THIS IS MY PERSONAL POSITION ON THE KINGDOM OF GOD
We are watching a growing trend of rejecting the idea that Christ is coming back literally, physically (pre-millennial view) to rule over the nations and establish his governmental rule. They have replaced it with the concept of the church is to take over the world and establish the kingdom of God.
There are over 360 references to a Millennium period where the Messiah, Jesus, will be on earth ruling the nations. The book of Revelation speaks of a thousand years as the length of this period. It tells us where and what will take place as this kingdom is established. It is not possible for one to fit the Scriptures into a present kingdom on earth now.
BELOW IS AN ON GOING COMMENTS FROM A FACEBOOK INTERACTION WE A FEW PEOPLE WHO HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE PURPOSE OF THE GOSPEL.
I do not agree with the over all view of these comments below but I thought I would give them an ear just to get us thinking.
This statement in my position is totally wrong:
“God in His sovereign WILL establish for evermore the reign of justice and righteousness throughout the whole created order (Isa. 9:7). It has YET TO HAPPEN, but IN THE END God sovereignty WILL rule over Satan, evil, and mankind.” Charles e Whisnant said:
Disagree. “God in His sovereign HAS established and IS establishing for evermore the reign of justice and righteousness throughout the whole created order (Isa. 9:7). It has ALREADY HAPPENED, and God sovereignty ALREADY RULES over Satan, evil, and mankind.” Laura Vaivada said
This was the beginning of the comments made that has led to all this Kingdom Living and Salvation and How MacArthur is not really a good preacher of the Gospel.
John MacArthur interview on being “Reformed” (a pessimistic view of the future, of course).
Laura Vaivada commented on this. She and others gave these websites to address their postion:
The writer of these thoughts is
Bojidar Marinov: “No, it can’t be said that ‘when it comes to the doctrine of soteriology, MacArthur is a five-point Calvinist.’ It can only be said that when it comes to the doctrine of soteriology, he USES THE RHETORIC of five-point Calvinism to conceal what is deep Gnosticism and humanism. MacArthur self-consciously separates man from his moral actions and from God’s original mandate, and redefines salvation to be an abstract category in which none of the five points have any meaning whatsoever. Man’s depravity is TOTAL, comprehensive, it encompasses man in his totality, including his economic, juridical, and economic actions as an individual and as institutions. Therefore God’s election is comprehensive, and every one of the other three points is also comprehensive. God’s salvation, therefore, is comprehensive, and if it doesn’t include man as a whole, then it doesn’t include anything whatsoever, because you can’t fragment man into a ‘religious’ part and ‘non-religious’ part. Salvation that is not comprehensive [world-redeeming John 3:16], therefore, is not salvation. And therefore TULIP that is not comprehensive in its meaning – encompassing man and his institutions – is not TULIP at all, but only a Gnostic mockery of TULIP.
‘He comes to make His blessings flow far as the curse is found.’ Isaac Watts could have written this to say, ‘far as my personal salvation is concerned, damned be the world.’ He didn’t. Unlike MacArthur the Gnostic, Watts was a Reformed Christian, and he understood that there is no joy, and there is no salvation, unless God’s redemption is comprehensive. This belief is what separates a true Reformed Christian from counterfeits like MacArthur.
It’s about time for us to quit judging a man by what he shows on the surface – rhetoric that is theologically correct – and start judging men based on their foundational presuppositions.”
Charles said: This Marinov is totally wrong in his view of MacArthur, he never uses rhetoric and he is is not deep Gnosticism and humanism, sorry but he really should repent of such a false statement.
Charles–Nice rebuttal. Calling for repentance without dealing with issue. Oh yeah, I believe that is called rhetoric, Gnosticism and humanism. Bojidar Marinov backs his statements up as to why he makes this claim theologically. You call a man to repentance without equivocating the necessary need for repentance. What you are asking him to do is repent for saying something you do not like or agree with. There is no need for repentance here.
Secondly, Cindy we must call out men who use the Word of God incorrectly. We are to call them to the standard of God’s Word regardless of their work in the Kingdom of God because it is not our Kingdom and it is not our work but God’s Russell Traweek
Mr. MacArthur is a dispensationalist which means he wrongly divides the Word of God, and that is dualistic and gnostic to the core. Dispensationalism will never produce a comprehensive Biblical worldview (for it rejects the OT as binding, the antithesis of Covenant theology), and so, since there is no neutrality, the default view for every area of life other than what is covered in the NT is humanism. This is true of all dispensationalists, whether they subscribe to TULIP soteriology or not. It just plain is. Until he repents of his Dispensationalism and becomes thoroughly covenantal and addresses every area of life and culture (Mr. MacArthur says “don’t touch politics”), then it is humanism (and gnosticism) that drives his worldview in all those areas of life and culture ignored by his presuppositions. Mr. Marinov has written on this over and over again – dualism (metaphysical, etc.) and gnosticism are inherent in dispensational theology. So, it is not really a false statement to be repented of. Laura
Charles said: Yes if you are coming from a Reformed, Covenant position I can see that you would have disagreement with ones who has a dispenstional/pre imillennai positon. I get that. But to tag those of us who are, it wrong to say we are humanism, gnosticism, dualism, but of course they did peg Calvin with TULIP label too. Okay I see that you can see that we are wrong, as we can see that the other positions are as wrong too. And it is not true that Bojida has more intelligent than MacArthur has. That really is a statement that is coming from left field. What I have learned the Reformed folks say you can not be a Reformed Baptist, but there are sure a lot of churches that are both. Charles writes
You can’t be Reformed in your soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and not be Reformed in everything else; your worldview in every area of life must be in harmony with what you believe about God, Jesus Christ, Salvation, and the Kingdom of God. Says Bojidar Marinov. Who says! Can you be a Calvinist and not whole all that Calvinist is say to believe? Can you be a Baptist and not whole to all that it is said to be Baptist. There are few in any group that believe totally all that that group holds. Right? Charles writes
What we are saying is that to be Reformed is to accept the sovereignty of God over every area of life. Every square inch of creation – seen and unseen. And God commands righteousness over every square inch of seen and unseen creation. The creation was originally righteous (very good). The fall (Reformed doctrine) affected every aspect of the creation – seen and unseen, every square inch of it. The cross reverses all that – it redeems it all .. over time, bit by bit. But there is no part of creation (seen or unseen) that is unaccountable to God’s law. Dispensationalism by definition rejects a) God’s law, b) God’s sovereignty over the areas of creation (seen and unseen) that are not repeated or introduced in the NT. Dispensatinalists emphasize the spiritual world (vertical) and accept the curse in the material world (except in the church, but the pagan world is okay to be under the curse (gnositicsm) . This is metaphysical dualism. They pit the NT (grace) against the OT (law). This is another form of dualism. This is NOT Reformed theology. This is NOT Calvinism. Neo-Calvinist soteriology does recognize the sovereignty of God in salvation of man’s hearts, praise God, but not in the salvation of the world (John 3:16) which includes all areas of life. To be Reformed is to accept God’s sovereignty over ALL things, to accept God’s law over all things, and to represent God on this earth in proclaiming and applying His sovereignty and law to all things. Anything less is humanism, not Reformed.
Sir, re “And it is not true that Bojidar has more intelligent than MacArthur has.” It’s not about intelligence. It’s about a calling from God to prophesy – that is to speak “Thus saith the Lord” and be true to the Word of God – the Covenant of God – its standard (Law), its sanctions (blessings and curses), and its application to our modern situation. This is the standard of a prophet, of a leader, of a pastor, of a teacher, of an elder. Bojidar faithfully delivers this message to the church; Mr. MacArthur rejects this message. Both are intelligent men. One of them understands the Covenant and how to apply it and is warning the church; the other is saying “peace peace” when there is no peace.
The Reformers (who were Reformed theologians) most certainly DID concern themselves with politics and civil government and the laws of the land. They said the Old Testament civil laws (moral equity that is), DID apply to the state, and it was the state’s job (Romans 13) to implement and enforce God’s laws for crime in its spheres. This is a known fact. They knew tyranny when they saw it. In fact, they used (and provided the study notes for) the Geneva Bible which uses the word ‘tyrant’ over four hundred times to describe wicked kings and emperors (politics). But the KJV was commissioned by James I in order to get rid of these political references – he was an apostate Armininan (that’s another story). Anyway, despite the Reformers being very political (this is historic Reformed theology), you won’t find the word at all in the AV. It’s the king’s Bible – how can a divine monarch ever be a tyrant? So, John MacArthur’s “Calvinism” is not Reformed, because a) it is dispensational (described above) and b) he rejects advocating the redemption of culture to the glory of God, and c) he rejects that politics, economics, etc., are also to be redeemed according to the Word of God, so that tyrants may not rule in place of God. Tyranny is idolatry and any Christian who rejects this “every area of life” “city on a hill” view is necessarily advocating tyranny, evil, oppression, wickedness … Those who do not oppose evil do condone it, and the Lord spits compromisers out of His mouth.
Why am I so passionate about this? Because I understand the covenant. I understand the law. I understand the sanctions. I understand God’s sovereignty. God’s covenant blessings and curses (Deut. 28) apply to the church. I have a book full of John Calvin’s sermons on Deut. 27 and Deut. 28. John Calvin most certainly did not support what John MacArthur says, but rather exactly what Bojidar is saying. Why is this important? Because if the church doesn’t repent of the dualism real quick, and lets the tyranny grow and grow (saying “that’s normal” or “not our job”), we will ALL suffer the wrath of God on our nations because we turned our ear from the true prophet to the false prophets. Read the OT and shake in your boots because those covenantal promises apply to the people of God. And there is a little principle in Scripture – to whom much is given, much is required. The more light you have, the more (not less) accountable you are. So if OT Israel (pre-cross) was accountable, and judged covenantally for breaking covenant, then chastised (very painful, those captivities by the Assyrians and Babylonians – do we really WANT that today by, oh, say either communists or Muslims??????), and then granted forgiveness upon repentance, and delivered via prophets and men who feared God and implemented His law (or else) .. my question is … .HOW MUCH MORE accountable is the church today???? After all we’ve been given – the cross! Christian growth. Christian civilization. And the Americans in particular who have been given so much!!!! By blood, sweat and tears, and then to turn their backs on what the Reformers and Puritans and 1776 revolutionaries did, and say “peace peace” when there is no peace? We are headed for serious judgment – not because it’s “end times” but because we are content with idolatry and paganism, and look to celebrity leaders who itch our ears. May God have mercy on us. Lauara
Yes, missionaries go to godless pagan societies and live among them and share a part of the gospel with them – the saving their souls for heaven part. Yes, they do this against tyrannical leaders. But then they have nothing to offer in their theology beyond saving souls. In a culture that glorifies the state or its messianic leader, God can not be glorified. Therefore, the first job of a missionary should be to preach against the glorification of the state; and show the Biblical value of the individual, and his place before God, and in his society. Following from that goal, a missionary must realize that the idolatry of the totalitarian state has created a dependence of the population on the care, the decrees, and the decision-making process of the state. True repentance is forsaking of idols and putting on Christ instead in every area of life. True Gospel spreading is the whole Gospel, not just the gospel of individual salvation, but the salvation of every area in the culture, all of which requires forsaking statism and dependence upon the state for education, food, welfare, etc. If a missionary does this, he is being consistent with what I’m saying. If a missionary helps a pagan culture build a truly Christian society, he is being consistent with what I’m saying. A missionary to a pagan land (including our own communities in the U.S., and Canada) must have a theology that can break that psychological, economic, and social dependence on the state in his converts. He must be able to present a vision of a community which can survive without having to rely on the state for guidance, education, welfare, economic survival, or family integrity and faithfulness. That vision of such a community must start with teaching the individuals the basic skills for a free man, a free individual who can make decisions independently from earthly human institutions, based solely on his obedience and loyalty to God and His Law. Without such vision for the individual as an independent agent of rule under God, the spell of the idol of statism can not be broken. No matter how many converts a missionary can have, they will be ineffective, dualistic, and gnostic, serving God on Sundays, and the state Mondays through Saturdays.