Are we called to save the world?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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 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!
 
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!
:ditto:
Pergamum has nailed it!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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?

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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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
 
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.

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


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


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?
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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!)
 
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.
 
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!
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?


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.
 
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?
 
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.'

:ditto:
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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...).
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top