Should we mix faith & politics?
Posted by truthtalklive on June 19, 2008
On today’s show our guest host Roger Wiles speaks with Pastor Carry Hardy and Jim Young. For more information on Jim Young please visit www.capmin.org. For more information on our guest host please visit www.refermationtodayonline.com. As always thanks for listening!
Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com! 
Tom Roscoe said
Absolutly, see that King Jesus is both King AND Preist. And that if you read the farewell address of George Washington, he says that religion (specifically Christian) is indispensable with the constitutional government as originally presented. Without IT, we get despotum. Tom Roscoe
Maz said
The thing is, Jesus was a KING and not a President. Kings are not elected, and they rule, it is not a democracy. This was and is Gods best for a nation.
Having said that, Christianity should not be separated from the life of government.
The only thing is, how many in government believe in God and even want to?
F. L. A. said
Adolf Hitler tried mixing faith with politics………..
How does the idea of a Benny Hen or Pat Roberson character ruling America grab you? I believe that the temptation to abuse political power mixed with a fanatical, dualistic zeal would lead to the ultimate display of evil in this country[and then others[?]].
American government is bad enough as it is.
chuck said
what about the providence of God the father
Maz said
F.L.A: Don’t you mean Benny Hinn? The only One Who could rule any kingdom righteously would be Jesus, and He will one day, He will rule the world from Jerusalem.
Kerry said
I only caught about twenty minutes of the show, so I didn’t hear all that the host & guests had to say. But I think there needs to be a distinction made between mixing Christianity & politics, and mixing the Church (that is, the institutional church) & politics. The latter shouldn’t take place; the former must take place. If Psalm 2 and Matthew 28:18 are true (and they are, of course), then it is required that all civil governments throughout the world not only acknowledge the existence of “some god”, whoever he, she, or it may be, but they must bow down to the Triune God specifically, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Second Person of Whom, Jesus Christ, is King of the universe. I say all of this because, in the little bit of the show I caught, I heard much about separating the church from politics, but nothing along the lines of what I just wrote above. Then again, it could just be that I missed it.
Maz said
If you separate the Church from politics…in other words spirituality from government, you get a secular governement who does things without Gods guidance. Which means you end up in a mess!
God created us, therefore He SHOULD BE IN EVERY PART OF OUR LIVES, INCLUDING POLITICS.
His politics are the best anyway….aren’t they?
He certainly wouldn’t have abortion. And I’m sure that you could think of a few more things He would not have happening in America…or anywhere else in the world.
A godly government…and there are a few, is the best way to govern a country.
Zerxil said
3 When did Hitler mix faith with politics? I don’t think it would be that bad. Pat Robertson already ruls America…
Zerxil said
I thought Christ should be the fore front of your life. The founders of our country mixed it up all the time.
Maz said
Zerxil: I don’t think America would be the way it is without the founding fathers. They truly believed in God. Now they are trying to take God out of everything. No prayer in schools, no public display of the ten commandments, etc. Even Franklyn Graham was told off, I believe, for praying IN THE NAME OF JESUS when he was told not to at the inaugaration of President Bush. Havn’t you noticed?
Kerry said
Maz: I’m assuming, since your post came right after mine, and on the basis of what you wrote, that you were responding to me. So let me respond to what you wrote. First, you should go back and read what I wrote again. There’s a difference between the church as an institution getting involved in politics and the church as a group of people (that is, the individuals of the church) getting involved in politics. Separating the church from politics isn’t the same thing as separating spirituality from politics. There are three basic God-ordained governments in Scripture: family, Church, and civil governments. There is an overlapping between the three spheres of government, but each has its own leaders (authority figures) separate from the other two. While it is appropriate for one sphere to address another sphere (say, a father speaking out on politics), it isn’t right for one sphere to usurp the legitimate authority of another sphere. For instance, a father doesn’t have the right to go knocking on his neighbors’ doors and require that they pay him taxes (unless, of course, he owns the land they are living on, in which case that would be called “rent”). Each “government” has its own area of activity. For the institutional church, that area is the members of the organized church. It doesn’t have the right Biblically to make political decisions. A church who didn’t like the President of the U. S., for instance, wouldn’t have the right to decide to impeach the President, and then, having voted him impeached, act as if he was no longer President. Voting to impeach the President isn’t the sphere of activity of the institutional church. That is the sphere of activity of the civil government. Does that make sense?
I agree with you that God should be in every part of our lives. But I get the impression that you thought I didn’t. After re-reading my other post, as well as this one, let me know if you want more clarification.
Maz said
Kerry: I wasn’t particularly responding to your post. I was really only sharing my beliefs about it. I believe the best form of ‘government’ should be a theocractic one, that was what God instituted in the Old Testement. We have a Queen in England, but she is only a figure head. I like having a monach though, I wouldn’t like us to have a presidential government.
Maz said
I meant a Kingdom rule, not theocratic.
Kerry said
Maz: I understand. I would say that every government should be a theocracy, too, if what is meant by that is that every civil government has to recognize Jesus as King. I don’t think, however, that necessarily leads to a monarchy held by an individual sinner here on earth. Nowhere does the New Testament suggest that the monarchic form of government practiced for a portion of Israel’s history needs to be practiced today. We ended up with the form of government we have today because of the Reformation’s reflection upon the sinfulness of man and yet also the need to recognize the individual dignity of man by putting power back into the hands of the people. That’s the reason for the division of power in a Republican Democracy. When you have one sinful man with the ability to make all of the decisions, then you end up with a mess on your hands. Just look at the tyrannous governments in our world today. Or look at the reigns of kings and queens of the past, like Charles I of England. The Puritan founders of our country were led to shape government the way they did as a result of decades upon decades of religious and civil oppression by Catholic kings. Is our form of government fool proof? No, of course not. No form of government can be, in a sinful world.
For many of the Puritans, their cry was, “no King but Jesus”. They saw having a king in the civil realm to be a usurpation of the rights and role of King Jesus. That might be calling it a little harsh, but it’s worth considering.
I think there is room to explore possibilities of structuring civil governments in better ways than we have had in the past; I don’t think the final word has been said yet on this.
And for what it’s worth, the establishment of a monarchy is Israel’s history was, at the time, considered a step down from their previous establishment. They wanted to be “like the nations”, and their asking for a king was a step of unbelief and a rejection of God. This would suggest to me that maybe a monarchy, even in our day, isn’t the best arrangement after all.
I would like to see our nation, our states, our counties, and our cities and towns declare Christianity the civil religion, and define what that means specifically (say, according to the Ecumenical Creeds). But to mix church and state by declaring a certain denomination “the State approved Church” would be disastrous.
Maz said
Kerry: True. A king has authority that a President or Prime Minister wouldn’t have, but in the Old Testement God had men anointed to be King over His people. (Sadly some of them went away from Gods will, including Saul, but some had God worshipped under their reign) I believe that was His ultimate will for peoples government, because in the end we shall have a King Who will rule this world the way it was supposed to be ruled, in righteousness. King Jesus.
At the moment we don’t have a godly government in Britain, but we do have certain freedoms, (tho they are decaying fast!) and even in America where Church is still important there are laws that go against God and His will. I guess we will never have a perfect government until Jesus comes back, certainly not one that will have The Bible as their rule book.
We were once a Christian country here in England, but Islam is on the rise, it waits at the door to take over, and the government and Head of the Church of England are tolerating if not encouraging this religion. Apparently we have more mosques than churches in London now.
It will happen, if not aleady is, in America.
F. L. A. said
You are in the country of Britain Maz?
Maz said
F.L.A: Yes, I’m British through and through. I’m a Surrey girl now living in the green green English countryside of Hampshire.
John said
Well Maz, that does make things interesting.
I think back to the times when you’d be criticizing my Celtic theology, and there you are,a “theological implant” in the very heart of the ancient Celtic heartland. “We were once a Christian country here in England..”
And yet if you go back in time…..[sigh].
How things do change, eh?
Maz said
John: Maybe it’s the Saxon blood in me eh? 🙂
Josh said
What about Daniel 2:44?
Maz said
Josh: Daniel 2 v 44 is a prophecy about the kingdom that Jesus Christ will set up at the end of this age. It is believed to be the Millenial reign, when Christ sits on the throne in Jerusalem and rules over the nations for 1000 years.
F. L. A. said
Here is something that everyone here will find interesting weather they agree with it or not, and if it makes you angry as a Christian, then don’t be stupid about it and be angry with me, or the video interviewers and translators by thinking that “They just want to make Christians look bad!”.
Be angry that the “Christians” being discussed within the video are making you all look bad, that this is happening. Undoubtably some of you reading will think to yourselves “Your just trying to make us look bad. A godless pagan like you would of course believe such nonsense. Whoever made this video has an anti-Christian agenda, that’s all it is!”
Which would be stupid of you, and helps nobody and changes absolutely nothing.I do not expect to be believed or listened to. But if you are aware of what’s going on, then perhaps some of you can spread the word and actually help to put a stop to this sort of a thing and change things for the better. It’s all up to you now.
Just type in http://www.metacafe.com/w/yt-_cN6F6ztceA/
Be sure to watch the whole thing, even if you do think it’s just “anti-Christian propaganda”.
F. L. A. said
Why was my post deleted, Moderator?
I realize that the information provided was disturbing, but I felt that it was most important for everyone present to be aware of this occurrence.
F. L. A. said
Oops, nevermind.
John said
Hey! Ferox’s post is gone again?
After that show on revival in America, it seems like it would have been just the thing for everyone to see.
Kerry said
I’ll have to disagree with Maz on this one. Daniel 2:44 is talking about the Kingdom of God, which began in conjunction with Christ’s resurrection and ascension. When Christ rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven and took his seat on the throne of David in the heavenly Jerusalem. All authority in heaven and on earth have been given to him (Matthew 28:18), and he exercises that power on earth through his saints (see Daniel 7, vss. 13-14, 18, 27). So Christ has already entered into his millennial reign, and he reigns through us on earth. But what was your reason for asking about that verse, Josh?
truthtalklive said
Posts with links in them have to be approved before they are posted. Posts without links go automatically onto the blog…..unless we have issues with someone. Then, we throw everything into approval mode, which I don’t like doing. Unfortunately, sometimes we have no choice.
Keep your fur on F.L.A. We won’t delete your posts.
(:
Moderator (not Stu)
Maz said
Kerry: If we are in the Millenial reign of Christ, where is all the peace on the earth that He was bringing?
F.L.A: Sorry, but I didn’t like the look of what was on this link. Whatever is on there, I would agree that anythng that is not godly and pure is not right for Christians to get involved in. It is a shame that people have to make videos of it to start with. But certainly if Christians know this is going on they need to speak out and get it put right, but this should be done internally, not displayed for all the world to see. Jesus ends up losing souls that are ‘put off’ by those who should know better. Or maybe they aren’t truly born again in the first place?
F. L. A. said
Thank you Moderator.
Maz, ignorance helps those people that are on the video making Christianity look bad. Such things SHOULD be out in the open for everyone in the world to see it. All good people who live under the banner of Christiandom, or who know others who do should be aware of such ocurrences so they can try to help put a stop to it.
Would you not agree?
You should have watched the video, wether you thoiught it’s contents were godly and pure or not.
If I were a Christian I would be soooo pissed off…!
ADB said
If what was said on the video is true, the chicanery for “conversions” and advocacy of hostility toward others is repugnant to the Gospel. Seems like the last time I read the Bible Jesus was getting into all sorts of trouble for hanging around with Samaritans, who were shunned and hated by pious Jews. It is also entirely possible that charges in the video are baseless. In the internet world it’s always so easy to create videos. Anyway I hope that the video isn’t true.
Zerxil said
I agree, some names of who does this would be nice to display somewhere very noticeable. FLA we have some of the same problems here in America that the video ‘warns’ us about. Have you seen leap of faith with Steve Martin. (only non-comedy one I think he did.) Which ties in nicely with “is revival…”
F. L. A. said
Yes Zerxil, I have seen it.
I too would like to think that the video is untrue, that the translator of the Indians in the video is lying or mistaken.
But I have known of, and John has encountered MANY people who care only for themselves and will use theology for their own selfish needs, who will lie, embezzle funds, manipulate people, etc., etc., and the easiest victims for these people are the weak, old, uneducated, and desperate of society.
Surly there must be some way to confirm this video.
They should have listed names and organizations of the corrupt for a more informative and effective response.
Maz said
F.L.A: Yes, something should be done about anything happening like this. I have spoken out about many things that I have seen happening in the Church, even in my own town, that is dishonouring to God. It’s not something that makes one popular, but when the Honour of Jesus is at stake I can’t stand by and say nothing. Whoever knows about this first hand should do something….especially the leaders of the Church. I find their silence in many things a bit puzzling to say the least. But some are too comfotable within the walls of their own Church that they do not want to step out and get a bit uncomfotable. Here in Britain there are many things we, the Church, should be speaking out about, but only a few seem capable or willing.
F. L. A. said
You can’t fight evil without getting a little bloody,hurt,or dirty.
It’s just something one has to steel themselves to. That and the possibility of defeat and the consequences of failure.
Kerry said
Maz: I don’t see Scripture saying that there will be perfect peace throughout the whole earth during the whole millennium. Do you have any specific passages in mind about this? If so, feel free to throw them out and I’ll give you my take on them.
Maz said
Kerry: Read Revelation 20 v 1-10. Isaiah 11 v 1-10 is a prophetic picture of Jesus future kingdom on this earth. Isaiah 35 v 1-10. Isaiah 65 v 18-25.
And Jeremiah 23 v 5,6 says, ”Behold the days come, says the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and posper, and shall execute justice and righteousness IN THE EARTH. In His days Judah shall be saved, and ISRAEL SHALL DWELL SAFELY; and this is His name whereby He shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Jehovah-tsidkenu).
This is speaking of King Jesus, the Righteous Branch…and see what the conditions are ON THE EARTH. Is that happening today? I think that you can see even from these last 2 verses that it is not. And WE also shall reign from Jerusalem with Him for 1000 years so we have to be raptured BEFORE we come back with Him to reign with Him. (Rev: 20)
Kerry said
Maz: I had intended to get back with you on this tonight, but something has come up and I’ll have to return to it tomorrow night. Lord willing, I’ll have a chance to respond then.
Kerry said
Maz: Okay, here’s my response. I’ll take the passages you listed in the order you presented them.
Rev. 20:1-10 nowhere says that there will be perfect peace throughout the whole earth during the whole millennium.
Isaiah 11:1-10 nowhere says that there will be perfect peace throughout the whole earth during the whole millennium. Your assumption may be that vss. 6-9 would insinuate that. Yet while the events listed there will certainly take place during the millennium, there is no indication that they will take place in exactly that way throughout the entire millennium. They may begin to happen over time as the millennium progresses. On top of this, there is certainly a possibility that this passage is intended to be taken in a metaphorical fashion.
Isaiah 35:1-10 nowhere says that there will be perfect peace throughout the whole earth during the whole millennium.
Isaiah 65:18-25 nowhere says that there will be perfect peace throughout the whole earth during the whole millennium. What I said above for Is. 11 applies here as well. Also, how can there be perfect peace so long as there are sinners who live to be a hundred years old and are accursed (vs. 20). Ungodly people aren’t at peace.
Jeremiah 23:5-6 nowhere says that there will be perfect peace throughout the whole earth during the whole millennium. Executing justice and righteousness implies that there will be some less than peaceful situation over which to execute justice and righteousness. Jesus is currently reigning in heaven as He executes righteousness on the earth – it isn’t necessary for Him to be physically on the earth in order for Him to execute justice and righteousness on the earth. Judah will be saved during this time, though this hasn’t fully occurred yet, and it isn‘t necessary that it happen at the very beginning of the millennium in order to be true. Just because Israel dwells safely doesn’t necessitate that the whole rest of the earth will dwell safely too; besides, dwelling safely and having perfect peace are two entirely different matters. I’m safe in Christ, and due to daily struggles, whether with the world, the flesh, or the devil, my life isn’t always peaceful.
I don’t understand the logic of your last sentence at all. Rev. 20 doesn’t say that we will reign from the physical Jerusalem that is in the Middle East, which is your assumption. It’s perfectly possible that “the beloved city” of verse 9 is the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26) rather than the earthly Jerusalem. And how does the first half of your last sentence lead conclusively to the last half? Why do we have to be raptured before the millennium in order to reign with Him from Jerusalem for 1000 years?
I know that you’re just assuming the premillennial, pretribulational end-times scheme that you’ve been taught (also known as Dispensationalism). I grew up with it, and I used to believe it, so I understand it well. But Scripture doesn’t teach it, and there is no evidence that anybody in the church taught it until the 1820’s. It seems to me that you are going into these passages and, rather than actually reading what they say, you are making assumptions about what they are teaching. Take notice of the fact that none of the passages you cited even used the word “peace”, which is what we were debating about.
Now if you feel I’ve misunderstood the passages, I’m all ears, so let me know.
Maz said
Kerry: Yes, I’v been taught about the Millenium, but I’v also read and studied it for MYSELF.
I have read the scriptures, not just the ones I gave you, and I have come to the conclusion that the Millenium, which is after all a thousand year REIGN OF JESUS CHRIST ON THE THRONE IN JERUSALEM, will be a totally and globally peaceful one. If Jesus is reigning as KING from Jerusalem, over ALL THE WORLD, then do you believe that Jesus would allow abortion for a start?
Would He allow wars? Would He allow child abuse? Would He allow crime to run rampant? would He allow hatred, greed, violence and murder…..I could go on, but do you see the point? It is not only scriptural true, (and I don’t want to go too deeply into this because it is all tied into the Second Coming and End Time Prophecy) but it is an obvious truth when Jesus reigns on this earth. The devil is imprisoned for these 1000 years so there will be no evil from his side. And Revelation tells us that WE ( those believers raptured and resurrected in 1 Thess: 4 v 13-18) will return with Him (Rev. 19) to reign with Him for that thousand years.
”It isn’t necessary for Him to be physically on the earth…” but that is the way God is doing it. Should we question the way God works?
Maz said
That should have been…1 Thess: 4 v 13-18 ). If you put an 8 with a ) it makes a smile!
Maz said
Kerry: Here is a list of 3rd century Christian teachers and preachers that believed in and made explicit reference to the concept of a 1000 year EARTHLY kingdom at Christs Second Coming (which, by the way is to the EARTH, Zech: 14 v 4 speak of ”his feet shall stand that day on the Mount of Olives”.
Hippolytus of Rome.
Theophilus.
Tertullian.
Irenaeus.
Justin Martyr, who spoke of the premillenial belief as the ”Jewish belief”.
Barnabas.
Methodius.
Papias.
Lactantius.
Commodians.
Melito.
One of the ‘bishops’ of that time (4th century) that opposed this teaching was Origen, who also held the heretic belief of Arianism.
So it is well supported by well known 3rd century Christian leaders.
Kerry said
Maz: You’re once again just making assertions. I’m still waiting for you to actually offer some passages that back up what you’re saying. I offered Matthew 28:18 earlier on in this discussion – why don’t you deal with that? Whereas Jesus said that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him (past tense), you say that it hasn’t. Don’t you see the inconsistency there? I would think you would at least go back and address the objections I raised to your assumptions about those passages you listed.
You assert that Jesus wouldn’t allow all the sins you listed to go on while He was king, as if it were a matter of Jesus‘ character to not allow sin to go on during His reign. But let’s consider a few things.
Jesus is God.
God is omnipotent.
Therefore, God could stop all sins, in any time and place, from happening before they do, if He chose to.
But He doesn’t.
If you say that God can’t stop these sins from happening, then you have denied one of the most basic tenets of the Christian faith. If you say He can, but doesn’t choose to, then how is the millennium any different? Perhaps He allows sin to go on, but deals with it in a different way than you assume. Besides, according to your view, there will not only be those who have died and come back with their new bodies on earth during the millennium, there will also be those who entered into the millennium believing in Christ but not having died and received their new bodies. So there will be people wandering around still carrying their original sin nature. And they will be having children and multiplying on the earth for a thousand years. Is Jesus going to wipe those people out as soon as they have their first wicked thought during the millennium? If so, on your scheme, then there won’t be anybody left for Satan to deceive when he is let loose at the end of the millennium.
You assert that Jesus’ reign will be a totally peaceful one, and you offered passages that supposedly support it. I’m still waiting for you to show how they do. Saying that something is an “obvious truth” isn’t an argument.
We are told that Satan is bound for a thousand years. But a dog that is chained up can still bite, if you get too close. Besides, this says nothing about the other demons, nor about the complications of the world and the flesh, our other enemies.
I’m not questioning how God works. You’re assuming to be right in your view of how God works, and it’s your view I’m questioning.
Concerning your last post… there isn’t a question as to whether or not there have been those who believed that Jesus’ reign would be a physical one on the earth. Obviously there have been. The question is whether or not there were those before the 1820’s who believed in a premillennial, pretribulational end times scheme. There was nobody, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
Maz said
Kerry: Did I say all authority in Heaven and earth hasn’t been given to Jesus? I don’t think so.
Jesus is King, and He is Lord and God, but in the Church Age He reigns within His people…we are priests and kings with Him. But we know that He does not deal with sin on the earth at the moment because this is the day of His grace, He is waiting for sinners to repent and receive Him as Savior. If He took up His kingly duties on earth now, He would have to judge and sentence every sinner to Hell now, and that is not His plan and purpose now.
When the day of grace is ended, then He will rapture (catch up) His Church and judgement will begin within the next seven years upon the earth. At the end of the seven years, Jesus Christ will come back to destroy the anti-Christ and His enemies and then set up His Kingdom upon the earth, He will enter Jerusalem and take His place on the throne of His ‘father’ David (He is the Son of God but also called the son of David by descendency) and reign for a thousand years. A thousand years characterized by peace and righteousness, (something that isn’t seen at the moment you must agree).
I have given you several scriptures which do not seem adequate to you, I do not think any other scriptures I give will fit your interpretation. And I think this question should be addressed on another blog to do with the Millenium and the Second Coming of Christ. You can take that anyway you wish but I am not prepared to get into deep discussion of Last Days theology here.
Kerry said
Maz: If all authority in heaven and earth have already been given to Jesus, then the notion that He will have a new type of rule some time in the future is canceled out.
What do you mean by “day of grace”? Was God not gracious in the Old Testament? Will He not be gracious in the millennium? Does the phrase “day of grace” appear anywhere in Scripture where it is used to describe the age we’re living in? It seems to me the whole point of the millennium is that it is a great outpouring of His grace. I already raised the matter that there will be people with sin natures born during the millennium, and you didn’t respond to it, like you haven’t really addressed the other challenges to your views that I raised. If there are people born with sin natures during the millennium, then, on you’re view, God will immediately send them to Hell without giving them a chance to trust in Christ. After all, that won’t be a “day of grace” as you’ve just described it. That seems rather unfair to people who didn’t have the choice of whether or not to be born during the millennium.
Once again, you’re just making assertions. I don’t agree that the millennium will be a time of peace, as you’ve defined it. You offered passages that supposedly taught it, which didn’t, as I showed, and then I asked you to show me where I was wrong, which you haven’t. You can’t just throw out passages and say “it’s obvious” when it isn’t. You have to show that the passages actually teach what you say they teach if you want people to believe you.
You say you don’t want to get into a deep discussion about this topic, but you’ve used a lot of words for not wanting to get deep into a subject. And now you’re wanting to back out, which is fine, of course, as no one is making you discuss this.
I’ve been rather hard on you through this discussion, but I’ve done so for a reason. Don’t just believe whatever you’ve been taught. All of your neatly structured end times statements are exactly the same as have been repeated in a thousand Dispensational books and sermons. I don’t get the impression that you’ve seriously considered other options at all, and that’s a huge mistake. I’d recommend picking up a book like “The Meaning of the Millennium”, edited by Robert G. Clouse, or “Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond”, edited by Darrell Bock. Both books feature different authors defending their various views on the end times, and interacting with other theologians on the subject. Pray about what you read, and ask the Lord to guide you to the truth. And take your time thinking through the issues with an open mind. That will at least give you the opportunity to consider the possibility that you’re wrong on this. And if you aren’t willing to consider that you might be wrong, then that will just be one area in which you won’t permit yourself to grow as a Christian.
Maz said
Kerry: Gods sovereignty has always been there and so will Jesus as King, but Revelation 20 teaches quite clearly that Jesus will reign ON THE EARTH, ON THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID, FROM JERUSALEM, FOR A THOUSAND YEARS. (Read also ch 19 v 14 (and v8) because it speaks of us COMING BACK with Him….Tell me,coming back from where?)
In Revelation 21, we read about the NEW JERUSALEM, COMING DOWN FROM GOD OUT OF HEAVEN, this is AFTER the thousand year reign on the earth, and is the beginning of the new heavens and earth and eternal blessedness with God.
Don’t spiritualise what is obviously (and I do not apologise for the word) literal.
The Day of Grace. The Church age is a day when God in His mercy and grace waits for souls to repent and be saved. John 1 v 17 states, ”For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ”.
He said in John 3 v 17 ”God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
There is a great difference between how God worked in the OT and how He worked through Jesus in the NT, and still works today.
The words themselves ”day of grace” as far as I know do not appear in the Bible, but neither does the word ‘Trinity’ or ‘Theocracy’ as far as I know, neither is the word ‘rapture’, but the understanding is there none the less.
If people are born with a sin nature in the Millenium they will certainly not be sent straight to Hell as you say. Jesus will reign like a King, and His laws will be righteous, and His grace and mercy will continue. He will also reign with a great love and I have always believed that under His reign the earth will experience a time of peace and health that it has never known under any mans reign.
I have studied the ‘End Times’ for many many years Kerry, and along the way I have done a lot of growing I assure you, and I am convinced of what I believe. I do not however profess to know everything about the End Times, but I don’t think anyone knows everything.
I would just like to ask you if you are a born-again Christian or a Jehovahs witness? They believe that Jesus is reigning now spiritually.
Also do you believe then that Israel is no longer in Gods purpose and plans? That the Church has replaced Israel?
And I guess all your other beliefs about the Second Coming of Christ will differ from mine and what I believe the Bible teaches.
Maz said
Tht 8) has come up again….it was supposed to be 8 ).
Tripp said
As you watch the flooding in the Midwest, have you noticed that there are no farmers running around with stolen plasma TVs or holding stolen liquor over their heads? There’s no looting or yelling “Where’s Bush?”, “Where’s FEMA?, Where’s my check?” or “Why isn’t the Government out here saving me and my farm?” Likewise, I’ve also noticed there are no reports of any other country coming to help or sending aid and where are Reverends Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton?
Kerry said
Maz: Rev. 20 nowhere says that “Jesus will reign ON THE EARTH, ON THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID, FROM JERUSALEM”. The passage says that Jesus will reign with certain of His saints, but it doesn’t say that He will be on earth while He is reigning with them. In fact, the words “earth”, “David”, and “Jerusalem” don’t even appear in the passage. Doesn’t that at least suggest to you that maybe you’ve misunderstood the passage? If all three of those are central to the passage, don’t you think at least one of the three words would appear there? And Rev. 19 vss. 14 and following speak of “the armies of heaven” coming with Christ. Where does it say that we Christians compose the armies of heaven? It makes more sense to me that those individuals would be the angels. I don’t personally see that as an event yet to happen, anyway.
I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you said on Rev. 21.
I am taking the passages we’re discussing literally. You’re the one adding things to Scripture, as I made clear in the statements above. Throwing out the accusation of me “spiritualising” Scripture is a typical Dispensational distraction. You should deal with the passages rather than blowing smoke.
I agree that the age we are living in is different from the time before Christ came. But Scripture nowhere uses the phrase “day of grace”. That’s a Dispensational term. So is the phrase “Church Age”, which also doesn’t appear in Scripture. Scripture uses the language of covenants, and our time is called the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8). Don’t you think it would be best to use the language of Scripture? Even using your language, prior to the “day of grace”, God still “in His mercy and grace wait[ed] for souls to repent and be saved”. How is that a distinctive characteristic of the time in which we live?
But you’ve changed your tune. Before you said that Jesus would send every sinner to Hell during the millennium, and now you say that He will exercise mercy during the millennium. Which is it?
You say you’ve studied the end times for many years. What books have you read on the subject? Have you studied views other than the one you’re defending here?
I’m not a Jehovah’s Witness. The majority of orthodox Christianity through the history of the church has held the view of the end times I hold. I’m a member of a parish in a Continuing Anglican communion called the Anglican Province of America. So, yes, I’m a Christian.
I don’t like the language of “the church replacing Israel”. But I do believe that Israel as a nation failed to keep covenant with God, and their apostasy led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. God’s way of working is now through the church, which is composed of both Jew and Gentile. If God were to return to dealing with the world the way he did in the Old Covenant (which is what Dispensationalists say will happen during the Tribulation), it would be as if Christ had never been crucified.
Barney said
Re:47
Golly, Tripp, you must’ve listened to the whole Rush Limbaugh show.
Maz said
Kerry: I’m only going to say a few things in answer to what you’ve said….sorry if that isn’t enough but it is obvious we are not going to agree with this, so it is not going to be beneficial for either of us to continue.
As to the ”armies of heaven”, in Rev: 19 v 14, these armies are ”clothed in fine linen, white and clean”, which reveals who these people are, read v 8 and it specifically tells you what the fine linen represents, ”for the fine linen is the righteousness of THE SAINTS”.
We will be the ones clothed in fine linen. The blood of Jesus cleansed us from all sin and washed us white…..that is what the fine white linen shows.
”It makes more sense to me that those individuals would be the angels”. You’re using your SENSE rather than scripture here. Not a good foundation to have faith on.
And did I say ”Jesus would send every sinner to Hell during the Millenium.” ?? Can you show me exactly where?
Yes, I have read many books on the subject, I’v listened to many a sermon, listened to tapes and been in meetings and heard it all……the fact that you have ”cast off’ Israel, and they have no more place in Gods plan shows me your theology is right off what is revealed in the scriptures. Ofcourse you will explain to me why Romans 11 doesn’t mean what it actually says, that Paul didn’t say what he actually said…”Has God cast away His people? GOD FORBID”. He is talking about the JEWISH people, because he was one himself.
Why is God regathering Israel back to their homeland after two and a half thousand years (as prophesied in the scriptures in numerous places) and made them a nation again in 1948 if He has cast them off forever? That was a Divinely appointed MIRACLE. And what about the remnant? And the covenant God made with Abraham?
God has not cast them off forever. And remember it is US, the Church, that has been GRAFTED INTO the olive tree……we cannot afford to boast against them and say we are better.
I suggest YOU read more, study more and look at your scriptures again with the help of the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth.
Tripp said
Hey Barney – Not the whole show, but I do listen to most of it every day. Amazing how accurate he is, don’t you think?
Kerry said
Maz: I think your interpretation of Rev. 19:14 makes sense, in light of verse 8. It doesn’t verify that this is something that will take place at the end of history, as you assume, however, nor does it indicate that every Christian who has ever lived is included in this passage. And there is no indication that this requires a pre-trib rapture, either.
Everybody uses “sense”, Maz, even you, as you have in this discussion. My faith is in Christ, but good sense is required to interpret Scripture correctly.
In comment #43, you said, “If He took up His kingly duties on earth now, He would have to judge and sentence every sinner to Hell now, and that is not His plan and purpose now.” Seems pretty clear to me that you’re saying that Jesus will send every sinner to Hell during the millennium.
If you’ve read so many books, why are you so reticent to say what they are? Have you read any from a position other than the one you hold?
God hasn’t cast away His people Israel, as if they have no chance of salvation – and that is the objection Paul is addressing in Romans 9-11. But you have to read that section in light of the rest of the Epistle of Romans. Paul also says, in ch. 2 vss. 28-29, “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” As I said before, God is now working through the church, which is composed of Jew and Gentile. I don’t cast off the Jews, and neither did Paul. Jews can be saved, too.
This is exactly why I asked if you’ve read anything from another perspective. You chose, in your last post, to jump to conclusions about what I believe based off of a couple of things I said. All you’ve done is listen to what your Dispensational teachers have told you about non-Dispensational theology and believed it. I, for one, would prefer that folks like you try finding out what we actually believe and stop misrepresenting us.
I don’t know why God has allowed so many Jews to go back to the land of Israel. It doesn’t make a difference to my beliefs one way or another, because I’m determining my beliefs based on what Scripture says, not what is happening in world events. Scriptures interprets history, not the other way around. One thing that Dispensationalists tend to ignore, however, is that most of the Jews in Israel aren’t even Orthodox. In fact, most aren’t even religious Jews who are faithful to the Old Testament. Many are atheists and agnostics. Hardly the faithfulness to the covenant that God required of His people. Actually, Dispensational theologians (the ones who know their theology the best) would say that those prophecies you speak of haven’t actually been fulfilled yet, because they can’t be until the Church has been raptured out of the world. While God is working with one group of people on the earth (in this case the church), they would say, He can’t also be working with the other group of people (Israel). But it’s common for Dispensationalists to misunderstand that aspect of their own theology, as you have.
As far as the covenant with Abraham goes, Paul makes it clear that that promise now applies to all who have faith in Christ – see, in particular, Romans 4.
As I said earlier, I grew up with the theology you espouse, so I know it backwards and forwards. I’ve spent plenty of time in prayer and meditation on God’s word, and haven’t come to the position I hold in some cavalier fashion. I have been trying to encourage you to do a little better studying on the subject, especially if you’re going to go on the internet and purport to be able to interpret Scripture (see James 3:1). I get the idea that you’re taking this all too personally. I hope you aren’t. I don’t know you, and that isn’t the point. If you’re going to claim to know God’s word, then you’d better well know it. That’s the point.
jAsOn said
Kerry,
I looked at your blog just now and I say CoG ARP link, do you attend there? Where you at the bible study last Thursday morning at Panera?
Maz,
Of the church fathers you mentioned in #41, not a single one was a dispensationalist. Yes, there was a representation of HISTORIC pre-millenialism in the early church, but non of them believed that Christ’s reign would include a reinstitution of the OT rituals such as circumcision, feasts, and sacrifices, as dispensational pre-millennialism believes. Such beliefs as the reinstitution of OT Law as an administration is a great departure from Christian orthodoxy, virtually non existent prior to Darby, contradicts all of the Book of Hebrews, and flies in the face of the efficacy and completion of the atonement of Christ.
Maz said
Kerry # 52: (#43) The key words are ”if” and ”now”…..He would not do this in the Millenium because that is not His purpose THEN. Can you understand the difference I am making here.
If I could remember EVERY book I have read on the subject I’d be a computer wiz kid.
”Scripture interprets history not the other way around”.
History in archeology proves the true historicity of the Bible. And what is happening today proves that the prophecies in the Bible are true. The fulfillment comes AFTER the prophesy NOT BEFORE. So prophecy in the Bible is confirmed by it’s fulfilment. (As in Christs first coming).
Jesus told us to watch for signs……Israel is the sign of the near return of Christ….the fig tree…..when you see it come to pass look UP….
No you don’t know me Kerry, any more than I know you, but God knows us both and He will lead us into all truth if our hearts are willing……I can say mine is….I don’t know your heart so I can’t say anything about it.
But I have the sure hope that Jesus is coming back for me one day soon, I look eagerly for Him, and I shall see HIM Who I long for…..and I shall be with Him forever.
Maz said
Jason: I don’t believe Christ will bring back the OT rituals either (in the Milenium).
jAsOn said
Maz,
Have you read Hoekema’s “The Bible & the Future”, Riddlebarger’s “A Case for Amillenialism”, or anything by Vos or Venema? What Amillennialists have you read describing their position?
You said, “I don’t believe Christ will bring back the OT rituals either (in the Millennium).” What does the modifying clause, “in the millennium” mean; do you believe that Christ will even reinstate these rituals for His glory?
jAsOn said
Maz,
Are you familiar with the distinction between dispy premil and historic premil? Have you read any of the writings of GE Ladd?
Maz said
Jason: No I have not read the books you mentioned or heard of Vos or Venema.
And I can’t give you any titles as I have read lots of books, magazines, articles, heard hundreds of sermons etc. etc. and would not be able to give you a complete list.
The books I have on my shelf, ofcourse, would usually be about the things I believe, some are old, but I have authors like Fredk. A. Tatford, Ian Macpherson and J. Dwight Pentecost.
I don’t know as much as I would like on this subject, but what I do believe….I believe is the Biblical Truth.
I believe in the physical reign of Christ on the earth, from Jerusalem for 1000 years (Rev. 20) when He returns (Rev 19) in His glory to the earth. (Zech: 14)
jAsOn said
So, you don’t believe that the OT rituals will ever be reinstated, right?
how about the distinction between hist/premil and dispy/premil
the articles you’ve read, and the sermons you’ve heard, are they amils writing about amillennialism?
Have you read Walvood and Ryrie on the dispy side; what about the differences between Darby, Scoffield, Chafer, and Ryrie? Btw, im not interested in a complete list, just want to make sure you have availed yourself to primary sources. I was also raised a dispy and took several classes at a “Dallas-type” school where I live, and made it a point to know why I was a dispy at the time, but I had never really let amils “speak for themselves”, I only relied on what dispys had said about what amils believe. I wouldn’t want anyone to make the same mistake. There is also something to be said for the academic defenses and responses on topics such as this, b/c the layperson may (unintentionally of course) not represent the accurate expression of a certain theology.
Kerry said
Hey Jason,
I don’t attend CoG, though I’ve visited a couple of times, and been to a couple of the Psalm sings on Friday nights. I’m a member of St. John’s Anglican Church (APA) in Greensboro.
Yeah, I was at the Bible study last Thursday. Were you there? I was the one who showed up late. I work in Greensboro, so I’ll probably be attending the one there rather than the one in High Point.
jAsOn said
Small world…I was the one who sat on Roger’s left hand side
Kerry said
I remember. You attend a Baptist church, right? Glad you’re going to the Bible study. Roger’s a good man.
jAsOn said
Well, I grew up in several, but my family and I have been going to Redeemer Pres. (PCA) in Winston for about a year.
Maz said
Jason: I have a Scoffield Bible KJV, but I do not take his notes as Divine authority. I read the scriptures for myself and study to check out everything I read with scripture.
I don’t recognise most of the names you gave, so I can’t say whether I have read anything they have writen or not.
I believe the Jews will reinstate the rituals in a rebuilt temple in the near future about the time when the Anti-Christ makes his appearance….and he stands in the temple proclaiming himself as God, but it will not be reinstituted in the Millenium…as Christ will be there, there is no use for it is there.
This same line of discussion is running on the Jewish question and I am going to cease discussion on this topic here too. Same reason.
jAsOn said
Maz,
Do you think that the reinstatement you mentioned will be sinful disobedience?
Christ has come, and there will never be any reason for them to be reinstated.
Maz said
Jason: The fact that the Passover Lamb has already come, the reinstatement of the sacrifices and rituals i the newly built temple would be done in unbelief, therefore it would be sinful disobedience.
jAsOn said
i agree.
Maz said
Jason: Isn’t it nice to agree? 8)
jAsOn said
AMEN!