Mark Clarke

Here's an interesting link. It gives a historical overview of the different views on the Kingdom of God. http://www.luthersem.edu/word&world/Ar.../2-2_Duling.pdf I was particularly interested in its summary of Johannes Weiss and what he wrote. Here is another quote from Weiss on a blog, dealing with Jesus' statement "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you": http://kingdomready.org/blog/2007/11/21/je...satans-kingdom/

My money is on I Corinthians being right. I have my doubts as to whether tongues and prophecy as they are done today is genuinely the same gift that they had in the first century. (And yes, I said gift! :) )

I agree, to a point. I think when you examine the (relatively few) passages in which he speaks of something temporally near, you find that it is in the sense of an unforeseen interim period between his first coming and the second coming at which he will inaugurate the Kingdom of God. The nature of this interim period is one of preparation for the coming future kingdom, during which the power of the Kingdom is seen in a token, a foretaste. Also during this period the Word of the Kingdom is implanted in us, and it grows and bears fruit, provided we are the right kind of soil. This period was unforeseen because it involves what Jesus accomplished on the cross, in contrast to the expectation of the immediate appearing of the Kingdom. The "mysteries" of the Kingdom describe all this. The thing is, none of the passages that talk about that say that the Kingdom has "come" in anything but a preliminary, or preview sense. They speak of the announcement of the Kingdom, the demonstration of its power, the recruiting of disciples, and their growth and preparation for entering into the Kingdom. There is really no problem with that passage when it is read in context. Ignoring the chapter break, the very next verse tells of Jesus taking them up the mountain and seeing the Transfiguration. The same statement is immediately followed by the Transfiguration in Mark 9 as well. The Transfiguraton was a preview of the future glory that Jesus will have when he returns. Peter speaks in his epistle of being an eyewitness of the majesty of Jesus associated with his power and coming. II Peter 1: 16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. I think there is another possible understanding. While "The Kingdom of God" is most often used in its eschatological sense, the term is sometimes used to refer to a preliminary and preparatory stage of God's plan, as I described above. It is not necessary to conclude that the Kingdom has arrived in an invisible form. It all comes down to getting our definition of the Kingdom of God straight, for which we must understand the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. Old Testament). It's interesting that this has come up at this time, because I am in the process of rewriting some things about this very subject for my web site, which I hope to have completed soon. I don't have time to go into all of the verses, but there are some scholars who see the few Scriptures that speak of the Kingdom as being present in some sense as referring to its anticipation and a preview or foretaste of the Kingdom to come, rather than its arrival in part.

While there are references to a foretaste of the Kingdom's power, and the announcement, or heralding, or preaching, of the Good News about the Kingdom, I don't know if it's correct to say that the Kingdom was inaugurated at the time of Christ. He and the disciples said it was near, not here. Jesus taught us to pray "thy kingdom come" - which wouldn't make sense if it had come. Joseph of Arimathaea was still "waiting for" the kingdom at the time that Jesus was crucified (Mark 15:43). And the cataclysmic signs that will precede Jesus' coming in glory are said to also be signs that "the Kingdom of God is near" (Luke 21:31) - that is, it still won't be here at that time, but about to appear. The vast amount of Scripture clearly refers to the Kingdom of God as the event which will take place at the end of this age, with the return of Christ and the resurrection of the just. Only a few verses even seem to say that it is present, and they are referring to a previously unforeseen phase of the Kingdom plan, in which the Gospel of the Kingdom is preached, the children of the Kingdom live among the children of the evil one, and the spirit and power of the Kingdom are experienced as a token or pledge, a "down-payment" of the inheritance that is to come in the future. I think any reference to the Kingdom of God being present now must be understood in this way. See "Kingdom of God: Present or Future?" - http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/kingdom.htm

I just wanted to qualify that statement. The phrase "Kingdom of God" is used in a few passages to refer to a preliminary, or preparatory stage of God's Kingdom plan. This preliminary phase includes the announcement of the Kingdom, the identification of Jesus as the King, the demonstration of Kingdom power as a foretaste, the suffering and death of Jesus to ratify the New Covenant, and the offering of that Covenant afterward, and the preaching of the Kingdom and preparation of disciples for their part in ruling in the coming Kingdom. But in the vast majority of passages, the Kingdom itself is most often referred to and defined as a future, end-time related event.

I agree with you. It has come in a limited sense, or a "seed" form, as a foretaste, but not fully consummated yet.

The disciples didn't ask him to restore the kingdom "for them." They asked if he was going to restore the kingdom to Israel. They were referring to the fact that Israel at one time had a kingdom on earth, and that the Prophets foretold of a time when it would be restored. The "Kingdom of Heaven" or "Kingdom of God" as Jesus preached it is not only the restoration of Israel's kingdom, but the promised perfect, world-wide reign of God's Messiah on a restored earth, which is promised in the OT. I didn't say that that ended, because it hasn't started yet. What I said did not end is the preaching of the good news about that Kingdom of God. Yes, gospel means good news. And the good news that Jesus preached was not that he would fulfill the law. Many NT verses speak specifically of Jesus preaching the good news of the kingdom of God. He proclaimed that the long-awaited kingdom promised in the OT was at hand, and he proclaimed himself to be the king of that kingdom. I never said anything about keeping the Law. Jesus' message was not "keep the Law and you'll be saved." It was "the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel." That is the good news or message that I am saying has not changed since Jesus. He proclaimed that the Kingdom which was promised in the OT was near, and that he himself was the promised king. TWI said that the gospel about the Kingdom was addressed only to Israel, and then "held in abeyance" while Paul revealed a brand new gospel message, which was different from what Jesus preached. There is no Scripture that says that, however. The disciples, including Paul, continued to preach "the kingdom of God" throughout Acts. Some details were added, such as why the king had to be crucified, how the Gentiles get to partake of the same promises made to Israel, and how we are no longer under the letter of the OT Law. But the basic good news is still that of the kingdom of God, not a new gospel.

Provided you say the gist of it, but from your heart, rather than just reciting words. It's ironic that just before Jesus says "pray this way" he said, "do not use vain repetition as the Gentiles do" and yet so many people just repeat the Lord's Prayer without thinking about or even knowing what it means.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. How did he misinterpret the efforts of people like Donnie F.?

For me, it's not about arguing whose brand of Christianity is most accurate. It's about knowing why one believes something. In the Way we were taught that the Word, as taught in PFAL, was "our only rule of faith and practice." To consider anything else was to open our minds to deception and possible possession. I forget whose, but somebody here has a signature line that quotes from Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom: "The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside." After going through a crisis of faith several years back, I realized that while I believed certain things, I could not articulate why I believed them. After much searching and praying and considering various viewpoints, I can now articulate what I believe and why I believe it. And it's not because of any superior ability to study theology. It's because God made it really simple, and it's only when people inject foreign ideas into the mix that it becomes complicated. Like Potato, I'm no longer afraid to consider other points of view. That's why I enjoy discussing theology of all kinds. It helps me to articulate my beliefs, and the reasons for them. When other people do the same, I either agree with them or see the reason why I disagree. I hate to say it, Geisha, but if you can't (or choose not to) explain why you believe something, and refuse to even look at another viewpoint (which doesn't mean you have to accept it or agree with it), then how is that any different from Mike? He makes assertions based on his beliefs too, and refuses to address direct, logical questions about apparent contradictions. There is a huge difference in the source of your beliefs and his, but sadly not in your methodology. And Spoudazo, you're right, I don't know you, and was not suggesting anything about your Christian duty. I meant no offense, but was just making a statement regarding what you posted. Is it fair to categorize all Adventist churches as being like Coast to Coast or Amway, when one of their major tenets is the subject that was the very heart of Jesus Christ's gospel? This gospel has been conspicuously absent from a lot of preaching in other churches, even by their own admission. But like I said, I enjoy looking at and discussing other viewpoints, which gets me into discussions that are usually more appropriate for the Doctrinal Forum.

That says it all. Sins of the Teacher aside, much of the actual doctrine has been proven faulty.

Exactly, Oakspear. Anyone who had come along pointing out Wierwille's errors would have been dismissed or attacked as being possessed. Even the Adultery paper didn't name names or point fingers, but it was enough to get Sch03nhe!t fired.

First of all, Right on, Twinky!!! Second... Why, then do you not consider the writings of any Biblical Unitarian theologians? There are quite a few of them, but we never heard of them in TWI, because TWI had to have the "monopoly" on truth. But they did themselves a disservice (as well as everyone else) because so many ex-TWI came to think that things like the the Trinity being unbiblical, and the dead being unconscious, were TWI ideas and so rejected them. But in fact there have been many great Christian thinkers throughout the years who have questioned orthodox doctrines, and backed up their questioning with Scripture. It would be worth looking at their ideas, if only to see their errors and be strengthened in your faith, and be able to discuss their ideas knowledgeably. I have learned things from Trinitarian scholars, and don't refuse to listen to anything they say just because I disagree with them on some points. And third... That's part of the disadvantage of using broad brush strokes. There are a number of Adventist churches with various views, but what most of them have in common is a belief that Jesus is going to return to earth and set up a kingdom. We don't want to lose sight of Jesus' gospel of the kingdom just because some of these churches preach things we disagree with, such as Sabbaterianism.

I'm not sure what you mean by "kingdom theology," but if by that you mean the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, then it concerns me that you lump it together with "Administrations ... or Numerology or Purpose Driven whatever" and compare it to what one would hear on Coast to Coast. The message of the kingdom is what Jesus preached, and commanded us to preach. You are correct when you say that something that doesn't focus on Jesus Christ is another gospel. But what was Jesus all about? If we are his followers, we should be proclaiming the same message he did, rather than a different gospel. All of them! ;)

God wants us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. If speaking in tongues bypasses the mind, then it couldn't be the ONLY way to worship God, eve if it were perfect prayer.

First of all, VPW didn't even get right what "the Word" was. We used it as a synonym for the Bible, when in fact the Bible itself doesn't refer to itself as "the Word." In the Bible, the written Scriptures are referred to as "the Scriptures" but "the Word" most often refers to the message that is communicated in the written Scriptures. The Word, in general, is the mind, plan, wisdom of God, and specifically the Gospel of the Kingdom (compare Mark 4:14 and Luke 8:11 with Matthew 13:18-19). And of course, when the Word was made flesh, God's purpose and plan came into concretion in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ. He always did the Father's will, and was the perfect representation of God. He is also the King that was promised throughout the OT Prophecies who will come and judge the world, and rule it on God's behalf. And he also offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice so that we could have access to that Kingdom. If you say his only rule of faith and practice was the written Scriptures, then that discounts all the teachings he did that went beyond the written Scriptures. He didn't contradict anything in the Law, but he often went beyond it, teaching about walking by the Spirit rather than the letter of the Law. I think it would be more accurate to say his only rule of faith and practice was the Word of God, which includes the written Scriptures but also so much more in God's mind and heart. He is the Prophet that Moses said God would raise up and put His Words in his mouth, and those words which Jesus spoke are the ultimate communication of "God's Word" which we must take heed to. Yes, what's different for me is the way I approach it and think about it. I do consider other sources, other points of view, and I compare them with the overall message of the Bible. It is not wise to limit yourself to the views of one man or one group. When I consider someone's view that doesn't line up with the Scriptures, I can usually see the flaw in their logic, which I would not have seen had I not even considered their view. Looking at other opinions tends to strengthen my faith, and sharpen my understanding of the Bible.

Yes. No.

Actually, "Adoptionism" is only one form of Dynamic Monarchianism. TWI and STFI don't teach that Jesus "became" the Son of God later in life, although he received holy spirit and began his ministry at age 30. They believe he was the Son of God because he was conceived by God in his mother Mary. So while their belief may be a form of dynamic Monarchianism, Adoptionism isn't the closest form. As for a "special sperm in the fallopian tubes" that was a speculation about the mechanics of it, based on the fact that the Gospels state he was conceived in Mary's womb. As for the Angel of the Lord, TWI believed (and I think STFI still do) that it was just that - an Angel. This is in contrast to the belief that it was a pre-incarnate appearance of God the Son.

A final thought, for anybody that's still interested. One thing I was trying to get across is that the belief in the holy spirit as God's presence and power, besides being the Hebrew view, is also recognized by many Christian theologians. Many scholars see evidence in the Bible against some traditional views, but because it goes against tradition, it isn't taught at the local church level. That's not to say that it proves the theologians are right, of course. But it should be understood that such views are not limited to "cults" and fringe elements in the Church. The following quotes are from the previously referenced article, Does Everyone Believe in the Trinity?. (Note that several of the sources are standard Catholic reference books.) "Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers [of the Hebrew Scriptures] never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person" (Edmund Fortman, The Triune God, p. 9). "Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person" (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, p. 49). "The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view…The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptic gospels (Matt., Mark, Luke) and in Acts as a divine force or power" (Edmund Fortman, The Triune God, pp. 6, 15). "The Old Testament clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person…God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly…The majority of New Testament texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, pp. 574, 575). "On the whole the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power" (W.E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, 1960, p. 810). "The third Person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362...and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381" (A Catholic Dictionary, p. 812). "[Matt. 28:19] proves only that there are the three subjects named,...but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor…This text, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity" (McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, 1987, Vol. X, p. 552). Note that it is impossible to establish that the Holy Spirit was believed to be a third Divine Person from New Testament times onwards. Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop of Constantinople, wrote in 380 AD: "Of our thoughtful men, some regard the Holy Spirit as an operation, some as a creature and some as God; while others are at a loss to decide, seeing that the Scripture determines nothing on the subject" (Oratio 38: De Spiritu Sancto).

Another big part of the reason, for me anyway, was that we didn't know of any alternatives. There was just enough Bible to make it seem legitimate, but no other Biblical views were presented, at least not honestly or accurately. Some of us really believed it was the only place to get the "rightly divided Word" and for a while were even willing to overlook the bad stuff for the sake of that.

Indeed, I meant no offense. My point was to clarify, more than "correct." As Tzaia said, I was pointing out the difference between JW's and various Unitarian positions such as STFI and Christadelphians, since they are sometimes lumped together. In fact I noticed, as I was looking for definitions, that CARM.org (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) lumped JWs together with Christadelphians and Unitarians as present day groups in the category of Monarchianism. But I think adherents to both categories would agree they are not more similar than different.

While they both reject the Trinity, the JW's and Christadelphians have somewhat different theologies. Christadelphians are more like TWI and STFI, and closer to Dynamic Monarchianism, although they would disagree with the usual definition of that view which says that Jesus was a "mere" man. On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was created by Jehovah, and that Jehovah then created everything else by means of Jesus. They believe that references in the Bible to the Archangel Michael and "the Word" also refer to Jesus. This is actually more like Arianism than Dynamic Monarchianism.

That is the term used to refer to groups made up of mostly ex-TWI people after TWI "splintered" or split into many factions back in the late 80's and early 90's. They range from big ones like CES/STFI and CFF to little local groups and everything in between. Various former TWI followers have organized in various ways, some continuing to present PFAL-like teachings, some presenting similar teachings that differ in a few ways, and some differing widely from TWI doctrine, having only past history with TWI in common. Interestingly enough, the term isn't limited to ex-TWI. Other groups that broke apart evolved into what they call "splinter groups" too, such as the Worldwide Church of God.

Actually it can be explained. Most theologies prior to the 1800s said that the Kingdom as Jesus preached it was "spiritualized" and fulfilled by the Church. Dispensationalism came along and said that the Kingdom was actually literal, but only addressed to Israel, and is currently "held in abeyance" until the future. But there is a third alternative that neither side usually considers. The Kingdom is literal and future, but is not just for Israel. It is the central message that Jesus and his disciples preached, and the Church is supposed to be announcing it, but is not the fulfillment of it. Check out this page on my website for details if you're interested. I don't get that either. I think it's more ego than maliciousness. They really believe people can't understand the Bible without them. But they didn't learn from the Way's mistakes when it comes to trying to control people's lives.

Just to clarify, STFI and others who don't believe in the Trinity refer to themselves as "Biblical Unitarians" to differentiate themselves from Unitarian Universalists, whose beliefs are quite different.