Upcoming Debate Between Steve Gregg and Dr. Michael Brown

[darinhouston]

I am always frustrated by how short these type of debates are -- an unrestrained recorded interactive dialogue over as many hours or days as edifying to really get through the details of objections would be wonderful. Even doing each others' radio shows for a week is helpful.

I felt like Dr. Brown, though cordial, did very little listening to Steve and didn't really "interact" with Steve's positions. He has given SO many talks on this and related subjects that he seemed to be regurgitating his mantras without really interacting in a dialogue (other than to interject with another mantra when Steve would introduce a subject where he had one on stand-by).

One fundamental issue that Brown raised needed to be brought home, I think. He seems to put a great deal of emphasis on the lack of certainty that can arise if we allow the Apostles to interpret Scripture in a way that was not understood by the original audience. I used to labor over that myself and had some angst that another interpretation of even our favorite present New Testament doctrines/promises could come along and have a "third testament" of sorts. What Steve pointed out once in a lecture or call or in person ( I can't remember ) was the unique place in History that the Apostles had and the unique authority they were given by Christ Himself to do this very thing.

[Paidion]

How can I hear the debate? I did a search of Steve Gregg's debates — found others, but not this one.

[darinhouston]

How can I hear the debate? I did a search of Steve Gregg's debates — found others, but not this one.

http://www.theopologetics.com/2012/07/1 ... jerusalem/

[Paidion]

Thank you Darin. Actually I went to that site before but didn't notice the little slider for playing the debate.

After giving the parable of the vineyard to the chief priests and Pharisees, Jesus made the following statement:

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruits. (Mt 21:43)

Surely "the nation" to whom the Kingdom was given was "the Christian nation" or "the Messianic nation", those people from both the Jews and the Gentiles who bore the fruit of righteousness through their relationship with the Messiah. This fact seems to be a strong plug for a limited Israel — the Israel of God. As long as Israel existed, there always was a remnant who truly submitted to the will of God.

[steve7150]

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruits. (Mt 21:43)






As far as i know Brown is not claiming the nation of Israel is the kingdom of God but the debate was about whether the land promises to natural Israel are still applicable.

[Paidion]

As far as i know Brown is not claiming the nation of Israel is the kingdom of God but the debate was about whether the land promises to natural Israel are still applicable.

Does that matter?

A kingdom consists of a king and his subjects. Wasn't the Kingdom of Israel the Kingdom of God? It consisted of Yahweh God the King, and the Israelites His subjects. If Israel were NOT the Kingdom, then how could the Kingdom be taken away from the chief priests and Pharisees, and given to a different nation?

[steve7150]

Does that matter?

A kingdom consists of a king and his subjects. Wasn't the Kingdom of Israel the Kingdom of God? It consisted of Yahweh God the King, and the Israelites His subjects. If Israel were NOT the Kingdom, then how could the Kingdom be taken away from the chief priests and Pharisees, and given to a different nation?



I think in Jeremiah , God divorced Israel but i guess this was what used to be Judah the southern kingdom. So yes the kingdom of God was to be given to the body of believers in Christ.
As to whether the land promises matter or not is a matter of a personal preference, but it's not a salvation issue.
I think the reason it probably reasonates with many people is that it is a linchpin of dispensationalism and seems to be a hot button issue with preterists but in the opposite direction.

[darinhouston]

I was thinking about Brown's concern over the original understanding of Israel in interpreting the Scriptures. His logic would lead one to a pharisaic understanding of the Messiah, wouldn't it? Clearly, they were looking for an earthly king and militant leader like David -- if they got that so wrong, why is it surprising that it would take spiritual revelation to properly understand other aspects of Scripture such as discerning types and shadows even so far as Israel itself is concerned ?

[steve]

In seeking a militaristic Messiah, I believe, a dispensationalist would say "They didn't get the picture wrong...just the timing. They thought the Messiah would be this way at His first appearance, and did not know that this behavior must await His second coming."

[steve7150]

I felt like Dr. Brown, though cordial, did very little listening to Steve and didn't really "interact" with Steve's positions. He has given SO many talks on this and related subjects that he seemed to be regurgitating his mantras without really interacting in a dialogue (other than to interject with another mantra when Steve would introduce a subject where he had one on stand-by).








Actually i think Brown did interact because he made a point of saying he could see the promises to natural Israel in the NT alone without even using the OT and i think that was responding to Steve's point about how the NT writers interpreted OT promises to Israel.
Also iMO i don't think it's fair to characterize his position as "regurgitating his mantras." There was not much time and both parties are intellectually gifted and trying to get out as much info as possible in a smail window of time.