To Destroy the Devil and His Works
Written by Joel R. Beeke and William Boekestein |
Saturday, December 23, 2023
Reflecting on Christ’s first coming helps us to remember Christ’s devil-destroying work. Because He has conquered death, Jesus’ disciples can resist the devil in His name (Eph. 6:11; James 4:7). They can say no to the works of the flesh, knowing that Christ came to destroy those as well.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. — HEBREWS 2:14
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. — 1 JOHN 3:8
The devil has always raged against God and His church, seeking her destruction (John 8:44). But Jesus’ physical entry into the world heightened the intensity of the battle between God and Satan.
Satan remembered the words God had thundered at him in the garden of Eden: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). At Jesus’ birth, the devil was poised to cut short the redeeming work of the woman’s seed. Working through Herod, Satan tried to extinguish the Christ child’s life before He reached His second birthday (Matt. 2:16).
The book of Revelation was written to encourage Christians with the good news that in the end, God would defeat the devil. In chapter 12, John saw Satan as a great red dragon standing before “the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born” (vv. 3– 4). In Revelation 20:10, however, John sees the dragon “cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” This is the bitter end of the devil and his coworkers (Matt. 13:39–42; 25:41).
Related Posts:
You Might also like
-
Partial Preterists: Don’t Fudge
There are some texts in the New Testament that legislate against every eschatological-related text as being only fulfilled in the yet-to-be future. There are words and phrases that demand that some of these events must be interpreted from a preterist (past) perspective. In other words, PP don’t fudge.
Why do I write so much on the Aquila Report? Because in Reformed circles I am in a minority on a few theological issues, and because Dominic Aquila believes in the freedom of the press. Maybe too, because my articles are short and concise. Dr. Aquila deserves much accolades and praise for providing an open forum on theological issues of our day which typically do not get a full hearing in a Christian college or even in a conservative Seminary. I have found him very fair and even-handed.
Now what about Mr. Davis’s theory (Preterism – Exposition and Critique) that Partial Preterism (PP) inevitably leads to Full Preterism (FP)? Let it be known that Partial Preterism assumes the position of the standard confessional statements of the historic church, in that there yet lies in the future a physical resurrection of the dead, the second coming of Christ, and the final judgment. These are the default lines of the PP confession (see Unorthodox Eschatology (hyperpreterism.com) ). We believe that the Scriptures are very clear on these default teachings. All these events did not occur in AD 70 (FP).
However, there are some texts in the New Testament that legislate against every eschatological-related text as being only fulfilled in the yet-to-be future. There are words and phrases that demand that some of these events must be interpreted from a preterist (past) perspective. In other words, PP don’t fudge.
The PP hermeneutic defends from the Scriptures the default eschatological positions of our confessions unless the words and the context of a particular passage demand otherwise. PP is not the fallow ground that must of logical necessity bare the fruit of full preterism (FP), no more than reconstructionism ever led theonomists into the theological deviation of Federal Vision (see Theonomy and Straw Men (theaquilareport.com). It was an error to infallibly assert the Theonomic-Federal Vision connection years ago, and likewise it is an error to infallibly assert the PP-FP connection again today. Yes, there have been converts, but they remain in the minority on both issues.
Indeed, Matthew 24:34 is a major text used by partial preterists. After years of struggle, I finally concluded that to read into the word “generation” any other meaning contrary to our common vernacular language was an abuse of the text. Then, tracing the meaning of the Greek word for “generation” throughout the New Testament pushed me to conclude that this word must be understood as it is used everywhere else in the Bible – a period of about 40 years. Again, taking any other position was nothing but fudging.
Also, in writing a commentary on the Book of Revelation (Blessed Is He Who Reads: Ball, Larry E. ) I had to deal honestly with phrases like “the things which must soon take place” (Rev. 1:1), and “for the time is near” (Rev. 1:3). To impress on these time-texts any alternative interpretation than what is literally written meant that I could not be honest with the text. Add other texts like Matthew 23:36, “Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”
If my wife were stranded in a car in the mountains of Northeast Tennessee where there are all kinds of wild beasts, and if she called me for help, then I would tell her that I would be there soon or shortly. If two thousand years later I showed up to help, then she would look at me straight in the eye and call me a fraud. Worse than a fraud – a liar! The readers in the seven churches of Revelation were living in days of great persecution, and they expected that the help promised soon would be coming quickly, not in millennia to come.
I cannot belabor the PP position endlessly. Too many books have been written. However, I would say that Mr. Davis’s characterization of the Reformed past as being the haven for amillennialism is misleading. Post-millennialism, which generally depends on PP, is not an abnormal phenomenon. It is easy enough to mention names like Rev. David Brown, a Scotch Presbyterian minister, R.L. Dabney, Charles and AA Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and W.G.T Shedd, all stalwarts in the Reformed world. More recently, we could add names like Loraine Boettner and R. C. Sproul.
This is indeed a movement in Reformed circles, but not a novel one. In my view it is just a return to the old paths.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts: -
Psalmody and the Sexual Revolution: Or Yet Another Reason Why We Should Only Sing God’s Word
Written by R. Scott Clark |
Tuesday, July 19, 2022
The Old Testament is coming alive before our eyes. Suddenly Sodom and Gomorrah seem more real, do they not? Nothing will subvert the new sexual order more than singing joyfully the Songs of Zion in the midst of the nations raging against the King (Ps. 2).It was only a matter of time. There is a story on CNN about the the 2019 publication of a LGBTQ hymnal, Songs For The Holy Other: Hymns Affirming the LGBTQIA2S+ Community. This collection is published by the Hymn Society, which is a century old this year.
The story begins with an acknowledgement of the affective power of singing. The first interview is with a Lesbian who chafed at being “tolerated” in the church. She wanted her Lesbian sexuality be affirmed even as she wanted to retain her Christian faith. She sought to synthesize Christianity with feminism as she studied music and “fell in love” with her “now-wife.” She contributed two hymns to the collection.
The title is a play on words. Theologians often speak of God as “wholly other” as a way to characterize his transcendence. The title uses a homonym but applies it to homosexuals in the church. They are the “holy” other. According to CNN, the hymnal was compiled by people from “seven denominations and a wide range of sexualities and gender identities.”
The contributors are explicit about their aim: “It is important for churches to explicitly state who is welcome there. It is important for members of our community to hear their names spoken—and sung—in their houses of worship…”. One authority contacted for the piece identifies as “pansexual.” “Queer people,” she says, “are longing to be heard,” she says “The church was supposed to protect them and love them and teach them about God. It has made a lot of mistakes, and we have a lot to make up for.”
Analysis
We are in the midst of the third phase of a great sexual revolution in the last century. The first, a century ago, was about the role of women in secular society and in that revolution women gained the freedom to drive and to vote. In the second phase, in the 1970s, women left the house for full-time careers, gained no-fault divorce, and abortion on demand. In the third, the very definition of marriage has been turned on its head and the heterosexual hegemony—grounded in nature since time immemorial—is being overturned in favor of queer, pan-sexual neo-paganism. It turns out that Pandora’s Box is pan-sexual chaos. It is so radical that even some third-wave feminists and advocates of homosexuality and homosexual marriage are complaining about being marginalized.
In the face of this revolution Christians have two choices, to try to co-opt the culture (or be co-opted by it) or to resist it. Of course, the mainline churches (e.g., the United Churches of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Episcopal Church USA et al) will try to incorporate the radical new sexual ethos in a sad attempt to remain relevant, but after giving up the Scriptures as the un-normed norm, what else can the seven sisters do?
For our purposes, the question facing the confessional Presbyterian and Reformed (P&R) churches is this: is there a rule of worship or not? It is the unquestioned assumption of this hymnal and its advocates that it is the function of the church and her hymns to affirm and to express the religious experience of the church. As the church changes, so must the hymnal.
The confessional P&R churches, however, do not begin with that assumption. They begin with the assumption that it is not the function of singing in worship for us to say whatever we want to God but to repeat God’s Word after him. The role of a song in worship is not for us to say to God what is on our hearts but for the congregation to say to God what is on his heart.
This is how the classical Reformed churches understood the function of singing. They understood worship to be a dialogue in which God speaks and his people respond but the Reformed all understood that God’s people are to respond with his Word. This is part of what they understood sola Scriptura to mean: God’s Word is sufficient for the Christian faith, the Christian life, and public worship.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, however, as religious subjectivism swept through the Modern church, first under the influence of Pietism, and then under the influence of the liberal children and grandchildren of the Pietists, God’s Word was gradually marginalized in favor of Watts’ paraphrases of the Psalms and then, finally, hymns. Eventually, in virtually every quarter of the church (and even in most P&R churches) the hymnal completely routed the Psalter.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Community Standards and Complete Sanctification
Out of His lovingkindness, God chose the believers in Thessalonica to be His children, and His grace would undergird their entire Christian lives. They had peace with Him in Christ Jesus. The Lord’s blessing was upon them. He was keeping them steadfast in the faith. His face and grace shone upon them. The Lord’s name and blessing rested upon them, granting them a peace that pervaded every aspect of their lives (see Num. 6:22-27).
The church is the family of God. Paul beautifully expresses this truth at the end of his letter to the Thessalonians by using the term “brothers” five times (1 Thess. 5:12, 14, 25, 26, 27). Every family has rules, whether spoken or unspoken, or more likely, a combination of both. So it is in God’s family. There is certain conduct that is to flow from those converted by the power of God. God doesn’t save us to leave us alone. He saves us to sanctify us. We are His holy people, set apart for His glory.
Unlike some of Paul’s other letters to churches, the church in Thessalonica received a good report. To be sure, there were problems that needed to be addressed, like idleness, but overall this church received praise. Even so, Paul wants them to increase in doing the good things they are already doing. Therefore, he closes his first letter to them with exhortations regarding how to conduct themselves as the family of God. These exhortations have much to teach our churches today.
Community Standards
Paul first exhorts the believers regarding their relationship with church leaders (1 Thess. 5:12-13). These leaders had received their position by the Lord, labored among the believers, and admonished them in matters of the faith. The church members were to recognize their work and respect them in love. One of the greatest ways they could do this was by being at peace with one another.
The same is true today. The more we dwell in unity with our brothers and sisters in Christ, the less our pastors and elders have to spend time seeking to resolve conflict between us. How are you holding your pastors and elders, as well as other leadership, in honor? Are you a joy for them to lead because you’re respectful and submissive to their leadership? Do you pray regularly for them and encourage them with your words and works?
Second, Paul exhorts the believers regarding their relationship with three specific groups of people (1 Thess. 5:14). Some among them were idle. Instead of leading orderly, disciplined lives, they were depending on others to support them and bringing disgrace upon the gospel. Paul tells the believers to admonish them. Others were fainthearted. Perhaps persecution, or their own personal problems, had deeply discouraged their faith.
Read More
Related Posts: