The Concordant Publishng Concern

[fullarmor2]

I would like to know if anyone here is Concordant? Or what anyone's opinion is about it.  I've been doing a little studying of their material for a while now. I was drawn to it because I liked how that it provided, what appeared to me, to be a strong biblical foundation for UR. Not to mention that they have a pretty good NT translation also. lol    That's an understatement! Its probably the best NT period.

[Lazarus Short]

I recently read an old pamphlet from the 1940's about the Corcordant Version, and for the most part, the author attacked the translator's qualification and credentials.  I didn't know there was a UR angle.  Tell us more...

[fullarmor2]

I recently read an old pamphlet from the 1940's about the Corcordant Version, and for the most part, the author attacked the translator's qualification and credentials.  I didn't know there was a UR angle.  Tell us more...

  Oh yes. They have a whole biblical based theology. Its the most scholarly scriptural perspective that I've ever come across.  They are dispensationalists which I like. I think that "rightly dividing" leads to the discovery of the bible's doctrine of the "eons" or ages and dispensations.   They definitely teach universal reconciliation also. Check out the Concordant site for more details.  There are also some bible teachers on youtube who are affiliated with the Concordant group. Here's a link.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUJIaIEo9mS8o4vU30g351Q    to some of their teachings. 

[Seth]

I think they have good writings about the salvation of the world, but I totally disagree with with their concept of separate evangels for Jews and Gentiles. I believe there is one Gospel for both the Jews and Gentiles.

[joeteekay]

I agree with Seth.

1Co_1:24  But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Eph 4:4  There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5  One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6  One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

I am sure other scriptures also say this.

The scripture they probably use to justify their position may be:

Gal_2:7  But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

At any rate, I find their version (CLV) valuable in my studies.

:2c:

[fullarmor2]

I think they have good writings about the salvation of the world, but I totally disagree with with their concept of separate evangels for Jews and Gentiles. I believe there is one Gospel for both the Jews and Gentiles.

How much have you looked into their perspective? Just curious.

[fullarmor2]

The scripture they probably use to justify their position may be:

Gal_2:7  But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

At any rate, I find their version (CLV) valuable in my studies.

:2c:

  Not only that. They have a lot of reasons for taking that position. It doesn't bother me, I see scriptural justification for it.
For example, the Gospel to Israel began with Jesus' ministry and continued after the Ascension by the twelve Apostles, until they were finally rejected by Israel as a nation.  Paul started out with them, but they were all rejected. That was the circumcision Gospel.  Then Paul was separated by GOD with the Gospel to the nations. So there is definitely a distinction to be made between the ministry to Israel, and Paul's separation and call to be the Apostle to the nations.  Another distinction is, that the Gospel to Israel was about the Kingdom being "at hand". And if Israel would have repented then the Kingdom would have begun.  But this is not so in Paul's Gospel to the nations. Believers under Paul are promised a "heavenly place". Because Israel and the Kingdom are on hold until GOD begins dealing with them again towards the end of this eon.  At which time the Gospel of the Kingdom, or circumcision, is going to be heralded again! And Israel and the Kingdom will be established this time!

[ed]

fullarmor2,
Glad you brought up The Concordant Publishing Concern.  I have always appreciated their Biblical work.   I find it to be honest and logical.

After you brought it up, I went to the site to find this article(another thread on another board that was concerned with the content matter of it).  I remembered it from a long time ago when I read it, but forgot where it was.
http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/TheSpiritWorld/Satan.html

I noticed the dispensational flavor in the article.

I have been reading J Preston Ebey's current series on Revelation and it has greatly influenced my preferance on model of interpretation for the book.........Idealist.

I find the Idealist model to be the most basic way of interpreting the Book, and the method that leads to the least doctrinal error concerning ends times.   The preterist view in is interesting to, but it is a little too strict and dogmatic for me.

Since you mentioned despensationalism in your second post in this thread I figured you would be a good one to ask on the topic of interpretation models of Revelation and how it relates to despensationalism.

Am I wrong in assuming that most dispensationalism is based on the book of Revelation?  What model does the Concordant Publishing Concern best fit with?

Most of this is pretty new to me, so I am impressionable.
I'm using this article for 5 basic interpretation models for the Book of Revelation.
https://bible.org/article/interpretive-models-book-revelation-whole

Thanks,
ed

[jabcat]

The scripture they probably use to justify their position may be:

Gal_2:7  But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

At any rate, I find their version (CLV) valuable in my studies.

:2c:

  Not only that. They have a lot of reasons for taking that position. It doesn't bother me, I see scriptural justification for it.
For example, the Gospel to Israel began with Jesus' ministry and continued after the Ascension by the twelve Apostles, until they were finally rejected by Israel as a nation.  Paul started out with them, but they were all rejected. That was the circumcision Gospel.  Then Paul was separated by GOD with the Gospel to the nations. So there is definitely a distinction to be made between the ministry to Israel, and Paul's separation and call to be the Apostle to the nations.  Another distinction is, that the Gospel to Israel was about the Kingdom being "at hand". And if Israel would have repented then the Kingdom would have begun.  But this is not so in Paul's Gospel to the nations. Believers under Paul are promised a "heavenly place". Because Israel and the Kingdom are on hold until GOD begins dealing with them again towards the end of this eon.  At which time the Gospel of the Kingdom, or circumcision, is going to be heralded again! And Israel and the Kingdom will be established this time!

I think there's something to be said for that.  I of course also agree that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.  I just believe most Jews (especially religious Jews) are not given the view to see who Christ is right now (in this age), so by far majority are not in Christ.  But as it's written, "when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, then all Israel shall be saved".  I believe there are some mysteries there, for example, God knows who those Jews are, when the fullness of the Gentiles is, etc..  I just personally believe saying "we" (Christians) are completely Israel (if that means we've replaced 'natural' Israel) tells the full story.  I believe it's more involved than that.  As evidence, we're grafted into the tree, not a replacement for the tree.  :2c:

[eaglesway]

I think the gospel is the good news of the salvation of all through Jesus Christ. The gospel of the kingdom is for all. I do believe that Peter was given the grace to minister that good news to the Jews(predominantly) and Paul was given grace to minister it to the Gentiles(predominantly,), and that is what Gal 2:7 is about imo.  But i see no evidence in the scripture that is was a separate gospel. At the end of this age, the one new man- a priesthood of sons and daughters made up of Jews and Gentiles(the one new man, the one vine, the one Bride, the one body that is the fulness of Him who fills all in all)) will minister the "word of reconciliation" to the whole world. All Israel will be saved, Praise God!- but not to the exclusion of anyone else, and it will be the same gospel that Peter preached to the Jews in Acts 3, Jesus, Lord and Messiah, and the restoration of all things spoken of by all the prophets since the beginning. :2c:

[jabcat]

I agree, the gospel is Jesus - to all.   :thumbsup:

[eaglesway]

Yayyyy Jesus!  :banana:

[Seth]

I think they have good writings about the salvation of the world, but I totally disagree with with their concept of separate evangels for Jews and Gentiles. I believe there is one Gospel for both the Jews and Gentiles.

How much have you looked into their perspective? Just curious.

Alot. I have found that the perspective exists to explain a seeming contradiction in scripture which can very easily explained without it.

[Seth]

I think the gospel is the good news of the salvation of all through Jesus Christ. The gospel of the kingdom is for all. I do believe that Peter was given the grace to minister that good news to the Jews(predominantly) and Paul was given grace to minister it to the Gentiles(predominantly,), and that is what Gal 2:7 is about imo.  But i see no evidence in the scripture that is was a separate gospel. At the end of this age, the one new man- a priesthood of sons and daughters made up of Jews and Gentiles(the one new man, the one vine, the one Bride, the one body that is the fulness of Him who fills all in all)) will minister the "word of reconciliation" to the whole world. All Israel will be saved, Praise God!- but not to the exclusion of anyone else, and it will be the same gospel that Peter preached to the Jews in Acts 3, Jesus, Lord and Messiah, and the restoration of all things spoken of by all the prophets since the beginning. :2c:

:thumbsup:

[fullarmor2]

fullarmor2,
Glad you brought up The Concordant Publishing Concern.  I have always appreciated their Biblical work.   I find it to be honest and logical.

    Great.  I'm glad to hear it.

 

Since you mentioned despensationalism in your second post in this thread I figured you would be a good one to ask on the topic of interpretation models of Revelation and how it relates to despensationalism.

       Since you like the Concordant stuff, I'll direct you to their site. You'll find teachings on the eons, the administrations, and the dispensations. They also have a GREAT dispensational chart that you can order from them.

 

Am I wrong in assuming that most dispensationalism is based on the book of Revelation?  What model does the Concordant Publishing Concern best fit with?

     Dispensationlalism is about the whole bible.  You'll see when you get that chart I mentioned, and when you check out the audio teachings on this topic.

[fullarmor2]

I think there's something to be said for that.  I of course also agree that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile.

I agree with that also. The current time period is all about Paul's Evangel, and all who accept it are in the Body of Christ.  Where there is neither "Jew nor Greek".

[fullarmor2]

I think the gospel is the good news of the salvation of all through Jesus Christ.

:iagree:

The gospel of the kingdom is for all.

     I think the Gospel of the Kingdom was the announcement by Jesus and the twelve to Israel that their EARTHLY Kingdom was at hand. But I don't really disagree with you. It depends how you're looking at this. I mean there is a sense in which its all the Gospel of Jesus and its for all. And the earthly and heavenly kingdoms are all the same Kingdom of GOD.  I've just been taught to "distinguish between things that are different" in the scriptures. Here is a good quote that was emphasized to me.
  "It shall greatly help ye to understand scripture if thou mark--not only what is written and spoken,  but of whom, and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstance, considering what goeth before and what followeth"   (sorry about the old English lol) .  That was the introduction to Miles Coverdale's New Testament.

I do believe that Peter was given the grace to minister that good news to the Jews(predominantly) and Paul was given grace to minister it to the Gentiles(predominantly,), and that is what Gal 2:7 is about imo.

:iagree:

But i see no evidence in the scripture that is was a separate gospel.

     Its not that its a separate Gospel. Its that there are a bunch of differences between the ministry to Israel, and Paul's ministry after he was separated. I like to acknowledge those differences. That's it in a nutshell. lol

[fullarmor2]

Alot. I have found that the perspective exists to explain a seeming contradiction in scripture which can very easily explained without it.

       I think I know what you're referring to. Is it the issue of works and grace, and how that these are emphasized(or not) differently in the different NT books?   As far as why the perspective exists. I think its because there are a bunch of distinctions in the scriptures between the ministry of Jesus and the twelve, and Paul's somewhat different message that he received from the risen Christ, for "whosoever will". Either Jew or Greek.   :Peace2:

[Seth]

I just don't think there are distinctions that make for a different message. I believe there message is exactly the same.

[fullarmor2]

I just don't think there are distinctions that make for a different message. I believe there message is exactly the same.

   I hear ya. We can agree to disagree.  :dsunny:

[ed]

         Since you like the Concordant stuff, I'll direct you to their site. You'll find teachings on the eons, the administrations, and the dispensations. They also have a GREAT dispensational chart that you can order from them.

Yeah, I know their site from years ago.  I still find their stuff to come in handy.  I've grown out of their particular model for dispensations.

     Dispensationlalism is about the whole bible.  You'll see when you get that chart I mentioned, and when you check out the audio teachings on this topic.

I think that dispensations change quite a bit, depending on the model of interpretation of the Book of Revelation.  I'm by no means and expert and am still working on why it might be important.  For me it has a lot to do with end times teachings that are prevalent in Christianity today, and how they effect the Christian community.

:Peace2:

[Seth]

I just don't think there are distinctions that make for a different message. I believe there message is exactly the same.

   I hear ya. We can agree to disagree.  :dsunny:

:thumbsup:

[Tom]

I'm not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, and I don't claim to be an authority. But I prefer the Concordant Version, and I think their teachings are "concordant" with the scriptures.

[eaglesway]

 

Quote from: eaglesway on August 04, 2014, 10:04:44 AM
But i see no evidence in the scripture that is was a separate gospel.

    Quote from fullarmor2 Its not that its a separate Gospel. Its that there are a bunch of differences between the ministry to Israel, and Paul's ministry after he was separated. I like to acknowledge those differences. That's it in a nutshell. lol

I have no problem with acknowledging the differences. I make the issue because many who seperate the gospel into two gospels use that distinction(false distinction imo) to invalidate scriptural challenges to their systematic theology and dispensationalist rigamaroll- especially as concerns eshcatology and preterist theology.

I think it is important at a foundational level because there is one body, one Lord, one new man, and one olive tree into which the Gentiles are being grafted, off of which a partial hardening of Israel has been pruned, and into which they will be re-grafted as "fellow-heirs" with those who have gone before in "the gospel" which they share, Jew, Gentile, male, female, Greek, barbarian, etc. etc. :o)

[Seth]

 :thumbsup:

IMHO, there isn't any differentiation between God's people in terms of the flesh. There aren't any special directions/instructions unto righteousness for Jews, according to the flesh, as distinct from Gentiles according to the flesh. Paul preached the same salvation by grace taught by Peter, John and James. They all preached faith and grace, and if there are any differences, it's only in the choice of wording, not in the substance of content.

Part of what Christ did in tearing down the wall of division is remove the distinction between man according to the flesh. Jewish believers are part of the same Kingdom, Body and Bride as Gentile believers, both inheriting the exact same benefits, rights, future glory, and position in God's kingdom. The dividing wall is down, and there is no separation. The disciples and Gentiles were always in the same Kingdom and were beneficiaries of the same inheritance.