Very effective video

Taking a break from the future to feature this video from the here and now: Remember November.

Suggested alternate title: Psalms 109:8.

#3: In what manner will Christ come back?

Some people teach that Christ will next return secretly and silently, invisible to the vast majority of mankind. But what does the Bible say?

We already read in Acts that He will come back "in like manner" as He ascended. So how did He ascend? As the apostles looked on "he was taken up and a cloud received him out of their sight" (Acts 1: 9). So His return will be a reverse of that: He will come down visibly in a cloud. This can't be stated more simply than when John tells us, "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him" (Revelation 1: 7).

The apostle Paul, writing to the church at Thessalonica, gives a more expansive account of this event: "The Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thessalonians 4: 16, 17). Christ comes down; His chosen join Him in the clouds.

So the first thing we can say with certainty about the manner of Christ's return is that it will be a descent in the clouds that is visible to all.

In a separate letter, writing about the same event, Paul tells us, "we shall all be changed, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed" (1 Corinthians 15: 51, 52).

So not only does Christ descend visibly in the clouds, He also comes with great fanfare. The above verse in First Thessalonians makes the same exact point. The sound of His coming will be unmistakably loud: "the trumpet shall sound"; "the last trump"; "the trumpet of God"; "a shout"; "the voice of an archangel." Does anyone doubt that "the trumpet of God" and "the voice of an archangel" will be thunderous and deafening? When God's Son returns from heaven with "a shout" will it be barely audible? Not likely. When God delivered the Law to Moses on Mount Sinai, the Israelites heard "the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled" (Exodus 19: 16). How much louder will be "the last trump" of His second coming?

When it comes to the manner of Christ's return, then, Scripture leaves little room for debate: it will be a descent in the clouds, visible and exceedingly loud. There are no verses that suggest He is going to slip back unnoticed.

But won't He come "as a thief in the night"?

This is an oft-quoted phrase used to teach a clandestine return of the Messiah: Christ as cat burglar. But that is not the meaning of the phrase when read in context. The phrase "thief in the night" is used twice in the New Testament in association with Christ's personal return.

Paul writes to the church at Thessalonica that "the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." He then speaks of the "sudden destruction" of the wicked and adds, "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief." He explains, "they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us who are of the day be sober." (1 Thessalonians 5: 2-8).

The meaning of the phrase, then, is clear: only to those who dwell in darkness--those who are spiritually asleep--will Christ's return be completely unexpected and unwelcomed.

In a similar passage Peter states that "the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night." This follows a long discussion about the destruction of the wicked, who "willingly are ignorant" and scoff about "the promise of his coming" (2 Peter 3: 4, 5, 10). Like the wicked in Paul's description, they are figuratively "drunken in the night." To them Christ's return will be a moment of complete shock and anguish, akin to an invader kicking down the door at 3 a.m.

Christ uses the same metaphor for the same purpose when He says, "...if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up" (Matthew 24: 43). The "thief" analogy, therefore, is used to suggest not stealth, but sudden calamity for those whose eyes are closed.

So the cumulative picture painted by all these verses comes into focus: Christ will descend in the clouds, heralded by "the last trumpet," visible to all, and completely unexpected by the wicked.

#2: How many times will Christ come back?

Short answer: one.

To many Christians this might seem an odd question. Everyone's heard of the Second Coming--and everyone understands that to mean Christ is physically coming back once more. No one ever talks about a Third Coming, do they? But it's important to establish that He's only coming back one more time because there's a popular doctrine today that teaches otherwise.

Let's look at some sample verses that clearly speak of Christ's physical return:

"...those who are Christ's at His coming" (I Corinthians 15: 23).

"...blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing" (I Timothy 6: 14).

"...be patient brethren, until the coming of the Lord" (James 5: 7).

"...who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing" (2 Timothy 4: 1).

"...I will come again and receive you to myself" (John 14: 3).

"...that He may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before God our Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (I Thessalonians 3: 13).

Notice all these verses speak of His "coming" or His "appearing"--never His "comings" or His "appearings." It is always a singular event. His return is never referred to in the plural. Christ Himself never suggests multiple physical returns, nor do any of the New Testament writers. They never hint at a Second Coming followed by a Third Coming. In fact, there is not a single verse in Scripture that refers to two or more personal returns. If two returns were planned we would expect to find at least one mention of this concept in Scripture. Yet there are none. We would expect to find at least one passage that plainly mentions both returns in the same discourse. Yet there are none. We only hear of one physical return: His second coming, when He leaves His Father's right hand in heaven to return visibly to earth.

4 Prophecy Questions

After listening to all the convoluted predictions on "End Times Radio" each morning as I drive to work, I decided I wanted to do a study on the Second Coming. The premise is this: what does the Bible clearly teach about the future? So I came up with 4 big questions and will do a separate post on each. I want the answers to the questions to come from Scripture only: not from seminary theses, bestsellers or news stories. If you have anything to add I'd be glad to hear it.

Here are the questions in advance:
#1--Is Christ coming back?
#2--How many times will He come back?
#3--In what manner will He come back?
#4--What will happen when He comes back?

That's not a comprehensive study of prophecy but it covers the Second Coming pretty well. I may add a fifth question, having to do with timing. But we'll see.

#1--Is Christ coming back?

This is probably the easiest prophecy question to answer. Hardly anyone who claims to be a Christian would deny that Christ is coming back. But we don't want to rely on the consensus of men; we want to rely on Scripture. So let's see what the Word of God has to say about this fundamental question.

At the Last Supper, Jesus made a clear promise to His disciples. "I go to prepare a place for you," He told them. "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself" (John 14:2). This verse alone clearly answers our question. But since Scripture always repeats important doctrines let's look at another passage.

When Christ ascended into heaven after His resurrection, two angels suddenly appeared to the disciples and said to them, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven" (Acts 1: 11). So here we have another clear statement that leaves no room for misinterpretation. Just as He left, He will return.

The promise and certainty of Christ's return is reiterated throughout the entire New Testament, just as the promise of His first advent was reiterated throughout the Old Testament. If we needed any more proof of this promise, we would find it in almost every book in the New Testament.

Jesus promised that "the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels and then he shall reward every man according to his works" (Matthew 16: 27).

Paul spoke of "waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 1: 7), and urged Christians to "fight the good fight of faith...until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Timothy 6: 12, 14).

Peter encouraged his readers to remain faithful, "that the trial of your faith...might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1: 7).

So the first fundamental point we can establish from Scripture is that Christ is coming back.

Funny video

Here's a funny video by Christian entertainer Tim Hawkins. Pretty much captures the zeitgeist in a lighthearted way.

This is the same guy who made the classic "A Homeschool Family."

Evolution of an icon

It started with this icon: an unimaginative combination of pop art and third world political propaganda.

Then reality set in. As the narrative changed, so did the posters....

And finally my favorite.....

Happy Birthday, John Calvin?

I've gotten several emails this summer from places like Vision Forum, the National Center for Family Integrated Churches, and American Vision urging me to join them in celebrating John Calvin's 500th birthday. Calvin's life, they suggest, marks the most important event in Christian history since the resurrection. Why? Apparently because Calvin rediscovered and promoted the concept of salvation by grace. While this is certainly an important doctrine, there are some serious problems with all of this Calvin worship.

One problem is the man himself.

As the de facto "Pope of Geneva," he brought about the execution of Miguel Servetus, a Spaniard with whom he had theological disagreements. "If he ever comes [to Geneva]," Calvin wrote to a friend, "I shall never let him go out alive." Servetus did come to Geneva seven years later and was arrested while listening to Calvin speak. Calvin brought charges against him and was the chief witness during the trial. "I hope the verdict will call for the death penalty," Calvin wrote; and it did. Servetus was burned at the stake for heresy (over a pile of half-green wood, to prolong the burning).

What was Servetus' great crime? The two primary charges against him were 1) denying the trinity (being a Unitarian), and 2) renouncing infant baptism. While the former doctrine is certainly misguided, it does not warrant execution; and the latter is actually a Biblically-sound indictment of the likes of John Calvin who continued the Catholic practice of pedobaptism.

Historian Leonard Verduin, author of "The Reformers and their Stepchildren," writes: "The burning of Servetus--let it be said with utmost clarity--was a deed for which Calvin must be held largely responsible. It was not done in spite of Calvin, as some over-ardent admirers of his are wont to say. He planned it beforehand and maneuvered it from start to finish. It occurred because of him and not in spite of him. After it had taken place, Calvin defended it with every possible and impossible argument" (p. 51).

In summary, John Calvin used civil authority to murder someone with different theological views. Imagine if the pastor of your church had done the same. How could you justify it? Did the disciples take this approach? Did Jesus ever teach it? Of course not. We do, however, have a modern equivalent of this kind of behavior: it's called Islam.

A second problem with Calvin worship is the man's provenance. Like Zwingli and Luther he came from the Roman Catholic tradition. We call them "reformers," but do we ever stop to think what they were "re-forming" or "remaking"? They were remaking the Catholic model--Satan's counterfeit church. They did not abandon the model or embrace a purely Biblical model; they just tinkered with a few of the Catholic doctrines and kept the basic blueprint in place (state churches, infant baptism, "universal church," persecution of opponents, etc.). A more apt name for the "reformers" would actually be the "redecorators." Baptists should think twice before incorportating these redecorators into their worship narrative. The Baptists, as Spurgeon famously said, "did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it...."

A third problem with all this adulation is the "man-centered" nature of it: John Calvin as some sort of heart throb for egg-headed seminarians. We've already seen how terribly awry things can go when we elevate an individual over an idea, when we succumb to the cult of personality. We need no better example than our current president. How many of our fellow Americans are hanging their heads sheepishly because they thought they were electing Tiger Woods, only to find out they were duped into electing a radical Marxist with a good marketing scheme. I think many Baptist pastors would feel the same way if they actually had a chance to spend some time with the "Pope of Geneva." If "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10: 34) then why should we be?

A fourth problem is the reason given for the worship of Calvin. We hold him up because he purportedly rediscovered salvation by grace (as opposed to salvation by works). But that important doctrine had never died. It was taught by the Donatists, the Paulicians, the Waldensians, the Anabaptists--long before Calvin was born. This wasn't a "new" concept. It was in Scripture all along. Calvin didn't--as his fans claim--get Christianity back on track. He merely stumbled upon one of the doctrines taught by true churches for centuries; but sadly his followers persecuted those same churches while continuing to cling to the Catholic model.

So who's ready to join all those squeaky-clean salesmen and seminarians in celebrating Calvin's birthday? How about dressing up the kids like Reformers for Halloween? (I wish I were joking).

Paradox

I think a lot of people who reject the Bible do so because they can’t come to terms with its paradoxes.

A paradox is a seeming contradiction—the operative word being “seeming.” Two components that don’t jibe at first glance. And the Bible is full of these.

The same God that said “Thou shalt not kill” and “Turn the other cheek” encouraged Joshua to slaughter all the men, women and children of Jericho and showed no displeasure when David beheaded Goliath. The unthinking mind can’t reconcile such a disparity, so it writes it off: kind of like a teenager who doesn’t obey his parents because they seem to contradict themselves. It gives them an easy “out.”

We read “the powers that be are ordained of God” and “whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God” (Romans 13: 1, 2). But then we read how Daniel blatantly resisted the decree of Darius, which led to the whole lion’s den episode. So which example are we supposed to follow?

We know that we should “take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, etc.” (Matthew 6: 25). But then we see Joseph stockpiling seven years’ worth of food—not just for his family, but for his entire country. So which is the right way?

Of course none of the seeming contradictions are true contradictions. It just takes a little extra effort to reconcile the paradoxes and move on. By just opening a concordance we could see that there’s a difference between murdering and killing—and sometimes a holy judge requires the death of wicked men. So there is actually no contradiction at all.

We could learn that “take no thought” actually means “don’t be obsessed or anxious,” not “don’t prepare.”

We might even come to the conclusion that “the powers that be” doesn’t necessarily mean all dictators and bureaucrats (though it certainly suited King James to give us that impression).

But it takes a small amount of extra effort and study to explain these paradoxes to ourselves and others. They can’t always be summed up in a bumper sticker or a 30-second YouTube video. And I think the average person is not willing to get off the treadmill of life long enough to make that effort.

The unsaved who can’t come to grips with Scripture--and even professing Christians who never seem to grow--get mentally paralyzed by these paradoxes. Paradoxes either frustrate them or give them a convenient excuse for not pursuing the truth further. How many times have you heard, “If God is so loving and powerful, why is there evil in the world?” Classic paradox, where most people give up at the question itself because it seems so clever and irreconcilable. But there is actually an answer…which leads us to greater truths.

What Jesus said of parables could also apply to paradoxes:

“And the disciples came, and said unto him, 'Why speakest thou unto them in parables?' He answered and said unto them, 'Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, "By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive"'” (Mark 13: 10-14).

Anyway, just something I’ve been observing and thinking about. And yes, that’s the best picture of a paradox I could find.