been anticipating for years.

If a person sees the "goal" as "getting to heaven (which is what you're saying.....am I right, RLH?)......then they miss the prophecies of Jesus that WERE fulfilled (mainly the destruction of the temple and the removal of the human priests - handed over to our High Priest, Christ).

I think you're misunderstanding the story line - and main plot - in the New Testament. It's not (IMO) "let's get to heaven" - instead it's "God has brought His glory and His kingdom to earth". While the physical manifestation of a resurrection may be in the future - I don't believe that's what Jesus was teaching about.

 

[mkgal1]

I am the furthest thing from a dispensationalist.

As far as I know, there are only a few eschatological frameworks - and the antithesis of dispensationalism is covenant theology (which is what makes sense of the Bible to me - and would mean that you and I agree).

This IS new to me, though.....so I can certainly be in error.