JESUS: A PRETERIST OR A FUTURIST?

JESUS: A PRETERIST OR A FUTURIST?*
Richard L. Mayhue
Senior Vice President and Dean Professor of Pastoral Ministries and Theology
This essay examines Dr. R. C. Sproul’s thesis in The Last Days According to Jesus,1 that moderate preterism as it relates to Christ’s second coming is convincingly proven by three time-indicators in the Gospels2 and the writing date for John’s Revelation.3 The essay evaluates each of these four time referents historically and/or exegetically in order to determine if Sproul’s claims can be biblically substantiated. The three Matthean time-frame references have better alternative interpretations (both before and after A.D. 70) in regard to time of fulfillment than the A.D. 70 date, which preterism requires of all three. Also, the late writing date for Revelation (mid-90s) has the preponderance of evidence on its side; this one conclusion alone invalidates postmillennial preterism. Since these time-indicators that are critically important to the preterist position do not support the system’s foundational claim that Christ’s parousia occurred within the lifetime of His disciples, this reviewer4 concludes that Scripture does not teach preterism, moderate or otherwise, as claimed by Dr. Sproul. Therefore, Jesus was a futurist in regard to biblical prophecies of His second coming.
*****
*This article has been expanded from a paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Danvers, Massachusetts on November 17, 1999.
1 R. C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus: When Did Jesus Say He Would Return? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).
2Ibid.,24-25. TheyincludeMatt10:23;16:28;24:34.
3Ibid., 131-49.
4Other reviews of Dr. Sproul’s volume include Meredith G. Kline, “Book Review,” Kerux: A Journal of Biblical-Theological Preaching 14 (1999):52-70; Robert P. Lightner, “Book Reviews,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1999):242-43; and Mike Stallard, “Review of The Last Days According to Jesus,” Pt. 1, The Conservative Theological Journal 6 (2002): 55-71 and Pt. 2, 6 (2002):184-202.
9

10 The Master’s Seminary Journal
The English word “preterist” comes from the Latin term praeteritus which basically means “past” in regard to time. Thomas Ice explains that there are three types of preterists/preterism.
It is important to realize that there are three kinds of preterism that I have labeled as (1) mild; (2) moderate; and (3) extreme. Mild preterism holds that the Tribulation was fulfilled within the first three hundred years of Christianity as God judged two enemies: the Jews in A.D. 70 and Rome by A.D. 313; but adherents still look for a future Second Coming. Moderate preterism, which is the position of Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., sees the Tribulation and the bulk of Bible prophecy as fulfilled in events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70; but they still hold to a future Second Coming, a physical resurrection of the dead, an end to temporal history, and the establishing of the consummate new heaven and new earth. Extreme or consistent (as they like to call themselves) preterism believes that the Second Coming, and thus the resurrection of believers, is all past. For all practical purposes all Bible prophecy has been fulfilled, and we are beyond the millennium and even now in the new heaven and new earth. They believe that if there is an end of current history it is not recorded in the Bible.5
J. Stuart Russell,6 whom Sproul quotes frequently and favorably with regard to time-indicators,7 was unquestionably an extreme or radical preterist who believed that the general resurrection of the dead spoken of in the NT occurred before A.D. 70.8 With the exception of radical preterists themselves, all other preterists and all conservative non-preterists consider this Hymenaen/Philetean doctrine of extreme preterism (cf. 2 Tim 2:18) to be heretical.9 In fairness to Dr. Sproul, it must be pointed out that he rejects radical preterism.10
5 Thomas Ice and Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999) 7. Sproul, The Last Days 25, distinguishes between only two kinds—moderate and radical.
6 J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testamen t Doctrine o f Our Lord’s Second Coming (London: Daldy, Isbister, 1878; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983, 1999).
7 Sproul, The Last Days 24-25.
8 Ibid., 159-65. Sproul distances himself from Russell’s full preterism.
9Ice and Gentry, The Great Tribulation 7; John F. MacArthur, The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1999) 13; Stallard, “A Review” 56-57; Dennis M. Swanson, “Reformation or Retrogression? An Examination of the International Preterist Association’s Claims and Methodology” (unpublished paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Toronto, Canada on November 22, 2002) 25.
1 0 Sproul, The Last Days 159, 203: “The great weakness of full preterism—and what I regard to be its fatal flaw—is its treatment of the final resurrection.”

Jesus: A Preterist or a Futurist? 11
12 The Master’s Seminary Journal Background
Both Sproul and Russell (plus others of their general persuasion) have proposed that only their preterist understanding of Jesus’ statements regarding His parousia being fulfilled in A.D. 70 rescues the Bible from the liberal’s charge of “errant” and “unreliable.”11 Or, put another way, without the preterist view of NT prophecy being fulfilled in A.D. 70, the Scriptures are proven highly suspect or even guilty of substantial error, especially in matters relating to biblical eschatology.
Referring to the Olivet Discourse in his foreword to the reprint of Russell’s book, Sproul states,
Though critics grant that Jesus’ prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction was correct, they insist that his predictions at the same time, in the same context, and within the same time- frame reference, of his parousia, were incorrect. This poses a higher problem for those with a high view of Scripture and Jesus. An error in Jesus’ forecast of his parousia would be fatal to historic Christianity.12
Sproul writes elsewhere,
From the Enlightenment onward, the church has been grip ped by a severe crisis regarding the trustworthiness of Scripture.... Due to the crisis in confidence in the truth and authority of Scripture and the subsequent crisis regarding the real historical Jesus, eschatology must come to grips with the tensions of time-frame references in the New Testament.1 3
As I have indicated throughout this book, one of my overarching concerns regarding the points in dispute is the authority of Scripture. As the inerrant Word of God, it precludes all efforts to ignore or downplay any aspect of its teaching. The evangelical world cannot afford to turn a deaf ear to the railing voices of skepticism that gut Scripture of its divine authority, that assault the credibility of the apostolic witness and even of Christ himself. We must take seriously the skeptics’ critique of the time-frame references of New Testament prophecy, and we must answer them convincingly.14
Dr. Sproul strives to answer the objections to biblical prophecy of such critics as Bertrand Russell and Albert Schweitzer.15 One almost gets the idea that he is bordering on a kind of theodicy in his quest to protect the Scriptures from its unbelieving detractors. He certainly appears to be engaging in a Hal Lindsey-type
11Ibid., 11-26.
1 2 Russell, The Parousia ix. 1 3 Sproul, The Last Days 26. 14Ibid., 203.
15Ibid., 12-24.

Jesus: A Preterist or a Futurist? 13
approach to biblical prophecy by reading or placing historical events—e.g., those of A.D. 70— into Scripture just as Lindsey does with contemporary events. To reach sound conclusions in interpretive labor, one must meticulously avoid both critical objections and a Lindsey-type approach.16
The advocates of preterism appear to have missed, or at least undervalued, Peter’s reminder that in the days prior to A.D. 70 there also were scoffers similar to Russell and Schweitzer. Instead of foretelling the events of A.D. 70, just a few years away, Peter encourages them to wait in faith, believing that all will eventually happen in God’s timing, which is different from man’s timetable (2 Pet 3:3-4, 8-9). Attempting to answer objections from skeptics is no way to validate or elevate a particular eschatological system.
Both J. Stuart Russell and R. C. Sproul have tried to prove preterism to be the correct time-framework for understanding biblical prophecy, which time-frame then becomes the supposed savior of Scripture’s integrity. Russell appeals to three distinct declarations of the Lord respecting the time of His coming (Matt 10:23; 16:28; 24:34). He states, “The plain grammatical meaning of these statements has been fully discussed in these pages. No violence can extort from them any other sense than the obvious and unambiguous one, viz. that our Lord’s second coming would take place within the limits of the existing generation.”17
Sproul affirms Russell’s assessment:
The central thesis of Russell and indeed of all preterists is that the New Testament’s time- frame references with respect to the parousia point to a fulfillment within the lifetime of at least some of Jesus’ disciples.18
The purpose of The Last Days According to Jesus has been to examine and evaluate the various claims of preterism, both full and partial. The great service preterism performs is to focus attention on two major issues. The first is the time-frame references of the New Testament regarding eschatological prophecy. The preterist is a sentinel standing guard against frivolous and superficial attempts to downplay or explain away the force of these references.19
J. Stuart Russell argues that 99 persons in every 100 would immediately understand Jesus to mean that the events he was predicting would fall within the limits of the lifetime of an existing generation. This means, not that every person present will necessarily be
16Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, 4th rev. ed. (Atlanta: American Vision, 1999) vii; Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1999) 237-38.
1 7 Russell, The Parousia 539-40. 1 8 Sproul, The Last Days 26. 19Ibid., 202-3.

14 The Master’s Seminary Journal
alive at the time of the fulfillment, but that many or even most will be.20
This essay will show that an understanding of the “time-frame references” or “time-text indicators” different from that of preterism does not necessarily involve (1) violent extortion of the text’s meaning, (2) frivolous interpretive efforts, or (3) superficial exegesis. Nor do other eschatological approaches necessarily downplay or explain away the meaning or the importance of these supposed watershed texts in determining one’s prophetic views. Preterism is not necessarily the only eschatologi- cal paradigm or the a priori superior approach to serve as the apologetic approach of choice when supporting or defending the impeccable character of Scripture, as Dr. Sproul asserts. Though we commend and agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Sproul in his strong stand for a high view of Scripture, championing preterism is not the best way to achieve that goal.
To demonstrate this, the following discussion will briefly examine the four time-indicators by which preterism, not the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, lives or dies. They are: (1) the writing date of Revelation; (2) Matt 10:23; (3) Matt 16:28; and (4) Matt 24:34. The examination will demonstrate that (1) Jesus was a futurist, not a preterist and (2) sound exegesis is the best defender of Scripture’s integrity, not the presuppositions of a particular eschatological system.
The Writing Date of Revelation
Regarding possible writing dates for Revelation, Bible scholars generally recognize two possibilities. First, the early date is shortly before A.D. 70 (ca. A.D. 68) during Nero’s reign (A.D. 54-68).21 Second, the late date would be ca. A.D. 95 during Domitian’s time (A.D. 81-96). 22
Significantly, a futurist would not have to change his eschatological thinking if a pre-A.D. 70 date for the writing were to be established. However, the preterist position is eliminated from consideration if the late date of ca. A.D. 95 can
20Ibid., 53.
2 1 Albert A. Bell, Jr., “The Date of John’s Apocalypse,” New Testament Studies 25 (1978):93-102; Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, 3d ed. (Atlanta: American Vision, 1999); John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976); J. Christian Wilson, “The Problem of the Domitianic Date of Revelation,” New Testament Studies 39 (1993):587-605.
2 2 D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 473-76; Adela Yarbro Collins, “Dating the Apocalypse of John,” Biblical Research 26 (1981):33-45; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1970) 947-59; Everett F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 472-75; H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 1988) 249-60; Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1–7 (Chicago: Moody, 1992) 20-23; “Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 5 (1994):185-202.

Jesus: A Preterist or a Futurist? 15
be validated.23
All discussions of Revelation’s writing date are divided into two categories
of evidence—internal and external. Regarding internal evidence, this writer has foregone any discussion in this essay for two reasons. First, it is too voluminous a subject for an essay of this size. Second, Revelation contains no direct statements as to its writing date. Therefore, the subjectivity that could be introduced through biased eisegesis (by both positions) would generally skew the discussion and would not be decisive. Put another way, because of the frequent use of figurative language in Revelation, one could easily read one’s prophetic choice into the interpretation to prove his historical and/or theological conclusions. On a matter of this importance, it is best to avoid those kinds of questionable speculations and look at the more objective witness of history. Theorizing and hypothesizing one’s way to a conclusion proves highly unsatisfactory, regardless of one’s eschatological leanings.
Therefore,severalsalientpointsofexternalevidencearerelevant. First,the history of dating Revelation decidedly favors the late date. From the second through the eighteenth centuries, the late date was essentially the exclusive view. Only in the nineteenth century, when postmillennialism was a dominant influence, did the early date enjoy a brief time as the majority view. Certainly in the last two centuries, the late date has rebounded to its former place of prominence. Though challenged by a few in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the vast majority of Christian scholars support the later date, regardless of their eschatological beliefs.
Second, only direct statements from primary sources should be considered. At least four direct witnesses in the second to fourth centuries A.D. support the late date.24 However,onlyseveralobscuresixth-centurywitnessesandtheninth-century writer, Theophylact, advocate the early date. The earliest historical attestation to Revelation’s date of writing clearly supports the late date. A general axiom states that ancient documents whose date is closest to the historical event reported contain more accurate and reliable information than documents further removed in time.
Third, the historical conditions of the seven churches of Asia Minor in Revelation 2–3 point to a late date. The status of the churches is radically different from the immediate post-Pauline days of the late 60s.25 Therefore, that they represent churches much later than the 60s is the reasonable conclusion, thus eliminating a pre-A.D. 70 writing date for Revelation.
Fourth, if Christ’s parousia had actually occurred in conjunction with Jerusalem’s fall, it was certainly to be expected that John would then have taught
2 3 Gentry acknowledges that a late writing da te for Revelation would be fatal to the preterist positi on in Before Jerusalem Fell 342.
2 4 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.30.3; Victorinus, Common Apocalypse 7:353; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.18.3; 5.8.6; and Jerome, Ag. Jovinianum 1.26.
25See Thomas, “Theonomy” 200-201 for a most convincing discussion; also Harrison,Introduction, 473-74.

16 The Master’s Seminary Journal
something so important after the fact and that John’s teaching would have been reflected prominently in the writings of the church fathers. However, there is nary a word about an A.D. 70 parousia of Christ in John’s post-70 writings or in the fathers. Far more critical than establishing the writing date of Revelation is uncontested evidence that the late-first- and second-century churches were preterists. Here overwhelming testimony points to the fact that they were premillennial.26
Though admittedly such discussion does not prove once-for-all that Jesus was a futurist, it does argue strongly and even demand that He was not a preterist. The burden of proof is on the preterist to overturn such compelling external evidence for a late date of Revelation’s composition by John. In spite of valiant attempts, preterists have not accomplished this. As an interesting final comment, even the introductory notes in the New Geneva Study Bible, for which Dr. Sproul served as General Editor, state, “Most scholars favor a date about A.D. 95” (2004).
Matthew 10:23
The first of three Matthean time-indicators that supposedly support preterism can be translated, “You will not finish (complete) the cities of Israel until/before the Son of Man comes” (Matt 10:23). The text has no synoptic parallel; it has no significant textual variants; and it has no translation difficulties. However, its interpretation presents a huge challenge. About this passage, D. A. Carson comments, “This verse is among the most difficult in the New Testament canon.”27 Certainly, the verse should not be among the sine qua non features of any major doctrine.
Jesus, in sending out the twelve, tells them what they are to do, proclaim that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (vv. 6-7), which will not be accomplished until (before) He comes. To what “coming” does Christ refer? At least six distinguishable possibilities exist.
1. Jesus meant an immediate coming or “catching up” in the sense that, “I will be close behind, so get moving!”28 The major problem with this view is that the persecutions of vv. 16-23 were not experienced until after Christ’s death and resurrection.
2 6 Larry V. Crutchfield, “The Apostle John and Asia Minor as a Source of Premillennialism in the Early Church Fathers,” JETS 31 (1988):411-27.
2 7 D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 250.
28Jacques Dupont, “Vous N’Aurez Pas Acheve Les Villes D’Israel Avant Que Les Fils De L’Homme Ne Vienne,” Novum Testamentum 2 (1958):228-44.

Jesus: A Preterist or a Futurist? 17
2. Jesus spoke of His coming by way of resurrection.29 This is out of place in light of the fact that His resurrection is nowhere spoken of as “a coming” and in light of Christ’s NT “coming” being defined as post-ascension by the angels in Acts 1:11.
3. Jesus referred to His coming as it related to the coming of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 15:26-27; 16:7-11).30 Since the Holy Spirit is a separate person in the triune Godhead, that would not really fulfill the promise of a personal “coming” by Christ.
4. Jesus indicated God’s judgment against Israel in A.D. 70 associated with Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem,31 but this did not fulfill the parousia promises of Christ.
5. Jesus plainly meant that his parousia would occur within the lifetime of the disciples and that it would be in conjunction with the A.D. 70 plundering ofJerusalem.32 TheproblemhereandwithpossibilityfouristhatJesusdid not come.
6. Jesus referred to His future second coming in the sense that God’s gospel mission to the Jew would not cease or be completed prior to His promised eschatological return and to the completion of God’s redemptive purposes among the Jewish nation.33
For several reasons, this reviewer favors the view that the “coming” in Matt
10:23 refers to Christ’s future second coming.
1. It accounts for the context that looks beyond the disciples’ immediate ministry (cf. vv. 16-23).
2. It allows for 10:22b occurring elsewhere in an eschatological context (cf.
2 9 Leopold Sabourin, “You Will Not Have Gone Through All the Towns of Israel, Before the Son of Man Comes (Matt 10:23b),” Biblical Theological Bulletin 7 (1977):5-11.
30John Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists, in Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 16 (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989) 458.
3 1 A. B. Bruce, The Training of the Twelve (repr int , Gran d Ra pid s: Kregel , 19 71) 118 ; D. A. Carson, “Matthew” 252-53; Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (reprint, Grand Rapids: MacDonald, n.d.) 645-47; Donald Hagner, Matthew 1–13 in Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33a (Dallas: Word, 1993) 278-80; J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 195.
3 2 Russell, The Parousia 26-29; Sproul, The Last Days 9, 13, 24, 38, 56, 86. One is tremendously disappointed to find no exegetical or theological discussion of this text by Sproul, who is eminently capable of such. Because Sproul places such an extreme importance on these time-indicators, it is unfathomable why such a treatment has not been included in his volume.
3 3 Craig Blomberg, Matthew (Nashville: Broadman, 1992) 175-76; F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1983) 109; Charles H. Giblin, “Theological Perspective and Matthew 10:23b,” Theological Studies 29 (1968):637-61; William Hendricksen, Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973) 466.

18
3. 4. 5.
6.
7. 8.
The Master’s Seminary Journal
Matt 24:13; Mark 13:10).
The phrase “the Son of Man comes” (cf. Matt 24:30, 44; 25:31) is most compatible with the future parousia view.
It does justice to the eschatological imagery that “a Son of Man was coming” in Dan 7:13.
The aorist subjunctive use of J,8XT (teleÇ, “complete, finish”) with the double negation of @Û :Z (ou m􏰀, “not”) makes the most sense grammati- cally in an ultimate redemptive context, e.g., “the disciples will not have come to the end of the towns of Israel before the parousia breaks upon them.” 34
Hermeneutically and theologically, it allows for the phrase “shall not finish the cities of Israel until” to be taken in a qualitative sense in full harmony with Paul’s later unambiguous writings about Israel’s redemptive future in Rom 11:1-2, 25-32.
It does not require calling an A.D. 70 “non-coming” a “coming” as proposed by preterists.
It allows for the gospel to reach the Gentiles (cf. Matt 28:19; Mark 13:10) without God forsaking Israel salvifically. Christ intended to communicate that what began redemptively for Israel at Christ’s first advent (Matt 1:21) would be continued until He returns at His second advent.
A futuristic interpretation of “coming” in Matt 10:23 is contextually, grammatically, hermeneutically, and theologically more reasonable than the other views. The noted NT scholar F. F. Bruce summarizes Jesus’ intended meaning in this text:
What, then, does the saying mean in this context? It means, simply, that the evangelisa- tion of Israel will not be completed before the end of the present age, which comes with theadventoftheSonofman....Paul,fromhisownperspective,expressesmuchthesame hope when he foresees the salvation of ‘all Israel’, the sequel of the ingathering of the full tale of Gentile believers, being consummated at the time when ‘the Deliverer will come from Zion’ (Rom. 11:25-27).35
In this case, Jesus is a futurist!
Matthew 16:28
This second of three Matthean time references that supposedly supports a preterist view of Christ’s second coming (Matt 16:28) has two synoptic parallels (Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27), a text with no remarkable textual variants, and no translation
3 4 R. Schippers, “JX8@H,” DNTT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 2:62-63. 35Bruce, Hard Sayings 109.

Jesus: A Preterist or a Futurist? 19
challenges. However, as with Matthew 10:23, interpreting the text is no easy matter. C. E. B. Cranfield calls the parallel in Mark 9:1 “one of the most puzzling [sayings of Christ] in the gospels.”36 One wonders why a text of this interpretive difficulty would be included as a critical feature to defend/support a major theological position.
Jesus has been expanding the disciples’ thinking to include His death (16:21). He then moves from the unthinkable to the sublime—His second advent (16:27). He immediately promises that a few of the disciples would not die until they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. What event did Jesus have in mind when He made this somewhat enigmatic promise?
At least six plausible possibilities have been advanced.
1. Jesus looked to His resurrection.37
2. Jesus meant His ascension.38
3. Jesus looked ahead to the Holy Spirit coming at Pentecost.39
4. Jesus pointed to a coming in A.D. 70—the preterist view.40
5. Jesus referred to the advance of His kingdom through the church.41
6. Jesus had the transfiguration in mind.42
Some compelling reasons why this reviewer prefers the near/immediate
historical view of the transfiguration are as follows:43
1. This was the majority view of the early church fathers.
2. It fits the sense of imm ediac y raised by Ch rist.
3. Though the unfortunate chapter division between Matthew 16:28 and 17:1
36C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Cambridge: University Press, 1972) 285.
37Bruce, Hard Sayings 154; Cranfield, Saint Mark 287-88; I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 377-79.
3 8 Hendricksen, Matthew 659-60.
3 9 Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) 327.
4 0 Donald Hagner, Matthew 14–28 in Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b (Dallas: Word, 1995) 485-87; Russell, The Parousia 29-33; Sproul, Last Days 23, 53, 55.
41Carson, “Matthew” 382.
4 2 Blomberg, Matthew 261; D. Edmond Hiebert, Mark (Chicago: Moody, 1974) 211-12; S. Lewis Johnson, “The Transfiguration of Christ,” Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (1967):133-43; A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966) 127, 130.
43If the reader wonders at this point why the reviewer has not interacted with Dr. Sproul in discussing these time-reference texts, it is because there is nothing with which to interact except his assertions with little or no attempt to support them. The Last Days According to Jesus is long on assertion/conclusion and inadequately short on exegetical or theological substantiation.

20
The Master’s Seminary Journal
might lead one to believe that there is no contextual connection between 16:28 and that which follows, the parallel passages in Mark 9 and Luke 9 where no intervening chapter breaks appear, prove that what follows on the Mount of Transfiguration is a vital part of the immediate context.
The “some” of 16:28 is fulfilled by the “three” of 17:1. It was to be an exceptional experience, not a unanimous one. The resurrection, the ascension, Pentecost, and the kingdom were occasions experienced by all of the disciples, and therefore could not have been what Jesus meant.
No one “saw” Christ in A.D. 70; this is a major disqualifier for the preterist interpretation.
Only John survived to see Christ in His later glory (Rev 1:12-20), but Peter, James, and John—i.e., some of the disciples (three out of the twelve)—actually saw Christ in His kingdom glory and power on the Mount of Transfiguration, plus they heard the glorious, powerful voice of God the Father. Additionally, they saw kingdom power manifest by the appearance on earth of Moses who died about 1405 B.C. and Elijah who was caught up alive by God’s chariots to heaven about 850 B.C.
Both John (John 1:14) and Peter (2 Peter 1:16-18) later wrote about this powerful, kingdom preview. Their descriptions of the actual event closely parallel the expectations raised by Christ’s promise.
Matthew 16:28 refers to the prophetic preview of Christ’s future parousia
4.
5. 6.
7.
glory on
only acceptable view with regard to substance (2, 4, 5, 6, 7), and the historically preferred view (1). Therefore, the passage definitely shows Jesus to be a futurist, because He promised to be seen at His future parousia just as He previewed it at the Transfiguration. He could not have been a preterist, because no one saw Christ at the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem.
Judging from the above factors and the place of the narrative in the Gospels, it seems safe to affirm that the transfiguration event was a kind of preview, and thus anticipation, of kingdom power and glory which would come permanently at the parousia.44
Since this text refers a time in Christ’s earthly ministry, it does not directly prove that Jesus was a futurist; but given the implications of what Christ previewed for the three disciples, it strongly points in that direction. It clearly does not teach that Christ would come in A.D. 70.
Matthew 24:34
Matthew 24:34 is the third of three Matthean time-indicators used to
4 4 Charles Holman, “The Idea of an Imminent Parousia,” Studia Biblica Et Theologica III (1973):23.
the Mount of Transfiguration, because it is contextually superior (3), the

Jesus: A Preterist or a Futurist? 21
support the preterists’ contention that Christ’s parousia occurred in A.D. 70 when Rome sacked Jerusalem. It has two synoptic companions (Mark 13:30; Luke 21:22) and has no textual variants. All three texts involve a straightforward translation.
O n e v e r y c o n fi d e n t p r e t e r is t h a s c l a i m e d t h a t , a f t e r a c o m p l e t e s t u d y o f M a t t 24:34, his view is “indisputably clear” and “absolutely demanding.”45 In contrast, noted NT scholar J. Fitzmeyer lamented that this is “...the most difficult phrase to interpret in this complicated eschatological discourse.”46 When dealing with such complexity as “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” involves, Fitzmeyer’s approach is the sensible one.
At least seven plausible views have arisen regarding Matthew 24:34.
1. Christ was mistaken.
2. Christ was speaking of the human race in general.
3. Christ was referring to A.D. 70. This is held by preterists47 and non-preter-
ists.48
4. Christ sp oke of faithful C hristians in g enera l.
5. Christ referred to the Jewish race generically (futurist view).49
6. Christ referred to a future evil generation.50
7. Christ was indicating the generation which would be alive at His future
parousia.51
In this passage, the futurist possibilities (6 & 7) are preferred over the
preterist option (3a) for very convincing reasons:
4 5 Ice and Gentry, Great Tribulation 26-27.
46Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV (New York: Doubleday & Co.,
1985) 1353.
4 7 Ice and Gentry, Great Tribulation 26-27, 181; Russell, The Parousia 83-89; Sproul, Last Days 51-68.
48Bruce, Hard Sayings 228; Carson, “Matthew” 507; Hagner, Matthew 14–28 715; David L. Turner, “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41: Interaction with Evangelical Treatments,” Grace Theological Journal 10 (1989):3-27; David Wenham, “’This Generation Will Not Pass....’ A Study of Jesus’ Future Expectation in Mark 13,” Festschrift for Donald Guthrie (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1982) 127.
4 9 Duane A. Dunham, “'+;+! in Matthew 24:34,” New Testament Essays in Honor of Homer A. Kent, Jr., ed. Gary T. Meadors (Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH, 1991) 125-41; Hendricksen, Matthew 867-69.
5 0 Evald Lövestam, Jesus and ‘this Generation’ (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1995) 81-87; Neil D. Nelson, Jr., “’This Generation’ in Matt 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective,” JETS 38 (1996):369- 85; Robert L. Thomas, unpublished class notes (Sun Valley, Calif.: The Master's Seminary, n.d.).
51Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996) 1688-92; Hiebert, Mark 331; John MacArthur, Matthew 24–28, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1989) 63-67.
Conclusions
The preterist view, by its own definition and admission, essentially rests upon (1) a Revelation writing date before A.D. 70 and (2) the “time-text” indicators in Matt 10:23, 16:28, and 24:34 all pointing to an A.D. 70 fulfillment.
In regard to the writing date of Revelation, the overwhelming consensus of second to twenty-first century scholars, with good reason, embraces a late writing date of Revelation (ca. A.D. 95) rather than the early date (pre-A.D. 70), with the exception of the nineteenth century when postmillennialism was the majority opinion. This one conclusion alone eliminates a preterist approach from viable consideration.
The biblical focus of preterism on A.D. 70 is not as dominant, or clear-cut, or even obvious to the careful interpreter as preterists would have one believe; this is evidenced by numerous other attractive interpretive options which preterists fail to appreciate fully when dealing with Matt 10:23, 16:28, and 24:34. Preterists unanimously interpret all three Matthean “time-indicators” as referring to A.D. 70, while others of differing eschatological schools of thought generally deal with these texts independently and exegetically. It would appear that the preterist view has been used to interpret these passages, rather than the texts being treated independently of one another and without undue concern for particular theological outcomes. Put another way, only the preterist position demands a unanimous A.D. 70 interpretation for all three time-reference indicators—M att 10:23; 16:26; 24:34. However, the three “time-text” indicators, so critical to proving a preterist approach correct, have better alternative interpretations (both before and after A.D. 70) than A.D. 70 alone.
To build one’s eschatology on textual interpretations that have other, more compelling views is risky if not fatal. The three Matthean texts used by preterists are generally judged by scholars to be less than immediately clear, not to mention that they are among the most elusive texts to interpret in the entire NT. In this reviewer’s opinion, preterism has erected its eschatological superstructure on just such a weak foundation as understanding all four of these “time-frame” references in relationship to A.D. 70. They do not effectively support the weight of preterism (moderate or otherwise) as proposed by R. C. Sproul, which, by the way, actually involves three separate comings of Christ, but that is the subject of another essay.54 Therefore, it is concluded, based on a review of these four time-text indicators, that Jesus was a futurist in His teachings, and certainly not a preterist.
54Sproul, Last Days 170, in Table 7.2 illustrates Christ’s first advent at His birth (assumed), Christ’s second advent in A.D. 70 (explicit), and Christ’s third advent at some unknown time in the future (explicit).

Mike Murdock – Mammon Merchandising Maestro

Definition of False Teacher: One who presumes to teach in the Name of the Lord when God has not sent him.

Mike Murdock – Mammon Merchandising Maestro

“And in their desire for profit they will come to you with words of deceit, like traders doing business in souls: whose punishment has been ready for a long time and their destruction is watching for them” (2 Peter 2:3 BBE).

Mike Murdock, mercenary par excellence, sells “wisdom” for money. “Give me money,” he sings, day in and day out. “I have wisdom, you have money; give me your money, and I’ll send you a gift, precious partner. I am so excited about getting your $58 dollar gift, so I can send you the gifts the Lord has put on my heart. As long as your gift more than pays for mine, I’m good with that – very good, praise God!”

And he cries out, “Of course, who can put a value on wisdom? Sow your seed of money to me, and I will give you treasure beyond measure for my pleasure. How’s that, precious pecuniary partner?”

While Isaiah cries out:

“Ho, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat. Yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Why do you weigh silver for what is not bread? and your labor for what never satisfies? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness” (Isaiah 55:1-2 MKJV).

Jesus took a whip to merchandisers, as He drove them out of the Temple:

“And He said to those who sold doves, Take these things away from here. Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise” (John 2:16 MKJV).

Will “Doctor” Murdock share all his “wisdom” with you free of charge, as commanded? Jesus said to His disciples, “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. You have received freely, freely give. Do not provide gold nor silver, nor copper in your purses, nor a bag for the journey, nor two coats, nor sandals, nor staves. For the workman is worthy of his food” (Matthew 10:8-10 MKJV).

The subtle serpent is never caught without “wisdom” to defend his ways. After all, of him it is written:

“Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made” (Genesis 3:1 MKJV).

The merchandiser has his rationale. “We’re operating a ministry! We’re reaching the lost! We’re providing a crucial service to the world for the Lord! It costs money to advertise, record, staff, equip, print, televise, and mail! And you need to ‘sow your seed’ – what better thing to do than to pay me for wisdom?”

Does wisdom need to be sold? Are there no men of God giving their substance freely today? Whether men of God or otherwise, there are multitudes of websites who freely offer what they have. Many make a point of not charging. Not Mike. Mike needs money! Mike loves money! Mike milks you - he milks and milks you for all you’ve got or are willing to give.

Mike, maybe mammon makes more misery, do you think? It does! I know, because I’ve been there, living for mammon; though, by God’s mercy, I have not sold His spiritual treasure for mammon. Not that it matters; we have all been guilty one way or another. But now the Lord gives me to confront a manifest merchandiser of God’s goods (perverted as they are) in God’s Name.

Does wisdom need to be sold? She declares otherwise:

Proverbs 1:20-23 MKJV
(20) Wisdom cries outside; she utters her voice in the streets;
(21) she cries in the chief place of gathering, in the openings of the gates; in the city she utters her words, saying,
(22) How long will you love simplicity, simple ones? And will scorners delight in their scorning? And will fools hate knowledge?
(23) Turn at my warning; behold, I will pour out my Spirit to you; I will make my words known to you.

Does God send forth men to sell wisdom?

“For the LORD gives wisdom; out of His mouth come knowledge and understanding. He lays up sound wisdom for the righteous; He is a shield to those who walk uprightly” (Proverbs 2:6-7 MKJV).

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7 MKJV).

Does anyone think he can actually buy wisdom? Of such a one, the Lord says:

“Why is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, since he has no heart for it?” (Proverbs 17:16 MKJV)

The Lord sends forth men to speak and to give wisdom. Those who repent and believe, though with empty pockets, receive. Which of the prophets, apostles, pastors, or saints does one find in Scripture selling spiritual gifts and services? Not one. A couple of men come to mind who tried it, however.

Gehazi, Elisha’s servant:

2 Kings 5:20-27 MKJV
(20) And Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said, Behold, my master has spared Naaman the Syrian, in not receiving at his hand that which he brought. But, as the LORD lives, I will run after him and take something from him.
(21) And Gehazi followed after Naaman. And Naaman saw him running after him, and descended down from the chariot to meet him. And he said, Is all well?
(22) And he said, All is well. My master has sent me, saying, Behold, this now, two young men from Mount Ephraim of the sons of the prophets have come to me. Please give them a talent of silver and two changes of clothing.
(23) And Naaman said, Be content, take two talents. And he urged him and bound two talents of silver in two bags, with two changes of clothing. And he laid them on two of his servants. And they carried them before him.
(24) And he came to the hill, and he took from their hand and stowed them in the house. And he let the men go, and they departed.
(25) And he went in and stood before his master. And Elisha said to him, Where from, Gehazi? And he said, Your servant did not go here or there.
(26) And he said to him, Did not my heart go with you when the man turned again from his chariot to meet you? Is it a time to receive silver and to receive clothing and olive-yards and vineyards and sheep and oxen and menservants and maidservants?
(27) And the leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you and to your seed forever. And he went out from his presence as leprous as snow.

Oh, the price of presuming to serve God while serving mammon!

Now please note that Naaman had freely offered gifts; Elisha and Gehazi did not solicit them. The offerings were Naaman’s idea; he wasn’t coerced into giving. Neither was he asked to sow a financial “seed” in order to receive a blessing, as Murdock incessantly asks one to do. Indeed, even after the miracle was performed, Elisha refused Naaman’s gift of gratitude and honor for healing:

“And [Naaman, the healed leper] returned to the man of God, he and all his company. And he came and stood before him. And he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel. And now please take a blessing from your servant. But he said, As the LORD lives, before Whom I stand, I will receive none. And he urged him to take it, but [Elisha] refused” (2 Kings 5:15-16 MKJV).

Then there was Simon, who associated mammon with the gift of God:

Acts 8:5-24 MKJV
(5) And Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed Christ to them [without charge or request of gifts of “seed faith,” no doubt].
(6) And the people with one accord gave heed to those things which Philip spoke, hearing and seeing the many miracles which he did.
(7) For out of those having unclean spirits, many came out, crying with loud voice. And many who had been paralyzed and lame were healed.
(8) And there was great joy in that city.
(9) But a certain man called Simon had long been conjuring in the city, and amazing the nation of Samaria, claiming himself to be some great one.
(10) All gave heed to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, This one is the great power of God.
(11) And they were paying attention to him, because for a long time he had amazed them with conjuring.
(12) But when they believed Philip preaching the gospel, the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
(13) Then Simon himself believed also, and being baptized, he continued with Philip. And seeing miracles and mighty works happening, he was amazed.
(14) And the apostles in Jerusalem hearing that Samaria had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them;
(15) who when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
(16) For as yet He had not fallen on any of them, they were baptized only in the Name of the Lord Jesus.
(17) Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
(18) And when Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,
(19) saying, Give me this power also, that on whomever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit.
(20) But Peter said to him, May your silver perish with you, because you have thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
(21) You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God.
(22) Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you.
(23) For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.
(24) And answering Simon said, You pray to the Lord for me that none of these things which you have spoken may come on me.

People, we have no doubt that when God sends someone forth to preach on His behalf, He provides. There is no need to ask anyone to finance preaching, because He pays the wages to His workers and is more than generous with His servants:

“Go! Behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. Carry neither purse nor bag nor sandals” (Luke 10:3-4 MKJV).

They went as commanded, and when they returned, He asked them:

“When I sent you without purse and wallet and sandals, did you lack anything? And they said, Nothing” (Luke 22:35 MKJV).

Isn’t it wonderful to know that He picks up the tab and we needn’t ask any man for help? As Paul exhorts:

“Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God [not men]. And the peace of God which passes all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” Philippians 4:6-7 MKJV).

In 1974, God taught me by practical experience through two disappointing events not to ask, or depend upon, any man for any kind of support. From that day forward, I never did. In 1984, the Lord told me that if I took care of His concerns, He would take care of mine - I would have nothing to worry about.

Well, I must confess I have spent much time since then worrying and stewing about financial and other matters. I’m ashamed to admit it, but… He never let us down – God faithfully kept His promise in spite of me.

“If we do not believe Him, yet He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself” (2 Timothy 2:13 MKJV).

We’ve been in some tight spots, but He came through every time, no exceptions whatsoever. We were always provided for – in every need we had and then some. Not only so, but He said to me, “I will give you whatever you may need or want, and I’ll cover for losses and mistakes.” He has done so! Oh, glory to God, in spite of my horrible unbelief, He has done so to this very hour, since 1973 when I first believed and even before!

Mike, stop worshipping mammon. Drop it all like red hot coals in your bare hands. Put away your merchandising ways. Let God receive the glory. You didn’t buy the wisdom of God with money and you can’t sell it for money.

God and God alone gives wisdom. Rich men can’t buy it, poor men can’t beg it, no one can sell it, and truly, no man can even give it away. Only His grace avails us of it. Those who buy wisdom with money buy something else, and those who sell it for money sell something else. It is not the wisdom of God. Like love, wisdom is not for sale.

Are my words those of a mean, critical, unbelieving, divisive troublemaker, or have I spoken the wisdom of God here? Who will hear, know, believe, repent, and avail themselves of Him Who is wisdom, and prosper?

Victor Hafichuk

What does the Shepherd's Chapel teach?

What does the Shepherd's Chapel teach?
by Matt Slick

The Shepherd's Chapel is, at the very least, a controversial church with many unorthodox doctrines. The following list of teachings from the Shepherd's Chapel is derived from scouring the Internet, chat rooms, bulletin boards, asking the followers of Arnold Murray, and looking at the Shepherd's Chapel web site.

Even though the Shepherd's Chapel is considered to be a non-Christian cult by many people, it is left to be fully determined whether or not it is.

Unorthodox

Denies the Trinity and teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are really three offices held by the one God.
On its website's statement of faith 1 it says "We believe in the God of the Bible (Exodus 3:6-14)." Unfortunately, this is completely insufficient as an explanation since it does not affirm the Trinity nor does it deny modalism or polytheism.
Denies the existence of eternal Hell.
This contradicts the Bible's teaching.
Rev. 20:10, "And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
Matt. 25:46, "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Denies the doctrine of the rapture.
1 Thessalonians 4:15, “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.”
Denies physical resurrection of believers. We will be raised spiritually.
Teaches annihilationism: non-existence after death for sinners.
Teaches that certain Old Testament kosher laws regarding meat should be followed.
Teaches Serpent Seed doctrine: Eve had literal sexual relations with the serpent.
The offspring of Eve's impregnation resulted in Cain, Satan's offspring.
The Kenites are the tares of the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matt. 13.
Satan's fallen angels impregnated women around the time of Noah.
Interracial marriage is wrong.
Being born again is to enter into this body from a spiritual body of another age.
America and Britain are the lost tribes of Israel.
People were alive in a pre-existence.
There was an earth age prior to Adam where a race of people lived.
The Rapture is a false doctrine.
Orthodox

Satan is a literal being.
Jesus will return.
Jesus will set up a future millennial kingdom.
The Bible is the inerrant word of God.
Other

The earth is millions of years old.
Arnold Murray is one of God's true teachers on earth today.
1.

Inclusivism

Inclusivism
"Inclusivism posits that even though the work of Christ is the only means of salvation, it does not follow that explicit knowledge of Christ is necessary in order for one to be saved. In contrast to pluralism, inclusivism agrees with exclusivism in affirming the particularity of salvation in Jesus Christ. But unlike exclusivism, inclusivism holds that an implicit faith response to general revelation can be salvific. God expects from man a response proportional to the light given. Saving faith is not characterized so much by its cognitive content as it is by its reverent quality."^[1]^

Multimedia
Favorable

Those Who've Never Heard: A Survey of the Major Views (Windows Media, Real Audio), by John Sanders
Critical

Destiny of the Unevangelized (MP3), by Curt Daniel
Private inclusivism
"Private inclusivism contends that one who is accepted by God apart from the preaching of the Gospel is saved in spite of whatever religion to which he may be an adherent. His religious orientation plays no part in his salvation and in fact is a definite hindrance. The non-Christian’s ignorant beliefs, if sincere, are inculpable but have no positive role in his relationship with God." ^[2]^

Corporate inclusivism
"Corporate inclusivism... argues that the non-Christian religions mediate the work of Christ." ^[3]^

Favorable arguments cited
Romans 2 indicates that there are justified law-doers without exposure to the Law--law-doers not in the sense of sinless perfection, but in the sense of the obedience of those in Romans 2:7,9.
Passages such as Acts 4:12 indicate the ontological necessity of Christ's work, but not knowledge of that work.
People like Cornelius and Melchizedek show that one can be a God-fearer who pleases God, in right relationship, before hearing special revelation.
That infants who die are saved, without respect to faith or lineage (something that almost all proponents of exclusivism hold), shows that special revelation is not absolutely necessary for salvation.
That God is loving and good infers that God would save the unreached.
It would be unjust of God to damn those without knowledge of the gospel.
Criticisms
Critics of inclusivism argue that general revelation, or anything else for that matter besides Christ himself, is not sufficient for salvation.

"...men, not professing the Christian religion, [cannot] be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested. ^[4]^ The only way to the father is through Jesus (John 14:6), furthermore, "he who does not have the Son of God does not have life" (1 John 5:12). Most emphatically, Paul declares:

"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent." (Romans 10:13-15) It is important to notice Paul's breakdown in his series of questions: "calling on", "believing in", "hearing about", "preaching to", and "being sent." "The clear implications of these questions is that if missionaries are not sent to preach the gospel of Christ to those who have not heard about him in order that they may hear about him, believe in him, and call upon his name for salvation, these unevangelized people, who are condemned already, will remain unsaved and cannot and will not be saved by any other means." ^[5]^

Romans 2
Moreover, although inclusivists use Romans 2 to support their view, it becomes clear upon a close and consistent reading of the text that inclusivism does not make sense of verse 12. Paul asserts that, "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law." Most commentators equate the "law" with special revelation. Thus, this passage states that those without special revelation (i.e., those without the law) still perish. It becomes difficult to understand how "those who have sinned without the law" will somehow be saved, or "included", when Paul explains very clearly that they will "also perish without the law." Inclusivists must deal with this Pauline affirmation that both - those with the law and those without the law - perish.

Salvation in the OT
Portions of this debate hinge on one's understanding of salvation in the Old Testament. Inclusivists generally claim that Jews in the OT were saved apart from Jesus and that this warrants a similar view today. Robert Reymond argues in his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (1998) that salvation in the OT was in fact seen through Israel's faith in the promised Messiah.^[6]^ This is consistently seen as a trust in God and in his promises of which is both seen in the present and in the future. Thus, Israel was to trust God to deliver them from their present suffering (e.g., the Exodus), and they were to trust God that he would deliver them from their future sufferings through the Messiah. In these regards, deliverance (i.e., salvation) was always placed in a God who revealed himself to the nation Israel who hoped and look forward to His promise of the coming Messiah. Lastly, the Westminster Confession of Faith asserts the following:

"...by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types of ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation." (VII.5)

Notable quotes with an inclusive tenor
"We can safely say (i) if any good pagan reached the point of throwing himself on His Maker's mercy for pardon, it was grace that brought him there; (ii) God will surely save anyone he brings thus far; (iii) anyone thus saved would learn in the next world that he was saved through Christ" ^[7]^

"So what of the more mature persons who have sinned consciously, but have never heard (and are therefore in no position to accept with explicit faith) the gospel of God’s matchless love for the whole world? May it not be that ‘God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved’ (1 Tim. 2:4), and does not want ‘anyone to perish’ (2 Pet. 3:9), quickens in some men by his Spirit a consciousness of sin and need, and enables them, n the twilight, to cast themselves on his mercy? If so, then they, too, would be saved by the grace of God in Christ alone." ^[8]^

"God can illuminate whom and when he will, even without the external ministry, which is a thing appertaining to his power." ^[9]^

"elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth." "So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word." ^[10]^

"The benefit of the death of Christ is...extended...even unto those who are inevitably excluded from this knowledge. Even these may be partakers of the benefit of His death, though ignorant of the history, if they suffer His grace to take place in their hearts, so as of wicked men to become holy." ^[11]^

"That some unevangelized men are saved, in the present life, by an extraordinary exercise of redeeming grace in Christ, has been the hope and belief of Christendom. It was the hope and belief of the elder Calvinists, as of the later." ^[12]^

"Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them by the dictates of their conscience." ^[13]^

C. S. Lewis - "We do know that no person can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him." ^[14]^

John Stott - "I have never been able to conjure up (as some great Evangelical missionaries have) the appalling vision of the millions who are not only perishing but will inevitably perish. On the other hand… I am not and cannot be a universalist. Between these extremes I cherish and hope that the majority of the human race will be saved. And I have a solid biblical basis for this belief." ^[15]^
Billy Graham - "And that's what God is doing today, He's calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven." ^[16]^

"What is sanctification? What is the definition of Christian sanctification?"

Question: "What is sanctification? What is the definition of Christian sanctification?"

Answer: Jesus had a lot to say about sanctification in the Book of John, chapter 17. In verse 16 the Lord says, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world,” and this is before His request: “Sanctify them in the truth: Thy word is truth.” Sanctification is a state of separation unto God; all believers enter into this state when they are born of God: “But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Corinthians 1:30). This is a once-for-ever separation, eternally unto God. It is an intricate part of our salvation, our connection with Christ (Hebrews 10:10).

Sanctification also refers to the practical experience of this separation unto God, being the effect of obedience to the Word of God in one’s life, and is to be pursued by the believer earnestly (1 Peter 1:15; Hebrews 12:14). Just as the Lord prayed in John 17, it has in view the setting apart of believers for the purpose for which they are sent into the world: “As Thou didst send Me into the world, even so send I them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth” (v. 18, 19). That He set Himself apart for the purpose for which He was sent is both the basis and the condition of our being set apart for that for which we are sent (John 10:36). His sanctification is the pattern of, and the power for, ours. The sending and the sanctifying are inseparable. On this account they are called saints, hagioi in the Greek; “sanctified ones.” Whereas previously their behavior bore witness to their standing in the world in separation from God, now their behavior should bear witness to their standing before God in separation from the world.

There is one more sense that the word sanctification is referred to in Scripture. Paul prayed in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, “The God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul also wrote in Colossians of “the hope which is laid up for you in the heavens, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the Gospel” (Colossians 1:5). He later speaks of Christ Himself as “the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27) and then mentions the fact of that hope when he says, “When Christ, who is our Life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also with Him be manifested in glory” (Colossians 3:4). This glorified state will be our ultimate separation from sin, total sanctification in every aspect. “Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2).

To summarize, sanctification is the same Greek word as holiness, “hagios,” meaning a separation. First, a once-for-all positional separation unto Christ at our salvation. Second, a practical progressive holiness in a believer’s life while awaiting the return of Christ. Third, we will be changed into His perfect likeness—holy, sanctified, and completely separated from the presence of evil.


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/sanctification.html#ixzz3MiHYuBH5

What does Amen mean?

And all the people said … “Amen!” The “amen corner” has had an important place in the life of the church throughout the ages. However, it is rare to find such a spot among Presbyterians. We are known as God’s frozen chosen for a reason. It has been said that the Methodists like to shout “Fire,” the Baptists like to shout “Water,” and the Presbyterians like to softly say, “Order, order.” Nevertheless, in spite of the idiosyncrasies of various ecclesiastical persuasions, the function of the word amen far transcends denominational usages in the modern era.

The term amen was used in the corporate worship of ancient Israel in two distinct ways. It served first as a response to praise given to God and second as a response to prayer. Those same usages of the term are still in vogue among Christians. The term itself is rooted in a Semitic word that means “truth,” and the utterance of “amen” is an acknowledgment that the word that has been heard, whether a word of praise, a word of prayer, or a sermonic exhortation, is valid, that is, sure and binding. Even in antiquity, the word amen was used in order to express a pledge to fulfill the terms of a vow. So, this little word is one that is centered on the idea of the truth of God.

The truth of God is such a remarkable element of Christian faith that it cannot be overlooked. There are those who think that truth is negotiable or, even worse, divisive, and it therefore should not be a matter of passionate concern among believers. But if we are not concerned about truth, then we have no reason to have Bibles in our homes. The Bible is God’s Word, and God’s Word is true. It is not just true but is truth itself. This is the assessment made of it by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (John 17:17).

Therefore, when we sing a hymn that reflects biblical truth and end it with the sung word amen, we are giving our approbation of the content of the praise in the hymn. When we have a choral “amen” at the end of the pastoral prayer, again we are emphasizing our agreement with the validity and surety of the content of the prayer itself.

Worship in biblical terms is a corporate matter. The corporate body is made up of individuals, and when an individual sounds the “amen,” the individual is connecting to the corporate expression of worship and praise. However, we are told in the Scriptures that the truths of God are “yea” and “amen” (2 Cor. 1:20), which simply means that the Word of God is valid, it is certain, and it is binding. Therefore, the expression “amen” is not simply an acknowledgment of personal agreement with what has been stated; it is an expression of willingness to submit to the implications of that word, to indeed be bound by it, as if the Word of God would put ropes around us not to strangle or retard us but to hold us firmly in place.

There is, perhaps, no more remarkable use of the term amen in the New Testament than on the lips of Jesus. Older translations render statements of our Lord with the preparatory words, “Verily, verily, I say unto you.” Later translations update that to “Truly, truly, I say unto you.” In such passages, the Greek word that is translated as “verily” or “truly” is the word amen. Jesus does not wait for the disciples to nod their agreement or submission to His teaching at the end of His saying; rather, He begins by saying, “Amen, amen, I say unto you.” What is the significance of this? Namely, that Jesus never uttered a desultory word; every word that came from His lips was true and important. Each word was, as “amen” suggests, valid, sure, and binding.

Furthermore, even in His own pedagogy, Jesus took the opportunity on occasion to call strict attention to something He was about to say by giving it tremendous emphasis. His practice was somewhat akin to the sounding of a whistle and an announcement over a loudspeaker on a ship: “Now hear this, this is the captain speaking.” When that announcement is made on a ship, everyone listens, realizing that when the captain speaks to the entire crew, what he is saying is of the utmost importance and urgency. However, the authority of Jesus far transcends that of a captain of a seagoing vessel. Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth by the Father. So when He gives a preface to a teaching and says, “Amen, amen, I say unto you,” our listening ears should be fine-tuned to take note instantly of what our Lord is going to say following the preface, for it is of the utmost importance.

We also notice that Jesus uses the Hebrew technique of repetition by saying not merely, “Amen, I say unto you,” but “Amen, amen.” This form of repetition underlines the importance of the words that are to follow. Whenever we read in the text of Scripture our Lord giving a statement that is prefaced by the double “amen,” it is a time to pay close attention and be ready to give our response with a double amen to it. He says “amen” to indicate truth; we say it to receive that truth and to submit to it.

Is Jesus God?

Is Jesus God?
by Matt Slick

Yes, according to the Scriptures, Jesus is God. In other words, he is divine. There is only one God in all existence and he is a Trinity which is the teaching that God exists as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the second person of the Trinity who became flesh.

John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
John 1:14, "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."
John 8:24, "unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins."
John 8:58, "...before Abraham was, I am."
Exodus 3:14, "God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
Col. 2:9, "for in him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form."
Heb. 1:8, "But of the Son he [The Father] says, 'You're throne, O God, is forever and ever.'"
So, when we say that Jesus is God, we're using the term "God" in reference to the divine nature. Jesus is not the Trinity. He is a part of the Trinity. He is God in flesh.

Furthermore, Jesus is both divine and human. In other words, he is both God and man. God has a divine nature, and the single person Jesus possesses the divine nature as well as the human nature. This dual nature characteristic is called the hypostatic union.

Jesus is called God

After Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, Thomas, one of the disciples, doubted that he had risen. Jesus appears to him, and Thomas responds by saying to Jesus "My Lord and my God," (John 20:28). Jesus makes no correction to Thomas about what he said. Titus 2:13 tells us to wait for the coming of "our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus." In John 5:18 it says that Jesus "was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

In addition, we can see that Jesus is divine because he receives worship (Matthew 2:2,11; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Hebrews 1:6 and he is also prayed to (1 Corinthians 1:2 with Psalm 116:4; John 14:14; Acts 7:55-60). It is clear from the Scriptures that Jesus is considered to be God in flesh; that is, he is considered to be divine.

If Jesus is not God, we cannot be saved

Finally, the reason that Jesus is both God and man (possessing two distinct natures: divine and human), is because he needs to be a man to die for people and he needs to be divine in order to offer a sacrifice of divine value by which God the Father can be appeased. After all, we have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and the consequences of our sin isseparation from God (Isaiah 59:2). We cannot be made righteous by what we do through the law (Romans 3:28). Therefore, we need someone to step in our place and do what we could not do. So, Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross (1 Peter 2:24) after fulfilling the law perfectly (1 Peter 2:22). He lived a holy life and that is why his sacrifice is acceptable to God the Father, a sacrifice he offered on our behalf (Isaiah 53:4-6).

Are We Justified by Faith (Romans) or by Works (James)? by Matt Slick

Are We Justified by Faith (Romans) or by Works (James)?
by Matt Slick

In Romans it says,

"because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight . . . " (Rom. 3:20)
"for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." (Rom. 3:28)
"For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" (Rom. 4:3)
"Therefore, having been justified by faith . . . " (Rom. 5:1)
"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness." (Rom. 4:5).
In James it says,

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)
" . . . so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:26).
Which is it? Are we justified by faith or by works?

Does the Bible Contradict--Itself?

It is a fundamental Christian belief that we are justified by faith. Justification means that God declares a sinner to be righteous. He does this by crediting--by reckoning the righteousness of Jesus to the sinner. This is done by faith. That is, when the sinner puts his faith in the sacrifice of Jesus and trusts in Him and not himself for righteousness, then God justifies him. "And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (Rom. 4:3). But, if the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith, does it also teach we are justified by works as James "seems" to say? Do we have a contradiction? The answer is no.

Context is Everything

It is erroneous to take a verse, read it without its context, and then attempt to develop a doctrine from that verse alone. Therefore, let's take a look at the context of James 2:24 which says that a man is justified by works. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us not to show favoritism. Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works.

James two

Notice that James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith--verse 14. He then immediately gives an example of what true and false faiths are. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17). Then he gives an example of the type of faith that isn't much different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith by showing Abraham and Rahab as the type of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds.

James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead." (James 2:20).

This is why in the middle of his section on faith and works, he says in verse 19, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." James says this because the demons believe in God; that is, they have faith, but the faith they have is useless. It does not result in appropriate works. Their faith is only a mental acknowledgment of God's existence.

Ascentia and Fiducia

Two words are worth introducing here: ascentia and fiducia. Ascentia is the mental assent--the mental acknowledgment of something's existence. The demons acknowledge and believe that God exists. Fiducia is more than mental acknowledgment. It involves a trust in something--a giving over to it, a complete believing and acceptance of something. This is the kind of faith that a Christian has in Christ. A Christian, therefore, has fiducia; that is, he has real faith and trust in Christ and not simply an acknowledgment that He lived on earth at one time. Another way to put this is that there are many people in the world who believed that Jesus lived: ascentia. But they do not believe that He is their savior, the one to whom they should look and trust for the forgiveness of their sins.

Ascentia does not lead to works. Fiducia does. Ascentia is not of the heart. Fiducia is.

What is James Saying?

James is simply saying that if you ‘say' you are a Christian, then there had better be some appropriate works manifested, or your faith is false. This sentiment is echoed in 1 John 2:4 which says, "If you say you have come to know Him, yet you do not keep His commandments, then the truth is not in you and you are a liar."

Apparently, there were people who were saying they were Christians but were not manifesting any of the fruit of Christianity. Can this faith justify? Can the dead ‘faith' that someone has which produces no change in a person and no good works before men and God be a faith that justifies? Absolutely not. It is not merely enough to say you believe in Jesus. You must actually believe and trust in Him. If you actually do, then you will demonstrate that faith by a changed and godly life. If not, then your profession is of no more value than the same profession of demons: "We believe Jesus lived."

Notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul uses to support the teaching of justification by faith in Rom. 4:3. James 2:23 says, "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example.

Therefore, we are justified by faith. That is, we are made righteous in the eyes of God by faith as is amply demonstrated by Romans. However, that faith, if it is true, will result in deeds appropriate to salvation. After all, didn't God say in Eph. 2:8-10, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

"What is biblical separation?"

Question: "What is biblical separation?"

Answer: Biblical separation is the recognition that God has called believers out of the world and into a personal and corporate purity in the midst of sinful cultures. Biblical separation is usually considered in two areas: personal and ecclesiastical.

Personal separation involves an individual’s commitment to a godly standard of behavior. Daniel practiced personal separatism when he “resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine” (Daniel 1:8). His was a biblical separatism because his standard was based on God’s revelation in the Mosaic law.

A modern example of personal separation could be the decision to decline invitations to parties where alcohol is served. Such a decision might be made in order to circumvent temptation (Romans 13:14), to avoid “every kind of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:22), or simply to be consistent with a personal conviction (Romans 14:5).

The Bible clearly teaches that the child of God is to be separate from the world. “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: ‘I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.’ Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord” (2 Corinthians 6:14-17; see also 1 Peter 1:14-16).

Ecclesiastical separation involves the decisions of a church concerning its ties to other organizations, based on their theology or practices. Separatism is implied in the very word “church,” which comes from the Greek word ekklesia meaning “a called-out assembly.” In Jesus’ letter to the church of Pergamum, He warned against tolerating those who taught false doctrine (Revelation 2:14-15). The church was to be separate, breaking ties with heresy. A modern example of ecclesiastical separation could be a denomination’s stance against ecumenical alliances which would unite the church with apostates.

Biblical separation does not require Christians to have no contact with unbelievers. Like Jesus, we should befriend the sinner without partaking of the sin (Luke 7:34). Paul expresses a balanced view of separatism: “I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world” (1 Corinthians 5:9-10). In other words, we are in the world, but not of it.

We are to be light to the world without allowing the world to diminish our light. “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:14-16).


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-separation.html#ixzz3M3MhP3hy

"Why is the Virgin Birth so important?"

Question: "Why is the Virgin Birth so important?"

Answer: The doctrine of the virgin birth is crucially important (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27, 34). First, let’s look at how Scripture describes the event. In response to Mary’s question, “How will this be?” (Luke 1:34), Gabriel says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35). The angel encourages Joseph to not fear marrying Mary with these words: “What is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20). Matthew states that the virgin “was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18). Galatians 4:4 also teaches the Virgin Birth: “God sent His Son, born of a woman.”

From these passages, it is certainly clear that Jesus’ birth was the result of the Holy Spirit working within Mary’s body. The immaterial (the Spirit) and the material (Mary’s womb) were both involved. Mary, of course, could not impregnate herself, and in that sense she was simply a “vessel.” Only God could perform the miracle of the Incarnation.

However, denying a physical connection between Mary and Jesus would imply that Jesus was not truly human. Scripture teaches that Jesus was fully human, with a physical body like ours. This He received from Mary. At the same time, Jesus was fully God, with an eternal, sinless nature (John 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 2:14-17.)

Jesus was not born in sin; that is, He had no sin nature (Hebrews 7:26). It would seem that the sin nature is passed down from generation to generation through the father (Romans 5:12, 17, 19). The Virgin Birth circumvented the transmission of the sin nature and allowed the eternal God to become a perfect man.


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-birth.html#ixzz3LyFIkBtL

What Does it Take to Be Ordained?

What Does it Take to Be Ordained?

Maybe you feel called to the ordained ministry, or maybe you are just wondering what your pastors have to go through to put “Reverend” in front of their names. Here is what ordination entails.

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that you have received a call to ordained ministry. Since ordained ministry involves serving other people, others should be able to discern and test your call. For example, you might be in great demand as a lay preacher, and people often tell you that you should be a minister. So you decide to pursue ordained ministry. What does it involve? What lies ahead?

(In reality, few people make a calm and considered decision to pursue ordained ministry. Most often, they feel like they were sucked into it.)

Here is the process in very general terms. It is roughly what I had to go through, and in talking to classmates in seminary from other denominations, I found that it is generally true for everyone in for all major Protestant bodies, the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches in the United States and Canada.

Ask your pastor for specific information about the ordination process in your denomination.

The Beginning

To be ordained, you need a seminary degree, and to be admitted to the degree program, you need to be sponsored by your denomination.

In general, the way to start is to have a conversation with your pastor. If your pastor discerns your call and is willing to support you, you’ll go before a board or committee in your local church to get their support. They may form a support group for you.

The local church recommends you to a denominational committee that is responsible for ordinations. Generally this committee is on the regional level in your diocese, presbytery, synod, or annual conference—whatever your denomination calls it. They interview you, and if they decide to sponsor you for seminary, they may assign you a mentor, and they may require you to report to them periodically about your progress. They may also require you to be screened by a psychologist (whom they supply). Some denominations run a police report.

For some people, the process ends here. For example, the committee is likely to reject these types of people:

People who have a mystical feeling that God has chosen them and who want ordination simply as a trophy to hang on the wall. They are rejected because ministry is service to others.
People who have failed at everything in life and think that ministry is an easy job in which all they have to do is be admired and loved by a congregation. They are rejected because they are unlikely to succeed, because they do not understand what they are getting into, and because ministry is a difficult job.
People who are suffering from massive misconceptions about what ministry is. They are rejected because they don’t know what they are getting into and therefore must not be called.
People who are very obviously deficient in people skills. They are rejected because ministry consists almost entirely of people skills.
People who have a criminal record or a record of abusive behavior, because they are not qualified and because they pose a significant legal risk to the denomination.
You need to disclose everything to the committee. If you have a personal problem that you have faced head-on and resolved and it poses no liability risk to the denomination, it may not be a problem. They may see it as a character strength that you have overcome adversity.

If you make it through this part, they may appoint a mentor or a support group to guide you through the process, to help you avoid burn-out, and to help you bail out, if it at any point it appears that you won’t make it.

The committee also approves you as a seminarian. You need this approval to get into the right degree program at the seminary.

Seminary

Most denominations require that you have a Master of Divinity degree from a seminary that is accredited by the Association of Theological Schools. In special cases, they may allow other degrees, but the Master of Divinity degree gives you the best preparation, so you should shoot for that if it is at all possible.

In most cases, it is not necessary to go to a seminary that is affiliated with your denomination. For example, I am ordained in the Disciples of Christ, but I obtained my degree from a United Methodist seminary, one of my courses was at an Episcopal seminary, and another was taught by a Catholic instructor at a Baptist seminary. I had classmates from a dozen different denominations, including Catholic, Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Seventh-Day Adventist. What is important is the accreditation, not the affiliation.

Admission Requirements

To enter the Master of Divinity degree program, you’ll need a bachelor’s degree, a satisfactory transcript from your undergraduate school, letters of recommendation, and sponsorship by your denomination’s ordination authority.

If you have a masters or doctorate degree in another field, it generally won’t count for much in seminary. There is a faint possibility that you might be exempted from certain prerequisites, but you’ll still have to complete the same number of credit hours (usually 90 to 110, depending on the seminary).

It’s unlikely, but if your denomination should withdraw its support from you during your course of studies, the seminary drops you from the Master of Divinity program. If your seminary offers a non-ordination degree, such as a Master of Arts in theology, they may allow you to transfer credits to one of the other degree programs. If they do not offer a non-ordination degree, you may be able to transfer your credits to another accredited seminary that does.

In fact, if you decide you don’t like the seminary you are attending, you might be able to transfer to another accredited seminary to finish your degree.

The Master of Divinity Degree Program

The Master of Divinity program includes courses in the Old and New Testaments, in biblical interpretation, in preaching, in biblical languages, in the history and practice of Christian worship, in counseling, in curriculum development, in church history, in sociology, in ethics, in theology, in music or art, in preaching, and in non-profit administration, among other subjects. The degree program includes so many subject areas that you can actually declare a major!

The seminary also requires an internship, during which you work at a local church, a charity, or a chaplaincy at a hospital part-time. It’s possible for a Presbyterian student at an Episcopal seminary to do an internship in a Baptist church. They don’t let you out of seminary without giving you some practical experience under supervision.

Unlike academic degrees, the Master of Divinity program does not require you to write and defend a thesis, but it does require you to undergo an internship and usually a practicum or two.

How Long it Takes

In some schools it is possible to finish the Master of Divinity degree in three years if you live on campus or if you are a student pastor. For most full-time students in most seminaries, it takes four years; and it can take part-time students as many as eight years.

In my case, I worked full-time while I attended full-time, and finished the degree in four years.

Some denominations may allow some people in special situations to become ordained with a less rigorous degree, but if you want the best and most comprehensive preparation for ministry, go for the Master of Divinity degree.

Other Things that Happen during Seminary

During the time you are in seminary, the denominational committee responsible for ordinations may require you to undergo psychological and personality testing and to have supplemental training, such as sex-abuse training, that is mandated by their liability insurance company. At this point their main purpose is not to screen you, but to help you understand yourself so you can minister more effectively.

Most denominations require you to undergo Clinical Pastoral Education. It might be part of your seminary’s curriculum, or you might have to do it separately.

The Final Stage

At the end, you generally have to write an ordination paper and discuss it at your final ordination interview. At that meeting, they decide whether to ordain you. If you have gotten this far, you’ll most likely make it. The purpose of all that mentoring and stuff was to prevent you from getting this far without succeeding.

After all that, you are ordained at a special ordination service. The rough outline of the service is the same in all denominations.

In some denominations, the process does not end there. For example, United Methodists still have a probationary period they have to complete before they are fully and finally ordained.

Why all This Fuss?

At this point, you might wonder what all this fuss is about. After all, you are a Bible whiz and everyone thinks you are called, so why go through all this? The ordained ministry is not about you, it is about the people you serve. Ordination occurs within the context of the church, and the purpose of this process is to equip you to succeed.

Shortcuts to Ordination

There are always shortcuts. For example, you can get a doctorate degree from an unaccredited school for your “life experience”—but if you use that degree to get a job, you may find yourself on the street as soon as your employer finds out. You can also declare your bedroom an independent country and make yourself president for life—but don’t expect to join the United Nations any time soon.

So there are shortcuts for ordination, too. I don’t recommend any of them. You can get “ordained” by a web site—their only requirement is that you pay a fee. While you are there you can get them to canonize you as a saint or certify you as a shaman, too. Or you could find an independent church that ordains you on the spot. Or you could gather 30 of your friends every Sunday for Bible study in your living room and have them ordain you. Or you could just ordain yourself, for that matter. If you take any of these shortcuts and later decide to affiliate with a mainstream denomination, you may find it very difficult or even impossible to get them to take you seriously.