G3 Ministries On Cessationism!

 

I came across the above video by Virgil Walker, from G3 Ministries, in which he argues in favor of cessationism—meaning the cessation of spiritual gifts following the days of the Apostles. The following clip is from the first four and a half minutes of the video:

In recent years a growing number of Christians have embraced what is often called open but cautious cessationism, a middle ground approach that acknowledges the possibility of miraculous gifts, like prophecy and healing, while remaining weary of their abuses. While this position may appear balanced, I contend that it introduces significant theological confusion, neither fully rejecting nor affirming the cessation of Apostolic gifts. This ambiguity undermines the sufficiency of scripture, and opens the door to doctrinal error. Cessationism, rooted in scripture and upheld by theological stalwarts like John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and B.B. Warfield, affirms that the miraculous gifts of the Apostolic age ceased with the completion of the New Testament Canon. Calvin famously stated in the Institutes of Christian religion quote:

“Assuredly the Holy Spirit is still present with the people of God. Without His guidance and direction the church of God cannot subsist, for we have a promise of perpetual duration, by which Christ invites the thirsty to come to Him, that they may drink living water; but those miraculous powers and manifest operations which were distributed by the laying on of hands have ceased. They were only for a time.”

Calvin warned against expecting ongoing revelations, or miraculous signs, asserting that such gifts served a specific purpose during the early church’s foundational period; yet despite this clarity, “open but cautious cessationism” continues to blur the lines, weakening the church’s doctrinal integrity, in an age increasingly driven by emotionalism and personal experience. It is vital that believers stand firm on the sufficiency of scripture, and the finality of God’s revealed word—the historical foundation of cessationism. Cessationism is neither a modern concept, nor confined to the theological insights of a specific group of Reformers. Throughout church history, prominent voices have supported the cessation of miraculous gifts. For example Augustine of Hippo, an early Church Father, initially believed that miracles continued; but later in his life he acknowledged that the miraculous signs accompanying the Apostles had ceased. Quote:

“In the earliest times, the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed, and they spake with tongues which they had not learned, and the Spirit gave them utterance. These were signs adapted to the time, for there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the gospel of God was to run through all tongues, over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening and it passed away.”

This view aligns with the broader historical understanding, that the extraordinary gifts were for the church’s foundational period, and not meant to continue indefinitely. By the time of the Reformation, Calvin and other theologians echoed these same convictions, solidifying the cessationist position as a critical aspect of Reformed theology. Misunderstanding cessationism, one of the core issues with the “open but cautious cessationist,” is its fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional cessationist position. Cessationism is not a denial of God’s power to heal or perform Miracles; it is not an argument that God has ceased intervening in his creation. Instead, cessationism asserts that the miraculous gifts, specifically the gift of healing, prophecy, and other Apostolic signs, ceased with the end of the Apostolic era. The critical point is that while God can and does heal according to his sovereign will, no one today possesses the Apostolic gift of healing, enabling them to heal at will. In other words, healing and miracles are by definition extraordinary acts of God, not normative or expected practices. The same applies to prophecy. While God has revealed his will through scripture, there is no longer a gift of prophecy, whereby individuals receive new direct revelation from God. The authority of the Apostles and prophets, upon whom the church’s foundation was built, is complete (Ephesians 2:2).

The problem with that argument is that it ignores certain passages of scripture that contradict it:

Mark 16:

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

According to this scripture, faith is the only requirement for the performance of miracles; nothing else is required. Throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments, miracles have been performed by faith; and nothing else but faith has been the requirement.

The highlighted bit in his quote, “heal at will,” is also problematic. Neither Jesus, nor his Apostles and disciples, were able to “heal at will”. They were only able to heal, or perform miracles, on condition of the faith of those involved:

Matthew 13:

57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

58 And he did not many mighty works [miracles] there because of their unbelief.

Matthew 17:

19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Mark 6:

6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

None of them were able to “heal at will”—including Jesus. They were only able to do so on condition of, and in accordance with, the faith of those involved. When faith was sufficient, miracles could be performed; and without faith, no miracles could be performed—not even by Jesus.

This of course is not meant to be an argument in support of Charismatics and Pentecostals etc. It is also possible to make false claims. That is why we are commanded to “try the spirits” (1 John 4:1). But just because it is possible to make false claims, it doesn’t follow that it is impossible to make true claims. I had previously discussed this subject in an earlier blog post which can be seen here.

Catholicism Versus the Book of Mormon!

I came across the above video in which Trent Horn argues against the Book of Mormon. Here is the transcript:

“If Catholicism is true, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired; Catholicism is true, therefore the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired! Mormons and Catholics agree that Jesus established a hierarchical visible Church led by successors of the Apostles who possess the priesthood; we just disagree with the Mormon claim that this church left the Earth for 1700 years until Joseph Smith allegedly restored it in the 19th century. After all, Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. Moreover, this church gave us sure knowledge of the very canon of scripture found in the King James Bible, that Mormons rely on as a sacred text; but the church that gave us the Bible authoritatively teaches that there has been no new public revelation since the time of the Apostles, which includes the Book of Mormon; therefore one can make this argument: if Catholicism is true, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired; Catholicism is true, therefore the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired.”

It is a short video, so I can break it down and discuss it in detail. He begins his statement as follows:

“If Catholicism is true, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired; Catholicism is true, therefore the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired!”

That argument works both ways. The counter-argument goes like this:

If the Book of Mormon is true and divinely inspired, then Catholicism isn’t true; the Book of Mormon is true and divinely inspired, therefore Catholicism isn’t true! He continues:

“Mormons and Catholics agree that Jesus established a hierarchical visible Church led by successors of the Apostles who possess the priesthood;”

That is not quite correct. We believe that Jesus established a hierarchical visible Church led by the Twelve Apostles—not by “successors of the Apostles”—who possessed the priesthood. The institution of the Twelve Apostles was never meant to be discontinued. When one of the Apostles died, another was appointed to succeed him, as in the case of Matthias, who was appointed to succeed Judas, who had committed suicide (Acts 1:15–26); or of Paul, who was ordained an Apostle to succeed James, who had been put to death by Herod (Acts 12:1–2). To the Ephesians Paul wrote:

Ephesians 4:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

All these offices are necessary for the “perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ,” not just some of them; and all of them are necessary in order that “we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ,” not just some of them. That obviously includes the offices of “Apostles” and “prophets”. They were meant to continue, just as the offices of “evangelists,” “pastors,” and “teachers” etc. were meant to continue. When the Twelve Apostles were alive, they acted as the governing body of the church. If a dispute arose for example, they met in council to resolve it (Acts 15). The institution of the Twelve Apostles was never meant to be discontinued; and they governed the church by revelation. It was the persecution of the Christians, and the apostasy of the early church that prevented that institution from continuing in the church thereafter.

Paul wrote: “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, …” (1 Corinthians 12:28). He also said: “And [you] are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). This, coupled with the fact that whenever one of the Apostles died, someone was appointed to succeed him, proves that the institution was meant to continue. And the bishops were never meant to be successors to the Twelve Apostles. The bishops had local jurisdiction over their own local areas, not over the whole church. They could never take over the leadership of the whole church. He continues:

“we just disagree with the Mormon claim that this church left the earth for 1700 years until Joseph Smith allegedly restored it in the 19th century.”

The LDS doctrine of the Apostasy doesn’t mean that the church “left the earth” altogether. A church ultimately consists of the body of its membership; and there still remained many true, faithful, believing Christians in the world who had a saving faith in Jesus Christ; and who constituted God’s true church. It only means that the priesthood and Apostolic authority of the Church was lost, so that the church could no longer be led by revelation, as it originally was, when the Twelve Apostles were alive and governing the church. It also meant that valid sacraments could no longer be performed. He continues:

“After all, Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church.”

The “gates of hell” did not “prevail” against the church, for the reasons explained above; and the Catholic Church deserves credit for preserving that culture and tradition in the world. That is not in dispute. He continues:

“Moreover, this [Catholic] church gave us sure knowledge of the very canon of scripture found in the King James Bible, that Mormons rely on as a sacred text; but the church that gave us the Bible authoritatively teaches that there has been no new public revelation since the time of the apostles, which includes the Book of Mormon;”

There are several issues with that argument. Firstly, the Catholic Church did not “give us the Bible”. It was given to us by God over many centuries past, through his prophets and Apostles, until the Apostasy set in, which meant that those institutions could no longer continue in the church, as he himself acknowledges in the above quote. Secondly, the Catholic Church has no authority whatsoever to “authoritatively teach that there has been no new public revelation since the time of the Apostles,” as he claims; because it has no power or authority to actually receive such a revelation—and doesn’t even claim to be able to. The reason why there have been “no new public revelation since the time of the Apostles” is because the Catholic Church has not had the power and authority to receive them, and doesn’t even claim to be able to (as the LDS Church does). Those powers were lost through the Apostasy, when the last Apostle died—which is why they needed to be restored in the latter days. And lastly, the Book of Mormon is indeed a book of ancient scripture like the Bible, received by revelation in our time; the fact that he or the Catholic Church do not recognize or acknowledge it, is irrelevant. The Jews (who gave us the Old Testament) do not recognize the New Testament as scripture. So what? It doesn’t make it so. The same argument applies here. And his last comment is as follows:

“therefore one can make this argument: if Catholicism is true, the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired; Catholicism is true, therefore the Book of Mormon is not divinely inspired.”

He has got the first part of the argument right, but not the second part. It is either one or the other. If one is true, the other can’t be. That is correct. The question is, which one? The answer is that the Book of Mormon is indeed true, a book of ancient scripture, divinely inspired, and a revelation from God; therefore Catholicism which rejects it (assuming it does, it has not officially declared that it does), cannot be true. The Catholic Church deserves credit for preserving Christian tradition (and scripture) in the world, as I said before; that is acknowledged; but if it rejects the Restoration of the gospel in the last days, it cannot be ordained of God.

The Coming of a False Peace – John MacArthur

 

Good sermon by John MacArthur. He hasn’t figured out all of it perfectly right; the bit that I am particularly interested in occurs between 6:28–24:03 minutes into the video, where he talks about the globalists trying to create a One World Government, and the biblical parallels to it. He has got that bit right. Here is the transcript of the relevant part of the sermon:

“Now this is a very popular desire: world peace. I think we know that. We are all aware of the fact that people have been talking about global unity, One World Government, for a long time; and there are many conspiracy theories about people secretly moving everything in that direction. But there are also realities which are anything but secret; and are not theories, but are certainly actions being taken by globalists to move the world toward One World Government. This is escalating among the elitist, power-hungry people who control the levers of culture and society; they want One World Government. And why do they want that?

“Well they give several reasons: one is what they call equity, so that they can redistribute all the assets, and all the wealth, and all the possessions equally across the planet to everyone. Another one is because of currency; they have a desire for a singular currency, global currency; and they would like that to be crypto currency, electronic currency, so they can control all finances, and all spending by everyone. And then another one of their motivating desires is environment; they want equal commitment upon every nation of the world, all people of the world, to the environmental plan. Right now many nations are supposedly doing what they can to achieve environmental goals; while many other nations pay no attention. Another one of their goals is taxation: they want global taxation so that no one, no corporation, can escape to some location where the taxation is lower.

“Another reason for their desire for a global One World Government is immigration; they want to eliminate immigration altogether; they want to eliminate it by simply saying, anybody can go anywhere they want to go, anytime, any way—free movement of everyone. Another one of their goals in having a One World Government is what they call crisis response, which was illustrated during the lockdown and the pandemic with Covid. They want to make sure the whole world responds the way the World Health Organization thinks they should respond; they want control over the responses to any kind of disease, any kind of pandemic; and they want uniformity. And then of course, a big one: war; because nations fight each other; and this seems to go on all the time. They want to eliminate nations, so that there are no national wars. And the goal of all of this: if they can create equity, common currency, control of the environment, universal taxation, eliminate borders so there’s no illegal immigration, control all crises, and end all wars—will bring about world peace.

“I don’t know if you know this, but they already have a flag, it is called the One World Flag. It is the flag of humanity and the unity of the nations. Part of it is green for the earth, humanity, human progress and unity, agriculture, and life; part of it is blue for the United Nations, hope, water, atmosphere we breathe, and sky; part of it is black for the darkness of space, hardship that humanity will overcome, and the last frontier of human exploration, and settlement of the solar system and beyond. And it has 13 stars because they have divided the globe into 13 regions—One World Government.

They are serious about this; this is one of the reasons I told you months ago that they have a problem with America, because of the emphasis here on nationalism. That is a threat to their efforts to remove national identity.

“Is this a good idea? Is this a reasonable idea? We can find that out very easily by going all the way back to the book of Genesis; so turn in your Bible to Genesis chapter 11. One World System is not a new idea, it is a very old idea—and by the way, a very Satanic idea—an old idea. When I say that, I mean Genesis chapter 11. Not long after God had destroyed the the entire world in the flood, leaving only eight people to reconstitute humanity again; soon after that we come to chapter 11; and this is what we read in verse one: the whole earth used the same language, and the same words; so there was every reason to assume that they could rather easily pull off one world government—since they all spoke the same language—that would eliminate one formidable barrier. And it came about in verse 2, that as they journeyed east, that they found a plane in the land of Shinar—that, by the way, is the Mesopotamian valley between the Tigers and the Euphrates, where the Garden of Eden once was—and they settled there.

“Now that sounds innocent enough, but the problem with that is that wasn’t God’s design. Back in Genesis 1—and they knew this, this was the creation mandate—verse 28: after God made man in his own image, after he created him male and female, verse 28 of Genesis 1, God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it’. Part of the creation mandate was to spread over the whole earth. They had done that, God drowned that evil society, and they were to start all over again with the descendants of Noah. But they didn’t want to do that; they wanted to settle in one place. So they said in verse 3 to one another, ‘Come, let us make bricks, burn them thoroughly’—that is to say, so that they would be strong; and they used brick for stone, and they used tar for Mortar—and they said, ‘Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven; and let us make for ourselves a name; otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth’.

“They knew they were supposed to be scattered over the face of the whole earth. That was the creation mandate. That was God’s order to them, in the original creation. But they were rebels against God; they did not want to do that. They wanted to stay together; and so they decided that they would build a city, and they would build a tower, and they would make a name for themselves. The Lord came down, verse 5, to see the city, and the tower which the sons of men had built. The Lord said, ‘Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language, and this is what they began to do; and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language so that they will not understand one another’s speech’. So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth, and they stopped building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the whole earth. And by the way, the scattering is described in chapter 10; chapter 10 gives you the scattering, in chapter 11 gives you the reason. God wanted them scattered over the whole earth.

“What is going on here? Well, first of all man says, ‘Come, let us,’ ‘Come, let us’—same language, same words—literally in Hebrew, one lip, and one set of words. We are all unified. They were all descendants of Noah. They realized that they were in power; and they wanted to concentrate that power; and concentrated power concentrates and exacerbates evil—a unified force of sinners with no restraints, as the Lord says in verse 6: ‘They will do anything they purpose to do, nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them’—there are no restraints. This is concentrated power of evil people. One evil ruler could corrupt the whole world. Nations provide restraint; and the power of sinners is diffused, and spread out. World Unity is an absolute disaster; it puts too much power into too few Sinners—and maybe too much power in even one sinner. World Unity is a complete disaster; it is what Satan wants; it is what God does not want—at least until he releases Satan to accomplish his purpose. Satan wants, and showed his hand in Genesis 11, a One World Government led by a coterie of sinners who can function without any restraint. This is a picture of Antichrist—a dictator who will rule the world, who will consolidate evil across the entire face of the earth. This is Satan’s desire.

“Now looking a little deeper, there was a leader in Genesis—go back to chapter 10, in verse 8, and you see there the name Nimrod. He was from the line of Ham—Shem, Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah. Nimrod was from the line of Ham. It says in verse 8, he became a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter—literally the word means warrior, or killer. He was not a killer of animals, he was a killer of people—in other words, he ascended to power by killing people. It is as if that he was next to the Lord—he had assumed such power. It was even said commonly, Nimrod is a mighty killer before the Lord, meaning he is a rival in a sense to God himself, he has so much power; and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel.

“So here we have some very interesting things; this is the first time the word kingdom appears in scripture. This is the first time there is a kingdom, it is the first time there is a king. He is a fascinating figure. In verses 8 and 9, three times he is called ‘mighty’—mighty in an evil sense. He is a killer. He is the great grandson of Noah, the grandson of righteous Ham. He wielded deadly power; he was ruthless in the Euphrates valley; no doubt establishing his kingdom by the means of death—and having established that, he literally could perpetuate his own evil through the entire population of the world, because there were no other powers to stop him. But God identified it as Babel because he wouldn’t allow it to happen. It becomes known as the Tower of Babel, because God changes their language, and all that comes out of that effort is confusion; and then in verse 9, the Lord scatters them abroad over the whole earth.

“So Nimrod, rebelling against the creation mandate of God—evil Nimrod, murderous Nimrod, rebelled. Idolatrous Nimrod wanted to build a city; and why a city? because a city is concentrated humanity; and that of course is you have the greatest concentration and expression of sin and iniquity. We know that from how cities function even today. And then a tower, essentially a ziggurat, as it was called in ancient times. At the base would be some kind of idolatry, some kind of worship; and the tower ascending as far into heaven as they could build it, as in a sense a figure of their desire to reach the gods. And then having achieved the greatness of a city, and such a tower that penetrates even to the heavens and touches deity, they would have made a name for themselves.

“There was no concern for God, there was no interest in his will or his purpose; it was all about what they could accomplish. This is clearly Satanic. As a result God—and you can see it in verse 7—says, ‘Let us go down’. Verse 4 they said, ‘Let us build’. In response God said, ‘Let us go down, and confuse their languages’—very effective by the way, very effective. Chaos breaks out, the city plan is shattered, the religion is splintered into bits and pieces, they don’t make a name for themselves, and then the Lord scatters them all over the Earth. And you can see just where, as you read chapter 10. Human pride, human ambition, power, designing One World Government is thwarted by God. It gives too much power to too few people, without balance, without restraint. It is the worst of all possible human government.”

I like the man, I think he is a good guy! He is still saddled with the heresy of Calvinism; but that is okay. As long as his heart is in the right place, he can still be saved! 😄

Catholics and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

 

I came across the above video in which Trent Horn, a Catholic apologist from the Catholic Answers, is discussing and defending the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, against arguments to the contrary—in this case by James White. I am no fan of Protestantism. I have a lot more respect for Catholicism than for Protestantism. So my aim here is not to defend Protestantism against Catholicism. But the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is evidently unbiblical and incorrect, and needs to be refuted. The best way to refute it, however, is to start at something more fundamental than that. The Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary has a more foundational theological basis—and that is the basic Catholic idea that virginity and abstinence from sex is somehow morally superior to having legitimate sexual relationships within the bonds of lawful marriage. That is the justification for enforced priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church; and having monasteries filled with celibate monks and nuns! That is the real foundation for the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. She would be viewed as somehow less pure and holy if she had legitimate sexual relations with her lawful and legally married husband. That is the real, more foundational issue with Catholic theology and doctrine.

That doctrine, however, is undoubtedly unbiblical and incorrect. The first thing that God said after he had created Adam was, “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). The Catholic Church says the opposite: it says, “It is good for man to be alone!” When God says one thing, and the Catholic Church says the opposite, it is a no-brainer which one is right and which one is wrong. And what it says in that scripture about “man” is equally applicable to “woman”. It is not “good” for either of them to be “alone”. So that is one obvious contradiction, but there is more:

The first great commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve after they were created was to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28). He did not qualify that statement by adding, “But if you remain celibate, you will be more holy!” That again is in direct contradiction to the Catholic dogma and doctrine. In Catholicism, being celibate is more holy! Again, when God says one thing, and the Catholic Church says the opposite, it is a no-brainer which is the right one. Examples abound, one more example will be sufficient:

The greatest blessing that God gave to Abraham (and his descendants) was that he would multiply his seed as the “stars of heaven” for multitude, and as the “sand which is upon the sea shore;” and that through him and his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Genesis 22:15-19; see also Genesis 24:59-61; 28:13-14). God didn’t qualify that statement by adding, “But if you remain celibate, you will be more holy!” The Catholic Church says the exact opposite, and therefore it cannot be of God.

That is the real source and origin of the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. She would be seen somehow as less pure and holy if she had continued to have sexual relations with her legally and lawfully wedded husband, after she had given birth to Jesus—which contradicts everything that the Bible has said. So the best way to refute that false dogma of Catholicism is to start at a more fundamental level, than just by quoting the obvious biblical verses (Matthew 1:24–25; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; 7:5-10) that do indeed contradict that doctrine, as James has pointed out.

Collective West Social Collapse

 

Good analysis of the rapid social, political, cultural decline of the collective West. I was particularly impressed by the insight into current affairs shown by Ania K, a Polish analyst, writer, and commentator from whom I hadn’t heard before. So kudos to The Duran for arranging an interview with her.

Provoking a Nuclear War with Russia

 

Apparently there are folks in Europe (in the EU establishment in particular) who are attempting to do just that—provoke a nuclear war with Russia. The above video does a good job of exposing it; but I don’t think the producers of the video have quite figured out their real motives for wanting to do it. Their real aim is to create a totalitarian, pan-European superstate that governs the whole of Europe; and a powerful and independent Russia, which does not bow down to their demands, is the biggest obstacle to achieving their goal. That is what motivates their animosity and hatred of Russia. Emmanuel Macron of France, and David Cameron of the UK, however, are a special case in this scenario, and fall into a special category by themselves.

Most European leaders recognise the risks involved to their own survival in provoking such a war with Russia, and they shy away from it. Emmanuel Macron is a special case. He has always had the ambition of being appointed the head of the EU; and he will stop at nothing to achieve it, even if it means provoking a nuclear war with Russia. He wants to be the first Emperor of this new Europe; and he will stop at nothing to achieve it—even if it means destroying Europe first by a nuclear war with Russia. He wants to send French troops to Ukraine in the expectation that if Russia attacked his troops, he can then claim an attack on NATO, and drag the US into a nuclear war with Russia (World War III), and thus to destroy Russia to achieve his goal. He doesn’t care if the rest of Europe is also destroyed in the process.

David Cameron (now Lord Cameron, and former Prime Minister of the UK) has always had an intense hatred towards Russia. This hatred is common among the UK political establishment in general; but with David Cameron it runs to the extreme; which makes it convenient for him to make common cause with Emmanuel Macron of France. They are willing to provoke a nuclear war with Russia (in the hope of dragging in the US)—even if it means destroying the rest of Europe in the process. They are willing to see nuclear bombs falling on London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Rome, Madrid etc. (as well as in New York and Washington DC etc.)—if that is what it takes to destroy Russia—to achieve their aims. And it is not altogether inconceivable that they may achieve their goal, unless the peoples of Europe (and the US) wake up and take charge, and depose them from their political appointments before it is too late.

Is Satan Bound? Or is he Ruler of this World?

 

I came across the above short clip by the Ligonier Ministries put out a few days ago, in which the panelists Chris Larson, Derek Thomas, Robert Godfrey, Sinclair Ferguson, Stephen Nichols, Steven Lawson, and Burk Parsons are answering theological questions, put to them presumably by the audience. It is a short clip from a much longer video obviously. In this clip they are answering the question: “Is Satan bound? Or is he the ruler of this world?” To that then three of the panelists give the following answer:

THOMAS: Well, Satan has been bound in the sense that under the old covenant, the gospel was more or less confined to the Jews. There were occasional proselytes, but they were occasional, but in the ministry of Christ and the ministry of the seventy, when they come back from that mission of theirs, “I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning.” So, an aspect of Satan’s control over the world was affected by the ministry of Christ and by the death and resurrection of Christ and the day of Pentecost which suggests that now the gospel is to be preached in all the world, but he is still referred to as the “prince and power of the air.” He still has power, maybe not as much power as he did under the old covenant, but he still has power. He is still to be reckoned with: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.” I mean C.S. Lewis said somewhere, in his Screwtape Letters, possibly, that you can make too much of the devil, but you can also make too little of him. He hasn’t yet been cast into the bottomless pit that the book of Revelation speaks of in chapter 20. So, he is very much to be reckoned with even in the new covenant.

GODFREY: But I think we have to be ... I certainly agree, but we have to be very clear, Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords now, and I think Lewis is exactly right. We can’t make too much or too little. On the “too much” side, sometimes we talk about Satan almost as if he were a minor god. He is a finite creature, which I think means—now, I am only a church historian, a humble church historian—but I think that means he can’t be everywhere at once. He can’t be the Holy Spirit, and so he has all these minions who serve him. But we almost talk sometimes as if there is the Holy God and then there is the evil god, Satan. Satan is not God. He is a finite creature. He is limited by his finitude as well as by God’s sovereignty. And so, he is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, but he is chump change compared to the sovereign God. He has been defeated and he will be destroyed, and our calling is not to let him destroy us before he is destroyed.

FERGUSON: We all try and put things and answers to questions saying the same thing in different ways, and I think two things I have found helpful in this context are, one, what Bob has alluded to in Matthew 28:18 to 20. What Jesus is saying in Matthew 28:18 to 20 is that as the second man and the last Adam, He has won back the dominion on earth that Adam lost. Adam lost his dominion. He fell to the tempter. Christ has overcome the tempter so that He now says, “All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me.” Now, we instinctively think, “Well, He is the Son of God. All authority in heaven and earth is His.” But He is speaking in a particular context here of saying that now the dominion that Satan won in the Garden of Eden has been overthrown and that authority is now His. And the second thing is to pick up what Derek said and to remember, I think, the limiting context of the expression about the binding of Satan is as Derek said, so that he would no longer deceive the nations. So, it is not just a general statement, Satan is bound, but that Satan is bound in this particular respect, that until the resurrection of Christ and the sending of the Holy Spirit, the coming of the last days, Satan was deceiving all of the nations, except the one nation that God was undeceiving in His mercy and that what is actually happening on the day of Pentecost in the crowd that gathers, that is analogous to the crowd that gathered in order to build the Tower of Babel and to pull God down, and God judged the nations, committed them to the deception of Satan, is that now from the day of Pentecost onwards, symbolized in the gatherings of the people and now experienced for two thousand years, is that the nations are being undeceived by the preaching of the gospel. I mean, that is just another way of saying, you know, we always need to look at the context in which phrases are used, so that we don’t just see a phrase and then make up ourselves what it means when the Scriptures are in very specific ways helping us to see these statements within a particular grid and context, so that when the Scriptures say that he is the god of this age, we realize that those who are not Christians are living in this age whereas we, the end of the ages has dawned on us and what the preaching of the gospel does is continues to invade this age to bring people into the new age and that this will continue until the Lord comes. And then comes the end, whatever your eschatology, then comes the end.

None of them, however, have been able to give the right answer to that question. The question consists of two parts. The first part of the question is: “Is Satan Bound?” The short answer to that question is, No, not yet. That won’t happen until the Millennium begins:

Revelation 20:

1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

At the end of the Millennium he will be released for a short period of time, after which he will be bound permanently and forever. That is the correct answer to the first part of the question.

The second part of the question was: “Or is he the ruler of this world?” The answer to that question is that Satan is not, and never has been, and never will be the “ruler of this world”—only to the extent that mankind (or any portion of them) yield to his temptations, and allow him to rule over them. Satan is permitted to tempt mankind in this world, so that they can act as free agents, and decide for themselves if they want to follow Satan or follow God. That is the role that Satan plays in this brief period of mortal experience. They could not exercise that moral agency, that “choice,” if the temptations of the devil did not exist, to enable them to choose between the two options. But that does not make Satan the “ruler of this world”—only to the extent that people yield to his temptations, and allow him to “rule” over them.

And whenever that has happened (beyond certain limits), it has always led to the destruction of those people—sometimes dramatically, such as by the Flood in the days of Noah; or by fire and brimstone in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah—but more often less dramatically, such as by foreign invasions, or by natural disasters or plagues. And just because the gospel does not exist, or has not always existed in all nations of the world, it does not follow that they didn’t know the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. All mankind have some knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, by virtue of that Spirit that “lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:9); hence they are left “without excuse” (Romans 1:20; see verses 18-24). The peoples of all nations and cultures know that stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, murder is wrong, adultery is wrong, etc.—and they generally have laws prohibiting those kinds of actions. They don’t have to be “Christians” to know those things. And on judgment day, they will be judged based on what they knew, and how they acted based on that knowledge: “They that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29).

That is the correct biblical answer to that question. Satan is not, never has been, and never can be the “ruler of this world”—only to the extent that the inhabitants of the earth (collectively or individually) yield to his temptations, and allow him to rule over them. The only “power” that Satan has over the world is to deceive and tempt mankind to do evil—nothing more. For the rest of this post I will briefly comment on what some of the participants have said in response to that question.

Derek Thomas begins by quoting the words of Jesus in Luke 10:18, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” But the conclusion he draws from it is not the correct one. That is a reference to the fall of Satan in heaven, when he rebelled against God, was defeated, cast down to the earth, to tempt mankind during this brief period of mortal experience:

Revelation 12:

7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out [of heaven], that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

• • •

12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Satan has power only to tempt mankind to do evil; but he never has (and never had or will have) any power to force his will in the world, or on anyone in particular—only to the extent that mankind are willing to yield to his temptations. The reason why Satan will be bound during the Millennium (for the most part) is because all of mankind will be living in righteousness, and Christ will personally be reigning on the earth, and no one will want to yield to his temptations. At around 2:27 minutes into the video Robert Godfrey Says the following:

“Sometimes we talk about Satan almost as if he were a minor god. He is a finite creature, … he can’t be the Holy Spirit, and so he has all these minions who serve him. But we almost talk sometimes as if there is the Holy God and then there is the evil god, Satan. Satan is not God. He is a finite creature. He is limited by his finitude.”

That is not entirely correct either. Satan is certainly not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc. like God is; but still, he has great power (permitted him by God) to tempt mankind. Just as God has a divine Spirit by which he is able to extend his influence in world; Satan also has his evil spirit or influence, by means of which he is able to exert his unrighteous, tempting, deceiving power over the world, and on mankind in general:

Ephesians 2:

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Ephesians 6:

11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Revelation 12:

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

He couldn’t “deceive the whole world” if he didn’t have the spiritual powers to exert his influence over the “whole world”. He also has his own “angels” (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 12:9) assisting him in his work (as God has his angels); but that does not diminish from Satan’s own spiritual powers to exert his evil, tempting influence over the world. Satan had been an angel of light, and a very powerful and advanced individual, before he rebelled against God in the premortal state, and was cast down from the presence of God; and he still retains many of his advanced spiritual powers; and uses them to oppose God, and to tempt mankind—and God permits him to do it for the reasons explained above; so that mankind can have the freedom to choose for themselves which way they want to go, and whose side they want to be on. Then at 3:29 minutes Sinclair Ferguson makes a long series of comments which would be a bit too tedious to analyze in detail; so I will briefly mention some main points:

Firstly, when Jesus says in Matthew 28:18 that, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth,” it is not a reference to the “power” that Adam “lost” as a result of the Fall. Adam never had “all power in heaven and in earth”. That is the power of Christ’s divinity. Adam never had the power of divinity, and therefore never could have lost it. Secondly, the distinction that he tries to make between Satan’s “deceiving powers” before and after the coming of Christ, or that previously he had power to deceive the nations but not Israel; and afterwards he is bound somehow, and cannot deceive the nations as much, are pure hypothetical speculation. No such doctrines are taught or implied in scripture. Satan is not bound, and will not be until the beginning of the Millennium, as quoted above. Satan’s power and influence among men, however, is increased or diminished only to the extent that mankind are inclined to yield to his temptations, and reject the gospel message (or the light of Christ, that is given to all mankind—John 1:9), on the one hand; or to yield to the gospel message (or to the light of Christ), and reject his temptations and deceiving influence on the other. When mankind, collectively or individually, choose the way of righteousness, his power is diminished; when they choose the way of sin, transgression, and wickedness, his power is increased. And lastly, when scripture refers to Satan as the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), it doesn’t mean that Satan literally has divine power over this world. It simply means that he is the being that the majority of mankind (knowingly or unknowingly) have chosen to worship and follow instead of the true and living God.