Brothers in Christ: On Confessional Charity, Baptist Identity, and the Unbecoming Condescension Toward Dispensational Brethren

Brothers in Christ: On Confessional Charity, Baptist Identity, and the Unbecoming Condescension Toward Dispensational Brethren

One of the most encouraging sights in contemporary Reformed life is the warm fellowship that often exists between Paedobaptist Presbyterians who hold the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and Credobaptist brothers who subscribe to the nearly identical Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689). Though real differences separate them—chiefly over the proper subjects and mode of baptism, the structure of covenant theology, the role of the civil magistrate, and aspects of Sabbath observance—both sides typically treat one another as mature, thoughtful, gospel-believing Christians who simply read certain texts differently. Disagreement is acknowledged, but contempt is not.

Yet a strikingly different tone sometimes emerges when the subject turns to eschatology—specifically, when Reformed believers who hold a dispensational (or dispensational-leaning) premillennial viewpoint enter the room. What is extended as charitable disagreement toward 1689 Baptists can quickly morph into eye-rolling dismissal, sarcastic memes, and the unmistakable implication that dispensationalists are the simple-minded little brothers of the Reformed world—enthusiastic, perhaps, but not quite ready for the “big boy table” of serious biblical and theological understanding.

This condescending posture is both theologically inconsistent and pastorally unbecoming.

Consider the objective doctrinal distance involved.

From the Westminster Confession to the Second London Confession (1689), the Baptists introduced numerous weighty changes:

1. A reworking of the covenant of grace itself (ch. 7)
2. A different doctrine of the visible church and its ordinances
3. Rejection of infant baptism and paedocommunion
4. Removal of the establishment principle and the magistrate’s role in religion
5. Adjustments to the Christian Sabbath

These are not minor tweaks. They affect ecclesiology, sacramentology, soteriology, and political theology in profound ways. Yet today one regularly sees Westminster Presbyterians and 1689 Baptists praying together, planting churches together, and commending one another’s books and sermons without the slightest hint that the other side is theologically immature or unworthy of serious engagement.

By comparison, the primary differences between a confessional 1689 Baptist (or Westminster Presbyterian) and many Calvinistic, Reformed-leaning dispensationalists center on:

1. The future role of ethnic/national Israel in God’s plan
2. The degree of continuity/discontinuity between Israel and the church
3. The timing and sequence of events surrounding Christ’s return (pre-tribulational premillennialism vs. the amillennial lean of the confessions)

That is, in most cases, the main point of divergence. These brethren typically affirm the same five solas, the same doctrines of grace, the same high view of Scripture, the same rejection of the progressive covenant/dispensationalism of classic Dallas Seminary theology, and even the ongoing validity of the moral law. In short, they stand far closer to the 1689 Confession on soteriology, ecclesiology, and hermeneutics than the 1689 itself stood to the original Westminster Confession on baptism and covenant theology.

If charitable, adult-minded fellowship can span the wider gulf of baptism and covenant structure, why do some treat the narrower gulf of eschatological timing and Israel’s future with such scorn? Why is the credobaptist brother invited to the table as an equal, while the dispensational brother—often holding nearly everything else in common—is mocked as a dispensationalist “with a few good insights despite his eschatology”?

Such contempt is not merely inconsistent; it is sinfully proud. It assumes a level of interpretive certainty about unfulfilled prophecy that the humble student of Scripture dare not claim. The same hermeneutical humility that says, “My paedo/credo brother reads the covenant signs differently than I do, but he loves the same Christ and submits to the same Word,” ought to say, “My dispensational brother reads the prophetic timeline differently than I do, but he loves the same Christ and submits to the same Word.” Mockery has no place in either case.

The 1689 divines themselves lived with diversity and charity on a number of issues. They did not sneer at those who disagreed with them on the magistrate or the Sabbath. If they could extend grace across those divides, surely we can refrain from sneering at a brother who expects a future conversion of ethnic Israel or believes the church will be raptured before a great tribulation.

Christian maturity is not measured by one’s ability to caricature another believer’s position with late-night Twitter memes. It is measured by the ability to disagree with firmness where Scripture demands it, and with humility and love where it grants liberty.

So let the Westminster Presbyterian continue to love his 1689 Baptist brother as a fellow heir of the Reformed tradition.

Let the postmillennial optimist labor alongside his premillennial dispensational friend without a hint of condescension.

And let all of us repent of any pride that would mock a fellow blood-bought sinner for seeing the details of the consummation differently.

After all, we will spend eternity worshiping the Lamb together—Paedobaptists, Credobaptists, amillennialists, historic premillennialists, and yes, even our dispensational brethren. We might as well start practicing the charity now that we will one day enjoy perfectly.

Grace and peace in the same risen Christ—the One whose return we all await, whenever and however He chooses to come.

There are only two religions in the world. So-called human achievement and divine accomplishment.

1. Historic Orthodox Christianity: Divine Accomplishment

1. Salvation is monergistic: God alone initiates, accomplishes, and applies redemption (John 6:44, Ephesians 2:8–9).
2. Christ’s finished work on the cross is sufficient—no human contribution required.
3. Faith itself is a gift, not a work (Philippians 1:29).
4. This is the scandal of particularity: only through the historical person and work of Jesus, as defined by the early creeds (Nicene, Chalcedonian) and confessional Protestantism.

2. All Else: Human Achievement (Works-Religion in Disguise)

Every non-orthodox system, even when it denies “religion,” operates on a performance principle:

System	How It’s Still “Earned”
Islam	Five Pillars, scales of justice at judgment
Hinduism/Buddhism	Karma, dharma, meditation, rebirth cycles
Judaism (post-Temple)	Torah obedience, mitzvot as merit
Mormonism	Ordinances + personal righteousness
Secular Humanism	Moral self-construction, legacy, “making your mark”
Atheistic Naturalism	Meaning via achievement, science, or ethical superiority
New Age / Self-Help	“Manifestation,” inner divinity, vibrational alignment

Even progressive Christianity often slips into this camp when it redefines salvation as social justice, inclusivity, or “love wins” apart from atonement.

Key Insight: Atheism as Religion

Naturalism functions religiously. It has:

1. Cosmogony (Big Bang + abiogenesis)
2. Anthropology (humans as evolved meaning-makers)
3. Soteriology (progress, therapy, or utopia via human effort)
4. Eschatology (heat death or transhuman upload)

It just replaces God with humanity as the measure—the ultimate act of self-salvation.

So What’s the Point?

This dichotomy isn’t about behavior (Christians can be legalists too), but ontology of salvation:

Question: Who gets the glory in the end?

1. Christianity: God alone
2. Everything else: Man, in some form

That’s why Paul says:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Eph 2:8–9)

Final thought: This view isn’t just theological—it’s diagnostic. It reveals that the human heart is incurably religious, always building ladders to heaven. Only the gospel says: “The ladder comes down.”

A comparison of how Amillennialists and Premillennialists (both historic and dispensational varieties) interpret Romans 11:24–36

A comparison of how Amillennialists and Premillennialists (both historic and dispensational varieties) interpret Romans 11:24–36, with emphasis on the key exegetical moves each view makes. The passage is quoted first (ESV) for reference:

24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27 “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! … 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

1. Shared Ground (Both Views)

Point	Agreement
Olive-tree metaphor (vv. 24–25)	One people of God; Gentiles are grafted in; unbelieving Jews are broken off but can be regrafted.
“Mystery” (v. 25)	Something previously hidden, now revealed in the gospel era.
“All Israel will be saved” (v. 26)	A future, large-scale salvation of ethnic Jews.
Irrevocable gifts/calling (v. 29)	God has not abandoned ethnic Israel permanently.
Doxology (vv. 33–36)	God’s plan is wise, sovereign, and ultimately for His glory.

2. Key Divergences

Verse / Issue	Amillennialist Reading	Premillennialist Reading
“Until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (v. 25)	The entire present age (from Pentecost to the Parousia) is the period of Gentile ingathering. No distinct future “dispensation” is implied.	Historic Premill: Same as Amill, but the end of this period triggers Christ’s return and the millennium.	Dispensational Premill: The “fullness” ends at the rapture; then a 7-year tribulation converts Israel en masse.
“And in this way [καὶ οὕτως] all Israel will be saved” (v. 26)	“In this way” = by the same gospel mercy shown to Gentiles (vv. 30–31). “All Israel” = the fullness of ethnic Jews across church history (not every individual Jew, but the corporate remnant). The salvation occurs progressively throughout the age, culminating at Christ’s return.	“In this way” = sequentially after the Gentile fullness. “All Israel” = the generation of ethnic Jews alive at Christ’s return, converted nationally in a short period (often tied to Zech 12–14). Historic Premill sees this in the millennium; Dispensationalists place it at the end of the tribulation.
OT quotations (Isa 59:20–21; 27:9; Jer 31:33–34)	Paul cites them typologically: the new-covenant promise is already inaugurated in the church (Jew + Gentile); the future “banishing of ungodliness” is the final consummation for both groups at the Parousia.	The quotations are literally future: Israel’s national repentance and covenant renewal occur after the Second Coming (Dispensational) or during the millennial kingdom (Historic Premill).
Relation to Rev 20	The “thousand years” is symbolic of the present reign of Christ over the church (including converted Jews). Rom 11 describes the ongoing ingathering that fills the symbolic 1,000 years.	Rev 20 is a future literal period after Christ’s return. Rom 11:26 is the mass conversion that populates the millennial kingdom with ethnic Israel in fulfillment of land/covenant promises.
Structure of redemptive history	Two-age framework: This age → consummation. No intermediate earthly kingdom. Israel’s restoration is spiritual (faith in Christ) and eschatological (final day).	Multiple dispensations / phases: Church age → Tribulation → Millennial kingdom → Eternal state. Israel’s restoration is national-political as well as spiritual, centered in a restored Davidic kingdom on earth.

3. Representative Exegetical Arguments

Amillennialist (e.g., O. Palmer Robertson, Anthony Hoekema)

1. Continuity of the olive tree – The tree is one; there is no second tree for Israel in the future. Grafting back occurs now whenever a Jew believes.
2. “All Israel” = corporate fullness – Parallel to “fullness of the Gentiles” (v. 25); both are non-literal totals (cf. “all” in Rom 5:18).
3. No chronological sequence implied – καὶ οὕτως is manner, not time (cf. 1 Cor 11:28; 14:25). The “until” clause simply marks the present era.
4. Contextual flow – vv. 30–32 stress reciprocity of mercy; Jews are saved the same way Gentiles are—by faith in the gospel.

Premillennialist

Historic (e.g., George Ladd, Robert Mounce)

1. Future ingathering after Gentile era – The “until” marks a terminal point; the ingathering of Israel is the next major event after the Gentile mission is complete.
2. National scope – “All Israel” is too large to be the remnant across history; it points to a decisive future act of God (cf. Zech 12:10).
3. Link to kingdom promises – The OT texts demand a restored Davidic rule; the millennium is the setting.

Dispensational (e.g., John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost)

1. Parenthesis view – The olive tree is the place of blessing, not the church per se; Israel is temporarily set aside.
2. Two-phase salvation – “Fullness of Gentiles” ends at rapture; then Israel’s blindness is lifted (tribulation conversion).
3. Literal covenant fulfillment – Land, throne, priesthood promises require a future earthly phase.

4. Quick Reference Table

Issue	Amillennial	Historic Premill	Dispensational Premill
Timing of Israel’s salvation	Throughout church age → consummation	After Gentile fullness → at Christ’s return	After rapture → end of tribulation
Nature of “all Israel”	Corporate remnant of ethnic Jews	National conversion at Second Coming	Generation of Jews alive in tribulation
Role of millennium	Symbolic present reign	Future earthly kingdom (Israel restored)	Future earthly kingdom (Israel + Gentile saints)
Fulfillment of land/kingdom promises	Spiritual in new creation	Partial in millennium, full in new earth	Literal in millennium

Bottom line:

1. Amillennialists see Rom 11 as describing one continuous gospel age in which ethnic Jews are steadily regrafted by faith, culminating at the single return of Christ.
2. Premillennialists see a two-stage climax: Gentile mission → Israel’s national salvation → (for Dispensationalists, after the rapture/tribulation; for Historic, at the Second Coming) → millennial kingdom.

A wedding born in hell: The rise of Islamic socialism

A wedding born in hell: The rise of Islamic socialism

The term “conflagration” aptly describes the volatile fusion of Democratic socialism—a political ideology advocating expansive government control, wealth redistribution, and erosion of traditional capitalist structures—with certain strains of Islamic ideology that emphasize theocratic governance, sharia-influenced law, and resistance to secular pluralism. When these forces converge as a unified political bloc within the United States, they risk igniting a profound crisis for the constitutional republic, undermining its foundational principles of limited government, individual liberty, separation of powers, and the rule of secular law.

The Dangerous Synthesis

Democratic socialism, as embodied by figures in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party (e.g., self-identified democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders or members of “The Squad”), seeks to expand federal authority through policies like universal healthcare, Green New Deal mandates, and aggressive wealth taxes. This inherently centralizes power, diminishing states’ rights and private enterprise—already a tension with the Constitution’s enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8.

Islamic ideology, particularly in its politicized forms (e.g., as promoted by groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations or certain Islamist influencers), often prioritizes religious doctrine over man-made laws. Hardline interpretations advocate for sharia compliance in public life, viewing secular democracy as incompatible with divine sovereignty. When allied with democratic socialists, this creates a hybrid force: socialists provide the electoral machinery and cultural relativism to accommodate “minority” religious demands, while Islamist elements supply demographic voting blocs (concentrated in urban areas like Dearborn, Michigan, or Minneapolis) and a narrative of anti-imperialist solidarity against “Western capitalism.”

This isn’t mere coalition-building; it’s a conflagration because the two ideologies feed each other destructively:

1. Socialists gain from Islamist support in opposing U.S. foreign policy (e.g., anti-Israel stances that align with BDS movements) and pushing identity-based grievances.
2. Islamists benefit from socialist tolerance of “cultural” practices that clash with American norms, such as gender segregation in public spaces or resistance to LGBTQ+ rights under the banner of religious freedom.

Evidence of this emerging alliance appears in electoral politics: Progressive Democrats increasingly court Muslim-majority districts with promises of leniency on immigration enforcement and criticism of “Islamophobia,” while downplaying sharia’s anti-constitutional elements. The 2024 election cycle saw heightened rhetoric from figures like Rashida Tlaib blending socialist economics with pro-Palestinian activism, framing Israel (and by extension, American exceptionalism) as a capitalist oppressor.

Ramifications for the Constitutional Republic

1. Erosion of Secularism and the First Amendment: The Establishment Clause prohibits government endorsement of religion. A socialist-Islamist bloc could push for accommodations like sharia-compliant finance in public institutions or halal mandates in schools, blurring church-state lines. This mirrors Europe’s “parallel societies” in places like Molenbeek, Belgium, where Islamic enclaves operate semi-autonomously—importing that to the U.S. would fracture national unity and invite legal challenges under the Supremacy Clause.
2. Expansion of Executive and Bureaucratic Power: Democratic socialism’s reliance on administrative state growth (e.g., via agencies like a hypothetical “Ministry of Equity”) would accelerate under this alliance. Islamists could embed influence in education (curricula whitewashing jihadist history) and justice systems (pushing hate speech laws that silence criticism of Islam). The result: a soft theocracy masked as progressivism, bypassing Congress and the Tenth Amendment.
3. Threat to Free Speech and Individual Rights: Both ideologies suppress dissent—socialists through cancel culture and economic coercion, Islamists via blasphemy norms. Combined, they could amplify Section 230 reforms or “disinformation” crackdowns to target conservative or moderate voices. The Second Amendment faces dual assault: socialists for gun control, Islamists for disarming “infidels” in potential conflict zones.
4. Demographic and Electoral Tipping Points: With Muslim American population growth (projected to surpass Jews by mid-century per Pew Research) concentrated in swing states, this bloc could dominate urban strongholds. Paired with socialist open-border policies, it accelerates replacement migration, diluting the cultural foundations of the republic (e.g., Judeo-Christian ethics underpinning the Declaration of Independence).
5. National Security Vulnerabilities: The conflagration invites foreign influence—Iranian or Qatari funding for mosques and campuses fuels anti-Americanism. Domestically, it risks civil unrest, as seen in 2020 riots amplified by intersectional alliances, escalating to sectarian violence if economic collapse (from socialist policies) intersects with religious grievances.

In essence, this fusion isn’t just additive; it’s incendiary, potentially consuming the republic’s safeguards. The Framers designed checks against such concentrations of power (Federalist No. 10 warns of factions), but a motivated minority wielding majoritarian tools could overwhelm them. Countermeasures include vigorous enforcement of assimilation policies, defense of free markets, and electoral reforms to prevent bloc voting from overriding the general will. Without pushback, the U.S. risks transforming from a constitutional republic into a fractious, authoritarian hybrid—ashes where liberty once burned bright.

The Universal Problem: No One Achieves Righteousness by Works

Paul’s argument that “faith is credited as righteousness” (Romans 4:3–5, quoting Genesis 15:6) is the theological cornerstone of justification by faith alone. It rests on a deliberate contrast between two systems of relating to God: works (human effort to earn merit) and faith (trusting God’s promise apart from merit). Below is the step-by-step logic as Paul develops it, primarily in Romans 3–4 and Galatians 3.

1. The Universal Problem: No One Achieves Righteousness by Works

1. Premise: “By works of the law no human being will be justified” (Rom 3:20; cf. Gal 2:16).
2. Reason: The law exposes sin, not righteousness; it demands perfect obedience, which all fail (Rom 3:23; Gal 3:10–11).
3. Conclusion: Righteousness cannot be earned; it must be received.

2. The Old Testament Witness: Abraham Believed, and It Was Credited

1. Key text: “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6).
2. Timing is decisive: This crediting happened before circumcision (Gen 17) and centuries before the Mosaic law (Rom 4:9–13).
3. Therefore, righteousness by faith predates and transcends the law.
4. Nature of the act: Abraham’s “belief” was not a work that merited credit; it was empty-handed trust in God’s promise of a son despite sterility and old age (Rom 4:18–21).
5. Paul’s analogy: “To the one who does not work but believes… his faith is credited as righteousness” (Rom 4:5).

3. Accounting Logic: Imputation, Not Infusion

1. Metaphor: God treats faith like a ledger entry. The believer has no positive balance (all are debtors, Rom 3:23), yet God credits (λογίζομαι, logizomai, 11× in Rom 4) Christ’s righteousness to the account (Rom 4:6–8; cf. 2 Cor 5:21).
2. David confirms: Psalm 32:1–2 speaks of sins “not counted” (same verb); forgiveness is non-imputation of guilt + imputation of righteousness (Rom 4:6–8).

4. Christological Fulfillment: Faith’s Object Is the Risen Jesus

1. Romans 3:21–26: The righteousness God credits is “through faith in Jesus Christ” because Jesus is the propitiation (ἱλαστήριον) who absorbs wrath and the righteous one whose obedience is gifted.
2. Romans 4:23–25: Genesis 15:6 was written “for us” who believe in Him who raised Jesus, whose death was “for our trespasses” and resurrection “for our justification.”

5. Exclusion of Boasting

1. Corollary: If righteousness were by works, boasting would be valid (Rom 4:2).
2. But: “Where then is boasting? It is excluded” (Rom 3:27). Faith, by definition, looks away from self to Another; it is the anti-boast.

Summary in Paul’s Own Words

“Now to the one who works, his wages are not credited as a gift but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” (Rom 4:4–5)

In short: Faith is counted as righteousness not because it is inherently meritorious, but because it is the instrument that receives the alien righteousness of Christ, promised in the gospel and foreshadowed in Abraham. It is God’s chosen mechanism to uphold both His justice (sin is punished in Christ) and His grace (righteousness is gifted, not earned).

Living Every Moment for God’s Glory: A Biblical Framework for Conscience, Faith, and Freedom

Living Every Moment for God’s Glory

A Biblical Framework for Conscience, Faith, and Freedom

“So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”

— 1 Corinthians 10:31

“Everything that does not come from faith is sin.”

— Romans 14:23

These two verses are not suggestions—they are marching orders for the Christian life. They transform the mundane into the meaningful and elevate every decision, from what you watch to how you speak, into an act of worship. But how do we apply them without slipping into legalism? The answer lies in a simple, Scripture-shaped question:

“Can I do this—fully, freely, and faithfully—to the glory of God with a clear conscience?”

If the honest answer is no, the loving response is to abstain. This is not rule-keeping. This is relationship-keeping.

The Biblical Principle: Faith + Conscience = Obedience

The apostle Paul gives us a powerful diagnostic tool in Romans 14:23:

“But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith. And everything that does not come from faith is sin.”

Note the logic:

1. You doubt whether an action honors God.
2. You do it anyway.
3. It becomes sin—not because the act is inherently evil, but because it violates your faith-informed conscience.

This is personal, not universal. Eating meat offered to idols was not sin in itself (1 Cor 8), but if a believer couldn’t eat it in faith, it became sin for them.

Now pair this with 1 Corinthians 10:31:

“Do it all for the glory of God.”

Paul refuses to compartmentalize life. There is no “secular” zone. Your Netflix queue, your group chat, your lunch break—all fall under divine jurisdiction.

So the test is twofold:

1. Can I participate in faith? (No lingering doubt before God)
2. Can I participate for His glory? (In a way that reflects His character)

If either answer is no, the activity is off-limits—not because a rulebook says so, but because love for God demands it.

This Is Not Legalism—Here’s Why

Legalism	Biblical Conscience
Adds man-made rules to earn favor	Applies God-given principles to honor Him
Focuses on external behavior	Focuses on internal conviction
Judges others by personal standards	Applies the standard only to self
Breeds pride or fear	Breeds humility and dependence on grace

Legalism says, “You must never watch R-rated movies.”

Biblical conscience says, “I cannot watch this movie in faith and to God’s glory—so I won’t.”

One binds. The other frees you to love God with your whole life.

How to Apply This in Everyday Life

Step 1: Ask the Two Questions

Before you click “play,” send the text, or open the book, pause and ask:

1. “Do I have any doubt that this honors God?”
2. “Can I engage in this in a way that reflects God’s glory?”

Example: A TV show with crude humor

1. You laugh at jokes that mock purity (Eph 5:3–4).
2. You feel a check in your spirit.
3. Verdict: You cannot watch in faith or for glory. Skip it.

Step 2: Test Your Conscience with Scripture

Your conscience is a compass, not a king. It must be trained:

1. Is this clearly forbidden? (e.g., pornography, gossip) → Abstain.
2. Is this a gray area? (e.g., secular music, fantasy novels) → Ask: “Does this stir up sin or draw me closer to Christ?” (Phil 4:8)

Step 3: Respect Others’ Freedom

Your conviction is yours. Don’t project it:

“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.” (Romans 14:1)

If your friend can watch a war documentary in faith and for God’s glory, celebrate their freedom. You are not their Holy Spirit.

Guardrails to Stay in Grace

1. Don’t let conscience become hypersensitive
   
2. A “weak conscience” (1 Cor 8:7) can be overly fragile. Grow it with truth, not fear.
3. Check your heart
   
4. Are you abstaining to honor God or to signal virtue? Motive matters.
5. Remember grace
   
6. You’re not earning salvation by your choices. You’re responding to it.

A Final Word: This Is Mature Discipleship

The world says, “Do whatever feels good.”

Culture says, “Do whatever everyone else is doing.”

Christ says, “Do whatever glorifies Me—in faith, with joy, without compromise.”

When you live by this standard, you’re not being restrictive—you’re being devoted.

You’re not shrinking your life—you’re filling it with worship.

So go ahead.

Turn off the show.

Close the app.

Skip the conversation.

Not because you’re afraid.

But because you’re in love.

And that, believer, is the most liberating way to live.

The Final Countdown: everyone who believes gets us closer to zero.

The Finite Number of True Believers: God’s Predetermined Plan Unfolding

In the vast tapestry of Christian theology, few concepts stir as much contemplation and debate as the doctrine of predestination and election. At its core lies the profound idea that God, in His infinite wisdom and sovereignty, has predetermined a finite number of individuals to be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. This number—the elect—was established before the foundations of the world. As each person comes to genuine faith, placing their hope in Christ, they fulfill one spot in this divine roster, effectively reducing the remaining count. Day by day, we draw nearer to the completion of God’s eternal decree, when the last of the elect will be called home. This article explores the biblical foundations of this teaching, its theological implications, and what it means for believers today.

The Biblical Roots of Predestination and the Elect

The Scriptures provide a clear framework for understanding God’s sovereign choice in salvation. Central to this is the concept of election, where God selects specific individuals for redemption, not based on their merits, but according to His will. As outlined in Ephesians 1:4-5, God “chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.” 3 This passage underscores that the decision was made in eternity past, implying a fixed and finite group known only to God.

Predestination, closely tied to election, refers to God’s eternal decree to bring the elect to salvation. Romans 8:29-30 elaborates: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son… And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” 11 Here, the process is portrayed as a golden chain, unbreakable and predetermined, ensuring that every elected soul will ultimately be saved. The finite nature of this group is further hinted at in passages that speak of a “fullness” or completion.

One striking example is found in Romans 11:25, where Paul reveals a mystery: “Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” 10 The term “fullness” suggests a complete, predetermined number of Gentile believers that must be reached before certain eschatological events unfold. Similarly, Revelation 6:11 speaks of martyrs being told to wait “until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete.” 16 While this specifically addresses those killed for their faith, it illustrates the biblical principle of God operating with a precise, finite tally in His redemptive plan.

These verses align with the broader doctrine of unconditional election, which asserts that God’s choice is not contingent on human actions but is rooted in His sovereign grace. As theologians note, this election is not arbitrary but purposeful, designed to display God’s glory. 2 The finite aspect challenges human notions of fairness, yet it affirms God’s omniscience—He knows the end from the beginning and has ordained every conversion as part of His unchangeable blueprint.

A Countdown in Motion: How Faith Reduces the Number

Imagine the elect as a sacred ledger inscribed in heaven before time began. Each entry represents a soul destined for eternal life through Christ. When a person repents and believes, they don’t add to the list; rather, they claim their preordained place, ticking off one entry and bringing the world one step closer to the fulfillment of God’s quota. This isn’t a random process but a divinely orchestrated unfolding.

Theological traditions, particularly within Reformed Christianity, emphasize this dynamic. Election is God’s initiative, where He first regenerates the heart, enabling faith. 1 As 2 Timothy 2:10 states, “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” 12 Paul’s endurance implies active participation in God’s plan, hastening the day when all the elect are gathered.

Critics may argue this diminishes human responsibility or free will, but the Bible harmonizes both divine sovereignty and human choice. While the number is fixed, individuals are called to respond to the gospel, unaware of their status until faith awakens. 4 Every evangelism effort, every testimony shared, contributes to this cosmic countdown, as God uses means to draw His chosen ones.

In eschatological terms, this finite number ties into end-times prophecies. Matthew 24:22 warns of tribulation so severe that “if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.” 13 The implication is clear: God’s plan protects and preserves until the last elect soul is secured, signaling the approach of Christ’s return.

Implications for Believers Today

Understanding this doctrine isn’t merely academic; it carries practical weight. For the Christian, it fosters humility—salvation is God’s gift, not earned merit. It also ignites urgency in mission, knowing that each day brings us closer to the end of the countdown. As the world witnesses conversions, from quiet personal awakenings to mass revivals, the remaining number dwindles, edging humanity toward the consummation of God’s kingdom.

Yet, this truth also offers comfort amid uncertainty. In a chaotic world, believers can rest in the assurance that nothing thwarts God’s plan. The elect will not exceed or fall short; every slot will be filled precisely as decreed. 0 For those questioning their election, the advice is simple: Turn to Christ in faith, for “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13)—and if you do, it’s evidence you were among the chosen all along. 11

Conclusion: Approaching the Divine Fulfillment

As we navigate the complexities of faith in the modern era, the idea of a finite number of true believers serves as a reminder of God’s masterful design. Established before creation, this number decreases with every soul that embraces Jesus, propelling us toward the day when the last elect is called. Far from being fatalistic, this doctrine inspires awe at God’s sovereignty and motivates active participation in His redemptive story. In the end, when the count reaches zero, the fullness of the kingdom will dawn, and all glory will be to Him who planned it from eternity.

The Inconsistency of Applying Micah 5:2 Entirely to Christ’s First Coming

Micah 5:2, a well-known messianic prophecy, states:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting.”

This verse is often cited as a prophecy fulfilled in Jesus Christ, particularly with respect to His birthplace in Bethlehem. Many Christians accept the first part of the verse—that the Messiah was born in Bethlehem—as a literal fulfillment during Jesus’ first coming. However, some argue that the latter part, which describes the Messiah as “Ruler in Israel,” was fulfilled “spiritually” during His first coming, rather than literally. This interpretation introduces an inconsistency, as it applies a literal hermeneutic to one part of the verse (the birthplace) while spiritualizing another (the rulership). This article will demonstrate that Jesus did not rule in Israel during His first coming, that He rejected attempts to make Him a ruler by force, and that scriptural evidence points to a literal fulfillment of His role as “Ruler in Israel” during His second coming in the millennial reign.

The Literal Fulfillment of Bethlehem and the Problem of Spiritualizing the Rulership

Micah 5:2 explicitly identifies Bethlehem Ephrathah as the birthplace of the Messiah, a prophecy fulfilled literally in Jesus’ birth, as recorded in Matthew 2:1: “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem.” This literal fulfillment is universally accepted among Christians, as the historical and geographical specificity of Bethlehem aligns precisely with the Gospel accounts. The verse’s clarity and the historical record leave no room for a spiritual or allegorical interpretation of the birthplace.

However, the latter part of Micah 5:2, which declares that the Messiah will be “Ruler in Israel,” is sometimes interpreted as a spiritual reign during Jesus’ first coming, such as His authority over the church or a metaphorical kingship. This creates an inconsistent hermeneutic: if the prophecy’s specification of Bethlehem is literal, why would the rulership be spiritualized? The text does not indicate a shift in interpretive method. Both elements—birthplace and rulership—are presented in the same prophetic context, suggesting that both should be understood literally unless the text explicitly suggests otherwise. To demonstrate the inconsistency, we must examine whether Jesus ruled in Israel during His first coming and whether Scripture supports a literal rulership in His second coming.

Jesus Did Not Rule in Israel During His First Coming

The Gospel accounts provide clear evidence that Jesus did not assume a position of political or national rulership over Israel during His first coming. Instead, His mission focused on spiritual redemption, teaching, and fulfilling the role of the suffering servant (Isaiah 53). Several passages illustrate this:

1. Rejection of Earthly Kingship: In John 6:15, after feeding the five thousand, the crowd attempted to make Jesus a king by force: “Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone.” This incident demonstrates that Jesus explicitly rejected earthly rulership during His first coming. The people’s desire to make Him king aligns with the expectation of a political Messiah who would overthrow Roman rule and restore Israel’s national sovereignty, but Jesus’ mission at that time was not to fulfill this role.

2. Submission to Roman Authority: Jesus acknowledged the existing political order under Roman rule. In Matthew 22:21, when asked about paying taxes to Caesar, He responded, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” This statement shows that Jesus did not challenge or assume authority over the political structures governing Israel, further indicating that He was not acting as a “Ruler in Israel” in a governmental sense.

3. Focus on Spiritual Redemption: Jesus’ first coming centered on His role as the sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). His teachings emphasized the kingdom of God as a spiritual reality accessible through faith (Luke 17:20–21: “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you”). While Jesus exercised spiritual authority, this does not equate to the national rulership over Israel described in Micah 5:2, which implies a visible, governing role.

These passages demonstrate that Jesus did not fulfill the role of “Ruler in Israel” during His first coming. To interpret this part of Micah 5:2 as spiritually fulfilled requires ignoring the plain meaning of the text and the historical context of Israel’s expectation of a reigning Messiah. Such an interpretation also undermines the consistency of applying a literal hermeneutic to the entire verse, as the birthplace was undeniably fulfilled in a literal, physical sense.

Scriptural Evidence for Christ’s Literal Rule in the Millennial Reign

Scripture consistently points to a future, literal reign of Christ as the “Ruler in Israel” during His second coming, which will occur during the millennial kingdom. This period, described in Revelation 20:1–6, involves a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, where He will govern with authority and fulfill the messianic promises of national restoration for Israel. Several key passages support this:

1. Revelation 20:4–6: “And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them… And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” This passage explicitly describes Christ’s reign on earth, during which His followers will share in His authority. The context is a physical, earthly kingdom, not a spiritual metaphor, as it follows the defeat of Satan and precedes the final judgment.

2. Zechariah 14:9–11: “And the Lord shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be—‘The Lord is one,’ And His name one… And men shall dwell in [Jerusalem], and there shall be no more utter destruction, but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.” This prophecy describes a future time when the Lord will rule as king from Jerusalem, with a focus on Israel’s restoration and safety. The geographical and political details indicate a literal reign.

3. Isaiah 9:6–7: “For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder… Of the increase of His government and peace There will be no end, Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, To order it and establish it with judgment and justice From that time forward, even forever.” This messianic prophecy links the Messiah’s birth to His future government, specifically on the “throne of David,” which is associated with ruling over Israel. The eternal nature of His reign points to the millennial kingdom and beyond.

4. Luke 1:32–33: In the annunciation to Mary, the angel Gabriel declared, “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” The reference to the “throne of David” and reigning over the “house of Jacob” (Israel) indicates a literal, national rulership that was not fulfilled during Jesus’ first coming but awaits His return.

5. Daniel 7:13–14: “I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.” This vision of the Son of Man receiving a kingdom aligns with Christ’s second coming, when He will establish His dominion over all nations, including Israel, in a literal, visible manner.

These passages collectively point to a future, literal reign of Christ as the “Ruler in Israel,” fulfilling Micah 5:2 in its entirety. The millennial reign will involve Christ’s physical presence on earth, governing from Jerusalem, restoring Israel, and fulfilling the covenant promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David (Genesis 12:1–3; 2 Samuel 7:12–16).

The Inconsistency of a Mixed Hermeneutic

To accept the Bethlehem prophecy as literal while spiritualizing the rulership creates an inconsistent interpretive framework. If Micah 5:2’s reference to Bethlehem is fulfilled literally in Jesus’ birth, the prophecy’s description of the Messiah as “Ruler in Israel” should also be understood literally, as the text provides no indication of a shift to metaphorical language. Spiritualizing the rulership to fit the first coming disregards the historical evidence that Jesus did not assume a governing role over Israel at that time and ignores the broader scriptural context pointing to a future, literal reign.

Moreover, the phrase “Whose goings forth are from of old, From everlasting” in Micah 5:2 emphasizes the eternal nature of the Messiah, supporting His divine authority to rule. This eternal quality aligns with the promises of an everlasting kingdom (Daniel 7:14; Luke 1:33), which are not fully realized in a spiritual sense during the church age but require a literal, earthly fulfillment in the millennial kingdom.

Conclusion

Micah 5:2 is a unified prophecy that points to both the Messiah’s birthplace and His role as “Ruler in Israel.” The literal fulfillment of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem sets a precedent for interpreting the entire verse literally. However, Jesus did not rule in Israel during His first coming, as evidenced by His rejection of earthly kingship (John 6:15) and His focus on spiritual redemption. Instead, Scripture consistently points to a future, literal reign during the millennial kingdom, where Christ will govern Israel and the nations from Jerusalem (Revelation 20:4–6; Zechariah 14:9; Isaiah 9:6–7). To apply the rulership portion of Micah 5:2 spiritually to the first coming while accepting the Bethlehem prophecy as literal is an inconsistent hermeneutic that fails to account for the full scope of biblical prophecy. The “Ruler in Israel” prophecy awaits its complete fulfillment at Christ’s second coming, when He will establish His millennial reign.

Three and Five and Eschatology

The Eschatological Lens: How Theological Perspectives Shape Interpretation

Eschatology, the study of end times and ultimate destiny in theological frameworks, profoundly influences how adherents interpret questions, texts, and even seemingly straightforward inquiries. To illustrate this, consider a hypothetical question posed to three individuals representing distinct eschatological positions: a postmillennialist, an amillennialist, and a premillennialist. The question is simple: “What is five and three?” Yet, their responses reveal not only their theological leanings but also how these perspectives shape their approach to interpretation itself.

The Postmillennialist: Seeing the Greater Outcome

The postmillennialist, grounded in an optimistic view of history where Christ’s reign is progressively realized through the church before His return, might answer, “Fifteen.” This response reflects a tendency to interpret “and” as a call for multiplication, suggesting a belief in the compounding effect of God’s work in the world. To the postmillennialist, the question is not merely about numbers but about discerning a deeper operation—multiplication symbolizing the growth and triumph of the Kingdom over time. They see the “sign” (in this case, multiplication) as the key to unlocking the question’s intent, aligning with their view of a world gradually transformed by divine influence.

The Amillennialist: A Balanced Calculation

The amillennialist, who views the millennium as a symbolic period where Christ reigns spiritually through the church amidst ongoing worldly struggles, might respond, “Eight.” Here, “and” is interpreted as addition, a straightforward operation that yields a sum. The amillennialist’s answer reflects a tempered realism—acknowledging the components (five and three) and combining them without assuming an expansive outcome like multiplication. This mirrors their eschatological stance: the Kingdom is present but not fully consummated, requiring a careful, balanced approach to interpretation that avoids overreaching.

The Premillennialist: Taking the Question at Face Value

The premillennialist, who anticipates a literal future reign of Christ following His return, takes a strikingly different approach. When asked, “What is five and three?” they might respond, “Numbers—five and three are numbers.” This answer reflects a commitment to the plain, literal meaning of the question. For the premillennialist, there is no hidden operation or deeper intent to uncover. The question is what it appears to be, and the answer addresses its surface-level content. This aligns with their eschatological emphasis on taking prophetic texts literally, expecting a clear, future fulfillment without symbolic reinterpretation.

Mutual Recognition, Divergent Methods

Interestingly, the postmillennialist and amillennialist might concede that the other’s numerical answer (15 or 8) is “correct” in a technical sense, given the chosen operation. However, each would likely argue that the other misread the “sign” or operation implied by the question. The postmillennialist might claim the amillennialist underestimates the transformative potential of the question’s intent, while the amillennialist might counter that the postmillennialist overcomplicates a simple sum. Both assume the question carries a deeper meaning requiring interpretation, reflecting their respective eschatological tendencies to see spiritual or symbolic layers in texts and events.

The premillennialist, however, stands apart. By refusing to assume a hidden operation, they avoid what they see as the error of over-interpretation. Their response—declaring five and three as numbers—demonstrates a methodological commitment to clarity and directness, eschewing speculation about implied meanings. This mirrors their eschatological approach, which prioritizes straightforward readings of prophetic texts over allegorical or symbolic interpretations.

Broader Implications

This simple analogy of “five and three” highlights how eschatological frameworks shape not only theological conclusions but also the interpretive process itself. Postmillennialists lean toward expansive, transformative readings, seeing questions and texts as pointing to a grand, progressive outcome. Amillennialists favor a balanced, restrained approach, acknowledging present realities while awaiting future fulfillment. Premillennialists, by contrast, emphasize the plain meaning, resisting the temptation to read beyond what is explicitly stated.

In theological discourse, these differences manifest in how each group approaches scripture, history, and even practical questions. The postmillennialist might see cultural and social progress as evidence of the Kingdom’s advance, the amillennialist might focus on the spiritual reign of Christ amidst earthly tensions, and the premillennialist might await a dramatic, literal intervention by Christ in the future. Each perspective brings unique insights but also risks—whether of over-optimism, undue caution, or rigid literalism.

Conclusion

The question “What is five and three?” serves as a microcosm of eschatological interpretation. The postmillennialist’s “fifteen,” the amillennialist’s “eight,” and the premillennialist’s “numbers” reveal not just different answers but different ways of seeing the world. While the postmillennialist and amillennialist debate the correct operation, the premillennialist challenges the assumption that an operation is even required. In this way, eschatology shapes not only beliefs about the end times but also the lens through which all questions—numerical, theological, or otherwise—are answered. Understanding these perspectives fosters greater appreciation for the diversity of thought within Christian theology and the interpretive richness it brings to even the simplest of questions.

The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins: Shining Light Through the Holy Spirit

The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, found in Matthew 25:1-13, is a powerful teaching from Jesus about spiritual readiness for the Kingdom of Heaven. In this story, ten virgins await a bridegroom, each carrying a lamp to light his path. Five are wise, bringing extra oil to sustain their lamps, while five are foolish, carrying only the oil in their lamps. When the bridegroom arrives unexpectedly at midnight, the wise virgins’ lamps shine brightly, welcoming him into the wedding feast, while the foolish virgins’ lamps flicker out, leaving them in darkness and excluded. This parable underscores the importance of preparation, but it also reveals a profound truth: the foolish virgins were willing to shine their light during the “day,” relying on their own resolve, but their limited resources and understanding prevented them from shining in the “night,” when light was most needed. The wise virgins, however, carried extra oil—possibly their reliance on the Holy Spirit, which fueled their love for Christ and others, enabling them to shine even in the darkest hour.

The Shared Calling: Lamps Lit in the Day

At the parable’s start, the wise and foolish virgins share a common purpose. All ten are invited to the wedding feast, symbolizing the Kingdom of Heaven, and all carry lamps, representing an outward profession of faith or commitment to the bridegroom (often interpreted as Christ). In first-century Jewish weddings, the virgins’ role was to light the bridegroom’s procession, a task requiring readiness and vigilance. Both groups begin with lit lamps, suggesting an initial willingness to shine their light in the “day”—times of spiritual ease, when faith feels natural, and the cost of devotion is low.

The foolish virgins, like the wise, are eager to participate. Their lit lamps reflect a willingness to shine, perhaps through acts of worship, public faith, or a personal resolve to love Jesus. This “daytime” effort might represent a sincere but superficial commitment—sufficient when conditions are favorable but vulnerable to challenges. Their lamps burn brightly at first, but their preparation is incomplete, relying solely on their own strength rather than a deeper source.

The Fatal Flaw: Limited Resources and Understanding

The critical distinction between the wise and foolish virgins lies in their preparation. The wise virgins bring extra oil (Matthew 25:4), a symbol of sustained spiritual resources. This oil may represent their reliance on the Holy Spirit, which provides the love and strength needed to love Christ and others consistently. Unlike the foolish virgins, who depend on their personal resolve, the wise draw upon the Holy Spirit, allowing divine love to fuel their faith beyond human effort. Their foresight reflects an understanding that the bridegroom’s arrival may be delayed and that enduring faith requires more than initial enthusiasm.

The foolish virgins, however, take no extra oil (Matthew 25:3). Their lamps rely on limited resources—perhaps their own determination to follow Christ or a shallow commitment that burns out under pressure. They lack the understanding that true readiness involves drawing on the Holy Spirit’s power to sustain their love for Jesus and others, especially in challenging times. Their willingness to shine in the “day” is genuine but insufficient, as they fail to anticipate the demands of the “night”—the moments when faith is tested, and human resolve alone cannot endure.

The Midnight Crisis: When Light Matters Most

The parable’s climax occurs at midnight, when the cry announces the bridegroom’s arrival (Matthew 25:6). This is the “darkest hour,” when the virgins’ lamps must shine to fulfill their purpose. The wise virgins, with their extra oil, trim their lamps and join the procession (Matthew 25:7, 10). Their reliance on the Holy Spirit ensures their lamps burn brightly, reflecting a love for Christ and others that endures through delay and darkness. This divine empowerment enables them to shine when it matters most, securing their place at the wedding feast.

The foolish virgins, however, face a crisis. Their lamps are “going out” (Matthew 25:8), exposing their lack of reserves. Having relied on their own resolve, they find it insufficient in the night. They beg the wise virgins for oil, but are refused (Matthew 25:9), highlighting a key truth: spiritual readiness, particularly the love fueled by the Holy Spirit, cannot be borrowed at the last moment. The foolish virgins’ attempt to buy oil reflects their scramble for external solutions, but they return too late, finding the door shut and the bridegroom declaring, “I do not know you” (Matthew 25:11-12). Their willingness to shine in the day, rooted in personal effort, fails when the night demands a deeper, Spirit-sustained love.

The Holy Spirit: The Oil of Enduring Love

The extra oil carried by the wise virgins offers a profound spiritual insight. While their initial lamp oil might represent their personal commitment to love Jesus, the extra oil likely symbolizes their reliance on the Holy Spirit. Human resolve, though sincere, is finite; it cannot sustain the love required to remain faithful through life’s trials or the uncertainty of Christ’s return. The Holy Spirit, however, provides a renewable source of divine love, empowering believers to love Christ wholeheartedly and extend that love to others, even in the darkest moments.

The foolish virgins’ lack of extra oil reflects their failure to draw on this divine resource. Their faith, though initially bright, is rooted in their own strength, which falters when tested. They lack the understanding that true readiness involves surrendering to the Holy Spirit, allowing God’s love to flow through them. This limitation prevents them from shining their light when it is most needed—when darkness falls, and the bridegroom’s arrival demands enduring devotion.

The Spiritual Lesson: Preparing for the Night

The foolish virgins’ story warns against relying solely on human effort in our faith journey. They were willing to shine their light in the “day,” when love for Christ felt easy and natural, but their lack of spiritual resources and understanding left them unprepared for the “night.” The night represents times of spiritual testing—doubt, hardship, or the delay of Christ’s return—when human resolve alone cannot sustain us. The wise virgins teach us that readiness requires drawing on the Holy Spirit, who fuels our love for Christ and others, enabling us to shine even in the darkest hour.

Jesus’ concluding call, “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour” (Matthew 25:13), urges vigilance and preparation. The wise virgins’ extra oil—their reliance on the Holy Spirit—ensures their lamps burn through the night, reflecting a faith sustained by divine love. This reliance empowers them to remain faithful, not just in moments of ease, but when light is most needed to honor the bridegroom.

Application for Today

The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins challenges us to reflect on the source of our faith. Are we like the foolish virgins, shining brightly in the “day” with a faith rooted in personal resolve—attending church, professing belief, or doing good when it’s easy? Or are we like the wise virgins, drawing on the Holy Spirit to fuel a love for Christ and others that endures through trials and delays? To shine in the night, we must cultivate a deep reliance on the Holy Spirit through prayer, scripture, and obedience, allowing His love to sustain us when human effort falls short.

The foolish virgins’ exclusion reminds us that readiness is a personal responsibility, and the love required to follow Christ cannot be borrowed or conjured at the last moment. By seeking the Holy Spirit’s guidance now, we can build spiritual reserves that empower us to love faithfully, ensuring our lamps shine brightly when Christ returns.

Conclusion

The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins is a call to enduring, Spirit-fueled faith. The foolish virgins were willing to shine their light in the “day,” but their reliance on personal resolve left them unprepared for the “night,” when their light was most needed. The wise virgins, drawing on the Holy Spirit as their extra oil, sustained a love for Christ and others that shone through the darkness, welcoming the bridegroom into the feast. As we await Christ’s return, may we rely on the Holy Spirit to fuel our love, ensuring our light burns brightly, no matter when or how He comes.

In Memory of Charlie Kirk: A Beacon of Faith, Patriotism, and Unyielding Truth

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, and fellow patriots who cherish the freedoms bestowed upon us by our Creator,

In this hour of profound sorrow and national mourning, as the echoes of tragedy still reverberate across our land on this somber September 11, 2025, we gather our hearts and minds to reflect upon the life and legacy of Charlie Kirk—a man whose voice has been cruelly silenced, yet whose message endures eternally. What was it, I ask you, that truly set Charlie Kirk apart from the multitude of political pundits who clamor for attention in our divided age? Was it not his unwavering commitment to being a Christian first and foremost, a devoted patriot second, who viewed his activism not as mere political maneuvering, but as a divine calling to uphold the principles of righteousness in a nation founded on godly foundations?

Indeed, Charlie was no ordinary commentator. In a sea of voices driven by ambition, ideology, or fleeting trends, he stood as a pillar of conviction, seeking first the kingdom of God as commanded in the sacred words of Matthew 6:33: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” He was profoundly convinced that by aligning his life and work with this eternal priority, he could rightly discern and address the ills plaguing our society—the moral decay, the erosion of family values, the assault on religious liberty, and the rise of godless ideologies that threaten to unravel the fabric of our republic. Charlie did not merely critique the symptoms of our cultural ailments; he diagnosed them through the lens of Scripture, believing that true healing could only come from returning to the unchanging truth of God’s Word.

Consider how he embodied the wisdom of Proverbs 14:34, which declares, “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” Charlie was thoroughly persuaded that holding forth the Word of God as the sole reliable source of life, true morality, and godliness was the righteous and proper pathway to correcting the evils and societal ills of our day. From the sanctity of life in the womb to the defense of traditional marriage, from combating the indoctrination in our schools to championing free speech and Second Amendment rights, he never wavered. He pointed unapologetically to Christ as the ultimate solution, echoing the apostle Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” In every speech, every debate, every broadcast, Charlie urged his listeners to turn to Jesus Christ, the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6), as the only means of reconciliation with God and restoration for our broken nation.

Oh, how he never ceased to direct anyone and everyone back to Christ! Whether addressing college students on campuses hostile to conservative thought or rallying supporters at Turning Point USA events, Charlie’s message was laced with gospel hope. He proclaimed that without Christ, our efforts at patriotism and policy reform were futile, for as Jesus Himself taught in Matthew 7:24-27, the wise man builds his house upon the rock of obedience to God’s commands, not the shifting sands of human wisdom. Charlie lived this out, modeling a life where faith informed his patriotism, and patriotism served as an extension of his faith. He was a modern-day Jeremiah, weeping over the sins of the people yet boldly calling them to repentance, convinced that America’s greatness stemmed not from political power alone, but from covenant faithfulness to the God who blessed our founding.

Yet, as we grieve, we must confront the painful reality that the enemies of God, His Christ, and righteousness could not endure his love for the Savior or his steadfast stand for biblical truth. Just as in ages past, when the religious leaders and mobs could not bear the light of truth shining in their darkness, they sought to extinguish it through violence. Recall how they murdered Jesus, the innocent Lamb of God, as foretold in Isaiah 53:7: “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter.” Or Stephen, the first Christian martyr, stoned to death in Acts 7:59-60 for proclaiming Christ, crying out, “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” And the apostles themselves, most of whom met violent ends—James beheaded by Herod (Acts 12:2), Peter crucified upside down, Paul beheaded—because their words cut to the heart, exposing sin and calling for repentance. These persecutors, as the Scriptures warn in John 3:20, “hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.”

So it was with Charlie Kirk. His enemies—those steeped in the shadows of secularism, moral relativism, and outright hostility to Christian values—could not refute the truth of what he said. They could not dismantle his arguments rooted in the immutable authority of Scripture, nor could they withstand the power of his testimony that transformed lives and ignited a movement among young conservatives. Therefore, in their malice, they deemed it necessary to assassinate him, to shut him up forever in this earthly realm, much like the pharisees who plotted against the prophets. As Psalm 37:32-33 reminds us, “The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him. The Lord will not leave him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged.” Though the weapon of the enemy has prevailed for a moment, we know that vengeance belongs to the Lord (Romans 12:19), and Charlie’s blood cries out from the ground, just as Abel’s did in Genesis 4:10.

But let us not succumb to despair, beloved. In the face of this atrocity, we are called to rise, as the early church did after the martyrdoms of old, spreading the gospel with even greater fervor. Let us continue the message he proclaimed, in the teeth of the enemy! As 2 Timothy 4:2 exhorts, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.” We must take up the mantle of faith-filled patriotism that Charlie bore so courageously. Teach our children the Scriptures, as Deuteronomy 6:6-7 commands: “And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children.” Defend the unborn, protect our borders, restore prayer to our schools, and vote with biblical conviction—all while pointing souls to the cross of Calvary.

Charlie’s death is not the end; it is a clarion call. As Revelation 12:11 declares, the saints overcome “by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” His testimony lives on in the hearts he touched, the lives he changed, and the kingdom work he advanced. Let us honor him by living likewise—Christians first, patriots always—seeking God’s kingdom above all, and trusting that in doing so, we too shall see righteousness exalted in our land.

In the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who conquered death itself, may God comfort Charlie’s family, bring justice to the wicked, and revive America through His Spirit. Amen.

With fervent prayer and unshakeable resolve,

A Bereaved Patriot and Follower of Christ

The fall from Genesis chapter 1 to Romans chapter 1

A Biblical Comparison: Genesis 1:26-28 and Romans 1:22-25 on Humanity’s Relationship with Creation

The Bible provides profound insights into humanity’s role in relation to God’s creation, particularly in Genesis 1:26-28 and Romans 1:22-25. These passages, though distinct in context and purpose, offer complementary perspectives on humanity’s dominion, stewardship, and the dangers of distorting God’s created order through idolatry. This article explores the theological implications of these texts, contrasting humanity’s God-given authority and responsibility with the perversion of worship that elevates creation above the Creator, manifesting in ancient paganism and modern radical environmentalism.

Genesis 1:26-28: Humanity’s Dominion and Stewardship

In Genesis 1:26-28, God establishes humanity’s unique role within creation:

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” (ESV)

This passage underscores three key principles:

1. Divine Image and Authority: Humanity, created in God’s image, is uniquely endowed with the capacity to reflect God’s character and exercise authority over creation. The “image of God” implies rationality, creativity, and moral responsibility, setting humans apart from the rest of creation.

2. Dominion and Stewardship: The command to “have dominion” and “subdue” the earth grants humanity authority over creation, but this is not a license for exploitation. Instead, it implies responsible stewardship. As God’s representatives, humans are to care for and cultivate creation, ensuring its flourishing in alignment with God’s purposes.

3. Liberty to Enjoy Creation: God’s blessing to “be fruitful and multiply” and the provision of creation for human sustenance (Genesis 1:29) indicate that humanity is not only permitted but encouraged to enjoy the fruits of creation. This enjoyment, however, is to be exercised within the boundaries of God’s design, acknowledging Him as the Creator and source of all good things.

This framework establishes humanity as God’s vice-regents, tasked with ruling creation under His authority, balancing responsible stewardship with the freedom to enjoy its blessings.

Romans 1:22-25: The Distortion of Worship

In contrast, Romans 1:22-25 addresses humanity’s failure to honor God as Creator, leading to idolatry:

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.” (ESV)

This passage highlights the consequences of rejecting God’s truth:

1. Idolatry as a Rejection of God: Paul describes humanity’s tendency to exchange worship of the Creator for worship of created things. In ancient times, this manifested as pagan idolatry, where people crafted images of animals, humans, or celestial bodies and worshiped them as gods. Such practices distorted the proper relationship between humanity and creation, elevating the creature to a place of divine honor.

2. Moral and Spiritual Consequences: By prioritizing creation over the Creator, humanity invites divine judgment, as God “gives them up” to their sinful desires. This rebellion disrupts the order established in Genesis, where humanity’s role is to reflect God’s glory, not to ascribe divine attributes to creation.

3. Modern Manifestations: While ancient idolatry often involved physical idols, Paul’s warning remains relevant. In modern times, radical environmentalism can mirror this error by elevating creation—whether the earth, animals, or the universe itself—to a status that rivals or replaces God. This ideology may treat nature as inherently divine, prioritizing its preservation over human welfare or God’s purposes, thus distorting the biblical mandate of stewardship.

Comparing the Passages

The contrast between Genesis 1:26-28 and Romans 1:22-25 lies in their depiction of humanity’s relationship with creation:

• Purpose vs. Perversion: Genesis 1 establishes humanity’s God-given purpose: to exercise dominion and stewardship while enjoying creation’s blessings under God’s authority. Romans 1 describes the perversion of this purpose, where humanity rejects God and worships creation, leading to spiritual and moral decay.

• Order vs. Disorder: Genesis 1 presents an ordered creation where humanity’s role is clear—ruling as God’s image-bearers. Romans 1 depicts disorder, where humanity’s rejection of God inverts this hierarchy, placing creation above the Creator.

• Stewardship vs. Idolatry: The dominion in Genesis implies responsible care for creation, acknowledging God as its source. Romans 1 warns against idolatry, whether through ancient pagan practices or modern ideologies like radical environmentalism, which can idolize nature by ascribing to it an ultimate value that belongs to God alone.

Historical and Modern Contexts

Historically, Romans 1:22-25 found expression in pagan cultures that worshiped nature deities, such as the Egyptian god Horus (depicted as a falcon) or the Canaanite Baal, associated with natural forces. These practices diverted worship from God to His creation, violating the first commandment (Exodus 20:3).

In modern times, radical environmentalism can reflect a similar error. While environmental stewardship aligns with Genesis 1’s mandate to care for creation, some forms of environmentalism cross into idolatry by treating the earth or universe as sacred in itself. For example, movements that advocate for nature’s “rights” over human needs or equate humanity’s existence with harm to the planet risk elevating creation above its proper place. This contrasts with biblical stewardship, which balances human flourishing with care for the environment, recognizing both as gifts from God.

Conclusion

Genesis 1:26-28 and Romans 1:22-25 together provide a comprehensive biblical perspective on humanity’s relationship with creation. Genesis establishes humanity’s role as stewards, tasked with exercising dominion and enjoying creation under God’s authority. Romans warns of the consequences of rejecting this order, where worship of creation—whether through ancient idolatry or modern ideologies like radical environmentalism—leads to spiritual folly. Christians are called to uphold the balance of Genesis 1, stewarding creation responsibly while directing all worship to the Creator, who alone is worthy of glory.

By understanding these passages, believers can navigate contemporary challenges, rejecting idolatrous distortions while embracing their God-given mandate to care for and enjoy the world He has made.

If you do not belong to Christ and truly love and follow Him, you are a sinner, dead in your trespasses and sins against a holy God (Ephesians 2:1; Romans 3:23). God’s law—His perfect standard—reveals your guilt. You have broken His commandments, worshiping created things instead of the Creator, as seen in Romans 1:22-25, and failed to live out the stewardship mandated in Genesis 1:26-28. God is holy and cannot look upon sin with favor (Habakkuk 1:13). Your sin separates you from Him, deserving His righteous wrath and eternal punishment in hell, a real place of torment for those who reject Him (Matthew 25:46).

Yet, in His boundless grace and mercy, God provided a way for you to be reconciled to Him. Jesus Christ, His sinless Son, died on the cross as a propitiation—a sacrifice that satisfies God’s wrath against your sin (1 John 2:2). Jesus took your punishment, died, and rose again, defeating death (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Through Him alone, you can be forgiven and restored to God (John 14:6).

You must respond with true repentance and faith. Repentance means turning from your sin, rejecting idolatry and self-reliance. Faith means trusting in Christ’s finished work on the cross for your salvation (Acts 20:21). You cannot earn this by good works; it is God’s gift of grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The stakes are eternal. Hell awaits those who remain in sin, but heaven—eternal joy in God’s presence—awaits those who trust in Christ (Revelation 21:4). Repent and believe in Jesus today. Surrender your life to Him, live as unto the Lord, and find true joy in His salvation. Call on Him now, for “today is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2).

God’s Love, Sin’s Reality, and the Necessity of Being Born Again

The phrase “God hates the sin but loves the sinner” is a popular sentiment in Christian circles, often used to emphasize God’s boundless love and mercy. At first glance, it suggests a clean separation: sin as an abstract force that God despises, and the sinner as a beloved individual whom God seeks to redeem. However, a deeper examination of Scripture reveals a more complex reality. Sin is not merely an external act or force; it is intrinsically tied to the human condition. The Bible teaches that God’s hatred of sin extends to those who persist in it, and His wrath is directed not at an abstraction but at individuals who remain unrepentant. This truth underscores the necessity of being “born again” (John 3:3), as only through regeneration in Christ can a person move from being “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) to becoming “the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21).

Sin’s Intrinsic Connection to the Human Condition

Scripture consistently portrays sin as more than isolated acts—it is a state of being rooted in the fallen nature of humanity. Romans 5:12 declares, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” This passage establishes that sin is not merely an external behavior but a condition inherited from Adam, permeating every person’s nature. Ephesians 2:3 further describes humanity’s state: “All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.” Here, Paul emphasizes that humans are “by nature” objects of God’s wrath, indicating that sin is intrinsic to who we are apart from Christ.

This intrinsic connection is why God’s judgment is directed not at abstract sin but at individuals who embody it. Ezekiel 18:4 states, “The soul who sins is the one who will die.” Similarly, Revelation 20:15 warns, “Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.” Hell is not a repository for disembodied sins but a place of judgment for unrepentant sinners, underscoring that sin is inseparable from the person who commits it without divine intervention.

God’s Hatred of the Wicked

While God’s love is vast, Scripture also reveals His holy hatred of those who persist in wickedness. Psalm 5:5 declares, “The arrogant cannot stand in your presence. You hate all who do wrong.” Similarly, Psalm 11:5 states, “The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.” Proverbs 6:16-19 lists things the Lord hates, including “haughty eyes,” “a lying tongue,” and “hands that shed innocent blood,” all of which are tied to the actions and character of individuals. Psalm 7:11 further asserts, “God is a righteous judge, a God who displays his wrath every day.” These verses challenge the notion that God’s hatred is limited to an abstract concept of sin. Instead, they reveal that God’s righteous anger is directed at those who embody wickedness through their unrepentant choices and lifestyles.

This is not to say God delights in condemning people. Ezekiel 33:11 affirms, “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.” God’s desire is for repentance, but His holiness demands justice for those who reject His mercy.

The Necessity of Being Born Again

Given sin’s intrinsic link to human nature, the solution cannot be mere behavioral reform. A person must undergo a fundamental transformation—a new birth. Jesus told Nicodemus, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again” (John 3:3). This new birth is not a superficial change but a regeneration by the Holy Spirit, as described in Titus 3:5: “He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.”

Ephesians 2:1-5 paints a vivid picture of this transformation: “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins… But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions.” Apart from Christ, humanity is spiritually dead, enslaved to sin’s dominion. Through faith in Christ, believers are “made alive,” receiving a new nature that aligns with God’s righteousness.

This transformation culminates in an extraordinary exchange: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ’s atonement on the cross absorbs the penalty of sin, and through union with Him, believers are imputed with His righteousness. This is the only state in which God accepts us, as Isaiah 64:6 reminds us that “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” apart from Christ.

Reconciling God’s Love and Wrath

The tension between “God loves the sinner” and “God hates the wicked” is resolved in the cross. God’s love is demonstrated in that “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Yet, His holiness demands that sin be judged, and for those who reject Christ’s sacrifice, they remain under wrath (John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them”). The gospel does not separate sin from the sinner in a sentimental way; it confronts the reality of human depravity and offers a radical solution: regeneration through faith in Christ.

Conclusion

The idea that “God hates the sin but loves the sinner” oversimplifies the biblical narrative. Sin is not an external force detachable from the individual; it is woven into the fabric of fallen human nature. Scriptures like Psalm 5:5, Proverbs 6:16-19, and Ephesians 2:3 reveal that God’s hatred of sin extends to those who persist in it, and His judgment falls on unrepentant individuals, not abstract concepts. This sobering truth highlights the necessity of being born again. Only through regeneration can a person move from being “dead in trespasses and sins” to becoming “the righteousness of God” in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21). The gospel invites us to embrace this transformation, trusting in Christ’s finished work to stand before a holy God, accepted and redeemed.

Meet Me in Heaven: An Urgent Call to Trust in Christ

Dear soul, pause for a moment and consider the weight of eternity. The Bible declares a sobering truth: you are not merely a person who commits sins, but one born in sin, “dead in your transgressions and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). Sin is not a mere act you can cast aside like a soiled garment; it is woven into the very fabric of your being, making you, by nature, an object of God’s righteous wrath (Ephesians 2:3). Psalm 5:5 warns, “You hate all who do wrong,” and Psalm 7:11 reveals that “God is a righteous judge, a God who displays his wrath every day.” This is not a distant or abstract judgment—Revelation 20:15 is clear: “Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.” Hell is not a place for sins alone but for those who remain unrepentant in their sin. Why, O soul, would you choose the path to such a place of eternal misery when the gate of heaven stands open before you?

Yet, in the midst of this fearful reality, there is glorious news! God’s love for you is boundless, proven by the cross of Jesus Christ. Romans 5:8 proclaims, “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Jesus, the sinless Son of God, became sin for you, bearing the full weight of God’s wrath so that “in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This is the gospel: Christ offers you a full pardon, a complete salvation, not because of your works, but through faith in Him. Ezekiel 33:11 assures us, “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.” God’s heart yearns for you to turn to Him!

But you cannot save yourself. Your righteous deeds are “like filthy rags” before a holy God (Isaiah 64:6). You must be born again, transformed by the Spirit of God through faith in Christ (John 3:3). Jesus said, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them” (John 3:36). The choice is stark, and the time is now. Do not think you can delay, for tomorrow is not promised. Spurgeon’s cry rings true: “Do not hesitate and delay. You have had enough of resolving, come to action. Believe in Jesus now, with full and immediate decision.”

Imagine the horror of standing before God, your name absent from the book of life, consigned to an eternity from which there is no return. “Do not go down to hell. There is no coming back again from that abode of misery.” But oh, the joy of meeting in heaven, clothed in Christ’s righteousness, welcomed into eternal glory! Why would you refuse the free pardon offered today? Jesus stands ready to receive you, to wash you clean, to make you new. Hebrews 3:15 urges, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.” Take with you words of repentance and faith, and come to your Lord this very day.

Will you trust Him now? Pray, “Lord Jesus, I am a sinner, dead in my trespasses. I believe You died for me and rose again. I trust You alone for my salvation. Save me, make me new, and lead me to heaven.” Do not let this moment pass. It may be now or never. Meet me in heaven, dear soul, through faith in Jesus Christ!