Doctrines | Radical Disciples - A Remnant Revolution

Posts Tagged ‘Doctrines’

TRUE AND FALSE CONVERSION

Posted: April 3, 2013 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, teaching, wilderness
Tags: Charles Finney, Christian life, Doctrines, God's love, Kingdom living, the Word

by the Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY

Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of my hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.–Isaiah l. 11.

IT is evident, from the connection of these words in the chapter, that the prophet was addressing those who professed to be religious, and who flattered themselves that they were in a state of salvation, but in fact their hope was a fire of their own kindling, and sparks created by themselves. Before I proceed to discuss the subject, let me say, that as I have given notice that it was my intention to discuss the nature of true and false conversion, it will be of no use but to those who will be honest in applying it to themselves. If you mean to profit by the discourse, you must resolve to make a faithful application of it to yourselves–just as honest as if you thought you were now going to the solemn judgment. If you will do this, I may hope to be able to lead you to discover your true state, and if you are now deceived, direct you in the true path to salvation. If you will not do this, I shall preach in vain, and you will hear in vain.
I design to show the difference between true and false conversion, and shall take up the subject in the following order:

I. Show that the natural state of man is a state of pure selfishness.

II. Show that the character of the converted is that of benevolence.

III. That the New Birth consists in a change from selfishness to benevolence.

IV. Point out some things wherein saints and sinners, or true and spurious converts, may agree, and some things in which they differ. And,V. Answer some objections that may be offered against the view I have taken, and conclude with some remarks.

I. I am to show that the natural state of man, or that in which all men are found before conversion, is pure, unmingled selfishness.

By which I mean, that they have no gospel benevolence. Selfishness is regarding one’s own happiness supremely, and seeking one’s own good because it is his own. He who is selfish places his own happiness above other interests of greater value; such as the glory of God and the good of the universe. That mankind, before conversion, are in this state, is evident from many considerations.

Every man knows that all other men are selfish. All the dealings of mankind are conducted on this principle. If any man overlooks this, and undertakes to deal with mankind as if they were not selfish, but were disinterested, he will be thought deranged.

II. In a converted state, the character is that of benevolence.

An individual who is converted is benevolent, and not supremely selfish. Benevolence is loving the happiness of others, or rather, choosing the happiness of others. Benevolence is a compound word, that properly signifies good willing, or choosing the happiness of others. This is God’s state of mind. We are told that God is love; that is, he is benevolent. Benevolence comprises his whole character. All his moral attributes are only so many modifications of benevolence. An individual who is converted is in this respect like God. I do not mean to be understood, that no one is converted, unless he is purely and perfectly benevolent, as God is; but that the balance of his mind, his prevailing choice is benevolent. He sincerely seeks the good of others, for its own sake. And, by disinterested benevolence I do not mean, that a person who is disinterested feels no interest in his object of pursuit, but that he seeks the happiness of others for its own sake, and not for the sake of its reaction on himself, in promoting his own happiness. He chooses to do good because he rejoices in the happiness of others, and desires their happiness for its own sake. God is purely and disinterestedly benevolent. He does not make his creatures happy for the sake of thereby promoting his own happiness, but because he loves their happiness and chooses it for its own sake. Not that he does not feel happy in promoting the happiness of his creatures, but that he does not do it for the sake of his own gratification. The man who is disinterested feels happy in doing good. Otherwise doing good itself would not be virtue in him. In other words, if he did not love to do good, and enjoy doing good, it would not be virtue in him.
Benevolence is holiness. It is what the Law of God requires: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart and soul and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself.” Just as certainly as the converted man yields obedience to the law of God, and just as certainly as he is like God, he is benevolent. It is the leading feature of his character, that he is seeking the happiness of others, and not his own happiness, as his supreme end.

III. That true conversion is a change from a state of supreme selfishness to benevolence.

It is a change in the end of pursuit, and not a mere change in the means of attaining the end. It is not true that the converted and the unconverted differ only in the means they use, while both are aiming at the same end. It is not true that Gabriel and Satan are pursuing the same end, and both alike aiming at their own happiness, only pursuing a different way. Gabriel does not obey God for the sake of promoting his own happiness. A man may change his means, and yet have the same end, his own happiness. He may do good for the sake of the temporal benefit. He may not believe in religion, or in any eternity, and yet may see that doing good will be for his advantage in this world. Suppose, then, that his eyes are opened, and he sees the reality of eternity; and then he may take up religion as a means of happiness in eternity. Now, every one can see that there is no virtue in this. It is the design that gives character to the act, not the means employed to effect the design. The true and the false convert differ in this. The true convert chooses, as the end of his pursuit, the glory of God and the good of his kingdom. This end he chooses for its own sake, because he views this as the greatest good, as a greater good than his own individual happiness. Not that he is indifferent to his own happiness, but he prefers God’s glory, because it is a greater good. He looks on the happiness of every individual according to its real importance, as far as he is capable of valuing it, and he chooses the greatest good as his supreme object.

IV. Now I am to show some things in which true saints and deceived persons may agree, and some things in which they differ.

1. They may agree in leading a strictly moral life.

The difference is in their motives. The true saint leads a moral life from love to holiness; the deceived person from selfish considerations. He uses morality as a means to an end, to effect his own happiness. The true saint loves it as an end.

2. They may be equally prayerful, so far as the form of praying is concerned.

The difference is in their motives. The true saint loves to pray; the other prays because he hopes to derive some benefit to himself from praying. The true saint expects a benefit from praying, but that is not his leading motive. The other prays from no other motive.

3. They may be equally zealous in religion.
One may have great zeal, because his zeal is according to knowledge, and he sincerely desires and loves to promote religion, for its own sake. The other may show equal zeal, for the sake of having his own salvation more assured, and because he is afraid of going to hell if he does not work for the Lord, or to quiet his conscience, and not because he loves religion for its own sake.

4. They may be equally conscientious in the discharge of duty; the true convert because he loves to do duty, and the other because he dare not neglect it.

5. Both may pay equal regard to what is right; the true convert because he loves what is right, and the other because he knows he cannot be saved unless he does right. He is honest in his common business transactions, because it is the only way to secure his own interest. Verily, they have their reward. They get the reputation of being honest among men, but if they have no higher motive, they will have no reward from God.

6. They may agree in their desires, in many respects. They may agree in their desires to serve God; the true convert because he loves the service of God, and the deceived person for the reward, as the hired servant serves his master.
They may agree in their desires to be useful; the true convert desiring usefulness for its own sake, the deceived person because he knows that is the way to obtain the favor of God. And then in proportion as he is awakened to the importance of having God’s favor, will be the intensity of his desires to be useful.

In desires for the conversion of souls; the true saint because it will glorify God; the deceived person to gain the favor of God. He will be actuated in this, just as he is in giving money. Who ever doubted that a person might give his money to the Bible Society, or the Missionary Society, from selfish motives alone, to procure happiness, or applause, or obtain the favor of God? He may just as well desire the conversion of souls, and labor to promote it, from motives purely selfish.

To glorify God; the true saint because he loves to see God glorified, and the deceived person because he knows that is the way to be saved. The true convert has his heart set on the glory of God, as his great end, and he desires to glorify God as an end, for its own sake. The other desires it as a means to his great end, the benefit of himself.
To repent. The true convert abhors sin on account of its hateful nature, because it dishonors God, and therefore he desires to repent of it. The other desires to repent, because he knows that unless he does repent he will be damned.

To believe in Jesus Christ. The true saint desires it to glorify God, and because he loves the truth for its own sake. The other desires to believe, that he may have a stronger hope of going to heaven.
To obey God. The true saint that he may increase in holiness; the false professor because he desires the rewards of obedience.

7. They may agree not only in their desires, but in their resolutions. They may both resolve to give up sin, and to obey God, and to lay themselves out in promoting religion, and building up the kingdom of Christ; and they may both resolve it with great strength of purpose, but with different motives.

8. They may also agree in their designs. They may both really design to glorify God, and to convert men, and to extend the kingdom of Christ, and to have the world converted; the true saint from love to God and holiness, and the other for the sake of securing his own happiness. One chooses it as an end, the other as a means to promote a selfish end.

They may both design to be truly holy; the true saint because he loves holiness, and the deceived person because he knows that he can be happy in no other way.

9. They may agree not only in their desires, and resolutions, and designs, but also in their affection towards many objects.
They may both love the Bible; the true saint because it is God’s truth, and he delights in it, and feasts his soul on it; the other because he thinks it is in his own favor, and is the charter of his own hopes.

They may both love God; the one because he sees God’s character to be supremely lovely and excellent in itself, and he loves it for its own sake; the other because he thinks God is his particular friend, that is going to make him happy for ever, and he connects the idea of God with his own interest.

They may both love Christ. The true convert loves his character, the deceived person thinks he will save him from hell, and give him eternal life, and why should he not love him?
They may both love Christians; the true convert because he sees in them the image of Christ, and the deceived person because they belong to his own denomination, or because they are on his side, and he feels the same interest and the same hopes with them.

10. They may also agree in hating the same things. They may both hate infidelity, and oppose it strenuously–the true saint because it is opposed to God and holiness, and the deceived person because it injures an interest in which he is deeply concerned, and if true, destroys all his own hopes for eternity. So they may hate error; one because it is detestable in itself, and contrary to God–and the other because it is contrary to his views and opinions.
I recollect seeing in writing, some time ago, an attack on a minister for publishing certain opinions, “because,” said the writer, “these sentiments would destroy all my hopes for eternity.” A very good reason indeed! As good as a selfish being needs for opposing an opinion.

They may both hate sin; the true convert because it is odious to God, and the deceived person because it is injurious to himself. Cases have occurred, where an individual has hated his own sins, and yet not forsaken them. How often the drunkard, as he looks back at what he once was, and contrasts his present degradation with what he might have been, abhors his drink; not for its own sake, but because it has ruined him. And he still loves his cups, and continues to drink, though when he looks at their effects, he feels indignation.
They may be both opposed to sinners. The opposition of true saints is a benevolent opposition, viewing and abhorring their character and conduct, as calculated to subvert the kingdom of God. The other is opposed to sinners because they are opposed to the religion he has espoused, and because they are not on his side.

11. So they may both rejoice in the same things. Both may rejoice in the prosperity of Zion, and the conversion of souls; the true convert because he has his heart set on it, and loves it for its own sake, as the greatest good, and the deceived person because that particular thing in which he thinks he has such a great interest is advancing.

12. Both may mourn and feel distressed at the low state of religion in the church; the true convert because God is dishonored, and the deceived person because his own soul is not happy, or because religion is not in favor.

Both may love the society of the saints; the true convert because his soul enjoys their spiritual conversation, the other because he hopes to derive some advantage from their company. The first enjoys it because out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; the other because he loves to talk about the great interest he feels in religion, and the hope he has of going to heaven.

13. Both may love to attend religious meetings; the true saint because his heart delights in acts of worship, in prayer and praise, in hearing the word of God, and in communion with God and his saints, and the other because he thinks a religious meeting a good place to prop up his hope. He may have a hundred reasons for loving them, and yet not at all for their own sake, or because he loves, in itself, the worship and service of God.

14. Both may find pleasure in the duties of the closet. The true saint loves his closet, because he draws near to God, and finds delight in communion with God, where there are no embarrassments to keep him from going right to God and conversing. The deceived person finds a kind of satisfaction in it, because it is his duty to pray in secret, and he feels a self-righteous satisfaction in doing it. Nay, he may feel a certain pleasure in it, from a kind of excitement of the mind which he mistakes for communion with God.

15. They may both love the doctrines of grace, the true saint because they are so glorious to God, the other because he thinks them a guarantee of his own salvation.

16. They may both love the precept of God’s law; the true saint because it is so excellent, so holy, and just, and good; the other because he thinks it will make him happy if he loves it, and he does it as a means of happiness.

Both may consent to the penalty of the law. The true saint consents to it in his own case, because he feels it to be just in itself for God to send him to hell. The deceived person because he thinks he is in no danger from it. He feels a respect for it, because he knows that it is right, and his conscience approves it, but he has never consented to it in his own case.

17. They may be equally liberal in giving to benevolent societies. None of you doubt that two men may give equal sums to a benevolent object, but from totally different motives. One gives to do good, and would be just as willing to give as now, if he knew that no other living person would give. The other gives for the credit of it, or to quiet his conscience, or because he hopes to purchase the favor of God.

18. They may be equally self-denying in many things. Self-denial is not confined to true saints. Look at the sacrifices and self-denials of the Mohammedans, going on their pilgrimage to Mecca. Look at the heathen, throwing themselves under the car of Juggernaut. Look at the poor ignorant papists, going up and down over the sharp stones on their bare knees, till they stream with blood. A Protestant congregation will not contend that there is any religion in that. But is there not self-denial? The true saint denies himself, for the sake of doing more good to others. He is more set on this than on his own indulgence or his own interest. The deceived person may go equal lengths, but from purely selfish motives.

19. They may both be willing to suffer martyrdom. Read the lives of the martyrs, and you will have no doubt that some were willing to suffer, from a wrong idea of the rewards of martyrdom, and would rush upon their own destruction because they were persuaded it was the sure road to eternal life.

In all these cases, the motives of one class are directly over against the other. The difference lies in the choice of different ends. One chooses his own interest, the other chooses God’s interest, as his chief end. For a person to pretend that both these classes are aiming at the same end, is to say that an impenitent sinner is just as benevolent as a real Christian; or that a Christian is not benevolent like God, but is only seeking his own happiness, and seeking it in religion rather than in the world.
And here is the proper place to answer an inquiry, which is often made: “If these two classes of persons may be alike in so many particulars, how are we to know our own real character, or to tell to which class we belong? We know that the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, and how are we to know whether we love God and holiness for their own sake, or whether we are seeking the favor of God, and aiming at heaven for our own benefit?” I answer:

1. If we are truly benevolent, it will appear in our daily transactions. This character, if real, will show itself in our business, if any where. If selfishness rules our conduct there, as sure as God reigns we are truly selfish. If in our dealings with men we are selfish, we are so in our dealings with God. “For whoso loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen, how can he love God, whom he hath not seen?” Religion is not merely love to God, but love to man also. And if our daily transactions show us to be selfish, we are unconverted; or else benevolence is not essential to religion, and a man can be religious without loving his neighbor as himself.

2. If you are disinterested in religion, religious duties will not be a task to you. You will not go about religion as the laboring man goes to his toil, for the sake of a living. The laboring man takes pleasure in his labor, but it is not for its own sake. He would not do it if he could help it. In its own nature it is a task, and if he takes any pleasure in it, it is for its anticipated results, the support and comfort of his family, or the increase of his property.
Precisely such is the state of some persons in regard to religion. They go to it as the sick man takes his medicine, because they desire its effects, and they know they must have it or perish. It is a task that they never would do for its own sake. Suppose men loved labor, as a child loves play. They would do it all day long, and never be tired of doing it, without any other inducement than the pleasure they enjoy in doing it. So it is in religion, where it is loved for its own sake, there is no weariness in it.

3. If selfishness is the prevailing character of your religion, it will take sometimes one form and sometimes another. For instance: If it is a time of general coldness in the church, real converts will still enjoy their own secret communion with God, although there may not be so much doing to attract notice in public. But the deceived person will then invariably be found driving after the world. Now, let the true saints rise up, and make a noise, and speak their joys aloud, so that religion begins to be talked of again; and perhaps the deceived professor will soon begin to bustle about, and appear to be even more zealous than the true saint. He is impelled by his convictions, and not affections. When there is no public interest, he feels no conviction; but when the church awakes, he is convicted, and compelled to stir about, to keep his conscience quiet. It is only selfishness in another form.

4. If you are selfish, your enjoyment in religion will depend mainly on the strength of your hopes of heaven, and not on the exercise of your affections. Your enjoyments are not in the employments of religion themselves, but of a vastly different kind from those of the true saint. They are mostly from anticipating. When your evidences are renewed, and you feel very certain of going to heaven, then you enjoy religion a good deal. It depends on your hope, and not on your love for the things for which you hope. You hear persons tell of their having no enjoyment in religion when they lose their hopes. The reason is plain. If they loved religion for its own sake, their enjoyment would not depend on their hope. A person who loves his employment is happy any where. And if you loved the employments of religion, you would be happy, if God should put you in hell, provided he would only let you employ yourself in religion. If you might pray and praise God, you would feel that you could be happy any where in the universe; for you would still be doing the things in which your happiness mainly consists. If the duties of religion are not the things in which you feel enjoyment, and if all your enjoyment depends on your hope, you have no true religion; it is all selfishness.
I do not say that true saints do not enjoy their hope. But that is not the great thing with them. They think very little about their own hopes. Their thoughts are employed about something else. The deceived person, on the contrary, is sensible that he does not enjoy the duties of religion; but only that the more he does, the more confident he is of heaven. He takes only such kind of enjoyment in it, as a man does who thinks that by great labor he shall have great wealth.

5. If you are selfish in religion, your enjoyments will be chiefly from anticipation. The true saint already enjoys the peace of God, and has heaven begun in his soul. He has not merely the prospect of it, but eternal life actually begun in him. He has that faith which is the very substance of things hoped for. Nay, he has the very feelings of heaven in him. He anticipates joys higher in degree, but the same in kind. He knows that he has heaven begun in him, and is not obliged to wait till he dies to taste the joys of eternal life. His enjoyment is in proportion to his holiness, and not in proportion to his hope.

6. Another difference by which it may be known whether you are selfish in religion, is this–that the deceived person has only a purpose of obedience, and the other has a preference of obedience. This is an important distinction, and I fear few persons make it. Multitudes have a purpose of obedience, who have no true preference of obedience. Preference is actual choice, or obedience of heart. You often hear individuals speak of their having had a purpose to do this or that act of obedience, but failed to do it. And they will tell you how difficult it is to execute their purpose. The true saint, on the other hand, really prefers, and in his heart chooses obedience, and therefore he finds it easy to obey. The one has a purpose to obey, like that which Paul had before he was converted, as he tells us in the seventh chapter of Romans. He had a strong purpose of obedience, but did not obey, because his heart was not in it. The true convert prefers obedience for its own sake; he actually chooses it, and does it. The other purposes to be holy, because he knows that is the only way to be happy. The true saint chooses holiness for its own sake, and he is holy.

7. The true convert and the deceived person also differ in their faith. The true saint has a confidence in the general character of God, that leads him to unqualified submission to God. A great deal is said about the kinds of faith, but without much meaning. True confidence in the Lord’s special promises, depends on confidence in God’s general character. There are only two principles on which any government, human or divine, is obeyed, fear and confidence. No matter whether it is the government of a family, or a ship, or a nation, or a universe. All obedience springs from one of these two principles. In the one case, individuals obey from hope of reward and fear of the penalty. In the other, from that confidence in the character of the government, which works by love. One child obeys his parent from confidence in his parent. He has faith which works by love. The other yields an outward obedience from hope and fear. The true convert has this faith, or confidence in God, that leads him to obey God because he loves God. This is the obedience of faith. He has that confidence in God, that he submits himself wholly into the hands of God.

The other has only a partial faith, and only a partial submission. The devil has a partial faith. He believes and trembles. A person may believe that Christ came to save sinners, and on that ground may submit to him, to be saved; while he does not submit wholly to him, to be governed and disposed of. His submission is only on condition that he shall be saved. It is never with that unreserved confidence in God’s whole character, that leads him to say, “Let thy will be done.” He only submits to be saved. His religion is the religion of law. The other is gospel religion. One is selfish, the other benevolent. Here lies the true difference between the two classes. The religion of one is outward and hypocritical. The other is that of the heart, holy, and acceptable to God.

8. I will only mention one difference more. If your religion is selfish, you will rejoice particularly in the conversion of sinners, where your own agency is concerned in it, but will have very little satisfaction in it, where it is through the agency of others. The selfish person rejoices when he is active and successful in converting sinners, because he thinks he shall have a great reward.

But instead of delighting in it when done by others, he will be even envious. The true saint sincerely delights to have others useful, and rejoices when sinners are converted by the instrumentality of others as much as if it was his own. There are some who will take interest in a revival, only so far as themselves are connected with it, while it would seem they had rather sinners should remain unconverted, than that they should be saved by the instrumentality of an evangelist, or a minister of another denomination. The true spirit of a child of God is to say, “Send, Lord, by whom thou wilt send–only let souls be saved, and thy name glorified!”

V. I am to answer some objections which are made against this view of the subject.

OBJECTION 1. “Am I not to have any regard to my own happiness?”

ANSWER. It is right to regard your own happiness according to its relative value. Put it in this scale, by the side of the glory of God and the good of the universe, and then decide, and give it the value which belongs to it. This is precisely what God does. And this is what he means, when he commands you to love your neighbor as yourself.

And again: You will in fact promote your own happiness, precisely in proportion as you leave it out of view. Your happiness will be in proportion to your disinterestedness. True happiness consists mainly in the gratification of virtuous desires. There may be pleasure in gratifying desires that are selfish, but it is not real happiness. But to be virtuous, your desires must be disinterested. Suppose a man meets a beggar in the street; there he sits on the curbstone, cold and hungry, without friends, and ready to perish. The man’s feelings are touched, and he steps into a grocery near by, and buys him a loaf of bread. At once the countenance of the beggar lights up, and he looks unutterable gratitude. Now it is plain to see, that the gratification of the man in the act is precisely in proportion to the singleness of his motive. If he did it purely and solely out of benevolence, his gratification is complete in the act itself. But if he did it partly to have it known that he is a charitable and humane person, then his happiness is not complete until the deed is published to others. Suppose here is a sinner in his sins; he is very wicked and very wretched. Your compassion is moved, and you convert and save him. If your motive was to obtain honor among men and to secure the favor of God, you are not completely happy until the deed is told, and perhaps put in the newspaper. But if you wished purely to save a soul from death, then as soon as you see that done, your gratification is complete, and your joy is unmingled. So it is in all religious duties; your happiness is precisely in proportion as you are disinterested.

If you aim at doing good for its own sake, then you will be happy in proportion as you do good. But if you aim directly at your own happiness, and if you do good simply as a means of securing your own happiness, you will fail. You will be like the child pursuing his own shadow; he can never overtake it, because it always keeps just so far before him. Suppose in the case I have mentioned, you have no desire to relieve the beggar, but regard simply the applause of a certain individual. Then you will feel no pleasure at all in the relief of the beggar; but when that individual hears of it and commends it, then you are gratified. But you are not gratified in the thing itself. Or suppose you aim at the conversion of sinners; but if it is not love to sinners that leads you to do it, how can the conversion of sinners make you happy? It has no tendency to gratify the desire that prompted the effort. The truth is, God has so constituted the mind of man, that it must seek the happiness of others as its end, or it cannot be happy. Here is the true reason why all the world, seeking their own happiness and not the happiness of others, fail of their end. It is always just so far before them. If they would leave off seeking their own happiness, and lay themselves out to do good, they would be happy.

OBJECTION 2. “Did not Christ regard the joy set before him? And did not Moses also have respect unto the recompense of reward? And does not the Bible say we love God because he first loved us?”

ANSWER 1. It is true that Christ despised the shame and endured the cross, and had regard to the joy set before him. But what was the joy set before him? Not his own salvation, not his own happiness, but the great good he would do in the salvation of the world. He was perfectly happy in himself. But the happiness of others was what he aimed at. This was the joy set before him. And that he obtained.

ANSWER 2. So Moses had respect to the recompense of reward. But was that his own comfort? Far from it. The recompense of reward was the salvation of the people of Israel. What did he say? When God proposed to destroy the nation, and make of him a great nation, had Moses been selfish he would have said, “That is right, Lord; be it unto thy servant according to thy word.” But what does he say? Why, his heart was so set on the salvation of his people, and the glory of God, that he would not think of it for a moment, but said, “If thou wilt, forgive their sin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book, which thou hast written.” And in another case, when God said he would destroy them, and make of Moses a greater and a mightier nation, Moses thought of God’s glory, and said, “Then the Egyptians shall hear of it, and all the nations will say, Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land.” He could not bear to think of having his own interest exalted at the expense of God’s glory. It was really a greater reward, to his benevolent mind, to have God glorified, and the children of Israel saved, than any personal advantage whatever to himself could be.

ANSWER 3. Where it is said, “We love him because he first loved us,” the language plainly bears two interpretations; either that his love to us has provided the way for our return and the influence that brought us to love him, or that we love him for his favor shown to ourselves.–That the latter is not the meaning is evident, because Jesus Christ has so expressly reprobated the principle, in his sermon on the mount: “If ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? Do not the publicans the same?” If we love God, not for his character but for his favors to us, Jesus Christ has written us reprobate.

OBJECTION 3. “Does not the Bible offer happiness as the reward of virtue?”

ANSWER. The Bible speaks of happiness as the result of virtue, but no where declares virtue to consist in the pursuit of one’s own happiness. The Bible is every where inconsistent with this, and represents virtue to consist in doing good to others. We can see by the philosophy of the mind, that it must be so. If a person desires the good of others, he will be happy in proportion as he gratifies that desire. Happiness is the result of virtue, but virtue does not consist in the direct pursuit of one’s own happiness, but is wholly inconsistent with it.

OBJECTION 4. “God aims at our happiness, and shall we be more benevolent than God? Should we not be like God? May we not aim at the same thing that God aims at? Should we not be seeking the same end that God seeks?”

ANSWER. This objection is specious, but futile and rotten. God is benevolent to others. He aims at the happiness of others, and at our happiness. And to be like him, we must aim at, that is, delight in his happiness and glory, and the honour and glory of the universe, according to their real value.

OBJECTION 5. “Why does the Bible appeal continually to the hopes and fears of men, if a regard to our own happiness is not a proper motive to action?”

ANSWER. The Bible appeals to the constitutional susceptibilities of men, not to their selfishness. Man dreads harm, and it is not wrong to avoid it. We may have a due regard to our own happiness, according to its value.

ANSWER 2. And again; mankind are so besotted with sin, that God cannot get their attention to consider his true character, and the reasons for loving him, unless he appeals to their hopes and fears. But when they are awakened, then he presents the gospel to them. When a minister has preached the terrors of the Lord till he has got his hearers alarmed and aroused, so that they will give attention, he has gone far enough in that line; and then he ought to spread out all the character of God before them, to engage their hearts to love him for his own excellence.

OBJECTION 6. “Do not the inspired writers say, Repent, and believe the gospel, and you shall be saved?”
ANSWER. Yes; but they require true repentance; that is, to forsake sin because it is hateful in itself. It is not true repentance, to forsake sin on condition of pardon, or to say, “I will be sorry for my sins, if you will forgive me.” So they require true faith, and true submission; not conditional faith, or partial submission. This is what the Bible insists on. It says he shall be saved, but it must be disinterested repentance, and disinterested submission.

OBJECTION 7. “Does not the gospel hold out pardon as a motive to submission?”

ANSWER. This depends on the sense in which you must the term motive. If you mean that God spreads out before men his whole character, and the whole truth of the case, as reasons to engage the sinner’s love and repentance, I say, Yes; his compassion, and willingness to pardon, are reasons for loving God, because they are a part of his glorious excellence, which we are bound to love. But if you mean by motive a condition, and that the sinner is to repent on condition he shall be pardoned, then I say, that the Bible no where holds out any such view of the matter. It never authorizes a sinner to say, “I will repent if you will forgive,” and no where offers pardon as a motive to repentance, in such a sense as this.
With two short remarks I will close:

1. We see, from this subject, why it is that professors of religion have such different views of the nature of the gospel.
Some view it as a mere matter of accommodation to mankind, by which God is rendered less strict than he was under the law; so that they may be fashionable or worldly, and the gospel will come in and make up the deficiencies and save them. The other class view the gospel as a provision of divine benevolence, having for its main design to destroy sin and promote holiness; and that therefore so far from making it proper for them to be less holy than they ought to be under the law, its whole value consists in its power to make them holy.
II. We see why some people are so much more anxious to convert sinners, than to see the church sanctified and God glorified by the good works of his people.

Many feel a natural sympathy for sinners, and wish to have them saved from hell; and if that is gained, they have no farther concern. But true saints are most affected by sin as dishonoring God. And they are more distressed to see Christians sin, because it dishonors God more. Some people seem to care but little how the church live, if they can only see the work of conversion go forward. They are not anxious to have God honored. It shows that they are not actuated by the love of holiness, but by mere compassion for sinners.

Key doctrine which must be the foundation of all others

Posted: February 4, 2013 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, Prophetic, teaching, wilderness
Tags: Bride of Christ, disciples, Doctrines, God's love, grace, radical love

There are many disputes about doctrine in the Christian body – in fact doctrines have caused Church splits. Some say that doctrines are not important and in some ways I agree yet in a very foundational way I must disagree for when we look at the meaning of the word “doctrine” we see that it is something that is taught or a teaching.

And if the body were to fully engage in the doctrines (teachings) of Christ, they would see that each believer at the very core of who they are must walk in this one doctrine (teaching) of Christ that is broadly exposed throughout not only the New Testament, but the whole of the Bible, the “DOCTRINE OF LOVE”

For without it we can honestly not even begin to contend that we are a follower of the Lord. And if we were to walk in, in the very power of this Doctrine sent from Heaven, we would put down our fleshly argument and pride and begin walking in the unity that such a doctrine births.

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned,[a] but have not love, it profits me nothing”.(1 Cor 13:1-3)

We must understand that God’s glory is wrapped up in His attributes. His love, mercy, grace, wisdom, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence–all the attributes of God–reflect and declare His glory. We glorify God when we in any way praise or acknowledge or experience or display His attributes. When we are examples of His love, for instance, we glorify Him. When we acknowledge and yield to His sovereignty, we glorify Him. That is what it means to glorify God.

This is a fundamental teaching that the committed disciple must be not only preoccupied with his Lord’s glory, but he also must be filled with His love. Perhaps this distinguishing mark of the committed disciple of Christ is the most significant of all in terms of practical living.

What kind of love marks a true disciple? Jesus said, “Love one another, even as I have loved you.” That sets the standard high, doesn’t it? Jesus’ love is selfless, sacrificial, indiscriminate, understanding, and forgiving. Unless your love is like that, you have not fulfilled the new commandment.

The enemy has been very successful in distorting this truth, for if the church existed in that kind of love, it would absolutely overwhelm the world. Unfortunately, that isn’t the way the professing church operates. There are factions, little groups, splits, and cliques. People gossip, backbite, talk, and criticize. The world looks, and they don’t see much love. So there is no way for them to know whether those who call themselves Christians are real or not.

Do you really want to maintain a testimony of love in this world? Then accept whatever comes your way, praise the Lord, and let His love flow through you to the one who wronged you. That kind of love would confound this world.

Real love is costly, and the one who truly loves will have to sacrifice, but while you sacrifice in this world you’re gaining immeasurably in the spiritual realm. And you are displaying the most visible, practical, obvious mark of a true disciple.

Praise God brothers & sisters for at this moment you may lack the marks of a committed disciple of Christ, but God can transform you into a true disciple if you simply surrender and let Him have your will. The life of a committed Christian may be costly, but it is the only kind of life that really counts for eternity.

Let us all adhere to and agree to walk in this one doctrine if non other – “The Doctrine of Love” In fact let us walk in the Radical Love that Christ teaches us to walk in. For then shall all of the world see the Glory of our God.

So you have a better view than the Lord?

Posted: September 6, 2012 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, teaching, wilderness
Tags: david platt, disciples, Doctrines, Kingdom teaching, radical christianity

“Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” (6:34)

Why is it that we like to use verses that encourage us yet the ones that challenge we close the Bible and put it back on the shelf? Jesus is plainly here talking about not worrying about tomorrow yet I constant hear Christians” speaking with a spirit of fear in regard to the future.

Let’s take it to another level, now speaking to Christian leaders, why do we set an agenda for the Church? Why do we establish monthly, annual and annual topics and agenda’s?

If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you—you of little faith! And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.
“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Luke 12:28-34)

Oswald Chambers said in light of these passages:

“The great word of Jesus to His disciples is abandon. Immediately we look at these words of Jesus, we find them the most revolutionary statement human ears ever listened to. ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of God.’ We argue in exactly the opposite way, even the most spiritually-minded of us–‘But I must live; I must make so much money; I must be clothed; I must be fed.’ The great concern of our lives is not the kingdom of God, but how we are to fit ourselves to live. Jesus reverses the order: Get rightly related to God first, maintain that as the great care of your life, and never put the concern of your care on the other things.

I wonder about what Christian pastors and teachers are thinking when the teach the Bible with their lips, yet their lives are not a demonstration of the very words they are speaking.

I listened as men and women establish ministries and they set an
agenda and then say “God gave this to me”.

Really?

Because all through the Bible I read if how God gave his generals orders for the task right in front of them;

Abraham, get up and go and he went, yet all through Abrahams life God gave him instructions for the next task at hand…. David you are anointed King of Israel….yet at every battle David had to ask the Father for His plans for the Lord only gave Him the plans for the battle in front of Him. Jesus to the Apostles “go and tarry”
Yet we speak as though God sees no need for us to have faith, because He is like a fortune teller and show us from start to finish.

James said:
“Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what [shall be] on the morrow. For what [is] your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye [ought] to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that. But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.”

No wonder the world see’s the Church but as a bunch of hypocrites for we profess the scriptures yet we do not live what we are speaking. Or is it because we have been deceived and bought into the Americanized version of the Gospel message that has toned it down and almost completely erased the radical call of Jesus Christ because it is to offensive?

I like what David Platt says in his book “Radical – Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream” – “We desperately need to explore how much of our understanding of the gospel is American and how much is biblical.”

We make our agenda and then cry out to God to show up and when He does not we act like spoiled little children who didn’t get their way and some go as far as opening the door to the father of lies to come and convince them that God the Father let them down.

If we are truly radical disciples of Jesus Christ then we need to radically cross the line of simply professing the Word to the life that lives it. We need to see a radical transformation of Church government back to the foundational teachings of our Lord and His disciples as written in the Word. We need to stop promoting people so quickly because we see that they may have a gift. We need to protect the flock and make sure we do not send out immature Christians to be their fathers and mothers in the faith as their immaturity can turn the new born Christian away from the Faith.

So many pastors are tired and worn out (because they do not see the need of true Biblical elders in place i the Church) that they grab the first one that looks promising not realizing that they may have just welcomed an Ismael into their leadership. Because of this we have seen Church split after Church split.For such immaturity leads to division, strife, envy and jealousy and once they’ve been placed in a position of leadership they will never step down without and all out brawl, most of the time turning “their” followers against the leadership of the Church. Paul warns us and lays out the qualifications for leaders in the Church.

‘Jesus never said we could slice and dice His Gospel and still be His disciples in fact He went so far as to say if we obey ALL His commands we can be His disciple.

Its time to stop playing Church according to mans rules – its time to get back to the blue print that the Father has given us in His Word.

Lets get radical –lets not just preach the Bible – lets be Bible!!!

It’s Time to take it to the Extreme Level of Discipleship

Posted: August 29, 2012 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, Prophetic, teaching, wilderness
Tags: Christian life, david platt, disciples, discipleship, Doctrines, Kingdom living, radical christianity, radical love

Just about 3 years ago, after spending several months in the Book of Act’s and having read David Platt’s; Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream , Holy Ghost brought me to a place of Holy conviction because my life was not in line with what the Bible describes as a true disciples of Jesus Christ. During this time of repentance and seeking the truth according to the scriptures and not those of men, I made this declaration to my Savior, Lord, King and Master Jesus Christ: “I spent the first 45 years of my life trying to startle the fence between the world and the Kingdom. I want to spend the rest of my life trying to be radical.” When we study the Bible and the great movements of God we find that All history shapers are radical, and I believe it’s time for believers everywhere to take on this attribute.

There have been times during this period that I have lost friendships, been called an outsider, been scorned by the very leaders I had looked up to. It has cost my family fellowshipping with those we had attended Church with for years. There has been a cost and I believe there will continue to be a cost. But I can not remain silent where I see error. I can not stand by and watch good hearted people be drawn to a powerless gospel that will lead them to Hell, when we have been giving the authority to walk in the power of Holy Ghost and release the True Gospel of Jesus Christ, just as He and His disciples taught and lived it.

I adhere to the teachings of Christ, having read and continue in the reading od the thoughts and religion recipes of man. I can not but weigh all things against the Word of God. That which does not line up with His Word, I throw out and sound the alarm that others do not fall into its evil religious trap.

In the Word I read the following commands of the Lord that can not be watered down nor ignored by those who desire to be His true disciples;

The Lord called us to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. That’s radical.

Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves. That’s radical.

Our Lord God said we are to preach the gospel to every person on earth and turn all nations into His followers. That’s radical.
So the question at hand is “What does it really mean to be radical servant of God today according to the doctrines of Jesus Christ? “A true radical is one who defies the whims of his times and calls people back to root realities and root causes.

To be honest, the Church is not impacting the world in the manner Jesus calls us to. We have built empires unto men, schools that are tainted with worldly philosophies. Today more than ever before the greatest need in the body of Christ is for radical followers of Jesus Christ who are anchored in:

• truth, not emotional, worldly and philosophical based thoughts of man
• grace, not legalistic religion
• faith, not skepticism
• discipline, not indolence
• history, not fads
• hope, not despair.

So we truly see that yes, the greatest need in the Church today is the need for radical disciples of Jesus Christ who are anchored in Christ and the assurance of His global glory. “We who have fled to Him for refuge can take new courage, for we can hold on to His promise with confidence. This confidence is like a strong and trustworthy anchor for our souls” (Heb. 6:18-19, NLT).

I am tired of the religion being taught in our Churches today, tired of the seeker friendly message, the feel good messages and the focus on what we can get out of following God rather than what God can produce through us as we line up obediently to what His Word calls us to be. I want to be a truly radical follower of Jesus: rooted in Him, extremely in love with Him, extremely devoted to Him and His cause. The acrostic below spells out for me the components of a radical life fully given over to Jesus:

Revelation. True radicals live by revelation drawn from intimacy with Jesus.

Anointing. True radicals are anointed by the Holy Spirit.

Discipline. True radicals retain that anointing by practicing historic Christian disciplines.

Integrity. True radicals are those whose public persona is matched by private purity.

Courage. True radicals follow the truth, speak the truth and call people to the truth.

Anchored. True radicals are anchored in history and hope; in the Word and the Spirit.

Love. True radicals are driven by the love of God at work in them by the Holy Spirit.

One theologian observed that the great revolutions in the history of Christianity do not occur by discovering something new. Great revolutions happen, he stated, when someone takes radically something that has always been there. Martin Luther took the simple gospel message of justification by faith radically. John Wesley took the simple message of biblical holiness radically. William Seymour took a present-tense encounter with the Holy Spirit radically. There are countless, known names as well as the nameless servants of the Lord who have over the past 2000 plus years as well as in our day, in our day take the Masters teaching in regard ministering “to the least of these” radically.

Brothers & sisters I believe with all my heart that this is the day for us to take Christ’s Great Commission radically. I believe it is the hour for us to go forth with radical faith, radical commitment and radical love and usher in His second coming by making disciples of all nations. We can’t start a revolution by being worldly and full of man made religious doctrines.

Let’s get radical!

” Obedience is not a dirty word – it is a key to Kingdom living”

Posted: June 28, 2012 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, Parents, teaching, wilderness
Tags: Bride of Christ, Christian life, disciples, discipleship, Doctrines, obedience, radical disciples, sacrifice, sin, the Word

This is by far my longest post – yet I find it one of the most important post – as obedience is one of the major foundational stones laid in a young disciples life that they will balance their walk on for years to come.

” Obedience is not a dirty word – it is a key to Kingdom living”

He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. (John 14:21)

And again Jesus says;
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. (John 14:23)

And again…..
If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. (John 15:10)

We see this message repeated by the one who was next to the Lord throughout His earthly ministry and even referred to himself as the one whom the Lord loved; We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. (1 John 2:3) This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, (1 John 5:3) And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love. (2 John 1:6)

We read these passages in the Word yet if we preach in a way that resembles these teachings we are called legalistic. While at the same time we have a generation that longs for the presence of the Father. But we must ask the question is His presence not present possible because we have rejected His teachings and sought our own. For the Master and His students make clear what ushers in the presence of the Father yet we reject it as “too religious”.

But there are so many promises connected to this teaching by our Lord in John 14, just look at verse 26: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

What an awesome promise – “He will teach you all things” — Necessary for you to know. Here is a clear promise to the apostles, and their successors in the faith, that the Holy Ghost will teach them all that truth which is needful for their salvation.

One thing I find funny and sad at the same time is that one can quote a scripture and just a scripture and people will ask you to defend your stance – O, you’re a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist, you’re a Lutheran or a Baptist and the list goes on. I find it funny because I see God’s truth woven within each Christian denomination while at the same time it saddens me because I see men twisting His truth’s to suite their understanding rather than aligning their understanding up to His truths.

We live in a day when denominational teachings often attempt to dislodge (though prayerfully unknowingly) the very core teachings that Christ has given us especially when they (Denominational teachings) bring disunity rather than a witness to the power of God’s truth. Yes the sinner who refuses to bow His knee to Christ will always be at odds with the Truth. What I am talking about is how men can take the very power of Gods Holy Word and dirty it with an infusion of worldly wisdom and call that which is Holy unholy and that which is unholy, holy.

But for the appreciation of time to my readers and listeners I will stay on topic here in this message and not run down any rabbit trails today. Now the message here is foundational especially for those who consider themselves radical disciples who have made that 100% commitment required by radical King who commands radical allegiance tied directly to radical obedience and radical sacrifice.

If we were to lightly study the past few decades we would come to see how the onslaught of false gospel ordinances that have been infused into the Church, which has left a spiritual battle field filled with the carcasses of innocent lives lost- a horrific scene of a battle field that is filled with land mines and smoke clouds of false doctrines, false signs, wonders & miracles.

These deceptive doctrines and religious practices have birthed a generation which is content on eating their own young and torturing their wounded. In many ways the enemy has succeeded in wounding and slowing down a supernatural army that could conquer the world of darkness, pushing it leaders and Satan himself right back to the very gates of Hell. Instead we find an army that has pockets of resister, those who refuse to give up and will not bow to any other save their King alone. They can not be bought, they can not be held in prison, they will die fighting for the Kingdom and it’s truth. But for the most part we have an army of spiritual warriors that are untrained, unprepared and have total lack any commitment to the King at all, most not even realizing they are serving an imposter King, they know not the True Christ. They want to comforts and rewards of service without having to serve themselves.

The spiritual warfare we are dealing with today is no different than what the King & apostles warned us of the Word in regard to this warfare. In the natural the strategies of the enemy can be compared that style of warfare which started in Vietnam and is even more prevalent in today’s war against terrorist, we have an enemy who has learned to blend in with civilians so keenly that even some of the best at discerning can be fooled, if it were possible.

We’ve seen these pawns of the enemy everywhere from Evangelistic TV shows to those leading modern day movements, even revivals. Blindly many have missed one of the biggest weapons the enemy has brought and placed right in the middle of the camp – a “Trojan Horse” if you will – a watered down version of the gospel. Like a “Trojan horse” it comes into the camp in the form of a gift, a blessing yet in the end, when it is opened up and the vile and unholy message is released it brings forth not life, but death and destruction and spreads like a cancerous plague. Take for example the Word judgment, the enemy has created a doctrine that says any and all judgment is wrong even though we find this is not actually what was taught by Jesus. For we are called in the Word to judge the fruit and to ask Holy Ghost to guide that we may discern between those who are false teachers and those who are not.

Is Obedience better than sacrifice?

This is the vision which Isaiah, son of Amoz, saw about Judah and Jerusalem at the time of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.
The LORD Accuses Israel of Sin
Listen, heaven, and pay attention, earth!

The LORD has spoken, “I raised my children and helped them grow, but they have rebelled against me. Oxen know their owners, and donkeys know where their masters feed them. But Israel doesn’t know its owner. My people don’t understand who feeds them. “How horrible it will be for a nation that sins.

Its people are loaded down with guilt. They are descendants of evildoers and destructive children. They have abandoned the LORD.
They have despised the Holy One of Israel. They have turned their backs on him. “Why do you still want to be beaten? Why do you continue to rebel? Your whole head is infected. Your whole heart is failing.

From the bottom of your feet to the top of your head
there is no healthy spot left on your body—only bruises, sores, and fresh wounds. They haven’t been cleansed, bandaged, or soothed with oil.“Your country is devastated. Your cities are burned down. Your fields are destroyed right before your eyes by foreigners. Your fields are devastated and taken over by foreigners. My people Zion are left like a hut in a vineyard, like a shack in a cucumber field, like a city under attack.”

If the LORD of Armies hadn’t left us a few survivors, we would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Israel’s Corrupt Religion
Listen to the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom!Pay attention to the teachings from our God, you people of Gomorrah!The LORD asks, “What do your many animal sacrifices mean to me? I’ve had enough of your burnt offerings of rams and enough fat from your fattened calves.I’m not pleased with the blood of bulls, lambs, or male goats. (Isaiah 1:1-11)

Isaiah was what we would call today an intellectual. He was not royalty, but he held favor with several kings, until the time he started making everyone uncomfortable with his prophecies and forewarning s about the coming of God and the nation of Israel.

Today we find the same conditions in the Church – there are those who are the favorite of denominations as long as they speak good things, but when they get down to talking about giving things up and living our lives as obedient children unto the Lord, well now they are just crossing the line and we will replace them with another who speaks only good things – we want to hear the bless me Lord, not the surrender all unto the Lord comments.

Often times we mix the words obedience and sacrifice up thinking our sacrificial actions prove our obedience. We think we are justified in our actions because we give up certain things for God. Just because we make one or two sacrifices for God, we somehow think that those sacrifices atone for our other sins. But God tells us in these verses, what good are sacrifices to Him? Do the sacrifices that we make really mean anything to God? After all, he has everything we have because he created it all in the first place. Granted, the sacrifices that we make signify a commitment to the word of God and represent our appreciation for what he has done for us, but that is not a sure way to gain favor in the sight of God. There are people who everyday sacrifice and give of their time and make allowances for God, but they do it with a begrudging spirit. They do it as if it is something that they don’t really want to do, or something that they think will get them a little closer to God in the end.

To sacrifice means to give up. In order to sacrifice, you must relieve yourself of something, be it money, possessions, or maybe even a part of yourself. But when you make a sacrifice to God, you are just returning to Him what was His in the first place. And not to say that sacrifices are not important, because they are. However, sacrifices only represent that you acknowledge God, not that you are necessarily following what God is telling you to do.

But obedience is another thing all together. Until a little over a year ago, I did not like the statement “Obedience is better than sacrifice.” And mostly it was because I did not fully understand the concept. I did not truly understand what the difference was. I thought that if you sacrificed what you had for the good of the Lord, then you were fulfilling your commitment to God and fulfilling His commandments. It seems that while I was not entirely wrong, I was not entirely wrong.

I think part of the problem comes in with our interpretation of the word obey. We seem to have a lot of problems with that word. In the New International Version’s translation of the Bible, the word obey is mentioned 165 times, and this does not count all of the variations of the word. It would appear that since this word does appear so often in scripture that is something that is important to God.

When most people think of the word obey, they think of something close to slavery, something negative and something evil. Somehow, to obey someone or something is wrong, a barbaric notion whose time has come and passed.

According to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, the definition of obey is as follows: 1. To give ear to; to execute the commands of; to yield submission to; to comply with the orders of; 2. To submit to the authority of; to be ruled by; 3. To yield to the impulse, power, or operation of; as, a ship obeys her helm.

So we see, that obey has meaning meanings, several of which we have problems with. According to the definition I just read, a synonym of obey is submit. And we all have a problem with the whole act of submission. Somehow the notion of submission is something that we just can’t accept. Sure, racially and historically speaking, there is reason to get uncomfortable with the act of submission and that’s fine. But when we inject gender issues into the word of God, then we have problems.

It has always amazed me why we actually have such a problem with these words. I do not know of one woman who has gotten married in recent years who has allowed the word obey to be used in her wedding vows, they believe it is too chauvinistic. Which is amazing to me in how we give so much power to one little word. Never mind the fact that biblically wives are to submit and obey their husbands, and never mind the fact that if a woman married a power hungry fool, he will be that fool with or without the word obey in the wedding vows. What gets me is how we say we are willing to follow the word of God, as long as it does not upset our comfort level. But the word of God is the word of God, and we must be consistent in that. The act of submission is not something we can get away from.

Another problem with the word obey and the act of obeying someone is that is has to deal with power. We often don’t like to admit that there is someone or something else that has power over us, that has the ability to control our lives. Sure, we can say all we want that God is an all-powerful and all-knowing being, but there is a part of us that wants us to believe that we have the ultimate power and control over our own lives. That we, somehow, control our destinies.

Now, I am a big believer in free will, and believe that God has given us the free will so that we may come to Him on our own without force and provocation, but with that free will, I also acknowledge that my life is in God’s hands. That my wife and son’s life is in the hands of God. That God’s will, no matter what I say, think or pray, supersedes that of my own. That I acknowledge that God has the power, and that I am but a mere servant of that power.

Many professing Christians play children’s games with each other, hugging the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ to ourselves, going to church and listening to the Pastor each week, without getting out of our comfort zones, without putting behind us the fear of the hardship that we shall suffer as a result of doing something to alleviate the suffering of someone else, of thinking of others above ourselves; we are not hallowing the name of God. We are not taking the Sacrifice seriously enough, we are offering an animal to God that is not unblemished.

Someone once stated to me that it was too difficult to be a disciple, with his work load and responsibilities of bringing up a family, he just didn’t have the time. What he was actually saying was that God was not important enough in his life, he could give God the sacrifice of an imperfect animal, God wouldn’t notice, God would accept what he was giving; namely his tithes and his work in the organization in the church.

Friends, please realize that we are not playing a game of football here; worshiping and being obedient is a serious business. Once we admit that Jesus is the Christ we have come into Covenant with the Living God. He will honor his side of the agreement as laid out in His word, but if we treat His rules lightly, playing a dirty game, the Holy Spirit will continually blow the whistle against us as we mock God and count the greatest gift that we can obtain as of no worth. On that day, God’s mighty day of judgment, He who has honored the Covenant with each of us will judge whether we have been honorable.

In World Cup soccer terms, it is a great honor to be chosen to represent your country to compete against other countries. If on the field of play, you continually break the rules of the game, fouling and injuring others, you will eventually receive a red card and might even be sent home in disgrace, dishonoring the country that you represented.

Disobeying God’s rules, which are unchanged from the beginning of time, will cause you or I to suffer the second death, we will burn forever.

We can read throughout scripture many complex issues that we must lean onto Holy Ghost for understanding – The Word also clarifies issues for us and when something is of great importance it will show up throughout out the Word. In the case of obedience it does just that. I will leave this message with a number of verses that relate too and speak of obedience.

Our walk is to be filled with fruit and one of the ways to ensure that we are producing the fruit of the Kingdom is to be obedient unto His teachings, that we remain obedient to His commands –Of course being obedient and or following all of His commands shall not save us but they will help keep us on that narrow path.

By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: (Romans 1:5)

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:19)

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Romans 6:16)

For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. (Romans 16:19)

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
(Romans 16:26)

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (1 Corinthians 14:34)

And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him. (2 Corinthians 7:15)

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (2 Corinthians 10:5)

And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
(2 Corinthians 10:6)

Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say. (Philemon 1:21)

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; (Hebrews 5:8)

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Peter 1:2)

And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. (Exodus 24:7)

And thou shalt put some of thine honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient. (Numbers 27:20)

When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (Deuteronomy 4:30)

As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 8:20)

Strangers shall submit themselves unto me: as soon as they hear, they shall be obedient unto me. (2 Samuel 22:45)

As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear.
(Proverbs 25:12)

If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: (Isaiah 1:19)

Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? did not the LORD, he against whom we have sinned? for they would not walk in his ways, neither were they obedient unto his law.
(Isaiah 42:24)

And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:7)

For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, (Romans 15:18)

For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. (2 Corinthians 2:9)

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; (Ephesians 6:5)

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:8)

To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. (Titus 2:5)

Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; (Titus 2:9)

As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
(1 Peter 1:14)

Earthly, Soulish, Demonic (Protection Against Deception)

Posted: November 14, 2011 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, teaching, wilderness
Tags: Bride of Christ, deception, Derek Prince, discipleship, Doctrines, Kingdom living, kingdom of darkness, radical christianity, salvation

Our proclamation this morning is 1 Thessalonians 5:23–24:
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you [us] completely; and may your [our] whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you [us] is faithful, who also will do it.

We’ll carry on from yesterday evening when I did my best to analyze, what I consider to be a problem. This morning I purpose to analyze how the problem arises in terms of Scripture. This is very important because the problem continues to arise. I’ll give you five examples of the same problem arising in the last fifty years in the Charismatic movement. I feel that if we can analyze the problem, then the next step is to avoid it. So what I have to say is entirely practical, I hope.

Today I want to deal with the total human personality, and particularly two elements of human personality. If we don’t understand ourselves and how we are made up, we have a problem. The total human personality, I believe, is unfolded in the verse that we quoted. “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify us completely; and may our whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless. . . .” So completely means our whole spirit, soul, and body.

It says in Genesis chapter 1, that God decided to create man in His own image and in His likeness. That’s Genesis 1:26.

His image would refer to His outward appearance. There is something in the outward appearance of man that reflects the outward appearance of God. Let me point it out this way—it was appropriate that the Son of God should be manifested in the form of a male human being. He could not have come in the form of an ox or a beetle, because the male human being, in a sense, represents the image or the outward appearance of God.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:7:
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God . . .

The other phrase that’s used in Genesis is not image but likeness. Likeness, I believe, represents the inner structure of the Godhead. The structure of the Godhead is triune—Father, Son, and Spirit. In that likeness man was created a triune being; spirit, soul, and body. So man, in a unique way, represents God to the creation over which God set him as a ruler, in his outward appearance and in his inner composition.

We’re not going to deal with the outward appearance, but with the inner structure of human personality which is threefold; spirit, soul, and body. If we go back to the creation we can trace the origin of each. The spirit came from the inbreathed breath of God. When God breathed into Adam, that produced spirit in Adam. Incidentally, the words for spirit and breath are the same both in Hebrew and in Greek. The body was clay, infused with divine life. The soul came about through the union of spirit and body. The soul is the part that’s difficult to understand.

It is the unique individual ego, the thing in each of us that can say, “I will,” or “I won’t.” It’s usually defined as consisting of the will, the emotions and the intellect. So, very simply these are expressed or represented in three verbal statements, “I want, I think, I feel.” That’s the nature of the soul. Those who are separated from God by sin are dominated by their soul. You’ll find if you analyze it, that the life and actions of the natural man are controlled by those three things—I want, I think, I feel.

Now, let’s consider what happened to Adam and Eve through the fall.

First of all, the spirit died. God said in Genesis 2:17 to Adam:
“. . . the day that you eat of the tree, you shall die.”
Adam did not die physically for more than 900 years, but he died spiritually the moment he disobeyed God. At the same time, Adam’s soul became a rebel. We have to bear in mind that every descendant of Adam, male or female, has in him or her the nature of a rebel. That is our biggest single problem. For that reason it is not sufficient merely have our sins forgiven, though that is wonderful. But, the rebel has to be put to death, and that is part of the provision of the gospel.

Let me just look at two passages in Ephesians which deal with both of these conditions; the death of the spirit and the rebellion of the soul. In Ephesians 2:1–3 speaking to believers who have come alive in Christ, Paul says:
And you He made alive, who once were dead in trespasses and sins, [They were not physically dead, but they were spiritually dead in trespasses and sins and it was the new birth that bought them back to life.

Then it says about those sins,] in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, [that’s Satan] the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all [and that includes the Apostle Paul] once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

That’s a picture of the whole human race in rebellion against God. And, because of the rebellion, dead in trespasses and sins. That is the outcome of sin. The spirit dies, the soul becomes a rebel in rebellion against its creator. What happens to the body? It becomes, what the Bible calls, corruptible.

That means it’s subject to sickness, aging, and ultimately death. But as I pointed out, the death of Adam did not take place physically for more than 900 years. The death that Adam experienced when he disobeyed God was probably what the Bible would call, the first death.

Then the New Testament speaks of the second death—Revelation 20:6,14, which I believe is the final separation of the rebellious spirit and soul from God forever.
Now, what happens when we get saved? To our spirit, it’s made alive. We have become alive again in Christ. Let me read Ephesians 2:4–6.

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

So God made us alive. That’s not all that He did. We do not have time to analyze this, but He also resurrected us and then He enthroned us. All that is put in the past tense, so if we can accept it, spiritually we are seated with Christ upon the throne. But the thing that I want to emphasize now is we have been made alive.

Now the soul through repentance is reconciled to God. It’s very important to emphasize repentance. A rebel cannot be reconciled to God as long as he remains a rebel. So one of the things that’s involved in salvation is that we lay down our rebellion. Lot’s of people who claim to be born again and saved, have in actual fact never renounced their rebellion. They have an outward form of Christianity, but the inner reality is not there.

Let’s look now in Romans 5:1:
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, We were at war with God? Now we’ve been justified by faith. We have peace with God. Then in verse 11 it says, And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. We were at war with God. We have been reconciled.

Then, what happens to the body through salvation? It becomes a temple for the Holy Spirit. I think this is very important. A lot of believers do not realize that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and that we have to treat them with reverence. In 1 Corinthians 6:19,20, Paul begins, “Do you not know . . . ?” a phrase that he must use at least half a dozen times.

My observation is that every time Paul says, “Do you not know,” most Christians do not know. So this is what Paul says:
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body . . .

Let’s sum up what happens at salvation. Our spirit is made alive, our soul is reconciled with God, and our body is made a temple for the Holy Spirit and also becomes eligible for the first resurrection. In Philippians 3:10–11, Paul says that our body is made eligible for the first resurrection and that this is the goal of his Christian life.

This is what he says:
that I may know Him [that is Jesus] and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

The word used there means the “out resurrection,” that is not the final complete resurrection, but the resurrection which is only of true believers. I’m always impressed by the fact that Paul did not take it for granted. He said, “My purpose is so to live that I may qualify for the first resurrection.” I really do not believe we can take it for granted. It depends on how we live.

Now, what are the functions of these three elements? First of all the spirit. The spirit is capable of direct communion with God and worship. It’s the part of man that originated from God and can return to God in fellowship and worship. This is stated in 1 Corinthians 6:17, a very important verse.

But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
In my opinion it would be completely incorrect to say one soul. It is one spirit. If you take that in the context, Paul is talking about a man being joined to a prostitute, and he says, “That’s a physical union.” But what he is talking about is a spiritual union. If you take that picture it becomes clear that it is a very real union. But it’s only the spirit that can be united with God. The soul cannot. The body cannot. Because of that, the spirit and the spirit alone, I believe, is capable of true worship.

In John 4:23–24 Jesus says,
“But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. [That is to me a staggering statement. Almighty God, who created the universe, is looking for people who will worship Him. And then it says,] God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

The spirit is the element in us which is capable of worship. The soul is capable of praise and thanksgiving, but only the spirit, I believe, can offer to God the worship which is acceptable.

What happens to the soul? The soul is the decision making element. Through regeneration, the soul is able to make right decisions. David said in Psalm 103, “Bless the LORD, O my soul. . . .” He was talking to his soul. What part of him was talking to his soul? His spirit. His spirit sensed the need to bless the Lord. But his spirit could not do it until his soul activated his body. So the spirit, in this present creation, moves upon the body through the soul. We’ll come back to that in a moment, because the New Testament speaks about a soulish body and a spiritual body.

To take a very crude example, I think the soul is like the gear lever in the car. You sit in the drivers seat, switch on the engine, but to get the car moving you have to use the gear lever. The gear lever is the soul. The spirit is there but it cannot move the car without the soul.
My purpose in all of this is to come to the place where we can distinguish between the spirit and the soul. But that’s not easy. In fact, there’s only one way we can do it effectively, which we find in Hebrews 4:12:

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Notice the word “even.” The word of God is the only instrument which is sensitive enough and sharp enough to penetrate, to divide between soul and spirit. In no other way can we understand the different functions of soul and spirit, and the relationship between them accept by the word of God. You cannot rely on your own understanding, your own feelings. They’re not reliable. The only reliable discerner is the word of God. But to use the word of God as a discerner, two conditions are set. They are found in Hebrews 5:13–14, where the writer is talking about the difference between mature and immature Christians.

For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. [Those who can only feed on milk are still babies. Then he goes on to say,] But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, [or who are mature] that is, those who by reason of use [but the margin says “practice”] have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

In other words, discernment is not something that we can take for granted. It only comes by practice, and it only comes when we take in the whole counsel of God through His word. If we are living like babies on milk, we do not have the ability to discern. If we have grown beyond that, we still cannot discern unless we practice.

I would like to challenge you and ask you, are you practicing discernment? I think I can say of myself that in a certain measure, I do practice discernment. When I walk into a situation I put up my spiritual antennae, and I ask myself, “What are the spiritual forces at work in this situation.” When I listen to a sermon, I not only listen to the words, I try to discern the spirit that is coming through the words. But this only comes by practice. If you just walk around carelessly and casually, you will not have the ability to discern. I believe we need to practice discernment in every situation. I believe discernment should be as regularly a part of our spiritual life as prayer. Otherwise, we’ll be in trouble.

Now, I want to talk about the difference between the spiritual and the soulish, which I will illustrate from the diagram which you have available to you that’s in your outline. This diagram illustrates the use of two Greek words—the word for spirit and the word for soul. If you look at the diagram you’ll see in it we have the Greek and then the English. We have the noun and then the adjective. When you see them in writing the relationship is obvious.

Now the Greek word for spirit is pneuma from which we get the English word pneumatic, which is a drill that is operated by air. This is because pneuma means breath, wind and spirit.

Now the adjective (and you should be looking at your diagram) from pneuma is pneumatikos. How do we translate that into English? We know that pneuma is spirit, obviously the English adjective from pneuma is spiritual. That’s right. There’s no choice.

Now we come down to the Greek word for soul, and here is the problem. The Greek word for soul is psuche from which we get countless different words like psychological, or psychiatric, or psychosomatic. A psychiatrist is a doctor of the soul, because iatros is the Greek word for doctor. All right, we have psuche and the Greek adjective is psuchikos.
Now, there’s no hesitation about the translation of the noun—it’s “soul.” But what about the adjective? The problem is that English does not have a word “soulish.”

I believe, therefore, that we have to create a word to translate the Bible correctly. According to my understanding, in German, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian—in all those languages there is a word for “soulish.” But English is limping along without the necessary word to convey this very important distinction.

Now I’ll take all the places in the New Testament where the word psuchikos or “soulish” is used and I’ll try to draw out the difference between spiritual and soulish.

First of all, we will take three cases where the word “soulish” is applied to the physical body, which is perhaps a little hard to understand. I looked at five translations and I found various different words that are used in different versions to translate this word psuchikos.

In the original King James they use “natural” or “sensual.” In the New King James they also use “natural” or “sensual.” But in the margin in the last case they use “worldly.” In the New American Standard they use “natural,” and in the margin “unspiritual” and finally, “worldly minded.”

In the New International Version they use “without the spirit,” “natural,” “unspiritual,” and then they use the phrase “follow their natural instinct.” You see then, that unless we get behind the English translations, we really cannot grasp this vital distinction between that which is spiritualand that which is soulish.

Now we’ll look at the three cases where soulish is applied to the body. In 1 Corinthians 15:44, twice in one verse, and then in verse 46. I’ve never heard anybody else discuss this, but I’ll give you my understanding and you can accept it or reject it as you see fit. But, it’s an exciting issue, because Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:44 relating to the resurrection,

It is sown a natural body [that is, a soulish body], it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body [that is, a soulish body], and there is a spiritual body.
You will notice that there is always the contrast between the soulish and the spiritual. There is a soulish body and there is a spiritual body.

Then in verse 46 Paul says,
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural [that’s soulish], and afterward the spiritual.

So our present body is soulish; our resurrection body will be spiritual. I understand that means we will no longer need the “gear lever.” Our spirit will simply decide where to go, what to say, what to do, and it will happen. It will be a body controlled by the spirit.

We have in Ezekiel chapter 1 a picture of some creatures which could be represented as having spiritual bodies. To me, this is exciting, because in the resurrection we will have a body like Jesus. We will just go where we want. No problems about dealing with the soul.

In Ezekiel 1:12 talking about the cherubs, it says,
And each one went straight forward; they went wherever the spirit wanted to go, and they did not turn when they went.
So they have spiritual bodies. They just go wherever the spirit wants to go. And in the same passage in verse 20,
Wherever the spirit wanted to go, they went, because there the spirit went . . .

So this is how I understand it. A spiritual body is a body which is directly motivated and controlled by the spirit. It’s like a car in which you just switch on the engine and it goes wherever you want at whatever speed. You don’t have to bother with the gear lever.

There are three cases where the word psuchikos is used to a body. No English translation that I know of uses the word soulish. Consequently the distinction is obscured.
Now let’s look at the other places where the word psuchikos is used. Here we come to a point where there is a clear conflict between the soulish and the spiritual. 1 Corinthians 2:14–15:

But the natural man [the soulish man] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.

So the soulish man is not in harmony with the spirit. He cannot receive the things of the spirit. He cannot understand them. You can talk to the most highly educated intellects and they have no ability whatever to understand the things of the spirit, because they are operating in the realm of the soul. This is important because it brings out, there is in a certain sense, an opposition between the spiritual and the soulish.

Then we go on to the Epistle of Jude verse 19 which is a rather illuminating verse. Talking about people who have made trouble in the church, the New King James says,

These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit [capital S, the Holy Spirit].

But very obviously they are part of the church, because they cause division. So we have in the church both those who are spiritual and those who are soulish.

Then the most significant passage of all is James 3:15, which I will deal with at length. Talking about a certain kind of wisdom, James says,
This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic.

By now you have arrived at the conclusion that sensual is soulish. So there is a kind of wisdom that is soulish. And there is a decline, descending in three stages. First, earthly; second, soulish; third, demonic. I believe this is the main way in which demons get into the work of God, the people of God, the church of God. It is through this decline from the earthly, to the soulish, to the demonic.

Now, let’s consider what’s implied. What does it mean to be earthly? For a Christian I believe it means our vision is completely limited to this earth. We cannot see beyond the earth. All we are expecting from God through salvation are things that belong to this life—prosperity, healing, success, power, who knows what. I believe all of that is soulish. I’ll take a few examples of people who are not earthly. You can find a whole list of them in Hebrews 11. In fact, you could really sum up the saints of Hebrews 11 as those who are not earthly. Here are just two examples. In Hebrews 11:9–10 speaking about Abraham, it says,

By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Abraham was in the promised land. He knew it was promised to him, but he did not own it and he never lived there as if he owned it. He never bought a house, or built a house. He always lived in a tent which is something movable.

Note the contrast with Lot who separated from Abraham and turned his face toward Sodom. The men of Sodom were sinners before the Lord and exceedingly wicked and Lot went where his face was turned. So the next time you read about Lot, he’s not just looking toward Sodom, he’s in Sodom and he’s living in a house, no longer in a tent. I think Lot, in a sense, is a type of the earthly man of God.

But, Abraham had a vision had a vision which extended beyond time into eternity. He was waiting for a city that he had never seen, but he knew one day it would be his home. I think that is how God expects us to be as Christians. We are not at home in this world. When we become at home in this world, we become soulish.

My second example is Moses in Hebrews 11:27:
By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing Him who is invisible.
Let me suggest to you that this is the key to endurance.

It’s looking beyond time, looking beyond the level of this life where we often will have a very hard time, many frustrations, many disappointments. What will cause us to endure? A vision that takes us beyond time. There are many other examples. These two are just examples. Abraham and Moses are people who were not earthly.

Then there’s also a remarkable statement by Paul which we would do well to ponder in 1 Corinthians 15:19:
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. [Or the most to be pitied.]
That’s a very remarkable statement. If all our Christian faith provides for us is things in this life, we are pitiable, we are to be pitied. I have to say, and I want to say it graciously, there’s a good deal of teaching in the church which only focuses on what God will do for us in this life. Such people often consider themselves prosperous and successful. God considers them pitiable.

This is a very, very basic truth. Christians of previous generations, I would say up to World War I, were basically conscious of this fact—the world is not our home. But since that time, many, many Christians have lost this perception and live as if we really belonged here. Our thoughts and our ambitions and our plans are focused on the things of time.

We are earthly.

When we become earthly, what is the next step down? Soulish. What is the essence of the soul? The ego. What is it to be soulish? It’s to be egocentric. To be absolutely concerned with “Number One,” as they say.

The soulish person says, “What’s in this for me?” The spiritual person says, “How can I glorify God?” I think you’ll agree. I think I’m not being cynical. There is a great deal of soulishness in the contemporary church, defined this way. Then the soulish opens up for the demonic. When you get into the realm of the soulish you’re exposed to the demonic. This, I believe, is primarily what permits demons to infiltrate the people of God, the work of God. A little later I’ll give you five examples of what has happened in this century.

Let’s consider for a moment two Old Testament patterns of people who moved out of the earthly into the soulish, and from the soulish to the demonic.

They were very distinguished people. The first one is Aaron. If you turn to Exodus 32 you will find something that always astonishes me.

Here was the anointed and appointed high priest making a golden calf. I want to analyze what it says in Exodus 32:1–10. Moses at this time is up on the mountain. They’ve not seen him for something like forty days. Exodus 32:1:
Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, “Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.”

The very significant phrase there is, “. . . the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt.” They had lost sight of God. They were focusing on human leaders. I believe, almost inevitably, that will lead to idolatry. When we lose our vision of God and focus on God’s servants, we’re in great danger.

And Aaron said to them, “Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me: So all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. And he received the gold from their hand, and fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf.

Then they said, “This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt!” So when Aaron saw it, [this is an amazing description, when Aaron saw his own calf] he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD.” To Yahweh or Jehovah. I mean, I find it hard to understand how Aaron could that. But if Aaron could do it, you and I could do it. We’re no better than Aaron. Probably most of us are not of his caliber. Then it says,

Then they rose early on the next day, offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

That’s the essence of idolatry—play. When our worship becomes play, we’ve moved out of the spiritual into the soulish, and ultimately into the demonic. I don’t want to appear critical, but I have to say to my understanding, most of what is called worship in the Charismatic movement is not worship at all. Often it is very self-centered. “God heal me, God bless me, God make me feel good, God do this, and God do that.”

It is egocentric. It is soulish. Only the spirit can focus directly on God. Much of the music that we have in the church appeals to the soul, stimulates the soul. It’s very much the same kind of music as is used in the world to stimulate the soul.

I’m no expert in music, absolutely not at all. I cannot sing a note in tune. But I have a certain sensitivity to the impact of music. Having lived five years in Africa I am aware that certain repetitive themes and rhythms can deaden your sensitivity if you sit under that long enough, especially when it’s very loud. You lose the capacity to discern. And in Africa, those rhythms are used to call up demons.

What is amazing about the scene of Israel’s idolatry here described, is the total difference between the attitude of the people when God spoke from heaven and their attitude, perhaps, two months later. There had been the most amazing shift. In Exodus 20 when they had a unique revelation from God, such as no other nation has ever had, there response was awe, fear, reverence.

In Exodus 20:18–21, after God had pronounced the Ten Commandments from the mountain:
Now all the people witnessed the thundering, the lightning flashes, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood afar off. Then they said to Moses, “You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.”
And Moses said to the people, “Do not fear; for God has come to test you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin.” So the people stood afar off, but Moses drew near the thick darkness where God was.

They were so impressed by the holiness and the majesty of God that they said, “Moses, we can’t listen to that voice anymore. Will you please hear for us, and we will listen to what you say to us.” Yet in less than two months they had come from that attitude to the place where they wanted a golden calf to worship, where they saw not God but Moses as the person who had brought them out of Egypt.

Paul takes this up in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 10:5–7 speaking about the experiences of Israel when they came out of Egypt. Paul says,

But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness. Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.”

What had happened? Their physical needs had been met. Their stomachs were full, their bodies were warmly clothed, so what next? Well, let’s have a little excitement. Let’s play. I’m so concerned when worship becomes play, and today much of it is. Worship has nothing to do with entertainment. Entertainment says, “Excite me, thrill me, satisfy me.” That’s all for the benefit of the soul. The spirit is excluded.

My second example of the transition from the spiritual to the soulish to the demonic is even more frightening. You’ll find it in Leviticus 9:23–10:2. This is a glorious moment. The people had done everything that God required in the form of sacrifices, and when their obedience was complete God sent His glory and burned up the sacrifice on the altar. And Moses and Aaron went into the tabernacle of meeting, and came out and blessed the people.

Then the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people, and fire came out from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the fat on the altar. When all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.

A manifest demonstration of God’s glory and a fire that actually consumed the sacrifice on the altar. Now the next two verses, the first two verses of the next chapter are some of the most tragic in the Bible.

Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron [Nadab was the eldest son. He was scheduled to become high priest in place of Aaron] each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

The same fire that consumed the sacrifice, burned up the worshipers. What is profane fire? I understand it is fire that is not taken from the altar that God has commanded. What is profane fire in our experience? I would say it’s worship in any spirit other than the Holy Spirit. The penalty was death.

We read in Numbers 16:1–35 about an insurrection against Moses in the wilderness. When some of the leaders took 250 censers, filled them with fire and said, “We’re just as good as Aaron. We’ve got just as much right to be priests as he has.” Now Moses said, “All right, we’ll try this out.” He told them to assemble with their censers with fire in them. Then the fire of the Lord came out and consumed 250 men.

The lesson for me is this, you are responsible for what is in your censer. You’re responsible for the spirit in which you approach God. I’m not saying that you’ll be consumed with fire, but God’s judgments are often exemplary. In other words, God did not judge every city where there was homosexuality, as He judged Sodom and Gomorrah. But His judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah was exemplary. It showed forever God’s estimate of homosexuality.

Again, when Ananias and Sapphira tried to cheat the Lord with their offering, they both died because they claimed to be giving God more than they actually were. Not everybody who does that dies. I think if that happened there would be fewer people in the church. But God’s estimate of it never changes.

Here we have this demonstration of the danger approaching God with what is called, “profane fire”— any spirit that is not the Holy Spirit. This has become so very real to me.

Now, let’s turn to Hebrews and see the New Testament application. You know one of our problems is that we often read the Epistles as if they were written to unbelievers. They were not. They were written to Christians.

So Hebrews 12:28–29,
Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptable with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire.

In that passage the NIV uses the word “awe.” I ask myself and I ask you, how much awe do you find in the church today? How many meetings do you go to where there is a sense of the awesome presence of God?

When we were in Britain last summer I encountered a minister friend who made this comment. “I meet people who talk about God as if He was someone they had met in the pub.” We’ve got this “buddy-buddy” relationship with Jesus. He does invite us for fellowship, for communion, but we must never, never lose our sense of awe. I think that is the root of the problems we’ve been talking about.

To go back for a moment to the contemporary spiritual movements I’ve been describing. I could easily believe that somewhere in the beginning there was a genuine, spontaneous move of the Holy Spirit. Part of what comes out is the Holy Spirit, but has become mixed. Some things are from God, but others are not.

Why? where is the problem? My answer is soulishness. An undiscerned, downward slide from a focus on God to a focus on self. From objective scriptural truth to subjective personal experience. All to often a sense of awe and reverence for the holiness of God has been replaced by unscriptural frivolity and flippancy. In fact, I would say that flippancy has become an epidemic disease in the contemporary Charismatic movement.

If we have been guilty of it, we need to repent. God has convicted me more than once of being flippant. I have confessed it as a sin and repented. We have to set a watch on our
tongues.

Charles Finney once commented, “God never uses a jester to search consciences.” One characteristic ministry of the Holy Spirit is to convict of sin and or righteousness and of judgment. John 16:8. Where people remain unconvicted of sin we must question whether the Holy Spirit is at work.

Has God provided any protection against this kind of error? Yes.

But first we must understand that error primarily attacks the area of the soul, though the spirit may also be affected later. It is the soul, therefore, that must be protected. The protection which God has provided for the soul has one unique and all-sufficient basis; the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

In Matthew 16:24–25,
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “if anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life [literally soul] will lose it, but whoever loses his life [literally his soul] for My sake will find it.

Here is the divine paradox; to save, protect our soul, we must lose it. Before we can follow Jesus there are two preliminary steps. First, we must deny ourself. We must say a resolute and final “No” to our demanding, self-seeking ego. Second, we must take up our cross. We must accept the sentence of death which the cross imposes on us. Taking up our cross is a voluntary decision that each of us must make.

God does not forcefully impose the cross upon us. If we do not apply the cross personally in our own life, we leave a door open to demonic influence. There is always the danger that our uncrucified ego will respond to the seductive flatteries of deceiving demons. Pride is the main area in our character which Satan targets, and flattery is the main lever he uses to gain entrance. We must each apply the cross personally to ourselves.

In Galatians 2:20 Paul says,
“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live . . .”

We each need to ask, “Is that true of me? Have I really been crucified with Christ or am I still motivated by my soulish ego?”

Many Christians today would feel that this solution is too radical. They would question whether this is the only way to be secure from deception. They tend to regard Paul as some kind of “Super Saint” whom they can never hope to imitate. Paul, however, does not see himself this way. His ministry as an apostle was unique, but his personal relationship with Christ was a pattern for all to follow. In 1 Timothy 1:16 he says,

However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
So Paul was a pattern for all who would follow.
Again in 1 Corinthians 11:1 he says,
Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.

The only alternative to the cross is to put self in the place of Christ, but this is idolatry. It opens the way for evil consequences that invariably follow idolatry. The cross is the heart and center of the Christian faith. Without the cross proclaimed and applied, Christianity is left without a foundation, and its claims are no longer valid. It has become, in fact, a false religion. As such, like all false religions, it’s inevitably exposed to demonic infiltration and deception.

So now, having said that much, let me give you five examples of movements within the Charismatic movement that have all gone the same way. In some way or other I have had some kind of association with each of them. Going back to the period just after World War II in Canada, there was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Saskatchewan which came to be called “The Latter Rain.” It made a very powerful impact and a lot of people went from different areas of North American to Saskatchewan. I would say the essence of this movement was a full restoration of all the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Later I knew a man who was present at the Full Gospel Business Men in Chicago, a fine Christian. He described what happened to him when he went there. He said the meetings lasted nine hours, and they were so exciting that he didn’t even want to get up and go to the bathroom. But what happened? The leader became proud, self-assertive and fell into immorality and thereby discredited the gifts of the Spirit.

Later on from 1957 through 1962 I was a missionary with the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. Dear people but practically no exercise of spiritual gifts at all. So one day I said to them, “Why don’t we ever exercise spiritual gifts?” The answer was the “Latter Rain” had them. In other words, that made it impossible for us. We might go the same way. You see, one of Satan’s tactics is to discredit that which is good by its misuse.

Then there was the “Manifested Sons.” I’m sure some of you can remember these. They were a very powerful group of men who took the Scripture, “…that all creation is waiting for the manifestation of the Sons of God.” They had a really powerful ministry particularly in casting out demons. But in casting out demons they entered into long conversations with demons, and sought revelation from them.

I think it’s totally wrong ever seek revelation from demons. They ended up with an exaggerated theology which said some of them had already received their resurrection bodies. The next thing that happened was that two of them were killed in an airplane crash. So God said, “Where’s your resurrection body now?”, but they were fine men at the first.

Then there were the “Children of God.” How many of you have heard of the “Children of God?” Later they changed their name to “The Family.” A woman named Linda Meisner exercised a powerful ministry among them. I had two or three encounters with her. She was a very dedicated powerful woman, and she had a great burden for the young people of America. But when she was taken over by pride, she became manipulative and dominating.

Many of the young people in the “Children of God” came under her control. She cut them off from their relationship with their parents and their families, and it became a disaster. But I believe that when she started, she was right.

Then there was William Branham. I had a little association with William Branham at the closing period of his ministry.

I was on the same platform with him two or three times with the Full Gospel Business Men. William Branham had, in some ways, one of the most remarkable ministries that I know of. He was a very gentle, humble, loving man. His ministry of the word of knowledge was absolutely legendary. No one ever heard Branham give one false word of knowledge.

I was with him in a meeting in Phoenix, Arizona. He was on the platform and he picked our a woman in the audience and he said, “Now you’re not here for yourself. You’re here for your grandson.” And then he told her her name and her exact street address in New York City. They were about 2,000 miles away from New York City at the time. Unfortunately, after exercising his gift two or three times, he just collapsed and his men came and gathered him up and carried him away.

He explained that by the statement of Jesus, “The power has gone out of me.” But Jesus did not collapse. I do not believe that was the Holy Spirit. I believe it was demonic.

Later on I was close friends with Ern Baxter, who was, for quite a considerable period, the Bible teacher in Branham’s evangelistic meetings. Ern loved Branham dearly, but his heart was broken over what happened. One day he gathered a small group of us and said, “I want to tell you about Branham. I don’t want you to talk to anybody about it. I just want you to know.” Now since all the people concerned have passed from the stage of time, I feel free to share what Ern shared about Branham.

He said Branham had two spirits. One was the Spirit of God, one was not. At one point they were together and Branham pointed to a light bulb hanging from the ceiling and said, “The power I have can make that bulb move.” I believe Branham remained in Christ to the very end, but he was taken over by people who wanted to exploit him. Although he did not call himself Elijah, he permitted his followers to do so. He was killed through an automobile crash when his car was run into by a drunk driver. His followers embalmed his body to keep it there until Easter Sunday, being convinced that he would be resurrected, but he was not.

When he was in the Spirit under the anointing he was almost unchallengable. At one time a demonized man up to attack him in a meeting. Branham commanded the man to kneel down and stay there until he finished his message. The man stayed kneeling in the same posture for the whole period of Branham’s sermon. But I would have to say his end was, perhaps the best you could say, disappointing.

And then we have Discipleship or the Shepherding Movement.

Now I was personally closely involved, and I can tell you that it began with a supernatural intervention of God. I was there when it happened. Three other preachers beside my self; Bob Mumford, Charles Simpson, Don Basham and I were all speaking at a convention. In the middle of it we discovered that the man who was leading and organizing the convention was an actively, practicing homosexual. So we thought, “What are we to do about this?” We agreed to meet together in someone’s room in the motel, not my room. The four of us knelt down and prayed and when we stood up we all knew, without any process of reasoning, without praying for it, without even wanting it, that God had joined us together. Yet, in spite of that, I don’t think the thing went a year before it started to go off.

This is my personal impression. The problem was primarily personal ambition in different forms. One wanted to be the leader of a movement, another wanted to appear on the platform, and so on. And I was one of them. From my experience I would say there is no greater problem in the church today than personal ambition in the ministry. Another problem was that we were not renewed in our minds. We still thought in the “old church” categories.

Everybody who disliked us said, “Well, you’re really a denomination.” Our leader said, “Oh, no. We’re not a denomination. We never will be.” But the logic of spiritual principles is inexorable. He and his group have become a denomination.
Our root problem was that we were not renewed in our minds.

We still thought in terms of the way the church traditionally does things, and I do not believe the church does things right. I believe there has to be a revolution in our thinking before we can line up with God’s purposes.
So let me just list these five examples. The Latter Rain,

The Manifested Sons, The Children of God, William Branham, and The Discipleship or Shepherding Movement.

Finally, let me point out two elements that were common, I think, to all of these movements. No. 1 – PRIDE. Pride is the most dangerous of all sins, in my opinion. I heard a fellow preacher say once, “Pride is the only sin about which the devil will not make you feel guilty.” Proverbs 16:18, a very short little verse.

Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.

Now you’ll notice that people usually say, “Pride goes before a fall.” That is not what the Bible says. The Bible says, “Pride goes before destruction.” So turn around. Don’t continue in that way, because the end of it is destruction. I am talking to myself as much as to you.

The second feature which I believe was common to all five was what I have already spoken about; A MIXTURE OF SPIRITS.

There was truth and there was error. There was the Holy Spirit and there were other spirits. The way the other spirits got in was through a downward slide from the earthly to the soulish to the demonic. Remember, the soulish is essentially self-centered. In 2 Timothy 3:1–5 Paul describes what the condition of humanity will be like at the close of this age. I believe we are living in that time. He lists 18 sins or moral blemishes.

But know this [and that’s the only time that I can recall that Paul was so emphatic. He says, “Now be absolutely sure of this . . .], that in the last days perilous times will come . . .

The Greek word translated “perilous” is only used in one other place, in Matthew 8:28 where it describes two demonized men who came against Jesus. And notice the English word there—fierce. So there are going to be fierce times and they are here. You can pray as much as you like but you cannot change it because God says, “Know this. There will be fierce times.” You cannot change it, but you can ask God to prepare you for it. Then Paul give a list of these 18 moral blemishes:
. . . for men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without selfcontrol, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.

Notice, it begins and ends with the things that people love. Love of self, love of money, and then love of pleasure. But I want to point out to you the root of it all is the love of self. That’s what lets evil in. Soulishness, being focused on me, what is God going to do for me, what do I get out of this? And then it goes on in verse 5,
. . . having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!

So these people with these 18 horrible moral conditions have a form of godliness. They are not unbelievers. They are not atheists. I do not believe, myself, that Paul would ever use the word “godliness” outside the Christian context. So these are professing Christians, and what is the problem? Self-love. Selflove is what opens the way to every one of these other problems. Self-centeredness, that leads in turn to mixture.

Just one more thing and we close. The way that mixture works is this. It causes confusion and then division, because some of what is provided is good and some is bad. Some is truth and some is error. This means there are two ways people can respond. Some will focus on the error and reject the truth. Others will focus on the truth and accept the error.

Therefore, there comes confusion and out of the confusion, division.

People become aggressively committed to one or other of the alternatives. What causes it? Mixture. We cannot afford to tolerate mixture. What is the answer to mixture? Truth. The pure, undiluted truth of God’s word.

It happened once in the USA that I was the only witness to an accident in the street outside our home. As a result I was required to testify in court. Before I gave my testimony, I was required to affirm that I would speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That was the standard set by a secular court. How much more should we as Christians take our stand for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

By Derek Prince

If you say “angel,” why can’t I say “devil”?

Posted: October 17, 2011 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, Prophetic, teaching, wilderness
Tags: Doctrines, kingdom of darkness, Kingdom teaching, worldly kingdom

There is an occult movement among Christians. Some are seeking signs and wonders in spite of what the Word of God says:

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”
But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. – Matthew 12: 38-40 –

NOTE: It was the the Scribes and Pharisees who asked for a sign. Such are the very same ones today doing the very same thing. The true Pharisees of today have twisted the truth in such a way, that if you dare question or challenge them in an area, then you are the Pharisee in their eyes. Bride of Christ, this is straight from hell and a tactic of the enemy. It is meant to intimidate you, to silence you, to keep you from testing things.

The things being called signs and wonders today are such silly and stupid things; gold teeth, angel feathers, gemstones, gold dust – it makes anyone with half a brain wonder if the church truly has gone mad or have they just not grown up. It appears they are stuck in some infantile state preferring spook stories than the unadulterated word of God. Would not surprise me one bit if someone at some point had a word from God saying that we all must suck our thumbs in order to receive a greater revelation.

One of the biggest claims now is orbs. Round balls of light that people are calling angels. Uh, really, now? Where is the proof? Some people are even taking pictures in hopes of catching an orb or two in their photo. This would be silly IF it were not so serious. What makes it serious is people are opening themselves up to the occult. There is absolutely no proof if these things are superantural events or not. Could be the lighting, could be the camera, could be any number of things. Yet Christians everywhere are claiming these things are angels. Well, if you can say angel, why can’t I say devil?

Shock! I can just hear some of you thinking I have committed the unpardonable sin by daring to question. I will ask you, where is the proof? The fact that you may think you feeeeel God’s presence? The fact that others — your special annointed teachers — say so?

Friend, I tell you now whoever you are, if you do not start testing things NOW, far greater delusions will come upon you and you will be primed to BOW before the first false image that comes your way. You are already bowing and do not know it. You are bowing to vain imaginations of false teachers/prophets/preachers each and every time you take their teaching and not test it.

The following video I put up once before, but in light of the orb thingy, I have put it up again in hopes that some will see and come out from among this deception.

You can go youtube and see all kinds of “orbs.” Some are even in so-called haunted houses. Some are fakes I’m sure. Others? It does not matter. What matters is people seeking out these things. You may as well go to a cemetery late at night and take pictures.

In the video below, whether fake or not, I don’t know.

You say angel, I say devil.

When I saw this, it reminded me of how today’s Christians are so easily taken in by deception. The following is more believable than the angel feathers, fake gold dust and the cheap gemstones falling from heaven — all of which can be bought in any craft store. One of the most stupid miracles out there is the gold teeth miracle. Think about it, people: God creates the real deal. Why would He give anyone a gold tooth when only He can make a real tooth? The people following this garbage are creating a fake and lying god for us to follow.

I was rebuked a couple weeks back by friend for not believing the many lies being brought into the church. I have decided no more will I be on the defensive. I am on the offense now with and for the truth. Those of you who are so big in decreeing every little thing in the name of your phony god — here’s one for you: I decree war on your lies.

THIS is what God has to say about your false teachers and lying prophets:

An astonishing and horrible thing has been committed in the land:

The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own power; And My people love to have it so.
But what will you do in the end? — Jeremiah 5:30 –

Enjoy the video. And remember, it is fake. As fake as the lying signs and wonders being committed in the name of a holy God. Except, this sign and wonder is much more entertaining than feathers falling from air ducts.

Wonder how long it will take before some phony in that whore who pretends to be the Bride of Christ tries to create something like this and call it God?

From: http://redeemedhippiesplace.wordpress.com/category/false-signs-and-wonders/

Get ready Church for the mountains of mans traditions are being bulldozed over by the Power of God’s Holy Spirit

Posted: October 13, 2011 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, Prophetic, teaching, wilderness
Tags: Bride of Christ, discipleship, Doctrines, Kingdom life, Kingdom living, Kingdom of God, radical christianity, radical disciples, the Word

Get ready Church for the mountains of mans traditions are being bulldozed over by the Power of God’s Holy Spirit….

The landscape of the modern day church is be re-landscaped back to that which was ordered from the commander in Chief, Christ Jesus, it’s King & Master. For His Kingdom in these last days is being re-aligned to the foundation upon which it was laid.

Holy Ghost fire is removing the cracked, polluted mortar and stones that has been applied over the centuries by what some might conclude where the good intentions of men, yet none the less without the authority of the Builder. For the Builder, Jesus Christ has the blue prints, for He is the Chief architect, and like a good architect, upon close inspection, when He sees things that have been constructed and set in place that are not according to His blue prints, He will order the non-authorized work to be removed. And this is exactly what is happening with the Church today.

Many of the doctrines of men that has been laid upon the true foundation of the church over the past centuries is not authentic- though from a distance appear to be correct, yet upon close review and when laid over the original blue prints, the errors are apparent, the weakened sections of the structure are exposed

Many of today’s “Leaders” are kicking against the transforming & moving wave of Holy Ghost – As He, upon the directive of the King is removing from the landscape of the church, the entrenched doctrine of the “One-man Show” that is central to what is called a “Church service” today.

For centuries, men have attempted to steal the lime-light from He who is the only WORTHY One to get the attention, Christ our Lord. The established church as rested the leadership of the Church, not upon He who is the Chief Cornerstone, rather upon individuals who are not called to such a position. there are many false flames in the landscape in today’s church, though they may have started off with the true Fire of God, they having strayed have transcended into strange fires, vacant of the Oils of Heaven.

The center stage “pastoral role” as it has been portrayed is honestly UN-biblical. Oh, now the religious crowd will jump all over this – but you know what, I do not have to answer to them, I need only answer to the one who has called me, Christ Jesus, my Lord & King. Show me in the Word of God, where the system of “church that is displayed today – you will not find within Spiritual truth – You might line up a good argument by twisting the Word, but line upon line you can not find it.

Today we have “Super-Stars” self proclaimed, though often times promoted by the religious establishment as legitimate, for they are crowd attractors which means more coins in the offering plate, who charge large sums of money, often times in the thousands, robbing the local storehouse of that which is intended for the local Brides needs. They are promoted as “Super-star” miracle workers, Prophets, Evangelist and Apostles – Again “One-man” show, Great performers yet in the wake of all the hype – peoples lives are never truly changed – it becomes an addictive spiritual drug to them as they are induced with the belief that there really are those who carry an anointing that is not available to the “regular” folks and they end up running from meeting to meeting, while to whole time their lives contain now true, lasting victory’s, mere quick fixes until the next “Show”.

With all this said, we can now take up the matter of today’s “formal meeting”-life of the church; concerning this kind of meeting- and we speak here particularly of the Sunday morning meeting [the meeting held on the “first day of the week” (Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2)] – we turn to 1 Cor. 14:23, 26-33:

“If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad [crazy] ..?

“How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

“If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

“But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

“Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

“If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

“For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

“And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” (I Cor. 14:23, 26-33)

This is one of the few instances in the Bible where the “formal meeting” life of the early church is discussed, and while the circumstances which surround Paul’s mentioning of this series of particular meetings were admonitory, much can be gleaned from this passage which sheds a great deal of light on the meetings of the so-called “Apostolic Church.”

One of the first things that comes to mind in examining these meetings is that these meetings are not “one-man performance.” The meetings referenced were not a “one-man show,” but meetings in which everyone was expected to participate – either by calling out a song (that is, after all, what the psalms were all about), by teaching, by testifying to God’s goodness, etc. – and there is nothing to indicate from this passage (either by inference or direct statement) that Paul found anything amiss in any of this. True, he speaks against the confusion of the meeting, but he evidently does not attribute this to the fact that the meeting is not a “one-man performance;” instead he attributes it to the unbridled use of tongues in the meeting. And this is substantiated by the method that he suggests to end the confusion:

“When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

“If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

“But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

“Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

“If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

“For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.” (1 Corinthians 14:26-31)

Where is there here any evidence of a “one-man show?” There is none! The meetings of the early church were characterized by mutuality and cooperation under the authority of the elders acting under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. How different this is from the “one-man shows” of today’s Christianity.

The Lord made it clear through the New Testament writes that “ALL” are to participate!

The meeting of the church should seek to emulate this form of meeting (the kind described in 1 Corinthians 14:26-31); it should be based upon the twin principles of mutual help and mutual edification. But this is impossible when the “success” of the meeting is contingent upon just one “gifted” member (or even a few “gifted” members). Under such circumstances, how can there be any mutuality? – and how can the other members ever gain any experience in ministering the Word of God? We repeat, the meeting of the church should be conducted by the church – the whole church – under the guidance of the church’s elders.

The dependence of the church on one man for the success of its meetings – meetings in which church members are encouraged to become passive and indolent, always expecting to be helped, rather than seeking, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, to be helpful to the other members – should be discouraged.

True, “one-man shows” often have a “better flow” and “polish” to them – but more often than not, it is the same kind of “flow” and “elegance” (refinement, dignity, grace) that one can expect to see in a performance on Broadway or in a Hollywood movie. Stagecraft and “special effects” are what count there; but stagecraft and “special effects” are “pretendings” (i.e., pretenses). They’re not real. They don’t produce life. What they produce are good performances.

But they certainly don’t build up the saints. What they create in the saints is an “audience mentality” – i.e., passivity and listlessness; they don’t (indeed, they can’t) create living, active, vigorous members of the body of Christ anymore than a performance at the theater can be expected to create actors from the audience. The fact is, a “good” audience in the theater or at the movies is one that will remain silent and listen, not one whose members jump up from their seats and join the actors on stage.

Once a church’s meetings are reduced to a “performance” and dependence on stagecraft and “special effects,” it’s only natural that an atmosphere will develop in the church where only the most “gifted” saints will dare to function. Those who are not so “gifted” (i.e., eloquent, articulate, persuasive, charismatic) will be encouraged to remain silent; after all, when such saints minister, they detract from the “show’s” “professionalism” and flow (elegance). Indeed, the meetings of the church become “performances” and “productions” in which only the most “qualified” can hope to participate. The fact is, when such an atmosphere is generated, the “normal” saints become too embarrassed to even open their mouths, let alone “try out” or “audition” for “better parts” in light of the “professionalism” of the more gifted “actors” – kind of like an actor at a local theater in some small mid-western town trying to share the stage with Madonna or Tom Cruise.

“Functioning” for the normal Christian in this kind of a situation means working as a “stage-handler” – i.e., moving the stage sets around, helping the actors with their makeup, taking tickets at the box office, cleaning up after the performance, etc., and this is precisely why so many in today’s evangelical church are weak and passive. They have no opportunity to exercise themselves spiritually in the meeting-life of the church. Each member’s responsibility for the success of the meeting has been lost sight of, and passivity has hindered the spiritual development of the individual members. We must get away from the idea of the Sunday meeting of the church being a “performance.” Such thinking is carnal in the worst sense of that word – everything for the “outward man;” nothing for the “inner man.” God deliver us from this kind of church-life, from this kind of meeting-life.

What about authority in the Meetings?

Ultimately, the authority in all the meetings rests with the Holy Spirit; that authority is administered through the elders of the local assembly or house-church who are, of course – and by definition – best equipped to discern the leading of the Spirit. Concerning the elders, Peter writes:

“Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according unto God; nor yet for filthy lucre (money), but of a ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves examples to the flock.” (I Peter 5:2-3)

And Paul writes,

“Let the elders that rule well be counted of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching.” (I Tim. 5:17)

Now in this context, it is important to note how the Word of God uses the term “rule” in connection with the elders. It does not mean to “lord over.” Jesus said,

“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and [their] great men exercise authority over them.

“It is not [to be] so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant,

“and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave;

“just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. ” (Matt. 20:25-28)

Again, we must remember that a scriptural church does not consist of an active and a passive group of brothers and sisters, the former controlling the latter, and the latter simply submitting to their control, or the former bearing all the burden while the latter settles down in ease to enjoy the benefit of the elders’ labors. “That the members … should care for one another” is God’s purpose for His church (I Cor. 12:24).

Now the question might fairly be asked, what exactly is an example? It is a pattern for others to follow. Since elders are to be a pattern to the brethren, then obviously it is neither God’s thought for them to do all the work and the brethren none; nor for the brethren to do all the work while the elders simply stand by and command. For the elders to be a pattern to the brethren implies that the brethren work and the elders work as well; and it implies that the elders work with special diligence and care so that the brethren should have a good example to follow. The elders are overseers of their brethren, but they are not “lords,” standing aloof and commanding. Such is the scriptural conception of the rule of the elders – not only with regard to the church in general, but also with regard to their participation in the meeting-life of the church. Again, we must always bear in mind what ALL authority in the church is aiming at; it aims specifically at –

“… the perfecting of the saints … for the edifying of the body of Christ:

“Till WE ALL come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ:

“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

“But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

“From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. (Eph. 4:12-16)

The perfecting of the saints! – this is what real authority in the church is aiming at. Could there be any question regarding this matter in light of the above passage? Isn’t this what the themes of this passage clearly indicate? – “the perfecting of the saints” (plural, not singular); “the edifying (building up) of the body of Christ” (that means everyone); “we ALL” (again, everyone); “the whole body fitly joined together” (again, speaking about everyone); “edifying (building up) itself in love.” It is the duty, then, of the elders to encourage (but not necessarily to command) the participation of all the members in the meeting-life of the church.

To this end, the elders should not be aiming at a “good performance,” but full participation. This is not to say that the meetings should not have direction; they should – and it is the duty of the elders to set that direction and “flow;” but as much leeway as possible should be granted to the saints – even to the point of letting them make mistakes; after all, how is it possible to learn without making mistakes? We repeat, the meeting of the church is not a performance; if anything, it should resemble a family coming to the dinner table and conversing with one another while they eat.

As in all families, there are some who are older, and some who are younger. There are grandpas and grandmas, and there are infants. There are children and teenagers. There are mothers and dads. There are aunts and uncles. There is everyone. All are invited to come and eat, and to participate in the conversation.

In such a context is there any mother and/or father so “proper” and “correct” that they do not want to hear from all the members of the family – even the youngest and most immature? Certainly not! Sometimes the happiest moments at a family dinner – the most memorable – are when the children have something to say. How the father and mother rejoice to hear their children; to listen to them share their joys and sorrows. But how can the parents know what those joys and sorrows are unless the children speak out. Remember, dinner time is not a performance where only the grandpas and grandmas, and the mothers and dads speak? That’s not what God wants! To be sure, there should not be chaos at the table. No one wants to sit at a table where there is disorder and confusion. Let everyone speak in turn. Let everyone listen in turn.

We are entering a season when much of the world’s financial institutions are going to collapse – we are going to see a world who is seeking real answers, a real solution and the governments of this world are not going to have (actually they already do not have) the answers. Much of the churches finances are tied up in buildings today and this has caused a weakening of the Word, much of the preaching as transcended into a user friendly version – The Church at large has allow the worldly systems to influence how the operate, how they “market” they service and “their” ministry. Many of these building are going to be deserted and many ministries are going to not only go out of business, they are going to have to file bankruptcy because they have build man-made and man funded empires totally outside of the “blue-prints” of the King. Thus is already happening, such as we have seen that glass cathedrals can come crashing down, especially when the are personality focused, rather than Jesus focused holding onto the Word in all purity.

Am I sounding like a dooms day prophet?

No friends, not only is the writing upon the walls of history as it unfolds before our very eyes – it was already writing about in the Word of God -let those who have Spiritual eyes discern what the Spirit of the Living God has spoken and is speaking.

The Remnant shall survive – those whose faith is in the Lord and not in man shall, through faith over-come – the true Ekklesia shall rise up in this day and even in the face of the worlds financial structures crumbling, they shall not lack – those who are building up and sowing into God’s true and faithful storehouses, shall eat of that fruit. God is not a God of lack, He is a God of Abundance and two of the keys to the store house of His abundance is obedience and faithfulness.

Hunger for His Word, for His unadulterated Pure Word, seek and ask Holy Ghost to open the book to you as you’ve never seen it before, to expose the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven which can only be seen through Spiritual eyes, one must be Born-again of the Spirit to see the Kingdom of God!

We are living in the days when the hearts of men shall faint, when people will be running to the mountains in fear, terrible days for the unbelievers – Yet Praise God for the saved, for we are living in the days when we are seeing the Glory of the Lord rising upon His Bride.

Those who have ears, listen to what the Spirit of the Lord is speaking in these day’s, those who have Spiritual Vision, look and you shall see the Hand of the Almighty, moving the lines of nations around, reordering things that men said could never be moved.

These are days in which, having repented and crying out for His Kingdom, His Will we shall speak and see the Kingdom of God in all its authority transforming the very atmosphere, climate and culture around us. For our God is a God we can boast about, for indeed our God is an Awesome God!!!

Walking in the radical power of the Kingdom……

Posted: October 12, 2011 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, Prophetic, teaching, wilderness
Tags: disciples, Doctrines, emotionally wounded, God's love, kingdom growth, Kingdom life, Kingdom living, Kingdom teaching, radical christianity, radical disciples, worldly kingdom

(I recently had the opportunity to not only listen to a man with such authority, but had the time to set down and talk with him. I came to see in Dan Mohler, such a person who is not merely speaking about the radical power of the Kingdom of God, but one who lives in it and releases it on a day to day basis).

There is a season of God coming upon the earth in which many will come into the glorious reality of a relationship with God that will allow a release of the miracle working power (dunamis) of God into the world on an unprecedented scale.

Never before has the world seen the awesome release of the mature sons of God walking in His supernatural power on such a large scale. Works of God that exceed the works of Jesus and the disciples in the first century will come forth on the earth as the conditions are met by the sons of God to receive the authority to flow the power of God. God greatly desires to release His power from heaven on earth through many sons. (Rom 8:19) (Heb 2:10)

God’s purpose for releasing His power in mankind is the redemption of the world. The salvation of man for heaven after death is a part of that redemption, but God’s purpose is larger and more comprehensive. God’s purpose in releasing power from heaven is to bring forth the kingdom of heaven on earth as it is in heaven.

The unlimited power of God is potentially available to change the world with and through mankind. The entire planet can be changed from the ways of men and the devil to the holy ways of God. The sin of man can be wiped from the face of the earth and the glory of God established in every area of life on the planet. The power of the Creator is available to work with and through man- kind to create the kingdom of heaven on earth. What will it take for this power to be flowing in your life?

Man must have specific authority from God to use the force or power of God in the world. Great power must always be accompanied by great authority. To be safe and effective, power must be restrained and focused. Power must be released in the right place at the right time at the correct rate. It must be directed toward the target and restrained from other non target areas.

Another Greek word sometimes translated “power” in the New
Testament is “exousia” and means primarily “authority”. It is defined as follows: G1849. exousia, ex-oo-see’-ah; from G1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, i.e. (subj.) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (obj.) mastery (concr. magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence:–authority, jurisdiction, lib- erty, power, right, strength.

Man must receive the authority (exousia) from God to use the miraculous power (dunamis) from God. There are conditions that must be met in the heart and life before these power gifts from God can be received by man. Many Christians seem to think that just because they are of the Christian faith they have power and authority over the devils and things of the world. Yet many continue to be plagued with demonic oppression and disorders in their lives and are unable to be a substantial factor in overcoming evil in the world. Many who seek to minister continue to find their efforts produce little or no real fruit and long for the power to make real change in peoples lives and subsequently the world.
All power and authority is given unto Jesus. (Mat 28:18) Only Jesus can give the miracle working power and authority of God to man.

Luke 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

Later Jesus sent out seventy others and gave them power and authority over evil spirits and disease. Jesus often demonstrated power and authority over all the works of the enemy and over all nature. But only on a few occasions did He share that power with a few selected people. (Luke 10:1)

Before Jesus’ crucifixion He promised that many would be given the power and authority to do the works that He did and even greater works.

John 14:12: “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father.

At Jesus’ resurrection and ascension the miracle working power of God, which was on the earth in Jesus, left the earth with Him. It was necessary for the disciples to wait in Jerusalem for the return of the power (dunamis) of God in Jesus by the Holy Spirit to in-dwell believers. At Pentecost the awesome power of God re- turned to earth and in-dwelled those believers who were chosen to be filled with miracle working power and given authority to change the world by overcoming the works of the enemy and establishing the ways and works of God.

These began immediately to speak by the Spirit with authority and began to manifest astonishing demonstrations of the Spirit

. Their teaching and preaching became like Jesus with authority and demonstration of miracle working power. The people had been astonished when the power of God was evident in Jesus as he spoke with authority and power and cast out unclean spirits. Now they were seeing that same authority and power in these disciples.

Luke 4:31-36: Then He went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and was teaching them on the Sabbaths. And they were astonished at His teaching, for His word was with authority.

Now in the synagogue there was a man who had a spirit of an unclean demon. And he cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us? I know who You are; the Holy One of God!”

But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!” And when the demon had thrown him in their midst, it came out of him and did not hurt him.

Then they were all amazed and spoke among themselves, saying, “What a word this is! For with authority and power He commands the unclean spirits, and they come out.”

Why did Jesus choose to give this power and authority to only a select few during His life on earth and why did He through the Holy Spirit come first only to those waiting in the upper room?

Why is it today that some are seeing these great miracles in their life and ministry and some are not? In these days of revival, more people are being chosen to receive authority to demonstrate the miracle working power of God. Yet there are others who call themselves believers who are not receiving it? What makes the difference in one who only wishes for the miracle working power of God to flow in and through their lives and those who actually see the miracle working power of God working through their lives?

Perhaps, the real question for you and me is: How can I obtain the authority (exousia) to have the power (dunamis) of God flow through me?

We don’t need more theological discussions or religious formulas about this. We must have what the twelve and the seventy received from Jesus. We must have what people like that of Dan Mohler and many others have in their lives today. What makes them different? How are they different from many others who wish they had the power of God and who seek it and may even try to act as though they have it, but do not have the reality of the power of God flowing through their lives?

How and why did these receive the impartation of the power of God? How can we receive the impartation of the power of God?

There may not be a simple one, two, three answer to these all important questions, but perhaps we can get some help from a brief look at some characteristics of those walking in (dunamis) power.

One thing that sticks out is that the twelve and the seventy had all been with Jesus. They had sold out and given up other things in life to just be with Jesus — to walk with Him and be a part of what He was doing. Jesus is the anointed one and the anointing of power flows through Him. He is the one in authority and is the one who can impart that authority. The word in the Bible translated anointing means to be rubbed on with oil. Those who were close to Jesus were the ones who received. Those who were not close and were busy about other things in life did not receive the transference of authority and power.

The men and women of today who are demonstrating the power of God on a consistent basis and have authority to carry and impart the power of God all have sold out other things in life to focus on the one thing of being with Jesus. Often they have spent time with other men and women in whom the authority and power of God are present. The gifts and anointing are often transferred by the laying of hands by those who are anointed with Christ and filled with His power.

Only those who have been given the authority from Christ to receive the gifts and power will receive from the laying on of hands — those with whom He has been intimate — who have proven them- selves trustworthy and have a pure heart and no other gods in their lives. God will not allow the authority to remain for an extended time on those whom He does not know and trust.

A touch from God is not the same as impartation. A touch can prepare one to give their life to God. But an impartation is for those who have figuratively sold all and can now be trusted with the awesome power of God. They will use what they are given only according to the desire of God. There are no other needs or priorities that drive them. Obedience to the Spirit of God is essential to walking in power. God will not release true spiritual authority to those who are not walking in obedience.

No amount of money or sacrifice can purchase the power of God for a believer with impurities yet existing in the heart. The wounded and yet unhealed heart containing any amount of resentment or bitterness in any form cannot obtain the authority of Christ to flow the power of God.

Acts 8:18-23: And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, “Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

But Peter said to him, “Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! “You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God.

“Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. “For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.”

The authority and power of God is only in God. God desires to in-dwell believers and to demonstrate His power and authority through us. Yet, He is a holy God and cannot dwell with iniquity. True inner holiness in our hearts is the only place for God to dwell and to rest His authority and power. Sometimes the road of purification to holiness can take one through much repentance and brokenness. Only our love for God and our sincere desire for Him can bring us through deep purification. Seeking Him with our whole heart will bring us into a relationship with Him that allows His life and power to flow through us.

We must make a radical decision to surrender all at the alter of the Lord, allowing Holy Ghost to come into our lives and perform a radical transformation. We must be radical in our decision to let go of the things of this world, all that ties us to it, all that has become an idol set up between us and our Holy God.

For indeed true disciples of Christ, the matured sons and daughters are they who have made the radical decision to follow none but God, to lay their lives down, and in a lowly position pick up their cross and follow Christ.

For our God is a radically Awesome God!!!!

The Preterist Spirit of Deception

Posted: September 19, 2011 in disciples life, Kingdom Teaching, Prophetic, teaching, wilderness
Tags: Bride of Christ, Doctrines, kingdom growth, kingdom of darkness, Kingdom of God, radical christianity, Spirit led life

The Preterist Spirit of Deception
William B. Chalfant

Introduction

Some months ago I wrote a refutation of the teaching of a prominent “partial” preterist, who has been very active in spreading this doctrine throughout the ranks of apostolic pentecostals. I wrote at that time that I did not think that the teaching of prophecy should be a “point of fellowship”. I have been forced to modify that stand when I begin to thoroughly understand the intentions and the purpose of preterism. This is an extremely dangerous teaching, which, when taken to its ultimate conclusions, is contrary to true revival and the preaching of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Those who reject a future millennium, and effectively teach and preach against the future catching up of the Bride (whether before, during, or after the tribulation) and the imminent coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, at least in a basic premillennial sense, ought to realize that they are being very detrimental to the body of Christ. Their teaching is quite patently false, and untenable in the Scripture. Partial preterism is an untenable compromise between the more consistent “full preterism” and the apostolic teaching which is basic premillennialism.

A “partial preterist” stand invariably seems to settle upon the heresy of amillennialism, which is contrary to apostolic teaching in the Scriptures. It is a variation of the doctrine of Hymenaeus, whom Paul delivered to Satan because of his blasphemous teaching that the resurrection was past (1 Timothy 1.20, 2 Timothy 2.17,18). This type of teaching eats like a cancer on the body of Christ.

I do not wish to have a bad spirit, and I do not wish to cease to be a gentleman, but I cannot help but condemn this false notion that the majority of New Testament prophecy has already been fulfilled in the first century, when common historical knowledge and Scripture shows that it has not. This is ignorance compounded with deception. Moreover, the witness of the Holy Ghost shows us that this is simply deception.

The Rosetta Stone Prophecy Of The Sixth Seal

The Bible is one third prophecy. Prophecies concerning the second coming of the Lord, the future of the New Testament church, and the endtimes (the tribulation, the millennium, the last judgment, etc.), are all interconnected. There are common threads which run throughout these prophecies.

The “sixth seal” of Revelation 6 is a “key” to coordinating and assimilating certain endtime prophecies (in both testaments) associated with one particular event in prophecy. It is like a “rosetta stone”. In other words, the identification of the common elements of the “sixth seal” brings certain prophecies into harmony with one another.

The Heavenly Signs In The Sun, The Moon, And The Stars

For example, the common “key elements” associated with the sixth seal of Revelation 6 are the heavenly signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars, as well as the sign of the “heavens departing as a scroll”. The sixth seal also has a “relationship” with the period which some identify as the “Great Tribulation” in that, when the Great Tribulation of three and one-half years shown to be concluded, then the sixth seal is opened (Rev. 6.12, Matt. 24.29). The sixth seal announces the beginning of the “wrath of God”. Surely, no one thinks the wrath of God upon the entire world has already taken place.

One of the serious errors of interpretation of the preterist view is to reduce the wrath of God upon the nations to simply the wrath of God upon the city of Jerusalem and the Jews. We take the literal view unless the literal view is shown to be an utter impossibility. That is the method of the apostles. God says what He means and means what He says. The preterist, on the other hand, is fixated upon Jerusalem and 70 AD. He must perforce compress and twist (especially Old Testament) prophecies pertaining to the entire world, and compress them to fit his scheme of first century Jerusalem being the object of almost all endtime prophecies. He does by playing upon words such as “earth”, “world”, and attempting to “provincialize” prophecies that concern the world to isolated areas in the Middle East. This is not the case as we shall attempt to show.

History Does Not Record The Fulfillment Of Endtime Prophecies That Are Worldwide In Scope

The reason why the preterist must reduce prophecies in scope, and, in many cases, attempt to show that they have already come to pass centuries ago, is because he cannot maintain his preterist scheme without doing this. He must destroy the future endtime scope of many prophecies in order to maintain his preterist argument. Of course, there are a number of prophecies pertaining to the first coming of the Lord that have been fulfilled, and there are some other prophecies that have been fulfilled, obviously. But the great class of endtime prophecies pertaining to the cataclysmic events preceding the second coming of the Lord have not yet been fulfilled (although we see the dawning and the working of their fulfillment in a number of events today). They are associated with the coming judgment of this world, and with the Blessed Hope of the Christian for the return of Jesus Christ. Herein is where the preterist and the amillennialist do great damage.

The singular heavenly events associated with the opening of the sixth seal, and with certain other prophecies pertaining to the last days, have never yet been reported in history, and may be assumed not to have happened yet, as, for example, in Revelation 6 we read of a future “great earthquake”, “the sun (turning dark), the moon becoming “as blood”, and the stars “(falling) from heaven” (vss. 12,13). Moreover, the “heaven (will depart) as a scroll when it is rolled together”, and “every mountain and island (will be) moved out of their places” (vs.14,15). This is such an astounding worldwide event, we are told, that:

…the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men,and every bondman, and every free man, (will hide) themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains. -Revelation 6.15,16 KJV

And yet preterists want to tell us that this prophecy (written in c.96 AD no less) merely refers to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD! In order to handle such prophecies as this, the preterist must resort to the method of extreme allegorism, interpreting events in an exaggerated way, and actually twisting the plain statements of Scripture in order to facilitate his theories. One of his great allies, preserved by the Catholic church, was the Jewish traitor Josephus, who was a Roman sycophant.

Even the questionable reporting of the first century Jewish historian Josephus does not present a view

of such a worldwide, unusual astronomical event as is described in Revelation 6, which was written well after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD ( 96 AD, according to many ancient and modern historians). And even if we were to determine that the book of Revelation was written before 70 AD (which is very doubtful), the worldwide catastrophic events of Revelation 6 cannot be shown to have already occurred in history. This is why the preterist must tenaciously cling to his allegorical “biblical imagery” method of prophetic interpretation. Without the extreme allegorism of his method of interpretation, his scheme will not stand at all.

The Old Testament Prophets Were Concerned With More Than Just The City Of Jerusalem

Preterists, by and large, seem to think that most of the Old Testament prophecy concerns only Old Testament events or the 70 AD destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. They seem to reject the idea that Old Testament prophecy concerns future cataclysmic endtime events on a worldwide scale.

Isaiah 13 also prophesies of events involved with the opening of the sixth seal seen in Revelation 6, clearly indicating that this prophecy pertains to more than the destruction of a mere city in Israel:

Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir. Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger. -Isaiah 13.9-13 KJV

Obviously, this is not just a localized vengeance against the lone city of Jerusalem ,but it involves the entire world with great events occurring, which even obscure the atmosphere, and involve a “shaking of the heavens”, and with the planet being knocked off of her axis, or out of her orbit (“the earth shall remove out of her place”). Is this just “Old Testament biblical imagery”, as preterists conveniently claim, or is this a prophecy of the endtimes concerning the entire planet? The interpretation of the preterist would have us believe that God is only speaking about a city and the surrounding provincial area in the first century. I believe this preterist method of interpretation comes originally from the German school of higher criticism, which sought a way to do away with the miraculous and the extraordinary.

Joel Foresaw Worldwide, Cataclysmic Events

Joel also prophesies of events surrounding the sixth seal:

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pout out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those day will I pour out my spirit. And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. -Joel 2.28-31 KJV

This time period cannot be restricted to the first century (although the first part of the prophecy begins to be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, not too long after the “last days” had begun). Joel is also obviously referring to the last day sixth seal in verse 31. The common elements of the sixth seal are the heavenly signs pertaining to the sun, the moon, and the stars. These heavenly signs immediately precede the wrath of God and the “day of the Lord”.

The First Century Shows No Evidence Of The Sixth Seal Worldwide, Cataclysmic Events Seen In Joel, Revelation 6, And In Isaiah 13

We saw in Revelation 6 and in Isaiah 13 that these “sixth seal” heavenly signs were of a worldwide nature. There is no evidence of any such worldwide, catastophic signs such as these in the first century that is credible. Where, for example, in the first century during the siege of Jerusalem does one see “kings of the earth”, “great men, rich men, chief captains, might men, and every bondman and every free man” hiding themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains, crying out, “hide us…from the wrath of the Lamb” (Rev. 6.16)? The wrath of the Roman army is not the wrath of the Lamb, nor was it seen on a scale outlined in the endtime prophecies. The “day of the Lord” is ushered in with worldwide catastrophic signs and wonders. This did not happen in the first century. The New Testament church was launched with the beginning of the outpouring of the Spirit in “the last days” (plural), but the conclusion of the “last days” prophecy in Joel is yet to be fulfilled. This lets us know that the “last days” (plural) did not conclude in the first century, but have not yet ended (the apostle Peter and David have caused us to realize that a day in God’s eyes could be as long as a “thousand years”, 2 Peter 3.8, Psalms 90.4). The term “day” is used in several different ways in the Bible.

The Daniel 2 Prophecy Informs Us That The “Latter Days” Extend Into The Modern “Nation-State” Era Of History

A careful reading of Daniel 2 will demonstrate that the period of time referred to in prophecy as “the last days”, “the latter times”, “latter days” etc., extends into the modern times of the “nation states”, which arose following the demise of the Roman empire (“the legs of iron”). We are now living in the period of the “feet part of iron and part of clay” (Daniel 2.33).

But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the vision of thy head upon thy bed, are these. -Daniel 2.28 KJV

It is clear from Daniel 2 that the term “latter days” refers not only to the “legs of iron” (the Roman empire, which extends chronologically approximately from 168 BC to 476 AD, in the case of the “western leg”, and to 1453 AD, in the case of the “eastern leg”), but must also refer to the succeeding “feet part of iron and part of clay”, which, of course, extends into our modern times, the times of the modern nation-states. The return of the Lord Jesus Christ (“the Stone made without hands”) is prophesied to occur during the period of “the feet (made) part of iron and part of clay”. Thus, the return of the Lord Jesus Christ could not have occurred during the period of “the legs of iron” (the Roman empire), but must occur during the succeeding period of the “feet” (or modern times). The “Stone” smashes the “feet” and not “the legs”. Moreover, the Stone smashes the Gentile system and not Jerusalem in the endtimes.

Joel Actually Prophesies Of The Deliverance Of Jerusalem Rather Than Its First Century Judgment

In fact, Joel, rather than prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem, actually prophesies of its deliverance:

For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem. I will gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. -Joel 3.1,2 KJV

Joel wrote these prophecies during 835-796 BC. They were not fulfilled during the Babylonian invasion of 586 BC. when the Temple and the city were basically destroyed. They were not fulfilled during the 66-70 AD assault of the Romans on Jerusalem, when only the Temple was destroyed by fire. They will be fulfilled during the endtimes. If Joel 2.28,29 was fulfilled in approximately 33 AD at Pentecost, we ought to expect that Joel 3.1,2 will similarly be precisely fulfilled. This did not happen in 70 AD. There is coming a day in the which all nations will be gathered against Jerusalem, and God will rise up against the nations of the world to deliver Jerusalem. It has to happen because the word of God is true.

Dispersion Never Refers To The Apostolic Church But Rather To The Jews

Notice that God, in that day, will “plead with them (all nations) there for my people, for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations”. It is not the apostolic church that was “scattered among the nations”, but rather the nation of Israel (the Jews) (see Luke 21.24). Moreover, God is not going to “plead with them” (the nations) for His people the Jews in 70 AD. That would be impossible since history shows He did not. Any “pleading” with the Jews (not the nations) in 70 AD would have come before the worldwide dispersion by the Romans. Moreover, this word “plead” is the Hebrew word shaphat, which means “to judge” or “to contend (with)”. It is some future date that God will “plead”with the nations for His people (a future date that is associated with the sixth seal in Revelation 6). How, therefore, can Revelation 6, and these prophecies centering around the sixth seal, simply refer to 70 AD in the first century? When Titus came with his Roman armies, we certainly do not see the Lord Jesus Christ “pleading” with all nations on the behalf of His people the Jews. Rather we see “the days of vengeance” on Jerusalem and the Jews that Jesus spoke about in Luke 21. Why, then, would anyone want to maintain that the prophecy of Joel was completely fulfilled in the first century?

Some Preterists Maintain Endtime Prophecies Are Simply “Old Testament Imagery”

Since it is impossible to make the worldwide, catastrophic events prophesied in the Old and New Testaments fit the provincial Jewish rebellion of 66-70 AD, preterists resort to a biblical interpretative method that brought the world the trinity doctrine: allegorism, or, in its new preterist dress, “biblical imagery”. Using this fanciful method of interpretation, prophecy can mean almost anything anyone wants it to mean. Any careful student of the Bible will realize that this type of interpretative method is the exception rather than the rule in biblical prophecy.

Types And Shadows Do Not Permit Fanciful Flights Into Imaginative Allegory

Of course, types and shadows are used, even in a literal interpretative method. Men are often referred to as “sheep”, “tares”, and “goats”. Israel becomes a “fig tree”, and men are even called “foxes” and “serpents”, while demons are “birds”. But “types” and “shadows” never do away with the reality of described events.

When the Bible says that Jesus ascended up to heaven, and “a cloud received him out of their sight” (Acts 1.9), we are expected to understand that this is a physical description of His ascension When prophecy states that He will come in the clouds of heaven, and the angels said that He would return to earth “in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1.11), then we are expected to understand that, in this scenario, “clouds” refer to atmospheric clouds that we see almost every day. In other words, clouds must be clouds, unless the context dictates that they cannot possibly be physical clouds.

When Hebrews 12.1 refers to a “cloud of witnesses”, we know that this is not referring to atmospheric clouds in the sky. No one has ever seen human beings form an atmospheric “cloud”! But the return of Jesus Christ back to earth is reported to be visible to every eye on a worldwide (and even in an “otherworldly”) scale. There are a number of ways in which this could be even physically accomplished. Moreover, we are taught that not only all of the “kindreds of the earth”, but those who are physically deceased, will see His visible return (Revelation 1.7, Daniel 7.13, Zechariah 12.10, Matthew 24.30, Matthew 26.64). Zechariah 14 describes this second coming in some detail. The Lord’s feet shall actually stand “in that day” upon the mount of Olives (Zechariah 14.4), following His return to earth at Armageddon. This could not possibly have happened in the first century.

I would invite any student of the word of God to investigate the details of the prophesied battle of Armageddon throughout the word of God. Don’t just take one or two passages and then allegorize them. Joel says that “all nations” will be gathered against Jerusalem one day (not just the Roman armies of Titus). Zechariah says the same. At Armageddon, Zechariah says that the Lord Himself will personally go forth to “fight against those nations” gathered against Jerusalem (Zechariah 14.3). This is not Titus against the Jews in 66-70 AD! The spirits of devils go forth to draw the kings or rulers of the earth to “gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty” (Revelation 16.14). The location is given as “Armageddon” (Joel’s “valley of Jehoshaphat”, or “the judgment of Jehovah”, or, as some have said, the plain of Esdraelon, the valley of Jezreel). At any rate, this great battlefield will have the fate of the city of Jerusalem, and indeed the fate of the world, as its focus, when the nations of the world will be gathered there (Revelation 19.19). The armies of the beast will be defeated by the personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ and not by the armies of Titus, whom, some preterists would have us believe, was serving the beast (as some of them say Nero was the beast!). Thus preterism confuses and obscures the truth of endtime prophecies.

We have seen in the prophecy of Joel how that the “last days” cannot possibly be restricted to the first century only, since the “last days” also envision worldwide, catastrophic events and the deliverance of the city of Jerusalem (as opposed to the preterist interpretation of the destruction of the Temple only in 70 AD). Moreover, the prophecy of Joel does not foretell the use of the Roman armies to destroy the city of Jerusalem, but rather foretells a time when the Lord Himself will plead with “all nations” who have come against the city of Jerusalem, which is the exact opposite of the preterist scenario.

Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision. The sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel. -Joel 3.14-16 KJV

There is the classic key element of the sixth seal (“the sun and the moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining”). This prophecy is directed to the nations of the world (during the time of the “feet of clay mixed with iron in Daniel 2) and not to the Romans of the first century. It speaks of the future day of the Lord. Moreover, it speaks of the Lord coming to the rescue of Jerusalem (“The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem…”), which is hardly the case in 70 AD. Certainly the Lord did not come to the rescue of the Jews in 70 AD. They were being judged for their rejection of the Messiah. A worldwide dispersion of the Jews resulted. Moreover, this prophecy also speaks of the Lord actually sitting in the valley of Jehoshaphat (Megiddo) to judge the nations. Again, hardly 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem at that time. Therefore, how can preterists say that Joel was fulfilled in the first century?

There can be little doubt that these endtime prophecies refer to more than just the first century destruction of the city of Jerusalem. And yet Peter said that these events were “in the last days” ( “in the last days saith God”, Acts 2.17). It is evident that, at least in the apostle Peter’s mind, the “last days” encompassed not only the events of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost in Jerusalem, but included the final battle of Armageddon and the actual return of the Lord to Jerusalem, which still have not occurred some 2000 years later. Therefore, to maintain that the “last days” only pertained to the first century is entirely inadequate. In the mind of the preterist, the “last days” apparently only refer to the “last days” of the Mosaic covenant period. But the Mosaic covenant ended on that day that the veil of the Temple was rent from top to bottom as the Savior died on Calvary. It did not end later in 70 AD.

The prophecy in Isaiah 34, which is also connected with the sixth seal, further points out that these events cannot be restricted to just the first century and the destruction of Jerusalem as preterists maintain:

Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is herein; the world, and all things that come forth of it. For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter. Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcasses, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. -Isaiah 34.1-4 KJV

It is easy to see from this passage that the prophet is not just speaking of first century Jerusalem. Yet this passage is a companion passage to Joel 2 and 3, to Isaiah 13, and to Revelation 6 and Matthew 24. It contains elements that are closely associated with the sixth seal, and the day of the LORD. It cannot be restricted to the first century and the 70 AD destruction of the Temple. The “indignation (wrath) of the LORD” is upon “all nations” (not just Jerusalem). The “host of heaven” is to be “dissolved”, and the “heavens…rolled together as a scroll” (reference Revelation 6.14). If this is a companion passage to the aforementioned prophecies, which describe the same events, then one would be foolish to say that Revelation 6 was fulfilled in the first century and pertained to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Jesus Himself also makes a reference to the events of the sixth seal prophecy in Matthew 24, when He says:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. -Matthew 24.29,30 KJV

Again, there are a number of things which should be pointed out in the above passage:

(1) Jesus connects this prophecy with the other sixth seal prophecies, which we have already seen in Revelation, Isaiah, Joel, and Zechariah. Right after the tribulation and just before His coming we see the worldwide, catastrophic signs in the sun, the moon, and the stars. There is the shaking of the powers of heaven.

(2) The worldwide catastrophic signs are connected with the wrath of God upon the nations, the day of the Lord, and the return of the Lord to earth at Armageddon. They have nothing to do with some sort of an “invisible coming in judgment” at Jerusalem in 70 AD as preterism attempts to manufacture.

Important Differences In the Luke 21 Prophecy of The Destruction of Jerusalem

While this particular passage is placed among other passages referring to the endtime Great Tribulation period, and other events associated with the return of the Lord, there are some important differences in this passage that should be pointed out:

The brief Luke 21 passage (Luke 21.20-24), pertaining to the destruction of Jerusalem, is different from the prophecies in Mark 13 and in Matthew 24, even though it is inserted in the midst of other endtime prophecies. Let me explain.

In Luke 21.20-24, Jesus is speaking obviously of the 66-70 AD assault upon Jerusalem by the Roman armies in the first century, whereas, in Matthew 24 and in Mark 13, He is speaking of a future tribulation which will come upon the Jews (and which some believe will come upon the church). Note some very vital differences in Luke 21.20-24:

Jesus does not call the “great tribulation” thlipsis, as He does in the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 descriptions, but rather He calls it “distress” (anangke), an entirely different word (vs. 23). In verse 22 of Luke 21 He says of this period of time, “these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled”. Not all things which were ever prophesied concerning the entire endtimes, but rather “all things which were written” concerning these particular days.

Luke 21 Describes The First Century Worldwide Dispersion Of The Jews And Prophesies Of The Times Of The Gentiles Whereas Matthew 24 And Mark 13 Does Not

Moreover, only in Luke 21 does Jesus inform us that this must be a first century event (which has already been recorded in history). He says that the Jews will “be led away captive into all nations” (vs. 24). This is the worldwide dispersion promoted under the Romans, and is historically verified. It has lasted nearly 1900 plus years. In this Luke 21 prophecy, Jesus also tells us that the city of Jerusalem “shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” (Luke 21.24). This is not speaking of the “fullness of the Gentiles”, as in Roman 11, which describes the future time when the full number of Gentiles will be placed in the body of Christ, the New Testament church. This is rather speaking of the “reign” of the Gentile system of empires over the nation of Israel. Jesus places this domination of the Gentiles in opposition to the downfall of Jerusalem.

We know the “times of the Gentiles” could not possibly have been “fulfilled” in the first century, since Daniel 2 is quite clear that the Gentile times of rule will extend beyond the Roman empire (the two legs of iron of Nebuchadnezzar’s Image, which lasted until at least 1453 AD when the Turks conquered Constantinople or Byzantium) into the successive modern day “feet of iron mixed with clay” (see Daniel 2 for a description of the Gentile empire system, which will be smashed by the return of Jesus Christ, the Sone made without hands). The “times of the Gentiles” may have recently began to come to an end when a Jewish General conquered the entire city of Jerusalem in 1967, although the status of the Palestinian areas is not clear. Moreover, the worldwide dispersion of the Jews certainly did not end in the first century!

No Reference To The Abomination Of Desolation In Luke 21

In the Luke 21 passage, there is significantly no reference to “the abomination of desolation”. There is a specific warning about the placement of the Abomination of Desolation seen in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 for the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea to flee, but in the Luke 21 passage, the warning is not because of the “abomination of desolation”, but it is rather because the city will be surrounded by armies. Jesus, in Mark 13 and Matthew 24, says that the Abomination of Desolation has to be the same one that Daniel warned about. In Daniel 11, the ruler who places the “Abomination of Desolation” in the holy place is a “vile person”, he “will do according to his will”, “he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god”, he “shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods”, and he “shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished”. He will not “regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women”, nor “regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all” (see Daniel 11). Paul says that he is a “man of sin”, who “opposes and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped”, and he “as God sitteth in the temple of god, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2.4). Nero, who was a cowardly suicide for example, fails to “qualify” as the one who placed the Abomination of Desolation in the holy place, thus setting off “the great tribulation”. Titus certainly could not “qualify”, since Josephus and the preterists have made him practically an “agent of God”. There is just no individual in the first century who could qualify as the “man of sin”, who did the things that Gabriel, Jesus, and Paul warned us about. Preterists are forced to dredge up lesser men, procurators and Jewish rebel leaders, for example, to force them into the scriptural mold of the Anti-christ

In the Luke 21 passage, the coming of the Roman armies are a signal to flee, but in the Matthew 24 and Mark 13 passages, the signal to flee is “when you see the abomination of desolation…stand in the holy place” (Matthew 24.15 and Mark 13.14). Matthew 24 and Mark 13 are connected with the prophecies in Daniel, but Luke 21 is not. Matthew 24 and Mark 13 describe an endtime event (the great tribulation) which immediately precedes the coming of the Lord, while the passage in Luke 21.20-24 describes the 66-70 AD assault upon Jerusalem.

Certainly there is a break in Luke 21.25 with the passage of Luke 21.20-24. Luke 21.25 speaks of the coming of the Lord, but it is not in context with Luke 21.20-24. Luke 21.25 is rather in context with Matthew 24.29,30 and Mark 13.24-27. That there is a “break” between Luke 21.24 and Luke 21.25 anyone can easily see by comparing the events described in Matthew and Mark with the events described in Luke 21. This is evident to anyone who carefully compares these three passages. A cursory reading will deceive someone into missing the differences. Luke did not describe the details of the “great tribulation” period of three and one-half years, and he did not mention the the placement of the Abomination of Desolation which initiates the “great tribulation” period. Luke, unlike Matthew and Mark, did not mention the reference of Jesus to Daniel the prophet because Luke was not describing the “great tribulation” period. Jesus prophesied of the endtimes and Jesus prophesied of the 70 AD destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

In the Matthew 24 prophecy, Matthew 24.2 is the only mention of the 70 AD destruction of the Temple (the first century punishment of the Jews). Nothing is said of the Roman armies, the worldwide dispersion, or the “times of the Gentiles”. The succeeding prophecy covers the church age, the endtimes, the great tribulation period, and the coming of the Lord. Mark 13 has the same pattern (many scholars think that Matthew derived much of his gospel from Mark as a resource). Mark 13.2 is the only reference to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. The rest of the Mark 13 prophecy pertains to the church age, the great tribulation period, and the coming of the Lord.

The conclusion is, therefore, that Luke 21.20-24 refers to the 66-70 AD assault upon Jerusalem (the Jewish rebellion), while Matthew 24 and Mark 13 make only a slight reference to the destruction of the Temple (one verse), and the rest of their prophecy refers to the church age, the great tribulation as described also in Daniel, beginning with the Abomination of Desolation, and concluding with the glorious coming of the Lord. Luke 21.25-28 breaks with Luke 21.20-24 and describes the second coming of the Lord from the sixth seal to His triumphant return at Armageddon.

Daniel says concerning this “great tribulation” period

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. -Daniel 12.1,2 KJV

The prophecy of Daniel connects a general resurrection following in the immediate general time frame of the “great tribulation” period. Jesus also connects His triumphant return from on high immediately following the end of the “great tribulation” period (Matthew 24.29,30). For these reasons we cannot establish that Luke 21 is connected with the “great tribulation” period at all. For in Luke 21, the Jews are scattered worldwide and dispersed. This worldwide dispersion of the Jews is limited in that it will only last “until the times of the Gentiles” be fulfilled.

Preterists have erred in that they have been unwilling to note the differences between Matt. 24 and Luke

21 concerning these prophecies, but lumped them all together because it helps them in their scheme to link the coming of the Lord (in judgment) to 70 AD. It is important to rightly divide the word of truth. One (Luke 21.20-24) is a prophecy which introduced the dispersion of the Jews among the Gentiles in 70 AD, while the other (Matthew 24) is a prophecy which introduces the coming of the Lord in power and glory at the end of the church age (an event which has not yet occurred).

THE GREAT TRIBULATION CANNOT FIT THE FIRST CENTURY

A study of the Great Tribulation (“the Time of Jacob’s Trouble” according to Jeremiah 30.7) shows that this period did not occur in the first century. There are a number of reasons why the Great Tribulation, as it is described to us in the scriptures, could not have taken place in the first century, and did not take place, given the historical record that we have. It is wrong to try to “force” this prophesied event into the first century if it did not indeed actually happen during the first century.

Some Reasons Why The Great Tribulation (The Time of Jacob’s Trouble) Cannot Fit The First Century:

(1) There was no “beast” in the first century, who caused all of the inhabitants of the earth to receive a mark in their forehead or in their right hand so that they could buy or sell (Revelation 13.15-18). Such a commandment to the Jews would have caused a widescale riot because of the Scriptural prohibition against receiving marks in the flesh (Leviticus 19.28). The technological capacity did not exist.

(2) There are no historical reports of the ministry of the Two Witnesses, with the astounding Old Testament miraculous signs done by them, fire being called down from heaven, water into blood, plagues upon the masses of humanity, etc. (Revelation 11.3-7).

(3) There are no historical reports of the public murder of these Two Witnesses in the city of Jerusalem in the first century, which was witnessed and rejoiced over worldwide by the nations (Revelation 11.8-11). The communications and technological ability did not then exist as it does today.

(4) There are no historical reports of the public resurrection of these Two Witnesses (Revelation 11.11,12).

(5) There are no historical reports of a great earthquake in Jerusalem immediately following the public resurrection and ascension of these Two Witnesses, which is a public event.

There are many other notable events prophesied to occur during the time of the “great tribulation” period. If this already happened in the first century, we should expect some historical evidence pertaining to this, other than the corrupted report of the Roman sycophant Josephus, which does not (even with its Catholic interpretations) satisfy any of these prophecies.

WHAT ABOUT THE FEW CONFUSING PASSAGES CONCERNING HIS COMING?

Should we jump to false conclusions because there are a few passages of doubtful interpretation concerning the time period of the coming of the Lord? Folks who want to attack a doctrinal system always find a few mice to throw into the elephant pen. I don’t think so. First of all, the scripture is quite clear that no man knows the day nor the hour of His return (Matthew 25.13). Then why would we want to add a 70 AD “return” to prove that we did know when (even though we might unscripturally qualify this coming by calling it “a coming in judgment)”? Thus we would unfortunately join the “date setters”. Only we would set our dates behind rather than in front! I do not believe in date setting.

One Day Is As A Thousand Years But He Could Come At Any Moment
But Actually He Has Already Supposedly “Come In Judgment” Invisibly?

Peter, as noted, following the psalmist David, used the idea that “one day is as a thousand years” (2 Peter 3.8, Psalms 90.4) in his interpretation of prophecy. Therefore, the “last days” could indeed encompass several thousand years. But the preterists, in effect, hold that this teaching of Peter’s is no longer valid. The “last days” is restricted to the same generation in which the man Jesus lived. Jesus, they say, had to come in the time of His own generation or else the Bible is in error and misinterpreted. Since the preterists know that Jesus really did not come a second time in the first century, they have invented a substitute type of “coming (in judgment)”. This was an “invisible” coming, just like the supposed 1914 coming and the 1842 coming of the Russellites and the Seventh Day Adventists.

Jesus made it quite clear that no man knew the day or hour of His coming, and that He could come at any moment. Our responsibility was to preach His return and to be ready at any time for His return, even though He went into “a far country” and tarried “a long time”. This “at-any-moment” coming some of the preterists by their teaching have effectively destroyed, and have damaged the readiness and the expectancy of the saints for the return of their Lord. They claim that they still preach the coming of the Lord, but I am very doubtful that this is true, since there is little or no evidence of it.

What About Matthew 10.23?

This scripture has more than one interpretation. While it is true to say that it has only one correct interpretation, it is dogmatic and incorrect to say that it has only one interpretation. Moreover, it must be interpreted in its context. Matthew 10.23 was a saying of Jesus which was written down many years after His resurrection. This was one of those statements where even the “inflection” of the Lord’s voice might have conveyed a special meaning. But we cannot go on “inflections”. The book of Matthew was written, according to some sources, 58-68 AD. That would certainly put the writing of the book before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. And the context of Matthew 10.22 must also be considered for Matthew 10.23 to be understood:

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. -Matthew 10.22,23

Jesus has put this passage in the context of “enduring to the end”. Therefore, verse 23 also has to be in the context of the “end” of things.

Also, the context involves “persecution”. Moreover, the phrase “the cities of Israel” has to be in contrast with the phrase “all men”. Jesus was warning His disciples that the task was formidable, and that they would be “hated of all men” for His name’s sake. It was a daunting task that involved persecution and opposition, but enduring to the end and never giving up was the only way to survive. In fact, the disciples would not even have gone over all the cities of Israel with the gospel before His return, because there was only a 37 year period before the uprising in Jerusalem was crushed by the Romans. It is doubtful today that the apostles (and disciples of today) have even yet gone over all the cities of Israel. Many of the disciples left Jerusalem many years before the 66-70 AD Jewish Rebellion. In other words, we don’t have to presuppose a 70 AD invisible “coming” of the Lord to understand the difficulties in going over the cities of Israel with the gospel before He returns in glory!

It is presumptuous to put a time element on this type of a passage. There are two many variables. What does “enduring to the end” mean time-wise? Are we not still required even today at this late date to “endure to the end”? How can His disciples be “hated of all men” if their activities are so short-lived as to be restricted to a small number of years in one little country in the first century?

What relationship does the phrase “hated of all men” have to do with the length of the time involved before He returns? By 70 AD, the gospel had not yet been preached in the New World to the Indians unless we want to believe the book of Mormon. The gospel had not yet been preached to the Eskimoes, or to the Australians or the New Zealanders. Yes, it had been preached to the known ancient world (the relative boundaries of the ancient Roman empire), but not to “every nation” as Jesus required in Matthew 24.14.

The apostle Paul’s remarks in Romans and in Colossians must be taken in their context. For example, in Romans 10 the apostle Paul is referring to Psalms 19.1-4 and the declaration of creation concerning the glory of God. He is not speaking about the Acts 2.38 message of the gospel of the kingdom. Paul’s question, “Have they not heard?” (Romans 10.18) is referring to Psalms 19 and the witness of creation to savage mankind (not the gospel of Acts 2.38). In Colossians 1.6 Paul uses the phrase to the effect that the gospel has come into “all the world”, but we must consider that he means “all the known ancient world”. Certainly, the apostles of the first century reached all of their known (ancient) world (Mark 16.20 says they “went forth, and preached every where”), but the commandment is to “(preach) the gospel of the kingdom in all the world for a witness unto all nations” (Matthew 24.14). That is the unfinished task of the New Testament church. The “full number” of the Gentiles is apparently not yet come in, and the task of the New Testament church remains. Were it finished, then there should be no need for the witness to remain on earth, because He says, “and then shall the end come” (vs. 14).

That is why there is another interpretation to the effect that the disciples would not even have gone over every community in their own little country before the return of the Lord. It takes men years sometimes to reach a city. They pour out their labor and some even spend their lives there. To blithely think that in just a short number of years the disciples could have reached the entire country of Israel with the gospel is a bit ambitious. This is especially true when we realize that the Jews very shortly after Pentecost basically rejected the gospel and the disciples had to turn to the Gentiles. Surely, one is not prepared to maintain that the disciples had thoroughly gone over every city in Israel before the Jews turned away from the gospel?

It is not correct to assert that there is one, and only one, interpretation of Matthew 10.23. Moreover, Matthew 10.23, if it be interpreted to mean that Jesus had in mind a “coming judgment of Israel and Jerusalem” when He spoke of His return, simply does not mesh with the rest of the scriptures pertaining to His return. In other words, if we apply the understanding of “a coming in judgment of Israel” across the board to the scriptures pertaining to the coming of the Lord, we cause confusion. If one can prove that all of the cities of Israel have been “gone over” since 70 AD then that might help place the fulfillment of this prophecy in the 70 AD attack upon Jerusalem, but if all of the cities of Israel have not been “gone over”, then the fulfillment of this prophecy remains open.

What About Matthew 16.28?

Matthew 16.28 cannot be taken out of context. It must be understood in relation to Matthew 16.27:

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. -Matthew 16.27,28 KJV

Whatever we do with Matthew 16.28, we cannot use it to represent some kind of an invisible “coming in judgment” in 70 AD. If the coming were “invisible”, then who would “see it”?

The reason is that when Matthew 16.28 is taken in context with Matthew 16.27 it becomes obvious that Jesus is not speaking about a 70 AD “coming in judgment”. Jesus is speaking about His triumphant personal return to earth at the end of the (new covenant) age. He is referring to His return from on high at Armageddon. And no one surely holds that Armageddon has already occurred. Surely not!

Jesus is coming “in the glory of his Father with his angels”. This glorious coming did not happen in the first century and there is no scriptural or other confirmation that it did. This is the return from on high, when, as John wrote, “every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him” (Revelation 1.7). Moreover, the church would have been already “caught up” to meet the Lord in the air (that is, if you hold a pre-trib position, both pre-trib and post-trib would hold that seeing the Lord come would be synonymous with being caught up to meet Him when He comes). The church age would have ended and there would be a ruling and reigning church with Christ here personally on the earth in the Millennium. The milennial reign presupposes more than just a spiritual, invisible coming. Revelation 5.10 says that we shall reign on earth with Him. Paul says that we do not yet have our crowns but will one day receive them (2 Tim. 4.8). How could we be already reigning in the millennium without having received our crowns in heaven, and having come back to earth with Him to reign? At what point did this happen?

Moreover, at the coming of the Lord mentioned in Matthew 16.27 the rewards are given to “every man according to his works”. Have the rewards already been passed out?

If Matthew 16.28 relates to the “coming in judgment” in 70 AD, then where is Matthew 16.27 (the verse above) in 70 AD?

Were crowns already given in the first century? Were the rewards already passed out at His coming which some were supposed to be alive and seeing in that century? And where does that leave the rest of the New Testament church in the centuries following the first century? Will the rewards be passed out twice? Once for the invisible coming, and then later when the rest of the church is caught up at His genuine second coming.

Almost the exact description of this coming is given in Matthew 25.31,32, “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats”.

This is not a 70 AD “coming in judgment”. In 70 AD, the Lord did not return with His holy angels, according to any evidence that we have. The Lord did not sit down to judge the nations in 70 AD. So we can establish that this coming “in the glory of his Father with his angels” did not happen in 70 AD. Some of the epistles were written after 70 AD (see 1,2,3 John). Why didn’t they mention all of this? Why didn’t some of the apostolic men, who knew the apostles personally, mention this? Why wasn’t the disappearance of the great apostle John noted if he remained alive until the invisible coming and then disappeared? We have some of the men’s writings who knew these apostles.

We Still Must Explain Matthew 16.28

That still leaves us with the problem of explaining Matthew 16.28 concerning those who were standing there listening to Jesus, who would not taste of death “till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom”. We do note that the word “see” is significant. It is possible to see something that you will never live to personally experience. Moses was allowed to “see” the Promised Land of Canaan, but he never personally lived to experience it.

Jesus did not say that there were those standing there with Him who would not taste of death until the Son of man came. Rather Jesus said that they would not taste of death until they saw the coming of the Son of man in his kingdom. They would live to see His coming. We know, for example, that the apostle John saw his visions of the coming of the Lord before he (John) died. (1) since we know that Jesus has not yet returned in the glory of His Father with His holy angels, and (2) since we know that all of the men with Him that day died, it is the best answer available. To say that Jesus had to return before the end of the first century because of this one scripture is like trying to make the word of God fit our preconceived notions. But Matthew 16.28 cannot be interpreted without Matthew 16.27. Matthew 16.27 will simply not fit a date of 70 AD. There is no evidence that the Lord came back in 70 AD in the “glory of His Father, with the holy angels” and judged the nations. Therefore, Matthew 16.28 does not pertain to a 70 AD coming. Moreover, we have written evidence that John did see the coming of the Lord (96 AD) before John died.

What About John 21.18-24?

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkest whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. But this speak he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. Then Peter, turning about seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following: which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? -John 21.18-24 KJV

Preterists believe that Jesus indicated by this that He would “come in judgment” in 70 AD. They base this upon the fact that John was certainly still alive in 70 AD and so the 70 AD must represent the “coming of the Lord”. But this is not the explanation that John gave nor is it the only explanation.

The disciples, according to John’s explanation, misunderstood Jesus to be saying that John would not die. From the sources that I have, the Gospel of John could have been written as late as 90 AD (which is 20 years after the destruction of Jerusalem). Others believe it was written earlier. If the Gospel was written 20 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, then it would hardly make sense for John to continue speaking of the story that he would remain until the coming of the Lord (in judgment of Jerusalem) if that had already occurred. This passage in John 21 has nothing to do with any “coming of the Lord in judgment in 70 AD”. John lived to such a ripe old age, according to historical reports, that many may have believed that he would indeed remain until the Lord returned. Certainly, the teaching of the imminent return of the Lord was taught in the first century. John wa still living and they were still looking.

Is It Right To Dismiss Many Old Testament Prophecies As Not Being Literal?

There is a dangerous tendency, in my opinion, among preterists to “spiritualize away” those prophecies that are inconvenient to them. They use (as noted) such phrases as “biblical imagery” to do away with the precise reality of prophetic passages. The apostles never resorted to the explanation of “biblical imagery” in their interpretation of prophecies. Matthew, for example, is very literal and generally precise in his interpretation of prophecies (e.g., the virgin birth means the virgin birth, Egypt means Egypt, a donkey means a donkey, and, even as we noted, if types and shadows are used, the context is a real event etc.). We don’t see such refuges as “biblical imagery” (generally speaking) in the biblical interpretation of prophecy in the apostles.

Is It Possible That The Euphrates River Could By Dried Up?

The “drying up of the Euphrates river” in Revelation 16.12, according to some preterists, does not mean that a river will actually be dried up, but it is “simply…biblical imagery”. No matter that civil engineers in this day and age have actually damned up rivers (and literally dried them up). No matter that this is actually happening today in biblical places like Iraq and Turkey, it is still just “biblical imagery”. The Bible does not mean what it says-when it is not convenient to someone’s doctrine. To my way of thinking, this is exactly what the amillennialists, such as the Campellites, have resorted to in order to refute the clear meaning of prophecies. Apostolics heretofore have never held this. One wonders, what else will preterists next decide to “spiritualize” away. Baptism? Speaking in tongues? Once the door to allegorization is open, there is no limit. I really believe this is what helped to ancient Catholic church to deny the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

They allegorized it to the point that when the priest laid his hand upon the supplicant, confirmation came and they were said to have received the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands. Baptism in the Protestant church world simply became a “symbol” of what God had done inwardly. If you apply the liberal use of “allegory” to prophecy, then the next step is to apply it to salvation and living for God.

Nahum 1.4 states God “drieth up all the rivers”, but Larry Smith, in his Coming Of The Lord states, “Nahum wasn’t suggesting a physical fulfillment; he-just like Revelation-was simply using biblical imagery”. But anyone who has ever seen an extended drouth in the dry middle east could tell you very well that the rivers can indeed “dry up”. But, that aside, there is an important difference between Nahum 1.4 and Revelation 16.12. Revelation 16.12 mentions a specific river by name, which is much more than mere “biblical imagery”. Moreover, the geographical location of the Euphrates is significant, since it is on the advancing route of the armies of the “kings of the east”. An invading land army from the east would almost surely have to cross the Euphrates river on their way to Israel. Take a look at a map.

According to Larry Smith, the prophecies in Joel 2, Matthew 24, and Revelation 6 are all “biblical imagery” (p.10). How can one arrive at a clear understanding of biblical prophecy if much of it is just “biblical imagery”.

The apostle Peter does not hold this view that prophecy is only “biblical imagery” in his interpretation of Joel 2.

For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come. -Acts 2.15-20 KJV

Certainly, Peter is not affirming that the prophecies in Joel merely are “biblical imagery”, but are to be taken literally. Do you see my point when I say that eventually, as they apply allegorism to prophecy, they will then apply to salvational experience? The activity of the Holy Ghost is described in real, literal terms (prophesying, seeing visions, dreaming dreams). In fact, the audience was actually seeing and hearing the specific literal activity that Peter was describing from Joel’s prophecy. It is interesting at the beginning of the church age, Peter is describing a prophecy that is being partly fulfilled in front of their very eyes, and he adds the part concerning the sixth seal of Revelation 6, which has yet to be fulfilled. If the first part is literally fulfilled, then one would expect the second part to also be literally fulfilled. It has not yet been fulfilled. You will have to search assiduously through the New Testament to find an example of apostles using the “biblical imagery” approach. It is a dangerous approach to prophetic interpretation.

Paul’s Lone Use of Allegory

I note one example by Paul in Galatians 4. This is called allegory and is seen very rarely in the New Testament. It is the exception rather than the rule. This is the only example I can find. It is not sufficient to hang a whole system of prophetic interpretation on it, as Larry Smith and others have done. Paul is speaking of the mother of the church (“Jerusalem which is above”). The city of Jerusalem he sadly relates is (currently at that time) “in bondage with her children” (Gal. 4.25). But someday, according to prophecy, the city of Jerusalem will no longer be “in bondage with her children”.

Why, then, should we think that the rest of the prophecy is simply “biblical imagery” without any literal reality in Joel and in Acts 2? “Wonders in heaven above” are references to real astronomical phenomena (e.g., the sun turned into darkness-a good description of an eclipse; the moon turned into “blood”). These activities are represented by the sixth seal in Revelation 6, which announces the coming wrath of God. At the end of the entire church age (represented by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the beginning, which is the hallmark of this age), the endtime troubles begin in earnest.

Are we to understand that Peter announces the opening of the great church age, but then lets us know that it will be followed just 30 some years later by the “coming of the Lord in judgment” (70 AD), and that all of these “biblical imageries” in Isaiah, Joel, and Zechariah, etc., pertain to something that will happen only 30 some years later? The Lord is coming 30 years later? History tells us that the great apostle John lived some 31 years (died 101 AD) after the 70 AD destruction of the Temple-why did John write of such a momentous event as the coming of the Lord (in judgment), since this supposedly fulfilled the prophecies of Revelation? Irenaeus, who reportedly sat under a disciple of John’s reported that John wrote his prophecy in c.96 AD. Why are there no writings of apostolic authority explaining that the preterist interpretation of the book of Revelation was the correct interpretaton? There were apostles, as I noted, and their close companions, living after the momentous events of 70 AD.

Joel Used The Phrase “Nigh At Hand” For An Event Some 800 Years Later

Joel states, “the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand” (Joel 2.1). This is even more troubling since the preterist accepts such a late fulfillment of this prophecy (800 years later after Joel wrote it, and not in Joel’s generation) while rejecting any later fulfillment of other similar prophecies, such as those in Matthew and Revelation.

How is it that the prophet Joel could use a phrase like “nigh at hand” to prophesy of something that some preterists believe did not actually take place until about 800 years later? How is it that “futurists” are incorrect in using such phrases as “the time is at hand”, “I come quickly”, “nigh at hand”, but it is okay for preterists to use such phrases for an event that won’t occur for some 800 years? You can’t say “nigh at hand” means one thing for Old Testament prophecies and another thing for New Testament prophecies like Revelation 1.3.

What is the difference between 800 years and 2000 years in God’s sight? I will tell you the truth: not much. One day with the Lord is as a thousand years. If it is permissible for Joel to use the phrase “nigh at hand” for an event that is hundreds of years in the future then it is likewise permissible for the apostle John to use the phrase “the time is at hand” (Revelation 1.3) for events that are still unfilfilled hundreds of years later.

The prophet Zephaniah (who prophesied 640-608 BC) also used the phrase “near” in his prophecy. He wrote, “The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly” (Zephaniah 1.14). How could both Joel and Zephaniah say the day of the Lord was “nigh” or “near” centuries ago, and it not come to pass in their generation? Do you suppose that the phrases “at hand”, “nigh”, “shortly come to pass”, might have a larger meaning in prophetic language? Perhaps preterists ought to take another look at these phrases, especially Revelation 1.3. Much of their argument for prophecy being fulfilled in the first century hinges upon their incorrect interpretation of such phrases as “at hand” and “this generation”, which they have re-interpreted to fit their scheme. Someone forgot to tell Joel and Zephaniah what the preterists believe.

Preterism Attempts To Relegate Endtime Prophecy To Old Testament Events

Using the prophecy in Isaiah 34, which is identified with Revelation 6 and Matthew 24, by similar use of key words, Brother Smith, in his Coming Of The Lord, etc. attempts to relegate this prophecy to “Isaiah’s prophecies about the defeat of two Old Testament cities, Idumea and Bozrah”. Idumea was not even a city, and is actually ancient Jordan, and Bozrah was a former capital city. That is how far-fetched such interpretations are (in the vein of the German higher criticism).

Isaiah 34.4, however, uses key terminology, and lets us know that this is an endtime prophecy, linked to Revelation 6 and Matthew 24 (the sixth seal).

We know from Isaiah 34.2 that these prophecies refer to more than just modern-day Jordan since Isaiah says, “For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all armies…”. Moreover, we know that this is not some provincial prophecy to come to pass in Old Testament days, since Isaiah 34.8 says, “For it is the day of the Lord’s vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion”. This is not speaking of the Lord’s vengeance upon the Jews, but rather upon the heathen nations. That is a much larger judgment.

Not only does this prophecy involve “all nations, and his (the Lord’s) fury upon all armies”, but it clearly is related to other endtime prophecies pertaining to the end of the age. This is why Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth did not quote all of Isaiah 61.2 in Luke 4.19, purposely leaving off “and the day of the vengeance of our God”. Jesus, at His first coming, only fulfilled part of Isaiah 61.2.

The period of the church age would intervene before the rest of the endtime events continued. That is why Jesus stopped at that point.

Revelation 6.12-14 gives a similar description:

And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. -Revelation 6.12-14 KJV

The exact terminology is used in Isaiah 34.4 that is used in Revelation 6.13,14. Both of these passages point to the wrath of the Lord upon all nations in the end of the world. We also know from Jesus that the worldwide “wrath of the Lord” did not follow the 70 AD destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (Luke 21.20-24), but that rather the dispersion of the Jews worldwide and the occupation of the city by the Gentiles came about in 70 AD rather followed the destruction of the Temple.

This prophecy above is much more widespread in its application than just Idumea and Bozrah. Idumea and Bozrah share in the judgments incorporated in this endtime event, but the event is much more widespread than just modern-day Jordan. It is an incorrect interpretation to attempt to dismiss these prophecies as merely Old Testament prophecies concerning Old Testament countries during that period of time. These are endtime prophecies associated with the sixth seal and key worldwide endtime elements.

Is The Book of Revelation “Nothing More Than Biblical Imagery That Describes God’s Destruction of Jerusalem”?

As anyone knows, who has studied the book of Revelation, it is far more than just “biblical imagery” which describes “the destruction of Jerusalem” in 70 AD (actually, the Temple was destroyed by fire, but the city iteself was not destroyed until 135 AD). A vast amount of endtime events, which could not possibly apply only to the destruction of Jerusalem, are described in detail in the book of Revelation. Any careful study of the great prophetic book will confirm this. We have mentioned some in this article.

Some Comments About The Importance of The Date of Revelation

The importance of the date of the book of Revelation is especially crucial to the theory of the preterists. Because if it cannot be shown that the book of Revelation was written before 70 AD, then the whole scheme of preterism, as many are putting it forth, falls to the ground and is shown to be utterly false.

Some preterists maintain that the book of Revelation actually refers to Nero as the then current “king” (or emperor) of Rome (Revelation 17.10). This is a tenuous identification, at best. There are a lot of variations in calculating the list of Roman kings (or emperors). For example, if Caesar himself is included as the first “king” (and certainly he held this stature, even though he technically was not crowned), then Nero would not be the fifth “king”, but would be the “sixth king” (Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius (Caligula), Claudius, Nero). Then “five would be fallen” and Nero might be the one “who is”. But is he?

One of the problems with asserting that Nero is the king mentioned in Revelation 17.10 (“one is”) is the next verse. Moreover, there were three “rivals” following the suicide of Nero (Galba, Otho, Vitellius, 68,69 AD). Vespasian then ruled 69-79 AD, Titus 79-81 AD, and Domitian 81-96 AD.

The year 69 AD is sometimes called “the year of the three emperors”, because Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, all ruled for short periods during this year (Tacitus, in his Annals, covers this period fairly well). Galba, who was proclaimed emperor in June 68 upon the death of Nero, later quarreled with his ally, Otho. And Otho, with the help of the Praetorian guard, took the throne from Galba in January 69 AD. Otho was defeated by Vitellius in 69 AD, who reigned until he himself was defeated by General Vespasian, who took the throne December 22, 69 AD.

Thus, if we count Nero as the 6th emperor (“five are fallen, and one is”, Rev. 17.10), and of the “7 kings” mentioned by John, then Galba would be the seventh king, who must “continue a short space”. But the “eighth king”, then, following this pattern, would be “the beast that was, and is not”. This beast, if we follow this pattern so that we might identify Nero as “the sixth king” (“one is”), and thus establish the “early date” for the book of Revelation, would have to be “Otho”. Was Otho the beast? Not likely.

Marcus Salvius Otho (32-69 AD) had been a favorite of Nero, and he was the husband of Poppaea Sabina (d.65 AD). Poppaea became the mistress of Nero in 58 AD, after he sent Otho out of the country to govern Lusitania (Portugal), so as to make a “cuckold” out of him. Otho, in support of Galba, returned to Rome upon the death of Nero in June 68 AD, and followed Galba as emperor himself in January 69 AD, with the help of the Praetorian guard.

Are we to understand that this man Otho was the “beast” since he was indeed the “eighth king” (if you count Nero as the sixth)? If Otho was the beast, does he possess all of the qualities of the beast? Where are the historical evidences pertaining to this? If Galba did not succeed Nero, to be followed by Otho and Vitellius, then someone please show why this is historically incorrect?

If we were to somehow (deviously, I would think) discount Galba, Otho, and Vitellius (due to their short reigns), then the “seventh king” would be Vespasian (assuming we were still counting Julius Caesar as the first king). Some accept Galba as the “seventh king” (explaining that he had a short reign), they discount Otho and Vitellius, and make Vespasian the eighth king. It soon becomes evident that all attempts to use the Roman emperor’s list to satisfy Revelation 17.10,11, in order to make Nero the “king” reigning when John wrote Revelation, are doomed to confusion and failure. Nero’s persecution was basically confined to Rome and he certainly doesn’t “measure up” to the beast of Revelation or Daniel either. He was a “momma’s boy” and largely manipulated by others, including women. Granted he was evil and a psychopath. Many men have filled that bill.

Moreover, if Nero is said to be the “sixth king” (“five are fallen, and one is”, Rev. 17.10), then the “eighth king” must be the “beast”, and must be of “the seven”. He (“the eighth king”) is the same beast of Revelation 13 with the a deadly head wound. Of course, none of these things match any history that we have concerning these Roman emperors. We can see how arbitrary this all is. Is this better than the dispensationalist “date setters” and the “red heifer” crowd? I don’t think so. I reject the date setters and the “red heifer” sensationalism, but I cannot swallow this historical “doublespeak”, attempting to rewrite history to destroy prophecy or make it conform erroneously to history. It is confusion.

The conclusion must therefore be that the “seven kings” that John speaks about in Revelation 17 do not appear to have anything to do with the ancient Roman emperors (although Revelation 17.10,11 seems to speak of one “king” who “is” either reigning or living when John’s vision came to him, who, is, in some way, associated with the “eighth king”, who is “of the seven”). But we do not really know who these “seven kings” are. We do know that the “eighth king”, who is the “beast” stems from them. But like as in Daniel, the Little Horn stems from among a series of kings, but seems to arrive on the scene centuries later.

John also speaks of another “ten kings”, who will “receive power as kings one hour with the beast” (Rev. 17.12), and they “will make war with the Lamb” (Rev. 17.14). These ten kings seem to be identified in Scripture with the “ten toes” (iron mixed with clay) of Daniel 2, and we know that this would refer to a period of time subsequent to 1453 AD (that is, in modern times). This hardly harmonizes with the events of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. The Roman emperor (supposedly the instrument of judgment against the Jews) makes war “with the Lamb” with the help of ten other kings? Since we know from Daniel 2 that the 10 kings are most likely associated with the feet of clay mixed with iron (the last day Gentile empire which is smashed with the Stone “cut out without hands”, or Christ, in the very endtimes), we ought to consider that these seven kings could be interpreted as the empires of the Gentiles, and the “one” who “is” would merely represent the empire of Rome, which was the Gentile empire in existence at that time. But we do not know that for sure.

At least that is an alternative explanation that has more credibility than using the seven Roman emperors, and trying to identify one of them as the “beast” so as to put forward a first century endtime scheme.

Brother Smith (p.38) lists several theories concerning these kings. He says, “The fall of Jerusalem occurred, just as the Bible said it would, in the days of the ten kings of the Roman empire” (ibid). We will show, however, that the “ten kings” are associated with the future “the little horn” (the anti-christ) and they are associated with an empire subsequent to the first century Roman empire.

How do these interpreters arrive at the fall of Jerusalem occurring in the days of the ten kings? “The main school of thought”, says Brother Smith, “taught by most is that Nero Caesar was the sixth king, and Vespasian the 10th king, who was in power at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem” (ibid). It is obvious to the insightful reader, who has been following our discussion of the Roman emperors, that this is contrived by these interpreters.

There are a number of things to consider. For Nero to be considered “the sixth king”, then Julius Caesar has to be considered a king and he was never crowned (he refused the crown three times, it is reported). Instead he was assassinated before he could ascend a throne.

Many lists show the following: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero. Nero is listed as the “fifth king”. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, would then be the sixth, seventh, and eighth, respectively, and Vespasian would be the ninth king. Besides all of this, the seven kings listed by Revelation 17 are in addition to the ten kings!

And so the statement by Brother Smith has no relevance at all. Moreover, Revelation 17 calls the “eighth king”, which arises out of “the seven kings”, the “beast”. While many of the Roman emperors (who all refused the title of “king”, by the way) were “beastly” in their behavior, which one of them could ever hope to qualify for the characteristics and the powers of the “beast” identified by Daniel and John? Explain to us how Vespasian, for example, can be identified as the “beast”? Did Vespasian have a “false prophet”, who could call fire down from heaven (Rev.13.14)? Not hardly. Vespasian’s reported character no where near matches the prophesied “character” or description of the beast.

Then Brother Smith goes on to say, “The other school of thought is that Nero was the seventh king and Pompey the first, which would make Vespasian the little horn of Daniel 7.8 who came up among the ten, before whom three were plucked up by the roots (Pulpit Commentary, vol. 13, p.225)” (p.38). These three kings, who were plucked up by the roots, Smith wants to make them to be: Galba, Otho, Vitellius (see our description of these men). But remember, the “ten kings” are separate from the eight kings of Revelation 17! Revelation 17.12 states, “And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast”. This is how far-fetched such theories get.

The ten kings are not even part and parcel of the seven kings! They do not even have their power “as yet” when the angel spoke to John. Furthermore, these ten kings, when they get their power, will give their power to the eighth king (the beast). So think about this: they supposedly (following Brother Smith’s scheme) will give all their power in “one hour” to the eighth king (the beast), but we are to believe that they actually are part and parcel of the seven kings (Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, and Galba). But three of the ten were supposedly already plucked up by the eighth (Vespasian), that being Galba, Otho, and Vitellius.

Anyone can see that these schemes are self-serving and they have no connection with reality. The truth of the matter is that there are seven kings, and the eighth king is the beast. There are also another ten kings (and it is three of these ten who are plucked up by the little horn, sometimes called “the beast” also). The “ten kings” will cooperate with the eighth king (the beast) and give their power to him in “one hour” when they attempt to make war against the Lamb (Christ). It has nothing to do with the first century, but occurs in a time subsequent to the Roman empire (during the time of the feet and the 10 toes of the image seen

in Daniel 2). The ten kings are only associated with the eighth king, which comes of the seven kings. The seven kings are not part of the 10 kings and this is where the preterist confusion here comes in.

After I sent my critique to Larry Smith, and he has seen that the Roman emperors will not fit, and so he has substituted the Roman procurators, who governed Judea and Jerusalem, “after the death of Herod Agrippa I”. Gessius Florus, Smith claims, had a short governorship during 65 AD, and, because of unrest and trouble there, Nero himself took direct control of Judea. Smith says, “This made Nero the eighth king” (p.67, The Coming Of The Lord). Nero reportedly then gave power to officials over ten districts within Palestine, and this would be the “ten kings” of Revelation 10!

Smith does not apparently even read Revelation 17. Revelation 17 clearly shows that these ten kings give “their power and strength unto the beast” (17.13). Are these petty officials in these ten districts of Palestine to give “their power and their authority” to Nero (if he is selected still to be the beast, since it seems that Smith has identified Nero as the “eighth king” (Revelation 17.11). Are these ten petty officials in Palestine to “make war with the Lamb” (Revelation 17.14)?

Moreover, these ten kings “hate the whore…and burn her with fire” (Revelation 17.16). Revelation 17.18 identify this woman as “that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth”. Are we to believe this woman is Jerusalem? Surely, no one is ready to maintain that the occupied city of Jerusalem, in the poor province of Judea, was at that time reigning over the kings of the earth? Moreover, it was not the ten petty officials of Palestine who assaulted and burned the Temple in 70 AD, but it was the army of the Roman general Titus. The cowardly Nero committed suicide in June of 68 AD, and so he missed being cast alive into the Lake of Fire according to Revelation 19.20.

Did The Son of Man Came In The Clouds of Glory In The Days of Vespasian?

Brother Smith concludes from this discussion that since the destruction of Jerusalem took place during the reign of Vespasian, that “This resulted in the Son of Man coming with the clouds to the Ancient of Days as is found in Daniel 7.13,14, and being given a kingdom and dominion that would not pass away or be destroyed” (p.38). See below as we give an explanation of the passage in Daniel 7. It could not possibly match anything like that happening in the first century. First of all, Jerusalem would have to have been the headquarters of Jesus Christ on earth since 70 AD, and the millennium would have been instituted.

That did not happen. All the nations of the world would be under the rule of Christ, His apostles, and the church. That did not happen. I realize that partial preterists use the argument that they still believe in a future second coming of Jesus at a later date, and that they see the 70 AD “coming” as an invisible coming of the Lord in “judgment”. But they use this manufactured “invisible coming of the Lord in judgment” as a lynchpin to commandeer many of the endtime prophetic events, which they connect with this so-called “invisible coming”. If they indeed believe in a future second coming, then they should admit that Matthew 24.29-31 ties this coming of the Lord in with the conclusion of the Great Tribulation period. The Bible says that “immediately after the tribulation” that the sign of the Son of man (will appear) in heaven (vs. 30). And so it is incorrect to substitute a made-up “invisible coming in judgment” at this point in Matthew 24. The coming that is immediately after the tribulation is the second coming that partial preterists admit is still future. This connection makes it impossible for the tribulation to have occurred in 66-70 AD.

The Date of The Apocalypse: External And Internal Evidence

There are, of course, arguments for and against the “early date” (66-68 AD) and the “late date” (96 AD) for the apocalyptic vision of John on the isle of Patmos.

The greatest external evidence is the early witness of the prominent Catholic bishop Irenaeus (130-202 AD) of Lyons, France. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies (V.30.3) clearly states that the apostle John saw his vision on the isle of Patmos in c.96 AD during the reign of the emperor Domitian.

Irenaeus, in speaking of the difficulty in naming the Antichrist wrote:

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign”. -Against Heresies (V.30.3)

There seems to be no confusion on the part of Irenaeus. He expresses no doubt at all as to the time of the “apocalyptic vision” nor as to the emperor’s name. Irenaeus claims to have come from Smyrna and to have sat under the ministry of Polycarp, who, in turn, had sat under the teaching of the apostle John. There should be no doubt as to the veracity of this statement, especially when we realize that no Catholic church father in ancient times questioned it for hundreds of years. Why should we think that this ancient bishop would like about a specific fact that others during his day could easily have refuted?

Brother Smith’s criticism of Irenaeus is not really valid when we realize that John 8.57 accurately relates an incorrect testimony from the Jews that Jesus was not yet “fifty years old”.

We know better, but we can forgive Irenaeus for this error, and that does not necessarily imply that Irenaeus was incorrect in what he said about the date of the apocalyptic vision of John. Irenaeus is a valuable witness since he reportedly sat under the bishop Polycarp, who himself had sat under the apostle John. It is very likely that much of John’s ministry and life was made known to Irenaeus through Polycarp. We understand that Irenaeus was wrong in his theology, but

we doubt that he would have made a mistake about something that was common knowledge among the ancients.

Robert Grant, and other scholars, believe that Irenaeus also had available to him, the five books of Papias (60-130 AD), called The Lord’s Gospel, or The Sayings of The Lord. Papias was a man who personally knew the apostle John and other disciples who had seen the Lord. In other words, Irenaeus knew what he was talking about. The event he was speaking about had occurred only some 80 years earlier. Eighty years ago, in our time, would be the year 1921. A comparative view of this would be something that the Pentecostal Pioneer Andrew Urshan had told Brother Nathaniel Urshan, who, in turn, told us. Would we give more stock to that than something said hundreds of years later by someone like Epiphanius of Salamis?

A number of ancient Catholic writers also confirmed the later date (96 AD) for the book of Revelation. Not all of them seemed to have just quoted from Irenaeus, since there were obviously other ancient sources (I just mentioned one probable source, Papias). There was Hippolytus of Rome (170-235 AD), Jerome (340-420 AD), his friend Orosius, and Eusebius (260-340 AD), who had numerous histories and sources at his disposal ,including the writings of the ancient apostolic church historian Hegesippus (120-185 AD), Victorinus (d. 303 AD), and Sulpicius Severus, to mention a few.

These all attested to the later date. We have no reason to believe that these ancient writers would purposely give an incorrect date.

Internal Evidence For The Later Date (96 AD)

There are a number of points of internal evidence in the book of Revelation that scholars have pointed out:

The term “the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1.10) was not seen in the earlier decades (e.g., 60’s), but rather another expression such as the “first day of the week” was used. However, it is admitted that the expression “the day of the Lord” also has a solid backgrround of use by the Old Testament prophets, where it refers to the coming millennium and the events precipitating that.

Gnosticism was still in its infancy during the 60’s. Paul only alluded to it (1 Timothy 6.20), but the book of Revelation shows already developed gnostic sects -groups such as the Nicolaitans and the Balaamities. This indicates a later date of writing. By the end of the first century Gnostics were actually “mutilating” the scriptures, and thus we see the warning in Rev. 22.18,19.

This was not the case in the 60’s when the apostle Paul barely mentioned “gnosis” in 1 Timothy. Paul does mention an epistle that was not from his own writing and warned them about that. Problems in the seven churches of Asia minor were too developed for the earlier date: Ephesus had lost its first love, there was a synagogue of Satan in Smyrna, in Pergamos the Nicolaitans and the Balaamites were prevalent, Thyratira had a Jezebel, Sardis had only a few names left which not defiled their “garments”, and Laodicea had become so lukewarm and offensive that Christ threatened to spew it out of His mouth.

These things had not had time in the day of Paul’s epistles to develop in Ephesus and in Laodicea. It is very doubtful that they would have developed this far in the first generation churches as soon as the 60’s. Thus a later date (96 AD) makes much more sense. Paul makes no such reference to any of these problems in his epistles written earlier. Phillip Schaff believed that the apostle John was not even resident in Ephesus until near the close of the Nero’s life. The churches in Asia minor had been largely planted by the apostle Paul. It was probably not until after the death of the apostle

Paul in Rome in about 67 AD that John took the guidance of the Asia minor churches. Paul makes no mention of John (except for the reference to John being at a Jerusalem conference in circa 55,56 AD or before, in the epistle to the Galatians).

There is an ancient story about John in Clement of Alexandra which relates that John was a very old man when he returned from the island of Patmos, but was still able to ride a horse to the lair of a robber who was a Christian backslider so that he might reclaim the young man to Christ. If John were a teenager when Jesus called him c.30 AD, then he was as old as 81 when he returned from Patmos, but he would have only been about 50 in 65 AD-hardly an “old man”. Nero’s “modus operandi” was to put to death Christians (e.g., Peter and Paul at Rome), while Domitian used the punishment of exile. Thus it is more likely that John’s exile indicates that it was in the time of Domitian (96 AD).

In view of these things, and in view of the fact that preterists cannot show that John wrote Revelation as mainly a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, we ought to reject the preterist viewpoint concerning the book of Revelation. Moreover, the composition of the Gospel of John cannot be shown to have been written earlier than 80 AD-90 AD, according to learned scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, in his commentary on The Gospel of John. Preterists will ask that if John wrote his Gospel in 80 AD, for example, how is it that he said nothing about the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD? Could it be that there were other reasons for not making reference to the destruction of the Temple? It is not conclusive to state simply that the absence of any references to the destruction of the Temple in the New Testament canon proves that these works were written prior to 70 AD. That is an argument from silence. Both Scripture and history prove preterism to be false. It is a very serious deception.

-Brother William B. Chalfant

Radical Disciples – A Remnant Revolution

Latest Posts

Categories

Posts Tagged ‘Doctrines’

TRUE AND FALSE CONVERSION

Key doctrine which must be the foundation of all others

So you have a better view than the Lord?

It’s Time to take it to the Extreme Level of Discipleship

” Obedience is not a dirty word – it is a key to Kingdom living”

Earthly, Soulish, Demonic (Protection Against Deception)

If you say “angel,” why can’t I say “devil”?

Get ready Church for the mountains of mans traditions are being bulldozed over by the Power of God’s Holy Spirit

Walking in the radical power of the Kingdom……

The Preterist Spirit of Deception