Life begins at conception and absolutely everybody knows it as an unmitigated fact: Exposing the abject lie of a Death loving culture.

The argument that life begins at conception is grounded in observable, objective biological reality, consistently applied across scientific disciplines, yet often contested in discussions of human biology due to ideological agendas rather than empirical evidence. This position aligns with the understanding that God, as the author of life, imbues each human being with intrinsic value from the moment of conception. Conversely, denying that life begins at conception contradicts fundamental scientific principles and exposes a bias that undermines reason and truth.

Life Begins at Conception: A Scientific and Universal Principle

Biologically, life is defined by specific criteria: cellular organization, metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli. At conception, when a sperm fertilizes an egg, a unique, single-celled organism—the zygote—is formed. This zygote possesses a complete, distinct human genome, containing all the genetic information necessary to develop into a fully formed human being. It immediately begins metabolic processes, cell division, and growth, fulfilling the scientific criteria for life. Textbooks on embryology, such as Langman’s Medical Embryology, affirm this, stating, “Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the female gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.” This is not a speculative claim but a measurable, observable fact.

This principle is universally applied across biological sciences. For example, in studying other organisms—whether a single-celled amoeba, a plant seed, or a bird embryo—scientists recognize the onset of life at the moment a new, genetically distinct organism forms. A fertilized acorn is considered the beginning of an oak tree’s life cycle; a fertilized egg in a bird’s nest is recognized as a living member of its species. No biologist disputes that a frog’s life begins when its egg is fertilized. The consistency of this standard across species underscores its objectivity. Yet, when applied to human biology, this same principle is often challenged, not on scientific grounds but due to philosophical or political agendas.

The Antiscience Agenda in Denying Life at Conception

Opponents of the view that human life begins at conception often argue for alternative markers—such as implantation, heartbeat, brain activity, or birth—yet these are arbitrary and lack scientific grounding. For instance, implantation (when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall) is merely a change in location, not the initiation of life. Similarly, the presence of a heartbeat or brain activity marks developmental milestones, not the start of a new organism. These criteria are inconsistent with how life is defined elsewhere in biology. If a heartbeat were required to define life, a jellyfish (which lacks a heart) would not be considered alive, despite clearly being a living organism. Such arguments expose a selective application of science, driven by a desire to dehumanize the embryo for ethical or ideological convenience.

This inconsistency is antiscience because it disregards empirical evidence in favor of subjective preferences. The claim that a human embryo is not a living human being contradicts the genetic and developmental reality that the zygote is a unique, self-directing organism with human DNA, distinct from its parents. Denying this requires rejecting basic principles of genetics, embryology, and taxonomy. For example, the assertion that an embryo is merely “a clump of cells” ignores that all multicellular organisms, including adult humans, are composed of cells. The difference lies in development, not in the fundamental nature of life. Such rhetoric often serves to justify abortion or other interventions by framing the embryo as less than human, revealing an agenda that prioritizes personal or political goals over scientific truth.

Theological Affirmation: God as the Author of Life

From a theological perspective, the belief that life begins at conception aligns with the biblical view that God is the author of life. Scripture affirms the sanctity of human life from its earliest stages: “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13). The prophet Jeremiah records God’s words, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5), suggesting divine intentionality and purpose for each human from conception. The New Testament further supports this, as John the Baptist, while still in the womb, is described as leaping for joy in the presence of Mary and the unborn Jesus (Luke 1:41-44), indicating personhood and spiritual significance before birth.

Theologically, denying that life begins at conception undermines the belief that God creates each human being with inherent dignity and purpose. If life’s beginning is arbitrarily redefined to suit human agendas, it challenges God’s sovereignty over creation and reduces human value to subjective criteria, such as viability or societal utility. This aligns with secular ideologies that prioritize autonomy over divine order, further exposing the antiscience stance as not only empirically flawed but also spiritually misaligned.

Exposing the Agenda

The selective rejection of the principle that life begins at conception in human biology—while accepting it elsewhere—reveals an agenda rooted in ideology, not science. This agenda often stems from a desire to justify practices like abortion by dehumanizing the embryo, framing it as a “potential” life rather than an actual one. Such arguments rely on philosophical assertions about personhood or autonomy, not biological evidence. They exploit emotional appeals or edge cases to obscure the clear scientific reality that a unique human organism exists from conception. This is not a neutral stance but a deliberate departure from reason, often driven by cultural pressures or ethical relativism.

In contrast, affirming that life begins at conception is consistent with both science and faith. It upholds the empirical reality of human development and the theological truth that God is the author of life, creating each person with purpose and dignity from the moment of conception. To deny this is to embrace an antiscience position that sacrifices truth for convenience, exposing an agenda that prioritizes human preference over divine and natural order.

Historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism contrasted

Historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism are two distinct eschatological frameworks within the broader premillennial view, which holds that Christ will return before a literal thousand-year reign on earth (Revelation 20:1-6). While they share some similarities, they differ significantly in their approach to biblical interpretation, the role of Israel, the rapture, and the structure of salvation history. Below is a detailed comparison highlighting the key differences:

1. Biblical Interpretation and Hermeneutics

1. Historic Premillennialism:
2. Adopts a more covenantal approach to Scripture, emphasizing continuity between the Old and New Testaments.
3. Interprets prophecy with a mix of literal and symbolic methods, depending on context. For example, some prophetic passages (e.g., parts of Revelation) may be seen as symbolic or allegorical, while the millennium is understood literally.
4. Views the church as the fulfillment of Old Testament promises to Israel, with a greater emphasis on spiritual continuity.
5. Dispensational Premillennialism:
6. Employs a strictly literal hermeneutic, especially for prophecy, aiming to interpret Scripture as literally as possible unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
7. Maintains a sharp distinction between Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church, seeing them as distinct entities in God’s plan.
8. Divides salvation history into distinct dispensations (epochs where God deals with humanity differently, e.g., Law, Grace, Kingdom).

2. Role of Israel and the Church

1. Historic Premillennialism:
2. Sees the church as the spiritual heir of Old Testament Israel, fulfilling many of God’s promises to Israel (e.g., Romans 9:6-8; Galatians 3:29). The church is viewed as the “true Israel” in a spiritual sense.
3. Believes national Israel still has a role in God’s plan, particularly in the end times, but this role is less distinct or separate from the church compared to dispensationalism. Some historic premillennialists expect a large-scale conversion of Jews during the Tribulation (Romans 11:25-26).
4. Does not emphasize a restored national Israel as a central feature of the millennial kingdom.
5. Dispensational Premillennialism:
6. Maintains a strict distinction between Israel and the church, viewing them as two separate peoples with distinct roles in God’s redemptive plan.
7. Holds that God’s promises to Israel (e.g., land, kingdom) are literal and unfulfilled, to be realized in a future restoration of national Israel during the millennium.
8. Emphasizes a rebuilt Jewish temple, reinstituted sacrifices, and Israel’s prominence during the Tribulation and millennium (e.g., Ezekiel 40-48).

3. Timing of the Rapture

1. Historic Premillennialism:
2. Typically holds to a posttribulational rapture, meaning the church will go through the entire Tribulation, facing the Antichrist’s persecution, before being raptured at Christ’s second coming (Matthew 24:29-31; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
3. The rapture and the second coming are seen as a single event occurring at the end of the Tribulation, immediately before the millennium.
4. Dispensational Premillennialism:
5. Most commonly advocates a pretribulational rapture, where the church is removed from the earth before the seven-year Tribulation begins (1 Thessalonians 4:17; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52).
6. The rapture is a separate event from the second coming, which occurs after the Tribulation to defeat the Antichrist and establish the millennial kingdom.
7. Some dispensationalists hold to a midtribulational rapture (rapture at the midpoint of the Tribulation), but this is less common.

4. The Tribulation and the Antichrist

1. Historic Premillennialism:
2. Views the Tribulation as a period of intense persecution for the church and divine judgment on the world, with the Antichrist as a literal figure (2 Thessalonians 2:3-10; Revelation 13).
3. Does not necessarily tie the Tribulation to a specific seven-year timeline or a detailed sequence of events, focusing more on its general character as a time of trial.
4. Believes the church will endure the Tribulation, with believers (tribulation saints) persevering through persecution.
5. Dispensational Premillennialism:
6. Sees the Tribulation as a precise seven-year period (based on Daniel 9:27), divided into two halves, with the Antichrist’s reign intensifying in the second half (the “Great Tribulation”).
7. The church is typically absent during the Tribulation due to the pretribulational rapture, with the focus on Israel and new converts (tribulation saints) who come to faith during this period.
8. Emphasizes specific prophetic events, such as the signing of a covenant with Israel, the abomination of desolation, and the mark of the beast, as literal and chronological.

5. The Millennium

1. Historic Premillennialism:
2. Envisions a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, but with less emphasis on Israel’s national restoration or a distinct Jewish focus.
3. The millennium is seen as a time of Christ’s rule with believers (both Jew and Gentile), with a focus on spiritual renewal and God’s kingdom on earth.
4. Less detailed speculation about the political or cultural structure of the millennium compared to dispensationalism.
5. Dispensational Premillennialism:
6. Views the millennium as a literal thousand-year period where Christ reigns from Jerusalem, with national Israel restored to prominence and fulfilling Old Testament promises (e.g., Isaiah 11:1-9; Zechariah 14).
7. Emphasizes a restored temple, reinstituted sacrificial system (seen as commemorative, not salvific), and a distinct role for Israel as a leading nation.
8. Includes detailed expectations about the geopolitical and spiritual conditions of the millennium, often drawing from Old Testament prophecies.

6. View of Prophecy and Eschatological Details

1. Historic Premillennialism:
2. Takes a less speculative and more restrained approach to prophetic details, focusing on the broad themes of Christ’s return, judgment, and the millennium.
3. Less emphasis on mapping out a precise timeline of end-time events or identifying modern geopolitical entities in prophecy (e.g., avoiding specific identifications of the Antichrist or modern nations in Revelation).
4. Dispensational Premillennialism:
5. Known for its detailed and systematic timeline of end-time events, often correlating biblical prophecies with contemporary geopolitical developments (e.g., the role of modern Israel, Russia, or a revived Roman Empire).
6. Places significant emphasis on prophetic signs, such as the rebuilding of the temple, the rise of a global government, and specific judgments in Revelation (e.g., seals, trumpets, bowls).

7. Historical Development

1. Historic Premillennialism:
2. Traces its roots to early church fathers like Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, who held to a premillennial view without the dispensational framework.
3. Revived in the post-Reformation era by some Protestant theologians and continues among certain evangelical groups who reject dispensationalism’s distinctions.
4. Dispensational Premillennialism:
5. Emerged in the 19th century through the teachings of John Nelson Darby and was popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible.
6. Associated with modern evangelical movements, particularly in North America, and influential in popular prophecy teachings (e.g., Left Behind series).

8. Ecclesiology and Salvation History

1. Historic Premillennialism:
2. Emphasizes the unity of God’s people across history, with the church as the culmination of God’s covenant promises to Abraham and Israel.
3. Sees salvation history as a unified plan, with the millennium as the final stage before the eternal state.
4. Dispensational Premillennialism:
5. Divides salvation history into distinct dispensations, each with unique ways God interacts with humanity (e.g., Innocence, Law, Grace, Kingdom).
6. Views the church as a “parenthesis” in God’s plan, distinct from His ongoing plan for Israel, which resumes during the Tribulation and millennium.

Summary Table

Aspect	Historic Premillennialism	Dispensational Premillennialism
Hermeneutics	Mixed literal/symbolic, covenantal	Strictly literal, dispensational
Israel and Church	Church fulfills Israel’s promises; less distinct	Sharp distinction between Israel and church
Rapture Timing	Posttribulational (church endures Tribulation)	Pretribulational (church raptured before Tribulation)
Tribulation	General period of persecution; church present	Specific 7-year period; church absent
Millennium	Christ’s reign with believers; less focus on Israel	Christ’s reign with restored Israel; detailed structure
Prophetic Details	Less speculative, broad themes	Detailed timeline, often tied to modern events
Historical Roots	Early church fathers, post-Reformation	19th-century, Darby, Scofield Bible
Salvation History	Unified covenantal plan	Divided into distinct dispensations

Conclusion

Historic premillennialism emphasizes continuity between Israel and the church, a posttribulational rapture, and a less detailed eschatological framework, rooted in early church tradition. Dispensational premillennialism, by contrast, stresses a literal hermeneutic, a clear distinction between Israel and the church, a pretribulational rapture, and a highly detailed prophetic timeline, emerging from 19th-century theology. If you’d like a deeper dive into specific passages, theologians, or implications of these views, let me know!

Why I Reject Amillennialism: A Premillennial Perspective Rooted in Historic-Grammatical Hermeneutics

As a Christian committed to understanding Scripture through a historic-grammatical hermeneutic, I find the premillennial view of eschatology to be the most consistent with the natural, logical reading of biblical texts and the character of God as revealed in His Word. While amillennialism offers a perspective that spiritualizes key prophetic passages, I believe it falls short of capturing the full intent of Scripture and the consistent patterns of God’s promises and actions. In this article, I will outline why I find amillennialism unconvincing and why premillennialism aligns more closely with a straightforward interpretation of Scripture and God’s covenantal faithfulness.

The Historic-Grammatical Hermeneutic: A Foundation for Interpretation

The historic-grammatical method seeks to interpret Scripture in its plain, literal sense, considering the historical and cultural context, the intent of the author, and the grammatical structure of the text. This approach assumes that God’s Word communicates clearly to its intended audience, and prophetic passages, unless explicitly indicated otherwise, should be understood in a straightforward manner. While amillennialism often employs a symbolic or allegorical approach to eschatological texts, premillennialism adheres to the natural reading of these passages, particularly in Revelation 20, which describes a literal thousand-year reign of Christ.

Why Amillennialism Falls Short

Amillennialism posits that the “thousand years” mentioned in Revelation 20:1-6 is a symbolic period representing the current church age, during which Christ reigns spiritually through His church. Satan is seen as “bound” in a limited sense, unable to deceive the nations as he did before Christ’s first coming. While this view emphasizes the spiritual victory of Christ, I find it unconvincing for several reasons.

1. Inconsistent Handling of Revelation 20The amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 spiritualizes the “thousand years” while often taking other elements of the passage literally, such as the binding of Satan or the resurrection of the saints. This selective literalism undermines the consistency of a historic-grammatical approach. Revelation 20:2-3 states, “And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended.” The text presents a clear sequence of events: Satan’s binding, a thousand-year period, and his subsequent release. To interpret the thousand years as symbolic while treating other elements literally creates an arbitrary hermeneutic.

Furthermore, the repetition of “thousand years” six times in Revelation 20:1-7 emphasizes its significance. A historic-grammatical reading suggests a literal duration unless the text explicitly indicates otherwise, which it does not. In contrast, premillennialism takes the passage at face value, understanding it as a future, literal reign of Christ on earth following His return.

2. Underestimation of Satan’s Current ActivityAmillennialism argues that Satan is currently “bound” in the sense that he cannot deceive the nations as he once did. However, Scripture portrays Satan as actively opposing God’s people in the present age. In 1 Peter 5:8, we read, “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” Similarly, Ephesians 6:12 describes believers wrestling against “spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” These passages suggest that Satan’s influence remains potent, contradicting the idea of a current binding that prevents him from deceiving the nations. Premillennialism, on the other hand, anticipates a future binding of Satan during Christ’s millennial reign, aligning with the description in Revelation 20:3.

3. Neglect of Old Testament PromisesAmillennialism often spiritualizes Old Testament prophecies about Israel’s restoration and a future earthly kingdom. For example, Isaiah 11:6-9 describes a future where “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb… and a little child shall lead them,” a scene of peace incompatible with the present age. Similarly, Zechariah 14:9-11 prophesies a time when “the Lord will be king over all the earth” and Jerusalem will dwell in security. These passages point to a literal, future kingdom on earth, consistent with premillennialism.

Amillennialism tends to apply these promises to the church or the eternal state, but this approach overlooks the specific covenantal promises made to Israel. In Romans 11:26-27, Paul affirms, “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.’” A historic-grammatical reading supports a future restoration of national Israel, which premillennialism incorporates into its framework of a literal millennial kingdom.

4. Incongruity with the Character of GodGod’s character, as revealed in Scripture, is one of covenantal faithfulness. He fulfills His promises in a way that aligns with their original intent. For instance, God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:7, “To your offspring I will give this land,” was fulfilled literally with the land of Canaan (Joshua 21:43). Similarly, the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 promises a descendant of David who will reign forever. While amillennialism sees this fulfilled spiritually in the church, premillennialism anticipates a literal reign of Christ, the Son of David, on earth during the millennium, followed by His eternal reign.

The amillennial view risks diminishing the specificity of God’s promises, particularly to Israel. A historic-grammatical hermeneutic demands that we take these promises at face value, as God’s people would have understood them in their original context. Premillennialism upholds God’s faithfulness by affirming a future earthly kingdom where Christ reigns visibly, fulfilling both Old and New Testament prophecies.

The Strength of Premillennialism

Premillennialism, in contrast to amillennialism, offers a coherent and natural reading of Scripture. It affirms a literal, future thousand-year reign of Christ on earth following His second coming, as described in Revelation 20. This view aligns with the following biblical truths:

1. A Literal Resurrection and ReignRevelation 20:4-6 speaks of a “first resurrection” where the martyrs “came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” The phrase “came to life” (Greek: ezēsan) indicates a physical resurrection, consistent with passages like Daniel 12:2, which speaks of a future resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. Premillennialism understands this as a literal event, distinct from the eternal state described in Revelation 21-22.

2. Fulfillment of God’s Kingdom PromisesPremillennialism harmonizes Old and New Testament prophecies about a future earthly kingdom. Isaiah 2:2-4 describes a time when “the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established” and nations will stream to Jerusalem to learn God’s ways. This aligns with Revelation 20’s depiction of Christ’s reign, during which He rules with a “rod of iron” (Revelation 19:15), establishing justice and righteousness on earth.

3. Consistency with God’s Redemptive PlanGod’s redemptive plan unfolds progressively, as seen in His covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David, culminating in the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Premillennialism sees the millennial kingdom as a transitional phase, where Christ’s victory over sin and Satan is fully displayed on earth before the eternal state. This aligns with 1 Corinthians 15:24-26, where Christ hands over the kingdom to the Father after destroying “every rule and every authority and power.”

4. A Natural Reading of ScriptureThe historic-grammatical hermeneutic prioritizes the plain meaning of the text. Premillennialism takes Revelation 20 and related passages at face value, avoiding the need to spiritualize or allegorize key terms like “thousand years” or “reigned with Christ.” This approach respects the clarity of God’s Word and its accessibility to believers across time.

Conclusion: A God Who Keeps His Word

The premillennial view, rooted in a historic-grammatical hermeneutic, offers a compelling and consistent framework for understanding biblical eschatology. It honors the literal intent of prophetic passages, upholds God’s covenantal faithfulness, and reflects His character as a God who fulfills His promises in ways that are clear and tangible. While amillennialism seeks to emphasize the spiritual reign of Christ in the present age, it struggles to account for the specificity of Old Testament prophecies, the plain reading of Revelation 20, and the ongoing activity of Satan in the world.

As I reflect on Scripture, I am convinced that premillennialism best captures the hope of Christ’s return to establish a literal, earthly kingdom, where He will reign in righteousness and fulfill every promise made to His people. This view not only aligns with the natural reading of God’s Word but also magnifies His glory as a God who does what He says and accomplishes all that He purposes.

Scriptural References for Further Study:

• Revelation 20:1-7

• Isaiah 11:6-9, 65:17-25

• Zechariah 14:9-11

• Romans 11:25-29

• Daniel 7:13-14, 12:1-3

• 1 Corinthians 15:24-26

• 2 Samuel 7:12-16

The Danger of Editorializing Holy Scripture in The Chosen

The Danger of Editorializing Holy Scripture in The Chosen

The Chosen, created by Dallas Jenkins, has captivated audiences with its cinematic portrayal of Jesus and His disciples, offering a fresh perspective on familiar biblical narratives. While the show has been praised for its production quality and emotional depth, it raises significant concerns for those who hold Scripture as the inspired, inerrant Word of God. The danger lies in the show’s tendency to editorialize holy Scripture—adding, altering, or reinterpreting events in ways that deviate from the biblical text. This practice risks presenting a distorted image of Christ, undermining the authority of God’s Word and potentially leading viewers astray. As Charles Spurgeon wisely noted, discernment is not merely distinguishing truth from lies but recognizing the “almost true” from the truth. This critique examines specific examples from The Chosen that illustrate this editorializing, supported by Scripture that warns against adding to or taking away from God’s Word.

The Authority of Scripture: Once Delivered, Divinely Inspired

The Bible is clear about its own authority and sufficiency. Jude 1:3 exhorts believers to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (NKJV). This verse underscores that the truth of God’s Word, as delivered through divine inspiration, is complete and unchanging. Furthermore, Revelation 22:18-19 issues a stern warning: “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life” (NKJV). These passages emphasize that Scripture is not to be altered or supplemented with human inventions.

The Holy Spirit, in His divine wisdom, inspired the biblical writers to record precisely what God intended for humanity to know. As 2 Timothy 3:16-17 affirms, “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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (NKJV). God could have provided exhaustive details about every moment of Jesus’ life, filling in every “blank” with additional context. Yet, in His omniscience, He chose to give us the Word as it stands, sufficient for all generations, including those in 2025 reading about first-century Palestine. When The Chosen inserts extrabiblical dialogue, scenes, or motivations, it risks presuming to improve upon what God deemed sufficient, thereby undermining the divine authority of Scripture.

Editorializing in The Chosen: Specific Examples

The Chosen frequently takes liberties with the biblical narrative, adding scenes and dialogue not found in Scripture. While artistic license is expected in dramatizations, the show’s editorializing often crosses into theological misrepresentation, particularly in its portrayal of Jesus. Two key examples highlight this issue: the depiction of Jesus’ interaction with Nicodemus in the context of John 3:16 and the portrayal of Jesus rehearsing the Sermon on the Mount.

Misrepresenting Christ’s Deity in the Nicodemus Scene

In the episode depicting Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus (drawn from John 3), The Chosen introduces a troubling scene where Nicodemus quotes Psalm 2:12, saying, “Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way” (NKJV), while kneeling before Jesus. In the show, Jesus responds by telling Nicodemus not to bow or kneel to Him, then completes the Psalm by saying, “Blessed are all those who take refuge in Him,” as though reassuring Nicodemus not to fear the Son’s anger. This exchange is entirely invented and contradicts the biblical portrayal of Jesus.

Scripture never records Jesus rejecting worship or discouraging anyone from kneeling before Him. On the contrary, Jesus consistently accepted worship as God incarnate. For example, in Matthew 14:33, after Jesus walks on water, the disciples “worshiped Him, saying, ‘Truly You are the Son of God’” (NKJV), and Jesus does not rebuke them. In John 20:28, Thomas declares, “My Lord and my God!” (NKJV), and Jesus affirms his faith. Hebrews 1:6 states, “Let all the angels of God worship Him” (NKJV), affirming that Jesus, as God, is worthy of all glory, honor, and worship. By depicting Jesus as rejecting Nicodemus’ act of reverence, The Chosen presents a Jesus who appears to deny His own deity—a portrayal that aligns more with the views of groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses or Muslims, who reject Christ’s divinity, than with the biblical Jesus.

This editorial choice is not a minor creative flourish but a serious theological error. By suggesting Jesus would discourage worship, the show risks presenting “another Jesus” (2 Corinthians 11:4), a false Christ who makes no claim to deity. This misrepresentation could mislead viewers, particularly those unfamiliar with Scripture, into questioning the core Christian doctrine of Christ’s divinity. The alteration of Psalm 2:12’s context further compounds the issue, as it implies Jesus is correcting Nicodemus’ fear of divine judgment rather than affirming His authority as the Son. This is not poetic license but a distortion of Christ’s identity and mission, constituting a “blasphemous assault on the gospel” by presenting a false Christ.

Jesus Rehearsing the Sermon on the Mount

Another glaring example of editorializing occurs in the scene where Jesus is depicted rehearsing the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) with Matthew. In this invented scenario, Jesus is portrayed as nervously fretting over His opening line, seeking the perfect “hook” to capture His audience’s attention. He wakes Matthew to discuss his opener, ultimately settling on describing the sermon as “a road map on how to find me.” This portrayal is not only absent from Scripture but also fundamentally misrepresents Jesus’ nature and authority.

The Bible presents Jesus as God Almighty, omniscient and sovereign, who speaks with divine authority. In John 12:49-50, Jesus declares, “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life” (NKJV). Jesus never struggled to find the right words, as His teaching came directly from the Father. The suggestion that He would anxiously rehearse His sermon or seek human input undermines His divine wisdom and authority.

Moreover, Jesus’ own teaching contradicts this portrayal. In Matthew 10:19-20, He instructs His disciples, “Do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you” (NKJV). If Jesus taught His disciples not to worry about their words because the Spirit would guide them, it is absurd to suggest that He Himself would fret over His phrasing. The Sermon on the Mount is a divinely inspired masterpiece, not a humanly crafted speech requiring a catchy “hook.” Characterizing it as “a road map on how to find me” reduces its profound theological weight to a simplistic, self-help-style message, further distorting Christ’s purpose and teaching.

The Danger of Editorializing: A False Christ

These examples illustrate how The Chosen’s editorializing goes beyond creative storytelling to misrepresenting the person and work of Jesus Christ. By adding scenes, dialogue, and motivations not found in Scripture, the show risks presenting a Jesus who is less than divine, less than authoritative, and less than the Savior revealed in God’s Word. This is not a trivial matter. As Paul warns in Galatians 1:8, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (NKJV). The Jesus of The Chosen—who rejects worship, frets over His words, and reinterprets Scripture to downplay His authority—bears troubling similarities to a false Christ, one that aligns more with human imagination than with divine revelation.

For viewers, particularly those with limited biblical knowledge, these portrayals can shape their understanding of Jesus in ways that contradict Scripture. A Jehovah’s Witness or Muslim watching the Nicodemus scene might feel validated in their rejection of Christ’s deity, seeing a Jesus who deflects worship. A seeker might view Jesus as a relatable, uncertain teacher rather than the omniscient Son of God. Such misrepresentations can sow confusion and weaken the gospel’s clarity.

Conclusion: Guarding the Truth of God’s Word

While The Chosen may aim to make Jesus accessible and relatable, its editorializing of holy Scripture crosses a dangerous line. The Word of God, “once for all delivered to the saints,” is sufficient and authoritative, inspired by the Holy Spirit to convey exactly what God intended. By adding extrabiblical scenes and dialogue that alter Christ’s character and message, the show risks presenting a false Christ, undermining the gospel’s truth. As believers, we must heed Spurgeon’s call to discernment, distinguishing the “almost true” from the truth. Rather than relying on dramatizations that take liberties with Scripture, we are called to test all things against the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and hold fast to the Jesus revealed therein—the divine, authoritative, and worthy Savior who alone is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).

In Romans 7 Paul is describing his experience as a redeemed Christian rather than his pre-conversion state

To argue that in Romans 7 Paul is describing his experience as a redeemed Christian rather than his pre-conversion state, we can examine the text, context, and theological implications, drawing on key evidence from Romans 7 and its surrounding chapters. The argument hinges on the language, the present tense of Paul’s descriptions, the spiritual awareness he displays, and the broader context of Romans. Below is a structured case for this interpretation:

1. Use of the Present Tense

• In Romans 7:14–25, Paul uses the present tense to describe his struggle with sin: “I am carnal, sold under sin” (v. 14); “what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do” (v. 15); “I find then a law, that evil is present with me” (v. 21). This contrasts with the past tense used in Romans 7:7–13, where Paul describes his encounter with the law, likely reflecting on his pre-conversion experience (e.g., “I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died,” v. 9).

• The shift to the present tense suggests Paul is speaking of his current experience as a believer, not a past state. If he were describing his pre-conversion life, we would expect consistent past-tense language throughout.

2. Spiritual Awareness and Desire for Good

• Paul expresses a deep desire to do what is right: “For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man” (7:22); “I agree with the law that it is good” (7:16). This level of spiritual awareness and love for God’s law is characteristic of a redeemed person indwelt by the Holy Spirit, not an unregenerate person. In Romans 8:7, Paul states that “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.” An unsaved person, dominated by the flesh, would not delight in God’s law or strive to obey it as Paul describes.

• The internal conflict between the “inward man” and the “flesh” (7:22–23) reflects the struggle of a believer who has been renewed by the Spirit but still battles the residual effects of the sinful nature. This duality aligns with the Christian experience described elsewhere, such as Galatians 5:17, where Paul notes the conflict between the Spirit and the flesh in believers.

3. Context Within Romans

• Romans 6–8 forms a cohesive section addressing the believer’s relationship to sin, the law, and the Spirit. In Romans 6, Paul explains that Christians have died to sin and are no longer slaves to it (6:6–7, 14). In Romans 8, he describes the victorious life empowered by the Spirit, free from condemnation (8:1–4). Romans 7 serves as a bridge, illustrating the ongoing tension believers face under the law’s demands despite their new identity in Christ.

• If Romans 7:14–25 described Paul’s pre-conversion state, it would disrupt the flow of the argument. Romans 6 establishes freedom from sin’s dominion, and Romans 8 builds on this with the Spirit’s empowerment. Interpreting Romans 7 as Paul’s redeemed state maintains the progression: believers are free from sin’s penalty and power (Romans 6), yet they still wrestle with the presence of sin (Romans 7), until they fully rely on the Spirit for victory (Romans 8).

4. The Cry for Deliverance and Its Answer

• In Romans 7:24, Paul cries out, “O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” He immediately answers, “I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (7:25). This resolution points to Christ as the deliverer, which aligns with the experience of a believer who recognizes their dependence on Christ’s grace and power. An unregenerate person would not have this hope or turn to Christ for deliverance.

• The transition to Romans 8:1—“There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus”—further supports that Paul is describing a Christian’s struggle, as the solution (life in the Spirit) is relevant to believers, not the unsaved.

5. Theological Consistency

• The redeemed-state view aligns with the broader New Testament teaching that Christians continue to struggle with sin. For example, 1 John 1:8–9 acknowledges that believers still sin and need to confess, while Galatians 5:16–17 describes the ongoing battle between the flesh and the Spirit. Paul’s transparency about his struggle in Romans 7 reflects the reality of the Christian life, where sanctification is progressive, not instantaneous.

• Conversely, interpreting Romans 7 as Paul’s pre-conversion state would imply that an unregenerate person can delight in God’s law and earnestly desire to obey it, which contradicts Paul’s teaching about the natural man’s hostility toward God (Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14).

6. Paul’s Personal Example

• Paul’s use of the first person (“I,” “me”) in Romans 7:14–25 suggests he is speaking autobiographically, sharing his own experience as a mature Christian. While some argue this is a rhetorical device or a reference to Israel’s experience under the law, the personal tone and vivid description of inner conflict are more consistent with Paul reflecting on his present reality as a believer.

• As an apostle and a mature Christian, Paul’s acknowledgment of his struggle with sin demonstrates humility and realism, encouraging other believers that such struggles are normal in the Christian life, even for someone of his spiritual stature.

Counterarguments and Responses

• Counterargument: Romans 7 describes the unregenerate because of the intensity of the struggle. Some argue that the description of being “sold under sin” (7:14) and the inability to do good suggest a pre-conversion state, as Christians are freed from sin’s dominion (Romans 6:14).

• Response: While Christians are no longer slaves to sin, the flesh remains a reality (Galatians 5:17). The phrase “sold under sin” can describe the lingering influence of the sinful nature, not total enslavement. Paul’s struggle reflects the tension of living in a fallen body while being renewed by the Spirit.

• Counterargument: Paul’s cry of wretchedness (7:24) seems inconsistent with a believer’s joy and freedom.

• Response: The cry reflects honest frustration with the ongoing presence of sin, not despair. Paul’s immediate turn to Christ as the deliverer (7:25) shows the hope and assurance of a believer, not the hopelessness of an unsaved person.

Conclusion

Romans 7:14–25 depicts Paul’s experience as a redeemed Christian, wrestling with the tension between his desire to obey God’s law and the ongoing influence of the flesh. The present tense, spiritual awareness, contextual flow from Romans 6 to 8, and theological consistency with the Christian struggle all support this view. Paul’s candid description serves to encourage believers that the battle with sin is a normal part of the Christian life, resolved through dependence on Christ and the empowering work of the Spirit, as elaborated in Romans 8.

Fathers must not refuse to take down the high places of sin glorifying entertainment in their home in the way that the Kings of Israel that served God, but refused to take down the high places of pagan worship in Israel.

The accounts of the kings in the Old Testament, particularly in 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles, offer a compelling parallel to the responsibilities of a father leading his household in faith. Several kings of Judah, such as Asa (1 Kings 15:9-24; 2 Chronicles 14-16), Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 17-20), Joash (2 Kings 12; 2 Chronicles 24), Amaziah (2 Kings 14:1-6; 2 Chronicles 25:1-4), Azariah (Uzziah) (2 Kings 15:1-4; 2 Chronicles 26:1-4), and Jotham (2 Kings 15:32-35; 2 Chronicles 27:1-2), are described as doing “what was right in the sight of the Lord,” yet many of them failed to remove the high places—locations where idolatrous worship and pagan practices persisted. This inconsistency in their leadership provides a lens through which we can examine a father’s role in guiding his family spiritually while allowing certain influences, akin to modern entertainment, to persist unchecked.

The Kings and the High Places

The high places were elevated sites often associated with pagan worship, where altars, sacred pillars, and Asherah poles were used to honor false gods (1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:9-11). Even kings who were faithful in many respects—reforming temple worship, upholding the law, or defeating enemies—often tolerated these high places. For example:

• Asa removed many idols and instituted reforms but did not remove the high places (1 Kings 15:14; 2 Chronicles 15:17).

• Jehoshaphat followed God’s commands and strengthened Judah’s faith, yet “the high places were not taken away, and the people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places” (2 Kings 22:43; 2 Chronicles 20:33).

• Jotham did what was right, but “the people still followed corrupt practices” at the high places (2 Chronicles 27:2).

This failure to fully eradicate these sites reflects a partial obedience. The kings’ tolerance of the high places allowed syncretism—a blending of true worship with pagan practices—undermining their reforms and leaving room for spiritual corruption. The text implies that their leadership, while commendable in many areas, was incomplete because they permitted competing influences to coexist with devotion to God.

The Father’s Responsibility in the Home

A father who seeks to serve God in raising his family and guiding his wife bears a similar responsibility to lead with spiritual vigilance. Just as the kings were tasked with upholding exclusive worship of Yahweh, a father is called to foster a household environment that honors God in all aspects of life (Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Ephesians 6:4). However, allowing unchecked influences—such as certain types of television, internet content, reading material, or music—can parallel the kings’ failure to remove the high places. These modern “high places” may introduce values, ideologies, or behaviors contrary to biblical principles, subtly eroding the family’s spiritual foundation.

For example:

• Television and Internet Content: Shows or online platforms that glorify immorality, violence, or materialism can desensitize family members to sin, much like the high places facilitated idolatry. A father might diligently teach biblical values but undermine his efforts by permitting content that normalizes worldviews opposed to God’s standards (Philippians 4:8).

• Music and Reading Material: Lyrics or books that promote rebellion, sensuality, or secular philosophies can function as modern altars, competing for the family’s affections and loyalties. Allowing these without discernment mirrors the kings’ leniency toward pagan worship sites.

• Entertainment Choices: Unfiltered entertainment, even if seemingly harmless, can distract from spiritual priorities or introduce moral ambiguity, akin to the people’s offerings at the high places despite the kings’ reforms.

The Correlation: Partial Obedience and Its Consequences

The correlation lies in the danger of partial obedience. The kings’ failure to remove the high places reflected a compromise—doing much that was right but stopping short of total fidelity to God’s command to eliminate all idolatry (Exodus 20:3-5; Deuteronomy 12:2-3). Similarly, a father who earnestly seeks to lead his family in faith but does not guard against harmful cultural influences risks creating a syncretistic environment. This can lead to:

• Mixed Messages: Just as the high places sent a mixed message about worship, allowing questionable entertainment can confuse children about what aligns with God’s will, weakening their moral and spiritual convictions.

• Gradual Drift: The high places contributed to Judah’s eventual spiritual decline (2 Kings 17:7-18). Likewise, unchecked media can gradually desensitize a family to sin, leading to compromised values over time.

• Undermined Authority: The kings’ tolerance of high places diminished their spiritual authority. A father’s failure to set boundaries may erode his ability to guide his family effectively, as children or a spouse may question his commitment to biblical standards.

The Father’s Call to Vigilant Leadership

To avoid the mistakes of these kings, a father must exercise discernment and authority in the home, actively guarding against influences that compete with God’s truth. This involves:

• Setting Clear Boundaries: Just as the high places should have been destroyed, a father should prohibit or carefully filter entertainment that contradicts biblical values (Colossians 3:16-17). For example, evaluating content for its moral and ideological impact and discussing these choices with the family.

• Modeling Consistency: The kings’ partial obedience weakened their legacy. A father must model full commitment to God in both personal and family life, ensuring his actions align with his teachings (1 Corinthians 11:1).

• Fostering God-Centered Alternatives: Replacing harmful entertainment with edifying options—such as wholesome media, family devotions, or activities that glorify God—parallels what the kings could have done by redirecting worship from high places to the temple.

• Engaging Actively: Rather than passively allowing cultural influences, a father should engage with his family’s media consumption, discussing its implications and teaching discernment (Proverbs 22:6).

Biblical Encouragement

Scripture calls fathers to lead with courage and conviction, much like the kings were called to uphold God’s covenant. Joshua’s declaration, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15), exemplifies the resolve needed to eliminate modern “high places.” While no father is perfect, striving for wholehearted devotion—removing competing influences and fostering a God-honoring home—reflects the full obedience God desires.

In summary, the kings’ failure to remove the high places serves as a cautionary tale for fathers today. A father’s concerted effort to serve God is commendable, but neglecting to guard against harmful entertainment can undermine his spiritual leadership, allowing worldly influences to take root. By actively discerning and limiting such influences, a father can lead his family in a way that fully honors God, avoiding the pitfalls of partial obedience.

Addressing Amillennialism’s “True Israel” Claim and Defending Premillennialism’s Consistency with Reformed Theology

Addressing Amillennialism’s “True Israel” Claim and Defending Premillennialism’s Consistency with Reformed Theology

Amillennialism, a prominent eschatological view within Reformed theology, posits that there is no literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth (Revelation 20:1-6) and that the church is now the “true Israel,” inheriting the promises made to national Israel in the Old Testament. This article addresses the amillennial claim that the church is the “true Israel,” arguing that this concept lacks clear scriptural support. It also demonstrates that a premillennial view of a literal millennial reign is not inconsistent with Reformed Calvinistic theological principles and is grounded in a historic-grammatical hermeneutical approach.

The Amillennial Claim: The Church as the “True Israel”

Amillennialists argue that the church has replaced or fulfilled the role of national Israel in God’s redemptive plan, a view often termed “replacement theology” or “supersessionism.” They assert that the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament—such as land, national restoration, and a Davidic kingdom—are now spiritually fulfilled in the church. Key passages cited include Galatians 6:16, where Paul refers to the “Israel of God,” and Romans 9:6, which states, “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.”

However, the claim that the church is the “true Israel” is not explicitly supported by Scripture in either the Old or New Testament. While amillennialists interpret certain New Testament passages as implying this transfer, no text directly states that the church has replaced Israel or that God’s covenant promises to the nation have been abrogated. Let’s examine the key passages often cited:

• Galatians 6:16: Paul writes, “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.” Amillennialists interpret “Israel of God” as referring to the church, comprising both Jewish and Gentile believers. However, the context of Galatians focuses on salvation by faith, not a redefinition of Israel’s identity. The term “Israel” is used over 70 times in the New Testament, consistently referring to ethnic Israel or Jewish believers, not the church as a whole. A more natural reading of Galatians 6:16 is that Paul is blessing Jewish believers specifically, alongside Gentile believers, not equating the church with Israel.

• Romans 9:6: Paul states, “Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” This verse distinguishes between ethnic Israel and those who share Abraham’s faith, but it does not negate God’s promises to the nation. In Romans 9–11, Paul affirms that God has not rejected Israel (Romans 11:1-2) and that “all Israel will be saved” in the future (Romans 11:26). The distinction between ethnic and spiritual Israel does not imply that the church has replaced the nation but rather that God’s promises are fulfilled through faith, with a future restoration for national Israel.

• Old Testament Promises: The Old Testament contains numerous unconditional promises to Israel, such as the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12:1-3, 15:18-21) and the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:12-16), which include a specific land and a throne. Amillennialists spiritualize these promises, applying them to the church’s spiritual inheritance. However, the Old Testament never hints that these promises would be transferred to a different entity. Passages like Jeremiah 31:31-37 and Ezekiel 36:22-28 explicitly describe a future restoration of national Israel, with no indication that “Israel” refers to anything other than the Jewish people.

The absence of any clear scriptural statement equating the church with Israel undermines the amillennial claim. While the New Testament teaches that Gentiles are grafted into God’s redemptive plan (Romans 11:17-24) and share in the blessings of salvation, this does not mean the church inherits Israel’s national promises. Romans 11:29 affirms that “God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable,” suggesting that His promises to Israel remain intact.

Premillennialism and Reformed Calvinistic Theology

Some amillennialists argue that premillennialism, with its expectation of a literal millennial reign, is incompatible with Reformed Calvinistic theology, which emphasizes God’s sovereignty, covenant theology, and a unified redemptive plan. However, premillennialism can be fully consistent with Reformed principles, as demonstrated by historic premillennialists like George Eldon Ladd and many early church fathers.

• God’s Sovereignty: Reformed theology affirms that God sovereignly orchestrates history according to His purposes. Premillennialism aligns with this by asserting that God will fulfill His promises to Israel and establish Christ’s kingdom in a literal millennial reign, as described in Revelation 20. This future reign glorifies God’s faithfulness to His covenants and His sovereign control over history.

• Covenant Theology: While dispensational premillennialism distinguishes sharply between Israel and the church, historic premillennialism integrates a covenantal framework. It recognizes that God’s redemptive plan includes both the church and Israel, with the church participating in the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34) and Israel experiencing national restoration in the future. The millennial reign fulfills the Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7), where Christ rules as King, consistent with God’s covenant promises.

• Soteriology: Reformed theology emphasizes salvation by grace through faith, rooted in Christ’s atoning work. Premillennialism does not contradict this, as it affirms that salvation in all ages is through faith in Christ. The millennial reign is not about a different path to salvation but about Christ’s visible rule on earth, fulfilling prophetic promises while maintaining the unity of God’s redemptive plan.

• Eschatological Hope: Reformed theology stresses the hope of Christ’s return and the consummation of God’s kingdom. Premillennialism enhances this hope by anticipating a literal reign where Christ subdues evil, rules with justice, and fulfills Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Isaiah 11:1-9). This does not detract from the eternal state but provides a transitional phase where God’s promises are visibly realized.

Historic premillennialists, who often align with Reformed principles, demonstrate that a literal millennial reign is not antithetical to Calvinistic theology. The view upholds God’s sovereignty, covenant faithfulness, and the centrality of Christ while affirming the plain meaning of prophetic texts.

The Historic-Grammatical Hermeneutical Process

The historic-grammatical hermeneutic, a cornerstone of premillennial exegesis, seeks to interpret Scripture according to its plain meaning, considering the historical and literary context, grammar, and authorial intent. This approach contrasts with the allegorical or spiritualizing hermeneutic often employed by amillennialists, particularly when interpreting prophetic texts.

• Plain Meaning: The historic-grammatical method assumes that biblical texts, including prophecies, should be understood in their ordinary sense unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. For example, Revelation 20:1-6 describes a “thousand years” during which Christ reigns with His saints. A plain reading suggests a literal period, not a symbolic representation of the church age, as amillennialists propose.

• Historical Context: This hermeneutic considers the historical setting of the text. Old Testament prophecies about Israel’s restoration (e.g., Ezekiel 37, Zechariah 14) were given to a nation in exile, promising a literal return to the land and a Davidic king. The historic-grammatical approach sees these promises as yet to be fulfilled, rather than spiritualized in the church.

• Literary Context: The method respects the genre and structure of the text. Apocalyptic literature, like Revelation, uses symbolic imagery but also includes literal elements. The repeated mention of “a thousand years” in Revelation 20, alongside specific details about Satan’s binding and Christ’s reign, supports a literal interpretation when read in context.

• Consistency Across Scripture: The historic-grammatical hermeneutic applies the same principles to both Old and New Testament texts. When New Testament writers cite Old Testament prophecies (e.g., Acts 1:6-7, where the disciples ask about Israel’s restoration), they do not reinterpret them as applying to the church but affirm their original meaning. This consistency supports premillennialism’s expectation of a future fulfillment for Israel.

Amillennialism, by contrast, often relies on a spiritualizing hermeneutic for prophetic texts, interpreting promises of land and kingdom as metaphors for spiritual blessings in the church. This approach lacks consistency, as it applies a literal hermeneutic to historical narratives (e.g., the resurrection) but an allegorical one to prophecies about Israel’s future. The historic-grammatical method, used consistently, supports premillennialism’s view of a literal millennial reign and a distinct role for national Israel.

Conclusion

The amillennial claim that the church is the “true Israel” lacks explicit scriptural support, relying on inferences that do not align with the consistent use of “Israel” in Scripture. Premillennialism, with its expectation of a literal millennial reign, is fully compatible with Reformed Calvinistic theology, upholding God’s sovereignty, covenant faithfulness, and redemptive unity. Grounded in a historic-grammatical hermeneutic, premillennialism interprets prophetic texts in their plain sense, affirming God’s irrevocable promises to Israel and the hope of Christ’s visible reign. Rather than dismissing premillennialism as inconsistent with Reformed principles, critics should engage its exegetical arguments and the biblical texts that undergird its eschatological hope.

The Mischaracterization of Premillennial Eschatology: A Disingenuous Strawman

The Mischaracterization of Premillennial Eschatology: A Disingenuous Strawman

Premillennial eschatology, a theological framework held by many Christians, posits that Jesus Christ will return physically to earth before establishing a literal thousand-year reign, as described in Revelation 20:1-6. This view, rooted in a historical-grammatical interpretation of Scripture, has been a significant perspective within evangelical Christianity for centuries. However, critics often misrepresent premillennialism by conflating it with the extremes of hyper-dispensationalism, creating a strawman argument that distorts its core tenets and sidesteps meaningful engagement. This article addresses this mischaracterization, refuting the notion that premillennial eschatology is inherently tied to sensationalist news-driven speculation or an uncritical alignment with Israeli politics, while affirming its biblical foundation and theological nuance.

The Strawman of Hyper-Dispensationalism

Hyper-dispensationalism, a fringe offshoot of dispensational theology, is often marked by an overemphasis on rigid distinctions between different dispensations in God’s redemptive plan, sometimes leading to speculative interpretations of Scripture and an obsession with aligning current events with biblical prophecy. Critics of premillennialism frequently equate it with this extreme, portraying premillennialists as conspiracy theorists who scour news headlines to force-fit global events into a prophetic grid. This caricature is both inaccurate and disingenuous.

Premillennial eschatology, while often associated with dispensationalism, does not inherently require the speculative excesses of hyper-dispensationalism. Mainstream premillennialists, whether dispensational or historic in their approach, ground their beliefs in a straightforward reading of biblical texts, such as Daniel 9, Zechariah 14, and Revelation 20. These passages describe a future period of tribulation, Christ’s return, and a literal millennial kingdom. The focus is on God’s sovereignty and the fulfillment of His promises, not on sensationalist attempts to predict the exact timing of these events or to map every geopolitical development onto Scripture.

For example, premillennialists do not typically advocate for “laying recent news over the Bible” to validate their eschatology. While some fringe groups may engage in such practices—pointing to wars, natural disasters, or political shifts as definitive signs of the end times—this is not representative of the broader premillennial perspective. Jesus Himself warned against such speculation, stating in Matthew 24:36 that “no one knows the day or hour” of His return. Responsible premillennial scholars and theologians, such as John Walvoord or Darrell Bock, emphasize the importance of humility and caution in interpreting prophecy, focusing on the certainty of Christ’s return rather than speculative timelines.

Premillennialism and Israeli Politics

Another common mischaracterization is the assumption that premillennial eschatology requires an unwavering, uncritical support for the modern state of Israel’s political actions. Critics often paint premillennialists as blindly pro-Israel, implying that they view the nation as inherently righteous or exempt from moral scrutiny. This is a distortion that fails to capture the theological and ethical nuances of the premillennial position.

Premillennialists believe that God’s covenant promises to Israel, as outlined in passages like Genesis 12:1-3 and Romans 11:25-29, remain valid and will be fulfilled in the future. This includes the restoration of Israel as a nation in the land and their role in God’s redemptive plan during the millennial kingdom. However, this theological conviction does not equate to blanket endorsement of Israel’s current political or moral actions. Premillennialists, like all Christians, recognize that all people and nations—including Israel—are fallen and in need of repentance. The biblical call to repentance applies universally, as seen in passages like Isaiah 1:16-17 and Romans 3:23, which affirm that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

A premillennialist can simultaneously believe in God’s future plans for Israel while critiquing its present actions, just as they would critique any nation’s sins. For instance, a premillennialist might support Israel’s right to exist as a nation based on biblical promises while condemning specific policies or actions that violate biblical principles of justice and righteousness. The conflation of premillennial eschatology with political Zionism is a rhetorical sleight of hand that ignores the distinction between theological convictions and geopolitical stances.

The Disingenuous Strawman

Equating premillennial eschatology with hyper-dispensational sensationalism or uncritical political alignments is a classic strawman argument. By attacking an exaggerated or distorted version of premillennialism, critics avoid engaging with its actual claims. This tactic sidesteps the need to address the exegetical and theological arguments for a literal millennial reign or God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel. Instead, it reduces a complex eschatological framework to a caricature that is easier to dismiss.

For example, critics may point to extreme examples—such as apocalyptic literature that ties every Middle Eastern conflict to the Antichrist or fringe groups that predict specific dates for the rapture—as evidence that premillennialism is inherently flawed. This is akin to dismissing all amillennial or postmillennial views because of a few misguided proponents. Such arguments fail to engage with the substantive scholarship of premillennialism, which draws on centuries of theological reflection and careful biblical exegesis.

Moreover, the strawman ignores the diversity within premillennial thought. Historic premillennialists, for instance, often reject the rigid dispensational distinctions of their counterparts while still affirming a future millennial reign. Both groups emphasize the hope of Christ’s return and the establishment of His kingdom, not the speculative excesses of hyper-dispensationalism or an uncritical devotion to any nation’s politics.

A Call for Fair Engagement

To engage meaningfully with premillennial eschatology, critics must address its actual claims rather than constructing strawmen. This requires grappling with the biblical texts that premillennialists cite, such as Revelation 20’s description of a thousand-year reign or Romans 11’s discussion of Israel’s future restoration. It also means acknowledging the theological nuance that allows premillennialists to affirm God’s promises while calling all people to repentance and humility.

Premillennial eschatology is not about sensationalism or political partisanship. It is about a hope rooted in Scripture—the belief that Jesus Christ will return to establish His kingdom, fulfilling God’s promises to His people and bringing justice and peace to the world. By mischaracterizing this view as hyper-dispensational extremism or blind support for Israel, critics undermine honest theological dialogue and obscure the richness of this eschatological perspective.

In conclusion, premillennial eschatology deserves to be evaluated on its own terms, not through the lens of a disingenuous strawman. By focusing on its biblical foundations and theological nuances, we can foster a more constructive conversation about the hope of Christ’s return and the future He has promised.

Six day creation: as a believer in the clarity of scripture and the Lord Jesus Christ, I will not agree to disagree on creation and neither should you.

The Six-Day Creation Account: A Biblical Defense Rooted in Scripture

The account of creation in Genesis 1 stands as one of the most foundational passages in the Word of God, declaring that the universe, earth, and all life were created by God in six literal days. This view, affirmed throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is not a peripheral issue but a cornerstone of biblical truth. Yet, some Christians, in an attempt to reconcile Genesis with modern secular science, propose that the “days” of Genesis represent millions of years, often to accommodate theistic evolution. This compromise, driven by a desire to gain academic respectability, undermines the authority of Scripture and attempts to explain supernatural acts through naturalistic means—an inherently contradictory endeavor. This article contends for the biblical six-day creation account, demonstrating its consistency across Scripture and exposing the flaws of long-age interpretations.

The Biblical Case for a Six-Day Creation

Genesis 1:1–31 clearly describes God creating the heavens, the earth, and all living creatures in six days, culminating in a day of rest. The Hebrew word for “day” (yom) in this context, paired with ordinal numbers (“first day,” “second day,” etc.) and the phrase “evening and morning,” consistently refers to a literal 24-hour period. This interpretation is reinforced in Exodus 20:11, where God establishes the Sabbath: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.” The parallel between God’s workweek and humanity’s underscores a literal timeframe.

The Old Testament consistently upholds this account. Psalm 33:6–9 declares, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made… For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.” This emphasizes instantaneous creation by divine fiat, not gradual processes spanning eons. Similarly, Nehemiah 9:6 affirms God’s direct creation of all things, with no hint of prolonged ages.

In the New Testament, Jesus and His disciples affirm the historicity of Genesis. In Mark 10:6, Jesus states, “From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female,” referencing Adam and Eve’s creation as occurring at the outset of history, not after billions of years. In Matthew 19:4–5, He cites Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as authoritative, grounding His teaching on marriage in the literal creation account. The Apostle Paul echoes this in Romans 1:20, noting that God’s eternal power and divine nature are evident “from the creation of the world,” and in 1 Timothy 2:13, he bases doctrine on the historical order of Adam and Eve’s creation. The author of Hebrews (11:3) writes, “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible,” affirming ex nihilo creation by divine command.

The Compromise of Theistic Evolution

Theistic evolutionists, who claim the Genesis “days” represent millions of years, argue that this harmonizes Scripture with scientific claims about the age of the earth. However, this approach sacrifices biblical clarity for the sake of academic approval. The desire to “sit at the big boy table” of secular academia often drives this compromise, as some fear being labeled as believers in “fairytales.” Yet, this fear reveals a lack of confidence in Scripture’s authority.

Theistic evolution requires reinterpreting not only Genesis but the entire biblical narrative. If death, disease, and struggle existed for millions of years before Adam’s sin, as evolutionary theory demands, then Romans 5:12—“sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin”—loses its meaning. The Bible ties physical death to Adam’s rebellion, not to a pre-fall evolutionary process. Furthermore, if Genesis 1 is allegorical, why not other miracles, such as the Exodus, the virgin birth, or the resurrection? This slippery slope erodes the foundation of Christian doctrine.

Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: An Oxymoron

Attempting to explain supernatural events, like creation, through naturalistic processes is oxymoronic. Genesis 1 describes God speaking the universe into existence, an act that transcends physical laws. Hebrews 11:3 explicitly states that the visible world was not made from pre-existing materials, ruling out naturalistic mechanisms. Theistic evolution, by contrast, assumes God used billions of years of natural processes, effectively diluting His omnipotence to fit a materialistic framework.

Secular science, rooted in methodological naturalism, excludes supernatural explanations by definition. Christians who adopt this framework to interpret Genesis are not reconciling faith and science but subordinating God’s Word to human speculation. As Proverbs 30:6 warns, “Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” The Bible does not need to be adjusted to fit shifting scientific paradigms, which have often been proven wrong (e.g., geocentricism, spontaneous generation).

The Authority of Scripture Over Academia

The pressure to conform to secular academia stems from a misplaced priority. Colossians 2:8 cautions, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition.” Human wisdom, however sophisticated, is fallible and fleeting, while God’s Word endures forever (Isaiah 40:8). Christians must prioritize Scripture as the ultimate authority, trusting that God’s account of creation is true, regardless of cultural scorn.

The charge that a literal six-day creation is a “fairytale” ignores the historical and theological coherence of Scripture. The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11, traced through Luke 3:23–38, place Adam at the beginning of a relatively recent human history, not millions of years ago. These genealogies, taken literally by both Jewish and early Christian scholars, leave no room for vast ages.

Conclusion: Standing Firm on God’s Word

The six-day creation account is not a peripheral doctrine but a foundational truth affirmed across Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus and His disciples upheld its historicity, grounding their teachings in its reality. Those who stretch the Genesis “days” into millions of years to accommodate theistic evolution are not harmonizing faith and science but compromising biblical authority for the sake of academic acceptance. Such efforts, which attempt to explain supernatural acts through naturalistic means, are inherently contradictory.

Christians must boldly stand on the Word of God, trusting that the Creator’s account of His own work is true. As 2 Timothy 3:16–17 declares, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” Let us proclaim the six-day creation with confidence, knowing that the God who spoke the universe into existence is worthy of our unwavering trust.

Today Is the Day: Don’t Delay Your Decision for Christ

Today Is the Day: Don’t Delay Your Decision for Christ

Dear Friend,

You’ve heard the gospel of Jesus Christ—the good news that He loves you, died for your sins, and offers you eternal life through faith in Him. Yet, you’ve hesitated, perhaps even rejected it, not because you doubt its truth, but because the pull of this world feels too strong. Maybe you’re clinging to pleasures, ambitions, or a lifestyle you’re not ready to surrender. Or perhaps you’ve pointed to the flaws of those who’ve shared the gospel with you, using their imperfections as a reason to put off the most important decision of your life. I’m writing to you today with a heart full of love and urgency: Today is the day of salvation. Now is the acceptable time. Delaying your decision to come to Christ is a dangerous gamble—equivalent to spiritual suicide.

The Urgency of Now

The Bible says, “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2). God’s offer of grace is extended to you right now, but tomorrow is not guaranteed. Life is fragile—accidents, illness, or unexpected events can come without warning. To delay seeking God is to assume you control time, but none of us do. Every moment you put off surrendering to Christ is a moment you risk eternity.

You might think, “I’ll get right with God later. I’m young. I have time.” But that’s a lie the enemy wants you to believe. Procrastination is a trap, lulling you into a false sense of security while your heart grows harder with each passing day. Hebrews 3:15 warns, “Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.” Every time you hear the gospel and walk away, your heart becomes a little less sensitive to God’s call. Don’t let delay steal your soul.

The World’s Empty Promises

I understand the pull of this world. It offers pleasures, success, and freedom that seem so appealing. Maybe you’re afraid of what you’d have to give up—relationships, habits, or dreams—to follow Christ. But let me ask you: Are those things truly satisfying you? Do they bring lasting peace, or do they leave you empty, chasing the next high, the next achievement, the next distraction? The Bible reminds us that “the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:17). The things you’re clinging to are temporary; they cannot save you or give you the abundant life Jesus promises (John 10:10).

Jesus doesn’t ask you to give up joy—He offers you something better. In Him, you’ll find forgiveness, purpose, and a love that never fails. The pleasures of this world are fleeting shadows compared to the eternal riches of knowing Christ. Don’t trade your soul for what will ultimately fade away.

The Imperfection of Messengers

You might point to the Christians you’ve met and say, “They’re not perfect. They’re hypocrites. Why should I listen to them?” It’s true—every Christian is a work in progress. We stumble, we sin, and we fall short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23). But the gospel isn’t about the perfection of the messenger; it’s about the perfection of Jesus. He is the sinless Savior who died for you, not the flawed humans who tell you about Him. Don’t let someone else’s imperfections become your excuse to reject the One who is perfect.

Think of it this way: if a doctor with a messy personal life told you about a cure for a deadly disease, would you refuse the cure because of the doctor’s flaws? Of course not. You’d take the cure and live. Jesus is the cure for the disease of sin, and His offer stands regardless of the shortcomings of those who point you to Him.

The Danger of Delay

To delay coming to Christ is to flirt with spiritual disaster. Jesus told a story about a rich man who planned to build bigger barns for his wealth, saying, “I’ll take it easy and enjoy life.” But God said to him, “Fool! This night your soul is required of you” (Luke 12:20). That man thought he had time, but he didn’t. Don’t let that be your story.

Every moment you delay, you’re choosing to remain in your sins, separated from God. Romans 6:23 is clear: “The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” To reject or postpone this gift is to choose death over life. It’s spiritual suicide—a deliberate step away from the only One who can save you.

The Invitation Is Open

God loves you more than you can imagine. He sent His Son to die on a cross for your sins, and He’s patiently calling you to come to Him. But His patience won’t last forever. Isaiah 55:6 urges, “Seek the Lord while He may be found; call upon Him while He is near.” That time is now. Jesus stands ready to forgive you, cleanse you, and give you a new heart. All it takes is a step of faith—turning from your sins and trusting in Him as your Savior and Lord.

You don’t have to clean yourself up first; Jesus accepts you as you are. You don’t have to understand everything; you just need to trust Him. Romans 10:9 promises, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” It’s that simple, and it’s that urgent.

Take the Step Today

Friend, don’t let another day pass. Don’t let the world’s fleeting pleasures or the imperfections of others keep you from the greatest decision you’ll ever make. Right now, in this moment, Jesus is knocking at the door of your heart (Revelation 3:20). Open the door. Pray this simple prayer: “Lord Jesus, I know I’m a sinner. I believe You died for me and rose again. I turn from my sins and trust You as my Savior. Come into my life and make me new.”

If you prayed that prayer or want to know more, find a Bible-believing church or a trusted Christian friend to guide you. Don’t wait. Today is the day of salvation. Your eternity hangs in the balance, and Jesus is waiting with open arms. Choose life. Choose Him. Now.

With love and urgency,

Mike

Focusing on the Good, Lovely, and Pure: A Reflection on Philippians 4:8

Focusing on the Good, Lovely, and Pure: A Reflection on Philippians 4:8

In a world that constantly vies for our attention, pulling us toward fleeting pleasures and distractions, Philippians 4:8 offers a timeless anchor for our souls: “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” This verse, penned by the Apostle Paul, is not just a suggestion but a divine call to take responsibility for the direction of our thoughts and, ultimately, our lives. It reminds us that our focus shapes our hearts, our relationships, and our walk with God.

The Power of Our Focus

Our minds are battlegrounds. Every day, we are bombarded with messages from the world—advertisements, social media, news, and cultural trends—that compete for our attention. Many of these influences draw us toward things that are temporary, shallow, or even destructive. The love of worldly things—whether it’s the pursuit of wealth, status, or sensual pleasures—can subtly creep into our hearts, pulling us away from the wholeness we find in Christ.

Paul’s words in Philippians 4:8 challenge us to be intentional about what we allow to occupy our minds. By focusing on what is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent, and praiseworthy, we align our thoughts with God’s Word and His character. This is not about ignoring the realities of a broken world but about choosing to dwell on the things that reflect God’s goodness and glory. When we fix our minds on these things, we cultivate a perspective that honors God and strengthens our relationship with Him.

The Danger of Worldly Distractions

The love of the world is a subtle trap. It promises satisfaction but delivers emptiness. When we give ourselves over to worthless pursuits—whether it’s chasing fleeting pleasures, obsessing over material possessions, or indulging in sensuality—we risk drifting from the abundant life Christ offers. These distractions not only weaken our connection with God but also strain our relationships with others. A heart consumed by worldly desires becomes self-focused, leaving little room for love, compassion, or service.

The Bible warns us in 1 John 2:15-17, “Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them… The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.” Chasing after the things of the world may feel gratifying in the moment, but it ultimately leads to spiritual and emotional depletion. It erodes the wholeness we experience when we are rooted in Christ.

Choosing Wholeness in Christ

Focusing on the good, lovely, and pure things God has laid before us in His Word is an act of worship and obedience. It’s a deliberate choice to say, “I will not let the world dictate my thoughts or my priorities.” Instead, we immerse ourselves in Scripture, which reveals God’s truth and character. We meditate on His promises, His faithfulness, and His love. We seek out the beauty of His creation, the kindness of others, and the opportunities to reflect His glory in our daily lives.

This focus transforms us. When we dwell on what is pure and admirable, our hearts are softened, and our actions begin to align with God’s will. We become people who radiate hope, grace, and love—qualities that draw others closer to Christ. Our relationships with family, friends, and even strangers are enriched because we are no longer consumed by selfish desires but are free to love as Christ loves.

Walking in God’s Truth

Philippians 4:8 is not just about thinking good thoughts; it’s about living them out. Paul follows this verse with an encouragement in verse 9: “Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.” Our focus on the good, lovely, and pure must translate into action. It means walking in integrity, pursuing holiness, and choosing to honor God in our decisions, words, and relationships.

When we live this way, we experience the peace of God that surpasses understanding (Philippians 4:7). We find freedom from the chaos of worldly pursuits and rest in the assurance of God’s presence. Our lives become a testimony to the transformative power of His Word, inviting others to seek the same wholeness we’ve found in Christ.

A Call to Intentional Living

So, how do we live out Philippians 4:8 in a world full of distractions? Here are a few practical steps:

1. Guard Your Mind: Be mindful of what you consume—whether it’s media, conversations, or entertainment. Ask yourself, “Does this align with what is true, noble, and pure?”

2. Immerse Yourself in Scripture: Make time each day to read and reflect on God’s Word. Let it guide your thoughts and shape your perspective.

3. Surround Yourself with Godly Influences: Seek out relationships and communities that encourage you to focus on what is excellent and praiseworthy.

4. Practice Gratitude: Take time to notice and give thanks for the good, lovely, and pure things in your life—God’s provision, His creation, and the love of others.

5. Act on What You Know: Let your focus on God’s truth inspire actions that reflect His character. Serve others, speak kindly, and live with integrity.

Conclusion

Philippians 4:8 is a call to take responsibility for our thoughts and, by extension, our lives. By focusing on the good, lovely, and pure things God has revealed in His Word, we guard our hearts against the detrimental pull of the world. We choose wholeness in Christ over the emptiness of worldly pursuits. And as we walk in alignment with God’s truth, we not only deepen our relationship with Him but also become a light to those around us.

Let’s commit to fixing our minds on what is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, and admirable. In doing so, we will find peace, purpose, and the abundant life God promises to those who seek Him.

Michael Tait: Yet Another Christian Idol Has Fallen

The allegations against Michael Tait, former frontman of DC Talk and Newsboys, as reported by The Roys Report in June 2025, expose a troubling underbelly of the contemporary Christian music (CCM) industry and raise profound questions about the tension between true Christianity and its pop culture counterpart. The notion that “the human heart is an idol factory,” as John Calvin famously stated, provides a lens to understand how Tait’s alleged predatory behavior and substance abuse could persist in secrecy for over two decades while he remained a celebrated figure in CCM. This situation reflects broader issues within the Christian community: the idolization of celebrities, the prioritization of entertainment over spiritual authenticity, and the failure of discernment that allows “pop culture Christianity” to overshadow true faith.

The Allegations and the Culture of Secrecy

Michael Tait, a pivotal figure in CCM through his work with DC Talk and Newsboys, faces accusations from at least three men who claim he groomed and sexually assaulted them between 2004 and 2014. These allegations, detailed in a two-and-a-half-year investigation by The Roys Report, include patterns of grooming, excessive alcohol use, and, in one case, an offer of cocaine on the Newsboys’ tour bus. Despite Tait’s prominence—having contributed to Grammy-winning albums and mainstream Christian hits like “Jesus Freak” and “God’s Not Dead”—these accusations were reportedly an open secret in Nashville’s CCM circles, described as “the worst-kept secret” in the industry.

The secrecy surrounding Tait’s alleged behavior can be attributed to several factors rooted in the idolization Calvin warned against. First, the CCM industry, like secular entertainment, thrives on celebrity culture. Tait, as a charismatic frontman, was a marketable figure whose music and public persona resonated with evangelical youth. His status as a “Christian celebrity” likely shielded him from scrutiny, as fans and industry insiders prioritized his image over accountability. The fear of blacklisting, as noted by the alleged victims, further silenced those who might have spoken out, as they risked their careers in a tight-knit industry.

Second, the industry’s commercial interests often supersede spiritual integrity. CCM is a business, with Newsboys alone selling over 10 million records and maintaining a massive fanbase. Exposing Tait’s behavior could have disrupted this financial ecosystem, threatening record sales, tour revenues, and the broader “brand” of Christian music. This mirrors the broader tendency within evangelicalism to protect influential figures—whether pastors, musicians, or leaders—to maintain the illusion of moral authority.

Finally, the culture of secrecy reflects a collective failure of discernment. Christians, eager for music that feels both culturally relevant and spiritually safe, often elevate artists like Tait to near-saintly status. As Calvin’s metaphor suggests, fans craft idols out of these figures, projecting their spiritual aspirations onto them. This idolization blinds them to red flags, such as Tait’s alleged “double life,” which he confessed to his bandmates upon leaving Newsboys in January 2025. The reluctance to question or investigate stems from a fear that acknowledging the truth might dismantle the comforting narrative of CCM as a bastion of godliness.

Pop Culture Christianity vs. True Christianity

The Tait scandal highlights a stark divide between pop culture Christianity and true Christianity, particularly in how Christians navigate their consciences and discernment. Pop culture Christianity, as embodied by much of the CCM industry, prioritizes accessibility, entertainment, and emotional resonance over theological depth or moral accountability. Fans crave “catchy beats” and “singable songs” that, allow them to sing about God without necessarily entering into genuine worship. This music often mimics secular pop in style—Newsboys’ “God’s Not Dead” or DC Talk’s “Jesus Freak” have the energy of mainstream rock—but with lyrics just “Christian enough” to align with evangelical values. This creates a superficial spirituality that appeases consciences without demanding the self-examination true Christianity requires.

True Christianity, in contrast, calls for a heart transformed by the Holy Spirit, rooted in repentance, humility, and obedience to God’s Word. It demands discernment—the ability to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) and hold leaders accountable, regardless of their status. The CCM industry, however, often fosters a fandom that dulls this discernment. Fans, enamored with Tait’s stage presence or the nostalgia of DC Talk’s 1990s heyday, may overlook inconsistencies between an artist’s public faith and private conduct. This is exacerbated by the industry’s emphasis on image: Tait’s appearances in the “God’s Not Dead” films and his performances at high-profile evangelical events, like the 2020 Evangelicals for Trump concert, reinforced his role as a cultural icon, making allegations harder to accept.

The Christian conscience, meant to be guided by Scripture and the Holy Spirit, is often numbed by the allure of pop culture Christianity. Fans may justify supporting flawed artists by separating their music from their personal lives, arguing that the message matters more than the messenger. Yet, as the Tait allegations suggest, this separation can enable harm. The Newsboys’ response—expressing horror and heartbreak while admitting they felt “deceived for the last fifteen years”—underscores how even those closest to Tait were blindsided, likely because they, too, were caught up in the idol-making tendencies of the industry.

How a Degenerate Can Remain a Popular Christian Artist

Tait’s ability to maintain popularity despite his alleged degeneracy points to a systemic issue: the Christian community’s complicity in elevating and protecting its idols. As Calvin’s “idol factory” suggests, the heart’s tendency to idolize leads Christians to prioritize entertainment over truth. Tait’s music, with its anthemic calls to faith, provided an emotional high that fans craved, allowing them to overlook rumors or inconsistencies. His charm, talent, and platform—bolstered by four Grammy wins and chart-topping albums—made him a symbol of CCM’s success in reaching the mainstream, further insulating him from accountability.

Moreover, the evangelical subculture often shies away from confronting sin in its leaders, especially when it involves sensitive issues like sexuality or substance abuse. The allegations against Tait include not only assault but also speculation about his sexual orientation, which some X posts suggest was an open secret in CCM circles. The fear of addressing such topics, particularly in a community that often stigmatizes homosexuality, may have contributed to the silence. Instead of fostering open dialogue or repentance, the industry allowed Tait’s behavior to persist, possibly out of fear that exposing him would damage CCM’s reputation or alienate fans.

Restoring Discernment and True Worship

To move toward true Christianity, Christians must reclaim discernment and reject the idolization of pop culture figures. This begins with recognizing that no artist, no matter how talented or “Christian they claim to be,” is above accountability. Scripture warns against placing trust in man (Jeremiah 17:5), urging believers to test all things against God’s Word (1 Thessalonians 5:21). The Tait scandal is a call to examine not just individual artists but the systems—churches, record labels, and fanbases—that enable secrecy and idolatry.

Practically, this means prioritizing worship that engages the heart and mind, not just the emotions. Songs should lead to genuine encounters with God, not serve as Christianized entertainment. Fans must also hold artists to the same moral standard as other Christian leaders, demanding transparency and repentance when necessary. The Newsboys’ call for victims to come forward is a step in this direction, but it must be paired with structural changes in the CCM industry to prevent future cover-ups.

Finally, Christians must cultivate a conscience sensitive to the Holy Spirit, not dulled by the allure of catchy tunes or celebrity charisma. This requires a return to Scripture, prayer, and community accountability, where truth is valued over entertainment. The Tait scandal, while heartbreaking, is an opportunity for the Church to purge its idols and rediscover what it means to worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24).

Conclusion

The Michael Tait allegations reveal how the “idol factory” of the human heart, as Calvin described, has infiltrated the CCM industry, allowing a popular artist to allegedly engage in predatory behavior while maintaining a revered status. The secrecy surrounding these accusations stems from a culture that prioritizes entertainment and image over accountability, reflecting a broader divide between pop culture Christianity and true faith. By idolizing figures like Tait, Christians risk dulling their consciences and failing to discern truth from façade. The path forward lies in rejecting celebrity worship, fostering accountability, and pursuing worship that glorifies God, not man.