Are we called to save the world?

[THE W]

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.

Why would the church be defeated?

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.

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

 

[THE W]

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

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]

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]

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.

Why would the church be defeated?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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

still doesn't answer my question

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]

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]

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

still doesn't answer my question

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?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

still doesn't answer my question

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?

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?

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]

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]

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.

Why would the church be defeated?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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" eschaton, however, may well be today or tonight.

 

[THE W]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.