Kingdom Knights: Fight the Scandal

1 Peter 3:15-16: "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." (NIV)

Sunday, December 18, 2005

The Urgency of Our Mission

There are many Evangelicals among us who believe that we are living in the last days. Many have cited Jesus' statements about the "days of Noah and the "days of Lot" in support of that thesis. They have also pointed out certain prophecies from Old Testament prophets that have yet to be fulfilled, along with other signs that Jesus indicated as coming shortly before His coming. If their statements are to be believed (and there is a strong credibility there), then evangelism and outreach are at their peak point in urgency.

In the last month, during my blogging sabbatical, God has been increasingly pressing upon my spirit the importance of the last days. Many of those who read The Account can tell you that I've been covering a host of topics like Church History, Christian unity, and Christian doctrines (e.g., Predestination, etc.) and I would love to continue them, and pray that I will receive that opportunity but, as I said, I believe this is what God is telling me to do.

The study of the last days is known in theological circles as eschatology. This is a field in which man has dabbled in for centuries - with very little success. Those who succeeded were the Hebrew prophets, the Apostles of Jesus, and some other early figures in the Christian Church - all of which had significant impact on the study. Jesus himself, however, had quite a few things to say about the Last Days. When one reads about it, a few things stick out:

  1. "wars and rumors of wars" We live in a day and age when war is everywhere. The War on Terror, the War in Iraq, the civil instability around the world, and world war a constant threat with the hype about weapons of mass destruction.
  2. "pestilences" The word used here refers to epidemics and mass spread of disease - often fatal. AIDS, HIV, cancer and many other diseases have swept whole continents (Africa, for instance) and are spreading further and further every day.
  3. "they will hate you because of me" Even in the free countries of the world, Christians are no longer accepted and admired as they once were. Tolerance is preached from every secular forum in the world - tolerance for everyone but Christians, that is. We are not accepted because we are not of this world.
All of these things are becoming increasingly familiar to us as the days pass. After Jesus had told them these things, he said (Luke 21:29-31):
He told them this parable: "Look at the fig tree and all the trees. When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near."
For this reason, all Christians, not just Evangelicals, are on a mission from God to reach the lost of every nation, tribe, and tongue. We have our Lord's promise that His Kingdom shall not come until every nation has been reached. We are steadily nearing that goal thanks to the work of Christian missionaries around the world yet how many are the lost! All Christians must begin the work of evangelism that all may hear the Gospel preached. This is the urgency of our mission.
chanel handbags
For the Kingdom!

18 Comments:

  • At 3:20 PM, December 18, 2005, Blogger Lindsey said…

    It's exciting, isn't it? I can only pray with John, "Come, Lord Jesus, come!"

     
  • At 8:41 PM, December 20, 2005, Blogger Jonathan M said…

    Good article, David. Could this be the main reason we are here...to tell others about Christ?

     
  • At 10:08 PM, December 20, 2005, Blogger David Ketter said…

    Certainly part of it, Jon...certainly part of it.

    I'm not a Presbyterian but I know a little of the Shorter Catechism and it basically states that we are created to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Evangelism is part of that.

     
  • At 11:22 AM, December 22, 2005, Blogger Jonathan M said…

    It was no mistake that some of Jesus' last words to his disciples were the great commission. Once again, good article.

     
  • At 3:03 AM, December 30, 2005, Anonymous SimonTemplar said…

    Given your baptist leanings, and some of your comments in the blog on "The Scandal" I would guess that you lean towards a preTrib, dispensationalist view of eschatology?

    Although the comment about some of the early church writers getting it right would tend to lead away from that position...

    Although you do have connections with reformed your comments definetly indicate your not a preterist.. or so it would seem..

    :) so where do you stand?

     
  • At 10:36 AM, December 30, 2005, Blogger David Ketter said…

    I am certainly pretrib and would be a dispensationalist. I do believe a strong case can be made for distinct Rapture and Second Coming, as well as the Rapture occuring before the Tribulation (although a relatively strong case can be made for a mid-Trib rapture as well). I am actually researching for an article on the topic so sometime in the next few weeks, we'll have one on here for you.

     
  • At 2:21 PM, December 30, 2005, Anonymous SimonTemplar said…

    you must not be a full dispensationalist. Some of your Non-eschatological views that I have seen already contradict dispensationalist teachings. I am often mistaken for a dispensationalist in my eschatological views because I hold a pre-millenial literal view (which is assumed by most to be "dispensationalist")

    I am, however, not pre-trib and I'm sure we'll have occasion to discuss in the future ;)
    I hold a post-trib view.

     
  • At 3:43 PM, December 31, 2005, Blogger David Ketter said…

    I am curious to see how I am not dispensationalist since just about everyone - pastors, friends, family, and theologians of all breeds - have come to that conclusion. Do you have a link about some information concerning that.

    I, too, am premillenial...that's one of my major tiffs with Reformed theology - amillenialism doesn't jive with me.

    Grace and Peace!

     
  • At 5:14 PM, December 31, 2005, Anonymous SimonTemplar said…

    Well dispensationalism has a number of impacts on general theology and doctrine, apart from eschatology.

    For example, Most dispensationalists believe that there is a seperate dispensation for Jews and for Gentiles. This plays out in the idea that we are currently in a "church age" which is the dispensation of grace. This age is seen by most dispensationalists as the age of the gentile church, and when this age ends the gentile church will be raptured and then will come a time when the jews are called in.
    Thats pretty general dispensationalist view.. however, many take it further than this and argue that the dispensation of grace does not begin until Paul is saved on the damscus road and that all events and scripture prior to Paul's conversion do not apply to the gentile church, but to the jews only. In the full, or hyper dispensationalist view Paul's epistles are the main writings applicable to the gentile church.. the gospels are not, and Peter's epistles are not.

    Based on this idea hyper dispensationalism denies baptism as something not meant for the gentile church because it is only mentioned prior to Paul's coversion, and on taking out of context the statement Paul makes about "I thank God I baptized none of you" to mean that the gentile church should not baptize.

    Further, this leads full/hyper-dispensationalism to actually teach that there are two seperate gospels, one for jews and one for gentiles. Thus there are essentially two entirely different churches as well, one for jews,
    one for gentiles.

    Hyper dispensationalism is heretical. The less extreme form of it, which is also the original form of it doesn't have most of the problems. Although many times it does lead to the division of the jews and gentiles into distinct groups with different gospels and very often argues that portions of New Testament scripture apply to only the jews or only the gentiles.I disagree strongly with that view.

    I don't hold with replacement theology, nor do I believe the dispensational view on Israel. There are elements of both that are true.

    I do strongly support the covenental view as opposed to the dispensational view (with the exception of replacement theology, and I'm pre-millenial futurist)

     
  • At 10:56 PM, December 31, 2005, Blogger David Ketter said…

    Okay then...I'm more of a dispensationalist than I thought.

    To an extent, I believe there are different dispensations for Jews and Gentiles - I think the words of Christ ("the fulness of the Gentiles") and Paul (Romans 9-11) are quite clear on the fact. They are one spiritual people but there are prophetic signicances and differences, as well as spiritual things. But that is another post for another time.

     
  • At 1:07 AM, January 01, 2006, Anonymous SimonTemplar said…

    I don't think there is enough biblical evidence to construct an elaborate frame work of ages and dispensations under which God has dealt differently with mankind.

    Also what evidence there is doesn't, in my opinion, fit into neat ages each one ending when the next begins etc. What I see in scripture is that God deals with man in terms of covenants and covenants are not bound by times or ages, but rather by conditions of fulfillment.

    For example, God made covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David (and of course the new covenant). Each of those covenants gives different authorities to man, makes different requirements on man, and makes promises from God to man etc. The terms of some of them have been fulfilled and thus the covenant has ceased to be active, but others have not.

    the adamic covenant and noahadic for example exists as long as the world exists. The Davidic covenant is eternal the covenant of abraham was fulfilled by Jesus and in a sense transformed into the new covenant of Jesus' blood. The Mosaic covenant was fulfilled in all its particulars by Jesus and thus has ceased to be an active covenant. It doesn't mean that the covenant has ceased to be, rather its terms have been fulfilled and thus become inactive.

    Specificly dealing with Israel.. There are two israel's in question. Natural Israel and spiritual Israel. The church is spiritual Israel. This sounds like replacement theology but I don't accept all of replacement theology. Natural Israel has been set aside for a time, their eyes veiled to the truth. This is a punnishment for their rejection of Messiah. However, the principle of all things working together for good holds true... God is using the apostasy of the Jews to bring the gentiles into his kingdom.. while at the same time he is using the gathering in of the gentiles to make the Jews jealous again for Him.
    The time will come when God will fulfill his promises to Natural Israel and restore them into the congregation of his people, the church. That is where replacement theology is wrong.
    Where dispensationalism is wrong is that the difference between the Jews and gentiles is that, at the moment Israel as a collective is outside the church. The time will come (and indeed may now be beginning) when Israel is brought into the church, but there is only one church and will only ever be one church.

    A big misconception (in my opinion) made by many dispensationalists is that they lump together "the times of the gentiles" and " the bringing in of the fullness of the gentiles".
    Bringing in the fullness of the gentiles refers to the harvest of the gentile nations ito the church. The times of the gentiles given as a prophetic sign doesn't refer to the church but rather to the domination of Jerusalem, and particularly the temple mount by gentile political powers.

    Its somewhat difficult to explain my view because it doesn't really fit into any particular well known school of thought and has differences from most or all of them.

     
  • At 1:25 PM, January 01, 2006, Blogger David Ketter said…

    I don't think there is enough biblical evidence to construct an elaborate frame work of ages and dispensations under which God has dealt differently with mankind.

    I don't know that I'm THAT dispensationalist...maybe I just agree with most of their theology or something like that...I'll have to give it some further study.

    The Mosaic covenant was fulfilled in all its particulars by Jesus and thus has ceased to be an active covenant.

    There I disagree. I agree that Christ took the sacrificial elements upon Himself (so beautifully illustrated in Hebrews) but The Law was given authority under that covenant and it is still binding upon the people of Israel.

    The times of the gentiles given as a prophetic sign doesn't refer to the church but rather to the domination of Jerusalem, and particularly the temple mount by gentile political powers.

    Which is still in effect, not surprisingly (The AlAqsa Mosque and Arab control, etc.). The salvation of the Jews is closely linked to this prophecy which also means that the "fulness of the gentiles" is related as well.

    Frankly, I can't make a distinction between the Spiritual and Natural Israel. There is a dichotomy of sorts since not all Jews are saved and not all saved are Jews but, at the end of time, all Israel shall be saved....which means that we who are Gentiles shall be considered to be adopted into Israel.

    So, I've obviously got some differences between me and dispensationalists...but I'm certainly not a covenanter (like my forefather, William Oliphant the Covenanter). What might be of interest is that what I believe, in most areas of theology anyway, I've come to from my own readings of the Scriptures and they weren't taught to me. (Never really had a church that focused on doctrine alone, beyond what all churches should believe). Just thought that'd be a piece of interest.

    Grace and Peace!

     
  • At 1:25 AM, January 02, 2006, Anonymous SimonTemplar said…

    The distinction between natural israel and spiritual israel is taught most clearly by Paul. He teaches that the covenant of Abraham, which establishes the Hebrew people as God's people was a covenant of promise, not mere genetics.
    Paul teaches that the story of Ishmael and Isaac is an allegory for the two covenants of the people of Israel. Isaac is the covenant of Abraham, and Ishmael is the covenant of Moses. I should clarify that this does not mean or hint that the story of Ishmael and Isaac is not literally true as well.. but rather that God orchestrated history so as to make serve also as an allegory for a spiritual truth.

    The covenant of Promise was through Abraham.. this was the covenant that makes people "God's chosen" It was this covenant that made Abraham's decendants the people of God. Paul teaches that this covenant is ultimately one of faith and not of genetics only. In other words.. membership in the covenant of Abraham is determined by faith and not by genetics (since Ishmael by right of genetics should have been not only the a member, but infact the heir yet he was not.)

    this is the difference between spiritual and natural Israel. This is also one of the flaws with a strict dispensationalist position. According the Paul's teachings here (and James agrees) people have always been saved the same way, whether before Jesus came, or after.. it is only by grace appropriated through faith that anyone has been made God's chosen.

    The problem with replacement theology, which is often the standard fare of covenenters, is that they think there is then no longer any distinction at all for natural israel. This is not so. God's promises are not so lightly. Natural Israel may not currently be in the kingdom of God, in the ekklesia of God.. but they are still sanctified in that they are set apart for God, they are his. In his time they will be brought back.
    This is part of the work of Jesus Christ, to break down the middle wall of seperation between Jew and gentile and make of the two... one new man. This occurs in the kingdom.
    (it is my belief that this is the purpose of the two witnesses as well.. one is elijah and he comes to restore all God's promises to the Jewish people and bring them again into the kingdom of God... I have a very odd theory as to who the other witness is.. but we'll go there some other time).

     
  • At 1:27 AM, January 02, 2006, Anonymous SimonTemplar said…

    PS.

    It is good that you have formed your views independantly of schools of doctrine. They are useful in some ways, and perhaps unavoidable, but they also can do much damage. When people are taught a certain view, often times they become so devoted to that view that they cease seeking truth and begin only seeking to win arguments.

     
  • At 11:06 PM, January 02, 2006, Blogger David Ketter said…

    Oh, I agree with you there...let's just say that I have some rather unorthodox views as well...that would best be brought up some other time...

    Ohh....eschatology...do tell your other thought. Personally, I figured it's gonna be Elijah for one and either Enoch or Moses but I think Enoch takes the cake since we know he never died...just as Elijah. I mean, the Scriptures DO say that man has to die once...Moses already did....and the Witnesses die...so...okay, I'm rambling and the hour is beginning to get into my head.

     
  • At 12:01 AM, January 03, 2006, Anonymous SimonTemplar said…

    I would love to hear about your 'unorthodox views' although I would encourage you to say "unconventional" rather than unorthodox (unless ofcourse they really are unorthodox ;) )

    So feel free to email me with discussions of odd views and sundry.

    My odd view on the second witness is that it is the Apostle John and that he never died.

    My reasoning is as follows...

    James and John asked Jesus if they could sit at his right and left hand in his kingdom.. Jesus asked if they could drink the cup he faced and be baptized with his baptism.. they said they could.. and Jesus told them that they would do so, indicating that both of them would be martyred.

    Just before Jesus ascends into Heaven he is speaking with Peter and tells peter to follow him, signifying that Peter would die like Jesus. Peter asked Jesus "what about this one" (indicating John the apostle) and Jesus responded with the cryptic "what is it to you if I will that he remains till I come"

    John goes on to report that it was rumored among the believers that he would not die... BUT John clarifies Jesus did not say he would not die.. but rather only "what is it to you, if I will that he remain till I come". (perhaps because by this time John knew that he would die as a martyr many years in the future.

    Historical evidence tells us that John was exiled to Patmos and eventually released from the island during the Reign of Domition in around 94-96 AD. The historical record then tells us that John went back to Ephasus were he continued to live and minister for at least several more years. Now we don't know when John was born exactly but this would mean that John was getting close to 100 years old, in a time when the average life span was around 40-50 years.

    Furthermore, John was exiled to the island of Patmos because the Romans tried twice to exucute him and were unable to kill him. Once he drank hemlock and lived, and once he was boiled in oil and came out unharmed. The emperor's wise men counciled the emperor to send John away immediately because he was obviously a powerful magician and seemed unkillable.

    There is no solid verifiable death tradition for the apostle John. It is vaguely held that he died some time after going to ephasus but nothing is clearly recorded. One tradition has it that towards the end he had some of his disiples take him out in the desert and partially bury him and when they came back for his remains he was gone.

    Then there is the enigmatic statement given to John by an angel in Revelation. When John hears the seven thunders speak he is told not to record what they say.. and the angel then gives him a little book to eat and it is sweet in his mouth, but bitter in his stomach. The Angel then says "For you must prophecy again before many tribes, peoples and nations..." the very next thing is the vision of the two witnesses.

     
  • At 8:46 PM, January 05, 2006, Blogger David Ketter said…

    Unconventional is certainly a better word. I'll email you about it.

    My odd view on the second witness is that it is the Apostle John and that he never died.

    Wow...I have to say, that's certainly a strong case and I think often overlooked. Frankly, I think you've made a better case than the one for Moses. :D

    My thoughts have always favored Elijah and Enoch. Jewish lore says that Enoch sits in the Garden of Eden (in heaven) writing the history of the world as it happens. We know from the Scriptures that he was "caught up" and that he was, in a manner of speaking, a prophet and possibly the father of astronomy. Not only that, all men - saved and unsaved, Jew and Gentile - are descendants of Enoch. So, even in terms of Jew and Gentile witnesses, he would qualify.

    Well, you've brought some interesting thoughts on the matter and I'll certainly give it some serious study. On the surface, it certainly merits that.

     
  • At 1:14 PM, January 17, 2006, Blogger Lindsey said…

    Wow, great discussion!

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home