Category Archives: Christian Doctrine

If We Believe All the Same Things, Why Do Our Churches Seem So Different?

  By Dean | May 18, 2012 - 4:27 pm | Blog, Christian Doctrine
Leave a comment

I read an interesting article from another website entitled, “The Gospel Coalition.” Excerpts from an article are included below. The article asks a poignant question. What is the difference between a solid Bible-believing church and one that appears to be one but something just doesn’t feel right?

The author goes on to list the top 10 things he believes distinguishes a Bible-believing church from one that isn’t necessarily so. They are:

1. The mission of the church has gotten sidetracked. What is the mission of the church and is it clearly spelled out?…

2. The church has become over-accommodating…

3. The gospel is assumed. While the right theology may be affirmed in theory, it rarely gets articulated. No one believes the wrong things, but they don’t believe much of anything….

4. There is no careful doctrinal delineation. Theology is not seen as the church’s outboard motor. It’s a nasty barnacle on the hull….

5. The ministry of the word is diminished. While preaching may still be honored in theory, in many churches there is little confidence that paltry preaching is what ails the church and even less confidence that dynamic preaching is the proper prescription…

6. People are not called to repentance. It sounds so simple, and yet it is so easily forgotten.

7. There is no example of carefully handling specific texts of Scripture. People will not trust the Bible as they should unless they see it regularly taught with detail and clarity…

8. There is no functioning ecclesiology. Careful shepherding, elder training, regenerate church membership, a functioning diaconate, purposeful congregational meetings–these are the things you may not know you’ve never had. But when you do, it’s a different kind of church…

9. There is an almost complete disregard for church discipline. If discipline is truly one of the three marks of the church, then many evangelical congregations are not true churches…

10. The real problem is something other than sin and the real remedy is something other than a Savior. The best churches stay focused on the basics…

I think I would have put the last one at the top of the list but all of these are important and there’s no reason to quibble over the order of the list. But to answer the question asked in the title I would submit not all churches believe the gospel or in the certainty of doctrine or many of the things delineated here. Many reject the inerrancy of scripture. They talk a good talk but when forced into a corner they will drop many of the essential points of Christianity so as  not to offend anyone or drive off their audience.

There is much more in the article for each of these points and I highly recommend you follow the link and read the entire article. These are very short excerpts and the article brings out additional points for thought. Please click HERE to read the entire article.

 

Related Posts

Link to this post!

Phil Robertson, Duck Commander; Arise, kill and eat

  By Dean | May 17, 2012 - 4:10 am | Blog, Christian Doctrine
Leave a comment

Link to this post!

Related Posts

Does God “Look on Wickedness”?

  By Dean | May 14, 2012 - 4:18 pm | Blog, Christian Doctrine
Leave a comment

by Eric Lyons, M.Min of Apologetics Press

The prophet Habakkuk once spoke to God, saying, “You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness” (1:13). Some have questioned how this statement could be true, considering God allowed the diabolical devil to come before His presence on the “day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord” (Job 1:6). How can God be described accurately as having “purer eyes than to behold evil,” when Satan, “the evil one” (Matthew 6:13), was able to present himself before the Lord and have a conversation with Him? If God can be in the presence of “the wicked one” (1 John 3:12), how can He simultaneously not be able to “look on wickedness”?

Consider, first of all, the fact that the Bible repeatedly testifies to God’s omniscience and omnipresence. “[T]here is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13). Neither the righteous nor the wicked can flee from God’s presence (cf. Psalm 139:7-8). He fills heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:23-24). Indeed, God is the all-knowing, ever-present One. Thus, given the Bible’s overall teaching about the nature of God, it should be obvious that Habakkuk 1:13 means something other than “God does not know or see what the wicked are doing.”

Second, that Habakkuk meant something other than “God cannot literally look upon wickedness” is also evident from the very chapter and verse in which he makes this statement. After declaring, “You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness” (1:13a), he asked, “Why do You look on those who deal treacherously, and hold Your tongue when the wicked devours a person more righteous than he?” (1:13b, emp. added). Those who “deal treacherously” certainly are engaged in wickedness, and yet, God looks on them. Consider also verse two where the prophet asked, “[H]ow long shall I cry, and You will not hear?” (emp. added). What did he mean by “hear”? He explained in his next statement: “Even cry out to You, ‘Violence!’ and You will not save” (emp. added). Thus, to “hear” in verse two meant “to save.” Similarly, in verse 13 the prophet was not suggesting that God cannot see the wicked. He does, in fact, see them and often even allows them to continue in their existence for a time in order to fulfill His purposes.

In context, Habakkuk was bewildered by the fact that God was using a wicked nation like Babylon to punish Judah. The prophet was undoubtedly aware of Judah’s perverse ways (1:1-4), but did not understand why God would “look” toward the extremely wicked nation of Babylon in order to punish the Jews. The truth is, however, God neither approved of nor ignored Babylon’s sins. After He providentially used them to punish the Jews, He likewise brought judgment upon the Babylonians. Just as He predicted (Jeremiah 50-51; Isaiah 21; 45:1; etc.), Babylon was soon destroyed in the sixth century B.C.

God’s perfectly holy, just, divine nature will not allow Him to “look on wickedness”—meaning, He cannot delight, accept, or ignore iniquity. He hates sin (Proverbs 6:16-19). He “is against those who do evil” (1 Peter 3:12). He may have allowed Satan to come into His presence with the sons of God, but God never looks upon wickedness with pleasure and approval.

Be careful, however, not to confuse God’s refusal to approve sin, with the idea that He does not use sinners—or even Satan—to accomplish His will. He used the extremely wicked Chaldeans to bring judgment upon the Jews. He used the Medes and Persians to destroy the Babylonians. And He even used Satan to prove that His servant Job was faithful, and ultimately to show Himself as the sovereign Ruler of the Universe, Who warrants man’s unwavering respect and loyalty.

Link to this post!

Related Posts

The Real Integrity Test

  By Dean | May 9, 2012 - 1:20 pm | Blog, Christian Doctrine
Leave a comment

From Church and Culture.

If you lie, commit adultery, take drugs, break the speed limit, drink and drive, and willingly handle stolen goods, you’re in good company.

Or at least company.

According to research from Essex University in England, British people have become markedly less honest in the last decade.  Coupled with this decline in morality is a growing acceptance of dishonest behavior.

For example, in 2000 70% said that an extramarital affair was never justified.  Now, barely 50% would agree.  Only 33% feel lying on a job application was wrong.

I am confident the same survey would reveal similar results in the United States.

Here is the test:

Rate your attitude to each of the following activities with one point if you think it is never justified; two points if you think it is rarely justified; three if you view it as sometimes justified and four if you think it is always justified.

Be honest.

A. Avoiding paying the fare on public transport.

B. Cheating on taxes if you have a chance.

C. Driving faster than the speed limit.

D. Keeping money you found in the street.

E. Lying in your own interests.

F. Not reporting accidental damage you have done to a parked car.

G. Throwing away litter in a public place.

H. Driving under the influence of alcohol.

I. Making up a job application.

J. Buying something you know is stolen.

According to the authors, a score below 10 suggests you are very honest, 11 to 15 means you do not mind bending the rules but are more honest than average, 16 to 20 suggests you are relaxed about the rules and anything more than 21 suggests you do not believe in living by the rules.

I’ll let you judge your own score.

I’ll confess I scored in the 11-15 range.  (My answer on “speeding” took a toll.)

What I found interesting was not simply the decline in morality, or its growing acceptance, but the nature of that acceptance.  Did you notice what the questions had in common?

They each posed the opportunity to do something when no one was looking.

It is often said that true integrity is who you are when no one is looking.  If the lack of integrity is similarly scored, then “Oh, my.”  Suddenly, this test is even more revealing than imagined.

It’s not that we would do more things that lack integrity, or are more accepting of them in ourselves and others, but that the opportunity to “get away” with it is one of the great driving forces of whether we would do it.  It’s not only an absence of an internal compass, but no sense of any transcendent accountability.

One of the great biblical models of integrity, Joseph, faced a sexual temptation of this nature.  He was approached for a sexual tryst with a woman that would be private, discrete, and enormously enjoyable (Potiphar’s position ensured that he could have almost any woman of his choosing, so there is little doubt she would have been highly attractive).

Joseph’s response?

“How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?”

Who talks that way anymore?  Who believes that way anymore?

This is the heart of the moral decline, and the deeper spiritual story behind the cultural polling.  It’s not that we don’t know right from wrong.  According to the Bible, that’s written in our hearts.

No, it’s that we’ve lost any sense of constantly living our life before an audience

… of One.

James Emery White

Sources

John Binghan, “Rise in dishonesty signals looming ‘integrity crisis’ in Britain,” The Telegraph, January 25, 2012. Read online.

Link to this post!

Related Posts

Lutheran Pastor Becomes An Atheist

  By Dean | May 3, 2012 - 11:50 am | Apologetics, Blog, Christian Doctrine
2 Comments

Lutheran Pastor Mike Aus attended the recent Reason rally in Washington D.C. Their website states:

The Reason Rally is a movement-wide event sponsored by the country’s major secular organizations. The intent is to unify, energize, and embolden secular people nationwide, while dispelling the negative opinions held by so much of American society…nontheists from all corners of the nation will descend on Washington, D.C. en masse to deliver the good news: “We’re huge, we’re everywhere, and we’re growing.”

The Reason Rally was organized as an atheist’s convention. It was after this rally he decided to “come out” as a non believer.

Listening to Pastor Aus’ description of his journey from Christianity to atheism saddens me deeply but there is a glaring reason for it. At the beginning of the video he explains he simply rejected the virgin birth of Jesus. Scripture clearly predicted Jesus would be born of a virgin, Isaiah 7:14. In Matthew 1:23 Matthew refers to the prophet Isaiah’s prediction and states Mary is that virgin. Luke confirms this in Luke 1:27 and Luke 1:34. If one rejects the virgin birth of Jesus, well maybe he didn’t feed the 5,000 (admitted), rise from the dead, ascend to heaven or any other miraculous events recorded in scripture. Here’s what John wrote at the end of his account of Jesus:

John 20:30-31  Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.  (31)  But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

In a post earlier this week it was pointed out the gospel is about Jesus, the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and second coming of Jesus. See HERE for the post. The Apostle Paul would agree with Pastor Aus. Yes, I said that right. Paul and Pastor Aus agree.

Paul wrote I Corinthians to address a number of problems facing the church in Corinth. In I Corinthians 15 Paul is addressing the resurrection of Jesus. Some in Corinth rejected the resurrection of Jesus. They believed it did not happen but rejecting the resurrection of Jesus is fundamental error;

1 Corinthians 15:12-17  But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?  (13)  If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.  (14)  And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.  (15)  More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.  (16)  For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.  (17)  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

Rejecting any portion of the gospel of Jesus Christ creates a fundamental error and if this is your position there is no reason to be a Christian. This is where Pastor Aus has ended up. It is a logical position. I’m not saying it is the correct position but as Paul states, if a person rejects Jesus, there is no reason to be a Christian.

When questions in his faith arose he should have sought out sources to help him test the validity of Jesus from Christian sources rather than secular sources as he states in the video. I would have suggested The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell. Secular writers start with an a priori position there is no God and no salvation in Jesus Christ and to find anything other than this shouldn’t be expected. Secular atheists are not going to provide any evidence for Christianity.

Perhaps Mr. Aus will continue his struggle and search for the validity of Jesus Christ and have his faith restored. I pray he does. His video interview from MSNBC is embedded below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Link to this post!

Related Posts

How Much Doctrinal Error is Too Much?

  By Dean | April 30, 2012 - 10:41 am | Blog, Christian Doctrine
1 Comment

I was visiting the forums of another Christian website recently and a new member to their forums posted the following:

The simple answer to “How much error in doctrine is too much?” is of course that none can be tolerated.

I think the question is not answerable so simply….

But, if a member of the Church, like myself, understands imperfectly. Believes error. At what point does error become damning?

Obviously we study, and the more learned guide those struggling.

Is there a percentage of error that crosses the line?

Or is error in minor doctrine a case for study, and error in major doctrine heretical?

Please help me understand!

The next poster answered with this:

Error is error and any at all would cross the line for me. Our ignorance due to failure to study is not an excuse, so we must continually strive to know the truth and make sure we are not in error. I don’t know that we can all come to 100% perfection in our understanding and can only do the best we can do… being diligent to show ourselves approved before God and being able to rightly divide the Word (2Tim. 2:15). Even though I have an honest heart and desire to know the truth, I don’t know that I will ever understand everything perfectly and I certainly hope God will not hold that against me.

I believe the most important doctrine to understand is salvation. What must we do to be saved? I believe we can 100% fully understand and know the truth in regards to this doctrine. I do not believe there will be any allowance for error in regards to salvation, simply based on what the Scriptures say. From there, I cannot see how there will not be different levels of growth for each individual when that day comes.

In my mind, this is a fairly decent response but doesn’t quite get to the heart of the initial question. The original writer’s question is will he be lost if he doesn’t perfectly understand scripture? How much knowledge is enough? How much does he have to have correct? Is it based on percentages? Even if his understanding is clouded by his culture or past personal experiences, how can he fully understand scripture to assure his salvation? This is a challenging question indeed and one worth asking!

I believe this question can be answered and it was partially answered in the first response when he wrote, “I believe the most important doctrine to understand is salvation. What must we do to be saved? I believe we can 100% fully understand and know the truth in regards to this doctrine.” The question we must ask ourselves is do we understand the gospel and the implications of the gospel?

First, what is the gospel? I Corinthians 15: 1-4 says it is the story about Jesus; the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For confirmation of this go back to the first gospel sermon preached by Peter at Pentecost, Acts 2:22-24. Do you see the same gospel in these verses? I do. Jesus is clearly shown as crucified and risen. Acts 2:31. He is both Lord and Christ, Acts 2:36. This gospel is taught by all of the apostles and followers of Christ. Read the entire book of Acts and look at each conversion story and see what was taught. It was always about Jesus! Below is a pictorial view of the gospel of Jesus.

In Acts 2:38-39 Peter instructs believers how to respond to the gospel. We see this pattern repeated over and over again in the rest of the book of Acts. This is the gospel Paul taught everywhere he went throughout the Roman Empire as did the other apostles and early church leaders, Acts 8:25, Acts 8: 26-39.

There were many attempts to change (add to or take away from) the gospel but Paul, Peter and John (and the other apostles) fought them at every turn. In doing so Paul exclaimed those who change the gospel should be eternally condemned. Galatians 1:6-9. The language Paul uses here is very strong indicating the seriousness of attempting to change the gospel.

Paul wrote the book of Galatians to defend the gospel. There were those who came to the Galatian church after Paul left and began to add to Paul’s gospel message. These Judaizers believed like Paul that Jesus was the Christ but they added to the gospel. They taught in order to be saved one must become a part of the Jewish nation and keep the Mosaic Law. Paul vehemently denies this additional requirement to the gospel. In Paul’s defense of the gospel in the book of Galatians he clearly proves the only way to salvation is faith in Jesus Christ.

How does the book of Galatians impact the question by the forum poster? Let me ask his question another way to see if it clears things up some. Is my salvation dependent upon my intellectual ability to understand every doctrine in the New Testament? Please read that question again! Are we basing our salvation on our ability to correctly understand every scripture and doctrine? If we are, aren’t we are doing the very same thing the Judaizers did in the first century? Adding a requirement to the gospel in that we be able to fully understand scripture in its entirety for salvation? This is not the gospel and Paul says we are to be eternally condemned for doing this.

In Galatians Paul clearly points out that faith in Jesus is the only way to salvation. It has always been this way, Galatians 3:6-7.  Our understanding of every doctrine in the Bible creates a false sense of pride for those who “correctly understand.” Paul forbids this pride. I Corinthians 1:29. I affirm we need to understand the gospel as presented above, the proper response to the gospel and then live a reasonably moral lifestyle, (I say that because we all continue to sin regardless of our desire not to) and strive for unity of the brothers. That’s it. The rest is learning through the help of the Holy Spirit. Our salvation does not depend upon our ability to correctly delineate every scripture properly. Not in this lifetime will we ever fully understand every scripture and doctrine in the Bible. It is impossible but we can know Jesus Christ and Him crucified! I Corinthians 2:2.

How Would You Like to be a Christian Only, Nothing More, Nothing Less?

Link to this post!

Related Posts

The Skeptic Says: Part Five

  By Dean | April 28, 2012 - 7:01 pm | Blog, Christian Doctrine
1 Comment

This is a series of posts answering a skeptic who rejects Christianity (or any other religion/god) and clings to atheism and natural causes for everything in the universe. Here is the link to the last post – Part Four

 

 

The skeptic is making fun of the death of Jesus Christ and the terrible cost God the Father gave to redeem mankind. He says:

 There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;
And sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.

Aw, yeah baby. This is what it’s all about. Just picture that.

Take a dip.

E’er since, by faith, I saw the stream Thy flowing wounds supply,
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be till I die…

Then in a nobler, sweeter song, I’ll sing Thy power to save,
When this poor lisping, stammering tongue lies silent in the grave.
Lies silent in the grave, lies silent in the grave;
When this poor lisping, stammering tongue lies silent in the grave.

Sounds great. Sources say:

“‘There is a Fountain Filled with Blood,’ is a well-known hymn written by William Cowper. It was one of the first hymns he wrote after his first major bout of depression.”

I’d never have guessed.

There’s a FOUNTAIN… and it’s FILLED with BLOOD!

It’s just business as usual.

I’m not quite sure where to begin to respond but let’s start here.

First, the William Cowper is using a metaphor. A metaphor is a literary figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object. Metaphor is a type of analogy and is closely related to other rhetorical figures of speech that achieve their effects via association, comparison or resemblance including allegory, hyperbole, and simile. Mr. Cowper isn’t saying a person needs to take a plunge in a pool filled with blood. He is comparing our baptism in water to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Jesus did die a horrific blood filled death and was raised the third day. He did it for all mankind so we wouldn’t have to. But why did Jesus have to die?

Mankind on its own has no ability to deal with sin (Psalms 49:8, Matthew 19:25-26).  The law demanded flawless perfection to which no human can attain (Romans 3:18 and multiple other scriptures). The book of Leviticus instructed the Jewish people in the proper sacrifice for sins. The whole sacrificial system of the Mosaic Law was a shadow of the coming Christ and His sacrifice.  Many sacrifices involved the death of an animal. The blood atonement of Christ required a perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 4:15). Jesus was sinless and provided the vicarious or substitutionary death we deserved (Galatians 3:13). In order to obtain the salvation offered by His blood sacrifice we are asked to re-enact his death, burial and resurrection by faith in baptism upon which we will receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39, Acts 22:16 and others).  It’s a metaphor!

Second, is the skeptic saying simply because a person suffers from depression they can no longer intellectually contribute to society, either through song or written word? Is that his point when mentioning Mr. Cowper’s depression? If that’s the case I hope he’s willing to dismiss the works of Nietzsche. Here’s a brief excerpt from Wiki on Mr. Nietzsche.

Nietzsche began his career as a classical philologist before turning to philosophy. In 1869, at the age of 24 he was appointed to the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel (the youngest individual to have held this position), but resigned in the summer of 1879 due to health problems that plagued him most of his life.[35] In 1889 he became mentally ill with what was then characterized as atypical general paresis attributed to tertiary syphilis, a diagnosis that has since come into question.[36] He lived his remaining years in the care of his mother until her death in 1897, then under the care of his sister until his death in 1900.

Considering their lives and comparing the two I think I’d rather choose Jesus over Nietzsche!

However, the position held by the skeptic is predictable and I didn’t predict it. God said it would happen when writing through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to Paul in I Corinthians 1:18.

I would urge you to consider your life and accept the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ and be baptized. Your eternal salvation depends upon it.

Link to this post!

Related Posts

Is Satan Real?

  By Dean | April 23, 2012 - 4:20 am | Blog, Christian Doctrine
2 Comments

by Eric Lyons M.Min of Apologetics Press

Several years ago, after teaching a Bible class on the book of Genesis, a longtime Christian indicated to me that he did not believe in the reality of Satan. This gentleman acknowledged the existence of good and evil, but he thought that “Satan” was simply a word used in Scripture to describe evil, rather than refer to an actual wicked being.

It is true that Satan is evil. (Have you ever noticed that you cannot spell “devil” without spelling “evil”?) He tempts, deceives, destroys, lies, murders, etc. But, he is not merely a word used by the Holy Spirit and His inspired penmen to symbolize evil; he is, as Jesus and Paul referred to him, “the evil one” (Matthew 6:13; 2 Thessalonians 3:3, emp. added). He is not just wickedness; he is “the wicked one” (1 John 3:12, emp. added). He does not merely represent dishonesty; “he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).

Although Satan is not deity and in no way has the infinite, eternal attributes of God, the devil is as real as God. That is, the same God-inspired book that describes the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent, glorious Creator, also tells us about a real, fallen spiritual being called Satan. His name appears 14 times in the first two chapters of Job (perhaps the oldest book of the Bible). Scripture reveals that God confronted Satan in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:14-16). Jesus spoke to him in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11). And Michael the archangel contended with him about the body of Moses (Jude 9).

Satan is not a fairytale character on par with the Big Bad Wolf or Captain Hook. He is not a little red cartoon figure with horns and a pitchfork who gleefully sits on a throne in hell (see Butt, 2012). The sooner that Christians take seriously “the adversary” (Satan), “the accuser” (devil), who goes “to and fro on the earth…walking back and forth” (Job 1:7), “like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8), the better prepared we will be to withstand his schemes (Ephesians 6:11) and snares (2 Timothy 2:26). We should neither underestimate him nor overestimate him. He is not deity (and thus not all-powerful or all-knowing), but he is also not a figment of our imagination. Unlike God, he desires all men to be lost (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4). Thankfully, “God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make a way of escape, that you may be able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13).

REFERENCE

Butt, Kyle (2012), “Satan is Not the Ruler of Hell,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1026.

Link to this post!

Related Posts

The Skeptic Says: Part 3

  By Dean | April 12, 2012 - 8:43 am | Blog, Christian Doctrine
Leave a comment

This is a series of posts answering skeptics who reject Christianity (or any other god) and cling to atheism and natural causes for everything in the universe.

The skeptic posted:

Three Reasons Why Jesus Is Not Coming Back:

1. He plainly said he was going to come back within the lifetimes of the people in the New Testament. He didn’t. Now we have all sorts of strange theological interpretations to explain this away.

The position of the skeptic was to say that Jesus said he was coming back to end time, judge the world and take Christians back to heaven; our final reward. In response to this post I asked a legitimate question, “Where does Jesus say plainly he would return within the lifetime of the first generation to do these things? The skeptic responded with the following verses:

(NIV Matthew 10:23) When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

(NIV Matthew 16:27-28) For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

(NIV Matthew 24:34) I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

That’s plain. Some people try to interpret the second verse as meaning the transfiguration. The only reason I can think of for saying that, is to account for why the plain reading didn’t happen.

Paul (and others) also thought Jesus was coming back very soon (1 Corinthians 7:29), telling people not to seek wives if they had none, but not to get rid of them if they were married. This is not long-term advice. He also refers to “we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:15).

Furthermore: “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.” (1 John 2:18)

I thought it would be interesting to address some of these verses and see what they mean but before doing so none of these verses ‘plainly’ say Jesus was coming back to earth to judge mankind and end time but the verses listed may seem to convey this. Without further study and explanation one might construe this meaning.

First Claim

Let’s first look at Matthew 10:23. Jesus says to his disciples they will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the son of man comes into his kingdom. What does the phrase ‘come into his kingdom’ mean? Does the bible use this phraseology anywhere else? Indeed it does and when trying to understand scripture it is always best to let the bible interpret itself.

In the seventh chapter of Daniel, Daniel is interrupting Belshazzar’s, the king of Babylon, dream. To refresh memories, Belshazzar saw a dream regarding four beasts which Daniel later interpreted to represent the future four kingdoms which will come forth upon the earth. It is during this last kingdom Jesus is said to come to earth. Daniel says in verses 13 and 14:

Daniel 7:13-14  “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.  (14)  He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

At the end of verse 13 notice Jesus is described as the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven but the important part is the very end of the verse. Notice which direction He is headed as He is coming. He is approaching the Ancient of Days or God the Father. He is headed toward heaven, not earth. It is when he reaches heaven he is given authority, glory and sovereign power. In other words His coming means his coming into his kingdom. He obtains this in heaven and His arrival in heaven with Father God.

When does an earthly king receive his kingdom? When he is seated on his throne, not before. An earthly king has a coronation. Jesus received his coronation when he arrived back in heaven to be seated on His throne. And this happened when he left earth and arrived in heaven. The generation of which Jesus spoke DID see Him enter into his kingdom.

Second Claim

Next let’s look at the second verse given by the skeptic. It was Matthew 16:27-28:

(NIV Matthew 16:27-28) For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Following from the first verse and its meaning, doesn’t this verse just confirm this? Look carefully at the first sentence. Jesus is going to come in his Father’s glory with the angels. A question. Where do the Father and the angels dwell? In heaven of course. Jesus came into his kingdom when he arrived in heaven and took his place on the throne in his glorified human body. He now reigns until the end of time:

1 Corinthians 15:25  For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

At the end of time when death and all enemies have been defeated Jesus will turn the kingdom back over to the Father to reign for eternity.

1 Corinthians 15:24  Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

Third Claim

The third verse mentioned by the skeptic is from Matthew 24. This is the verse:

(NIV Matthew 24:34) I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Jesus has a rather lengthy discussion in Matthew 24 and scholars have disagreements about what the meaning of this and the following chapter. What is Jesus talking about in Matthew 24? Here’s the verse quoted by the skeptic:

(NIV Matthew 24:34) I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

First, the verse says nothing about Jesus returning. It simply says whatever Jesus is talking about will happen within the generation of those hearing his words. There is a long explanation for chapters 24 and 25 but it the short version is Jesus is responding questions from Matthew 24:1-2 when he predicted not a stone of the temple will remain on top of the other. As history tells us, Rome, in A.D. 70 totally destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and left no stone atop another. Again the fulfillment of prophecy but not the end of time as claimed by the skeptic.

Fourth Claim

The fourth claim of the skeptic:

Paul (and others) also thought Jesus was coming back very soon (1 Corinthians 7:29), telling people not to seek wives if they had none, but not to get rid of them if they were married.

First Corinthians was written about A.D. 57 to 58. It was during the reign of Nero. Remember Nero’s background? He mercilessly persecuted Christians. Specifically regarding this scripture, here’s what Paul says just a couple of verses above the quoted scripture:

1 Corinthians 7:26  Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are.

This verse is not in an end time verse. The church was undergoing persecution from Nero or it was expected to start very soon. Paul warned the Christians not to seek wives/husbands at this time due to this expected persecution. Again, not an end-time scripture.

Fifth Claim

The skeptic mentions I Thessalonians 4:15 but doesn’t quote the verse. I wonder why?

1 Thessalonians 4:15  According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

This verse mentions nothing about the timing of the Lord’s return only the circumstances surrounding his return and what will happen when he does. Again, nothing here to prove Jesus said he was coming back to give Christians their final reward in the first century.

Sixth Claim

The skeptic references I John 2:18 which states:

1 John 2:18  Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

Again, the claim this verse states the end of time was going to shortly happen is a stretch. The writer says this is the last hour but he doesn’t specify what he is referring to. The last hour of what? It doesn’t say the end of time and judgment. It could have been the last hour for something completely different. Perhaps the end of the Jewish dispensation but it DOESN’T plainly say Jesus is coming back.

So When Will Jesus Return?

1 Corinthians 15:24-28  Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.  25  For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.  26  The last enemy to be destroyed is death.  27  For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.  28  When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Paul says we will know when Jesus comes at the end of time when death as the last enemy is defeated. As I look around I see people dying all around me. The dead have not been raised yet. This tells me Jesus’ return is in the future. It doesn’t say when but we know it hasn’t happened yet.

I guess it comes down to what a person chooses to believe. The skeptic takes several verses and weaves them together to say they portray a particular meaning yet when looking at them they don’t say what the skeptic claims.

If the Lord Returned Right Now, Would You Be With Him For Eternity?

Link to this post!

Related Posts