The Kingdom???

[Paige]

I was surfing this morning at some of the other forums where I am a lurker. I came across a quote that really got me thinking. Going back to my early days as a believer, there was much taught about heaven, streets of gold, etc., that I now recognize as covenantal language describing the new covenant. However, what are our ideas about the kingdom of God that we have yet to challenge or consider? This is from the book Betrayal of the West by Jacques Ellul.


"Utopists have an incredible plan to reduce the human being to the citizen, and to attach this citizen inseparably to his city, like the nursling who is never to grow up but is forever to remain dependent on his/her mother. The dweller in utopia is a perpetual child, protected by a maternal society and behaving with the seriousness and tranquillity that is expected of him/her. They are not allowed to be distinct from the others in any respect, all utopias aim at perfect identity for all members. Utopia is also cut off from the outside world, for the latter can only be a source of disorder and introduce an uncontrollable factor into the ideal city. Citizens have no right to travel, (my adage here: in their minds) just think of the people they might meet, and all the dangerous notions they might brings back with them!

Given this ethos, utopia is built on a foundation of trust in schooling and pedagogy. A society completely schooled, in which everything is learned collectively."

A lot of my earlier ideas on "kingdom" were influenced (IMO) by a Utopian mindset. In talking about the kingdom with those who don't see fulfillment today, this is a major hurdle. There is disbelief exactly because they don't physically see a utopia with everyone acting robotically perfect, etc.

There is much here in the above quote that I think could be discussed. For instance, we see that the gates of the city are never shut. How does this square with the idea of utopia where there is no travel? I saw quite a lot in this quote and am wondering if anyone else has observations to share as well.

Paige

[davo]

...like the nursling who is never to grow up but is forever to remain dependent on his/her mother. The dweller in utopia is a perpetual child...I read that and immediately thought of 'Peter Pan' -- that's the idea I get from the utopian there's only real life after you die mentality that churchianity has fostered for so long.

[Paige]

I read that and immediately thought of 'Peter Pan' -- that's the idea I get from the utopian there's only real life after you die mentality that churchianity has fostered for so long.

Even if one doesn't believe you have to die in order to experience that (rapturists), it still seems to be the common picture of what the kingdom looks like, doesn't it?

I wonder if some of that is tied to the idea of a perfect Adam, before the so-called fall. In order to have a perfect kingdom picture, you must have people in it that don't have a mind of their own (for lack of a better term). Yet, that is not the example that Christ gave us, IMO. He didn't strike me as acting "robotically" perfect, or as a nursling. Instead, He was the picture, and very essence of maturity (the way I see it). There was union displayed between Father and Son. "Nevertheless, not my will be done, but thine."

Paige

[ozark]

I think the postmodern thought has the potential to change our ideas about the nature of the kingdom of God. The idea that the kingdom is a place where everyone agrees on everything and no one does anything wrong in no small way has its roots in the modern paradigm. Everyone must be the same for there to be peace. Those who don’t conform will fall under immediate judgment. Just read many of the dispensational portrayals of the millennium. We see things like fear and wrath still firmly in place to keep people inline.

Postmodern thought seems to be headed towards the idea that the kingdom is not necessarily a perfect world but perfect love. It is amazing that so many reject the idea that to have a “perfect world,” we must begin with perfect love.

[Me Again]

I know that this thread is about the kingdom, but I believe that Ellul spoke in political terms as well. The Church has, for centuries, viewed politics as an expression of the kingdom. We see it in the Religious Right, who wants to legislate morality. Good people are created by good laws, in their view, and this is an expression of the kingdom. We also see it in the politics of the Evangelical Left, who wants to legislate charity (so called). Robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, to them, is an expression of God's rule on earth. Both of these views are utopian. Somehow, someway, politics will bring about the perfect expression of kingdom on the earth.

This is why I have embraced the political and theological philosophy that I have embraced. While I love what America is (or could be), I cannot ever believe that the right set of laws, or even the right politicians (President?) can usher in a more perfect world. There will always be things that "upset the apple cart."

An example of this is my driving. I am a good driver. I don't drive drunk. I drive safely. Other drivers on the road are not so inclined though. I could be driving down the road, obeying every law and safety precaution, and still be killed by some other driver not doing so. It is unintended consequences of others' behaviors. I cannot control that. Neither can our politicians.

Voters in America expect to have a president who will answer every one of their concerns: health care, crime, war, etc. We vote based on who will bring in OUR desired utopia. The evangelicals expect there to be no consequences for bad behavior, or bad decision-making. The poor? It's not their fault. It's the wealthy's fault that there are poor people - at least that's what the Left believes. And they are wrong - for the most part.

The Right, however, believes that there are poor entirely because of their fault. The poor are poor because they haven't done what they have to do. This is WRONG! Many people who are poor were born into poverty, and thanks to the politics of our nation remain so. Bad schools, little economic opportunity, a failure to teach entrepreneurism, criminalizing wealth-creating behaviors, all contribute to the plight of the poor.

So, what's a Christian to do? I believe it is to love. Caring for the poor, not by handing them a check, but by teaching them the ways to actually "win the war on poverty." Assisting single moms through mentoring, and such things. IOW, individuals, living our lives according to kingdom principles, will do more to build the kingdom than all the Laws passed by the legislatures and upheld by the courts.

Ellul's "anarchy" that he advocates is exactly that. How do we live "the kingdom"? Love. Which also involves entrepreneurialism, on our part (start our own businesses) and on the part of helping others to do so (teaching others who to start their own businesses). In addition, I do believe that certain laws need to be repealed, but that's for another thread. :)

ed

[Paige]

I agree, Ed, and appreciate your thoughts. On another note, this is not the first time I've seen Ellul's name or quotes from him. From your comments, I was wondering if you are familiar with him. If so, what are your thoughts about his views? I did some research on Wikipedia, but didn't really come to any definite conclusions on what, exactly, it is he was an advocate of. That could be just because it isn't time for me to "go there" yet in my thinking.

Another thing that struck me is that the common view of utopia wipes out the concept of freedom. I think that is primarily what so many of us here are grappling with...How do we reconcile freedom into all of this? As we work through these things, then comes the realization that we are surrounded with others who may not appreciate freedom the way we do.

On the flip-side, Dave and I have someone in our life who sees the kingdom in such a way that all police, military, and people in govt. are contrary to the kingdom and freedom. The way he sees it, these entities are out to get us in some way. It has caused friction, and is a big challenge to work through. So, I feel a bit caught in the middle.

Paige

[Barry]

Kingdom means basically that there is no condemnation.

Working through our differences in the absence of condemnation is the issue. Because the good of the good is evil as relates to people on an ego level.
This lesson was learned by Paul. In striving to be good he became the chief sinner.

Where he had to come to is "no condemnation".

Of course in this setting of fulfillment in the transition of the ages, the self defined were about to be defined in and through their self definition in the ending of the old economy.

It is from this "no condemnation" that things do get better.

Being the offspring of God is like being the perfect diamond.
You can put mud on it but it does not change what it is.
The diamond has no power over itself to change itself.

You can put mud on it and disguise it or you can remove the mud and let the beauty shine through. But you cannot change it's value and what it is.

A diamond has no power over itself.
The mud relates to the self defined ego.

IMHO until we predominately see ourselves and each other in such a way we will always be using the knowledge of good and evil to try and change something about ourselves that we have no power over.

When we see mud covering, as our identity, or our value or worth then IMO we tend see ourselves through self definition.
IMHO this is not kingdom vision.
We attempt to "fashion" ourselves and others around us and so gives us the idea that this is the solution. Naturally then Utopia is the answer when we are all fully fashioned and all become perfect diamonds.

Just a thought.
Barry

[Me Again]

Paige,
I've perused sections of Ellul's work that I downloaded for the purpose of writing a research project for my PhD (which I have ceased pursuing for the time being). Ellul was a Christian, an anarchist, a universalist. He believed in the free market, as well as individual freedom. I know when I mentioned him at a Conference last summer, Tim Martin got all excited about me being familiar with Ellul - so I assume that he is as well.

Re: your friend. I have also seen similiar type sentiments expressed by libertarian acquaintances. These are usually hard-core anarchists (which I don't believe that Ellul was) who deny the need for government. I am NOT that kind of libertarian. I actually have recently defining myself more as a Blue Collar Conservative - meaning that I believe in individual freedom, classical liberalism (I would call myself a liberal were it not for the fact that most modern liberals embrace socialism), pro-life, and family (which includes charity, both to your family and your neighbor).

What I've read of Ellul I agree with. I'd like to read more, but I am in process of reading a lot of stuff. hehehe, I usually read about 6 books at a time. I've finished about half, and am trying to finish the other 3 before starting too many more.

I agree with Barry that Kingdom means freedom, no condemnation, etc. It means LIFE, and that more abundantly. We cannot experience that when we are being constrained by governments - whether civil or ecclesiastical. We must be free.

ed

[Paige]

Ellul was a Christian, an anarchist, a universalist. He believed in the free market, as well as individual freedom. I know when I mentioned him at a Conference last summer, Tim Martin got all excited about me being familiar with Ellul - so I assume that he is as well.


That is interesting, and it gives me some hope that we who see the reality of FG/IG/CG ( :) ), might have some hope of not being skewered so dogmatically in the future.

It sounds like I may eventually have to read some of Ellul's stuff for myself. I can't quite focus on more than two at a time, and I've got one to finish right now.

Between all that has been shared here, there is much to chew on, for sure.

Paige

[Me Again]

Paige,
I just sent you an e-mail containing the book "What I Believe" by Ellul. I've got two others on my hard drive, so if you want to read those too, let me know.

Anyone else?

ed

[Amie]

As some here have expressed some feelings of disappointment concerning the Kingdom, I thought I'd revisit this thread.

What constituted the Kingdom during the ministry of Jesus, by my understanding, was belief in Jesus as Messiah -- belief in his ability. It was in those who believed that he came - in the Kingdom.

Jesus was the connection between heaven and earth:


Joh 1:51 And He says to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, From now on you will see Heaven opened, and "the angels of God ascending and descending" on the Son of Man. Gen. 28:12

Those who he spoke through, were acting as Jesus even identifying themselves as the body of Christ.

Because Jesus kept Israel's promise, the "body of Christ" acted as "Kings and Priests" upon the earth. They ruled and reigned with Jesus, judging the twelve tribes of Israel by judging Israel's judges, and mediating between heaven and earth via Jesus.

Framing the "Kingdom" per the bible story, what happened next? It is my understanding that the "Kingdom" was turned over to God:


1Co 15:24 Then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father, when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power.

But what does that mean? Who reigned before this happened and the Kingdom was turned over to God?

Once Jesus came in his Kingdom fully, the consummation was complete. What did turning that Kingdom over to God have to do with God becoming "all in all"?


1Co 15:28 But when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who has subjected all things to Him, that God may be all things in all.

My first thoughts in considering this are that somehow through the firstfruits, we all commune with Heaven simarly to being many ladders.

This would mean that (drawing from some other recent posts) rapists commune with heaven. Is that true? When they pray, they are heard? Even when they do things that cause others pain?

See, I think that the issue of how the Kingdom today might look is directly related to how sin is viewed. Common thought: "How can this be the Kingdom when I see all of this sin?"

Does what we do have anything to do with sin?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Amie

[Laren]

i've been thinking about this verse today Amie




Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Is that the same kingdom turned over to the Father?


Peace, joy and righteousness=Kingdom.


don't know if this along the lines where you were going with this thread. But thought it was interesting you started the thread on Kingdom, and i was thinking about this verse.

[Amie]

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

That made me in turn think of this:


2Pe 3:13 But according to His promise, we look for "new heavens and a new earth," in which righteousness dwells. Isa. 65:17

That doesn't necessarily mean that righteousness is all that there is..

And I don't know that I'm going anywhere, I've just been thinking about this lately as well.

Amie

[dwilli58]

But what does that mean? Who reigned before this happened and the Kingdom was turned over to God?

Once Jesus came in his Kingdom fully, the consummation was complete. What did turning that Kingdom over to God have to do with God becoming "all in all"?

This would mean that (drawing from some other recent posts) rapists commune with heaven. Is that true? When they pray, they are heard? Even when they do things that cause others pain?

See, I think that the issue of how the Kingdom today might look is directly related to how sin is viewed. Common thought: "How can this be the Kingdom when I see all of this sin?"

Does what we do have anything to do with sin?

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Amie

Amie,

I am very confused about this issue! First, so much of what I have learned on this site in the last couple of weeks has been clarifying. But, the idea that the consumation has occured, Christ has placed all back to God, just doesn't ring true to me yet. Has Jesus truly been reigning since Pentecost on the earth or is it then that He gave the reigns back to God? Reign, implies a form of absolute power to rule. Is this what we see in human history for the last 2000 years? Also, if there are still rapists and people who steal other's identities (Both are as bad to God aren't they?), then where is the reign of a kingdom of God or Jesus in that? In your words, "How can this be the kingdom when I see all of this sin?" How can it be?

"Does what we do have anything to do with sin?"

I believe I still sin (fail) in my heart, mind and actions. The difference between me now and years ago when I was anti God, and only concerned with my own immediate gratification and needs, is my desire not to sin or harm others. In fact, my desire is to love and serve others, not that i have to or God will clobber me, but because it is the desire of my heart and mind. This brings up another question on my heart, if 1st Cor 15 has been fulfilled, then why do I and all of us still sin. I know that I am forgiven and God has taken from me the blood guilt that kept me in bondage to sin and my flesh, but why am I not perfected completely as 1st Cor 15 claims? I don't know if that is what you were asking here?

On a closely related topic you mentioned, didn't Jesus say He came to heal the sick, not the well? Rapists, child-molesters, are sick in heart and mind, as are bank robbers, drug dealers (who sell to children) and Enron execs. We have a tendency to separate and make judgements as to which crime (sin) is worse, in our human state, perhaps we need to listen more to our spiritual state. I thank God, that He doesn't look at us the way we do or all of us would be doomed. We must remember, if we believe these verses to be true, that Jesus died "once and for all"! If He didn't then what we seek and practice is a fraud! I respond to this, because I've read some pretty unloving and judgemental statements from contributors about such people. I understand the disgust for the crime and the pain it causes, but many who have become perpetrators were once the victim of the same crime. Compassion should first go to the victim, but at some point, as I believe Jesus would have done, we must turn our compassion towards the perpetrator also! God's agape, is not always easy, but it is available for us and those who are down and out! Sorry, for the passion, but I feel very strongly about this issue.

Now that I've said that, if God will draw all mankind to Himself at the consumation, then how could we possibly be living in that time? I don't believe sick people hurting children, women and others have been drawn to God yet, but I believe they are forgiven through Jesus and are loved by God. What we see today, in my estimation, is not a complete, Godly reign, kingdom nor sovereignty. I could be wrong?

By the way, this is a great thing to consider and it is difficult! Thanks Amie!

Dave

[Paige]

Dave,

Do you believe that God can use what we would call adversity in order to draw someone closer to Him?

In my understanding, I see that He does. That being the case, I do see His reign as being complete. I don't see His reign as ultimately turning human beings into something that I would describe as robotic. This allows for humanity to continue to make choices that will always result in consequences.

I think that when we ponder words such as "perfection", we tend to read meanings into it that come from our own conditioning and the conclusions we draw from that conditioning.

Think about the land of Canaan in the OT story as it concerned Israel. How did God view that land? How did 10 of the 12 spies view it? With this in mind, I think it becomes easier see that God understood/understands perfection much differently than His creation came to understand/has understood it.

Part of our journey involves the recognition on our parts that though perfect, we are still learning. I don't anymore envision a kingdom where learning has no more place.

Hope that begins to some light into my own thoughts...

Paige

[jlv]

Dave,

The so-called "second coming," the "parousia" of Christ occurred in AD 70.

That means, the Resurection has occurred.

That means, the separation of the sheep and the goats has occurred.

That means, the end of sin has occurred.

The list goes on.

I was taught in Sunday School what all these things are. And yes, what I was taught has never happened.

So either, everything you were taught about the details of all these things are wrong. Or nothing happened in AD 70.

The problem for preterists has been finding out what happened in AD 70 and matching those things using Scripture to all the terms above.

This is very difficult. Our thinking is warped by generations upon generations of compounded error. Every one of these concepts has two or three ideas for solutions floating around among preterists. Funny, most of these ideas are as old as the church. The church was wrestling with the same problems then and coming to many of the same options for possible conclusions. It shows that the church was more preteristic during it's first few centuries than we realize.

It also shows that the solutions the church pushes today are new and wholly dependent on the futurist views of the last century or two.

Consider this. In ancient Israel, a young man and his family made arrangements for marriage with a young woman and her family. The young man made a substantial deposit, then went away for a period of time. Legally, the couple was now married.

When the time was over, the young man and his friends came dressed for battle but came expecting to find his bride ready and willing to consumate the marriage that had already legally taken place. There would be a big party, the marriage supper, then the groom would leave to be alone with his bride.

Some of those terms above may refer to actual events. Some may be metaphors relating to sacrifice, marriage, creation, etc. This has to all be sorted out. There is a lot of confusion because it is in many ways so new.

Blessings,

JL

[dwilli58]

Dave,

Do you believe that God can use what we would call adversity in order to draw someone closer to Him?

In my understanding, I see that He does. That being the case, I do see His reign as being complete. I don't see His reign as ultimately turning human beings into something that I would describe as robotic. This allows for humanity to continue to make choices that will always result in consequences.

I think that when we ponder words such as "perfection", we tend to read meanings into it that come from our own conditioning and the conclusions we draw from that conditioning.

Part of our journey involves the recognition on our parts that though perfect, we are still learning. I don't anymore envision a kingdom where learning has no more place.

Hope that begins to some light into my own thoughts...

Paige
Paige,

Yes, I believe God allows adversity to occur in our lives to make us aware and draw us to Him! What I don't see or understand is how that makes His reign complete, say, according to I Cor 15, which has been quoted quite often. Yes, I may have an ungodly view or unawareness, as a human, of God's true meaning of perfection. In fact, I'm sure I do, because scripture leads me to those conclusions, as in I Cor 15! Where is it scripturally, since that seems to be the focal point for all Godly discernment, that I can go to so that I may believe that the consumation occured in AD 70? Could it be that there is a perfection beyond this realm, which seems to be pointed at or at least suggested in I Cor 15, which would also involve learning, growing and change? Humanity has always been making choices, just consider the "10 of 12" and their choice! I don't envision nor want "robotics," on the other hand I do want to have some idea of what lies ahead. I'm not worried about perfection, God will bring us to that, but I don't believe that the perfection described in I Cor 15 has been attained yet. As Amie said, with all the sin, war, hatred etc etc etc going on around us, perfection is the last thought to cross my mind!

Here's the crux of the issue for me and it has been for the last four years of my life. Our bible comes out of two flawed, human, political-religioso entities, Jerusalem and Rome. One, watched as Jesus was tortured and murdered, the other mainly consisted of an emperor trying to fix a dying empire by making nice and claiming a vision had occured. There are many scholars, as I'm sure you are aware of, that dispute the authenticity of the nt letters. I am not in total accord with those scholars. But, the traditional church holds to a different view than most of the folks on this site, and me included, and they base their beliefs and theology on the same book and letters that this site does. My question is, how do I know who is right, because all I have to go by are scripture quotes and opinions based on them. Is there more than one truth which God placed in what we call the bible? Have we come, finally, to the place where we must rely on the spirit of God more than man and his writings and opinions? These are my thoughts and concerns, but does it solve anything? Maybe resolution isn't important?

You did not respond to the portion, or maybe you did and I haven't gotten it, on my issues with judgement and grace. Is there a reason? Just wondering.

I'm not trying to argue or offend or change your minds. I am seeking answers to these questions, and maybe only God can give them to me, directly?

Dave

[Amie]

Dave,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings.

It is my understanding that biblically "reigning" is taking a place of authority. The highest in that day was as a place for a King (on/from a throne). I realize that Caesar was technically an Emperor, but Israelites understood him as King ("We have no King but Caesar").

Historically, Solomon had the temple built to place God above himself as King. That is not what it evolved into however. I'm sure that there are others around here more familiar than myself with the history of it, but I understand that the leadership of Israel became corrupt and began to use the temple more as leverage than anything else. They pretty much had the monopoly on God that way. They were interested in preserving themselves, and other people that they considered worthy and/or clean and really weren't that interested in anyone otherwise -- other than to maybe condemn them to death, exile them, or generally make themselves look better in comparison.

Sacrifices were for themselves - for the nation to find acceptance before God. God said, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" (Matthew 12:7, Hosea 6:6).

Israel promised that they would keep the law of God and God told them if they did, that he would make them and entire Kingdom of and Priests (Exodus 19:5, 6). As Barry pointed out in another thread, priests had a function and they were not meant as mediators of themselves - but of mercy.

The law of Moses gave them authority with which to rule. By "rule", I mean "pass rulings". Any time before that, rulings were made soley via "adam" and nothing that humanity did on its' own restored it to God.

I think that it's important too, to consider what issues were being dealt with -- the problem of sin began in the garden when Adam and Eve took the instructions of God and ruled upon them as if they were law. It was Adam and Eve's ruling which seperated them from love (and "God is love" ie 1 John 4:8). God saw them naked but did not shame them. They shamed themselves.

This created a desire for acceptance as played out via pre-Mosaic law sacrifices -- because they didn't feel accepted for sure. One really neat thing pointed out to me by a Rabbi is that God set himself apart from any other gods that Abraham may have known by stopping him from killing his son and providing a stand in so that Abraham could feel accepted. There's a lot of symbolism in that story.

A child with loving parents is able to recognize that their parents will love them no matter what they do. A child not knowing whether or not their parents are loving, might conclude on their own that they are "bad" or "good" and loose sight of love at all. I think that may have been the sin in the garden and what Jesus came to solve.


We must remember, if we believe these verses to be true, that Jesus died "once and for all"!

When I said that Jesus came for the sick, that was to include those who are normally not considered - like rapists etc. Not to mention, it is a huge equalizer imv, when considering who was not sick (no one!). Compassion for all is extremely important to me as well. We do not have to withhold love, to stop enabling pain.

So anyway, back to the reign I think (lol!)..

Human beings sought to be the judges, the lawkeepers on behalf of themselves, etc. Israel wasn't special other than they were the child called to the front of the class for the sake of a demonstration. It was a magnifier of a human condition. It had a visible house of God, and openly decided who was worth to approach the presence of God and who was not.

King David used an open tent for the tabernacle so that all might approach God's presence. He killed the husband of a woman that he wanted for himself among other unsightly actions, yet God called him a man after his own heart. That was because of the way David viewed all as worthy. Yet David still felt disconnected, and abandoned, because David did not love himself. Gosh he came so close to "love others as you love yourself" in that he could love others in the way he wished he could himself, in the way that he hoped that God loved him.

Jesus, and his first fruits body, passed judgement upon the judges. Because the judges were a magnification of a human condition, the judgement was all inclusive. Yet, they did not judge using the lens of good and evil. Via that lens, Jesus said there were none good but God. That is hearkening back to the garden judgement. Adam and Eve judged themselves "none good" because they were lawbreakers. Who was not a lawbreaker? "For whoever shall keep all the Law, but stumbles in one, he has become guilty of all." (James 2:10)

According to the law, every person was a sinner. According to the law, especially the judges were sinners. They were all taking into themselves the fruit of knowing good and evil which killed them..


1Jn 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brothers. The one not loving the brother remains in death.

"Hardened Israel" believed that they still had that monopoly on God and could surely take down the Romans as such. They did not believe that God accepted all people as his (including the Romans). They didn't have to for that to be true, and history attests that it was true because they did not succeed in their revolt. As a matter of fact, it ended just as Jesus said it would:


Mar 13:2 And answering, Jesus said to him, Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon a stone which shall not be thrown down.

So, for a time the first fruits church, just by spreading the Gospel so that hardened Israel would be turned over to disbelief, judged with Jesus. Because they did so with authority even over the law, they also reigned with Jesus.. no one else could take authority over a law handed down by God himself. They then became the Kingdom in which Jesus came.. they were the "clouds" (masses).

The sign of the completed parousia actually was the fall of the temple. This means that God is present with all people ("all in all" -- consummation complete).

As for perfection, Jesus and his body judged according to the lens of love. Did you see the interview with Jeffrey Dahmer's dad? His dad loved him so very much. He agreed that Dahmer should not be allowed to do what he did, he acknowledged and was sorrowful for the pain that his son had caused. Yet, he loved his son. So, even if we were right, even when they were allowed to be right via the Mosaic law, love says "so what, I love you". How does love view the worst of the worst? How does love view us? How, if you are able to imagine that, can your perfection be in doubt?

The knowledge of good and evil has no authority of God. Rather, God has distributed authority in that we all know love. That is the result of what was done in Jesus, and changed the world.

Adam and Eve had no idea that their parent was loving, but the cat is out of the bag now. That changed everything - and continues to.

That's how I understand the story playing out but I would not be being truthful if I said that I've got it all figured out. Like, people didn't really reign before, they just thought they did - and other people thought they did.

If Jesus was the revelation of God's unconditional love then perhaps the question of sin is "What about it?"

I don't know.. I hope this wasn't too long.

Amie

[dwilli58]

Dave,

The problem for preterists has been finding out what happened in AD 70 and matching those things using Scripture to all the terms above.

This is very difficult. Our thinking is warped by generations upon generations of compounded error. Every one of these concepts has two or three ideas for solutions floating around among preterists. Funny, most of these ideas are as old as the church. The church was wrestling with the same problems then and coming to many of the same options for possible conclusions. It shows that the church was more preteristic during it's first few centuries than we realize.


JL

Jl,
I hear you! And you're right! This is very difficult!

Dave

[Amie]

Dave,

I can relate to your question of "who's right?" I don't even think who is right matters because truth is all around us whether we accept it or not. It isn't a doctrine that we own, or a voice in our head, it is what is. In reality, does God reject anyone? Nope, don't see it happenin'. God is the creater of reality, and reality answers a lot of questions.

Reality doesn't care who is right or wrong or good or bad, it just is what is. I can know via reality what hurts, what doesn't, what my preferences are for me, my family, the world, etc..

Dumping pollution in the ocean as a reality kills fish and throws our ecosystem out of balance. There are folks who think it's okay to dump in the ocean but reality remains to be reality.

Theology is a personal interest of mine, but it does nothing to reality around me.

It may help in how I in turn interact with reality. It seems like folks who believe that God has enemies, have enemies as well for example.

Amie

[Paige]

You did not respond to the portion, or maybe you did and I haven't gotten it, on my issues with judgement and grace. Is there a reason? Just wondering.

Hi Dave,

I most likely didn't respond due to missing that part. I'm sorry about that, but sometimes that happens to me. I'll be reading along, and a thought pops into my head, to which I post in the hopes that I don't forget about it before I get a chance. When I get some more time, I'll go back and re-read your post to see what exactly I missed the first time through. Hopefully, I'll have something profound to add (lol).

Paige

[dwilli58]

Amie,
I won't quote you, not because it is too long, but because you speak, in so many ways, what is on my heart and mind now. Please read my reply to Paige, I don't think I can write it out again. You refer to scripture, but then you let it in to speak to you, as do others. I believe that we can discern between the truth and deception of man in the scriptures, through the spirit. I can't just buy into any thought solely on the basis of quotes scripture. Like you, I know I don't nor will ever have all the answers to my questions on these issues. But, I cannot deny what is on my heart either, whether I am in agreement with scripture or not. It is like you said in one of your responses once, our feelings can't be ignored! I believe our feelings may be coming from the spirit, and thus they aid us in discerning God! For me, scripturally based responses are not always discerned as much as they are conditioned responses to contrary supposed opinions. Do you get the gist of that? I hope so. If I wanted to just learn about the bible and what it says about God, then I'd go get a THD. I believe He has something better for us!

Thanks,
Dave

[dwilli58]

Amie,
Again, words and caring thoughts from which I hear God. I just want to explain, it isn't about being right, even though that may appear to be the problem by what I wrote. It is about discerning and understanding what it is to truly believe, and to be able to explain or pass that on to someone else in love. Your quote here, "Theology is a personal interest of mine, but it does nothing to reality around me." That makes so much sense and brings peace. Thanks for that insight!
Dave

[dwilli58]

Paige,
Thanks! I hope my response to you didn't come off like dave in a china shop?;-) Just attempting to get my feet on solid ground in my head and heart! Thanks for being gracious!
Dave

[Amie]

Dave,

It seems that again you are drawing from a given promise (Hebrews 8 etc) in that his law is written on our hearts. God is a spirit, God is love - our hearts are his pillow :). How can the spirit of love not speak from there?

I think I get what you are saying per Scripture. Is it how Scripture is often used as a determiner of right and wrong? It's like verses become throwing stones.

I think that everyone is a perfect child of God in his eyes, and that we always have been. The purpose of Jesus, and then the first fruits who entered into his body, was not necessarily to be an offering so that humanity would be accepted, but to sacrifice themselves to show humanity that we already are.. they, a glorification of love.

Per 1 Cor 15, I think that the "natural body" was the embodiment of humanity via Israel, and the "spiritual body" was the body of Christ via the first fruits church. Every human being was seen in Adam, and in Israel.. every human being of the first body.. of the first humanity. Jesus was the "last" Adam and the first of a new creation.

That seed sown in corruption and raised in incorruption, was raised from the ground a sprout. It is a perfect sprout, and it will be more.

Earth was made able to come into the likeness of heaven with which it now openly communes via the heart of every person. The "unclean" are not withheld from God - God has removed the authority from humanity to make such a choice.

Amie

[dwilli58]

Amie,

I will take some time to really consider what you have said here.

Dave

[Barry]

Great point Amie.

God has removed the authority from humanity to make such a choice.

Otherwise Christ is not the last Adam and Christ did not make an end of sins as promised (Dan. 9:24).

Great thread too.
Barry

[Paige]

Hi again Dave,

I went back and re-read your post to find where I had missed out the first time through. If I'm reading you correctly, you are asking why we can still judge and make judgments today if 1 Cor. 15 is fulfilled. Did I get the question right?

If so, I would say that humanity gained the full measure of that knowledge as that OC world abounded. Once that world came to an end, I don't think all the knowledge previously gained vanished. What did happen, which had not been possible before, was that the access to the Tree of Life was now opened up. How I'm seeing this is that humanity now has the option to lay aside all fragments of old thinking passed down, and take from the healing tree. I also think that with the ending of the old, the grace of God has been fully revealed. That grace is there to lift us up when we find that we have reverted to prior old world thinking and behavior. I think the difference lies in the fact that the old world was never freed from that knowledge, so it could never transcend it. In this new world, we have been freed, so we can transcend.


I hope that answers your question. If I still didn't understand it, you'll have to re-state it for me.


Paige

[dwilli58]

Paige,
No, that answers the question. Thanks for your response. I am considering what you and Amie have had to say. I can't say I'm there yet, but I'm not totally opposed either!!!

dave