Was Jesus against organized religion?

[Drew]

2 Cor. 4: 4 "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

Whom is Paul referring to here as the "god of this world"?

Certainly not Jesus. But Paul did not write "king of this world".

Jesus is presently king - this has been shown to you many times.

The real question is: What motivates you to deny the scriptures?

Because deny them you clearly do, as will be shown again shortly.

 

[Adullam]

Regardless of whatever conclusions you Drew, God does not want to subject the present order of things yet...until it is the time He has chosen.

No - it has been clearly shown from the scriptures that this time has already come.

I suspect that one of the reasons that you seem to not tire in this matter is that, unlike me and many others, you appear to be perfecrtly happy to continue to endorse a position that is clearly incorrect - at least for those who take the Bible seriously.

You have successfully refuted precisely zero of the arguments presented for the present kingship of Jesus over this temporal order.

You see - that would bother me if I were in your shoes - I would feel obliged to show how such scripturally grounded arguments are incorrect.

You are behaving like FDS and ignoring the posts to make your false statements. Go back over the posts today and you will see that I have challenged you from the bible very well.

 

[Adullam]

2 Cor. 4: 4 "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

Whom is Paul referring to here as the "god of this world"?

Certainly not Jesus. But Paul did not write "king of this world".

Jesus is presently king - this has been shown to you many times.

The real question is: What motivates you to deny the scriptures?

Because deny them you clearly do, as will be shown again shortly.

LOL So Christ the king serves a wicked god in this world? Are you so foolish as to argue over terminology. Which is greater a king or a god? Kings obey gods (God) Gods do not obey kings. Give your mind a chance and start speaking with a little logic here. You don't understand the bible...and are grasping at straws to make a terminology point???? Paleese!

 

[Free]

Eph 1:20-23, "20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all."

2 Cor. 4: 4 "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

Whom is Paul referring to here as the "god of this world"?

Do you believe in other gods? When the Bible refers to other gods, what is it typically referring to?

 

[Drew]

You are behaving like FDS and ignoring the posts to make your false statements. Go back over the posts today and you will see that I have challenged you from the bible very well.

I am not talking about the arguments you have made, I am talking about your failure to successfully refute the arguments that I have made:

1. Acts 4 and its quotation from Psalm 2 - shows Jesus presently reigns over the temporal domain;

2. Mark 14 and allusion to Daniel 7 - Jesus quotes from Daniel and tells Caiaphus that He (Jesus) will be enthroned in Caiaphus' lifetime;

3. 1 Corinthians 15 - Jesus must reign until all enemies are under his feet, with only the last enemy being death;

4. Paul's appeal to a kingdom model that draws on Old Testament precedent of rulers governing this present world;

5. Argument about the "no king but Ceasar" rhetoric must mean that Jesus was understood as claiming to be a king that replaces Ceasar as lord of this world;

6. Matthew 28, where Jesus clearly claims to have already been given authority of the earth.

You have successfully refuted none of these. A point of method: You do not refute and argument about a text T 1 by providing an argument about a different text T2, unless you establish a connection betwwen the two texts.

It is not enough to porvide your own arguments - you must show how the arguments of your "opponent" is mistaken. And I have the same responsibility - I need to engage and refute your arguments. not simply provide my own.,

 

[Drew]

To deny that Jesus is presently enthroned as king, you really need to rewrite key passages. I am surprised that those who deny “Kingdom Now†are willing to do this.

Consider this from Matthew 28:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,..

This text has to be modified to this if Jesus’ present kingship over the temporal order is to be denied:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and will later be given to me on earth. 19"Therefore, at that future time, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,..

Consider this from Ephesians 1:

These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.

This text, too, has to be modified to this if Jesus’ present kingship over the temporal order is to be denied:

These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not in this age but only in the one to come.

Consider this from Acts 4, a prayer made by Peter and John

And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, "O Lord, it is You who MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM,
25who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,
'(WHY DID THE [a]GENTILES RAGE,
AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS?
26'THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND,
AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER
AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST.'
27"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,

They are invoking Psalm 2 here:

Why are (A)the nations in an uproar
And the peoples (B)devising a vain thing?
2The (C)kings of the earth take their stand
And the rulers take counsel together
(D)Against the LORD and against His [a](E)Anointed, saying,
3"Let us (F)tear their fetters apart
And cast away their cords from us!"
4He who sits in the heavens (G)laughs,
The Lord (H)scoffs at them.
5Then He will speak to them in His (I)anger
And (J)terrify them in His fury, saying,
6"But as for Me, I have installed My King
Upon Zion, (L)My holy mountain."

To make their allusion to Psalm 2 consistent with the position that Jesus is not King of this present world, verse 8 of Psalm 2 has to be changed to this:

But as for Me, I will install My King at some time in the future
Upon Zion, (L)My holy mountain."

 

[Drew]

LOL So Christ the king serves a wicked god in this world? Are you so foolish as to argue over terminology.

I may be foolish in some ways, but at least I can read. The text you quote does not suggest that Christ serves the "god of this world" - it says that some human beings serve the god of this world.

 

[Adullam]

Drew, you are a preterist. I don't discuss preterism with preterists. Preterists try to justify spiritual verses with yet to happen historic events. Jesus did not come back in 70 AD. That is a preterist invention. Your lack of understanding of spiritual things makes you backward. I cannot discuss the truth with someone who cannot see or understand spiritual things. That is why I don't humour your outlandish statements. It is a waste of time at best. There are many verses that eliminate the preterist position very soundly. You should start a preterist thread as I have already suggested. We are discussing organized religion on this thread. If you have any attention to detail...

 

[Drew]

Drew, you are a preterist.

You are mistaken - I am a partial preterist. Can you not get anything right?

I don't discuss preterism with preterists. Preterists try to justify spiritual verses with yet to happen historic events. Jesus did not come back in 70 AD. That is a preterist invention. Your lack of understanding of spiritual things makes you backward.

And you, as if I really need to say this, conveniently dodge the obligation to engage arguments that challenge your position with this kind of dismissive rhetoric,

There is a huge difference between you and me. I am a competent debater who honours the general principles of debate. I may not always be right but I understand that one actually needs to engage the arguments of one's opponent.

 

[Adullam]

Drew, you are a preterist.

You are mistaken - I am a partial preterist. Can you not get anything right?

I don't discuss preterism with preterists. Preterists try to justify spiritual verses with yet to happen historic events. Jesus did not come back in 70 AD. That is a preterist invention. Your lack of understanding of spiritual things makes you backward.

And you, as if I really need to say this, conveniently dodge the obligation to engage arguments that challenge your position with this kind of dismissive rhetoric,

There is a huge difference between you and me. I am a competent debater who honours the general principles of debate. I may not always be right but I understand that one actually needs to engage the arguments of one's opponent.

Oh yeah the partial thing!

A person needs to have a common vocabulary in order to discuss a given subject. A Christian discussion must begin at the cross and follow through to the charismatic gifts. If one doesn't understand the walk in the Spirit and the need to die to the old nature...that one must repent and turn to God for enlightenment. A person who is in darkness and remains obstinate should be left there. They are content with their own philosophy. I will not discuss spiritual things with a person who is limited to carnal understanding and proud of this. The bible is clear on this. It is vain and pointless.

 

[Drew]

If one doesn't understand the walk in the Spirit and the need to die to the old nature...that one must repent and turn to God for enlightenment. A person who is in darkness and remains obstinate should be left there. They are content with their own philosophy. I will not discuss spiritual things with a person who is limited to carnal understanding and proud of this.

It is understandanble that you would take this line.

Since the scriptural case is so clearly against you - as has just been in the post where I have shown how certain texts must be re-written to support your position - the only recourse left is to make vague, and of course unsubstantiated, besmirchments of your opponents.

 

[Adullam]

The church has always held a tension between the ways of the world and the difficult to grasp new order in Christ. These include...

The law: The Spirit

Office: Charism

It is a historic fact that the original charismatic community eventually degenerated into hierarchical institutionalism. Leaders who followed the Spirit gradually disappeared through the persecutions that sprang up from time to time. In their place, the guardians of traditions and "official" and ecclesiastical ways of thinking emerged. Legalism displaced the Spirit in the control of what became a church in name only.

Let's look at a fine definition of office:

An office is a formally constituted position within a political or administrative system. It has an independent existence which transcends that of the person who occupies it (the person is irrelevent). There are rules/traditions for succession or election to office as well as the manner in which legitimacy is conferred upon such office holders.

In other words, humans are made to serve systems where the office is exalted.

 

[Adullam]

A Charism is a gift of God that brings spiritual awareness and function to the lover of God. Here the gift is subordinate to the relationship of God according to the divine order. The charism imparts a certain spiritual authority in order to function as a witness and an ambassador of heaven on earth. A charism is a divine commission of service to others in the duty and responsibility of selfless love.

 

[Drew]

One line of reasoning that is sometimes given in the context of this issues is this:

1. Satan presently rules over the temporal order.
2. All the institutions of the temporal order are therefore essentially under Satan's control;
3. Therefore Christians should reject organized religion since this involves use of "temporal", and therefore "Satan-ruled" systems.

Well, it is indeed true that "organized religion" uses the organizational structures that are present throughout the temporal world.

But, of course, Satan does not rule over the temporal order, so the whole argument fails.

Now I would ask the reader to notice that I am now about to do what some others feel no obligation to do. I am going to actually support my assertion with an argument. Here goes:

What does Jesus say about the outcome of His struggle with Satan in the wilderness?:

The seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name." 18And He said to them, "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.

And then we have the cross. What happens at the cross? Paul tells us:

And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Jesus substantially defeats Satan and Satan is no longer the ruler of the temporal order.

 

[Adullam]

One line of reasoning that is sometimes given in the context of this issues is this:

1. Satan presently rules over the temporal order.
2. All the institutions of the temporal order are therefore essentially under Satan's control;
3. Therefore Christians should reject organized religion since this involves use of "temporal", and therefore "Satan-ruled" systems.

Well, it is indeed true that "organized religion" uses the organizational structures that are present throughout the temporal world.

But, of course, Satan does not rule over the temporal order, so the whole argument fails.

Now I would ask the reader to notice that I am now about to do what some others feel no obligation to do. I am going to actually support my assertion with an argument. Here goes:

What does Jesus say about the outcome of His struggle with Satan in the wilderness?:

The seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name." 18And He said to them, "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.

And then we have the cross. What happens at the cross? Paul tells us:

And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Jesus substantially defeats Satan and Satan is no longer the ruler of the temporal order.

And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. Rev. 12:8


Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. Rev, 12:12

 

[Adullam]

No man has authority over the church. Paul addressed the whole church in his epistles...not a particular leader. They were to be read to all. The church disciplined it's own. The church even judged apostles.

...and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars

 

[TheCatholic]

No man has authority over the church........

That is a totally UN-Biblical statement.''

"...Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."


In Jewish culture, the "keys" repesent the authority to act in the name of the King. And binding & loosing are terms for religious authority. These were given to Peter - and his successors. That is the Bible fact.

 

[Adullam]

No man has authority over the church........

That is a totally UN-Biblical statement.''

"...Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."


In Jewish culture, the "keys" repesent the authority to act in the name of the King. And binding & loosing are terms for religious authority. These were given to Peter - and his successors. That is the Bible fact.

That isn't so. Jesus is the Head of the church...and disciples are His Body. The keys are given to all true followers of Jesus Christ. Notice the key of David (to the house of David) given to both Eliakim, and the church in Philadelphia. The keys of the kingdom are for the church.

LOL Successors??? There are no kingly successors to a particular disciple. That is pure fabrication. Peter was one of the elders and apostles. He never had an exclusive ruling power. That is contrary to the NT. The RCC is made up of superstition as much as Christian doctrine. Making a supposed heir to the throne who is chosen by men flies in the face of what God is doing in the world. It is a sideshow of ecclesiastical proportions. (not biblical)

Here are Peter's own words...

1 "And now, a word to you who are elders in the churches. I, too, am an elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ. And I, too, will share his glory and his honor when he returns. As a fellow elder, this is my appeal to you:"

Jesus was not glorifying Peter but drawing attention to the process of divine revelation that Peter was exhibiting. We are called as living stones to be the temple of God...together! It is about a Body! Read the NT again, and you will find that Jesus inhabits His people...not one particular priestly king....let alone a dynasty!

 

[TheCatholic]

No man has authority over the church........

That is a totally UN-Biblical statement.''

"...Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."


In Jewish culture, the "keys" repesent the authority to act in the name of the King. And binding & loosing are terms for religious authority. These were given to Peter - and his successors. That is the Bible fact.

That isn't so. Jesus is the Head of the church.........

STRAW MAN ALERT!!!

I never said that Jesus wasn't the head of the Church. I said that ther keys represent "the authority to act in the name of the King". The key there is "...in the name of..".

I would love to educate you on this, but the rules prohibit it. However, I invite you to read my post here: viewtopic.php?p=504012#p504012

 

[Adullam]

I never said that Jesus wasn't the head of the Church. I said that ther keys represent "the authority to act in the name of the King". The key there is "...in the name of..".

I would love to educate you on this, but the rules prohibit it. However, I invite you to read my post here: viewtopic.php?p=504012#p504012

You ignore the fact the Jesus is still alive and acts through His whole church. Where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name. Whatever priviledge that Peter had while he was on earth is not passed on through human succession. Popery is not a Christian practice. It is more akin to a men's lodge like the masons. The Mormons have their 12 apostles too...whom they claim are the authority. It's superstition and wishful thinking.

Biblical thinking goes like this...

Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

No human institutions follow even the simplest biblical precept. A meeting as described above, where all members of the body are functioning, is found only in non-hierarchical charismatic home fellowships.