Think On These Things (Philippians 4:8)

MacArthur on ” TBN “

bobhanks — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:37:50 +0000

John discusses TBN and so-called “Christian TV programming” The real Bible teachers are few and far between, unfortunately.

Unholy Trinity

Friday, Dec 11, 2009

(By John MacArthur)

I don’t watch much television, and when I do I generally avoid the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). For many years TBN has been dominated by faith-healers, full-time fund-raisers, and self-proclaimed prophets spewing heresy. I wrote about the false gospel they proclaim and the phony miracles they pretend to do almost two decades ago in Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. See especially chapter 12). I had my fill of charismatic televangelism while researching that book, and I can hardly bear to watch it any more.

Recently, however, while recovering from knee-replacement surgery, I decided to sample some of the current fare on TBN. From a therapeutic point of view it seemed a good choice: something more excruciating than the pain in my leg might distract me from the physical suffering of post-surgical trauma. And I suppose on that basis the strategy was effective.

But it left me outraged and frustrated—and eager to challenge the misperceptions in the minds of millions of unbelievers who see these false teachers masquerading as ministers of Christ on TBN.

I’m outraged at the brazen way so many false teachers twist the message of Scripture in Jesus’ name. And I’m frustrated because I’m certain that if these charlatans were not receiving a large proportion of their financial support from sincere believers (and silent acquiescence from Christian leaders who surely know better), they would have no platform for their shenanigans. They would soon lose their core constituency and fade from the scene.

Instead, religious quacks are actually multiplying at a frightening pace. One thing I discovered to my immense displeasure is that TBN is by no means the only religious network broadcasting poisonous false doctrine around the clock. The channel lineup I receive includes at least seven other channels whose schedules are filled with false teachers and charlatans. There’s The Church Channel, Daystar, GodTV, World Harvest Television (LeSEA), Total Christian Television, and several others. Some of them feature blocs of family television programing and a few fairly sound teachers who provide moments of escape from the prosperity preachers. But all of them give prominence to enormous amounts of heresy and religious claptrap—enough to make them positively dangerous. And TBN is singularly responsible for kicking that door open so wide.

The continued growth and influence of TBN is baffling for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the thick aura of lust, greed, and other kinds of moral impropriety that surrounds the whole enterprise. A long string of scandals involving notable charismatic televangelists between 1988 and 1992 should have been sufficient reason for even the most credulous viewers to scrutinize the entire industry with skepticism. First came the international spectacle of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s moral, marital, and financial collapse. That was followed closely by the revelation of Jimmy Swaggart’s repeated dalliances with prostitutes. Shortly afterward, an episode of ABC’s Primetime Live exposed clear examples of deliberate fraud on the part of three more leading charismatic televangelists. Those incidents were punctuated by a score of lesser scandals over several years’ time. It is clear (or should be)—based on empirical evidence alone—that preachers promising miracles in exchange for money are not to be trusted. And for anyone who simply bothers to compare Jesus’ teaching with the health-and-wealth message, it is clear that the message that currently dominates religious television is “a different gospel; which is really not another” (Galatians 1:6-7), but a damnable lie.

TBN is by far the leading perpetrator of that lie worldwide. Virtually all the network’s main celebrities tell listeners that God will give them healing, wealth, and other material blessings in return for their money. On program after program people are urged to “plant a seed” by sending “the largest bill you have or the biggest check you can write” with the promise that God will miraculously make them rich in return. That same message dominates all of TBN’s major fundraising drives. It’s known as the “seed faith” plan, so-called by Oral Roberts, who set the pattern for most of the charismatic televangelists who have followed the trail he blazed. Paul Crouch, founder, chairman, and commander-in-chief of TBN, is one of the doctrine’s staunchest defenders.

The only people who actually get rich by this scheme, of course, are the televangelists. Their people who send money get little in return but phony promises—and as a result, many of them turn away from the truth completely.

If the scheme seems reminiscent of Tetzel, that’s because it is precisely the same doctrine. (Tetzel was a medieval monk whose high-pressure selling of indulgences—phony promises of forgiveness—outraged Martin Luther and touched off the Protestant Reformation.)

Like Tetzel, TBN preys on the poor and plies them with false promises. Yet what is happening daily on TBN is many times worse than the abuses that Luther decried because it is more widespread and more flagrant. The medium is more high-tech and the amounts bilked out of viewers’ pockets are astronomically higher. (By most estimates, TBN is worth more than a billion dollars and rakes in $200 million annually. Those are direct contributions to the network, not counting millions more in donations sent directly to TBN broadcasters.) Like Tetzel on steroids, the Crouches and virtually all the key broadcasters on TBN live in garish opulence, while constantly begging their needy viewers for more money. Elderly, poor, and working-class viewers constitute TBN’s primary demographic. And TBN’s fundraisers all know that. The most desperate people—”unemployed,” “even though I’m in between jobs,” “trying to make it; trying to survive,” “broke”—are baited with false promises to give what they do not even have. Jan Crouch addresses viewers as “you little people,” and suggests that they send their grocery money to TBN “to assure God’s blessing.”

Thus TBN devours the poor while making the charlatans rich. God cursed false prophets in the Old Testament for that very thing (Jeremiah 6:13-15). It’s also one of the main reasons the Pharisees incurred Jesus’ condemnation (Luke 20:46-47). It’s hard to think of any sin more evil. It not only hurts people materially; it deludes them with groundless hope, deceives them with a false gospel, and thereby places their souls in eternal peril. And yet those who do it pretend they are doing the work of God.

That’s not all. Almost no false prophecy, erroneous doctrine, rank superstition, or silly claim is too outlandish to receive airtime on TBN. Jan Crouch tearfully gives a fanciful account of how her pet chicken was miraculously raised from the dead. Benny Hinn trumps that claim with a bizarre prophecy that if TBN viewers will put their dead loved ones’ caskets in front of television set and touch the dead person’s hand to the screen, people will “be raised from the dead . . . by the thousands.”

Ironically, one doesn’t even need to be an orthodox Trinitarian in order to broadcast on the Trinity network. Bishop T. D. Jakes, well known for his rejection of the Nicene creed in favor of oneness Pentecostalism, is a staple on TBN. Benny Hinn has repeatedly attempted to revise the doctrine of the Trinity in novel ways, notoriously teaching at one point that there are nine persons in the godhead.

And yet evangelical church leaders typically show a kind of benign tolerance toward the whole enterprise. Most would never endorse it, of course. They may joke about the gaudiness of the big hair and tawdry set decorations on TBN. Ask them, and they will most likely acknowledge that the prosperity gospel is no gospel at all. Press the issue, and you will probably get them to admit that it is a dangerous form of false doctrine, totally unbiblical, and essentially anti-Christian.

Why, then, is there no large-scale effort among Bible-believing evangelicals to expose, denounce, refute, and silence these false teachers? After all, that is what Scripture commands church leaders to do when we encounter purveyors of soul-destroying substitutes for the true gospel:

The overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain (Titus 1:7-11).

Those who remain silent in the face of such grotesque lies may in fact be partly responsible for turning people away from the truth. Consider the testimony of William Lobdell, religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times, who once considered himself a devout evangelical Christian, but after doing a series of investigative reports on the moral and doctrinal cesspool at TBN; then “finding that his investigative stories about faith healer Benny Hinn and televangelists Jan and Paul Crouch appear to make no difference on the reach of these ministries or the lives of their followers, he [gave] up on the beat and on religion generally.”

All those who truly love Christ and care about the truth have a solemn duty to defend the truth by exposing and opposing these lies that masquerade as truth. If we fail in that duty because of indifference, apathy, or a craving for the approval of men, we are no less guilty than those who actively spread the lies.

Posted by Pulpit Magazine | Tags Cultural Issues, Evangelicalism, Ministry

Has The Church Replaced Israel ? …No.

bobhanks — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:36:25 +0000

12 Reasons Why Supersessionism /

Replacement Theology

Is Not a Biblical Doctrine

By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.

“I think we do not attach sufficient importance to the restoration

of the Jews. We do not think enough of it. But certainly, if there is anything promised in the Bible it is this.”

–Charles H. Spurgeon

“To argue that God replaced Israel with the church is to

depart from an enormous body of biblical evidence.”

–Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.

Supersessionism is the view that the New Testament Church supersedes, replaces, or fulfills the nation Israel’s place and role in the plan of God. I am convinced that supersessionism / replacement theology is an unbiblical doctrine that violates clear statements in both the Old and New testaments that teach and affirm a national salvation and restoration of Israel. Below are twelve reasons why supersessionism violates the biblical witness:

The Old Testament explicitly teaches the restoration of the nation Israel.

1. Deuteronomy 30:1-6: Israel would experience dispersion because of disobedience but would one day be saved as a nation and experience restoration to its land.

1. Jeremiah 30, 31, and 33: This prediction of the New Covenant promises a restoration of Israel that includes spiritual blessings and physical blessings.

1. Ezekiel 36–37 This passage promises the future salvation and restoration of the nation Israel to its land.

1. Amos 9:11-15

1. Zephaniah 3:14-20

1. Zechariah 12–14

1. NOTE 1: Even if the NT never discussed the restoration of Israel, the many explicit texts about Israel’s restoration in the OT give enough reason to believe in the restoration of Israel.

1. NOTE 2: Since the Abrahamic (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:18-21) and New Covenants (Jer. 31) are eternal and unconditional covenants we should expect God to fulfill these covenants with Israel, the people with whom the covenants were made. John Murray is correct that Israel’s restoration is linked to the covenants of the Old Testament: “Thus the effect is that the future restoration of Israel is certified by nothing less than the certainty belonging to covenantal institution.”[1]

The Old Testament explicitly promises the perpetuity of the nation Israel (see Jer. 31:35-37).

“Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day, And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: “If this fixed order departs From before Me,” declares the LORD, “Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease From being a nation before Me forever.” Thus says the LORD, “If the heavens above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done,” declares the LORD” (Jer. 31:35-37).

Have you seen the sun, moon or stars today? If so, you can know that the nation Israel still has a place in God’s plan.

The New Testament reaffirms the Old Testament expectation of a salvation and restoration of Israel.

1. Matthew 19:28 — Apostles to rule over 12 tribes of Israel.

According to E. P. Sanders, Matt 19:28 “confirms the view that Jesus looked for the restoration of Israel.”[2]

1. Matthew 23:37-39 / Luke 13:34-35– Israel one day will accept her Messiah. Donald Senior states, “In Matthew’s perspective, the rejection of Jesus by the leaders is indeed a grave sin, one that brings divine judgment. Yet the story of God’s relationship to Israel is not concluded, and the day will come when Jerusalem will again receive its Messiah with shouts of praise.”[3]

1. Luke 21:24– Times of the gentiles will come to an end. J. Bradley Chance states, “Close examination of L. 21:24b,c provides a strong hint that Luke did foresee the restoration of Jerusalem.”[4]

1. Luke 22:30– Apostles to rule over the 12 tribes of Israel.

1. Acts 1:3-7– Apostles believed in a restoration of the nation Israel after 40 days of kingdom instruction from Jesus. Scot McKnight states: “Since Jesus was such a good teacher, we have every right to think that the impulsive hopes of his audience were on target. This is not to say that they, at times, drew incorrect references or came to inaccurate conclusions about time or about content, but it is to admit that Jesus believed in an imminent realization of the kingdom to restore Israel and that he taught this with clarity.”[5]

1. Acts 3:19-21 — Restoration is preached to the leaders of Israel.

1. Romans 11:26-27– Salvation of “all Israel” will occur in accordance with the New Covenant promises given to Israel in the Old Testament.

i. C.E.B. Cranfield: “It is only where the Church persists in refusing to learn this message, where it secretly-perhaps quite unconsciously-believes that its own existence is based on human achievement, and so fails to understand God’s mercy to itself, that it is unable to believe in God’s mercy for still unbelieving Israel, and so entertains the ugly and unscriptural notion that God has cast off His people Israel and simply replaced it by the Christian Church. These three chapters [Rom. 9-11] emphatically forbid us to speak of the Church as having once and for all taken the place of the Jewish people.”[6]

ii. Jonathan Edwards: “Nothing is more certainly foretold than this national conversion of the Jews in Romans 11.”

iii. In his comments on Rom 11:26–27, Ernst Käsemann rightly states that “Christianity is already living in the new covenant” while “Israel will begin to do so only at the parousia.”[7]

The New Testament explicitly states that the Old Testament promises and covenants to Israel are still the possession of Israel even during this church age and even while the nation is currently in a state of unbelief (see Romans 9:3b-4).

my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises (Rom. 9:3b-4).

The New Testament indicates that God is faithful to Israel because of His promises to the patriarchs of Israel. (Romans 11:28)

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers (Rom.11:28).

The New Testament indicates that Israel’s election/calling is irrevocable. (Romans 11:29; see also Deuteronomy 7:6-8).

for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29).

1. Jürgen Moltmann: “There can be no question of God’s having finally rejected the people of his choice—he would then have to reject his own election (11.29)—and of his then having sought out instead another people, the church. Israel’s promises remain Israel’s promises. They have not been transferred to the church. Nor does the church push Israel out of its place in the divine history. In the perspective of the gospel, Israel has by no means become ‘like all the nations.’”[8]

1. Wolfhart Pannenberg: “How could Christians be certain of their own comparatively new membership in the circle of God’s elect if God for his part did not remain faithful to his election in spite of Israel’s unbelief? This is the apostle’s point when he advocates the inviolability of the election of the Jewish people (11:29; cf. 9:6). He has in mind also Christian assurance of election.”[9]

1. The more one believes in the sovereignty of God especially as it relates to election, the more one should be committed to a salvation/restoration of Israel based on God’s election of this people.

The New Testament never uses the term “Israel” for those who are not ethnic Jews. Thus, the church is never called “Israel.”

1. The title “Israel” is used seventy-three times and always refers to ethnic Jews: The vast majority refer to national, ethnic Israel. A few refer specifically to Jewish believers who are ethnic Jews.

1. The New Testament still consistently refers to national Israel as “Israel” even after the establishment of the church (Acts 3:12; 4:10; 5:21, 31, 35; 21:28).

1. The book of Acts maintains a distinction between Israel and the church. In Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. “Israel” is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct.

Supersessionists have failed to show that the New Testament identifies the church as “Israel.”

1. Romans 9:6 – Believing Jews are those who are the true spiritual Israel. As William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam state: “But St. Paul does not mean here to distinguish a spiritual Israel (i.e. the Christian Church) from the fleshly Israel, but to state that the promises made to Israel might be fulfilled even if some of his descendants were shut out from them. What he states is that not all the physical descendants of Jacob are necessarily inheritors of the Divine promises implied in the sacred name Israel.”[10]

1. Galatians 6:16 – Paul is referring to Christian Jews in his reference to the “Israel of God.” Paul scolded the Judaizers who said circumcision was necessary for salvation, but he acknowledges those Jews in Galatia who had not followed the Judaizers in their error. These Christian Jews are the true “Israel of God.” Ronald E. Diprose: “Galatians 6:16 is insufficient grounds on which to base an innovative theological concept such as understanding the Church to be the new and/or true Israel.”[11]

1. Romans 11:26 – There is very little chance that “Israel” here refers to the church, something even many supersessionists acknowledge. Like the other ten references to “Israel” in Romans 9–11, Israel in 11:26 refers to ethnic Israel.

Supersessionists have failed to show that the New Testament reinterprets or alters the original OT prophecies in regard to Israel. The alleged “NT Priority” approach of Supersessionism is really ‘structural supersessionism’—a hermeneutic that does not allow the OT passages to speak to the issues they address.

1. How can the NT reinterpret or alter the OT expectation for Israel when the NT actually reaffirms the OT expectation? (see point #3 above).

1. Hebrews 8:8-13 and Jeremiah 31:

i. The Old Testament never indicated that the New Covenant would only be for the nation Israel. Isaiah uses the New Covenant concept of “sprinkling” in regard to the salvation of gentiles in Isaiah 52:15.

ii. Paul quotes New Covenant passages in Romans 11:27 to show that the nation Israel will be saved (see Rom. 11:26). Thus, even after the church began Paul sees Israel as still related to the New Covenant.

iii. The purpose of Hebrews 8 is not to address the issue of who is and is not the people of God. Hebrews 8 is directly addressing the superiority of the New Covenant over the Mosaic Covenant, not whether the church is now the true Israel.

iv. Only the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant are mentioned in Hebrews 8:8-13. If the New Covenant were being fulfilled in its entirety we should expect the physical blessings of the New Covenant to be mentioned as being fulfilled with the church. The New Testament never links the church with the physical blessings of the New Covenant.

v. It is best to conclude that the church is participating in the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant while the full eschatological fulfillment of the New Covenant will take place with Israel in the millennium.

1. Acts 15:13-18 and Amos 9:11-15

i. The main point of the quotation of Amos 9 in Acts 15 is to show that Gentiles becoming the people of God is consistent with or agrees with what the OT prophets like Amos predicted. It is not discussing the complete fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom or calling the church Israel.

ii. Discussion of Israel’s place in the plan of God is not even the focus of Acts 15.

iii. Acts 15 says “agree” not “fulfill.”

iv. William D. Barrick: “Note, first of all, that James never says that Amos 9 is ‘fulfilled.’ Secondly, James’ reasoning is that the Gospel should continue to go out to the Gentiles because God included them in his redemptive plan according to Amos 9. Amos 9 mentions Gentiles as recipients of God’s kingdom blessings, so how could the early church ever take action to exclude them?”[12]

Supersessionists have failed to show that unity between Jews and Gentiles in the church rules out a future restoration of the nation Israel.

1. Ephesians 2:11–22 shows that Gentiles who used to be far from God have now been brought near God because of Christ. Thus, the soteriological status of believing Gentiles has changed. They now share with Israel in Israel’s covenants and promises but they do not become Israel.

1. Believing Gentiles cannot be incorporated into Israel because Paul says they are now part of a new structure—the new man.

1. Howard Taylor: “Superficial logic has continued to argue that there is no more uniqueness for the Jew and physical Israel. Since it is said Christ has broken down the barrier between Jew and Gentile [Eph. 2:11–18], Israel’s election is finished. But this is not the logic of the New Testament. Although there is only one way of salvation for both Jew and Gentile, the New Testament teaches that the Jewish people do still have a unique place in the historical working out of God’s redemption of the world in Christ.[13]

1. Rom 11:17–24 stresses that Gentiles are now related to the promises of God. Thus, there is a soteriological unity between believing Jews and Gentiles. But it does not indicate that the church is now the true Israel. There is a difference between saying that Gentiles participate with Israel in Israel’s covenants and claiming that believing Gentiles become Israel. Gentiles are partakers of the covenants not takerovers. This passage does not rule out a future role for national Israel or indicate that the church is now Israel.

Israelite language applied to believing Gentiles does not mean the church is Israel.

1. 1 Peter 2:9–10 and Romans 9:24-26 – Yes, language used of Israel in the Old Testament is used of believing Gentiles in the New Testament. But similarity with Israel does not mean identification with Israel. There are occasions in Scripture when “Israel” imagery is applied to non-Israelites without these non-Israelites becoming Israel. Isa 19:24–25, for instance, predicts that Egypt would someday be called “my people.” Yet, the context makes clear that Egypt is distinct from Israel since Egypt is mentioned alongside “Israel my inheritance.” So, even in the Old Testament it was predicted that non-Israelites would someday carry some of the titles of Israel without becoming identified as Israel.

1. J. Ramsey Michaels says, “Nowhere in 1 Peter are the readers addressed as a new Israel or a new people of God, as if to displace the Jewish community.”[14]

1. Galatians 3:7, 29 The New Testament teaches that believing Gentiles are the seed of Abraham but this does not mean that believing Gentiles are Israel. The concept of “seed of Abraham” is used in several different ways in the New Testament. First, it can refer to those who are biological descendants of Abraham. Second, it can refer to the Messiah, who is the unique individual seed of Abraham. Third, it can refer to the righteous remnant of Israel (cf. Isa 41:8 with Rom 9:6). Fourth, it can be used in a spiritual sense for believing Jews and Gentiles (Gal 3:29). John Feinberg states, “no sense (spiritual especially) is more important than any other, and that no sense cancels out the meaning and implications of the other senses.”[15] Thus, the application of the titles “sons of Abraham” or “seed of Abraham” to believing Gentiles does not mean that believing Gentiles are spiritual Jews or part of Israel.[16]

1. Galatians 3:7-8 links the Gentiles being “sons of Abraham” with the part of the Abrahamic Covenant that predicted that “all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.”

New Testament prophecy refers to Israel, thus indicating that God’s plan for Israel is alive.

1. Revelation 7:4-8 – all the tribes of Israel are mentioned.

1. Matthew 24:15ff.

i. The abomination of desolation is clearly related to the Jewish temple.

ii. Jesus tells the residence of Israel what to do in the Tribulation Period.

1. Paul refers to the temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

1. If the church is now Israel why do NT prophecies refer to ethnic Israel?

In conclusion, Ronald Diprose is right when he states that in order for supersessionism to qualify as a biblical doctrine there needs to be “positively, passages which clearly teach it and negatively, no passages which actually exclude it.”[17] On both counts, supersessionism fails. The New Testament does not call the church “Israel,” and nowhere does the New Testament state that the nation of Israel has been permanently rejected by God. Various texts such as Matt 19:28; 23:37–39; Luke 13:35; 21:24; 22:30; and Romans 11 refute supersessionism in that they teach or reaffirm the Old Testament expectation of a restoration of Israel. Thus, we agree with Walter Kaiser when he says, “To argue that God replaced Israel with the church is to depart from an enormous body of biblical evidence.”[18]

Would you like to comment on this article? Send your thoughts to mvlach77@aol.com

Sometimes…..even I am speechless !

bobhanks — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 01:03:52 +0000

You, not God, decide when to die!

Ridiculous ! Even for Jesse. The Bible nowhere says that God is,in any way, Bound!

“The LORD has established His throne in the heavens, and His sovereignty rules over ALL. “ Psalm 103:19

Incidentally, I found it irritating (and he said this twice) Is ” knock your lights off ” a cross between” put your lights out ” and “knock your socks off ” ??

Wisdom from a Bunch of Dead Guys

bobhanks — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 23:07:17 +0000

They that give God a new tongue shall feel His old hand.”
- Thomas Adams

“I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered, neither love nor patience are in order…when these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy are in order, but only anger, dispute, and destruction – to be sure, only with the Word of God as our weapon.”
- Martin Luther

“Compare Scripture with Scripture. False doctrines, like false witnesses, agree not among themselves.”
-William Gurnall

What is Premillennialism ?

bobhanks — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:48:20 +0000

( In case there is any doubt, I am pre-mil )

Bob

by Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.

Premillennialism (or Chiliasm) is a theological position that attempts to address the relationship of the second coming of Jesus Christ with the promised 1000-year kingdom that is mentioned in Revelation 20:1–6.

In short, Premillennialism is the view that the second coming of Christ will occur before the establishment of the millennium (the word millennium is Latin for “one-thousand years”). The prefix “pre” means before; thus, the second coming of Christ will take place “before” the millennium begins.

Those who are premillennialists assert that in the end times there will be a Tribulation Period in which an Antichrist will emerge and God will pour out His wrath upon the world. At the end of this Tribulation, Jesus will return visibly and bodily to earth to defeat Satan and the Antichrist, and then He will establish a millennial kingdom on the earth. At this time, those who died earlier as believers will receive glorified bodies and reign with Christ. Those believers who survive the Tribulation will also reign with Christ. During this period, Satan will be bound and thrown into a pit. At the end of the 1000 years Satan will be released and will orchestrate a final rebellion against God. He will be defeated and sent permanently to the lake of fire.

Most premillennialists view the millennial kingdom as covering a literal 1000 years, but some view the 1000 years of Revelation 20:1–6 as representative of a long period of time. All premillennialists, though, assert that the millennium is an intermediate kingdom that will give way to the Eternal Kingdom (or Eternal State) which will be the final destination and state for all believers.

Unlike other views of the millennium like Amillennialism and Postmillennialism, Premillennialism views the millennium of Revelation 20:1–6 as being fulfilled in the future. The other two perspectives view the Millennium as somehow being in operation now in this period between the two comings of Christ.

Biblical Support for Premillennialism

Premillennialism is based on a literal and chronological reading of the Book of Revelation. Revelation 19 describes the return of Jesus Christ to defeat His enemies. Revelation 20:1–6 tells of the 1000-year reign of Christ. And then Revelation 21–22 describes the New Heavens and New Earth that begin shortly after the millennium. A literal reading, therefore, indicates that a millennial kingdom comes after the present age but before the final Eternal Kingdom.

Although Revelation 20 is the only passage in the Bible that explicitly mentions a 1000-year reign of Christ before the Eternal Kingdom, some premillennialists believe there are Old Testament passages that are consistent with the idea of an intermediate kingdom after the present age but before the Eternal Kingdom. For instance, Isaiah 65:20 states: “No more shall there be in it an infant that lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the child shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.” This passage speaks of longevity of life that is not true of the present age, but it also mentions the presence of death which will not be true of the Eternal Kingdom either. Thus, premillennialists understand passages such as this to refer to an intermediate kingdom of Messiah. Zechariah 14:5–17 is another passage used in support of Premillennialism. Here the Lord is said to be King over all the earth, but there is still disobedience and rebellion on the part of some nations. According to premillennialists, both these conditions can only occur in an intermediate kingdom between the present age and the Eternal Kingdom.

Premillennialists also point out that the promised function of reigning with Christ is proof of Premillennialism. Revelation 20:1–6 promises that believers will reign with Christ for 1000 years, but nowhere in the New Testament is it stated that Christians are already reigning with Christ. Thus, this reigning with Christ must be future.

Two Forms of Premillennialism

There are two forms or variations of Premillennialism—Dispensational Premillennialism and Historic Premillennialism.

The main difference between these two forms of Premillennialism is the emphasis that each gives to the nation Israel during the Millennium. Dispensational Premillennialists hold that the nation Israel will be saved and restored to a place of preeminence in the Millennium. Thus, Israel will have a special function of service in the Millennium that is different from that of the Church or saved Gentiles.

Most Historic Premillennialists, on the other hand, hold that the nation Israel will undergo a national salvation immediately before the Millennium is established, but there will be no national restoration of Israel. Thus, the nation Israel will not have a special role or function that is distinct from the Church.

Another difference is that most Dispensational Premillennialists hold that the millennium is for a literal 1000 years, while some Historic Premillennialists assert that the 1000 years is figurative for a long period of time.

Premillennialism in Church History

The doctrine of Premillennialism has strong support in church history. In fact, Premillennialism was the prevailing millennial view for the first 300 years of church history. As the historian Philip Schaff states, “The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 2:614).

In the early church, Premillennialism was well represented by Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Methodius, Commodianus, and Lactantius. Papias’s belief in Premillennialism is especially significant since he was a disciple of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle John who penned the statements about a 1000-year reign of Christ in his Book of Revelation.

Through the influence of important church fathers such as Eusebius and Augustine, belief in Premillennialism waned significantly around the fifth century. With some exceptions, most in the Christian Church during the Medieval and Reformation eras held to Amillennialism and the view that the millennium was being fulfilled in a spiritual manner in the present age. However, the last 150 years has witnessed a strong resurgence of Premillennialism. Much of this can be attributed to the rise in popularity of Dispensationalism which affirms a future 1000-year reign of Christ upon the earth.

Modern Proponents

In recent years, many theologians have affirmed Premillennialism. Proponents of both forms of Premillennialism are found in the writings of the following men:

Historic Premillennialism

J. Barton Payne

George Eldon Ladd

Wayne Grudem

Millard Erickson

Dispensational Premillennialism

John Walvoord

J. Dwight Pentecost

Alva J. McClain

Charles Ryrie

Robert Saucy

Craig A. Blaising

Darrell L. Bock

John S. Feinberg

Christians DO Battle Depression !

bobhanks — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:10:14 +0000

This glimpse into the Life of Charles Spurgeon should be encouraging to us all. It’s not just the ‘average member’ who may ,at times, fight depression, hopelessness and discouragement. Even such pillars as Spurgeon himself, battled this foe throughout his life. Take Heart ! ” For if God be with us, who can be against us ? ” Romans 8:31

Author: Susan Verstraete

It’s a good thing he wasn’t born in the 20th century. Many believing brothers and sisters would label his tendency to melancholy sinful, or evidence of a lack of self-discipline, or even the result of shallow faith. A psychologist would probably send him away with a prescription and a self-help book with twelve easy steps to overcome depression. But Charles Haddon Spurgeon, perhaps the greatest preacher of the 19th century, had a different attitude toward his affliction.Spurgeon knew “by most painful experience what deep depression of spirit means, being visited therewith at seasons by no means few or far between.” He warned his students, “Fits of depression come over the most of us. Usually cheerful as we may be, we must at intervals be cast down. The strong are not always vigorous, the wise not always ready, the brave not always courageous, and the joyous not always happy.” Although he said, “Spiritual darkness of any sort is to be avoided, and not desired,” he never assumed that a Christian suffering depression must necessarily be in sin. Instead, he wrote, “I note that some whom I greatly love and esteem, who are, in my judgment, among the very choicest of God’s people, nevertheless, travel most of the way to heaven by night.”

Spurgeon goes on in his book, Lectures to my Students, to give some of the reasons believers fall into sadness. He also provides hope for those so overtaken.

“Is it not first, that they are men?” Spurgeon acknowledged that being a Christian did not make a man or woman immune from suffering. In fact, he said, “Even under the economy of redemption it is most clear that we are to endure infirmities, otherwise there were no need of the promised Spirit to help us in them. It is of need be that we are sometimes in heaviness. Good men are promised tribulation in this world.” But he points out that through this suffering, we “may learn sympathy with the Lord’s suffering people.” Paul says something similar in 2 Corinthians 1:4; God “comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.”

“Most of us are in some way or another unsound physically.” Spurgeon suffered terribly with a joint disorder that was diagnosed as gout. He was forced to stay in bed, sometimes for weeks at a time in excruciating pain. “I have been brought very low,” he wrote to his congregation during one long bout, “My flesh has been tortured with pain and my spirit has been prostrate with depression. . . . With some difficulty I write these lines in my bed, mingling them with the groans of pain and the songs of hope.”

With characteristic balance, Spurgeon understood that physical pain and natural temperament contribute to depression, but did not allow his students to use them as an excuse for despair. “These infirmities may be no detriment to a man’s career of special usefulness,” he said. “They may even have been imposed upon him by divine wisdom as necessary qualifications for his peculiar course of service. Some plants owe their medicinal qualities to the marsh in which they grow; others to the shades in which alone they flourish.”

“In the midst of a long stretch of unbroken labor, the same affliction may be looked for.” Spurgeon’s schedule was exhausting. In a typical week, he preached ten times. He answered approximately 500 letters, taught in a ministerial college, administrated an orphanage and dealt with dozens of individuals concerning their souls. He wrote for publications, entertained visitors at his home, taught his own family and encouraged his bedridden wife. It is no wonder that his health suffered under such a workload. Spurgeon’s church finally insisted on regular vacations for him each year. Spurgeon told his students, “The bow cannot be always bent without fear of breaking. Repose is as needful to the mind as sleep to the body. . . . Rest time is not waste time. It is economy to gather fresh strength.”

“One crushing stroke has sometimes laid the minister very low.” On October 19, 1856, the 22 year old Spurgeon spoke for the first time in the Surrey Gardens Music Hall in London. The church was no longer big enough to contain the crowds of people who wanted to hear him preach. Thousands packed into the music hall, seating themselves in aisles and stairways after all the regular seating was full, and hundreds more waited outside, hoping to hear part of the sermon through the windows. Just after Spurgeon began to pray, someone in a balcony shouted “Fire!” People pushed and shoved to get out of the building, and a stair railing gave way under the pressure. Seven people were killed and 28 more were injured. The tender-hearted Spurgeon never completely recovered from the emotional impact of this incident. He wrote, “I was pressed beyond measure and out of bounds with an enormous weight of misery. The tumult, the panic, the deaths, were day and night before me, and made life a burden.”

Many have experienced a natural disaster, the death of a loved one, devastating financial loss or overwhelming disappointment when a child or a fellow believer has fallen into sin. Spurgeon offers hope from his own experience. “The fact that Jesus is still great, let his servants suffer as they may, piloted me back to calm reason and peace. Should so terrible a calamity overtake any of my brethren, let them both patiently hope and quietly wait for the salvation of God.”

“The lesson from wisdom is, be not dismayed by soul-trouble.” In the end, Spurgeon acknowledged that depression may come to some believers for no discernable reason. He did not consider it an illness, a sin, or surprising condition, but an inevitable season in the life of a Christian and an opportunity to demonstrate trust in the God who will one day wipe away every tear.

Any simpleton can follow the narrow path in the light: faith’s rare wisdom enables us to march on in the dark with infallible accuracy, since she places her hand in that of her Great Guide.
—Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to my Students

Copyright © 2007 Susan Verstraete
Christian Communicators Worldwide, Inc.
Permission granted for not-for-sale reproduction in unedited form
including author’s name, title, complete content, copyright and weblink.
Other uses require written permission.
www.CCWtoday.org

The SBC — An Unregenerate Denomination

bobhanks — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:54:57 +0000

“How are you doing?”
“Pretty well, under the circumstances.”
“What are the circumstances?”
“Well, I have a very effective arm. It moves with quite a bit of animation. But then I have my bad leg.”
“What’s wrong with it?”
“I guess it’s paralyzed. At least it doesn’t do much except twitch once a week or so. But that’s nothing compared with the rest of me.”
“What’s the problem?
“From all appearances, the rest is dead. At least it stinks and bits of flesh are always falling off. I keep it well covered. About all that’s left beyond that is my mouth, which fortunately works just fine. How about you?”

Like the unfortunate person above, the Southern Baptist Convention has a name that it is alive, but is in fact, mostly dead (Rev. 3:1). Regardless of the wonderful advances in our commitment to the Bible, the recovery of our seminaries, etc., a closer look reveals a denomination that is more like a corpse than a fit athlete. In an unusual way, our understanding of this awful reality provides the most exciting prospects for the future—if we will act decisively.

The Facts
Although the Southern Baptists claim 16,287,494 members, on average only 6,024,289 people (guests and non-member children included), a number equal to only 37% of the membership number, show up for their church’s primary worship meeting (usually Sunday morning). This is according to the Strategic Information and Planning department of the Sunday School Board (2004 statistics). If your church is anything like normal, and is not brand new, your statistics are probably similar. In other words, if you have 200 in attendance on Sunday morning, you likely have 500-600 or even more on your roll. Many churches have an even worse record.

Discerning who among us is regenerate is not an exact science, but a closer look at these numbers will at least alert us to the fact that most Southern Baptists must certainly be dead spiritually. That is so, unless, of course, you claim that there is no difference between a believer and a non-believer.

In the average church you can cut the 37% Sunday morning attendance by about two-thirds or more when counting those interested in a Sunday evening service, or other gatherings held in addition to the principal meeting of the church. In 1996, the last time the SBC kept these statistics, the number of Sunday evening attenders was equal to only 12.3% of the membership (in churches that had an evening meeting). One might ask what makes us claim that the rest are Christians, if they involve themselves with God’s people only on such a minimal, surface level? How are they any different from the people who attend the liberal church down the street—the “church” where the gospel is not even preached?

And remember that the numbers of those attending include many non-member children and guests, often making up a third of the congregation’s main meeting attendance. When all factors are considered, these figures suggest that nearly 90% of Southern Baptist church members appear to be little different from the “cultural Christians” who populate other mainline denominations.

To make matters worse, we tell a lot more people that they are true Christians (because they prayed a prayer sincerely) than we can convince to be baptized. Our largest pizza supper may bring in a hundred new “converts,” but we will likely get only a few of those on the roll. After that, the percentages that I have been mentioning kick in. In other words, if you compare all who we say have become Christians through our evangelistic efforts, to those who actually show signs of being regenerate, we should be red-faced. In the Assembly of God’s 1990s “Decade of Harvest,” out of the 3.5 million supposedly converted, they showed a net gain of only 5 new attenders for every 100 recorded professions. When one considers all of our supposed converts, including those who refuse to follow Christ in baptism and who never join our churches, our numbers are much the same. Doesn’t anybody see that there is a serious problem here?

Let me illustrate in rounded figures by looking at some of the churches where I have preached as a guest speaker. Each could be any Baptist church in any city. In one church, with 7,000 on the active roll, there were only 2000 in attendance on Sunday morning, and a mere 600-700 on Sunday evening. When you account for those attenders who are not members of this flagship church (i.e. guests and non-member children), you have about 1500 actual members coming in the morning and 500 or so in the evening. Where are the 5,500 members who are missing on Sunday mornings? Where are the 6,500 who are missing in the evening?

Another church had 2,100 on the roll, with 725 coming on Sunday morning. Remove guests and non-member children and the figure drops to 600 or less. Only about a third of that number came out on Sunday evening, representing less than 10% of the membership. Yet another church had 310 on the roll with only 100 who attended on Sunday morning. Only 30-35, or approximately 10%, came to the evening worship service.

These are all considered fine churches. All have an extremely competent level of leadership and vision. Some shut-ins and those who are sick, out of town, or in the military, certainly affect the figures a little. But those who are justifiably absent are not enough to alter the bleakness of the picture, especially when we remember that these numbers represent people who have been baptized and have publicly declared their allegiance to God and the Body of Christ. Even if you generously grant that the 37% are all true believers (an estimation that most pastors would say is way off the mark), one still has a church membership that is more dead than alive. If we are honest, we might have to ask ourselves, “Do Southern Baptists believe in a regenerate membership?”

Missing Christians are No Christians
What do these facts and figures, as general as they are, suggest?

First, they reveal that most of the people on our rolls give little evidence that they love the brethren—a clear sign of being unregenerate (1 Jn. 3:14). It is impossible to believe that anything like real familial affection exists in the hearts of people who do not come at all, or who only nominally check in on Sunday morning as a cultural exercise. Love is the greatest mark of a genuine believer (1 Jn.3:14-19). Attendance alone does not guarantee that anyone is an authentic believer, but “forsaking the assembling,” is a serious sign of the unregenerate heart. The phrase: “They went out from us, because they were never of us” (1 Jn. 2:19) may have doctrinal overtones, but it nonetheless represents many on our membership rolls.

Second, these numbers suggest that most of those who do not attend (or who only come when it is convenient), are more interested in themselves than God. To put it in Paul’s words, they are “fleshly-minded” and not “spiritually-minded” (Rom. 8: 5-9). The atmosphere that most pleases them is that of the world and not God. They can stand as much of God as makes them feel better about themselves, and they find a certain carnal security in “belonging” to a local church. But beyond that, they will politely resist getting involved. They use the church, but are not really a part of it. For some, the extent of what they can take is an Easter service now and then; for others it is an occasional sterile (and somewhat Pharisaical) trip to church on appropriate Sunday mornings as fits into their schedule. But their apathy towards regular and faithful church attendance betrays their true affections. The fact is, you do what you love to do.

Third, the numbers indicate that some people have joined other denominations and our churches have not kept up with their movements—a sign of inadequate pastoral oversight and the built-in deficiencies of the “inactive membership” concept. I’m quite certain Paul never dreamed of “inactive membership.” Embarrassingly, some left on the rolls are dead—physically! It goes without saying that a dead person is about as inactive as one could be! But others, though presumably alive physically, have disappeared without a trace. I believe it was our beloved Dr. Roy Fish of SWBTS who said, “Even the FBI could not find some of them.” Yet, if we want to claim them as members, we are responsible to keep up with them.

All of these people have “prayed the prayer” and “walked the aisle.” All have been told that they are Christians. But for most, old things have not really passed away, and new things have not come. Most are not new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). In too many cases, obvious signs of an unregenerate heart can be found, such as bitterness, long-term adultery, fornication, greed, divisiveness, covetousness, etc. These are “professing believers” that the Bible says are deceived. “Do not be deceived” the Bible warns us concerning such people (see 1 Cor.6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; 6: 7-8; Eph. 5:5-6; Titus 1:16; 1 Jn. 3:4-10; etc.).

Jesus indicated that there is a good soil that is receptive to the gospel seed so as to produce a fruit-bearing plant, but that the “rocky ground” believer only appears to be saved. The latter shows immediate joy, but soon withers away (Mt. 13:6, 21). This temporary kind of faith (which is not saving faith, see 1 Cor.15:1-2) is rampant among Southern Baptists. In The Baptist Faith and Message we say we believe that saving faith is persistent to the end. We say we believe in the preservation and perseverance of the saints (once saved, always persevering). In other words, if a person’s faith does not persevere, then what he possessed was something other than saving faith.

In John 2:23-25 Jesus was the center-piece for what turned out to be a mass evangelism experience in which a large number of people “believed” in Him. Yet He did not entrust Himself to even one of them because “he knew their hearts.” Is it possible that we have taken in millions of such “unrepenting believers” whose hearts have not been changed? I say that we have. Our denomination, as much as we may love it, is on the main, unregenerate. Even if you double, triple, or quadruple my assessment of how many are true believers, we still have a gigantic problem. It is naive to believe otherwise.

There are those who would say that such people are “carnal Christians” and don’t deserve to be thought of as unregenerate. It is true that the Corinthian believers (about whom this phrase was used; see 1 Cor. 3:1-3) acted “like mere men” in their party spirit. Christians can commit any sin short of that which is unpardonable.

Undoubtedly, however, Paul did suspect that some of the Corinthians were unbelievers, for he later warns them about such a possibility in 2 Cor.12:20-13:5. A long-term and unrepentant state of carnality, is, after all, the very description of the unregenerate (Rom. 8:5-14, 1 Jn. 3:4-10, etc.). In calling some people “carnal” Paul did not mean to imply that he was accepting as Christian a lifestyle that he clearly describes elsewhere as unbelieving. He wrote, in the same letter: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Do not be deceived” (1 Cor. 6:9-11, etc.). Apparently there were some, even then, who were deceived into thinking that an unrighteous man or woman who professes faith in Christ could really be a Christian!

Is Follow-up the Problem?
A great mistake is made by blaming the problem on poor follow-up. In many churches there is every intention and effort given to follow-up, yet still the poor numbers persist. One church followed up “by the book,” seeking to disciple people who had been told they were new converts during the crusade of an internationally-known evangelist. The report of the pastor in charge was that none of them wanted to talk about how to grow as a Christian. He said, “In fact, they ran from us!” I have known some churches to go to extreme efforts to disciple new believers. We must do this. Yet, like the others, they generally have marginal success. They have learned to accept the fact that people who profess to have become Christians often have to be talked into going further, and that many, if not most, simply will not bother. Authentic new believers can always be followed up, however, because they have the Spirit by which they cry, “Abba Father” (Rom. 8:15). They have been given love for the brethren, and essential love for the beauty and authority of the Word of God. But you cannot follow-up on a spiritually dead person. Being dead, he has no interest in growth.

It was the preaching of regeneration, with an explanation of its discernible marks, that was the heart of the Great Awakening. J. C. Ryle, in writing of the eighteenth century revival preachers, said that they never for a moment believed that there was any true conversion if it was not accompanied by increasing personal holiness. Such content was the staple of the greatest of awakening preaching throughout the history of revival. Only such a powerful cannon blast of truth could rock the bed of those asleep in Zion.

Facing the Dilemma
What must be done? I suggest five responses:

1. We must preach and teach on the subject of the unregenerate church member. Every author in the New Testament writes of the nature of deception. Some books give major consideration to the subject. Jesus Himself spoke profusely about true and false conversion, giving significant attention to the fruit found in true believers (Jn. 10:26-27; Mt. 7:21-23; Mt. 25:1-13, etc.). If this sort of teaching creates doubt in people, you should not be alarmed, nor should you back away from it. Given the unregenerate state of so many professing Christians, their doubts may be fully warranted. In any case, as one friend told me, “Doubts never sent anyone to hell, but deception always does.” Most will work through their doubts, if they are regenerate and if we continue to preach the whole truth. Contrary to popular opinion, all doubts are not of the devil. Speak truthfully the whole counsel of God. You cannot “unsave” true believers.

It is true that there may be some who are overly scrupulous and overwhelmed by such examination. But most who will be affected are those who are too self-confident, having based their assurance on such shaky platforms as their response to an invitation, praying a perfectly worded “sinner’s prayer,” or getting baptized. If they are unregenerate, they may take offense and leave. But if they are truly regenerate, patient teaching and care will help them to overcome their doubts and gain biblical assurance. Such preaching may even result in true conversion for some who are deceived. And don’t forget that the overconfident ones are not the only ones at risk. Quiet, sensitive, insecure people can be deceived also.

2. We must address the issue of persistent sin among our members, including their sinful failure to attend the stated meetings of the church. This must be done by reestablishing the forgotten practice of church discipline. Each church should adopt guidelines that state just what will happen when a member falls into sin, including the sin of non-attendance or very nominal attendance. Such discipline for non-attendance is clearly found in the history of Baptists—but more importantly, in the Bible.

Everyone in the church, including new members, should be made familiar with the biblical steps of church discipline. Jesus said that a person who was lovingly, but firmly, disciplined by the church, and yet failed to repent, should be thought of as “a heathen and a tax collector” (see Mt. 18:15-17). Though David committed atrocious sins, he was a repenter at heart (see 2 Sam.12:13; Psalm 51). Every Christian is a life-long repenter and church discipline brings this out. (See “Restoring Those Who Fall,” in Our Church on Solid Ground: Documents That Preserve the Integrity and Unity of the Church, www.CCWonline.org)

Leaders must get into the homes of all our erring church members, seeking either to bring them to Christ, or to reluctantly release them to the world which they love more than Christ. Nowhere in the Bible are we taught to keep non-believers on the rolls. As a side benefit from church discipline for the SBC, remember that when we reduce our membership to what it actually is, we will be amazed at the statistical improvements in the ratio of members per baptism and members to attenders. Of course, statistics are not worth dying for, but obedience to God’s Word is.

We are never to aggressively pluck the supposed tares from the wheat as if we had absolute knowledge (Mt. 13:24-30; 36-43). We might be mistaken. However, loving church discipline is a careful process by which the obvious sinner in essence removes himself by his resistance to correction. The church is made up of repenting saints, not rebelling sinners (see 1 Cor. 5). The slight improvement in the disparity between membership and attendance in the last couple of years is likely due, in major part, to some churches beginning to practice church discipline—a matter of obedience that thankfully is regaining credence among us. Some have removed hundreds from their rolls in this process, and regained some also.

3. We should be more careful on the front end of church membership. In my estimation, the public altar call (a modern invention) often reaps people prematurely. Others will disagree or can perhaps make significant improvements on the traditional “invitation system.” We have used this method in our evangelism because of our genuine zeal to see the lost converted. But in our zeal, we have often overlooked the fact that many who do what our method calls for (i.e. respond to our invitation) may not be converted.

Though sacrosanct to Baptists, careful study should be done related to the historical use of the invitation system evangelistically. For eighteen hundred years the church did not use such a method. It was not until its principle originator, Charles Finney, a true pelagian in his theology, promoted his “new measures.” Earlier preachers were content to let true conviction play a greater part in conversion. They needed no props for the gospel—no persuasive techniques to prompt people to make a “decision.” Instead of relying on a method, their confidence was in the preached Word and the Holy Spirit. Baptist giant, C. H. Spurgeon, for instance, saw thousands converted without the use of an “altar call.” His message was his invitation. We should always offer a verbal invitation in our gospel preaching, meaning we must invite people to repent and believe. But there is no real benefit, while there is much potential harm, in our inviting them to the front of the church and then assuring them that their short walk or tearful response proves their conversion.

We don’t need better methods to get people down to the front. What we need is more biblical content and more unction in our preaching. You cannot beat sinners away from Christ when God is bringing them in (see Jn. 6:37, 44-45). When as many as 70-90% of “converts” are giving little, if any, evidence of being saved after their first weeks or months of emotional excitement, questions should be asked, both about our understanding of the gospel and about our methods. Forget the fact, if you must, that there is no clear biblical precedent for the altar call. Even considering the matter pragmatically ought to make us quit. Though prevalent in our churches for decades, it has not helped us. (See “Closing with Christ,” www.CCWonline.org/closing.html)

The dangerous practice of receiving new members immediately after they walk the aisle must finally be abandoned. Also, more careful counsel should be taken with those entering in as members from other churches. And add to this a need for much deeper thinking concerning childhood conversion. An alarming percentage of childhood professions wash out later in the teen and college years. For unconverted yet baptized church kids, the more independence they are granted, the more they live out their true nature. (See “Childhood Conversion,” www.CCWonline.org/cconv.html)

4. We must stop giving immediate verbal assurance to people who make professions of faith or who respond to our invitations. It is the Holy Spirit’s job to give assurance. We are to give thebasis upon which assurance can be had, not the assurance itself. Study 1 John in this respect. What things were written so that they might know they have eternal life? (1 Jn. 5:13). Answer: The tests given in the book. The Bible says that the Holy Spirit testifies to our spirit that we are children of God (Rom. 8:16).

5. We must restore sound doctrine. Revival, I am finding as I study its history, is largely about the recovery of the true gospel. The three great doctrines which have so often shown up in true revival are: 1) God’s sovereignty in salvation, 2) justification by grace through faith alone, and 3) regeneration with discernible fruit. Revival is God showing up, but the blessing of the presence of God is directly affected by our beliefs. God most often comes in the context of these and other great doctrines, preached penetratingly and faithfully, and with the unction of the Holy Spirit.

As an illustration of our doctrinal reductionism, repentance is often forgotten completely in gospel presentations, or else it is minimized to mean nothing more than “admitting that you are a sinner.” Also, “Inviting Christ into your heart,” a phrase never found in the Bible (study the context of Jn.1:12 and Rev. 3:20, the verses used for this), has taken the place of the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. The doctrine of God’s judgment is rarely preached with any carefulness. And comprehensive studies of the meaning of the cross are seldom heard. Merely looking over the titles of the sermons which awakening preachers preached in the past would surprise most modern pastors.

Be Healthy or Be Ashamed
Which army would you rather have? Gideon’s first army or his last? No church, and no denomination, should call itself healthy unless more people attend than are on the roll. This is a standard kept by most of the world, and was kept by our great-grandparents in Baptist churches as well. We would be closer to the revival we desire if we would admit our failure, humbly hang our heads, and seek to rectify this awful hindrance to God’s blessing. When we boast of how big we are, we are bragging about our shame.

In the Philadelphia Baptist Association Minutes, our first association, our initial American statistical record shows that five times as many people attended the association’s churches as were on their rolls. Greg Wills in Democratic Religion in the South (Oxford University Press, 1997, p.14) reports that three times the number on the rolls attended Baptist churches, then located mostly along the eastern seaboard when surveyed in 1791 by John Ashlund. In 1835, the Christian Index of Georgia recorded that “not less than twice the number” of members were in attendance.

Today, in rough numbers, it takes 300 people on our rolls to have 100 attenders. In the 1790s, it took only 33. Or, to put it in larger figures, it now takes nearly 3000 people, supposedly won to Christ and baptized, to result in a church attendance of 1000. Then, it took only 333. Our potency has diminished to such an extent that we must “win” and “baptize” over 2,000 more people to get to the same 1000 to attend.

Apparently, being orthodox in terms of inerrancy and infallibility is not enough, though without these doctrines we have no foundation for true evangelism. A lot has to be done, and a lot undone. And, sadly, we have been actively transporting this mainly American problem overseas for many years.

To conclude, I suggest two remedial steps for the convention as a whole, in addition to what was suggested for the churches:
1. We might reverse some of our proclivity to continue as normal if we introduced our preachers more accurately in our evangelism meetings and convention settings. Try using this introduction: “Here is Brother ______, pastor of a church of 10,000 members, 6400 of whom do not bother to come on a given Sunday morning, and 8600 of whom do not come on Sunday evening. He is here to tell us about how to have a healthy, evangelistic church.”

It might be better to ask a man to speak who shepherd’s 100 members, all of whom attend with regularity and all of whom show signs of regeneration—a man who, in the last year, has baptized 5 people who stick—rather than a pastor of 10,000 members, 7000 of whom do not come—a man who has baptized 1000 in the past year, 700 of whom cannot be found. The smaller, but more consistent numbers of the first pastor reveal a far more effective ministry and thus a far better example for other churches. (Please understand that I don’t like this talk about “numbers,” but this is the main way we evaluate people and churches as Baptists. I am sure God is not really impressed with any of our statistics.)

2. We should establish a study group to explore our presently deplorable situation and to track its history. This group should also seek to re-examine the biblical mandate to have a regenerate church. Then this study group should report back with a strategy to help us out of the dilemma. They should be painfully honest. I am hopeful that individual churches will act without this prompting, but this would be an added stimulus to getting us to our fighting weight as a denomination. Some church leaders will not act without this sort of backing since independent action would be a departure from the status quo.

Our only alternative is to carry on in the old way—the way that produces 70-90% fallout. By continuing on as we are, we will gradually blur, and eventually obscure altogether, any distinction between the professing and the authentic Christian. In the end, we will look like every other mainline, liberal denomination. We are only one-third to one-tenth alive now. If we want to avoid complete deadness, we must take dramatic measures immediately. Like cotton candy, our apparent size does not add up to much.

Our forebears, especially those who died for the biblical concept of a regenerate church, would hardly recognize our compromised condition. It will admittedly take us down a notch or two, in the estimation of the rest of professing Christianity, when millions are removed from our rolls. But humility and a new reality might be the starting place for God’s greatest blessings on us yet!

The next time someone asks how your church and your denomination are doing, tell the truth. Tell them that we have a new confidence in the inerrant Bible. Tell them that we have seminaries that promote orthodoxy, and new evangelistic fervor among the true believers. Tell them we have a lot to be excited about. But also tell them that when considered as a whole, most Southern Baptists need raising from the dead.

(Jim Elliff is president of Christian Communicators Worldwide. by More articles by Jim may be found here.

Revised edition, Copyright © Jim Elliff 2005 Christian Communicators Worldwide, Inc. 201 Main, Parkville, MO 64152 USA Permission granted for not-for-sale reproduction in exact form including copyright Other uses require written permission. Write for additional materials.

21:58

4given said…You wrote: “In my estimation, the public altar call (a modern invention) often reaps people prematurely.”
I truly agree and have met too many people that have repeatedly gone to the front for the alter call because the first time, 2nd, 10th… didn’t cut it, so they keep going up there just to what? Make sure they aren’t going to hell? I call that subjective emotional faith, not true saving faith. And what has happened to ongoing discipleship and accountability? Are we too busy or tired to do the work we are called to do for His glory because we are failing to get a pat on the back by men?
Quillman said…
“Let the purity of the Gospel be preached. The Word does not return void.”…
AMEN!!! I go to a church that preaches, teaches, disciples, and you cannot “hide” there. It isn’t hell, fire and damnation preaching or fluffy-feel good preaching, it is balanced, expositional, Biblical teaching and I walk away every Sunday both convicted AND encouraged.

12:23

G. Alford said…Camp,
Great Post… have you sent it to the “Brothers Grim”? (I mean the Caners of course)

Anyway, I met you at the Florida Founders Conference… and I very much enjoyed hearing you speak.

By His Grace Alone,

13:12

Timotheos said…I pastored a SBC church for 3 years (first church, and last SBC church). The church had nearly 400 members and only 40 in attendance. I tried to get the church to purge the rolls and discovered that this was a sacred cow. After excercising church discipline on a disruptive member he left and went to another SBC church and was welcomed with open arms – and even given the pulpit. At that point, I had had enough.
The standard seemed to be pragmatic, not biblical. So, I sought out and moved to a more bible centered fellowship.
I grieve when I see articles like Eliff’s, cause I know that it is true.

08:58

The Blainemonster said…What a well-written and thoroughly thought out piece. I’m not SB, but so much of the thoughts contained in the article have to do with the church as a whole.

J. C. Ryle, in writing of the eighteenth century revival preachers, said that they never for a moment believed that there was any true conversion if it was not accompanied by increasing personal holiness.

We HAVE to make these judgements and preach this truth.

Given the unregenerate state of so many professing Christians, their doubts may be fully warranted. In any case, as one friend told me, “Doubts never sent anyone to hell, but deception always does.”

Excellent quote! A keeper.

His message was his invitation. We should always offer a verbal invitation in our gospel preaching, meaning we must invite people to repent and believe.

mmm…the importance of Biblical preaching!

Which army would you rather have? Gideon’s first army or his last?

Yes. I tend to be a little suspect of follow up programs and attendance counting. I’m just not sure that we can expect thousands and thousands on the church rolls. As much as we might want that, and rightly desire churches FULL of believers, sometimes I think that it really is true that many are called and few are chosen. But maybe I’m just feeling cynical this morning

11:49

donsands said…”We don’t need better methods to get people down to the front.”

Nope. We can’t “nice” people in the kingdom of God. Sure we need to be kind and meek in our proclamation of Christ, but we also need to be confident in the truth of God.
The Gospel is the Gospel. It’s the power the Holy Spirit uses to convict, and to display the goodness and kindness of God to a dead sinner, a child of wrath.

It may be in a different atmosphere. Clothes, sitting arrangements, and other things may vary, and pulpits, or no pulpits, but the Gospel will only be powerful if it is preahced by a born again Christian, pastor, preacher, disciple, and evangelist. One who is grateful for his own salvation by grace alone, and who lives by faith alone in Christ alone, and most of all for the glory of God alone.

12:42

eric opsahl said…I wonder what the statistics are for the “seeker friendly” churches.
Like Osteen and Warren. If not near as high, I would then have another follow up comment.
Also wonder what the statistics are for Reformed Baptist churches.

13:59

Detoured By Travel said…Having originally heard the Gospel in a SB Church at the age of 10, it saddens me to read this. But it’s true. Be careful my brothers about pinning this JUST on the SBC…it can happen to any denomination and any individual whose focus is NOT on Christ and Him crucified.

As a young adult I attended Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. The SBC constructed a new facility (at least it was pretty new when I went there) as a mission outreach there called the BSU (Baptist Student Union). It was considered the lone “safe haven” that Christians could physically go to between classes, etc. Sure there were other groups that met on campus (Campus Crusade and Navigators to name a couple), but this was someplace that you could go to every day and meet other believers (plus they had 50 cent lunches every Thursday — and this drew students in — and it’s how I met my wife of 28 years too). Since I was a believer who lived on campus and was among the rare breed not interested in the “party lifestyle,” I am grateful for this mission and remember it fondly. But one of the older, more grounded students there told me something I’ve never forgotten. It must be JESUS first and your denomination after.

May God continue to cause us to (1) daily scrutinize the love we have for our brothers and sisters in Christ, (2) examine our motivations and relationships with those that are lost, and (3) strengthen our resolve to fight against compromise and sin.

14:11

parsonsipe said…Excellent and welcome article. Along with Timotheos, I also pastored an SBC church until just a few months ago. Similar situation. They had an extremely wicked member who was literally running the church and had ousted at least the previous three pastors. This man ignored the church covenant and publically taught that the Bible was not fully inerrant. (Along with many other counter-biblical issues). I confronted him biblically and we went through the appropriate process. He departed in wrath and then moved down the street to the next SBC church, where we subsequently received a “request for letter”. This transfer by letter issue has become one of the SBC’s more destructive methodologies, as it is virtually never honored appropriately. I, along with a solid majority of the congregation refused to honor the letter, as we could not in good faith represent him to the new church as meeting the guidelines of agreed SBC membership. That was summarily ignored and the new congregation welcomed him with open arms on a statement of faith. If this paradigm is not changed, it will be the eventual demise of the SBC.

15:37

fisherwoman said…I highly recommend Ray Comfort’s: www.hellsbestkeptsecret.com and True and False Conversions there, as well as Paul Washer’s sermons at : www.heartcrymissionary.com

We have forgotten that is the Law of God that is the schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, that shows His holiness and our spiritual bankruptcy.

I highly recommend Basic Training at : www.wayofthemaster.com

PREACH THE WORD!! It is the GOSPEL that is the power of God to salvation.

The fellowship of the unashamed, Betty

www.JesusChrist.mypodcast.com

15:59

Derek Joseph said…This was a great article. Really sad at first because of all the problems, but you gave some great recommendations. Thank God for what he’s doing in the SBC now, too! There’s much good mixed in with all the bad.

I think there’s a lot of truth in James White’s phrase: “What you win them with is what you win them to.” If people understood what they were accepting, I don’t think they’d ‘run.’

00:07

Hayden said…Excellent article and very true. The church I am privileged to Pastor fought this fight over the ‘church rolls’ and it caused a split, but, those who are left are VERY FAITHFUL! We have a sweet fellowship here.

This has also caused us to pause, and consider if we are to continue on supporting the SBC.

If you wnat to hear an excellent sermon, Google Voddie Bauchman’s sermon “Southern Baptists and Sardis”.

11:29

calvinistbychoice said…Joel said…
Discerning who among us is regenerate is not an exact science…

Not an exact science? It’s not even possible for a man. To claim to know the state of another’s soul is arrogance not even a pope would have.

THIS IS TRUE JOEL, BUT THE FRUIT OF CONVERSION IS A BIBLICAL IDEA. I REALIZE IT IS FINE LINE, BUT JIM’S ASSESSMENT IS A FAIR ONE AND WARRANTED BIBLICALLY. 1 JOHN GIVES US SOME INSIGHT IN THIS MATTER.
NO BUT THE POPE CLAIMS TO BE CHRISTUS VICAR- THIS IS SEER ARROGANCE AND HERESY!

13:01

LivingDust said…As a Southern Baptist I am used to folk taking the ocassional potshot at the SBC and I remind them that the SBC is not the Church, but a cooperative effort of independent congregations. Unfortunately, the SBC intelligensia, a product of SBC-funded seminaries, have made a career and sport of the SBC and guard its key control points and entity boards oh so very carefully. The SBC has been effectively hijacked by the “professionals” and they won’t give it up to the people, therefore congregations have pulled away and participation by rank and file Southern Baptists has waned significantly. Its time to clean house of ALL leadership and personnel at the SBC and institute a mandatory sabbatical. Its time for Southern Baptists laypeople to run the SBC and not the “professionals” who have battered and damaged it beyond recognition.

23:29

LivingDust said…Some who might have read my comment and thought “how dare that LivingDust say such things”. I’m not alone. Please read the following – “There is a serious disconnect between the leaders of our Southern Baptist Convention and the rank and file lay person and pastor. Some perceive that there is a well-oiled machine, filled with power hungry politicians, running the show while the vast majority of loyal, supportive people are left without any voice and/or influence. While this observation may or may not be true, there is a serious perception of disconnect and distrust.” Who wrote these words you ask? – Dr. Frank Page, President, Southern Baptist Convention (2006/2007) Press Release, May 22, 2006

23:52

Joanne said…I found a link to your article on another site. I’m a member of a dying church in a dying denomination. Right now, our church leadership is planning a ‘block party’ to try and bring people in! My husband and I won’t be involved-in fact, we’re looking for another church (hard in an area which is heavily SBC). This past Wednesday night, we attended a church about 30 miles from our home. The pastor actually preached on REPENTANCE! I felt like I’d just had a steak dinner after a long diet of junk food. Unfortunately, churches like this (SBC) seem to be the exception rather than the rule.

Waiting for the bridegroom’s shout (Matt 25:6)

20:06

LINK THIS

southern baptists – an unregenerate denomination?…a stirring …

camponthis: southern baptists – an unregenerate denomination?
…a stirring wake up call; a must read.

Posted byTrevor Hammack at17:19

Create a Link

Blog Archive

Blog Archive Nov 2009 (5) Oct 2009 (11) Sep 2009 (12) Aug 2009 (11) Jul 2009 (18) Jun 2009 (19) May 2009 (26) Apr 2009 (27) Mar 2009 (27) Feb 2009 (19) Jan 2009 (23) Dec 2008 (23) Nov 2008 (19) Oct 2008 (35) Sep 2008 (15) Aug 2008 (20) Jul 2008 (26) Jun 2008 (27) May 2008 (19) Apr 2008 (22) Mar 2008 (22) Feb 2008 (19) Jan 2008 (19) Dec 2007 (17) Nov 2007 (14) Oct 2007 (18) Sep 2007 (19) Aug 2007 (17) Jul 2007 (15) Jun 2007 (17) May 2007 (12) Apr 2007 (12) Mar 2007 (19) Feb 2007 (12) Jan 2007 (9) Dec 2006 (10) Nov 2006 (7) Oct 2006 (4) Sep 2006 (3) Aug 2006 (4) Jul 2006 (5) Jun 2006 (1) May 2006 (5) Apr 2006 (2) Mar 2006 (4) Feb 2006 (9) Jan 2006 (5) Dec 2005 (12) Nov 2005 (2) Oct 2005 (3) Sep 2005 (7) Aug 2005 (10) Jul 2005 (11) Jun 2005 (4)

Minute by Minute

Twitter Updates

RT @dereklbrowning: “So AOA is a doctrin 2 whch we cn & should sy “I don’t know, bt I beleiv” // or, we cn point peopl to a just & holy God! 27 minutes ago
Finished preparing to preach on John 1:14-18 – “The Incarnation and Glory of Christ.” May the Lord b glorified and His people edified. SDG! 32 minutes ago
@kai5263499 Thts y th Lord dclars n Ro. 9 “Jacob I loved; Esau I hated.” & ths ws declared b4 th twins wer born. Tht is God’s Word brother. 34 minutes ago
@kai5263499 The issu isn’t mentl undrstndng. It’s havng a sin nature. We rn’t sinners because we sin; bt because of possessing a sin nature. 38 minutes ago
@kai5263499 Whr Bible is dogmatic we may b; whr Bible is silent we must b too. 2 do otherwis is foolish. Such is th assrtion of ‘A of A’ about 5 hours ago
RT @AlaskaBiff: Have u ooked at th Canons of Dordt, Point 1, Articl 17? // Yes Dort limits it 2 believng parents. That is consistent in RT about 20 hours ago
RT @kai5263499: Are babies consciously aware of the law? // Of course not. But that’s not th qustion. Th issue goes 2 nature (Eph. 2:1-3). about 23 hours ago

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER

EVENTS AND INTEREST

PULPIT ONLINE MAGAZINE

Blogs Worth Reading

TRUTH MATTERS

Why Do Bad Things Happen? 28 minutes ago

Reformation Theology What is Forgiveness? 2 hours ago

Sweet Tea & Theology Lord’s Day 11/22 Hard Worship 5 hours ago

DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed Michiganders Can Be Proud 6 hours ago

Tall Skinny Kiwi how to estimate church attendance 7 hours ago

Irish Calvinist The Moving Story Behind the Hymn ‘It is Well with My Soul’ 8 hours ago

Ligonier Ministries Blog Our Great High Priest in Hebrews: The Son Greater than the Angels (pt. 3) 13 hours ago

Challies Dot Com The Right Way to Merge 14 hours ago

Voice of the Sheep The Doctrine of Total Depravity – Unwilling and Unable 15 hours ago

Of First Importance Fill your affections with the cross of Christ 19 hours ago

Pros Apologian Yesterday on the Dividing Line 21 hours ago

EdStetzer.com Advent without the Conspiracy 1 day ago

The Riddleblog Tonight’s Academy Class 1 day ago

RBS Tabletalk Some Practical Implications of Particular Redemption, Part 1: The Doctrine Defined 1 day ago

Koinonia ETS update #3: Highlights from a busy Thursday 1 day ago

Reflections of the Times Thankfulness: Being a Stay at Home Mom, and LIKING It! 1 day ago

The Crumbs Which Fall Oh the contrast…….. 1 day ago

Albert Mohler’s Blog The Blur of Gender — Is The New York Times Trying to Tell Us Something? 1 day ago

Worship Matters Songlist from the CCEF Conference 1 day ago

adrianwarnock.com Top 20 Posts of 2009 And Previous Years 2 days ago

Founders Ministries Blog Why I am hopeful about the GCR movement 2 days ago

The FIDE-O Blog Demographic Data Sources 2 days ago

Strange BaptistFire O’Reilly on Calvinism 2 days ago

Provocations & Pantings Heart Idolatry and the Gospel Seed 2 days ago

Christian History Blog An Edwards-ian Thanksgiving 3 days ago

The Vossed World Vos: “The law must be satisfied, because apart from keeping it there is no life.” 1 week ago

PoP cULtuRe MiX RELIGIONS OF THE STARS – What Hollywood Believes 4 months ago

SharperIron Twittering… in Church? 5 months ago

Christian Research Institute and the Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff

Institute for Religious Research: Resources for investigating today’s competing religious claims, including Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Church Universal and Triumphant

MINISTRIES

Christian Worldview Network
Together for the Gospel
KAIROS JOURNAL
Joe Carter’s Evangelical Outpost
A Puritan’s Mind
Dr. S. Lewis Johnson
AudienceONE Ministries
Desiring God Ministries
Don Kistler’s, The Northampton Press
Entrusting Treasure Ministry
The Spurgeon Archive
R.C. Sproul
John MacArthur
MONERGISM
WALLBUILDERS
Fire and Ice
Modern Reformation
F.I.R.E.
Christian Classics Ethereal Library
One Place
Don Whitney
Jim Eliff

CREEDS, CONFESSIONS, DEVOTIONALS

The Daily Light (ESV)
Morning and Evening
Faith’s Checkbook
My Utmost for His Highest
Our Daily Bread
1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith
1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
The Heidelberg Catechism
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)
The Creeds of Christendom

NEWS

DICK MORRIS
THIS DAY IN HISTORY
POLITICO.COM
Michelle Malkin’s HOT-AIR
World Magazine
WorldNet Daily
USATODAY
Google News
LarkNews
THE DRUDGE REPORT
Rush Limbaugh
The Hill
The National Review
The Weekly Standard
Sean Hannity
Accuracy in Media
The Town Hall
Cal Thomas

terms of use

CampOnThis by Steve Camp is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

1. Keep on topic; don’t feed the trolls.

2. No gratuitous cursing; corrupt speech; unwholesome talk; graphic sexual references; or foul humor used to attack another person or bring shame upon the name of Jesus Christ, His gospel, His Word, or His church.

3. No anonymous posting allowed. You must fill out and complete the Blogger bio form on all essential categories completely (i.e. email, blogs, city, state, vocation, etc.). In regards to name: first name only is acceptable-last name can be included at your own discretion. AND, you may only post under one name at a time–no multiple “nicks.” Please enable blogger to allow your profile to be shown.

4. No drive-by posting. No posting in book form; keep it a reasonable length that will encourage others to post and promote further biblical discussion.

5. Titus 1:9 says, “instruct in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict.” Though I allow diverse and vigorous discussion to take place here, unsound doctrine can assuage both orthopraxy and orthodoxy, and therefore, will be confronted fearlessly and refuted relentlessly when it is expressed.

6. Any current comments, past comments, and/or all future comments on any article(s) at COT will be deleted at my sole discretion that do not honor the letter and/or spirit of the above.

7. You may not copy any comment thread or portion thereof (except your own) and reproduce or distribute them either electronically or in printed form without written permission from the blog administrator. To do so will be to violate the copyright and license provisions of this blog. You may copy a portion of any article (a few paragraphs) and link back to this site. Reproducing the entire contents of any article posted at COT at another site, book, magazine, newsletter, mailing, etc. requires written permission from the blog administrator. This does not apply to unedited works that are already public domain reproduced here.

8. In short, you’re my guest here. I value your opinion and am happy to provide you with a forum in which to express it. Please respect my hospitality by not using this site to further a personal agenda or demean others, including moi. Failing to comply with these rules may result in a request for you to leave.

MISC STUFF

BRIEF BIO

SJ Camp Franklin, Tennessee, United States Musicianary; Bible teacher/preacher; religious satirist; biblical reformer; Protestant, and evangelical provocateur. After twenty-nine years in CCM, you get introduced in concert in the most odd and yet, memorable ways. My personal favorite? John MacArthur once introduced me at Grace Community Church as: “Keith Green with theology.” Keith was a dear friend of mine… I was very honored. I started in music ministry in 1978 with the release of “Saying It With Love”-my first album. Since then, by God’s grace, I have released a total of 18 CDs/albums.

View my complete profile

Ammilennialism Defined

bobhanks — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:26:02 +0000

What is Amillennialism?

By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.

Amillennialism is a theological view concerning the 1000-year reign of Jesus Christ that is mentioned in Revelation 20:1–6. In particular, Amillennialism is the perspective that there will not be a future literal 1000-year reign of Christ upon the earth. The inseparable Latin prefix a means “no” and the term “millennium” is Latin for “1000 years.” Thus, Amillennialism literally means “no 1000 years.”

It should be noted that the term Amillennialism is a reactionary title in that it denies the presence of a future literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth that premillennialists affirm. However, Amillennialists do in fact believe in a millennium; what they reject, though, is the idea of a future literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth after the second coming of Christ.

According to Amillennialism, the millennium of Revelation 20:1–6 is being fulfilled spiritually in the present age before the return of Jesus Christ. Thus, the millennium or kingdom of Christ is in existence now. Amillennialists affirm that the millennium began with the resurrection and/or ascension of Christ and will be consummated when Jesus returns again to establish the Eternal Kingdom that is discussed in Revelation 21–22.

For amillennialists, Satan is presently bound and Christians are now enjoying the benefits of the millennium. Some amillennialists claim that the millennium also involves the reigning of saints who are now in heaven. Amillennialists claim that the 1000-year period that is mentioned in Revelation 20:1–6 refers to a long indefinite period of time between the two comings of Christ and is not a literal 1000- year period that occurs after Jesus’ return. Because amillennialists believe Christ is currently reigning in the millennium, some, like Jay Adams, believe the title “Realized Millennialism” is a more appropriate title than “Amillennialism.”

In regard to the end times, Amillennialism affirms the following chronological scenario:

Christ is now ruling in His kingdom while Satan is bound from deceiving the nations.
Tribulation is experienced in the present age even though Christ is ruling.
Jesus will return again to earth.
After Jesus returns there will be a general bodily resurrection of all the righteous people and a general judgment of all unbelievers.
The Eternal Kingdom will begin.

Amillennialism in History

Premillennialism, not Amillennialism, was the predominant view in the first 300 years of church history. However, the early church did evidence hints of what later would become Amillennialism. For example, Origen (185-254) popularized the allegorical approach to interpreting Scripture, and in doing so, laid a hermeneutical basis for the view that the promised kingdom of Christ was spiritual and not earthly in nature. Eusebius (270-340), an associate of the emperor Constantine, viewed Constantine’s reign as the Messianic banquet, and he held to anti-premillennial views. Tyconius, an African Donatist of the fourth century, was one of the earliest theologians to challenge Premillennialism. He rejected the eschatological and futuristic view of Revelation 20. Instead, he said that the millennium was being fulfilled in the present age and that the 1000 years mentioned was not a literal 1000 years. Tyconius also viewed the first resurrection of Revelation 20:4 as a spiritual resurrection which was the new birth.

Augustine (354-430), who is often referred to as the ‘Father of Amillennialism,’ popularized the views of Tyconius. Augustine abandoned Premillennialism because of what he considered to be the excesses and carnalities of this view. He also interpreted Mark 3:27 to be a present binding of Satan. Augustine was the first to identify the Catholic Church in its visible form with the kingdom of God. For him, the millennial rule of Christ was taking place in and through the church, including its sacraments and offices. His book, City of God, was significant in the promotion and acceptance of Amillennialism.

Augustine’s Amillennialism quickly became the accepted view of the church. It became so accepted that the Council of Ephesus (431) condemned the premillennial view as superstitious. Amillennialism soon became the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and was later adopted by most of the Protestant Reformers including Martin Luther and John Calvin (some Anabaptists held to Premillennialism).
While Premillennialism has experienced a great resurgence in the last 200 hundred years, Amillennialism is widely held by many Christian denominations. It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church and is held by many Lutherans and those in the Reformed tradition.

Specific proponents of Amillennialism include B.B. Warfield, Oswald T. Allis, and more recently this view has been defended by Anthony A. Hoekema and Robert B. Strimple.

bobhanks — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:35:12 +0000

How do I know God exists?

D.A. Carson does a nice job at getting to the root of disbelief and, I think, returns to the basics of “God is God , and is not obligated to proving Himself to us”.

“But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us” Romans 8:37

bobhanks — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:14:53 +0000

GOD HAS SET HIS HEART ON YOU!

November 10, 2009 by John

from David Wilkerson Today:

What does the cloud of witnesses from Hebrews 12:1 have to say to you and me? What does Scripture tell us is their message to fellow overcomers in the body of Christ? Simply this: “The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers” (1 Peter 3:12).

I don’t believe this great crowd of heavenly witnesses would speak to us about holding to complicated theologies or doctrines. I believe they would speak to us in the simplicity of truth:

· The author of Hebrews witnesses to us that we are to look unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. We are to keep preaching the victory of the cross, endure the accusations of sinners against us, and lay aside our besetting sin, running with patience the race set before us (see Hebrews 12:1-2).

· King David witnesses to us that we can trust in the Lord’s forgiveness, and he won’t remove his Holy Spirit from us. David committed murder and was an adulterer and a liar. But he repented and the Father would not let him go because he had set his heart on David.

· Peter witnesses to us that he sinned against the greatest light a man could ever have. This disciple walked in Jesus’ presence; he touched the Lord and received his calling from Christ personally. This man could have lived in guilt and condemnation, but God set his heart on him.

· Paul would tell us not to fear our afflictions. Jesus suffered every day of his ministry, and he died in suffering. And when Christ called Paul to preach the gospel, he showed him how many great afflictions awaited him.

Throughout his years in ministry, Paul was indeed afflicted. Yet afflictions prove that God has set his heart on you. “That no man should be moved [or shaken] by these afflictions: for yourselves know that we are appointed thereunto” (1Thessalonians 3:3).

We also see Job’s witness: “What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him? And that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him? And that thou shouldest visit him every morning, and try him every moment?” (Job 7:17-18, italics mine).

When God sets his heart on you, you will be tried often. But the fact is, the longer and harder your affliction, the more deeply God has set his heart on you, to show you his love and care. That is the witness of Paul’s life and of Jesus’ life. The enemy may come against you, but our Lord has raised up a standard against him. We find absolute rest in Jesus.