Post by Admin on Jan 4, 2020 17:46:16 GMT
This is a discussion taken from another forum.
Good to have you back.
Hey thanks! Between work, the holidays, and being sick...it's been tough getting any time to do what I love to do the most.
I am not saying that a different culture changes the Christian story or ethic. I am saying that Christianity must be explained in a way that each new generation, each new culture can hear and understand what they're being told. It has to at least make sense to them before it can be lived. One can teach their child as a little kid and also as an older teenager: the truth doesn't change just how you present truth to a 4 year old and a 16 year old. And it is more than just having a good translation.
Certain cultures do indeed try to change the "Christian story." The homosexual culture, for instance, seeks to teach all "love" as good, contrary to God's will. And that is what many do, they try to mold Christian values into, or out of their own cultures.
And I would agree the maturity level of the one being taught is important, but I would explain Justification to both a four year old and a sixteen year old. And I think both would be able to grasp this simple concept: a declaration of righteousness. But, it might be that the four year old might have a little more trouble understanding that there are two types of justification spoken of in Scripture, though I think they could probably grasp that as well. If not then it can be made clearer as they grow older.
But let's talk about that for just a minute, seeing it is the focus of the OP. In Scripture we see two types of justification, one which is temporal (such as we see referred to in James 2, where giving food and clothing to those in need validates genuine faith, and Abraham is declared righteous/justified because of both faith and works), and that which is eternal, which is the declaration of God pronounced upon those that believe on Christ. I know you understand what Justification means, right? So the question is...what language do I need to speak to you in to get across the significance of this distinction? I would suggest to you that Biblical language is the only language this is going to be understood.
God is the Word and we, like Jesus, speak the word but it must be spoken so all can hear and understand
I agree we must seek to make it understandable, lol, that is what teaching is all about. Otherwise it is simply a conveyance of knowledge. A person could copy an entire book about Algebra but that doesn't mean he is going to understand it. Justification is one of those words that stands apart from most, primarily because it is a Doctrine of the Bible. It is not used as much as most would think, thus it is, in my view, necessary to make people understand this word and doctrine. So going back to speaking to you in Biblical language, what I mean is to speak about justification directly from the Bible and bringing out the context of each use.
I think we do need to replace and/or explain the word Justification. Even with an explanation it makes little sense, I think there is something 'there,' something valuable but I can just see people, especially teenagers, nodding off.
It's very simple to explain to people. You ask if they know what it means to be righteous. You can explain being righteous in its various contexts with short stories as Scripture does, oftentimes describing, as well, what it means to be unrighteous. Think of David taking Bathsheba. Now compare that to Christ laying His life down, dying for someone else's sin. You can use the Justice System of our country. Most kids understand the procedure of someone being charged, tried, and judgment being pronounced. And when we separate the two distinctive uses of Justification, Temporal and Eternal, it gets a little more complicated. But again, this is a topic of discussion for those a little more well versed in Scripture than four year olds, lol. I don't make it a habit of trying to give meat to babes, but milk only. We always cater to the maturity level of those we speak to, right?
I am not saying that the Trinity is not alluded to in the NT but in the 4th C the Trinity is most definitely put in the philosophical language of that day - and that language is not our language.
And that has no relevance to what I teach or preach to people. I do not make it a habit of spending a lot of time on what the "Church Fathers" had to say, because much of it is erroneous. I only view Scripture as the Authority and basis for Doctrine and Practice. The OP actually touches on that, in that I view both Catholics and Protestants as holding to error, particularly in regards to Justification. And the primary fault I would mention is that both fail to properly contextualize the passages they teach out of. Catholics extend a salvific and an eternal context to James 2 and Protestants do the same in Romans 4.
And to be honest, I don't see too much difference in how men thought in that day and how they think today. But one thing I would point out is this: we still need to be mindful of the progression of revelation. God revealed many things to men in past Ages, yet withheld full understanding from them. Protestants believe He allowed a "reformation" in regards to understanding five hundred years ago, and I am inclined to agree. However, I think we might still see God progressively revealing to the Church an understanding that is greater than those who have gone before us.
One can preach all they want about the Trinity but if you want someone to have some idea of what you're talking about, pains must be taken to explain it in our language and in a way that respects our 21st C worldview.
Not sure how a 21st worldview is relevant to the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is simply knowledge of God from Scripture that doesn't change regardless of the culture that knowledge is introduced to.
I think we do need to replace and/or explain the word Justification. Even with an explanation it makes little sense, I think there is something 'there,' something valuable but I can just see people, especially teenagers, nodding off.
It's up to the teacher to get the student's attention, and still deliver the knowledge you want to teach them. And I have to admit I am a little mystified by your statement, that Justification, "...even with an explanation makes little sense." A man is charged with murder and all the evidence points to his being guilty. A court trial proceeds and the evidence, when thoroughly examined, shows that the man was telling the truth that he didn't kill the victim. He has been justified. In the case of Mankind and sin, Mankind is under condemnation. This would have in view the previous man not being justified through a court proceeding and actually found guilty. He has been, like all of mankind, condemned to death. He stands under a declaration of unrighteousness, of being unjust. The natural man stands in that condemnation, the verdict has already been rendered. We are conceived and born into the world under that condemnation. The man in the earthly court trial receives justification or condemnation in a temporal context. The natural man stands in condemnation in an eternal context, meaning that his standing is relevant to both a temporal and eternal standing. And only God can reverse the condemnation, or familiar terms, grant a reprieve. When God does that He declares that man to be Justified. The man has a standing of being righteous rather than unrighteous.
And I would point out that our standing before God is not a result of what we do, either in the case of condemnation or justification on either a temporal or eternal basis. Men are born separated from God due to Adam's sin. I do not take the view they inherit a "sin nature" from their parents, but that they are simply separated from God thus are incapable of righteousness. Particularly righteousness on a level that they might come into relationship with God. If you read from Genesis to Revelation you are going to find one consistent practice: God always initiates relationship. We can divide those relationships into two categories as well, temporal and eternal. And it might surprise you to hear me say that an eternal relationship between God and Man did not begin until Pentecost. Most think Adam had "spiritual life" and lost it when he sinned. Adam had a physical relationship with God, and that is what he lost. And because access was denied mankind to the Garden, and thus with God, all men are born out of relationship with God and will inevitably sin. So it is, in my view, to understand that being justified is not to be equated with Eternal Salvation/Redemption. God eternally redeemed men by bringing them into eternal union with Himself, and they have a standing of Eternal Justification. We receive the life Christ came to bestow (John 3:16) when He eternally indwells us. No man had this life prior to Pentecost, not even Adam.
How the words are explained is what can change the meaning or help one to see and understand. Also, you are talking about the gospel of John, 60-70 years after Pentecost and it is questionable if Jesus taught about the Trinity - he taught about God, and the coming Kingdom - but the Trinity?
The Lord did teach about the Trinity, as I have shown in John 14:15-23, however, men were not meant to understand that at that time. They could not even understand the Gospel, that Christ would die, be buried, and rise again. This is why Peter and John are amazed when they find the tomb empty:
John 20:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
This is because the Mystery of the Gospel was not yet being revealed:
Ephesians 3:4-5 King James Version (KJV)
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
The gospels, all written post Pentecost, show crowds drawn to the man Jesus even if they did not or could not fathom him as the Messiah. However the reader of every gospel know the secret: this is the Messiah.
We see in Matthew 16 that the Father reveals the truth that Jesus is the Messiah (the Christ)...
Matthew 16:13-17 King James Version (KJV)
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
But, let's not confuse that with them having the Gospel revealed to them. We see that they are forbidden to tell men that He is the Christ, and when the Lord preaches the Gospel...Peter rejects it:
Matthew 16:20-23 King James Version (KJV)
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
"From that time forth." As mentioned before, the Lord did not send His disciples unto the world to preach the Gospel of Christ, but unto Israel only...to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Again, the gospels are post-Pentecost writings and 'we' are the audience.
While this is true, let's not overlook the importance of understanding what the people of Israel would have understood about Christ's teachings. While we understand fully what He means when He refers to His death and Resurrection, they did not. Few take the time to really consider this. Even after the Resurrection...they still did not believe. When He appears to them in Luke 24 they think they are seeing a "spirit," a...ghost. Because they thought He was still dead.
But what Kingdom? The only one, the coming one. John, for example is 60-70 years after the death of Jesus, Pentecost is long over. Also, the Kingdom for Israel - but also all nations were to be included and would come to worship the one true God, thus the commission. To suggest another Kingdom to ignore the witness of the gospels on the only Kingdom that Jesus did preach.
Again, I believe we can see at least three specific Kingdoms referred to by Christ: the Kingdom that is in the hearts of believers (and has always existed); the Millennial Kingdom (which was prophesied in the Old Testament, and from whence most gained their expectation (this is the Kingdom Peter took up the sword in hopes of ushering it in by saving his King)); and the Eternal Kingdom. Membership in the first has changed significantly since we are now immersed into Christ upon entrance, hence we have eternal life whereas the Old Testament aints did not.
The only Kingdom believed in and preached by Jesus was the same Kingdom expected by his disciples and the apostle Paul.
Paul understood the difference between the two Kingdoms Christ taught about, the disciples did not. They understood only that God would send the Messiah and He would establish an earthly Kingdom that would be ruled by the Messiah forever. Their understanding of that, though, would not have been of the Messiah Himself being on that throne forever, but more along the lines of His descendants always being on the throne.
It is interesting to consider that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were wrong about the Kingdom in their lifetime.
Only the disciples were wrong, and that in this way: they only had the revelation of the Kingdom that would be established on earth (for the most part), at least that is the only understanding they had. They did not understand the Kingdom of His dear Son (into which we are translated), or the Eternal State/Kingdom. Peter did not want the Messiah to die because the Kingdom he awaited could not be established if He did. That Kingdom will still be established, but that is not the Kingdom Christ established at the time of His death and Resurrection.
But that's the issue Ranger, not all understand the word, that's why it is preached and taught. God presents but we are the 'carriers' of God: as Jesus was, so now we are the ones to preach, teach, explain.
Precisely, lol. Thus we must make Justification understandable to the newer generations, and we don't have to talk in their language to do that, lol.
16 hours ago, thormas said:
Do you think that if one has difficulty in understanding the Word, it is because God withheld enlightenment?
[/QUOTE]
Not always. For most I think it's a slothful approach to study. Some are waiting around for God to "zap" them with knowledge, so remain babes most of their lives. The Writer of Hebrews rebukes the Jews for this very attitude in Chs.5-6. And I hate to say it but our current cultures contribute to the lessening of study in God's Word. In early America the Bible was a prominent Book in the lives of many, that is not the case any longer.
I think that if one is diligent in seeking after God and the truth God will instruct them as He has promised.
God is the Word and we, like Jesus, speak the word but it must be spoken so all can hear and understand - only then can it be Good News and lived.
While God can and does use us, He doesn't need us, lol. He can enlighten men through His Word alone. He has done that for many millennia now. And today there is radio and tv which can also be used. While we convey the words, it is always God that enlightens the mind. That is simply something we can't do.
Actually you do or can 'save' people.
I couldn't even save myself, much less anyone else, lol. Basically, Thormas, I look at it like this: all of us are natural men when God intervenes and enlightens our minds. We then respond. If we believe the truth delivered us we are made sons of God by being immersed into Him (the Baptism with the Holy Ghost); if we reject the truth we remain in darkness. Salvation is wholly the work of Holy God.
God 'sent' Jesus, Jesus 'sent' his disciples and Paul and their decedents today are also sent to preach, enlighten and save (albeit with God).
Agreed, God does use men to preach the Gospel, but it still remains that only He can make someone understand the Gospel, and embrace it as truth.
We are the co-creators.
I would have to disagree: I don't see that we can share credit with God for salvation in any way.
No Ranger, the atheist is the one, in this scenario, who (also) 'does the will of the Father' to love and, therefore his is the Kingdom of heaven.
No atheist will enter the Kingdom of God. That is just basic, Thormas. The "love" shown by atheists should not be compared on an equal plane with the love of God or that of believers.:
Luke 6:32 King James Version (KJV)
32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
If one loves, in that very moment they have fulfilled both commandments;
Again I would have to disagree:
John 15:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
We see the Lord state plainly that "the world" does indeed "love," but He makes it equally clear that this love is not...good.
if one loves their neighbor they are in the same moment, in the same act, loving God (for God is Love) and they share his Life.
Only those brought into Eternal Union with God have the life of God, that is...eternal life. That is the "new birth." And only those who are born again (which is also spoken of as being born from above, born of the Spirit, and born of God) will enter into the Kingdom of God, both that which we are translated into at salvation and that which is to come.
Jesus, if he was one of us, was subject also but he did not go the way of Adam. We are called to go the Way of Christ and, in him, overcome our 'fallenness' and be sons and daughters of the Father.
While Jesus was a man, we must also remember that He was God with us, and in that respect He was not "one of us." He came for the specific purpose of taking upon Himself the penalty of our sin that we might become the sons of God. He came, as John 3:16 teaches, that we might receive eternal life. Again, no man received eternal life until Christ died, arose, returned to Heaven, and began baptizing men into Himself.
I total agree that we are holy or what I call, truly Human, due to God/Love alive in us.
Holy and human are not the same things. Holiness is a state of separation and refers to both being separated from something by our own choice and by God. But that is another topic entirely, lol. Sanctification is also a Doctrine that has two types, progressive and positional.
We can only be Human when Divinity is incarnate or embodied in us and in that moment we are humanity expressing divinity, we are the child of God.
I don't view divinity as something that can be "incarnate" other than the Incarnation itself. While we partaker of the divine nature we ourselves do not become divine. No more than a car becomes human when we get into them, lol.
And like the Father of the Prodigal, God waits for all time until all, all the prodigals, turn back and only then is there rejoicing and can the 'previously saved' brothers and sisters rejoice for none are lost and all are saved and Alive in God.
Does this mean you embrace Universal Salvation?
My friend, we disagree but, for me that is okay. I have enjoyed the dialogue.
I have also, Thormas, thanks again for the responses.
Feel free to post but leave my name and the site name out of it. it should stand or fall on its own. And one essential condition: give me the info on your forum, either here or more privately through messages.
Thanks, I appreciate that, and I will definitely let you know if I post anything.
God bless.
Good to have you back.
Hey thanks! Between work, the holidays, and being sick...it's been tough getting any time to do what I love to do the most.
I am not saying that a different culture changes the Christian story or ethic. I am saying that Christianity must be explained in a way that each new generation, each new culture can hear and understand what they're being told. It has to at least make sense to them before it can be lived. One can teach their child as a little kid and also as an older teenager: the truth doesn't change just how you present truth to a 4 year old and a 16 year old. And it is more than just having a good translation.
Certain cultures do indeed try to change the "Christian story." The homosexual culture, for instance, seeks to teach all "love" as good, contrary to God's will. And that is what many do, they try to mold Christian values into, or out of their own cultures.
And I would agree the maturity level of the one being taught is important, but I would explain Justification to both a four year old and a sixteen year old. And I think both would be able to grasp this simple concept: a declaration of righteousness. But, it might be that the four year old might have a little more trouble understanding that there are two types of justification spoken of in Scripture, though I think they could probably grasp that as well. If not then it can be made clearer as they grow older.
But let's talk about that for just a minute, seeing it is the focus of the OP. In Scripture we see two types of justification, one which is temporal (such as we see referred to in James 2, where giving food and clothing to those in need validates genuine faith, and Abraham is declared righteous/justified because of both faith and works), and that which is eternal, which is the declaration of God pronounced upon those that believe on Christ. I know you understand what Justification means, right? So the question is...what language do I need to speak to you in to get across the significance of this distinction? I would suggest to you that Biblical language is the only language this is going to be understood.
God is the Word and we, like Jesus, speak the word but it must be spoken so all can hear and understand
I agree we must seek to make it understandable, lol, that is what teaching is all about. Otherwise it is simply a conveyance of knowledge. A person could copy an entire book about Algebra but that doesn't mean he is going to understand it. Justification is one of those words that stands apart from most, primarily because it is a Doctrine of the Bible. It is not used as much as most would think, thus it is, in my view, necessary to make people understand this word and doctrine. So going back to speaking to you in Biblical language, what I mean is to speak about justification directly from the Bible and bringing out the context of each use.
I think we do need to replace and/or explain the word Justification. Even with an explanation it makes little sense, I think there is something 'there,' something valuable but I can just see people, especially teenagers, nodding off.
It's very simple to explain to people. You ask if they know what it means to be righteous. You can explain being righteous in its various contexts with short stories as Scripture does, oftentimes describing, as well, what it means to be unrighteous. Think of David taking Bathsheba. Now compare that to Christ laying His life down, dying for someone else's sin. You can use the Justice System of our country. Most kids understand the procedure of someone being charged, tried, and judgment being pronounced. And when we separate the two distinctive uses of Justification, Temporal and Eternal, it gets a little more complicated. But again, this is a topic of discussion for those a little more well versed in Scripture than four year olds, lol. I don't make it a habit of trying to give meat to babes, but milk only. We always cater to the maturity level of those we speak to, right?
I am not saying that the Trinity is not alluded to in the NT but in the 4th C the Trinity is most definitely put in the philosophical language of that day - and that language is not our language.
And that has no relevance to what I teach or preach to people. I do not make it a habit of spending a lot of time on what the "Church Fathers" had to say, because much of it is erroneous. I only view Scripture as the Authority and basis for Doctrine and Practice. The OP actually touches on that, in that I view both Catholics and Protestants as holding to error, particularly in regards to Justification. And the primary fault I would mention is that both fail to properly contextualize the passages they teach out of. Catholics extend a salvific and an eternal context to James 2 and Protestants do the same in Romans 4.
And to be honest, I don't see too much difference in how men thought in that day and how they think today. But one thing I would point out is this: we still need to be mindful of the progression of revelation. God revealed many things to men in past Ages, yet withheld full understanding from them. Protestants believe He allowed a "reformation" in regards to understanding five hundred years ago, and I am inclined to agree. However, I think we might still see God progressively revealing to the Church an understanding that is greater than those who have gone before us.
One can preach all they want about the Trinity but if you want someone to have some idea of what you're talking about, pains must be taken to explain it in our language and in a way that respects our 21st C worldview.
Not sure how a 21st worldview is relevant to the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is simply knowledge of God from Scripture that doesn't change regardless of the culture that knowledge is introduced to.
I think we do need to replace and/or explain the word Justification. Even with an explanation it makes little sense, I think there is something 'there,' something valuable but I can just see people, especially teenagers, nodding off.
It's up to the teacher to get the student's attention, and still deliver the knowledge you want to teach them. And I have to admit I am a little mystified by your statement, that Justification, "...even with an explanation makes little sense." A man is charged with murder and all the evidence points to his being guilty. A court trial proceeds and the evidence, when thoroughly examined, shows that the man was telling the truth that he didn't kill the victim. He has been justified. In the case of Mankind and sin, Mankind is under condemnation. This would have in view the previous man not being justified through a court proceeding and actually found guilty. He has been, like all of mankind, condemned to death. He stands under a declaration of unrighteousness, of being unjust. The natural man stands in that condemnation, the verdict has already been rendered. We are conceived and born into the world under that condemnation. The man in the earthly court trial receives justification or condemnation in a temporal context. The natural man stands in condemnation in an eternal context, meaning that his standing is relevant to both a temporal and eternal standing. And only God can reverse the condemnation, or familiar terms, grant a reprieve. When God does that He declares that man to be Justified. The man has a standing of being righteous rather than unrighteous.
And I would point out that our standing before God is not a result of what we do, either in the case of condemnation or justification on either a temporal or eternal basis. Men are born separated from God due to Adam's sin. I do not take the view they inherit a "sin nature" from their parents, but that they are simply separated from God thus are incapable of righteousness. Particularly righteousness on a level that they might come into relationship with God. If you read from Genesis to Revelation you are going to find one consistent practice: God always initiates relationship. We can divide those relationships into two categories as well, temporal and eternal. And it might surprise you to hear me say that an eternal relationship between God and Man did not begin until Pentecost. Most think Adam had "spiritual life" and lost it when he sinned. Adam had a physical relationship with God, and that is what he lost. And because access was denied mankind to the Garden, and thus with God, all men are born out of relationship with God and will inevitably sin. So it is, in my view, to understand that being justified is not to be equated with Eternal Salvation/Redemption. God eternally redeemed men by bringing them into eternal union with Himself, and they have a standing of Eternal Justification. We receive the life Christ came to bestow (John 3:16) when He eternally indwells us. No man had this life prior to Pentecost, not even Adam.
How the words are explained is what can change the meaning or help one to see and understand. Also, you are talking about the gospel of John, 60-70 years after Pentecost and it is questionable if Jesus taught about the Trinity - he taught about God, and the coming Kingdom - but the Trinity?
The Lord did teach about the Trinity, as I have shown in John 14:15-23, however, men were not meant to understand that at that time. They could not even understand the Gospel, that Christ would die, be buried, and rise again. This is why Peter and John are amazed when they find the tomb empty:
John 20:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.
This is because the Mystery of the Gospel was not yet being revealed:
Ephesians 3:4-5 King James Version (KJV)
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
The gospels, all written post Pentecost, show crowds drawn to the man Jesus even if they did not or could not fathom him as the Messiah. However the reader of every gospel know the secret: this is the Messiah.
We see in Matthew 16 that the Father reveals the truth that Jesus is the Messiah (the Christ)...
Matthew 16:13-17 King James Version (KJV)
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
But, let's not confuse that with them having the Gospel revealed to them. We see that they are forbidden to tell men that He is the Christ, and when the Lord preaches the Gospel...Peter rejects it:
Matthew 16:20-23 King James Version (KJV)
20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
"From that time forth." As mentioned before, the Lord did not send His disciples unto the world to preach the Gospel of Christ, but unto Israel only...to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Again, the gospels are post-Pentecost writings and 'we' are the audience.
While this is true, let's not overlook the importance of understanding what the people of Israel would have understood about Christ's teachings. While we understand fully what He means when He refers to His death and Resurrection, they did not. Few take the time to really consider this. Even after the Resurrection...they still did not believe. When He appears to them in Luke 24 they think they are seeing a "spirit," a...ghost. Because they thought He was still dead.
But what Kingdom? The only one, the coming one. John, for example is 60-70 years after the death of Jesus, Pentecost is long over. Also, the Kingdom for Israel - but also all nations were to be included and would come to worship the one true God, thus the commission. To suggest another Kingdom to ignore the witness of the gospels on the only Kingdom that Jesus did preach.
Again, I believe we can see at least three specific Kingdoms referred to by Christ: the Kingdom that is in the hearts of believers (and has always existed); the Millennial Kingdom (which was prophesied in the Old Testament, and from whence most gained their expectation (this is the Kingdom Peter took up the sword in hopes of ushering it in by saving his King)); and the Eternal Kingdom. Membership in the first has changed significantly since we are now immersed into Christ upon entrance, hence we have eternal life whereas the Old Testament aints did not.
The only Kingdom believed in and preached by Jesus was the same Kingdom expected by his disciples and the apostle Paul.
Paul understood the difference between the two Kingdoms Christ taught about, the disciples did not. They understood only that God would send the Messiah and He would establish an earthly Kingdom that would be ruled by the Messiah forever. Their understanding of that, though, would not have been of the Messiah Himself being on that throne forever, but more along the lines of His descendants always being on the throne.
It is interesting to consider that Jesus, the disciples and Paul were wrong about the Kingdom in their lifetime.
Only the disciples were wrong, and that in this way: they only had the revelation of the Kingdom that would be established on earth (for the most part), at least that is the only understanding they had. They did not understand the Kingdom of His dear Son (into which we are translated), or the Eternal State/Kingdom. Peter did not want the Messiah to die because the Kingdom he awaited could not be established if He did. That Kingdom will still be established, but that is not the Kingdom Christ established at the time of His death and Resurrection.
But that's the issue Ranger, not all understand the word, that's why it is preached and taught. God presents but we are the 'carriers' of God: as Jesus was, so now we are the ones to preach, teach, explain.
Precisely, lol. Thus we must make Justification understandable to the newer generations, and we don't have to talk in their language to do that, lol.
16 hours ago, thormas said:
Do you think that if one has difficulty in understanding the Word, it is because God withheld enlightenment?
[/QUOTE]
Not always. For most I think it's a slothful approach to study. Some are waiting around for God to "zap" them with knowledge, so remain babes most of their lives. The Writer of Hebrews rebukes the Jews for this very attitude in Chs.5-6. And I hate to say it but our current cultures contribute to the lessening of study in God's Word. In early America the Bible was a prominent Book in the lives of many, that is not the case any longer.
I think that if one is diligent in seeking after God and the truth God will instruct them as He has promised.
God is the Word and we, like Jesus, speak the word but it must be spoken so all can hear and understand - only then can it be Good News and lived.
While God can and does use us, He doesn't need us, lol. He can enlighten men through His Word alone. He has done that for many millennia now. And today there is radio and tv which can also be used. While we convey the words, it is always God that enlightens the mind. That is simply something we can't do.
Actually you do or can 'save' people.
I couldn't even save myself, much less anyone else, lol. Basically, Thormas, I look at it like this: all of us are natural men when God intervenes and enlightens our minds. We then respond. If we believe the truth delivered us we are made sons of God by being immersed into Him (the Baptism with the Holy Ghost); if we reject the truth we remain in darkness. Salvation is wholly the work of Holy God.
God 'sent' Jesus, Jesus 'sent' his disciples and Paul and their decedents today are also sent to preach, enlighten and save (albeit with God).
Agreed, God does use men to preach the Gospel, but it still remains that only He can make someone understand the Gospel, and embrace it as truth.
We are the co-creators.
I would have to disagree: I don't see that we can share credit with God for salvation in any way.
No Ranger, the atheist is the one, in this scenario, who (also) 'does the will of the Father' to love and, therefore his is the Kingdom of heaven.
No atheist will enter the Kingdom of God. That is just basic, Thormas. The "love" shown by atheists should not be compared on an equal plane with the love of God or that of believers.:
Luke 6:32 King James Version (KJV)
32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
If one loves, in that very moment they have fulfilled both commandments;
Again I would have to disagree:
John 15:19 King James Version (KJV)
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
We see the Lord state plainly that "the world" does indeed "love," but He makes it equally clear that this love is not...good.
if one loves their neighbor they are in the same moment, in the same act, loving God (for God is Love) and they share his Life.
Only those brought into Eternal Union with God have the life of God, that is...eternal life. That is the "new birth." And only those who are born again (which is also spoken of as being born from above, born of the Spirit, and born of God) will enter into the Kingdom of God, both that which we are translated into at salvation and that which is to come.
Jesus, if he was one of us, was subject also but he did not go the way of Adam. We are called to go the Way of Christ and, in him, overcome our 'fallenness' and be sons and daughters of the Father.
While Jesus was a man, we must also remember that He was God with us, and in that respect He was not "one of us." He came for the specific purpose of taking upon Himself the penalty of our sin that we might become the sons of God. He came, as John 3:16 teaches, that we might receive eternal life. Again, no man received eternal life until Christ died, arose, returned to Heaven, and began baptizing men into Himself.
I total agree that we are holy or what I call, truly Human, due to God/Love alive in us.
Holy and human are not the same things. Holiness is a state of separation and refers to both being separated from something by our own choice and by God. But that is another topic entirely, lol. Sanctification is also a Doctrine that has two types, progressive and positional.
We can only be Human when Divinity is incarnate or embodied in us and in that moment we are humanity expressing divinity, we are the child of God.
I don't view divinity as something that can be "incarnate" other than the Incarnation itself. While we partaker of the divine nature we ourselves do not become divine. No more than a car becomes human when we get into them, lol.
And like the Father of the Prodigal, God waits for all time until all, all the prodigals, turn back and only then is there rejoicing and can the 'previously saved' brothers and sisters rejoice for none are lost and all are saved and Alive in God.
Does this mean you embrace Universal Salvation?
My friend, we disagree but, for me that is okay. I have enjoyed the dialogue.
I have also, Thormas, thanks again for the responses.
Feel free to post but leave my name and the site name out of it. it should stand or fall on its own. And one essential condition: give me the info on your forum, either here or more privately through messages.
Thanks, I appreciate that, and I will definitely let you know if I post anything.
God bless.