by Andy Woods
As we move on to the final leg in our journey,[1] recall that we began by noting why this trend of equating God’s present work in the church with the Messianic kingdom is a matter believers should be concerned about since this theology not only radically alters God’s design for the church but it is also the seedbed of many major false doctrines that have sadly entered Christ’s church. Earlier, we called attention to Alva J. McClain’s warning concerning the impact of how “kingdom now” negatively impacts the church’s calling, purpose, and mission. It is interesting to observe similar warnings given nearly a century ago in the writings of Clarence Larkin:
[T]he Church is not an “Organization” but an “Organism.” Therefore it is not a “Social Club,” organized and supported solely for the benefit of its members. Neither is it a “Place of Amusement” to pander to the carnal nature of man. Nor is it a “House of Merchandise” for the sale of “Indulgences,” or other commodities, whereby the money of the ungodly can be secured to save the penurious church member a little self-sacrifice. Neither is it a “Reform Bureau” to save the “bodies” of men. The reformation of men is very commendable, as are all forms of “Social Service,” but that is not the work or mission of the Church. The world was just as full, if not fuller, of the evils that afflict society today, in the days of Christ, but He never, nor did the Apostles, organize any reform agencies. All the great philanthropic and civilizing agencies of the world are “By-Products” of Christianity. We are told in Acts 5:15, that the people laid their sick in the streets that the “Shadow of Peter” might fall upon them and heal them. But if Peter had spent his time “casting shadows,” and neglected his Apostolic work of trying to save the “SOULS” of men, his shadow would have lost its power. Jesus knew that the source of all the evils in the world is SIN, and that the only way to eradicate sin is to Regenerate the Human Heart, and so He gave the GOSPEL, and the “Mission” of the Church is to carry this Gospel to the world. “EVANGELISM,” not “Social Service,” is the “Mission” of the Church. Mark 16:15–16. The great mistake the Church has made is in appropriating to herself in this Dispensation the promises of earthly conquest and glory which belong exclusively to Israel in the “Millennial Age.” As soon as the Church enters into an “Alliance with the World,” and seeks the help of Parliaments, Congresses, Legislatures, Federations and Reform Societies, largely made up of ungodly men and women, she loses her spiritual power and becomes helpless as a redeeming force.[2]
Larkin further notes:
[T]he “Mission” of the Church is her “COMMISSON” to “Evangelize” the world. Mark 16:15–16. Acts 1:7–8. The “Kingdom Idea” has robbed the Church of her “UPWARD LOOK,” and of the “BLESSED HOPE.” There cannot be any “Imminent Coming” to those who are seeking to “Set up the Kingdom.” The “Kingdom Idea” has robbed the Church of the “Pilgrim” and “Martyr Spirit,” and caused it to go down into Egypt for help. When the Church enters into an “Alliance with the World,” and seeks the help of Parliaments, Congresses, Legislatures, Federations and Reform Societies, largely made up of ungodly men and women, she loses her “SPIRITUAL POWER” and becomes helpless as a redeeming force. The end of such an “Alliance” will be a “Religious Political Regime” that will pave the way for the revelation of Satan’s great “Religious Political Leader” and “Superman”—the ANTICHRIST.[3]
Here, Larkin notes at least five consequences that “kingdom now” theology has upon Ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church. First, “kingdom now” theology causes the church to drift into a Social Gospel agenda favoring holistic redemption of societal structures in lieu of fulfilling the Great Commission. When the church becomes something that God never intended nor called her to be, she cannot expect, and in fact will be emptied of, His divine resources and empowerment. Second, viewing itself as the kingdom of God upon the earth causes the church to become at home in the world in contradistinction to the New Testament portrayal of the church as a mere pilgrim passing through both temporary and alien territory en route to her ultimate eternal destination. Both of these points were covered previously. However, let us now take note of three equally important points that Larkin’s above comments surface.
Alliances with Non-Biblical Groups
Third, because there are not presently and numerically enough Christians necessary to establish God’s kingdom upon the earth, it becomes necessary for the church to find common ground with those who do not share its biblical convictions in order to build the political coalition needed to implement a “kingdom now” social agenda. As noted above, Larkin well explains:
The great mistake the Church has made is in appropriating to herself in this Dispensation the promises of earthly conquest and glory which belong exclusively to Israel in the “Millennial Age.” As soon as the Church enters into an “Alliance with the World,” and seeks the help of Parliaments, Congresses, Legislatures, Federations and Reform Societies, largely made up of ungodly men and women, she loses her spiritual power and becomes helpless as a redeeming force.[4]
In the prior chapter, we noted the “kingdom now” agenda behind popular pastor Rick Warren’s “PEACE” plan. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that Warren has become one of the leading advocates of ecumenism in our day. Recently, the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” mantra has been given new life by mega-church pastor and bestselling author Rick Warren. In a recent interview with Catholic News Service, he noted:
We have far more in common than what divides us. When you talk about Pentecostals, charismatics, evangelicals, fundamentalists, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, on and on and on and on. Well, they would all say we believe in the trinity; we believe in the Bible; we believe in the resurrection; we believe salvation is through Jesus Christ. These are the big issues. Sometimes Protestants think that Catholics worship Mary like she’s another god. But that’s not exactly catholic doctrine. . . . and people say well what are the saints all about? Why are you praying to the saints? And when you understand what they mean by what they’re saying there’s a whole lot more commonality. Now there are still real differences, no doubt about that. But the most important thing is if you love Jesus, we’re on the same team. The unity that I think we would see realistically is not a structural unity but a unity of mission. And so, when it comes to the family we are co-workers in the field on this for the protection of what we call the sanctity of life, the sanctity of sex, and the sanctity of marriage. So there’s a great commonality and there’s no division on any of those three. Many times people have been beaten down for taking a biblical stance. And they start to feel, “Well, maybe I’m out here all by yourself.” No, you’re not (italics added).[5]
Has Warren forgotten that we, as Protestants, broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the days of Martin Luther and John Calvin? Why the existence of this historical rupture between Protestants and Catholics? The answer to this question lies in the fact that we as Protestants saw things in Roman Catholicism that we could not find in Scripture. There are vast and insurmountable theological divisions between Bible-believing Evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church. The rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation involved the five “solas.” “Sola” is a Latin expression meaning “alone.” These five solas are Sola Fide (faith alone), Sola Gratia (grace alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone). While Protestants embrace these five theological realities or solas, Roman Catholic theology rejects them.[6] Yet, the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” mindset erases all of those theological barriers and puts Evangelicals and Catholics on the same theological footing.
Apparently not content to build a bridge to Catholicism only, Warren also seems to be building a similar bridge into Islam. Such advocacy of interfaith cooperation across vastly divergent belief systems is revealed through many of Warren’s public statements. Note Warren’s words from a recent World Economic Forum panel discussion:
To my Islamic brother here from Italy, I would say I’m not really interested in inter-faith dialogue; I’m interested in inter-faith projects. We’ve got enough talk. So . . . a few weeks ago, at Georgetown University, we brought in three imams, we brought in three Catholic priests, we brought in three evangelical pastors, and we brought in three Rabbis and we said, “What can we do about AIDS?” And we started on some common ground on those issues; what can we do that we all care about?[7]
Note how Rick Warren, with Tony Blair present at this World Economic Forum panel discussion, publicly referred to an Islamic cleric as “My Islamic brother.” The New Testament, on the other hand, teaches that our brothers are only those who believe in Christ and do the will of God (Matt. 12:46–50). Thus, in no sense can an Islamic cleric be viewed as a brother of a born-again believer.
Note, for example, the following prayer that Warren offered on January 21, 2009 at President-elect Obama’s inauguration: “I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus, who taught us to pray” (italics added).[8] While most would recognize in Warren’s prayer the Hebrew rendering of Jesus (Yeshua) as well as the Spanish pronunciation of the name Jesus, who is “Isa”? World religions expert Eric Barger well explains Isa’s true identity:
There I was, watching all of the regalia of the presidential inauguration. . . . Of course, I was also waiting to see just what kind of prayer Rick Warren had co-opted to pray for the new incoming President and his administration. . . . The inaugural prayer was proceeding along and Warren was rightly praying for God to lead and protect Obama. . . . So, just when I thought I could say, “Amen,” it happened. Warren said, “I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus, who taught us to pray, “Our father who art in Heaven. . .”. I have researched Islam for many years. Last year I ministered concerning the history, theology, and intentions of Islam over 40 times in churches and conferences; so naturally, Warren’s use of the name of Isa, the false Jesus of Islam, was a glaring slap in the face to all that he had already prayed. “Isa” in no way represents the Jesus of the Bible but is instead the false Jesus of the Qur’an (Koran) and the Muslim Hadith. “Isa” (pronounced “eee-sa”) is the Islamic Jesus who was but a prophet and who certainly did not experience a sacrificial death on a cross let alone resurrect from the dead. In fact, in Islam the prophet Isa is actually the destroyer of Christianity—not it’s Savior. Obviously, this is simply NOT the same Jesus as is Yeshua.[9]
Thus, Warren in his inaugural prayer seems to equate the Muslim Jesus with the biblical Jesus. The bottom line is that if you are going to try to build the Kingdom of God on the earth, there are not enough Christians in the world to accomplish this goal. Thus, you have to start cooperating with people of different faiths, like Catholics and Muslims. Such spiritual ecumenism represents the natural outworking of the church viewing itself as the kingdom of God.
Dispensing with Prophetic Truth
Fourth, Larkin observed that the discarding of the study of Bible prophecy naturally takes place when “kingdom now” theology gains a foothold in the church. As noted earlier, Larkin observed, “The ‘Kingdom Idea’ has robbed the Church of her ‘UPWARD LOOK,’ and of the ‘BLESSED HOPE.’ There cannot be any ‘Imminent Coming’ to those who are seeking to ‘Set up the Kingdom.’”[10] After all, why be overly preoccupied with God’s predicted prophetic plan involving the future overthrow of the Antichrist and His subsequent reign if the church is presently bringing in the kingdom?
For example, George Gunn notices a historic decline in assigning to the Lord’s promise in John 14:1–4 an imminent return significance the more the church began to embrace kingdom now theology. Gunn notes how the early church in its first two centuries prior to its embracement of kingdom now theology tenaciously held to an imminent return interpretation of John 14:1–4. There existed support for a “heavenly and eschatological” interpretation of John 14:1–4 among the earliest church fathers. Gunn cites and quotes five Ante-Nicene fathers who interpreted John 14:1–4 in this manner. They include Papias (ca. 110), Irenaeus (ca. 130–202), Tertullian (ca. 196–212), Origen (ca. 182–251), and Cyprian (d. 258).[11] Thus, Gunn concludes:
So we see that, from the earliest years following the death of the apostle John, through the mid-third century, the promise of John 14:1–3 was seen in terms of a future coming to receive believers to heaven. The Ante-Nicene fathers did not think that this promise had been fulfilled either in Christ’s own resurrection or in the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. And since the promise was seen as something to be fulfilled in conjunction with the believer’s bodily resurrection, they clearly were not thinking in terms of multiple comings being fulfilled at individual Christians’ deaths, much less of a spiritual coming at the salvation of each individual Christian, but of a future day when all believers will be raised to receive their rewards.[12]
However, Gunn further observes how interpreting John 14:1–4 as the hope of the rapture began to wane as the church began to embrace kingdom now theology:
Interestingly, references to John 14:1–3 virtually disappear when perusing the writings of the Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers. This is a bit surprising, given the abundance of material in these later writers when compared with the Ante-Nicenes. I would assume that with the rise of Augustinian amillennialism and its optimistic interpretation regarding the present arrival of the Kingdom of God, the kind of hope held out in John 14:1–3 ceased to hold relevance.[13]
As already noted, popular pastor Rick Warren is heavily involved in a kingdom now agenda through his “PEACE” plan. Thus, it should also come as no surprise that Warren is a leading critic of those who invest time and energy into seeking to discover what the Bible reveals concerning the future. Interestingly, Warren appears to have a special animus for those who he deems are overly preoccupied with eschatology, which is the study of God’s plan for the future. He writes:
When the disciples wanted to talk about prophecy, Jesus quickly switched the conversation to evangelism. He wanted them to concentrate on their mission in the world. He said in essence, “The details of my return are none of your business. What is your business is the mission I have given you. Focus on that!” If you want Jesus to come back sooner, focus on fulfilling your mission, not figuring out prophecy. Speculating on the exact timing of Christ’s return is futile, because Jesus said, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Since Jesus said He didn’t know the day or hour, why should you try to figure it out? What we do know for sure is this: Jesus will not return until everyone God wants to hear the Good News has heard it. Jesus said, “The Good News about God’s kingdom will be preached in all the world, to every nation. Then the end will come.” If you want Jesus to come back sooner, focus on fulfilling your mission, not figuring out prophecy. It is easy to get distracted and sidetracked from your mission because Satan would rather have you do anything besides sharing your faith. He will let you do all kinds of good things as long as you don’t take anyone to heaven with you. But the moment you become serious about your mission, expect the Devil to throw all kinds of diversions at you. When that happens, remember the words of Jesus: “Anyone who lets himself be distracted from the work I plan for him is not fit for the Kingdom of God.”[14]
According to Warren’s line of thought, those that overly meditate upon the over a quarter of the Bible devoted to eschatological truth[15] are date setting, pursuing unchristlike priorities, unconcerned about evangelism, involved in a distraction, being influenced by Satan, and are unfit for the Kingdom of God! Yet the study of Bible prophecy should not be so quickly discredited and discarded since “we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts” (2 Peter 1:19).
Progressive Dispensationalists also emphasize “kingdom now” theology through their belief that Christ now orchestrates an “already” and spiritual phase of the Davidic Kingdom as He now reigns from David’s Throne, allegedly in heaven. Thus, it again is not surprising to discover that Progressive Dispensationalists deemphasize Bible Prophecy in general. Key prophetic passages receive scant attention in their teachings and writings. Charles Ryrie observes how Progressive Dispensationalists are guilty of
ignoring the great prophecy of the seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24–27. Nowhere in the progressives’ writings to date have I found any discussion of the passage, only very brief and occasional citations of the reference itself. . . . While not denying the pre-tribulation Rapture or the literal tribulation period, revisionists do not give much attention to these aspects of eschatology. Blaising and Bock do not take obvious opportunities to mention the Rapture, and in one place (discussing 1 Thessalonians 5) they say only that the rapture “would appear to be pre-tribulational.” They decry (as do many of us normative dispensationalists) the sensationalism of some interpreters of prophecy. But abuse of a doctrine is no reason for playing down the truth of that doctrine. Rather, it ought to make us more zealous to present it accurately and in a balanced fashion. Furthermore, there exists already in the writings of progressives a thrust towards positioning the Revelation as a book that is “difficult” to interpret. Playing up the imagery in the book, as some revisionists do, seems to play down a plain interpretation of it. The locusts in chapter 9 and Babylon in chapters 17 and 18 are examples of such “literal/symbolic difficulty” in interpreting the book.[16]
The writings of Progressive Dispensationalists demonstrate a consistent obscuring of eschatological passages. They no longer seem to be approaching the prophetic texts with the same consistent, literal method of interpretation that has characterized prior generations of prophecy students. For example, Progressive Dispensationalist David Turner intimates that Revelation 21:21, which states that the twelve gates of the eternal city will be pearls, should not be interpreted literally because no oysters large enough to produce pearls of such a size exist.[17] Along these same lines, Turner suggests that this same verse, which speaks of streets of gold, cannot be interpreted literally because not enough gold is available to pave such a large city.[18] To Turner’s contentions for treating Revelation 21:21 non-literally, classical dispensationalist Robert Thomas appropriately retorts: “Yet these are paltry reasons for denying literality; the resources available to an infinite God to create such a city are beyond present condition. Far more materials are available to him than the humans of the present era can possibly comprehend.”[19]
It is no secret that a new translation of the Bible, known as the New English Translation or the NET Bible, was created primarily by Progressive Dispensationalists. It is interesting to note how this work marginalizes key prophetic texts that were once considered clear by prior generations. For example, ample scholarship has established that Christ’s promise to His disciples found in John 14:1–4 represents a promise of the Rapture of the church.[20] The NET Bible, by contrast, interprets these verses as a promise of the coming Holy Spirit that was already fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost.[21] Similarly, past Dispensational scholarship has interpreted the first sixty-nine weeks of Daniel’s prophecy of the Seventy Weeks (Dan. 9:25–26) as representing a precise Messianic prophecy pinpointing the exact day of Christ’s triumphal entry on Palm Sunday.[22] The NET Bible, by contrast, denies such an interpretation even going so far as to say that the details of the text “make a messianic interpretation of the passage difficult, if not impossible.”[23]
Other examples of how Progressive Dispensationalists consistently marginalize key eschatological texts can be cited. Nowhere is the interpreter’s willingness to lay aside his presuppositions more severely tested than in how he deciphers the predictions of the millennial temple and sacrifices as depicted in Ezekiel 40–48. Many interpreters reflexively and instinctively allegorize this section of Scripture because it is difficult for them to harmonize its plain language with statements found in Hebrews indicating that Christ’s death rendered obsolete the animal sacrifices instituted under the Mosaic Law. Progressive Dispensationalists similarly seem to reject a straightforward reading of Ezekiel 40‒48, instead opting for what amounts to a partially allegorical view of these important chapters. According to the view espoused by Mark F. Rooker, he “does not take the sacrifices in a literal sense but views Ezekiel writing in the 6th century B.C. describing worship from his unique perspective…. Ezekiel in referring to the literal worship of Yahweh in the millennium would be forced to use terms and concepts with which his audience was familiar.”[24]
Thus, Rooker understands Ezekiel’s temple vision as contextualized for his sixth-century B.C. audience. Because Ezekiel’s audience would understand restoration in terms of the restoration of sacrifices, Ezekiel merely described restoration in these terms. Thus, Ezekiel’s vision must not be understood as predicting the literal restoration of sacrifices in the millennium. By allegorizing only part of Ezekiel’s temple vision, Rooker’s attempt at harmonization is at least less radical than the way many theologians allegorize away the entire temple vision. However, it still resorts to the allegorizing of Ezekiel’s plain language. Ezekiel plainly states that millennial temple sacrifices will be an ongoing reality throughout the millennial age.
Progressive Dispensationalist Robert Chisholm also adopts this same partially allegorical approach when he says:
Ezekiel’s vision of a Temple and a restored nation was not fulfilled in the postexilic period. How then should we expect the vision to be fulfilled? Scholars have answered this question in a variety of ways. On one end of the interpretive spectrum are those who see the vision as purely symbolic and as fulfilled in the New Testament church. On the opposite end are the hyper-literalists, who contend that the vision will be fulfilled exactly as described during the millennial age. In attempting to answer the question, one must first recognize that Ezekiel’s vision is contextualized for his sixth-century B.C. audience. He describes the reconciliation of God and his people in terms that would be meaningful to his audience. They would naturally conceive of such reconciliation as involving the rebuilding of the temple, the reinstitution of the sacrificial system, the renewal of the Davidic dynasty, and the return and reunification of the twelve exiled tribes. Since the fulfillment of the vision transcends these culturally conditioned boundaries, we should probably view it as idealized to some extent and look for an essential, rather than an exact fulfillment of many of its features. . . .
The inclusion of so many minute details suggests that the temple described here will be a literal reality in the Jerusalem of the future. . . . However, the final sacrifice of Jesus Christ has made the Levitical system obsolete. . . . To return to this system, with its sin offerings and such, would be a serious retrogression. Ezekiel’s audience would have found it impossible to conceive of a restored covenant community apart from the sacrificial system. Now that the fulfillment of the vision transcends that cultural context, we can expect it to be essentially fulfilled when the Israel of the future celebrates the redemptive work of their savior in their new temple. . . .
Ezekiel’s audience would have found this portrayal quite natural. However, Jesus, the one who fulfills the vision, will have no need to offer such sacrifices, nor will he institute a dynasty.[25]
As yet another example of how kingdom now theologians marginalize prophetic truth, many progressive dispensationalists refuse to interpret Old Testament prophecies regarding Babylon’s destruction in a literal sense, thereby allowing them to find their ultimate fulfillment outside of the time period of the Old Testament prophets and instead in the events of the future Tribulation period (Rev. 17‒18). They instead contend that the prophecies of Babylon’s destruction found in Isaiah 13‒14 and Jeremiah 50‒51 were “essentially fulfilled” in 539 B.C. when Medo-Persia overthrew Babylon (Dan. 5) and therefore these prophecies do not await a future fulfillment. Progressive Dispensational critics of the literal Babylon view, such as Marvin Pate and Daniel Hays, maintain that these prophetic texts predicting Babylon’s destruction should not be approached with a wooden literalistic hermeneutic that demands that every minute prophetic detail come to pass before these prophecies can be labeled fulfilled.[26] Progressive Dispensationalist Robert Chisholm calls such language “stylized and exaggerated” and therefore argues that these texts were “essentially fulfilled” with the historic defeat of Babylon.[27]
Moreover, the inaugurated eschatology of Progressive Dispensationalism seems to de-emphasize the doctrine of the millennium. Although Progressive Dispensationalism still holds to premillennialism, the millennium loses some of its significance in their system. The millennium occupies a prominent position in traditional Dispensationalism as it represents the time period when the Old Testament kingdom promises will be fulfilled. However, with Progressive Dispensationalism, the millennium loses some of this uniqueness as it represents a mere intensification of an already inaugurated kingdom. Progressive Dispensationalist Darrell Bock has called into question whether the millennium represents a literal one-thousand year time period.[28] While not denying the reality of a future earthly kingdom, Bock seems to question whether this earthy kingdom will last a literal one-thousand year duration in spite of the fact that this specific number is mentioned six times in the span of just ten verses (Rev. 20:1–10). This minimization of the millennium is represented in the admission that Progressive Dispensationalism is less “land centered” and less “future centered” than traditional Dispensationalism.[29] The progressive dispensational marginalizing of the millennium is also evidenced in the way the system lumps it together with the Eternal State, thus causing these two concepts to comprise the first and second part of the final dispensation.[30] Interestingly, amillennialist Bruce Waltke has criticized Progressive Dispensationalism for retaining the doctrine of the millennium. Waltke contends that some of the statements of progressive dispensationalists logically remove the need for a millennium.[31]
Again, the bottom line is that if the kingdom is now then the present should be our focus rather than some future event. Such a presupposition logically leads to either a discarding or marginalization of Bible prophecy. Those that believe we are now in the kingdom seem to have a propensity to ignore, marginalize, obfuscate, and even allegorize away, either in part or in full, important eschatological texts.
Building the Wrong Kingdom
Fifth, Larkin notes that those involved today in kingdom building are actually not building God’s kingdom at all, but rather the kingdom of the Antichrist. Larkin explained, “When the Church enters into an ‘Alliance with the World,’. . . the end of such an ‘Alliance’ will be a ‘Religious Political Regime’ that will pave the way for the revelation of Satan’s great ‘Religious Political Leader’ and ‘Superman’—the ANTICHRIST.”[32] Early we noted that, according to the divine visions given to Daniel, only after the final kingdom of man (the revived Roman Empire of the Antichrist) has been terminated by Christ, will the Davidic kingdom be established on earth (Dan. 2:34–35, 43–45; 7:23–27).[33] Thus, the next kingdom on the horizon is not the kingdom of God but rather the Antichrist’s kingdom. Only after the Antichrist’s evil kingdom is personally overthrown by Christ will the Messianic kingdom become an earthly reality. This basic divinely revealed chronology logically teaches that those involved in kingdom building in the present Church Age are not contributing to God’s kingdom since God’s kingdom can only come after the Antichrist’s kingdom has been abolished by God. Rather, they are helping build the next kingdom on the prophetic horizon, which is the Antichrist’s kingdom! Dave Hunt articulates this very point:
There are many factors that make up the growing apostasy and seduction of the church. One of the most alarming, least understood, and fastest spreading errors is the teaching that earth instead of heaven is the ultimate home for the church, and that her goal is to take over the world and establish the kingdom of God. Only then, it is said, can Christ return—not, however, to take us to His Father’s house as He promised His disciples in John 14, but to reign over the Kingdom which we have established for Him. . . . [I]f the real Jesus Christ is going to catch His bride up from earth to meet Him in the air (1 Thess. 4:17), then those who work to build a kingdom for a “Christ” whom they will meet with their feet planted on earth have been under heavy delusion indeed! They have been working for the Antichrist!34
Ideas have consequences. “Kingdom now” theology has a negative impact upon one’s view of ecclesiology or the doctrine of the church. Viewing the church as the kingdom shifts the focus of the church beyond God’s intended design. As this happens, the church will lose its purpose and thus forfeit its power. As well noted by Clarence Larkin nearly a century ago, if “kingdom now” theology should get the upper hand in the church, it will confuse God’s original purpose for the church in at least five fundamental ways. First, the church will no longer see itself as a mere pilgrim passing through Satan’s domain. Rather, it will begin to view itself as being at home in the world. Second, the church will begin to embrace a holistic gospel that focuses upon altering societal structures rather than the salvation of souls. Third, the church will forge alliances with groups that do not share its core biblical convictions so as to foster the political alliance necessary in order to usher in a “kingdom now” agenda. Fourth, the church will also cease emphasizing Bible prophecy. Fifth, the church will involve itself in building Satan’s kingdom rather than God’s kingdom. ■
- 3 Dave Hunt, “Kingdom/Dominion Theology – Part 1” (February 1, 1987), accessed July 12, 2015, www.thebereancall.org/content/ kingdomdominion-theology-part-i.
Andy Woods is the Senior Pastor of Sugar Land Bible Church in Sugar Land, TX, and President of Chafer Theological Seminary. He is also a well-regarded conference speaker, author, and contributor to a number of journals and books.
[1]. This article is taken from chapter 23 of Andy Woods’ book The Coming Kingdom (Duluth, MN: Grace Gospel Press, 2016).
[2]. Clarence Larkin, Rightly Dividing the Word (Glenside, PA: Clarence Larkin Estate, 1920), 48.
[3]. Clarence Larkin, The Second Coming of Christ (Glenside, PA: Clarence Larkin Estate, 1918), 51.
[4]. Larkin, Rightly Dividing the Word, 48.
[5]. Matt Slick, “Rick Warren’s Comments on Roman Catholicism,” accessed July 20, 2015, http://www.carm.org.
[6]. For more differences, see James McCarthy, The Gospel According to Rome (Eugene, OR: Harvest, 1995).
[7]. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nu7_rtUQiE0
[8]. www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tJeNsPIC3vE
[9]. Eric Barger, “Rick Warren Invokes the Name of Islamic Jesus at Obama Inauguration” (January 2009), accessed January 4, 2015, www.ericbarger.com/emailers/2009/update1-21-2009.htm.
[10]. Larkin, The Second Coming of Christ, 51.
[11]. George A. Gunn, “Jesus and the Rapture: John 14,” in Evidence for the Rapture: A Biblical Case for Pretrib-ulationism, ed. John F. Hart (Chciago: Moody, 2015), 104.
[12]. Ibid.
[13]. Ibid., 119, n. 22.
[14]. Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 285–86.
[15]. J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 674–75.
[16]. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 176–77.
[17]. David L. Turner, “The New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:1–22:5: Consummation of a Biblical Continuum,” Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, ed., Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 277.
[18]. Ibid.
[19]. Robert L. Thomas, “A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation,” in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 209–10.
[20]. Gunn, “Jesus and the Rapture: John 14,” 99–121; Renald Showers, Maranatha Our Lord, Come!: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church (Bellmawr, NJ: Friends of Israel, 1995), 154–75.
[21]. New English Translation, Beta ed. (Biblical Studies Press, 2001), 1985–86.
[22]. Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 115–39.
[23]. New English Translation, 1604.
[24]. Mark F. Rooker, “Evidences from Ezekiel,” in A Case for Premillennialism, ed. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 133.
[25]. Robert B. Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 285–86.
[26]. C. Marvin Pate and J. Daniel Hays, Iraq-Babylon of the End Times (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 41.
[27]. Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets, 53, 213.
[28]. Darrell L. Bock, “Summary Essay,” in Three Views on the Millennium, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 304.
[29]. Darrell Bock; quoted in Ken Sidey, “For the Love of Zion,” Christianity Today, 9 March 1992, 50.
[30]. Craig A. Blaising, “Dispensations in Biblical Theology,” in Progressive Dispensationalism, ed. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1993), 123.
[31]. Bruce Waltke, “A Response,” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 356.
[32]. Larkin, The Second Coming of Christ, 51.
[33]. See chapter 5.