Mike Griggs

About Mike Griggs

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Mike Griggs has created 87 blog entries.

God is Too Much of a Gentleman to Impose His Will on You (Yeah Right!)

Many times I’ve heard people say, “God is too much of a gentleman to impose His will on you.” Or another way I’ve heard it expressed: “It’s a spiritual law: God can’t violate your free will.”

Both of these statements may sound good to our human ears. After all, what person wants their will to be violated? The problem with these statements is that they are wildly unbiblical. When I hear people make these statements, it makes me wonder if the person saying them has ever read the Bible. We don’t even have to get into the whole Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate (though it is related). All we really have to do is read Scripture. Anyone who believes the Bible has to admit that God can and does violate our wills (our ability to choose what we want).

Example #1: Adam & Eve.

In Genesis 1:27, it says that God made Adam & Eve. He made them male and female. Did they choose to be the gender God assigned to them? No, they had no choice in the matter. “But,” you might say, “they weren’t unwilling to be what God created them to be.” That’s true. After all, sin had not yet come into the world. But everyone who was born after Adam & Eve was also born male or female, and not all of them are willing to be the gender God made them. But, it doesn’t matter. God imposes a gender on us whether we are willing or not, and no amount of surgery can change that.

Example #2: God’s judgments.

God does allow us to make choices. That’s why we are responsible to Him for the choices we make. Some of those choices will bring down God’s judgment upon us. In Genesis 19, we see the inhabitants of Sodom making sinful choices (vv. 4-5). God destroyed them because of it (v. 24). We can say that the people of Sodom were willing to sin, but no one would argue that they wanted God’s fire to rain down upon them! Their will was to sin and not be punished for it. They were not willing to have judgment fall on them, and yet, God did it anyway. He imposed His will on them.

Example #3: Job.

God clearly imposed His will on Job. “But,” you might say, “that was Satan who did those things to him.” Well, it’s true that Satan was the one who afflicted Job directly, but who was the one to initiate all the bad things that happened to Job? God did (Job 1:8; 2:3). Job said that God was the one who took away his children, etc. (1:21), and the Bible says that it wasn’t sinful for him to say that (1:22). Also, what Christian wouldn’t acknowledge that even Satan must get permission from God in order to act? And if God gave permission to Satan to do those things, don’t we have to say that God willed for Job to suffer? After all, no one forced God to let Satan afflict Job. God is the only all-powerful being; no one forces Him to do anything.

When you get heaven, ask Job if God imposes His will on people.

Example #4: Balaam.

A king named Balak hired Balaam to pronounce a curse on Israel (Num. 22:2-6). But every time Balaam tried to curse Israel, he ended up blessing them instead (Num. 23:11-12, 25-26; 24:10-13). Balaam said, “I couldn’t go beyond the word of the Lord, to do good or bad of my own will.” (24:13). Balak willed that Israel be cursed. Balaam tried to help him do that. God wanted Israel blessed. Whose will won the day? God’s did.

Example #5: Saul.

While David had been anointed as the new king of Israel, Saul still held the throne. Saul, being jealous of David, tried to hunt him down and kill him (1 Sam. 19:11). As David is on the run, Saul sent messengers to capture him (1 Sam. 19:20). These messengers ended up prophesying instead (vv. 20-21). When Saul comes to try and capture David, he too, prophesies, only God made him do it without clothing (vv. 23-24)! Saul and his messengers willed to capture David. God made them prophesy against their will. Again, God imposed His will.

There are many more examples I could cite, but you get the picture. The Bible is clear: God can and does impose His will on us. Yes, we have some freedom to make choices. But God also has freedom to make choices, and His freedom is greater than ours. When my will comes in conflict with God’s will, my puny will is the one that gets bulldozed, not God’s. The idea that God never imposes His will on us may be comforting to some, but it is not biblical. Do we really think that God says to us “thy will be done..”?

God’s will is perfect, my will is not. While many Christians seem to exalt human will, my will has gotten me into plenty of trouble. If anyone’s will should be exalted, it is God’s will, not mine. My hope is that you will learn to pray, “Oh Lord, please impose Your gracious will on me!”

2021-04-01T19:33:06+00:00January 30th, 2020|Categories: Theology|Tags: , , |

How God Used the Work of William Perkins

William Perkins was a great man of God, and yet his life may not seem as important as other towering figures in church history. But, God used this man in ways that are still being felt hundreds of years later. This message briefly looks at the life of Perkins and looks at how 1 Cor. 15:58 was true in his life and ours. Our labor “in the Lord” is never in vain.

17 minutes 

2020-01-31T17:01:45+00:00January 30th, 2020|Categories: Audio Message|

Challenges for Premillennialism

Premillennialism is the belief that Christ will return before (pre) the millennium. The millennium is the 1,000 years mentioned in Revelation 20. The Premillennial view has a long history, and many great men have believed it (e.g. John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, etc.). With that being said, I find that the evidence in Scripture for many Premillennial beliefs is weak at best. I’m writing this article to show some of the problems with certain aspects of Premillennialism, but I’m not doing it with the intent of bashing anyone’s views. If Premillennialism is correct, I want to know! But if the challenges I’m about to put forth are valid, then maybe it’s time to abandon this view.

One quick note: there are two main types of Premillennialism: Dispensational and Historic. Some of these challenges would apply to both types, and others would only apply to the Dispensational variety. Now for the challenges.

1. The millennium. Does the Bible even teach that there will be a millennium? Rev. 20 does mention “a thousand years” (vv. 2,3,4,5, etc.). But is this enough to prove the idea of a literal 1,000 year millennium? I would argue, no. First, it is very dangerous to base a view on one lone passage. Many cults have been started this way. If you want to make a case from the Bible, it’s best to have several passages from which to make your case. There is no other passage in all of Scripture that mentions a millennium. Second, this passage is in Rev. 20, one of the most confusing, highly debated chapters in the Bible. Third, the book of Revelation is one of, if not the most, symbolic books in all of Scripture. In fact, the very first verse in Revelation hints to the fact that the book is not literally describing certain events, but rather, it is symbolizing or “signifying” (sign-ifying) events that would take place (Rev. 1:1). Fourth, the Bible often uses the number 1,000 (or 10,000) in a figurative sense (Ps. 50:10; 91:7; 105:8; Song. 4:4; Isa. 7:23; 1 Cor. 4:15; 14:19; etc.). So, “1,000” often just means a large number. I believe the 1,000 years in Rev. 20 is simply a long period of time, specifically, the church age.

2. The premillennial return. If the 1,000 yrs. in Rev. 20 is describing the church age, then Premillennialism is destroyed. But, let’s say for a moment that the millennium is a literal 1,000 yrs. Then would the Bible teach a premillennial return of Christ? Again, I would argue, no. The idea that Christ returns before the millennium comes from the idea that chapter 19 of Revelation is describing Christ’s return. Does it? Not explicitly. Chapter 19 does say that Jesus is in heaven (v. 11). And, it does say that His saints “followed Him” (v. 14). They are following Him into battle (v. 15). This battle takes place on the earth (vv. 17-21). Does this then prove that Jesus returns to earth (chap. 19) before the millennium (chap. 20)? No.

First, remember, this is only one passage. If you only have one symbolic passage to back up your view, your view is probably wrong. Second, it doesn’t actually say that Christ comes to earth in chap. 19. It says that Jesus is in heaven and that His people follow Him, but it doesn’t say that either of them are going toward the earth. Jesus can fight those on earth while He is in heaven. In Rev. 2:16, Jesus says that He will fight against those in the church of Pergamos (in the 1stcentury). He wasn’t talking about coming back to earth, He was talking about coming in judgment. Jesus is God; He can fight His enemies on earth while He’s in heaven. While I don’t have room here to get into my view of Rev. 19, my point is that the only passage that may speak about a premillennial return, doesn’t explicitly say that. Which means that there is no passage in all of Scripture that explicitly teaches a premillennial return. Sounds like a weak view to me.

3. Jesus reigning on the earth for a thousand years. Is there any verse that says that Jesus will rule on earth for 1,000 years? Nope. Many think that Rev. 20:4 says that Jesus will reign on earth for the millennium. Read that verse carefully. It says no such thing. Only if you assume that Rev. 20 is talking about a literal 1,000 yrs., and you assume that Rev. 19 is talking about the return of Christ, can you assume that Rev. 20:4 takes place on the earth. That’s a lot of assuming, and not one verse in the whole Bible explicitly says that.

4.The rapture. Here’s another widely held belief that is never explicitly stated in the Bible. The Bible does say that Jesus is coming back. But it never says that He is coming back to snatch us away to heaven. Here are the so called “rapture” passages:

Matt. 24:36-42. This passage does say that some people will be “taken.” However, they’re not taken to heaven, they’re taken in judgment, just like the flood in Noah’s day “took” people away (vv. 37-39).

John 14:2-3. This is the best evidence for the rapture, and yet, it never says that Jesus is coming back to take us to heaven (read it carefully!). It says that (after His death) He was going to go to heaven, and it says that He will “come again” to earth. But it never says that He will take us back to heaven.

1 Cor. 15:51-54. The event described here must be at the Last Day, because at this event, death will be no more (v. 54). So, this cannot be the rapture, because according to that view (at least for most) a lot of death is going to take place after the rapture. And, again, this passage never says that Jesus is going to take us to heaven.

1 Thess. 4:14-17. This passage does say that we who are alive at Jesus’ coming will be caught up to meet Him. This passage does say that He is returning. But it never says that He’s coming to take us to heaven (again, read it carefully!). In this passage, Jesus is headed to earth. But, there is no mention of Him reversing course to go back to heaven. You might ask why we would meet Him in the air, just to come back to earth. In Paul’s day, Roman officials would often be met by the people as they returned from war (if they won). The people would go out to meet their leader, form a victory parade, and march back to the city. This was the practice in ancient Israel as well (see Jdg. 11:32, 34; 1 Sam. 18:6-7). We will go up to meet our Leader as He returns to earth.

Rev. 4:1. Some have tried to say that this is a “rapture” passage. However, the only person in this passage who is called “up” is the apostle John. This isn’t describing a rapture either. There is no passage in all of Scripture which explicitly says that Jesus is going to come back and take us to heaven. Jesus is coming back, but it will be to a restored earth, where we will live with Him forever (see Rom. 8:19-22; Rev. 22:1-5).

5. Sacrifices being offered in a rebuilt temple as a memorial to Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross. Thankfully, fewer and fewer people believe this view. But, many still do believe that during the millennium, while Jesus is ruling from a rebuilt Jerusalem, the OT sacrifices will resume in a rebuilt temple. Of course, the idea of the OT sacrifices resuming is complete blasphemy. Jesus’ sacrifice put an end to the OT sacrifices (Heb. 9:11-14; 10:1-4, 11-12; etc.). No one wants to be accused of blasphemy, so those who hold to this view had to come up with a reason for the sacrifices to resume. The reason they made up was that God wants the sacrifices to resume as a memorial to His Son’s sacrifice. I say they “made up” this view because there is not one verse in all of Scripture which says that God wants us sacrificing animals as a memorial of His Son’s death. If you can show me from Scripture, I’ll believe you. No one has been able to show me yet.

In conclusion, Premillennialism has had many supporters over the centuries. Some of them were godly & knowledgeable men. But since many of their central beliefs have little (or no) biblical support, I think it’s time to reevaluate Premillennialism. There are other views of the end times which do have verses that explicitly teach the things that they believe. For a brief intro to my view, please see my article entitled: Is Jesus Coming Soon? Not Likely. If you have answers to these challenges that I have laid out, I would love to hear them. While I do have strong opinions on these things, I’m not above correction. You can get in touch with me through the “contact us” page of my website.

2019-11-29T20:45:20+00:00November 29th, 2019|Categories: Eschatology|Tags: , , |

Are Shrimp an Abomination?

One of the criticisms that is leveled against Christians is their tendency to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to obey. Skeptics think that we are being hypocritical for condemning some sins while blatantly committing other sins. One example that is often used is that most Christians eat shellfish, when the Bible says (according to the skeptic) “Shellfish is an abomination.”

I, too, am frustrated with how some Christians throw out any commands they don’t like. But when it comes to this issue, modern Christians and those of years past are correct in saying that we can now eat shrimp, crab, lobster, etc.

While many Christians are too quick to throw out Old Testament laws, we must acknowledge that the New Testament does repeal some of those laws. Traditionally, Christians have noted that there are some OT laws that reflect God’s never-changing views on morality. But by looking at the whole Bible (OT & NT), we see that some laws were only for the nation of Israel in OT times. These temporary laws are often described as “ceremonial” laws. Some examples of these laws would include the animal sacrifices, circumcision, etc. Some of the ceremonial laws fall into the category of “separation laws.” These laws were designed to keep the Israelites culturally separate from the godless peoples around them. These laws were to be done away with when the new covenant came and the gospel would be sent forth to all nations.

So, what does this have to do with eating shrimp? Are shrimp no longer an “abomination?”

Actually, the Bible never says that shellfish are an abomination. It does say that the Israelites were not to eat animals that lived in the water and that “do not have fins and scales” (Leviticus 11:10). This would include shrimp, clams, etc. But notice that Lev. 11:10 says that these creatures were to be “an abomination to you [the Israelites].” These were not an abomination in a moral sense. They weren’t an abomination to God like certain sinful activities are. God made these water creatures after all, so there’s nothing immoral about them.

These finless, scaleless water animals were to be despised by Israel (as far as for food). But why? Again, this was a separation law. This law would have made a separation between the Jews and the Gentiles. One way to build community is to share meals together. The food laws were designed in part to hinder this cross-cultural fellowship between Jew & Gentile.

How do I know that? Because the book of Leviticus says so. In Lev. 20:24-26, we read that Israel was given the list of clean animals (those they could eat) and unclean animals (those they couldn’t), because God had “separated them from the [other] peoples.”

If that’s not a convincing enough argument, let’s turn to the NT and see God showing Peter that both the food laws and the Jew/Gentile separation idea is no longer binding on us in the new covenant.

In Acts 10:9-16, God gives Peter a vision. In that vision, Peter (a Jew) is told by God to eat “unclean” animals. Peter, being a good Jew, protests and says that he won’t eat those unclean things. God tells him that He has made those unclean animals “clean” (v. 15). So, God was saying that the food laws are no longer binding on us. But why? Because from this time forward, there would not be this Jew/Gentile separation (see Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:11-16, etc.). So, even though the vision that Peter received did have something to do with the OT food laws, Peter was about to learn the other reason for this vision.

While Peter was still pondering this vision, some Gentiles came to him and invited him to come to the house of a Roman (Gentile) officer named Cornelius (Acts 10:17-22). Peter, being a good Jew, normally would not have had close fellowship with, or even gone into the house of, a Gentile (Acts 10:28; see also 11:2-3). But, since he knew that the OT food laws were for the purpose of separation – and now knew that those laws had been repealed – he knew God was telling him that it was now all right to fellowship with Gentiles. Now, he should not call any food or “any man” unclean (Acts 10:28).

In conclusion, we can only say that an OT law is no longer in effect if the NT tells or shows us that that law is no longer binding. The food laws are one of those categories of law that has been repealed. Those “abominations” in the OT that are evil because they violate God’s unchanging standard of morality are still abominations in NT times. But, those foods that were to be an abomination to only the Israelites – those foods are now “clean.”

While Christians do act hypocritically in other areas, this is one area where not obeying the OT is okay. The rest of the Bible shows us that the food laws have been repealed.

2019-11-30T01:54:03+00:00November 12th, 2019|Categories: Theology|Tags: , |

Finding God’s Will For Your Life

What Christian hasn’t asked “What does God want me to do with my life?”  While many would rightfully say that we learn God’s will in His word, the question then becomes “How do I use God’s word to learn His will?” This message seeks to give you a framework for discovering God’s will in every area of life.   

2019-08-28T19:33:47+00:00August 27th, 2019|Categories: Audio Message|

Obtaining a Wife by Rape? What the Bible Really Says

I have recently heard both Muslims and atheists claim that the Bible promotes rape. They say that, according to the Bible, you could actually obtain a wife by raping an unmarried woman. If you catch her and rape her, then you get to marry her. The Bible verses that supposedly teach this are found in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin…and he seizes her and lies with [has sex with] her…she shall be his wife…” (NKJV)

Unfortunately, most modern Christians ignore the OT, and therefore, they may not even know this passage exists, much less know what it is actually teaching. Neither this passage, nor any other passage in the Bible, promotes rape. There are several clues in the rest of the Bible, and even in this passage itself, which show that it is not talking about rape.

Clue #1. The word “seized.” The verses before our passage (Deut. 22:25-27) are talking about rape, and in this case the man “forces” the woman and lies with her. The word “forces” is the Hebrew word “chazaq.” In this case, the man who “forces” a betrothed woman and lies with her – that man gets the death penalty (v. 25).

But what about the man who “seizes” a woman in v. 28? Why doesn’t he get the death penalty? Because, in this verse, the man isn’t committing rape. The word “seize” is the Hebrew word “taphas.” This word can be used for playing a musical instrument (Gen. 4:21), handling the law of God (Jer. 2:8), handling farm tools (Jer. 50:16), etc. The word means to handle or manipulate. Sometimes it implies using force, but often it does not.

Clue #2. Parallel passages. The name Deuteronomy literally means “second law” (i.e., the second reading of the law). So, in order to gain more insight into what this law in Deuteronomy means, we have to look at the first time this law was given. This law was first given in Exodus 22:16-17.

“If a man entices a virgin…and lies with her…[she can] be his wife…” (NKJV)

Here, in Exodus, the man enticed (seduced) the woman. This is what Deut. 22:28 is talking about: the “seizing” (or taking hold of) is seducing, not rape.

Clue #3. The passage itself shows it is not speaking of rape. If anyone reading Deut. 22:28-29 would back up and read the verses prior to it (vv. 23-27), they would see that the man who is seducing this woman is not raping her. This fornication is consensual.

Verses 23–24 are about a consensual affair. It is deemed consensual because the woman “did not cry out” (i.e., she didn’t object).

Verses 25-27 are talking about a rape. In these verses the woman “cried out.” She objected, but was forced against her will.

When we get to verses 28-29 (our supposed rape-to-get-a-wife passage), there is no mention of the young lady “crying out.” This implies she was a willing participant in this fornication. Verse 28 also says that “they” were found out. This again implies that both were consenting to this sin of fornication. In this case, when both the man and the woman commit this sin of fornication, the man must marry the woman, if the woman’s father agrees. And this brings us to our next clue.

Clue #4. The father’s veto. In the passage that is the parallel to our passage (Ex. 22:16-17), the man who seduces a woman must then pay a fine (see also Deut. 22:29), and then he must marry that woman. There is no “love them and leave them” in God’s law. If you are going to have sex, you also have to take responsibility for your actions.

However, the father of the woman could refuse to give his daughter to the man (Ex. 22:17; the man would still have to pay the fine). This also shows that this passage, and Deut. 22:28-29 is not talking about rape. I don’t have a daughter, but if I did, I may give her to a young man with whom she committed fornication. Of course, my hope would be that she wouldn’t do that, but if it happened, and the man was an otherwise upstanding man, and a Christian, and generally responsible, I would consider letting him marry my daughter. If my daughter doesn’t want to marry this guy, I’m going to tell this man “no.” After all, I have more love for my daughter than I have for him.

But if he rapes my daughter, not only would I never allow him to marry her, but he’d better hope the police catch him before I do! Because if I do, there won’t be anything left of him for my daughter to marry!

Those Muslims and atheists who criticize the Bible have it wrong. The Bible doesn’t promote rape. The Bible sometimes records rape happening, but that doesn’t mean that God condones it; it is simply saying that the rape happened. There is nothing in Scripture that says that a rapist gets to marry his victim. Anyone who says so has probably never really studied the Bible.

God’s law is perfect (Ps. 19:7) and I love it (Ps. 119:97). Do you?

2019-05-31T22:17:37+00:00May 31st, 2019|Categories: Family, Theology|Tags: , , |

Conference on Eschatology recordings

This conference showcased the major views of the end times. While many Christians know of only one view, there are, and have been, many views. This conference looked at the views of:

-Two forms of Premillennialism
-Amillennialism
-Postmillennialism

Four views on the book of Revelation were also discussed:

-Futurist
-Preterist (partial)
-Historicist
-Idealist

Friday: the four millennial views

Friday’s Introduction to the four views of eschatology and four views of the book of Revelation

Historic/Classical Premillennialism (Mike Griggs)

Premillennialism version #2 (Paul Coleman) Note: this version of Premillennialism shares some agreement with Dispensationalism in that it sees the millennium as being more “Israel centric” than the Historic Premil. view. The speaker (Paul Coleman), however, doesn’t hold to other aspects of Dispensationalism. 

Amillennialism (Scott Walker) 

Postmillennialism (Mike Griggs)

Saturday: the four views of the book of Revelation

Partial Preterism (Keith Foskey)

Historicism (Scott Walker)

Idealism (Mike Griggs)

Futurism (Paul Coleman)

Bonus track: What is 5th Kingdom Ministries?

2019-06-06T21:26:36+00:00May 31st, 2019|Categories: Audio Message|

Why Government Keeps Getting Bigger (part III)

In parts I and II of this series, we looked at a couple of reasons why the civil government in America keeps growing. We looked briefly at the failures of the Republican party to stop government growth, and we looked at how the main ideology of many Christians (Conservatism) can’t stop government growth either. Now I want to look at another reason: the fact that Christians don’t like what the Bible has to say about government. I don’t say this out of a spirit of rudeness, but because I know that the only antidote to big government is biblical government. And therefore, I want to challenge my fellow Christians to learn (and like) what the Bible says about the civil government. Because if Christians don’t promote biblical government, who will?

But don’t Christians want a biblical government? When it comes to things like abortion and homosexual marriage, they can have fairly biblical views. This is good. But most Christians rarely even attempt to find out the rest of what the Bible says about the civil government. In some cases, Christians simply don’t know what the Bible says. In other cases, Christians can get downright angry at what the Bible teaches. They would never say that they disagree with the Bible, of course, but I’ve seen many a conservative evangelical get upset when confronted with what the Bible says. Furthermore, many Christians are actually embarrassed of the Bible. This is why they appeal to science and history, not the Bible, when making a case for their views. They’ll say: “Abortion is bad because science has shown that a fetus can feel pain.” Or: “Homosexual marriage is wrong because it goes against thousands of years of history.”

Sorry, but God will not bless those who are ashamed of His word. We must get our views from the Bible, and we must openly declare that Scripture is the authority in all areas of life, including civil government. I’m not claiming to have it all figured out myself, but I do believe that the only infallible source of information about government is the Bible.

Any discussion of biblical government must include what the Old Testament has to say about the topic. This is where it can get tricky. Sometimes it can be difficult to tell which OT laws carry over into the New Testament. But, since most of the instruction about civil government is found in the OT, it cannot be ignored. Of course, if the NT teaches that a law is annulled, then that law is no longer binding on us.

So, do you believe what the Bible says about government? Let’s briefly examine a few topics.

Sometimes, when talking about a criminal, I’ve heard Christians say “They ought to lock them up, and throw away the key.” But the Bible never imposes a prison sentence for a crime. There are examples of prisons in Scripture, but these were run by ungodly nations. There are no crimes in Scripture that were to be punished with a prison sentence.

When it comes recreational drug use, the Bible does consider that to be a sin, but it isn’t a crime. The government cannot punish every sin, only those sins that also qualify as crimes. Furthermore, the government doesn’t have the right to regulate what people own (possess), so under biblical law, the government couldn’t prosecute anyone for possessing marijuana. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating drug use. I believe it is a sin. But I’ve also seen how the “war on drugs” has not only been a dismal failure, but has been one of the biggest destroyers of our Constitutional rights. Even if that were not the case, it is still a violation of God’s law.

The Bible gives the death penalty for several crimes. Again, it can be tough determining which laws carry over from the OT into the NT. But many Christians think of these penalties as being too barbaric. While it’s debatable if all of these laws are still in effect, it shouldn’t be debatable that these laws were not unjust. Remember, God is the one who gave these laws to Israel. To say that those laws were unjust, is to say that God is unjust. Many talk about how those who kidnap and sell children into sex slavery ought to be “locked up, and have key thrown away.” The Bible says that those who commit those crimes are to be put to death (Ex. 21:16). That’s one OT law I’ll gladly stand behind!

When you look at what the government is to do, you won’t find very many, if any, of the free stuff or services that our government gives us. In the Bible, the government isn’t to provide welfare to anyone, not even as a “safety net.” God prescribed other safety nets, like families, individuals, and churches. God doesn’t want the government providing retirement programs either (i.e., Social Security). And, believe it or not, He doesn’t want the government providing health insurance, medicine, education (college or otherwise), subsidies to farms or businesses, and a whole host of things that our government has been providing for generations.

I know we’ve only scratched the surface on this topic. But let me ask you: how do your views on government line up with Scripture? If you doubt that my views on government are actually biblical, I’ll gladly listen to your opinions, if you’re getting your opinions from the Bible. We are all sinners, and therefore, we all have errors in our thinking about government. But we cannot be lazy in finding out what God thinks about civil government. The Bible has something to say about the military, gun ownership, courtroom procedure, immigration, etc. And what the Bible teaches is far better than what talk radio does. His word is the only perfect source for a government that has the right balance of law and liberty.

2019-03-31T21:43:16+00:00March 31st, 2019|Categories: Government|

Copyright © 2015 -
5th Kingdom Ministries.
All Rights Reserved.

EMAIL NEWSLETTER

Sign up for our email newsletter to receive notices of new products and events!

Home
Blog
Shop
Events
Audio Samples
About Us
Contact
Go to Top