Question
If somebody were to consider Free Grace Theology, how important is it for that one to embrace the idea of the Kingdom as entirely future?
Labels: Question for free gracers
posted by mark pierson at 8:15 AM
LOOKING TO PRAISE AND WORSHIP JESUS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].
If somebody were to consider Free Grace Theology, how important is it for that one to embrace the idea of the Kingdom as entirely future?
Labels: Question for free gracers
posted by mark pierson at 8:15 AM
14 Comments:
A very good question.
I cannot think of any obvious consequences of a Free Gracer adopting a more 'here but not yet' view, as in Progressive Dispensationalism.
I think all the major issues in the Lordship/ Free Grace debate are irrelvant to the question of whether the kingdom has a present dimension.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
June 22, 2007 1:34 PM
On a slightly different issue, Zane Hodges is not far from Progressive Dispensationalism on the question of the New Covenant.
June 22, 2007 1:37 PM
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist -- I noted in your profile that you "uphold the King James Bible". does that mean that you are KJV only? Sorry to go off track Mark.
June 22, 2007 9:05 PM
Hey Matthew,
What about Kendall. Isn't he in line with Free Grace? I think he is Amil. as well. And that other guy...you know....the guy who wrote "No Condemnation." I think he is Free Grace and Amil. but am not sure.
June 22, 2007 10:21 PM
Michael Eaton.
He is Amil.
Antonio
June 22, 2007 10:44 PM
Gojirah, I do not think Kendall likes getting into the subject of eschatology.
June 23, 2007 5:55 AM
I use and recommend the KJV. I believe all of the other translations are inadequate.
The NKJV is mostly very good, though I do not think it is as good as the KJV.
The Darby Bible is good in some ways, but it makes use of the critical text.
I support the work of the Trinitarian Bible Society.
I have never a read a book by Peter Ruckman, but from what I know of the man, I would not recommend his writings.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
June 23, 2007 5:58 AM
ok I thought you were supporting KJV only.
June 23, 2007 12:38 PM
"Michael Eaton.
He is Amil.
Antonio"
Hmmmmmm....very interesting. I have access to his book. I'll have to see how he works that one out.
June 23, 2007 2:21 PM
KJV-Only?
Well I only recommend the KJV and I do not endorse any other translations.
June 23, 2007 2:35 PM
You understand thatthe KJV has gone through many changes over the years and that the KJV of today is nothing like the KJV of 1611. BTW, I have a 1612 NT KJV in my antiquarian collection. A beautiful BIble and my translation of choice as well.
June 23, 2007 4:10 PM
Only1way,
Are those changes simply typographical? BTW the KJV is my weapon of choice :D
June 23, 2007 8:27 PM
I think FG is highly dependent on a premil interp. of eschatology. I.e. see Reign of the Servant Kings by Joseph Dillow.
June 23, 2007 8:47 PM
Hey Bobby. There is such a thing as a Free Grace Preterist, so FG does not depend on Dispensationalism. I posted this link for Mark in the other thread. It's an article by FG preterist David B. Curtis. He connects outer darkness to 70 A.D.
http://ecclesia.org/truth/mat11.html
June 25, 2007 10:46 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home