Articles Archives - Page 94 of 1274

‘Gendered’ Nonsense Is Dangerous Nonsense

By George Weigel — 2 months ago

This is not just nonsense; it is dangerous nonsense. It is a distraction from the real work of diplomacy. It further erodes American credibility in the eyes of Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, and the apocalyptic mullahs in Tehran, who may well conclude that a putative superpower obsessed with “fluid gender identity” will not pose an obstacle to their aggressive designs. It sends a signal of terminal unseriousness to the rest of the world. It offends what are often termed “traditional” nations and cultures, but which are in fact repositories of common sense.

Dean Acheson, U.S. secretary of state from 1949 until 1953, is buried in Washington’s Oak Hill Cemetery. When I read recently that Acheson’s 20th successor, Antony Blinken, had sent a cable subtitled “Gender Identity Best Practices” to American diplomats around the world, warning against “harmful, exclusionary messages” conveyed by the use of terms like “mother/father,” “son/daughter,” and “husband/wife,” I was tempted to visit Oak Hill, to determine if Secretary’s Acheson’s mortal remains were spinning in his grave.
Acheson titled his brilliant 1969 memoir Present at the Creation, which he certainly was, as initiatives in which he played a key role, such as the Marshall Plan, NATO, and the Japanese peace treaty, became the international security architecture that underwrote communism’s defeat in the Cold War. Might Secretary Blinken riff on his distinguished predecessor and entitle his memoirs, Present at the Destruction? Of what, you ask? Of what Acheson and others wrought.
Consider what was afoot in the world when Mr. Blinken dispatched that cable. Wars were raging in Ukraine and Gaza. Latin America was falling apart politically and economically, one result of which was an unprecedented migrant-and-refugee crisis on America’s southern border. Russia was building a space-based nuclear weapon that could eliminate America’s satellite-based communications network. Iranian proxies were creating mayhem throughout the Middle East and disrupting vital international commerce in the Red Sea. China continued its saber-rattling attempts to intimidate Taiwan. The crises of governance in sub-Saharan Africa were too numerous to count. The president of the United States couldn’t keep the presidents of Mexico and Egypt straight. The leading Republican candidate for the presidency was informing his adoring fans that he would tell Vladimir Putin to “do whatever the hell [he] wanted” to NATO allies not spending 2% of GDP on defense.
And amidst all that, the U.S. secretary of state thought it important to instruct his diplomats to “remain attuned to and supportive of shifts in pronouns” while substituting “you all” or “folks” for the potentially offensive “ladies and gentlemen”?
Read More
Related Posts:

Post Views: 45

Friends, Not Enemies

By Chris Bolt — 2 months ago

Today, many Christian theologians see themselves as principally opposed to philosophy so that they can build a theology largely devoid of any extrabiblical influence. Whether they embrace the label or not, this is a kind of “biblicism” that fails to appreciate or employ the right use of reason and the tools of philosophy. The major problem with such an approach—and there are many—is that it fails to account for the nature of Scripture’s own testimony to the philosophy according to Christ within the context of a Christian view. As we have seen, one cannot escape philosophy. The question becomes whether one must always, in the nature of the case, carry out philosophy ‘outside’ of Christ, or if one can do philosophy under the Lordship of Christ and his Word.

Theology, when done rightly, necessitates philosophy; and philosophy, when done truthfully, requires theology. Theology is, after all, “Queen of the Sciences.”[1] In their broadest senses, theology and philosophy are the same thing.[2] Every level and specific application of theology uses the tools of philosophy. The preeminence of Christ also entails an ultimately theological basis for philosophy. In this article, I hope to show that good philosophy is a necessary and Christ-exalting ally to theology.
When I say theology and philosophy are the “same thing,” I refer to their subject matter and much of their methodology. I do not mean that they are impossible to differentiate from one another once one moves beyond their broad definitions or that the two are necessarily or absolutely identical. As one progresses to more fine-grained understandings of each discipline, differences do arise. The relation between theology and philosophy is thus worth exploring further, even if that relation is admittedly difficult to articulate.
Theology and Philosophy are Friends, Not Enemies
Philosophy is technically the love of wisdom, while theology is the study of God. But these definitions are broad and etymological in nature. Philosophy is traditionally divided into metaphysics (What is the nature of reality?), epistemology (How do we know?), and ethics (How ought we live?)—with subdivisions within each. Everything has a philosophy. For example, there is philosophy of language, art, mathematics, history, and science. As Alvin Plantinga once quipped, philosophy is essentially thinking hard about something. Perhaps the harder one thinks about various topics, the better a philosopher that individual is. Philosophy, then, pertains to every topic a human being might possibly think about. If a subject can be thought of, then a philosophy of that subject exists.
Like philosophy, theology can be divided into various branches. Exegetical, systematic, biblical, historical, analytic, contemplative, philosophical, pastoral, and practical are all different types of theology (although not everyone agrees upon each of these). Nevertheless, like philosophy, theology is thinking about something in its relation to God, whether politics, education, marriage, or childrearing. Accordingly, there does not appear to be anything that cannot be thought of in relation to God. Philosophy and theology are thus, at the very least, alike in many ways. Not only do they both pertain to anything that may be thought about, but they address much the same subject matter.
In this way, then, we might even say that there is no ultimate difference between philosophy and theology. Why? Because God is the truly wise one. And any philosopher who truly seeks wisdom will arrive at God.[3] Equally, any faithful theologian will think his thoughts after God. Indeed, one might think hard about any topic in its relation to God such that philosophy and theology are virtually indistinguishable from one another. As mentioned above, it would nevertheless be a mistake to think of the two disciplines as identical. Upon closer examination, the terms “philosophy” and “theology” are used as descriptors of particular activities in virtue of degree of their relations to either thought itself or to God. A Socratic dialogue might, for example, take into account the question and nature of life after death but be considered “philosophy” rather than “theology.” Yet when the Apostle Paul writes about life after death, it is generally understood to be theology rather than philosophy. The strength of “rather than” is not absolute, but admits of degrees. In truth Socrates is doing both philosophy and theology, even if his theology does lead us to the one, true and living God. Equally, Paul is doing both theology and philosophy, as his cogitation about God leads him to a true philosophy of life.
In this way, we can see how philosophy and theology—or is it theology and philosophy? —are friends, not enemies. That being the case, their emphases as well as their contexts differ significantly. For this reason, room exists for differentiating philosophy and theology, but not at the expense of their shared properties or, when related rightly, their symbiotic relationship. Indeed, the best theologians and the best theology regularly rely on doing philosophy, and that is what I will now consider.
Theology Requires Philosophy at Every Level
Obviously, if theology and philosophy are friends and not enemies, then theology will be found partnering with and depending upon philosophy at every level. Again, this is true in general, but it is also true when theology is much more narrowly defined. Indeed, every specific application of theology will rely in some sense upon the use of philosophy. Let’s consider a few examples.
For starters, exegetical theology requires a philosophy of language, biblical theology requires a philosophy of history, and systematic theology requires the philosophical discipline of logic. At the same time, a proper understanding of language, history, and logic are only possible given what theology says about them by way of its explication of divine revelation.[4] Theology, then, rather than philosophy, is always closer to the principium in play (that is, the most basic principles).[5] Even if theology and philosophy overlap as described above, it does not follow that the content or conclusions of all theology and philosophy are good or true, nor does it follow that all uses of philosophy in a methodological sense are consistent with the first principles of Christian theology.[6]
This means that theology requires philosophy at every level without depending upon philosophical argument in any pre-dogmatic sense. In other words, theology that coheres with biblical revelation must never submit to philosophies sourced from ideologies developed independent of God’s Word. Instead, true theology and true philosophy must always treat Scripture as first order.[7] While philosophy (thinking hard about something) will be present in every theological inquiry, it is important to distinguish philosophy as servant from philosophy as master.
Rightly Relating Philosophy and Theology
If we accept the claim that philosophy is a servant and not a master (with sources unto itself), then this will have sweeping implications for personal faith and apologetics, especially as it relates to natural theology. For consider the implications set forth by philosopher Michael Sudduth: “The pre-dogmatic function of natural theology . . . entails a more positive use of theistic arguments to establish the faith. Here reason has become a principium of the dogmatic system.
Read More
Related Posts:

Post Views: 55

Four Reasons the New Testament Gospels Are Reliable

By J. Warner Wallace — 2 months ago

Written by J. Warner Wallace |
Monday, March 4, 2024
The “chain of custody” will help me determine if the evidence was altered over time. In a similar way, there is a New Testament “chain of custody” related to the transmission of the Gospels and letters of Paul. The Gospel of John, for example, can be traced from John to his three personal students (Ignatius, Polycarp and Papias) to their personal student (Irenaeus) to his personal student (Hippolytus). These men in the chain of custody wrote their own letters and documents describing what they had been taught by their predecessors. These letters survive to this day and allow us to evaluate whether or not the New Testament narratives have been changed over the years. The evidence is clear, the foundational claims related to Jesus have not changed at all from the first record to the last.

When I first examined the New Testament Gospels as an atheist, I was completely uninterested in their claims related to the Deity of Jesus. As a philosophical naturalist, I rejected the supernatural claims of these narratives. I was merely interested in mining the wisdom of Jesus as an ancient sage, in much the same way someone might read the words of Aristotle, Buddha or Bahá’u’lláh. But as I read the accounts as a detective, I became intrigued with features reminiscent of eyewitness accounts I’d investigated. Could these ancient narratives be true eyewitness statements, and if so, could I evaluate them as I had evaluated hundreds of witness statements in the past? This became an obsession and it eventually led to my becoming a Christian and writing the book, Cold-Case Christianity.
There are four criteria by which I typically assess eyewitness reliability. The Gospels “pass the test” in these important areas. For this reason, I believe there are four good reasons to accept them as reliable accounts:
They Were Written Early
A significant case can be built to establish the early dating of the Gospels. It starts by establishing the authorship date for the Book of Acts. There are several missing historical events in Acts, including the destruction of the Temple (c. 70AD), the siege of Jerusalem (c. 68-70AD) and the deaths of Paul (64-67AD), Peter (64-67AD) and James (61AD). The absence of these events is reasonable if the Book of Acts was written no later than 60AD. Luke wrote two New Testament books; he wrote his Gospel prior to the Book of Acts. The only question is, how much earlier did he write the Gospel? I think there is good evidence support a dating in the early 50’s based on internal evidence in Paul’s letters. Paul appears to have quoted Luke’s Gospel twice; in 1 Timothy 5:18 (written in 63-64AD) he quoted Luke 10:6-7, and in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (written between 53-57AD) he quoted Luke 22:19-20. This means Paul would’ve had access to Luke’s Gospel as early as 53AD. Luke (in the first chapter of the Gospel), told Theophilus: “Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you…” This term, “orderly” seems to be extraneous, unless Luke was responding to common first century knowledge about a “disorderly” Gospel. Papias, a first century bishop, famously claimed Mark’s Gospel (written based on the preaching of Peter in Rome) was accurate, if not orderly. Luke appears to have referenced this common knowledge in the opening lines of his Gospel, and Luke quoted Mark’s Gospel more than any other source. But this means the information in Mark’s Gospel is even earlier than Luke’s, placing Mark in the late 40’s or early 50’s. These early dates for both Luke and Mark make it highly unlikely they could have been written without vetting from those who were there and saw the truth about Jesus.
They Are Corroborated
My investigative and trial experience taught me one important truth: all corroborative evidence is “touch-point” evidence. It’s tempting to think the only kind of acceptable corroborative evidence would be video showing the entire event in minute detail. Few events (either historical or criminal) are documented this well, however. Instead, eyewitness claims are typically corroborated by limited pieces of evidence verifying only a portion of the larger account.
Read More
Related Posts:

Post Views: 50

A La Carte (March 4)

By Tim Challies — 2 months ago

The Shepherd’s Conference is taking place this week and Christianbook.com has discounts on many of the books they will be featuring there—titles by John MacArthur, Voddie Baucham, Sinclair Ferguson, and so on.
It’s Monday, which means Crossway has a new batch of Kindle deals for you to enjoy.
(Yesterday on the blog: What Is the Best Thing In Life?)

“When was the last time you prayed for spiritual gifts?” That’s a good question, isn’t it?

Neil Shenvi reflects on his last few years of writing about race. “During this time, I faced consistent resistance from the woke-sympathetic, who viewed my work as -at best- misguided and -at worst- racist. Then, about a year ago, I noticed an odd change. I began to face pushback not from the woke, but from the anti-woke. I began to see people insisting that I’d changed, that I was now a mushy third-way moderate, woke-adjacent, or even a secret progressive.”

Stephen McAlpine observes that Gen-Xers are now leading many churches and ministries. “A good friend was commenting over lunch with me the other day that suddenly it seems that the generation that is constantly being passed by when it comes to leadership, the Gen-Xers, is suddenly coming into its own. His generation. My generation.”

What does it mean to have no creed but the Bible? And is that really a good thing? Carl Trueman comments here.

Here are just a few of the blessings that older saints can offer the church.

I trust that most of us know the answer to the question, but the reasoning is as important as the answer itself. “There seems to be the thought that Christians, buoyed up by the strength of the Lord, need not (perhaps ought not) welcome grief—that there is strength in downplaying such distress at life’s difficulties. After all, we are to consider it pure joy when we face trials of many kinds.”

Though we may fall and lose various skirmishes against sin, because of our union and communion with Christ we have by faith the promise of ultimate victory and final deliverance, which, more than anything else, gives us hope and sustenance in the daily fight against sin.

Character doesn’t just appear out of nowhere; it is the result of God’s refining our lives through tribulation—and, yes, even suffering.
—Sinclair Ferguson

Post Views: 75

‘Baptism Now Saves You’ The Meaning of a Misunderstood Text

By Joshua Greever — 3 months ago

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Throughout church history, 1 Peter 3:21 has proved to be one of the more challenging texts to interpret in all of Scripture. Not only does the verse appear in one of the more puzzling paragraphs in the New Testament (1 Peter 3:18–22), but Peter seems to depict baptism as actually being salvific. How does baptism save us?

As is the case with so many difficult texts in Scripture, persistently pressing on the biblical text sheds light on its meaning — in this case, that baptism is not regenerative in itself, but powerfully expresses the individual’s faith in the sufficiency of Christ to save.

Righteous Sufferers Will Be Exalted

In the immediate context of the verse, Peter’s main point is that faithful Christian suffering results in eternal blessing. Christians are “blessed” if they suffer for the sake of righteousness (1 Peter 3:14), and they should deem it “better” to suffer for doing good (1 Peter 3:17).

The word “for” at the outset of verse 18 is crucial, for it shows that 1 Peter 3:18–22 grounds why Christians should believe such suffering is “better.” Verses 18–22 recount the story of Christ, who suffered and died (verse 18a) but who then was “made alive,” proclaimed victory, and ascended to God’s right hand (verses 18b–22). Though Christ is unique in that he accomplished redemption through his death and resurrection, he also serves as an example for us to follow (see 1 Peter 2:21). Just as Christ’s suffering led to his exaltation, so too will our righteous suffering.

In the midst of Christ’s story, Peter offers Noah as another example of a righteous sufferer whom God exalted in due time. In contrast to those in Noah’s generation who had disobeyed, Noah and those with him — they numbered eight in all — “were saved through water” (verse 20). Peter then draws out a typological relationship between the flood and baptism: the flood is the type and baptism the antitype, the latter of which “now saves you” (verse 21).

Just as Noah and his family were delivered by means of the ark “through water,” so Christians are delivered by means of Christ through baptism. In this sense, since Noah’s salvation typifies ours through Christ, Peter includes it at this point in his letter to help us grasp more clearly our own salvation through Christ and to ground more firmly our hope for future exaltation.

With this context in mind, what does it mean that baptism saves a person? Does baptism save apart from faith, or does baptism express faith? Do the baptismal waters in themselves wash away sin and infuse new life into the baptized, or is baptism a metonymy (a figure of speech that stands for the thing it represents) for Christ’s saving work that we receive by faith, which is expressed in baptism?

Does Baptism Actually Save?

One of the major interpretations of 1 Peter 3:21 is that Peter teaches some version of baptismal regeneration. According to Roman Catholicism’s understanding of the verse, for example, baptism is salvific in three ways: it washes away sin, grants new life to the baptized, and admits the baptized into the church.

In its purifying function, according to this view, baptism washes away both original sin and actual, pre-baptismal sins. The baptismal waters wash away both the guilt and the condemnation of sin. In its regenerative function, baptism infuses new life into the baptized so that the individual is actually and really dead to sin and granted a share in eternal life. In its ecclesiological function, baptism admits the baptized into the church, the communion of the saints, outside of which there is no salvation.

Baptism, then, conveys saving grace in that God’s grace becomes effective to the individual in baptism, for what baptism “signifies” it “actually brings about” in the baptized (Catechism of the Catholic Church §1234). According to Thomas Aquinas, the sacraments, of which baptism is the first, “effect what they signify,” not as the principal cause (which is God alone), but as the instrumental cause of God’s saving grace (Summa Theologica 3.62.1). This view of the sacraments, sometimes labeled ex opere operato (“by the work worked”), places the efficacy of the sacrament in the act itself. In this sense, the Roman Catholic interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21 is that baptism is necessary for salvation because baptism in itself actualizes salvation.

While Roman Catholicism’s interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21 may account for Peter’s straightforward claim that baptism saves the individual, it fails to account adequately for two features in the text: (1) the typological relationship between the flood and baptism (1 Peter 3:20–21a) and (2) the close association between faith and baptism (1 Peter 3:21b).

What Do the Waters Picture?

Regarding baptism’s typological relationship to the flood, the flood was not the means of salvation per se, but the occasion for salvation through the ark. Baptism certainly represents cleansing from sin, but it also evokes salvation through judgment. In the ancient context, large bodies of water and floodwaters were foreboding and dangerous because they were uncontrollable elements in nature that often brought destruction. Peter’s link between baptism and the flood is meant to draw out the link between baptism and judgment.

The flood was God’s judgment on humanity for sin, and Noah and his family were saved because they were in the ark. While in some sense Noah’s salvation included his deliverance from the corruption of those around him, at a more fundamental level he was delivered from the floodwaters of death by means of the ark. In this sense, the floodwaters in themselves worked judgment, whereas the ark worked salvation for Noah and his family in the midst of judgment.

Peter’s link between the flood and baptism suggests that baptism operates in similar ways. Like the flood, the waters of baptism in themselves evoke judgment; they are not the means of salvation per se, but they signify the occasion in which God worked salvation for his people through Christ. Further, just as the ark was the formal means of salvation for Noah and his family, believers are saved “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (verse 21). The mode of immersion poignantly portrays such salvation through judgment, for immersion evokes both the overwhelming floodwaters of judgment (as the person is submerged) and the salvation from judgment the baptized receives through Christ (as the person emerges).

This observation about the typological relationship between the flood and baptism suggests that Peter did not conceive of baptism as effectual in itself. According to the typology, baptism is not an ex opere operato mechanism by which the baptismal waters effect what they signify. Rather, the typology points to Christ, who like the ark saves us in the midst of God’s judgment through his death and resurrection on our behalf. Since baptism signifies our union to Christ in his death and resurrection (see Romans 6:3–4), baptism is an apt metonymy for Christ’s saving work that draws our attention to the image of salvation and judgment as typified in the flood.

Baptism as Faith Expressed

The baptismal waters do not convey saving grace in themselves, for baptism, in expressing the faith of the baptized, inexorably contains a subjective element. Baptism is not the “removal of dirt from the body but . . . an appeal to God for a good conscience” (1 Peter 3:21b). The contrast between the “body” and the “conscience” points to an outward versus inward reality.

Peter wants us to see that the significance of baptism is not the outward washing of water but that which is inward. Peter’s point isn’t to minimize water baptism — quite the opposite! Rather, the water is an outward reality that corresponds to a greater inward reality. The inward reality is “a good conscience,” which refers to a conscience unburdened by guilt and an awareness of sins forgiven and a righteous standing before God. Since Peter identifies baptism as an “appeal” or a “request” for a good conscience (these words offer a better translation than “pledge”), baptism is the act through which the individual requests forgiveness and cleansing from a guilty conscience, a request made in the presence of God and God’s people.

Such an understanding of baptism shows its inextricable link with faith in Christ, since Peter clarifies that baptism is the individual’s expression of faith in the sufficiency of Christ’s death and resurrection on his behalf. If the Roman Catholic view of baptismal regeneration were true (in which the sign actualizes the thing signified), it is difficult to see why Peter would downplay the baptismal water itself and instead draw our attention to the subjective element of faith bound up with that act of baptism.

Future Glory, Fresh Resolve

While 1 Peter 3:21 offers a hermeneutical challenge, Peter gives sufficient clues to elucidate in what sense he considers baptism salvific. Of particular importance is the way in which he frames the relationship between the flood and baptism, as well as his explanation of baptism as the request issuing from the individual’s trust in the sufficiency of Christ to save.

Peter reminds us that our accomplished salvation in Christ, typified by Noah’s deliverance from the flood, has already been powerfully expressed in our baptism, and that therefore we can find fresh assurance of future glory and a renewed resolve to endure present suffering for the sake of righteousness.

Post Views: 77

Leaders in the Church: Speaking and Living God’s Word

By John Piper — 3 months ago

In this message, we are going to dig into the biblical teaching about leaders in the church — who they are and what they do. So, I invite you to come with me through five steps.

Step 1: I will try to show that it is God’s will that there be leaders in all Christian churches.

Step 2: I will try to formulate a brief definition of what this leadership is, or what leaders do.

Step 3: I will point to some biblical cautions about leadership.

Step 4: We will zero in on how leaders lead successfully. What’s the basic prescription for effectiveness?

Step 5: We will flesh that out with two practical implications for the pastor.

If you are helped by one-word summaries: We will deal with the justification of leadership, the definition of leadership, cautions about leadership, the implementation of leadership, and some illustrations of leadership.

Step 1: Justification of Leadership

It is God’s will that there be leaders in all Christian churches. We know this because God himself uses at least seven different words for these leaders as the New Testament describes them in the churches.

First is the very word “leader,” the present participle of hēgomai, hēgoumenos. This is the same word that Matthew 2:6 uses, where Micah’s prophecy is quoted: “From you, [Bethlehem], shall come a [leader] who will shepherd my people Israel.”

Then the word is used in Hebrews 13 for church leaders.

Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. (Hebrews 13:7)

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17)

The second word for leaders is translated in various ways. The idea is “one who stands before” the people (proistēmi).

We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you. (1 Thessalonians 5:12)

Let the elders who rule [or govern] well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17)

The third word is “overseer” (episkopos).

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to [shepherd] the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

An overseer, as God’s [household manager], must be above reproach. (Titus 1:7)

The fourth word, as we just saw, is “household manager” (oikonomos).

The Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager [of the household], whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?” (Luke 12:42)

An overseer, as God’s [household manager], must be above reproach. (Titus 1:7)

The fifth word is “shepherd,” both as a verb (poimainein) and as a noun (poimēn).

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to [shepherd] the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)

I exhort the elders among you . . . shepherd the flock of God that is among you. (1 Peter 5:1–2)

[Christ] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers. (Ephesians 4:11)

The sixth word is “elder” (presbyteros).

They had appointed elders for them in every church. (Acts 14:23)

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might . . . appoint elders in every town as I directed you. (Titus 1:5)

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. (1 Timothy 5:17)

The seventh word is “teacher” (didaskalos).

[Christ] gave [to the church] the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers. (Ephesians 4:11)

An overseer must be . . . able to teach. (1 Timothy 3:2)

So, I conclude that it is God’s will that there be such leaders in all the churches. They go by different names to connote different emphases of their role:

“Leader,” connoting direction and guidance for the people.
“One who stands before,” connoting a chairman-like governance.
“Overseer,” connoting a watchful supervisory role.
“Household manager,” connoting administration, organization, stewardship.
“Shepherd,” connoting protecting, nourishing, guiding.
“Elder,” connoting mature, exemplary responsibility.
“Teacher,” connoting the impartation and explanation of truth.

I think it would be fair to say, to most of you in this room right now, “That’s who you are.” And therefore, the rest of this message should be of the highest relevance to you.

Step 2: Definition of Leadership

So, from those seven descriptions of leaders in the church, what can we infer about the nature or the definition of leadership? Three things.

First, when you see that these designations include guidance, governance, supervision, organization, modeling, and the application of truth to people’s lives, it’s obvious that the meaning of leadership is getting people from where they are to where God wants them to be. Moving toward a goal is implied in all these words. God does not put leaders in a group in order for them to aimlessly go in circles. He puts leaders in a group to take them from where they are to where he wants them to be — in their thinking, in their feeling, in their action, maybe in their geographic location. Leadership implies that there’s a goal and a movement of people toward a goal.

Second, when you see that these seven designations of leadership involve watchful supervision, governance, administration, organization, protection, nourishment, teaching, and being mature examples, it becomes obvious that God has certain ways, means, and methods for getting people to his goal. Christian leadership does not look mainly to the world for how to lead people. It looks mainly to God. What has God said? Not only “Where is he taking his people in faith and holiness and maturity and love and fruitfulness?” but also “What has he said about how leaders are to get them there? What are God’s methods for taking a people to his goal?”

Third, even though it is not explicit in any of these seven designations of leaders, there is a biblical banner flying in 1 Peter 4:11 over all Christian service — including leadership — which makes it explicit that Christian service is done in reliance upon God’s power, not our own.

As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies — in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:10–11)

So, essential to Christian leadership is God’s gifted leader, God’s goal, God’s methods, and God’s power. And we really should add one more thing to those components that is obvious but unmentioned — namely, that there are followers.

“Effective Christian leadership speaks the word of God and lives the word of God.”

I am not a leader if I know where I want people to go and nobody’s following — nobody’s looking to me for guidance or finding help in my ministry. And I’m not a leader if everybody’s following me, and I don’t have a goal for where they should go. And I’m not a Christian leader if the place I want them to go is not where God wants them to go, or my methods of getting them there are not God’s methods, or the strength I depend on is not God’s strength.

So, here’s my definition of Christian leadership:

Christian leadership is knowing where God wants people to be and taking the initiative to use God’s gifts and God’s methods to get them there in reliance on God’s power through Christ, with God’s appointed people following.

Whatever God calls his people to be, you get out in front of them and take them there.

If God calls them to trust the promises of God in the best and worst of times, you get out in front and take them there.
If God calls them to have unshakable hope in the face of cultural collapse, you get out in front and take them there.
If God calls them to be radically God-centered and Christ-exalting and Bible-saturated, you get out in front and take them there.
If God calls them to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Christ, you get out in front and take them there.
If God calls them to be happy in all their suffering, you get out in front and take them there.
If God calls them to love their neighbors and make sacrifices for the needy, you get out in front and take them there.
If God calls them to be pure and holy and separate from the world, you get out in front and take them there.
If God calls them to be self-controlled and dignified and sober-minded, you get out in front and take them there.
If God calls them to be childlike and meek and gentle, you get out in front and take them there.
If God calls them to be as bold as a lion, you get out in front and take them there.
If God calls them to be generous and sacrificial in their giving, you get out in front and take them there.
If God calls them to be world Christians with a global mindset and a heart for unreached peoples, you get out in front and take them there.
If God calls them to lay down their lives for Christ, you get out in front and take them there.

Christian leadership in our churches is knowing where God wants people to be and taking the initiative to use God’s gifts and methods to get them there in reliance on God’s power through Christ, with God’s appointed people following. God’s gifted leader, God’s goal, God’s methods, God’s power, God’s appointed following.

Step 3: Cautions About Leadership

The first caution is about my own wording: “Get out in front and take them there.” “Get out in front” is a metaphor, not a geographical mandate. Because, in fact, the effective leader might be behind them, giving them a necessary push. Or he might be beside them, protecting them from assault on their flank. Or he might be underneath them, building foundations to hold them up. Or he might be hovering over them, saying, “Up here! Up here! Look up!” Or he might be smack-dab in the middle of them, suffering everything that they suffer. So, “get out in front,” means “embody the goal, and do whatever you have to do, and go wherever you have to go in God’s way, to get the people to where God wants them to be.”

The second caution comes from Jesus. He gives this warning more than once — namely, the warning not to use the position of leadership as a way to gratify the desire for self-exaltation. I’ll just mention one example:

A dispute also arose among [the apostles], as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest [the desire to be recognized as greater than others]. And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.” (Luke 22:24–27)

The unmistakable point of Jesus’s words is this: “Let the leader become as one who serves.” That is, the aim of the leader is the good of the people, not the glory of his own name. He’s not out to be “regarded” as great (verse 24) or to be “called” a benefactor (verse 25). He lives for the good of his people — the temporal good and especially the eternal good.

Paul gave his commentary on Jesus’s words “exercise lordship” (kyrieuousin, verse 25) in 2 Corinthians 1:24: “Not that we lord it over [kyrieuomen] your faith, but we work with you for your joy, for you stand firm in your faith.” Paul, the leader, has a goal: the joy of your faith! And Paul, the leader, has a God-appointed method. And it is not lording it over them, but taking the form of a servant and working with them for their joy.

But before I leave the cautions, let me give a caution about the cautions. Luke 22:26 (“Let the . . . leader [become] as one who serves”), which is meant to make leaders humble and loving, is sometimes used to make leaders fearful and silent. The “Me Too” movement, multiple pastoral abuses, the indiscriminate disparaging of all biblical headship as toxic masculinity — these forces in our time are turning servant leadership into all servant and no leadership. When Jesus bound himself with a towel and got down on his knees and washed the disciples’ feet — like a servant — nobody in that room doubted for an instant who the leader was.

If you are in a staff meeting, or a meeting with the elders, or a congregational meeting, and a controversial issue arises, and someone goes to the microphone and gives an argument, and the argument is based on factual mistakes, or incomplete information, or unbiblical assumptions, or illogical reasoning, or emotional manipulation, and the congregation is being swayed by this presentation, your silence, pastor, meek as it may seem, is not servanthood. It’s either a failure of discernment or it’s cowardice. It is not leadership.

Your job at that moment is to go to the microphone and say to the person, “These two parts of what you said are true, but here’s the problem with what you said.” And you set the record straight with facts, biblical truth, and clear thinking. You will feel the people shifting back from error to truth. Dozens of godly people out there who could smell the error but couldn’t name it will be thankful for you, because you rose to the occasion as a leader, and you named the error so that people could see it. You served them well.

If you sit there and think, “If I stand up and correct this person, they will very likely accuse me of shaming and abusing them,” and you let that fear cause you to be silent in the name of humble, caring, servant leadership, you have failed your flock and acted like a hireling. Jesus told us, “Blessed are you when others revile you . . . and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account” (Matthew 5:11). So, the caution about the caution is this: Don’t let the spirit of the age define leadership. Trust God and be biblical.

Step 4: Implementation of Leadership

How do leaders lead successfully? Let’s zero in on the heart of the matter. When you take the seven designations of New Testament leaders (leading, governing, overseeing, managing, shepherding, modeling, teaching), every one of them cries out for God to speak:

In leading, I need to know from God where he wants his people to be.
In governing, I need to know from God how to govern.
In overseeing, I need to know from God what I am watching for in my supervision.
In managing, I need to know from God what I am organizing this people for.
In shepherding, I need to know from God what I should feed my sheep and what I need to protect them from.
In modeling, I need to know from God what kind of example I am to set.
And in teaching, I need to know from God what I am to teach.

Which brings us to my main text, Hebrews 13:7:

Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.

This author draws out two things about these leaders and holds them up for us to see and imitate. First, they spoke the word of God. “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God.”

Second, their way of life was such an exemplary walk of faith that its outcome was glorious and, therefore, worthy of imitation. “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life [which probably means that they stayed true to Christ all the way to the end and died well], and imitate their faith.”

So, my summary for us would be this: effective Christian leadership speaks the word of God and lives the word of God. Your calling as leader in the church is to speak the word of God and live the word of God.

And so, I turn finally to illustrate this leadership of speaking the word of God and living the word of God.

Step 5: Illustrations of Leadership

Let’s flesh out this way of leading with two practical implications for the pastor.

Knowing Ultimate Reality

First, if effective leadership speaks and lives the word of God, your lifelong, unwavering vocation, your lifelong priority, is to handle God’s word, the Bible, in such a way that you penetrate through its carefully construed sentences to the reality it is meant to communicate. The ultimate thing about the Bible is not that God spoke sentences and paragraphs (which he did), but that with sentences and paragraphs God revealed reality. Rightly understood propositions and narratives are a window onto reality, what really is.

And the main reality that the Bible reveals is God. “The Lord appeared . . . at Shiloh, for the Lord revealed himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the Lord” (1 Samuel 3:21). Brothers, do you realize what a glorious calling you have? To spend all your life beholding ultimate reality, beholding God, through his word! Knowing God, knowing ultimate reality, through his word!

Or consider Ephesians 3:4: “When you read this [Paul’s letter], you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ.” When you move into the sentences of Ephesians and through them into ultimate reality, you perceive the mystery of Christ and how it relates to all things.

“If you know ultimate reality, you know the most important thing about all reality.”

Knowing the ultimate reality of God and Christ through the word of God, on the one hand, and being formed in your mind and emotions and actions by that reality, on the other hand, are not separate acts of the Christian leader. Why? Because you become what you behold. “We all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another” (2 Corinthians 3:18).

And four verses later, Paul tells us where we behold this ultimate reality, this glory. Second Corinthians 4:4 says that, when satanic blindness is removed, we see “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” We behold God in Christ in the gospel — that is, in the word of God. This is the lifelong vocation of the Christian leader: penetrating through the propositions and narratives of the Bible to ultimate reality — God in Christ, and how he relates to everything. Then speaking it and living it before your people. A glorious calling!

Applying Ultimate Reality

Second, we need to realize that what we know and become through this lifelong encounter with ultimate reality through God’s word is very limited in this life, yet it is without limit in its relevance and application to everything. What does that mean?

During my 33 years as a pastor, few things threatened to paralyze me in ministry like the endless stream of proposals for how I should do ministry. A constant stream of articles and seminars and lectures and courses and degrees and programs and books and videos and conferences, not even to mention the whole universe of knowledge of culture and politics and business and industry and education and philosophy and geography and anthropology and history and physics and chemistry and astronomy and sociology and psychology and literature and entertainment and medicine and and and . . .

Do you realize that, compared to what can be known, we don’t know anything? This is demoralizing and paralyzing for a leader whose job is to take his people where they’re supposed to go.

Except for this. And this is what kept me going for 33 years, and keeps me going today: Our encounter with ultimate reality through God’s word is without limit in its relevance and application to everything.

If you know God through his word and have insight into the mystery of Christ, then what you know and what you are becoming is without limit in its relevance to everything. Why is that?

Because ultimate reality relates to all reality. Ultimate reality is the most significant thing about all reality. Ultimate reality is the most important factor to know in relation to all reality. If you know ultimate reality, you know the most important thing about all reality. Which means you can walk into any conversation, anywhere in the world, about any topic in the world, and have the most important thing to say in that conversation.

They might be talking about the microscopic machinery inside the human cell. They might be talking about the mathematical calculations that enable you to land a rover on Mars with pinpoint accuracy. They might be talking about bizarre cultural customs of a tribe you’ve never heard of. Do you think you are a small player in those conversations?

If you have penetrated through the Bible into ultimate reality — to God and his creation and providence and Christ and redemption — you know the most important thing in every conversation on any topic anywhere in the world. Here’s what you can say:

God made this. He made it to reveal his glory. His aim is that it move you to worship him. If you don’t see it, it’s because you are blind in your sin. God has made a way so that this blindness can be forgiven and removed. Jesus Christ died and rose again for that. So, if you embrace him as your Savior and Lord and Treasure, you can know what these cells and equations and customs are ultimately about, which means your work can have ultimate meaning. You can turn your entire science and enterprise into an act of worship.

Take heart from this, glory in this, that what your people need from you is not that you know all reality, but that you know, and are formed by, ultimate reality — that you know what God has revealed about himself in his word, and that it has shaped your life. Your leadership is to speak that reality and live that reality — to speak the word of God and to live the word of God.

Spend your life this way, and someone will say of you someday, “Remember your leader, the one who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of his way of life, and imitate his faith.”

Post Views: 94

Satan, Samson and the Saviour of the World

By Mark Powell — 3 months ago

The title “the Holy One of God” not only recalls the divine Sonship of Jesus’ baptism (1:11), but apparently likens Jesus to Samson, the mighty vanquisher of the Philistines, who is the only other person in the Bible to be called “Holy One of God” (Judg. 16:17). There may be an added correlation between Samson’s “Nazarite” vow and the reference to Jesus from “Nazareth,” both of which stem from the same Hebrew root. Again anticipating the imagery of the “strong man” in 3:27, Jesus subdues the evil prince and his minions by the power of the kingdom of God.[1]

While preaching through the Gospel of Mark recently, I came across one of those (seemingly) throwaway lines which you just know is laden with theological meaning. One such example occurs when a man in a Jewish synagogue, who is possessed by an evil spirit, says to Jesus, “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” (Mk. 1:24)
Demons always seem to speak better than everyone else knows. For the apostle John says this is precisely what the Lord Jesus Christ has come to do. i.e. “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work” (1 Jn. 3:8b). Perhaps there is a diabolical double entendre regarding what the unclean spirit says here with the accusation being that Jesus himself is meanspirited and judgmental (contra John 10:10).
Samson and Jesus
But what is the significance of referring to Jesus as “the Holy One of God”? James Edwards makes the following fascinating insight in his commentary on Mark’s Gospel:
The title “the Holy One of God” not only recalls the divine Sonship of Jesus’ baptism (1:11), but apparently likens Jesus to Samson, the mighty vanquisher of the Philistines, who is the only other person in the Bible to be called “Holy One of God” (Judg. 16:17). There may be an added correlation between Samson’s “Nazarite” vow and the reference to Jesus from “Nazareth,” both of which stem from the same Hebrew root. Again anticipating the imagery of the “strong man” in 3:27, Jesus subdues the evil prince and his minions by the power of the kingdom of God.[1]
The link between Jesus and Samson is a compelling one. As Edwards explains, there is a clear connection with the reference to Jesus being from Nazareth and Samson having taken a Nazarite vow.
Read More
Related Posts:

Post Views: 85

10 Essential Lessons about Money from the Book of Proverbs

By Hannah Depew — 3 months ago

Diligent, thoughtful planning leads to “abundance” (21:5). Planning involves being realistic about your financial situation. Idle talk (14:23) and wishful thinking (28:19) lead only to poverty and want. The wise plan ahead to avoid dangers into which the simple keep going (22:3). Since “riches do not last forever,” careful thought and attention are required to provide for yourself and your family (27:23-27).

Money. We all deal with it, but few know what to think about it. Our culture and even our friends and family can give us conflicting messages: money is power; money is a curse; money corrupts; money means you’ve made it.
Unfortunately, many Christians feel just as conflicted. Some fear wealth, feeling that the way to godliness is cutting oneself off from worldly concerns, especially financial ones. Some fear wealth is only an illusion; only the immaterial matters. Others, taking a cue from prosperity preachers, feel that riches much be a sign of favor and blessing from God. And if they aren’t rich, either they don’t have enough faith or God is cruelly withholding what is good. Many find themselves caught between these two extremes.
How are Christians to view money? Does God care how we use our financial resources, and if so, what should we do?
The book of Proverbs gives us a treasure trove of insights into how Christians should view and use wealth. Here are ten essential lessons:
1. Money has some value.

A rich man’s wealth is his strong city; the poverty of the poor is their ruin. (Prov. 10:15)

Proverbs takes an incredibly practical, realistic view of wealth. It hardly needs to be said that money is a powerful tool. Wealth is a “strong city” (10:15) that protects the rich. Money gives favor and “many friends” (14:20, 19:4). While money used well can be a blessing, it can also be used corruptly. The rich abuse wealth to rule over the poor (22:7) and pervert justice through bribery (17:8, 17:23). Although wealth is valuable, it is limited. While the rich may perceive it to be “a high wall” (18:11), some may not realize that “those who trust in riches will fall” (11:28).
2. If you want money, you must work for it.

A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come on you like a robber and want like an armed man. (Prov. 6:10-11, see also Prov. 24:33-34)

Money doesn’t come easily. While many dream of winning the lottery or receiving a large inheritance, that is the exception, not the rule. Economics teaches us the principle of scarcity: there are limited resources, and so everything comes at a cost. Growing money requires faithful, diligent, patient work. Proverbs teaches that “the hand of the diligent makes rich” (10:4) and “in all toil there is profit” (14:23). It requires patience to gather wealth slowly, “little by little” (13:11). On the other hand, those who are lazy (6:10-11, 12:24) and eager to get rich (28:20) cheat themselves. The one who procrastinates “is a brother to him who destroys” (18:9), with his own desires killing him (21:25).
3. Don’t fall for a “get-rich-quick” scheme; ill-gotten gain always comes back to bite.

Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain; it takes away the life of its possessors. (Prov. 1:19)

Bribery, theft, dishonest business practices, fraud, lies—the media provides example after example of dishonest means to get ahead. And it isn’t just “out there”; most of us face the danger of being defrauded or temptation to cut corners at work. And yet, wealth gained in such a way will become a curse. It does “not profit” (10:2), “will dwindle” (13:11), “brings troubles” (15:27), is a “fleeting vapor and a snare of death” (21:6) and leads to poverty (28:22). Our righteous God “will by no means clear the guilty” (Exod. 34:7), including those guilty of financial crimes.
4. Plan ahead, plan ahead, plan ahead.

Ponder the path of your feet; then all your ways will be sure. (Prov. 4:26)

Planning ahead for your finances cannot be overstated. The wise save to take care of needs down the road (21:20). Diligent, thoughtful planning leads to “abundance” (21:5). Planning involves being realistic about your financial situation. Idle talk (14:23) and wishful thinking (28:19) lead only to poverty and want. The wise plan ahead to avoid dangers into which the simple keep going (22:3).
Read More
Related Posts:

Post Views: 83

What Is the Kingdom of God?

By Le Ann Trees — 3 months ago

Christ is building his church at this very moment by the power of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 16:18; John 3:5-8; 16:5-15), and the kingdom of God will mercifully continue to grow until Christ’s second coming: The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Pet. 3:9)

Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God numerous times during his earthly ministry. What is the kingdom of God, and what is its significance for Christians in this world?

Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (Luke 17:20-21)

God’s kingdom doesn’t grow by the might or power of earthly rulers.
At the time Jesus did his ministry work, people were expecting the Messiah to usher in a glorious earthly kingdom. Instead, Jesus came to be a suffering servant, taking upon himself the punishment we deserved and dying the humiliating death of crucifixion that we might live, and the story doesn’t end there.
Jesus was raised from the dead and he ascended to heaven, and the glorious kingdom of God is indeed growing—but not in a way that is admired by the world:

He said therefore, “What is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden, and it grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air made nests in its branches.” (Luke 13:18-19)

The kingdom of God and the goal of creation are inextricably connected.
God’s kingdom is growing not by the might or power of earthly rulers but rather by the Holy Spirit’s work in regenerating people to new life in Christ through the faithful proclamation of God’s word (Matt. 28:18-20).
Read More
Related Posts:

Post Views: 89

Faith, Signs and Wonders

By Bill Muehlenberg — 3 months ago

Whether an amazing change to our circumstances happens or not, be it in terms of miraculous healing or whatever, the main thing is that we bring glory to God in all that we do – whether by life or by death. And for Paul, it was his weakness that he gloried in, not the “power gospel” of the “super-apostles”.

That the miraculous is real is a given for Christians, since we know that God exists, and that he interacts with our world. We are not deists: we know that God takes an active role in the affairs of men. But the question that needs to be addressed here is this: Can some believers over-rely on signs and wonders at times?
That is, some believers are always talking up the miraculous and the need for it, almost assuming that if we have such signs and wonders occurring, that will automatically bring people to faith. The truth is, as we know from both Scripture and church history, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t.
We cannot assume that just because some amazing thing happens that people will leave their unbelief and embrace the gospel – or even that believers will be further strengthened in their faith. It does sometimes happen, but not always. Simply reading the Bible will make this clear enough. In a moment I will look at one example from the book of Numbers, since that is where I am now reading.
But so many other examples of the miraculous can be mentioned – examples that show that a saving faith was not always the outcome. For example, King Ahab saw the miracles of Elijah but he still persecuted God’s people. Pharaoh experienced firsthand heaps of the miraculous, but still his heart was hardened. Psalm 78:11-17 discusses God’s own people in this regard:
They forgot his worksand the wonders that he had shown them.In the sight of their fathers he performed wondersin the land of Egypt, in the fields of Zoan.He divided the sea and let them pass through it,and made the waters stand like a heap.In the daytime he led them with a cloud,and all the night with a fiery light.He split rocks in the wildernessand gave them drink abundantly as from the deep.He made streams come out of the rockand caused waters to flow down like rivers.Yet they sinned still more against him,rebelling against the Most High in the desert.
And it was the same with Jesus of course. The disciples saw the Lord’s miracles, and even did some of their own, but in the end they all abandoned Christ. And as we read about the people in general in John 12:37: “Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him.”
Moreover, Jesus had to make warnings like this: “A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah” (Matthew 16:4). And then we have the issue of false miracles. Simply think of the first few signs and wonders that Pharaoh’s magicians duplicated after Moses and Aaron had performed them. Or consider warnings given to us elsewhere in Scripture. Paul for example provides this strong word in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12:
The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Incredibly we read there that God even allows deceptive signs and wonders for those who continue to reject him. And our Lord himself made clear warnings about this. Mark 13:21-23 for example says this:
“And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.”
Or as we read in Revelation 16:13-14: “And I saw, coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs. For they are demonic spirits, performing signs, who go abroad to the kings of the whole world, to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty.”
Read More
Related Posts: