The Son's Mediatoral reign ceases at His second coming.

[thethinker]

TO ALL,

The Futurists here are falsely teaching that Christ's mediatoral reign on David's throne will begin immediately or shortly after He returns. This depends upon whether the Futurist speaking is pre, mid, or post trib. But this interpretation flies against the teachings of Paul. He explicitly taught that at Christ's return He will "deliver the kingdom to the Father and will Himself ALSO become subject to God." Therefore, Christ will NOT begin to reign in His mediatoral capacity when He returns.

See my thread "The throne of David and of God are one and the same throne." http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/end-times-forum/the-throne-of-david-and-of-god-are-one-and-the-same-throne/

Albert Barnes said that this interpretation is the "common interpretation of all times." Thus Preterism is in agreement with the "common interpretation of all times" when it teaches that Christ's reign in His Mediatoral capacity will END when He returns. The difference is that Preterism says that His Mediatoral reign ended in ad70.

Albert Barnes said:

As Mediator, he may resign his commission and his special office, having made an atonement, having recovered his people, having protected and guided them to heaven. Yet as one with the Father; as the "Father of the everlasting age" Isaiah 9:6, he shall not cease to reign. The functions of a special office may have been discharged, and delegated power laid down, and that which appropriately belongs to him in virtue of his own nature and relations may be resumed and executed forever; and it shall still be true that the reign of the Son of God, in union, or in oneness with the Father, shall continue forever.

(5) the interpretation which affirms that the Son shall then be subject to the Father in the sense of laying down his delegated authority, and ceasing to exercise his mediatorial reign, has been the common interpretation of all times. This remark is of value only, because, in the interpretation of plum words, it is not probable that people of all classes and ranks in different ages would err.

The Son also himself - The term "Son of God" is applied to the Lord Jesus with reference to his human nature, his incarnation by the Holy Spirit, and his resurrection from the dead; see the note on Romans 1:4. (For the evidence of the eternal sonship, see the Supplementary Note on the same passage.) It refers, I apprehend, to that in this place. It does not mean that the second person in the Trinity, as such, should be subject to the first; but it means the Incarnate Son, the Mediator, the man that was born and that was raised from the dead, and to whom this wide dominion had been given, should resign that dominion, and that the government should be re-assumed by the Divinity as God.

As man, he shall cease to exercise any distinct dominion.

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/15-28.htm

The Futurists here teach that the mediatoral reign of Christ will begin at or shortly after Christ's return. But Paul was clear that Christ's Mediatoral reign ENDS when He returns. He ceases to reign as Man when He returns.

thinker

[JohnDB70X7]

It figures.

Albert Barnes held a prominent place in the New School branch of the Presbyterians during the Old School-New School Controversy, to which he adhered on the division of the denomination in 1837; he had been tried (but not convicted) for heresy in 1836,

[thethinker]

It figures.

Albert Barnes held a prominent place in the New School branch of the Presbyterians during the Old School-New School Controversy, to which he adhered on the division of the denomination in 1837; he had been tried (but not convicted) for heresy in 1836,

That's it? Ad hominen is all you've got? Yo offer no reply to Paul's statement that when Christ returns He is to "deliver the kingdom to the Father" and "Himself ALSO become SUBJECT to God."

Jesus told Ananais that Paul is "My chosen veswel" and you just ignore him.

Peter said that the new earth begins at Christ's return:


"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up."

Peter said that the day of the Lord comes as a thief in  the night  IN WHICH the heavens shall pass away and the elements shall melt....

This PROVES that there is no intermediate earthly "kingdom" that comes inbetween Christ's second coming and the new heavens and earth.

Folks,

All JohnDB was able to muster up in reply was an ad hominen argument which is no argument at all. He should seriously consider that he has been brainwashed and then rebuke his teachers for feeding him falsehoods.

thinker

[thethinker]

TO ALL,

The Futurists CLEARLY contradict the chronology of the apostle Paul as I pointed out in the op but they DON'T CARE. The book of Revelation must be interpreted to fit with Paul's chronology and it does very easily. John was told that the visions which he saw were to "SHORTLY come to pass for the time is NEAR" (1:1-3). He was told that the things which he saw were the things which "ARE" and will be "FROM NOW ON" (4:1).


Paul said that at the parousia Christ will "deliver the kingdom to the Father and will "Himself ALSO become subvject to God. In the op i gave the view of Albert Barnes who said this:

The interpretation which affirms that the Son shall then be subject to the Father in the sense of laying down his delegated authority, and ceasing to exercise his mediatorial reign, has been the common interpretation of all times.

Okay so there it is! Preterism is in accord with the "common interpretation of all times" in saying that Christ's kingdom ENDS at His parousia. The difference is that Preterism says that His kingdom ended in AD70.

It is the brand of Futurism that is posted here that is out of accord with the common interpretation of all times.

Another example:

According to verse 24, then, we are to understand that the second coming occurs AFTER Christ has destroyed "every rule and authority and power." Christ is now reigning in heaven at the Father's right hand and now is in the process of subduing his foes. This is the point of Paul's quotation of Psalm 110:1 in verse 25: Christ rules from heaven until all foes but death are subdued; then at the second coming, the resurrection shows that even death itself is overthrown (v.26, "the last enemy").

Only then does Christ hand over hte kingdom to the Father.

God delegates his kingship to Christ for a definite period, "from the raising of Christ...to his parousia....

Christ's Victorious Kingdom, John Jefferson Davis, page 57.

Friends,

Even if Christ's coming is still future He will NOT set up a kingdom after He returns!

"God delegates His kingship to Christ for a definite period, "from the raising of Christ...to His parousia."

John saw the things which "ARE" and will be "FROM NOW ON" (Revealtion 4:1). This agrees with Paul! Therefore, the only options are Preterism or traditional Futurism. The brand of Futurism to which JohnDB and Linker subscribes is thoroughly unbiblical and even CULTIC!

thinker

[raggthyme]

Agreed, I believe specifically the sect of Futurism called Christian Zionism is a cult. Google it, folks.

And as Ted mentioned awhile back, true Replacement Theology is one in which Jesus Christ is replaced with a carnal kingdom (John18:36, Luke 17:20-21, Hebrews 12:18) in the Old Covenant format, in the Middle East, instead of IN JESUS CHRIST, the new covenant (John 4:21-24).

That's what the Futurists here are spreading, and it's an unbiblical concept.


Sorry, a bit off topic.

[raggthyme]

Preterism is totally off of the topic .... tell me who those who claim to be Israel in the Middle East today

.... and while you are at the task explain then the holocaust of WW II

Give the details and just who was involved

.... or maybe you deny this historical event just as the Muslims do?

Of course it happened, there's been much genocide in history, all because of the sin-sick world we live in. There's a good chance there will be more in the future. This doesn't mean they are fulfillments of Bible prophecy. All things written were fulfilled in the desolation of Jerusalem (in 70ad) according to Jesus Christ. Luke 21:20-22

The people that are in the Middle East are not the covenant people. As I said, the remnant of Israel was saved in the first century.

But that doesn't mean that these cannot individually come and take the water of life freely as all mankind may do. God is not a respecter of persons.

[thethinker]

Agreed, I believe specifically the sect of Futurism called Christian Zionism is a cult. Google it, folks.

And as Ted mentioned awhile back, true Replacement Theology is one in which Jesus Christ is replaced with a carnal kingdom (John18:36, Luke 17:20-21, Hebrews 12:18) in the Old Covenant format, in the Middle East, instead of IN JESUS CHRIST, the new covenant (John 4:21-24).

That's what the Futurists here are spreading, and it's an unbiblical concept.


Sorry, a bit off topic.

Exactly! "Christian" Zionism is a cult. Mann a for you Raggthyme.

thinker

[thethinker]

Preterism is totally off of the topic .... tell me who those who claim to be Israel in the Middle East today

.... and while you are at the task explain then the holocaust of WW II

Give the details and just who was involved

.... or maybe you deny this historical event just as the Muslims do?

Give chapter and verse which indicates that the holocaust was a fulfillment of prophecy. And while you're at it show that "Jews" today are God's chosen people. Paul said that the elect remnant of his own day had "obtained the promises."

"Even so then, at this PRESENT time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
 
7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect HAVE OBTAINED it, and the rest were blinded."

Show FROM PAUL where there is an elect remnant from Israel beyond his own time. He said that the elect "has obtained" it. What about this do you not understand? Te "israel" that exists today is NOT the israel of the bible. The holocaust was NOT a fulfillment of prophecy.


It is obvious that Pau's understanding of the promises differs from yours.

thinker

[thethinker]

"Give chapter and verse which indicates that the holocaust was a fulfillment of prophecy"

You like to misquote others don't you thinker .... or can you not read?

Show me where I said that the holocaust was a fulfillment of prophecy .... I simply asked for another preterist's explanation of the holocaust

The Holocaust is not even recorded in the prophetic visions .... and guess what .... neither is 70 AD

You say oh yes it is .... so tell me is Zechariah 14:4-5 the vision of a Bible prophet? ..... did this event take place in 70 AD? ..... if not, when?

People who lie about what others say in order to win an argument display severe egotistical disorders thinker and when you do this others will not trust you

Okay I apologize. I just assumed that you believed with the dispensationalist cultists that the holocaust was a fulfillment of prophecy.

thinker

[inthenow]

thethinker:
The Futurists here are falsely teaching that Christ's mediatoral reign on David's throne will begin immediately or shortly after He returns.

mediatoral? it's millineal reign - 1000 years.
Rev 20:4  And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5  But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

See, not false teaching at all.

The Futurists here teach that the mediatoral reign of Christ will begin at or shortly after Christ's return. But Paul was clear that Christ's Mediatoral reign ENDS when He returns. He ceases to reign as Man when He returns.

Ummm, perhaps He reigns as God, as that's who He will be returning as.
He comes in the clouds, He will not be in the flesh and blood.

[thethinker]

apology accepted

Now, tell me about Zechariah 14:4-5

I told you last year. It was CONDITIONAL. Jehovah said, "Return to me and I will return to you" (1:1-3). israel did not meet the condition. therefore, Zechariah 14 will NEVER be fulfilled (supporting verse, Jeremiah 32:18).

Prove that the kingdom promises were unconditional. Reconcile your unconditional view with what Jesus said about the kingdom being taken away and given to a nation "that bears the fruit of it."

You can't just assume that the kingdom promises were unconditional. You MUST prove it!

thinker

[raggthyme]

"Give chapter and verse which indicates that the holocaust was a fulfillment of prophecy"

You like to misquote others don't you thinker .... or can you not read?

Show me where I said that the holocaust was a fulfillment of prophecy .... I simply asked for another preterist's explanation of the holocaust

The Holocaust is not even recorded in the prophetic visions .... and guess what .... neither is 70 AD

You say oh yes it is .... so tell me is Zechariah 14:4-5 the vision of a Bible prophet? ..... did this event take place in 70 AD? ..... if not, when?

People who lie about what others say in order to win an argument display severe egotistical disorders thinker and when you do this others will not trust you

Okay I apologize. I just assumed that you believed with the dispensationalist cultists that the holocaust was a fulfillment of prophecy.

thinker

linker,
That was actually my fault. I first mistook your mentioning of the holocaust as if you believed it was a prophetic event. I'm sorry for the assumption.

[thethinker]

Inthenow said:

Ummm, perhaps He reigns as God, as that's who He will be returning as.
He comes in the clouds, He will not be in the flesh and blood.

Whether He reigns as God after His coming is immaterial because the Futurists say that the millennial reign is "mediatoral." They say that this is when Christ assumes the throne of David. THE THRONE OF DAVID IS A MEDIATORAL THRONE. THINK MAN! But Paul said that He yields the mediatoral kingdom when He returns. Give it up! Your brand of Futurism is not in accord with traditional Futurism and the "common interpretation of all times."

If Christ's coming is still future, then His mediatoral ENDS at His coming. So there can be no mediatoral millennial reign.

You're brainwashed





thinker

[inthenow]

Agreed, I believe specifically the sect of Futurism called Christian Zionism is a cult. Google it, folks.

And as Ted mentioned awhile back, true Replacement Theology is one in which Jesus Christ is replaced with a carnal kingdom (John18:36, Luke 17:20-21, Hebrews 12:18) in the Old Covenant format, in the Middle East, instead of IN JESUS CHRIST, the new covenant (John 4:21-24).

That's what the Futurists here are spreading, and it's an unbiblical concept.


Sorry, a bit off topic.

Preterism, the sect working to take away from others the hope of His glorious appearing.

Tit 2:12  Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
Tit 2:13  Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

The faithful are still looking for His appearing.
Mat_10:22  And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

[inthenow]

Inthenow said:

Ummm, perhaps He reigns as God, as that's who He will be returning as.
He comes in the clouds, He will not be in the flesh and blood.

Whether He reigns as God after His coming is immaterial because the Futurists say that the millennial reign is "mediatoral." They say that this is when Christ assumes the throne of David. THE THRONE OF DAVID IS A MEDIATORAL THRONE. THINK MAN! But Paul said that He yields the mediatoral kingdom when He returns. Give it up! Your brand of Futurism is not in accord with traditional Futurism and the "common interpretation of all times."

If Christ's coming is still future, then His mediatoral ENDS at His coming. So there can be no mediatoral millennial reign.

You're brainwashed





thinker

Does the Bible brainwash one, perhaps, and if be the case am happy about that.
however your doctrine is from men, who change scripture to suit it.

thethinker:
Give it up! Your brand of Futurism is not in accord with traditional Futurism and the "common interpretation of all times.
end quote
My belief would not be in accord with any tradition, that' not where I came by them, thank you.
As for me not having the common interpretation of all times, post the verse you are referring to and we will see, if not the common interpertation it could be the proper interpertation I have.