Are There “Limits” to God’s Power?

By J. Warner Wallace 9/27/2017

     Christians claim God is “all-powerful”. Does this mean He can accomplish anything? Skeptics often test this notion by offering the following challenge: “Can the all-powerful Christian God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?” The question highlights an apparent dilemma: If God cannot create such a stone (or cannot lift what He has created), He is not all-powerful. Does this apparent paradox prove an all-powerful Being cannot exist in the first place?

     It’s true the Bible describes God as an all-powerful Being and often uses language that suggests that “nothing” is impossible for Him (as in Luke 1:37). At the same time, there are many places in Scripture where certain behaviors or conditions are described as “impossible” for God to accomplish. This apparent contradiction is inexplicable until we examine the nature of the activities (or behaviors) described as “impossible” for God:

     Moral “Impossibilities”

     The Bible also clearly indicates that there are a number of things that God cannot accomplish based on logical necessity. For example, it is impossible for God to change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17) or to deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13). According to the Bible, God always acts and behaves with certain logical considerations in mind and it is impossible for Him to do otherwise. The laws of logic are, once again, a reflection of God’s unchanging nature.

     These “Divine Impossibilities” provide us with insight into God’s character and power. Objective moral truths and transcendent laws of logic are simply a reflection of God’s eternal being. They are not rules or laws God has created (and could therefore alter recklessly), but are instead immutable, dependable qualities of his nature reflected in our universe. They exist because God exists (not because God created them). In addition, the Bible describes God as omnipotent and capable of doing anything he sets out to do. God’s choices, however, are always consistent with His moral and logical nature; He never sets out to do something contrary to who He is as God.

Click here to go to source

James "Jim" Warner Wallace (born June 16, 1961) is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has authored several books, including Cold-Case Christianity, God’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, in which he applies principles of cold case homicide investigation to apologetic concerns such as the existence of God and the reliability of the Gospels.

• Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

• God's Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe

• Alive: A Cold-Case Approach to the Resurrection

• Cold-Case Christianity for Kids: Investigate Jesus with a Real Detective

• Keeping Your Kids on God's Side: 40 Conversations to Help Them Build a Lasting Faith

• Forensic Faith: A Homicide Detective Makes the Case for a More Reasonable, Evidential Christian Faith

The Gathering Storm: Religious Liberty in the Wake of the Sexual Revolution

By Albert Mohler 3/21/2017

     These are days that will require courage, conviction, and clarity of vision. We are in a fight for the most basic liberties God has given humanity, every single one of us, made in his image.

     In the first volume of his history of World War II, Winston Churchill looked back at the storm clouds that gathered in the 1930s portending war and the loss of human freedom. Churchill wisely and presciently warned Britain of the tragedy that would ensue if Hitler were not stopped. His actions were courageous and the world was shaped by his convictional leadership. We are not facing the same gathering storm, but we are now facing a battle that will determine the destiny of priceless freedoms and the very foundation of human rights and human dignity.

     Speaking thirty years ago, Attorney General Meese warned that “there are ideas which have gained influence in some parts of our society, particularly in some important and sophisticated areas that are opposed to religious freedom and freedom in general. In some areas there are some people that have espoused a hostility to religion that must be recognized for what it is, and expressly countered.”[1]

     Those were prophetic words, prescient in their clarity and foresight. The ideas of which Mr. Meese warned have only gained ground in the last thirty years, and now with astounding velocity. A revolution in morality now seeks not only to subvert marriage, but also to redefine it, and thus to undermine an essential foundation of human dignity, flourishing, and freedom.

     Religious liberty is under direct threat. During oral arguments in the Obergefell case, the Solicitor General of the United States served notice before the Supreme Court that the liberties of religious institutions will be an open and unavoidable question. Already, religious liberty is threatened by a new moral regime that exalts erotic liberty and personal autonomy and openly argues that religious liberties must give way to the new morality, its redefinition of marriage, and its demand for coercive moral, cultural, and legal sovereignty.

Click here to go to source

Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. serves as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary – the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.

Nabeel Qureshi's Wife Reflects on God's Faithfulness Amid Pain: 'He Will Use This Death to a More Glorious End'

By Leah Marieann Klett 9/27/2017

     Michelle Qureshi, the wife of late apologist Nabeel Qureshi, has opened up about God's faithfulness in the days following her husband's death and expressed confidence that He will "use this death to a more glorious end than we would have seen if Nabeel were still alive."

     In a video update titled "A More Glorious End," Michelle, who shares a daughter, Ayah, with her late husband, said that while she didn't anticipate making a video, she felt compelled by the Holy Spirit to share what He has been teaching her over the past week.

     As reported, Nabeel, a Muslim convert to Christianity who previously served with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, passed away last week at 34 after a year-long battle with stomach cancer.

     Michelle first thanked everyone who has prayed for her family: "I am seeing through your generosity and faithfulness just pieces of the generosity and faithfulness of our God," she said.

     She said she's chosen not to place upon herself the burdens associated with the terms "widow" and "single mom," instead identifying herself as a "Child of the Most High King."

Click here to go to source

A Trilogy of Theology

By Charles C. Ryrie

     “They are intended to provide for the lay person, student, teacher and minister a clear statement of three contemporary theological viewpoints by convinced adherents to these positions.” Such is the stated purpose of a set of three books recently published by Westminster Press. The case for orthodox theology is written by a professor and the former president of Fuller Theological Seminary, Edward John Carnell. The Case for a The Case for a New Reformation Theology is authored by William Hordern of Garrett Biblical Institute, and The case for theology in liberal perspective is written by L. Harold De Wolf of Boston University. Thus orthodoxy, neo-orthodoxy, and neoliberalism are championed in this series by acknowledged representatives of each viewpoint.

     One of the primary objects of any review is to judge how ably a book accomplishes the task it is supposed to do. In this instance that job has been clearly stated by the publisher. These books are supposed to present a clear statement of their respective viewpoints; that is, they are to be positive rather than negative (although it is recognized that any affirmative approach will include some defense). Comparing the three works on this basis, one feels that the case for neo-orthodoxy is the best presented and the case for neoliberalism runs second, chiefly because of its frequent use of argumentum ad hominem. It is not easy for a single author to state the viewpoint of a movement, but these two men have done their job well.

     The tenets of neo-orthodoxy are well presented in Hordern’s volume. His discussion is able and his presentation clear. Central is the theme of God’s revelation in the Word, Christ. He asserts that the Bible is an imperfect instrument pointing to the Word. Other typical ideas in neo-orthodoxy are included in the discussion. Paradox, so necessary to the system, is defended as entirely rational (p. 33). Tension, sin as self-centeredness, parable (in  Genesis 3 ), and other familiar words in the Barthian vocabulary are used freely. Theological debate among fundamentalists is deplored (p. 57) but among Barthians is justified (p. 160). The good points in the idea of vicarious atonement should be maintained, according to the author, along with those in the ransom and moral influence theories, but such good points do not include expiation by blood. The author declares that this idea “comes more obviously from the Roman mystery cult of Mithra than from Christ” (p. 146). Atonement, yes; blood, no.  Revelation in the Word, yes; in the Bible, no. Although the author claims that neo-orthodoxy is the true reformation theology, he clearly recognizes that it is not the same as orthodoxy. Would to God that all orthodox people would see as clearly.

     Neo-liberalism, a surging movement in this country, is also ably presented. The presentation is not always clear, nor can it be when one attempts to fill theological terms with unbiblical meanings. For instance, to the question, “What is authority?” comes the confusing answer “The authority of the word of God resides precisely in those teachings through which God speaks now to the living faith of the reader” (p. 56). More precisely this means that authority is what I want to be authoritative to me. This is not far from the subjectivism of neo-orthodoxy, and that is not surprising since both systems believe in a fallible Bible. The title Son of God means “perfect man in perfect Sonship to God” (p. 62). The author’s doctrine of the Trinity is modalistic (p. 108), and substitutionary atonement through the blood of Christ is flatly rejected (p. 77).

     Neo-liberalism is little more than an attempt to give the old liberalism some respectability in light of today’s theological atmosphere. Though there are basic differences between neo-liberalism and the neo-orthodoxy, one is struck with certain similarities when reading the two books together.

     Neo-liberalism will likely be the issue around which battle lines will be drawn in the coming generation in America. It is rapidly gaining ground abroad, and if history repeats itself, America will shortly follow.

     Running a poor third is The Case for Orthodox Theology. It fails in the purpose of the project of providing a clear statement of its position. It fails in what is not said in the book, and it fails in certain unorthodox statements which are made.

     The book is supposed to give a clear statement of orthodoxy. One would expect it then to deal principally with the main stream of reformation theology. Instead the book very quickly degenerates into diatribes against the doctrines and practices of certain orthodox groups, particularly the one which the author is pleased to dub fundamentalism. Too, some of the traditionally held tenets of the main stream of orthodoxy are either sharply criticized or substantially weakened by implications which are suggested and questions which are raised but not answered. The book might be better entitled The Critique of Orthodoxy. (Indeed, Hordern has presented a fairer treatment of orthodoxy in his book, A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology.) In view of the publisher’s request, the author should be speaking primarily for the multitudes of the orthodox people of the world and only secondarily of any divergent views which he might personally hold. If the divergencies were too great, as sometimes they appear to be, then perhaps the assignment should have been declined. The book is a clear criticism but not a clear statement.

     The work is woefully lacking in what is not said. If you as a reader of this review sat down to make a list of things which you would include in a statement of the orthodox case, what doctrines would you consider as basic to orthodoxy? Undoubtedly you would have on your list the doctrines pertaining to the Bible, to Christ’s person, to Christ’s work as minimally essential. You would, therefore, expect to find in this book solid treatments of inspiration, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, His substitutionary atonement and resurrection.

     While the author rightly defines orthodoxy as that branch of Christendom which limits the ground of religious authority to the Bible, his treatment of inspiration of the Bible is not always solid. Too many questions are left unanswered. While one would not imply that the author’s Christology is unorthodox, yet the little attention that is paid to the virgin birth and the deity of Christ is evident by the fact that there is no listing for either in the index. Further, if one looks up the two references to atonement he will find one under a bibliographical section and the other under a criticism of dispensationalism. Perhaps this is not a fair way to judge a book, but when one finds in the index that there are separate listings for “cultic,” “cultic conduct,” “cultic mentality,” “cultic mind,” and “cultic thinking” (all referring to orthodox groups) one cannot help but feel that the author has been sidetracked from his main job. Even the resurrection of Christ receives scant attention. Except for incidental references, the discussion of this foundational truth is limited to two short paragraphs totaling less than half a page (p. 90). The book fails in what it does not say.

     Furthermore, the book includes what the reviewer considers dangerously unorthodox statements. Concerning the question of the number of authors of  Isaiah we are told that “a measure of Christian charity is needed at this point …” (p. 98). Passages which cannot be harmonized with the theology of  Romans and  Galatians fall “under the concept of progressive revelation” (p. 99). While the idea of progressive revelation is perfectly valid, early revelation must never be confused with “rude” revelation (as it is on p. 52) or used as implying misinformation and consequently error.

     The evolution of man is apparently espoused by the author and considered orthodox. He states: “When orthodoxy takes inventory of its knowledge, it admits that it does not know how God formed man from the dust of the ground. The  Genesis account implies an act of immediate creation, but the same account also implies that God made the world in six literal days; and since orthodoxy has given up the literal-day theory out of respect for geology, it would certainly forfeit no principle if it gave up the immediate - creation theory out of respect for paleontology. The two seem to be quite parallel … Scripture only requires us to say that the physical antecedent of man was not denoted man until God performed the miraculous act of divine inbreathing” (p. 95). In other words, he holds that the error of the evolutionists is that they have misnamed the antecedents of man because they chose to call them certain types of men.

     Fundamentalism comes in for a very severe beating in this book. Whatever one may deplore in slanted doctrines and practices of some fundamentalists, it must be admitted that fundamentalists are orthodox. Dispensationalism is particularly abused, but again, it should be recognized that of all fundamentalists, dispensationalists are uniformly orthodox. Therefore, it is difficult to see what place such harsh criticism has in a book that purports to defend orthodoxy but which in reality turns right around and slaps in the face one of the largest groups of orthodox people. That has all the earmarks of biting the hand that feeds it. Even J. Gresham Machen comes in for three pages of criticism of his actions in relation to the Presbyterian church. Baptists, perfectionists, and others are also maltreated until one wonders what orthodox people are left. The author’s favorite word to describe anyone who disagrees with his own brand of so-called orthodoxy is “cultic.” That is, any group that does not meet his qualifications has gone cultic. So predominate is this approach that one wonders if it is not the author who is cultic.

     The reviewer was greatly disturbed too by the spirit of the book. One readily admits that there are inconsistent practices in fundamentalism, but this is no reason for washing dirty linen in public, particularly when it is the linen of brethren and the washing is done in a context that is supposed to defend the doctrine of those brethren. Further, this is done by using the most bitter kind of sarcasm. Smoking and movies, for instance, receive more attention than the virgin birth and the kind of attention which labels even the person who in all good conscience avoids these things a hypocrite, coward, legalist, and cultist. After a particularly abusive harangue against such people the author says: “Paul says we are to ‘avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all men’ ( Titus 3:3 )” (p. 121). In the process of making these attacks the clear impression is left (certainly in the discussion of dancing, p. 124) that believers ought to indulge in all these things in order to cultivate their spiritual lives since avoidance is ruining them. To turn the author’s own terminology on himself, one has the feeling that he upholds evolutionary science and approves dancing in order not to lose his status in his own cult.

     Although there are good sections in the book (the treatment of  Romans for the most part, and the hermeneutical discussion) the work has to be judged as a whole in respect to the total impression it leaves as to the validity of the case for orthodoxy. And judging it on this basis it leaves much to be desired. One fears that harm has been done to our cause and a rare opportunity to reach people by-passed by personal animadversions.

Living in the Story

By Dan Cruver 6/01/2014

     Telling a great story with your life is not easy. It’s often exhausting, terribly so — and yet a growing number of evangelical writers passionately encourage us to “tell a great story with your life” or “stop trying to increase your influence and start living a great story!”

     Don’t get me wrong, I love great stories, and I’m all for living within one. But Scripture never commands us, “Tell a great story with your life.” It never exhorts us, “Start living a great story!” Rather, Scripture tells us we are already living within the epic Story, and we play no small role within it.

     In Matthew 5:14-15, Jesus says, “You are the light of the world… let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (emphasis mine). Jesus does not tell us that in order to fulfill our role within the epic story of redemption, we need to become the light of the world. No, Jesus tells us that we actually are the light of the world. By doing so, Jesus makes sure we know that we already are major characters in a great story, an epic story.

     I can almost hear someone off•er this corrective: “Yes, but just make sure you point out that Jesus is the only one who ever said, ‘I am the light of the world.’” And to that corrective I would offer a hearty, “Yes, you’re absolutely right. Jesus is the only one who ever said that about Himself in Scripture.”

     But here is the tricky part. We don’t find Jesus saying those words in Matthew’s gospel. They are actually recorded for us only in the gospel of John (John 8:12; 9:5). So, for whatever reason, Matthew’s emphasis in his gospel is not that Jesus is the light of the world (although He most certainly is) but that we are. Matthew insists that we see ourselves as the light of the world.

     Keep in mind that Matthew is not giving each of us as individuals permission to say, “I am the light of the world.” But Matthew is calling us as the people of God to recognize that “we (collectively) are indeed the light of the world.” And it’s not something to which we are to aspire. Being the light of the world is what we are. God the Father has brought us into the kingdom of His Son to shine as a light here and now.

     “But how,” you ask, “do we shine as a light in the world?”

     As you know, the One who tells us that we (collectively) are the light of the world is the One who (individually) is the light of the world, Jesus. The Son of God is individually what we are collectively as He shines through us.

     Did you also notice in Matthew 5:14-15 that the Son of God tells us to let our “light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (emphasis mine)? The Son who is in Himself the light of the world refers to His Father as our Father too. If we are to understand what it means for us to shine as a light, I’m convinced that the words “your Father” hold the key.

     Take a moment to recall with me what the Father declared when Jesus was baptized, recorded for us just two chapters earlier in Matthew’s gospel:

     And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him...and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Matt. 3:16-17)

     What we must not miss here is that when Jesus was launching into His public ministry, of all the words His Father could have spoken over Him, He chose these. The gospel writers want us to know that the Father’s Son went forward with the mission of His Father in the strength and knowledge of His Father’s delight.

     So what does this have to do with us, those who are the light of the world?

     Dr. C.F.W. Walther, a pastor who lived in the 1800s, wrote, “Every Christian may apply to himself the declaration of God: ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!’” Don’t miss what Walther just said. The only thing I would change to what he wrote is swap out the word may with the word must. Because of who Jesus is for us and who we are in Him, the words that His Father declared over Him that day He also declares over us — the children of the kingdom — today and every day hereafter.

     To shine as a light in this world is to live each day in the conscious knowledge that the Father delights in His people, that His smile rests upon us. And the power of God’s delight in us produces good works out of the knowledge that the Father loves us as He loves His eternal Son (John 17:23), and good works grown by that love give glory to our Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:15). Now that is a great role to play in this epic Story.

Click here to go to source

Per Amazon | Dan Cruver and his wife, Melissa, are parents of a multi-ethnic family of three children. Dan is the director of Together for Adoption, an organization that provides gospel-centered resources to mobilize the church for global orphan care. Dan is a frequent conference speaker and writer. He has a M.S. in Counseling and 90+ hours toward a Ph.D. in Theology. Prior to directing Together for Adoption, Dan was a college professor of Bible and Theology and a Pastor of Family Ministries.  Reclaiming Adoption: Missional Living through the Rediscovery of Abba Father

Read The Psalms In "1" Year

Psalm 106

32 They angered him at the waters of Meribah,
and it went ill with Moses on their account,
33 for they made his spirit bitter,
and he spoke rashly with his lips.

34 They did not destroy the peoples,
as the LORD commanded them,
35 but they mixed with the nations
and learned to do as they did.
36 They served their idols,
which became a snare to them.
37 They sacrificed their sons
and their daughters to the demons;
38 they poured out innocent blood,
the blood of their sons and daughters,
whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,
and the land was polluted with blood.
39 Thus they became unclean by their acts,
and played the whore in their deeds.

When God Goes Missing

By John Sartelle 6/01/2014

     Why do you go to church? When I ask that question of Christians who attend churches where they are members, I am usually surprised and dismayed by the answers I hear. “I really like our minister. His messages are powerful.” “I think it is important for my family to be in church.” “The church we attend rescued our son from drugs.” “Our church has a strong youth program. In fact, that is why we started attending this specific church.” “The music program attracts people from all over the city. That is why we ended up there.” “The messages and the whole service are so uplifting.” “I go and usually take one of my friends because it is fun and entertaining.” “I want to be involved in ministries to less fortunate and hurting people. Our church is known all through the city for such outreach.”

     These answers made the list because I have heard each one multiple times. Most of these answers are related in some way to the gospel of Jesus Christ, but they miss the one true reason that God calls us to His house: to meet with Him. I can count on one hand the number of times I have heard in the last forty years, “Why do I go to church? I go to meet with God.”

     As our Creator, Sustainer, and Redeemer, God calls us to meet with Him. He had Moses build the tabernacle for this purpose. He said to Moses and Israel in Exodus 29:4, “There I will meet you and speak to you.” He used similar words with Solomon and Israel when the temple was built. The people were going to God’s house to meet with Him.

     In the New Testament, Jesus set about designing and building a new temple where He would meet with His people. He told His disciples that He would be present and meet with them wherever they gathered: “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” (Matt. 18:20).

     Those same disciples understood what Jesus meant as they saw His church being erected by the Holy Spirit:

     Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. (Eph. 2:19-22)

     God lives in the midst of the gathering of His people. This is the temple that Jesus is building.

     In the Old and New Testaments, worship was what happened when God met with His people. Therefore, everything we do in worship is in response to His presence with His people. Before we meet with Him, there is thought and prayer anticipating His presence. The call to worship and hymn of adoration are our initial responses to His presence. No part of our worship can be validly separated from His presence.

     I have gone to some length to define our primary purpose for gathering with God’s people because the evangelical church has a proclivity to be casual in its activities in God’s sanctuary. If our main purpose in attending church is to meet with God Himself, then we dare not approach the Almighty with a carelessness that we do not see from even the angels. Some justify a relaxed attitude by saying, “We are striving to be authentic as we meet.” Others have pointed out that many churches are meeting in buildings that were once stores, shops, schools, garages, and so on. The building where our church currently meets was a new car showroom in what was once an automobile dealership. Those mundane surroundings do not lend themselves to what we consider to be “church ceremony.”

     However, such excuses do not change the primary biblical purpose of attending church. Whether I am going to a cathedral or a car showroom to gather with God’s people, I am still meeting with the transcendent, triune Creator and Redeemer, who is majestic in His glory, holy in all His ways, and before whom the great seraphim cover their faces. He is most certainly gracious in His immanence. But the mercy and grace of Calvary didn’t eradicate His transcendence.

     When I discover that my approach to God in the assembling of His people is “casual,” I cannot blame it on an effort to be authentic or on my informal surroundings. If I am honest with myself, I must confess that I have forgotten the primary purpose of my attendance. I have forgotten His presence and His true identity. Sometimes, the blindness and deafness that once kept me from seeing and hearing Him partially returns and prevents me from perceiving His nearness and His character.

     The immanence of the transcendent God speaks to our preparation for, participation in, and parting from worship. When I am late coming to meet with Him, I must ask myself why I took great pains that week to be early to my doctor’s appointment or to the meeting with my banker. When I leave immediately after the message, I must ask myself why I refrained from singing the hymn of response — refusing to reply to God Himself who just spoke to me. Why am I already out the door when God is giving me His benediction?   This rightfully upsets Pastor Brett also.  As His child, why am I refusing to be blessed by my Father?

     Has God’s presence gone missing from our assemblies? Biblical theology tells me He must be present. Thus, nonchalance is a perilous trifling with the Holy.

Click here to go to source

The Coming of the Kingdom part 39

By Dr. Andrew Woods 11/30/2015

In this series, the biblical teaching on the kingdom of God has been surveyed from  Genesis to  Revelation in order to demonstrate that the whole counsel of God's Word conveys the idea that the kingdom is a yet future reality. In addition, this series has examined the isolated New Testament texts and miscellaneous arguments that "kingdom now" theologians typically rely upon and it has demonstrated how each is insufficient to convey "kingdom now" theology. As we move on to the final leg in our journey, we began noting why this trend of equating God's present work in the church with the Messianic kingdom is a matter believers should be concerned about, since this theology not only radically alters God's design for the church but is also the seedbed of many major false doctrines that have sadly entered Christ's church.

Changing The Church's Purpose

Why does it matter whether Christ's present work through the church is equated with Christ's Messianic kingdom? The answer to this question lies in the fact that "kingdom now" theology alters the divine design for the church. Earlier in this series, we noted that the church, which began in  Acts 2, exists for three specific, divinely - ordained reasons: to glorify God ( Eph. 3:21 ), to edify the saints ( Eph. 4:11-16 ), and to fulfill the Great Commission ( Matt. 28:18-20 ). However, based upon a lengthy block quote given in the last installment, McClain explains how these basic and divinely - given ecclesiastical purposes rapidly become confused the moment that the church begins to view itself as the kingdom. [1] When the church sees itself as the kingdom it typically seeks to grasp the reins of political power and rule by the sword. This philosophy represents a far cry from God's design for the church, which is to evangelize and disciple, or reach and teach, in fulfillment of the Great Commission ( Matt. 28:18-20 ). While it remains appropriate for the church to positively influence fallen culture in some sense ( Matt. 5:13-16 ), she is not called to rule and reign in the present age with kingdom authority. Instead, the church is to await the future, earthly, Messianic Kingdom when Christ will rule and reign with a rod of iron ( Ps. 2:9; Rev. 12:5 ). Until that glorious future day arrives, the world will remain under Satan's influence ( 2 Cor. 4:4 ), and consequently the church will be living as a pilgrim in enemy territory.

McClain's preceding quote notes at least three problems that emerge when the church sees itself as the kingdom and seeks to reign with kingdom authority in the present. First, the church ceases to see itself as a pilgrim in the world but rather sees herself at home in the world. A pilgrim is one who is simply passing through a temporary realm toward a final destination. In the same way, this world is not the church's home but rather is a temporary sphere that the church is passing through on her way to eternal glory.

Chafer notes, "So the church was fully warned from the beginning about the nature of this age, and taught concerning her pilgrim character while here and her holy calling and separateness from the 'evil age.'" [2] This theological reality explains why the New Testament often uses pilgrimage imagery to depict the church in the world ( Jas. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1; 2:11; Heb. 11:13 ).

Second, if the church pursues worldly power, she becomes distracted from her divine mission to fulfill the Great Commission ( Matt. 28:18-20 ). God only promises to bless and empower the church when she remains within His intended design. Once the church becomes something that God never called her to be, she is emptied of this divine power. If Satan can convince the church to become involved in projects that she was never given the power to fulfill, he will have effectively neutralized the church. Bestselling author Hal Lindsey warned what could happen to the church in the last days if she began to see herself as the establisher of God's kingdom on the earth: "The last days of the church on the earth may be largely wasted seeking to accomplish a task that only the LORD Himself can and will do directly." [3]

Social Gospel

Third, seeing the church as the kingdom causes the church to substitute social causes in lieu of preaching the true gospel. The Great Commission is subtly transformed from evangelism and discipleship to altering societal structures. In other words, rather than fulfilling the Great Commission, the church perceives its central purpose as fixing societal ills such as curing cancer, ending world poverty and hunger, and establishing social justice. The collective salvation of nations or communities replaces the individual salvation of souls. This philosophy and misguided emphasis is known as the "Social Gospel." Note this emphasis in the writings of progressive dispensationalist and "kingdom now" theologian Craig Blaising, who laments, "Unfortunately, present-day dispensationalists have written very little in proposing a theology of social ministry." [4] He continues, "...if we as a community of Christ worked on creating our community as a model of social justice and peace, then we really would have some suggestions to make for social reform in our cities and nations." [5]

It is interesting to note Social Gospel language in the writings of the "kingdom now" Emergent Church leaders. [6] For example, Brian McLaren is clearly a kingdom now advocate. He argues, "If  Revelation were a blueprint of the distant future, it would have been unintelligible to its original readers...In light of this,  Revelation becomes a powerful book about the kingdom of God here and now, available to all". Consequently, Brian McLaren laments, "The church has been preoccupied with the question, 'What happens to your soul after you die?' As if the reason for Jesus coming can be summed up in, 'Jesus is trying to get more souls into heaven as opposed to hell, after they die.' I just think a fair reading of the Gospels blows that out of the water." [7] In other words, because the church sees itself as the kingdom, it would not consider the salvation of souls its top priority. Rather, it should instead also pursue a "holistic gospel" focused upon altering societal structures.

Of course, this mindset does not represent the mission that God gave to the church. It only serves to distract her from her divine priorities and calling. Ryrie explains how such priorities can easily get out of order: “Holistic redemption can easily lead to placing unbalanced, if not wrong, priorities on political action, social agendas, and improving the structures of society.” [8] While ecclesiastical humanitarian effort is not wrong in and of itself, such efforts should always be used as a platform to proclaim the Gospel or practically demonstrate Christ-like love so as to gain a hearing to share the Gospel. If the Gospel becomes eclipsed by humanitarian concerns, then our priorities are grossly out of order. After all, what good does it really do in the eternal scheme of things to feed someone's stomach with a meal that only has a lasting impact of 24 hours, if he is never given the Gospel and consequently his soul goes into an eternal hell?

Like McLaren, Rick Warren also embraces "kingdom now" theology:

I stand before you confidently right now and say to you that God is going to use you to change the world...I'm looking at a stadium full of people right now who are telling God they will do whatever it takes to establish God's Kingdom "on earth as it is in heaven." What will happen if the followers of Jesus say to Him, "We are yours?" What kind of spiritual awakening will occur? [9]

Consequently, Social Gospel is also apparent in the work of "kingdom now" advocate Rick Warren. He calls his global mission strategy the "PEACE" plan.

P.E.A.C.E. is an acronym for Promote reconciliation; Equip servant leaders; Assist the poor; Care for the sick; and Educate the next generation. Coalition members see these actions as Jesus' antidote to five "global giants," — problems that affect billions of people worldwide: spiritual emptiness, self-centered leadership, poverty, pandemic disease, and illiteracy. [10]

What did you not clearly hear about in this description of Warren's peace plan? There's absolutely nothing here about preaching the gospel. What an astounding omission this is, especially considering that the gospel is  "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" ( Rom. 1:16 ). There is also absolutely nothing here about fulfilling the Great Commission to  "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" ( Matt. 28:19 ). There's nothing here either about Christ's final words to the church as recorded in  Mark 16:15, where Jesus said,  "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." Furthermore, there is no hint in any other Great Commission passage ( John 20:21; Luke 24:46-48; Acts 1:8 ) to go and slay the five "global giants." Rather, the entire emphasis of these Great Commission texts is upon evangelism and discipleship. The Great Commission has largely become the "great omission" through the influence of Rick Warren and others. Kingdom building, societal transformation, and Social Gospel have largely replaced the church's central calling to evangelize and disciple. Thus, kingdom now theology should be avoided not only because it is not scripturally supported, but also because it alters the divine purpose for the church, thereby robbing her of divine power and blessing.

ENDNOTES

By John Walvoord (1990)

General Introduction To Prophecy In The Book Of Revelation

     The book of  Revelation, coming as a climax to preceding books of Scripture, brings to a conclusion the main themes of prophecy from both the Old and New Testaments. Because of their tremendous scope and detailed revelation, these prophecies will be considered under three divisions: (1) Prophecy in  Revelation Concerning the Church ( 1–3 ); (2) John’s Vision of Heaven and the End Time ( 4–18 ); and (3) Prophecy Concerning the Second Coming, the Millennium, and Eternal State ( 19–22 ).

     The book of  Revelation is unique as the only New Testament book that is apocalyptic and similar in style to Old Testament books such as  Ezekiel, Daniel, Joel, and  Zechariah. The word apocalyptic is a transliteration of the Greek word apokalypsis, meaning “to uncover or disclose.” The apocalyptic books in the Old Testament, as well as the book of  Revelation in the New Testament, differ widely, however, from apocalyptic writings that are outside the Bible, which usually do not have a specific author and often are fanciful and impossible to organize theologically. An apocalyptic book is one that claims to be a divine revelation, usually revealing the future and presenting revelation in nonliteral terms that require interpretation.

     Biblical books that are truly apocalyptic, however, not only contain this element but also plain prophecy in ordinary words, frequently explaining the vision or a symbol after the revelation is given symbolically. For this reason, the interpretation of biblical books that are apocalyptic is not necessarily uncertain. An apocalyptic book requires interpretation based on the revelation given in the passage itself as well as in other books of prophetic character in Scripture.

     Though some symbolic references in apocalyptic books are not certain of interpretation, most of them yield a literal meaning describing a future event or situation. Accordingly, in apocalyptic biblical books, the main thought is one of revelation, whether given symbolically or in ordinary terms.

     Because the book of  Revelation presents a specific eschatological future, including the concept of a literal extended period of terrible trouble, a literal second coming of Christ, a thousand-year kingdom following the second coming, and a new heaven and new earth as the ultimate residence of the saints, those who differ with these theological concepts tend to offer some form of interpretation of the book of  Revelation that will not lead to these theological conclusions. At least four divergent methods of interpretation have been employed.

     1. Allegorical interpretation is an attempt to interpret the book of  Revelation in a nonliteral sense, in which the interpreter finds some meaning other than the plain meaning of the term itself. Often this is claimed to be a spiritual interpretation as opposed to literalism, but this is a false antithesis. A literal interpretation may be the spiritual interpretation.

     Though the book of  Revelation was regarded in the second century as genuine revelation, because of the rise of a school of theology in Alexandria, Egypt, in the third century that attempted to make all the Bible one grand allegory, this same interpretation was applied to the book of  Revelation. This was acceptable to them because it would not confront them with theological points of view concerning the future that were unacceptable to them.   Contemporary theologians, regardless of their theological point of view, recognized that the allegorical interpretation of the Bible as a whole is not justified and regarded the school of Alexandria as basically heretical. 

     Saint Augustine of Hippo in the fourth and fifth centuries attempted to limit the viewpoint of allegory to eschatology instead of the entire Scripture, and this viewpoint was followed by many. The next result of the allegorical interpretation, however, is to deny that the book of  Revelation has anything specific to say about future events.

     2. The preterist’s approach to the book of  Revelation is similar to the allegorical method but is more limited in its application of nonliteral interpretation. Under this approach, the book of  Revelation is regarded as a symbolic presentation of the conflicts of the early church, making it a symbolic history of the early church rather than a prophetic revelation of the future. This point of view claims that there are two basic approaches to the book of  Revelation, namely, the predictive or the descriptive, and they choose a descriptive view that eliminates the prophetic element. The scholars who oppose literal interpretation of the book of  Revelation tend to combine the preterist’s view with some form of allegorical or nonliteral interpretation that will allow them to explain their point of view without contradiction of the book of  Revelation.

     3. The historical approach to the book of  Revelation is one of the most popular, which has been followed through the centuries of the Christian church.

     Adopting a somewhat symbolic interpretation of the book of  Revelation similar to the preterist approach, interpreters claim that the book of  Revelation is a symbolic history of the church, which, in general, traces its struggles that issue in the ultimate triumph for the church. It, accordingly, has some predictive character. This is popular among the post-millenarians, whether conservative or liberal, and was held by theologians who were considered orthodox in other areas of theology.

     One of the main problems of the historical view, however, is that each interpreter attempted to have the book climax with his generation, which led to a great variety of interpretations. Accordingly, it is impossible to find any two historical interpreters who provide the same interpretation of the book of  Revelation, and it leaves no pattern of significant truth with any consensus in support of it. Views that tend to avoid the theological climax of the book of  Revelation as a series of literal events tend to combine in one way or another a nonliteral approach that leaves interpretation in a state of confusion.

     4. Because none of the preceding approaches has achieved any recognized consensus, many conservative scholars have turned to the futuristic approach, viewing the book as prophecy of the future, especially beginning in  Revelation 4. Under this interpretation,  Revelation 4–18 deals with events that are yet future;  Revelation 19 deals with a literal second coming;  Revelation 20 deals with a future thousand-year reign of Christ on earth; and  Revelation 21–22 is considered a description of the eternal state.

     Following this interpretation, however, would require interpreters to be pre-millennial, holding the view that Christ will come back in His second coming first and that the thousand-year reign of Christ follows, in contrast to the post-millennial view, which puts Christ’s second coming at the end of the millennial reign. Countless variations, of course, occur in various interpretations of the book, but generally speaking, the only view that provides any consensus is that of the futuristic view.

     Under the futuristic view, due recognition is given to the symbolic and the need for interpreting the symbols. Often this is done, however, in the very context of the revelation, or can be determined by reference to other prophetic books in the Bible. Though some symbolic revelations are still not completely understood, a surprising number of passages yield to a factual conclusion regarding future events. Objections to the futuristic view usually are theological in nature, as some resist the theological position taken by pre-millenarians. Often the accusation is made that the book would not bring sufficient comfort to those who read it throughout the history of the church if it was entirely futuristic. However, this point of view overlooks the fact that all prophecy to some extent is futuristic and constitutes a revelation of that which faith embraces.

     Inasmuch as the futuristic view offers the only solid basis for a consistent and verifiable form of interpretation, this is the point of view adopted in this work.

     Some of the symbols in the book of  Revelation are in widespread use of numbers, which, while taken literally, also may have a symbolic meaning. These numbers include 3; 31/2; 4; 5; 6; 7; 10; 12; 24; 42; 666; 1,000; 1,250; 12,000; 144,000; 100 million; and 200 million. One of the most common numbers mentioned is the number 7, which has in it the concept of completion. The book of  Revelation includes 7 churches, 7 lampstands, 7 stars, 7 spirits of God, 7 seals on the scroll, 7 angels with 7 trumpets, 7 bowls containing the 7 last plagues, 7 thunders, 7,000 killed in the earthquake ( Rev. 12 ), the dragon with 7 heads ( 13:1 ), 7 hills ( Rev. 17 ), and 7 kings. Many of the other numbers are frequently used throughout the book of  Revelation. Evidence points to the fact that these numbers are always used in a literal sense, even though they may also have a symbolic sense; that is, if it declares that there are 7 stars, there are 7 stars, not 6 or 8, and so with other uses of the numbers.

     One of the most significant references is to the 42 months, or 1,260 days, which is the duration of the great tribulation ( 13:5 ). This refers to the last half of the seven-year period predicted in  Daniel 9:27. Many interpreters find the entire 7 years of verse 27 as the main subject of  Revelation 6 through  18. The emphasis, however, seems to be on the last 3 and a 1/2 years, which is the predicted time of unprecedented trouble of which Christ Himself spoke ( Matt. 24:21–22 ). Interpretation of the numbers will be given further attention as they appear in the book of  Revelation.

     Symbols abound in the book of  Revelation. The following list of symbols published in the author’s book Revelation (The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries)) will serve to demonstrate the symbolic character of many of the passages dealing with the future in the book of  Revelation.

• The seven stars ( 1:16 ) represent seven angels ( 1:20 ).
• The seven lampstands ( 1:13 ) represent seven churches ( 1:20 ).
• The hidden manna ( 2:17 ) speaks of Christ in glory (cf.  Exodus 16:33-34; Heb. 9:4 ).
• The morning star ( 2:28 ) refers to Christ returning before the dawn, suggesting the rapture of the church before the establishment of the Kingdom (cf.  Rev. 22:16; 2 Peter 1:19 ).
• The key of David ( 3:7 ) represents the power to open and close doors ( Isa. 22:22 ).
• The seven lamps of fire represent the sevenfold Spirit of God ( 4:5 ).
• The living creatures ( 4:7 ) portray the attributes of God.
• The seven eyes represent the sevenfold Spirit of God ( 5:6 ).
• The odors of the golden vials symbolize the prayers of the saints ( 5:8 ).
• The four horses and their riders ( 6:1 ff.) represent successive events in the developing tribulation.
• The fallen star ( 9:1 ) is the angel of the abyss, probably Satan ( 9:11 ).
• Many references are made to Jerusalem: the great city ( 11:8 ), Sodom and Egypt ( 11:8 ), which stand in contrast to the new Jerusalem, the heavenly city.
• The stars of heaven ( 12:4 ) refer to fallen angels ( 12:9 ).
• The woman and the child ( 12:1-2 ) seem to represent Israel and Christ ( 12:5-6 ).
• Satan is variously described as the great dragon, the old serpent, and the devil ( 12:9; 20:2 ).
• The time, times, and half a time ( 12:14 ) are the same as 1,260 days ( 12:6 ).
• The beast out of the sea ( 13:1-10 ) is the future world ruler and his empire.
• The beast out of the earth ( 13:11-17 ) is the false prophet ( 19:20 ).
• The harlot ( 17:1 ) variously described as the great city ( 17:18 ), as Babylon the great ( 17:5 ), as the one who sits on seven hills ( 17:9 ), is usually interpreted as apostate Christendom.
• The waters ( 17:1 ) on which the woman sits represent the peoples of the world ( 17:15 ).
• The ten horns ( 17:12 ) are ten kings associated with the beast ( 13:1; 17:3, 7, 8, 11-13, 1 and -17 ).
• The Lamb is Lord of lords and King of kings ( 17:14 ).
• Fine linen is symbolic of the righteous deeds of the saints ( 19:8 ).
• The rider of the white horse ( 19:11-16, 19 ) is clearly identified as Christ, the King of kings.
• The lake of fire is described as the second death ( 20:14 ).
• Jesus Christ is the Root and Offspring of David ( 22:16 ).

     Though the book of  Revelation is often viewed as hopelessly contradictory and devoid of any factual information, with modern interpreters lacking the key to understanding its writing, if the book is taken as having real meaning, surprisingly, a number of the symbolic passages yield specific prophecy of events in the future. This will be demonstrated in the interpretation of the book itself.

     Few books of the Bible will do more to clarify the theology and thinking of a student of Scripture than a proper understanding of the book of  Revelation. It is unfortunate that even scholars have tended to make it a book that is impossible to understand by our present generation. For a commentary on the book of  Revelation, see the author’s book Revelation (The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries).

Prophecy of the Dramatic Revelation of Jesus Christ at His Second Coming

     Revelation 1:7–8. The reader is challenged,  “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen” (v.  7 ). Because this final book of the New Testament has as its central theme the revelation of Jesus Christ, that is, what the world will behold at the time of the second coming, this verse is especially significant, and accordingly, the reader is urged to behold it.

     When Christ was received by a cloud at the time of His ascension ( Acts 1:9 ), and as three of the Gospels mention His coming in clouds ( Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27 ), so here Christ is coming with clouds, which will reflect His glory. Unlike the occasion of His ascension, however, the clouds will not hinder people seeing Him, and it declares that  “every eye will see him” ( Rev. 1:7 ).

     The question is raised how, in a global situation with the world’s population all over the globe, at any one moment, every eye will be able to see Christ’s coming to earth. The answer seems to be found in  19:11–16. The coming of Christ, unlike the rapture, will not be an instantaneous event but will be a gigantic procession of holy angels and saints from heaven to earth. There is no reason why this should not take twenty-four hours with its termination on the Mount of Olives. In that period the earth will revolve, and regardless of what direction Christ comes from, people will be able to see His coming from their position on the earth.

     The appearance of Christ at the second coming is contrasted to the rapture of the church, when nothing is said about the world seeing Him, and it is possible that the world will see nothing at the time of the rapture. Only Christians will see His glory at the rapture ( Titus 2:13 ).

     The fact that even those who pierced Him in His crucifixion will see Him at His second coming introduces a problem inasmuch as they were unsaved and at that time will be in hell and will not be in a position to see this event. This problem is solved, however, by the prediction in  Zechariah 12:10, stating,  “I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.” Those living at the time of the second coming in Israel will therefore be representatives of those in the first century who participated in the death of Christ. Though Gentiles performed the act of crucifixion, it was demanded by Jews who, according to Scripture,  “pierced” Christ. Jews living at the time of the second coming will accept responsibility.

     The grief of Israel, however, will be shared by other peoples of the world because the death of Christ was required by the sins of the world. As the prediction states,  “All the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him” ( Rev. 1:7 ). This is confirmed by  Matthew 24:30, which states,  “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.” The mourning of Israel will, no doubt, be caused by their identity with the people of Israel in the first century, but the mourning of all peoples of the earth will probably be because they are not saved and not ready for the coming of the Lord. The unbelief of the world and their rejection of Christ is referred to frequently in the book of  Revelation ( 6:15–17; 9:20–21; 16:9–11, 21 ). The verse closes with “Amen,” meaning “so be it.”

     In concluding the salutation, John quotes Christ, “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty’” ( 1:8 ). In using the term “Alpha and Omega,” He is using the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, in keeping with the idea of Christ being from eternity past to eternity future. The expression “who is, and who was, and who is to come” is the same expression as the statement made of the Father in verse  4 and is climaxed by the term “the Almighty,” an expression that is used nine times in the book of  Revelation. Because the last book of the Bible is primarily concerned with the revelation of Jesus Christ and His glory at the time of the second coming, it is fitting that these eight verses of introduction should introduce Christ as the eternal glorious God. The contrast, of course, is to His first coming when He was a babe in Bethlehem, and His presence was revealed only to a few. In many respects the book of  Revelation is in contrast to the four Gospels, which describe Christ in His first coming.

The Patmos Vision

     Revelation 1:9–20. In the first chapter of the book of  Revelation, John, on the Isle of Patmos where he was in exile, had a tremendous revelation of Jesus in His glory. Christ is described as “the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive forever and ever!” (vv.  17–18 ). This was an experience for John that was now past, and though the first chapter of  Revelation introduces the future coming of Christ, in general, the first chapter deals with things that were.

     Beginning with the message of Ephesus and the other six churches, the narrative goes on to things that are, that is, that are present in the church age. Accordingly, though there is prophecy, it has to do with the present rather than the future (vv.  9–20 ).

     Beginning in chapter  4, however, the entire narrative deals with events that are yet future, and only the interpretation that considers them as future can give any serious interpretation to the details of the prophecy that is recorded.

          __________________________________________________________________

Every Prophecy of the Bible: Clear Explanations for Uncertain Times

The Continual Burnt Offering (1 Corinthians 10:13)

By H.A. Ironside - 1941

September 29

I would not ask Thee why
My path should be
Through strange and stony ways—
Thou leadest me!
I would not ask Thee how
Loss worketh gain,
Knowing that some day soon—
All shall be plain.
My heart would never doubt
Thy love and care,
However heavy seems
The cross I bear.
Nor would I, Father, ask
My lot to choose,
Lest seeking selfish ease
Thy best I lose.
--- Grace E. Troy