# Are we called to save the world?



## THE W

Are we called to eradicate hunger, poverty, and injustice? 

Are we called to take back the government and the school system for Jesus by reforming the political and social landscape?

Should we be working hard towards world peace and ending war?


Does scripture tell us to fervently pursue these goals?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Yes and no. Certainly the church should be involved in feeding the poor and certainly the church should be a voice of truth, but we must also remember that our kingdom is not of this world. There will be no end to war or sin or injustice until Christ returns, and so while it is true that we should work to help the victims of all the things you mentioned, we would only be fooling ourselves if we thought that we could end these things.


----------



## THE W

I look at it like this,

The world is the titanic. Its sinking and its going to go under. Our job is to get as many people off the sinking ship as possible, not so much to stop the ship from sinking.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> Are we called to eradicate hunger, poverty, and injustice?
> 
> Are we called to take back the government and the school system for Jesus by reforming the political and social landscape?
> 
> Should we be working hard towards world peace and ending war?
> 
> 
> Does scripture tell us to fervently pursue these goals?



This can be a difficult question because it ultimately comes back to one's eschatalogical view. I am postmill, which means I believe that the world will be Christianized one day. An important note, however, is that this is not accomplished through social or political means. This is accomplished through the sound preaching of the gospel and the regeneration of souls through the Holy Spirit. We are not meant to "take back the...school system for Jesus," though. The school system itself is based upon a completely unbiblical notion that the government should be involved in education, which the Bible does not give the authority for them to do it. Parents have the responsibility to educate their children, not governments.

So Christians need to know and have a biblical worldview of government, education, etc. which they can implement when we become a covenanted Christian nation. But undoubtedly every nation is called to submit to Christ as King (Psalm 2). Our goal is not to end poverty and war, but these will be side effects of the gospel changing the lives of people and nations.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> I look at it like this,
> 
> The world is the titanic. Its sinking and its going to go under. Our job is to get as many people off the sinking ship as possible, not so much to stop the ship from sinking.



This is almost the exact analogy taught by dispensationalism, which is clearly unbiblical. God's plan in redemption was not to snatch a few people from the fire, but to put all enemies under Christ's feet that He may have the full reward for His suffering. A reading of the parables as taught by Christ show that God's kingdom may start small like a mustard seed or leaven, but through the preaching of the gospel it will grow until the world is Christianized. Christ pictures the world as a wheat field (representing Christians) - not a tare field (representing non-Christians). Old Testament prophesies also picture the mountain of Christ encompassing the whole world. The church will not end in failure and dismal destruction like Israel did. There's really so much that could be said here, but I think you get the idea.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

It's Christ who will save the world, not us. But He will accomplish this by means of preaching His Gospel.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> I look at it like this,
> 
> The world is the titanic. Its sinking and its going to go under. Our job is to get as many people off the sinking ship as possible, not so much to stop the ship from sinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is almost the exact analogy taught by dispensationalism, which is clearly unbiblical. God's plan in redemption was not to snatch a few people from the fire, but to put all enemies under Christ's feet that He may have the full reward for His suffering. A reading of the parables as taught by Christ show that God's kingdom may start small like a mustard seed or leaven, but through the preaching of the gospel it will grow until the world is Christianized. Christ pictures the world as a wheat field (representing Christians) - not a tare field (representing non-Christians). Old Testament prophesies also picture the mountain of Christ encompassing the whole world. The church will not end in failure and dismal destruction like Israel did. There's really so much that could be said here, but I think you get the idea.
Click to expand...




Boosterseat_91 said:


> It's Christ who will save the world, not us. But He will accomplish this by means of preaching His Gospel.



which is what the anology means.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> We are not meant to "take back the...school system for Jesus," though. The school system itself is based upon a completely unbiblical notion that the government should be involved in education, which the Bible does not give the authority for them to do it. Parents have the responsibility to educate their children, not governments.



so allowing your children to go to public school would be sin? i'm just looking for a yes or no answer here as arguing this issue will derail the thread.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> I look at it like this,
> 
> The world is the titanic. Its sinking and its going to go under. Our job is to get as many people off the sinking ship as possible, not so much to stop the ship from sinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is almost the exact analogy taught by dispensationalism, which is clearly unbiblical. God's plan in redemption was not to snatch a few people from the fire, but to put all enemies under Christ's feet that He may have the full reward for His suffering. A reading of the parables as taught by Christ show that God's kingdom may start small like a mustard seed or leaven, but through the preaching of the gospel it will grow until the world is Christianized. Christ pictures the world as a wheat field (representing Christians) - not a tare field (representing non-Christians). Old Testament prophesies also picture the mountain of Christ encompassing the whole world. The church will not end in failure and dismal destruction like Israel did. There's really so much that could be said here, but I think you get the idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's Christ who will save the world, not us. But He will accomplish this by means of preaching His Gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which is what the anology means.
Click to expand...


I may not have understood what you meant by the analogy then. It made me think of the dispensational analogy that you don't need to polish the brass on a sinking ship - basically denying the necessity of a total world and life view of Christianity. Why should we try to make governments, nations, etc. line up with the Word of God when it's all just going to hell in a handbasket anyways? 

I mean, if the "Titanic" represents the world, then this is a new story of the titanic where it doesn't sink but flourishes under the gospel, lol.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> I mean, if the "Titanic" represents the world, then this is a new story of the titanic where it doesn't sink but flourishes under the gospel, lol



Sounds like universalism to me.

Jesus will indeed save people out of the world though, as revelation 5:9 states.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, if the "Titanic" represents the world, then this is a new story of the titanic where it doesn't sink but flourishes under the gospel, lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like universalism to me.
> 
> Jesus will indeed save people out of the world though, as revelation 5:9 states.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, I think you have me confused. I thought you were agreeing with me when you quoted what I said and said that's what your analogy meant. 

I'm sorry, but this is nothing like universalism. The world will flourish under the gospel. There will still be tares, but it will be a _wheat_ field. Even unbelievers will be required to submit outwardly to a Christian worldview - just like we have to submit outwardly to a pagan worldview with our ungodly government (ie. the government stealing from us in taxes, using unjust weights and measures, stealing from us in insurance and using our money to fund things like abortions, etc.). Christ victory is not just over individuals but over all creation. At the end of the kingdom, we will see the complete restoration of all creation.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not meant to "take back the...school system for Jesus," though. The school system itself is based upon a completely unbiblical notion that the government should be involved in education, which the Bible does not give the authority for them to do it. Parents have the responsibility to educate their children, not governments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so allowing your children to go to public school would be sin? i'm just looking for a yes or no answer here as arguing this issue will derail the thread.
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, if the "Titanic" represents the world, then this is a new story of the titanic where it doesn't sink but flourishes under the gospel, lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like universalism to me.
> 
> Jesus will indeed save people out of the world though, as revelation 5:9 states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I think you have me confused. I thought you were agreeing with me when you quoted what I said and said that's what your analogy meant.
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is nothing like universalism. The world will flourish under the gospel. There will still be tares, but it will be a _wheat_ field. Even unbelievers will be required to submit outwardly to a Christian worldview - just like we have to submit outwardly to a pagan worldview with our ungodly government (ie. the government stealing from us in taxes, using unjust weights and measures, stealing from us in insurance and using our money to fund things like abortions, etc.). Christ victory is not just over individuals but over all creation. At the end of the kingdom, we will see the complete restoration of all creation.
Click to expand...


Ok, when you say "the world will flourish under the gospel", "there will be tares", "even unbelievers will be required outwardly to submit to a christian worldview" "we will see the complete restoration of all creation", are all 4 of these events referring to the return of Chirst?




Boosterseat_91 said:


> Christ victory is not just over individuals but over all creation



that is correct


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> Ok, when you say "the world will flourish under the gospel", "there will be tares", "even unbelievers will be required outwardly to submit to a christian worldview" "we will see the complete restoration of all creation", are all 4 of these events referring to the return of Christ?



It will happen prior to the return of Christ. Christ will not return until He has put all enemies under His feet and all the elect have been brought into the fold. His bride, the church, will not end in failure.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, when you say "the world will flourish under the gospel", "there will be tares", "even unbelievers will be required outwardly to submit to a christian worldview" "we will see the complete restoration of all creation", are all 4 of these events referring to the return of Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will happen prior to the return of Christ. Christ will not return until He has put all enemies under His feet and all the elect have been brought into the fold. His bride, the church, will not end in failure.
Click to expand...


But these events happen at the same time?


----------



## Scot

Education - Maintaining the Antithesis

God's Law & Government - Maintaining the Antithesis

Eschatology - Maintaining the Antithesis


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

"The poor will always be with you". 

"My kingdom is not of this world". 

"Do good to all people, especially to those in the household of faith". 

I am totally with you, Wade, on the whole "social justice" attitude so many Christians take, especially their involvement with politics. The Gospel!!! Preach it while we have strength! Soon we shall enter into glory. Let us praise the Glories of Jesus Christ, let us lift up in the highest before men, that inexhaustible fountain of mercy poured out on calvary. Everything else is a far #2. The preaching of the gospel to the lost !!!!


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, when you say "the world will flourish under the gospel", "there will be tares", "even unbelievers will be required outwardly to submit to a christian worldview" "we will see the complete restoration of all creation", are all 4 of these events referring to the return of Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will happen prior to the return of Christ. Christ will not return until He has put all enemies under His feet and all the elect have been brought into the fold. His bride, the church, will not end in failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But these events happen at the same time?
Click to expand...


It will happen progressively throughout time. Then Christ will return to a church triumphant.


----------



## Vladimir

I believe that the questions raised here are answered directly by our Lord himself when he tells us to love our neighbours.
Also, WFC, Chapter 23:


> I. God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.
> II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions.


Also, Larger Catechism:


> Q. 96. What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?
> A. The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to flee from wrath to come, and to drive them to Christ; or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable, and under the curse thereof.


Authority is there for God's glory and public good and should be executed as such, as well as submitted to. We are to point others to errors of their ways in love and resist sin.
I think that covers everything.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

If Christ returns to a largely redeemed world and church. Why does the scripture say that the day and hour will take us by surprise? Surely a restored world would be a big clue that his return was near?


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Need 4 Creed said:


> If Christ returns to a largely redeemed world and church. Why does the scripture say that the day and hour will take us by surprise? Surely a restored world would be a big clue that his return was near?



I could say the same thing about defeatist theology - If Christ returns to a largely defeated church and ungodly world, wouldn't that be a big clue of his return? The answer is no one knows the day and the hour no one knows how long we are to continue in that state nor fully when that state is actually reached since it involves the entire world.


----------



## Need 4 Creed

Fair point. 




Boosterseat_91 said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Christ returns to a largely redeemed world and church. Why does the scripture say that the day and hour will take us by surprise? Surely a restored world would be a big clue that his return was near?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about defeatist theology - If Christ returns to a largely defeated church and ungodly world, wouldn't that be a big clue of his return? The answer is no one knows the day and the hour no one knows how long we are to continue in that state nor fully when that state is actually reached since it involves the entire world.
Click to expand...


----------



## THE W

SinnerSavedByChrist said:


> "The poor will always be with you".
> 
> "My kingdom is not of this world".
> 
> "Do good to all people, especially to those in the household of faith".
> 
> I am totally with you, Wade, on the whole "social justice" attitude so many Christians take, especially their involvement with politics. The Gospel!!! Preach it while we have strength! Soon we shall enter into glory. Let us praise the Glories of Jesus Christ, let us lift up in the highest before men, that inexhaustible fountain of mercy poured out on calvary. Everything else is a far #2. The preaching of the gospel to the lost !!!!



at least someone sees where im going with this,

we are not called to do any of the things i mentioned in my initial post. its not our job or even within our ability.

we are called to preach the gospel of Christ to all nations and that's the ONLY thing we are called to do. there are various means in which we do this but that is the purpose of those means.

Jesus said as much in Luke 16:26, John 4:13-14, john 6:26-27 and 32-35

Yes, im fully aware of the commands to care for the needy, and that the law is required of everyone, which is why those who have rebelled against God's law will face eternal damnation in hell and why churches have various outreach initiatives. My point is doing these things are tools of evangelism. What eternal good is it if someone is fed phsycially but starves to death spiritually?

The reason for Jesus feeding the 5,000 and 4,000, for giving sight to the blind, for raising the dead, healing the sick, turning water into wine, and all the other miracles he performed was for the same reason God raised up pharaoh in order to perform the plagues He did before Egypt and Israel to deliver His chosen people. they were signs and wonders for the purpose of Glory, belief, and repentance of sin in rebellion to God.

One phrase i saw repeated over and over in reading through the OT prophets was after God through the prophets talked about all the punishments He would bring on the nations that rebelled against him the would say "then they will know that I Am The LORD".

Jesus reiterates this in Matthew 11:20-24 and john 15:23-25

The sign and wonder that is given to us in today's world to use for evangelism is.....LOVE!

This is the reason why we have needy people around us always, why the only religion acceptable to God is to care for widows and orphans and not be polluted by the world. Its also why we are commanded to do the very radical things in Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-36. Only those who the Spirit of God indwells will be able to do stuff like that. we are indeed commanded to do these things, but for the purpose of spreading the good news, not for the purpose of philanthropy. There are just as many atheists out there feeding the poor and caring for the needy as there are Christians and they don't care about the gospel and they actually are trying to save the world.

Jesus when He returns will eradicate and eliminate all of these things for the new heaven and new earth he will have for His chosen people. Our job is to get the message of salvation out to all nations.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Christ returns to a largely redeemed world and church. Why does the scripture say that the day and hour will take us by surprise? Surely a restored world would be a big clue that his return was near?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about defeatist theology - If Christ returns to a largely defeated church and ungodly world, wouldn't that be a big clue of his return? The answer is no one knows the day and the hour no one knows how long we are to continue in that state nor fully when that state is actually reached since it involves the entire world.
Click to expand...


Why would the church be defeated?


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not meant to "take back the...school system for Jesus," though. The school system itself is based upon a completely unbiblical notion that the government should be involved in education, which the Bible does not give the authority for them to do it. Parents have the responsibility to educate their children, not governments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so allowing your children to go to public school would be sin? i'm just looking for a yes or no answer here as arguing this issue will derail the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Just wanted to say that after further consideration i have to agree with you here.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Christ returns to a largely redeemed world and church. Why does the scripture say that the day and hour will take us by surprise? Surely a restored world would be a big clue that his return was near?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about defeatist theology - If Christ returns to a largely defeated church and ungodly world, wouldn't that be a big clue of his return? The answer is no one knows the day and the hour no one knows how long we are to continue in that state nor fully when that state is actually reached since it involves the entire world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the church be defeated?
Click to expand...


That is simply another eschatological position included in most Amill views and all dispensational views. As an example, this type of theology is expressed very well in the beginning chapters of A.W. Pink's The Sovereignty of God. He talks about the world getting worse and worse like it's going to hell in a hand basket but God's still sovereign over it and we can do nothing about it. This is defeatist theology and it's not biblical. The Bible speaks about a church being triumphant over hell and Christ reigning over all nations - not a church that cowers in the corner and waits in defeat for the return of Christ.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not meant to "take back the...school system for Jesus," though. The school system itself is based upon a completely unbiblical notion that the government should be involved in education, which the Bible does not give the authority for them to do it. Parents have the responsibility to educate their children, not governments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so allowing your children to go to public school would be sin? i'm just looking for a yes or no answer here as arguing this issue will derail the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just wanted to say that after further consideration i have to agree with you here.
Click to expand...


Yeah, not to get too carried away into this, but especially considering that our public schools are anti-Christian in every regard it is surely a violation of the 5th commandment to allow our children to be taught to be little pagans in the public school system.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> we are not called to do any of the things i mentioned in my initial post. its not our job or even within our ability.
> 
> we are called to preach the gospel of Christ to all nations and that's the ONLY thing we are called to do. there are various means in which we do this but that is the purpose of those means.
> 
> Jesus said as much in Luke 16:26, John 4:13-14, john 6:26-27 and 32-35
> 
> Yes, im fully aware of the commands to care for the needy, and that the law is required of everyone, which is why those who have rebelled against God's law will face eternal damnation in hell and why churches have various outreach initiatives. My point is doing these things are tools of evangelism. What eternal good is it if someone is fed phsycially but starves to death spiritually?
> 
> The reason for Jesus feeding the 5,000 and 4,000, for giving sight to the blind, for raising the dead, healing the sick, turning water into wine, and all the other miracles he performed was for the same reason God raised up pharaoh in order to perform the plagues He did before Egypt and Israel to deliver His chosen people. they were signs and wonders for the purpose of Glory, belief, and repentance of sin in rebellion to God.
> 
> One phrase i saw repeated over and over in reading through the OT prophets was after God through the prophets talked about all the punishments He would bring on the nations that rebelled against him the would say "then they will know that I Am The LORD".
> 
> Jesus reiterates this in Matthew 11:20-24 and john 15:23-25
> 
> The sign and wonder that is given to us in today's world to use for evangelism is.....LOVE!
> 
> This is the reason why we have needy people around us always, why the only religion acceptable to God is to care for widows and orphans and not be polluted by the world. Its also why we are commanded to do the very radical things in Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-36. Only those who the Spirit of God indwells will be able to do stuff like that. we are indeed commanded to do these things, but for the purpose of spreading the good news, not for the purpose of philanthropy. There are just as many atheists out there feeding the poor and caring for the needy as there are Christians and they don't care about the gospel and they actually are trying to save the world.
> 
> Jesus when He returns will eradicate and eliminate all of these things for the new heaven and new earth he will have for His chosen people. Our job is to get the message of salvation out to all nations.



I think we have to be careful here not to get into a heretical 2 kingdom view. The Great Commission was spoken to Apostles whose spiritual descendants are pastors/elders. They are the ones who have authority to preach, teach, and administer the sacraments. It's not spoken to every Christian. Christians can and have to be a part of the world - we're not the Amish, lol. We are called to be good employees, good housewives, law-abiding citizens in so far as it does not violate God's law, etc. In fact, Christians should be known as the best employees and citizens! The 1st commandment requires that we have an all-encompassing world and life view based upon Scripture. This includes government and other so-called "secular" things. But the government is not in fact secular! Romans 13 tells us the government is a minister of God to do good and punish wickedness. 

We are called to show love to our neighbors and enemies, but obviously love means keeping the law of God towards them. For instance, I could show love to a homeless person - NOT by just giving them free food or money (if a man does not work, he does not eat) - but by giving him some type of work to do and then giving him pay/food for it. The Bible is not just get saved, get saved, get saved - What about sanctification? That's just as important. God requires all men and nations to submit to his law. We are just as much called to obey God's law in everything as we are to get saved - we are saved _unto_ good works. Getting saved is not the end but the beginning. That's why a side-effect of the Gospel will be the coming of the nations to Christ. That's when we will see Christianity flourishing at its finest - when church, state, and family are working in their respective covenantal spheres fulfilling the role God has given to them. I am not one to argue pragmatically but Christianity works, lol. It brings economic, political, social prosperity.

So, I guess what I am saying is Christianity is more than just the gospel - we are called to obey God's law. And when each sphere of authority does this, there will be prosperity, even though that's not the goal per se.

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance." Psalm 33:12


----------



## Miss Marple

"What eternal good is it if someone is fed phsycially but starves to death spiritually?"

I think we are supposed to feed them anyway. The Good Samaritan comes to mind. It seems feeding/caring for people is part of sharing the gospel with them.

I say this within the parameter of Scripture, of course, not to just feed someone who is being deliberately lazy or something. But someone truly in need, or even just in need of hospitality.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Christ returns to a largely redeemed world and church. Why does the scripture say that the day and hour will take us by surprise? Surely a restored world would be a big clue that his return was near?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about defeatist theology - If Christ returns to a largely defeated church and ungodly world, wouldn't that be a big clue of his return? The answer is no one knows the day and the hour no one knows how long we are to continue in that state nor fully when that state is actually reached since it involves the entire world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the church be defeated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is simply another eschatological position included in most Amill views and all dispensational views. As an example, this type of theology is expressed very well in the beginning chapters of A.W. Pink's The Sovereignty of God. He talks about the world getting worse and worse like it's going to hell in a hand basket but God's still sovereign over it and we can do nothing about it. This is defeatist theology and it's not biblical. The Bible speaks about a church being triumphant over hell and Christ reigning over all nations - not a church that cowers in the corner and waits in defeat for the return of Christ.
Click to expand...


You seem to have a very carnal understanding of the Kingdom of Christ (church). For the church to be successful it doesn't mean she has to prosper physically (as in having dominion over unbelievers and outnumbering them). There is no contradictions in saying the church is prospering spiritually while she suffers earthly persecution. Saying that unless you believe the church will take over the world you have a defeatist view is to fall into the same trap that the Jewish people fell into when they thought Christ was coming as an earthly ruler to conquer the world and establish and Jewish earthly dominion.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Christ returns to a largely redeemed world and church. Why does the scripture say that the day and hour will take us by surprise? Surely a restored world would be a big clue that his return was near?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about defeatist theology - If Christ returns to a largely defeated church and ungodly world, wouldn't that be a big clue of his return? The answer is no one knows the day and the hour no one knows how long we are to continue in that state nor fully when that state is actually reached since it involves the entire world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the church be defeated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is simply another eschatological position included in most Amill views and all dispensational views. As an example, this type of theology is expressed very well in the beginning chapters of A.W. Pink's The Sovereignty of God. He talks about the world getting worse and worse like it's going to hell in a hand basket but God's still sovereign over it and we can do nothing about it. This is defeatist theology and it's not biblical. The Bible speaks about a church being triumphant over hell and Christ reigning over all nations - not a church that cowers in the corner and waits in defeat for the return of Christ.
Click to expand...


Doesn't reaslly answer my question as why you think the church would be defeated?


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> we are not called to do any of the things i mentioned in my initial post. its not our job or even within our ability.
> 
> we are called to preach the gospel of Christ to all nations and that's the ONLY thing we are called to do. there are various means in which we do this but that is the purpose of those means.
> 
> Jesus said as much in Luke 16:26, John 4:13-14, john 6:26-27 and 32-35
> 
> Yes, im fully aware of the commands to care for the needy, and that the law is required of everyone, which is why those who have rebelled against God's law will face eternal damnation in hell and why churches have various outreach initiatives. My point is doing these things are tools of evangelism. What eternal good is it if someone is fed phsycially but starves to death spiritually?
> 
> The reason for Jesus feeding the 5,000 and 4,000, for giving sight to the blind, for raising the dead, healing the sick, turning water into wine, and all the other miracles he performed was for the same reason God raised up pharaoh in order to perform the plagues He did before Egypt and Israel to deliver His chosen people. they were signs and wonders for the purpose of Glory, belief, and repentance of sin in rebellion to God.
> 
> One phrase i saw repeated over and over in reading through the OT prophets was after God through the prophets talked about all the punishments He would bring on the nations that rebelled against him the would say "then they will know that I Am The LORD".
> 
> Jesus reiterates this in Matthew 11:20-24 and john 15:23-25
> 
> The sign and wonder that is given to us in today's world to use for evangelism is.....LOVE!
> 
> This is the reason why we have needy people around us always, why the only religion acceptable to God is to care for widows and orphans and not be polluted by the world. Its also why we are commanded to do the very radical things in Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-36. Only those who the Spirit of God indwells will be able to do stuff like that. we are indeed commanded to do these things, but for the purpose of spreading the good news, not for the purpose of philanthropy. There are just as many atheists out there feeding the poor and caring for the needy as there are Christians and they don't care about the gospel and they actually are trying to save the world.
> 
> Jesus when He returns will eradicate and eliminate all of these things for the new heaven and new earth he will have for His chosen people. Our job is to get the message of salvation out to all nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have to be careful here not to get into a heretical 2 kingdom view. The Great Commission was spoken to Apostles whose spiritual descendants are pastors/elders. They are the ones who have authority to preach, teach, and administer the sacraments. It's not spoken to every Christian. Christians can and have to be a part of the world - we're not the Amish, lol. We are called to be good employees, good housewives, law-abiding citizens in so far as it does not violate God's law, etc. In fact, Christians should be known as the best employees and citizens! The 1st commandment requires that we have an all-encompassing world and life view based upon Scripture. This includes government and other so-called "secular" things. But the government is not in fact secular! Romans 13 tells us the government is a minister of God to do good and punish wickedness.
> 
> We are called to show love to our neighbors and enemies, but obviously love means keeping the law of God towards them. For instance, I could show love to a homeless person - NOT by just giving them free food or money (if a man does not work, he does not eat) - but by giving him some type of work to do and then giving him pay/food for it. The Bible is not just get saved, get saved, get saved - What about sanctification? That's just as important. God requires all men and nations to submit to his law. We are just as much called to obey God's law in everything as we are to get saved - we are saved _unto_ good works. Getting saved is not the end but the beginning. That's why a side-effect of the Gospel will be the coming of the nations to Christ. That's when we will see Christianity flourishing at its finest - when church, state, and family are working in their respective covenantal spheres fulfilling the role God has given to them. I am not one to argue pragmatically but Christianity works, lol. It brings economic, political, social prosperity.
> 
> So, I guess what I am saying is Christianity is more than just the gospel - we are called to obey God's law. And when each sphere of authority does this, there will be prosperity, even though that's not the goal per se.
> 
> "Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance." Psalm 33:12
Click to expand...


I really dont know why you would think that me saying someone getting saved wouldn't mean being sanctified and conformed to the image of Christ.

I'm starting to think you talk past me and take me out of context on purpose.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Boosterseat_91 said:


> I think we have to be careful here not to get into a heretical 2 kingdom view



I think we have to be careful here not to get into the heretical theonomist view  (humorous tone). In all seriousness maybe you should be careful before making such bold statements, there are many discussion on this board that address the issue of 2 Kingdoms, maybe you should have a look at them before you accuse people of being heretics.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Fogetaboutit said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Christ returns to a largely redeemed world and church. Why does the scripture say that the day and hour will take us by surprise? Surely a restored world would be a big clue that his return was near?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about defeatist theology - If Christ returns to a largely defeated church and ungodly world, wouldn't that be a big clue of his return? The answer is no one knows the day and the hour no one knows how long we are to continue in that state nor fully when that state is actually reached since it involves the entire world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the church be defeated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is simply another eschatological position included in most Amill views and all dispensational views. As an example, this type of theology is expressed very well in the beginning chapters of A.W. Pink's The Sovereignty of God. He talks about the world getting worse and worse like it's going to hell in a hand basket but God's still sovereign over it and we can do nothing about it. This is defeatist theology and it's not biblical. The Bible speaks about a church being triumphant over hell and Christ reigning over all nations - not a church that cowers in the corner and waits in defeat for the return of Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have a very carnal understanding of the Kingdom of Christ (church). For the church to be successful it doesn't mean she has to prosper physically (as in having dominion over unbelievers and outnumbering them). There is no contradictions in saying the church is prospering spiritually while she suffers earthly persecution. Saying that unless you believe the church will take over the world you have a defeatist view is to fall into the same trap that the Jewish people fell into when they thought Christ was coming as an earthly ruler to conquer the world and establish and Jewish earthly dominion.
Click to expand...


My understanding of the church is the visible/invisible church as taught by the Westminster Standards and it is not the same at all of the error committed by the Jewish people which is very similar to dispensationalism, not postmillennialism. They didn't understand the prophecies in the OT about the gathering of the Gentiles into the people of God nor that God requires faith for you to be a child of believing Abraham and it's not based upon your physical lineage. The postmill view recognizes all of these things - there's really no comparison here.

And I guess I don't know what you mean by "prospering spiritually" - are you sort of meaning a quality over quantity view? The interesting thing is that "spiritual prosperity" always leads to physical prosperity. You know why places like the United States are hurting so badly right now? It's because we have so few spiritually quality churches preaching the reformed faith. This means families aren't being equipped to train their children properly which means our children are growing up and becoming more and more pagan. Our physical state is always a reflection of our spiritual state. If the churches would get back in line with the Word of God and have quality teaching and discipleship, then I believe our nation would be brought to reformation. 

Furthermore, Christianity cannot be defeated because every other worldview is ultimately self-destructive. It is impossible for Christianity to prosper and not bear fruits in a tangible way.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Fogetaboutit said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have to be careful here not to get into a heretical 2 kingdom view
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have to be careful here not to get into the heretical theonomist view  (humorous tone). In all seriousness maybe you should be careful before making such bold statements, there are many discussion on this board that address the issue of 2 Kingdoms, maybe you should have a look at them before you accuse people of being heretics.
Click to expand...


No accusations were thrown. Simply making a word of caution. Btw, I use the historical definitions of the word heresy. I recognize 3 types of errors - an error, heresy, and damnable heresy. Just want to make sure that everyone understands I am not calling it a damnable heresy.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> Doesn't reaslly answer my question as why you think the church would be defeated?



I don't think the church would be defeated...I think it will be victorious


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> I really dont know why you would think that me saying someone getting saved wouldn't mean being sanctified and conformed to the image of Christ.
> 
> I'm starting to think you talk past me and take me out of context on purpose.



Please, let's not get into peoples' motives. We can't know anyone's heart and I am not intending to take you out of context. In fact, it seemed very obvious to me what you were saying - Since you talked about we are only called to preach the gospel, but not to do anything else that implies that we're not called to obey the law which is sanctification. So I just showed how the law applies in each sphere of authority and that not even every Christian is called to preach the gospel - that's a specific calling of the pastor/elder. So we can and must obey God by doing good deeds.


----------



## THE W

Miss Marple said:


> "What eternal good is it if someone is fed phsycially but starves to death spiritually?"
> 
> I think we are supposed to feed them anyway. The Good Samaritan comes to mind. It seems feeding/caring for people is part of sharing the gospel with them.
> 
> I say this within the parameter of Scripture, of course, not to just feed someone who is being deliberately lazy or something. But someone truly in need, or even just in need of hospitality.



i agree, you should care for the needy as the Word of God commands. many atheists and other heretical religions do just that, and think nothing of the gospel on top of the fact that they will not be saved due to their "good works" of philanthropy. God doesn't except filthy rags. 

If christians provide the poor with food while making no mention of the Good News of Jesus Christ then we have failed in our duty. We do it for the sake of the gospel.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't reaslly answer my question as why you think the church would be defeated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the church would be defeated...I think it will be victorious
Click to expand...


still doesn't answer my question



Boosterseat_91 said:


> If Christ returns to a largely defeated church and ungodly world, wouldn't that be a big clue of his return?



Why do you think the church would be defeated?


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> If christians provide the poor with food while making no mention of the Good News of Jesus Christ then we have failed in our duty. We do it for the sake of the gospel.



I think this is primarily where we disagree. I believe we do those things for the sake of obedience to glorify God - not the sake of the gospel. In fact, our primary duty is to do good to those in the household of faith which clearly we don't do that for the sake of them being saved. We obey our employers - not for the sake of them being saved - but because that's what God requires of us. In fact, we can violate God's law if we take time away that we have agreed to work and instead go preach the gospel. That's stealing and the gospel is not to be advanced in lawlessness. To say that good works are nothing unless they include the preaching of the gospel is hyper-spiritual. Good works are good precisely because they are obedient to God's law.

Edit: Oh, and no one but Christians can do good in that sense.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't reaslly answer my question as why you think the church would be defeated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the church would be defeated...I think it will be victorious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still doesn't answer my question
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Christ returns to a largely defeated church and ungodly world, wouldn't that be a big clue of his return?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the church would be defeated?
Click to expand...


I don't think your asking the right question. I do not believe the church will be defeated. Are you asking me what would constitute a defeated church vs. an undefeated church?


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really dont know why you would think that me saying someone getting saved wouldn't mean being sanctified and conformed to the image of Christ.
> 
> I'm starting to think you talk past me and take me out of context on purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, let's not get into peoples' motives. We can't know anyone's heart and I am not intending to take you out of context. In fact, it seemed very obvious to me what you were saying - Since you talked about we are only called to preach the gospel, but not to do anything else that implies that we're not called to obey the law which is sanctification. So I just showed how the law applies in each sphere of authority and that not even every Christian is called to preach the gospel - that's a specific calling of the pastor/elder. So we can and must obey God by doing good deeds.
Click to expand...


Then i guess i used the word "preach" improperly. We're ALL called to share the Good News of Jesus Christ. by no means was my intention to imply that everyone has to be a pastor/elder.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> If christians provide the poor with food while making no mention of the Good News of Jesus Christ then we have failed in our duty. We do it for the sake of the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is primarily where we disagree. I believe we do those things for the sake of obedience to glorify God - not the sake of the gospel. In fact, our primary duty is to do good to those in the household of faith which clearly we don't do that for the sake of them being saved. We obey our employers - not for the sake of them being saved - but because that's what God requires of us. In fact, we can violate God's law if we take time away that we have agreed to work and instead go preach the gospel. That's stealing and the gospel is not to be advanced in lawlessness. To say that good works are nothing unless they include the preaching of the gospel is hyper-spiritual. Good works are good precisely because they are obedient to God's law.
> 
> Edit: Oh, and no one but Christians can do good in that sense.
Click to expand...


obeying God is doing what he says. One of his commands is to spread the gospel message to all people. if you're not participating in that then you're not obeying.

i guess the apostle Paul was "hyper-spiritual" when he went and argued with the Jews in the synagogues over the gospel.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't reaslly answer my question as why you think the church would be defeated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the church would be defeated...I think it will be victorious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> still doesn't answer my question
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Christ returns to a largely defeated church and ungodly world, wouldn't that be a big clue of his return?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think the church would be defeated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think your asking the right question. I do not believe the church will be defeated. Are you asking me what would constitute a defeated church vs. an undefeated church?
Click to expand...


i'll clarify,

why do you think Christ's church is defeated if the rest of the world that is not part of Christ's church is ungodly?


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> obeying God is doing what he says. One of his commands is to spread the gospel message to all people. if you're not participating in that then you're not obeying.
> 
> i guess the apostle Paul was "hyper-spiritual" when he went and argued with the Jews in the synagogues over the gospel.



No, Paul was an apostle so that was part of his duties as a minister of the Gospel. What is hyper-spiritual, however, is to say that basically everyone is called to be a preacher of the gospel, which you probably aren't trying to say, but it could be taken that way since you are being very ambiguous. I like to be very specific - the best way a believer can have his part in spreading the gospel is by having children and teaching their children to love and obey the Lord. That's the dominion mandate which is God's call on every believer. Not every believer is called to preach the gospel to the nations - or "share" the gospel with the nations. My point is - you can obey God through *physical* means without spiritualizing it all the time by sharing the gospel and this is what you and I are disagreeing on. A man may have a very physical existence - let's say he's a farmer who lives in the country and doesn't socialize much with anyone but his family and church. But he can still glorify God in physical ways. He doesn't have to preach the gospel to every person he tries to sell his produce to in order to glorify God. But He does have to raise his family in the Christian faith. This is an expansion of the kingdom.



> i'll clarify,
> 
> why do you think Christ's church is defeated if the rest of the world that is not part of Christ's church is ungodly?



Because the physical always reflects the spiritual. The state of the church in the United States is thoroughly corrupt and abominable and this is reflected in our government's great theft and wickedness, in children dishonoring their parents, in schools/politicians/government officials/even church leaders blaspheming God, the degredation of the Sabbath, the great genocide and murder that takes place, and so much more wickedness in this nation. The physical realm shows the fruit of our spiritual state. Reformation in the church will result in reformation in society. Right now, Christians in the United States are being forced to live under an anti-Christian worldview. The money we pay into insurance is used to fund abortions, our money is stolen from us from extremely high or unjust taxations and "redistributed" (aka theft), we are forced to fund the anti-Christian curriculum of the public school systems, on and on. That, my friend, is a defeated church - a church that is being forced to live outside of its Christian worldview and that has no hope to change the culture. A triumphant church will be the worldview on top where unbelievers are forced to submit to our worldview - not the other way around.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Boosterseat_91 said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need 4 Creed said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Christ returns to a largely redeemed world and church. Why does the scripture say that the day and hour will take us by surprise? Surely a restored world would be a big clue that his return was near?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about defeatist theology - If Christ returns to a largely defeated church and ungodly world, wouldn't that be a big clue of his return? The answer is no one knows the day and the hour no one knows how long we are to continue in that state nor fully when that state is actually reached since it involves the entire world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would the church be defeated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is simply another eschatological position included in most Amill views and all dispensational views. As an example, this type of theology is expressed very well in the beginning chapters of A.W. Pink's The Sovereignty of God. He talks about the world getting worse and worse like it's going to hell in a hand basket but God's still sovereign over it and we can do nothing about it. This is defeatist theology and it's not biblical. The Bible speaks about a church being triumphant over hell and Christ reigning over all nations - not a church that cowers in the corner and waits in defeat for the return of Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have a very carnal understanding of the Kingdom of Christ (church). For the church to be successful it doesn't mean she has to prosper physically (as in having dominion over unbelievers and outnumbering them). There is no contradictions in saying the church is prospering spiritually while she suffers earthly persecution. Saying that unless you believe the church will take over the world you have a defeatist view is to fall into the same trap that the Jewish people fell into when they thought Christ was coming as an earthly ruler to conquer the world and establish and Jewish earthly dominion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My understanding of the church is the visible/invisible church as taught by the Westminster Standards and it is not the same at all of the error committed by the Jewish people which is very similar to dispensationalism, not postmillennialism. They didn't understand the prophecies in the OT about the gathering of the Gentiles into the people of God nor that God requires faith for you to be a child of believing Abraham and it's not based upon your physical lineage. The postmill view recognizes all of these things - there's really no comparison here.
> 
> And I guess I don't know what you mean by "prospering spiritually" - are you sort of meaning a quality over quantity view? The interesting thing is that "spiritual prosperity" always leads to physical prosperity. You know why places like the United States are hurting so badly right now? It's because we have so few spiritually quality churches preaching the reformed faith. This means families aren't being equipped to train their children properly which means our children are growing up and becoming more and more pagan. Our physical state is always a reflection of our spiritual state. If the churches would get back in line with the Word of God and have quality teaching and discipleship, then I believe our nation would be brought to reformation.
> 
> Furthermore, Christianity cannot be defeated because every other worldview is ultimately self-destructive. It is impossible for Christianity to prosper and not bear fruits in a tangible way.
Click to expand...


Since i'm not a postmil I don't interpret Revelation 20 as a "golden age" of earthly prosperity as the postmils would but look at the reign of Christ as being the entire period between his ascension and his second coming. Therefore we are already in this time of spiritual prosperity and have been since Christ ascension. As long as the church is still growing it is being leavened, the parable does not make references to the church growing stonger "in comparision" to the kingdom of the world but simply state that it will leaven until it is completed.


----------



## Raj

We serve those that are in need (hungry, poor, exploited/oppressed by caste system, illitrates, sick etc) because of our Lord Jesus Christ concern, for them. Whenever Christ saw people in need, He responded to them by having compassion on them. And it was not by mere words but in practical ways. 

We use "helping and serving" to to share Good News of Grace with them through H.E.L.P NGO. Evangelism (Good News is on our focus) is done through various means. 

Some of the people we helped also turns to be asking, "why do you do all this?" So, it opens the door for us to share the love of Christ. 

So, my answer would be if Christ responded to these needy ones, we as His followers should be His imitators But we shouldn't stick to the social aspect alone. 

I'm in LA today, would be here for KS and STL areas for next two weeks. Any one there to say hello?


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> No, Paul was an apostle so that was part of his duties as a minister of the Gospel. What is hyper-spiritual, however, is to say that basically everyone is called to be a preacher of the gospel, which you probably aren't trying to say, but it could be taken that way since you are being very ambiguous. I like to be very specific - the best way a believer can have his part in spreading the gospel is by having children and teaching their children to love and obey the Lord. That's the dominion mandate which is God's call on every believer. Not every believer is called to preach the gospel to the nations - or "share" the gospel with the nations. My point is - you can obey God through *physical* means without spiritualizing it all the time by sharing the gospel and this is what you and I are disagreeing on. A man may have a very physical existence - let's say he's a farmer who lives in the country and doesn't socialize much with anyone but his family and church. But he can still glorify God in physical ways. He doesn't have to preach the gospel to every person he tries to sell his produce to in order to glorify God. But He does have to raise his family in the Christian faith. This is an expansion of the kingdom.



atheists have children too, and they grow up to be God haters. the gospel message still has to be preached...or taught, if you will.





Boosterseat_91 said:


> Because the physical always reflects the spiritual. The state of the church in the United States is thoroughly corrupt and abominable and this is reflected in our government's great theft and wickedness, in children dishonoring their parents, in schools/politicians/government officials/even church leaders blaspheming God, the degredation of the Sabbath, the great genocide and murder that takes place, and so much more wickedness in this nation. The physical realm shows the fruit of our spiritual state. Reformation in the church will result in reformation in society. Right now, Christians in the United States are being forced to live under an anti-Christian worldview. The money we pay into insurance is used to fund abortions, our money is stolen from us from extremely high or unjust taxations and "redistributed" (aka theft), we are forced to fund the anti-Christian curriculum of the public school systems, on and on. That, my friend, is a defeated church - a church that is being forced to live outside of its Christian worldview and that has no hope to change the culture. A triumphant church will be the worldview on top where unbelievers are forced to submit to our worldview - not the other way around.



cannot agree as the state of secular society has nothing to do with the state of Christ's church. 

the false churches, sure.

Christ's church/God's people have always been under persecution by the prevailing secular society.


----------



## THE W

Raj said:


> We serve those that are in need (hungry, poor, exploited/oppressed by caste system, illitrates, sick etc) because of our Lord Jesus Christ concern, for them. Whenever Christ saw people in need, He responded to them by having compassion on them. And it was not by mere words but in practical ways.
> 
> We use "helping and serving" to to share Good News of Grace with them through H.E.L.P NGO. Evangelism (Good News is on our focus) is done through various means.
> 
> Some of the people we helped also turns to be asking, "why do you do all this?" So, it opens the door for us to share the love of Christ.
> 
> So, my answer would be if Christ responded to these needy ones, we as His followers should be His imitators But we shouldn't stick to the social aspect alone.
> 
> I'm in LA today, would be here for KS and STL areas for next two weeks. Any one there to say hello?



yes,

and we do it as means of sharing the gospel and not to save the planet.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> atheists have children too, and they grow up to be God haters. the gospel message still has to be preached...or taught, if you will.



Yes, and it's not wrong to witness personally to them. But, again, it is elders who are called to disciple the nations. Parents have the duty to disciple their children, not every person they meet.



> cannot agree as the state of secular society has nothing to do with the state of Christ's church.
> 
> the false churches, sure.
> 
> Christ's church/God's people have always been under persecution by the prevailing secular society.



If you look at the Old Testament, you will see it is when the people of God - the visible church - went after idols that the whole nation goes down the drain. But when they repent and seek the Lord they are brought out of captivity or persecution and brought into prosperity. This is because the physical state of a nation always reflects the spiritual state of the church.

And it's not true in history that Christ's church have always been under persecution. The church of Scotland, for example, had for a time an establishment of the Christian religion. I'm sure you've heard of the Solemn League and Covenant which disproves your idea that the church has always been persecuted by the society. There are ups and downs in history, but the church will be victorious in the end. Christ didn't die for his bride to be beaten up by the world but to be victorious over the world. The Lordship of Christ extends further than just over individuals - He is Lord over lords and King over kings and He will reign till all his enemies are put under foot.


----------



## Scot

Boosterseat_91 said:


> Christ didn't die for his bride to be beaten up by the world but to be victorious over the world. The Lordship of Christ extends further than just over individuals - He is Lord over lords and King over kings and He will reign till all his enemies are put under foot.



Amen!


----------



## Peairtach

Need 4 Creed said:


> If Christ returns to a largely redeemed world and church. Why does the scripture say that the day and hour will take us by surprise? Surely a restored world would be a big clue that his return was near?



To the unbeliever it will always be a shock because he doesn't believe Christ is coming for him, either in death or at the Eschaton.

To the believer it will not be a surprise, because he is ready for Christ coming for him, either in death or at the Eschaton.

By the way, the Bible doesn't teach that we must believe that the Second Advent _could_ happen today, just that we must be ready for it when it comes.

*E.g.*


> But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you.For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. *But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. *Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. (I Thess 5:1-5, KJV)



If the Apostle taught that Christian people should expect that Christ could return at any second, why did say this:


> Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. *Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed,* the son of perdition;Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? (II Thess 2:1-5)



Also, our Lord indicated in the parables that He would be away for a long time, indicating that He would not return until a long time had elapsed. Were the disciples meant to expect His final Advent as soon as He had gone, or an hour after? Clearly nothing could be more ridiculous. The Lord had given them a world to evangelise before He returned, and it soon became clear that that world evangelisation wasn't going to happen overnight. In fact it still hasn't been completed.



> And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:10-11)





> But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Acts 1:8)



So clearly it is part of our faith that we should be ready for our Lord's coming, whether by death, or at the Eschaton (Last Day), but it is not part of our faith that we are obliged to believe that the Eschaton might be today. 

It has become evangelical "orthodoxy" that we are obliged to believe that Jesus might return today or tonight because of the influence of premilllenialism and dispensationalism.

Our own "little" *e*schaton, however, may well be today or tonight.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> Yes, and it's not wrong to witness personally to them. But, again, it is elders who are called to disciple the nations. Parents have the duty to disciple their children, not every person they meet.



its the entire church's duty to spread the gospel message. there are many ways this can be done. preaching, teaching, witnessing, acts of mercy, etc. one person doesn't have to do it all but all have to do something.




Boosterseat_91 said:


> If you look at the Old Testament, you will see it is when the people of God - the visible church - went after idols that the whole nation goes down the drain. But when they repent and seek the Lord they are brought out of captivity or persecution and brought into prosperity. This is because the physical state of a nation always reflects the spiritual state of the church.



those who prostituted themselves to idols were never God's people - Christ's church - to begin with as Romans 9:6-9 and 1john 2:18-19 state

the "visible church" is a whole lot of nothing.




Boosterseat_91 said:


> And it's not true in history that Christ's church have always been under persecution. The church of Scotland, for example, had for a time an establishment of the Christian religion. I'm sure you've heard of the Solemn League and Covenant which disproves your idea that the church has always been persecuted by the society. There are ups and downs in history, but the church will be victorious in the end. Christ didn't die for his bride to be beaten up by the world but to be victorious over the world. The Lordship of Christ extends further than just over individuals - He is Lord over lords and King over kings and He will reign till all his enemies are put under foot.



the reformation efforts of the Church of Scotland and SLC were under persecution from the Church of Rome(RCC), which could be described as the "visible church" or at least the most "visible church" at that time. goes right a long with my point. Rome's antichrist religious rule over society(before the laws of separation of church and state) can hardly be seen as a victorious period for Christ's church over the world at large. 

you dont need to worry about Christ's church, she's doing just fine.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and it's not wrong to witness personally to them. But, again, it is elders who are called to disciple the nations. Parents have the duty to disciple their children, not every person they meet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its the entire church's duty to spread the gospel message. there are many ways this can be done. preaching, teaching, witnessing, acts of mercy, etc. one person doesn't have to do it all but all have to do something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at the Old Testament, you will see it is when the people of God - the visible church - went after idols that the whole nation goes down the drain. But when they repent and seek the Lord they are brought out of captivity or persecution and brought into prosperity. This is because the physical state of a nation always reflects the spiritual state of the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> those who prostituted themselves to idols were never God's people - Christ's church - to begin with as Romans 9:6-9 and 1john 2:18-19 state
> 
> the "visible church" is a whole lot of nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it's not true in history that Christ's church have always been under persecution. The church of Scotland, for example, had for a time an establishment of the Christian religion. I'm sure you've heard of the Solemn League and Covenant which disproves your idea that the church has always been persecuted by the society. There are ups and downs in history, but the church will be victorious in the end. Christ didn't die for his bride to be beaten up by the world but to be victorious over the world. The Lordship of Christ extends further than just over individuals - He is Lord over lords and King over kings and He will reign till all his enemies are put under foot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the reformation efforts of the Church of Scotland and SLC were under persecution from the Church of Rome(RCC), which could be described as the "visible church" or at least the most "visible church" at that time. goes right a long with my point. Rome's antichrist religious rule over society(before the laws of separation of church and state) can hardly be seen as a victorious period for Christ's church over the world at large.
> 
> you dont need to worry about Christ's church, she's doing just fine.
Click to expand...


You're correct that everyone has a part to play. This comes along with the description of the body in 1 Corinthians. The problem is you're practically saying that everyone has to be a face - or a preacher - to everyone they meet or they are not obeying God. But not everyone is a preacher. Some may play their part by being a stay at home mom and spending their days changing diapers, doing dishes, being a helpmate to their husband, discipline their children, etc. Physical means can glorify and obey God apart from explicitly sharing the gospel. You're putting a huge, basically Arminian, burden on people.


----------



## THE W

It would only be arminian if we were told to go out and convert people. That's the Holy Spirit's job. 

We just spread the word of the gospel.


----------



## Vasahond

I have to agree with THE W on this one -- especially considering the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the RPCNA's own Constitution, under official vows to become a member:

"Do you purpose to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness in all the relationships of life, faithfully to perform your whole 
duty as a true servant of Jesus Christ, and seek to win others to Him?"
(G-1, Article 6)

What good is it if we do good things for people without sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ? Shall we make the world a more comfortable place to go to Hell from? Heaven forbid. I understand that sharing the Gospel is intimidating; but that does not give one an excuse to be passive in sharing it. Now, do I share the Gospel as I ought to? Sadly, I do not. However, at the same time, I do share the Gospel -- and with people of whom it can be said are sinners. Shall we be passive in sharing the Gospel if it is our Lord's desire (not decree -- but His desire) that men shall come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)? Shall we not desire for the same thing as our Lord?

It sounds like we are assuming a passive role in the preaching of the Gospel, as though the Great Commission was given exclusively to the Apostles and none else -- but that in and of itself is a great fallacy and an undermining of the power of the Holy Spirit regenerate lost sinners. I present to you Romans 10:14-15:

*How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”*

This is not Arminian theology; this is the decree of God, that we may be included in His plan; the Gospel must go out by the preaching of the Word -- but make no mistake, the Holy Spirit does the regenerating. That, in and of itself, should give us great comfort in sharing the Gospel. We, in our powerlessness and sinfulness cannot present the Gospel in all of its glory; but God uses beggars to tell other beggars where to find good bread. Brothers, we have a responsibility unto our Lord to share the Gospel. If that makes you uncomfortable -- it should. It's not about you.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> It would only be arminian if we were told to go out and convert people. That's the Holy Spirit's job.
> 
> We just spread the word of the gospel.



Perhaps Arminian isn't the right word, though it is very similar to the burden that Arminianism places on people. You've expressed that no good work is a good work unless it includes the preaching or "sharing" of the gospel. You said that it is for the "sake of the gospel" that we do good deeds and that anything less than sharing the gospel does not constitute a "obedience to God" (which is the definition of a good deed). This is extremely legalistic. The apostles/elders were given the authority to preach and teach the gospel; that's the job of the shepherds. The sheep go out in the world and live according to the Ten Commandments. Heads of household are responsible to disciple their families. This doesn't mean that they can't share the gospel when they have the opportunity, that's fine. But they do far more good deeds that do not include sharing the gospel. Most heads of household have secular employment and at times it would actually be _unlawful_ for them to share the gospel - as that would cause them to steal time from the employer when they should be working. A "Christian" employee is not someone who shares the gospel with every employee, every customers, every manager, etc. A Christian employee is a person who does not steal from the company, keeps his word, etc. In other words, a Christian employee is an employee who doesn't violate God's law.

Again, the church is a body. Many people are like a heart or a lung - they're works aren't seen and forefront, but their works are necessary to the church. This may be like a housewife whose life consists in honoring her husband, praying and encouraging the body of Christ, etc. Maybe the only people she shares the gospel with is her own children - so what? She has lived a life honoring to God because of her obedience to God's law. 

It seems to me that you are creeping into neoplatonism. This is a serious error. God is glorified when we do the smallest of things - like a woman changing diapers with faith in her heart - which means these things ARE good.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Vasahond said:


> I have to agree with THE W on this one -- especially considering the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In the RPCNA's own Constitution, under official vows to become a member:
> 
> "Do you purpose to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness in all the relationships of life, faithfully to perform your whole
> duty as a true servant of Jesus Christ, and seek to win others to Him?"
> (G-1, Article 6)
> 
> What good is it if we do good things for people without sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ? Shall we make the world a more comfortable place to go to Hell from? Heaven forbid. I understand that sharing the Gospel is intimidating; but that does not give one an excuse to be passive in sharing it. Now, do I share the Gospel as I ought to? Sadly, I do not. However, at the same time, I do share the Gospel -- and with people of whom it can be said are sinners. Shall we be passive in sharing the Gospel if it is our Lord's desire (not decree -- but His desire) that men shall come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)? Shall we not desire for the same thing as our Lord?
> 
> It sounds like we are assuming a passive role in the preaching of the Gospel, as though the Great Commission was given exclusively to the Apostles and none else -- but that in and of itself is a great fallacy and an undermining of the power of the Holy Spirit regenerate lost sinners. I present to you Romans 10:14-15:
> 
> *How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”*
> 
> This is not Arminian theology; this is the decree of God, that we may be included in His plan; the Gospel must go out by the preaching of the Word -- but make no mistake, the Holy Spirit does the regenerating. That, in and of itself, should give us great comfort in sharing the Gospel. We, in our powerlessness and sinfulness cannot present the Gospel in all of its glory; but God uses beggars to tell other beggars where to find good bread. Brothers, we have a responsibility unto our Lord to share the Gospel. If that makes you uncomfortable -- it should. It's not about you.



Romans 10 is not speaking to every believer. Every believer is not called to be a preacher. 1 Timothy 3 gives the qualifications for an elder which inherently excludes some from that office. 

Christians are certainly not called to be passive either - obedience to God is an ACTIVE obedience. If the opportunity itself comes up to share the gospel, then that is certainly GOOD to share. But this is not the only thing that constitutes something being good. My husband works at a call center to fix computer problems - that's like saying the work he is doing isn't good unless he shares the gospel with every customer. But actually that would be very BAD to do. Not only would it be stealing time from the company and violating the agreement that he made with his employment, it would likely lead to him being unemployed and unable to provide for me and our upcoming child. In fact, no Christian could hold a secular job if a job can only be "good" if it involves constant spreading of the gospel. They would be fired, and quite frankly, they would probably be known as lazy workers who only constantly talk. However, tealing and laziness is not a means by which the gospel should be spread.

The GOOD that comes from doing good things without explicitly sharing the gospel is the glory and honor it shows to God. We obey Him out of the love we have for Him, not necessarily the good that it will do others.


----------



## Vasahond

Boosterseat_91 said:


> Romans 10 is not speaking to every believer. Every believer is not called to be a preacher. 1 Timothy 3 gives the qualifications for an elder which inherently excludes some from that office.


 Sharing the Gospel does not necessary constitute being a pastor over a local congregation, and so concluding with 1 Timothy 3 would actually sound like a good justification not to share the Gospel at all, as if it were reserved for a particular office (such as an elder or pastor). So, while I will in fact concede on the context of Romans 10, it does not mean therefore that we are no to share the Gospel; my point in using it was to support the point that, if we do not share the Good News, how do we expect that they should hear and come to repentance? There's a danger of becoming a hyper-Calvinist if we don't consider carefully these implications.



> Christians are certainly not called to be passive either - obedience to God is an ACTIVE obedience.


 Which was my point in quoting Romans 10, mind you. 



> If the opportunity itself comes up to share the gospel, then that is certainly GOOD to share. But this is not the only thing that constitutes something being good.


 What you do for a wage under guidelines and agreement to an employer I would exclude from good works; although I do believe that in working, we should handle ourselves in a way that will cause people to worship God.



> My husband works at a call center to fix computer problems - that's like saying the work he is doing isn't good unless he shares the gospel with every customer. But actually that would be very BAD to do. Not only would it be stealing time from the company and violating the agreement that he made with his employment, it would likely lead to him being unemployed and unable to provide for me and our upcoming child. In fact, no Christian could hold a secular job if a job can only be "good" if it involves constant spreading of the gospel. They would be fired, and quite frankly, they would probably be known as lazy workers who only constantly talk. However, stealing and laziness is not a means by which the gospel should be spread.


 Well, since I work in a datacenter where I fix computers, maybe I can give you a proper understanding of what sharing the Gospel is. I talk and connect with my customers on a professional (and strictly professional) basis. They pay my employer for the services that I provide to them; therefore, I would concur that it is not my responsibility, in that context, to share the Gospel. My responsibility in that circumstance is to honor my employer (to the glory of God). With my co-workers, it is an entirely different story; in my dealings with them, it is not just professional, but even personal. As such, everybody at my job understands that I am a Christian. When we go out to lunch, or when we're on break, I use the opportunity to share the Gospel. That isn't a lie -- I actually do that. But it's because I love Christ; not because I've been "called" to some office in the Church -- it's my duty to my beloved Lord. Also, it's my duty to my fellow man. The pit of Hell is open to all mankind, but knowing the compassion that Christ has on me prompts me to share the Gospel with them in that context.



> The GOOD that comes from doing good things without explicitly sharing the gospel is the glory and honor it shows to God. We obey Him out of the love we have for Him, not necessarily the good that it will do others.


 Indeed -- which is why I believe that the pinnacle of "doing good" and honoring God is to share the Good News. I'll tell you what I have in mind when I speak of this:

So, I know many that go on "missions trips" where they will build a structure, cook food, etc. However, they consider these acts good in and of themselves, without explicitly pointing to Christ. I am trying to make the point that what makes good works good is when the attention, the focus, the honor, the glory, and the praise belong to Jesus -- and we don't mind saying so. At work, when my boss tells me "good job," my response to him is "praise God," for if we do not honor God in such things, it's not Him that we ultimately point to, but ourselves. My point is, in all our work, we should be directing people's attention to our Lord -- and the best way to do that is share the Gospel. So, there is a time and a place where we share the Gospel; a correct setting. I think you're spot on about one's profession, but that's not what I am referring to at all when it comes to sharing the Gospel.

If you are going to do good works, give glory to God by finding an opportunity to share the Gospel, so that it may be said that you labored for the work of the Kingdom.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Wade, you said, “you dont need to worry about Christ's church, she's doing just fine.” I don’t think that’s true. The church – at least in America, and the West generally – is a mess, and in serious trouble, much like certain times in ancient Israel. Just because some few sectors of it _seem_ to be doing fairly well, please don’t generalize this to the whole church. But the LORD will see to our refining and purifying.

Leah, I appreciate your godly fervency and even-temperedness, though I think you err in some things. You said,
“Amill views . . . in A.W. Pink’s The Sovereignty of God . . . He talks about the world getting worse and worse like it's going to hell in a hand basket but God’s still sovereign over it and we can do nothing about it. This is defeatist theology and it's not biblical. The Bible speaks about a church being triumphant over hell and Christ reigning over all nations - not a church that cowers in the corner and waits in defeat for the return of Christ.”​ 
And this you said is in the same vein:
“Christ didn't die for his bride to be beaten up by the world but to be victorious over the world.”​ 
You talk about “defeatist theology” and how the amil view is “not biblical”. And then how “Christ didn't die for his bride to be beaten up by the world”. You will admit, I’m sure, that the Lord Jesus was sure “beaten up by the world”, and further, was beaten to death by it! The apostles, except John, were all reputed to have been martyred for their testimony, and so have many millions of their brothers and sisters (including little children) in the ensuing centuries. Nor were these “cowering in a corner waiting in defeat for the return of Christ”, but triumphantly proclaiming that *He* is Lord and not Caesar or any earthly ruler or government. Richard Bauckham in the Introduction to his, _The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation_, p. xv, writes,
“John carefully takes up Jewish expectations of a messianic war in which God’s people are to fight and win a military victory over their enemies, and reinterprets them,* substituting faithful witness to the point of martyrdom for armed violence as the means of victory.*”​ 
And the apostle John in Revelation 12:11 says,
“And they overcame him [the devil] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.”​ 
Though we are slaughtered like sheep all the day long, Paul tells us (Roman 8:36-37), we are indeed *more* than conquerors through Him that loved us! We are a militant church against which the gates of hell do not prevail; through death we conquer death – showing we have no fear of it – just like our Captain, in whose steps we follow – in the strength of His Spirit. This is an evil age, Paul tells us (Gal 1:4), “and the whole world lieth in wickedness” says John (1 John 5:19), so it is simply fidelity to the so-called “pessimism” of the apostles (inspired by the Holy Spirit) that informs our amil view.

Would you say that the history of the church to this day has in the main been one big failure, seeing as how our triumph has been spiritual and not physical?

When you say this,
“The Great Commission was spoken to Apostles whose spiritual descendants are pastors/elders. They are the ones who have authority to preach, teach, and administer the sacraments. It's not spoken to every Christian”,​ 
I’m glad the woman who preached Christ crucified to me didn’t have that view, or things might have turned out differently for me! But she did, and the Spirit of Christ bore witness through her words to the Saviour who made wretched sinners new creatures, even such as I.

I don’t think this is true:
“The interesting thing is that ‘spiritual prosperity’ always leads to physical prosperity.”​ 
Sometimes it leads to economic deprivation, as when the faithful saints are excluded from the commerce of their cultures, as we see is the case of those prohibited to “buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast” (Rev 13:17).

As I said, Leah, I much appreciate the godliness of your heart and manner, but I cannot concur with some of the things you say.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Vasahond said:


> Sharing the Gospel does not necessary constitute being a pastor over a local congregation, and so concluding with 1 Timothy 3 would actually sound like a good justification not to share the Gospel at all, as if it were reserved for a particular office (such as an elder or pastor). So, while I will in fact concede on the context of Romans 10, it does not mean therefore that we are no to share the Gospel; my point in using it was to support the point that, if we do not share the Good News, how do we expect that they should hear and come to repentance? There's a danger of becoming a hyper-Calvinist if we don't consider carefully these implications.



You are misunderstanding me when I say that not every person is called to be a preacher - I am _not_ saying that it's either all or nothing - that either you're a preacher and have the responsibility to share the gospel or you're not a pastor and you have not responsibility to share the gospel. Every Christian has the responsibility to know the truth, believe the truth, be able to defend the truth to a certain extent, and be able to teach the truth to a certain extent (like a mother/father to their child). 

The problem I have with what you are saying is that you are making it sound as if it is wrong to have any type of employment other than that which is explicitly "spiritual" (like an elder). This is because you say a good work is not good unless it includes the sharing of the gospel - that is very, very _false_. Christians, who are not elders, can and _should_ share the gospel when given the opportunity. But this does not mean we have to go up to every person we met on the street and say "Do you know the Lord Jesus? Are you saved?" Or anything like that. We go about our daily lives and when an opportunity presents itself to share the gospel where we are not stealing from our employer or any other unlawful thing, then well and good! Share the Gospel! But do not say that you've done no good works if it does not include this.



> Christians are certainly not called to be passive either - obedience to God is an ACTIVE obedience.
> 
> 
> 
> Which was my point in quoting Romans 10, mind you.
Click to expand...


That's not the understanding I got from your post about Romans 10. You started off pragmatically, asking a rhetorical question that implied that good works are NO good unless they involve sharing the gospel - because otherwise they just make the world a more comfortable place to go to hell from. So you were saying unless one explicitly shares the gospel in any situation, one is not doing a good work. But to the contrary, a good work is obeying God - the Ten Commandments - in word, thought, and deed. This is the active obedience I was referring to, which you counted as null and void unless they also include a presentation of the gospel.



> If the opportunity itself comes up to share the gospel, then that is certainly GOOD to share. But this is not the only thing that constitutes something being good.
> 
> 
> 
> What you do for a wage under guidelines and agreement to an employer I would exclude from good works; although I do believe that in working, we should handle ourselves in a way that will cause people to worship God.
Click to expand...


You cannot exclude any works from being either good or bad ultimately from God's perspective. Even though some things, like playing video games, are neutral and can be used rightly for our own pleasure or abused - from God's perspective (who can see the heart and judges the thoughts and motives) - he knows if you are sinning in your heart or not. He knows if you are obsessed with that video games and therefore sinning by neglecting other duties that you ought to be doing. I am looking at one's employment from GOD'S perspective. Clearly, if you're employed in something like prostitution, then you're sinning in your employment. But if you're employed in something neutral (like fixing computers) then you ARE doing good as long as you are not sinning in word, thought, or deed. You are glorifying God in that employment.



> My husband works at a call center to fix computer problems - that's like saying the work he is doing isn't good unless he shares the gospel with every customer. But actually that would be very BAD to do. Not only would it be stealing time from the company and violating the agreement that he made with his employment, it would likely lead to him being unemployed and unable to provide for me and our upcoming child. In fact, no Christian could hold a secular job if a job can only be "good" if it involves constant spreading of the gospel. They would be fired, and quite frankly, they would probably be known as lazy workers who only constantly talk. However, stealing and laziness is not a means by which the gospel should be spread.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since I work in a datacenter where I fix computers, maybe I can give you a proper understanding of what sharing the Gospel is. I talk and connect with my customers on a professional (and strictly professional) basis. They pay my employer for the services that I provide to them; therefore, I would concur that it is not my responsibility, in that context, to share the Gospel. My responsibility in that circumstance is to honor my employer (to the glory of God). With my co-workers, it is an entirely different story; in my dealings with them, it is not just professional, but even personal. As such, everybody at my job understands that I am a Christian. When we go out to lunch, or when we're on break, I use the opportunity to share the Gospel. That isn't a lie -- I actually do that. But it's because I love Christ; not because I've been "called" to some office in the Church -- it's my duty to my beloved Lord. Also, it's my duty to my fellow man. The pit of Hell is open to all mankind, but knowing the compassion that Christ has on me prompts me to share the Gospel with them in that context.
Click to expand...


I'm glad you share the gospel, that's a very good thing to do. And certainly when we witness, we witness out of a love for Christ and a love for our neighbor. But it is not sinning not to share the gospel. Would you agree with that? If opportunities arise to witness, I believe we should take them but I also believe that it would be sinful not to take them based upon our motive (let's say you hate the person so much you don't want them to come to know the truth - that would be sinful). Perhaps neglecting these may show a lack of faith, but I do not believe that is universally true. The fruits which are much better to judge by are the fruits of the Spirit in a person's life, not how often they witness. The fruits of the Spirit are basically obedience to God's law and repentance for violating it.



> The GOOD that comes from doing good things without explicitly sharing the gospel is the glory and honor it shows to God. We obey Him out of the love we have for Him, not necessarily the good that it will do others.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed -- which is why I believe that the pinnacle of "doing good" and honoring God is to share the Good News. I'll tell you what I have in mind when I speak of this:
> 
> So, I know many that go on "missions trips" where they will build a structure, cook food, etc. However, they consider these acts good in and of themselves, without explicitly pointing to Christ. I am trying to make the point that what makes good works good is when the attention, the focus, the honor, the glory, and the praise belong to Jesus -- and we don't mind saying so. At work, when my boss tells me "good job," my response to him is "praise God," for if we do not honor God in such things, it's not Him that we ultimately point to, but ourselves. My point is, in all our work, we should be directing people's attention to our Lord -- and the best way to do that is share the Gospel. So, there is a time and a place where we share the Gospel; a correct setting. I think you're spot on about one's profession, but that's not what I am referring to at all when it comes to sharing the Gospel.
> 
> If you are going to do good works, give glory to God by finding an opportunity to share the Gospel, so that it may be said that you labored for the work of the Kingdom.
Click to expand...


I would have to disagree with you about the "pinnacle" of doing good - it is not sharing the gospel. That is a good thing. The fulfillment of the law is to love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and the outworking of that is to love your neighbor as yourself. Loving your neighbor means to keep the law of God toward Him - don't lie to him or about him, steal from him, etc. If you do these things, you are truly loving your neighbor. Again, if an opportunity arises to share the gospel to them, then share it. Or if they begin blaspheming God or speaking evil of good things, then speak the truth or at least leave. I'm not saying we hide the fact that we are a Christian. But this profession must be backed up by keeping the law of God - which are good works even in employment. "In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16

The best way you can direct peoples' attention to the Lord is obeying God's law which separates us in a tangible way from the world and shows true our profession.


----------



## Vasahond

That is almost on par with works-righteousness; the reason I am proposing what I am is because of the fact that I recognize that I am seen as righteous by the finished work of Christ; as such, instead of showing everybody how moral you are, the best way that we fulfill the Law rightly is by pointing to the very One that fulfilled the whole of it; Jesus is the fulfillment of the whole Law -- and especially the first and second greatest commandments. So no -- the greatest fulfillment of the Law, in the life of the Christian, is to point to the Christ. Why do we work? Why do we labor? It is for the advancement of the Kingdom.

While yes, we DO good things, we must not divorce it from the Gospel of Christ. That's my point. You are saying, essentially, that there needs to be a clear distinction. Obviously I disagree with that assessment; we must do good works and point to Christ -- otherwise, we're only pointing to moralism at best.


----------



## Pergamum

I just ran across those news article in a Christian newspaper today:

Missions Organization Seeking Unsung Heroes Nominations for Epoch Awards



> An interdenominational missions organization is looking for nominations of unsung heroes, those who are tackling the issues of poverty, sex trafficking, HIV/AIDS, the need for clean water, homelessness and other needs in today's society, for its second bi-annual Epoch Awards to be held later this year.



What is conspicuously absent from the foci of these missionaries in the quote above?



..............



You guessed it, church planting and evangelism!


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

Pergamum said:


> I just ran across those news article in a Christian newspaper today:
> 
> Missions Organization Seeking Unsung Heroes Nominations for Epoch Awards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interdenominational missions organization is looking for nominations of unsung heroes, those who are tackling the issues of poverty, sex trafficking, HIV/AIDS, the need for clean water, homelessness and other needs in today's society, for its second bi-annual Epoch Awards to be held later this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is conspicuously absent from the foci of these missionaries in the quote above?
> 
> 
> 
> ..............
> 
> 
> 
> You guessed it, church planting and evangelism!
Click to expand...


Pergamum has nailed it!


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Vasahond said:


> That is almost on par with works-righteousness; the reason I am proposing what I am is because of the fact that I recognize that I am seen as righteous by the finished work of Christ; as such, instead of showing everybody how moral you are, the best way that we fulfill the Law rightly is by pointing to the very One that fulfilled the whole of it; Jesus is the fulfillment of the whole Law -- and especially the first and second greatest commandments. So no -- the greatest fulfillment of the Law, in the life of the Christian, is to point to the Christ. Why do we work? Why do we labor? It is for the advancement of the Kingdom.
> 
> While yes, we DO good things, we must not divorce it from the Gospel of Christ. That's my point. You are saying, essentially, that there needs to be a clear distinction. Obviously I disagree with that assessment; we must do good works and point to Christ -- otherwise, we're only pointing to moralism at best.



I do not mean to be insulting, but the fact that you accuse me of almost talking about works righteousness shows that you have not understood the implications of what you are saying and you certainly haven't understood what I'm saying. Find me one place where I have stated or even implied that we obey the law for salvation. If you try to do this, you will actually find repeated times that I explicitly state we obey the law out of a love for God - not for our salvation. This love for God can clearly only come from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

Here's an example of how you are actually the one creating a dichotomy between God's law and sharing the gospel. The Bible teaches that a minister should be paid for his services so that is his employment. Now, you've stated that we cannot do good works based upon our employment. But I'm guessing you would make an exception for a minister since he's service is dealing basically entirely with spiritual things. Am I right? It is because our employment involves mostly physical things that it cannot be good works. This is the problem I have with what you are saying. You are saying that physical things cannot glorify God or be good works, but the law has to be enforced even in all our physical dealings. You are basically talking about neoplatonism. 

We obey the law of God not to show everyone how moral we are. We obey the law because we love Him. "In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16

Tell me, I used to work at a grocery store as a fruit cutter. One day, my manager told me to cut some non-organic fruit and mark it as organic because he didn't want to get in trouble for us not having organic fruit. I said "No sir, I cannot do that. That would be lying which I believe is a violation of God's law." - Was that a good deed? Did I glorify God in that moment? I believe it was. But according to your logic, it wasn't since I did not explicitly share the gospel with him at that point.


----------



## Vasahond

Boosterseat_91 said:


> I do not mean to be insulting, but the fact that you accuse me of almost talking about works righteousness shows that you have not understood the implications of what you are saying and you certainly haven't understood what I'm saying. Find me one place where I have stated or even implied that we obey the law for salvation. If you try to do this, you will actually find repeated times that I explicitly state we obey the law out of a love for God - not for our salvation. This love for God can clearly only come from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.


 I apologize. I did not intend to accuse you of works-righteousness; I said it was "almost on par with works-righteousness," and some good fellow came along and proved my point (Pergamum). What he stated was my point.



> Here's an example of how you are actually the one creating a dichotomy between God's law and sharing the gospel. The Bible teaches that a minister should be paid for his services so that is his employment. Now, you've stated that we cannot do good works based upon our employment. But I'm guessing you would make an exception for a minister since he's service is dealing basically entirely with spiritual things. Am I right?


 Yes; I was talking about secular employment; I thought that was rather obvious -- and under the pretenses that you created in which you said, in essence, "Sharing the Gospel under these circumstances would be _wrong_," and I basically agreed with you. Ok, maybe I was wrong. But the frustrating thing is that you are setting up and argument that says, essentially, "Don't share the Gospel if you're NOT a minister." Which position is more silly? I admit that I'm fallible, and that likely I am wrong on a few points, of which I'll be addressing shortly.



> It is because our employment involves mostly physical things that it cannot be good works. This is the problem I have with what you are saying. You are saying that physical things cannot glorify God or be good works, but the law has to be enforced even in all our physical dealings. You are basically talking about neoplatonism.


 No. What I am saying is that at the end of the day, the Gospel can't be separated from the good acts that we do (and for what it's worth -- I'm wrong in assuming those things can't come out when working for a secular employer). You obviously disagree with that, as if to take the extreme opposite. You're finding excuses why we shouldn't share the Gospel, which is like finding out what the minimum work we should do to appease Christ for the advancement of the Kingdom, and taking that route because you haven't been "called" to be a minister. So, you seem like a smart gal; you know the Gospel -- and you just don't want to share it? My point is, where is the compassion for lost sinners, of which you and I were some? 



> We obey the law of God not to show everyone how moral we are. We obey the law because we love Him. "In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16


 Amen. Finally a point I can agree with.



> Tell me, I used to work at a grocery store as a fruit cutter. One day, my manager told me to cut some non-organic fruit and mark it as organic because he didn't want to get in trouble for us not having organic fruit. I said "No sir, I cannot do that. That would be lying which I believe is a violation of God's law." - Was that a good deed? Did I glorify God in that moment? I believe it was. But according to your logic, it wasn't since I did not explicitly share the gospel with him at that point.


 Here, I think you proved my point -- you pointed to the Lord who says "thou shalt not lie," giving people a reason for the hope that lies within you. So, according to my logic, you did exactly what I was talking about. My issue is "doing good without God," which is the New Atheists' mantra. But my question is, why must we point to God in doing good things? I submit to you, it is so that we may share the Gospel with them; if not immediately, then eventually. I know a dear brother in the Lord, who was once an atheist, who simply saw the joy that I had in coming and going to work. He had a rough time at work; he was the outcast. One day, after work, I'm walking to my car, and he stops me. "Hey -- tell me something: Why are you always so calm? Why do you always seem happy?" Bingo! I shared with him the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and how He saved a horrible wretch like me. Today he is a Christian.

There are other examples I could use, but I don't want this to seem like it's about Jeremiah preaching the Gospel to Jeremiah's glory -- so I'll simply share that one. The point is, the Gospel should always be on the tip of our tongue, that we may glorify Christ. So, by all means, work and do it to the glory of God. I was wrong for trying to divorce working from the glory of God; rather, when working for an employer should not be used in a way to steal time from the employer. I get that, I agree with that. You used an absurd example as your case-in-point as though I've done nothing but street preach for a living my whole life.

My point is that every Christian has the responsibility to share the Gospel; especially if they have an understanding of it. End of story. End of point. Period.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Leah, I appreciate your godly fervency and even-temperedness, though I think you err in some things. You said,
> “Amill views . . . in A.W. Pink’s The Sovereignty of God . . . He talks about the world getting worse and worse like it's going to hell in a hand basket but God’s still sovereign over it and we can do nothing about it. This is defeatist theology and it's not biblical. The Bible speaks about a church being triumphant over hell and Christ reigning over all nations - not a church that cowers in the corner and waits in defeat for the return of Christ.”​
> And this you said is in the same vein:
> “Christ didn't die for his bride to be beaten up by the world but to be victorious over the world.”​
> You talk about “defeatist theology” and how the amil view is “not biblical”. And then how “Christ didn't die for his bride to be beaten up by the world”. You will admit, I’m sure, that the Lord Jesus was sure “beaten up by the world”, and further, was beaten to death by it! The apostles, except John, were all reputed to have been martyred for their testimony, and so have many millions of their brothers and sisters (including little children) in the ensuing centuries. Nor were these “cowering in a corner waiting in defeat for the return of Christ”, but triumphantly proclaiming that *He* is Lord and not Caesar or any earthly ruler or government. Richard Bauckham in the Introduction to his, _The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation_, p. xv, writes,
> “John carefully takes up Jewish expectations of a messianic war in which God’s people are to fight and win a military victory over their enemies, and reinterprets them,* substituting faithful witness to the point of martyrdom for armed violence as the means of victory.*”​
> And the apostle John in Revelation 12:11 says,
> “And they overcame him [the devil] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.”​
> Though we are slaughtered like sheep all the day long, Paul tells us (Roman 8:36-37), we are indeed *more* than conquerors through Him that loved us! We are a militant church against which the gates of hell do not prevail; through death we conquer death – showing we have no fear of it – just like our Captain, in whose steps we follow – in the strength of His Spirit. This is an evil age, Paul tells us (Gal 1:4), “and the whole world lieth in wickedness” says John (1 John 5:19), so it is simply fidelity to the so-called “pessimism” of the apostles (inspired by the Holy Spirit) that informs our amil view.
> 
> Would you say that the history of the church to this day has in the main been one big failure, seeing as how our triumph has been spiritual and not physical?



I greatly appreciate your comments to and your attitude is very uplifting! I do think you've hit on points that I need to clarify about what I've said. As a postmill, I do not deny that the church has and will come under times of persecution. This was certainly promised to the Apostles - Jesus specifically told them that they would be hated and obviously nearly all of them were martyred. What makes A.W. Pink's theology defeatist theology is not that he affirms that the church has come under times of persecution, but the fact that he affirms that thought things are bad they will only get worse and worse and that Christianity has _no power_ to change the culture. He says that we cannot expect to stem the tide of the ungodly culture - "it has already risen to high for that" (p. 13-14).

Can you see how this is basically saying the church is defeated? Even though God commands civil rulers to obey Him - that can never happen. Even though God says He is Lord over lords, they will never obey Him. Even though He claims He will put all His enemies under foot, that won't happen. It teaches that Christ's redemption had no more power (and is actually less powerful) than Adam's fall. Even though God promised Abraham that His descendants would be as the sand of the sea shore, really only a few will be snatched out of the fire. 

You see, Christ's kingship extends far beyond just the hearts of believers as Amillennialism believes. He was told upon His ascension, His exaltation that ALL authority in heaven and earth has been given to Him. Because of His victory at the cross, He has been given reign over all the earth. The church will share in this victory! He will receive the full reward for His sufferings.

As far as your objections, Romans 8 is talking about our internal struggle with sin, not external persecution, as the context tells us from Romans 6-7. As Postmillenialism never teaches that the sin nature will be done away with before glorification, this isn't a legitimate objection.

In places like Galatians 1:4 and 1 John 5:19, we have to keep in mind the historical context of these verses. Neither of these verses teach that the world will always be primarily evil. In fact, Paul in places like Romans 11 _assumes_ the gospel's global conquest and 1 John 2:18 teaches that the darkness is passing away. It's not good biblical exegesis to use these verses speaking to a particular church context during a particular historical setting to otherthrow the clear teachings of Scripture in Christ's Lordship, the establishment principle, etc. that show a gradual spread of the gospel throughout the world to truly crush Satan under foot.

It's also important to note that Postmills still affirm that we partake in suffering. One such suffering is the weakness of our physical body due to the fall. But, we affirm that such external sufferings and threats to the church such as imprisonment and beatings will not continue. In fact, this is very hard to dispute from an Amill perspective. If you read books like the Foxes Book of Martyrs, you will certainly see that our current state in America has already improved. But saying things like Pink did (the church has no hope to change the culture) is a defeatist theology.



> When you say this,
> “The Great Commission was spoken to Apostles whose spiritual descendants are pastors/elders. They are the ones who have authority to preach, teach, and administer the sacraments. It's not spoken to every Christian”,​
> I’m glad the woman who preached Christ crucified to me didn’t have that view, or things might have turned out differently for me! But she did, and the Spirit of Christ bore witness through her words to the Saviour who made wretched sinners new creatures, even such as I.



Do you think that women had authority to preach? Did she also have authority to baptize? Because this verse gives those who have authority to preach the same authority to baptize. This authority is only given to elders so it is clearly only speaking to elders. I hope you are not implying that she was a woman pastor - though I do not deny that if she was teaching the truth, God could use that evil (her being a pastor) for His elect's good. If you are saying that she simply shared the gospel with you, that's great! I have no objections to that.



> I don’t think this is true:
> “The interesting thing is that ‘spiritual prosperity’ always leads to physical prosperity.”​
> Sometimes it leads to economic deprivation, as when the faithful saints are excluded from the commerce of their cultures, as we see is the case of those prohibited to “buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast” (Rev 13:17).
> 
> As I said, Leah, I much appreciate the godliness of your heart and manner, but I cannot concur with some of the things you say.



Regardless of how one interprets Revelation, clearly no one would say that that is talking about a time of spiritual prosperity but of spiritual deprivation. So that verse cannot justify your objection. But just looking for a moment at economics - the Bible has much to say about economics. Do not steal, keep a just weights and measure system, allow for free trade, etc. all these things, pragmatically speaking, have been shown time and time again to lead to physical prosperity! God is an all wise God and it's certainly silly to say that His laws would not lead to physical prosperity. Again, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Vasahond said:


> I apologize. I did not intend to accuse you of works-righteousness; I said it was "almost on par with works-righteousness," and some good fellow came along and proved my point (Pergamum). What he stated was my point.



I just now read the article as I didn't have time to earlier. However, I don't see how it proved your point at all. You still have not shown me how any of the points I've made are "almost on par with works-righteousness" at all. In fact I would vehemently deny this and ask you stop misrepresenting my position.



> Yes; I was talking about secular employment; I thought that was rather obvious -- and under the pretenses that you created in which you said, in essence, "Sharing the Gospel under these circumstances would be _wrong_," and I basically agreed with you. Ok, maybe I was wrong. But the frustrating thing is that you are setting up and argument that says, essentially, "Don't share the Gospel if you're NOT a minister." Which position is more silly? I admit that I'm fallible, and that likely I am wrong on a few points, of which I'll be addressing shortly.



Again, you are very badly misrepresenting my position. I have _never_, not even once affirmed that only a minister should share the Gospel. The fact is, you are taking an extremist position. You are saying no work is good unless it includes sharing the gospel. I am trying to balance your view. _Many_ works are good that do not include an explicit sharing of the gospel. The fact that you've said secular employment does not constitute a good work is basically neoplatonism which says the material is bad and the spiritual is good. This is basically an insult to God who created the material world - He gave humans the intelligence to advance technology and have the need for many secular jobs (of course by secular I mean jobs that are not explicitly spiritual like an elder). It seems like you are not paying good attention to what I am saying because I told you that you were talking about secular employment - it was obvious. I was showing you how that statement was wrong, not asking you if that's what you were saying.



> It is because our employment involves mostly physical things that it cannot be good works. This is the problem I have with what you are saying. You are saying that physical things cannot glorify God or be good works, but the law has to be enforced even in all our physical dealings. You are basically talking about neoplatonism.
> 
> 
> 
> No. What I am saying is that at the end of the day, the Gospel can't be separated from the good acts that we do (and for what it's worth -- I'm wrong in assuming those things can't come out when working for a secular employer). You obviously disagree with that, as if to take the extreme opposite. You're finding excuses why we shouldn't share the Gospel, which is like finding out what the minimum work we should do to appease Christ for the advancement of the Kingdom, and taking that route because you haven't been "called" to be a minister. So, you seem like a smart gal; you know the Gospel -- and you just don't want to share it? My point is, where is the compassion for lost sinners, of which you and I were some?
Click to expand...


I am not the one in the extremist position - neoplatonism is an extreme position and that's what you're expressing. You're right that the gospel can't be separated from our good works, but _not_ in the way you say it is being separated. You say they are separate if a good work does not exclude an explicit sharing of the gospel - this is wrong. The correct separation that cannot happen between the gospel and good works is that we do good works _because_ we believe the gospel. If we are doing a good work for our own salvation, then we are sinning even in doing that good work. But if we are doing that good work because we love God, then it is certainly glorifying to God even if it doesn't include an explicit sharing of the gospel. Understand what I am saying, please. I have never affirmed that Christians should not or should not want to share the gospel or that they should not have compassion on lost sinners. I don't believe it's about finding the minimum work we can do to "appease" Christ (though I would not use the word appease, I would say please Christ). We are to live every moment in accordance with our Christian worldview - this means not stealing from our employer, etc. etc. as I have said over and over again. Also, I am not making excuses why we shouldn't share the gospel - I'm being _real_ and applying God's law to every situation. This is another strawman of my position and I would implore you to find me a place where I have made an excuse for not sharing the gospel.

So I _do not_ believe that good works can be separated from the gospel. But separation from the gospel means that it comes from a motive to get saved rather than _being_ saved and grateful to God for that salvation.



> We obey the law of God not to show everyone how moral we are. We obey the law because we love Him. "In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16
> 
> 
> 
> Amen. Finally a point I can agree with.
Click to expand...


Finally? I have made this point already several times. In fact, you have been the one denying it and state that it is not for the sake of honoring God that we do good works, but for the sake of the gospel. 



> Tell me, I used to work at a grocery store as a fruit cutter. One day, my manager told me to cut some non-organic fruit and mark it as organic because he didn't want to get in trouble for us not having organic fruit. I said "No sir, I cannot do that. That would be lying which I believe is a violation of God's law." - Was that a good deed? Did I glorify God in that moment? I believe it was. But according to your logic, it wasn't since I did not explicitly share the gospel with him at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> Here, I think you proved my point -- you pointed to the Lord who says "thou shalt not lie," giving people a reason for the hope that lies within you. So, according to my logic, you did exactly what I was talking about. My issue is "doing good without God," which is the New Atheists' mantra. But my question is, why must we point to God in doing good things? I submit to you, it is so that we may share the Gospel with them; if not immediately, then eventually. I know a dear brother in the Lord, who was once an atheist, who simply saw the joy that I had in coming and going to work. He had a rough time at work; he was the outcast. One day, after work, I'm walking to my car, and he stops me. "Hey -- tell me something: Why are you always so calm? Why do you always seem happy?" Bingo! I shared with him the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and how He saved a horrible wretch like me. Today he is a Christian.
> 
> There are other examples I could use, but I don't want this to seem like it's about Jeremiah preaching the Gospel to Jeremiah's glory -- so I'll simply share that one. The point is, the Gospel should always be on the tip of our tongue, that we may glorify Christ. So, by all means, work and do it to the glory of God. I was wrong for trying to divorce working from the glory of God; rather, when working for an employer should not be used in a way to steal time from the employer. I get that, I agree with that. You used an absurd example as your case-in-point as though I've done nothing but street preach for a living my whole life.
> 
> My point is that every Christian has the responsibility to share the Gospel; especially if they have an understanding of it. End of story. End of point. Period.
Click to expand...


We don't have to "point to God" in doing good things. Matthew 5:16 as I've quoted shows that _our good works point to God_. That said, let me explicitly deny that we can live the Gospel. The Gospel consists of propositions which can only be expressed through communication. But that example that you gave about your friend - that's exactly what I'm talking about! You were calm (an act) and seemed happy (an act). These good works pointed Him to know there was something different about you. You didn't have to make it a point to say (in a situation where everyone was frustrated except you) "Praise God I'm so calm" - which if you want to be so pragmatic could actually make people think you are just a goody two-shoe. He sought you out, you had an opportunity to share the gospel, and praise God, you took it!

Again, I have never denied (in fact I have explicitly affirmed) that every believer _does in fact_ have the responsibility to share the gospel. Read my posts more carefully please. What I have denied is your neoplatonic view that every work must explicitly share the gospel or it is not good. Parents have a responsibility to share the gospel with their children - if they never share it with anyone else I cannot say they have inherently sinned for doing so, however! Not taking an opportunity to share the gospel cannot be inherently sinful as it has to be balanced by God's law and has to take into consideration our motives. 

Again, you are saying we do good works for the sake of the gospel - so apparently if that guy _hadn't_ come up to you and asked you about your actions, then they would not have been good - but since he did ask you they were good. This I deny. Your works were good regardless of anyone asking you about the gospel simply because your actions were in obedience with God's holy law. I say we do good works because of the love we have for God even if know one else notices our good works which means we couldn't do them for the sake of the gospel - or even if we do them for a believer which means we couldn't do it for the sake of sharing the gospel.

I hope you understand my position this time.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

First off we are called to pray that the Lord's Kingdom come and His will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Second the passage that is often quoted about our Lord's Kingdom not being of this world is often a misapplication. Context is everything. The origin of Christ's Kingdom doesn't originate from man. It originates from God the Father. All authority has been given to Him. God has given Christ the Kingdom. Remember we are to pray accordingly as Paul told us to in 1 Timothy 2.


1Ti 2:1    I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2    For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1Ti 2:3    For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4    Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5    For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1Ti 2:6    Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
1Ti 2:7    Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
1Ti 2:8    I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

God does require all men to submit to Himself and His Christ.

Act 17:23    For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
Act 17:24    God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25    Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Act 17:26    And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Act 17:27    That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Act 17:28    For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29    Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Act 17:30    And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31    Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

We are to do good works based upon the Reign of Christ that men may see our good works and glorify God.


Mat 5:16    Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.


Jas 2:15    If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
Jas 2:16    And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?


The school situation is a sidetrack issue. If children are taught and nurtured they can remain true and learn from pagans. We are called to be separate. i was very active with the teachers and made sure that my children knew the truth and could give an answer to those improper teachings that they might receive. We are called to be in the world but not of it. Our origin of authority is not derived from man but from God.


There have been some major misconceptions laid out in this thread such as the one that we are looking for a total restoration of creation on this side of the eschaton. That is a misnomer. 


We are called to be peacemakers to the best of our ability. Jesus did say, "Blessed are the peacemakers." The sinking ship is a poor analogy. We are called to live righteously and blameless on this side. Even our own lives prove that we are to take care of our own bodies and lifestyles the best we can even though we are going to die. It is in how we live till that happens that will promote righteousness proving what is that good and acceptable sacrifice that Paul encourages in Romans chapter 12:1,2.


Rom 12:1    I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Rom 12:2    And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Rom 12:3    For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.


Carry on.


----------



## THE W

Boosterseat_91 said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would only be arminian if we were told to go out and convert people. That's the Holy Spirit's job.
> 
> We just spread the word of the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Arminian isn't the right word, though it is very similar to the burden that Arminianism places on people. You've expressed that no good work is a good work unless it includes the preaching or "sharing" of the gospel. You said that it is for the "sake of the gospel" that we do good deeds and that anything less than sharing the gospel does not constitute a "obedience to God" (which is the definition of a good deed). This is extremely legalistic. The apostles/elders were given the authority to preach and teach the gospel; that's the job of the shepherds. The sheep go out in the world and live according to the Ten Commandments. Heads of household are responsible to disciple their families. This doesn't mean that they can't share the gospel when they have the opportunity, that's fine. But they do far more good deeds that do not include sharing the gospel. Most heads of household have secular employment and at times it would actually be _unlawful_ for them to share the gospel - as that would cause them to steal time from the employer when they should be working. A "Christian" employee is not someone who shares the gospel with every employee, every customers, every manager, etc. A Christian employee is a person who does not steal from the company, keeps his word, etc. In other words, a Christian employee is an employee who doesn't violate God's law.
> 
> Again, the church is a body. Many people are like a heart or a lung - they're works aren't seen and forefront, but their works are necessary to the church. This may be like a housewife whose life consists in honoring her husband, praying and encouraging the body of Christ, etc. Maybe the only people she shares the gospel with is her own children - so what? She has lived a life honoring to God because of her obedience to God's law.
> 
> It seems to me that you are creeping into neoplatonism. This is a serious error. God is glorified when we do the smallest of things - like a woman changing diapers with faith in her heart - which means these things ARE good.
Click to expand...


every single born again christian is commanded to share the gospel. pastors/elders do it one way, the sheep do it another.

atheists can raise children and, believe or not, be honest employees. when they do these things and someone commends them for it, giving them an opportunity to give a reason for their good works they respond "I believe we should all be good and honest people and treat people well".

how is God given glory in this situation and how is the message of salvation passed on? how would God be given glory and the gospel message be spread if a born again christian did the same thing and gave the same response? what is such a response pointing to? God or self?

following God's law and spreading the message of salvation are both commanded by God. we must do BOTH and you dont have to neglect one to do the other.


----------



## THE W

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Wade, you said, “you dont need to worry about Christ's church, she's doing just fine.” I don’t think that’s true. The church – at least in America, and the West generally – is a mess, and in serious trouble, much like certain times in ancient Israel. Just because some few sectors of it seem to be doing fairly well, please don’t generalize this to the whole church. But the LORD will see to our refining and purifying.



i think we have to make a distinction between Christ's Church and the "visible church". Christ's Church has always walked with her God, continues to bring Glory to her God, and be edified by The Words of her God despite her imperfection. sanctification is a process. the "visible church", i agree, is a mess. this is because these "churches" are full of unregenerate nominal christians sitting under unbiblical culture driven teaching. these "churches" aren't Christ Church in that they are not of Christ and thus can't be considered churches to begin with. 

they are 2 timothy 4:3-4...that is NOT Christ's Church!

can the members of Christ's Church come out of the "visible church"? YES, I am living proof of it. notice, however, that i said "come out of", not "remain in".

the sheep(Christ's Church) hear God's voice and follow it as john 10:1-30 states


----------



## THE W

PuritanCovenanter said:


> First off we are called to pray that the Lord's Kingdom come and His will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Second the passage that is often quoted about our Lord's Kingdom not being of this world is often a misapplication. Context is everything. The origin of Christ's Kingdom doesn't originate from man. It originates from God the Father. All authority has been given to Him. God has given Christ the Kingdom. Remember we are to pray accordingly as Paul told us to in 1 Timothy 2.





PuritanCovenanter said:


> God does require all men to submit to Himself and His Christ.






PuritanCovenanter said:


> We are to do good works based upon the Reign of Christ that men may see our good works and glorify God.






PuritanCovenanter said:


> We are called to be peacemakers to the best of our ability. Jesus did say, "Blessed are the peacemakers." The sinking ship is a poor analogy. We are called to live righteously and blameless on this side. Even our own lives prove that we are to take care of our own bodies and lifestyles the best we can even though we are going to die. It is in how we live till that happens that will promote righteousness proving what is that good and acceptable sacrifice that Paul encourages in Romans chapter 12:1,2.



can you point me to where I or anyone else here has denied these things?


----------



## Boosterseat_91

THE W said:


> every single born again christian is commanded to share the gospel. pastors/elders do it one way, the sheep do it another.
> 
> atheists can raise children and, believe or not, be honest employees. when they do these things and someone commends them for it, giving them an opportunity to give a reason for their good works they respond "I believe we should all be good and honest people and treat people well".
> 
> how is God given glory in this situation and how is the message of salvation passed on? how would God be given glory and the gospel message be spread if a born again christian did the same thing and gave the same response? what is such a response pointing to? God or self?
> 
> following God's law and spreading the message of salvation are both commanded by God. we must do BOTH and you dont have to neglect one to do the other.



I have never denied that Christians should not share the gospel. God is not given glory when atheists do "good things" because Atheists can never do good by God's definition. God is given glory when Christians do good. Good by God's definition involves not only the action but the motive and words involved and He is glorified when His people do good - whether or not it is for an unbeliever, whether or not someone else sees it, etc.

I am not saying that we have to neglect sharing the gospel to keep the law; though this is true in some situations. But I am saying that you don't have to share the gospel in order for an action to be in keeping with God's law.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

How about this post for starters. 

I see you acknowledge a few things but part of being salt in a society has more purpose also in spiritual things than what you imply below. Salvation is most important but it isn't "everything". I also noted the part about Christ's Kingdom being not of this world. That is used out of context. Christ is King over the world and because He is we are to bless his creation. There is also the impact we have upon society for the benefit of the Church and even the heathen. Your comments just seem to be too narrowly focused. I also think that a Society that heeds God's law is better off in eternity when the Judgment comes. There are degrees in Hell and even judgments for the Christian where we will suffer loss at the judgment. 




THE W said:


> SinnerSavedByChrist said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The poor will always be with you".
> 
> "My kingdom is not of this world".
> 
> "Do good to all people, especially to those in the household of faith".
> 
> I am totally with you, Wade, on the whole "social justice" attitude so many Christians take, especially their involvement with politics. The Gospel!!! Preach it while we have strength! Soon we shall enter into glory. Let us praise the Glories of Jesus Christ, let us lift up in the highest before men, that inexhaustible fountain of mercy poured out on calvary. Everything else is a far #2. The preaching of the gospel to the lost !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at least someone sees where im going with this,
> 
> we are not called to do any of the things i mentioned in my initial post. its not our job or even within our ability.
> 
> we are called to preach the gospel of Christ to all nations and that's the ONLY thing we are called to do. there are various means in which we do this but that is the purpose of those means.
> 
> Jesus said as much in Luke 16:26, John 4:13-14, john 6:26-27 and 32-35
> 
> Yes, im fully aware of the commands to care for the needy, and that the law is required of everyone, which is why those who have rebelled against God's law will face eternal damnation in hell and why churches have various outreach initiatives. My point is doing these things are tools of evangelism. What eternal good is it if someone is fed phsycially but starves to death spiritually?
> 
> The reason for Jesus feeding the 5,000 and 4,000, for giving sight to the blind, for raising the dead, healing the sick, turning water into wine, and all the other miracles he performed was for the same reason God raised up pharaoh in order to perform the plagues He did before Egypt and Israel to deliver His chosen people. they were signs and wonders for the purpose of Glory, belief, and repentance of sin in rebellion to God.
> 
> One phrase i saw repeated over and over in reading through the OT prophets was after God through the prophets talked about all the punishments He would bring on the nations that rebelled against him the would say "then they will know that I Am The LORD".
> 
> Jesus reiterates this in Matthew 11:20-24 and john 15:23-25
> 
> The sign and wonder that is given to us in today's world to use for evangelism is.....LOVE!
> 
> This is the reason why we have needy people around us always, why the only religion acceptable to God is to care for widows and orphans and not be polluted by the world. Its also why we are commanded to do the very radical things in Matthew 5:38-48 and Luke 6:27-36. Only those who the Spirit of God indwells will be able to do stuff like that. we are indeed commanded to do these things, but for the purpose of spreading the good news, not for the purpose of philanthropy. There are just as many atheists out there feeding the poor and caring for the needy as there are Christians and they don't care about the gospel and they actually are trying to save the world.
> 
> Jesus when He returns will eradicate and eliminate all of these things for the new heaven and new earth he will have for His chosen people. Our job is to get the message of salvation out to all nations.
Click to expand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I believe someone posted this already because it is relevant to the discussion also.


> 7. Works done by unregenerate men, *although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:*y yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;z nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;a nor to a right end, the glory of God,b they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:c *and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God*.d


----------



## Vasahond

Well stated.

Also, my most sincere apologies to you, Leah. I did not intend to misrepresent you, and I do humbly repent. I would agree with all stated by Randy; please accept my apologies, and please do not misrepresent me by calling me a neoplatanist. Thank you, and God bless. Thank you for the discussion.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello again, Leah,

It seems to me you attribute things meant for the age to come to this age instead. All Christ’s enemies *will* be put under His feet – but when He returns, and not till then. Do you really think the church is defeated because its members are killed? Christ – our exemplar and prototype – *triumphed* through His death and resurrection, and so will we. Death, persecution, afflictions, imprisonment, beatings – all these things do not defeat us!

When you say, “Romans 8 is talking about our internal struggle with sin, not external persecution”, you are mistaken, for this is the wider context of my Romans 8:36-37 quote:
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

​Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (vv 35-39).​ 
He is primarily talking about external troubles, though I would agree that internal troubles such as sins are included in “nothing in creation shall be able to separate us from His love”.

The teaching of Scripture concerning Christ’s lordship over all creation, and all mankind, is indeed clear. He reigns in sovereign majesty and power even while His enemies rage. And their rage shall increase as the end nears. Our triumph consists in bearing witness undaunted even in the hour and power of darkness. We shall be rewarded when we see our Saviour. Even as He was rewarded after He rose from the dead, to die no more.

You said, “Neither of these verses [Galatians 1:4 and 1 John 5:19] teach that the world will always be primarily evil.” In Gal 1:4 when Paul says “this present evil _world_”, that word is aion (or aeon) and means age; there are, in the NT, only two ages, this present one, and the eternal aion that shall be ushered in when Christ returns. In 1 John 5:19 the word _world_ is kosmos, and when John says “the whole world lieth in wickedness” there is no indication whatever in Scripture that it shall become less wicked as time moves on, but rather more so.

When you said of Christ, “He has been given reign over all the earth. The church will share in this victory! He will receive the full reward for His sufferings”, it is true that He reigns, yet His enemies rage. And do you think the church shall not follow their Lord in suffering the hatred of the world? The church shall indeed share in His victory, but only after they suffer bearing the testimony of His name:
“If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us” (2 Timothy 2:12).

“Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12).​ 
We are truly “joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Rom 8:17). There is no crown without the cross. That goes for us, even as it did for Him.

Women indeed have authority to preach – to bear witness to the name above all names, and to His gospel – but certainly not in the office of preacher, pastor, or elder. Many dear sisters have given their lives doing just that, declaring the gospel of God’s grace in Christ. Some have been missionaries, seeking to bring men to Christ, so they [the men] may be rightful officers leading His flock. No, I hold no truck with women pastors.

Your quoting from the Old Testament to speak of when all men shall worship God, or nations that worship Him, takes what is meant for the eternal age and tries to put it into the NT church age, where it is starkly out of place. I think the loudest refutation of your postmil view will be when it is washed away in torrents of suffering and hardship as the days darken and the beast is loosed. I know that even then some of the diehards among you will say “this also shall pass and things will get better”, though I see it as setting the saints up for horrible disappointment, rending them vulnerable to doubts as they had not been prepared for the calamities that shall befall, not only the godly, but the whole earth.

There are only two ages, this present age, and the age to come – eternity. But you would make it three ages, this age of defeat (as you would wrongly call it), then the golden age of postmil dreams, and then eternity.

When you say, “God is an all wise God and it's certainly silly to say that His laws would not lead to physical prosperity”, I would say that in an orderly society that could well hold true, but in a hostile world that uses economic punishment to harass God’s people who testify against the world’s idolatry it does not hold true. It is already starting in North America (US and CA) that commentators or businesses who refuse to be silent concerning or to serve immoral customers – or immoral laws – are being economically penalized, whether through litigation or fines. And this trend will continue. You don’t think the point will come when if we don’t go along with the policies of the beast (antichristian persecuting government) we will not be allowed to partake of its system? But perhaps you take Revelation to refer just to the Roman Empire and Jerusalem times. Which would be a pity, for it pertains to us in the 21st century as well as to them back then.

Just because we in America are sitting pretty for the moment (and have been a long while) does not mean it will continue. You and I both – and many of our brethren here at PB – are in a land that I believe shall suffer the harsh judgments of the Almighty for the unparalleled wickedness of this nation. It surely seems to me that we are the _headquarters nation_ of the wicked global harlot Babylon, and we shall reap the consequences for what “headquarters” has done.

Yes, _Foxe’s Book of Martyrs_ stands in stark contrast to America today. But in other parts of the world *now* our brethren suffer as Foxe showed the church suffered earlier.

It seems to be implicit in your view that what the church has done these last two centuries amounts mostly to abysmal failure, as we have not yet taken over the world. It is recorded that in the previous century and into the second decade of this one, more Christians have died than in all the other centuries since the first _combined_. Perhaps you would say this is our greatest failure to date. I would say that these are the heralded ones in heaven who live and reign with Christ a thousand years, triumphant martyrs, of whom the world was not worthy. 

It is odd that in the OT times, prophets who foretold “peace, peace” as the general trend of history for God’s people, were severely reprimanded (and some their lives were cut short – see re Hananiah in Jer 28). Now pastors and teachers feel free to do the same. But the flood that shall come shall cleanse all falsehood away, and there shall be no more of this. In this NT time God loves even His erring saints, so He tenderly bears with them. Yet their judgment shall be the stricter (James 3:1); they shall suffer some loss.*
Matthew 24:37-39* But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
​
*Genesis 6:5, 11-13 *And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. . . The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.​ 

(Too bad you’re not amil – you’re a tough cookie!)


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Vasahond said:


> Well stated.
> 
> Also, my most sincere apologies to you, Leah. I did not intend to misrepresent you, and I do humbly repent. I would agree with all stated by Randy; please accept my apologies, and please do not misrepresent me by calling me a neoplatanist. Thank you, and God bless. Thank you for the discussion.



Thank you, I appreciate that. I hope that I have not misrepresented your position in any way, either. Honestly, I cannot in good conscience ask for forgiveness about the neoplatonism as I believe that accurately represents what you were saying - especially in regards to secular employment not being a good work. I assuredly do not believe you to be a neoplatonist, but I can come to no other conclusion but that neoplatonists ideas may have been present in some of the things you were saying. Thank you as well for the discussion and God bless you too, brother.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello again, Leah,
> 
> It seems to me you attribute things meant for the age to come to this age instead. All Christ’s enemies *will* be put under His feet – but when He returns, and not till then. Do you really think the church is defeated because its members are killed? Christ – our exemplar and prototype – *triumphed* through His death and resurrection, and so will we. Death, persecution, afflictions, imprisonment, beatings – all these things do not defeat us!
> 
> When you say, “Romans 8 is talking about our internal struggle with sin, not external persecution”, you are mistaken, for this is the wider context of my Romans 8:36-37 quote:
> Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
> 
> ​Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (vv 35-39).​
> He is primarily talking about external troubles, though I would agree that internal troubles such as sins are included in “nothing in creation shall be able to separate us from His love”.
> 
> The teaching of Scripture concerning Christ’s lordship over all creation, and all mankind, is indeed clear. He reigns in sovereign majesty and power even while His enemies rage. And their rage shall increase as the end nears. Our triumph consists in bearing witness undaunted even in the hour and power of darkness. We shall be rewarded when we see our Saviour. Even as He was rewarded after He rose from the dead, to die no more.
> 
> You said, “Neither of these verses [Galatians 1:4 and 1 John 5:19] teach that the world will always be primarily evil.” In Gal 1:4 when Paul says “this present evil _world_”, that word is aion (or aeon) and means age; there are, in the NT, only two ages, this present one, and the eternal aion that shall be ushered in when Christ returns. In 1 John 5:19 the word _world_ is kosmos, and when John says “the whole world lieth in wickedness” there is no indication whatever in Scripture that it shall become less wicked as time moves on, but rather more so.
> 
> When you said of Christ, “He has been given reign over all the earth. The church will share in this victory! He will receive the full reward for His sufferings”, it is true that He reigns, yet His enemies rage. And do you think the church shall not follow their Lord in suffering the hatred of the world? The church shall indeed share in His victory, but only after they suffer bearing the testimony of His name:
> “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us” (2 Timothy 2:12).
> 
> “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12).​
> We are truly “joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Rom 8:17). There is no crown without the cross. That goes for us, even as it did for Him.
> 
> Women indeed have authority to preach – to bear witness to the name above all names, and to His gospel – but certainly not in the office of preacher, pastor, or elder. Many dear sisters have given their lives doing just that, declaring the gospel of God’s grace in Christ. Some have been missionaries, seeking to bring men to Christ, so they [the men] may be rightful officers leading His flock. No, I hold no truck with women pastors.
> 
> Your quoting from the Old Testament to speak of when all men shall worship God, or nations that worship Him, takes what is meant for the eternal age and tries to put it into the NT church age, where it is starkly out of place. I think the loudest refutation of your postmil view will be when it is washed away in torrents of suffering and hardship as the days darken and the beast is loosed. I know that even then some of the diehards among you will say “this also shall pass and things will get better”, though I see it as setting the saints up for horrible disappointment, rending them vulnerable to doubts as they had not been prepared for the calamities that shall befall, not only the godly, but the whole earth.
> 
> There are only two ages, this present age, and the age to come – eternity. But you would make it three ages, this age of defeat (as you would wrongly call it), then the golden age of postmil dreams, and then eternity.
> 
> When you say, “God is an all wise God and it's certainly silly to say that His laws would not lead to physical prosperity”, I would say that in an orderly society that could well hold true, but in a hostile world that uses economic punishment to harass God’s people who testify against the world’s idolatry it does not hold true. It is already starting in North America (US and CA) that commentators or businesses who refuse to be silent concerning or to serve immoral customers – or immoral laws – are being economically penalized, whether through litigation or fines. And this trend will continue. You don’t think the point will come when if we don’t go along with the policies of the beast (antichristian persecuting government) we will not be allowed to partake of its system? But perhaps you take Revelation to refer just to the Roman Empire and Jerusalem times. Which would be a pity, for it pertains to us in the 21st century as well as to them back then.
> 
> Just because we in America are sitting pretty for the moment (and have been a long while) does not mean it will continue. You and I both – and many of our brethren here at PB – are in a land that I believe shall suffer the harsh judgments of the Almighty for the unparalleled wickedness of this nation. It surely seems to me that we are the _headquarters nation_ of the wicked global harlot Babylon, and we shall reap the consequences for what “headquarters” has done.
> 
> Yes, _Foxe’s Book of Martyrs_ stands in stark contrast to America today. But in other parts of the world *now* our brethren suffer as Foxe showed the church suffered earlier.
> 
> It seems to be implicit in your view that what the church has done these last two centuries amounts mostly to abysmal failure, as we have not yet taken over the world. It is recorded that in the previous century and into the second decade of this one, more Christians have died than in all the other centuries since the first _combined_. Perhaps you would say this is our greatest failure to date. I would say that these are the heralded ones in heaven who live and reign with Christ a thousand years, triumphant martyrs, of whom the world was not worthy.
> 
> It is odd that in the OT times, prophets who foretold “peace, peace” as the general trend of history for God’s people, were severely reprimanded (and some their lives were cut short – see re Hananiah in Jer 28). Now pastors and teachers feel free to do the same. But the flood that shall come shall cleanse all falsehood away, and there shall be no more of this. In this NT time God loves even His erring saints, so He tenderly bears with them. Yet their judgment shall be the stricter (James 3:1); they shall suffer some loss.*
> Matthew 24:37-39* But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
> ​
> *Genesis 6:5, 11-13 *And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. . . The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.​
> 
> (Too bad you’re not amil – you’re a tough cookie!)



Lol, thank you for the compliment! You are a tough cookie yourself! This is an extremely extensive topic and I don't intend to write a book in response to this (though Ken Gentry's book He Shall Have Dominion deals with the majority of these things...hint hint lol  ). If I could summarize very succinctly what leads me to the Postmillennial view, it is primarily theonomy and the establishment principle. The defeat of the church, I believe, comes not when some of her members are killed but when the power to change the culture (which God is also Lord over) is taken away from her (which is accomplished through the preaching of the Gospel). The law and Gospel are meant to take dominion over all the earth, not just save a few from the fires of hell. Christ's victory is carried out in three stages: He vanquishes His enemies legally before God's judicial bar, then historically through the Gospel's continued progress, and then eternally at His second advent (Gentry teaches this in his book). I would interpret any prophecies, parables, etc. in light of these irrefutable doctrines which I believe them to be irreconcilable with amillennialism. I hope that makes sense. I don't want to get caught up in what could turn into a very extensive debate on eschatology though I appreciate and have enjoyed our dialogue about this important subject!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> It is odd that in the OT times, prophets who foretold “peace, peace” as the general trend of history for God’s people, were severely reprimanded (and some their lives were cut short – see re Hananiah in Jer 28). Now pastors and teachers feel free to do the same. But the flood that shall come shall cleanse all falsehood away, and there shall be no more of this. In this NT time God loves even His erring saints, so He tenderly bears with them. Yet their judgment shall be the stricter (James 3:1); they shall suffer some loss.



In all due respect Steve, do you believe this is what is happening here on the PB when we believe the Old Testament statements about Christ and the Nations coming to Him in submission?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Leah, in the relatively few years I have left (at 71 now, and coming from a short-lived family) I have two primary targets “within the human camp”: Bart Ehrman and his poison spiel, and “Theonomy”, which is not only a fantasy but is garnering a backlash against the saints which will turn lethal, for many earthdwellers have us in their sights due to it. My other target is the heart of humankind – though with benign intent – to bring many to hallow our Father’s name in the message of His Son. Perhaps I am a fool, but as His poet I will give these things a shot.

The sci fi and fantasy flicks, although powerful to the imagination, cannot hold a candle to the powers of the age to come, and we the children of the Light, around our King.


Randy, you’re a good friend and a good guy, so I will just be forthright; when the 2004 tsunami devastated the lands bordering the Indian Ocean, sweeping away multitudes (250,000) there was little or no warning. But we have warning, although many linger and splash around in the tide thinking nothing amiss despite the unequivocal vision of Scripture – to me and many at any rate! – and an understanding of the times (cf 1 Chr 12:32), the both of which behoove me to declare the vision with all the force available His people.

The warrior of Christ must be gracious, and kind – indeed, bearing all the fruit of His Spirit in his relations with his brethren – but we’re not to be goody-twoshoes either, not in the face of the tsunamis of impending judgment and the rage of the nations against the glorious Light that exposes the darkness in all hearts.

Time to speak my mind.


----------



## Vasahond

Since I'm accused of being a neoplatonist, I will simply say that I am not; I absolutely do not believe that "spirit is good and matter is evil," that is an unbiblical absurdity (would I have a wife if I was a neoplatonist?). I find it unnecessary to defend myself further on this point; but if you want to accuse me of heresy, at least validate your claim, Leah. I dropped my false accusations against you, even though I misunderstood and thought you held a position contrary to the one that you obviously hold. I simply take this to be a misunderstanding, and if not -- bring a case against me, allow me to defend myself, and let others judge between us; but the charge of being a neoplatonist is a very serious charge, and I don't take it lightly.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Jerusalem Blade said:


> and “Theonomy”, which is not only a fantasy but is garnering a backlash against the saints which will turn lethal, for many earthdwellers have us in their sights due to it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It is odd that in the OT times, prophets who foretold “peace, peace” as the general trend of history for God’s people, were severely reprimanded (and some their lives were cut short – see re Hananiah in Jer 28). Now pastors and teachers feel free to do the same. But the flood that shall come shall cleanse all falsehood away, and there shall be no more of this. In this NT time God loves even His erring saints, so He tenderly bears with them. Yet their judgment shall be the stricter (James 3:1); they shall suffer some loss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all due respect Steve, do you believe this is what is happening here on the PB when we believe the Old Testament statements about Christ and the Nations coming to Him in submission?
Click to expand...





Jerusalem Blade said:


> Randy, you’re a good friend and a good guy, so I will just be forthright; when the 2004 tsunami devastated the lands bordering the Indian Ocean, sweeping away multitudes (250,000) there was little or no warning. But we have warning, although many linger and splash around in the tide thinking nothing amiss despite the unequivocal vision of Scripture – to me and many at any rate! – and an understanding of the times (cf 1 Chr 12:32), the both of which behoove me to declare the vision with all the force available His people.
> 
> 
> The warrior of Christ must be gracious, and kind – indeed, bearing all the fruit of His Spirit in his relations with his brethren – but we’re not to be goody-twoshoes either, not in the face of the tsunamis of impending judgment and the rage of the nations against the glorious Light that exposes the darkness in all hearts.
> 
> 
> Time to speak my mind.




Steve,


You really didn't answer my question as I see it. It seems you are saying yes to my question. Your answer above is far from understanding the position and neglectful of how Christ worked in the past. Including your Tsunami illustration. No one is removing judgment from earth such as a catastrophic disaster. 


Now my Papa in the Faith who would agree with you more as a modern day amil who possibly sees Christ return within the very near future (and that is something the Church has struggled with from its inception) wrote this. 




> "Ye shall be my witnesses ... in Jerusalem (Acts 1-7), in Judea and Samaria (Acts 8-12) ... and the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 13-28). Jerusalem never became fully "Christian" ... nor did Judea and Samaria. Nor did "Asia" (Turkey) despite the seven churches addressed by John from Patmos. The Lord caused the Gospel to go forward in nation after nation, calling out his elect. They DID impact their cultures, of course. No more silver shrines to Diana; no more Roman or Greek gods. And the council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine. Real Christianity has always impacted culture. It certainly has in the West. Hopefully, it will yet again.
> Joseph Gwynn




Rome experienced Valcano and Burned during Nero's reign which he used to cause great persecution of Christians. But there was a great period of rest for the Church and it flourished. We are not denying any future birth pains leading to such a period where the Church may flourish worldwide in rest. You seem to think we are. We are not as the prophets of old who claim peace peace at this time. We see the need for adherence to the Law of God and Repentance before this period might happen.

I would just caution you dear friend to be careful so that your understanding might not be misleading others about what we think the scriptures say about the Nations submitting to Christ. A great awakening and much birthing pain is necessary for such. It was during the Roman Empire. Then after the great period of the world the enevitable will happen and the Nations will rise up quickly against God and His Lamb to their destruction. I would just caution you to be a bit more slow. This might take centuries or another millenia but It is quite possible that the world will come under submission and recognition of God's Kingdom here on earth. I am Amil. Just not what some would call a pessimistic amil. I agree more with Cornel Venema. The Gospel still needs to reach a great multitude of people and Nations. That is why Pergy is out there doing translation work as many other workers in the vineyard.


Please be careful not to accuse us of decrying peace peace like the wayward prophets of old. We know judgment for sin on earth is God's means to draw Nations to repentance. Great persecution might arise in the very near present. We don't deny that. But maybe those are the birth pains to bring in this submission of the Nations to recognize the Mediatorial Kingdom of Christ.

And brother, I might not be far behind you in crossing the Jordan. My heart condition is worsening. Heaven is looking much more fairer as He is growing lovelier and my body hurts more and more daily.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Jerusalem Blade said:


> and “Theonomy”, which is not only a fantasy but is garnering a backlash against the saints which will turn lethal, for many earthdwellers have us in their sights due to it.



Who in the world even knows what "Theonomy" is outside of a few seminary professors and folks on the PB? Greg Bahnsen has been dead for nearly twenty years and R.J. Rushdoony for a dozen. 

No "legitimate" seminary on the planet Earth teaches its students Theonomy as an option for Christian ethics. One denomination of less than a handful of churches teaches it as distinctive in a world of 5 Billion+ people.

How exactly is that garnering a "backlash against the saints which will turn lethal"? 

Seriously?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Joshua said:


> And for that matter, 'Theonomists' are hardly a monolithic lot, nor is 'Theonomy' a monolithic system drawn up and defined in any ecclesiastical Confession. There are many 'Theonomists' I know with whom I can go a long way down the road before we have to part ways. This is not to say that _some_ 'Theonomists' and _some instances_ of 'Theonomy' cannot be dangerous. But many non-theonomists, antinomians, and even Westminster Confessing (whether American revision or no) can be -and have been- 'dangerous,' and 'lethal.'


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Who in the world even knows what "Theonomy" is outside of a few seminary professors and folks on the PB? Greg Bahnsen has been dead for nearly twenty years and R.J. Rushdoony for a dozen.



I don't know about the seminaries but these teaching are still well and alive in the churches, Rushdoony's teaching are still very popular in homeschooling circles especially in the field of history. Preterism is still very alive and growing especially in reformed circles. Many people I discussed with didn't know the term Theonomy but their theology was certainly theonomist. I even heard people that were influenced by Rushdoony's writtings saying they believed less than 1 million people died in WWII, including the Jewish genocide, soldiers and civilians deaths.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Vasahond said:


> Since I'm accused of being a neoplatonist, I will simply say that I am not; I absolutely do not believe that "spirit is good and matter is evil," that is an unbiblical absurdity (would I have a wife if I was a neoplatonist?). I find it unnecessary to defend myself further on this point; but if you want to accuse me of heresy, at least validate your claim, Leah. I dropped my false accusations against you, even though I misunderstood and thought you held a position contrary to the one that you obviously hold. I simply take this to be a misunderstanding, and if not -- bring a case against me, allow me to defend myself, and let others judge between us; but the charge of being a neoplatonist is a very serious charge, and I don't take it lightly.



I really don't mean to be rude here, please understand me. I only want to edify and be edified in this discussion. Still, everything you're asking me to do I have done already. I've already denied that you are a neoplatonist and every time I've used that term I have mentioned specifically what I was referring to that I believe hold neoplatonists ideas in what you said. I appreciate that you said you misunderstood me. But I've already brought up the instances that I am saying are neoplatonic at their foundations which you just now saw it fit to comment about and still haven't shown me that I've misunderstood you. Please read posts more carefully. I don't bring up "accusations" like "this idea is neoplatonic" without bringing up what ideas I am referring to.

That said, the things that you specifically said which I believe have a neoplatonic root are, once again here (though I will be more thorough): 

(1) "What good is it if we do good things for people without sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ? Shall we make the world a more comfortable place to go to Hell from? Heaven forbid." and your agreeing with THE W about the fact that good deeds that don't include the good news of Jesus Christ are not good deeds at all but total failures - which he expressed implicitly in places like this "If christians provide the poor with food while making no mention of the Good News of Jesus Christ then we have failed in our duty. We do it for the sake of the gospel." Other things you said that are related to this are "If you are going to do good works, give glory to God by finding an opportunity to share the Gospel, so that it may be said that you labored for the work of the Kingdom" and "we must do good works and point to Christ -- otherwise, we're only pointing to moralism at best."

This, I believe, is neoplatonic in the sense that it says physical/material deeds cannot be good unless given a greater spiritual scope. This isn't true. A Christian who gives food to a person in need (who has worked for it or is unable to work as Scripture says if a man does not work he does not eat), then he has done a good deed regardless of if he shares the gospel or not. I define a good deed as a deed done in accordance to God's law. If this Christian didn't sin in motive while doing this, then it is truly a good deed. Our good deeds are so because they please God, not because of what they do for man. The "work of the kingdom," contrary to what you imply, is not _only_ spiritual things. I serve the kingdom because I serve the KING every time I fix dinner for my husband, change my baby's diapers, etc. as long as I do it with faith in my heart. You are practically proposing the idea that the kingdom is only explicitly spiritual things, but it is not. And heaven forbid we should forget that all our physical/material things we take part in and do in accordance with God's law we do _because_ we have been made to love Him and therefore they all do have spiritual significance, just not the kind that you are proposing.

(2) (And this is really a sub-category of (1)) You said "What you do for a wage under guidelines and agreement to an employer I would exclude from good works; although I do believe that in working, we should handle ourselves in a way that will cause people to worship God." I've already explained how I believe this to be neoplatonic at its core. A man who works at a secular job is doing a good work if only in that he is providing for his family in a lawful way in it. And you made the dichotomy between a secular employment and a spiritual employment, which gives further evidence. You said that even though a minister is paid for his services (which definitely falls under "what you do for a wage under guidelines and agreement to an employer"), a minister's employment is good. So again we see that you are promoting only those things which are explicitly spiritual can possibly be good.

Furthermore, though this may not be specifically neoplatonic, I've already posted the quote where you stated that unless one somehow mentions God (like "Praise God" or something like that) in a particular deed, then that work is just moralism and not a good work. There are major problems with this idea and it makes the mentioning of God more of a mantra which is superstitious then it does actually glorify Him. I know many charismatic type people which (without trying to even judge their salvation), have got the "Praise God!" part down, but their lifestyles are absolutely wicked. Atheists can say "Praise God!" in a work - now their motive is probably different but that's the point. Saying "Praise God" can be good or bad based upon your motive - it therefore cannot magically make a work go from either neutral or bad to being good. It is simply another deed which God examines our motive in which determines whether it is good or bad. Many people say that and are just using the Lord's name in vain by wanting to look "spiritual" even though they don't go to church or don't even care about God.

To make the people of God feel guilty because "we're not witnessing enough" "we're not saying praise God enough and are therefore just being moralistic people!" is very wrong. I implore you to carefully consider what I've written and if I've misunderstood you, then great! I will be happy to admit that. I hope you will simply learn to clarify your meanings more thoroughly because I and at least a few other people reading through this thread have gotten this understanding from what you've expressed and only felt beaten down by your words and made to feel guilty about things that aren't sinful! But if I have accurately represented your position, then I pray you seek to make these areas of theology line up with the Word of God. I hope my words have been edifying to you.


----------



## RamistThomist

> and “Theonomy”, which is not only a fantasy but is garnering a backlash against the saints which will turn lethal,



The Christ-haters will take any excuse to persecute and marginalize Christians. They think every Christian is a theonomist, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Steve, do you hold Covenanters to be theonomists since we believe all political entities must bow the knee to King Jesus according to his word, which includes the meanie books of the OT? Yet all Covenanter literature condemned theonomy (granted, most of the critiques were quite terrible and sort of proved theonomy, but I digress...).

Outside RTS Jackson few know of theonomy or could even care. The homeschool movement likes Rushdoony, true, but probably because Rushdoony appeared in trials defending homeschool parents from jail and from the Lord High State confiscating their kids (he did this around the same time seminary professors were warning of theonomy. The irony...).


----------



## RamistThomist

And as is noted, Theonomy isn't a monolithic label. Rushdoony is different from Bahnsen who is different from Gary North who is different from James Jordan who is different from Joe Morecraft who is the same as Judge Roy Moore. So which "theonomy" are you talking about?


----------



## Vasahond

Boosterseat_91 said:


> Vasahond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I'm accused of being a neoplatonist, I will simply say that I am not; I absolutely do not believe that "spirit is good and matter is evil," that is an unbiblical absurdity (would I have a wife if I was a neoplatonist?). I find it unnecessary to defend myself further on this point; but if you want to accuse me of heresy, at least validate your claim, Leah. I dropped my false accusations against you, even though I misunderstood and thought you held a position contrary to the one that you obviously hold. I simply take this to be a misunderstanding, and if not -- bring a case against me, allow me to defend myself, and let others judge between us; but the charge of being a neoplatonist is a very serious charge, and I don't take it lightly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't mean to be rude here, please understand me. I only want to edify and be edified in this discussion. Still, everything you're asking me to do I have done already. I've already denied that you are a neoplatonist and every time I've used that term I have mentioned specifically what I was referring to that I believe hold neoplatonists ideas in what you said. I appreciate that you said you misunderstood me. But I've already brought up the instances that I am saying are neoplatonic at their foundations which you just now saw it fit to comment about and still haven't shown me that I've misunderstood you. Please read posts more carefully. I don't bring up "accusations" like "this idea is neoplatonic" without bringing up what ideas I am referring to.
> 
> That said, the things that you specifically said which I believe have a neoplatonic root are, once again here (though I will be more thorough):
> 
> (1) "What good is it if we do good things for people without sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ? Shall we make the world a more comfortable place to go to Hell from? Heaven forbid." and your agreeing with THE W about the fact that good deeds that don't include the good news of Jesus Christ are not good deeds at all but total failures - which he expressed implicitly in places like this "If christians provide the poor with food while making no mention of the Good News of Jesus Christ then we have failed in our duty. We do it for the sake of the gospel." Other things you said that are related to this are "If you are going to do good works, give glory to God by finding an opportunity to share the Gospel, so that it may be said that you labored for the work of the Kingdom" and "we must do good works and point to Christ -- otherwise, we're only pointing to moralism at best."
> 
> This, I believe, is neoplatonic in the sense that it says physical/material deeds cannot be good unless given a greater spiritual scope.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that the chief end of doing acts of good, ultimately, is to give God glory? It seems that's what the Apostle Paul was getting at:

*So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.*
(1 Corinthians 10:31-33)

Interestingly, Paul says that even in eating and drinking we're to give glory to God; he even goes so far as to say that this is done "so that many may be saved." It's not mystical, it's not neoplatonist, it's not gnostic.



> This isn't true. A Christian who gives food to a person in need (who has worked for it or is unable to work as Scripture says if a man does not work he does not eat), then he has done a good deed regardless of if he shares the gospel or not.


 Situations do vary. But I do have a question: If he could share the Gospel, and he does not, then why not? What justification could there be if he knew the Gospel, and refused to share it?



> I define a good deed as a deed done in accordance to God's law.


 Good. I do too; Christ says to make disciples of men, and I do. The Law of God is not limited to the moral law (that is, the 10 commandments) but in the commands of Christ, also. Further, the question should be asked "How do I MOST glorify God in this?" You seem to be saying that the Gospel, though good to be shared, is not necessary to give God glory. Obviously, this is where we disagree -- I believe that while, yes, we can glorify God in carrying out rather normal, everyday tasks, He is most glorified in the proclamation of the Gospel.



> If this Christian didn't sin in motive while doing this, then it is truly a good deed. Our good deeds are so because they please God,not because of what they do for man.


According to your definition, this sounds pretty neoplatonist. Must they "please God" in order to be good? It sounds like you're saying that the atheists are unable to please God... Which would seem pretty accurate. In the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul makes two distinctions; those that live according to the spirit, and those that live according to the flesh. He says in Romans 8:8 "Those who are in the flesh cannot please God," and I would have to be inclined to agree. The only reason why your works and my works are pleasing to God is because they are seen through the finished work of Christ; as such, they are now acceptable to God. I think you would do well to read the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 16.



> The "work of the kingdom," contrary to what you imply, is not _only_ spiritual things. I serve the kingdom because I serve the KING every time I fix dinner for my husband, change my baby's diapers, etc. as long as I do it with faith in my heart. You are practically proposing the idea that the kingdom is only explicitly spiritual things, but it is not. And heaven forbid we should forget that all our physical/material things we take part in and do in accordance with God's law we do _because_ we have been made to love Him and therefore they all do have spiritual significance, just not the kind that you are proposing.


 I never said that doing those things was bad. I never implied it, either. Ephesians 5 says enough in regards to this; and I concur that you please God when you serve your family as He has ordained you to do. So, no -- I'm not "practically proposing the idea that the kingdom is only explicitly spiritual things." Way to presume.

(


> 2) (And this is really a sub-category of (1)) You said "What you do for a wage under guidelines and agreement to an employer I would exclude from good works; although I do believe that in working, we should handle ourselves in a way that will cause people to worship God." I've already explained how I believe this to be neoplatonic at its core. A man who works at a secular job is doing a good work if only in that he is providing for his family in a lawful way in it. And you made the dichotomy between a secular employment and a spiritual employment, which gives further evidence. You said that even though a minister is paid for his services (which definitely falls under "what you do for a wage under guidelines and agreement to an employer"), a minister's employment is good. So again we see that you are promoting only those things which are explicitly spiritual can possibly be good.


 Drop it. I already conceded on this point (obviously you have not been reading). Otherwise, continue to beat the dead horse, by all means.



> Furthermore, though this may not be specifically neoplatonic, I've already posted the quote where you stated that unless one somehow mentions God (like "Praise God" or something like that) in a particular deed, then that work is just moralism and not a good work.


 My works and your works should always be done to the glory of God, and I will not concede on that point. That does not mean that you need to say "Praise God" or something like that out of vain repetition. We should seek to glorify God in all that we do; so please don't twist my words to your agenda to vilify me. And, no, I don't believe that unbelievers can do good works; that is to say, their "good works" are not acceptable unto Him. Ours are by the finished work of Christ.



> There are major problems with this idea and it makes the mentioning of God more of a mantra which is superstitious then it does actually glorify Him. I know many charismatic type people which (without trying to even judge their salvation), have got the "Praise God!" part down, but their lifestyles are absolutely wicked. Atheists can say "Praise God!" in a work - now their motive is probably different but that's the point. Saying "Praise God" can be good or bad based upon your motive - it therefore cannot magically make a work go from either neutral or bad to being good. It is simply another deed which God examines our motive in which determines whether it is good or bad. Many people say that and are just using the Lord's name in vain by wanting to look "spiritual" even though they don't go to church or don't even care about God.


 Please continue putting words, thoughts, and ideas at my fingertips. You are just reading things into the script now. To accuse me of this is basically slander.



> To make the people of God feel guilty because "we're not witnessing enough" "we're not saying praise God enough and are therefore just being moralistic people!" is very wrong.


 So is not sharing the Gospel.



> I implore you to carefully consider what I've written and if I've misunderstood you, then great! I will be happy to admit that. I hope you will simply learn to clarify your meanings more thoroughly because I and at least a few other people reading through this thread have gotten this understanding from what you've expressed and only felt beaten down by your words and made to feel guilty about things that aren't sinful! But if I have accurately represented your position, then I pray you seek to make these areas of theology line up with the Word of God. I hope my words have been edifying to you.


 Quite honestly, I'm feeling a bit bitter because I feel like I've been maligned and slandered; but part of that is pride, I admit. Any bit of that coming through here, I hope and I pray that you would forgive me for -- and if I need to repent, I will examine carefully where that needs to be done, especially if you point it out -- I don't want to act in a way that is decidedly unchristian; and most especially in regards to my brothers and sisters in the Lord. I would simply request, however, that you carefully examine the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 16, and then get back to me before you make a hasty response. I would very much appreciate it.

I'm hoping that we can bring this misunderstanding to a conclusion, and in loving manner.


----------



## Boosterseat_91

Vasahond said:


> Quite honestly, I'm feeling a bit bitter because I feel like I've been maligned and slandered; but part of that is pride, I admit. Any bit of that coming through here, I hope and I pray that you would forgive me for -- and if I need to repent, I will examine carefully where that needs to be done, especially if you point it out -- I don't want to act in a way that is decidedly unchristian; and most especially in regards to my brothers and sisters in the Lord. I would simply request, however, that you carefully examine the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 16, and then get back to me before you make a hasty response. I would very much appreciate it.
> 
> I'm hoping that we can bring this misunderstanding to a conclusion, and in loving manner.



No slander involved, brother. We will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Vasahond

Thank you, Leah. I appreciate your response. I'm ok with agreeing to disagree, sister. May the Lord bless you.


----------



## Peairtach

Fogetaboutit said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who in the world even knows what "Theonomy" is outside of a few seminary professors and folks on the PB? Greg Bahnsen has been dead for nearly twenty years and R.J. Rushdoony for a dozen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about the seminaries but these teaching are still well and alive in the churches, Rushdoony's teaching are still very popular in homeschooling circles especially in the field of history. Preterism is still very alive and growing especially in reformed circles. Many people I discussed with didn't know the term Theonomy but their theology was certainly theonomist. I even heard people that were influenced by Rushdoony's writtings saying they believed less than 1 million people died in WWII, including the Jewish genocide, soldiers and civilians deaths.
Click to expand...


Preterism is a different issue to theonomy. 

If theonomy was seen as "a threat" by secularists, which seems highly unlikely, I don't know how one's view of Revelation and eschatology would be - preterist, historicist, futurist, idealist or mixed.

Some secularists see the Christian Zionism of Dispenationalism as a threat to peace between Israel and the Palestinians, or to their pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli agenda. So if they cared to look into it in more detail, that would be Lefty commentators seeing futurism as "a threat".

Rushdooony didn't say less than 1 million died in WWII. 50-60 million died. He said that there may have been an exagerration of figures for those killed in war crimes and crimes against humanity, because smaller numbers weren't terrible enough for the media. You know how the media sometimes delights in bigger tragedies because they make more dramatic news stories.  I'll maybe look out the quote.

PB's Chris Coldwell and Matthew Winzer have made a major and, importantly, nuanced contribution on the judicial laws, that should be read by anyone interested:http://www.puritanboard.com/f132/we...law-chronological-compilation-analysis-78672/


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Benjamin!

You asked:



Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Who in the world even knows what "Theonomy" is outside of a few seminary professors and folks on the PB? Greg Bahnsen has been dead for nearly twenty years and R.J. Rushdoony for a dozen.
> 
> No "legitimate" seminary on the planet Earth teaches its students Theonomy as an option for Christian ethics. One denomination of less than a handful of churches teaches it as distinctive in a world of 5 Billion+ people.
> 
> How exactly is that garnering a "backlash against the saints which will turn lethal"?
> 
> Seriously?


 
And I do take your question seriously! After my initial comments I will give links – from a basic Google search – to some secular or liberal Christian takes on “Theonomy” / Christian Reconstruction / and Dominionism – to show that *many* “know what ‘Theonomy’ is outside of a few seminary professors and folks on the PB”! They may not know it with accurate precision, but they know enough to alarm them, and move them to action.

There are those who have written about this from varying angles, such as Jeff Sharlet in his, _The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power_, and Chris Hedges’, _American Fascists: The Christian Right and The War on America_.

With regard to Hedges, this guy is a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, a prolific best-selling author, and an award-winning NY Times reporter (in 2002 he was part of a team of war-correspondents at _The NY Times_ awarded the Pulitzer Prize). He grew up in a Presbyterian home, his father a minister, but in an uber-PCUSA-type liberality where the Bible was acknowledged to be only a writing of man (“not the literal word of God”), and when the son started at Colgate University, the father made him start a gay and lesbian organization to give support to that community in the school.

Hedges now loudly trumpets – with respect from the NYTimes and the American liberal intelligencia – that the Bible is filled with rank hate literature, manifesting throughout a hate and bigotry-promoting “God”. From an opening excerpt in the first chapter, “Faith”:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them . . . we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. –Karl Popper, _The Open Society and Its Enemies_, 1:263​ 
One might think this was being written about militant Islam, but no, it is written about the evangelical Christian community, with an eye especially focused upon the “Theonomy” / Christian Reconstruction movement, as they are taken as the basic Christian paradigm affecting American society today. The above is just the opening salvo.

After railing against the conservative Protestant view of the Bible, Hedges says,
The book of Revelation, a crucial text for the radical Christian Right, appears to show Christ returning to earth at the head of an avenging army. It is one of the few places in the Bible where Christ is associated with violence. This bizarre book, omitted from some of the early canons and relegated to the back of the Bible by Martin Luther, may have been a way, as scholars contend, for the early Christians to cope with Roman persecution and their dreams of final triumph and glory. The book, however, paints a picture of a bloody battle between the forces of good and evil, Christ and the Antichrist, God and Satan, and the torment and utter destruction of all who do not follow the faith. In this vision, only the faithful will be allowed to enter the gates of the New Jerusalem. All others will disappear, cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14-15) . . . It is a story of God’s ruthless, terrifying and violent power unleashed on nonbelievers . . .

There is enough hatred, bigotry and lust for violence in the pages of the Bible to satisfy anyone bent on justifying cruelty and violence. (pp. 4, 5)​ 
Hedges continues,
Church leaders must denounce the biblical passages that champion apocalyptic violence . . . This literature in the biblical canon keeps alive the virus of hatred, whether dormant or active, and the possibility of apocalyptic terror in the name of God. And the steady refusal by churches to challenge the canonical authority of these passages means these churches share some of the blame. “Unless the churches, Protestant and Catholic alike, come together on this, they will continue to make it legitimate to believe in the end as a time when there will be no non-Christians or infidels,” theologian Richard Fenn wrote. “Silent complicity with apocalyptic rhetoric soon becomes collusion with plans for religiously inspired genocide.” (from Fenn’s, _Dreams of Glory: The Sources of Apocalyptic Terror_, p. 60).

As long as scripture, blessed and accepted by the church, teaches that at the end of time there will be a Day of Wrath and Christians will control the shattered remnants of a world cleansed through violence and war, as long as it teaches that all nonbelievers will be tormented, destroyed and banished to hell, it will be hard to thwart the message of radical apocalyptic preachers or assuage the fears of the Islamic world that Christians are calling for its annihilation. Those who embrace this dark conclusion to life can find it endorsed in scripture, whether it is tucked into the back pew rack of a liberal Unitarian church in Boston or a megachurch in Florida. The mainstream Protestant and Catholic churches, declining in numbers and influence, cannot hope to combat the hysteria and excitement roused by these prophets of doom until they repudiate the apocalyptic writings in scripture. (pp. 6, 7)​ 
I initially purchased this book to get a take on how the secular world was viewing and critiquing the “Theonomy” / Christian Reconstruction movement (and its adherents in the Charismatic churches), as I am slowly working on a critique of my own. But I came upon more than I bargained for: an intellectual, sociological, and legal groundwork – being laid in many different quarters – for the eventual marginalization and then criminalization of both us and our Law, the Law of God in the Old and New Testaments. This is not just a loose-cannon antichristian, but a Harvard-educated, respected journalist and author who has the ear and attention of many. Already the government is scrutinizing the “hard core” Christian community, and such books (there are more) inform their perceptions and strategies. Slowly we are being perceived as dangerous to the health and safety of society, and as laws are enacted against our Law, we shall – from loyalty to our King – become outlaws.

The growing public awareness of the Reconstruction / Dominion movement does not bode well for us. They all too easily paint with a very broad brush.

-----------

Randy, please be patient – I’m working on a response to you.

----------

This (see below) is when the Dominion / "Theonomic" / Christian Reconstruction movement – especially in the hands of Charismatics and other Evangelical lites (with whom "Theonomy" had an affair some decades ago) – comes back to bite us.

Dominionism Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

The Despoiling of America: The Despoiling of America

Dominionism & Dominion Theology: The Theological Basis for American Theocracy: Dominionism & Dominion Theology: Laying the Theological Basis for American Theocracy

Christian Reconstruction Wikipedia: Christian Reconstructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Religious Tolerance.Org: Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism, Theonomy, Dominion Theology, etc.: CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, DOMINION THEOLOGY AND THEONOMY

PublicEye.Org: Inside the Christian Right Dominionist Movement That's Undermining Democracy: PublicEye.org (and also: Index : Index of /christian_right )

Let Him Hear: Who Is Trying To turn America Into A Theocracy?: Theonomy, Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism – An Overview | Let Him Hear

Reconstructionism: Reconstructionism - Metapedia

The Detonator: Reconstructionism: Christian Reconstructionism | The Detonator

The Detonator: Reconstructionism 2: Christian Reconstructionism | The Detonator

The Detonator: The Intolerable Dominionists: The Intolerable Dominionists | The Detonator

CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM AND THE FAR-RIGHT: http://my.execpc.com/~awallace/reconstruction.txt

Sourcewatch: Dominionism: Dominionism - SourceWatch

--------

I should also include Mikey Weinstein (the chap who with great venom recently advised – in an official capacity – the command staff at the Pentagon to take a strong stand against any Christian witnessing in the armed forces). Here is a speech of his against “Dominionist Christianity” in the – not Pentagon, but “Pentacostalgon” – (warning: one f-word and a couple of near f-words, and one a-word): Mikey Weinstein's November 8th Speech - YouTube (and this speech was to a Jewish group or congregation!). True, there has been genuine abuse of authority in the witnessing of officers to enlisted – and other unseemly things:

Mikey Weinstein: 2/8/13 - Mikey Weinstein speaks in Santa Fe, NM (with Ambassador Joe Wilson intro) - YouTube

US Military Missionaries: US Military Missionaries (V2 Abridged) - YouTube

MRFF Media Coverage - Long Version - YouTube


----------



## RamistThomist

Not to actually dispute what you said, since I didn't see a particular argument, but I think you misread Hedges. Hedges, rank liberal he is, is not simply saying pace the Christ-hating world, that theonomy is wrong but the rest of conservative Christianity is good. Rather, the outside world is saying that conservative Christianity is theonomic and all conservative Christians should be dealt with accordingly (e.g., FEMA camps). Anyway, the majority of those links are...to put it nicely...less than useful. I've forgotten more about theonomy than those links will know in a dozen lifetimes.

I've debated these guys in college. They can't make distinctions between Zionism, Dominionism, Theonomy (the latter two aren't the same; bahnsen was very clear on this but no one seems to listen).



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Benjamin!
> 
> You asked:
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who in the world even knows what "Theonomy" is outside of a few seminary professors and folks on the PB? Greg Bahnsen has been dead for nearly twenty years and R.J. Rushdoony for a dozen.
> 
> No "legitimate" seminary on the planet Earth teaches its students Theonomy as an option for Christian ethics. One denomination of less than a handful of churches teaches it as distinctive in a world of 5 Billion+ people.
> 
> How exactly is that garnering a "backlash against the saints which will turn lethal"?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I do take your question seriously! After my initial comments I will give links – from a basic Google search – to some secular or liberal Christian takes on “Theonomy” / Christian Reconstruction / and Dominionism – to show that *many* “know what ‘Theonomy’ is outside of a few seminary professors and folks on the PB”! They may not know it with accurate precision, but they know enough to alarm them, and move them to action.
> 
> There are those who have written about this from varying angles, such as Jeff Sharlet in his, _The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power_, and Chris Hedges’, _American Fascists: The Christian Right and The War on America_.
> 
> With regard to Hedges, this guy is a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, a prolific best-selling author, and an award-winning NY Times reporter (in 2002 he was part of a team of war-correspondents at _The NY Times_ awarded the Pulitzer Prize). He grew up in a Presbyterian home, his father a minister, but in an uber-PCUSA-type liberality where the Bible was acknowledged to be only a writing of man (“not the literal word of God”), and when the son started at Colgate University, the father made him start a gay and lesbian organization to give support to that community in the school.
> 
> Hedges now loudly trumpets – with respect from the NYTimes and the American liberal intelligencia – that the Bible is filled with rank hate literature, manifesting throughout a hate and bigotry-promoting “God”. From an opening excerpt in the first chapter, “Faith”:
> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them . . . we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. –Karl Popper, _The Open Society and Its Enemies_, 1:263​
> One might think this was being written about militant Islam, but no, it is written about the evangelical Christian community, with an eye especially focused upon the “Theonomy” / Christian Reconstruction movement, as they are taken as the basic Christian paradigm affecting American society today. The above is just the opening salvo.
> 
> After railing against the conservative Protestant view of the Bible, Hedges says,
> The book of Revelation, a crucial text for the radical Christian Right, appears to show Christ returning to earth at the head of an avenging army. It is one of the few places in the Bible where Christ is associated with violence. This bizarre book, omitted from some of the early canons and relegated to the back of the Bible by Martin Luther, may have been a way, as scholars contend, for the early Christians to cope with Roman persecution and their dreams of final triumph and glory. The book, however, paints a picture of a bloody battle between the forces of good and evil, Christ and the Antichrist, God and Satan, and the torment and utter destruction of all who do not follow the faith. In this vision, only the faithful will be allowed to enter the gates of the New Jerusalem. All others will disappear, cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14-15) . . . It is a story of God’s ruthless, terrifying and violent power unleashed on nonbelievers . . .
> 
> There is enough hatred, bigotry and lust for violence in the pages of the Bible to satisfy anyone bent on justifying cruelty and violence. (pp. 4, 5)​
> Hedges continues,
> Church leaders must denounce the biblical passages that champion apocalyptic violence . . . This literature in the biblical canon keeps alive the virus of hatred, whether dormant or active, and the possibility of apocalyptic terror in the name of God. And the steady refusal by churches to challenge the canonical authority of these passages means these churches share some of the blame. “Unless the churches, Protestant and Catholic alike, come together on this, they will continue to make it legitimate to believe in the end as a time when there will be no non-Christians or infidels,” theologian Richard Fenn wrote. “Silent complicity with apocalyptic rhetoric soon becomes collusion with plans for religiously inspired genocide.” (from Fenn’s, _Dreams of Glory: The Sources of Apocalyptic Terror_, p. 60).
> 
> As long as scripture, blessed and accepted by the church, teaches that at the end of time there will be a Day of Wrath and Christians will control the shattered remnants of a world cleansed through violence and war, as long as it teaches that all nonbelievers will be tormented, destroyed and banished to hell, it will be hard to thwart the message of radical apocalyptic preachers or assuage the fears of the Islamic world that Christians are calling for its annihilation. Those who embrace this dark conclusion to life can find it endorsed in scripture, whether it is tucked into the back pew rack of a liberal Unitarian church in Boston or a megachurch in Florida. The mainstream Protestant and Catholic churches, declining in numbers and influence, cannot hope to combat the hysteria and excitement roused by these prophets of doom until they repudiate the apocalyptic writings in scripture. (pp. 6, 7)​
> I initially purchased this book to get a take on how the secular world was viewing and critiquing the “Theonomy” / Christian Reconstruction movement (and its adherents in the Charismatic churches), as I am slowly working on a critique of my own. But I came upon more than I bargained for: an intellectual, sociological, and legal groundwork – being laid in many different quarters – for the eventual marginalization and then criminalization of both us and our Law, the Law of God in the Old and New Testaments. This is not just a loose-cannon antichristian, but a Harvard-educated, respected journalist and author who has the ear and attention of many. Already the government is scrutinizing the “hard core” Christian community, and such books (there are more) inform their perceptions and strategies. Slowly we are being perceived as dangerous to the health and safety of society, and as laws are enacted against our Law, we shall – from loyalty to our King – become outlaws.
> 
> The growing public awareness of the Reconstruction / Dominion movement does not bode well for us. They all too easily paint with a very broad brush.
> 
> -----------
> 
> Randy, please be patient – I’m working on a response to you.
> 
> ----------
> 
> This (see below) is when the Dominion / "Theonomic" / Christian Reconstruction movement – especially in the hands of Charismatics and other Evangelical lites (with whom "Theonomy" had an affair some decades ago) – comes back to bite us.
> 
> Dominionism Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
> 
> The Despoiling of America: The Despoiling of America
> 
> Dominionism & Dominion Theology: The Theological Basis for American Theocracy: Dominionism & Dominion Theology: Laying the Theological Basis for American Theocracy
> 
> Christian Reconstruction Wikipedia: Christian Reconstructionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Religious Tolerance.Org: Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism, Theonomy, Dominion Theology, etc.: CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, DOMINION THEOLOGY AND THEONOMY
> 
> PublicEye.Org: Inside the Christian Right Dominionist Movement That's Undermining Democracy: PublicEye.org (and also: Index : Index of /christian_right )
> 
> Let Him Hear: Who Is Trying To turn America Into A Theocracy?: Theonomy, Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism – An Overview | Let Him Hear
> 
> Reconstructionism: Reconstructionism - Metapedia
> 
> The Detonator: Reconstructionism: Christian Reconstructionism | The Detonator
> 
> The Detonator: Reconstructionism 2: Christian Reconstructionism | The Detonator
> 
> The Detonator: The Intolerable Dominionists: The Intolerable Dominionists | The Detonator
> 
> CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM AND THE FAR-RIGHT: http://my.execpc.com/~awallace/reconstruction.txt
> 
> Sourcewatch: Dominionism: Dominionism - SourceWatch
> 
> --------
> 
> I should also include Mikey Weinstein (the chap who with great venom recently advised – in an official capacity – the command staff at the Pentagon to take a strong stand against any Christian witnessing in the armed forces). Here is a speech of his against “Dominionist Christianity” in the – not Pentagon, but “Pentacostalgon” – (warning: one f-word and a couple of near f-words, and one a-word): Mikey Weinstein's November 8th Speech - YouTube (and this speech was to a Jewish group or congregation!). True, there has been genuine abuse of authority in the witnessing of officers to enlisted – and other unseemly things:
> 
> Mikey Weinstein: 2/8/13 - Mikey Weinstein speaks in Santa Fe, NM (with Ambassador Joe Wilson intro) - YouTube
> 
> US Military Missionaries: US Military Missionaries (V2 Abridged) - YouTube
> 
> MRFF Media Coverage - Long Version - YouTube
Click to expand...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, I think your take on Hedges is correct (don’t know if you read his book cited above, or not) – and it is the same as mine. Nor is this a matter of the world making distinctions, as between Dominionism and “Theonomy”, but they get a general idea that these Christians want to “take over”, and they’re right about that.

I agree also that the articles are not of any use to those who want to do serious research or knowledge-acquisition – my purpose in showing them is to depict widening public perception, blurred though it may be. They know as much as they need to know to realize that a sector of the Christian camp is truly dangerous to a pluralistic society, and, as I said, they paint us all with their broad brush as though we all are in that sector, or at least greatly sympathetic to it – much as some moderate Muslims may be to Jihadists.


----------



## Mushroom

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, I think your take on Hedges is correct (don’t know if you read his book cited above, or not) – and it is the same as mine. Nor is this a matter of the world making distinctions, as between Dominionism and “Theonomy”, but they get a general idea that these Christians want to “take over”, and they’re right about that.
> 
> I agree also that the articles are not of any use to those who want to do serious research or knowledge-acquisition – my purpose in showing them is to depict widening public perception, blurred though it may be. They know as much as they need to know to realize that a sector of the Christian camp is truly dangerous to a pluralistic society, and, as I said, they paint us all with their broad brush as though we all are in that sector, or at least greatly sympathetic to it – much as some moderate Muslims may be to Jihadists.


And it would make not a hair's breadth of difference to them if a Christian WERE a theonomist or nominal Methodist, they despise us all and will revile us all at every opportunity. So what's new about that? Should we then conform our convictions to ameliorate their wrath?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> Randy, please be patient – I’m working on a response to you.



Please don't make it long Steve. I am really swamped right now. LOL


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Brad, the thing is, when they understand that some of us want to take over the country and govern it according to Biblical law – including death penalties – this exponentially increases their hatred. For if the Dominionists or “Theonomists” get their way they could face capital punishments for the sins they love. In a sense there is a good message to it: for these types of Christians – and the punishments they would inflict – do foretell the wrath of God that is coming upon them. But I think it better to preach the gospel and the coming wrath than bring political / penal consequences. These latter profoundly threaten them, and they see the world as too small a place for us both. Nominal Methodists are no threat.

-------

Hi Randy – here is our exchange:

I said, “It is odd that in the OT times, prophets who foretold ‘peace, peace’ as the general trend of history for God’s people, were severely reprimanded (and some their lives were cut short – see re Hananiah in Jer 28). Now pastors and teachers feel free to do the same. But the flood that shall come shall cleanse all falsehood away, and there shall be no more of this. In this NT time God loves even His erring saints, so He tenderly bears with them. Yet their judgment shall be the stricter (James 3:1); they shall suffer some loss.”

And you responded, “In all due respect Steve, do you believe this is what is happening here on the PB when we believe the Old Testament statements about Christ and the Nations coming to Him in submission?”

Now Randy, I don’t want to get into a long debate about the different hermeneutics involved (ways of understanding certain OT depictions of the future). Here are some Scriptures that you may well interpret as teaching that the vast majority of humankind and/or their kings will submit to and worship the LORD God during the NT church age (my comments will follow):
*
Psalm 22:27-28* All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the LORD’s: and he is the governor among the nations.

*Psalm 66:3-4* Say unto God, How terrible art thou in thy works! through the greatness of thy power shall thine enemies submit themselves unto thee. All the earth shall worship thee, and shall sing unto thee; they shall sing to thy name.

*Psalm 138: **4* All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth. Yea, they shall sing in the ways of the LORD: for great is the glory of the LORD.

*Isaiah 2:2* And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.

*Isaiah 60:3* And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.​ 
In some passages the worship shall not happen until Christ returns, destroys the wicked at the last battle, and is seated in His kingdom on the new earth, among His redeemed. Or it may happen at the judgment seat of Christ, when all _must_ bow before Him and acknowledge He is Lord and King, the Almighty:*
Philippians 2:10-11* That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.​ 
In some instances – and this pertains to the verses above – it will be the begrudging obeisance of the defeated enemies of Christ before they are cast into the lake of fire, and in others it will be the worship and singing of His true children.

We see the fulfillment of the visions of all the earth, and its kings, worshipping God and the Lamb:*
Revelation 21:23-24* And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.​ 
The primary interpretive error is to say these _Old Testament_ pictures of all the earth worshipping God prophetically show the golden age of a “Christianized” (I hate that word, meaning as it does mere outward conformity without the inward reality!) earth, per the postmil (and possibly the so-called “optimistic” amil) view.

It is having the Old Testament be the interpretive tool of the New Testament, whereas sound a hermeneutic has the NT being the revealer of the Old, particularly when the OT meaning is unclear. And in this case the error is all the more glaring as the NT consistently shows the “present age” to be an evil one.

One reason the Book of Revelation is so misunderstood is that a sound interpretation of it refutes this error.

In the two Isaiah passages above, these may be understood as happening in the NT church age; in Isa 2:2 it is not everyone (or most) in each of the nations coming into the LORD’s house (heavenly Zion), but all nations are represented. The same with Isa 60:3, not all the Gentiles, nor all the kings.

I really don’t want to get into a big discussion about these things, just going into it here because you asked me to – asked me if what I said applied to statements made here at PB. Clearly it does, because both views cannot be right – at least one of us has to be wrong. And it won’t be settled by wrangling over it. Even in the OT prophets’ days they had gainsayers, and the Scripture says the proof will be in the pudding, as it were. Though on occasion the LORD intervened to vindicate His prophets. I don’t think that will be the case now.

In our time – here in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] decade of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century – I will continue to speak the truth of these things, and I will try to do it graciously and winsomely, but that does not mean softening the truth even for love or friendship’s sake – becoming mealy-mouthed. 

Just as in Jeremiah’s day (and the other prophets) it is the reality of God’s word becoming manifest that shall show what is true and what is error. This is why I said above, “I think the loudest refutation of [the] postmil view will be when it is washed away in torrents of suffering and hardship as the days darken”. I hear you when you say that even the postmil and “optimistic-amil” allow for suffering times before the golden times, and at least that allows people to be prepared for suffering, so that it does not come upon them as a shock. Still, it does not show the depth and breadth of what is coming.

I aim to cast some light on just this – the judgments from on high, and the variety of things we might expect. I will answer to the Lord my King and Judge for what I say, and I will say it with all the force and skill available to His people. He wants His flock to be prepared for what is coming. He loves His flock, and cares for their wellbeing.


----------



## RamistThomist

Steve,
Do you reject the historic Reformed teaching on the civil magistrate?


----------



## RamistThomist

Steve, the following are merely a handful of sources documenting the historic Reformed teaching on law and civil magistrate. They arefrom the Scottish Covenanters. Are the Scottish covenanters "lethal?" Do you find yourself in agreement with the historic Reformed teaching or not? (Courtesy to D. Ritchie for his hard work)

Donald Cargill:



> Next, I do, by virtue of the same authority, and in the same name, excommunicate, cast out of the true Church, and deliver up to Satan, Sir George Mackenzie, the king’s advocate; for his apostacy, In turning into a profligateness of conversation, after he had begun a profession of holiness: for his constant pleading against, and persecuting to death, the people of God, and alleging and laying to their charge, things, which in his conscience he knew to be against the Word of God, truth, reason, and the ancient laws of this kingdom: and his pleading for sorcerers, murderers, and other criminals, that before God, and by the laws of the land, ought to die; for his ungodly, erroneous, phantastic and blasphemous tenets, printed to the world in his pamphlets and pasquils (Donald Cargill, ‘The Torwood excommunication’ in James Kerr (ed.), The covenants and the Covenanters: covenants, sermons, and documents of the Covenanted Reformation (Edinburgh, 1895), p. 411.)



We say stumble not that it is said, the Laws of GOD ought to be the Laws of the Land; For it will never be well with you (especially the Mein of the Land) till the Laws of GOD be the Laws of the Land; Then we will not be fashed [sic] with Great Ones to Oppress: For when they have Laws to make, they never do [any] thing but Oppress the Poor. But when the Law of GOD speaks, it will give Right to the Poor as well as to the Great. So the Law of GOD should be our Law. Where the Law of GOD is received where Christians are; Let Christians go to the Law which GOD has found out; And let Heathens and Turks go to the Law that Nature finds out.

Donald Cargill, A lecture and sermon preached in different times by that faithful and painful minister of the gospel, and now glorified martyr, Mr Donald Cargill, concerning Jehosophat and his association with Ahab, and the difficulty where to make recourse, when staged before the tribunal of God (n.p., 1681), p. 10.

That we shall endeavour to our utmost, the extirpation of the kingdom of Darkness, and whatsoever is contrary to the kingdom of Christ, and especially Idolatry, and Popery in all the Articles of it, as we are bound in our National Covenant; and Superstition, Will-Worship, and Prelacy, with its Hierarchy, as we are bound in our Solemn League and Covenant; (A true and exact copy of a treasonable and bloody-paper called, the fanticks new-covenant: which was taken from Mr. Donald Cargill at Queens-Ferry, the third day of June, 1680 (Edinburgh, 1680), p. 4.

Moreover, we declare that these Men whom we shall set over us, shall be engaged to govern us principally by that Civil or Judicial Law, given by God to His People of Israel, especially in matters of Life and Death, and in all other things also, so far as they teach, excepting only that Law, (viz. anent Slaves,) which does not agree with that Christian Liberty established in all Christendom (only violated by our Tyrants, and some others of late,)

George Gillespie:
Surely unless we are timely awakened, and more deeply humbled, God will punish us yet seven times more for our sins (Lev. 26:18, 21, 24, 28); and if he has chastised us with whips, he will chastise us with scorpions. And he will yet give a further charge to the sword, to avenge the quarrel of his covenant (Lev. 26:25).

George Gillespie, ‘A sermon preached before the Honourable House of Commons at their late solemn fast, Wednesday, March 27, 1644’ in Chris Coldwell (ed.), Sermons preached before the English Houses of Parliament by the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly of divines 1643-1645 (Dallas, 2011), p. 292.

[H]uman laws do not bind to obedience, but only in the case, when the things which they prescribe do agree and serve to those things which God’s law prescribeth; so that, as human laws, they bind not, neither have they any force to bind, but only by participation with God’s law.

George Gillespie, A dispute against the English Popish ceremonies obtruded on the Church of Scotland (1637; Edinburgh, 1844), p. 90.


Rutherford:

[A] thief is obliged to restore stolen goods […] They who enjoy that which they may and ought by their own private power, restore, such as ill conquered goods. They sin in using that, true, Proverbs 3:27; Exodus 22:26, 27; Luke 19:8. It’s a sin to withhold the raiment though laid in pawned, which should cover the poor man’s skin in the night, and they have no right to enjoy that.

Samuel Rutherford, The covenant of life opened; or, a treatise of the covenant of grace, ed. C. M. McMahon (1654; New Lennox IL, 2005), pp 98-9.

It is clear the question must be thus stated, for all the laws of the old Testament (which we hold in their moral equity to be perpetual) that are touching blasphemies, heresies, solicitation to worship false Gods and the breach of which the Godly Magistrate was to punish, command or forbid only such things as may be proved by two or three witnesses, and which husband and wife are not to conceal, and from which all Israel must abstain for fear of the like punishment. Deut. 13.8, 9, 10, 11. Deut. 17. 5, 6. Levit. 20. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. But opinions in the Mind, acts of the understanding, can never be proved by witnesses and such as neither Magistrate nor Church can censure.

Samuel Rutherford, A free disputation against pretended liberty of conscience (London, 1649), p. 47.


John Brown of Haddington


> Though God never, in Scripture, commands that any lesser mistakes in religion, or a simple neglect of religious duties should be punished; yet he commands magistrates, suitably and seasonably, to punish, even to death, idolaters, particularly seducers to it, Deut. xiii. 2-15; 17:2-7; Ex. xxii. 20; blasphemers, Lev. xxiv. 15-16; insolent profaners of the Sabbath, Num. xv. 30-36. Where in all the New Testament, is there a single hint of repeal of such laws, any more than of those concerning murder (Gen. ix. 6; Num. xxxv. 30-31)? Where is a single hint, that Christ’s incarnation abolished these laws and proceed for magistrates a right and power to encourage and protect heretics, blasphemers, and idolaters, who openly and obstinately labour to offend God, and destroy and damn men?
> 
> John Brown, The absurdity and perfidy of all authoritative toleration of gross heresy, blasphemy, idolatry, popery, in Britain. In two letters to a friend. In which the doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith relative to toleration of a false religion, and the power of the civil magistrate about sacred matters; and the nature, origin, ends and obligation of the National Covenant and Solemn League are candidly represented and defended (1780; Glasgow, 1803), pp 38-9


.

John Knox


> We say, the man is not persecuted for his conscience, that, declining from God, blaspheming his Majestie, and contemning his religion, obstinately defendeth erroneous and false doctrine. This man, I say, lawfully convicted, if he suffer the death pronounced by a lawful Magistrate, is not persecuted, (as in the name of Servetus ye furiously complain,) but he suffereth punishment according to God’s commandment, pronounced in Deuteronomie, the xiii. chapter.
> John Knox, An answer to the cavillations of an adversary respecting the doctrine of predestination (1560) repr. in The works of John Knox, ed. David Laing (6 vols, Edinburgh, 1856), v, 231.


----------



## Elizabeth

"Are the Scottish covenanters "lethal?""

Well, to the godly man(as they would define him), no. To the ungodly(again, as they would define him), yes. There's your rub.


----------



## RamistThomist

Right. I am merely pressing the antithesis on the historic reformed position on the civil magistrate. Americans today are more comfortable with Thomas Jefferson's anti-Christian position on the state as opposed to John Knox's covenantalism. It's been fashionable for the past 30 years to beat up on Theonomists (assuming they even exist outside internet), but I have routinely challenged people over the past ten years to be consistent and condemn the rest of the Reformed position on the civil magistrate. Technically speaking, theonomy erred on this point in that it went beyond the Scottish fathers, but the larger point is the same. 



Elizabeth said:


> "Are the Scottish covenanters "lethal?""
> 
> Well, to the godly man(as they would define him), no. To the ungodly(again, as they would define him), yes. There's your rub.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Steve,


In all due respect you aren't dealing with what I have noted. Yes, we have a hermeneutic that says you interpret the more complex scriptures by the more clearer passages. Are you going to tell me that Isaiah isn't more clear and specific in some places concerning Christ and His work than some New Testament passages. We interpret a lot of things in light of the clear teaching in Genesis to understand the foundation for which the New is built. We are to interpret things in light of the Old foundation also.

You really haven't dealt with the New Testament passages or the passages that we view in a whole. My concern with what you are saying is in your accusation that we are like the prophets of old who decried peace peace when there was no peace. There was no call for repentance or humility before God by those prophets. They were using the same argument that the Jews used with Jesus in John chapter 10 by declaring they weren't in bondage to any man (lol) because they were children of Abraham. 


You did not deal with my historical analysis of birth pains in the first 400 years of Christendom. The times of Rome were just as evil as today if not more evil. They were feeding people to the lions. Thank God for his servants such as St. Telemachus who was used of God to stop such evil. So your evil analogy fails in my estimation. 


From the times of the early church till today men have been forecasting that the end was going to happen in their generation. I just see to many things that still need to be accomplished according to God's word. You totally neglected what I wrote and asked you to consider concerning your proclamation that we were like the prophets of old declaring peace when there is no peace. Our position is nothing like that and you are misapplying a text to us. For that I am saddened. We fully recognize God's means of chastisement, judgment, and birth pains. As I noted and I will repost it again.....




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Steve,
> 
> You really didn't answer my question as I see it. It seems you are saying yes to my question. Your answer above is far from understanding the position and neglectful of how Christ worked in the past. Including your Tsunami illustration. No one is removing judgment from earth such as a catastrophic disaster.
> 
> Now my Papa in the Faith who would agree with you more as a modern day amil who possibly sees Christ return within the very near future (and that is something the Church has struggled with from its inception) wrote this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Ye shall be my witnesses ... in Jerusalem (Acts 1-7), in Judea and Samaria (Acts 8-12) ... and the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 13-28). Jerusalem never became fully "Christian" ... nor did Judea and Samaria. Nor did "Asia" (Turkey) despite the seven churches addressed by John from Patmos. The Lord caused the Gospel to go forward in nation after nation, calling out his elect. They DID impact their cultures, of course. No more silver shrines to Diana; no more Roman or Greek gods. And the council of Nicaea was convened by Constantine. Real Christianity has always impacted culture. It certainly has in the West. Hopefully, it will yet again.
> Joseph Gwynn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rome experienced Valcano and Burned during Nero's reign which he used to cause great persecution of Christians. But there was a great period of rest for the Church and it flourished. We are not denying any future birth pains leading to such a period where the Church may flourish worldwide in rest. You seem to think we are. We are not as the prophets of old who claim peace peace at this time. We see the need for adherence to the Law of God and Repentance before this period might happen.
> 
> I would just caution you dear friend to be careful so that your understanding might not be misleading others about what we think the scriptures say about the Nations submitting to Christ. A great awakening and much birthing pain is necessary for such. It was during the Roman Empire. Then after the great period of the world the enevitable will happen and the Nations will rise up quickly against God and His Lamb to their destruction. I would just caution you to be a bit more slow. This might take centuries or another millenia but It is quite possible that the world will come under submission and recognition of God's Kingdom here on earth. I am Amil. Just not what some would call a pessimistic amil. I agree more with Cornel Venema. The Gospel still needs to reach a great multitude of people and Nations. That is why Pergy is out there doing translation work as many other workers in the vineyard.
> 
> Please be careful not to accuse us of decrying peace peace like the wayward prophets of old. We know judgment for sin on earth is God's means to draw Nations to repentance. Great persecution might arise in the very near present. We don't deny that. But maybe those are the birth pains to bring in this submission of the Nations to recognize the Mediatorial Kingdom of Christ.
> 
> And brother, I might not be far behind you in crossing the Jordan. My heart condition is worsening. Heaven is looking much more fairer as He is growing lovelier and my body hurts more and more daily.
Click to expand...


Please be careful in your accusations Steve. I don't believe you are taking in a full account of what has happened, is happening, and what will happen. We preach repentance unlike your prophets of old. We don't expect blessing upon Nations or peoples who forsake and dishonor God. Your comparison fails there. May God grant us the repentance and ability to endure till the end. The Word of God is going forth. I personally have been following the work going on in India and China and have more hope that the Kingdom is spreading around the globe. It is now settling in the East and hopefully reinvigorates us in the West to return. Thy Kingdom Come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven. 

As I stated, I don't have much time to deal with your false accusations at this time. 


Be Encouraged Steve.


----------



## KMK

This thread is getting too unwieldy. Some may want to start another with a more focused OP.


----------

