Ever since granted grace to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord over 35 years ago, I have also recognized that there are a lot of “flakey” people who call themselves “Christian.” From outright cultists such as Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons, to Deists, Unitarians, and theological Liberals, heretics and heresies abound. Most of these groups can be easily identified - yet even so, some still manage to infiltrate some churches or deceive individual believers.

Yet as dangerous as these well defined heresies may be, there are also those who CLAIM to be utterly orthodox in their theology but reveal the same underlying motivation; at heart they are autonomous men who advocate bizarre and strange doctrines. These people then cause schisms, factions and divisions in otherwise sound churches as they spread their own peculiar slant on Scripture. As we will see, this is nothing new, Paul warned Timothy about such people, “For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. And just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected as regards the faith…” (2 Tim 3:6-8).

Normally, I do not pay such people much mind - unless they show up in our church, where we usually just politely show them the door (Titus 3:10). With the advent of the Internet and email, anyone can put up a web site and advocate all sorts of nonsense - there are simply too many of them to waste precious time refuting every self-proclaimed prophet. My approach has always been to teach the people under my care true doctrine as well as how to properly interpret Scripture which effectively inoculates them from most of the heretical “viruses” out there.

However, occasionally, a new “virus” will spring up that demands immediate attention. This recently occurred when a document came across my desk that had been causing some problems in another church. I am not even sure who the particular author is - and I know nothing of his background or character - I am not even sure if his report of what a particular ministry teaches is actually true. However, this man has taken it upon himself to disseminate serious false teaching disturbing the peace and purity of others and therefore, a rebuttal is in order.

The document I have before me is entitled “Bible Topics -End of the Church Age?” and its main thesis is that “God maybe (SIC) finished utilizing the local churches in order to save His people.” He then asserts that the “Family Radio organization has been teaching in the last few years.” I do not know anything about the “Family Radio organization” and for the purposes of this paper did not even conduct a Google search. Hence I do not know what they may or may not believe or what they may or may not be teaching or even if this person (only identified as “Darryl”) is accurately representing their views. However he did send his little missive to some people who in turn asked me to read and respond.

Now, in cases where someone is not a professional teacher, theologian or author, simple charity demands that we treat him with a certain degree of kindness and mercy. We all err, and there is a reason why Reformed churches in particular, have the highest educational requirements for ordination of any group of Christians. We believe that God must be worshipped in Spirit and Truth (John 4:24); untruth, no matter how piously or sincerely held, does not glorify God. Therefore we require our pastors to demonstrate the ability to study and interpret the Scriptures faithfully and accurately. Even then, we “professionals” sometimes make mistakes; we do not always parse a particular verb precisely enough, miss the literary context of a text or fail to appreciate how a historical or archeological factors could affect the meaning of a term. Sometimes despite all our effort and education, we just make mistakes. However, Reformed pastors have “peer review” in that our preaching and writing are always subject to criticism from our brother ruling elders in the local session as well as our fellow teaching elders at Presbytery.

So when a layman without rigorous, advanced education writes a paper such as the one I am about to critique, he should be give him a little grace - after all even the Apostle Peter thought some of what Paul wrote could be difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Furthermore, the Scriptures were given to ALL of God’s people, not just the clergy and it is their right to study the Bible and share what they find with one another (Colossians 3:16). However, at the same time, we all must keep James warning in mind, “Let not many of you become teachers my brethren knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment…” (James 3:1). With the right of individual interpretation also comes a great responsibility; if we disseminate error, confuse others, or lead them astray by our “teaching” then we will be held accountable. This first level of accountability is personal confrontation; when others tell us that we are in error and call us to repent (Matthew 18:15ff, Galatians 6:1ff). The ultimate level of accountability occurs when each of stands before a holy and righteous God at the Great White Throne. Personally speaking, I would rather be rebuked NOW than to face God on that day - and we have a divine responsibility to be as “iron sharpening iron” for one another (Proverbs 27:17)

And sadly, I am afraid that I must call “Darryl” to repent; his paper advocates false doctrine and seriously misinterprets the Scriptures. He makes elementary mistakes in basic exegesis, ignoring context, commits rational fallacies (such as assuming what needs to be proven) and shows a woeful lack of understanding of the most basic facts of church history. Now if he had taken his paper to his elders and asked them to guide him to a better understanding of the Scriptures, I would not be writing this. Such an action would have demonstrated a man under authority, in submission to those specifically entrusted with his spiritual wellbeing - thus showing that he was teachable. But apparently, instead he sent his little piece out to other people, trying to convince them of his errors. Hence, whether he realizes it or not, he has demonstrated the fundamental quality of a real heretic; autonomy.

As I wrote in my chapters for the Chalcedon book on “Orthodoxy,” a heretic is not just someone with “bad doctrine” but rather someone who refuses to repent when his “bad doctrine” is confronted. Like the fool of Proverbs, the heretic is someone who insists that he is right, that he will not receive correction or rebuke and hates any one who dares to disagree with him. Now, I am not saying that “Darryl” falls into this category yet - but it is not a good sign that when he comes up with a very controversial position, his first impulse is to spread it around; NOT subject it to the scrutiny of those especially entrusted with the care of souls (Hebrews 13:17).

And make no mistake here; his statement that “God may be finished utilizing the local churches” IS if nothing else a controversial statement. The basic principle of any argument is that strong claims demand strong evidence. When someone pits himself against the collective wisdom of two thousand years of church history he had better have extremely strong evidence to support it. Does “Darryl” have such evidence? Well, let us see…

First, he claims that “God has truly left the churches” and then points out the beliefs and practices of the Charismatic movement as his proof. However, in doing so he commits a basic logical fallacy - overgeneralization (or “hasty conclusion”); the Charismatic church is NOT the entire Christian church! This ought to be so obvious that it does not even need to be mentioned but he seems to miss the logic here, so let me spell it out. Simply because one group may believe erroneous things does not mean that ALL groups believe erroneous things - this is what is called in formal logic a “non-sequitor” or something that “does not logically follow.” I wonder if “Darryl” has grown up in a Charismatic church, or only read Charismatic books or fellowshipped mostly with Charismatic Christians until fairly recently. Regardless, he appears to be oblivious to the millions of OTHER Christians who reject Charismatic theology and practice. Now granted, right now the Charismatic church is the fastest growing group in the world, but they are far from the entirety of Christendom. So “Darryl” shows, right from the start that regardless of his sincerity, he is uniformed about the nature of the very church he is criticizing; and therefore, his entire analysis can not be taken seriously.

Now, being ignorant is not a crime; we all have our limitations BUT simple humility demands that when we engage others about areas outside our expertise, we ought to be careful in what we say; “But let every one be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger…” (James 1:19). For example, most of us, if we found ourselves having a conversation with, say, a group of engineers talking about engineering, would understand perhaps one word in ten - and consequently do a lot of smiling and nodding (while waiting for a chance to move the conversation to an area where we could contribute something meaningful). However, how foolish would we be if we insisted that our views on “metallurgical structural stresses” should be heard and taken seriously? OK, if everyone else was equally ignorant of basic mechanical or civil engineering then, our opinion would be just as valid as the next person’s; just so long as we did not pretend that we could actually design a car or build a bridge. But that is just what “Darryl” is doing; though he lacks knowledge of the most basic facts of history, exegesis and theology, he insists that HIS interpretation of various Scriptures is the TRUE interpretation; and trying to convince others to follow his lead.

Does that sound harsh? Well, he seems completely unfamiliar with the most basic principles of Biblical hermeneutics. For example, he quotes Revelation 22:18-19 as “proof” that Charismatics are “not listening to Scripture” when they allow prophecies, signs and wonders, speaking in tongues, etc. For what it is worth I actually agree with “Darryl” that such phenomena are false; but his proof text does not say what he assumes it says. The quote, in context, is a warning about adding or taking away from the prophecies of the book of Revelation NOT about the Bible in general. This is Interpretation 101; the meaning of any portion of Scripture is what the original author intended the original audience to understand by what he wrote. Revelation 22:18-19 says “I testify to every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book.” Who is the “I”? Clearly, the “I” is John (see 1:4, 22:8, 22:20, etc.). What are the “words of the prophecy of this book?” Clearly, the “book” is the revelation to which John has just been testifying. John is NOT making a statement about the Bible because at the time he was writing, the Bible was still in the process of being completed!

Thus, “Darryl” is accusing people of violating the Scriptures by CREATING a meaning that the Scriptures themselves do not allow! Now who is “adding to the prophecies of this book?” This is a recurring problem with “Darryl’s” paper; he quotes various verses but ignores the context making them mean something different than what they actually do. Most of us are familiar with this technique of “Bible Study;” it is what the Jehovah’s Witnesses are famous for doing. They take a verse here, put it with a verse there, then ignore the context, history and culture, making the Bible say the complete opposite of what it actually says. We will examine more of these examples later but at this point let us just note that not only does “Darryl” not appreciate the breadth of the Christian church (hence committing the logical fallacy of “hasty conclusion”) but as well, does not seem to understand how to interpret Scripture in context.

His next noteworthy statement is when he asks “Have you noticed that churches do not listen to only the Bible anymore (SIC)?” Now we have a new problem; “Darryl” seems to be completely ignorant of Church history. Let me counter his question with one of my own, “Was there ever a time when the entire Christian church listened to just the Bible?” In other words, “Was there EVER a time when the church was ‘pure,’ without error, apostates or heretics in her midst?” Do you see the problem? He assumes that because he sees contemporary examples of errors, heresies, bad doctrines, apostasy, etc., that somehow, this is something new. In reality, from the very beginning, the Lord Jesus TOLD us that we would always have heretics in our midst. The whole point of the parable of the “wheat and the tares” (Matthew 13:25ff) was that right along side the “wheat” there were those who LOOKED like wheat, but were actually weeds. Even one of His own, chosen Disciples turned out to be a traitor. From the time of Pentecost, there have been those within the covenant community who were “false sons” who advocated false doctrines - in other words, the church has always had those in her midst that did not listen to the Bible or teach it accurately.

Anyone reading the letters in the New Testament and paying any attention to the historical situation that made them necessary quickly recognizes that heresies, apostasy, schisms, etc., have always been a part of the visible Christian church. In the book of Acts, Paul and Barnabus had to refute the “Christian Pharisees” who wanted Gentile converts to be circumcised and keep the Jewish Ceremonial Laws as a condition for salvation (Acts 15:1ff). Paul in Galatians had to rebuke Peter for bowing to their influence (Galatians 2:11ff). The Church in Corinth was full of theological and doctrinal errors (as well as ethical ones) that Paul had to rebuke and correct. The church in Philippi was torn apart by personality problems (e.g., Phil 2:1ff, 3:1ff, etc.) All of the Pastoral letters warn of those who attempt to split the church and lead the faithful astray. Paul specifically had to excommunicate Hymenaeus and Alexander for teaching that the Lord had already returned (1 Timothy 1:20). John deals with some form of the proto-Gnostic heresy in his letters and in the Revelation, specifically rebukes so called “Christian” churches who adopted the heresies of the Nicolations and “Jezebel” (e.g., Revelation 2:1ff) as well as warning of Diotrophes who was leading people in his church astray (3 John 9ff). Jude’s whole letter warns that “certain persons have crept in unnoticed… who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness…” (Jude 4).

Then, in the second century and beyond the church was infected with Gnosticism, Arianism, Modalism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, etc. After all these errors were refuted and rejected, the Church (by adopting aspects of Greek philosophy and Eastern Mysticism) eventually devolved into Romanism, which lasted almost a thousand years until the Great Reformation. And even coming out of the Reformation, Arminianism immediately arose from within the Reformed community spreading out to influence every branch of the church. In the 19^th century, the Church was afflicted with Revivalism, Deism, Unitarianism, Transcendentalism, Liberalism, etc. In the 20^th century, the evangelical church was then hit with Feminism and now, some branches are even accepting sodomy as an “alternative lifestyle.”

But ALWAYS, despite errors, heresies, schisms and factions, there have been those who acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and hold His Word to be His infallible, inerrant standard. Granted, we may sometimes disagree with each other about what that infallible, inerrant Word means - but we continue to “listen” to the Scriptures, even as the heretics ridicule, reject and vilify them.

But “Darryl” does not seem to know that there have always been apostates, heretics and “false sons” within the visible covenant community. Why should the errors he sees today be considered any more horrendous than the ones mentioned in the New Testament? In other words, His view of history is just too small.

The specific examples he gives of serious errors (Arminianism, health, wealth and prosperity “gospel,” female pastors, unqualified men ordained as elders) are ones that I and literally MILLIONS of other Christians would whole-heartedly agree with as being dangerous departures from the truth (some of his examples however are fallacious and need to be proved, not just assumed - e.g., whether there is such a thing as lawful divorce and remarriage). However, if millions of Christians and at least tens of thousands of pastors AGREE with him that certain practices are wrong, sinful, and erroneous, how can he then say that the “church” no longer “listens” to the Bible? Yes, there are SOME churches that no longer listen to the Bible; my own presbytery has its origins in separating from just such an apostate church - but again, simply because SOME churches do not “listen” does not mean that ALL churches do not listen - that basic logical fallacy again.

“Darryl” then asks his next question about Christians compromising morals and having ungodly habits. While one might disagree with his specific examples of what constitutes immoral or ungodly behavior here, again, in the main, I agree with the basic principle. Much of contemporary Christianity has succumbed to what is known as “acculturation” wherein our distinctive beliefs, values and ethics have largely been lost as we have assumed the beliefs, values and ethics of a post-Christian culture. Our Christian Civilization web-site has scores of articles and essays dealing with just this very issue. And yes, Christians acting like the “world” (meaning the “present system or pattern of things that stands in opposition to God and His lawful rule” see Vines, Vol. 4., pg. 233) has serious consequences; sin must be confronted, rejected and repented of if we want to see His providential blessing and avoid His judgment in time (e.g., Romans 1:18ff).

However, the failure of Christians to live consistently with their confession that Jesus is Lord does not add anything to “Darryl’s” case that God is somehow removing His presence from His church. All Christians act inconsistently with their faith, “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us…” (1 John 1:8). There has NEVER been a time in history when all Christians acted consistently with their confession that Jesus is Lord - we all sin, we all fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:1ff). I argued in my doctoral dissertation that from the time of the New England Puritans (1630) to at least the Second Great Awakening (1810), American Christians, as a whole, were probably MORE consistent with that confession than any other group of believers in history - but that is still less than 200 years and even THEN, they made some fundamental mistakes in application due to their presupposition of Pietism.

Nevertheless, despite our failures, inconsistencies and sometimes even downright rebellion, over the course of the last two thousand years of church history, God has been pleased to bless and prosper His people. Why should “Darryl” or anyone else look at the little snippet of time that represents his own limited life and conclude that today’s Christians are somehow spiritually inferior (or superior) to those that came before? For anyone with ANY knowledge of church history, knows that there have been times of great revival and times of great darkness - which one we are in today will be for later generations of Christians to analyze. While I have my own opinions on that score, for “Darryl” to conclude that the current apostasies, heresies and moral failings of many Christians somehow means that God has “truly left the churches” shows a terrible ignorance of history when in fact there have been far darker times in the past.

Just as an aside here but again, pointing out that “Darryl” is out of his depth, one of the “moral failings” he points out is Christians celebrating “pagan traditions” such as “Halloween,” or “Christmas with Santa Claus” and Easter with the “Bunny.” Of course, we Reformed Christians could point out HIS apostasy and accommodation to pagan traditions by celebrating Christmas and Easter at all! The 17^th century English and Scottish Reformers were practically unanimous that such “popish” celebrations were unlawful and blasphemous under the Regulative Principle of Worship! While I am not advocating here the traditional Reformed view of such “holy days” I do want to point out that again, “Darryl” just does not know what he is talking about since there is still existent a whole branch of the Christian Church that CONDEMNS his “apostasy” in following a Roman Catholic tradition! Again, his time scale is too small; he condemns modern churches for including Santa Claus in their Christmas celebrations while seemingly being ignorant that ALL Protestant churches (apart from Lutheran and Anglican) refused to even recognize Christmas until the late 19thy century!

He then makes the statement, “God even commands us to come out of the churches when we see these abominations in churches worldwide.” First, he offers no evidence where God says that his particular lists of “grievous errors” are in fact THE signs of apostasy and the need for separation. Maybe they are, maybe they are not; but I would remind him that Christians are not to bind the consciences of others where God has not spoken (e.g., Romans 14:13ff). Therefore, at least he must PROVE that God says that his particular examples are in fact sins that demand separation - again, he assumes what needs to be proved. I might offer a different list of grievous sins that demonstrate God is no longer present with a person and therefore we all should “separate” from him - such as not being a member in good standing of a local Bible believing church!

Secondly, while I agree with Darryl that there ARE sins committed by churches that are so grievous that one must separate from them, I think he needs to go back and read Paul’s two letters to the Church in Corinth. Heresy, apostasy, fornication, incest, prostitution, factions and schisms were ALL present in the church at Corinth; but Paul never denies them the status of a true church just because there was sin in her midst (1 Corinthians 1:2-4). Paul does not call the Christians to LEAVE the church - he calls them to change their actions, repent of their pride and arrogance, in other words, get their act together and act like Christians! And therefore “Darryl’s” basic thesis is contrary to God’s own divinely inspired example - “Darryl” is putting HIS opinion of what Christians should do above God’s own infallible, inerrant Word. “Darryl” is thus doing the very thing he criticizes the church of doing - he is not “listening” to Scripture.

“Darryl” reveals his underlying motivation for all the above when he comes right out and says that “the Lord Jesus is coming very soon in judgment, even in our day.” This is really the bulk of his paper and to answer this assumption would take literally, volumes. He offers some verses from 1 Thessalonians 5, Matthew 24 and Luke 21, 2 Thessalonians 2ff, all as “proof” that the Bible says Jesus is coming soon. He even goes so far as to say that “true believers will know when Jesus Christ will come again…”

That one statement alone marks him off as significantly out of accord with the Scriptures and the historic Christian faith. When the Disciples asked the Lord Jesus about His promised return, just before His ascension, He replied, “It is not for you to know the times and epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority” (Acts 1:7). This was a restatement of what He had already told them in Matthew 24:36, “But of that day and hour, no one knows, not even the angels in Heaven nor the Son but the Father alone.” In the past two thousand years of church history, many heretics and apostates have claimed to know when the Lord Jesus would return, and they have all been wrong. Jesus warned us about that as well, “And many false prophets will arise and mislead many (Matthew 24:11).” And they have been doing so most recently since the 1840’s when the Millerites predicted that Jesus would return on a specific date - and people left their jobs, homes and businesses to sit on their rooftops awaiting the rapture. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have made predicting the Lord’s Return the cornerstone of their religion and just blithely ignore every time they set a date and get it wrong. The Dispensationalists have been predicting an imminent rapture since the 1880’s and some ministries, authors and churches have made fortunes this way.

Anyone else remember the early 70’s predictions about the “imminent” war in Israel where a 200 million man army led by the Anti-Christ would invade Israel? Anyone else remember when the Jupiter Effect or the Comet Kahoutec was supposed to herald the coming of Jesus? Anyone else remember the best seller “88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Happen in 88″ and its even better selling sequel “89 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Happen in 89?” People keep insisting that THEY know when the Lord Jesus will return despite the clear, unambiguous fact that He said that NO ONE would or could know. Yet gullible Christians just keep buying the books and sending their support checks to ministries that teach otherwise. Now, how seriously can we take a man’s claim to “listen” to Scripture when he repeatedly ignores it?

Now let me be honest; I would personally love it if the Lord Jesus would return today, or tomorrow or next week. I just do not think there is anything in the Bible that teaches that any one can know such a thing. Furthermore, as I have written before, the view that WE must be living in the “Last Days” is incredibly arrogant - just because things have been going down hill for US does not mean that the world is ending. God is doing a powerful work right now, in the world - Christianity is GROWING at an annual 8% rate - meaning that if the current trend continues (which we do not know if it will) the entire world could be Christianized before the end of this century! Marxism is a fading nightmare, Islam is on life-support powered by Western nations buying their oil, the Feminists, Sodomites and Liberals have DESTROYED their own future through birth control, perversion and abortion. While we have seen a great loss of Christian civilization over the past 200 years, we just might be on the cusp of one of the greatest revivals of religion in history! Now I am not saying for a moment that this is what WILL happen, only that it COULD and that there is NOTHING in Scripture that denies such a possibility.

But what about all those verses “Darryl” mentioned? Well, it is back to Interpretation 101 - a common problem that many Christians have is that they naively assume such texts were intended for THEM when in reality, they were written to a specific group, facing specific problems that needed specific encouragement. So “Darryl” (and others holding his view) please answer me this, why would Paul offer the hope of the return of Christ as an encouragement to the Thessalonians, or Timothy, or whoever when WE know that He would not be returning for at least another two thousand years? Did you get that? All those verses were written to them about THEIR situation to help them through the problems THEY were facing - yet those churches are now long dead and buried. Why would Paul warn them about “end times” that they would never live to see?

Furthermore, Paul’s point in 1 Thessalonians 5:4 is NOT to say that the Thessalonians (or anyone else) will know when the Lord will return but that it will not overtake them as a “thief in the night” BECAUSE they “walk in the light.” That is the whole point; men in darkness are not prepared when Jesus DOES return - but if you live humbly and wisely before Him, confess your sins, love the brethren, and live each day obediently then you do not have to worry - regardless of when He comes YOU are prepared. It simply does NOT say that somehow, some Christians will KNOW when He will return.

“Darryl” also cites Matthew 24:1ff. I have written an entire paper about this trying to do justice to the entire text (see “Why I Believe We are NOT Living in the Last Days at www.christian-civilization.org); it is a difficult passage. Let me summarize that paper by stating that all the things listed by the Lord Jesus in Matthew 24 LITERALLY came to pass in 70 AD when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple (for the context, see Matthew 23:36ff wherein Jesus specifically is addressing the timing of the destruction of the Temple). I appreciate that “Darryl” and a great number of Christians assume that Matthew 24 is about the Second Coming but I fear that thesis cannot be sustained; Matthew 24 was future prophecy when it was written but it is FULFILLED prophecy to us today - and because THAT is a controversial statement for many Christians I wrote the paper mentioned above.

“Darryl” also quotes 2 Thessalonians 2ff about a great apostasy occurring before the Lord returns. Again for a detailed treatment of this passage, please see my paper on “the last days.” However, what about THIS time in history makes our contemporary heresies a “greater” falling away than OTHER dark periods of history? Is “Darryl” at all familiar with the state of the church before the Reformation where sodomy, fornication, infanticide, illegitimacy, sorcery, heresy was all too common? Seems to me for all the problems (and there are many and they are serious) that the modern church has, there are many other periods of history when things were just as bad - or WORSE - than they are today.

In a related vein, there have been many candidates for the position of “Anti-Christ;” Nero, Domitian, Julian, Attila, the Vikings, the Mongols, the Turks, the Pope, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Henry Kissinger - well the list goes on. And each and every candidate had its proponents who used the same type of exegesis to “prove” their case and explain why earlier “candidates” couldn’t possibly fit the bill. But all these individuals shared something in common; they appeared at times when the church was threatened with extinction - yet, she survived only to see another generation try to find another candidate.

“Darryl” then quotes from the book of Daniel to prove that those living at the end of time will have more knowledge and understanding of the Bible. Well there are a couple of problems with this; first, as has been seen, “Darryl” and those who share his views actually have LESS knowledge of the Bible - not more. They do not seem to know church history, they do not follow basic principles of interpretation, they take things out of context, they assume what needs to be proven, etc.

But secondly, and more importantly, they quote from books that the greatest theological minds in history have admitted to be difficult to understand and interpret. For example, I could argue that the prophecy of Daniel 12:4ff was fulfilled when the canon of the New Testament was completed! After all, the Old Testament gave us shadows, types and pictures of Christ and His great redemption - now that Jesus has come in the flesh we have the fulfillment! So from Daniel’s perspective, the people of his time did not understand all that he was writing because Jesus had not yet come - but WE understand those things more clearly.

I could even argue that many of the more obscure issues in Daniel that some “prophecy experts” love to speculate about actually took place not too long after his death; i.e., the rise of Alexander the Great, the division of his Empire under his four generals, the persecution of Israel under Antiochus, etc. In other words, knowledge in HIS day, when Israel was captive in Babylon was “shut up” but they were then revealed as history unfolded and NOW, today, we can see the wonderful providence of God. In fact, Daniel’s predictions about the future of Israel, especially her persecution under Antiochus were SO detailed that liberal scholars insist that it must have been written AFTER the fact! But nowhere does the prophetic word to Daniel require us to see that WE are living in the Last Days or that somehow, we have a better grasp of Scripture than say Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Knox, Hodge, Warfield, Machen, etc.

“Darryl” then states that “God said He will give up the churches to Satan…” Here he is just wrong; it a serious thing to say “Thus sayeth the Lord” when He has not spoken -that’s called “false prophecy.” If “Darryl” wishes the modern church would pay more attention to the Old Testament, he also ought to remember that the penalty for being a false prophet is DEATH! He quotes Revelation 17:17 which simply does not say what he says it says. God NEVER says that He will give up His church to Satan and therefore again, “Darryl” is actually doing what he is accusing the church of doing, refusing to listen to God. Now, most scholars will admit that the book of Revelation is difficult to interpret and we do not have time or space to go into all the various paradigms that are used to approach this book. But “Darryl” again seems oblivious to the complexities involved, he asserts, without evidence that when the Lord says “kingdoms” that He means “churches.” I have just one request; prove it!

The word “kingdoms,” if you look at any standard concordance or lexicon, means “kingdoms” not “churches.” Interpreting the word “kingdoms” to mean “churches” is just utter nonsense; if “kingdoms” can be made to mean “churches” then language has no meaning. I am reminded of Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland” where Humpty Dumpty makes words mean whatever he wants them to mean. This is NOT how God revealed His will. In short, “Darryl” is not interpreting Scripture, but creating his own meaning and imposing it on Scripture - again, he is the one not “listening” to Scripture.

Secondly in this regard, “Darryl” says that “Babylon” (from Rev 18:1ff) should be understood as the “church inhabited by demons.” Well, again, this has to be proven, not assumed. Let me remind “Darryl” that if in two thousand years of church history NO ONE EVER agreed with your interpretation on an issue, who is more likely to be right, some modern radio jockey or the greatest theologians in history? There have been many candidates for “Babylon” (the most common are probably - off the top of my head - the Roman Catholic Church, the Liberal Apostate Church and First Century Judaism that rejected Jesus as the Messiah, etc.) but I am unaware of any reputable Christian scholar every teaching that it refers to the church, as a whole. The reasons for these particular candidates would require a massive exegetical and historical analysis and deal with complex hermeneutical issues that the average believer is just not interested in pursuing.

However, regardless of who precisely “Babylon” might be, the angel does command men to “come out from her…” (vs. 4). And guess what; Christians have been departing and are departing from apostate churches, throughout history. The first century church LEFT the Jewish synagogues. The early church “came out from” Gnostic, Arian and other heretical sects. The “Great Schism” saw half of the Christian Church separate from the tyranny of Rome in the Tenth Century. The Reformation saw half of Christendom depart from the errors of Roman Catholicism. Later on, Baptists and Congregationalists departed from what they considered the “errors” of Anglican and Presbyterian Churches. In the 19^th and 20^th centuries, millions of American Christians left Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Episcopal and other churches that accepted Higher Criticism and denied the Deity of Christ. Right now, the PCUSA is losing hundreds of congregations as evangelicals depart from their theological liberalism and humanist ethics. And Episcopalians across the world are separating from the Anglican Church because they ordain sodomites and women.

Yes there are apostate churches and yes, faithful Christians after fighting to preserve their churches will either win the battles or leave - but they do not become autonomous individuals. Instead, as all true Christians will do, they band together with other like minded believers to either find or form new churches more faithful to the Word.

Conclusion

Since I do not know “Darryl,” I cannot speak to his character. He might well be a sincere brother who is just in over his head - been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. If so, like the wise man of Proverbs, he will welcome correction and grow accordingly (Galatians 6:1ff, Matthew 18:15ff). As we mentioned earlier, what really distinguishes a brother in error from a factious, schismatic heretic that needs to be rejected (Titus 3:10) is how he receives correction; the wise man loves it, the heretic hates it.

Regardless of “Darryl” the man, the position that he has presented in his paper is exegetical, historical and doctrinal nonsense - I am truly sorry, I just do not know a kinder way to say that. There are some ideas that are just too incredible to give credence to. In this case, the assertion that God is no longer concerned about His church and has removed His presence and blessing from her as a whole is based on the worst sorts of “proof-texting” and ignorance of the most basic principles of interpretation. If in fact a radio or television ministry is advocating such a “doctrine” one must ask how finances figure into it. After all, if all true Christians should leave the institutional church, to whom should they tithe? Nevertheless, “Darryl’s” position cannot be logically or theologically maintained and NO reputable Bible scholar - regardless of whatever other theological axes they have to grind, has or would agree with it.

However, for all that, “Darryl” does have a point; there IS great apostasy today - there ARE many Christians who live inconsistently with their confession, the church IS often weak and accommodated to the world. However, the solution is not to run from the institutional church, but rather seek out churches that DO strive to rightly understand and apply the Word and call their members to obedience in Christ. We need one another (Colossians 3:16, Hebrews 10:24-25). The church is the body of Christ and we are all tied together (1 Corinthians 12:1ff). The church is the “bride of Christ” for whom He died and whom He will sanctify and purify (Ephesians 5:25ff) “that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing but that she should be holy and blameless…” Does THAT sound as if God is done with His church?

Yes, we can and should separate from apostate churches; however every church has error, every church falls short because every church is full of unperfected people. Let us be careful not to let the sins of others blind us to our own rebellion and autonomy.