|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Oct 31, 2010 13:42:07 GMT -5
Over at ad70.net on 10/20/10 in a podcast with Phil Naessen's, Mike was asked what is the gospel according to fulfilled eschatology. He wanted to know why we need Jesus as a Savior if all things fulfilled means the law of Moses is not still in effect. And unfortunately, Mike was not prepared to give him an answer - which PT over at Pretblog was quick to jump on.
So I have started a review of Peter's 3 sermons in Acts to see what exactly he first preached at Pentecost, in the temple and before the council of the Sanhedrin. And we would be hard pressed to preach the same gospel he did in those times.
Because his major theme in preaching salvation thru faith in Christ, was because of the judgment that was coming upon Israel - of whom God had now ordained Jesus as Judge of all men, proving it by raising Him from the dead.
So in a fulfilled eschatology, it seems that Jesus as Judge of all men is still part of our preaching even though the particular judgment Peter held in view is over.
So should the law still play a part in our evangelism to prove men guilty as sinners before a holy God, when no man today is guilty of crucifying the Lord? This was part of what Phil wanted to know - how do we evangelize if the law is over and nailed to the cross - how can men not be held to its requirement and still be shown guilty of sin? A loaded question for sure.
But who today is preaching what Peter did? And you don't find Peter pointing to the 10 commandments like Ray Comfort does to show men they were sinners in need of salvation. Instead Peter and the apostles tell the story of Jesus as the man sent from God as being the Prophet Moses spoke of, who worked miracles in Israel, which as a result caused the rulers of Israel to crucify Him unjustly, and whom God raised from the dead and exalted to His throne to be Judge over the quick and the dead. And the apostles who preached Jesus were witnesses to all these things.
I would like some input on what our preaching should be today, because I don't see that anyone is giving this gospel like they did either. Our seminaries seem to be setting forth a different style of preaching - which already shows something has changed. And personally I think Ray Comfort is wrong in his approach too, by using the law to convict men of sin and then showing them the grace of God available by faith in Christ.
How is it the apostles began with the story of Jesus and let that news convict their hearts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Oct 31, 2010 13:59:45 GMT -5
Isaiah 61:9-11
9 Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles,
And their offspring among the people.
All who see them shall acknowledge them,
That they are the posterity whom the LORD has blessed.”
10 I will greatly rejoice in the LORD,
My soul shall be joyful in my God;
For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
He has covered me with the robe of righteousness,
As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments,
And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
11 For as the earth brings forth its bud,
As the garden causes the things that are sown in it to spring forth,
So the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.
If one does a search concerning the phrase "I will recoice in the Lord" that person will soon become aware that in all things and above all things God is soverign. This means we rejoice even in our days of depression. We rejoice even in our sicknesses. We rejoice even in our financial troubles and we rejoice even in the loss of loved ones.
To me and as a preterist this is the message of hope for all believers. Christ has clothed us with His salvation just as Hebrews 9:28 said He would do when He came a second time. Our salvation is complete in Him. Troubles of life are still a part of everyday living but even more than that we should rejoice in the Lord and make it the greater part of who we are in Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 31, 2010 15:26:10 GMT -5
Robin:
The scripture does not say that the moral law was nailed to the cross. Paul was speaking about the ceremonial laws (Colossians 2:11-20) which he called the 'elements of the world' (vs. 20). It was the ceremonial laws that were nailed to the cross. The ceremonial laws were not written on the hearts of men.
The moral law was universal and was written on the hearts of men (Rom. 1-2). Moses only codified for Israel that which was written in the hearts of all men. I don't see how evangelism can take place without creating in men the felt-need for Jesus. And I don't see how the felt need for Jesus can be created without showing men that they fall short of that which is both written in their hearts and codified by Moses.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Oct 31, 2010 19:01:18 GMT -5
Thanks Roo I should have checked the passage in Colossians first. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what Phil's point is then when he says what do we need a Savior for if there is no sin which condemns us thru the law because all things have been fulfilled.
Is it the 10 commandments that condemn men as sinners? It seems to me that our consciences are what condemn us now:
Rom 2:16 - In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
That day is come.
Therefore an appeal to a man's conscience is enough to show that while a man is quick to accuse others when they lie, cheat or steal against him, he is just as quick to justify himself when he does the same. This dichotomy can easily be shown to any man as the condition he suffers. Men seem to think that God ought to be like them, until you point out that could never be the case for a God who is holy, just, loving, etc. Man falls far short of that standard - and even the one he sets for himself.
A man may justify himself for having an affair, but how quickly he turns from that stance when someone messes with his wife!
So from a fulfilled point of view, the Sermon on the Mount is the better teacher than the 10 commandments. Because it goes right to the heart issue of what is wrong before a man even acts on his sin.
This is perhaps why Moses said of the Prophet to come - it was His words men would be required to hear. It is easy enough for a man to claim he has 'never stolen' from anyone, but when you can get him to admit how he cheats others 'fairly', you are getting to where he lives.
So when we hear how Jesus said that it was HIS words that would never pass away - though heaven and earth would, then it is whatever He has said that we should use.
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Oct 31, 2010 19:29:12 GMT -5
Robin:
Our consciences condemned us apart from Moses before; not just now.
Note that those who did not have Moses were accused or excused on the basis of what was written in their hearts. The difference was that Moses codified it for Israel.
It seems to me that the principle of being condemned by the conscience has always been the case.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Oct 31, 2010 19:59:04 GMT -5
I agree in part with Roo. The moral law (I'm thinking the 10 commandments) is still needed to identify sin. God has not suddenly become lackadaisical about sin. Sin is still sin.
Peter, preaching to Jews who already believed in God, preached Jesus as the Messiah whom God promised.
Paul, when preaching to Gentiles who didn't know the one true God, first preached to them of the Creator God (Acts 17:22-29), then after laying that foundation, told them about Jesus (Acts 17:30-31).
Their preaching was customized to the knowledge of their audience. Telling an atheist or someone who believes in a god or gods other than the God of the Bible about Jesus isn't going to have much of an effect if they don't first believe in the existence and works of God.
And, as often happens when I'm constructing a post, I had a long interruption and when I came back to it, I couldn't regain the direction I was going in, so this will have to suffice for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Oct 31, 2010 20:12:16 GMT -5
... So when we hear how Jesus said that it was HIS words that would never pass away - though heaven and earth would, then it is whatever He has said that we should use. But we need to look at the context in which Jesus said that his words would not pass away. Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are all in the context of his coming. View the chapters and see that his words leading up to the following were all about the signs of his coming: Matthew 24:34-36 NASB (34) "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. (35) "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. (36) "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. So the "my words" he is referring to are those prophesying of "that day and hour." It would be outside of the context to assume that he meant every word he ever said. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 1, 2010 3:44:22 GMT -5
Bev said:
Actually it is only TWO commandments that apply. Love God and love one another. In this the whole law is fulfilled. The sabbath has been abolished. So only 9 commandments would remain in effect.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Nov 1, 2010 10:35:45 GMT -5
Bev said: Actually it is only TWO commandments that apply. Love God and love one another. In this the whole law is fulfilled. The sabbath has been abolished. So only 9 commandments would remain in effect. Roo I wouldn't say the Sabbath has been abolished, but rather fulfilled - we have entered into the rest the Sabbath typified. But the fact that Jesus says 2 commands sum up the whole of the law, suggests to me that sinning against love is where conviction now lies upon the conscience. Do men love the Lord their God heart, soul, mind and strength and their neighbor as themselves? I think that is the question the evangelist ought to focus upon in sharing the gospel to show men they are sinners in need of a Savior because of the condemnation that is upon them already because of their unbelief. Though we don't have the same exact gospel to preach that Peter had because of the coming 70ad judgment, we still have the news to share that Jesus is the Judge of all men. And every knee must bow to Him and confess Him as Lord. So telling men they must call upon the name of the Lord Jesus to be saved, seems much simpler than trying to do the Ray Comfort thing with the law. And that only requires that we tell them the story about who He is and what He did - which is just what Peter did. I don't think we even have to get into eternal torment or hell, because our message is about life in Christ. Which means there is only one choice men must make to have life, since death is the default condition they are already under - and that they already know. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 1, 2010 11:05:03 GMT -5
Robin:
If the sabbath is fulfilled, then it is abolished according to the letter. Jesus taught that the 'jot and tittle' (or letter) passes away when the law is fulfilled. It is service according to the spirit that is required now (Romans 7:6). This means that we must rest in Christ the sabbath and we are not required to keep a sabbath day.
Agreed!
Please give me a link so I can read Ray Comfort for myself. Is he a Preterist?
Please reconcile your two statements below:
If we should not get into eternal punishment, then how should we define 'condemnation?'
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Nov 1, 2010 11:27:57 GMT -5
Bev,
I think you are right that in the context Jesus is speaking about His prophetic word and the assuredness of it being accomplished.
But how do His words not end when the heavens and earth have passed and the law and prophets with them? Unless perhaps it is that He has said things that the law and prophets had not? Yet their words would not end until all was fulfilledthey spoke of too.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Nov 1, 2010 11:34:54 GMT -5
Robin: If the sabbath is fulfilled, then it is abolished according to the letter. Jesus taught that the 'jot and tittle' (or letter) passes away when the law is fulfilled. It is service according to the spirit that is required now (Romans 7:6). This means that we must rest in Christ the sabbath and we are not required to keep a sabbath day. Good explanation! wayofthemaster.com/Mike and Phil were talking about him is why I mentioned him. I think death covers it pretty well now. Rom 8:2 - For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. Only those set free are free indeed, the others are dead dead, without hope of recovery. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Nov 1, 2010 15:33:14 GMT -5
Robin: If the sabbath is fulfilled, then it is abolished according to the letter. Jesus taught that the 'jot and tittle' (or letter) passes away when the law is fulfilled. It is service according to the spirit that is required now (Romans 7:6). This means that we must rest in Christ the sabbath and we are not required to keep a sabbath day. I just wanted to chime in with Robin here and agree with what Roo said above. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Nov 1, 2010 22:51:26 GMT -5
Bev, I think you are right that in the context Jesus is speaking about His prophetic word and the assuredness of it being accomplished. But how do His words not end when the heavens and earth have passed and the law and prophets with them? Unless perhaps it is that He has said things that the law and prophets had not? Yet their words would not end until all was fulfilledthey spoke of too. AHH! Robin, I posted a comment in response to you yesterday and now it's gone! I think I must have gotten side-tracked onto something else in the midst of composing it and never returned to it, shutting down my computer when I went to bed, losing it. What I had written was something to the effect that perhaps when Jesus referred to his words not "passing away," it was in the sense that they would not go unfulfilled. Double negative alert: his words would "not be of none effect." |
|
|
|
Post by wandashort on Nov 2, 2010 6:20:26 GMT -5
THanks for this discussion! I just listened to the last two weeks of that show and have been in dialogue with Phil about for the last few days and this conversation here is extremely interesting!
Robin - I too went back and wondered about the gospel message as preached by the apostles and since i am more than 1/2 way through David Curtis' series on Acts (88 messages!!) it struck me also that they preached much differently than we do today. THat is very intriguing! Please post more of your thoughts on that!
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 2, 2010 10:06:43 GMT -5
Robin said:
Are you annihilationist in reference to the wicked then?
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 2, 2010 10:15:38 GMT -5
Bev, I think you are right that in the context Jesus is speaking about His prophetic word and the assuredness of it being accomplished. But how do His words not end when the heavens and earth have passed and the law and prophets with them? Unless perhaps it is that He has said things that the law and prophets had not? Yet their words would not end until all was fulfilledthey spoke of too. AHH! Robin, I posted a comment in response to you yesterday and now it's gone! I think I must have gotten side-tracked onto something else in the midst of composing it and never returned to it, shutting down my computer when I went to bed, losing it. What I had written was something to the effect that perhaps when Jesus referred to his words not "passing away," it was in the sense that they would not go unfulfilled. Double negative alert: his words would "not be of none effect." When Jesus said that His words shall not pass away He was speaking about the impending destruction of Jerusalem. He was guaranteeing the fulfillment of all that He said in reference to that. Moses' words did indeed pass away. Jesus said that the jot and tittle (the letter) would pass away when the law was fulfuilled. Jesus Himself fulfilled the law. Consequently Paul said that we are to now serve in the newness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the letter (Romans 7:6). The word 'old' means that the letter has passed away. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Nov 2, 2010 10:24:32 GMT -5
Robin said:Are you annihilationist in reference to the wicked then? Roo I suppose I am. But if the first death was recoverable thru resurrection and that resurrection has taken place, then anyone who is not in Christ at death, stays dead. I do not believe that a soul who has not first received the life of Christ has any power to keep its soul alive, and is therefore not immortal. The first death now ends in the 2nd death where the fire destroys both body and soul. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 2, 2010 11:18:51 GMT -5
I asked Robin:
She answered:
Yet the prodigal son was 'dead' but not annihilated. It says that he 'perished.' He was very much alive in his 'perished' condition.
Robin:
Perpetual living without Christ does not equal immortality. See the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Nov 3, 2010 9:10:13 GMT -5
I suppose I am. But if the first death was recoverable thru resurrection and that resurrection has taken place, then anyone who is not in Christ at death, stays dead. I do not believe that a soul who has not first received the life of Christ has any power to keep its soul alive, and is therefore not immortal. The first death now ends in the 2nd death where the fire destroys both body and soul. I have to admit that this is the understanding that I've been leaning toward in the past few years, although I haven't been completely convinced either way. I find it strange that the word " death" never seems to mean " death". |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Nov 3, 2010 10:54:25 GMT -5
Roo, the story of the prodigal son follows the lost sheep and is a story of Israel's spilt and regathering. Ephraim and Judah are the two sons in the story. It is about the return of the 10 tribes who had been cut off and scattered to the nations where they served an idolatrous people for 1,000 years, and it was their children that were being gathered in the last days when they were brought to faith in the gospel.
It is the redemption of all Israel that has brought light to the nations thru the knowledge of her salvation to the glory of Christ, that we serve a faithful God who keeps His word.
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 3, 2010 11:23:29 GMT -5
Roo, the story of the prodigal son follows the lost sheep and is a story of Israel's spilt and regathering. Ephraim and Judah are the two sons in the story. It is about the return of the 10 tribes who had been cut off and scattered to the nations where they served an idolatrous people for 1,000 years, and it was their children that were being gathered in the last days when they were brought to faith in the gospel. It is the redemption of all Israel that has brought light to the nations thru the knowledge of her salvation to the glory of Christ, that we serve a faithful God who keeps His word. Robin, The parable of the prodigal son was not about Israel's split and regathering. Jesus had just given them the parable of the lost coin and had said that its recovery was about " one sinner that repenteth." The story of the prodigal son which immediately followed taught the same truth. The parables were about one coin and one son. The point to both stories is that there is joy in heaven among the angels over one sinner that repents. It says that the son was 'dead' yet he was alive. It says also that he was 'lost.' The word 'lost' is the Greek 'apollumi' which means 'to be destroyed.' So we see that the progdigal son was very much alive in his perished condition. I do not find the annihilationists teaching in the scripture. Preterists need to work out the bugs if they're going to continue to be a force to contend with. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Nov 3, 2010 11:52:16 GMT -5
I suppose I am. But if the first death was recoverable thru resurrection and that resurrection has taken place, then anyone who is not in Christ at death, stays dead. I do not believe that a soul who has not first received the life of Christ has any power to keep its soul alive, and is therefore not immortal. The first death now ends in the 2nd death where the fire destroys both body and soul. I have to admit that this is the understanding that I've been leaning toward in the past few years, although I haven't been completely convinced either way. I find it strange that the word " death" never seems to mean " death". Me too. Here we see that the wicked can not rise up again in the earth, when the Lord cuts off their descendants thru death: Isa 43:16 - Thus saith the LORD, which maketh a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters; Isa 43:17 - Which bringeth forth the chariot and horse, the army and the power; they shall lie down together, they shall not rise: they are extinct, they are quenched as tow. But here we have a fire that cannot be put out for the idolators - no recovery from death: Isa 1:31 - And the strong shall be as tow, and the maker of it as a spark, and they shall both burn together, and none shall quench them. Whereas those who God loves, death cannot put out His love: Song 8:7 - Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 3, 2010 13:38:40 GMT -5
Morris said:
He which is 'dead' is dead to us but alive in a different relationship. Death means death but relatively speaking.
Example: To be 'dead' to sin is to be alive to God. To be 'dead' in this world is to be alive in another world. The wicked are 'dead' to us but alive in another relationship. There is no annihilation of the wicked taught in the scripture.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Nov 5, 2010 12:56:05 GMT -5
He which is 'dead' is dead to us but alive in a different relationship. Death means death but relatively speaking. Example: To be 'dead' to sin is to be alive to God. To be 'dead' in this world is to be alive in another world. The wicked are 'dead' to us but alive in another relationship. There is no annihilation of the wicked taught in the scripture. Roo [I'm being honestly exploratory here for discussion purposes] If death is always relative, what power can it hold? There are figurative uses of the word death but why are there no literal uses? Can there even be figurative uses without literal ones? Or is death simply not what we think it means? If death is always relative, there is no real death. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Nov 5, 2010 13:57:11 GMT -5
This may or may not contribute to the discussion, but I was reading Mark this morning and noticed this. I've noted it before, but it's one of those things you notice and then forget about until you read it again.
Mark 9:43-48 NASB
(43) "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,
(44) [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.]
(45) "If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell,
(46) [where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.]
(47) "If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell,
(48) where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.
"Life" is contrasted with "hell," so it seems that eternal life is meant. Then in verse 47, the same construct is used, but instead of "life" we have "kingdom of God."
If eternal life and the kingdom of God are synonymous, and those of us in Christ are presently in the kingdom of God, what light does that shed on the meaning of death?
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Nov 5, 2010 14:16:55 GMT -5
Jesus seems to be speaking of offenses which can land one in hell and eternal judgment. Things which need to be rectified now if one is to have life in the kingdom of God. Death by drowning is preferable to that death. These are the trials of life one must face that keep our salt salty - which is speaking of the faith that keeps our kingdom life alive. In that day there was still a danger of losing the life one had received by faith in the days before the wrath of God fell. The import seems to be to do everything to insure one keeps that faith even if the cutting off a sinning part leaves one at a loss in this life.
For example, one may gain an advantage here now by cheating others, but it will only be to his destruction in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Nov 5, 2010 18:07:25 GMT -5
Morris:
Bingo!
Morris:
So being dead to righteousness but alive to sin is not real death and life? Being dead in relation to this world but alive in torment is not real death and life?
Maybe my use of the term 'relative' was incomplete. I meant that death was to be defined relative to its context. This in no way implies that death is not real. Death in Romans 5 equals condemnation. We know that condemnation is real and that those under condemnation are under God's wrath. Death in 1 Corinthians 15 equals mortality. We know mortality is real and that as mortals we decay.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Nov 5, 2010 21:57:54 GMT -5
Thanks for your reply, Robin.  I've been feeling invisible lately. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Nov 6, 2010 10:36:24 GMT -5
Hi Bev,
I know the feeling!
That verse about the worm that never dies is interesting. I have often heard it used to support the idea that this worm is speaking of the soul than cannot die. But that metaphorical use doesn't seem to have any support from other scriptures where it is found.
In Acts 12:23 when speaking of the death of Herod, who probably died from ingesting worms thru eating pork, those worms continue beyond his death to destroy his flesh completely.
In Deut 28:39 we see that sending a worm to eat the fruit is a particular judgment of God.
The story of Jonah also follows that idea that it is the sovereign God who sends mercy or judgment as He deems according to His justice.
In Isa 66:24 I also see it as a reference as to how worms can eat upon dead flesh until the task is finished. This is perhaps the closest passage that might also imply a metaphorical use, but I think it is more likely speaking of the finality of their death from which no resurrection will follow. And since this is the verse being quoted in Mark, then the judgment that comes upon those who suffer it is final too.
|
|
