Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
All right, well tonight we're going to just kind of do questions and answers. As you know, I'm not John MacArthur, and so I just can't take them on the fly. I've already prepared some of those, and so we will limit our questions.
They're not from you. If you do send me questions, then I'll go ahead and answer them in the next Q &A, but I just come up with some questions, try to give you the Biblical answer, and the reason why I do this is twofold.
One is it's easy for me to prepare a sermon if I've been out of town to do Q &A because it's stuff that I already have or stuff that I don't have to get into super deep exegetical issues. But secondly, I want you to think Biblically.
I want you to read a newspaper and ask yourself this question, what does God's Word say about this issue? And I think it is commendable to be a discerning reader, yes? It is commendable to do that. And what does the Bible say about life, about death, about this issue at work, about moving, about subcontractors, about all kinds of issues you say, well, I just, what does the Bible say?
If it doesn't speak, then we can use our wisdom, but we want to know what the Bible says, and I've come up with quite a few. And so my first question is this, it's more of a question to you all as a congregation, almost not fair on a Sunday night because Sunday night you can have a different congregation than Sunday mornings because they're usually more committed because they're there Sunday night.
Question number one, are you a consumer Christian? Are you a consumer Christian? When it comes to churches, do you decide to pick a church or not pick a church based on what it can offer you? Are you a consumer Christian?
I was reading an article by Phil Campbell in Australia, and he said, these are the ways you can tell a consumer Christian, a Christian who tries to get their needs met, a Christian who shops around for the best church, a Christian who shops until they drop or finds a church that they like.
And I thought, this is basically America today, and I don't think it's anyone in this church because we're not really a consumer church. But interesting, these are the five key signs of a consumer church, our consumer church mentality.
One, always looking for a better deal. And when you shop, you go to TJ Maxx and you think, but maybe Marshall's has a better deal. Off to the next, well, I can get a better deal at that other church. Two, what's in it for me?
Also can be manifest as a critical spirit, always assessing what can it offer me? Now, are either of those very biblical? The first one, looking for a better deal versus looking for what the Bible says a church should do.
If a Bible church is supposed to preach the word, have the ordinances or sacraments, sing, give, baptize, and a variety of other things, that's what churches do, so that's the kind of church we look for.
Number three, minimal attendance. I'll come when it's convenient. Or it's kind of like a movie. You don't really go see many movies unless they're a blockbuster, so then you actually show up for the big Batman movie.
But all the other movies, you just kind of rent at home. Four, lack of relationships with others, especially avoiding serving. Because when you shop, you're in it for yourself. You can't serve other people.
And then lastly, high expectations of leadership. We pay them, so they do all the work. And if you would, turn your Bibles to Philippians chapter one, and I just want to focus in on a word that you think you might know of.
No, but it has a little different nuance and connotation in this context. We don't want to be consumer Christians. We want to support the local church in times of good and plenty, in times of bad and hardship, and we are a family of God wanting to try to find a church and be in a church that wants to exalt Christ Jesus.
He's the one. And if you look at Philippians chapter one, verse five, I have a confession to make. I put tabs on my Bible. Is that a mortal or a venial sin? Yes. Oh, you do too. Well, if the pastoral staff has tabs, what must that mean for you?
Most of the times when I'm up in the pulpit, I have my verses printed in a piece of paper so I don't have to go places. Here's what I'll do. I'll say, please turn to Philippians chapter one, verse five.
I have the verse already printed out, and as you're turning, I'm figuring out what to say next or praying this prayer. Oh, God, help me. And so I was going through some of my mother's things, and I got a copy of my mom's Bible, and she had these tabs, but she hadn't put them in her Bible yet, and I thought, I'm putting those tabs in my Bible, and I know it's okay to do because when I was a janitor at Grace Community Church, I would clean out John MacArthur's office, and so we always would kind of fight over who could clean out John's office because we wanted to see what was in there.
I have a picture in my bedroom at home, it's a small picture, it's not, you know, above the mantle or anything, but of me sitting in John's desk. Here's a picture of Patricia MacArthur, here's me, and I have his Bible.
I thought it was interesting because when I opened up his Bible and just kind of randomly opened it, kind of like the way you do your devotions in the morning, that kind of thing. I'm just kidding. I opened it up, and it opened to Titus chapter one, and only two things were underlined on that page.
For the qualifications of an elder, above reproach, above reproach, that was the only marks he had in that Bible. But I noticed one other thing he had in his Bible, he had tabs, and I thought, I can have tabs.
So I have tabs now, in case I'm having a hard time finding Malachi or something else, but one of the things about the local church is this is a partnership, and I'm glad this word is translated partnership in some of the Bibles.
Our participation. Philippians chapter one, he begins to thank God after his salutation at the beginning, and in verse three he says, I thank my God in all my remembrance of you. Remember, this is a prison epistle.
Always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all. In view of your koinonia in the gospel from the first day until now. In view of your koinonia. If you look at your notes, if you have a study Bible, my notes say sharing in the preaching of the gospel.
But that word koinonia can mean something even better, and I don't think the notes in the book are very good. Koinonia, besides just general fellowship, it can mean, and it means here, exactly how it is translated by the New American Standard Update.
Your participation. Who else has a different word in your translation? Jay, what do you have? Partnership and what do you have? ESV, okay, good. Fellowship in King James. Is anybody willing to admit they're NIV positive here?
What's NIV say? NIV translates things well sometimes. No one has NIV? You're kidding me. No one here has NIV. Nate, do you have an NIV handy? He has a pocket NIV. Do you need tabs, Nate? Partnership. Okay, those are translated really well.
Fellowship gives the idea, but I think there's a better nuance to it, and as I was studying this word, it has a close relationship, a close intimacy. When you look up the lexicons, the Bible dictionaries, if you will, it has close involvement, close mutual relationship, an intimate closeness where you get together, and that strikes to me contrary to this whole consumer church mentality.
If our relationship with Christ is close on a very vertical level, on the horizontal level, it is very close, a close mutual participation, a close relationship, close association, and that's exactly what Paul said.
He said, in view of your participation, our close relationship in the gospel from the first day until now. And as I look at the church and the church cafeteria kind of movement, I just think that's exactly opposite of these people who get together for this close relationship and say, we are going to stick with each other like a marriage in good times and in hard, versus what can you do for me, and when you don't do what I want, I'm bugged, and if you do what I don't want, then I'm bugged as well.
And that's why I try to tell people in our church, if you don't want Bible teaching, this isn't the church for you. If you're bored with the Word of God, then why come here, because it's all about the Word of God.
What else could I give you? You know, when people say to me, pastor, that sermon really ministered to me, I'm so glad because I didn't come up with the Bible. It's the Word of God ministering to you and comforting you.
If you knew me before I was saved or if you even knew me well now, you know I can't get up and give you the Anthony Robbins firewalk chat every week and make you feel good about yourself and give you the rah-rah.
I have nothing to offer you, but we can offer you the Word of God and exhort you to believe it and to do it, and we have a partnership together. We love one another, and when one part of the body hurts, what I've seen in the last week with my mother dying, all the body hurts.
What an outpouring of love I've had this week and last week with people here at the church, and we have a close, intimate relationship and fellowship. When one person hurts, we all hurt, and so I've been very thankful for that.
We don't have a church that, what can you do for me, and pastor, you do it all. I've seen so many leaders start learning and growing, and off they go in their ministry. Off goes VBS, and off goes preaching down at Cape Cod Bible Fellowship, and off we go.
I love that because I just can't do it all. My job and the elder's job is to help you do the ministry of the church. My ministry is you. Your job is finding a ministry, and for those of you that have found one, thank you, and for those of you that don't have one, we want to help you so you can have this partnership.
When people leave the church, and people come and go, of course, it's harder to leave when you're involved because when you are working hard, you realize it's difficult to serve, and when you point fingers at other people, and it's usually leadership, or it could be other people, you think, that's a hard thing to serve other people, and so I'm going to cut people some slack, our mercy, our grace, because it's difficult to serve, and so the first thing that goes through my mind when someone leaves, I think, on my own part, I think, I should have got them more plugged in ministry because they would have seen things more properly because when you're involved, it's harder to cast stones, but I don't think we have too many consumer Christians at this church, and for that, I am very glad.
All right, question number two. I think Louis dealt with this this morning, and I wasn't really here, so maybe we can just skip the question, but here's a question that I have because it comes around all the time.
Maybe you've already heard me talk about it many times. How free is man's will? How free really is man's will? Do we have free will? Now those are fighting words, aren't they? We will fight over free will, or should we?
Would you turn your Bibles to 2 Timothy chapter 2, and I would say to you that I think free will, if we have the right definition, is something that is an idol these days in Christianity, and I don't think it's really true if we define it a certain way.
2 Timothy chapter 2, verse 24, tonight we're going to deal a little bit with Satan and what he does in churches, and is he bound or is he not, but one thing he does bind for sure, and even the amillennialists will believe this, that Satan is binding the wills of unbelievers.
Second Timothy chapter 2, verse 24, what kind of epistle is this? An inspired epistle that's a pastoral epistle, good, and here he says to pastors, which pastors should then train others to do the same thing, so I think it is applicable to us as well as a congregation, the Lord's bondservant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness, correcting those who are in opposition, look at my own life and I think I see progress in my life, I think the older I get, the less quarrelsome I become, the less ornery I get, I want to be kind to those who disagree, and be able to teach them.
These are those people in context who are opposed to the gospel, because you can see the next clause there, if perhaps God may grant them repentance, what kind of repentance? Leading to the knowledge of the truth, the gospel truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him, Satan, to do his will.
Now I have a question, if you believe in free will, how can you with that verse? Does it say or does it not say that Satan is holding unbelievers captive to do his will? Now how much freedom is there in that?
Now I know what you're going to say, if I don't have free will, then I am a, as we would say in England, a robot, a robot, I'm a robot then. Well if someone, when you're talking to them, says that that makes me a robot, then let's just turn to Romans chapter 9, as we take a look at this idea just briefly, that there's only room in the universe for one sovereign, and he's a trinity, he's a trinitarian God, and there's only enough room for one person, one with free will, he manifests himself in three persons.
And let's turn to Romans chapter 9 verse 13. This is one of those issues in America that 300 years ago here in New England, if I said something about free will, you would say the will can only do what the nature will allow it to do, and Jonathan Edwards had taught that here in New England.
And if the will is bound, then the nature, if the nature is bound, then the will must be bound, but we have changed things with this individualism, the love of autonomy here in the United States, be all you can be, my rights, individualism is king.
Even the democratic system that we know in the American War of Independence, what was the slogan of the American War of Independence, does anyone know? Don't tread on me, close, pardon me, close, close, we know a lot of slogans, don't we?
But do we know the American War of Independence slogan, we serve no sovereign here. That's the almost the way it is when it comes to the will, we serve no sovereign here. What would you say if you said, well, God's sovereign over everything.
Now, so far so good, we know He's sovereign over skin color, parents, age, what country we're born in. He's certainly sovereign over the weather, although by people complaining all the time about it, I'm not so sure they think He's sovereign, but that was one of the things I read the book, Sovereignty of God by E .W. Pink, and I was struck with a lightning bolt in my heart thinking, I am such a sinner, because if the God of the universe wants weather that's hot, cold, humid, arid, dry, wet, and when I say, I don't like the weather today, here's another day of this, that is a slap in the face of God who made the weather that very way.
What am I thinking? What am I complaining? And I thought to myself, and I know I've complained since, but I thought, God, may I never complain about the weather again. When you realize God is sovereign over the weather, boy, I don't know what my grandmother would have done, because my grandmother had one of those little weather channel things by her little chair, so she'd know what to complain about, it was the weather.
Well, we think God's sovereign over the weather and everything else, but do we believe He's sovereign over who goes to heaven and who doesn't? That's the real issue. Does He have the right as a sovereign king to decide who goes to heaven and who does not?
Charles Spurgeon said, there's no doctrine more hated by worldlings. Men will allow God to be everywhere except on His throne. Yikes. And when people say to me, that makes me a robot, I tell them, it doesn't have anything to do with robotics, it has to do with a potter and clay.
Look at Romans chapter 9, as you know, at the end of chapter 8, nothing shall separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus. Well, what about Israel then, chapter 9? What about their rejection? He says in verse 6 of Romans 9, but it's not as though the word of God has failed, for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.
The promise of God hasn't fallen to the ground. Just because you're a physical descendant of Israel, you're not automatically in. And then He comes to the sovereignty of God, and He tries to show it in three different ways.
God's sovereign because He chose Isaac over Ishmael, He's sovereign because He chose Jacob over Esau, and He's sovereign because He gave mercy to Moses and He hardened Pharaoh. Look at these three. Verse 7, Isaac over Ishmael.
And for those that don't think that God is sovereign over people, the text says it, neither are they all children because they are all Abraham's descendants, but through Isaac. And because of Isaac, not through Ishmael, your descendants will be named.
If you go down to verse 13, God chose Jacob over Esau. Just as it is written, and stands written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. Only one God chose for blessing. Well, you may say this, verse 14, what shall we say?
There's no injustice with God, is there? Paul says that because you might be saying, how could God do that? There may be injustice with God. He says, no, there never should be that. Now he moves from nations to individuals.
And God has individuals representing nations, but now strictly individuals. And he says here, verse 15, the reason why I say that is because some people think the whole Jacob and Esau issue has to do with nations, therefore it's not sovereign election over individuals, but here's certainly an individual election.
For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. Verse 16, so then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
It doesn't depend on free will, it depends on God's free will. It doesn't depend on human will, it depends on God's will. It doesn't depend on human effort, it depends on God's effort. And here now God gives mercy to Moses, but he hardens Pharaoh.
For the scripture says to Pharaoh, by the way, Romans 9, 17, when you see that all in bold there, what does that mean in the New American Standard when you see all caps when it says, for the scripture says?
What's that mean? He's quoting the Old Testament. When you read that Old Testament quote, who's saying that? Who's speaking in the Old Testament? Here it says, for the scripture says, in the Old Testament who's talking?
God. God says, scripture says, it's the same thing. For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth. So then, the sum he has mercy on whom he desires, he hardens whom he desires.
You say, oh, that's hard. It's a hard doctrine, and I say amen to that. Where are the preachers these days that preach and the people say, that's hard? I would say that if Jesus came into this pulpit now, I'd have to change a lot of my theology, but just for illustration purposes, if he were to come here today, and he would not, but if he were and he got up and preached, I don't think everybody would go, I think some would go, and others would go, some would go hard.
That is a hard saying, and Paul knows it's hard, and so he helps us with the response. If this is a hard saying from God, how should we respond? To God? To God? Oh, how could you? He says, here's how you should respond.
First, don't back talk to God. I don't know about you, but I have children, and I don't really like back talk. You know what I love to hear from my kids? Yes, dad. That's my favorite thing. Yes, dad. Verse 19 says, you will say to me then, why does he still find fault?
How could you, God, for who you are is who resists his will? How can anybody find fault if God's in charge of anything? Verse 20, he changes it. He doesn't even deal with it. He says, on the contrary, who are you?
Let me give you the Ebendroth version. Who are you, oh puny man, who answers back to God? Don't answer back to God. Some things you just need to zip your lip. The thing molded will not say to the molder, why did you make me like this?
Will it? The robot made will not say to the robot manufacturer. Is that what it says? Has nothing to do with robotics. It has to do with the potter. When you look at the Old Testament, you see the potter and what he does with the clay.
And God can fashion whatever he wants with that, and he can make some things for beautiful use, and he can make some things as like for China, and he can make other things for trash heaps. He can make whatever he wants.
Easier to remember if you remember what we all deserve. And if we all deserve damnation, then he takes and makes some things for China. It makes it easier. It doesn't say automatons here. God is making something and he owns this something or someone.
Verse 21, does not the potter have right over the clay? Answer, I don't want robot talk anymore, automaton talk. I want clay talk to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, China, and another for common use, something to go to the bathroom in.
He has the rights of everything, of everyone. He's the king, absolute rights. He's the Lord. He's the most high. He's the king. He's the only sovereign. He sits on a throne. Times are in his hands. I can just list the vocabulary of sovereignty that I found, reign, dominion, rule, decree, ordain, command, appoint, establish, choose, predestined for ordain.
We shouldn't talk back to God. We shouldn't say that makes me like a robot when he says, you, I've made you like clay. How else should we respond? Here's the second reminder. Let God be God. Verse 22.
What if God, although willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience, vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? How are you going to know the grace of God unless you see the wrath of God?
And he did so in order that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory. What is a reason why God chooses some and passes over others is because the ones that have been chosen can say, God, you are so great, so full of glory that you would choose me because I see what's going on with these damned ones.
And yet you would choose me. And then the last response is, in verse 24, first one's don't talk back, second one's let God be God, and the third one is the Old Testament foretold of God calling Gentiles and Jews, and he goes and talks through that in Romans 9, 24 and following.
But you say, if God is sovereign over all that, then how do I work through this in my mind? Well, let me put it this way. You say true or false to these statements, if you will. No trick questions. A fallen sinner is totally unable to cooperate with divine grace, true or false?
Who just said false? Luke, dismissed. I'm just kidding. All right, let's rephrase it again. Someone who's a sinner, who's not a Christian, is able to save, they can't save themselves. What would you say to that?
True. Luke started to go false, and I wasn't going like that, so it was true. These are written in not like fifth grade, but they're written in like 12th grade. A fallen sinner is totally unable to cooperate with divine grace, true.
We are dead in Adam's sin. By the way, we need a savior, don't we? If we could cooperate with God, then who needs Jesus? Number two, salvation is exclusively the result of divine monergism, or in other words, divine God's work alone, mono alone, erg, like in ergonomics, work.
It's God's alone work, or is it our work with God's work? Which one is it? Okay, number three. To say that a fallen sinner has the power to cooperate with divine grace is a denial of the necessity of Christ's work, true or false?
I'll repeat it. To say that the fallen sinner has the power to cooperate with divine grace is a denial of the necessity of Christ's work. True, and I just said that a minute ago, so we got true, true, true so far.
Number four, the human will is in bondage to sin because our union with Adam in his fall. This is getting to why we are bound in sin, because we are in Adam, and when Adam sinned, we sinned all. One of the reasons why we're bound to sin is because we were in Adam and he sinned.
True or false? True. Two more. The regenerate and unregenerate, the saved and unsaved, act according to their own representative wills. They act according to their nature. An unbeliever acts like an unbeliever, and a believer acts like a believer.
I almost said a believer acts like an unbeliever. That would be called church discipline. Number last, lastly, human free will is a denial of divine freedom. If you're free, do you mean to tell me God is up there saying, I can't somehow break in on this oasis of righteousness, and I can't do anything to your will, because then somehow I'd make you a robot.
No, God, here's what he does. God changes your nature, and then you freely respond to him. If I, before I was saved in 1998, that would have been the right time either. I was already a pastor in 97. I'd been a pastor for a year, and then I got saved.
That would be a dilemma though. Do you then step down and grow for a while, or do you just keep preaching right where you left off? Before I was saved, I did what my nature wanted me to do, and I wanted to just indulge myself.
After I was saved, the struggle began. By the way, is a struggle a good thing? It's a great thing. When you struggle with sin, that's a sign of growth. Should you say, well, self, stop that struggle, and you need to be holy, and you need to strive, and you need to act like who you are, a Christian.
Yes, that's true, but on the inside, in the deepest parts of your body, you should say, the struggle is good. The struggle shows I'm saved, because before I was saved, the only struggle was this. I don't like the consequences of my sin, but I like my sin.
So the struggle is, how far do you go without breaking the law and get incarcerated, and try to enjoy the freedom that you have to try to just sin all you want. But the struggle is good. When you're struggling as a Christian, you should say, Lord, thank you that I get to struggle as a Christian, because that proves that I'm a Christian.
Help me. I gave you those propositions, and do you know those propositions, if you said true to all of them, maybe you don't need to read this book, because they're all taken from this book. The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther, really the book that started the Reformation, or was a catalyst in it, that the will is bound to sin, therefore we need a savior.
Here's what I say to people about free will. If free will means that Satan, for the unbeliever, if that means that Satan has no influence on you, and if free will means that sin in your own self has no influence on you, and if that means that the world system around you has no influence on you, and if that means that God of the universe can't influence you without your okay, then I deny that kind of free will.
But if free will means you have a nature, and that nature, within that nature you can make decisions, then I would believe in that kind of free will. We have to be very careful when it comes to free will, because I think only God has free will, and I would even push the envelope a little bit and say, even God only can make decisions according to his own nature.
God can't freely choose to sin. I think God does have free will, but he'll only choose according to his nature, and that's the issue. Believers make choices according to their nature, freely. Unbelievers make choices according to their nature, freely.
But an unbeliever never can freely say, I've decided, as the song says, to follow Jesus. And then they get to heaven, and on that great day of the Bema Seat judgment, God says, here's my rewards for you.
And by the way, you get a lot more rewards, because you decided on your own to follow me, and everybody else, including your sister and brother and friend, didn't. And so I think if you have a proper view of the will of God, and the will of man, it will cause you to praise God more than if you believe in free will.
Because God needed to change your nature so your will would do the right thing. When you think about what glorifies God more, I decided on my own, with no help of God, no help of anyone else, to follow God.
And how could God make me some kind of robot? God can do whatever He wants. He's the creator of it all. How about this? God created angels, and then a third of them sinned, and how many of those third that sinned have an opportunity for salvation now?
Zero. God's unjust then. May it never be. He's not unjust. But for God to see humanity fall, every one, and then say, here's still a plan of redemption, and I know that if I look down the corridor of time, no one will follow me, so now I'm going to pre-love you, and then send my son to die for you.
I don't think that's making robots. I think that's a personal, loving God who's hands-on, contrary to Allah, who's very hands-off. Okay, time is fleeting. We're going to have to skip this one. All right.
All right, let's turn to Revelation chapter 20, please. This may be the last one. I've been teaching through Ephesians chapter 6, and Lord willing, we'll get to the armor next Sunday, and I haven't done this digression on Sunday morning because I haven't really wanted to be in critique mode or anything like that, but we have a premillennial stance of this church that we have the millennial reign of Christ.
We have a second coming, and then he reigns on earth for a thousand years, and then we move into the eternal state, and there are others that don't believe that, and I think they're fine people. I think they're good men, good women, and that's not the issue.
It's an in-house debate, but I want to talk a little bit about Revelation chapter 20 because I think out of all the places, if I was amillennial, meaning that there's no future kingdom with Christ reigning on earth, that the kingdom is now on earth through the church, the place that I would not go, the place that I would avoid at all costs would be Revelation chapter 20.
There are other passages that they can use to support things a little bit better, but Revelation chapter 20 is really the issue, and I want to go there, so if you turn your Bibles to Revelation chapter 20, and let's talk about this idea of Satan being bound.
Now certainly, we all believe these things. Satan is the angel of light, 2 Corinthians chapter 11. 2 Corinthians chapter 4, he's the god of this age. Ephesians chapter 2, he's the ruler of the kingdom of the air.
John 14, 30, he's the prince of the world. First Peter chapter 5, he's a roaming lion seeking to devour people. We all believe that. Now the question I have for you is, is Satan bound today, or is Satan not bound today?
When will Satan be bound? And Revelation chapter 20 can help us some, and let's go to Revelation chapter 20, and just let's see some of the vocabulary, then we'll back up a little bit. By the way, if this all goes over your head, get this morning's tape and listen to it over again or something, because we're going to just deal with a few kind of heady things tonight, but I think it's good to think about, because there are friends even in our church, some are pre-mill, some are all mill, and we want to make sure we all get along, but I think it's good to deal with, and I'm not afraid to say that I'm pre-mill, and that's the stance of the church.
But why do we believe these things? Revelation chapter 20, then I saw an angel coming down from heaven holding the key of the abyss. By the way, can anyone tell me the origin of the word abyss or what abyss actually means?
I'll give you a hint. A is an alpha privative. Know what? An abyss has no what? No bottom. That's exactly what the word abyss means. There's no bottom to it. Has nothing to do with the amillennial pre-mill talk, but I just like to know that.
It's kind of like when I learned the word ventriloquist the other day. Loak is from loquacious. We would get a word where you talk. Venter would be a stomach area, and a ventriloquist is one who can speak with his stomach versus speaking with his lips and mouth.
One who speaks with his stomach versus his mouth, I thought, ventriloquist, that's kind of neat. You have to give me a little mercy because I just got home from the funeral and all that. He laid hold of the dragon, which dragon is that?
The serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, threw him into the abyss, shut it, sealed it over him. Same sealed word as we would see in Ephesians chapter one, verse 13 and 14, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer until a thousand years were completed.
After these things, he must be released for a short time. Jump down to verse seven, when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison. Okay, so let me give you, there are many views, but let's give you the two views.
First view, premillennialism, which we would ascribe to at the church. Revelation has 22 chapters, and here's how it would break out. Chapter one is an introduction. Here's who Christ is. Two and three, the seven letters to the church.
Chapter four and five, a view from heaven, because if you realize the tribulation accounts in six through 18, you will say to yourself, how could God be just? And it's as if John wanted to give us a sneak peek of the glory of God and his justice before his wrath is unfurled, that we might have a good view of God, a proper view of God.
So one, the introduction, two and three, we have the letters four and five, a view from heaven, six through 18, tribulation in fairly chronological sequence. There's a couple deviations, 19, second coming, 20, millennial kingdom, 21 and 22, eternal state.
That's premill. Now there's a variety of views for amill, but let me give you the one that's probably the most popular to deal with, and it's called progressive parallelism. And so here's what I want you to do.
I want you to turn your Bible to Revelation chapter three and look at the end. Parallelism is an approach to the book of Revelation to basically, I think, and hear me out, but I think it's a view of Revelation so amillennialists can stay amillennialists.
It had its origin by Taconius, a late fourth century interpreter. He was from Africa. He was a Donatist, and he has this kind of recapitulation theory where there's cycles in the book of Revelation, seven sections, and they run parallel.
And so one to three, we see, and then at the end of chapter three, verse 22, he who has an ear, let him hear what the spirit says to the churches. Now, chapter four, verse one, even though it says, after these things I looked, we go from one through three, and then we start over with some history with another program of four to seven.
So now we go from four to seven. Let's just look at the end of chapter seven. For the lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd, will guide them to the springs of the water of life, and God will wipe away every tear.
And so we have the, that's the second section. One to three is the first. Four to seven is the second. Then there's eight through 11, 12 through 14. You don't have to write any of this down. And by the way, you're probably not.
Twelve to 14, 15 to 16, 17 to 19, and 20 to 22. Anthony Hakama, an Amillinius, describes this progressive parallelism like this, quote, according to this view, the book of Revelation consists of seven sections which run parallel to each other, each of which depicts the church and the world from the time of Christ's first coming to the time of his second.
So chapter one early is his first coming, at the end of three, second coming. Four to seven, first coming, second coming. Eight to 11, first coming, second coming, and down we go. If you go to chapter 20 then, William Hendrickson, a scholar whom I have a lot of respect for, but would disagree with him on this one, says that Revelation chapter 20, since this is where the cycle begins again, is the first coming of Christ.
This is the first coming of Christ in Revelation chapter 20 where Satan is bound. William Cox, an Amillinius, would say, quote, of this chapter, having bound Satan, our Lord ushered in the millennial kingdom of Revelation 20.
This is with the first coming. This millennial commenced at the first advent and will end at the second coming being replaced by the eternal state. Cox says, quote, Satan now lives on probation until the second coming.
So here's where the rub is. If you believe that we're in the millennial kingdom now, where Christ is reigning through his church, then Satan has to be bound because Amill and Premill would believe that Satan has to be bound, so he must be bound now.
In what way is he bound? Well, all kinds of things are happening and even Cox recognizes that he does something, so now he's just on a probation. He says, but while he is bound, Satan is no longer to prevent the spread of the gospel nor is he able to destroy the church.
They would say that this is not the final punishment of Satan, just a figurative description of the way Satan's activities are being curbed during this age. Now my question is this, if Satan is a roaring lion seeking he who he may devour, how is he curbed?
How is he on probation? How is he on this long leash? Now here's my question to you. Look at Revelation chapter 20 and you can't see the two words that begin the Greek sentence, but these two words are found eight times in Revelation 19 through 22, kai, I don, and they mean and I saw.
You just see then I saw in New American Standard. Let me show you all the places in chapter 20, 19 and 20, 21 and 22 where we see these words kai, I don. Chapter 19 verse 11 and if you're checking out now, hang in for another 10 minutes, we'll go have ice cream.
Some of you really want to hear this, some of you don't. This is an in-house debate, but I wanted to address it and now you can probably figure out why I didn't do it on Sunday morning. The question is, will there be Christ reigning on earth for a literal thousand years in the future or is he reigning on earth now?
That's the question. The first was premill, the second was amill. 1911, and I saw. 1917, and I saw. 1919, and I saw, kai, I don. New section 20, and I saw, doesn't sound like for those that think this goes back to the first coming now with this progressive parallelism that we shoot all the way back to the beginning, and I saw.
Verse four, and I saw. It seems like this formula he's using gives chronological manner to this. Chapter 20 verse 11, and I saw a great white throne in a great chronological manner. And then lastly, 21, one, and I saw.
And certainly even the Amillenius would think that part's progression because it fits in the system. Now here's my question. If you sit down and read the Bible, would you ever come up with the system that says I will read one to three, four to seven, eight to 11, all the way down to 20 to 22 as cycles from the first coming to the second coming within one to three, first coming to second coming from four to seven, first coming to second coming within eight to 11, and then all the way through to first coming and second coming in 20 through 22?
What is the intent of the author? If I gave this to someone who had never read the Bible before, my brother-in-law, Steve Duncan calls this the blue collar method of interpretation, that if I give this to somebody who is just a blue collar worker and say read this, my question to you is would they ever in their wildest dreams come up with one to three cycle, four to seven cycle, eight to 11 cycle, and then 20 to 22 cycle, and somehow think this abyss and this dragon in chapter 20 are the first coming?
I don't think they would. I think the only way you can do that is if you have a presupposition theologically because you realize if I do believe this is the millennial kingdom in the future, I'm in trouble because I'm no longer an amillennialist.
I'm an amillennialist. The presupposition drives the interpretation, and beloved, if we do anything in this church, it's try to make our presuppositions enforced on the text. Even the amillennial scholar Hokema said, quote, if then one thinks of Revelation 20 as describing what follows chronologically, and I saw, after what is described in chapter 19, one would indeed conclude that the millennium of Revelation 20 will come after the return of Christ.
He knows that. Chapter 19, second coming. How can we say first coming in chapter 20 where that starts up the cycle again? Now the amillennialist would say Satan is unable to deceive the nations as he did in the first coming, but he's still active.
Still active. How can he be still active when you look at the text? Chapter 20, in verses 1 and 2, bound, great chain, abyss, shut, sealed, abyss acts as a prison. Chapter 20, verse 7. The scholar Mounce, who is not in my theological end times cap, said, the elaborate measures taken to ensure his Satan's custody are most easily understood as implying the complete cessation of his influence on earth.
As one man would say, if Satan is bound now, if Satan is bound now, how can he do all these things now? Let me flip around the other way. If God is reigning on the earth through his church now, he must not be doing a very good job.
When you look at the binding language, you never see this binding where it's partially bounded. Let me give you an example. Isaiah 24, 21 and following. Confined in prison, after many days they will be punished like prisoners in a dungeon.
The moon will be abashed and the sun ashamed, et cetera, et cetera. I see Satan as not bound now because he's the God of the world blinding people. He's prowling around like a roaring lion. He's able to fill the heart of Ananias.
He can thwart the work of God's ministers, 1 Thessalonians 2. He can be told by John, the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. Wayne Grudem said, the theme of Satan's continual activity on earth throughout the church age makes it extremely difficult to think that Satan has been thrown into the bottomless pit.
But the Amillennius would report, retort, Matthew 12, 29 says, how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property unless he first binds the strong man and then he will plunder his house.
In other words, they'll say, well, what about Jesus' first coming? What about that? Two saints said Jesus did not say he has bound Satan at his first coming or is even in the process of doing so. He simply sets the principle before the Pharisees.
His works testify to his ability to bind Satan and therefore they attest to his power to establish the kingdom. Matthew 12, 29 does not teach that Satan has been bound. It just talks about God is able to do that.
You say, well, look at Revelation 12, chapter 9. Let's go there. We're almost done. Revelation 12, 9. What do we do? What do we do there when the Amillennials say, hey, here's where I go to try to make my case?
Revelation 12, 9. And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called devil and Satan. By the way, this is within the pattern. Chapter 12 starts a new progressive parallelism and so this is his first coming which would equal Revelation 20 in a sense for the timing of the first coming.
So here's what happened to the first coming. The great dragon, this is what they say happened in the first coming, the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan who deceives the whole world.
He was thrown down to the earth and his angels were thrown down with him. What does the text say? Revelation 12, 9 says Satan was thrown down from heaven to the earth. But in Revelation chapter 20, it can't be the same thing because Revelation 20, 1 to 3, he's taken from the earth to the abyss.
Secondly, Revelation 12, 9, his activities including the deception of the nations continue while in Revelation 20, 1 to 3, his activities are completely shut up and sealed and he's in the abyss. My question as I wrap this up, does the binding of Satan described in Revelation 20 accurately describe Satan's condition today?
And the answer is absolutely not. And the way you can be an amillennialist is you have to do this to Revelation. But I would just say if you read Revelation, ask what the author's intent is, I don't know how you can get there.
Now the amillennialists have good questions for me elsewhere in the Bible but I'll always go back to Revelation chapter 20 because it's the hardest for them to argue. I'm not stupid. Why would I go to something hard for me to argue?
But Revelation chapter 20, when you read the text, any basic hermeneutic around outside of a hermeneutic that says grammatical, historical, theological, you read the text and you say, I just see the flow and I saw, and I saw, and I saw.
Here's chapter 1 who the churches are, 6 to 18 the tribulation, 19 the second coming, 20 the millennial kingdom, 21 and 22 the eternal state versus this whole thing that goes around and around and around.
The church fathers never made that up, you wouldn't make that up, and the person who made it up was a guy named Adonitus but also a guy named Augustine who helped promote that as well. Now my amillennialist friends don't like it when I say to them, you broke from Rome soteriology so now break from their eschatology.
But here's what I want them to do, I want them to read Revelation 20 without their amillennial presuppositions and they like hokuma will say, this has got to be after, and I saw, and I saw, Matthew 12 doesn't equal Revelation 20 and we believe at the church, and we will love to keep you if you have disagreements with us, but we believe at the church that Jesus Christ will return on earth, literally in a body, for a literal thousand years, he will reign on this kingdom for a literal thousand years and then the eternal state will be ushered in, and I would submit to you all when you read the book of Revelation, you cannot come up with that Adonitus cycle unless you're an amillennialist who has to force it because you have presuppositions theologically.
What good, what reason do we have to argue all this stuff, what if we're just a layman, what if we don't care, these things I think are good to address and they're good to come up with. Here's my challenge to you as a congregation, would you read the book of Revelation this week and just read through it and look for all the time markers, the time markers this, then this, then this, then this, and I think you'll see that you're going to have to come up with a different view of Revelation 19 and 20 because you're going to see the chronological tie-in.
All right, I'm hungry for ice cream, we could talk about it offline sometime, we won't debate amill, premill now, but I think Revelation 20 is what I'm waiting to see someone come up with a convincing argument and if they do for Revelation 20, I might become amillennial.
One of the things I like to do is I have amillennial commentaries and I like to look at Revelation chapter 20 and most amillennialists can't even agree because you have to go to figurative language and you have to go to these cycles and that doesn't make their system wrong.
I just will read the text and if you read it grammatically historically, you will not come up with that system unless you already have the system where Jesus has to be reigning now on earth and then fit it into Revelation 20 and the only way you can fit it in is 1 to 3, 4 to 7, 5 to 8, etc., etc. to 20 to 22 and you have to make Matthew 12 have happened at the incarnation and it doesn't say it's happened.
You have to make Revelation chapter 12 equal Revelation 20 and it doesn't happen and so therefore I believe that Christ will return a literal thousand years, he'll reign on this earth and then the eternal state but there are men like James White and others who disagree with me but even James White is wrong on Revelation 20 and he's a good guy and we're not all right, we're all in process but the church in terms of what we believe and what we teach is a millennial kingdom in the future and for those who disagree with me, I just want to be shown from Revelation 20 and then we'll go elsewhere and we'll be fine.
Speaking of elsewhere, let's just stand please and let's just sing a song of praise to God and then we'll go have some ice cream and we can talk over the finer nuances of amillennialism. I'm sure I will hear from some of you that you're glad I didn't do that on Sunday morning and you're saying, what is that guy saying?
By the way, if you hear a theological word on Sunday night that you don't understand then what you need to do is get from Nate at the book ministry, he does a great job with the book ministry, it's called theological isms.
When there's a big word, a guy in Texas used to go home, study that word, write it down and then he came up with a whole book of the big words and so when I used to sit and listen to words that I didn't know in church, I didn't do this, I can't believe he's saying another big word and forget that, I don't like big words and I'm a monosyllabic guy and forget that.
No, I wanted to learn. If you're the type of person when you read a book and you see a word in the dictionary and a word in the book that you don't know, I hope you're the kind of person that gets a dictionary and looks it up because you can't stand it, you must know.
Same thing theologically, there's no rejoicing to be found in this ignorance when we have all these tools. We want to know and some things are more scholarly, I understand, but we want to just dig into the word of God.
What song should we sing? What's 376? I have decided to follow Jesus? No, let's not do that, let's, 399? All right, let's sing 399. Who wants it? What? Higher ground, you want to do that? Is that amillennial version or what?
Is that a real?