--------

Tuesday Report

Subject: On the Tactical moves of preaching the Word

(Tuesday, April 26, 2011)

(approx. 7395 words, 13 pp.)

What really matters in life? Part IX

(or)

(or)

(and)

(or)

Let us now move on to more of the practical tactical failings of the literal spiritual City of God in history, and why the actual (evangelical) Church has not been getting the victory in its efforts to win the lost and evangelize the world and in doing so defeat, as it were, the false "light" and false "reason" of humanism and Liberalism if not the outright irrational, immoral, rebellious, and deceptive demonic forces of Satan himself.

Let us re-call the two questions we have started looking at in this tactical series have been: 1.) Is there truly new spiritual life in Christ? and 2.) If so, how do you get it, quite really, literally, and practically in our own lives and society? We called these two questions tactical questions, which followed what we called our two original larger bigger strategic questions of: 1.) Is there a Biblical God of the Bible, quite literally in heaven, and 2.) Did Christ die on the cross for our sins and rise again? The strategic questions are, in effect, whether the general Christian cosmology is true from the Creation to the Final Judgment, Reasonably speaking, and the tactical questions are, if so, how do we get into this reconciliation with the Father, new spiritual life in Christ and indwelling holy Spirit?

With the Renaissance and certainly by the time of the materialist humanist Enlightenment of the 18th century, the outright materialist humanist came to assume there was no God at all and therefore, that, the Bible was essentially, and necessarily, mostly a mythology of the Hebrews, just as all people groups of the world tend to have their own mythology. In essence, the Christian cosmology of the West collapsed for most "intellectuals" and, further, virtually all religions, Christian, Hebrew or otherwise came to be seen as "superstition" by the materialist humanist or, that is, all religions, including Bible Christianity, were assumed to be based on "superstition" supposedly, and not "Reason."

On the other hand, while the modern Liberal religious person tended to accept much of this analysis (indeed, these assumptions of the materialist humanist), the religious Liberal still sought to have or keep a general "spirituality" to life, as reflected (supposedly) in virtually all religions without being concerned about the literal truth claims of the Bible or the moral truth claims of the Bible, nor the historical reality or accuracy of the Bible, nor the Covenant reality of the Bible, nor the theological nature of God as depicted in the Bible generally and in Genesis 1:1, in particular, as the literal Creator. This move of the religious Liberal (in the 18th and 19th centuries) came to change the fundamental role of religious and philosophical theism in the West in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Prior to the 19th and 20th centuries in the West we had, for better or worse, three major forms of moral theism, and all three were based on the Bible. They were conservative Judaism, conservative Roman Catholicism, and some form of conservative Evangelical (or personal faith) Protestant Christianity. All 3 of these moral theisms agreed on the religious/ spiritual problem humankind faces, namely, there is a literal all-righteous Creator God to whom we are morally accountable in this life and the next (to the degree there is life after death). And the Bible was seen to be essentially and fundamentally true and inspired, though the Jewish believer did not accept the New Testament, of course.

And, in fact, in America prior to the 20th century, and in Europe prior to the materialist humanist Enlightenment of the 18th century (better called the humanist or atheist Benighten-ment supposedly based on "Reason"), almost everyone fell into one of these conservative morally theistic camps, though there was without question a smattering of universalists, Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists or, that is, materialist humanists. However, with the rise of religious Liberalism or ecumenicalism in mainline Protestantism (with so-called "higher criticism" in the 19th century), and with Vatican II in Roman Catholicism (in the 1960s), and with the rise of Reform Judaism (in the 19th and 20th centuries), this problem of reconciliation to God was, as a general statement, no longer seen to be the central problem of religion, rather the religious problem of mankind became how do we unify all the religions of man in their supposedly similar and true essence or nature?

Ecumenical and Liberal thru and thru

As is often pointed out, this spiritual Liberalism (in the 19th and 20th centuries) generally became a supposed general brotherhood of man coupled with the reality of a supposed universal "spirituality" as "God," but not necessarily a God, as such, because all traditions cannot agree on who "God" is, specifically or definitionally. Eventually, to be totally gender neutral, the brotherhood of man became the oneness of humanity, or something similar, and "ecumenicalism" becomes a spiritual oneness with "Being" itself as God (supposedly) and, hence, we were to seek personally our own oneness with Being or the One, or something similar.

Clearly this baloney is a religious humanism of sorts where the religious problem of mankind or humankind is no longer, primarily, moral separation from God, and indeed there is no actual, specific, conscious, Creator God or specific Being/ "Person" in heaven, of Genesis 1:1 to be reconciled with anyway, nor who is capable of doing the supernatural. And it generally does not matter if one is Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish in one's ecumenicalism. The central problem of religion was (increasingly in the 20th century) now no longer seen to be moral reconciliation to God (by works or faith).

So, for the Liberal the moral truth of the Bible became, in essence, false at worst and irrelevant at best, as did most of the historical truth, which became mostly "mythology," and the theological doctrinal truth on the nature of God as a specific Conscious all-righteous, Creator, Who is omnipotent, omniscient and ever-present Being, was lost for a vague spirituality of oneness and tolerance and so forth.

Theological Liberalism which tends to be an ecumenicalism of all religions is remarkably similar to ancient Gnosticism which was also amoral, ahistorical, and agnostic in effect, with its "God" of "one-ness" and mere "spirituality" and "supposed" consciousness of the "spiritual" and "religious," and so forth. However, neither "one-ness" nor mere "spirituality" are historical definitions of God, Biblically speaking, though they are found not only in ancient Gnosticism and Christian Liberalism but in New Age thinking and, further, Liberal Judaism is highly condemned in the Old Testament and is, more or less, in the realm of the religious, not merely the moral, what brought about the end of ancient Israel, Judah, Jerusalem! (Check out Jeremiah and Isaiah on the Liberal state of Jewish religion in their day if you doubt this. Peace and safety when there is no peace and safety. By contrast the major problem of Jesus’ day was with the Pharisees/)

Before Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish believers went into Liberalism, they argued and often disagreed strongly on the best or right way to be reconciled to God, but they all tended to agree that was the issue of their 3 different faiths. With the rise and triumph of spiritual Liberalism in Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish circles, moral shortcoming and reconciliation were no longer seen to be the issue nor the problem for the Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish religions, and this, in essence, shelved all of the religious and theological disputes of the previous centuries, as well as all of the historical and Covenant truths of the Bible. Why? Because none of these questions are relevant to a religious Liberalism, where the central question is one of spiritual oneness and tolerance, and not moral truth, theological truth, historical truth, covenant truth, and so forth.

By contrast, the Reformation was not about the truth of Scripture. Everyone at that time agreed the Bible was true, and its morality was true, and its history was true; rather the issues of the Reformation were about the Bible as the sole foundation of the Faith, and the role and need of a priesthood, and the means by which one is reconciled to God given the truth of the New Testament, and in fact is there even a state of salvation at all to be had, and so forth. Because of these disputes, the Evangelical developed his central message to be "quit trying to work your way back to God and trust in Jesus" (for a specific state of salvation or reconciliation and regeneration, etc.). This is, or can be, a wonderful message (no doubt), but it only makes sense if one has a culture or society or a medieval Catholicism where almost everyone is indeed, presumably, working hard to try to get back to God in the first place in order to stop trying to so work in the second place.

But, given the rise of spiritual Liberalism throughout the entire culture, today the message of the Reformation is almost totally and completely irrelevant for our society, though most Evangelicals still preach it, that is, quit "working" and start "trusting," etc. Why is this message, not false, but mostly irrelevant for us today? "Working one’s way back to God" is simply not the issue or theological problem of our time. So, this message is almost totally and completely irrelevant! Why?

Because few if any people are trying to work their way back to God in the first place as a general statement of their lost spiritual condition, in order to create a faiths/ works discussion in the second place! Today’s Evangelical Church needs to get into the spiritual battle or ball game of our time, namely, is the strategic Christian cosmology for the Creation to the Final Judgment true, Rationally speaking, and then one can tell the moral God seeker to stop working to reconciliation. But if you tell a lost sinner and lost soul to stop trying to work his way back to God, he will look at you with a puzzled look and say, "Sure , man" or something similar and continue on in his sin? Why? Because the "stop working" has no relevance to him.

But why is no one trying to work their way back to God in our day as they were in the Reformation era? Because we do not believe there is such a morally righteous Creator God in the first place in order to create this discussion or these problems in the second place nor do we believe as a general statement of our culture that the point of religion is to be reconciled to an all-righteous God, let alone somehow to be in literal Covenant with Him!

Or, to put it another way, the book of Galatians addresses issues virtually identical to the problems of the Reformation. The book of Galatians is a wonderful book of the New Testament, and, of course, the specific problems it was addressing on works are still true and valid, but it is not what is relevant or needed in our time, which has its own set of problems. Each generation of the Church has some given set of issues to face, and our problem is not really primarily the issues of grace and salvation by faith and so forth, although these are very valid theological points.

If there is no grace of God, and if there are no tender mercies of God, and if there is no Abba Father relationship, there is no reason to even bother with Christianity!!! Right? Right!!! But what did Jesus say? "Don’t throw your pearls before swine!" Meaning? You have to have the appropriate message for the situation or problem or audiences at hand, and these vary in cultures, history, eras, and so forth. And the problems of Galatians in chapter 3 and the Reformation (salvation by faith) are just one potential set of problems the Christian evangelist may face, and in fact just one set of problems in the New Testament!

The point is the modern (evangelical) Church was certainly born in the Reformation, but it, today, is often stuck in the Reformation and the issues of the Reformation, and not addressing the New Testament issues of our time. The issues of our time are atheism/ humanism with an accompanying moral relativism in education, Liberalism in the Church (changing the strategic cosmology), and moral decline in the society at large and a rejection of the given reality of God and the Natural Revelation. The Roman Catholic Church had lost the major truth of the Bible faith and the Christian Faith in the Reformation era for their own supposed authority by the traditions of men, but a state of reconciliation of God by faith is not the major issue of our time, rather it is atheism, moral decline, and the Great Apostasy of spiritual Liberalism (of no salvation is even necessary supposedly).

Look at it this way, if you were preaching in Sodom and Gomorrah before their destruction, should "grace" be your sermon topic? Hardly! Was grace and the love of God the message of Jonah to Nineveh? I don’t think so! Again, if you tell such lost people in those circumstances only about the love and grace of God without any need for repentance, what would they say? "Great! Super!" and they would continue about their business, and unrighteous ways! Further, it would be overtly silly to tell such folks to stop trying to work their way back to God! How ridiculous! They would have no idea what you are talking about, since the thought of working your way back to God has never entered their minds in the first, in order to start working in the second place, and, hence, in order to stop working in the third place!!!

But, you say, "If atheists and Liberals are not trying to ‘work their way back to God,’ are, say, Hindus?" Sort of, but not really. Hindus are rather trying, endlessly, to placate demon spirits, quite literally, and unsuccessfully. However, the Hindu is not so much deceived about morality, but about the spiritual truth of the Gospel, as is the Liberal. The spiritual Liberal is "religious" but not working his way back to an all-righteous God but rather deceived, and this deception of a no-Judging God is the religious issue of our time, the same way the Reformation had its big issue of "salvation by faith," about which the book of Galatians has a great deal to say, but the Bible also has a great deal to say about spiritual Liberalism in both the Old and New Testament, and this was not really the issue of the Reformation, but it is clearly the issue for us within the Evangelical Church today. (Hello?)

There may be no better statement of the total Christian faith for the conservative religious life and mind than Galatians!! Not only a finished state of salvation as such (by faith), but regeneration as now spiritual sons and daughters of God, and an Abba Father relationship (and experience), and life in (the Way of) the Spirit. Get back!!! But, quite simply, Liberalism, the religious crisis of our time, is not the theme of Galatians. So, for Liberalism, if not Galatians, what then? Do the Old and New Testaments address the problem of spiritual Liberalism? Yes, let me count the ways!!! But first what is spiritual Liberalism? It is there is no all-righteous conscious Creator God to Whom we are to be reconciled and with Whom we are in literal covenant, and Who has revealed himself thru history, Moses, the prophets, Christ, the Apostles, etc.!

Liberalism is a "spirituality," but it denies the theological truth of God’s nature and reality, the moral truth of the Bible, and the literal historical covenant truth of the Bible from Abraham to Moses to the Resurrection! For the Christian Liberal, the Resurrection is true only in our hearts, as are virtually all miracles of the Bible, as well as generally all major historical truths, such as God’s literal interaction with Abraham.

And, of course, there is for the Liberal no literal God of Genesis 1:1 to create everything and make the miracles happen (that is, do the so-called "supernatural"), and also make the historical and moral truths possible, which would all be pretty easily possible if a such literal God of Genesis 1:1 exists, which of course He doesn’t for the Liberal in the first place, in order to be all-righteous in the second place, in order to have a reconciliation problem in the third place, and in order to have actual Covenants made with actual historical figures, etc., etc.

So, what do the Old and New Testaments have to say about this great crisis, apostasy, and actual spiritual deception of our time as supposed "truth"? A great deal! In the Old Testament Isaiah, perhaps the greatest of Prophets, says, essentially, immorality (personally, in business and in government) and false spirituality are the two things that are going to bring down Jerusalem, and they do. Isaiah 30:10 says the people say prophesy smooth things not the righteous truth of God. Paul says exactly the same thing of a spiritually false Christianity in 2 Timothy 4:3-4, of people who heap up spiritual teachers who will "tickle their ears" with, in effect, smooth words.

These are not obscure passages but rather the themes of these texts and books of the Bible. Paul takes the gloves off, and says outright these particular false teachings are "doctrines of demons," no less (1 Timothy 4:1), and hence, spiritual deception, not just in doctrine but experience! And they are false religious experiences of "Peace, peace, when there is no peace" says Jeremiah. Further Satan can disguise himself as a Angel of Light (2 Corinthians 11:14) or, in essence, a false "Good" or have another "Gospel" with another "Jesus." (2 Corinthians 11:4) Again, it is all a spiritual, intellectual and religious deception.

I have heard seemingly endless Liberals get up in our time and preach the purpose, even definition, of true Christianity is "open-minded tolerance." Really? This is not the historical faith of Protestants and Catholics nor of the Old Testament, and there is hardly even a remote passage to quote for this supposed new Liberal definition and point of Christianity, specifically. This is not only false but ridiculous. But Liberals tend to hold that all religions are essentially the same and that they are just different mythological stories about some unspecified supposedly ultimate spiritual reality that is behind all existence. And this ultimate spiritual reality they call "God" or the One or the All or Being itself or something like that. Again, this is just a flatly ridiculous re-definition of God and a sort of an irrational "love is all you need" Christianity, which is said to dominate almost all mainline seminaries today along with an accompanying or supposedly justifying "higher criticism."

I personally have lost all patience with this radical, irrational Liberalism. There are said to be many mainline seminaries which do not have a single Bible-believing professor! I heard a Liberal preacher get up recently and preach a message to atheists. He said, "Do you ever wonder what ‘people of faith’ are about?" Not Bible-believing faith, nor even Christian "faith" but people of any faith, whether Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, Catholic, Jewish, etc. This was a mainline Protestant denomination church, and the pastor was trying to get people to join his church, and he said, more or less, "I want to assure you that the reality of the spiritual is real, and I want you to join our church or fellowship, etc." Ridiculous!

This is not the Gospel, which is based on the literal death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for our sins so we can enter into new spiritual life with God in Covenant with Him and with new hearts for Him, and so forth. I, personally, was connected with a mainline seminary 35 or so years ago, and as best I could tell much of that seminary did not believe a word of the Bible, morally, theologically, nor historically. But everyone was very "spiritual," because they believed in the reality of the "spiritual" but not in the moral and spiritual and historical truth of the Bible, as such! But, at that time, I must say, a few professors, more generally, were still Bible-believers, but very few, as best I could tell.

A simple example of atheist vs. Liberal, and why bother to be a spiritual Liberal?

A simple example on the differences between an atheist/ humanist, a Bible Christian, and a Liberal: the atheist reads the Bible and says, "Yes, the Old and New Testaments clearly condemn homosexuality, and indeed any sex outside of marriage, but as an atheist I do not accept this condemnation as coming from God, since I don’t believe in God." Right? Yes, he does this. But the Bible-believing Christian reads the Bible and says, "Yes, the Old and New Testaments clearly condemn homosexuality, etc., and indeed any sex outside of marriage, and as a Bible-believer I do accept this condemnation as coming from God because I do believe in the God of the Bible."

Very simple, here, folks. But the spiritual Liberal reads the same passages and refuses to acknowledge what is clearly being said (rightly or wrongly) by the Bible because it does not fit into his spiritual Liberalism. But the Liberal does the same thing with virtually all of the major truths of the Christian faith and the Bible (in a clearly postmodern manner), whether moral or theological or historical truths. Indeed, that is generally the point of his "Liberalism." The Bible is for the Liberal not true or false, but rather the words mean something other than what they clearly state.

Another example: Scripture clearly teaches the bodily Resurrection of Christ. The atheist concedes that is clearly what the Bible teaches, but he doesn’t accept it because he is an atheist. But whether the bodily Resurrection is true or false, there is no other way to read the text! But the Liberal does! Why? Because the bodily Resurrection does not fit in with his spiritual Liberalism.

The Liberal will not (as Paul says) "endure sound doctrine" and clear Biblical doctrine. Why not? He is a Liberal, and he even defines himself as not being a Bible-believing Christian! The atheist is, at least, in good faith! He says, "The heck with the whole thing," but he does not try to make the text mean something it clearly is not saying so he can have a religious (and non-Biblical) spirituality, and go to "church," etc. Why bother?

In my opinion, the same error holds for Reform Judaism, but no reason to go there here, and to a degree even Vatican II Roman Catholicism, but this is hardly even scratching the surface of the truth of all Christianity! I have never done a study, but I would venture to say most of the New Testament is written about problems of a false spirituality with "another Gospel" and "another Jesus" and "Satan as an angel of light," and mistaking Christian liberty for moral license and on and on, and not about the faith/ works issue with no real salvation of Galatians and the Reformation, etc. Even Vatican II, in effect, concedes the Roman Catholic Church was flat wrong in the Reformation.

The Bible says the atheist (whether modern or ancient) is mostly just a "fool" or even morally depraved. "The fool has said in his heart there is no GOD." In denying God’s existence, professing to become wise, they became fools, and GOD gave them over to a reprobate mind, or, that is, to being totally (morally) depraved, and they called evil good says Paul and says Isaiah, no less! This is the substance of the moral, theological and spiritual truth of the Bible as well as the central set of problems of our time.

Yes, the outright atheist is deceived in the sense of being foolish, but more than anything he is blind and in denial and in a state of darkness about the reality of God and morality, Rationally speaking, as Justin Martyr asserts. However, the Liberal is more deceived outright with a false spirituality (and not in denial with no spirituality at all, as the atheist). The Liberal has a false non-Biblical spirituality and a false non-Biblical morality of one-ness and tolerance as "truth" and as the supposed real thing. Why? He’s deceived about spiritual matters and not in denial of the spiritual as the outright atheist. And the Bible says the Liberal is deceived literally by demons. What does this mean? Who really knows!

Further, the Liberal’s theology is based on a very few passages of the Bible which he has to twist into a pretzel to support his position. For example, Jesus prayed that we might all be one. But that does not mean one in absolute tolerance, but (obviously) "one" in the Faith. Well, what is the Faith? Jesus died on the Cross for our sins in order to reconcile us to God and give us new spiritual life in Him with a new heart to God and an indwelling holy Spirit.

No, says the Liberal, Jesus died on the Cross to reconcile us to each other! This is a nice idea, and it is nice to be reconciled to each other where at all possible says Paul in Romans 12:18, but as the point of the Atonement, it is just ridiculous. The Liberal has, specifically, lost his mind, and not his heart! Almost completely! Again, the atheist does not believe the text, but he concedes its clear meaning.

Certainly joining a Bible-believing Church is joining a spiritual fellowship, but salvation is not primarily about joining a spiritual fellowship, which can mean virtually anything! One is simply not in a New Testament Church unless it is preaching Christian salvation (and such a state of new being), for better or worse, rightly or wrongly. Further, the end-time church is considered to be the Laodicean Church which, again, has (yes, you guessed it) a false spirituality, and though it thinks it is doing fine, Jesus is not even there (he says). This false spirituality is clearly the Great Apostasy of "the end times" before the Kingdom comes.

On the cause and cure of atheism as well as Liberalism: 1.) There is an all-powerful, Creator, all-righteous God of Genesis 1:1, and 2.) the Bible is literally true. Some of the Bible is figurative, of course, some is a matter of interpretation, some miracles can be problematic for us (no doubt), but basically or essentially the Bible is literally true, and there is a literal all-powerful, Creator, all-righteous God of Scripture in heaven. The atheist assumed both of these things were false in the materialist humanist "Enlightenment" of the 18th century but neither was ever proven to be false by Reason.

The spiritual Liberal, in turn, accepted this erroneous analysis of the atheist but wanted to maintain a general ecumenical spirituality that supposedly transcends or encompasses all religions. Even though the Liberal rejected the truth claims of the Bible (moral, historical and theological), he did not want to go into an outright atheism. So throughout the 19th century Liberal theologians started looking for the supposed real or "historical Jesus," not of the (supposedly) essentially mythological Bible. And it was assumed by both atheist and Liberal (as I learned in seminary, more or less) Moses and Abraham, and even David never really existed. Why?

Who is really being Reasonable? The Liberal or Bible believer?

Increasing in the 19th century, virtually no one (in the Old Testament) who cannot be verified outside of Scripture was considered (by the Liberal "higher critic") to be a real historical figure, but rather people of Hebrew mythology. The problem with all of this foundation for humanism and Liberalism is the Old and certainly the New Testament then often became not just myth but actual fraudulent conspiracies on a massive scale. And fraudulent conspiracies often strain credulity more than the text itself being true, especially if there is indeed a real God of Genesis 1:1 which has never been disproved, or anywhere close. And this God of Genesis 1:1 is completely capable of the supernatural. So, end of both atheist and Liberal problems with the Bible!

So the entire edifice of modern humanism and spiritual Liberalism collapses in its unjustified and un-Reasonable rejection of Scripture, and in its unjustified and un-Reasonable rejection of a literal Creator God. Volume after volume after volume of Liberal "scholarship" tends to be on the latest theory of what may and may not be true in the Bible and so deconstructing it, and then there are commentaries on those commentaries and then commentaries on those commentaries, etc., without ever really studying the truth of the text itself and without questioning the whole idea, even assumption, that the text needs to be deconstructed! And then which deconstruction is most correct becomes the substance of a mainline seminary education, except for Catholicism, which is more about passing on and maintaining its specific "Roman Catholic" tradition, as such, faulty though it is and its presumed "apostolic succession," etc., based primarily on the un-Scriptural traditions of men. So, the mainline Protestant as well as Roman Catholic situation is clearly not good, to say the least, and neither is very Reasonable!

The question is among traditional moral theistic positions, Why is Bible Evangelical Christianity different or unique? And the answer is, of course, only Evangelical Christianity, among all religions and even among all varieties of Christianity, explicitly offers the 3 R's of the reconciliation, spiritual re-birth, and personal (Abba Father) relationship. And understanding why this is so will, in essence, answer our two questions in this analysis, namely, Is there truly new spiritual life in Christ? Yes, there is. And if so, how do you get it? By faith, and not running around the block 3 times, etc.

And understanding the 3 R’s will also answer what is the point of the faith! Not to stop trying to please God, but to start trying to please God and to walk in a manner worth of our calling and individual place of service. We are saved and called "unto good works" and into the fellowship of a pleasing relationship with our Abba Father. The "dead works" we repent of or turn from are not "good works"! But rather turn to service to God and from the works of useless religious ritual to bridge the gap to God and supposedly make us right with God in our own faulty righteousness. Many Evangelical churches today teach "salvation by faith" in the atoning work of Christ but few teach "unto good works, in the Spirit, in a manner well-pleasing to God"?

Bottom-line, and it’s a big one, maybe even the big one!!!

Clearly modern Liberal Christianity, which reduces the Gospel and the faith to a mere tolerance and "join our spiritual fellowship" (of Liberalism), is a modern day apostasy, and it is the spiritual issue of our time which will be studied and talked about for centuries, no doubt, but that is not the big issue for us. The big question for us is: Is this modern Liberalism the Great Apostasy, the great "falling away" of Scripture prophecy (of 2 Thessalonians 2:3)? If it is, this is "the end" of the era, and this then signals the end of the Church Age, no? The re-gathering of Israel is also a sign of the end of the age, as is their eventual redemption in Messianic Judaism (as prophesied in Romans 11:26), and equal to these things is a great and almost unprecedented moral decline in society (in our current irrational "postmodernism" and hedonism), all in addition to the corruption of the Christian faith within the Church (or, that is, the great "falling away").

In the Reformation, I think many of the Reformers saw the errors of Medieval Catholicism to be the great end-time apostasy, but clearly it was not, we can say after these five centuries now. But the apostasy of Liberalism, the spiritual crisis of the Church (now Protestant and Catholic, with Vatican II) of our time on earth, may be, indeed presumably is, the Great Apostasy? If so, this could and presumably would kick into motion all the other prophecies of the end of the age. The ancient destruction of Jerusalem in Isaiah prefigures the end-time destruction (of the Day of the Lord), as almost everyone understands, and that era in Isaiah and other prophets was marked by a similar great moral and spiritual/ theological decline, indeed collapse would be a better word?

In the end-times the moral or spiritual decline or collapse brings on the Judgment of God in what is called the great and terrible Day of the Lord in the Old Testament or what is known in the New Testament as the Great Tribulation. The fall and destruction of ancient Israel with a surviving remnant is a pre-figure type of this. It is going to be apparently a pretty intense 3 or 4 years (people speculate, some say longer, some say less) of war, famine, natural disasters, disease, and so forth. Is such a concentrated Judgment of God before a Kingdom Era inevitable in all Scriptural interpretations? No, it is not but the majority of people tend to so read the text.

But even so, regardless if it happens, we will emerge out of it, Scripture says, much as we emerged out of the horrible death and destruction of World War I and the terrible flu epidemic that followed it, and as we emerged out of the great death and destruction of World War II, and then by the Sovereignty of God (the Bible clearly seems to indicate) we will see a great era on earth of peace, justice and righteousness. After World War I, The League of Nations attempted this but failed miserably of course. And the United Nations, which emerged after World War II, has certainly been something of a disappointment, but this next time, by the Spirit of God, not man, we will succeed, presumably, if indeed all this goes down in the coming years, and Jesus even said if these days were not shortened for the elect’s sake, none would survive! And, he also said, "Pray that you are worthy to escape these things coming on earth."

But much more is going on than this!!!

But if this Biblical scenario is true, much more is going on than this!!! We can understand disease, disaster, war, and destruction, even on a worldwide scale, but in the Biblical story, it is in this end-time situation, all taking place within the Sovereignty of God for the planned and foretold story of all creation, that demonic forces are forever bound in the creation to deceive the nations politically (with faulty thinking) no more, except for a brief time after the Millennial Era. This is amazing, from start to finish.

The story all starts with Satan’s rebellion and fall from heaven and goes to man’s fall, and his redemption in Christ, and then to the end of, presumably, all demonic forces not just on earth but in the whole of creation itself?! No small matter, potentially, in this, our time? So, is it "now"? Well, no man knows the day or hour, not even Jesus himself, he says in Matthew, but it could be now, quite possibly, if the false light and apostasy of Christian Liberalism is indeed the end-time great falling way, and the current great moral depravity and insanity of the society generally since the 1960s is the final (humanist/ postmodern) degeneration of man.

People have issues, and some people have more issues than others. (Clearly?) This is the human condition and has been from the very beginning, so much so that we just assume it is part of "normal" life! But, the demonic is not always an all-or-nothing thing. That is, it is not rolling on the floor yelling and screaming, or nothing at all. All sorts of "issues" can be of the demonic, but not only that, people can have issues, congregations can have issues, even entire denominations can have there own issues let alone other religions, or nations and people groups.

Indeed, clear false irrational teachings on essentials (both politically and religiously) are generally known as "doctrines of demons," and further people are said by Paul to be blinded to the truth of the Gospel by demons (see 2 Corinthians 4:4). And when Satan is bound, and presumably his entire host with him, he will "deceive the nations no more." We will, no doubt, still have a fallen nature in need of salvation and regeneration, but the complete insanity, depravity, foolishness, and spiritual blindness of man with his seemingly endless "issues" and nutty "doctrines" or "ideas," both personal and corporate, in war and peace, religion and government, may well be behind us, "forever," no less (except for Satan’s brief release and heyday before the end of the planet).

In the end, without a Great Tribulation the reason we may not have great repentance, revival or awakening in our time to the truth and spiritual reality of the Gospel is because people (humanists, Liberals, non-believers, other religions, etc.) simply do not believe (as a factual matter) that the whole cosmological story of the Gospel (from the Creation of the Final Judgment) is true in the first place in order to enter into the new spiritual life of the salvation covenant in the second place.

That is, almost no one today (who is so-called "educated") thinks it is an actual fact that there is an actual God in heaven Who literally sent his Son to die for our sins and rise bodily again, etc. (let alone an actual Satan, who is deceiving us, to be defeated and bound by casting down every faulty argument, etc.). Again, the humanist and spiritual Liberal do not even think Moses lived and led the people out of Egypt and so forth. However, once the major historical events are conceded to be true, actual events, one gets on a slippery slope to the literal Gospel in the bigger picture, Rationally speaking, and to a real Creator God interacting with man supernaturally and in Covenant relationships through history, Rationally speaking, as well.

So, in summary there are a number of models or scenarios one can use to understand various moves of God in history. One size or model does not fit all. Just as the theological issues of the Reformation are not those encountered in dealing with Liberalism (the Reformation was not over the truth of Scripture but Scripture as sole foundation) so too the Great Awakening or even Nineveh (that is, repentance, revival and reversal in a time of great sin) are perhaps not the model for the end-times, whenever that time may be, but rather the model might be the destruction of ancient Jerusalem with its moral decline and spiritual false religion where there was no repentance and reversal and a Judgment of God falls, accordingly.

Or, similarly, it may all end "as in the days of Noah," Jesus says (Matthew 24:37-38). Adrian Rogers used to say of all man’s futile humanistic efforts to improve things on earth, it may be we are just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and if God does not judge America at this stage, he will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah! In fact, this whole unfolding, if it is occurring now, would be the pre-told story and even (educational) plan for man by God from the very beginning, it seems, does it not?

One way or another, "the reign of Christ for 1000 years" is, essentially, the general triumph of the Gospel (that is a  literal Bible-based, sin-and-salvation Christianity), with an accompanying Logos-based peace, justice, and righteousness in Law and Government for the nations. But (as the Bible says) "before we were afflicted we went astray," and "God was in none of our thoughts," and we did not "acknowledge Him in all our ways," in all we do, etc.

In any case, Devil or no Devil, "to be carnally minded is enmity with God," and we won’t forget that one again? That is for certain? But, presumably, if a Kingdom Era does come, we will have no Tempter, Deceiver, spiritual Adversary or Accuser of the Brethren anymore (personally, in religion, politics or the nations)! Praise God... Satan had a time to play out real evil in the created order of things, but it will be over, presumably. And it was all planned and ordained by God from the very beginning. Amazing, simply amazing. Or maybe this isn’t the end-time, and so we don’t have to worry about it? Or, maybe the irrational Liberal and atheist/ humanist are right, and it is all just "mythology"? Time will tell sooner or later, presumably, if not in our time then a later other?

We could in theory have another Great Awakening in religion as in the 18th century which culminated politically in 1776, and it would be wonderful, no doubt, and such a Great Awakening could culminate this time politically in an actual Logos Kingdom Era based on Rational morality and practicality in Government and Law, and, in truth, in a salvation Christian religion as well, but if this is "it," The Great Apostasy, The Great Falling-Away in the Church, and the ultimate immoral, postmodern that is irrational, hedonistic meltdown in the society, then possibly a massive worldwide Great Awakening to the truth and reality of the Gospel is not going to happen without a Great Tribulation, and the downhill slide will continue not only in the Church but also in education, law and government and in the society more generally, until it starts to rain, so to speak.

The Judgment, in that case, will presumably be unbelievably rough and intense but relatively brief in the big picture of all history. And, if this is the time, there is nothing we can do about any of this, except repent and ride it out since it is all pre-ordained in the story of man from the very beginning, and our great sin will have to be Judged just as in Nineveh’s and in Noah’s day? And when the dust settles, sans Satan, we can get serious about an actual time of peace, justice, and righteousness on earth, and true religion in spirit and truth.... No problem, piece of cake.

THE END

(of the Church Age, presumably or possibly, anyway,

and who would have ever guessed it just a few short weeks ago)