We believe there is
ONE GOD - The Father
ONE Lord - Jesus the Messiah, King of the Kingdom
ONE Hope - The Kingdom of GOD
ONE Gospel - The news regarding the coming
Kingdom and it's King
From: Rhode Island, US
About me: In love with the LORD and my wife. Jesus is coming to take over the world. Are you ready?
More..
The Role of the Gospel
What does the Gospel do?
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Romans 1.16
The Gospel is the information that results in a person’s salvation. The death of Jesus Christ does not save a person. Clearly Jesus died for all:
For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; 2 Cor 5.14
Just because Jesus died for a person does not mean they are saved. It is the Gospel that has the power to save a person. “Jesus Christ died for you” is not the gospel.
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus {as} Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. Romans 10.9-10
Romans 10.9-10 is not the Gospel. Romans 10.9-10 is what someone who responds to the Gospel looks like! Clearly, if we look at verse 8, we will see this:
But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”–that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
That word of faith - the faith delivered once to all the saints - is the Gospel. That faith of the coming Kingdom of God and King Jesus is the Gospel. This is what we have to be preaching on the streets. And we have to preach it with the same piercing intensity that John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles did. We have to warn people of the coming judgment - that the Kingdom is coming. And they can be saved if they react appropriately to the news by repenting, and believing. When someone responds to the Gospel they are a new creation. They do not look like their old self. They do not talk like their old self. They do not feel like thier old self. They are not concerned with the same things they used to be. If they stole, they return. If they lie, they speak truth. If they curse, they bless. If they hold grudges, they forgive. One cannot claim to have Christ inside you and be the same person. One cannot claim to have an encounter with God, or the risen Christ, and be unchanged. Conversion is supposed to be this tipping point of change, where there is no turning back. A conversion is what we look for out of people that we talk to. The goal is not to bring them to church. The goal is not even to feed the hungry, and clothe the cold. The goal is to convert them, to bring them to God’s Kingdom - so they can go out and convert another.
This Gospel is supposed to be everything. Yet most Christians can’t even answer the question “What is the Gospel”. The Gospel is supposed to be impetus for change for our own lives - both at our conversion and after. The Gospel is the message which we preach to people. If this Gospel isn’t what changes our life - why do we think we are saved (since the Gospel saves)? If this Gospel isn’t what we preach - why do we think we can save anyone (since the Gospel saves)? Since the Gospel saves - what are we as Christians going to do?
Isaiah 9:6 For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us. He shoulders responsibility and is called: Extraordinary Strategist, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
I recently read this verse in the NET (New English Translation) which is a Bible filled with translators' notes. It can be accessed for free at bible.org. I was shocked in a pleasant way to see how much honesty there was in the notes on Isaiah 9.6 of this Bible.
- - = [first insight] = - -
There is great debate over the syntactical structure of the verse. No subject is indicated for the verb "he called." If all the titles that follow are ones given to the king, then the subject of the verb must be indefinite, "one calls." However, some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, "and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, 'Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.'" (tn 16)
If this is true then there is no issue at all with Isaiah 9.6 calling the child (Jesus) "Mighty God." In this case it is the Mighty God who calls the child "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Just a minor change in translation/punctuation and the whole verse changes!
- - = [second insight] = - -
(gibbor) is probably an attributive adjective ("mighty God"), though one might translate "God is a warrior" or "God is mighty." Scholars have interpreted this title is two ways. A number of them have argued that the title portrays the king as God's representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see J. H. Hayes and S. A. Irvine, Isaiah, 181–82). They contend that this sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. They would suggest that having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming king's deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as "God" because he ruled and fought as God's representative on earth. Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: "No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique" (See Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67). According to proponents of this view, Isa 9:6 probably envisions a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king's enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself. (tn 18)
Thus, if this child is called "mighty God" this can mean that he is functioning as God's representative (Messiah). I love the incredible honesty when they say, "it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way [that the king is diety]". I agree wholeheartedly with this assesment. When the Messiah begins to reign (at his coming) we will see God's will be done on earth (Mat 6.9-10; Rev 11.15).
- - = [third insight] = - -
This title [Eternal Father] must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the "Son" is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the "Father.") Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of "father" see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of "father" is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850–800 B.C.) the ruler Kilamuwa declares: "To some I was a father, to others I was a mother." In another inscription (ca. 800 B.C.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts that the god Baal made him "a father and a mother" to his people. (See ANET 499–500.) The use of "everlasting" might suggest the deity of the king (as the one who has total control over eternity), but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king's long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kgs 1:31; Pss 21:4–6; 61:6–7; 72:5, 17). (tn 19)
Jesus is the father of the coming age, the patriarch of the messianic era. This is a figurative usage of the word "father," but it makes the most sense in light of the other Scriptures cited. It is remarkable, but we are in agreement with the trinitarians on this point because they also do not believe Jesus is the Father. For both of us, Jesus is the Son of the Father.
Well, these three insights impressed me, what do you think? How do you respond when someone says to you, "doesn't Isaiah 9.6 prove that Jesus is 'Mighty God?'"
This book just went on my wishlist :)
"First, the rite of baptism is designed for believers who have repented of their sin and have put their faith in God and in his Christ. Believer’s baptism is presupposed by both John’s baptism and the Matthean “Great Commission” passage."
"Second, baptism is an essential part of Christian discipleship. This is clear from the Matthean “Great Commission” passage, where disciple-making is said to consist of baptizing converts and of teaching them to obey the commands of Jesus (see also John 4:1)"
"Fourth, theologically, water baptism presupposes spiritual regenerationas a prevenient and primary work of God in and through the person of the Holy Spirit. This follows plainly from the Baptist’s announcement that the Messiah would baptize people in the Spirit. Thus repentance from sin and faith in Christ, accompanied by regeneration, are logically and chronologically prior to water baptism."
As a result of our new belief in Water Baptism - we come to ask ourselves - when is it appropriate to baptize someone?
I think the last paragraph there sums up the conclusion of the scriptures. Once a person is convicted of sin, decides to repent, has faith in the coming Kingdom Gospel, and experiences the very beginnings of the new creation that is the appropriate time.
Multiple Choice - What is the Kingdom of God?
I would like to specifically address the nature of the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of heaven (both meaning the same thing). I will pose the question of “What is the Kingdom of God” and in light of a few different verses ask that you see if your definition fits. I have my own thoughts and views as are noted on our main site which is listed to the left of this post. Here however are some popular thoughts, definitions, and perspectives
Most evangelicals today would give the answer that the Kingdom of God is the general body of believers today in the world doing the work of God.
Others would say that the Kingdom of God is the world in general, where God rules. God rules over the creation and everything is under him.
Another option is the personal rule of God in your life. For a Christian, accepting the Lordship of God and Christ, they are in this Kingdom. God is ruling their life by being the King of their heart.
Also, there is some discussion that in fact the Kingdom is another word for what most call “heaven.” Thus the Kingdom is the place one goes at death to reside in a heavenly existence on a cloud with soft white and pink lighting. (You might even have wings so you can live in heaven with God and the angels forever).
Or perhaps you understand the Kingdom of God as the literal, physical Kingdom that will begin at Jesus’ return. He will take over the world and bring peace, righteousness and justice. He will crush the wicked and oppressive and exalt the humble servants. Paradise will be restored. This is not only the hope of the Christian but the theme of the gospel itself.
Perhaps I am forgetting another popular interpretation of these words, but for today, let’s go with these. Here again are our choices.
A – The church
B – The world in general which God rules
C – Having God as the king of your heart
D – An existence in heaven as a spirit being
E – The apocalyptic physical Kingdom that will begin when Jesus comes to take over the world
Please choose which one best fits your understanding and fill that idea in when you read “Kingdom” in the following verses.
Mark 1:15 - "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
Matthew 25:34 - "…Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”
Mark 9:47 - "If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell.”
Mark 12:34 - When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." After that, no one would venture to ask Him any more questions.
Mark 10:15 - "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."
Matthew 5:3 (HCSB) - "Blessed are the poor in spirit, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs.
Matthew 19:23-24 - And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Luke 9:2 - And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to perform healing.
Luke 9:62 - But Jesus said to him, "No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."
Luke 19:11 - While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately. (Parable of money usage follows)
Luke 21:31 - "So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near.
John 3:3 - Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Acts 1:3 - To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God.
I Corinthians 15:50 - Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
II Thessalonians 1:5 - This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering.
Matthew 24:14 – This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Now, go back and read these verses again. Is there one option that fits all of the verses listed? Perhaps more than one option?
I thought that this exercise might be enjoyable and enlightening, but in all seriousness, the topic and understanding, reception and repentance in light of the Kingdom of God is critical. Perhaps no other topic is so misunderstood in Christianity, and yet at the same time so vital to the Christian.
- What’s the best answer?
- Does your interpretation of “the Kingdom of God” fit with the verses listed?
- Is this topic even something that is worth understanding, or perhaps a minor subject only?
- Do any choices not fit at all? If so, are there other verses that fit your interpretation?
This is an email I received today:
...One aspect of God that is very prevalent in the churches in Northern Virginia (a hotbed of cultural diversity as I am sure Atlanta was) is the aspect of God being feminine. Gender is quite the issue in many churches, praying to "God, he or she, which ever you prefer." Certainly there are references to God's nature as feminine characteristics, (sheltered under wings...etc.) and certainly God references himself as a "male" time and time again. He does describe His characteristics as gender specific so that we may have better understanding. That does not mean He is either male nor female. An understanding of what spirit is helps clear this up.
Once a person has allowed him/her self to distort the scriptures in one area (i.e. the trinity) then it is so much easier to distort and paste his/her own issues on God and who He is - such as making Him female. Instead of looking at the images of femaleness as ways of understanding God's relationship with us, it is taken to a deeper level of His essence.
This is surely nothing new. Ashera and other female gods were worshipped and still are...Gaia, etc. Delusion upon delusion seem to heep upon one another. That is why I am with you wanting to just know the truth because that is what I want to believe. It is scary sometimes because I don't want to be in that deluded catagory and have been at times, and still probably am in some areas... But that darkness is not wanted and God knows that and will teach me as He has continued to do through the years.
my response is below:
This is difficult to determine because God is not a human being and therefore does not necessarily have a gender. However, the Scriptures say that grace & truth came through Jesus. Thus the Son would know the best about the Father since he has the most intimate relationship with him. Jesus referred to God as "my Father" (not Mother) approximately 50 times. Thus, if we are to trust that the one who has "fully declared God" (John 1.18) knows best, then we should refer to God as our Father (in the masculine).
What do you think? Is God masculine/feminine/neuter?
This is another fantastic book. He takes a view of each of the eyewitnesses of the resurrection that contributed greatly to the Church. He looks at Mary Magdalene, Mary, Jesus' mother, Joanna, Peter, James the Brother of Jesus, Jude the Brother of Jesus, and Paul. The book is very well written with good exegetical insights all over. His basic conclusion is that the Jesus presented in the NT by the eyewitnesses of the resurrection are in agreement on all major details about Jesus. Their agreement proves that the "historical Jesus" is the Jesus of (at least first-century) Faith. He takes major umbrage at scholars who take their historical method to the extreme - as the title suggests - he blasts Tabor's conjectures in an appendix.
The overall point of the work is very very solid. But I found the best points to be smaller details that made the whole picture of the Biblical narrative so much more real and whole. I can't pick out any at the moment - I just finished it, and it's late. But I can stand back and say that this is definitely one of the best books I will read this year (even though it is the second).
I made a post on a smaller topic I found to be very insightful here - http://kingdomready.org/blog/2007/01/08/childbearing-1-tim-215/ And I plan to make another post on a smaller topic (Rev 12), so keep your eyes peeled for that.
If you are interested in reading more of him - you can find his blog right here on blogspot - http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/
On many tests from elementary school to college a popular format is what we know as “multiple choice.” You are taught that if you do not know the correct answer outright, you should try to eliminate the wrong answers to the best of your ability and choose the option that is “most likely” the answer. This would make things easy for students who didn’t really know the answer to narrow things down to get a better chance of making the right choice.
Though we have many options and choices on tests and in life in general, there is one area in our life where we cannot pick and choose. I hope we would all agree that we can’t pick and choose when it comes to the words of Christ. For example, the Sermon on the Mount is a beautiful instructive lesson for the student (disciple) of Christ to hear and obey. We wouldn’t be good “students” if we decided to heed some of his teachings and ignore others.
Jesus’ words serve as the directions to Paradise. Each one is important to follow in order to get to our desired destination. Though we at times miss a turn, back-tracking and getting back on the narrow highway is critical.
So, in light of this, what about this one?
Matthew 18:15-17 - “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”
Jesus spoke words like this for a reason. He knew that problems would arise and he wanted us to deal with them the right way. He gives us here the right way to respond to the situation of a brother sinning.
For some reason though, we rarely follow his model. Why is that? What stops us as individuals and even churches from following this direction from Christ’s words? Perhaps it is our own fear, pride, or _(fill in your challenge here) _, that gets in the way. However, perhaps I need to go to the Father in prayer when I am challenged in this area.
Of course there are qualifications on this verse that are given in Scripture elsewhere (like Galatians 6:1-2, Matthew 7:1-5, John 7:24, etc) and we do not want to busy ourselves looking around at everyone else, but we cannot forget the direction of our Lord here. We can argue over what it means to ”tell it to the church” in our modern context, but before we get there - there are two other steps before that that seem pretty clear.
In my own experience, had I and others followed the given method of Christ, there would not have been division, continuance in sin, or even bitterness. Also from my own experience, when a brother or sister has approached me out of their love for me and God and privately shown me my fault, I have been grateful. My experience is by no means the standard for how things should be, but I can speak to the beauty of Jesus’ followers heeding his words on this matter. Now, it does not always “feel good”, but for the mature Christian, humility sinks and repentance can happen - so in the end, it is “good.”
What stops us from following the direction of our Lord on this matter?
Why do you think Jesus commands us on this matter as he does?
What does it mean to treat someone (after going through all three steps) as a
“Gentile” or “tax collector?”
Are we willing to adopt our Lord’s way? Or are we going to pick and choose?
Let’s talk about it as a family…
Growing up I had always heard the God’s love was unconditional. In the spirit of not holding on to empty theological phrases and terms, I think its time for this idea to be discussed.
Clearly God is a God of love. Love permeates His character so much so that He is actually described as the personification of love (see I John 4:8). In fact, much of I John 4 speaks a great deal on love and God’s relationship to it. God’s love has been manifest primarily through the sacrificial death of Jesus. In each instance where the Scriptures speak of God’s love, God showing love or God in fact being love, all are in relationship to the cross. Check me out on that – it’s a great study.
So with the cross being the primary way God has shown love, there is no doubt that the God of the Bible is one who manifests love. Those who want to imitate Him would do well to imitate this quality with their brothers and sisters, as well as their neighbors and enemies.
However, God is more than simply defined in the word “love.” In Exodus 34, God describes Himself in 8 unique attributes which serve as the foundational understanding and description of Him through the rest of the Bible. In His own description of Himself we find more than just a repetition of synonyms of “love”:
Exodus 34:6-7 - “Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving-kindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."When God destroyed the earth by the flood, it was not because He is love, but because He is just. When He planned for His only begotten son to die, it was not because He does not leave the guilty unpunished but because He is gracious and longs to forgive iniquity, transgression and sin. We must allow the full spectrum of God’s character to define His actions and plans. We cannot look at only one quality of God and neglect the rest.
So, in light of these things, let’s return to the subject of God’s love. The love of God is the theme for our songs, many books and countless sermons. Maybe we can have some intelligent discussion about the subject.
After a great discussion at our home bible study this week, I thought I would pose the question to our blog fellowship as well. I have my own thoughts which I can elaborate on later, but in the meantime, I’m looking forward to your thoughts. I’m not looking for a specific answer or yes or no. Let’s start the discussion with this question:
“Does God love us with an unconditional love?”
Revelation 20.4-6It seems from a literal reading of this text that the distinct reward of those who are beheaded for the faith is to reign for a thousand years. I am ok with this either way because death is like time travel anyhow and my next waking moment will be the post-millenial kingdom. However, the idea of ruling the nations under the Messiah is a major part of my current hope. Does anyone have a solution to this?
Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I {saw} the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Before the holidays I read this book (it was a very quick read compared to some other books). I found that some of the practical examples of the relationship side of women were enlightening and insightful. I feel that they made a few great points about certain aspects of women. One of the better parts was a description of how Godly women appear. Stasi described a woman of beauty and power - later revealing her to be very old. I instantly thought of a woman in our congregation. However, I think the focus, or point-of-view, of the book is entirely wrong. It seems to suggest that the natural state of feeling about ones-self as a woman is to be placated, comforted, by God and Jesus. It seems to communicate that God will mold himself to be exactly what you need him to be, in the case of romance, adventure, and life-hurts. I think this is its failing. God is not here to mold to you. We need to mold to God. Our natural feelings about ourselves are to be repented and healed of. Not patched, fixed, or accommodated. Like I said, certain observations and even practical advice isn't entirely bad or incorrect - but rather the "world-view", point-of-view, or focus, is biblically off-base. We all know that we need to repent from our natural state of being and thinking.