Hi Jim:

Hope all is well with you and your flock. I saw this on our reformed message board and I wondered if you could offer a response? It reads —

If you are a Premillennialist, whether Dispensational or not, there are several things with which you must reckon:

• You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s second coming.

The reason for this is that all Premillennialists must account for the rebellious and unbelieving nations in Revelation 20:7-10 who launch an assault against Christ and his people at the end of the millennial age. Where did these people come from? They must be the unbelieving progeny born to those believers who entered the millennial age in physical, unglorified bodies. Not only they, but also the believing progeny born to those believers will be subject to physical death (notwithstanding the alleged prolonged life spans experienced by those who live during the millennial reign of Christ).

• You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ’s second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the fall of man.

The reason for this is that all Premillennialists must concede that unbelievers will continue to populate and infect the earth during the millennial reign of Christ. Notwithstanding the presence of Christ himself, as Premillennialists argue, the earth will continue to be ravaged by war and sin and death, even if only at the millennium’s end (Revelation 20:7-10). As a Premillennialist, you must necessarily believe that the redemption of the natural creation and its being set free from bondage to corruption does not occur, at least in its consummate expression, until 1,000 years subsequent to Christ’s return.

• You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.

The reason for this is that, according to Premillennialism, countless millions of people will be born during the course of the millennial reign of Christ. Are Premillennialists asking us to believe that upon their attaining to an age when they are capable of understanding and responding to the revelation of God and the personal, physical presence of Christ Jesus himself, that none of them will be given the opportunity to respond in faith to the claims of the gospel?

• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

In my study of the second coming of Christ I discovered that, contrary to what Premillennialism requires us to believe (see above),death is defeated and swallowed up in victory at the Parousia, the natural creation is set free from its bondage to corruption at the Parousia, the New Heavens and the New Earth are introduced immediately following the Parousia, all opportunity to receive Christ as savior terminates at the Parousia, and both the final resurrection and eternal judgment of unbelievers will occur at the time of the Parousia. Simply put, the NT portrayals of the second coming of Christ forced me to conclude that a millennial age, subsequent to Christ’s return, of the sort proposed by Premillennialism was impossible.
(Sam Storm)

Would appreciate it if you could respond to these points when you get time.

Thanks,
M.
___________________________________________________________

Hi M,

I’ve seen this argument before. It’s been floating around the Internet and posted on various boards as if it causes some irreparable harm to the premillennial position. But, it’s an argument based more on assumption than exegesis. Sam Storms is a amillennialist. You can read more about Sam Storms eschatology here:

http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/studies/eschatology/

http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/the-amillennial-view-of-the-kingdom-of-god/

So, let’s get to his points.

First off, he states many of his objections as if the objection itself casts doubt on the validity of the position. The repeated use of the phrase “you must necessarily believe” makes it sound as if believing that point is somehow sub-biblical or without basis. It’s a subtle form of “poisoning the well.”

Storms writes:

If you are a Premillennialist, whether Dispensational or not, there are several things with which you must reckon:

• You must necessarily believe that physical death will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s second coming.

The reason for this is that all Premillennialists must account for the rebellious and unbelieving nations in Revelation 20:7-10 who launch an assault against Christ and his people at the end of the millennial age. Where did these people come from? They must be the unbelieving progeny born to those believers who entered the millennial age in physical, unglorified bodies. Not only they, but also the believing progeny born to those believers will be subject to physical death (notwithstanding the alleged prolonged life spans experienced by those who live during the millennial reign of Christ).

Jim:

Well, yes. We do believe in physical death after Christ’s return, especially considering that He will break the nations like potsherds and wipe out people with the two-edge sword from His mouth.

Rev 19:15 – From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.

Regardless of your millennial view, if you believe Revelation 19:15, then you believe that death occurs after His return. And yes, premillennialists do believe that there will be a rebellion after the 1000 years have expired. But we only believe it because that is exactly and precisely what the Bible says —

Rev 20:7-9 – When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them.

So far we are being accused of actually believing the exact words of the text. Not much of an indictment.

Where do these rebellious people come from? Well, they are not (despite what Storm says “must be”) “the unbelieving progeny born to those believers who entered the millennial age in physical, unglorified bodies.” That’s just pejorative language with no biblical basis. The texts tells us where they come from. They are the descendants of unbelievers who survived the wars and spent the previous 1000 years under the rule of Christ on Earth without the interference of Satan. Storm seems to think that those who enter the millennium must be “believers,” however he defines that term. But, the believers in Christ — the church — took part in the first resurrection. So, his terminology and assumptions are confused. Once Christ returns in glory and sets up the kingdom promised to Israel by their prophets, Israel is believing. But, the Gentile nations are never spoken of as being converted. They are simply ruled over. And those ancient enemies of Israel return to their natural animosity once Satan is allowed to resume his activities.

Nevertheless, the essence of Storms’ argument is that death must remain after Christ’s return at the beginning of the 1000 years. Yes, we believe that … but only because the Bible says that.

Storms:

• You must necessarily believe that the natural creation will continue, beyond the time of Christ’s second coming, to be subjected to the curse imposed by the fall of man.

The reason for this is that all Premillennialists must concede that unbelievers will continue to populate and infect the earth during the millennial reign of Christ. Notwithstanding the presence of Christ himself, as Premillennialists argue, the earth will continue to be ravaged by war and sin and death, even if only at the millennium’s end (Revelation 20:7-10). As a Premillennialist, you must necessarily believe that the redemption of the natural creation and its being set free from bondage to corruption does not occur, at least in its consummate expression, until 1,000 years subsequent to Christ’s return.

Jim:

Ummmm …. and?

Where in the Bible does it say that it is either un-scriptural or untenable to accept the Biblical description of the 1000 years? Yes, the natural creation will continue until the creation of the new heavens and the new earth. Since that cataclysmic change occurs in Revelation 21, after everything that’s described in Revelation 20, there’s no reason not to accept that the natural order will continue during Christ’s reign on Earth.

Once again, at the risk of being redundant, that’s simply what the Bible says. I know that’s a tough concept for some people who want to twist and contort the book of Revelation and insert theories of repetition and recapitulation, etc. But, to accuse the premillennialist of simply reading and believing what the book actually says isn’t really much of an argument.

Storms:

• You must necessarily believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

Jim:

Yep. Because 21 comes after 20. That’s just the way numbers work.

Even if you remove the verse and chapter numbers, John’s continued use of conjunctions such as kai (and), kai houtos (and then) etc. make it grammatically impossible to ignore the sequential nature of the events he described.

Storms:

• You must necessarily believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return.

The reason for this is that, according to Premillennialism, countless millions of people will be born during the course of the millennial reign of Christ. Are Premillennialists asking us to believe that upon their attaining to an age when they are capable of understanding and responding to the revelation of God and the personal, physical presence of Christ Jesus himself, that none of them will be given the opportunity to respond in faith to the claims of the gospel?

Jim:

At this point Storms has gone wwwaaaayyyy beyond the revealed text and has begun insisting on conclusions that the Bible never addresses. We do not know that “countless millions” will be born. We don’t know if in the Millennium Christ suddenly institutes an “age of accountability” such as Storm describes, considering that no such age of accountability exists in Biblical Christianity. We don’t know if people will be “given the opportunity to respond in faith to the claims of the gospel.” We don’t know any of that! The Bible gives us no information on such matters. But, that doesn’t stop Storms from attempting to create an argument against premillennialism based on his assumptions and extra-biblical conclusions. This is no way to make a solid argument.

Storms:

• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

Jim:

Yep. That’s what it says, alright.

Rev. 20:5a – The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.

This is easy. I just quote the text and it makes my argument for me.

Storms:

• You must necessarily believe that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ.

Jim:

Once again, that’s exactly what the text says. To conclude anything other is to go outside of what the Bible actually says.

Rev. 20:11-15 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Notice that I am not arguing from a hermeneutic or eschatological position. My replies are simply what the text says. Storms is arguing in favor of a position. Therefore, he’s about to launch into a conclusion that is conveniently devoid of any supporting text.

Storms:

In my study of the second coming of Christ I discovered that, contrary to what Premillennialism requires us to believe (see above) …

Jim:

I love this sort of assertion. Okay, I don’t love it in any positive sense. But, when someone makes broad statements like this you can usually assume that the writer’s “discovery” is going to be well worth reading … for the entertainment value, if nothing else. By the way, in MY study, I’ve discovered that postmillennialism leads to wild speculation. But, that’s just me.

Storms:

… death is defeated and swallowed up in victory at the Parousia,

Jim:

Text, please.

The only place where Paul employs this phraseology is in reference to the instantaneous change believers will undergo at the catching away.

1Cor. 15:51-58 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. “O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.

What this passage DOESN’T say is that death is utterly defeated at the Parousia and therefore there can be no other death after this event. To draw such a conclusion, “you must necessarily believe” things that the Bible doesn’t actually say. Storms is reaching beyond the text in order to support his assumptions.

Storms:

the natural creation is set free from its bondage to corruption at the Parousia,

Jim:

Says who?

Paul did write, “For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.” (Rom. 8:22) But, no NT author says that the creation is set free from its bondage to corruption at the Parousia. Once again, it would have been very helpful it Storm would provide chapter and verse to support his contentions.

Storms:

the New Heavens and the New Earth are introduced immediately following the Parousia,

Jim:

Not according to any Biblical text that actually mentions the new heavens and the new earth (Isa. 65:17, 66:22, 2 Pet. 3:13, Rev. 21:1). NONE of those texts connect the parousia with the new heavens and new earth.

Storms:

all opportunity to receive Christ as savior terminates at the Parousia,

Jim:

Stunning.

There’s nothing in the Bible to prove this contention. Again, text would have been nice — if not absolutely required — to make such a statement.

Look, I’m not saying that I know for certain that the “opportunity” to receive Christ does not terminate at Christ’s appearance, I’m just saying that the Bible does not give us sufficient clarity to state either position didactically. And unsupported assumptions simply do not — and indeed cannot — undermine the premillennial adherence to what the text does indeed say.

Storms:

and both the final resurrection and eternal judgment of unbelievers will occur at the time of the Parousia.

Jim:

Both the amil and postmil advocates make this claim. Under the mantra of “the less-clear passages of the Bible must be understood in light of the clear passages,” they identify Revelation 20 as a “less-clear passage” (despite the fact that it employs no difficult words or hard-to-understand phrases), and defer to the separation of sheep and goats in Matthew 25 as their “clear text.” Then, by concluding that the judgment of the just and unjust occurs simultaneously, they argue that there’s no room for 1000 years in the “clear text.”

Voila!

Of course, they ignore that what Jesus described in Matthew 25 is a division of nations, not individuals.

Mat 25:31-33 -“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

In that case, the “brethren” of Christ would be Israelites, not all believers.

I agree with the NET Bible’s note concerning Revelation 20:5, which reads:

The “resurrection of the just” is mentioned in Luke 14:13-14, and the resurrection of “life” distinguished from the “resurrection unto damnation” in John 5:29. We here learn for the first time what interval of time separates these two resurrections.

Storms:

Simply put, the NT portrayals of the second coming of Christ forced me to conclude that a millennial age, subsequent to Christ’s return, of the sort proposed by Premillennialism was impossible.

Jim:

Well gosh. Considering the lack of scriptural support and evidential proof, I’m really wondering what “discoveries” forced Sam to conclude such extra-biblical things! And I equally wonder how it is “impossible” to believe what the Bible actually says concerning the Millennium.

It must be some sort of magic. In the words of Bullwinkle J. Moose, “Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat! Nothing up my sleeve. Presto!”

This sort of argumentation, devoid as it is of Scriptural support, really does no harm to the premillennial position whatsoever.

Grace and peace,

Jim Mc.

A few months ago, Smyrna A.M. — a local paper distributed free to every mailbox in the area — advertised that they were looking for a few local ministers to submit articles for possible publication. Always looking for an avenue to let people know about GCA, I began sending in occasional submissions and (at least so far) every one has shown up in the paper. Today my latest article was distributed.

I had originally titled this article “Theology Matters,” but the folk at the paper changed the title to something more eye-catching.  Thanks again to the editors at Smyrna A.M. for being willing to publish articles of substance from various local pastors and for allowing us another opportunity to spread the word about GCA.

_________________________________

Wednesday, 10/10/07

The Message: Theology = education, not entertainment
By JIM McCLARTY For SMYRNA A.M.

I get a lot of e-mail. Due to the popularity of our Web site, I receive comments and observations from a wide range of denominations and countries. One of the most consistent themes emerging from my inbox is the general lack of doctrine and theology being taught in most churches. In its place, churches offer showmanship — clowns, puppets, lightshows, theatrical productions, surround-sound, smoke machines, rock bands, etc.

An elemental shift has occurred in the contemporary church. According to the Bible, although the followers of Christ are in the world, we are not to be of the world (John 17:14-16). We are called to reflect the principles and teaching of Christ, as salt and light in an otherwise decaying and dark environment. But, as church buildings and budgets have grown, churches have begun competing with the world over the disposable income people spend on entertainment. And in the process, doctrine and theology have suffered.

So, does that really matter? I mean, what’s the point of theology anyway? Is doctrine really that important?

The word “theology” is a contraction of two Greek words, meaning “words about God.” The Bible is full of such words. As you learn the Bible, you learn what God is like, how He thinks, how He acts, and what it takes to approach Him. It’s not enough to simply think about God. It matters what you think about God. Proper theology teaches you how to think about God properly.

In his epistles, the apostle Paul urged the church repeatedly to concentrate on “sound doctrine.” That means: solid teaching. They were not to merely imagine what Christ was like or what He taught. They were to devote themselves to the solid, provable teaching handed down to them by the apostles. Proper theology leads to proper Christianity.

Biblical theology answers the most pressing, important question any of us will ever face: “How can sinners stand forgiven and un-condemned before a righteous, holy God?” Given that we are all mortal and the ratio of death so far is a perfect 1:1, what you think about God’s salvation is a very important consideration. Proper theology leads to peace with God.

And finally, once we understand our relationship with God and His Son, that knowledge affects every aspect of our lives. How we treat people, how we raise our kids, how we live in society, and how we treat our marriage, are all directly impacted by a genuine understanding of our position before God. In other words, proper theology leads to a proper life.

So, does theology matter? Yes. In fact, there is no other subject in this lifetime that will have a greater impact on your eternal destiny than the words you say about God.

Theology matters.

Jim McClarty is the pastor of Grace Christian Assembly in Smyrna. GCA meets at 904 Hazelwood on Sunday mornings at 10:30 and Wednesday evenings at 7. For more information visit: www.salvationbygrace.org You can e-mail Pastor Jim at: jim@salvationbygrace.org.

Sunday morning, as we were wrapping up, Jeff commented on the contrast between two groups of people who heard the word preached:

1) Those Jews who heard Peter preach at Pentecost, were “pricked in their heart,” and asked “what shall we do?” leading to repentance and baptism. And —

2) The high priest and the Sadducees who heard Peter preach, were “cut to the heart,” and took counsel to slay the preachers of the gospel.

In Jeff’s memory, the same terminology was used of each group, but it turns out that the two phrases denoting their heart response were different. Nevertheless, through a bit of careful exegesis, Jeff discovered an even more fascinating bit of info on the words Luke used to describe the activity of God in both groups.

Here’s Jeff’s email (my comments follow)
============================

I did a little research on the comment I made yesterday at the end of Jim’s sermon – I was assuming that the terminology in Acts 2:37 and Acts 5:33 was the same with “cut to the heart.” I was wrong.

However, I found something more interesting. Acts 2:37 uses a term meaning to “cut or pierce sorely.”

On the other hand, Acts 5:33 and Acts 7:54 both use another term, meaning “to saw asunder or in two, to divide by a saw – to be sawn through mentally.” The Acts 5:33 reference is when they were intending to “slay them” (Peter and the apostles) and the Acts 7:54 reference is when they gnashed their teeth at Stephen’s message and killed him.

Also note, Acts 2:37 is the only place in the NT where that particular word is used. And the Acts 5:33 and Acts 7:54 references are the only places in the NT where that word is found.

I find it more interesting that although “pierce” or “cut” (depending on the translation) is used in all three instances, the 2 Greek words used lead to different results. The first term for “cut to the heart” resulted in a longing for redemption, whereas the other term in the last 2 instances resulted in a vehement hatred.

Note below that in both forms of the verbs used, they are in the “Passive” voice with an “Indicative” mood. The passive voice represents the subjects as acted upon. The indicative mood is a mood of certainty with respect to the completion of the action of the verb. In both cases, the people were “acted upon” – They did not “choose,” after reflection, to love or hate the message they had heard. This “cutting” or “piercing” happened to them upon hearing the message (“when they heard this…”).

In all 3 cases, the Gospel message did exactly what it was intended to do – call sheep and condemn goats. In other words, God is Sovereign!

katanuÈssw ( 1 instance in the NT )
1. to prick, pierce – to be sorely pricked
2. metaph. to pain the mind sharply, agitate it vehemently
a. esp. of the emotion of sorrow

(katenuÈghsan) – 3rd Person Aorist Passive Indicative
Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”

diapriÈw ( 2 instances in the NT )
1. to saw asunder or in two, to divide by a saw
2. to be sawn through mentally, i.e. to be rent with vexation

(diepriÈonto) – 3rd Person Imperfect Passive Indicative Plural
Acts 5:33 But when they heard this, they were cut to the quick and were intending to slay them.
Acts 7:54 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the quick, and they began gnashing their teeth at him.

2 Corinthians 2:14-17 –

“But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.”
======================

The preaching of the Word of God is an overwhelming responsibility. As Paul asked, “Who is sufficient for these things?” In preaching the Word, we plead for men to come to Christ, anticipating that God will call out His sheep through the preachment of His gospel. But, the reality is that God also uses the preaching of His word as a method condemn those who have heard the truth and rejected it.

This is not the type of thing we should be trifling with. The ever-living, never-dying souls of men and women, boys and girls are at the very heart of the matter. We are called to preach the truth, the sound doctrine of the things of God, without flinching or covering up the uncomfortable parts. We are called to convict men of their sinfulness and point them to the One who eternally saves.

We are called to tell the truth.

Once again, theology matters.

I found an old Zip disk and was sorting through pictures and Word files, re-discovering pieces of my past. One file was a light article I wrote for the local newspaper circa 2001, or so. As I read it I realized that I still feel the same way. So, I thought I’d post it here.
=============================================================

Putting The “Fun” Back Into “Fundamentalism”

Jim McClarty
Pastor, Grace Christian Assembly
A Sovereign Grace Fellowship

“So what kind of preacher are you?” a woman recently asked. “You’re not one of those fundamentalists are you?”

I knew what she was driving at. One small segment of Evangelical Christianity has usurped the term “fundamentalism” and redefined it so that only they fit the category. Now, when we think of “fundamentalists,” we imagine fire-breathing pulpiteers who spend their time listing all the things they reject and condemning everyone with whom they disagree. And, it doesn’t help things when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson use our recent national tragedy as an excuse to go on television and rant.

“Yes,” I replied, “I am a fundamentalist.” She took a couple steps back. I assured her I wouldn’t bite.

You see, I am an adamant defender of the fundamentals of the Christian faith. The virgin birth. The sinless life. The death, burial and resurrection. Those are all fundamental to Christianity. Without those basics, you have no faith.

So I asked her, “Would you go to a doctor who didn’t understand the rudiments of medicine? Or, would you trust an auto mechanic who didn’t know how engines work?”

“Of course not.” She was catching my drift. The same way that we would never trust our bodies or even our cars to the care of someone who lacked the fundamentals, we should never entrust our spiritual well-being to someone who ignores the basics. In fact, you can pick any area of learning or knowledge and uncover the building blocks, the foundation, on which the whole system is built.

In theological circles, those fundamentals are called “doctrines.” A doctrine is simply something taught as a rule or principle of the faith. And, the principles of Christianity are built on those fundamental doctrines.

So, don’t be afraid to call yourself a fundamentalist. Study the doctrines and construct your faith from those basic building blocks. That’s the method Jesus prescribed –

“Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock.” (Mat. 7:24)

Yep, I’m a fundamentalist. I love the doctrines of the Christian faith and am not ashamed to say so. Recently one of our congregants told me, “As we keep teaching the Bible, we’re going to be known as the church that put the ‘mental’ back into fundamentalism.”

I smiled. “You’re right. But, wouldn’t it be great to be known as the church that put the ‘fun’ back, too?”
__________________________________________________________

You can read more about Christian doctrine at our website: www.salvationbygrace.org

I was recently reflecting on the ministry of GCA. We regularly receive support and encouragement from our listeners and readers. But we also receive the occasional criticism … or the hateful venting of someone violently opposed to what we teach. Oddly, the most common criticism leveled at GCA is that we teach too much, too deeply, or place undue emphasis on “doctrine.” They claim that doctrine is divisive and that it puts a damper on evangelism by making the Bible too complicated. They would prefer that I just said simple, attractive, approachable things about God and then begged people to come accept Him.

But, if we know anything at all from Scripture, it’s that we are not merely instructed to speak about God. We must also make certain that we tell the truth about God. Certainly, the conversation between Eve and the Serpent ought to be sufficient to prove that point. Satan is not afraid to speak about God. He’s perfectly willing to ask, “Has God not said …?” The problem is that he is also willing to speak lies about God. And that proclivity to speak lies about God continues to permeate much of what is called Christianity.

It’s vitally necessary that we use proper discernment when listening to someone speak of God; or worse, claim to speak for God. Everything must be held up to the Bible — the original source material — and examined in that light. And the only way we can truly know the value of any person’s speech concerning God is to have a firm foundation in Biblical doctrine.

Anyway, I said all that to say that recently a friend sent me a couple of quotes he thought I’d like and I thought I’d pass along this pericope from Arthur W. Pink:

"Of course it is true that doctrine, like anything else in Scripture, may be studied from a merely cold intellectual viewpoint. And thus approached, doctrinal teaching and doctrinal study will leave the heart untouched, and will naturally be dry and profitless. But doctrine, properly received, doctrine studied with an exercised heart, will ever lead into a deeper knowledge of God and of the unsearchable riches of Christ." 

It’s true that people can go the rest of their lives avoiding opportunities to dig deeply and urgently into God’s word and think that they have some sense of who He is or how He acts. But, that’s a false security. The great themes of the Bible, properly explored and expounded, lead us to a grander, fuller realization and appreciation of the One who ever-loved us and who redeemed us “according to the good pleasure of His will.”

I will spend the rest of my days on Earth attempting to mine the inexhaustible riches of the revelation God has graciously given His people. And I’m certain I will die feeling that I barely scratched the surface. But to search, to dig, to long for a greater understanding, that should be the goal of every Christian. And doctrine — the plain, brilliant, eternally-consequential teaching found in God’s word — ought to be the hallmark of every Christian church.