Observations about Men and the Power of Women

This isn't the way it should be, but according to sheer pragmatism, I know that if I want to get something from some man, my best opportunity is to have my wife make the phone call. At this juncture, typically a man would write, "this is going to get me in trouble." Of course, he writes that to get in less trouble than he already thinks he is getting himself into. And if I were writing about a uniquely male problem, I wouldn't be getting in trouble? Why would that be? Is female trouble worse than male trouble for men? The answer "yes" can only bounce collectively around in men's heads because it wouldn't be manly to say it.

We started getting pushed around in the Garden. Eve was going to eat. Adam in his metaphorical little Lord Fauntleroy suit silently joins. "Be a good little boy and eat this." He hearkened unto the voice of his wife. I can't say I for sure know why. It was wrong, but I think any man, who is a human being just like Adam was, understands why he folded up like a wall bed. He didn't want to have to deal with it. Deal with what? I can't say, because......"it would get me in trouble." No, I will say, because I'm not going to get in trouble for saying; I'm a man. He wanted her approval. He was afraid of how it might turn out with her if he said no. The pressure is on the man to abdicate his headship, but he isn't supposed to. God wants Him to fulfill the plan that He gave him.

If you're getting in trouble men, you are already in trouble in a worse way than the trouble you think you might be avoiding. Every man needs accountability. We need other men. We know that we're leading our wives, so we need to be good examples. The wife can help the man to do better. A major factor for English supremacy in the colonization of America was the arrival of women. Without the ladies, the men would have wasted a lot of time playing around in the woods. The French. That's what they did without women, and so they were left with only New Orleans.

Today men are to treat women as equals and yet also treat them in a gentle way. Now when women boss men around, they're strong, but when men do that to women, they're brutes. They want in, but often when they get in, if they get talked to in the same way men talk to men, they're "hurt." Then the conversation could very likely turn into this:

"You probably only talked to me that way because I'm a woman."
"No, that's how I talk to men."
"Well, you're only talking to me that way because I'm a strong woman and you don't like strong women."
"No, I'm talking to you like I do men, because that's what you said you wanted."
"So I guess you don't want me in your conversation, huh?"
"I didn't say that, and it's not that I can't handle what you've got to say, but, yes, I do wish you would leave the conversation."
"I knew it. You don't like women!"
"I do like women."
"Yeah, you like women you can push around, but you don't like it when you get a woman who will stand up to you."
"You mean, like you are standing up to me?"
"Yeah, you can't handle it."
"I'm handling it, but I'd like to enjoy it. Conversations I keep having normally are ones that I don't just put up with, but actually like."
"So you don't like talking to women?"
"I LIKE!!....talking to women. I like it. I'M JUST SAYING....that, and I think you can understand, that when I talk to men, it doesn't usually go like this."
"And so that's why you don't like talking to women."
"I think I'm going to just end this conversation. I shouldn't have gotten into it in the first place."
"I figured you would give up. You just can't take it."

Plop, plop, fizz, fizz. By this time, two men may have punched, or at least been close to physical contact. And a few minutes later been shaking hands and laughing.

In our modern conversation, men want women to know that they are welcome to the dialogue, so that the women will know that they, the men, aren't "sexist." As a result, when a woman enters the conversation, men often trip all over each other voicing how important her opinion is. She could utter three monosyllabic words to a male standing ovation. "Well put." "I liked the way you said that." And all the men around know it, but it's how the game is played. If one man decides not to play the game, and say what he really thinks, well, part of the process is that the rest of the men turn on him. This way, the men not only get to treat the woman like "one of the boys," but also get to protect her as well. Confusing, isn't it?

The Lord Jesus Christ Will Catch Up the Saints Before the Tribulation Begins (part two)

Some might argue that the pretribulational, premillennial rapture of the saints doesn't have a historical basis. Some might say that amillennialism is the preferred position because this was the view of Augustine and then the Reformers. Others call for a postmillennial return of the Lord because this was a dominant eschatalogical position in 19th century America and England. Charles Hodge espoused postmillennialism. The premillennial return of Christ is the oldest historic position, because it is what one reads in the patristics (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California; Harper & Row, 1959], 464-89), including a pretribulational rapture in the writings of Irenaeus and Hermas. J. C. Ryle was a strong premillennialist in the 19th century (Nathaniel West [ed.] Premillennial Essays of the Prophetic Conference held in the Church of the Holy Trinity, New York City [Chicago, Illinois: Fleming H. Revell Publishers, 1879; reprint, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Klock and Klock Christian Publishers, 1981], 332). One will find it difficult to discern historically whether someone was post, mid, or pretribulational rapture. Charles Spurgeon was most clearly post-tribulational, but he was not dogmatic, rarely preached eschatology, and saw it is a difficult issue to discern.

Among all of historic theology, I place the least emphasis on eschatology. Why? Daniel 12:4, "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." I believe that here we see authoritative teaching that as we get closer to the end, knowledge concerning the things Daniel wrote about, that is, prophetic material, would increase. Eschatological knowledge of Scripture increases as we get closer to the end. This position can be seen in the history of eschatological doctrine. For instance, postmillennialism was popular in the 19th century because theologians saw the Victorian age blooming into a golden era capped off by the return of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, before them, the reformers found in the Antichrist a prophecy of the Papacy of Roman Catholicism. The oldest eschatology is Biblical. If we see it in Scripture, then that is the right position.

In the first article in this series, we saw how that the doctrine of imminency supported a pretribulational rapture of the saints. Imminency was apostolic doctrine as seen in the New Testament. This continued as the belief of Christians. Concerning the parousia or coming of Christ, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (1901, V, 66) says, 'Primitive Christianity believed the event to be imminent and this belief has been revived from time to time in the history of the Church." Christians historically have looked for the any moment return of Christ. This doctrine necessitates a pretribulational rapture.

Not only does imminence require this, but....

2. THE ABSENCE OF THE CHURCH IN THE TRIBULATION REQUIRES A PRE-TRIBULATION RAPTURE

The tribulation is a time for Israel. Not in one place does Scripture, either Old or New Testaments, speak of the church in relation to the tribulation, except as gone to heaven. This silence speaks as loudly as any actual statement in Scipture, especially in light of what God says concerning Israel and the tribulation.

And there are statements that explain why the church is missing from the tribulation.

Romans 5:9, "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."

1 Thessalonians 1:10, "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come."

Revelation 3:10, "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."

The tribulation is wrath.

Revelation 6:16, 17, "And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?"

If God spares His children from wrath, then we would expect not to find the church in the passages of Scripture dealing with the tribulation. We don't. You can read Revelation 2 and 3 and find nineteen mentions of church or churches. In Revelation 4 through 19, you will see none. The churches are gone.

On the other hand, Israel is in Revelation 4-19, because the tribulation period is for Israel, for her restoration (Jeremiah 30:3, 10), and for a Christ-rejecting world (Revelation 14:8, 18:8) to judge the Gentiles (Jeremiah 30:11). The tribulation is a time of God's retribution on the nations and defending Israel (Zechariah 12:8, 9), not on those who have placed their faith in Him. The tribulation period is the time of Jacob's trouble--the emphasis is Jewish--and this prophecy goes all the way back to Deuteronomy 30:1-8 in three parts.

God gathers Israel from the wicked nations (Deut. 30:3).

That then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.

God brings Israel to the land (Deut. 30:5).

And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.

God judges the enemies of Israel (Deut. 30:7, 8).

And the LORD thy God will put all these curses upon thine enemies, and on them that hate thee, which persecuted thee. And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day.

God raptures the saints because His plan is finished for His churches. However, He isn't done with Israel (Daniel 9:24-27), and this is why the tribulation passages are full of Israel with the church being completely absent. Surely, if God has a plan for His churches, He would have included in the New Testament what they needed to minister during the tribulation period. He didn't and this fits right with the pre-tribulational rapture of the saints.

The Carnal Christian

Is there such a thing as a carnal Christian? Consider Romans 7:5:

For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Notice that Paul writes, "When we were in the flesh." Were. Now look at Romans 8:5-9:

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

So much in these verses plainly says a carnal Christian does not exist. He isn't after the flesh. He doesn't mind the things of the flesh. He isn't carnally minded or in the flesh any longer. Sin does not have dominion over the believer (Rom. 6:12). A Christian no longer lives sin as a lifestyle (1 John 3:6-10). A child of God is a new creature, old things are passed away and all things are become new (2 Corinthians 5:17). The person he once was is crucified with Christ (Gal. 2:20).

The moment someone receives Christ, he has every spiritual blessing in heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1:3) and all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). The Holy Spirit is a Person, not a power of influence. The moment someone believes in Jesus he receives the Person of the Holy Spirit, all of Him. He won't receive any more of Him. He doesn't need anything more than He has in order to live the Christian life.

Justification isn't a two step process. Someone doesn't receive Christ as Savior and sometime later as Lord. He doesn't allow the Lord in but not on the throne of his life. No one can remain in rebellion against the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. Confessing Him as Lord is more than Words. It is more than just intellectual, but also volitional. It is relinquishing allegiance to sinful self.

Every single believer has the power to obey everything Scripture tells him. We don't have to wait for salvation to "click," to "sink in," or to "really take hold" in order for the child of God to submit to any and every truth in the Bible. In order to gain eternal life, we have to give up our temporal life. For God to cleanse our soul, our self, we must give it up to God by faith. If we hang on to it, God won't restore it back into the righteous state He intended it.

Those who won't give up their life aren't carnal Christians. They're just carnal. They walk after the flesh and not after the Spirit (Rom. 8:1). They won't have the power to live the Christian life either. And that won't come when they have revival or receive a second blessing or get the baptism of the Spirit. However, when they do receive Jesus for Who He is, He will save them and immediately give them victory for their Christian life. It will be a struggle (Romans 7:21), but they will conform to the image of His Son even as He predestined them (Romans 8:29).

My Sikh Issue: Pluralism Versus Relativism

I recently had someone send me a note who was concerned about my physical well-being. He saw this article as having possible death threat implications, especially in the last line of the publication, which reads, "As American Sikh Citizens, Let us defend our religious rights and stop ill minded pastors like Kent from bullying Sikhs." How will they "stop ill minded pastors like Kent from bullying Sikhs?" I'll let you decide whether you think that is a physical threat to me or not.

The Backstory

To give some context to what this issue is, let me give you the back story. Many years ago, the U. S. Sikhs built a temple in our town of El Sobrante. Around this area in California, we have a multitude of immigrant Sikhs who have moved here from Punjab, India, the place of origination of the Sikh religion. Twenty years ago when we started the church here in the East Bay of the SF Bay Area right away we began meeting many Sikhs while going door to door. Like with every other person in this area, we became concerned with the salvation of the Sikhs. The Bible teaches that there is salvation only in Jesus Christ, and that outside of Him is destruction (John 14:6; Acts 4:12; John 3:18, 36). This is not a new message. This message has been preached by Bible-believing Christians for two-thousand years, and is even the message of the Old Testament, when one considers the Messianic prophecies, making this a message as old as the earth itself. We believe in shaping our evangelistic approach to a particular false belief system. The Gospel is always the same, but spiritual warfare considers the particular stronghold in the hearer's mind (2 Cor. 10:3-5). For that reason, I wrote a tract designed specifically for Sikhs. I also wrote one for Buddhists, Catholics, and others.

A little more than a year ago, the Sikhs obtained permission from the Contra Costa County and the town of El Sobrante to have a parade right down Appian Way, a major thoroughfare here in West Contra Costa. The parade was held on Sunday and it started before our Sunday services were ended. During our services, while I was still preaching, we heard loud chanting in a foreign language over microphone and loud speakers. I had no idea what was being said. The chanting was accompanied by music that was definitively something Indian in nature that was in fitting with their chant and their religion.

As soon as our service was over, I took a stack of about fifteen of our Sikh tracts down to Appian Way to begin handing them out to the Sikh people. Several of our men followed me there to join me in that activity. We handed them out in a friendly, civil, and peacable way, smiling and complimenting the very modest and distinct dress of these Punjab Americans. When I got down to the road, what I saw was an all Sikh parade with an all Sikh emphasis. They said that it was a kind of "march for peace" between religions. On their flat bed trailers were huge pictures of their gurus and the loud chanting was only in their language.

About a week after the parade, I got a phone call from a newspaper writer, who asked me questions about the whole incident. I didn't remember an incident. What had happened was that a local Sikh leader called the paper to complain about our activities that day. Of course, all we did was hand out our Sikh tract, something we had already been handing out for many years to hundreds of Sikhs. This was old news. The urban newspaper, huge in its circulation, printed the article, which was not unfavorable to what we did. On their website, they also included a scanned edition of the tract which we handed out. What we did, however, that is, passing out tracts quietly during a very loud Sikh parade, was condemned by one local businessman and then by the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Committee in one of their meetings.

A few weeks ago, while I was out of town, they had their second annual parade, which was even bigger than the first. Men from our church, including Pastor Sutton, walked down again to hand out tracts. This time our men were surrounded by these "peaceful" Sikhs, who hurled angry epithets at our men, ripped tracts from their hands, surrounded them in a threatening manner, and bumped up against them, essentially breaking the law and impeding our right to free speech. On both occasions, the parade blocked the entrance/exit to our church property, making it very difficult for our people to go home after church services. We were extremely inconvenienced by the whole thing as it stopped up the flow of traffic on Appian Way.

Some Questions

Let me ask you a few questions.

1) Do you think our county and town would allow a Baptist or Bible parade in which we shouted Bible verses over a microphone and loud speakers?
2) Do you think we would complain to the newspapers about Sikhs passing out Sikh materials to people along our Baptist parade?
3) Do you think we would consider peacefully and quietly handing out Sikh materials to our people in any context would be considered to be bullying Christians or Baptists?
4) Why do you think that the county and town sympathizes with the Sikhs, but not with us?
5) If we had a Baptist parade and ran it right in front of the Sikh temple, do you think that the ACLU might get involved over "separation of church and state"?

It is easy to see that the Sikhs are being given not only their rights, but even more rights than what we would be given if we tried to do the same thing that they did.

Pluralism and Relativism

So what's the situation here? These immigrant people do not understand the freedom of America, the liberty for which U. S. citizens have fought and died in great numbers. They come here to enjoy these freedoms, and when they arrive they don't see the difference between what we have here and what they had in their native country. I have great compassion for them and I really do forgive their ignorance. I wish they would leave us alone to some degree, but I understand their confusion. They don't understand the difference between pluralism and relativism.

If they read the Wikipedia articles on religious pluralism and relativism, they could understand. What you'll notice in the essay on relativism is that Sikhism itself is relativistic, which is where the rub comes as well. Sikhs have the freedom in this country to believe and practice relativistic, but that doesn't mean that everyone else must. Do you understand that a relativistic by nature and to be consistent with his own belief has no basis for criticizing another religion, especially for being absolute. We believe that truth is absolute, but since they don't, it shouldn't matter to them. They should see our beliefs in their own relative fashion, since that is how they view the world, and we will look at things in black and white, since that is how we view the world.

Pluralism says that religions may coexist peacefully and still contest each other ideaologically, spiritually, and philosophically. Pluralism is strongly defended by the first amendment. We can believe and practice what we want in this country. This is also an honest and consistent approach. Two positions that contradict cannot both be true. They shouldn't be treated like they are both true, just for the sake of the relativist.

For all Sikhs who read this article, I ask you to consider your rhetoric and how that it sharply contradicts religious pluralism. If you are true relativists, you should be happy that we can believe and practice as we wish. You should not encourage our belief and practice to be "stopped." You should understand as well that by calling for us to cease, that you are denying your own relativistic religion, bringing into question whether you actually do believe what you say you do.

What Did Charles Spurgeon and H. A. Ironside Say About the Tertiary or Primary Doctrine View?

Most people know who Charles Spurgeon is. One site has accumulated several quotes dealing with this exact topic of the essential and non-essential, tertiary versus primary doctrine issue. One particular blog likes to claim that it is all things Spurgeon. In an article written by the administrator of that blog, Phil Johnson, recently wrote at another location this statement:

It would seem that the only way to be faithful to all the above commands is to have a sound and biblical understanding of how to distinguish between core doctrines and peripheral ones.

Yet, here is just one statement from Spurgeon among many on this subject that absolutely contradicts that quote:

That idea about "non-essentials" is wicked and rebellious. Cast it from you; go without the camp. Be particular in every point. To the tiniest jot and tittle seek to obey your Master's will, and seek his grace that you may walk in the way of his commandments with a perfect heart.

Harry Ironside (1876-1951) was an American Bible teacher, pastor, and author. He authored more than 60 volumes as well as many pamphlets and articles on Bible subjects. For 18 of his 50 years of ministry (1930-1948), he was pastor of the Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. In 1926 Dallas Theological Seminary asked him to come for seven months a year as a full-time faculty member, but it had to be turned down, although he was visiting lecturer from 1925 to 1943.

Ironside wrote this in his commentary on Daniel (read at Way of Life):

I have heard Christians refer to certain precepts in the Scriptures as non-essentials. But we may rest assured there are no non-essentials in our Bibles. ‘The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.’ When people talk of non-essentials in regard to anything concerning which God has revealed His mind, it is well to ask, ‘Essential or non-essential to what?’ If it be a question of the soul’s salvation, undoubtedly the one great essential is faith in His blessed Son, whose finished work alone avails to put away sin and procure peace with God. But if it be a question of what is essential to the enjoyment of communion with God--essential to obtaining the Lord’s approval at the judgment-seat of Christ--then it is well to remember that in everything the believer is sanctified to the obedience of Christ.

What do these quotes say about the historicity of this tertiary/primary doctrine view? Come on. Let's be honest.

The Creationist

I walked into my local library, pictured at the left. I can literally walk there in two minutes---up some stairs, cross the street, and I've arrived. They just finished building about 5 months ago. Before that, no library in Hercules, CA where I live. Anyway, when I go the library, I walk straight to the new books. I looked at non-fiction and found The Creationist by Ronald L. Numbers, 606 pages, originally published by Harvard University Press and now Random House. He teaches at the University of Wisconsin in Madison and he writes concerning the history of the creationist movement. He writes somewhat sympathetically to the creationists, albeit a self-proclaimed agnostic, because his dad lectured on creation as a Seventh-Day Adventist. Many would call him objective about his observations. He is no friend of those who see Scripture grammatically and historically, i. e. literally. However, he wants to enlighten those of his type who may not understand "us."

I don't think he gets the history right, in part because of his unbelief. He sees creationism historically as a relatively new phenomena. That's bogus, of course, since the founders of modern science were creationists. However, that doesn't totally ruin his credibility because he seems to be trying to be fair---really. I'm going to include some quotes from his book in days hence that I think you'll find of interest. Remember that he doesn't come at this with an axe to grind against humanists. He isn't going to give them a short shrift. And he writes this:

The likely source of this practice was his (George Frederick Wright) growing obsession with higher criticism, which he feared would leave ministers of the gospel unemployed, turn the Bible into a collection of fables, undermine modern civilization, and, certainly not least, make a mockery of his life work. Ironically, textual criticism had provided him in the 1860s with the intellectual freedom he needed to accept a baptized version of Darwinism; when he turned his back on the findings of modern biblical scholarship, he considerably reduced his intellectual options.

There is quote number one. What do you think?

I'll be gone from tomorrow Friday to late Tuesday night, but I'll try to check in on the road.

The Lord Jesus Christ Will Catch Up the Saints Before the Tribulation Begins (part one)

God will pour out His wrath on earth for seven years of tribulation. Genuine believers will be gone before then. 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17 describes this.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Christians call this event the rapture, which essentially means, "catching up." It isn't a word in the Bible, but one used to represent this. Much controversy has arisen over the timing of the rapture. Eschatalogical (study of last things) books have exploded in the last fifty years. In more recent times, Christian authors have contradicted the pre-tribulational timing of the catching up of the saints. This series will provide mainly a positive defense of a pretribulational rapture. A grammatical-historical interpretation will lead to a pretribulational view.

1. THE DOCTRINE OF IMMINENCE REQUIRES A PRE-TRIBULATION RAPTURE

I'm saying this is the strongest argument for pre-tribulationalism---the any moment return of Jesus Christ. The New Testament repeatedly exhorts the saints to watch for His return.

2 Timothy 4:8, "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing."

Titus 2:13, "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

Romans 8:18-23, " 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."

James 5:7-9, "7 Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. 8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. 9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door."

1 Peter 4:7, "But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer."

Hebrews 10:24, 25, 37, " 24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry."

It's as simple as this. If there are preliminary events to be expected, then we don't need to look or watch or expect. All any believer would need to do is wait for that event to occur and then begin the countdown. This is not how the New Testament reads at all.

I believe the denial of imminence is a very serious issue. For me it is a separating issue. Why? Destroying imminence takes away important motivation for holy living in the New Testament.

1 John 3:3, "And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."

Romans 13:11-14, " 11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. 13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying."

Mark 13:35, 36, "Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: 36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping."

The New Testament contains so much teaching like this, and there is more than what is listed above, that one is denying the New Testament and contradicting the Lord Jesus Christ when someone denies imminence. I can't stand for it. I can't agree to disagree. I can't associate with that false doctrine. Denying imminence will have a cooling affect on Christians that no one can afford. More than that, it disrespects God and His Word.

Do You Evangelize?

How many bloggers evangelize? I don't mean in their blogs, if that could even be considered evangelization. I don't think that a blog could fulfill what the Bible tells us about evangelism. Something I read recently was the last verse of Acts 8. You may understand that chapter as Philip's evangelization of the Ethiopean, but that wasn't all. Most of us would have gone home for an iced tea or comfort beverage and a soft recliner. A computer screen is easy to confront. Have you proclaimed the gospel to anyone this week? Why not?

The model in Scripture is going and preaching. We work our way out concentrically from our place of assembling and talk to everyone, skillfully wielding God's Word as our spiritual weapon. Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.