Sensible Sinners

"Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:24)

"They who are not sensible of their misery cannot truly look to God for mercy; for it is the very notion of divine mercy, that it is the goodness and grace of God to the miserable. Without misery in the object, there can be no exercise of mercy. To suppose mercy without supposing misery, or pity without calamity, is a contradiction: therefore men cannot look upon themselves as proper objects of mercy, unless they first know themselves to be miserable; and so, unless this be the case, it is impossible that they should come to God for mercy. They must be sensible that they are the children of wrath; that the law is against them, and that they are exposed to the curse of it: that the wrath of God abideth on them; and that he is angry' with them every day while they are under the guilt of sin.—They must be sensible that it is a very dreadful thing to be the object of the wrath of God; that it is a very awful thing to have him for their enemy; and that they cannot bear his wrath. They must he sensible that the guilt of sin makes them miserable creatures, whatever temporal enjoyments they have; that they can be no other than miserable, undone creatures, so long as God is angry with them; that they are without strength, and must perish, and that eternally, unless God help them. They must see that their case is utterly desperate, for any thing that any one else can do for them; that they hang over the pit of eternal misery; and that they must necessarily drop into it, if God have not mercy on them." - Jonathan Edwards

God's Word, a Priceless Treasure

But he answered, "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4)

"Doctrine isn't important. Just love Jesus." This is the mantra of the modern church as it marches toward cultural irrelevance. The irony is that those who promote this viewpoint are actually trying to become more relevant to the culture, apparently by imitating it. In the end, however, these churches are guilty of the same error that liberal churches are guilty of, denying the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of the Word of God.

How so? Most of the people that I come into contact with who deny

Huss Burned at the stake

the importance of sound doctrine would be appalled at such a charge. "Of course we believe the Bible is God's Word", they would claim. Be that as it may, do they really know what the Bible is worth? How is it that a Christian can sit in the pews of a Bible believing church for years on end and have no more knowledge of Scripture than the day he first entered the door? I dare say that if these same people were told of a vast treasure of gold and silver that would be given to them freely, they would pursue it with all that was in them to the ends of the earth. Do they really believe that "The law of your mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver pieces"? (Psalms 119:72). Do they really believe that the Bible has "words of eternal life" (John 6:68)? Perhaps they do believe, but like most of us, they tend to take things for granted. Perhaps it is just too easy to go to a bookstore and buy a Bible for $1.50 (or write to the Gideons and get one for free). Perhaps the blessing of a low price has dulled our senses to the Bible’s true worth.

Let me stress that I am referring to those true churches who claim to believe the entire Word of God. The liberal and "emergent" churches will have to answer for their own folly. Even in todays Bible-believing churches, the Bible has been replaced with pop-psychology, biblical truth has given way to vague biblical "principles", and the gospel has been overshadowed by therapy. This is the problem with trying to achieve Christian "unity" at the expense of sound doctrine. When doctrine is removed from the church, it has to be replaced with something. As a result, true Christian maturity has become all too rare. As one writer put it, "if lambs never grow into sheep, something is manifestly wrong with the diet they’re being fed." (See The Perpetual Kindergarten).

The prophets, apostles, and martyrs of ages past knew the value of God's word. They knew nothing of a doctrinally neutral form of Christianity that is so prevalent today. They considered heresy to be worse than death, and sound doctrine to be of more value than their own life. The very doctrines that we sneer at today were doctrines that these great men purchased by having their flesh fed to wild beasts, or having it broiled in burning flames. O that we may once again come to realize the treasure that God has given us, that we may study it as if we really believed that they were the Words of Eternal Life, more precious that silver and gold.

For More Information, See The Forbidden Book (DVD)

Elements of the True Gospel

“In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.'" Now John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."” (Matthew 3:1-12)

We are living is a day of robust evangelistic zeal combined with little evangelistic know-how. Just consider the well-meaning but fallacious website 1-888-NEED-HIM. The visitor to the site is asked “Why Am I Here?”, “How Do I Beat This Loneliness?”, “What Makes My Life So Hard?” and “Where is That One Special Relationship?” The answer presented to these questions is, of course, Jesus Christ. However, there is an important element missing from this gospel presentation: a presentation of the gospel.

Promising a Jesus who died on the cross to free us from all of our temporal problems is a tantamount to selling a false bill of goods. There is nothing in the Bible that guarantees a life that isn’t hard. In fact, Jesus warned that "…In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." (John 16:33). While the gospel cannot be set into a simple formula, it must be pointed out that the true gospel message, like the one John the Baptist preached, consists of the following essential elements.

1.) Man’s Sinfulness.
John the Baptist’s message was one that was universal, because it dealt with a universal problem: SIN. John didn’t just preach a message of warm fuzzy promises to the “lonely” or to those who had a hard life. He wasn’t concerned with whether or not the people in his audience had found “that one special relationship”. He did not promise his listeners a better earthly life, or encourage pop-psychological remedies for their temporal problems. He dealt with the issue of man’s sinfulness, preaching to “Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region” (Matthew 3:5-6), the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 3:7), and even King Herod (Mark 6:8), using the law to expose their sinfulness. He was not concerned with removing the sinner’s feelings of guilt, but instead poured it on. “You brood of vipers!” he warned (Matthew 3:7). (That’s not being very sensitive to the needs of sinners for comfort, is it?) This was a message for the lonely as well as the popular, the rich as well as the poor, and the prince as well as the pauper. (See Galatians 3:28). If we haven’t made the sinner aware of his sinfulness, we have not evangelized.

2.) God’s Judgment.
John’s presentation of the Good News did not shy away from the bad news. “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matthew 3:7). The modern consensus is that “love” is a better starting point for the gospel than wrath, yet John makes no mention of God’s love. In fact, not one apostle used the love of God as a tool for evangelism. God’s love in the Bible is presented only to converts, never to the unsaved. Solomon tells us that “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom…” (Proverbs 9:10). It was for this reason that Paul, the greatest human evangelist who ever lived, shares his method for converting sinners. “Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others…” (2 Corinthians 5:11). While I don’t necessarily promote all out “hellfire and brimstone” preaching, the modern church could certainly use some of that. If we haven’t brought the unsaved sinner to the knowledge of the Doctrine of Eternal Hell, we have not evangelized. The Good News is only good in light of the bad news.

3.) A Call to Repentance.
The term “repent” is fast becoming obsolete in the church of today, as we seek more modern “methods” of evangelism. Notice that John the Baptist did not ask anyone to raise their hands, nor did he close his message with an altar call. He did not ask anyone to repeat a prayer, nor did he persuade any of his listeners to “make decisions for Christ”. He did not try to build anyone’s “self-esteem” or encourage them to deal with their “emotional health”. His request was simple. “Repent… Bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:2, 8). He knew that the Holy Spirit, working in the life on an unbeliever, would cause them to be painfully aware of their wickedness and their hopelessness without a Savior. They would become as Job, who said “therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:6). After all, what was the purpose of Christ but to call “sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32)? If we haven’t called sinners to repent of their sin, we have not evangelized.

4.) A Promise of the Kingdom.
While it is extremely important to let the sinner know what he is being saved from, John also made it clear what they were being saved to. “…the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 3:2). John didn’t promise his listeners a better earthly existence. He did not tell them that their finances and relationships would improve. John was fixed on eternity. He was in agreement with Paul, who considered “that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.” (Romans 8:18). It’s not that the Bible is devoid of earthly blessings, but that these are irrelevant to the Gospel message. The true gospel message deals with escape from eternity in Hell in order to obtain an eternal inheritance in the kingdom of Heaven. All else is in inconsequential in comparison, and any earthly blessings that God gives to His children are “icing on the cake”.

5.) A Confidence in the Message Itself.
Because John was sound in his theology, he was able to preach the true gospel message and then leave the results to God. John was not concerned with “church growth”. The fact is that most of the people he preached to did not convert, but these perceived “failures” did not cause John to seek better “techniques”. Very few of the Judaists came to Christ. An even smaller percentage of the Pharisees did. King Herod most certainly did not. In any case, John’s message was consistent, because he was confident that God’s Word “shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11). John did not try to make the message "more relevant". He did not have to attend seminars because he church didn’t grow enough. He didn’t seek out new-fangled evangelistic methods because the Pharisees rejected his message. He simply accepted the fact that “Salvation belongs to the LORD!” (Jonah 2:9).

Of course, the central element of the true gospel is the work of Christ (Matthew 3:11-12). It is this type of gospel presentation that can give the modern church a much needed revival. Let us pray for revival, as well as an attention to sound doctrine and expository Bible preaching that can bring it about.

Abraham’s Covenant Fulfilled In His True Seed

"And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once... Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits.” (Matthew 21:19, 43)

Are Premillennialists interpretations “literal”?

One common argument among premillennialists is that they take Bible Prophecy more “literally” than their Amillennial and Postmillennial counterparts. We saw in the previous post how consistent they are with their literalism. Over at the Pulpit Magazine End Times Q and A, Nathan Busenitz refers to the Abrahamic Covenant as the sticking point which demands premillennialism. He writes,

“God’s unconditional covenants with the nation of Israel are irrevocable …at the end of the day – without overwhelming evidence to the contrary — I’m left with no other choice than to believe that God will do exactly what He said He would do in the Old Testament, in exactly the way He said He would do it.”

First of all, God does not make “unconditional” covenants. Rather, biblical covenants have ethical stipulations, such as “walk before me, and be thou upright” (Genesis 17:1). That said, Nathan’s argument is a classic case of not being able to see the forest for the “fig tree”. While God promised to make Abraham the father of “many nations” (Genesis 17:4-6), premillennialists limit this to just one nation, that being “Israel after the flesh”. While Scripture declares that the Abrahamic Covenant would be a blessing to “all the families of the earth” (Genesis 12:3), premillennialists limit this to a 10 mile strip of real estate in the middle east. In doing so, Premillennialism, especially the Dispensational variety, pits Scripture against Scripture. While the Bible identifies the true seed of Abraham as Christ and those of the Christian Faith (Galatians 3:7,16), premillennialists reserve covenantal blessings for those who reject Christ, being children neither of Abraham nor God, but of the Devil (John 8:39-44).

Has the Abrahamic Covenant been fulfilled? Yes. According to the Scriptures, the Abrahamic Covenant has been fulfilled, both physically and Spiritually.

"And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one word has failed of all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed. But just as all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the LORD will bring upon you all the evil things, until he has destroyed you from off this good land that the LORD your God has given you, if you transgress the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them. Then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and you shall perish quickly from off the good land that he has given to you." (Joshua 23:14-16)

We can see that God did fulfill the promise that He made to Israel concerning the land. However, we can also see that it was not “unconditional”. In addition, it can be shown that all of the Old Testament Covenants contained the promise of a new and better Covenant, and the Abrahamic Covenant is no exception (see Genesis 22:7,15-18 and compare Galatians 3:7-9; 15-16; 28-29). It is Christ who is the culmination of all Old Testament Covenants. He is the “seed of the woman” in the Adamic Covenant (Genesis 3:15), the lifeblood from man in the Noahic Covenant (Genesis 9:5), the seed of Abraham (Genesis 22:18), the spotless Passover Lamb of the Mosaic Covenant (Deuteronomy 15:19-23), the heir to David’s throne (2 Samuel 7:12-16), and the sole mediator of the new and better covenant (Hebrews 9:15), “so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance”. There is no Covenant without Jesus Christ, and there never has been.

By focusing this strictly on the land of Canaan instead of Christ, premillennialists have actually made God’s promise to Abraham a failure. God clearly promised that Abraham and his seed after him would have “everlasting possession” of this land (Genesis 17:7-8). They were to have it “forever” (Genesis 13:15), yet as of right now, they do not have possession of all this land. The very definitions of “everlasting” and “forever” do not allow for a postponement. As Gary DeMar points out, imagine if God decided to “postpone” the Noahic Covenant during “the church age”. He could then wipe out the entire human race with a flood and claim that His “everlasting covenant” (Genesis 9:16) was “postponed”. After all, if premillennialists are correct, God didn’t show Noah the “church age”.

Is it proper to interpret the Old Testament with the New Testament?

Nathan Busenitz objects to using the New Testament to interpret the Old. He writes,

“if you take the verses at face value (just accepting what they say, and what their original audience would have understood them to say), it naturally leads to premillennialism. This is, in fact, how the Jews themselves have historically understood these passages.

So I think it’s a little dishonest (not intentionally, of course) for amillennialists to contend that they are the ones actually taking the OT prophecies at face value. Historically speaking, that is just not defensible.”

Does it really matter how Jews would have historically understood a passage? There are many passages of Scripture that they clearly misunderstood, while Christ and his Apostles illuminated the true meaning as inspired by the Holy Spirit. (For a few examples, see Mark 9:11-13, John 5:46, Luke 6:2-5, Galatians 3:16). Proper interpretation of the Old Testament required a Divine and Supernatural Light, the kind that Peter obtained when He confessed Christ as the Son of the Living God.

“And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17)

In contrast, the Christ rejecting Judaists were blinded (Matthew 11:25-26; Matthew 13:13-16). So yes, postmillennialists interpret the Old Testament in light of the New, rather than follow the “blind guides” of historic Judaism (Matthew 15:14). We need not apologize for this, as even the prophets did not have full insight into the mysteries of God's Kingdom (see Matthew 13:17).

Did the church age end in 1948?

Another common inconsistency among premillennialists concerns the alleged “stopping of God’s prophecy clock”. In an attempt to defend the importance of modern Israel in Bible prophecy, Nathan writes, “The premillennial position asserts that, in keeping with OT prophecy, God will bring the nation of Israel back to her land. Though the nation will be established in unbelief, she will one day return to embrace her Messiah”. I didn’t get a chance to ask him how “God bring[ing] the nation of Israel back to her land” (presumably in 1948) could be “in keeping with OT prophecy”, since he had already explained the mysterious gap in Daniel 9:24-27 by suggesting that the OT prophets did not see the “mystery of the church age”.

In the end, premillennialists claim to “believe that God will do exactly what He said He would do in the Old Testament, in exactly the way He said He would do it.” As a postmillennialist, I believe that God did exactly what He said He would do in the Old Testament, in exactly the way He says He did it in the New Testament, and exactly WHEN He said He would do it.

The Past Fulfillment of Ezekiel’s War

In the recent Q&A Endtimes Discussion over at Pulpit Magazine, premillennialists such as Nathan Busenitz took a stab at some of the questions in my previous post. One of the items that consistently came up concerned some to the prophecies in the latter portion of Ezekiel. Are the fulfillments of these prophecies in the past, or are they yet future?

Premillennialists try to connect the “Gog and Magog” invasion of Revelation 20:7-8 with the “Gog and Magog” battle in Ezekiel Chapters 38 and 39. It is clear that the battle in Rev. 20 (if a literal battle) occurs after the “millennium”. However, making the battle in Ezekiel 38 and 39 occur at this time introduces some major difficulties for “literalists”.

A common myth surrounding this battle is that it describes a future invasion of Israel by Russia. However, the guesswork involved in such exegesis becomes obvious under any objective examination. Just read any premillennial commentary on Ezekiel 38 and 39 from 1950 to 1990. One common identification of Gog and Magog occurs, the Soviet Union. The collapse of this “great red enemy from the north” in 1991 saw premillennialists scrambling to revise their interpretation (something that they seem to have to do every ten years or so). According to most commentaries since then, Gog and Magog are now “Russia and the Arab Confederacy”.

So where do they get Russia from in this prophecy? David Chilton, citing Ralph Woodrow, explains:

“…the expression Gog and Magog does not, and never did, refer to Russia. That has been entirely made up from whole cloth, and simply repeated so many times that many have assumed it to be true. Ostensible reasons for this interpretation are based on a peculiar reading of Ezekiel 38:3, which speaks of “Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal.” The word chief is, in the Hebrew, rosh; some have therefore translated the text as “Gog, the prince of Rosh.” Rosh sounds something like Russia; therefore Gog is the prince (or premier) of Russia. Unfortunately for this ingenious interpretation, rosh simply means “head” or “chief”, and is used over 600 times in the Old Testament — never meaning “Russia.”

Those who hold that “Gog” (a name supposedly derived from Soviet Georgia, since they both start with a “G”!) is the Soviet Premier generally make the further claim that “Meshech” is really Moscow, “Tubal” is Tobolsk, and “Gomer” (of Ezek. 38:6) is Germany. This is doubtful. ‘Moscow’ comes from the Muscovites and is a Finnish name. Moscow was first mentioned in ancient documents in 1147 A.D., when it was a small village. Some think Tubal means Tobolsk, but this is only a similarity in sound. Tobolsk was founded in 1587 A.D. Some think Gomer [Ezek. 38:6] means Germany. It is true the words ‘Gomer’ and ‘Germany’ both begin with a ‘G.’ So does guess-work.”

The fact that premillennialists rely on such a sloppy handling of Scripture only scratches the surface of their dilemma. Both Nate and Hampton must abandon their “literal” interpretative methods to push this war into the future. Hampton writes that “Israel will use these spoils (of the Gog and Magog war) as an energy source and that it will last for 7 years”.

Actually, that is not what the text says. Ezekiel 39:9-10 tells us that Israel will burn Gog’s wooden war weapons, “shields and bucklers, bow and arrows, clubs and spears”. Not to mention the fact that ALL of Gog’s soldiers are on horseback (Ezekiel 38:4), and that one of the reasons that Gog invades Israel is “to seize spoil and carry off plunder…livestock and goods” (Ezekiel 38:12-13).

According to Ezekiel, there will be a return to the “weak and beggarly elements” of the Jewish sacrificial system after the Gog and Magog battle. This will include circumcision “in heart and flesh” (Ezekiel 44:7-9), use of ancient Jewish currency (Ezekiel 45:10-16), as well as “burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel… sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings” (Ezekiel 45:17). In an attempt to explain these sacrifices without debasing Christ’s “once for all” sacrifice, Nathan Busenitz explains:

“Citing Fruchtenbaum on the millennial sacrifices:

What will be the purpose of these sacrifices in light of Christ’s death? To begin with, one must remember that the Mosaic sacrificial system did not remove sins (Hebrews 10:4), but only covered them (the meaning of atonement in Hebrew). It served as a physical and visual picture of what the Messiah would do (Isaiah 53:10–12). The Bible commands the Church to keep the Lord’s Supper as a physical and visual picture of Christ’s work on the cross. In the Millennial Kingdom God will provide for Israel a physical and visual picture of Messiah’s accomplishment on the cross. For Israel, however, it will be a sacrificial system instead of communion with bread and wine. The purpose of the sacrificial system in the kingdom will be the same as the purpose of communion: in remembrance of me.”

Once again, this flies contrary to the explanation given in the Scriptures themselves. Ezekiel clearly tells us that the purpose of these sacrifices and offerings is “to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel.” (Ezekiel 45:17). Nothing is said here about a “memorial sacrifice”. (Why will we need a memorial if Christ is physically sitting on His throne in Jerusalem?)

Obviously, all of these events occurred before New Testament times. Ezekiel’s war saw it fulfillment in the 2nd Century BC, when the Scythians were defeated by Judas Maccabeaus. (See Jay Rogers Article)

So what of the battle after the Millennium? We can see the John consistently refers to Old Testament imagery in writing His Apocalypse. We see the “tree of life, which is in the paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7), "Balaam" (Rev. 2:14), "Jezebel" (Rev. 2:20), etc. Gog and Magog are no different.