Is My Dad in Heaven? Part 2

In the previous BLOG, I suggested that Pope Francis’ answer to a little boy who wondered if his dad was in heaven, fell within the stream of thought called “wider mercy doctrine”.  The Pontiff comforted the boy by suggesting that even though his dad had not believed, because he had accomplished the meritorious act of having his children baptized, then God would look kindly upon him.  He would be in heaven. 

The proponents of the “wider mercy doctrine” believe:

“. . . that salvation can be obtained even when a person has not heard the gospel and does not know Jesus Christ. It is a belief that, somehow, God grants status to persons who are sincere in their religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are false. Therefore, a sincere Buddhist or Shintoist or any other religious adherent can obtain salvation, simply because they are sincere in their belief and desire to approach God.”[1]

I suggested in the previous blog that this belief system extended further than the Church of Rome.  It is called by various names but essentially it’s a gospel of inclusion or universalism.  It all boils down to this essence:  salvation can be given to a person who has not heard the gospel or of Jesus Christ.  Certainly it is no surprise that the Church of Rome believes this.  “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham” (Catholic Catechism). The Pope unites in prayer and effort with Hinduism, the traditional African religions of animism, he acknowledges Buddhism and approves of the Dalai Lama who is regarded as a living deity.”[2]

It is not particularly surprising that the late Robert Schuller would agree to the “Wider Mercy Doctrine” since his definition of sin is, “…any act or thought that robs myself or another human being of his or her self-esteem.”  But many would not be surprised that Clark Pinnock, Rob Bell and Bishop Carlton Pearson  holds to such a view.  But the surprise to all of us is that the late Dr. Billy Graham espoused this view.  He said, ““I think everyone who loves Christ or knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not are members of the Body of Christ . . . “He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.”” [Emphasis mine]

Grace to You (Dr. John MacArthur) has placed an insightful comment on their website regarding Dr. Graham’s beliefs.  https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B100228

So again, as Paul warned us, “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29–30, ESV).  It is one thing to pounce on the false doctrine of Romanism, but we must also look carefully within evangelicalism.  “Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9, ESV).

---

[1] http://apprising.org/2013/01/20/what-does-the-wider-mercy-doctrine-teach/

[2] http://www.letusreason.org/curren31.htm

Is My Dad in Heaven?

Before celebrating Mass at St. Paul of the Cross parish in Rome April 15, Pope Francis answered questions from some young Catholics. The boy, known only as Emanuele, broke down in tears during a Q&A session with the Pope. During a private chat he revealed to the Pope he was worried his father wasn't in heaven as he didn't believe in God, but the Pontiff offered reassurance. The father was not Catholic, but he baptized all of his four children. The boy told Pope Francis he was worried his father wasn't in heaven. A video of the interaction is here: https://youtu.be/_U4NqZjn4ZQ .

The Pontiff referred the question to the crowd:  “Does God abandon His children?” he pressed further. “Does God abandon His children when they are good?”

Those in attendance again called out no.

“There, Emanuele, that is the answer, surely God was proud of your father because it is easier as a believer to baptize your children than to baptize them when you are not a believer. Surely this pleased God very much,” said the Pope.

We cannot overlook the obvious compassion and empathy Bergoglio had for this child.  Nor can it escape our notice that a spontaneous question like this would be difficult to answer and ought to be handled with great care.  In our modern world the opinion of the crowd would not go disregarded, nor the highly regarded opinion of the head of the Roman Catholic Church. The problem for Bible-believing evangelicals is also obvious:  the response of the Pope was unbiblical.  Albeit, we cannot pass judgment on the young boy’s father, we can affirm the clear teaching of the Bible.

• “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”” (Acts 4:12, ESV)
• “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36, ESV)
• “I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”” (John 8:24, ESV)

Of course the plain and consistent reading of Scripture affirms the necessity of faith in the person of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6, ESV).  That is the uncomfortable, exclusive, yet absolutely accurate and unswerving teaching of God’s Word.

But for us, so-called evangelicals, there’s a deeper problem that is illustrated by the pontiff’s politically correct handling of the precious boy’s enquiry.  It is this: the false illusion has not only moved the Church of Rome away from their own dogma, there has been (and are) prominent evangelicals that have embraced the same so-called misrepresentation of the Gospel.

In a subsequent post, we will examine what some evangelicals have embraced, known as the ‘WIDER MERCY’ doctrine; and who is promoting it?  If this is new to you, you will be surprised. 

We Might Be Asking the Wrong Question?

In John’s Gospel we read these wonderful words: “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12–13, ESV).  Notice the words:

“who believed in his name” (Greek: τοῖς πιστεύουσιν)

The result of those who believe in his name is that he gives the right to become children of God – adopted into His/God’s family.  But later in the Gospel, John records spurious faith, false, counterfeit faith in similar ways: “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing” (John 2:23, ESV).  There we note the same phrase, “believed in his name (Gr: πολλοὶ ἐπίστευσαν εἰς).  In this latter case we note that Jesus did not trust their faith. “But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people” (John 2:24, ESV)

“The Greek repeats the verb, but with a slightly different meaning: we might paraphrase, ‘the people trusted in his name, but he did not entrust himself to them.’” ^[1]

“Christ did not entrust Himself to them because they were not true believers. He concluded this because he knew all men. These were nominal believers whose only interest was the miracles.”^[2]  This is a warning to us.  From one vantage point we see through inspired text that both groups of people “believed in his name”.  But that evidence is insufficient.  The determinate question relates to what Jesus believed about them.  Notice this parallel issue:

“On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’” (Matthew 7:22–23, ESV) [Emphasis mine]

Paul would later write, “But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”” (2 Timothy 2:19, ESV)

Paradoxically our professed belief about Jesus is a minor point compared to what Jesus’ belief about us is.  We might be asking the wrong question.  We/I often ask, "Do you believe in Jesus?"  Perhaps the fundamental question is, "What does Jesus believe about your belief?"

---

^[1] Carson, D. A. (1991). The Gospel according to John (p. 184). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans.

^[2] Hindson, E. E., & Kroll, W. M. (Eds.). (1994). KJV Bible Commentary (p. 2081). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Everyone Has a Personal Relationship with God.

Today I preached the Gospel.  As best as I could with the aid of the Holy Spirit I shared the Gospel with family and friends of a deceased sister in Christ.  As the foyer overflowed with people, mingling, talking, and slowly making their way to the downstairs dining facility, I overheard the plight of a lady – maybe a little older than I am.

Her condition prompted me to ask her if she wanted help using our elevator to the lower level.  She happily accepted and that began a very, very long 3 minute talk.  As I recall it went like this:

Lady:  “That was a nice service . . ..”

Me: “Thank you.  I appreciate it that.  It was an honour to officiate the service for _________________ .”

Lady: “. . . ‘course I don’t agree with you.  I don’t believe in church.  I have my own direct line to God.  I think church is in everyone’s heart.”

Me:  “Of course I don’t agree with you, either.  Do you want to talk about it?”

No answer as she walks away.

What a sad conversation!  What a revealing conversation. It is true; everyone has a relationship with God – by their own definition.  Unfortunately there is only one definition of a relationship that matters.  Jesus makes it plain: “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6, NIV).  In all kindness, it really doesn’t matter what I think, or what anyone else thinks.  God sets the terms of the relationship.  We don’t. On the surface it seems spiritual to say that you relate to God in your own chosen way, but it is arrogance.  The holiness of God, His ultimate uniqueness and unblemished perfection demand that we come to Him on His terms. 

Neither is the worship of God a private, intuitive, deeply personal experience.  It might surprise some people but a saving relationship with God is neither mystical nor esoteric.  You cannot be a God-worshipper and ignore God’s people, the Church. Most of the exhortations to love one another and serve one another would be meaningless without the Church.  Most of the issues and instructions in the New Testament are for the Church, to be lived out in community – as the Church.

Unfortunately all of us have a personal relationship with God.  There are some relationships that can be defined as redemptive leading to a family-like union with the Triune God; for others it is reproving, leading to a condition of guilt, and ultimate, eternal banishment.

The Eternal Difference Between Singular and Plural

I was recently studying Revelation and was stricken by this passage:

“And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.” (Revelation 20:12, ESV)

Did you notice that before the Judgment Hall of God there are books and there is a book?  Judgment befalls those who are “dead”, meaning spiritually dead[1] and the judgment is the result of what is written in “books”.  In contrast if one’s name is in the book of life (singular) they gain admittance into the heavenly kingdom[2].  This is called in Chapter 21, the “Lamb’s book of life.”  The books contain, according to the passage, things that the “dead” had done.  Indeed it is true to say, “God keeps an accurate record of every human deed, and will reward and punish with perfect justice.”^[3]  I think, if I understand the text accurately, that a “dead person” – a person without Christ is by their deeds compiling a book and there are many, many books for there are many, many people.

But the other document – the other entry into the courtroom is A book – a book of life – the Lamb’s book of life.  I suggest that what is contained in this book is Christ Jesus’ record – his deeds.  It is interesting that when a person is saved by faith in Christ, their name is entered into his book.  Their “books” cease to exist.  All that matters is his record of deeds.

Before the throne of God, there seems to be two presentations.  One is the multitude of books, records of people who offer their own deeds as evidence; and the other is The Book of Life, evidence of Christ’s deeds.  What is important is that your name be entered into Christ’s book.  If your name is in Christ’s book, you are excluded from eternal torment and banishment.

It really is a matter of life and death.  There really is an eternal difference between the singular and the plural.

---

[1] “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” (Ephesians 2:1–3, ESV)

[2] “But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” (Revelation 21:27, ESV)

^[3] Crossway Bibles. (2008). The ESV Study Bible (p. 2493). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

Forgiveness IS Suffering.

"Dietrich Bonhoeffer has written: “Forgiveness is a form of suffering.” Can you grasp that statement’s implication? If someone has really, really wronged you…you’ve got to forgive them. If you don’t forgive them, you’ll be eaten up with bitterness…and you’ll become part of the endless cycle of retaliation that makes the world the mess of a place that it is. So you’ve got to forgive. But, Bonhoeffer’s right. Forgiveness is agonizing. When you want to pay somebody back but you don’t pay them back, you pay. When you want to make them suffer but you don’t make them suffer…because you’re trying to forgive them…you suffer. Real forgiveness always entails suffering. There is no such thing as forgiveness without suffering. Not if you’ve really been wronged." [1]




__________________________________________
1. Timothy J. Keller. A Vision for a Gospel-Centered Life (Kindle Locations 817-823). Kindle Edition.

A Widow in Moab

By the time the first 5 verses fall out of the story of Ruth, her mother-in-law, Naomi, including Ruth and Orpah have been left widowed.  It would be unfair for me to be dogmatic, but my sense is that women today certainly face a better future if widowed.  I certainly don't say that callously or as if their lives are not devastated by the loss of their husband.  But in Israel, 1200 years before Christ it was a horrible scenario.

Providentially, I was reading a sermon by Dr. Tim Keller [1], in which he vividly portrays the life of a widow in Israel.  This helps us understand the tragedy of Ruth:

"We’ve got to stop, right away. Because, if we’re going to understand the message of this passage, we have to ask ourselves: “what was the significance of childbearing in those ancient cultures.” Let me put it in a nutshell. The more children you had, the better your family did. The more children you had, the more your land produced. The more your shop produced, because you had more labor…and the more income you had. Therefore, the number of children completely determined the fate of your family…its status in society…its security economically…completely.       

Secondly, when you got old…if you didn’t have adult children to live with…you literally starved to death. And, if you wanted to have three adult children when you got to old age, you needed to have about eight-to-ten…because that’s all that would live to maturity.       

Thirdly, if your whole tribe – your whole nation wasn’t having lots and lots of children…the tribe next door would grow in greater population – and therefore come and conquer you. So you can see, if a group of women were around a well, drawing water, and one of them said, “I think I only want to have one or two children,” the rest of them would say, “what…do you have a death wish or something?” And not only that, they would say, “this isn’t just about you…it’s about all of us. Unless you have as many children as you possibly can, you’re dooming us economically, militarily, politically…”       

Therefore, a woman who bore many children in those ancient cultures was a national hero . . . Women, who either didn’t have children because they weren’t married…or couldn’t have children because of some physical impediment…felt worthless…and were regarded as worthless. If you want a perfect example of that, go to the book of Genesis where Rachel, the wife of Jacob, is seeking to have children…and she can’t have children…and she says, “give me children or I’ll die.” That about sums it up…in those cultures." [emphasis is mine]

"Fundamentally, God is the kind of God who keeps a careful eye on the widow. He is profoundly concerned for her, together with the stranger and the fatherless. He is righteous and protects them for he is “a father of the fatherless, a defender of widows . . . in his holy habitation,” (Psalm 68:5)."[2]

“You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.” (Exodus 22:22–24, ESV)

“The Lord watches over the sojourners; he upholds the widow and the fatherless, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.” (Psalm 146:9, ESV)

“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Timothy 5:8, ESV)  

______________________________________________
1. Timothy J. Keller. A Vision for a Gospel-Centered Life (Kindle Locations 675-692). Kindle Edition.
2. https://www.crossway.org/articles/why-does-the-bible-say-so-much-about-widows/

Seven Churches or Seven Ages?

In the introductory paragraph to “Revelation” which entitles the book that is by its own admission “the revelation of Jesus Christ . . .” (Revelation 1:1a, ESV), is clear about its recipients: “John to the seven churches that are in Asia . . .” (Revelation 1:4a, ESV).  It is noteworthy that in my experience, when you mention words like apocalypse or acpolyptic literature, many people equate that word with the end, or the final days of the earth.  The word simply means “revelation”.[1]  So as we enter this book we anticipate that this is not particularly a book about the Endtimes, but a book that reveals, makes plain, or discloses; and it reveals a particular subject: Jesus Christ. It is the revealing of Jesus.

It is written by John to recipients that are called: “the seven churches that are in Asia”; or specifically to modern readers, “. . . seven historical churches located in the Roman province of Asia, in modern Turkey.”[2]  The question is, “What do these churches represent within the context of the Revelation, and in particular to us? It is a truism to say, “The Bible is not written TO us; it is written FOR us.”  So what are these churches ‘for’?

Some Bible interpreters and teachers promote a notion called the “Seven Ages Theory”.   This would look like this:

1. The Church in Ephesus: Apostolic Church (A.D. 33–100)
2. The Church in Smyrna: Era of Persecution Under the Ten Caesars (A.D. 100–312)
3. The Church in Pergamum: Era of Church-State Union (A.D. 312–590)
4. The Church in Thyatira: Era Spanning the Middle Ages (A.D. 590–1517)
5. The Church in Sardis: Protestant Reformation (A.D. 1517–1750)
6. The Church in Philadelphia: Era of Revival and Great Awakening (A.D. 1750–1925)
7. The Church in Laodicea: Era of “Higher Criticism” (A.D. 1900–Tribulation)

This translates into a mindset that sees the contemporary Church as the Laodicean church. A couple issues come to my mind, including, “This might be significant to us; who the letter is “for” - but has absolutely no relevance to whom the letter is written “to”.  Secondly, such a posture competes with the very clear exegetical evidence.  I suggest that these seven churches represent the universal church existing from the advent of the church (Pentecost) through to the second return of Christ.  The internal evidence in the Revelation strongly asserts that.  Here are 2 reasons that I am convinced of this:

1.  In every instance where Christ communicates his message to a church, he says, for example: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches . . .” (Revelation 2:7a, ESV) (see also 2:11, 17, 29; 3: 6, 13).  Notice the end of Revelation: ““I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches . . .” (Revelation 22:16a, ESV) [My emphasis].
2. It is unanimous among scholars and proponents of all millennial views that the number seven (7) represents a perfect wholeness. To see the seven churches in fragments, not only ignores this important figure but fails to properly represent what John saw in his vision: “Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest . . . “As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” (Revelation 1:12-13, 20, ESV).

Dr. Beale writes, “Although each letter is addressed to the particular situation of a particular church, it is relevant for the needs of all “seven” of the churches, and consequently for the universal church . . .”^[3] Likewise Dr. MacArthur agrees, “Although these 7 churches were actual, historical churches in Asia Minor, they represent the types of churches that perennially exist throughout the church age.”^[4]  Again the editors of the KJV Commentary support this: “There are seven churches chosen, because in Scripture seven is the number of completion. In these seven letters the Spirit gives a complete picture of the moral and spiritual history of the church, along with other truths.”^[5]

The implication of this interpretation is that any exhortation, commendation or promise given to any of these churches may be applicable to any true church today.   

---

[1] ἀποκάλυψις [apokalupsis /ap·ok·al·oop·sis/] …  1 a laying bear, making naked. 2 a disclosure of truth, instruction. 2a concerning things before unknown. 2b used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all. 3 manifestation, appearance.” - Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

[2] Zondervan. NIV Zondervan Study Bible, Hardcover: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message (Kindle Locations 292320-292321). Zondervan. Kindle Edition..  

^[3] Beale, G. K. (1999). The book of Revelation: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 226). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, Cumbria: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.

^[4] MacArthur, J., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed., p. 1993). Nashville, TN: Word Pub.

^[5] Hindson, E. E., & Kroll, W. M. (Eds.). (1994). KJV Bible Commentary (p. 2658). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Catholics and Protestants Both Believe in Grace. Or do they?

“While Rome teaches that Christ’s satisfaction makes our merits possible, Calvin insists that it totally excludes them.

The Reformers disagreed with Rome not merely about the sufficiency of grace (sola gratia), but also over the nature of grace itself. In Roman Catholic theology, grace is viewed as a substance infused into the soul to heal it. By cooperating with this transforming grace, one can attain final salvation. The sacraments function much like an intravenous tube injecting this grace into a somewhat weakened soul. The more that one cooperates with this grace, the more grace one receives.

The Reformers saw a completely different definition of grace in Scripture. On a covenantal map, grace is not an impersonal substance but a gift that is given by one party to another.

First and foremost, the gift is Christ himself, in whom all of the Father’s treasures are hidden. Grace is the favor and gift of the Father, in the Son, communicated by the Spirit through the gospel.

First of all God’s favor toward those who deserve his wrath, it is also God’s gift of justification and the indwelling Spirit who brings renewal and guarantees our resurrection unto immortal life.

In Calvin’s understanding, grace is given not as an aid to our spiritual ascent, so that we may attain to union with God; it is God’s free gift of union with Christ by his Spirit.”[1]

[emphasis mine]

---

[1] Michael Horton. Calvin on the Christian Life (Kindle Locations 1457-1458). Crossway.

Eternal Security and Gospel Partnership

If a genuine brother or sister in Christ expresses a viewpoint that a Christian can lose their salvation, I see no reason not to embrace them in fellowship and anticipate spending eternity with them.  However, if a brother or sister embraces such a view (commonly known as Arminianism) and wishes to link arms in collaborative Gospel ministry, at that point I have to politely refrain.

I was asked recently, "Why would you not form a Gospel ministry partnership with a Believer that thought a genuine Christian could lose their salvation?"   My answer is this:

A person who believes you can lose their salvation, does not understand:

a. The character of true repentance;
b. The nature and quality of the New Birth;
c. The comprehensive nature of salvation both past, present and future; and
d. The power and glory of God.

So I simply ask, Would you share a Gospel ministry partnership with someone who did not understand repentance, conversion, salvation, or the glory of God?   I can't.

End-Times Confusion

Turn on any Christian TV program; read any popular Christian book or magazine on the End Times at there is a view expressed that is so widespread and so ingrained in Church culture that to express a contrary opinion is treated with shear shock and dismay.  To even question the modern notion of a refurbished Israeli state, a secret rapture of the Church, a seven-year Tribulation to purify the Jewish nation, a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth culminating in a war to end all wars, prior to the Second Return of Christ is treated with derision.

Unfortunately that view, although sprinkled through some early church fathers was never popularized until the 1900s with the rise of the Plymouth Brethren movement and established by the modern academy of Dallas Seminary.  This view, although varied to some degree, is known as Pre-Millennial Dispensationalism. It is without doubt the default view of many evangelical congregations.   In my short, on-line bio, I offer an alternative viewpoint.  In somewhat of a cumbersome description I call it an inaugurated eschatological viewpoint with a partially realized millennial view, and a New Covenant lens. I use this cumbersome rhetoric because I don’t like the shorthand. In short I am a partial preterist embracing amillennialism.

This view enjoys the favour of Biblical theology and historical support, contrary to this contemporary attraction. It is devoid of the complicated schemes of Pre-Millennial Dispensationalism that have to be forced upon the text of Scripture.  I am committed to this view for at least 5 reasons:

#1. The big picture (meta-narrative) of the Bible (biblical theology) demands that the New Testament provide the interpretative grid for the Old Testament.  This reveals in the clearest of ways that Jesus Christ the Messiah has fulfilled each and every promise, type and shadow foretold in the Old Covenant.  This includes the Seed of Abraham, the Levitical sacrifices, the Sabbath, the Davidic dynasty, the Law, the Land and the Temple.  Christ is the fulfillment of the Nation of Israel.  To re-invent what has been superseded by the greatest fulfillment is inexplicable to me.

#2. There is only one plan of redemption for God’s people and there is only one group that can claim to be God’s people.  There is no plan for the state of Israel and a plan for the Church.  This flies in the face of the clear exposition of the New Testament epistles.  There is one "man" in Christ.  True Israel, the true people of God, form the Church, both Jew and Greek.  When Gentiles were added to the Church, this fulfilled the re-building of David’s house prophesied in Amos.

#3. Every New Testament reference to the Second Coming of Christ is accompanied by the follow-up of a general resurrection of all and coming judgment.  There is not one single exegetical support for a prior coming in secret for only a select few. The Kingdom parables allow no room for a second-chance purging for Israel. 

#4. The Great Tribulation that disturbs so many people has clearly been completed at A.D. 70.  At that time the kingdom of Israel was finally and completely dismantled and rejected by God. The destruction of the Temple ended the Old Testament economy.

#5. The so-called Millennial reign is real and any careful student of Revelation 20 will see without doubt that the 1000 year reign is presently ongoing, and its ongoing in Heaven with Christ and the saints. There is no earthly millennium taught in the New Testament and any illusion in the Old Testament is precisely speaking of the eternal state.  The Book of Revelation was written for us but not to us.  It was written to Christians in Asia Minor speaking, in the most part, of ongoing events, both earthly and celestial, to encourage them in the sovereign reign of our risen Savior.

Such parameters in the study of God’s Word cause it to be unifying, cohesive and lucid.  Such an interpretation gains the support of inspired Scripture and the validation of Church history.  I find it curious that so many Christians have rushed, unwittedly into the confusion of pre-millennialism.  But to those who do, I call them my brothers and sisters and pray for their enlightenment.  My humility comes when I remember that I too championed their viewpoint and taught it with great confidence.

“He who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20, ESV)