The Kingdom of Heaven and Kingdom of God Are Not Different - Refuting Mid-Acts Dispensationalism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- What is the Difference Between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God?
Today, I continue my ongoing refutation of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. We continue the Biblical correction of these who wrongly divide the word of truth by correcting their wrong division of the Kingdom of heaven and the Kingdom of God.
Mid-Acts Dispensationalists and Classical Dispensationalists make a distinction between the Kingdom of heaven and the Kingdom of God. The view goes like this. The Kingdom of heaven and Kingdom of God are two separate and distinct kingdoms. In order to properly represent their position and not be accused of arguing a strawman, let's go to that hero of Classical Dispensationalism. Scofield's note at Matthew 3:2 gives us a definition of the Kingdom of heaven.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
DONATE: forthemaster.o... or www.buymeacoff...
WEBSITE: jonathanburris...
PODCAST: podcasters.spo...
FACEBOOK: / dr.jonathan.burris
TWITTER: / thepastorburris
EMAIL: drburris@icloud.com
Actually, you won't find any evidence or mention of "dispensationalism" in Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John. Turn, instead, to 1 Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10, 3:2 and Colossians 1:25. Paul was entrusted with the dispensation of the Gospel of Grace to the gentiles starting in Acts 9:15. His apostleship to the
gentiles was also affirmed by James, Peter, and John in Galatians 2:7-10 and, again by Peter in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
Thank you for refuting this dangerous and deceptive doctrine. One would think that if a doctorine began 200 years ago - that it IS not what the early believers followed. But most of Churchianity will die on this hill. They are following two gospels when there is one.
I’m a “mid verse” dispensationalist… whenever I’m in the middle of a verse of scripture that I don’t like, easy solution -> that’s for the Jews in the tribulation / millennium or whatever 😂 gotta rightly divide and such
This comment is gold, thank you
Facts. Exactly what they do.
I'm a Messianic. I believe that the world today is populated by three People groups, Jews, Gentiles, and the Church. And I have always tended to imagine that this can be represented as two overlapping circles. In one circle we have the Jews, in the other we have the Gentiles, and in the space where these circles overlap we have the Church, in which we find both Jewish and Gentile believers in Mashiach. Though I also identify as what I refer to as a normative Dispy, I have never seen any distinction between KOH & KOG. I do find the mid Acts folk rather interesting, and I'm not sure how they would define where I fit, or what my position should be in the team. I am left to assume that they believe I should remain on the reserves bench, or on the left right out-field... But that's their problem, not mine. I, like the rest of the Church, belong on home base.
This is off-topic, but I have this weird dispensationalist who is continually contacting me. He is evidently more dispy than the mid-Acts dispys. I guess he only believes that four Epistles (Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians) are written for the church. The rest of the Epistles (even Paul’s) belong to a different dispensation. He doesn’t believe in water baptism or the Lord’s Supper, because they are physical acts rather than spiritual. Is this guy alone in this weird teaching? Or is this some weird dispy cult that is fairly widespread?
Most mid act dispensationalists I know say they are the same, at least the ones I used to follow.
Growing up I was taught that Christians get the New Heavens, and Jews get the New Earth.
Yeah, I was taught that as well. That is unbiblical.
The kingdom of heaven is simply the more semetic way of saying the kingdom of God, which was more popular with the Greek speaking world. The fact that there is more than one way to say the thing is not new. Even in America, depending on the region /culture one lives, language is often customized and nuanced to that particular culture. For instance, if you want to ask someone for a carbonated drink, some places refer to it as a pop, other places say soda, and others refer to it as a coke. Different words, same context. So it is with the kingdom of heaven/God.
Amen. It don't be like that.
Your comment from Edersheim about the Hebrews' reluctance to use the name of God was especially enlightening to help understand Matthew's exclusive use of the term, 'Kingdom of Heaven.' It is so freeing to read the Word of God without a man-concocted filter over it. Over and over, the Bible explains itself and how to interpret itself without external 'systems' being placed upon it. Thanks for addressing this subject so well.
Yet Matthew uses it anyway.
Since Jesus used it interchangeably in Matthew 19:23 & 24, we can be assured that they are the same. It is true that Jesus was not slavishly bound to that cultural habit. But Edersheim's insight might shed light on the frequent use of the phrase in the book of Matthew with its strong Jewish orientation.
It amazes me the ignorance, when it comes to this topic. I am IFB and was raised Dispensational. I am now no longer dispensational, but when I studied the Bible for myself without any theological system telling me what I should see in the text, I realized dispensationalism is a highly flawed framework. I also do not identify as covenant either. Though I agree with covenant on certain topics. God bless hang in there , it’s ok to be different amongst the normality .
Trying to get dispensational people to understand this is so tough. I'm same, having abandoned the dispensational system of interpretation.
I always ask God to help me to be gracious when discussing topics as this . Some of my heroes were dispensational, a lot of my church is still dispensational, with others not being dispensational. There is a tide coming in my generation where dispensational principles are starting to be questioned when compared to scripture . Even those who still identify as dispensational are really more progressive dispensational, and have moved away from classic and revised versions. Either way we all can have disagreement without disunity !
@@RIBpastor Amen. I agree with everything you said and would add that I believe the wave is already here. I'm the same with our church. I just continually run up against how divisive some dispensational people are. I should know because I was one. 😮
“But it don’t be like that” Amen..That should be one of your signature quotes.
This very far distinction is made by Dr. Ruckman's Mid-Acts position, the Mid-Acts position of Charles Baker (Scofield's protege's protege) agreed with Scofield his pastor, and not with the very far distinction Dr. Ruckman made (see his book The Sure Word of Prophecy) those who endorse Dr. Ruckman's Mid-Acts view are under the allusion that "The Sure Word of Prophecy" is a "definitive work."
I hold the position of Larkin, Baker and Scofield, not Dr. Ruckman's.
Scofield stated one is within another “Pardon me if I dwell yet a moment upon these distinctions, for they are fundamental to any clear understanding of the Scriptures. The kingdom of God is the great inclusive term. The kingdom of heaven has its full manifestation in the thousand years' reign of Christ over the earth. The church is a distinct body of saved ones between Pentecost and the descent of the Lord into the air just before the great tribulation, who are to be associated with Him in the rule when the kingdom of heaven is set up. The kingdom of heaven is in the kingdom of God, but it does not follow that the two terms are synonymous. For example, the State of Texas is in the United States, but it is not the United States. Because it is in the United States it has much in common with the United States. It has the same president; the same constitution is the supreme law, the same language is spoken, but it would be mere con- fusion to speak of the State of Texas and the United States interchangeably. The kingdom of Scotland is in Great Britain, but it is not Great Britain. The kingdom of heaven is in the kingdom of God. Therefore, we may expect to find in the Scriptures a great many things which are common to the kingdom of heaven and we cannot make apply interchangeably to both.” pg. 106-107 Addresses on Prophecy by Dr. CI Scofield
Chafer puts it excellently: “No attempt is made by these expositors to explain why the term kingdom of heaven is used by Matthew only, nor do they seem to recognize the fact that the real difference between that which these designations represent is to be discovered in connection with the instances where they are not and cannot be used interchangeably rather than in the instances where they are interchangeable. Certain features are common to both the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God, and in such instances the interchange of the terms is justified. Closer attention will reveal that the kingdom of heaven is always earthly while the kingdom of God is as wide as the universe and includes as much of earthly things as are germane to it. Likewise, the kingdom of heaven is entered by a righteousness exceeding the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20), while the kingdom of God is entered by a new birth (John 3:1-16). So, again, the kingdom of heaven answers the hope of Israel and the Gentiles, while the kingdom of God answers the eternal and all-inclusive purpose of God.” (Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology Vol. 4, pg. 26)
And the Baker says the same in his systematic: "A great deal of confusion concerning the Kingship of Christ has arisen because of a misunderstanding of the Scriptural use of the word kingdom. A kingdom implies a king. If there is such a thing as the kingdom of God today, must there not be a king in that kingdom? Assuredly there must. God Himself is King in the Kingdom of God. God's kingdom, according to Scripture, is at times represented as the entire universe, as in Daniel 4:17; and at other times as limited to those beings who are in subjection to God spiritually, as in John 3:3. God's kingdom reigneth over all. Thus the Body of Christ of this dispensation as well as the Messianic Kingdom of the coming dispensation are both a part of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is analogous to the United States as being one and yet comprised of several distinct States. One may be in New York or California and be in the United States, but one cannot be in New York while he is in California. And just as New York and California are separate and distinct parts of the United States, so the Body of Christ and the Messianic Kingdom are separate and distinct parts of the Kingdom of God. When dispensationalists make reference to the kingdom and to Christ's office of King they mean what the great majority of Scriptural references mean by these terms, namely, the millennial, Messianic kingdom promised to Israel but which will have dominion over the whole earth for a thousand years. It should be apparent to every one that Christ is not now reigning as king in this sense of the word." (Charles F. Baker, A Dispensational Theology, pg. 322)
Excellent analysis which I agree with and it’s biblical, the person who made this video just bashed dispensationalism and didn’t explain the differences between the scriptures he put on the screen in the end there is most definitely a difference between the 2 kingdoms especially when you read the parables and if you believe that salvation can’t be lost how can the “ sons of the kingdom” be thrust out of the kingdom? A lot of times both are used interchangeably but exceptions are made when speaking of the kingdom of Heaven which Jesus primarily taught in the gospels as having its fulfillment in the Millennium which the Jews understood. In Acts 1 they asked Jesus will you at this time restore again the Kingdom to Israel ? So the Kingdom of heaven is a physical kingdom and the Kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom- John 3:3,6 and Romans 14. The times in the gospels where the same story or parable or expression is used it is sometimes referring to both kingdoms and other times to different kingdoms : Matt 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven ( poor in spirit) Luke 6:20 Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God . What’s the difference ? Why dosent Luke say poor in spirit as Matthew does? It’s referring to different people in different situations in different kingdoms that’s just 1 example
The Kingdom of Heaven : had a beginning The Kingdom of God: is eternal
K kingdom of heaven: contains sinner and Satan The Kingdom of God contains only the righteous.
Do you know why your first argument is the weakest argument?
You should debate this topic of Dispensationalism on Standing for Truth youtube channel, Socal Preston is a KJVO Hyper Dispensationalist and I know would love to debate you on this Topic.
I'm personally a Act 2 Dispensationalist and I don't believe Faith+Works in the old testament as Hyper Dispensationalist like Socal Preston does
Great content brother! My experience has been - any teacher making this distinction between the supposed kingdoms always has something wonky in their teaching. Miss Piggy getting waylaid was the perfect visual for your point. If it just weren’t for that “may-sonic” G on the wall…….😂
Good breakdown, Pastor B. You performed a C.S.I on C.I.S, i.e., a crime scene investigation on Cyrus Ingerson Scofield.
The four gospel authors were presenting the same message but intended for different audiences. According to Ireneaus of Lyons in his book Against Heresies from 180 AD, Matthew wrote first for a Hebrew audience, Mark wrote down what Peter preached to the Romans, Luke wrote down what Paul preached to the Greeks and John batted clean-up to the first three in order to augment the general synoptic message.
Some observations:
1. Dispensationalism is a revival of the first century Judaizer controversy when some Jewish Christians insisted that Gentiles also needed to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses.
2. This was addressed and rebutted at the Council of Jerusalem, as well as in Galatians 2 when Paul confronted Peter when he came to Antioch and had wrongly conformed himself to Judaizer practice.
3. The Judaizer controversy eventually died out as both Jewish and Gentile converts merged together into single Christian communities. The destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD signaled there was no longer any need for Jewish Christians to observe customs related to ancient temple worship. The Letter to the Hebrews helped significantly to bridge the gap for Jewish converts in diaspora by showing how Jesus had superseded temple sacrifice. He was the prophetic fulfillment of a new covenant and priesthood according to order of Melchizedek that was ratified by His blood on Calvary.
4. By first making a distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God, and then secondly positing a rapture whereby followers of the kingdom of God are suddenly removed while followers of a specifically Jewish kingdom of heaven rule the earth, Dispensationalism seeks to reestablish the Old Covenant as the dominant religion in the future, thereby making the church Jesus Christ established null and void.
5. But didn't Jesus say, "and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world"? (Matthew 28:20, KJV)
Excellent break down Pastor. Just wondering when you will come on over to superior theology and embrace reformed theology..lol
I’m Reformed in my soteriology. I’m just trying to hang on to that Pre-Trib rapture. Pray for me :)
@@pastorburris I hung on to pre-trib for awhile after becoming reformed but the evidence in Scripture and in the creeds and confessions led me to amillennialism.
@@SoldierofChrist9I have strong questions with amil. I’m still studying and learning. But the path seems to be postmil>amil> full preterist
Which means there is no physical resurrection only spiritual which Paul soundly refuted.
Basically, I see zero difference between full preterism and atheism…
They both end in the grave with you the individual being nothing but a cosmic blip of consciousness along the way.
Great video!!! I really like the video clips you slip in!!! This was helpful.
I'm a mid acts dispensationalist and agree that the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are the same.
I do not mean this rude in any way. You are the first Mid-Acts person I have ever met who held that position. That is interesting.
So glad your channel is not KJV-Only only.
It never will be. That’s not my ministry. I am an apologist. Part of my pastoral ministry is to defend the faith. Sometimes, that means doing so within the family of the body of Christ. No doubt, there will be times when I go back to that subject in the future, but it is never to trash the KJV or anyone that uses it. My goal is to raise a generation of believers who know more about the Bible and are better equipped to defend their faith than most men coming out of seminary. Thank you for the encouragement.
Just seeing the parallel passages alone knocks the life out of the argument for the difference between the Kingdom of heaven and the Kingdom of God!
Thank you for posting this video, Pastor Jonathan! I have made it a point to give this a BIG once-over again with God and His written Word. I thought that, this teaching certainly goes against what Michael Pearl at “The Door” channel says, even after he’s put upwards of 30 years into the study of it, and published a book about it. (I do applaud ALMOST anyone who says that they have studied, researched, studied more, then crafted and published a book about their work. THAT takes effort.)
Boomhauer! LOL!
Sad you are so wrong on this.
This is not a biblical refutation. Saying I am wrong does not make it so.
Jonathan, I am apologizing to you. I am not a believer in Christianity. I comment on different vids about some aspects of Christianity. I watched a couple of your vids and did not understand the depth of your understanding of the Bible. I always liked you, I just didn't realize what a brain you got on you. You are an honest man as well.
I have to ask you though, I know you have decades of using the KJV and an affinity for it. I get that, I was in a group that used the NASB when I was a believer 40 years ago. When I started read the Bible again, as an intellectual pursuit, I am not going to believe in Christianity again, I read a HCSB that I downloaded free on my Kindle. I liked that, I thought it very readable. Since then I have been reading a NEB and a NRSV. I find these, especially the NEB to be very "readable."
I am curious as to how you feel about other translations. I get your everyday and preaching bible is the KJV. Are there any others that you like? Feel comfortable using and reading?
Great question. I have fallen in love with the LSB. It is a revision of the NASB 95. The ESV reads buttery smooth and I like it as well. I find the CSB to be very similar to the ESV. The NKJV is fine, but if I’m going to read that, I might as well say in the KJV for the beauty of the language. I prefer a strong formal equivalence translation, so the NASB and LSB appeal to me more than others. I do not like the NASB 2020 as it introduces some unnecessary gender neutral language. I think the NLT is a suitable version for young readers and especially for those who have learning disabilities or difficulties with reading comprehension. But no serious Bible student could ever use it for meaningful exegesis.
The LSB seems like it is catching on. I like to read on Bible Gateway now and again, all the different translations. The New English Bible has a good feel to it for me, I am going to finish the Hebrew Bible in that and the NRSV and then read the Apocrypha for the first time in something else. After that I think I am going to read the New Testament in the order the books were written in the NKJV.
Fascinating stuff. I am Jeremiah right now, I just read it, I don't study it. The Books of Samuel and Ecclesiastes have been my favorites so far.
you're full of it thats for sure. this man supports Disney and marvel movies. get off his nuts.
@michaelrobinson28314, that kind of language will get you blocked. We do not honor our Lord with such words. Man up. Men should not act like children.
youre right Mr. Burris. I will do better. I will man up and do better regarding fulfilling the lust of my flesh. you've been instrumental in exposing my holes and weaknesses
Common sense isn’t common anymore. For starters, the words “Heaven” and “God” are spelled differently and both have different definitions, just like male and female.
God created the Heaven (Genesis 1:1), Nobody created God (Deuteronomy 33:27).
There’s violence in heaven (Matthew 11:12), there’s no violence in God, actually the exact opposite, righteousness, peace, joy (Romans 14:17).
There’s no wicked children in God, but there is in heaven (Matthew 13:38).
There are no enemies in God, but there are enemies in heaven (Matthew 13:39).
There are stars in heaven (Genesis 15:5), no stars in God (Genesis 1:16).
There are birds in heaven (Jeremiah 19:7), no birds in God.
There are clouds in heaven (Matthew 26:64), no clouds in God.
The heaven(s) are material which can be seen and destroyed (Isaiah 45:18, 2 Peter 3:10), God can’t be seen, nor destroyed (John 4:24, Romans 1:20).
God controls the heaven (Hebrews 1:3), the heavens don’t control God.
The Heaven can be populated physically (Genesis 1:28), man can’t procreate in God.
The heaven contains darkness (Genesis 1:2), there’s no darkness in God (1 John 1:5).
The list goes on and on, but that’s just a few scriptural examples to show the differences between the two kingdoms, as both kingdoms have different names.
You did not deal with the points I made in the video. You cherry picked verses that have nothing to do with the subject matter at all. 🤦♂️
This is an example of metonymy. The word "heaven" is used to refer to God, who is closely associated with heaven.
From Webster's 1828 dictionary:
*MET'ONYMY, noun [Gr. over, beyond, and name.] In rhetoric, a trope in which one word is put for another; a change of names which have some relation to each other; as when we say, 'a man keeps a good table.' instead of good provisions. 'We read Virgil.' that is, his poems or writings. 'They have Moses and the prophets, ' that is, their books or writings. A man has a clear head, that is, understanding, intellect; a warm heart, that is affections.*
(See also Webster's 7th definition of "heaven.")
Cf. Daniel 4.25-26: "[T]ill thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men . . . after that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule."
@@MAMoreno Unfortunately, “Metonymy” could only be allowed when the context of the passage in question allows it. As for the examples I provided above, “Metonymy” will not work, unless you become the final authority and get to decide what the scriptures are actually saying, rather than take them at face value. The trans and queers community have the same line of thinking when applying words to identify themselves, when in reality, the words they use at face value mean something completely different, than who they actually are. The origin of this kind of logic comes from Satan in the garden when he made the following remark, “Yea, hath God said,”. In all, rather than letting the context define the words of scripture, as they’re written, and as words have different definitions, man has a tendency to insert his fallible logical reasoning into the scripture because “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
@@TheWordofTruth1611Let's see if you take the Scriptures at face value or if you are playing the hypocrite:
1 Corinthians 15:1-11
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
- "Therefore, whether it were I... or THEY... so WE preach, and so ye believed."
-There is only one gospel, and all the apostles preached it, including Paul. Do you agree with this truth?
@@matthewsouthwell3500 you clearly disregarded the truth that was listed above.
They're not even spelled the same
Did you watch the video? Most synonyms are not spelled the same.
God and Heaven are not the same words
One is spiritual and one is PHYSICAL
Physical is Christ Physically on the earth reigning
Jonathan, I always saw these ideas as ways to try to explain things written in the New Testament that did not occur. Jesus recorded as saying "I assure you: There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom,” can't make sense 2000 years later without some sort of convoluted explanation.
This sort of stuff by Scofield and the like always seemed to just be made up. Good video though, except where Miss Piggy got beat up.
I need to hear more about this topic. I have always been confused by the two kingdoms sounding so similar, and I don't pitch my tent with the whole dispensationalist crowd. With the exception of a few, the dispensationalists I have personally interacted with have some serious issues in other areas of their faith. Like, they don't prioritize protecting our children and churches from abusers and have "restoration" ministries. I won't talk more about that. #preacherboys
Your ending about a different gospel being preached is great, but I feel like I will find out that there a different levels of dispensationalism if I begin more research. I also reject fully allegorizing of the coming Kingdom prophesied in Daniel. That is usually where folks who reject dispensationalism end up. Your videos continue to edify Brother!
Thanks for opening up this topic!
I think I answered my own question by relistening when you said, "Some dispensationalists".
Please keep in mind that the brand of dispensationalism that pastor Burris is rightly and wisely refuting is only held by a very small number of people and no respected scholars or seminaries even within that camp.
If we are talking about Mid-Acts Dispys, I agree with you.