The Church of the Nazarene and the Kingdom

[Greg Crofford]

I woke up thinking about Matthew 6:33 -

"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you as well"(NIV).

I'm working my way through Howard A. Snyder's Models of the Kingdom (Wipf and Stock, 2001). As I do, I hope to introduce bits and pieces on this thread, as discussion develops. Here's a little appetizer (p. 19):

"Since the kingdom of God is a prominent biblical theme, some model of the kingdom is implicit in every understanding of the Christian faith."

It is surprising to see how much the Gospels - especially Matthew - talk about the Kingdom, and comparatively how little we talk about it in the COTN. Usually when we hear the word, it's in a vague way. Perhaps we will speak about "kingdom building," but even that seems like just another way of talking about church growth.

Here's our statement from the Foreword of the Nazarene MANUAL, 2009-13 (p. 5):

The Church of the Nazarene exists to serve as an instrument for advancing the kingdom of God through the preaching and teaching of the gospel throughout the world. Our well-defined commission is to preserve and propagate Christian holiness as set forth in the Scriptures, through the conversion of sinners, the reclamation of backsliders, and the entire sanctification of believers.

Discussion point:

What do you think is the Cotn view of the kingdom? Do we have more than one?

[Marsha Lynn]

A couple of my favorite spiritual analogies revolve around the Kingdom of God.

One is that of being an ambassador -- not from here, representing the culture and values of another place.

Another is as one planning to retire in another land -- the Kingdom of God. I need to prepare now for my future setting: learn the language well, study the culture, shift my focus away from this place to that. I think I will be much more comfortable in that future setting if I focus on preparing now for life in the Kingdom.

I realize both those analogies are lacking in that they don't adequately recognize the presence of God's Kingdom right here, right now. But this world often feels like a foreign land from the viewpoint of the Kingdom of God.

Looking forward to what you will be sharing with us.

Marsha

I woke up thinking about Matthew 6:33 -

"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you as well"(NIV).

I'm working my way through Howard A. Snyder's Models of the Kingdom (Wipf and Stock, 2001). As I do, I hope to introduce bits and pieces on this thread, as discussion develops. Here's a little appetizer (p. 19):



It is surprising to see how much the Gospels - especially Matthew - talk about the Kingdom, and comparatively how little we talk about it in the COTN. Usually when we hear the word, it's in a vague way. Perhaps we will speak about "kingdom building," but even that seems like just another way of talking about church growth.

Here's our statement from the Foreword of the Nazarene MANUAL, 2009-13 (p. 5):



Discussion point:

What do you think is the Cotn view of the kingdom? Do we have more than one?

[Mike Schutz]

One of the continuing themes of the work of the Avon Grove Church is "to make evident the kingdom in our community and world." It's one of the questions we ask as we assess current ministries, consider new initiatives, and investigate issues in our neighborhoods - "What is the kingdom perspective?"

For me, kingdom thinking begins with a fully-orbed understanding of grace. As Wesleyans, we believe that God is working in everyone's life, all the time - and it is our task to partner with God. Thus, every interaction has kingdom potential.

[Greg Crofford]

I like it how your church focuses on prevenient grace, that the Holy Spirit is at work everywhere. Good stuff, Mike. If I come across this in Snyder, I'll let you know. For now, he maintains that John Wesley was mostly focused on the idea of the Kingdom of God as interior from Luke 17:21 -- "The kingdom of God is within you." The NIV does give a footnote on that verse, that it can also be translated as "among you." That makes more sense to me.

[Greg Crofford]

You're in good company, Marsha, by speaking about the Kingdom of God as primarily future. In Scripture, this resonates with images like the New Jerusalem descending at the time when God makes all things new -- see Rev. 21 and 22. Like you, though, I'm uncomfortable with what Tom Sine in The Mustard Seed Conspiracy called "life boat" religion, where the church just rescues people for Heaven but does little to change the social conditions that got them in trouble here on earth.

Snyder calls the position you've hinted at "The Kingdom as Future Hope." Theologically, when only the future is emphasized, this is called an "unrealized eschatology." Pushed to its limits, it encourages disengagement from culture. Quite honestly, during this election season, this position is looking pretty attractive to me!

[Larry Parsons]

I woke up thinking about Matthew 6:33 -

"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you as well"(NIV).

I'm working my way through Howard A. Snyder's Models of the Kingdom (Wipf and Stock, 2001). As I do, I hope to introduce bits and pieces on this thread, as discussion develops. Here's a little appetizer (p. 19):



It is surprising to see how much the Gospels - especially Matthew - talk about the Kingdom, and comparatively how little we talk about it in the COTN. Usually when we hear the word, it's in a vague way. Perhaps we will speak about "kingdom building," but even that seems like just another way of talking about church growth.

Here's our statement from the Foreword of the Nazarene MANUAL, 2009-13 (p. 5):



Discussion point:

What do you think is the Cotn view of the kingdom? Do we have more than one?

Ps.72:8-11 let us know that God kingdom would rule over world. Daniel tell us that God set up his kingdom during the time of the Roman Empire.
John the Baptist came preaching during the time of the Roman Empire that the kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus told his disciples that some of them would see him come into His kingdom. OF course Jesus could be wrong and the kingdom of Christ is still waiting to arrive which I don’t believe the bible teaches that and I don't believe to many Nazarene preacher believe it either. I believe we are in a progressive kingdom that is growing stronger and more powerful as time move on.
Thanks
Larry

[Hans Deventer]

Ps.72:8-11 let us know that God kingdom would rule over world. Daniel tell us that God set up his kingdom during the time of the Roman Empire.
John the Baptist came preaching during the time of the Roman Empire that the kingdom of God is at hand. Jesus told his disciples that some of them would see him come into His kingdom. OF course Jesus could be wrong and the kingdom of Christ is still waiting to arrive which I don’t believe the bible teaches that and I don't believe to many Nazarene preacher believe it either. I believe we are in a progressive kingdom that is growing stronger and more powerful as time move on.
Thanks
Larry

Prophecies are not fixed and are not meant to tell us about the future anyway. Also, God is free to change His mind. We call that sovereignty. See Jeremiah 18. Things can work out differently. Well, that much is clear, it definitely has. With Jesus, the Kingdom has both arrived and is not yet. And from the Scriptures, both the argument can be made that the Kingdom is progressing, and that there will be few left who believe when Jesus comes. It seems we cannot be dogmatic either way.

[Marsha Lynn]

You're in good company, Marsha, by speaking about the Kingdom of God as primarily future. In Scripture, this resonates with images like the New Jerusalem descending at the time when God makes all things new -- see Rev. 21 and 22. Like you, though, I'm uncomfortable with what Tom Sine in The Mustard Seed Conspiracy called "life boat" religion, where the church just rescues people for Heaven but does little to change the social conditions that got them in trouble here on earth.

There is a future component to my two analogies, particularly the second one, and it may have a few similarities to "life boat" religion, but the application for my life today is that I need to start living by the values of the Kingdom where I plan to retire right now and learn the language right now. Even though it can sometimes require squinting to catch a glimpse of the Kingdom in this current world, the fact that I have chosen citizenship in that Kingdom inspires me to keep studying and practicing the language and culture right now -- to consistently remember that this world is not my home.

Not far from the verse you initially referenced is one that talks about laying up treasures in heaven. The only treasure I've found on this earth that has any hope of being transferred into that future Kingdom is relationships. My analogy of learning to walk and talk right now as a citizen of a future Kingdom remind me that any time I start valuing the things of this world over relationships, I'm drifting away from the culture of the Kingdom of God. Even though the full realization of that Kingdom is in the future, it has a profound effect on how I live today. How tragic and lacking in foresight it would be to invest heavily in what this world values while letting the things valued in the Kingdom of God slip away unnoticed.

Marsha

[Larry Parsons]

Prophecies are not fixed and are not meant to tell us about the future anyway. Also, God is free to change His mind. We call that sovereignty. See Jeremiah 18. Things can work out differently. Well, that much is clear, it definitely has. With Jesus, the Kingdom has both arrived and is not yet. And from the Scriptures, both the argument can be made that the Kingdom is progressing, and that there will be few left who believe when Jesus comes. It seems we cannot be dogmatic either way.

Are saying that the kingdom of Christ may never rule over the world because God could change his plan. The Bible tells us that the kingdom has arrived but some people will tell you it hasn’t but who are we to believe. Do we not believe that Christ came to bind and disarm the devil in order to destroy the his works and to establish His own rule throughout the World? When you say we can’t be dogmatic either way explain what you are exactly refering to?
Thanks
Larry

[Greg Crofford]

I'll have some responses to your comments tomorrow, but for now, I wanted to link a blog post that I just wrote on Howard Snyder's book, Models of the Kingdom: Gospel, Culture, and Mission in Biblical and Historical Perspective (Wipf and Stock, 2001):

http://gregorycrofford.wordpress.com...n-the-kingdom/

Until tomorrow
Greg

[Steven Burton]

I like the idea of everybody has economic value and how we are interdependent. I have been coming back to these idea in my thinking the past couple of months.

[Hans Deventer]

Are saying that the kingdom of Christ may never rule over the world because God could change his plan.

I hope not, but still, that would be God's decision, not mine, and I have chosen to trust the decisions He makes. I am saying that God changes His mind at times. If you read Psalm 89, you can find it there as well. "Lord, you promised .... but you did ......"

Things simply are not that cut and dried. So Jesus thought He'd return while some were still alive. Well, He didn't. In the same way, God's promises to David were not fulfilled in the way people thought they would:

“If his sons forsake my law
and do not follow my statutes,
31 if they violate my decrees
and fail to keep my commands,
32 I will punish their sin with the rod,
their iniquity with flogging;
33 but I will not take my love from him,
nor will I ever betray my faithfulness.
34 I will not violate my covenant
or alter what my lips have uttered.

And what had His lips uttered?

I will maintain my love to him forever,
and my covenant with him will never fail.(AW)
29 I will establish his line forever,
his throne as long as the heavens endure. (Psalm 89)

Him being David, obviously.

And since Jesus in another place said He didn't know the day nor the hour He would return, only the Father knows, it's hardly a stretch to simply realise He didn't return yet.

God is much more flexible than we think. In the end, the line of David will indeed be established in Christ. Jesus will indeed return, I believe. But the road towards the goal is not so predetermined as we often make it out to be, desperately trying to harmonize prophecies with reality.

[Greg Crofford]

Marsha, I love this line: "...it can sometimes require squinting to catch a glimpse of the Kingdom in this current world."

Yea, verily, yea!

[Greg Crofford]

Yeah, Steve, I liked that paragraph from Snyder's book, too. As one who lives in a collective culture (Kenyan), it gives me eyes on my own culture of origin (American) and how radically individualistic we are most of the time. I think the Kingdom of God is a corrective to that. We serve the King, but we serve Him together.

[Greg Crofford]

One of the eight models of the kingdom that Snyder addresses is the "transforming kingdom," based on H. Richard Neibuhr's idea of Christ transforms culture. What specific ways have you seen the church as it promotes the kingdom make a transformative difference in your community?

[Dwayne Petry]

Not to speak for the CotN view, but I always believed that God had placed Adam and Eve in His Kingdom (they fellowshipped with Him in a very personal way), and because of their selfishness, they were banished into the "domain of darkness". They lost their "citizenship" in The Kingdom of God, and thus we, their descendents, are born into the "domain of darkness".

Jesus Christ provided "THE KEY" to citizenship, by which we are ushered into The Kingdon of God (earthly/mortal version) to be transported into the eternal version.

We are to "seek first" His Kingdom, which tell me that there is NOTHING more important than Kingdom Living here on earth. We have the teaching of the "pearl of great price" and the "treasure found in the field" that teach us of the importance of seeking His Kingdom.

Jesus teaches us that we "must be born again" or "born from above". With faith in Jesus Christ, we are a "new creation". We are called "children of God", all of which tell me that we live in His Kingdom now, while we await His eternal Kingdon.

[Benjamin Burch]

Jesus teaches us that we "must be born again" or "born from above". With faith in Jesus Christ, we are a "new creation".

And Jesus said that we have to partake of the Eucharist.

[Dwayne Petry]

And Jesus said that we have to partake of the Eucharist.

We participate in Communion every Sunday!

Neither the thief on the cross, nor the repentant soldier dying on the battlefield "ate the body of Christ" yet they were "born again".

I do believe that Kingdom Living includes the sacrement of Communion, but as stated in the examples above, not necessary at the time of salvation.

[Larry Parsons]

I hope not, but still, that would be God's decision, not mine, and I have chosen to trust the decisions He makes. I am saying that God changes His mind at times. If you read Psalm 89, you can find it there as well. "Lord, you promised .... but you did ......"

Things simply are not that cut and dried. So Jesus thought He'd return while some were still alive. Well, He didn't. In the same what, God's promises to David were not fulfilled in the way people thought they would:

“If his sons forsake my law
and do not follow my statutes,
31 if they violate my decrees
and fail to keep my commands,
32 I will punish their sin with the rod,
their iniquity with flogging;
33 but I will not take my love from him,
nor will I ever betray my faithfulness.
34 I will not violate my covenant
or alter what my lips have uttered.

And what had His lips uttered?

I will maintain my love to him forever,
and my covenant with him will never fail.(AW)
29 I will establish his line forever,
his throne as long as the heavens endure. (Psalm 89)

Him being David, obviously.

And since Jesus in another place said He didn't know the day nor the hour He would return, only the Father knows, it's hardly a stretch to simply realise He didn't return yet.

God is much more flexible than we think. In the end, the line of David will indeed be established in Christ. Jesus will indeed return, I believe. But the road towards the goal is not so predetermined as we often make it out to be, desperately trying to harmonize prophecies with reality.

I agree that God has change his mind at least during the time Abraham and Moses. They pray for God to change his mind and he did. But I don’t believe Jesus change his mind when he told his disciples ….for truly I say to you you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of man comes..(Matt 10:23) Few chapters later he seems to be saying the same thing. “Truly I say to you, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.”(Mt.16:28) In Mt.26 Jesus tell the high priest that he would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven. When Jesus was telling everybody that they would see the Son of Man coming into his kingdom before that generation would pass away. I don’t believe Jesus was lying, I don’t believe he made a mistake and I don’t he change his mind. In fact I don’t believe these verse are even talking about the second advent that’s still in our future. All three of these verses seem to be referring to the destruction of Jerusalem. How can we come up with that idea? First of all Jesus stated that the generation to whom He was speaking would not pass away “until all these thing take place” and that is all those things He specified in verses 2 through 34 of Matthew 24. Jesus seem to be very dogmatic about the timing of these events. Jesus coming in judgment upon Jerusalem and His coming up to the Ancient of Days were two events that took place within the time spam of the first generation of Christians. Why couldn’t the destruction of Jerusalem be the sign to let everyone know that Jesus was at the right hand of power in heaven. When the Bible use the word coming it doesn’t always have to mean a bodily presence.
Thanks
Larry

[David Graham]

Not to speak for the CotN view, but I always believed that God had placed Adam and Eve in His Kingdom (they fellowshipped with Him in a very personal way), and because of their selfishness, they were banished into the "domain of darkness". They lost their "citizenship" in The Kingdom of God, and thus we, their descendents, are born into the "domain of darkness".

I agree that the Genesis record tells us that they were banished from the garden, but where does it say that they "lost their citizenship in the Kingdom of God"? I'm curious as to how you arrived at that.

Jesus Christ provided "THE KEY" to citizenship, by which we are ushered into The Kingdon of God (earthly/mortal version) to be transported into the eternal version

.

Is that the key given to St. Peter? Wow maybe our Catholic brethren are right after all

We participate in Communion every Sunday!

Neither the thief on the cross, nor the repentant soldier dying on the battlefield "ate the body of Christ" yet they were "born again".

I do believe that Kingdom Living includes the sacrement of Communion, but as stated in the examples above, not necessary at the time of salvation.

I agree, however......
if we believe that the sacraments are "an outward sign of an inward grace" ( I'm making a dangerous assumption that this is what you and I believe ) then surely the very act of "receiving Christ as Saviour" by way of decision is to participate in his death and resurrection which we are able to celebrate through the sacraments whenever we take of them. As visible signs of an "inner" reality they should not easily be dismissed as unnecessary to salvation. Some members of the early church took the sacraments very seriously indeed even to the extent of individuals being baptised on behalf of others who had died. From what I understand from this, the church so believed in the role of baptism for salvation that converts who had been martyred before baptism (often catechumens)would be represented by others in the sacrament to witness to their faith and full inclusion within the body of Christ even before they were permitted access to the Lord's table.

Wesley went further in that he understood them to be "Means of grace" by which a person could be brought to salvation...... and we are truly his "spiritual descendants" we should not easily dismiss them as a means of receiving salvation either

[David Graham]

Ps.72:8-11 let us know that God kingdom would rule over world. Daniel tell us that God set up his kingdom during the time of the Roman Empire.

Bless you Larry, but as previously discussed in the past, I respectfully disagree.

[Larry Parsons]

You're in good company, Marsha, by speaking about the Kingdom of God as primarily future. In Scripture, this resonates with images like the New Jerusalem descending at the time when God makes all things new -- see Rev. 21 and 22. Like you, though, I'm uncomfortable with what Tom Sine in The Mustard Seed Conspiracy called "life boat" religion, where the church just rescues people for Heaven but does little to change the social conditions that got them in trouble here on earth.

Snyder calls the position you've hinted at "The Kingdom as Future Hope." Theologically, when only the future is emphasized, this is called an "unrealized eschatology." Pushed to its limits, it encourages disengagement from culture. Quite honestly, during this election season, this position is looking pretty attractive to me!

The Kingdom was established when Christ came. But it has not reached its fell development. Like the mustard tree, it started out small but it will grow to enormous size. Just like the stone that we read about in Daniel that became a mountain (a kingdom) that would fill the whole earth.
Thanks
Larry

[George Wallace]

Bless you Larry, but as previously discussed in the past, I respectfully disagree.

You disagree that Christ is King? or You disagree with Psalm 72.... What am I missing?

[Benjamin Burch]

You disagree that Christ is King? or You disagree with Psalm 72.... What am I missing?

Larry is a Full Preterist. Thus, he is reading it within this context and this is where David ultimately disagrees with him.

[Larry Parsons]

Larry is a Full Preterist. Thus, he is reading it within this context and this is where David ultimately disagrees with him.

Ben I'm not a full preterist because I do believe in the second advent of Christ. I'm a preterist but not a full preterist.
Thanks
Larry

[George Wallace]

Larry is a Full Preterist. Thus, he is reading it within this context and this is where David ultimately disagrees with him.

I knew Mr.Parsons was a partial Preterist. I can even see how a non-partial preterist might disagree with his interpretation of certain Scriptures (there is even disagreement among the inconsistent preterists). But, at least as far as this statement goes, Psalm 72 proclaims Christ as King of the nations, and He did inaugurate the Kingdom during the Roman Reign... So what is there to specifically disagree with here?

I know that the Premil Dispensationalist will take issue, but David is from the Uniting Church, -Congregational, Presbyterian and Methodist-...Not Calvary Chapel or Indie Fundie Baptist. So most here including David, would probably be either, Amillennial, or possibly Post Millennial or at the very least pan millennial. ..(It will all pan out in the end)

I just don't see what there is to disagree with IN the statement mentioned above??? No matter what type of Christian you are (Unless you are Premil Dispo)

[David Gerber]

Preterist...non-partial preterist...inconsistent preterists...Premil Dispensationalist...Amillennial...Post Millennial ...pan millennial Premil Dispo)

Google translate was no help to me. Or, as a friend of mine said about Tillich, "I understood the words but none of his sentences."

Enjoy the debate. just stopped in to see how things were going.

[Jim Chabot]

I knew Mr.Parsons was a partial Preterist. I can even see how a non-partial preterist might disagree with his interpretation of certain Scriptures (there is even disagreement among the inconsistent preterists). But, at least as far as this statement goes, Psalm 72 proclaims Christ as King of the nations, and He did inaugurate the Kingdom during the Roman Reign... So what is there to specifically disagree with here?

I know that the Premil Dispensationalist will take issue, but David is from the Uniting Church, -Congregational, Presbyterian and Methodist-...Not Calvary Chapel or Indie Fundie Baptist. So most here including David, would probably be either, Amillennial, or possibly Post Millennial or at the very least pan millennial. ..(It will all pan out in the end)

I just don't see what there is to disagree with IN the statement mentioned above??? No matter what type of Christian you are (Unless you are Premil Dispo)

You are correct George, there is nothing to disagree with here regarding Larry's view of the kingdom as present. Perhaps some are taking notice of Larry's previously revealed views toward the parousa, and prejudicially including this in the view of the kingdom present? But your right, the only one's I'm presently aware that would take issue are the Fundie, Indies.

Carefully explained here by the always entertaining Dr. Peter (no doubt about it) Ruckman.

[John Kennedy]

I knew Mr.Parsons was a partial Preterist. I can even see how a non-partial preterist might disagree with his interpretation of certain Scriptures (there is even disagreement among the inconsistent preterists). But, at least as far as this statement goes, Psalm 72 proclaims Christ as King of the nations, and He did inaugurate the Kingdom during the Roman Reign... So what is there to specifically disagree with here?

I know that the Premil Dispensationalist will take issue, but David is from the Uniting Church, -Congregational, Presbyterian and Methodist-...Not Calvary Chapel or Indie Fundie Baptist. So most here including David, would probably be either, Amillennial, or possibly Post Millennial or at the very least pan millennial. ..(It will all pan out in the end)

I just don't see what there is to disagree with IN the statement mentioned above??? No matter what type of Christian you are (Unless you are Premil Dispo)

I became firmly amillenialist years ago when we had some prophecy preacher in a church who covered the entire front of the sanctuary with incfredibly detailed eschatological charts. I realized that no amillenialist would do such a thing - they wouldn't even want to be in the room with that stuff.

There is probably nothing that has contributed more heat and less light to Christendom than end-times wrangling.

[Steven Burton]

Yeah, Steve, I liked that paragraph from Snyder's book, too. As one who lives in a collective culture (Kenyan), it gives me eyes on my own culture of origin (American) and how radically individualistic we are most of the time. I think the Kingdom of God is a corrective to that. We serve the King, but we serve Him together.

I consciously fight the individualistic ideology quite often. Even in my own thinking. It makes me sick sometimes at how individualistic we have become. I have come to realize that some of the anxiety I feel is because there is no real community to help me along and support me in many things. The fear of having to do everything yourself is pretty overwhelming at times.

[George Wallace]

Preterist...non-partial preterist...inconsistent preterists...Premil Dispensationalist...Amillennial...Post Millennial ...pan millennial Premil Dispo)

Google translate was no help to me. Or, as a friend of mine said about Tillich, "I understood the words but none of his sentences."

Enjoy the debate. just stopped in to see how things were going.

Well, what to do what to do… Trying to make this simple gives me a headache. But, I’ll try… No matter what I say it will be an over-simplification.

Preterism
Basically states that some or all (at least the majority) of (end times) Biblical Prophecy has already taken place, from the Latin praeter that is past. Significantly the belief is that either all or a good chunk of prophecy fulfillment took place at the destruction of the Temple in A.D.70.

Full or Consistent Preterism
Everything has taken place including the (literal) Second Coming of Christ. (they’re nuts!)

Partial or Inconsistent Preterism
Much of prophecy fulfillment has taken place, but there is still a future Second Coming of Christ.

Now, just like a purveyor of fine white lace or pearls might set them against a black velvet background to show their brilliance, it is probably easiest to discuss the various Millennial views against the ‘black’ backdrop of Premillennial Dispensationalism; even though this is one of the youngest eschatological systems; dating from the 1830 J.N. Darby and the Plymouth Brethren. This system became popularized here in the US, by men like Chaffer, Scofield and Moody. Its particular means of propagation, at least early on, was the Scofield Reference Bible. This is the system taught by Dallas Theological Seminary and Bob Jones University among others. (And NO it is not Reformed!)

Premillennial Dispensationalism
Basically, most all prophecy fulfillment is future, See Lindseys’ Late Great Planet Earth and 88 Reasons for the Rapture in 1988. This system radically chops up the Bible into different Dispensations (Classically 7, but there are some who say 4, 5, 8, or even 10). Each of these Dispensations reveal God testing people over the specific time period differently (Some even believe in different methods of salvation during some of the different Dispensations). This system has a peculiar end times understanding; dealing with the 70th week in Daniel, that Christ will come first to Rapture the Church, this will last for 7 years then the Church and Christ will came again to set up a millennial kingdom/Reign here on Earth. At just about the end of this 1000 year period Satan will break free and go to war with Christ and His Church- Armageddon. Christ wins. It is a really overly complex system and IMO it’s Nuts!

The big problem with this system over any other eschatological belief is that it sets up two peoples of God! The Jews and the Church (and never shall the mingle!) Basically, the Church is the Great Parenthesis. That is that the Jews rejected a supposed offer by Christ to be their King on earth at His initial coming, so He reverted to plan B, and I’ll show you plan… and brought in the Gentiles. This is only temporary and one day their will still be God’s earthily people – the Jews and God’s spiritual people – the Church. This is all based upon a radically messed up hermeneutic. The reason it is such a big issue is that it is actually much more than an end times understanding and impacts just about everything in Christianity.

The Three Classic and accepted millennial views are Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism and Post millennialism.

Historic Premil-
They still believe in a litteral 1000 year Reign of Christ on earth, but do not set up two peoples of God nor chop up the Scripture into different dispensations, nor do they believe in the Church being Raptured out before any tribulation.

Amil-
Christ is on the Thrown now! The millennium is figurative and we are in it. It does not represent a literal and physical reign of Christ on earth some time in the future. (Technically this is a form of postmillennialism but, that’s a whole other Oprah)

PostMil
As time passes we Christians impact the world with our Salt and Light and eventually have enough impact that for 1000ish years we will have a Christ-like Kingdom here on earth, then Christ comes again, standard New Heavens New Earth from there on.

Then there is also the 4th understanding, Pan millennialism (TIC) meaning, “Dude, I ain’t got a clue as to how all this will pan out, but I just know Christ will come again.”

The best place to look at the idea of these eschatological views in reference to partial preterism is Matthew Chapter 24. The Premil Dispo sees absolutely everything as future. The partial preterist takes verses 3-34 (usually, but some have different ending points) as completely fulfilled in A.D. 70. Most of the other views recognize that some of what is stated in Matthew 24 deals with the Temple destruction in A.D. 70 and some refers to the Second Coming, but unlike the partial preterist, they are unwilling to draw a line in the sand at verse 34 (or another) and say ALL that goes before is Temple Destruction stuff.

For the partial preterist Christ did come in A.D. 70, He came in power and glory to destroy the Temple and its system. His coming in the clouds is a reference to power and glory not a physical coming.

That’s pretty much a very abbreviated statement of the differences.

Hope this helps

If you want here is a brief video dealing with Christ's coming in power and glory.



If you want more detail on how some view Matthew 24 then HERE is a moderately detailed account. (about 100 pages - I just saved it as a txt and read it on my kindle.)

A fuller account of partial preterism can be found in the works of J. Marcellus Kik.


EDITED TO ADD: Just in case I am suspect, do to my affinity for Confessionally Reformed Christianity HERE is a link from the Wesley Center that deals with the same topic..

George

[David Graham]

You disagree that Christ is King? or You disagree with Psalm 72.... What am I missing?

No George, I do agree that Christ is king, but I do disagree with where Larry would take us via the implications of his Preterist understanding. He and I have discussed this issue ad nauseum in the past, and I was simply responding to his post in as gracious a way as I could. Having to deal with this subject again even by way of this post is something that I wasn't wanting to do, but when someone implies that I don't believe that Christ is king..... I must respond. Shhhesh..... read my other posts George, there's nothing in them that suggest I take any "low" view of Christ!!!!!!

[George Wallace]

No George, I do agree that Christ is king, but I do disagree with where Larry would take us via the implications of his Preterist understanding. He and I have discussed this issue ad nauseum in the past, and I was simply responding to his post in as gracious a way as I could. Having to deal with this subject again even by way of this post is something that I wasn't wanting to do, but when someone implies that I don't believe that Christ is king..... I must respond. Shhhesh..... read my other posts George, there's nothing in them that suggest I take any "low" view of Christ!!!!!!

That's why I placed the little head scrachin' emotocon at the close of my post... I'm not implying that that you don't believe that Christ is king! I'm asking what in the specific post Larry made referencing Psalm 72 and Christ inaugurating his reign during the Roman Empire are you disagreeing with? That's also why I specifically asked "what am I missing?"

Apparently what I am "missing' is the fact that you and Larry have apparently gone a few rounds discussing/debating partial preterism? Is that right?

Well, respectfully how am I to know this? It hasn't happened in this thread. Where do find this out? my presumption is in another thread, I guess i am supposed to be fully ware of this??? How?

All I've seen is that here, Larry said Psalm 72 proclaims Christ Kingship (I think it does). Larry said Christ reign began during the Roman Empire, well Jesus said he was King and He died during the Roman Empire... And you told Larry you disagree!

Which seemed real strange!

How the heck am I supposed to discern that you two got history and baggage just from that short interchange? huh?

I asked what was I missing, because if a person just looks at that post, you disagreeing with Psalm 72 etc in your post/reply, then yeah by that alone your statement "seemed" unorthodox!

Sorry, I wasn't aware that there is apparently an entire soap opera going on and I've missed more than half of the episodes! But they aren't in this thread!

George

[David Graham]

Okay George..... Pax!
Larry and I have recently discussed this issue and you're right..... I shouldn't have presumed that you knew this..... so I apologise for being a little "testy". I probably shouldn't have chosen that particular quote from Larry's post to comment on, even if I did think; "Oh no, here we go again"! I did try to be gracious though, which is more than I can say about my post to you..... so again I apologise for that. Peace.

And yes, George, I am a "Pan Millenialist"

[George Wallace]

Okay George..... Pax!
Larry and I have recently discussed this issue and you're right..... I shouldn't have presumed that you knew this..... so I apologise for being a little "testy". I probably shouldn't have chosen that particular quote from Larry's post to comment on, even if I did think; "Oh no, here we go again"! I did try to be gracious though, which is more than I can say about my post to you..... so again I apologise for that. Peace.

And yes, George, I am a "Pan Millenialist"

No worries mate,
I probably used too many exclamation points myself. Sorry! Upon thinking about it, I do vaguely remember some thread awhile back where this came up but I didn't follow it closely. Personally, I am also a Pan Millennialist with very strong Amillennialist leanings, I find some expressions of partial preterism interesting and quite orthodox, basically nothing that some of these present cause any doctrine I hold dear to be diminished. Therefore I may or may not agree with certain points or possibilities and yet, all is good in the family of God. While I do have some tension with Historic Premil, it too qualifies as orthodox and some of my favs hold to it, Jonathan Edwards, J.C.Ryle, and James Montgomery Boyce. Same is true with Post Mil, I find it a bit flawed, but virtually all the Puritans held to it as did Loraine Boettner and B.B.Warfield and many other old-time Presbyterians. So its just live and let live in the family of God.

Premil Dispo does diminish and radically change much, it splits the Scripture up and makes two different peoples and plans of/for God. They are still in the family, but they are the ones you really don't want to invite to the reunion, but feel obligated too. They are akin to the crazy uncle that won't stop with the knock-knock jokes and tries to play "I got your nose" with 17 year-olds.

They are silly, wrong, can be harmful, but at the end up the day, they are still part of the family, you know you can pick your friends; but you can't pick your relatives!

Blessings
George

[David Graham]

Thanks George, and yes if I had to lean in any direction beyond my "Pan-Mil" it would also be towards "A-mil".

Also I agree that Preterists, A-mil, Post-Mil, Pre-Mil and even Dispo's are all within the "orthodox pail" and yet I do have a problem with the level of certainty they have with their use of particular scriptures to "prove" particular points of view. It comes across to me as either a "poor or a narrow minded hermaneutic", even though I'm sure it would be quite reasonable to them. This probably speaks more about my own failings than theirs, for in my own "broad mindedness" I need to learn to be more tolerant towards those who are not so "broad".

Cheers.

[Jim Chabot]

Thanks George, and yes if I had to lean in any direction beyond my "Pan-Mil" it would also be towards "A-mil".

Also I agree that Preterists, A-mil, Post-Mil, Pre-Mil and even Dispo's are all within the "orthodox pail" and yet I do have a problem with the level of certainty they have with their use of particular scriptures to "prove" particular points of view. It comes across to me as either a "poor or a narrow minded hermaneutic", even though I'm sure it would be quite reasonable to them. This probably speaks more about my own failings than theirs, for in my own "broad mindedness" I need to learn to be more tolerant towards those who are not so "broad".

Cheers.

Thanks David, this is helpful. While I try to come across with a little less certainty than Larry does, I will admit that it's probably there. Not so much because I'm dead certain and narrow, more of a response to the years I spent listening to the left behind crowd and all of the rubbish they attempted to fill my head with. I'm not sure of the theological climate down under in years past, I can tell you that back in the 70's up here, we had an outbreak of rabid eschatalogical certainty about an impending tribulation and a secret rapture of the church. Anyone finding themselves outside of the kingdom on the day of the rapture would be left behind to live in a world of sheer terror. Think the sinner's prayer might be just a tad severe, you ain't seen nothing yet, rabid is the only word that I can find to describe these folks.

There were also a few who showed the error of the pre-trib rapture folks. They predicted a tumultuous time of tribulation with no escape. Ha! Even better news eh? Can you imagine my joy when I started reading history in earnest and found that much of these apocalyptic prophesies had surely come to pass? I won't bore you with the details, we have been down that road. Just wanted to say that what you might be reading as certainty and a narrow view, just might be the exuberance exhibited by one who has been liberated from an oppressive theology! Don't pay the ransom dear, we have escaped!

[Greg Crofford]

Well, somehow we went from a discussion of the kingdom (mostly with present implications) to charts and graphs. I'll admit, that has never been my cup of tea.

But back to the original question: To what degree is the kingdom of God one that transforms society? If we buy that premise, then exactly how should the church be involved in that transformative process?

[Hans Deventer]

Not so much because I'm dead certain and narrow, more of a response to the years I spent listening to the left behind crowd and all of the rubbish they attempted to fill my head with.

Not trying to reignite the discussion, but just adding that I'm completely on board with this. My parents used to read a magazine that was dedicated to this dispensational and chiliastic stuff. Sure had my fill of that. To me the disconnect is not here, it is in the not understanding why the extreme opposite must then be saught. But, I can completely follow you where you have rejected the Left Behind stuff and the like. I'm more than happy to limit my beliefs regarding the Second Coming to:

XV. Second Coming of Christ

19. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ will come again; that we who are alive at His coming shall not precede them that are asleep in Christ Jesus; but that, if we are abiding in Him, we shall be caught up with the risen saints to meet the Lord in the air, so that we shall ever be with the Lord.

[Dwayne Petry]

XV. Second Coming of Christ

19. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ will come again; that we who are alive at His coming shall not precede them that are asleep in Christ Jesus; but that, if we are abiding in Him, we shall be caught up with the risen saints to meet the Lord in the air, so that we shall ever be with the Lord.

My prayer is not that I may have wisdom/knowledge to know which (Preterist, A-mil, Post-mil, Pre-mil or any other mil) mil is correct, but that He would give me the wisdom/knowledge to help my family, friends and neighbors become members of the Kingdom of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

My desire is to be ready when He returns "as a thief in the night", (that tells me that no one knows) , with the emphasis on being ready!