The Gospel of the Kingdom and the plot twist.

[Nick M]

The Gospel of Grace and the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Church all go together

Like SaulToPaul used to say here, put them all together in the blender and hit puree. You are told to divide the gospel, explicitly to divide the gospel. You explicitly work against it because you are a demon posessed pervert who is here to pull people from the faith by saying the obvious contradictions don't exist. So that those lost but are looking are turned away.

You have not shown what the 12 were preaching when they preached the good news of the kingdom. Since the DBR was hidden from them. What were they preaching? Grace?

Since Paul was converted in Acts chapter 9, we refer to ourselves as Mid-Acts Dispensationalist. There are also Acts 2 dispensationalists and Acts 28 Dispensationalists. The Acts 2 folks are more correct than people like yourself who think that basically nothing has changed at all since Moses came down from Sinai. The Acts 28 folks, in my opinion, take things a bit far but I don't argue with them really because I've rarely seen much of any difference in their doctrine that amounted to a hill of beans from that which the Acts 9 people preach.

Most tend to skip over Acts after chapter 7. Most especially chapter 15 where Peter acknowledges that in the future Israel will be saved as we already are. He explicitly states this, as you know.

 

[Tambora]

Matthew 10
(22) and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

 

[Tambora]

There isn't any choosing about it. It's what the bible teaches,

Or not.

your ignorance of the relevant passages not withstanding.

This kind of disrespectful slur will not get you invited to Christmas diner.
ha!

Acts 7: 55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”​

Stephen is referring to:

Daniel 7​

(13) “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.​

(14) And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.​

"Standing" being indicative of pending judgment,

Made up to suit a narrative, just like saying "official".

Irrelevant and not in dispute.


Again, not in dispute and therefore not relevant to the point.

They are relevant.

WHAT?

There's an aweful lot you could mean by this and I'm not interested in getting into it with you. Suffice it to say that you sound like a Calvinist.

Or it sounds like scripture.

God IS NOT arbitrary.

Depends on how precise you want to be with the word.

Romans 9
(13) As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
(14) What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
(15) For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
(16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Or not.

As if that in any way addresses his argument...

Made up to suit a narrative, just like saying "official".

No, it's not "made up."

They are relevant.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Or it sounds like scripture.

Scripture is not irrational.

Calvinism is, and makes God unjust.

Depends on how precise you want to be with the word.

No, God is not arbitrary. Redefining words is what Calvinists do to make their position seem scriptural to others, because then they can rip things out of context that come from scripture and make them say whatever it is that fits their doctrine.

Romans 9
(13) As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
(14) What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
(15) For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
(16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

Love and hate is a Hebrew idiom that means "to love and love less."

Jesus said that if anyone comes to Him and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life also, he cannot be His disciple.

He's not saying that you literally have to hate them, for that would contradict His command to "honor your father and mother!"

He's saying that you should love Him so much that it's as if you hated your father and mother, et al, in comparison.

The same idiom is used by Paul in Romans 9, and on top of that, Paul is not talking about the individuals Jacob and Esau, but rather, he's talking about the nations that came from their loins.

Paul is referencing Genesis 25:

Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah as wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padan Aram, the sister of Laban the Syrian.Now Isaac pleaded with the Lord for his wife, because she was barren; and the Lord granted his plea, and Rebekah his wife conceived.But the children struggled together within her; and she said, “If all is well, why am I like this?” So she went to inquire of the Lord.And the Lord said to her:

“Two nations are in your womb,
Two peoples shall be separated from your body;
One people shall be stronger than the other,
And the older shall serve the younger.”​

So when her days were fulfilled for her to give birth, indeed there were twins in her womb.And the first came out red. He was like a hairy garment all over; so they called his name Esau.Afterward his brother came out, and his hand took hold of Esau’s heel; so his name was called Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them.So the boys grew. And Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field; but Jacob was a mild man, dwelling in tents.And Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob. - Genesis 25:20-28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis25:20-28&version=NKJV

Guess what ended up happening with those nations?

The Edomites (Esau took the name Edom, thus the nation that came from him are the Edomites) were conquered by David and he forced them into labor as his servants.

Do you really think that God did not love Esau (and by extension, the nation that came from him)? Do you really think that God is arbitrary in whom He loves?

If God is arbitrary, then He is unjust.

 

[Clete]

Like SaulToPaul used to say here, put them all together in the blender and hit puree. You are told to divide the gospel, explicitly to divide the gospel. You explicitly work against it because you are a demon posessed pervert who is here to pull people from the faith by saying the obvious contradictions don't exist. So that those lost but are looking are turned away.

You have not shown what the 12 were preaching when they preached the good news of the kingdom. Since the DBR was hidden from them. What were they preaching? Grace?

Most tend to skip over Acts after chapter 7. Most especially chapter 15 where Peter acknowledges that in the future Israel will be saved as we already are. He explicitly states this, as you know.

Everything after the mid-Acts period has to be confusing for those who believe that the church age started with "You are Peter..." in Matthew 16.

By the way, when pressed, nearly everyone who isn't Mid-Acts believes that the so called "church age" began during Christ's ministry, not Acts 2. The level of confusion is far worse than I knew when I learned about Mid-Acts Dispensationalism through Bob Enyart's ministry back in the 1990s. The teaching seems to touch nearly everything modern Christians believe to one degree or another and the level of confusion a plain reading of the New Testament has to create is staggering to my mind.

I can see why it would be a frightening prospect for anyone who was heavily invested into modern Christian doctrine. It just changes everything - or it certainly would feel that way.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Or not.

Great argument!

This kind of disrespectful slur will not get you invited to Christmas diner.
ha!

It wasn't a slur. Ignorance is common, even expected. It's stupidity that can't be fixed.

Stephen is referring to:

Daniel 7​

(13) “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.​

(14) And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.​

Saying it doesn't make it so, Tambora. As stated this claim isn't even relevant.

Were you attempting to imply some kind of argument here?

In other words....

How do you know that this is what he was referring to? Why couldn't he have simply been seeing it, as the passage clearly seems to indicate?

And, even if it is a reference to Daniel 7...

So what if it is?

Made up to suit a narrative, just like saying "official".

It is the only time Jesus is depicted as standing at God's right hand. Every other time He is seated at God's right hand and so something different is happening. One could ask what was different but the only place you have to go to get an answer to that question is chapters eight and nine of Luke's account of the acts of the Apostles.

They are relevant.

The points aren't in dispute, Tambora. That means that they cannot possibly be relevant in an attempt to refute my doctrine unless you are trying to imply that they somehow contradict my doctrine but then you'd have to do something other than just point it out. You'd have to go through the effort of actually making that argument, which you are either unwilling to do or are incapable of doing. I doubt that you were even trying to imply such an argument, nevermind actually make it.

Once again, I find myself searching for someone who will actually debate Mid-Acts Dispensationalism with something that resembles intellectual honesty.

Or it sounds like scripture.

It might sound like scripture but it probably is Calvinism. Calvinists have redefined nearly every word in the English language that has any bearing on Christian doctrine to the point that it's difficult to even discuss it with them because they are always saying things that are camoflauged to sound like scripture but is actually just their pagan Greek philosophy.

Depends on how precise you want to be with the word.

Romans 9
(13) As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
(14) What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
(15) For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
(16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

Be as precise as you like. If you believe that God despised the as yet unborn Esau then you worship a god that does not exist.
When "love and hate" are used in this fashion, it is employing a quite common Hebrew idiom. It simply means that one was favored or chosen over the other. There are several biblical examples but they'd be wasted on you. Suffice it to say....

GOD IS NOT ARBITRARY!!!

If you believe otherwise, you are not a Christian. You are worshiping a false god and may as well pray to a tree in your back yard.

 

[Right Divider]

Matthew 10
(22) and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Does not apply to the body of Christ.

That was explicitly preached to and about a specific group of people.... guess who that is...

 

[Tambora]

Does not apply to the body of Christ.

It applies to believers.
Believers are the body of Christ.

That was explicitly preached to and about a specific group of people.... guess who that is...

The ones that would be hated were believers and they would be hated by were both Jews and Gentiles alike.

 

[Tambora]

Saying it doesn't make it so, Tambora.

Doesn't make it not so either.

As stated this claim isn't even relevant.

Were you attempting to imply some kind of argument here?

In other words....

How do you know that this is what he was referring to? Why couldn't he have simply been seeing it, as the passage clearly seems to indicate?

And, even if it is a reference to Daniel 7...

So what if it is?

It is very relevant.
It was the Son of Man in Daniel 7 that is the one who receives dominion over all.
The very Son of Man Stephen saw standing at the right hand of God who has dominion over all.

Standing at the right hand in scripture doesn't inherently mean one is standing up to execute judgment.

Psalms 45​

(9) daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.​

We don't have scripture ever saying the Father is standing, so does that mean the Father never executed judgement?
Rhetorical. Of course it doesn't because "standing" doesn't inherently mean one is standing up to execute judgment.
Judgement can be executed whether the Father or the Son is standing or sitting.
You make that distinction to fit a narrative.

 

[Right Divider]

It applies to believers.
Believers are the body of Christ.

Sadly, you are confused and do not understand what God was doing then or now.

The ones that would be hated were believers and they would be hated by were both Jews and Gentiles alike.

So sad that you once seemed to understand but now do not.

Please bring back the old Tambora.

Those in the body of Christ have no need to endure anything to the end of anything. We are saved immediately when we put our trust in Christ.

 

[Right Divider]

It is very relevant.
It was the Son of Man in Daniel 7 that is the one who receives dominion over all.
The very Son of Man Stephen saw standing at the right hand of God who has dominion over all.

Standing at the right hand in scripture doesn't inherently mean one is standing up to execute judgment.

Psalms 45​

(9) daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.​

That was a bit of a bait and switch. This is the proper reference for Stephen in Acts 7

Isa 3:13 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:13) The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.

 

[Clete]

Doesn't make it not so either.

I never suggested that it did!
The problem is that you're on a debate forum. NO ONE but you gives a damn about what you can show up here and claim to be true. Any idiot can do that. It's boring.

It is very relevant.

No, it isn't, Tambora.

It was the Son of Man in Daniel 7 that is the one who receives dominion over all.

Not in dispute - therefore - not relevant to the point.
We can talk about your favorite brand of chocolate milk too! That would be just as relevant.

The very Son of Man Stephen saw standing at the right hand of God who has dominion over all.

Non-sequitor.

"Son of Man" was Jesus' own favorite title for Himself. The fact that Stephen references that title is not, by itself, indicative of a reference to Daniel 7 but only to the person of Jesus Christ.

Standing at the right hand in scripture doesn't inherently mean one is standing up to execute judgment.

Psalms 45​

(9) daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor; at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.​

Yes, people do stand up in the bible. Thank you for that.

You seem to be intentionally missing the point. Let me repeat....

It is the only time Jesus is depicted as standing at God's right hand. Every other time He is seated at God's right hand and so something different is happening. One could ask what was different but the only place you have to go to get an answer to that question is chapters eight and nine of Luke's account of the acts of the Apostles.

In other words, it is the text of the book of Acts itself that tells us the meaning. No one has to guess. All that is needed is to read on past that single sentence and you get what's happening. It's pretty clear unless you are trying not to see it.

We don't have scripture ever saying the Father is standing, so does that mean the Father never executed judgement?

Stupidity.

Rhetorical. Of course it doesn't because "standing" doesn't inherently mean one is standing up to execute judgment.

Straw man. Arguing against a point that was never made.

Judgement can be executed whether the Father or the Son is standing or sitting.
You make that distinction to fit a narrative.

How mind numbingly boring you are.

You are stupid and stubbornly so.

I'll waste no more time on you.

Good bye.

 

[Tambora]

That was a bit of a bait and switch.

No it wasn't.
To make the argument that standing at the right hand has to mean judgment is about to executed simply cannot be sustained by scripture.
Jesus can execute judgement whether He is sitting or standing.
You are simply reading that into the verse to suit your narrative.

 

[Tambora]

Sadly, you are confused and do not understand what God was doing then or now.

Or you don't.

So sad that you once seemed to understand but now do not.

Please bring back the old Tambora.

Those in the body of Christ have no need to endure anything to the end of anything. We are saved immediately when we put our trust in Christ.

This is my gripe about MAD, they want to separate believers rather than unite them as God wants.
MAD has to create 2 of everything in order for their narrative to hold water.
MAD creates another gospel, another body of believers, another return of Jesus, another Gog/Magog invasion, etc.

Stephen was referring to the Son of Man in Daniel 7 which was said to have a dominion/kingdom of which all peoples, nations, and languages would serve him.

Daniel 7​

(13) “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.​

(14) And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.​

And that's exactly what we see happening at the time of Jesus' ministry in the flesh and after His resurrection ---- all people were coming to Him.
The apostles not only saw it happening but also recognized that it was prophesied to be so and stated so at the council at Jerusalem.

Acts 15​

(13) After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.​

(14) Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.​

(15) And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,​

(16) “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,​

(17) that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things​

(18) known from of old.’​

 

[Right Divider]

No it wasn't.
To make the argument that standing at the right hand has to mean judgment is about to executed simply cannot be sustained by scripture.

That was NOT the point. It is about THE LORD standing to judge.

Isa 3:13 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:13) The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.

Jesus can execute judgement whether He is sitting or standing.

Yes, He can... again that is irrelevant.

You are simply reading that into the verse to suit your narrative.

That is funny coming from someone doing just that.

 

[Tambora]

The problem is that you're on a debate forum.

It's a discussion forum.

I'll waste no more time on you.

Good bye.

It's obvious you do not want to discuss but just pound the podium.

Toodles.

 

[Right Divider]

This is my gripe about MAD, they want to separate believers rather than unite them as God wants.

Lev 20:24 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:24) But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I [am] the LORD your God, which have separated you from [other] people.

I didn't make the separation, God did.

MAD clearly and explicitly says that in the CURRENT dispensation, this separation is removed.

MAD has to create 2 of everything in order for their narrative to hold water.

False accusation, which is very common for those that disagree with MAD.

MAD creates another gospel, another body of believers, another return of Jesus, another Gog/Magog invasion, etc.

Another FALSE accusation. Stop lying Tambora.

There are MANY gospels in the Bible. That is crystal clear.

Stephen was referring to the Son of Man in Daniel 7 which was said to have a dominion/kingdom of which all peoples, nations, and languages would serve him.

Daniel 7​

(13) “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.​

(14) And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.​

And that's exactly what we see happening at the time of Jesus' ministry in the flesh and after His resurrection ---- all people were coming to Him.
The apostles not only saw it happening but also recognized that it was prophesied to be so and stated so at the council at Jerusalem.

Acts 15​

(13) After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.​

(14) Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name.​

(15) And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,​

(16) “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,​

(17) that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things​

(18) known from of old.’​

Indeed, what makes you think that MAD has a problem with this.

In the end, there will be "saved nations" that will come to Israel. That happens AFTER the current dispensation ends and God restores the nation of Israel to their prominent position as the head of the nations.

 

[Tambora]

That was NOT the point.

It is the point.
You cannot sustain the notion that the only reason Stephen sees the Son of Man standing at the right hand is to execute judgment rather than just being presented at the right hand.

Daniel 7
(13) “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
(14) And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

 

[Tambora]

MAD clearly and explicitly says that in the CURRENT dispensation, this separation is removed.

No you don't, you keep the church of Jews and the church of Gentiles separate.
MAD has Peter, James, John, etc. in a separate church than Paul.

 

[Right Divider]

It is the point.
You cannot sustain the notion that the only reason Stephen sees the Son of Man standing at the right hand is to execute judgment rather than just being presented at the right hand.

Daniel 7
(13) “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
(14) And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.

Again, as @Clete asked... why is this the ONLY reference to Christ standing instead of sitting?

The reason is ... Isaiah 3:13.

Christ was to judge Israel and the world and then establish His earthly kingdom.