Ironworks Pike Community Church

Outline For Tomorrow Night's Bible Study.

8/8/2017

0 Comments

The Future Resurrection of the Lord’s People.
1st Corinthians 15:35-58.

Resurrection will be a transformation. 35-41.

This is illustrated by seeds. Many seeds are ugly.

Nature has diversity of form. Greek religious doctrine (pantheism, basically) couldn’t explain diversity of forms.

Paul calls arrogant arguers “fools” (v.36).

Four differences about the resurrection body.

1. It will be imperishable (can’t age, get sick, or die).
2. It will be glorious (lit with the visible glory of God).
3. It will be powerful (full of divine vigor). Malachi 4:1-
4. It will be spiritual (draw its life from Heaven).

Spiritual isn’t always the opposite of physical in Scripture. Christ was raised with a physical body (Luke 24:38-42).

When and how will be our resurrection be?

1. “Flesh and blood” = We need to be changed to enter into direct participation in Christ’s earthly kingdom. We’re legal citizens of His kingdom now, but there’s more to come.

2. “kingdom of God” = Christ’s future visible reign on the earth.

3. “Sleep” = metaphor for “die”. John 11:11-14.

4. Resurrection/transformation will be instantaneous.

5. Resurrection is for all. This includes all the OT believers.

6. It will be at the last trumpet. 1st Th. 4:16, Rev. 11:15-19.

Motivation for good works? Your good works are not pointless. Death will not be your end, & God will reward all of your good works.

0 Comments

How To View The Sermon On The Mount.

7/19/2017

0 Comments

I have read and heard many theories about Christ's Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). On one hand, I once read that the Russian author Leo Tolstoy believed that, by keeping it, a sinner may be saved. But the same Savior who taught the Sermon also at the same time preached John 3:16, where He was clear that we receive eternal life by faith alone. Christ wouldn't contradict Himself.

On the other extreme, I've also heard some who say that the Sermon has no application to Christians at all. That it only addressed life in the future millennial kingdom of Christ, or addressed exclusively Jewish ethics under the era of the Law, but, in either case, is not for Christians. I don't agree this either, even though the Sermon certainly has strong Jewish elements in it that need to be taken into account.

Jesus preached it to His own disciples, even though multitudes likely stood by and heard (Matthew 5:1-2). We shouldn't separate the Sermon from this setting and audience. Disciples weren't just on-lookers. A disciple of Christ at that time was a Jewish person who had confessed belief in Christ as Messiah, and been baptized (John 4:1-2).

Christ in the Sermon started by teaching the outward attitudinal evidences of saving faith (5:1-10). Who will God receive in His coming kingdom? Just being a Jew would not be enough. You would need to have true saving faith, and true faith is evidenced by its fruits.

All male Jews in Israel were circumcised. All Israeli Jews knew the right religious words to say. They all knew how to tithe, what prayers to recite, and what annual ceremonies to attend. In spite of all that ingrained cultural religiosity, most of them were not saved people. So Christ instead begins by talking about the heart. He said it was the poor in spirit who would enter God's kingdom, the surrendered-to-God who would inherit the earth, and the merciful would be shown divine mercy.

Teaching the be-attitudinal evidence of saving faith reminds me of what it was like for us to witness in Columbia, South Carolina. Nearly everyone went to church. Everyone knew the Gospel words by heart. It was like trying to turn a stripped screw. We needed to talk about the evidence of genuine faith.

Jesus' teachings go on to correct the Jews' watered-down standards, their liberal marriage policies, empty ceremonialism, preoccupation with outward appearance, and erroneous rabbinical traditions. He stressed the power of prayer, the goodness of God, and God's Fatherhood, which brought forward a warmth and intimacy with the Lord which would have been new to them.

Many preachers think that the narrow and broad gates represent the ways to salvation versus damnation (7:13-14). I think they do indeed represent that, though in the past I didn't take that interpretation. I was being influenced by written material from what was called a "Free Grace" point of view (much of which is anti-commandment in spirit), and I also thought it was illogical for Christ to preach the Gospel to saved people.

But other New Testament letters also re-preach the Gospel to Christian congregations. I went on to teach Hebrews at church, which showed me more clearly (especially in chapters 3-4) a Biblical example of a divinely-inspired preacher who challenged his congregation to make sure no one in the group of ostensibly-saved people fell short of the saving grace of Christ.

So now, I think Christ in His braod/narrow gate teaching, was making sure to tell His followers, "Be certain you enter eternal life by the narrow gate of faith in Me and Me only."

Regarding Jesus' teaching about trees and good fruits: you should not think that Jesus was saying that nall ice, sociable, pleasant religious people are right with God!
Behavior is not the only test of a person's relationship with God. There are two tests, according to Scripture -- there is a doctrine test, not just a lifestyle test.

The book of 1st John speaks about both. If a person denies Jesus Christ -- for example, if they say He was a mighty angel created by God, and not the eternal God Himself -- they're wrong, regardless of how nice and pleasant they are. If a person fails the "Who is Jesus?" doctrine test, then he is following the wrong faith.

Second, people from other religions can be ethical and pleasant. But those religions teach the opposite of Christianity about core issues. They can't all be true.

Third, the word "good" must be defined by the Scripture. "Good" doesn't mean "pleasant". Charm is deceitful (Proverbs 31:30). There are some unpleasant, awkward, unhappy people in the world -- people who don't look all sleek and smooth and shiny -- who nevertheless do know Christ as their Savior.

Goodness must also come from the heart, not just be for outward show. A person can look like an upostanding citizen, and be completely enslaved to sin in private. Utah, for example, is #1 in the nation for on-line porn subscriptions. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705288350/Utah-No-1-in-online-porn-subscriptions-report-says.html

Fourth, even those comparatively good people still need the Savior. Cornelius the Roman was religiously observant, a God-fearer, and generous to the poor (Acts 10:1-2). He sounds to me like a fine man; and even though he was a non-Jew God still accepted Cornelius' seeking soul (Acts 10:4, 34-35).

But the Lord God knew Cornelius still needed the true Savior, which is why God sent the apostle Peter to him. Some people are in spiritual process. Cornelius' good personal ethics and spiritual seriousness toward the God of the Bible showed he truly was seeking God. In return God graciously made sure Cornelius heard the good news of Jesus Christ.

Someone once said to me, "Faith alone justifies, but then godly works justify my claim that I have saving faith." I believe that is true. False prophets preach big but they don't live Christ's commandments. Joseph Smith was a con artist, a thief, and a sexual predator. One day he will cry, "Lord, Lord!" and Christ will cast out because he practiced lawlessness (Matthew 7:21-23) -- which maifested his spiritually dead soul.

But the person who seeks to obey Jesus Christ, even though imperfectly, is the person who really has true saving faith. That's why the house of their life will endure the storm of God's judgment (Matthew 7:24-25).

0 Comments

The Odd Doctrine of "Militant Fecundity."

5/23/2017

0 Comments

Karen Campbell, at her blog ThatMom, did a series of podcasts on "militant fecundity" back in 2008. You can listen to them here: http://thatmom.com/podcasts/militant-fecundity-vs-children-as-a-blessing-series/

As best I understand this phrase, it refers to a teaching that it is God's will that Christian married couples should have as many children as possible. But it goes beyond seeing children as God's blessings, which the Bible clearly teaches (Psalm 127:3).

The teaching is tied to 'culture war', especially if plugged into a post-millennial view of Christ's return. “It is the duty of Christians to bear large families full of godly seed to populate the earth and bring forth what God intended us to have, particularly in America,” Cynthia Kunsman, a writer and blogger who specializes in spiritual-abuse issues, described the worldview at a 2008 conference at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. “That’s how we’re going to get our Christian America.”https://www.baptiststandard.com/news/faith-culture/16187-southern-baptist-attitudes-changing-on-birth-control

I see great mistakes in the idea of militant fecundity.

Genesis 1:28 shows God saying to Adam and Eve, "Be fruitful, increase in number, and fill the earth." God certainly didn't expect Adam and Eve to fill the earth all by themselves, but He created the biological method by which kind reproduces kind. In addition, human lifespan prior to the Flood was extraordinarily long.

Adam lived 900 years, but then after the Flood human lifespan began to drop precipitously. There is a good article about this at Answer in Genesis: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/did-adam-and-noah-really-live-over-900-years/ So, while Genesis 1:28 gives God's general directive for child-bearing, the natural circumstances in which child-bearing happens have changed dramatically since Noah's time. Genesis 1:28 doesn't dictate how many children to have, simply to go have them, as God enables.

What about God's promises to give abundant children to Israel? God's Deuteronomic promises were God's covenantal contract with Israel. God promised the Jews great wealth, vibrant health, military superiority, and abundant children, on condition of faith in the Lord and obedience to the Law. But the Deuteronomic blessings were designed for those who dwelt in the land of Canaan (which is shown by God's promises of victory over invaders of the land). In addition, the New Testament says that Christians are not under the covenant of Mosaic Law. The Deuteronomic dispensation ended at the cross of Christ.

The New Testament re-states some of the Mosaic commandments and blessings, and, by offering them to Christians to claim for their own, transfers them over into the Christian dispensation. Ephesians 6:1-3 re-states the promise of general blessing and long life for those who honor their parents. The New Testament cites certain other promises from the Old Testament, such as Peter positively quoting Psalm 33:12-16 as an object of Christian faith, in 1 Peter 3:10-12.

But the New Testament is selective in the way it applies the Law. The whole Old Testament is still part of our Christian training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but the NT is equally clear that not all of it is to be obeyed anymore. The apostle Paul and the other apostles tell us which of the commandments continue, and which of the promises apply to Christians. I don't know anywhere in the New Testament where the apostles say God's promise to give abundant children still applies at all, or, if it does, that it applies to Christians.

Lastly, the idea that Christians should try to re-conquer the United States by having lots and lots of children is unfounded. By God's design, Israel was a faith and a bloodline. The Christian Church is only a faith, and not a bloodline. The dividing-wall of bloodline, established by the Law, was abolished by Christ's blood (Ephesians 2:11-16). To the degree that we are like Israel, we are like Israel in the Diaspora (1 Peter 1:1 ) -- we're a nation without an homeland. The United States is not "ours".

Christians should absolutely reject the secular contempt for children and the family, and purge it out of our mental systems. It is a moral imperative that we think and feel about children they way God does. It is a moral imperative that all Christians be pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-sexual morality, which includes a categorical rejection of homosexuality. But the New Testament doesn't command Christian couples to have "X" number of children.

0 Comments

Yesterday, in adult Bible class, the topic of "secondary separation" came up, as we talked about Evangelical Free Church values. The EFCA believes in separated living, but we are not a separatist denomination. That term "separatist" historically is connected, in part, to the doctrine of secondary separation.

Part of living as a Christian is to guard the spiritual integrity of our hearts, and to maintain ethical purity of conduct. With that ethic in mind, the apostle Paul told the Corinthian Christians that they shouldn't socialize with rebellious Christians (see 1 Cor. 5:9-13). Christians should avoid people who are divisive or throw spiritual stumbling-blocks into people's ways (Romans 16:17). We should note and avoid quarrelsome Christians (Titus 3:10-11). Of course we don't support or yoke ourselves together with false teachers (1 John 4:1).

This ethic has been called "separated" living, and it's one part of following the Lord. There is more to living as a Christian disciple, but this is one aspect of it.

But second-degree separation says we (individuals as well as entire organizations) must separate from Christians who don't separate. For instance, imagine three Christian guys: college friends Joe, Ted, and Bill.

Joe is friends with Ted. Ted is a carnal Christian, and because he lacks a mature conscience he sells a little pot on the side. Joe does not participate in Ted's sin. In fact, Joe often exhorts Ted to stop, but Ted is immature and won't listen.

How does the separation ethic apply here? As long as Ted is willfully rebelling against the Lord, Joe shouldn't hang out with him. It doesn't mean that Joe should hate Ted. But he shouldn't "pal around" with Ted. That's ethical separation. It protects Joe from temptation, and it keeps Joe from looking to others like he (and through him, Christianity) is okay with Ted's sinful antics.

But in our example Joe, for whatever reason, doesn't curtail the friendship. Now comes along a third Christian, Bill. Bill learns about Ted's behavior. Bill steers clear of Ted. But should Bill avoid Joe because Joe hasn't cut himself off from Ted? This would be an example of secondary, or second-degree, separation.

Joe is definitely being too tolerant. Maybe he's trying to "reach" Ted, or maybe Ted is a childhood buddy and Joe just can't bring himself to pull back from him. But in our scenario, Bill is not forced to socialize with Ted. Maybe Bill doesn't even know Ted. Let's say that Bill just knows that the situation exists.

The New Testament does speak to Bill's stance toward Ted. Bill should pray for Ted, encourage him to repent (should he ever have opportunity to speak with him), and not hang around with him. But the New Testament is also specific about what sins merit pulling back. Paul names immorality, covetousness, idol-worship, reviling, drunkenness, swindling (1 Cor. 5:11), divisiveness, opposition to sound Bible teaching (Romans 16:17), and foolish argumentativeness (Titus 3:9-11). Misjudging separation isn't named.

Bill can maintain his friendship with Joe, all the time using wisdom along the way. He can encourage Joe to take a stronger stand toward Ted. Ted may be using Joe's soft heart as Novocaine for his conscience. If Joe toughens up, the Lord could bring conviction to Ted's under-sensitive soul.

Another, somewhat similar scenario: Can a Bible-believing preacher be friends with another Bible-believing preacher who happens to serve in a liberal denomination? Preacher #1 thinks his friend ought to leave that denomination. He isn't going to join forces with that denomination. Their friendship is entirely personal. Preacher #1 isn't compromising himself by being friends with Preacher #2.

Secondary separation has a history of eating the churches that adopt it. It's like the "song that doesn't end": churches start separating from those who don't separate from those who don't separate (I know that sounds like a joke, but historically this is a real phenomenon). The EFCA wanted to avoid this trap. So the founders taught that we teach separated living, but are not a "separatist" organization.

0 Comments

"Some, I know, fall into a very vicious habit, which habit they excuse themselves—namely, that of ordering their footsteps according to impressions.

Every now and then I meet with people whom I think to be rather weak in the head, who will journey from place to place and will perform follies by the gross under the belief that they are doing the will of God because some silly whim of their diseased brains is imagined to be an inspiration from above.

There are occasionally impressions of the Holy Spirit which guide men where no other guidance could have answered the end. I do not doubt the old story of the Quaker who was disturbed at night and could not sleep and was led to go to a person's house miles away and knock at the door just at the time when the inhabitant was about to commit suicide—just in time to prevent the act. I have been the subject of such impressions, myself, and have seen very singular results.

But to live by impressions is oftentimes to live the life of a fool and even to fall into downright rebellion against the revealed Word of God. Not your impressions, but that which is in this Bible must always guide you. "To the Law and to the Testimony." If it is not according to this Word, the impression comes not from God—it may proceed from Satan, or from your own distempered brain! Our prayer must be, "Order my steps in Your Word." -- Charles H. Spurgeon, message #878, "A Well-Ordered Life."

0 Comments

Good Friday 2017: What Was Finished?

4/14/2017

0 Comments

One of Jesus' most famous sayings was the three-word phrase, "It is finished" (John 19:30). But what did He mean? There was so much more yet to come! The answer is that He finished paying for the sins of the Lord's people.

His self-sacrifice happened once (Hebrews 7:27, 9:26-28). His blood/death sanctified His people in the sight of God (Hebrews 10:10). He didn't make purification potentially possible. Christ actually accomplished purification on behalf of the many (Hebrews 1:3).

"It is finished" means the bread and the wine of the Lord's Table do not change into Christ's flesh and blood. Such a magical change of Communion elements is unneeded. Christ, by dying one time, accomplished everything He needed to accomplish, all at one time, in one place, on the cross. This is why Christian churches should never have a cross with Christ still hanging on it.

"It is finished" also means that Christ's death was a payment. According to my bank, we will pay off our mortgage in 2027. But if I had sufficient money, I could pay off my mortgage today. If I did that, then my mortgage debt would be objectively finished.

This is what Jesus accomplished when He died. He paid the sin-debt for the many (Heb. 9:28), past, present, and future. To say that Christ died so that worshipers could be energized by grace, so that they may keep the commandments, so that they may enter Paradise (or maybe a nicer district of purgatory) when they die, is salvation by works, which the Bible rejects.

I ask: How many legalistic Christians are still trying to mail in moral mortgage checks to God, on a debt they no longer owe? How many Christians worry about the possibility of their own future unbelief, when Christ already paid their debt of that sin?

It -- the payment for our sins -- is finished.

0 Comments

What Is A "Weaker Brother"? 1st Corinthians 8.

3/30/2017

0 Comments

We had a fine Bible study last night during Wednesday night prayer meeting, and I wanted to share the nuggets of what we uncovered.

Christians may have heard of the problem of the "weaker" brother, but can sometimes misunderstand who that is. Paul, in 1st Corinthians 8, clarifies the relationship responsibilities of the strong Christian to the weak Christian:

The words "strong" and "weak" in this chapter pertain to the beliefs held by a believer. For instance, "strong" believers know the gods do not exist; "weak" believers may not be entirely sure. (Paul will address the actual participating in pagan worship ceremonies later, in 1st Corinthians 11.)
"Strong" believers know that food has no spiritual effect on your relationship with God. "Weak" believers still think that eating certain foods is a sin.
The action under consideration (the strong believer eating meats dedicated to an idol) is not sinful. This is an important point. As far as God is concerned, the strong believer is doing a permissible thing. The situation is not that the weak believer is drawn back into idolatry.
The weak brother's problem is that he or she participates in something that they still think is sinful. Not just that the weak brother looks on from afar and judges the strong believer. Rather, the weak believer actually does that which he or she still mistakenly thinks is wrong, and as a result he wounds his own soul and defiles his conscience.

Chapter 8 is different from when a weak believer judges another believer. Romans 14 speaks to that sort of person. It says to stop judging (14:13), and keep their convictions to yourself (v. 22). Chuck Swindoll once warned of the "professional weaker brother" -- the Christian who demands that everyone else comply with his personal hang-ups.

The main idea of 1st Corinthians 8 is that the good of our fellow Christian takes priority over the exercise of liberty. This doesn't mean that we give in to every Christian's personal opinions. There are some Christians who need to be kindly told, "Brother, you need to respect my liberty." This also doesn't relate to life in the congregation. Paul is addressing our conduct out in non-Christian society.

But, if I know that a fellow Christian is being tempted by my influence to engage in something they feel in their heart is wrong, then I should stop doing whatever it is that's influencing them.

0 Comments

Five Reasons I Believe the Rapture Could Happen At Any Time.

3/27/2017

0 Comments

Christians believe in the Rapture, which is an English form of the Latin word rapio, which means to snatch up. The Greek word for this is harpazo, found in 1st Thessalonians 4:17. There are three views of the Rapture -- that it will happen at the beginning of earth's final seven years (known as the Tribulation); or in the middle of the seven years; or at the end of the seven years, at the same time as Christ's visible return. All Biblically-informed Christians believe in the Rapture. They differ over when it will happen.

I don't believe that either of the three views of the Rapture's time are part of essential Christian orthodoxy. All three views can't be right. But one isn't a God-condemned heretic for believing one over against the others. But I still believe that the Rapture will happen prior to the earth's last seven years. Here are five reasons:

1. Christ said that His return for us could happen at any time. Matthew 24:36-44. This could not be true of a post-tribulation rapture. Once the Anti-Christ declares himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12), a finite number of days will pass. Just as the Jews were able to use Daniel 9 to count the years till Messiah's first coming, It will be possible in the same way to count down the days to Jesus' return. But Jesus said repeatedly that there was a return we could never anticipate. This indicates to me that the Rapture is something different from the second coming.

2. Christ said He would return in order to take all His disciples up to heaven (John 14:2-3). This promise of going to our dwelling-places in heaven is never fulfilled with a post-tribulational rapture scenario. In that second scenario, the saints join Him in the air then immediately escort Him down to the Mount of Olives. But a pre-trib Rapture, in which the saints go to their heavenly dwelling-places, fulfills Jesus' promise in John 14.

3. Paul said that the rapture was a mystery, that is, a doctrine previously hidden from prior generations (1 Cor. 15:51). So it is not surprising that it is a comparatively less-pronounced truth than the second coming. There is not a word about a rapture in the Old Testament scriptures. The pre-trib Rapture needs to be integrated backward into the Old Testament's teachings about the Messiah's victorious return. This is the same principle as when we integrate our current time of Gentile evangelization back into the OT prophecies of Israel's predicted blessings. Because the Rapture was a mystery truth previously hidden, I understand why it's timing must be drawn out by comparing Scripture to Scripture, in other words, by inferences.

4. The early Christians believed Christ could have returned in their own lifetime (1 Corinthians 1:7, Thessalonians 1:10), even though many of the conditions of the end-times were not in place (2 Thess. 2:1-5). They could not have believed this if the Rapture was to happen at the end of the tribulation period. Contrary to liberal accusations of error, the Christians did not believe that Jesus most definitely was going to return in their own lifetime, but that He might. That belief of Christ's imminent, possible return is consistent with the teaching of an any-moment Rapture.

5. The Bible predicts a populated earth, including little children and the elderly, during Jesus' glorious reign (Zechariah 8:4-6). This is not possible with a post-trib rapture. In a post-trib rapture scenario, all believers would be resurrected or instantly transformed, and all unbelievers will be destroyed (2 Th. 1:7-10). This would leave the earth empty of mortal beings. But Zechariah predicts a redeemed Jerusalem bursting with playing children and content older folk. The pre-trib rapture allows for mortal believers to be gathered from every corner of the world (Matt. 24:31) and welcomed into Jesus' kingdom (Matthew 25:34).

There are "proofs" of a pre-trib Rapture that I don't think are all that solid, such as Revelation 3:10. Since I see zero evidence that the Revelation letters represent time-periods in church history, and because Christ's promise was based on faithfulness, Christ's promise to the Philadelphian church must have been for them alone, and was already fulfilled in some way. Also, the Bible's distinction between Israel and the Body of Christ in itself doesn't prove that God can't work with both at the same time. But I am content with the reasons I see.

0 Comments

Be Noble and Sober-Minded!

2/3/2017

0 Comments

1st Peter 5:8 -- Be sober-minded!

Onbe part of being a sober-minded person is to read, or listen to, original material. This is true in Christian teaching. Just because someone says Preacher X is good or bad, or that he says A,B, or C, doesn't prove it. The person making the claim could be in innocent error. They could have misconstrued something. Some people even lie! So you shou;ld check it out for yourself. Same thing is true in politics: Is there controversy over an presidential executive order? Go ahead and read the actual EO! "I will believe / not believe this good / bad statement about X because I like / dislike X" is not sober-minded.

In other words, ignore that firebrand conservative talk show host! Ignore that ranting liberal TV pundit! Read the real transcripts of real speeches and talks. Read the U.S. Constitution, too!

To be a good Christian citizen, we must not just blindly believe secondary claims. This principle is similar to when people say nonsense things to us Christians about what our Bible supposedly teaches. For instance, Muslims are taught that the Bible teaches that God had sexual intercourse with Mary! The best cure for that falsehood is to encourage a Muslim to read the Bible for him or herself, and they will quickly see that Mohammad taught a falsehood.

Be a Berean! They were noble-minded and checked the original source material to see if what Paul preached was true. Acts 17:11. It's a good habit to develop.

0 Comments

Is Christ's Kingdom In The World Today?

1/18/2017

0 Comments

"Kingdom" doctrine is a big deal with a lot of ministries today. But is it all being taught well? Or are Christian people being given extreme expectations that end up leaving them broken and disappointed?

The Old Testament predicts a glorious time when God's presence will visibly re-establish itself upon the earth. Messiah will conquer God's enemies, and idolatry will stop. Man will beat his swords into plowshares, and will learn war no more. This bundle of Biblical hopes eventually became known as the "kingdom of God." These was the Jewish expectations when Jesus came, and it explains a lot of the puzzlement and frustration with Him that the people felt. Christ often had to point out that there were many other kingdom prophecies about Messiah suffering and dying (such as Isaiah 53) that the people either were ignoring or had never learned.

Jesus in Matthew 13 show Him re-defining the kingdom. Jesus says that the kingdom would manifest now through preaching, and there would be varied responses to the preaching (13:1-23). The kingdom would have true and false believers co-existing alongside each other, like plants in a field or fish in the sea (24-30, 47-50). God's kingdom would start out tiny and grow up to be very large (31-32). It would penetrate society like yeast working though dough (33). People would stumble across God's kingdom almost by accident (44-46).

The Old Testament predicted God's kingdom will come down to the earth from heaven suddenly, visibly, catastrophically, by force, and enacted by the Messiah personally. It would judge the whole world, and condemn all the unbelievers. Jesus said the kingdom will come through the earth slowly, invisibly, progressively, through secondary workers, by means of teaching, preaching, and persuasion. The kingdom would forbear with unbelievers, and allow false and the true disciples to co-exist for a time.

Christ never said the OT prophecies were untrue, or that they wouldn't happen. He revealed new information -- mysteries hidden before He said them -- that this is a new time and mode for God's kingdom. These are the ways that the kingdom of God is manifesting in these times, as well as through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and miracles of the Spirit.

The kingdom of God is not fully realized now. That idea leads to untrue expectations and quick disappointment about what to expect from God in this world. But the kingdom of God is not absent from this world, either. The Christian Church, the general assembly of the First-Born, is the avatar of Christ's kingdom in the earth. Through us the kingdom of God is affecting the current age.

0 Comments

<<Previous

PAstor's Blog

Outline For Tomorrow Night's Bible Study.

How To View The Sermon On The Mount.

The Odd Doctrine of "Militant Fecundity."

What Is Secondary Separation?

Living By Inner Impressions.

Good Friday 2017: What Was Finished?

What Is A "Weaker Brother"? 1st Corinthians 8.

Five Reasons I Believe the Rapture Could Happen At Any Time.

Be Noble and Sober-Minded!

Is Christ's Kingdom In The World Today?

Jack Brooks

Do you have questions or comments? Write us, at ironworkspcc@gmail.com

Archives

Categories

PAstor's Blog

Jack BrooksDo you have questions or comments? Write us, at ironworkspcc@gmail.com

Archives

Categories

Jack Brooks

Do you have questions or comments? Write us, at ironworkspcc@gmail.com