tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post4447898973822501797..comments2023-09-17T08:45:50.720-04:00Comments on Stuff Out Loud: A Faulty View of the Kingdom?Larryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-43274624066331950462007-11-07T08:46:00.000-05:002007-11-07T08:46:00.000-05:00Thanks Keith,As you did, I too will just drive by ...Thanks Keith,<BR/><BR/>As you did, I too will just drive by quickly and clarify.<BR/><BR/>First, you are correct that I missed the "not" in there. <BR/><BR/>And I don't see these kingdom things. I see people making a mockery out of them, but that's about it. You say the kingdom began and is growing. Yet I would argue that if you look at the OT descriptions and look at what we see around us (even allowing for different genres, which I do), I just don't see it in any meaningful way. <BR/><BR/>Second, as far as language, I do believe in these different genres. But I don't think that helps because I think even the genres support what I am saying, or to put it differently, I have yet to be convinced otherwise. <BR/><BR/>As far as my comment on Proverbs/Keller and on the OT, I don't think it is problemmatic to preach from the OT. In fact, I am in the middle of a series on Genesis that will take up more than a year by the time it is said and done. I am an OT PhD student. So it is not problemmatic to preach from the OT. I think we need to do more of it, as a whole.<BR/><BR/>But was Proverbs given to teach a theology of social ministry to the church? My commitment to the integrity of the OT leads me to say no. And in that message, as I recall, there was a great deal that I agreed with. But Proverbs was not given for that reason, IMO. I can't see the warrant for preaching a theology of social ministry for the church from the book of Proverbs. <BR/><BR/>You say, "All of the Bible is all of his people for all time." Are you packing up today to move away from your home, your family, and your relatives on the basis of Genesis 12? I doubt it. Which means that while Gen 12 is for us in a sense, it is also not for us in a sense. <BR/><BR/>So we have to be more careful with this broad statements because they are open to so many problems. <BR/><BR/>So I believe strongly in the OT and its relevance. And that is, in large part, why I hold the position on the kingdom that I do. I don't think the NT came along and changed it. I think it has meaning on its own basis, rather than only when the NT comments on it.<BR/><BR/>I should run but hopefully that will clarify at least a bit. <BR/><BR/>If someone differs from me on the present form of the kingdom, I am okay with that. I am not all that okay with amillennialists because I think there are some serious issues. But I consider some amillennialists to be brothers, based on what I have read and heard from them. I simply don't agree. I assume most of them would view me the same way if they knew me.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-66374667991281163032007-11-07T08:02:00.000-05:002007-11-07T08:02:00.000-05:00I'm running out of time again, so unfortunately, h...I'm running out of time again, so unfortunately, here's another drive by . . . <BR/><BR/>In your earlier post on the Gospel Coalition you critqued Tim Keller's view on the Kingdom/Mercy Ministry because he "once preached a message on this topic based almost completely on the book of Proverbs."<BR/><BR/>Such comments are what really cause many of us to drop our jaws when coversing with fundamentalist dispensationalists. On one hand fundamentalists have stood so strong for the inspiration and inerrancy of all 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. Yet. on the other hand, it is somehow problematic to preach from the OT.<BR/><BR/>All of the Bible is God's word for all of his people for all time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-9692109815745079082007-11-07T07:52:00.000-05:002007-11-07T07:52:00.000-05:00I'm not sure I understand you when you write: "Ye...I'm not sure I understand you when you write: "Yes it was, but it is now. Isn't that self-evident?"<BR/><BR/>Did you mean: "Yes it was, but it is not now . . ."<BR/><BR/>If that's what you meant, I'd respond that, no it is not self-evident. If it were self-evident there wouldn't be a debate among faithful, wise, well educated ministers and laymen.<BR/><BR/>Allow me to respond to your question with some questions: Are you saying Christ's kingdom began and then ended?<BR/><BR/>I'd say his kingdom began and it is growing. It is here to some degree already but not yet in its fullness.<BR/><BR/>And, as far as the OT descriptions occuring in the NT, one must allow for prophetic/poetic/metaphoric language. Otherwise, we should still be waiting to see a literal serpant bruise the saviors literal heel, we should still be waiting to see the savior on a literal tree, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-15560760473386224682007-11-06T14:59:00.000-05:002007-11-06T14:59:00.000-05:00Yes, it is all over!Yes it was, but it is now. Isn...<I>Yes, it is all over!</I><BR/><BR/>Yes it was, but it is now. Isn't that self-evident? I have not seen the kingdom things that Jesus was talking about. I may have simply been in the wrong place or watching the wrong channel.<BR/><BR/>Seriously though, what Jesus was referring to is nowhere to be found today, at least the OT describes it and as Jesus performed it.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-16730216172128738572007-11-06T08:41:00.000-05:002007-11-06T08:41:00.000-05:00Yes, it is all over!Maybe more later.Yes, it is all over!<BR/><BR/>Maybe more later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-71346890825738495832007-11-06T08:37:00.000-05:002007-11-06T08:37:00.000-05:00Thanks Keith. I too will be brief since I am on my...Thanks Keith. I too will be brief since I am on my way out the door to hear Doug Moo lecture on Romans again.<BR/><BR/>I don't think it is a questionable hermeneutic to interpret the OT in light of the NT. I think the problem is that the modern interpretations of the OT in light of the NT are not the necessary interpretations. In other words, it seems to me that what some are doing is not using the apostolic model of OT usage, but rather a later model. <BR/><BR/>Secondly, this later model implies, at least tacitly to some degree, that the OT cannot stand on its own ... that we would have no idea what it actually means unless we have the NT. I completely reject that. I think the NT uses the OT appropriately. I am not convinced that modern interpreters read the OT in the NT as the apostles used it.<BR/><BR/>There are a variety of usages of the OT in the NT, some of which are not literal, grammatical, historical, but which are not intended to be. They are simply borrowing words, or some such, which is a long discussion that I don't want to get into for the sake of time. But I don't think that anything Jesus or Paul said contradicts the OT or changes the meaning. I do think some modern interpreters contradict or change the meeaning, not maliciously to be sure.<BR/><BR/>Lastly on your two proof texts, I agree with both, and don't think say what you think they say. They say that the "kingdom is here." And it was. That was my point about the kingdom being here when Jesus was here. But remember in Matt 21 it was taken away and will be given to a people producing the fruit of it, which I take to be end time Israel, not the church. <BR/><BR/>Secondly, the Luke 17 passage about the "kingdom within you" was spoken to a group of Pharisees who were not believers in Christ and in fact were antagonists. The kingdom was certainly not spiritually inside them. That text cannot, in my judgment, be used to argue for an internal form of the kingdom. What Christ was telling them was that they were living in the midst of kingdom times and kingdom type activities. They were looking for the kingdom and Christ was saying, "Look around. It is all over."<BR/><BR/>BTW, you don't have to preface your comments with a disclaimer about not being nasty. I will assume you are not being nasty. I enjoy the interaction and try not to read the worst into people's comments. <BR/><BR/>Thanks againLarryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-56760188712573425152007-11-06T08:00:00.000-05:002007-11-06T08:00:00.000-05:00The brevity of this response is due to time shorta...The brevity of this response is due to time shortage. It is not intended to be nasty.<BR/><BR/>That said, it is not a questionable hermeneutic for Christians to interpret the OT in the light of the NT. The NT is full of passages giving the proper interpretation of the OT. If Christians are correct, and the NT is God's word and Jesus is the Christ, then these interpretations are the acurate interpretations of the OT. Jesus interprets the OT regularly as does Paul. These interpretations do not contradict or change the real meaning of the OT, but some do differ from the apparent meaning of the OT. They do not uniformly follow some literalist, grammatical-historical approach.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, here are just two passages in which Jesus teaches the arrival of the Kingdom:<BR/><BR/>"Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:14, 15.<BR/><BR/>"The kingdom of God cometh not with outward show; neither shall they say, Lo here! or, Lo there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17: 20, 21.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-58210115748524442752007-11-05T21:43:00.000-05:002007-11-05T21:43:00.000-05:00Very helpful once again. Thanks, Larry.Very helpful once again. Thanks, Larry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com