POTTER AND THE CLAY – MOULDING THE SCRIPTURES

Recently the teaching ministry of a particular woman was recommended to the members of a Christian discussion forum, so I read a transcript of one of her sermons based on “The Potter’s House”.
I was interested to see what was said about this topic because the image of the potter and the clay (from Romans 8) is a favourite proof text used by Calvinists.
While she presents some interesting ideas on potters and the use of clay – and even though she makes reference to biblical statements; it seems to me that she merely used the imagery to create her own message. It’s was the common practice of using a “text” as a springboard to present a message that the PREACHER wants to convey rather than taking the biblical text and seeing what IT has to say.To me this was made most clear by her avoidance of the interpretation GOD gives regarding Jeremiah’s observations in the potter’s house. She does make reference to Jeremiah 18 in which God has told Jeremiah to visit the potter – but then she stops after the potter/clay illustration is given. The following verses are not mentioned, and yet these give the very important context to the WHY God sent Jeremiah to observe the potter: and God’s interpretation turns the usual understanding of the story upon its head.
Usually the imagery of the potter and the clay are used to convey the idea that God is in control and that we are merely clay in His hands – subject totally to His will and His purpose for our lives. Some of us He has decided to make into vessels of honour and others He has decided to make as vessels of dishonour. The story is used to show how we have no involvement in our destiny – the potter (God) moulds the clay (us) as He desires.But when we see what God told Jeremiah we get a DIFFERENT picture.
God’s explanation of the potter and the clay shows how the clay (humanity) can change what God had decided. Those who God had determined to punish can avoid that punishment if they repent. Those who God had determined to reward could lose that reward if they turned to disobedience.The illustration shows that the clay can affect the outcome of the potter’s intention and if necessary he will make it into another pot, one different from his first intention.This sermon was a classic example of how to avoid scriptural context to mould God’s word into a form that WE choose to support our favoured theology.

----

Here is the PURPOSE of God’s message about the potter and the clay given in the part of the text that was not addressed in the sermon: Jeremiah 18 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

AM I AN ARMINIAN?

For most of my Christian life I was unaware of both Calvinism and Arminianism and the conflict between those different theologies.
My first knowledge of Calvinism came through participation on an internet forum; and I couldn’t believe that any professing Christian could believe such things about the God I’d grown to know over the previous 30 years.

Arminianism remained out of the picture until I started to be labelled as an Arminian by the Calvinists I was increasingly coming into contact with. While some used the label reasonably benignly, as if it was merely an alternative to their personal preference for Calvin; others used it as an accusation, as if an “Arminian” was something to be loathed.

From the first time I was identified as an “Arminian” I have objected to the label. Having not even heard of Arminius to that point, I knew that I was not a follower of the man or his doctrine. However, considering the number of times I was being associated with his teaching I eventually decided to find out more about him.

While I still object to be labelled as an “Arminian”, it is not because I have an objection to Arminius or his basic theology. My brief investigation into this matter has introduced me to some very worthwhile blogs associated with Arminian teachings. Through reading some of the articles I have been surprised how much I can identify and agree with their ideas and understanding. I have provided links to some of these on the sidebar.
In my previous blog entry I addressed my concerns about the use of none biblical “theological terminology”. That would perhaps be my main disagreement with the Arminian writers on the recommended blogs.
My experience with both charismanic and highly traditional churches has shown me how dangerous mans’ traditions can be, so I have a strong aversion to teachings that rely too much on sources other than the scriptures (this includes the use of non-biblical theological terminology). If these sources become too influential, then it becomes likely that we start to interpret scripture according to those sources rather than vice versa.

I was becoming increasingly discouraged by the apparently increasing influence of Calvinist thought among the Christians with whom I’ve come into contact in recent months. My first real contact with “Arminian” believers has given me a great deal of encouragement and I look forward to keeping up to date with their blog contributions.

At the moment I have the enjoyment of reading through some of their archived articles. One I found particularly interesting was “ON THEOLOGY” by Billy Birch found at the following link:

http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-theology.html

His point about valid theology bringing glory to God draws a clear distinction between the Arminian and Calvinist views.

Description or Definition? :Terminology’s Effect on Theology

I have a particular aversion to non-biblical terminology being used to describe biblical beliefs. I think inevitably that such terminology will begin to DEFINE our beliefs instead of merely describe them.
Take the phrase “Total Depravity” – to the Calvinist this means a total inability to respond to God prior to regeneration. It goes much further than describing man’s separation from God due to a sinful nature.
The Arminian understands the term in a different way, allowing the sinner to believe in God PRIOR to regeneration in response to the Holy Spirit’s conviction through the hearing of the gospel.*
As far as I’ve been able to determine – both theologies believe in man’s “total depravity”, but their definitions of the term are significantly different.

Personally I prefer to have man’s condition described as being: “bound over to disobedience” as per Romans 11. At least with the biblical definition there is a scriptural context revealing the reason for and the effect of man’s condition.

Rom 11:32 “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
The context reveals that man’s condition is not intended to be a totally exclusive state for anyone – but its intention is to place ALL on a level playing field with God, so that ALL may have to opportunity to benefit from God’s mercy.

Therefore which description BEST describes man’s condition and God’s response to man’s condition? Total depravity or “bound over to disobedience”? Which (in context) leaves less room for ambiguity?

Another term I’ve come across recently is “prevenient grace”. Does this not create the error of dividing God’s grace into categories or different levels, one result being the erroneous concept of “irresistible grace”?

Maybe if we stick as closely to possible to biblical language to describe biblical concepts, we would be less likely to introduce so many of man’s assumptions into our doctrine: assumptions that arise from our choice of terminology rather than the text of scripture.

----------------
*At least this is my current understanding of the Arminian belief. I’ve had little contact with Arminian theology until very recently.

SEEK MAN OR SEEK GOD?

In recent weeks in various places I have written of the need to search the scriptures and seek the Holy Spirit’s teaching ABOVE the teachings and traditions of men.

Without exception – every time I’ve written of the need, I’ve had people saying things like:

1) I’m abandoning accountability
2) I think I have a monopoly on the truth
3) I’m expecting others to adopt my beliefs
4) I’m arrogant
5) I’m a lone ranger Christian

These are only a sample of the comments I’ve received.
I am wondering why people are so challenged by the thought of seeking God for themselves through His word and Spirit rather than turning immediately to men for their teaching.

Aren’t we taking a big risk if we put our trust primarily in men’s teaching? Wouldn’t it be much more profitable if we took more responsibility and made more of an effort to search the scriptures for ourselves BEFORE we seek the opinions of men?

Have we fallen too far into the mindset of a clergy/laity division that we always need to look for a man of “learning” to teach us? Did the Lord provide the scriptures only for the scholars? Do we need to consult an academic in order to find understanding from the Bible?

Take a look sometime at the controversies that rage throughout the “church” and see how many of them result from arguments arising from human theological reasoning. Do any of them originate from the scriptures alone (when the scriptures are taken in context)? How many of those arguments rage around selected proof texts, with one side quoting one set of verses and the other side quoting another set?

Why is it so threatening to suggest that we can seek God’s revelation PERSONALLY rather than rely on a scholarly or theological intermediary?

And before the opposing voices start building their straw men again, let me state clearly that fellowship and discussion with other SPIRIT LED believers is an essential part of our lives.
As we each search the scriptures for ourselves; as we each seek the Holy Spirit’s revelation; together we can encourage each other. The Holy Spirit’s teaching will be consistent and complimentary. There will be no contradiction. So in fellowship, as we are led more and more by the Spirit, we’ll move more and more in agreement.
Where disagreements rage – somewhere there is a failure to follow the Spirit’s leading.

Often when disagreements arise, peace is made by “agreeing to disagree” – but is that a satisfactory solution?
Why not agree to seek the Lord to reveal the truth? Do we think He’s incapable of doing so?

“THE LIMITS of GOD'S GRACE” by David Servant

The greatest tragedy today is that so many are trusting in a grace that God has never offered to anyone. We are indeed saved by grace—but it is a grace that offers us an opportunity to repent and become committed disciples who love God with all our hearts and keep His commandments. God’s grace forgives and transforms those who truly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

From “The Limits of God’s Grace” by David Servant
https://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/e_teachings/2005_02


----

I think this article by David Servant has relevance to the questions I asked in the previous post (found immediately below)

LIVING ACCORDING TO GOD'S WILL?

How far away from living “TOTALLY according to God’s will” can we be before it becomes a serious issue regarding our relationship with God?

Is it ok to be living 90% “according to God’s will”, or 70%? How about 50% - is that an acceptable pass mark?
OR are we totally incapable of living “according to God’s will” at all?

Is God’s will so far beyond our capabilities that even the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit aren’t enough to bring us into line and to equip us to live according to His will?

Does it matter whether we live “TOTALLY according to God’s will” or not? Does God overlook our disobedience all together or does He expect something more of us after we’ve been blessed by His gracious gift of salvation?

PREDESTINATION?

CALVIN'S CAMELS

Another recommended article:

“Calvin’s Camels” by David Cloud


Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!



INTRODUCTION
Having read John Calvin’s Institutes and having studied the writings of many Calvinists both ancient and contemporary, I am convinced that Calvin was guilty of straining at gnats and swallowing camels. To accept Calvinism (in any of its forms) is to deny the plain teaching of dozens of Scriptures.

I have examined Calvinism many times during the 32 years since I was saved. The first time was shortly after I was converted, when I was in Bible College, and Calvinism was one of the many topics that were strenuously discussed by the students. I had never heard of Calvinism before that and I didn’t know what to think of it, so I read Arthur Pink’s The Sovereignty of God and a couple of other titles on the subject with a desire to understand it and to know whether it was scriptural or not. Some of the students became Calvinists, but I concluded that though Calvinism makes some good points about the sovereignty of God and though I personally like the way it exalts God above man and though I agree with its teaching that salvation is 100% of God and though I despise and reject the shallow, manipulative, man-centered soul winning scheme that is so common among independent Baptists and though it does seem to be supported by a few Scriptures, the bottom line to me is that it ends up contradicting far too many plain Scriptures.

Full article can be found here:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/calvins_camels.html

PERPLEXED WITHOUT CONTEXT

I've been made increasingly aware of the importance of CONTEXT when it comes to understanding scripture.
I strongly recommend the following article from David Servant. It looks at the dangers of applying out of context statements.


https://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/e_teachings/bible-out-of-context

THIS CREATION & GOD'S ULTIMATE PLAN

What is God working towards? What is His ultimate plan for His creation?
Look to the very last thing that He reveals – look what comes after the judgement.

It is a NEW creation – a new heavens and a new earth, populated by those He has redeemed. A new heavens and a new earth where only righteous dwells.

Maybe we should ask – considering the state of THIS creation and considering the sinful state of man (and considering the claims of Calvinists); why didn’t God START with that perfect creation which will give no place at all for unrighteousness. Why did He allow sin to enter the perfect world He created in the beginning?

Why create a human race with the potential for sin, knowing that the majority would have to be dealt with severely; that the majority would end up enduring eternal punishment of the worst imaginable kind? Does He find pleasure in condemning so many to the Lake of Fire?

I don’t think the answer is difficult when we see what the scriptures reveal about Him and His character.
God wants a WILLING people who will love Him, obey Him, and give Him glory.
He wants to demonstrate His justice, His mercy and His love to the people He created.

To achieve all of that in a meaningful way, He had to allow the possibility of rejection. Love is only meaningful if it is given willingly. Obedience is only meaningful if there’s a possibility of disobedience.

God therefore gave Adam the freedom to choose: to be obedient by NOT eating the forbidden fruit – or to be disobedient by eating it. Only by giving that choice could obedience mean anything – it is no hard thing to “obey” if nothing is out of bounds.

However, God was not taken by surprise by Adam’s sin, but HE had already made provision to deal with it in the most unexpected and glorious way. Some details of this can be found in Romans 5, a truth that is more or less summarised in Romans 11.

“God bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”

“Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.”

God did not use Adam’s sin as an excuse to EXCLUDE people from His eternal plan – but He used it to make His mercy available to ALL – that NO ONE would have access to His eternal purposes through human effort, but ALL could obtain access through the gracious and merciful gift of salvation that He made available to ALL who turn to Him in faith. To ALL who put their trust in His righteousness and His provision and not their own righteousness and their own worth!

WHO IS THE GOD YOU WERE TAUGHT TO FOLLOW?

Forget the hyped up superstar preachers.
Forget the overbearing, authority-claiming “anointed” celebrities.
Even forget the local “pastor”.

Take the time to know God for yourself. Get to know God FIRST through the scriptures, allowing the Holy Spirit to be your teacher.
The MAJORITY of what we have learned about God from others is wrong. They are not bringing us to the God revealed in scripture, but to a God created in man’s imagination.Be HONEST and don’t try to twist, change or ignore those “difficult” verses that portray a God that makes our theology uncomfortable.

The God of the bible is NOT the God of comfortable, westernized Christianity. And He definitely is NOT the God of the superstar celebrity preacher.Unfortunately most of us are too lazy and too disinterested to seek Him for ourselves and we find the entertainment we get from the celebrities preferable to any thought of Holiness.

BLESSINGS?

It seems like many western Christians have the opinion that their nations have been blessed by God, that the comforts and security they have enjoyed are His gifts.
But have we been living blessed lives in our comfortable, prosperous western nations? Or are the “blessings” we’ve had, really the thorns and the stones that prevent the seed of God’s word taking root and thriving?
I think the latter is closer to the truth.

TRADITION AND THE BEGINNING OF OUR CHRISTIAN LIFE

Recently I came across the question : “Is receiving the Holy Spirit part of Salvation or is it just an added ‘bonus’?”

The answer to this requires us to ask another question. What is salvation and what are we saved from? (Or was that two questions?) This issue of receiving the Holy Spirit is merely one part of our introduction to the Christian life that has been distorted by many centuries of human tradition.
Is it coincidence that so much controversy centres on those issues that are foundational; the things that focus on the very beginnings of Christian life, the things that ensure we start our life of discipleship CORRECTLY?

Some people are only interested in being saved from hell, and many of those want to do the minimum required to achieve that goal. But is that what Jesus came to save us from?

Mat 1:21 And she shall bear a son, and you shall call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins.

The salvation Jesus offers is salvation from our sins. Salvation from hell is a result of being saved from our sins.

Salvation is about THIS life as much as about our eternal destiny. Therefore we need to ensure we are equipped fully to live in our salvation here and now. How can we think we are fully equipped if we ignore and reject what Jesus has provided and has told us to receive? I strongly suspect that those who are ONLY interested in escaping hell and have no interest in God changing their lives NOW, will unfortunately find themselves thrown into the hell they had hoped to avoid.

To many people initiation into Christianity has been reduced to “believing” in Jesus. Yet scripture is very clear that repentance, baptism in water and baptism in the Holy Spirit are ALL parts of the process of salvation. They are not optional extras that we can pick and choose according to our own whims. They are all essential aspects of our entry into Christ, COMMANDED by Jesus Himself. How can we say we believe in Him if we ignore, disobey, or explain away these basic, foundational things?

The dismissal or changing of these vital aspects of Christian life has come about because men’s traditions have replaced the plain and clear teaching of scripture.

REPENTANCE
In scripture, repentance required observable changes in behaviour and the turning away from sin.

In tradition, repentance is a brief, confessed recognition that we are sinners and that we are sorry for our sin.

BAPTISM
In scripture baptism is the full immersion of a repentant believer in water.

In tradition it is the sprinkling of water on an unsuspecting baby.

RECEIVING THE HOLY SPIRIT
In scripture this occurs with observable evidence – most often the evidence reported in scripture is speaking in tongues, but prophetic utterance and “magnifying God” (possibly spontaneous praise) are also mentioned. The important thing to recognise is that SOMETHING happened that convinced those present that the Spirit had been received. The Spirit was not received in a passive and unobserved way. When the Spirit came into someone’s life it was OBVIOUS that He had come.

In tradition, the Spirit is received when we “believe” – with no particular evidence that anything has happened. (Pentecostal tradition is equally erroneous to insist that tongues is the ONLY evidence.)


What does scripture say about believers receiving the Holy Spirit?

1) Jesus told us that the Holy Spirit is given to those who ask (and keep on asking; – the verb is in the Greek present continuous tense).
To ask for the Holy Spirit we need to recognise that 1) we have not yet received Him 2) That we NEED to receive Him and 3) that God is willing and able to give Him to those who continue to ask until they DO receive Him.

2) The first disciples were told to stay in Jerusalem UNTIL they had received the Holy Spirit.

3) Peter told his audience on the day of Pentecost to REPENT AND BE BAPTISED and THEN they shall receive the Holy Spirit. He did not say they should just believe in Jesus and they would receive the Holy Spirit.

4) The believers in Samaria “gave heed” to the gospel Philip preached and responded with “great joy”. The apostles heard that they “had received the Word of God” and travelled to Samaria to pray for the Samaritans so they would “receive the Holy Spirit” – note this was AFTER they had heeded and received the Word of God. They did not receive the Holy Spirit automatically. They received the Holy Spirit after the apostles laid hands on them.

5) When Cornelius and his household were filled with the Holy Spirit, Peter and his companions knew it had happened:
“For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.”
Upon this evidence Peter ordered that they be baptised in water.

6) The Ephesians were asked by Paul if they had received the Holy Spirit after they had believed. After determining that they hadn’t, Paul had them baptised, laid hands on them and THEN they received the Holy Spirit – again this was AFTER they had believed and AFTER they had received water baptism in the name of Jesus. How did they know they had finally received the Holy Spirit?
“ And as Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.”

Only someone drawn away by tradition could argue against these CLEAR, PLAIN statements to insist that receiving the Spirit happens automatically with no discernable evidence.

Are men and their traditions above God and His Word?
Do men and their traditions decide and determine what is acceptable and needed for a believer to walk in their salvation?
Do men and their traditions determine which parts of God’s word are applicable today and which parts are mere historical records? (A common argument against the examples given in Acts – is that “Acts is merely historical it’s not doctrinal” – who gave anyone the authority to make that distinction?).

Returning to the original question: “Is receiving the Holy Spirit part of Salvation or is it just an added ‘bonus’?”

Consider Jesus Himself. At what point did He start His public ministry? When did He begin to preach, heal and deliver those who were captives?

AFTER His baptism in water and AFTER the Holy Spirit had come upon Him.


If Jesus, who is God Himself, ALSO submitted to water baptism why should we think we don’t need it? If HE needed to receive the Holy Spirit (with confirming, observable signs) why should we think we don’t need to?

Mt 3:13-15 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.
But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.”


Lk 3:21-22 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove.


Note that even Jesus received the Holy Spirit AFTER His baptism and AFTER He had prayed.

And He received the Spirit for THIS purpose:

Lk 4:18-19 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”

He didn’t start His ministry until He had received the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Jesus didn’t conduct His ministry in His own name and power and according to His own authority as God.
If JESUS needed to submit Himself to these things, and if JESUS commanded His disciples to follow His example in these things – who are we to try to change them?
Who are we to try and reason our way out of obedience?
Who are we that we can choose to do things OUR way instead of Gods?

END TIME PROPHECY or SPECULATION

The end times and the rapture in particular generate countless volumes of speculative fiction – much of which goes under the name of “teaching”. Often these books stir up fear, attempting to drive people to God to escape what they say will happen to those “left behind”.

The issues of the rapture and the great tribulation will take care of themselves if we ensure we give Jesus the priority. Put Him first and we will have no reason to worry. Draw closer to Him and we will increase in the confidence that He will never forsake us.
Personally I am convinced that NO Christians will be raptured prior to the tribulation. I came to this conclusion after putting aside all the books and turning to the scriptures to study the subject for myself. What I found completely changed my previous pre-tribulation theology.

Does that cause me to be afraid of what may be in store for me should I still be alive when the great tribulation comes? I can’t say I would look forward to it – but when my confidence is in Jesus, why should I let fear rule my life?
One of the reasons the book of Revelation was given to the church was to encourage saints who suffer extreme persecution, in particular those who will suffer the greatest persecution immediately prior to Jesus’ return.

In Revelation, alongside the trouble on earth, we are shown the glory of God in His heaven and that HE remains in control. We are shown how those martyred during the tribulation will be taken from earth to be with Him – and those who continue to suffer through this time, without the release given by death, can be encouraged by the joy of knowing that Jesus Himself will be returning VERY SOON. In fact the length of this whole period is continually reinforced – it will be only three and a half years!
Imagine how you would feel at this very moment if you could know for sure that Jesus would be returning in three and a half years time and all uncertainty of how long we have to wait for Him was removed.

And this is the big difference between most books about end times and the scriptures. The books create a sense of fear while the scriptures give encouragement and a sense of joyous expectation. The scriptures prepare us to be ready to welcome the Lord and inform us that believers will be reigning with Him after His return. And it is significant that those who have suffered during the great tribulation get SPECIAL mention among those who will reign with Jesus during the millennium.

Many people put their trust in books about the end times because of the perceived difficulties of understanding biblical end time prophecy. Unfortunately these books are more likely to result in confusion and the adoption of false doctrine.
Personally, I would recommend that BEFORE people turn to the teaching and ideas of others regarding end time prophecy – that they study the basics for themselves, relying ONLY on the Holy Spirit’s teaching from scripture. Recognise that the scriptures were not written for theologians, or for those with exclusive insight. The scriptures were written for us – the every day believer.
Start with the plain, simplest and most straight forward interpretation of what you read. If there’s something that seems to difficult to understand, come back to it AFTER you’ve built a foundation of what you CAN understand.
My suggestion would be to start with the prophecies of Jesus - such as Matthew 24. This gives a good basic frame work.

When you get to Revelation, don’t get overwhelmed by the symbolism. Too much concern about the things we don’t understand can lead to us forcing an interpretation upon the text. Ask the Holy Spirit for understanding, then put our questions aside and allow Him to do the teaching. The answers may not come as quickly as we like – but that usually means we need to learn something else first. (In school we couldn’t tackle mathematical problems until we’d come to grips with basic arithmetic.)

Most of the confusion with end time prophecy has come because we’ve followed the teaching of man rather than the teaching of the Holy Spirit. My own introduction to the subject was via books like Lindsay’s “The Late Great Planet Earth” – today many are introduced by La Haye’s novels.

ALL of those things need to be ignored. The BIBLE should be our only written source of doctrine.

When I put away all of the books and teachings of men and did my own bible study; firstly I found that it wasn’t as complicated as I’d been led to believe, and secondly I had to change my beliefs significantly.

TODD BENTLEY'S REVIVAL- A LINE IN THE SAND

Todd Bentley’s “revival” in Lakeland Florida has drawn a dividing line in the sand. It’s amazing how ferocious many people become in defending Bentley’s movement. The attitude shown by some of those defenders would be enough to suggest to me that the movement is false. Not that I need any convincing. Knowing that Todd Bentley is involved is sufficient proof in itself. I’ve listened to enough of his “prophecy” and “preaching” to know that he doesn’t speak the word of God.
When he does “quote” scripture it’s used solely to illustrate his own fairytale “prophecies and this carefully chosen references have NEVER been considered in their context. For example, in a message given in Michigan in August 2007, he speaks for almost two hours about a vision of two pillars. The scripture references he gives relate to pillars in God’s temple and are given merely to add a semblance of “legitimacy” to the pillars in his claimed vision. The whole 2 hours revolved around him and his claimed third heaven/open heaven experiences.

Some people insist we wait to see the fruit of Bentley’s current ministry in Florida. I say there’s no need to wait. The root is bad, the tree is bad – therefore whatever fruit that eventuates is certain to be bad – no matter what its outward appearance may be.

One reason that movements like Lakewood, and previously Toronto, can gain so much popularity is because of a desire and expectation for revival. This desire, when linked with an ignorance of scripture and an excessive trust in celebrity preachers, is guaranteed road to deception.

Is the concept of revival (as being demonstrated in Lakewood) consistent with scripture? Or have revival expectations been tainted by human expectations and hopeful wishes?
I don’t see scripture predicting a genuine glorious and popular revival. My understanding is that apostasy will increase (a kind of antichristian revival!) and true believers will be increasingly persecuted. There will be a clearer division between the true and the false; persecution will purify the true church (those less committed to truth will fall away) and that purity will result in a more effective Christian witness to the world.

In Matt 24 Jesus predicts this persecution, but also reveals that despite opposition, the true church will finally fulfill the great commission. And who are the true church? Those who ENDURE. To me this conveys a different kind of glory to the triumphalism usually allied to end time revival thinking.
Does this depict what is glorious in man’s eyes? Or anything like the “revival” scenario that many expect?
Maybe it’s time to see things from God’s perspective and according to His ultimate glorious purpose instead of through man’s corrupted expectations of temporal glory and success.

Mat 24:3-5 And as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world?
And Jesus answered and said to them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
For many will come in My name, saying, I am Christ, and will deceive many.

Mat 24:9-14 Then they will deliver you up to be afflicted and will kill you. And you will be hated of all nations for My name's sake.
And then many will be offended, and will betray one another, and will hate one another.
And many false prophets will rise and deceive many.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many will become cold.
But he who endures to the end, the same shall be kept safe.
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come.”

Mat 24:24-26 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders; so much so that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect.
Behold, I have told you beforehand.
Therefore if they shall say to you, Behold, He is in the desert! Do not go out. Behold, He is in the secret rooms! Do not believe it.

ANOINTINGS?

Considering the great emphasis and prominence being given to “anointing” in charismanic circles today, I had look at all of the NT references to "anointing" or "being anointed" to see how current beliefs and practices align with scripture.

Consider these questions as you read the list.

Do any of the very FEW New Testament references to believers being anointed resemble the MANY references of anointing being thrown around today? Does it seem like the NT gives as much prominence to “anointing” as the present church is giving?

Do these references even indicate that there is any additional anointing to receive than the one we already have?

Do any of these references indicate that some believers are more anointed than others or that they can have a different anointing than other believers?

Is there any indication at all in the NT that there are different types of anointing that can be received - as is preached by certain prominent people in the “church” today?

Please see my additional comments below the list.


LITERAL ANOINTING WITH OIL, OINTMENT ETC. (12 references)

(Mat 6:17) But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face,

(Mar 6:13) And they cast out many demons, and anointed many who were sick with oil, and healed them.

(Mar 14:8) She has done what she could. She has come beforehand to anoint My body for the burying.

(Mar 16:1) And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of James and Salome, had bought sweet spices so that they might come and anoint Him.

(Luk 7:38) And she stood behind Him, weeping at His feet, and she began to wash His feet with tears and wipe them with the hair of her head. And she ardently kissed His feet and anointed them with the ointment.

(Luk 7:46) You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with ointment.

(Joh 9:6) And when He had spoken these things, He spat on the ground and made clay from the spittle. And He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay.

(Joh 9:11) He answered and said, A man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, Go to the pool of Siloam and wash. And going and washing, I received sight.

(Joh 11:2) (And it was that Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.)

(Joh 12:3) Then Mary took a pound of ointment of pure spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the odor of the ointment.

(Jas 5:14) Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

(Rev 3:18) I counsel you to buy from Me gold purified by fire, so that you may be rich; and white clothing, so that you may be clothed, and so that the shame of your nakedness does not appear. And anoint your eyes with eye salve, so that you may see.


JESUS ANOINTED (4 references)

(Luk 4:18) "The Spirit of the Lord is on Me; because of this He has anointed Me to proclaim the Gospel to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and new sight to the blind, to set at liberty those having been crushed,

(Act 4:27) For truly, against Your holy child Jesus, whom You have anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the nations, and the people of Israel, were gathered together

(Act 10:38) how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and He went about doing good, and healing all those who were oppressed by the Devil, for God was with Him.

(Heb 1:9) You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows."


ANOINTING AND THE BELIEVER (3 references)

(2Co 1:21) But He confirming us and anointing us with you in Christ is God.

(1Jn 2:20) But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.

(1Jn 2:27) But the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true and no lie, and as He has taught you, abide in Him.



The anointing we are able to receive is given by GOD and is not passed on or given haphazardly by any human or angelic agency.
There are two New Testament that seem to contradict that statement but I think it would be wrong to associate them with the actions of some well known preachers today, who present themselves as being a type of “anointing distribution agency”.

The first of these references is:

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who, coming down, prayed concerning them in order that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of Christ Jesus. Then they laid hands upon them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
(Act 8:14-17)

The abusers of “the anointing” could very well use that reference to justify what they are doing. However, I see a vast difference between the practices and claims of the “anointing imparters” and this example from scripture. This clearly states that it is the Holy Spirit, a person of the Godhead that is received. And in naming Him there is an emphasis on HOLINESS. Any resulting experience would therefore be consistent with His holy character.
Contrast this with the impersonal idea of AN anointing or several anointings.

The other reference is:

Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you through prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership. (1Tim. 4:14)

We need to recognise in this verse that Paul is not describing the impartation of an “anointing” – I understand that term (with regard to the believer) is reserved specifically to describe the impartation of the Holy Spirit by God. I would also note that the anointing of prophets, priests and kings with oil was ALWAYS applied to the head and flowed down from the head. Jesus is our head and the anointing can only flow to us from him.

Additionally, it was the eldership that did the laying on of hands. This needs to be read in the context of what Paul also says about the qualifications needed for eldership and contrast them with the “superstar” preachers propagating their own “anointings”. Genuine elders have accountability to those they serve. They are accessible enough to have the fruit of their lives and ministries assessed. They are NOT inaccessible superstar preachers who are separated from their audience by their celebrity status.

SINNERS ACCORDING TO GOD'S WILL?

I recently posed the following question on a Christian discussion forum;

"Is it possible to be living TOTALLY according to God's will for your life and still be a sinner destined for hell?"

And received this reply:

How could one be "living TOTALLY according to GOD's will for their life" and wind up in Hell ?

I would agree with the sentiments of the person who responded to my question and I’d come up with come up with the same answer they obviously infer – it is impossible to live totally according to God’s will for your life and still be cast into hell.
Yet there is a very common theological viewpoint that presents just the opposite.
Maybe people are thinking I’m mistaken – surely there could be no such widespread doctrine in mainstream Christianity. Let me assure you that there is – it goes by the name of Calvinism.
According to this doctrine God personally predestined some to be saved, and others not to be saved. It is God’s will and God’s will alone that determines our eternal destiny. Therefore those who are condemned to hell are doomed entirely because they are following God’s chosen will and plan for their lives.

But what about sin? Surely they are condemned because of their sin? That is true – but WHY are they sinners? Did they really have any choice in the matter? Calvinism says no because all men are born in a totally depraved state that ensures they can do nothing but sin.
And why are they born into this state?
Because of Adam’s fall in the garden…

But wait, there’s more… According to Calvin, God Himself ordained that Adam should sin. Adam ALSO had no choice in the matter but was merely following God’s ordained plan for his life.

So here we have a doctrine that states that God Himself ordained man to be born into sin, that same God condemns sinners to hell and yet leaves the majority with no chance of being redeemed from that penalty of their sin. ALL because they are fulfilling God’s ordained will and purpose for their lives!

Now, I ask again. "Is it possible to be living TOTALLY according to God's will for your life and still be a sinner destined for hell?"
Calvin and his followers think so – though I’m sure they’d deny it. But that is EXACTLY what their doctrine is saying no matter how much they protest that this isn’t the case.

ADAM DIDN'T FALL...

Calvinism makes God the author of sin; he chose its existence when it did not exist. He becomes the most unholy being in the universe--the cause and source of all wickedness and misery. Adam did not fall, he was shoved, was not deceived by the devil, but by the bully God of Calvinism.

[FROM - The Mystery of Christ Revealed: The Key to Understanding Predestination
by George E. (Jed) Smock, Copyright 2000]

FALSE CHRISTS - FALSE ANOINTING

The church today idolises the “anointed” Christian Superstar. These Superstars can be individual big name preachers, or they can be well known centres of “REVIVAL” or “REFRESHING”. Many Christians put a lot of faith in these Superstars and invest significant quantities of time and money in seeking the anointed ministry they offer.

I have to confess I was one of those seekers. I’d run from conference to conference; from speaker to speaker, and I’d buy as many of the tapes and books I could afford (I admit the “tapes” reference probably shows my age!). However, looking back with honesty, I can see that I never received what I was led to expect – because my expectations were misdirected. Not only was I being careless by running here and there to seek an imparted blessing from God, I was being disobedient!
It is now clear to me that chasing after “anointed” ministers, or groups that claim to be spreading “the anointing”, is the VERY thing that Jesus warned believers against in Matthew 24:23-26

Then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ! Or, There! Do not believe it.
For false Christs (anointed ones) and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders; so much so that, if it were possible, they would deceive even the elect. Behold, I have told you beforehand.
Therefore if they shall say to you, Behold, He is in the desert! Do not go out. Behold, He is in the secret rooms! Do not believe it.

Taking into account that the title “Christ” means anointed one, how many of these big name preachers are claiming to be specially anointed? So when we rush off to places because the anointed ones are there… we have ignored Jesus’ warning and we have opened ourselves to deception.

When we rush off to conferences to hear their imported “anointed” guest preachers (usually at a price of course) – or to any other place where “anointed” ministers are advertised we are disobeying Jesus’ SPECIFIC and clear warning and opening ourselves to deception. We don’t need to chase the anointing – in fact we are warned and commanded not to do so.
The term “anointing” is used in scripture ONLY to refer to the anointing of believers with the Holy Spirit (or a literal anointing with oil as a type of the Holy Spirit). There are NO alternative anointings in scripture and no anointings by any other name. I suggest great suspicion be shown when you hear of any specifically named anointing (for example “warrior anointing”). I can not see scripture supporting such a thing. The same goes for individuals who claim they have a special anointing not shared by others.

As Christians we are no less anointed than any other Christian no matter how famous or high profile they may be. If you are in Christ “the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true and no lie, and as He has taught you, abide in Him.” (1 Jn 2:27)
God’s anointing isn’t increased according to the level of celebrity someone attains, neither does it increase according to the amount of TV air time they have. We do not need to seek the “anointing” of other people. Instead we turn to the source of the “anointing” – our Heavenly Father, through the Lord Jesus Christ.

LINKS TO RECOMMENDED SERMONS

Good preaching and teaching can often be very hard to find. The following sermons have been helpful to me.


The following are links to recommended sermons on the SERMONINDEX website


Art Katz – Holiness or Blessing This seems to date from the mid 1990s when the Toronto phenomenon had its highest public profile. Art Katz preached this message during a visit to Australia.

The following are part of a ten sermon series on the book of Revelation. All ten sermons can be heard on the sermonindex site. I recommend these two in particular because they cover potentially contentious issues with a calm and Bible based approach.

David Pawson – “Rapture” Mr Pawson gives a historical and scriptural overview of teaching on the future event known as “the rapture”.
David Pawson- Millennium This sermon follows the talk on the rapture in the 10 part series, and examines the scriptural evidence regarding the 1000 year reign of Christ mentioned in Revelation 20.

CALVINISM'S FALSE GOD

The god that Calvinism portrays creates billions of people for the sole purpose of torturing them for eternity in hell. This he did before the foundation of the earth – even prior to Adam and Eve and their sin! In fact Calvin himself stated that his god preordained that Adam should sin – therefore sin and its presence in the world and within mankind is due solely to Calvin’s god’s choice. He preordained man’s fall – and then punishes mankind for falling? Is that a righteous and holy God of justice? (see quotes at end)

The Calvinist god has produced a creation with no reason or meaning. He will eventually destroy it and create a new heaven and earth populated with the predestined robots from this current creation. This god either didn’t have the intelligence to realise he could have created earth and populated it ONLY with his chosen people, or this god is sadistic and malevolent, purposely creating a lost majority he has specifically and personally predestined to eternal torment.

This is NOT the God of scripture and this is NOT the God I follow.
My God is the one who approached Adam and Eve after they has sinned and covered their nakedness. My God is the God that Abel approached with an acceptable offering. The God whose name men were able to call upon (Gen 4:26) after the fall. My God is the God Enoch was able to walk with (Gen 5:24). These are all examples from the very beginning of man’s history in which men WERE able to seek God despite their fallen state, proving the lie of Calvin’s “Total Depravity” doctrine. They were able to seek Him because HE first sought man immediately after the fall and provided a way.

My God is the God who did NOT create this world as a meaningless, cruel farce. My God created a world in which there was (and still is) free will, so that people have responsibility for their destiny. They can repent and turn to God and His provision of redemption or they can continue on their own path to destruction. My God is looking for a willing people, who through faith can be made holy and fit for the new creation that has always been His ultimate intention. This willing people are able to truly love God of their free will – Jesus isn’t getting a Stepford Bride.

My God is the God who shows mercy - to those who fear Him, to those who are merciful, and to those who love and obey Him. My God gives grace to those who are humble and receive His (resistible) gift of grace through faith.

My God is not the false god of Calvinism. The Calvinist god is a cruel counterfeit.


-------

quotes from Calvin:

“God not only foresaw that Adam would fall, but also ordained that he should….I
confess it is a horrible decree; yet no one can deny but God foreknew Adam’s fall,
and therefore foreknew it, because he had ordained it so by his own decree” (Cal. Inst.,
b. 3, c. 23, sec. 7).

All men are not created for the same end; but some are fore-ordained to eternal life,
others to eternal damnation. So according as every man was created for the one end or
the other, we say, he was elected, that is, predestined to life, or reprobated, that is,
predestined to damnation (Calv. Inst., book 3, chapter 21, section 1).

THE ESSENTIAL SCRIPTURES - our defence against deception

Maybe a year ago I raised some questions regarding the nature of the scriptures. But in my questioning I had NO INTENTION of questioning their authority, or their necessity for our Spiritual growth and well being. My concern was that some traditional views regarding scripture had led to the Holy Spirit being sidelined. However, I see the answer to this situation does NOT include reducing the importance of scripture in our lives. As we increasingly give the Holy Spirit room, our relationship with the scriptures will increase and be enriched. The Holy Spirit does NOT replace or supersede the scriptures He Himself inspired.
The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself – therefore there is great value (necessity!) in referring to earlier Spirit inspired teaching as a measure to test current teaching to see whether the current is genuinely Spirit inspired. Look through the New Testament writings and see how often Jesus and the apostles quoted the Jewish scriptures (our Old Testament) to give legitimacy to their teachings. We also have the example of the Bereans who tested Paul’s teaching by searching the Old Testament scriptures.

While the early church prospered without the compiled New Testament, our situation is far different from theirs. Ac 2:42 says of the earliest believers: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship”. The early church had direct access to the teachings of the original apostles, men who knew Jesus; those who had received teaching from and had been discipled by Him PERSONALLY. We obviously don’t have that benefit.

Later, as the church grew and spread out, believers received written teaching from the apostles and other eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry. These writings were considered important enough to be preserved by the church until the present day, so those who did not have direct access to the apostles due to distance or time, could benefit from their Spirit inspired teaching. The writings of the New Testament are OUR direct link to this “apostles teaching” that the early church considered to be essential.

While the scriptures quoted throughout the New Testament are obviously the Jewish (Old Testament) scriptures, Peter writes of Paul’s letters in a way that compares their authority to those ancient texts:

2Pe 3:16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

And Paul himself stated:
1Th 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.

Who did the Thessalonians receive the word of God from? Was it direct from the Holy Spirit? NO! It was heard through Paul and his companions. Is Paul’s message any less the word of God in writing than it was through preaching? Is the teaching of the apostles any less valid today merely because it has been handed down to us in written form? I would say it is equally valid and MORE of a necessity because we don’t have direct personal access to those original apostles and their teaching. It is MORE of a necessity because it helps us to recognize the GENUINE leading and teaching of the Holy Spirit. The written scriptures help us to judge between the genuine and the false.

Almost every book of the New Testament gives warning of deception, of false apostles, false prophets, and false teachers. We are warned against receiving false gospels – even if they are delivered from spiritual sources. We are warned against the spirit of antichrist. How do we recognize the false? By the same method used by the Bereans, MEASURING ANY TEACHING AGAINST THE STANDARD WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE WRITTEN WORD OF SCRIPTURE. In a day when almost every man and woman (and possibly their dogs) are claiming to be apostles and prophets (despite Jesus’ warnings of false ones appearing), how BLESSED we are to have that foundational teaching provided in the scriptures so we aren’t left in the dark to fumble around to determine the truth; that we aren’t left in uncertainty regarding the nature and identity of any spirit that claims to be the Holy Spirit.

Without the written account of scripture we would have no means of determining validity (or otherwise) in the abundance of contradictory teachings that flood the world. And it can be seen that the variety of conflicting teachings increases the MORE that scripture is either ignored or reduced to a collection of out of context verses. In other words – when scripture becomes a tool of man used to “prove” what man has already determined; when man reads meaning into scripture rather out of scripture. (Refer again to 2 Peter 3:16)

In some parts of the church scripture is held as the only source of revelation to the extent that the Holy Spirit has been shut out. THIS IS CLEARLY WRONG. Both are necessary for effective GENUINE Christian life and ministry. Giving a correct emphasis on the Spirit’s leading does NOT demand a corresponding neglect of scripture; in fact, the MORE we experience the Spirit working in our lives, the MORE we will embrace scripture. If the Spirit leads us away from scripture – then it is NOT the Spirit of God we are dealing with.

The members of the early church that thrived without the compiled, written New Testament not only had direct personal access to the apostles, but they were STEEPED in the Jewish scriptures. These scriptures were continually used as a foundational reference to verify the legitimacy of their doctrine and practices.
They didn’t have a superficial knowledge of scripture like most of us who profess to be Christians. To them scripture was ESSENTIAL. They didn’t denigrate the written word in order to justify their own laziness and their neglect of scripture.

Today many are so steeped in the culture of our times that they give little time for studying the scriptures – and yet seem to have plenty of time to try to undermine the Bible’s importance. Trying to score intellectual points by attacking the authority of the written word they adopt the world’s cynicism, disguising it in sheep skin. Some deny the integrity of scripture and claim to be led by the Holy Spirit alone, while others clothe their deceptive doctrines with carefully selected, out of context, verses of scripture.

Referring again to 2 Peter 3:16, “[Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”

Everything we know of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit and how they relate with us ALL originates from the scriptures. Diminish and distort the scriptures and we diminish and distort the gospel and the Christian faith we claim to hold.

Ironically, those who try to undermine the authority of the scriptures often do so by quoting scripture. And often the Holy Spirit is promoted as if He nullifies the value of the scriptures. But who told us about the Holy Spirit?
The first disciples were personally told by Jesus to wait in Jerusalem until they received the gift of the Spirit. The Ephesian church was unaware of the Holy Spirit until Paul arrived and introduced Him to them (Acts 19). Without the scriptures HOW DID WE COME TO KNOW?
Without the scriptures we would emulate the Ephesians:
“We have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”

I have also noticed that common verses quoted when trying to promote the Spirit and “spiritual” revelation/experience above the word are:

Matthew 7:9-11 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake?
If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

I have seen this quoted to justify all manner of manifestations within the church. With this there is an assumption that God will not allow Christians to be deceived by false signs, wonders or gifts. YET JESUS SPECIFICALLY WARNS of the danger of deception within the church. Almost every New Testament book warns of deception. The scriptures give written teaching to equip us to recognize what is the truth and what is false. If we cast aside or demote the importance of the written word, or if we place “spiritual” experience above the word, we are casting aside the clear warnings against deception given in scripture – and have thereby have already fallen victim to it. Then, by propagating our own scepticism regarding scripture, we ourselves become the deceivers, the false prophets, the false teachers, promoting the spirit of antichrist.

GOD'S AGENDA

It is so easy to get caught up in the latest fads or with our own obsessions that we become driven by the wrong goals. We take our eyes away from God and where He is heading and create our own path. Either we follow the crowd and the latest “spiritual” gimmick; or we take our own direction and gather those around us who say what we want to hear, “confirming” we are on the right track.
These tendencies can take us along many side roads – and for a while we may still be in sight of God, even though we are not walking along the path He has intended. But, if we don’t correct our progress we’ll eventually find ourselves moving further away from Him.

To get to the right path we need to recognise where God wants to take us; what is His ULTIMATE purpose for mankind. We need to make sure we are not making the same mistake as Peter: “…seeing things merely from a human point of view, not from God’s” Mark 8:33

Over recent weeks I’ve been regularly meditating on these things wanting to know more about HIS purposes, what HE considers to be important and how mankind fits into HIS plans. I have heard preachers giving different views about the Christian life. Many preach about the blessings God has provided and the importance of living in those blessings. I have heard some refer to the blessings of Eden as being the standard we should be pursuing (Gen 1:28); others refer to the blessings of Abraham (Gal 3:9) or to the blessings promised to Israel (Deut 28:1-14).
Should appropriating these “blessings” be the Christian’s main goal? Is the blessing of His Children in THIS world God’s primary desire and purpose? Is this the reason for the redemption God provided for us through Jesus?

This is what I’ve found:

Scripture clearly reveals that God’s redemption plan culminates in a new home in a new heaven and new earth (Rev 21:1). The new heaven and new earth are the “better place, a heavenly homeland” mentioned in Hebrews 11:16 and the “prize” mentioned in verses 39-40.

Man’s first home, Eden, was never intended to be the BEST for mankind. It was never intended to be mankind’s destiny. It is therefore NOT an existence to be aspired towards. We should not hold it up as an example of how blessing should impact our lives today. Eden was merely the starting point for man; it was never the end goal. Eden ALWAYS allowed the potential for sin. God gave Adam and Eve free will. Even prior to their creation God knew they would choose disobedience, and through this foreknowledge had designed a plan for man’s redemption.

The new heaven and new earth will have NO potential for sin. The tree of life will be there, but not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The choice for God or against God is made here in the current creation. The new creation will only allow access to those who have already chosen obedience and have been clothed in Christ’s righteousness. “The old world and its evils are gone forever” (Rev 21:4).


The new heaven and new earth are the ultimate home of God’s family. This was intended even before the current creation was brought into being . This current earth is (and was always meant to be) the “proving ground” to prepare a family with whom God could share an eternal, perfect, sin-free home.

God’s redemption plan was implemented with the goal of populating this future home. The plan had various stages. The MAJOR stages are the covenants known broadly as the Old and New Covenants (Testaments). Each of these covenants contains their own individual conditions and promises. We need to ensure that we recognise those differences and where we stand in relation to the conditions and promises contained within them. In other words, which parts of these covenants are relevant to us?

1) God’s covenant with Israel (Old Covenant) promised earthly reward for obedience to His law. This reward centred on life within a designated geographical area – “the promised land”. The blessings associated with obedience were physical, material and political. (Deut 28: 1-14). Obedience to God meant being obedient to a specific, detailed written Law.

2) Jesus’ ministry introduced a totally new concept: the Kingdom of God (or Kingdom of Heaven). This was the MAIN subject of His ministry. He introduced it and described it to His listeners. It is a Kingdom “not of this world”. The gospel He preached (and instructed us to preach) was the gospel of the Kingdom. It is a Kingdom entered through faith, leading to obedience through the working of the indwelling Holy Spirit, (a law written on our hearts). He opened the way to this Kingdom through His death, burial and resurrection, introducing and mediating a new covenant “superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises”. (Heb 8:6).

3) The “better promises” are eternal and are not limited to our earthly lives.
Israel’s “promised land” of the old covenant was geographical. The “promised land” of the new covenant is Heavenly. We can be part of that Kingdom now. Many of its benefits are available to us on earth, but the Kingdom’s complete expression and experience is still future, being fulfilled in the completion of the new creation.

CONVERSATIONS WITH A WITCH

The following is a compilation of an ongoing email dialogue I had with a woman who claims to be a follower of Wicca (witchcraft).


“I apparently try to see too much of the positive, I used to argue with those preaching at my door that I don't believe in a god which would throw you into a fire and brimstone hell”

Could I use this approach to change the government?

I don't believe John Howard is the Prime minister of Australia
I don't believe John Howard is the Prime minister of Australia
I don't believe John Howard is the Prime minister of Australia

But enough flippancy…

Perhaps you are taking the wrong approach. You are making assumptions about
the nature and motivation of your hypothetical God by expecting him to act in a way that is acceptable to a particular human way of thinking.
Suppose this God thinks and acts differently to us, even in a way that we could find objectionable. What could we do about it? Does refusing to believe really make a difference?

Why would this God want or need to throw anyone into a fire and brimstone hell? And what right would he have to do so?

What if this God was responsible for our origins? Was the one who created us in the first place? Would that give this god any kind of ownership over us, giving the right to reward or dispose of us as he sees fit? What would this god be entitled to do with any part of its creation that didn't come up to the required "quality control" standard?

What if this God had done everything in his power to enable us to achieve the required standard and avoid the abhorrent outcome of hell, but we were too focussed on other things to take notice, or too proud of our self-perceived good qualities? What if it wasn't this God’s desire to send people to "hell", but they refused to accept the way out he had provided?

“I wanted to know why the Vatican with all it's vast fortune didn't do more to help the poor, such as soup kitchens, temporary housing etc, the answer from the Sister on that one was, "there will always be the poor", would get terribly angry looks from certain people for bringing a homeless person into the canteen for a cup of coffee and a feed,”

It should not be ignored that Jesus said that many of those who would find themselves condemned to "hell" were people who claimed to be his followers but who did not feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty or clothe the naked; in other words, those who claim adherence to religion, but don't LIVE it.


“Of course, the problem as I see it is that we receive all Christian messages second-hand - at least - via the Bible, which was written by a range of different people, each with their own thoughts and ideas and locations and eras. Which would be the same problem with any religious book - it's not directly from God, but filtered through humans. We learned in film school that as soon as you put your eye to the viewfinder and press record, you are unconsciously tainting the picture with your choice of framing, exposure, etc so that it is subjective - there's no such thing as a completely objective film shot - and therefore, documentary, or movie, or etc etc. Same thing with writing - by its very nature, it's tainted by the choice of wording, by omissions or additions...”

This is why the New Testament begins with four gospels. They give the perspective of different witnesses to the life of Jesus. This is also why there are more than three versions of creation told in the Bible, and why the two books of Chronicles and the two books of Kings tell of some of the same basic events from different perspectives. It seems like God was a Post-modernist even prior to Modernism.
The fact that the bible was written by so many different people over so many different eras is often pointed out as evidence of the divine influence over its content - because DESPITE OF these wide ranging origins, it remains consistent. Yes, there are minor discrepancies as can be seen in the gospel accounts but there is no discrepancy in overall theme. While some critics try to use these differences to discredit the gospels, these differences in fact provide convincing evidence of their authenticity. This is EXACTLY how the genuine accounts of different witnesses would appear, as each writes according to their own perception and memory of events.

As for the bible being filtered through humans, I think you are quite correct as can be seen with the above mentioned gospel discrepancies. While some insist the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God, I see it as a collaborative effort. It details the relationship between God and mankind throughout early history, and the bible is itself is a literary illustration of that relationship. The God revealed in the bible is one who WANTS to be known by mankind. Therefore I see no problem with this God, the creator of all things, having “editorial influence” over the book that tells the world about Him, and thereby preventing any "tainting" of His message.

I have come to see the Bible as being an “authorised biography” of God rather than an autobiography. By this I mean that it was not written or dictated word for word by God Himself. It was written by men under God’s inspiration and authority.

Despite the importance Christians give to the bible it would be a mistake to assume that its content is the sole source of their knowledge and relationship with God. While many churches stick with their rituals and historical tradition, there are others who recognise that God is not trapped between the covers of a 2000 year and older book. They believe in a living and active God who continues to relate to his followers today.

“ People are afraid to think for themselves and reinterpret, because they've been told that questioning and interpreting is not for them... it denies faith and all that. So I guess what upsets me is not religion, but dogma. And denial of the intellect and of common sense. If only there were a greater part of the Christian community that could have as open and enquiring a mind as you do! Although you acknowledge that the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of Christian knowledge - I wonder how many everyday people who identify themselves as Christians agree, or have even thought about looking beyond the Bible?”


To put things into the correct perspective, while I think the Bible is not the be-all and end-all of Christian knowledge, it is the foundation that all Christian knowledge and understanding are built upon. Any further understanding can not be in contradiction to it. Acceptable teaching or inspiration from "beyond the bible" would always be compatible with the written word. However, Jesus spoke out against those who tried to enforce the "letter of the law" but ignored the spirit of the law. The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

On the other hand, Jesus also made it known that the spirit of the law was harsher than the letter. He equated wrongful anger against another as being equal to murder in God's eyes and lustful thought was equal to adultery. The spirit of the law goes deeper than judging actions; it also takes into account the attitude of the heart.

Valid interpretation of a belief system has to be done with respect for the foundations of what is being interpreted. Move away from the foundation and you have something totally different. Following Christ requires a recognition that mankind has fallen from the standard required by God, resulting in spiritual death. But God has made a way for us to regain a relationship with him through faith in Jesus Christ. Without these basic (simplified) foundations there is no Christianity. Any religious system or spiritual belief that tries to adopt or borrow Christ to further a different agenda is way off track. For example, I wish those syncretists who speak of "Christ Consciousness" and being "Christed" would discover enough integrity to change their terminology.

I have no problem respecting the right of other people to hold their own beliefs. We are all responsible for our own search for truth and have to be willing to face whatever consequences come out of the decisions we make. However, I do get annoyed when people try to merge Christ into a pick and mix “spirituality” that denies the very teaching that Christ gave. We can't water him down and take only the “palatable” parts of his life and teaching.
Likewise I do not tolerate the beliefs of those who claim to be Christians but are selectively blind regarding Christ's life and teachings, although I do recognise there is always room for growth in understanding and maturity.

People have every right to investigate different religious and spiritual beliefs for themselves as they seek for truth, but the SERIOUS seeker can't select a bit from here and a bit from there to create their own personally tailored spirituality. If the source beliefs from which those selections were taken are mutually exclusive, there can be no integrity in the patchwork that's created. It might be comfortable, it might make them feel good, but it has no logical, intellectual, or spiritual integrity. Without that internal integrity within the belief system itself, how can it give a relevant and valid view of the external world?
Those adopting Syncretism of this type are not genuine in the pursuit of spiritual reality. They are more concerned with personal comfort and good feelings than in seeking truth - which will often challenge and confront.

REVIVAL – yet another idol?

From my very first active involvement with Christianity in the mid 1970s, there has been an expressed hope for (and belief in) an impending revival. And this hope goes back much further than my own experience.

The issue of “Revival” seems to me to be another of those distracting issues that takes our eyes off the Father’s business, and places them on a historical by-product of the obedience of previous generations. It measures the success or failure of the work being done by the standard of whether “revival” is obtained.

I’m not against revivals – it’s a matter of NOT pinning our hopes on them, not expecting that experiences of the past should be repeated merely because they have happened before. Not seeing “revival” as the measure of success or a goal to achieve.

Revival seems to be one of those “romantic” ideals that have happened in the past, or happen in distant nations. If anything happens “here” it is often derided and labeled as false when it produces “fruit” contrary to our expectations.
Toronto and Brownsville have often been dismissed by many for just such reasons, yet others proclaim these as examples of “revival”. It seems to me that revival is a very subjective term that depends on a person’s particular theology and is therefore a weak yardstick of spiritual reality or success.

While historical accounts may be inspiring they should not be the basis of our faith and expectation. They can provide encouragement but not direction. “Revival” in its historical context is a human concept created to excuse the times when “revival” is not happening. It creates an impression that “revival” and its fruit are ideals to be reached on rare occasion instead of lived in at all times. Why else would 1904 in Wales (over a hundred years ago!) still be such a notable landmark in church history?

Instead of majoring on revival, we should follow Jesus’ instruction to seek first the Kingdom of God. The Lord and His Kingdom should be our desire; not a taste of something experienced by others in the past, no matter how exciting and inspiring that experience may have been.

RELATIONSHIP NOT RITUAL

Nostalgia is a yearning for an imagined past, inspired by a dissatisfaction with the present. This attitude can be seen throughout sections of the church. Wherever there is dissatisfaction and desire for change, there is a tendency to turn to the example of the early church to see how we have departed from the “true” blueprint. However, that tendency often includes selective blindness; seeing only those things that confirm a predetermined viewpoint and ignoring those things that don’t support it.

House churches anyone? They are found in accounts of the early church. Apostolic and prophetic ministry? There too! Healings and miracles? Add them to the list. Whatever the present day Christian obsession, it’s usually got a New Testament precedent to add a bit of legitimacy. But don’t forget that selective blindness. We should avoid the desire to pick and choose select examples from the past to support our current interests.

In Acts 2 we get a glimpse at the earliest days of the early church. We can learn that:

They steadfastly persevered, devoting themselves constantly to the instruction and fellowship of the apostles, to the breaking of bread and prayers.

They all experienced a sense of reverential fear, and many signs and wonders were performed through the apostles.

All who believed were united, were together, had everything in common – to the extent of selling their possessions and contributing the proceeds to make sure no remained in need.

And daily they regularly assembled in the temple with united purpose, and they met in their homes to eat together, in remembrance of the Lord and His sacrifice. They shared their meals with gladness, simplicity and generosity.

They constantly praised God, got along well with the people around them, and the Lord kept adding to their numbers daily as more were saved. (Taken from Acts 2:41-47, AMP)

Does this resemble anything we’ve experienced in any of our attempts to play church? Forget about the problems of the mainstream denominational churches, or the spin-off non-denominational fellowships. Forget about the disappointments we constantly had as we religiously joined the organised programmes run in our local church building. Forget about the failings of the pastors and elders we submitted ourselves to.

Does it even slightly resemble anything in our lives, in our experience, in our walk with God?

Those who have moved on from the traditional fellowships and tried some kind of alternative expression of Christian life, whether “house church” or “wilderness” – how close have you been to making THIS example YOUR experience?

I look over this account of the first days and weeks of the first church, and see a vast difference from any form of Christianity I’ve experienced, both corporately and individually. Just look at some the descriptions of their actions and attitudes.

Steadfastly.
Persevered.
Devoting.
Constantly.
Fellowship.
Reverential fear.
United.
Together.
Everything in common.
Daily.
Regularly.
Assembled.
United Purpose.
Gladness.
Simplicity.
Generosity.
Constantly praised God.
Favour and goodwill.

In this list I see two separate groupings; words that describe commitment and words that describe relationship. I don’t think it takes a great leap of logic, and it doesn’t take anything out of context to see the importance of commitment to relationship; firstly between us and God, and also between each other.

While we can select parts of this account to support several Christian practices, the overall picture is not one of methods and procedure. These first days of the church point us towards relationship not ritual, fellowship not format.

SPIRITUAL NOSTALGIA

When we look at the early church, as portrayed throughout the New Testament, what do we see? Do we see a perfect model that we need to emulate? Do we see the church as it should be today? Do we need to do a u-turn and return to Christianity’s roots?

It would be tempting to cultivate a kind of nostalgic “golden days” view. Like yearning for years gone by when we were at the peak of our youth, full of health and vigour; fuelled by promise and optimism. We can imagine the thrill of new discoveries, new opportunities. But in reality we can’t go back. We’ve moved on.

Can we ignore two millennia of change in the world? Can we reverse or erase two thousand years of Church history because of its deviation from the revered “early church”? Is it possible? And if it were, should it necessarily be our goal? Was the church intended to be the fixed unchanging entity this spiritual nostalgia presumes?

Looking at New Testament accounts of Church life we can see that the church wasn’t a perfect role model. There were problems from the beginning. There was uncertainty, fear, and misunderstanding. To a degree there was a sense of “making it up” as they went along; learning through experience and responding to the moment as the Spirit led. A moment that in most recorded cases was also Spirit instigated.
And in this we perhaps find the characteristic that today’s church most needs to emulate. Instead of looking to scripture as a type of “users manual” or instruction book; instead of looking to scripture for “10 Foolproof Steps to Church Success”; it is time to rely on the same Spirit that led them to their success: the Spirit that knows the heart of every individual and understands their here and now circumstances; the Spirit that knows and understands the world and its condition today.
Yes, let scripture be given its rightful importance - but it needs to be scripture breathed with the life of the Spirit, not scripture enforced as the letter of the law.

One of the common analogies used to describe the need for change in the church is the reference Jesus made to putting new wine into new wine skins. So why yearn for a return to the oldest Christian wine skin of all? It was perfectly adequate for the wine of it’s time, but wine skins don’t remain new indefinitely.

A WORD FOR CHRISTMAS AND BEYOND

It's getting very close to Christmas. Less than three weeks to go.
Should we be celebrating even though we know there is no real connection with the 25th December and the birth of our Lord? Should we shun the celebration because the REAL source of the holiday is a pagan celebration?

Some Christians proclaim we should "Put the Christ back into Christmas". I've heard others saying we should take the Christ out of Christmas because the event was never really about Him anyway - pointing to all of the closely held traditions that originate in pagan practices.
But please let me make this point. At what other time of the year are unbelievers willingly confronted with hymns praising our Lord - even singing along.

Despite attempts to replace the "religious" carols with American songs about Jingling Bells, snow men, and reindeer with unusual facial colouring, the Christian songs still hang in there among the favourites. At this time of the year, despite attempts to secularise Christmas, in our western tradition - even among unbelievers - it has remained acceptable to remember that our Lord was born into this world as a human baby.

Surely, while this acceptability remains we should make the most of it. There is a starting point for the preaching of the gospel while people have this seasonal awareness of the beginnings of Jesus human life.

How can we "expolit" this situation? By belittling the occasion because the date has no historical fact? By shunning celebration because of its pagan roots? Or by recognising an opportunity to make people aware of Jesus BEYOND the manger?

I recall several years ago one radical group of Christians in my home town joined a Christmas parade. Their contribution was a man dressed as Jesus carrying the cross being whipped as he walked along. The person with the whip was dressed as Santa Claus. Now did THAT cause an uproar in the local press!

Now this brings me to another point I'd like to make - the difference between Christmas and Easter (yet another pagan celebration appropriated by the church). Around the time of Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ" I was astonished at the reaction of the major movie reviewers. These people who can eagerly type their praises of intensely violent and ugly films like Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and others - somehow found the brutality of Jesus being scourged and crucified as intensely offensive.

I realised then how acceptable Jesus can be when He's no more than a baby in a manger. But Jesus suffering and dying for our sins, the brutality of the crucifixion, the sheer ugliness of torn flesh and shed blood - well it's just not acceptable is it? At least not in the world's eyes - it's too confronting. A baby receiving birthday presents and visits from angels and shepherds - all of the peace and goodwill messages THAT is what they can accept. But move that baby on to adulthood and look at the end purpose of His life and the world doesn't want to know. They'll celebrate His birth with songs of paraise - but His death?

Just pass them more chocolate eggs.

TWO WAYS TO DENY CHRIST

In Galatians Paul denounced attempts by Jewish Christians to reintroduce aspects of the law into Christian life.

Galatians 2: 4 false brethren who had been secretly smuggled in [to the
Christian brotherhood]; they had slipped in to spy on our liberty and the
freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might again bring us into
bondage [under the Law of Moses].

Jude highlights a different problem with the church that is more or less opposite to the problem Paul exposes.

Jude 4 For certain men have crept in stealthily. Their doom was predicted long
ago, ungodly (impious, profane) persons who pervert the grace (the spiritual
blessing and favor) of our God into lawlessness and wantonness and immorality,
and disown and deny our sole Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the
Anointed One).

In Galatians we have those who would reimpose the Law, in Jude there are those who bring in lawlessness. Two almost opposite problems brought into the church by men trying to pervert the gospel.

Both groups of men are described as entering by "stealth" or secretly". I also see these two situations have something else in common.

1) The Galatian example has people replacing the grace of God with a need to observe the Law. Salvation is again made dependant upon OUR actions rather than on the grace of God. It comes back to earning salvation through works. It centres on self and self-effort. How much do we need to DO to be acceptable to God.

2) Jude’s example exposes an abuse of the grace of God. It takes it to extremes. Instead of looking at how much do we need to do to be acceptable to God (salvation through the law); these people take the other extreme – how much can we get away with without becoming unacceptable to God.

Both of the above centre on SELF. Both are centred on the acts of man.

Both situations take the centrality of the gospel away from Jesus and His sacrifice, in effect denying Him and our need of Him.

HAVE WE REALLY BEEN LISTENING?

Phil 2: 1 Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, 2 fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. 4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

PROPHETIC OR PROFITIC?

Have your ears tickled in the comfort of your own home.

Ever been tired of running from conference to conference hoping to hear a word confirming your established beliefs? Are your finances suffering due to costs of travel, accommodation and conference fees in addition to love offerings?

And what about the cost of all of those tapes, CDs and books purchased from the conference bookstore - the ones you buy so the anointing of the conference can be prolonged - or shared with your loved ones.

Forget about all of that.

Now, with little inconvenience, the ear tickling preachers and prophets can be brought directly to you - to the location of your choice.

Home.

Office

Beach


The choice is entirely yours.

With thousands of expert, ministries available at the touch of a few keys, never again find yourself sitting in the wrong auditorium listening to the wrong preacher (how misleading those advertising brochures can be!).
You can move from preacher to preacher, prophet to prophet at your own pace and according to your own need - the choice is totally yours.

Many of the available ministers even sprinkle their words liberally with scripture - so you don't even need to open up your own dusty bible to see the truth of what they're preaching. They give you their proof right there in their own messages.

Internet ministries bring the prophets you choose directly to you.

Now to get serious. What is this all about?

One person grabs the prosperity "prophets" and runs with them. Another clings to the "prophets" of doom.

No need to listen to anyone else, we choose our favourites who preach what we want to hear. Things that support our world view and suit our own personality. We don't need to be challenged - we can be content to let someone tickle our ears

The "prophetic ministry" -AS THE LORD WARNED - has been perverted by false prophets. People run here and there looking for what the latest and greatest prophet has to say. The internet makes this MUCH easier. No need to "run" - it's all controlled by a few keystrokes. And none of these prophets are accountable to those who latch on to their words, because their words are scattered to the winds and they don't know who is receiving them. (However, the Lord holds them accountable).
Some "prophets" even offer "personal words" on cassette tape - just send a "love offering".

I have some suggestions.

1) Stop chasing after prophets and prophecies.
If you need (NOT want) a word from the Lord - seek the Lord Himself.

2) If the Lord has a word for you HE will deliver it. If via a prophet He will send the prophet to you or bring you into contact with the prophet.

Prophecy is NOT a consumer product to be bought and sold.
Prophecy is not entertainment; to be sought out and shared, one prophecy after another.
Prophecy should be treated with caution until it's source is clear. (God, the devil, or self)

TRUE PROPHECY is the word of the LORD, given for a PURPOSE and it should be treated with respect .

JUDGEMENT OR BIRTH PAINS

Recent events in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast have resulted in predictable claims that the city and/or the USA had come under the judgement of God. These claims came from diverse sources. Some Christians have joined in agreement with Al Quaeda in their views regarding the source of Hurricane Katrina. Regardless of the unliklihood of this "alliance", I find the claims to be disturbing. Not because I think God has no right to judge and punish unrighteousness; but because I know, that by His grace He has chosen a different way. Through the Lord Jesus Christ He has made a way for us to avoid the punishment we deserve because of our unrighteousness.

So what do we make of disasters such as Katrina? I believe that Paul gives us a clue in his letter to the Romans.

Romans 8:
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

Jesus used similar imagery when He described the signs that would precede His return.

Matthew 24 (Amplified)
5 For many will come in (on the strength of) My name [ appropriating the name which belongs to Me], saying, I am the Christ (the Messiah), and they will lead many astray.
6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not frightened or troubled, for this must take place, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in place after place;
8 All this is but the beginning [the early pains] of the birth pangs [of the intolerable anguish].


The time of the birth pains has been here for some time. The pains are being felt throughout the world. That means things will get worse as ungodly and unrighteous acts increase; and as natural disasters increase (due to human exploitation of the earth).

These added pressures will cause greater conflict between the believer and the unbeliever. Then conflict will arise between believers. At no other time will it be MORE important to make sure we are GOOD soil for the word of the gospel, to make sure we don't fall away. At no other time has it been more important that we know our God rather than knowing Religion. Those who cling to religion will turn further away from the Lord, and will join the world in persecuting the believers, justifying their acts with a religious veneer. Some will see themselves as serving GOD as they turn on the true believers. Look to the past for a pale imitation of what lies ahead. Look to those times when the judgmental attempted to pre-empt God by taking it upon themselves to determine who needed to experience God's wrath. The days of Inquisitions will be nothing compared with the Great tribulation experienced by the Lord's saints.

Matt 24
9 Then they will hand you over to suffer affliction and tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake.
10 And then many will be offended and repelled and will begin to distrust and desert [Him Whom they ought to trust and obey] and will stumble and fall away and betray one another and pursue one another with hatred.
11 And many false prophets will rise up and deceive and lead many into error.
12 And the love of the great body of people will grow cold because of the multiplied lawlessness and iniquity,
13 But he who endures to the end will be saved.
14 And this good news of the kingdom (the Gospel) will be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then will come the end.


For those believing that the Great tribulation is God's judgement on the world after the rapture - prepare to be disappointed. Use the Lord's own words in Matthew 24 as your starting point for studying "end-time" prophecy. The great tribulation is directed AT the church by the unbelievers. God's wrath against the world is His response, delivering His vengeance on behalf of those who are persecuted and martyred, and comes after the tribulation.

Matt 24:
21 For then there will be great tribulation (affliction, distress, and oppression) such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now--no, and never will be [again].
22 And if those days had not been shortened, no human being would endure and survive, but for the sake of the elect (God's chosen ones) those days will be shortened.

Rev 6:
9 When the Lamb broke open the fifth seal, I saw at the foot of the altar the souls of those whose lives had been sacrificed for [adhering to] the Word of God and for the testimony they had borne.
10 They cried in a loud voice, O [Sovereign] Lord, holy and true, how long now before You will sit in judgment and avenge our blood upon those who dwell on the earth?
11 Then they were each given a long and flowing and festive white robe and told to rest and wait patiently a little while longer, until the number should be complete of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed as they themselves had been.



God's wrath is the outpouring of punishment after a judgement of guilt has been made.
I have seen a false idea of judgement being held by believers, presupposing guilt. Judgement itself is the act of determining guilt or innocence. It is not the resulting punishment. We will ALL face judgement. Not all will face God's wrath.

As far as I can see, God's wrath under the New Covenant, is reserved for unbelievers AFTER death, when they will be sentenced to the second death. And also for those responsible for the persecution of Christians during the Great tribulation. Therefore God's wrath upon the living is reserved until AFTER the time of tribulation has been completed, when the full "quota" of martyrs has been fulfilled.