Regenerate1

Nothin

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

“This great theme may be summarized as follows:
I. In itself the word Gospel means good news.
II. Four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished:
(1) The Gospel of the kingdom. This is the good news that God purposes to set up on the earth, in fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:16, and refs.), a kingdom, political, spiritual, Israelitish, universal, over which God’s Son, David’s heir, shall be King, and which shall be, for one thousand years, the manifestation of the righteousness of God in human affairs…
Two preachings of this Gospel are mentioned, one past, beginning with the ministry of John the Baptist, continued by our Lord and His disciples, and ending with the Jewish rejection of the King. The other is yet future (Mt. 24:14), during the great tribulation, and immediately preceding the coming of the King in glory.
(2) The Gospel of the grace of God. This is the good news that Jesus Christ, the rejected King, has died on the cross for the sins of the world, that He was raised from the dead for our justification, and that by Him all that believe are justified from all things…
(3) The everlasting Gospel (Rev. 14:6)…
(4) That which Paul calls, ‘my gospel’ (Rom. 2:16, refs.). This is the Gospel of the grace of God in its fullest development…” —C. I. Scofield
1917 Scofield Reference Bible

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

To relegate the Great Commission and baptism to a now-defunct “kingdom program” is to cut the church off from the explicit marching orders of her Lord.
5. “Rightly dividing” does not mean imposing a Mid-Acts grid
2 Timothy 2:15 calls Timothy to handle the word of truth accurately and without shame. In context it is an exhortation to careful, orthodox ministry in the face of false teachers. It is not a charter for re-partitioning the New Testament so that large portions of it no longer directly address the church. The same Paul who wrote those words expected the churches to receive and obey the teaching of the other apostles and the words of Jesus (1 Cor 7:10; 11:23; 14:37; 1 Thess 4:15; etc.).

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

1. The Church did not begin with Paul
The claim that the Body of Christ began at Paul’s conversion (Acts 9) or later is not required by the text and is contradicted by it.
At Pentecost the Spirit is poured out on the gathered disciples (Acts 2). Peter interprets this as the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy and preaches Christ crucified and risen. Three thousand are added to the number of believers. The same Spirit who later incorporates Gentiles is already active.
In Acts 2–8 the church is already called the church (Acts 5:11; 8:1, 3). It has apostles, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, common life, and persecution. Paul himself later persecutes “the church of God” (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6) before his conversion. He did not invent the church; he joined the one already existing.
Ephesians 2:11–22 and 3:6 describe Gentile inclusion into the one body that already existed. The “mystery” is not the creation of a brand-new people of God, but the full revelation that Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the same promise in Christ through the gospel. The foundation is the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone (Eph 2:20).
Reformed theology therefore locates the birth of the New Testament church at Pentecost, in continuity with the remnant of Israel that received the Messiah.
2. There is one gospel, not two
The sharp separation between “the gospel of the kingdom” and “the gospel of the grace of God” cannot be sustained.
Jesus preaches the gospel of the kingdom (Matt 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14–15). That gospel centers on His own person and work: repentance and faith in Him as the One who brings the kingdom.
Paul can summarize his own preaching as the gospel of the kingdom (Acts 20:24–25; 28:23, 31). He also calls it “the gospel of the grace of God” and “my gospel.” The content is the same: Christ crucified, buried, and raised (1 Cor 15:1–4).
Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 already proclaims the death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus, calls for repentance and faith, and offers forgiveness of sins. The same Peter later says that Jews and Gentiles are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in exactly the same way (Acts 15:11).
The New Testament does not present two different saving messages. It presents progressive revelation of the one saving work of Christ, applied first to the Jewish remnant and then, according to promise, to the nations.
3. The “mystery” does not create a new people of God cut off from Israel’s story
Paul’s “mystery” language (Rom 16:25–26; Eph 3:1–9; Col 1:25–27) is real and important. What was not previously revealed with the same clarity was the full equality of Jew and Gentile in one body through the cross, without requiring Gentiles to become Jews. That is a genuine advance in revelation.
It is not, however, the introduction of an entirely new program that leaves the earlier apostolic preaching behind. Paul insists that his gospel is the fulfillment of the Scriptures of the prophets (Rom 1:1–2; 3:21; 16:26; Gal 3:8). The church is the Israel of God in the sense that it is the community of the Messiah in whom the promises are yes and amen (Gal 6:16; 2 Cor 1:20). National Israel’s temporary hardening (Rom 11) does not erase the continuity of the one olive tree into which Gentiles are grafted.
4. Baptism and the Great Commission are not confined to Israel’s prophetic program
Jesus’ final command in Matthew 28:18–20 is given on the basis of His universal authority and is to be carried out “to the end of the age.” The apostles obey it: they baptize Jews and then Gentiles (Acts 2, 8, 10, 16, 18, 19). Paul himself is baptized (Acts 9:18; 22:16) and baptizes others (Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:14–16). He never treats water baptism as belonging only to a previous dispensation. The one baptism of Ephesians 4:5 is the Spirit’s incorporation into Christ, which is signified and sealed by water baptism in the ordinary practice of the apostolic church.

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

@Fred_Butler John actually used the word “postmillenialist”. Then you try to describe it as something postmillenialists would disagree with. You can’t make this stuff up.

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

The issue is not that he called the church to set its ultimate hope on Christ rather than elections. The issue is the specific way he framed the church’s earthly prospects,“we lose down here”, and the caricature of postmillennialism as expecting to “waltz into the kingdom” by taking over the world. Those lines go beyond “don’t put your hope in politics” and present a broader claim about the trajectory of the gospel in history.
A pastor can warn against misplaced political hope without declaring that the church loses the historical contest or misrepresenting the opposing eschatology. The pastoral context explains the tone; it doesn’t erase the theological claim or the caricature that accompanied it.

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

@mfledd Thanks for offering an apologetic that improves the original statement. MacArthur’s own words were sharper, less nuanced, and driven by a desire to shut down, what I believe, he viewed as an encroaching error.

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

@Torncurtainorg MacArthur was not attacked. This is a false accusation.

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

“We don’t win down here. We lose. You ready for that?
Oh, you thought because you were a postmillennialist, you thought we’re just going to go waltzing into the kingdom because you took over the world.
No, we lose here. Get it?
They killed Jesus, they killed all the apostles, we’re all going to be persecuted…
No, we don’t win down here… We lose on this battlefield, but we win on the big one , the eternal one.”

Why do you give MacArthur a pass when he misrepresents a position?

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

This is simply false and you can look it up yourself. Apologia and White both critiqued John at this point while John was alive. Before you go making allegations or claims of violating an arbritrary standard you invent, do your due diligence. It is perfectly fine to critique someone’s theology living or dead.

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

@ZoethHowland @TerriGreenUSA MacArthur actually caricatured postmillenialism in his sermon where he says, “we lose down here”. I don’t hear anyone calling him as uncharitable from your side.

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

@NStaabcu @TexasPreacher He’s not being persecuted. It’s a critique of his theology. MacArthur doesn’t own dispensationalism. He didn’t invent it. He held to it.

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

@neJeremy @TexasPreacher Are you accusing Durbin of lying?

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

Calling the critique of MacArthur’s “we lose down here” statement slander doesn’t hold.
MacArthur himself publicly caricatured postmillennialism as expecting Christians to “waltz into the kingdom” by taking over the world, and he regularly critiqued other positions with force. That opens his own claim to the same standard of examination. Pointing out the tension between “we lose down here” and calls to vote/act righteously, or noting that his COVID stand reflected confidence in Christ’s authority, is a critique of the position,not an attack on the man.
Apologia praised MacArthur’s broader faithfulness throughout. Disagreement over the biblical trajectory of the gospel is not slander.
MacArthur himself modeled that no teacher’s system is above scrutiny. He corrected others, received correction at times, and repeatedly emphasized that he was a sinner dependent on grace like everyone else. Holding his eschatological statements to the same standard he applied to other doctrines is consistent with that posture.

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

@Ksfire1025 @BiblicalBeauty Respect yes. And they did all throughout the video. But John’s theology is not above critique. They did not say anything about him as a man of God. They simply were critiquing his theological position here. And the asking why is rhetorical. They are asking it to make the point.

[𝔚𝔥𝔦𝔱𝔢𝔅𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔡 @HwsEleutheroi]

How quickly we have forgotten. "Let's just move on." That's how this happens again. How many of these morons have paid for their foolishness?

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

@RealJamesWoods A world gone mad.

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

@nmlinguaphile What about the firms/private companies/etc that required the clot shot under threat of dismissal? Should they bear responsibility?

[Regenerate1 @Jacjwill]

@SoteriologyA1 😂. Are you he isn’t rage baiting you or trolling ?

[Rand Paul @RandPaul]

Requiring an ID and proof of citizenship to vote is common sense.

It’s time to pass the SAVE America Act. RT if you agree.