Preterism and Replacement Theology: Part 3

Why Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland Call It a Serious Threat

Some Bible debates stay inside the classroom. This one does not.

On The Smith and Rowland Show, Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland argue that preterism, especially when paired with replacement theology, doesn’t just reshape end-times charts. It changes how people read the Bible, how pastors preach, what seminaries teach, and even how leaders think about Israel and public policy.

They keep the tone light at times, but the warning is direct. When prophecy gets treated like flexible symbolism, hope gets pushed into the past, Israel gets pushed to the side, and confidence in a plain reading of Scripture starts to erode.

The show’s banter sets the tone, then the warning gets serious

Smith and Rowland open the episode the way longtime listeners expect, with jokes about pretend sponsors and the daily chaos of microphones, chair

s, cords, and timing. The running gag is “Sunglasses of America,” followed by a round of laughter about whether anything is really “only made in the USA.”

There’s also a quick Bible nod as they joke about being “sponsored by cord,” which turns into “One Accord,” a phrase they point out is straight from Scripture.

Under the humor is a clear point. This isn’t a topic you wrap up in one sitting. They return to a theme they’ve already been building, preterism (and its partial form) keeps showing up in more churches and schools, and it’s creating confusion for regular believers.

A few of their lines capture the mood:

• “Partial preterist is a preterist want-to-be.”
• “If you’re going to be a preterist, be a preterist.”
• “Don’t be partial about nothing.”

The laughter is real, but they’re not treating the issue as small. They see it as a growing teaching pipeline that is shaping the next generation of pastors.

A Bible college conversation that shows why this keeps spreading

Smith shares a recent lunch with a young missionary preacher, Blake Harvey, a graduate of Bethel Bible College. Smith describes him as a strong young man and says he hopes to bring him onto the podcast in the future.

The lunch conversation centers on preterism and partial preterism, because that’s what Harvey was taught in school. Smith says the college position was partial preterism, which he connects to amillennialism.

What stood out was not only the doctrine, but how it was handled in class. Students repeatedly asked why they weren’t being exposed to other ways of reading the same passages. The professor’s reply, as Smith tells it, was blunt: if he used other people’s definitions, he couldn’t teach what he believes. Smith and Rowland laugh at the logic, because it sounds like an admission that the class was built to protect a conclusion rather than test it.

Smith says this mindset is not limited to one stream of Christianity. He sees it across the board, including charismatic and Baptist training environments. In their view, the problem is not just what’s being taught, but the narrowing of what students are allowed to consider.

Then Smith makes a statement that he knows will draw reaction. He says he has more respect for a full preterist than a partial preterist, not because he agrees, but because at least full preterism is consistent. In his view, partial preterism often turns into internal disagreement, because partial preterists can’t agree on what is “partial” and what is still future.

Full preterism vs. partial preterism, what each one claims

Rowland gives clear working definitions, then Smith reacts to what those definitions do to the overall shape of Bible prophecy.

Full preterism, as Rowland explains it, teaches that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled around AD 70, centered on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. In that framework, major judgment passages in Revelation and Matthew 24 are treated as already completed events.

Partial preterism tries to avoid the obvious weaknesses of full preterism. It teaches that most prophecies were fulfilled in the past, but it tends to leave Revelation 20 through 22 as still future. Even then, Rowland notes that partial preterists do not always expect those chapters to be fulfilled in a straightforward, literal way.

That last point is where the hosts press hard. Smith argues that partial preterism often switches methods midstream. It allegorizes much of Revelation, then demands a different approach when it needs future content to remain. Rowland agrees and frames the issue as inconsistency. It becomes a system that can be adjusted to protect itself.

They also point out that partial preterism is common because many people sense that full preterism “doesn’t work,” yet they still want to avoid premillennialism. Smith summarizes it with a jab, but the point is serious: partial preterism often reads like an attempt to get the benefits of a past fulfillment view without paying the full logical cost.

They mention public voices they believe reflect partial preterist thinking, including Doug Wilson (whom Smith says he enjoys listening to preach, while still seeing dangers) and Tucker Carlson. Their concern is not personality-based. It’s what happens when a theology of Israel and prophecy spreads beyond the church world.

Why they see preterism as dangerous theology, not just a debate

Rowland lays out a major concern first. He says preterism often requires a denial of literal interpretation, especially in Revelation 4 through 19. He gives a common example: the beasts of Revelation 13 become symbols for Nero (AD 54 to 68), and the tribulation becomes a symbol for general persecution under Rome.

Smith and Rowland argue that this approach changes the rules of interpretation. In their view, Scripture should be taken literally unless the text signals a symbol. Rowland says symbols are not a license to invent meanings. The Bible often marks symbols with language such as “like” or “as it were.” When the text signals a symbol, the symbol still points to real meaning.

Smith adds a practical check. You can’t build allegory out of nothing. An allegory has to be drawn from something literal. Their complaint is that some allegorical approaches treat prophecy like clay, shaped to fit a preferred storyline.

They tie this to hope. Rowland says prophecy is not just information, it is part of Christian encouragement. Once a prophecy is given, you can see its “infancy” through history until it reaches fulfillment. For them, the clear marker of fulfillment is simple: Jesus returns. If you move that return into the past, you don’t just change a timeline. You weaken what Scripture calls the blessed hope.

The big story they say many systems forget, Genesis to Revelation

Smith frames the whole issue around what he believes was “on God’s mind” from the beginning. He points to a storyline that starts at creation and ends at the final restoration:

Smith says God is building toward a literal outcome. In his view, the New Jerusalem is not just a poetic image. It is a real city God will bring down to earth, and from there God will rule and reign forever. They connect that to the kingdom theme, Jesus ruling in a real, promised way.

Smith also responds to a question he says he has been asked: if Jesus rules from Jerusalem, does that mean he rules only over Jews? His answer is no. Jerusalem being a capital doesn’t limit Christ’s authority. Smith and Rowland say Jesus is King of the universe, not a local ruler.

That’s why they keep returning to literal interpretation. If the end goal is real, then God’s promises to Israel, the nations, and the future reign of Christ remain real. If the end goal becomes symbolic, then the whole arc of Scripture becomes easier to flatten into metaphor.

Israel, 1948, and why replacement theology changes real-world thinking

From their perspective, the theological danger does not stay inside church walls.

Rowland says replacement theology puts Israel “on the back burner” by teaching that God has rejected Israel and raised up the church as the new Israel in a way that cancels Israel’s national future. Smith agrees and says this mindset affects how people think about nations and policy, because theology guides a person’s worldview.

Rowland brings up a comparison. He claims that many top military leaders in the 1950s and 1960s were professing believers and also premillennialists, while he believes leaders today tend toward replacement theology. Their argument is straightforward: the advice leaders give will pass through the lens of what they believe God is doing in history.

Smith also warns that when replacement theology is mixed with a rising libertarian mood in parts of the conservative movement, Israel becomes easier to treat as “just another country.” The hosts insist this has to be addressed at the theological level first, because politics often follows beliefs that were taught years earlier in seminaries and pulpits.

They describe the battle line plainly: doctrine classrooms and sermons shape the thinking that later shows up in public decisions.

Revelation’s dating, Revelation 1:19, and why they say the book is still future

A key dispute they address is the timing and purpose of Revelation.

They say some preterists argue Revelation was written around AD 65, before Jerusalem fell, so it can be read as a prophecy of AD 70. They respond with a different claim: that most scholars date Revelation to the AD 90s, during the reign of Domitian, and that the early church fathers support that timing.

Their point is not academic trivia. It’s a logical pressure test. If Revelation was written after AD 70 and is still treated as describing AD 70, then it becomes history, not prophecy. Rowland and Smith argue that turning Revelation into a record of past events strips it of its intended purpose, to give God’s people hope about what He will do.

They also make a wider warning. Once someone is trained to say Revelation is not future prophecy, it becomes easier to dismiss other parts of Scripture. Rowland describes a drift where people end up claiming they only need the words of Jesus in the Gospels, and they can ignore Paul, Acts, or even the Old Testament. He sees that as a step-by-step breakdown of biblical authority.

Smith adds another practical angle: people naturally pay more attention to what they believe is future than to what they label “old news.” If the enemy can convince Christians that prophecy already happened, many will stop watching, studying, and expecting Christ’s return.

Why they reject the idea that Revelation was written to “encourage” AD 70 Christians

The hosts also challenge a claim they attribute to preterist thinking: that Revelation was written mainly to comfort Christians during the Roman conflict with the Jewish people.

Smith answers sharply. He says the tribulation material is not an encouragement story for casual reading, it is filled with terrifying judgments. He points out scenes like people hiding in caves and crying out for rocks and mountains to cover them from God’s wrath. He does not see that as a general “comfort letter” for a past war.

Then he makes a separate point about audience. Smith says that when the tribulation period comes, God has already provided a book aimed at Hebrews to give hope in that time, he names the book of Hebrews as central to that context.

Their conclusion stays consistent. If Revelation is reduced to an AD 70 encouragement piece, and Israel is replaced in the story, then Christians end up reading other people’s judgment as their personal comfort. Smith says that’s not how prophecy works.

Revelation 1:19 and the dispensational outline they use

Rowland then gives the structure he believes is built into the book itself. He points to Revelation 1:19 as a three-part outline:

1. “The things thou hast seen”, which he places in Revelation 1, John’s vision of Christ.
2. “The things which are”, which he places in Revelation 2 to 3, the seven messages to the churches, which he believes also map church history up to the rapture.
3. “The things which shall be hereafter”, which he ties to Revelation 4:1, the open door in heaven and the voice saying “Come up hither,” pointing to events after the church age.

Rowland says this is why he reads Revelation 4 through 22 as future prophecy, not as a coded retelling of Rome and Jerusalem.

Smith agrees and says that if preterism forces the entire book into history, then even the structure of the book stops making sense. They also ask why Christ appears to John in chapter one if John is only writing an account of past events.

The Laodicean church age, lukewarm religion, and hope for overcomers

In their view, Revelation 2 and 3 do not get enough attention, even though those chapters speak directly to the church.

Rowland says he believes the church is living in the Laodicean age, marked by being lukewarm, neither hot nor cold. He describes the church as thinking it is rich and increased with goods, while spiritually it is poor, wretched, miserable, blind, and naked.

One detail matters to him: in Laodicea, Jesus is outside the church, knocking and asking to be let in. That image is meant to sober people, not entertain them.

Rowland also clarifies that he sees elements of all seven churches present in every age. A believer can still show Philadelphia-like faithfulness even in a broadly Laodicean time. He stresses the promises to “overcomers,” meaning a Christian does not have to match the worst traits of the wider church culture.

This is where their argument returns to hope. If prophecy is future, then the church has reason to stay awake. If prophecy is pushed into the past, Smith says it produces a dull and joyless outlook, with little expectation of Christ’s return.

Conclusion: why they say “full or partial,” preterism still pulls in the wrong direction

Smith and Rowland treat preterism as more than a harmless opinion. They say it trains Christians to loosen their grip on a plain reading of prophecy, it feeds replacement theology, and it opens the door to contempt for Israel, which they connect to real harm in history. They also say it drains the blessed hope by shifting key events into the past.

Their bottom line is simple. The battle is not first in politics. It starts in pulpits and seminaries, where the next generation learns what to do with Revelation, Israel, and the return of Christ.

For more from Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland, visit the Kingdom Prophetic Society website and follow the Smith and Rowland Show daily podcast feed.

Preterism and Christian Expectations: Why End-Times Beliefs Shape Real Life - Part 2

by: Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland

What you believe about preterism and end-times prophecy doesn’t stay in a study Bible. It shapes what you expect from Christian living today, what you think God is doing in history, and even how you view Israel and the nations.

On The Smith and Rowland Show, Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland press a simple point: biblical expectations are meant to build believers up, not drag them down. They also argue that certain end-times views, especially full preterism and many forms of partial preterism, don’t just shift timelines. They can weaken hope, lower Christian urgency, and push bad theology into public policy.

A new-year reset: stay close to people who build your faith

The episode opens with the kind of banter regular listeners expect. Alan calls it "thrilling like Michael Jackson thriller", Jeff jokes back, and they toss in a fake sponsor shoutout to Dairies of America (with a quick detour into pintos). Light humor, but the conversation turns serious fast.

Alan frames the start of the year with a clear declaration: your growth depends on who you allow close to you. Some people stretch you and strengthen you. Others keep trying to shut you down. He says the goal is to stay around people who will:

• Build you up
• Stretch you
• Call you into the fullness of who you are in Christ
• Refuse to treat your calling like a problem to manage

Jeff agrees and adds something he’s learned through experience. He doesn’t call it a rule for everyone, but it has guided him: the things people most want you to quit may be the very things you’re supposed to be doing.

That observation leads into a bigger issue they’ve both seen in church life. Sometimes the strongest negativity doesn’t come from enemies of the faith. It comes from the people closest to you, including people inside the church, who say, “You’re doing too much.”

Jeff’s response is blunt: in the season we live in, “doing too much” for God doesn’t exist in the way people mean it. Yes, time matters. Yes, priorities matter. Rest matters. But the larger pattern is often backwards. People carve out minutes for serving God, then structure the rest of life around work, comfort, and recovery, as if spiritual service should always be the smallest slice.

He shares that he took a short sabbatical, not to quit serving, but to restart and refresh. He mentions Charlie Kirk’s book on the Sabbath and the need to rest mind and body so you can stay engaged in service. Alan echoes the point with a prayerful goal for the year, using Paul’s language about being poured out as a sacrifice, asking God to use him for His glory.

Both men connect this to something every believer recognizes: God can supply strength that wasn’t there five minutes earlier. Jeff describes showing up worn out to preach, then finding energy once he begins. He calls it supernatural. It doesn’t come from willpower, it comes from the Lord.

Expectations: encouragement that raises the bar

Why “expectations” isn’t a dirty word

Alan and Jeff spend a lot of time on one word that gets criticized in modern Christian culture: expectations.

Some hear “expectations” and think control, manipulation, or pressure. Alan flips that idea. In preaching and teaching, expectations are often the exact form encouragement takes. If a preacher teaches the Word, he’s preaching what the Word expects of God’s people. It’s not about dominance. It’s about raising the standard so people can aim at something real.

Alan uses everyday examples to make the point:

A basketball coach is supposed to expect more from a player than the player expects from himself. The coach raises the bar, and the player may protest, “We can’t do that.” The coach’s job is to say, “Yes, you can. You might not, but you can.”

He ties that to Scripture. God repeatedly speaks in covenant language that includes expectation: “You do this, and I’ll do this.” That is not cruel. It’s clarity.

For Christians, the ultimate bar is Jesus Christ. Nobody pretends we’ve fully reached that mark. But the goal is still set. Alan even uses a vivid image to describe the hope of final transformation, saying it’s like a “Holy Ghost car wash” at the gates of heaven. In Christ, believers will be made like Him, and at the rapture (for those alive at that moment) the change happens “in a twinkling of an eye.”

Then he adds a thought many people avoid: when believers are with the Lord, God’s expectations don’t shrink. They increase, because we will finally be fit to carry them in fullness.

Jeff sums up the spirit of the conversation in one line worth holding onto: “Expectations is an encouragement to be more than what you’re being.”

How expectations work in leadership and in church life

Jeff says expectations show up most clearly in leadership. He distinguishes between two very different kinds of expectations, and the difference matters in church life.

He points to Romans 11 and the language of provoking, saying “provoke” includes the idea of stimulation, calling people forward. The New Testament also speaks of provoking one another to good works. In Jeff’s view, the congregation isn’t designed to be an audience. It’s designed to edify each other into service and labor for God.

That’s why discouraging someone’s service leaves a bad taste in his mouth. It doesn’t sound like God. He’s careful to acknowledge the need for Sabbath and rest, but he rejects the mindset that treats spiritual service as an optional hobby. He critiques a common rhythm people settle into: a few minutes for God, eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, then the rest for self. He calls that out of balance.

In short, expectations should lift a believer’s eyes. When they are used rightly, they don’t crush. They clarify what faithfulness looks like.

Why preterism changes what Christians expect today

After establishing expectations, Alan names the day’s main subject: preterism. They’re not discussing it as an abstract debate. Their claim is direct: what you believe about prophecy shapes what you expect from Christian living.

Alan argues that if someone believes most biblical prophecy was fulfilled around AD 70, including the judgments described in Revelation, then the present can start to feel like the settled end. That lowers urgency. It can also lower a believer’s expectation of Christ’s return, and with it the motivating power of Christian hope.

Jeff adds another layer. Timeline matters because it affects how you preach and how you apply Scripture. He gives a concrete example: if you believe you’re in the tribulation period right now, you’ll end up shaping the gospel message around endurance to the end. If you believe you’re not in that period, then the message is the straightforward call of Acts: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, the death, burial, and resurrection, and you’re saved.

They also defend dispensational thinking as a way to keep biblical time markers clear. Jeff references Paul’s language, “in times past,” “but now,” and “in the ages to come.” For them, that structure helps believers know where they are in God’s program, and keeps interpretation from turning key prophetic texts into dead history.

If prophecy is treated as “already done” when it isn’t, they argue it becomes functionally useless. People don’t read it as warning, promise, or anchor. They read it like a closed file.

Full preterism: why they call it heresy and why it drains hope

Jeff gives a clear definition of full preterism. In full preterism, all biblical prophecies are said to have been fulfilled around AD 70, tied to the war between Rome and the Jewish people, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the second temple. In that view, Matthew 24 and Revelation describe those events, and even the “soon” language is used to claim fulfillment had to happen within the apostles’ lifetimes.

They argue that full preterism crosses a line because it denies major Christian doctrines: a future return of Christ and the bodily resurrection. Jeff calls it heresy for that reason. Alan presses the implication with a stark statement: if this world is basically Revelation 21 (new heavens and new earth), then hope collapses.

Alan’s biblical objection centers on Daniel 9:24-27. He says the passage gives six reasons for the tribulation, all tied to Israel, not the church. In their view, those aims have not been completed. He lists examples in plain language: sin hasn’t ended, transgression hasn’t been fully removed, and the Messiah is not reigning physically from Jerusalem.

They also connect full preterism to a broader skepticism about the supernatural, as if God cannot or will not act in history in visible ways. Jeff describes it as pushing everything into a mystical category, where Christ reigns only “in heaven” with no future, visible intervention in the physical world.

Alan warns that bad interpretation doesn’t stay contained. If you declare passages fulfilled when they have not been fulfilled, it’s like ripping those pages out of the Bible. The text remains printed, but the authority is muted.

They also stress the covenant issue. The New Covenant does not cancel the Old Covenant. It includes it. God called His covenant with Israel an everlasting covenant. That forces a choice: either “everlasting” means everlasting, or the Bible is treated as flexible whenever it becomes inconvenient.

Alan acknowledges that history includes “likenesses” of what is to come. Human sin keeps writing similar scripts again and again, and those patterns can foreshadow final judgment. He gives a sobering example: tell Jewish families in the Holocaust they weren’t in tribulation. Evil repeats. But they insist there is still a greater, global fulfillment ahead.

Alan also cites a comparison from Zephaniah, saying the Holocaust saw one in three Jews killed, but Zephaniah speaks of a time when two out of three will be killed. In their view, that has not happened yet, and it’s one more reason they reject the claim that all judgment texts are finished.

Partial preterism and replacement theology: the policy consequences they warn about

What partial preterism claims to preserve

Jeff then shifts to partial preterism (also called orthodox preterism). In this view, most prophecies were fulfilled in the past, but Revelation 20-22 remains future. He names several well-known proponents: R.C. Sproul (whom he says he loves listening to), Gary DeMar, and Kenneth Gentry.

Their main concern is the downstream effect. Jeff says partial preterism often lands in postmillennialism or amillennialism, and it frequently leads to replacement theology.

Why they say it shows up in US foreign policy

Jeff calls one paragraph of their discussion the most important they’ll read all year because he believes it connects theology to politics in a direct line. He argues that certain forms of partial preterism are influencing political leaders and shaping public policy.

He states their concern plainly: if replacement theology is true, then the church replaces Israel in God’s promises. From there, people begin to argue that the United States no longer has any responsibility to protect Israel, aid Israel, or care about Israel’s borders. Jeff says that logic ends with throwing Israel “to the wolves,” and if a nation does that, it invites the curse of God.

Alan adds another objection tied to Revelation 19 and 20: Satan has not been bound. That fact alone, in their view, creates major tension for postmillennial and amillennial frameworks, and it pushes them toward premillennialism. They state their own position directly: Christ will return visibly, rule and reign on earth for a literal 1,000 years, then there will be a new heaven and a new earth where He reigns forever.

They also name public voices they believe muddy the waters, including Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and Candace Owens. Their concern is not just that these figures speak about Christianity, but that they may speak without sound doctrinal grounding. Alan’s point is simple: if faithful teachers don’t speak, someone else will speak for Christianity, and the result can be confusion at best, and falsehood at worst.

They also mention John Rich, who said dispensationalism has framed US foreign policy, especially regarding Israel. Alan admits the statement initially bothered him, then says he agrees it’s basically correct, at least in broad historical terms. They argue that for roughly 150 years the United States has prospered in many ways, and they connect that track record to a generally pro-Israel posture shaped by dispensational thinking.

They don’t pretend politics is optional for the church. Jeff says end-times teaching becomes political by nature because it deals with nations, rule, judgment, and the future of Israel. Alan points out that the world is already making it political, while many churches are afraid to engage.

They also touch the Johnson Amendment and the idea that pastors can’t promote candidates from the pulpit. Alan says he doesn’t see anything wrong with naming which candidates line up with the Word of God and which do not. Jeff agrees and says he has already done that, and if it means crossing a line, he has crossed it.

Alan then gives a separate example that bothered him: a Muslim member of Congress, he says, took an oath on the Quran. He adds that he will fight for the freedom for that to happen, but it should still bother Christians.

“If it was fulfilled in AD 70, why does it keep happening?” (earthquakes and recurring signs)

Alan closes by challenging a claim often made in preterist readings of Matthew 24. Jesus said there would be great earthquakes in diverse places. If those words are fully fulfilled and sealed in AD 70, why does the pattern keep repeating?

He reads a set of earthquake numbers to show the scale and frequency of what people are still seeing:

He also lists notable magnitudes he references: a 6.0 “today” at the Southeast Indian Ridge, a 6.6 in Taiwan, a 7.6 in Japan, and an 8.8 in Russia (with mention of two other places that year).

His conclusion is not that every quake is the tribulation. His point is that Revelation’s catastrophic patterns have shown up in what he calls an “infancy state” since the book was written, active in the world from the moment God’s Word was given, with a greater fulfillment still ahead. He ties that again to the premillennial framework, including the future appearance of the Antichrist.

Then he circles back to the danger they see: if you lose premillennial clarity, you drift toward replacement theology. If you drift toward replacement theology, you break the link of blessing tied to Israel. In their view, that harms the church’s doctrine and harms a nation’s future.

Covenants and salvation: why “new” doesn’t mean “cancelled”

Before they wrap, they return to a core theological claim: the New Covenant is better, but it doesn’t erase what God promised before. It includes it. God doesn’t discard what He started.

They connect this to Jesus’ words: He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Jeff makes a strong statement about salvation that’s meant to steady believers who feel the weight of failure. He argues that believers haven’t exhausted what’s included in the gift of salvation. He names terms many Christians rarely hear explained in depth, justification, sanctification, propitiation, separation, and more.

Because of what Christ has done, he says he can make this statement based on the Word of God: the law of God is fulfilled in him through Christ. He admits that anyone can look at their life and see times they violated God’s law. Yet in grace, with love covering a multitude of sins, the gift of salvation makes it as if those violations no longer define the believer’s standing.

He summarizes the result in three short lines:

• The past is settled.
• The present is secure.
• The future is glorious.

They also distinguish Israel’s national promises from the church’s mystery. Israel, they say, will be the place where Jesus Christ rules and reigns physically on earth. They contrast that with the preterist claim that Christ is already doing that from heaven in the final sense.

Conclusion: keep your hope intact, and keep your doctrine clear

Alan and Jeff end by noting they ran long and plan to continue the discussion in the next episode. Their theme stays consistent: expectations are meant to lift the church into faithful service, and end-times teaching should protect hope, not drain it.

For listeners who want to follow their work, they point to the Kingdom Prophetic Society website and the Smith and Rowland Show daily podcast feed. The challenge they leave on the table is simple: know what you believe, know why you believe it, and don’t accept interpretations that quietly remove whole sections of Scripture from your present life.

Preterism Creeping Into Churches: Part 1

Why Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland Say It Matters

Some conversations start serious. This one starts with jokes about sponsorships, missing hats, and fingerless gloves. But the laughter doesn’t last long, because Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland believe the church is facing a real problem: preterism and replacement theology are spreading, and the ripple effects aren’t staying inside church walls.

They connect theology to the way Christians think about Israel, foreign policy, and even the Great Commission. Their warning is simple: when Christians stop reading the Bible as written, they don’t just lose clarity on prophecy, they often drift into political ideas that push America away from Israel and away from global gospel mission.

A light start that turns into a serious warning

The episode opens with New Year’s Eve banter and sponsor humor, including the now-famous one-word “prophecy” for the year.

“Word.” (with the kind of timing that makes the joke land)

A couple of quick moments set the tone:

• Hats are the sponsor, but no hat is being worn.
• Fingerless gloves get a shoutout as a “parting gift from chemo.”

The friendly start matters because the topic gets weighty fast. Smith and Rowland argue that bad theology doesn’t stay contained. It spreads through churches, then into political instincts, then into national choices. In their view, that pipeline is already active.

Why Tucker Carlson’s theology kicked off the discussion

A major driver behind this episode is a recent debate the hosts referenced from the day before, an article criticizing Tucker Carlson’s theology. They summarize their earlier conclusion with a blunt claim: libertarianism embraces replacement theology. They treat that pairing as more than coincidence.

In their view, replacement theology is not a harmless interpretive preference. They describe it as widespread, underestimated, and politically dangerous, because it can create a mindset that turns against Israel over time.

They point to an exchange from a Turning Point USA setting (AmericaFest and a Phoenix gathering were both mentioned). A student reportedly said:

"I'm a Christian and I just don't understand how that the American government can support Israel when they were responsible for killing Jesus."

For Smith and Rowland, that statement isn’t just ignorance. It’s a snapshot of what happens when people absorb church teaching that reframes Israel’s role in Scripture, then mix it with political isolationism and a shallow grasp of the Bible’s storyline.

The church trend they say is growing: preterism and replacement theology

The hosts describe a trend they’ve been tracking for years: churches adopting an end-times framework they see as “against Scripture,” reshaping doctrine into replacement theology. They even mention independent Baptist churches preaching replacement theology and say, sharply, that if a church is going to redefine foundational Baptist distinctives, it should remove “Baptist” from the sign.

That line isn’t just a jab. It signals how serious they believe the moment is. Their core concern is that preterism and replacement theology don’t merely adjust timelines, they reassign meanings. And once Israel is treated as irrelevant to prophecy or covenant promise, they believe it becomes easier for Christians to justify political abandonment of Israel.

Clear definitions: libertarianism, preterism, and why the terms matter

Smith pauses the conversation to define terms for listeners. That choice is important, because these debates often collapse into labels people use differently.

What they mean by libertarianism

Rowland describes libertarianism broadly, and he admits there are some libertarian-leaning instincts he can relate to. Still, the definition he uses in this episode centers on isolationism.

In his words, it’s an ideology that claims “America first,” but means something closer to “America only.” Under that framework, the United States should avoid meaningful foreign policy involvement, including aid or alliance with Israel.

He also claims many libertarians support a two-state solution, argue that Palestinians “deserve Jerusalem,” and treat the land as having nothing sacred about it. Then he points out the contradiction he sees: if someone is “America only,” why speak so confidently about how Israel should be carved up?

Their argument is not that every person who uses the word “libertarian” holds every one of these positions. It’s that the ideology, taken to its end, pushes people to disengage from Israel and disengage from global responsibility.

What they mean by preterism

Rowland defines preterism as coming from a Latin root meaning “past,” or “already fulfilled.” In this framework, biblical prophecies about the regathering of Israel, the second coming of Christ, and end-times events are treated as already fulfilled.

They describe full preterism in stark terms. They say full preterists can claim:

• Jesus has already returned.
• There is no rapture.
• There is no future resurrection of the dead.
• We are already living in a spiritualized “new heavens and new earth.”

They also describe partial preterism, which holds that some prophecies are fulfilled and some remain future, but still tends toward postmillennial assumptions. In the version they describe, the church “ushers in” the kingdom age, then Jesus returns at the end.

Rowland summarizes the conflict plainly: preterism denies premillennialism and denies dispensational distinctives. Because of that, he argues it “has to” connect back to replacement theology.

Why they link postmillennialism, amillennialism, and replacement theology

Rowland makes a point he repeats in different ways: it’s difficult to be postmillennial, and even difficult to be amillennial in many expressions, without sliding into a replacement framework.

Then he ties it to politics. If Israel has no prophetic future and no covenant distinction, it becomes easier to say, “Let Israel fend for themselves.” In their telling, libertarian isolationism finds theological permission when the church stops treating Israel as Israel.

Political division, and why they call theology the real fuel

Smith frames modern party divisions in a way that mirrors their concern about drift.

He describes the Democratic Party as split between liberalism and progressivism, with progressivism presented as a path toward communism. He references Zohran Mamdani winning the New York mayoral race, describing him as a progressive and “self-proclaiming communist.”

Then he describes the Republican side as split between conservatism and libertarianism. Some label libertarianism “far right,” but Rowland pushes back and says anyone who denies Israel’s place slides left in effect, because it aligns with progressive hostility toward Israel.

They also mention the modern habit of throwing around the word “nationalism,” sometimes tied to Hitler, and they reference Donald Trump as still remaining a friend to Israel “so far.”

Their larger claim is this: political ideology doesn’t form in a vacuum. They argue libertarianism is being fed by theological systems that remove Israel from the center of prophecy and treat Scripture’s future promises as already completed.

The article that shaped the episode: “Preterism is Creeping into America’s Churches”

The hosts shift to an article they read on the show: “Preterism is Creeping into America’s Churches,” from Prophecy Newswatch, written by Dan Price (identified as being from Harbingers Daily).

Rowland quips that preterism hasn’t just “crept,” it’s already made a mess.

They read the opening lines, which describe longing for Christ’s return, grief over cultural decay, and the heart’s cry: “Come back, Jesus.” Then comes the hook: some people believe Jesus already returned.

From there, the article frames the disagreement as a matter of hermeneutics, how you interpret the Bible. The author states that a literal, historical-grammatical approach (even in prophecy) leads naturally to a futurist reading.

Rowland agrees, and adds a sobering observation: the real fight underneath their entire discussion is one question, “Do you believe the Bible as written?” He says many people, if honest, would answer no.

Why they defend literal interpretation, and how they explain dispensationalism

Smith takes a moment to explain dispensationalism in plain terms, using an everyday analogy.

You don’t start math class with trigonometry. You start with 1 + 1 = 2. Truth builds on truth. Learning has an order. He calls that “dispensational” in the simple sense of progressive unfolding.

Then he applies it to Scripture: God dispensed truth over time. It’s progressive revelation. And if you “annihilate” the Old Testament, you have no basis for the New Testament.

Rowland ties this to prophecy and to how God teaches spiritual realities through visible realities. He echoes the idea that God made “things you can see” to help you understand “things you can’t see,” referencing the kind of argument found in Romans 1.

In their view, Israel is one of those visible anchors. When replacement theology “does away” with Israel as a people with a future, it doesn’t just change a doctrine. It removes a God-given teaching tool that points to spiritual realities.

They acknowledge symbolism exists in Scripture. Still, they insist the baseline is literal meaning first, with allegory grounded in something real. In Smith’s line: you can’t build literal truth out of pure allegory. You need literal truth as the base.

The prophecy example they stress: Israel’s regathering wasn’t Babylon

Rowland calls it “foolish” to claim the regathering prophecies were fulfilled by the return from Babylonian captivity. He points out the Old Testament repeatedly speaks of Israel being regathered from “all countries,” not from one empire.

He then makes a historical point: the only time Israel was scattered into all countries was after AD 70. That begins the long dispersion that lasted nearly 2,000 years.

From there, he points to modern regathering as evidence that these prophecies are not merely ancient history. He mentions that, in the same week as the episode, Israel’s foreign minister issued a call to Jews worldwide to return, summarizing it as: “Come home.” (Rowland noted he could not recall the foreign minister’s name.)

He also references Ezekiel 36 as a “preamble” to the vision of the Valley of Dry Bones. His point is straightforward: the text itself pushes readers toward a future, physical fulfillment, not only a spiritualized one.

Replacement theology, anti-Semitism, and the danger of picking only the blessings

Smith raises one of his sharpest objections to replacement theology with a simple challenge. If the church wants to take Israel’s promises, it must also take Israel’s judgments.

You can’t take only the blessings.

He says it with humor, but the critique is direct: if someone wants to “play like” they’re Israel to claim Israel’s blessings, they should also accept Israel’s curses. Then he adds another warning: if you’re going to pick a nation to imitate, Israel is not the one you want, because Israel’s covenant blessings and judgments are conditional.

In contrast, he says the church lives under grace and mercy. He doesn’t want Israel’s “day of wrath,” and he sees it as spiritually reckless to claim Israel’s identity while ignoring the cost Israel has carried in Scripture and history.

They also connect this to anti-Semitism. Smith describes anti-Semitism as a personal judgment against Israel, and he argues it clashes with the purposes of God. God will judge Israel, he says, and God is “picky” about others keeping their hands off.

A blunt question they won’t ignore: can someone hold these views and be saved?

Smith asks a question out loud that many hosts would avoid: how can someone be a libertarian, believe replacement theology, and still be saved?

Rowland treats it as a legitimate question, not a final verdict on individuals. He says these systems often run on human intellectualism and human reasoning more than submission to God’s authority. In his view, replacement theology and libertarian isolationism often reach their conclusions by treating Scripture like a flexible, mystical text that requires an “expert” to redefine it.

He says he doesn’t know how someone can say the Bible is the Word of God and also hold to replacement theology. He puts preterism in the same category, because it dismisses large portions of prophecy by calling them already finished.

Nick Fuentes, Catholicism, and the appeal of ceremony without submission

The conversation shifts to public figures and religious identity.

They mention Nick Fuentes as strongly anti-Semitic, claiming a Christian identity, and tying himself to Catholicism and apostolic succession. Rowland says this looks more ceremonial than relational, a label used as cover for politics.

Smith then comments on why young people may be drawn to Catholicism right now. He cites a Fox News report that framed one of the defining moments of 2025 as the new pope and an increase of young people flocking to the Catholic Church. Smith’s theory is that tradition can feel like security. Do these steps, follow these rules, and you’ll be okay.

Rowland frames that as a works-based comfort, and contrasts it with salvation by grace through faith.

They also address how public profanity, especially using God’s name in vain, confuses the Christian witness. Smith mentions hearing Megyn Kelly do it and wishes she wouldn’t. He says it doesn’t decide salvation, but it does create confusion, especially when someone uses constant profanity and then turns around and claims Christianity.

Their critique circles back: ceremony without holiness, confession without repentance, and sacramental systems treated like a license to sin can dull the conscience. In their view, it echoes the mindset behind replacement theology and preterist readings, because both can reduce Scripture’s warnings and flatten the need for personal submission to Christ.

Why they say preterism “cuts out” huge parts of the Bible

Rowland calls preterism the easiest way to remove large sections of Scripture without physically ripping pages out.

Just say, “It already happened,” and the text stops pressing on the present and the future.

Smith and Rowland describe it as stealthy. Rowland summarizes the effect with a wide sweep: from Genesis 12 to Acts 2, the storyline of Israel, covenant, and promise gets sidelined. And at the extreme end, full preterism denies the resurrection, the return of Christ, and the future hope that anchors Christian perseverance.

That’s why they treat it as more than a niche debate among prophecy teachers. They believe it reshapes everything.

America, Israel, and the Great Commission under “America only” thinking

Near the end, Rowland states what he believes America’s founding purposes were:

1. To preach the gospel.
2. To be a friend and ally to Israel.

He calls the nation’s birth “supernatural” in that sense. And he says both purposes are now under attack from replacement and preterist frameworks that teach Israel no longer matters.

Smith adds a final connection: libertarian “America only” thinking clashes with the one basic mission Jesus gave the church, the Great Commission. Jesus sent His followers into “all the world,” beginning in Jerusalem, then outward.

In their framing, a political ideology that rejects foreign concern can quietly become a theological rebellion against Christ’s command to take the gospel beyond national borders.

They close by saying this topic is not going away soon. The church needs endurance to keep speaking clearly about it, without getting worn out and distracted.

For more from the show, they point listeners to the Kingdom Prophetic Society website and the Smith and Rowland Show Daily Unplugged podcast page.

Conclusion: why this debate lands in everyday Christian life

Smith and Rowland’s message is consistent: preterism and replacement theology don’t stay academic, they shape how Christians read the Bible, view Israel, and think about national responsibility. They argue that when prophecy is pushed into the past, believers lose urgency, clarity, and a plain reading of Scripture. And when Israel is replaced, it becomes easier to justify hostility or indifference toward the Jewish people. Their challenge is simple and hard to ignore: believe the Bible as written, and let it set the terms for doctrine, not politics.

The Clash of Two Worlds: Spiritual Reality, the Heavenlies, and Warfare (Ephesians 1-6)

by: Jeff Rowland

Storm clouds were hanging around, and the gathering still happened. There were a few laughs, a little teasing about guitars, and that familiar small-group honesty you only get when people show up as they are. No stage, no steeple, just believers meeting in a garage and asking God for something real.

The heart of the message was simple and weighty: two worlds collide every day. One is what you see and feel, the other is what God says is already true in Christ. If you’ve felt tired, stuck, or like you can’t climb out of what’s pressing on you, this teaching puts words to that struggle. It also points to where strength comes from, and why worship, prayer, and the Word aren’t extras.

Gathering in the garage, with big prayers on the table

The night carried a clear sense of purpose. This wasn’t presented as a meeting built around personal comfort. It was framed as training for intercession, prayer that reaches beyond self and takes hold of what others need.

That focus showed up in the prayer “objects” the group has been returning to over time:

• Reclaiming prodigals, calling sons and daughters home.
• Asking the Holy Spirit to fill emptiness and inner voids.
• Seeking the presence of God, not just routine.
• Praying for family reconciliation.
• Responding to God’s call with obedience.
• Receiving a hunger for the Word of God.
• Praying for a nation to return to the Lord.

The reminder was blunt and needed: “This is not about you. This is about others.” Intercession shifts the center of gravity. It pulls the heart away from self-protection and into responsibility and love.

And even in a small gathering, the aim wasn’t small. Scripture gives a picture of a handful of people turning the world upside down. If 12 men could shake cities, then a small group can pray for a community, and keep going until that community changes.

There was also a brief mention of David White and The Father’s House, a ministry connected with work in Africa, with a note that an address was shared for anyone who wanted to sow into that work. The point wasn’t fundraising pressure, it was honor for gospel fruit, including a statement that more than half a million souls have been won to Christ through that ministry.

The war of two realities, and why it feels so personal

The teaching opened with a simple picture: a dot representing where you live every day. This dot is the physical reality, and it’s real. Bills, pain, conflict, medical reports, temptations, memories, fatigue, all of it lands here.

The physical reality: “flesh government” and the rule of the senses

The physical world comes with what was called “flesh government,” meaning life led by the senses. What you see, hear, taste, touch, and feel can begin to govern how you think, what you choose, and how you respond.

That matters because the senses don’t stop at information. They stir emotion. What you see can flood you with fear, anger, jealousy, or despair. What you hear can trigger shame, defensiveness, or hopelessness. Physical reality can press so hard that it feels like the only thing that exists.

The warning was direct: the senses will attack your soul. In this framework, the soul includes mind, will, and emotions. The body lives in the physical world, the soul processes and reacts, and the spirit is made alive in Christ. When the senses run the show, the soul gets hit first. Thought patterns warp, desires shift, reactions intensify, and behavior follows.

There was a nod to the language used in Jude and James about being “sensual,” meaning a life directed by the senses instead of the Spirit. That kind of living doesn’t require open rebellion, it can happen quietly, day after day, until a believer feels trapped in what they can see and feel.

The spiritual reality: the “heavenlies,” and the upward pull of the Holy Spirit

Above that dot was another line, another reality, described in Ephesians as the heavenlies. The call to “walk in the Spirit” isn’t poetic language. It’s a real shift in where life is lived from.

The message acknowledged something many believers feel but rarely say out loud: you can know you should have passion for Christ and still feel like you don’t have the energy to get there. Age, suffering, disappointment, and constant battles can drain a person. The speaker shared from his own life, mentioning being “beat up,” going through wars, and even cancer. The desire may be present, but the strength to rise can feel absent.

So where does the lift come from? Not willpower. Not intellect. The teaching pinned that “upward trajectory” on the power of the Holy Spirit. Worship can become part of that lift. Not because music is magic, but because Spirit-anointed worship can wake the heart. It can turn attention upward, unlock hunger, and bring a believer into a deeper awareness of God.

A key contrast was repeated: in the physical reality there is intellect, but in the spiritual reality there is mystery. Paul spoke of revelation that didn’t come through learning alone, but through a Spirit encounter. The visible world is real, but the invisible world is also real. Moses endured, Hebrews says, “as seeing him who is invisible.” The point landed hard: if you only walk by what you can see, you’ll end up face down in a ditch again and again.

Ephesians shows what’s already true in Christ, right now

One of the most challenging claims in the message is that, according to Scripture, believers are not merely trying to reach the heavenlies someday. In Christ, they are already connected to that reality. The problem is that the soul, thoughts, emotions, behavior, often lives as if that isn’t true.

Ephesians was used to map what exists “up there,” and why it matters “down here.”

Ephesians 1:3, blessings that aren’t stored in the physical world

The first anchor text was Ephesians 1:3: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.”

That verse was treated like a location statement. The “where” matters. The teaching called it the geographical spot where all blessings flow, meaning the full supply of spiritual blessing is found in the heavenlies, in Christ.

That helps explain why many believers feel like blessing is always out of reach. If someone is stuck living only in the physical reality, then even true promises can feel distant. The supply is real, but the person is trying to draw it from the wrong place.

There was also a paraphrased sense given to the verse: God is worthy of praise, and He is continuously speaking His language over His people in heavenly places. That theme leads into what follows in Ephesians 1, where Paul lists what God says about believers.

Ephesians 1:19-20 and 2:5-6, power and position in the heavenlies

Next came Ephesians 1:19-20, describing the “exceeding greatness” of God’s power toward those who believe, the same power shown when God raised Christ from the dead and seated Him at His right hand “in the heavenly places.” The message tied that directly to resurrection power. It’s not only a doctrine to agree with, it’s strength God gives.

Then Ephesians 2:5-6 tightened the focus: even when we were dead in sins, God made us alive together with Christ, “and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.”

Two words stood out: together and union.

Union with Christ means the believer’s position isn’t earned through effort. It’s granted in Christ. And union with other believers means this isn’t a solo climb. The message didn’t soften that point. It said plainly that we need each other, whether we like that fact or not. God didn’t hold a committee meeting to ask if we prefer independence. He called us into a body.

This also connected to Romans 7 and 8. Romans 7 pictures a person trapped, “the good that I would I do not,” and “O wretched man that I am.” Romans 8 turns the corner: “There is therefore now no condemnation.” The teaching highlighted a pattern: when Paul moves into the Spirit’s power, condemnation loses its grip, and intercession becomes possible in ways that are beyond words.

Ephesians 3:9-10 and 6:12, wisdom and warfare in high places

Ephesians doesn’t stop with blessing and power. It also names conflict.

In Ephesians 3:9-10, Paul speaks of “the fellowship of the mystery” that had been hidden in God, then says that through the church the manifold wisdom of God is made known to principalities and powers in the heavenly places. That means the heavenlies are not only where blessing is enjoyed, they are where wisdom is displayed.

And then comes the familiar line in Ephesians 6:12: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers… rulers of the darkness of this world… spiritual wickedness in high places.”

The message brought those threads together. The same letter that opens with blessing in the heavenlies ends with warfare against spiritual evil connected to “high places.” Two worlds collide, and believers are equipped to stand in that collision.

Word, prayer, and worship are tools that move you upward

A big part of the night was practical. If believers are meant to live from spiritual reality, what helps them get there?

The teaching described an upward pathway, and named several tools God uses on that path. The list wasn’t meant to be complete, but it was meant to be clear.

• The Word of God is a tool that stabilizes the mind and feeds the spirit. Without it, a person stays low, dragging across every pothole in life and absorbing every hit. The Word lifts the gaze and corrects what the senses try to convince you is final.
• Prayer is more than a habit, it’s engagement. It’s how believers ask, seek, knock, and intercede for things bigger than themselves. It’s also how a weary heart finds strength that doesn’t come from human effort.
• Worship was emphasized in a stronger way. Worship is not treated as a mood or a personality preference. The message said plainly, “It ain’t up to you how to do it.” God gives commands about worship: shout, speak, lift holy hands, clap. The pushback against “I’m quiet” or “I’m shy” wasn’t meant to shame anyone, it was meant to expose how quickly comfort can replace obedience.

A hymn lyric was used to show this isn’t new teaching. The line remembered was “All is vain unless the Spirit of the Holy One comes down.” In other words, the gathering can have correct words, correct structure, and still lack power if the Spirit is not welcomed and honored.

The warning that followed was sharp: when worship becomes optional, people lose the energy to rise. Then they create a theology that says all the good things of God are only for the future. The message called that foolish, not because heaven isn’t real, but because Ephesians places blessing and power in present union with Christ.

The warfare equation: perception, behavior, and what you value

To bring it home, the teaching introduced a simple equation, described as something you’d hear in basic psychology, yet rooted in Scripture’s view of human life:

Perception + action/behavior + a predetermined target of value = wellness

Perception is a “vision of thought,” how you see reality and interpret what happens. Action and behavior are the steps you take because of that perception. The target of value is what you aim at, what you call “worth it.”

The point was not that psychology replaces Scripture. The point was that many ideas about health and change echo what God already designed, but they fall short without the Holy Spirit’s power. For a believer, the true target of value is Christ-likeness. The path there includes the Word, prayer, and worship. Without the Spirit’s power, the climb stalls.

Obstructions also exist on that path. Ephesians 6 doesn’t call them stress, habits, or personality traits. It calls them principalities, powers, rulers of darkness, and spiritual wickedness. That’s why the message insisted that everything God provides in the heavenlies equips believers for warfare.

A striking claim followed: it’s possible to be walking in spiritual reality and five minutes later be pulled back into the physical reality. It’s also possible to be wrapped up in the senses and then be lifted quickly through one encounter with a holy God. Many Christians recognize that tension. You can live in two realities in the same day, sometimes in the same hour.

The consequences of refusing warfare were stated plainly. Without it, prodigals don’t come home. Families fracture. The felt presence of God fades from gatherings. The flesh fills the void, and over time it reshapes what people value until self becomes the highest value.

A call for seasoned warriors, shared burden, and a shift in season

The message didn’t stay theoretical. It became personal, naming people in the room and honoring what they’ve carried.

Timothy was mentioned as someone seen preaching in a church in Venezuela in 2016, faithfully serving even when others might not see the cost. Blake, 28 years old, was described as a young man who has taken heavy hits in life, and is preparing to go to Uganda to see the work connected to David White. Others were named as “beat up” by life but still standing: Bill, Carl, Bob, and Frank. The repeated theme wasn’t pity. It was respect. These were called seasoned veterans in God’s army.

The need was clear: no one carries this burden alone. The gathering was called to help in simple ways that matter, praying before meetings, worshiping with intention, and taking intercession seriously. There was a strong line that stuck: there’s nothing in this physical reality worth losing one more second of union with God.

Near the end came a sense of timing. The message claimed a shift of seasons, a call of the Holy Spirit to reclaim what God poured out in earlier years, renewed worship, renewed filling, renewed love and joy replacing bitterness and resentment, peace replacing chaos. That kind of change doesn’t come from hype. It comes when intercessors rise and do real warfare.

The commitment was framed in simple terms: meet on Fridays, keep praying, and draw near to God, trusting His promise to draw near to His people. Not a performance, not a show, but a people hungry for the heavenlies to be more real than the garage around them.

Conclusion: don’t settle for the lower world

Two worlds are pressing on you every day, the one you can measure with your senses, and the one God declares true in Christ. Ephesians doesn’t treat the heavenlies as a distant concept, it treats them as the place where blessing, power, union, and wisdom are found, and where believers are equipped to stand against real spiritual opposition. Word, prayer, and worship aren’t decorations on Christian life, they’re tools that lift the heart into what’s already true. The call is simple: rise, don’t carry it alone, and don’t stop short of the reality God is offering.

Thinking as the Gateway to Knowing God’s Will 

by Alan Smith

The service opened in prayer, asking Jesus to bless those watching by live stream, to send the Holy Spirit, and to give revelation to both speaker and listener. The request was direct: let this time be for your kingdom, not wasted, but fruitful in spiritual and physical ways.

From there, the message moved into a topic that can feel edgy because it cuts against the culture: thinking. Not random thoughts, not borrowed opinions, not whatever happens to float through the mind, but intentional, biblical thinking that leads believers into the will of God. The Bible speaks to this more than many people realize, and the stakes are high because the world around us pushes the opposite message: don’t think, don’t challenge, don’t offend, just fit in.

Why “taking a think” matters more than most people admit

Most people assume they’re thinking all day. It feels automatic. Thoughts come, opinions form, reactions happen, and we call that “thinking.” But a lot of what passes for thinking is just repetition. It’s tradition, a headline, a friend’s take, a favorite podcast, or the loudest voice in the room.

The message pressed a hard point: many “thoughts” aren’t really ours. They are borrowed, copied, or inherited. That matters because Christianity is not meant to be secondhand. It’s a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and that relationship requires a mind that’s awake, honest, and trained.

A short list helps expose how this happens:

• Some ideas come straight from someone else’s certainty.
• Some come from traditions we never questioned.
• Some come from a culture that says, “Don’t think, just be happy.”

To make the point memorable, the message told a Gomer Pyle story. Sergeant Carter tells Gomer to go think. Gomer asks how, and Carter says to “put a bucket on your head and go think.” Later, Gomer sits with a five-gallon bucket on his head and says, “It’s amazing how clear it is with this bucket on my head.”

That funny picture lands because it’s true. Many believers need to “take a think,” meaning they need focused, intentional reflection, guided by God’s Word, not a stream of untested assumptions.

What biblical “thinking” means (and why random thoughts don’t count)

The message drew a line between random thought and biblical thinking. Random thought is what happens when the mind runs without direction. Biblical thinking is an intentional mental action. It weighs, assesses, sets direction, and chooses an aim.

A key claim was also made plainly: believers can control how they think. Many people live as if the mind is on “random,” and whatever shows up is just normal. Scripture calls Christians to something else: bringing thoughts under the control of the spirit-led life.

That changes how a person reads verses about the mind. In the Bible, “think” often points to purposeful mental work, not mental drift. It’s tied to assessment, mindset, and moral direction. In plain terms, thoughts are not meant to be untamed. They are meant to be examined, trained, and brought into obedience to Christ.

This is where the message started pushing against modern comfort. A lot of society, and even a lot of church culture, tries to remove challenge. Don’t confront. Don’t press. Don’t risk discomfort. But a Christian who never challenges their own thinking will struggle to walk closely with Jesus, because Jesus challenges thinking at the root.

Renewing your mind is how you recognize the will of God

The message framed the main idea in a single line: thinking is a gateway to knowing the will of God. That is not mystical. It’s grounded in Scripture.

Romans 12:1-2 was used as the central text, with special focus on verse 2:

“Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”

The logic is clear. If the mind is conformed to the world, the life follows the world. If the mind is renewed, the person is transformed. That renewal leads to discernment, the ability to “prove” (recognize and test) what God’s will is.

The message didn’t treat renewing the mind as positive thinking. It treated it as making the mind new with God’s thoughts and God’s Word. When believers fill the mind with what God says is true, the mind becomes a place where God’s will can be recognized and followed.

This also explains why so many people feel confused about God’s will. Confusion often comes from mixed inputs: a little Scripture, a lot of culture, a lot of emotion, and a lot of untested assumptions. The message called that out sharply with an image: Christians can’t live on “98 percent world thinking and 2 percent kingdom thinking” and expect clarity about God’s will.

What the Bible’s language shows about true thinking

A large part of the message walked through several New Testament uses of “think,” pointing out that biblical thinking is active, intentional, and morally shaped.

Thinking that weighs what is godly (Philippians 4:8)

Philippians 4:8 gives a clear target for the mind:

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things.”

The message explained that the biblical sense includes the idea of meditating and weighing. “Weighing” matters because choices often come down to what carries more weight in a moment. The mind is not meant to camp on what is ugly, suspicious, or corrupt. It’s meant to settle on what is true and worthy of praise.

Thinking as a set direction and lifestyle (Colossians 3:2)

Colossians 3:2 says:

“Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.”

This was treated as more than a suggestion. It was described like road signage: if you want to arrive at a certain place, you follow the signs. Setting the mind is a direction choice. It becomes a lifestyle, not a moment.

Thinking that can be wrong (Matthew 5:17)

Jesus said:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”

This shows that “thinking” can be mistaken, and Jesus corrects it. He challenges assumptions. He does not leave false conclusions untouched.

Thinking that turns evil inside the heart (Matthew 9:4)

Matthew 9:4 says:

“But Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Why do you think evil in your hearts?”

This part confronted a common excuse: “It’s just a thought.” Jesus treats thoughts as moral territory. Repeated inner reflections shape the heart, and evil thoughts are not harmless because they are internal.

Thinking like Christ includes humility and unity (Philippians 2:5)

Philippians 2:5 says:

“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.”

This was presented as a command, not an option. A mind shaped by Christ tends to express humility and unity, not pride and division. It also challenges people, because the mind of Christ does not flatter the flesh.

Kingdom thinking will offend, and that’s not always a problem

The message made a statement that many people avoid: to think like the kingdom of God, you must risk being offensive.

The point was not “be rude.” The point was that truth has edges. When truth is clear, it scrapes against pride, false beliefs, and fragile identities. That scrape can feel like offense.

2 Corinthians 10:5 was used to show how serious Scripture is about the thought life:

“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.”

The message highlighted “imaginations” as imagined crises, conflicts built from talk, assumptions, and inner stories that are not rooted in reality. Families and churches can spiral into drama where, when it’s all boiled down, no real harm occurred, but a flood of words and feelings created a crisis.

Those imaginations become “high things,” and the text says they rise against the knowledge of God. The remedy is not to protect feelings at all costs. The remedy is to capture thoughts and bring them under Christ’s rule.

That leads into the harder claim: kingdom thinking is offensive to worldly thinking. The gospel itself confronts darkness, and that confrontation does not feel safe.

Godly offense is not rudeness, it’s clarity with the right tone

The message took time to separate truth that offends from cheap offense that harms. It gave a personal example involving Trevor Craig. He told the preacher, “Sometimes you keep things alive that God wants to die.” That sentence stung. It offended in the sense that it exposed something.

But the message emphasized why it worked: the tone was caring. It was not a put-down. It was not humiliation. It was truth delivered without cruelty. The offense did not come from nastiness. It came from clarity.

A key line followed: if “no one gets upset” becomes your main rule, you will stop saying what needs to be said. You will edit truth before you finish the thought. Over time, you stop thinking and start performing.

That performance can look polite, but it won’t set anyone free.

The message also called out a cultural pattern: people often label a statement “offensive” as a shortcut to shut down a topic. If they can label it, they feel they’ve proven it should not be said. Christians need to see that tactic clearly, because it can be used to block God’s truth, not to protect real dignity.

Thinking is a contact sport because truth collides with lies

“Thinking is a contact sport” was the phrase used to describe real conversation between people who are actually reasoning. It’s not violent. It’s not cruel. It’s real.

Clear ideas have edges. Those edges rub against beliefs, pride, and long-held assumptions. That friction can feel uncomfortable, but it’s often the price of getting to what’s true.

The message gave several examples to show how clarity works:

• A clear word is often short.
• A clear word is often direct.
• A clear word forces a choice.

Billy Graham was used as a public example of this kind of clarity. His gospel call was not presented as rude, but it was plain: without repentance and faith, a person is lost. People responded because they could understand what was being said. Clarity makes people decide.

The message also warned against vague “safe opinions.” Safe opinions keep the mood comfortable. They may keep social peace, but they don’t always reflect truth. When people live to protect the mood, they slowly train themselves to avoid conclusions.

Opinions are easy to borrow, biblical thinking must be owned

Another section separated thinking from opinion.

Opinions can be copied. They can be inherited from a group. They can be repeated online. A person may feel confident repeating them, but that does not mean they have done real thinking. Many opinions stay shallow, and many never reach a conclusion. They become a loop, like a cul-de-sac you keep circling.

Biblical thinking is different. It means you can explain your view in your own words. It means you can defend it with Scripture, not “vibes.” It means you can handle questions without falling apart.

The message gave a caution about loyalty overriding truth, using a media example involving Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Megyn Kelly. The point was not to build a political argument. The point was the moral principle: “She’s wrong, but she’s my friend” is not a Christian standard when truth is at stake. Loyalty cannot outrank truth if a person wants to carry God’s will.

Truth should be strong enough to survive questions. If a person’s “truth” collapses under honest challenge, it may not be truth at all. Safe thinking stays vague and avoids details. Kingdom thinking moves toward clear details, even when it feels awkward.

Offense is not proof, it’s a signal that something got touched

Late in the message, an important balance was added: offense is not a reliable sign of truth or falsehood. A true statement can offend. A false statement can offend. Offense alone proves nothing.

Jesus’ warning about the last days was quoted from Matthew 24:

“And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. Many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.”

The point was not “never offend.” The point was to understand what offense does and does not mean. Offense usually tells you that something touched a nerve. The job of thinking is to ask what that nerve is connected to. It may connect to fear, group identity, pride, or an assumption that hasn’t been examined in years.

That kind of self-examination is not weakness. It’s part of renewing the mind.

Two kinds of offense, and only one belongs in Christian speech

The message ended with a clear contrast between cheap offense and truthful clarity. One kind is off limits for believers. The other is often required.

This tied back to the earlier warning: truth may offend, but Christians should not use offense as a tool to harm. Believers can control intent, content, and tone. They cannot control every reaction.

A practical gut check was offered: ask whether you’re trying to clarify the idea, or trying to win by humiliation. If it’s the second, that’s not thinking, it’s posturing. If it’s the first, you may still offend people, but you can stand behind what you said.

Another simple practice was given: say the clearest version of your point in one sentence. If you can’t, you may not understand it yet.

Choose clarity over comfort, and continue in Jesus’ Word

The message ended where it started, with a call back to Scripture and a warning about the spirit of the age. Wokeness and political correctness can look harmless, but they can also function as pressure to silence truth. When believers refuse to risk discomfort, their thoughts become safe, vague, and borrowed.

The goal is not provocation. The goal is clarity, spoken plainly, with a clean tone, and a willingness to let truth do its work. One question sums it up: are you protecting the truth or protecting the mood?

Jesus’ words from John 8:31-32 were left as the final anchor: if you continue in His word, you are His disciples, you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. The mission of the church is not to manage the mood. It’s to bring people into the kingdom of God through truth that sets captives free.

by Alan Smith

A snowy morning kept many people from making it to New Life Church, so the service came to everyone online instead. The welcome was simple and warm, with a light moment about preaching to a single in-person listener, Dr. Craig (Trevor), who “can almost walk here.”

The service opened in prayer, asking Jesus to bless those watching by live stream, to send the Holy Spirit, and to give revelation to both speaker and listener. The request was direct: let this time be for your kingdom, not wasted, but fruitful in spiritual and physical ways.

From there, the message moved into a topic that can feel edgy because it cuts against the culture: thinking. Not random thoughts, not borrowed opinions, not whatever happens to float through the mind, but intentional, biblical thinking that leads believers into the will of God. The Bible speaks to this more than many people realize, and the stakes are high because the world around us pushes the opposite message: don’t think, don’t challenge, don’t offend, just fit in.

Why “taking a think” matters more than most people admit

Most people assume they’re thinking all day. It feels automatic. Thoughts come, opinions form, reactions happen, and we call that “thinking.” But a lot of what passes for thinking is just repetition. It’s tradition, a headline, a friend’s take, a favorite podcast, or the loudest voice in the room.

The message pressed a hard point: many “thoughts” aren’t really ours. They are borrowed, copied, or inherited. That matters because Christianity is not meant to be secondhand. It’s a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and that relationship requires a mind that’s awake, honest, and trained.

A short list helps expose how this happens:

• Some ideas come straight from someone else’s certainty.
• Some come from traditions we never questioned.
• Some come from a culture that says, “Don’t think, just be happy.”

To make the point memorable, the message told a Gomer Pyle story. Sergeant Carter tells Gomer to go think. Gomer asks how, and Carter says to “put a bucket on your head and go think.” Later, Gomer sits with a five-gallon bucket on his head and says, “It’s amazing how clear it is with this bucket on my head.”

That funny picture lands because it’s true. Many believers need to “take a think,” meaning they need focused, intentional reflection, guided by God’s Word, not a stream of untested assumptions.

What biblical “thinking” means (and why random thoughts don’t count)

The message drew a line between random thought and biblical thinking. Random thought is what happens when the mind runs without direction. Biblical thinking is an intentional mental action. It weighs, assesses, sets direction, and chooses an aim.

A key claim was also made plainly: believers can control how they think. Many people live as if the mind is on “random,” and whatever shows up is just normal. Scripture calls Christians to something else: bringing thoughts under the control of the spirit-led life.

That changes how a person reads verses about the mind. In the Bible, “think” often points to purposeful mental work, not mental drift. It’s tied to assessment, mindset, and moral direction. In plain terms, thoughts are not meant to be untamed. They are meant to be examined, trained, and brought into obedience to Christ.

This is where the message started pushing against modern comfort. A lot of society, and even a lot of church culture, tries to remove challenge. Don’t confront. Don’t press. Don’t risk discomfort. But a Christian who never challenges their own thinking will struggle to walk closely with Jesus, because Jesus challenges thinking at the root.

Renewing your mind is how you recognize the will of God

The message framed the main idea in a single line: thinking is a gateway to knowing the will of God. That is not mystical. It’s grounded in Scripture.

Romans 12:1-2 was used as the central text, with special focus on verse 2:

“Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”

The logic is clear. If the mind is conformed to the world, the life follows the world. If the mind is renewed, the person is transformed. That renewal leads to discernment, the ability to “prove” (recognize and test) what God’s will is.

The message didn’t treat renewing the mind as positive thinking. It treated it as making the mind new with God’s thoughts and God’s Word. When believers fill the mind with what God says is true, the mind becomes a place where God’s will can be recognized and followed.

This also explains why so many people feel confused about God’s will. Confusion often comes from mixed inputs: a little Scripture, a lot of culture, a lot of emotion, and a lot of untested assumptions. The message called that out sharply with an image: Christians can’t live on “98 percent world thinking and 2 percent kingdom thinking” and expect clarity about God’s will.

What the Bible’s language shows about true thinking

A large part of the message walked through several New Testament uses of “think,” pointing out that biblical thinking is active, intentional, and morally shaped.

Thinking that weighs what is godly (Philippians 4:8)

Philippians 4:8 gives a clear target for the mind:

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things.”

The message explained that the biblical sense includes the idea of meditating and weighing. “Weighing” matters because choices often come down to what carries more weight in a moment. The mind is not meant to camp on what is ugly, suspicious, or corrupt. It’s meant to settle on what is true and worthy of praise.

Thinking as a set direction and lifestyle (Colossians 3:2)

Colossians 3:2 says:

“Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.”

This was treated as more than a suggestion. It was described like road signage: if you want to arrive at a certain place, you follow the signs. Setting the mind is a direction choice. It becomes a lifestyle, not a moment.

Thinking that can be wrong (Matthew 5:17)

Jesus said:

“Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”

This shows that “thinking” can be mistaken, and Jesus corrects it. He challenges assumptions. He does not leave false conclusions untouched.

Thinking that turns evil inside the heart (Matthew 9:4)

Matthew 9:4 says:

“But Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Why do you think evil in your hearts?”

This part confronted a common excuse: “It’s just a thought.” Jesus treats thoughts as moral territory. Repeated inner reflections shape the heart, and evil thoughts are not harmless because they are internal.

Thinking like Christ includes humility and unity (Philippians 2:5)

Philippians 2:5 says:

“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.”

This was presented as a command, not an option. A mind shaped by Christ tends to express humility and unity, not pride and division. It also challenges people, because the mind of Christ does not flatter the flesh.

Kingdom thinking will offend, and that’s not always a problem

The message made a statement that many people avoid: to think like the kingdom of God, you must risk being offensive.

The point was not “be rude.” The point was that truth has edges. When truth is clear, it scrapes against pride, false beliefs, and fragile identities. That scrape can feel like offense.

2 Corinthians 10:5 was used to show how serious Scripture is about the thought life:

“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.”

The message highlighted “imaginations” as imagined crises, conflicts built from talk, assumptions, and inner stories that are not rooted in reality. Families and churches can spiral into drama where, when it’s all boiled down, no real harm occurred, but a flood of words and feelings created a crisis.

Those imaginations become “high things,” and the text says they rise against the knowledge of God. The remedy is not to protect feelings at all costs. The remedy is to capture thoughts and bring them under Christ’s rule.

That leads into the harder claim: kingdom thinking is offensive to worldly thinking. The gospel itself confronts darkness, and that confrontation does not feel safe.

Godly offense is not rudeness, it’s clarity with the right tone

The message took time to separate truth that offends from cheap offense that harms. It gave a personal example involving Trevor Craig. He told the preacher, “Sometimes you keep things alive that God wants to die.” That sentence stung. It offended in the sense that it exposed something.

But the message emphasized why it worked: the tone was caring. It was not a put-down. It was not humiliation. It was truth delivered without cruelty. The offense did not come from nastiness. It came from clarity.

A key line followed: if “no one gets upset” becomes your main rule, you will stop saying what needs to be said. You will edit truth before you finish the thought. Over time, you stop thinking and start performing.

That performance can look polite, but it won’t set anyone free.

The message also called out a cultural pattern: people often label a statement “offensive” as a shortcut to shut down a topic. If they can label it, they feel they’ve proven it should not be said. Christians need to see that tactic clearly, because it can be used to block God’s truth, not to protect real dignity.

Thinking is a contact sport because truth collides with lies

“Thinking is a contact sport” was the phrase used to describe real conversation between people who are actually reasoning. It’s not violent. It’s not cruel. It’s real.

Clear ideas have edges. Those edges rub against beliefs, pride, and long-held assumptions. That friction can feel uncomfortable, but it’s often the price of getting to what’s true.

The message gave several examples to show how clarity works:

• A clear word is often short.
• A clear word is often direct.
• A clear word forces a choice.

Billy Graham was used as a public example of this kind of clarity. His gospel call was not presented as rude, but it was plain: without repentance and faith, a person is lost. People responded because they could understand what was being said. Clarity makes people decide.

The message also warned against vague “safe opinions.” Safe opinions keep the mood comfortable. They may keep social peace, but they don’t always reflect truth. When people live to protect the mood, they slowly train themselves to avoid conclusions.

Opinions are easy to borrow, biblical thinking must be owned

Another section separated thinking from opinion.

Opinions can be copied. They can be inherited from a group. They can be repeated online. A person may feel confident repeating them, but that does not mean they have done real thinking. Many opinions stay shallow, and many never reach a conclusion. They become a loop, like a cul-de-sac you keep circling.

Biblical thinking is different. It means you can explain your view in your own words. It means you can defend it with Scripture, not “vibes.” It means you can handle questions without falling apart.

The message gave a caution about loyalty overriding truth, using a media example involving Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Megyn Kelly. The point was not to build a political argument. The point was the moral principle: “She’s wrong, but she’s my friend” is not a Christian standard when truth is at stake. Loyalty cannot outrank truth if a person wants to carry God’s will.

Truth should be strong enough to survive questions. If a person’s “truth” collapses under honest challenge, it may not be truth at all. Safe thinking stays vague and avoids details. Kingdom thinking moves toward clear details, even when it feels awkward.

Offense is not proof, it’s a signal that something got touched

Late in the message, an important balance was added: offense is not a reliable sign of truth or falsehood. A true statement can offend. A false statement can offend. Offense alone proves nothing.

Jesus’ warning about the last days was quoted from Matthew 24:

“And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. Many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.”

The point was not “never offend.” The point was to understand what offense does and does not mean. Offense usually tells you that something touched a nerve. The job of thinking is to ask what that nerve is connected to. It may connect to fear, group identity, pride, or an assumption that hasn’t been examined in years.

That kind of self-examination is not weakness. It’s part of renewing the mind.

Two kinds of offense, and only one belongs in Christian speech

The message ended with a clear contrast between cheap offense and truthful clarity. One kind is off limits for believers. The other is often required.

This tied back to the earlier warning: truth may offend, but Christians should not use offense as a tool to harm. Believers can control intent, content, and tone. They cannot control every reaction.

A practical gut check was offered: ask whether you’re trying to clarify the idea, or trying to win by humiliation. If it’s the second, that’s not thinking, it’s posturing. If it’s the first, you may still offend people, but you can stand behind what you said.

Another simple practice was given: say the clearest version of your point in one sentence. If you can’t, you may not understand it yet.

Choose clarity over comfort, and continue in Jesus’ Word

The message ended where it started, with a call back to Scripture and a warning about the spirit of the age. Wokeness and political correctness can look harmless, but they can also function as pressure to silence truth. When believers refuse to risk discomfort, their thoughts become safe, vague, and borrowed.

The goal is not provocation. The goal is clarity, spoken plainly, with a clean tone, and a willingness to let truth do its work. One question sums it up: are you protecting the truth or protecting the mood?

Jesus’ words from John 8:31-32 were left as the final anchor: if you continue in His word, you are His disciples, you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. The mission of the church is not to manage the mood. It’s to bring people into the kingdom of God through truth that sets captives free.

The Clash of Two Worlds: Ephesians, Romans 8, and the War of Two Realities

by Jeff Rowland

Christians live with a constant pull between what we can see and what we can’t. One world is physical, measurable, and loud. The other is spiritual, often quiet, and easy to ignore until conflict forces it into view. Scripture does not treat that unseen world as symbolic. It treats it as real.

This teaching connects Romans 8 with the book of Ephesians to show how the Holy Spirit shapes your walk, your mindset, and your ability to stand in spiritual warfare. Romans 8 opens with a strong conclusion, “no condemnation,” and Ephesians explains the spiritual position behind that reality, including what happens in “the heavenly places.”

The setting for this study was a Wednesday night series at the Grace Place, with follow-up teaching planned for Friday night meetings. The goal is simple: hear what God says, believe what God says, and learn to live from that place.

Why Romans 8 and Ephesians belong together

Romans 8 and Ephesians read like companion texts. Romans 8 puts the Holy Spirit front and center in a way that the earlier chapters don’t. The Holy Spirit is mentioned about 19 times in Romans 8, while the chapters leading up to it mention Him only a few times. That shift matters because Romans 8 is not only about doctrine, it’s about lived reality.

Romans 8 begins with a verdict:

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1)

“No condemnation” is not only a comforting thought. It is a spiritual position. It changes how a believer relates to God, to self, and to accusation. It also touches the emotions, because condemnation often shows up as heaviness, fear, shame, or endless self-correction. Romans 8 starts by shutting the door on that voice and turning the believer toward the Spirit-led life.

Ephesians then brings language to what that position means. If Romans 8 declares life in the Spirit, Ephesians explains where that life is seated and how it functions in spiritual conflict. Ephesians is not just a book about “warfare.” It is also about the equipping of the saints, the reality of other spiritual beings around us, and the place believers occupy in Christ.

That combination matters because a believer can accept the idea of “no condemnation” and still live as if accusation has the final word. Ephesians answers that problem by showing what God has spoken over those who are in Christ, and where that speech is anchored.

The heavenly places, the battleground Ephesians keeps naming

Ephesians repeats a phrase that acts like a map legend: heavenly places (sometimes translated “the heavenlies”). This is not poetic filler. It’s a repeated marker that tells you where key realities are taking place. Ephesians describes a constant clash between two realities, the physical and the spiritual, and it refuses to treat the spiritual as less real.

Five anchor passages that frame the theme

Ephesians 1:3, blessings are located “in Christ”

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” (Ephesians 1:3)

This is where Ephesians begins: God has already blessed His people, and the location of those blessings is “in Christ,” in heavenly places.

Ephesians 1:20, Christ is seated there

“Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 1:20)

Christ’s authority is not theoretical. He is raised and seated in that realm.

Ephesians 2:6, believers are seated there too

“And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Ephesians 2:6)

This verse forces a decision. Either believers accept Scripture’s claim of shared seating with Christ, or they keep living as if only earth-level pressure is real.

Ephesians 3:10, the church speaks to powers

“To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God.” (Ephesians 3:10)

The church is not only taught in private, it is also observed. God intends His wisdom to be made known through the church to principalities and powers.

Ephesians 6:12, the conflict isn’t with people

“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.” (Ephesians 6:12)

Ephesians names the real opponents. People may be involved, but people are not the enemy. The war is spiritual, and it touches real life.

This framework changes how a believer interprets struggle. Some battles are not solved by stronger willpower or better circumstances. Ephesians points the reader to the heavenly places, because the conflict and the supply are both described there.

For a related study on the church of Ephesus and the call to spiritual discernment, see Ephesus’s message in Revelation 2:2 and its relevance today.

Ephesians 1:3 and the “language” God speaks over believers

Ephesians 1 does more than list doctrines. It portrays God as speaking. The focus is not self-talk, it’s God’s talk. The teaching emphasized that Ephesians 1:3 uses “blessed” language in a way that highlights speech and praise.

Three uses of “blessed” in one verse

Ephesians 1:3 uses the idea of blessing three times. The point is not repetition for style, it’s emphasis for understanding.

1. “Blessed be the God…” This “blessed” carries the sense of “praiseworthy” or “adorable,” a word connected to a speech-root (the idea behind a eulogy). It points toward worship expressed through words.

2. “Who hath blessed us…” This form is connected to speaking well of someone. The emphasis is that God is not silent about His people.

3. “With all spiritual blessings…” The teaching tied this to the idea of “fine speaking” or “elegant speech.” In other words, the blessings are not just items on a list, they are part of what God has spoken and is speaking.

This is why Ephesians 1 has been praised for its language and structure, even by readers who are not committed to Christian faith. Yet for the believer, its beauty is not only literary. It is personal. Ephesians 1 shows what God is saying about those who are “in Christ.”

This also explains why spiritual position matters. A person must be “in Christ” to receive what is spoken “in Christ.” And walking in the Spirit tunes the believer’s heart to hear and agree with what God has already declared. When that agreement becomes steady, the believer starts to speak the same “language,” aligning confession with Scripture instead of accusation.

The spoken blessings God declares “in Christ”

Ephesians 1 does not flatter believers. It declares what God has done and what He calls true. These are not self-help labels. They are spoken blessings grounded in Christ’s work, and they shape how a believer stands in spiritual conflict.

Ephesians 1 names a cluster of realities. The teaching summarized them as: chosen, holy, without blame, predestinated, adopted, accepted, redeemed, and forgiven. Each one pushes back against condemnation in a specific way.

Chosen, God breaks His silence with a call

“Chosen” carries the idea of God’s selection being made known. The teaching tied this to the idea that God has broken silence about His choice, and that His choice is expressed through His speech and call.

Related passages were referenced to support this theme of divine choice and calling: Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Romans 9:23-24, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, and 1 Peter 2:9. The aim was not argument for its own sake, but clarity. God has spoken about His people, and that speech matters in the heavenly places.

When a believer hears “I chose you,” it confronts rejection at the root. It also challenges the idea that faith is built on human initiative alone. God speaks first.

Holy and without blame, seen as clean in God’s sight

Ephesians says believers are holy and without blame before Him in love. “Holy” was explained as sacred, clean, pure, and set apart. “Without blame” was linked to being faultless, without spot or blemish.

Two references were given to reinforce the idea that believers are seen through God’s prior intention: 2 Timothy 1:9 and Colossians 3:12. The teaching stressed a striking point: believers are now seen as they were in the heart of the Father before they were created. That does not erase growth or maturity, but it does locate identity in God’s purpose, not in past failure.

This perspective also connects to hope. The reason there will be a future glorified “us” is tied to God’s eternal view. God is not trapped in time. What He starts, He finishes.

Additional supporting passages were noted for this blameless calling: Ephesians 5:27 and Philippians 2:15.

Predestinated, a declared destiny that ends in glorification

“Predestinated” was explained as God’s decree set beforehand. The teaching insisted that foreknowledge comes first, because Romans 8:29-30 lays out an order:

foreknew, predestined, called, justified, glorified

And Romans 8 also states what predestination is aimed at: being conformed to the image of God’s Son. The end point is not confusion or fatalism, it is Christlikeness completed in glorification.

Ephesians 1:11 was referenced as a supporting text for this theme of purpose and decree. Predestination, in this framing, is not a weapon for debate. It is an anchor for endurance. God’s plan is moving toward a finished end.

Adopted, moving from minority to maturity

The teaching made a careful distinction: believers are born again into the family of God, and then adoption describes something additional. Adoption was explained through a Jewish cultural picture: a ceremony that moved a child from minority status into recognized adulthood. It was described as removing the code of minority and placing the code of majority.

That meaning shifts adoption away from insecurity. It points toward spiritual maturity, responsibility, and full standing. Romans 8:15 and John 1:12 were referenced in connection with this new family reality and the Spirit’s witness.

Adoption, in this sense, speaks to believers who feel spiritually stuck as “less than.” God is not only saving, He is bringing His people into mature standing.

Accepted, made graceful and favored

“Accepted” was defined as being made graceful, agreeable, and favored. It was also described as being honored with blessings. The teaching connected this acceptance to the Father’s attitude toward the Son, and by extension, to those who are in the Son.

Several supporting references were named: Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, John 3:35, John 10:17, and Colossians 1:13. The point was simple: acceptance is not earned by performance. It is received in the Beloved.

This speaks directly against the drivenness many people carry, always trying to prove worth. God’s language says, “You are accepted.”

Redeemed and forgiven, the blood-paid freedom from sin

Redemption and forgiveness were treated as the means by which these blessings are applied. Redemption was defined as a paid ransom, a paid price for deliverance. The teaching connected this deliverance to bondage, separation from God, and the cost required to bring a sinner home.

Supporting references included Exodus 6:6, Matthew 20:28, Hebrews 9:15, and 1 Peter 1:18-19, pointing to redemption through Christ’s blood.

Forgiveness was tied to the blood as well, with references including Matthew 26:28, Acts 20:28, Romans 3:25, Romans 5:9, Revelation 5:9, Titus 2:14, and Colossians 1:14. The teaching stressed that the New Testament connects the blood with expiation of guilt, ransom, and covenant. That message may be unpopular in some circles, but it remains biblical.

Redemption and forgiveness shut down condemnation at the legal level. Accusation loses its claim when the ransom is paid.

Why hearing God’s language equips you for spiritual warfare

Ephesians is not only explaining identity. It is preparing the believer for conflict in the heavenly places. If the war is real, then the believer’s strength cannot be based on mood or circumstance. It has to be based on what God has spoken.

When a believer stays tuned to condemnation, warfare becomes exhausting. The fight turns inward, and the enemy’s accusations start to sound like the believer’s own thoughts. Ephesians answers that by filling the mind with God’s declared truth: chosen, holy, blameless, predestinated, adopted, accepted, redeemed, forgiven.

This is also where Romans 8 and Ephesians lock together again. Walking “after the Spirit” is not vague. It is a Spirit-led agreement with the Father’s words, and a refusal to live as though the flesh and the visible world are the highest authority.

Spiritual warfare is not fought against people. Ephesians 6:12 names the arena and the opponents. That means the believer must fight from a place of spiritual blessing, not to earn blessing. The war does not create identity. Identity equips the believer to stand through the war.

Conclusion

The clash of two worlds is not imaginary, it’s part of daily Christian life. Romans 8 announces “no condemnation” for those who walk after the Spirit, and Ephesians explains the heavenly position and the spoken blessings that make that walk possible. When God’s language becomes the loudest voice in your life, accusation loses ground. Stand where you’ve been seated, and keep your heart anchored in all spiritual blessings in Christ.

Libertarian Ideology & It's Convergence with Replacement Theology - Ep. 824 

by: Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland

Many Christians care about politics because politics touches real life, taxes, schools, war, justice, and the limits of state power. At the same time, Christians also care about theology because it shapes how we read Scripture and how we understand God’s promises. Problems start when we mix the two without noticing the seams.

This post explains libertarian ideology, explains replacement theology, then shows a few places where they can overlap in spirit, even when people don’t mean for them to. The goal is clarity, not labeling people, and not treating a political view as a faith test.

What libertarian ideology is and what it assumes about power

Libertarian ideology is a political philosophy that puts individual liberty at the center. It tends to view government power as a necessary evil at best, and as harmful by default. Many libertarians want a very small state, some want no state at all, and most want strong limits on what leaders can do with police power, taxes, and regulation.

A simple way to understand the libertarian instinct is this: if a person hasn’t harmed anyone, the government shouldn’t force them. That instinct shows up in debates about speech, guns, business rules, health mandates, surveillance, foreign wars, and taxation.

Common libertarian themes include:

• Individual liberty as the highest political good, even above shared goals.
• Limited government, with strict boundaries on law enforcement and state agencies.
• Free markets, because voluntary exchange is seen as more moral than coercion.
• Suspicion of centralized power, since concentrated power tends to expand.

This doesn’t mean all libertarians agree on everything. Some are religious, some aren’t. Some care more about economic freedom, others care more about civil liberties. But the shared thread is a deep concern about coercion, and a desire to keep force tightly restrained.

Core principles libertarians return to (and how they reason)

A key idea in libertarian thought is the non-aggression principle, often shortened to NAP. It teaches that people should not start force against others. Force is only justified in defense.

That principle shapes how many libertarians think:

1. Identify coercion (laws, penalties, fines, threats of prison).
2. Ask if there’s direct harm (fraud, theft, assault, invasion).
3. Reject force without harm (because “victimless” coercion is seen as unjust).
4. Prefer voluntary solutions (contracts, private action, charity, local association).

Libertarians often describe taxation as coercive because it is backed by punishment if you refuse to pay. They also tend to see many regulations the same way, especially when rules protect large institutions and crush smaller ones.

Christians who hold libertarian views often do so from a moral impulse. They see human sin, they distrust unchecked rulers, and they want to protect neighbors from state abuse. Those concerns are not imaginary. Scripture warns about rulers who devour, exploit, and punish the innocent.

Why libertarian ideas can feel compelling right now

Libertarian ideas often appeal when people feel trapped by systems that don’t listen. When government grows, rules multiply, and agencies seem unaccountable, calls for restraint feel reasonable. Add recent years of cultural anger, economic stress, and a constant sense of “emergency,” and it’s easy to see why many people want hard limits on state power.

There’s also a personal side. Libertarian thinking speaks to the desire to own your decisions, protect your family, and live without being managed. It can feel like a defense of human dignity against faceless control.

For Christians, the attraction can be stronger when political leaders act like saviors. When the state claims the job of God, promises a kind of heaven on earth, and then demands obedience, Christians should push back. A healthy view of the state sees it as limited, temporary, and accountable to God.

Still, every political philosophy has a blind spot. Libertarianism can minimize the role of shared duties, corporate sin, and the ways communities shape people for good or harm. That matters when we turn to theology.

Replacement theology explained in plain terms

Replacement theology is a way of reading the Bible that says the Church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. In this view, the promises made to Israel in the Old Testament now belong to the Church in such a way that ethnic, national Israel no longer has a distinct future in God’s covenant purposes.

People also use the term “supersessionism,” meaning one thing has “superseded” another. Some versions are soft and careful, others are blunt. The core claim is about continuity and fulfillment: the Church is understood as the true people of God, and Israel’s role is seen as completed or absorbed.

Many who hold some form of replacement theology still affirm God’s faithfulness. They argue that God kept His promises in Christ, and that the people united to Christ inherit the blessings promised long ago.

The debate usually turns on questions like these:

• How should Christians read Old Testament land promises?
• Do prophecies about Israel have a future, national fulfillment?
• What does Paul mean when he speaks about Israel and the Gentiles in Romans?
• Is the Church best described as spiritual Israel, or as a distinct people joined to Israel’s Messiah?

These aren’t small questions. They affect how Christians understand covenant, prophecy, and God’s character.

The main claims people mean when they say “replacement theology”

Replacement theology is not one uniform system, but it often includes a few common claims:

• Fulfillment in Christ: Promises are seen as fulfilled through Jesus and applied to His people.
• The Church as the covenant people: The Church is viewed as the main focus of God’s redemptive plan.
• No distinct future for national Israel: Prophecies about Israel are often read as already fulfilled or as symbols of the Church.

Christians who disagree with replacement theology often point to passages that seem to preserve a future for Israel as Israel, not only as individual Jewish believers joining the Church.

Romans 11 is central in this conversation. Readers land in different places, but Paul’s language about Israel, branches, and God’s ongoing purposes forces careful thought. If you want to read it directly, a helpful starting point is Romans 11:1-2 and Romans 11:25-29 (for example: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011%3A25-29&version=ESV).

Common misunderstandings that can cloud the discussion

This topic gets heated fast, partly because people confuse categories. A few misunderstandings show up often.

First, some assume that any strong view of the Church automatically means hatred of Jews. That’s false. A person can be wrong about prophecy and still love the Jewish people, oppose anti-Semitism, and honor Israel’s role in biblical history.

Second, some think the only alternative to replacement theology is to place modern political Israel at the center of Christian faith. That’s also a mistake. Christians can affirm a future for ethnic Israel in God’s plan without turning any modern state into a holy object.

Third, people sometimes treat prophetic timelines like a loyalty test. Scripture calls Christians to unity in Christ, not uniformity on every eschatology chart.

Clarity helps here: replacement theology is about how God’s covenant promises relate to Israel and the Church. It is not supposed to be a permission slip for arrogance.

Where libertarian ideas can overlap with replacement theology

At first glance, libertarian political thought and replacement theology seem like unrelated subjects. One is about government power, the other is about biblical covenant. But they can converge at the level of instincts and habits of mind.

Libertarianism trains people to distrust corporate identities and centralized authority. Replacement theology, in many forms, treats national Israel as no longer having a distinct covenant role. In both cases, the focus can shift away from a people-group with a shared story, toward a universal body defined by belief and membership.

Here’s a simple comparison of how the themes can rhyme:

This doesn’t mean libertarians are replacement theologians, or that replacement theologians are libertarians. It means the emotional logic can feel similar, especially when someone already dislikes the idea of a “chosen nation” having a special role.

Shared pressure points: authority, promise, and “who counts”

Libertarian thinking is quick to ask, “Who gave you the right to rule?” That can be healthy when it restrains tyranny. But it can also create a reflex: any claim of special status feels unfair.

In theology, that reflex can show up when people read the Old Testament and recoil at Israel’s chosen status. If “equality” becomes the highest good, election looks offensive. Yet in Scripture, election is not injustice. God chooses to bless the nations through a chosen line, culminating in Christ.

Replacement theology can sometimes appeal to that same desire for symmetry. If all promises are flattened into one category, the awkward question of Israel’s future disappears. The story feels simpler. The Church is the people of God, full stop.

Christians should be careful here. Scripture often contains both unity and distinction at the same time. The gospel breaks down the wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:14-16, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202%3A14-16&version=ESV), and Paul still speaks about Israel and the Gentiles with distinct terms in Romans.

Examples of convergence that Christians should notice

One convergence shows up in how “law” is discussed. Libertarianism can treat law mainly as force, and therefore mainly as threat. Some replacement theology frameworks can treat Old Testament law and Israel’s national life as mostly negative, something to move past as fast as possible.

Another convergence shows up in how people talk about land and nation. Libertarianism often dislikes national claims that sound exceptional. Replacement theology often reads land promises as spiritualized in the Church. Put those together, and it becomes easy to dismiss the entire Israel question as political noise, even when the Bible itself keeps bringing it up.

A third convergence is tone. Libertarian subcultures can drift into contempt for “the masses” or for anyone who accepts authority. Replacement theology debates can drift into contempt for Jewish distinctiveness or for Christians who take Israel’s future seriously. Different topics, same temptation: pride.

The answer is not to swing into the opposite extreme. The answer is to let Scripture set the categories.

Dangers Christians face when politics and theology start to fuse

When a political ideology becomes a lens for reading the Bible, the Bible stops correcting us. We start correcting the Bible. That is the real danger, whether the ideology is libertarian, progressive, nationalist, or anything else.

One risk is turning God’s kingdom into a political program. Libertarian Christians may speak as if freedom is the highest good, then read Scripture as if redemption is mainly release from human authority. But the Bible’s center is bigger: forgiveness of sins, new hearts, and reconciliation to God through Christ.

Another risk is moral thinning. If coercion becomes the main evil, then other sins can feel secondary. Scripture treats many things as deadly that are not “force,” including sexual sin, greed, slander, bitterness, and idolatry.

A third risk is losing the texture of the Bible’s story. The Bible is full of covenants, peoples, genealogies, land, exile, return, kings, and temple. Those are not props. They carry meaning. If a person reads all of that as a mere shadow with no continuing significance, they may end up with a faith that floats above history.

Biblical checks that keep both topics in bounds

Scripture gives guardrails that help Christians avoid extremes.

Romans 13:1-4 teaches that governing authorities exist by God’s permission, and they bear the sword to punish wrongdoing (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013%3A1-4&version=ESV). That doesn’t excuse tyranny, but it does challenge the idea that all state power is illegitimate.

At the same time, Acts 5:29 shows the limit: “We must obey God rather than men” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205%3A29&version=ESV). The state is not God.

For the Israel and Church question, Romans 11 should slow everyone down, especially Romans 11:18-20, where Gentile believers are warned against arrogance (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011%3A18-20&version=ESV). Whatever your view of prophecy, that warning applies.

The Bible also holds together unity and distinction. Galatians 3:28 teaches equal standing in Christ (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203%3A28&version=ESV). That does not automatically answer every question about covenant history, but it does shut the door on pride.

Practical ways to think clearly without fear or slogans

Christians don’t need panic, and they don’t need propaganda. They need careful habits.

A few simple practices help:

• Separate categories: Don’t treat a political view as a doctrine of salvation.
• Read whole passages: Stay in Romans 9 to 11 long enough to hear Paul’s full argument.
• Watch for emotional shortcuts: If “chosen people” makes you angry, ask why.
• Reject arrogance fast: Pride ruins both politics and theology.
• Keep the gospel central: Jesus is Lord, and every other loyalty is limited.

It also helps to ask honest questions in community. Are you reading Scripture to be shaped, or to find ammo? Are your political instincts steering your theology, or is Scripture correcting your politics?

Final thoughts: keep liberty in its place, and keep God’s promises intact

Liberty is a real good, but it isn’t the highest good. God’s glory is. And God’s Word, not a political theory, sets the boundaries for how Christians talk about authority, nation, and promise.

If you’re sorting through libertarian ideas and replacement theology, hold tight to humility. Read widely, read Scripture more, and refuse the urge to score points. The Church should be the place where truth and love stay together, even in hard debates.

 The Third Side - What In The World Was I Thinking?

by: Alan Smith

Most conflicts feel like a tug-of-war. One person pulls, the other pulls back, and everyone around them feels pressured to choose a team. That pressure is real in families, churches, friendships, and even comment sections.

But there’s another option, one that doesn’t deny truth or ignore harm. It’s the third side, the place where a believer steps back from the fight for control and steps under God’s rule. In plain words, Third side is God’s side. It’s the commitment to respond the way Jesus teaches, even when emotions run hot and people demand quick loyalty.

This post explains what “the third side” means for Christians, why it matters, and how to practice it without becoming passive or fake-peaceful.

What “the third side” means for Christians

Moving past “my side” and “your side”

When two people clash, the story usually gets framed in pairs: right or wrong, victim or villain, wise or foolish. Those categories can feel satisfying because they simplify things. They also shrink our view.

The third side is a different stance. It’s not “neutral” in the sense of not caring. It’s not silence, and it’s not pretending sin is no big deal. The third side is choosing to stand where God stands, to care about what God cares about, and to aim for what God commands.

That starts by admitting a hard truth: most conflicts are not just about facts. They are also about fear, pride, history, pain, and the need to be seen. If you rush to pick a side, you often pick up someone else’s anger and carry it like it’s your own.

A helpful picture is a courtroom versus a hospital. Many people enter conflict like a lawyer, trying to win a case. The third side walks in more like a wise doctor who still names what’s broken, but wants healing more than applause. God’s heart is not impressed by who can argue best. God looks for truth joined with love, repentance joined with mercy, and justice that doesn’t turn into revenge.

Choosing the third side means you refuse to be recruited into someone else’s war. You belong to Christ, so you don’t belong to the pressure campaign.

“Third side is God’s side” and what that really asks of you

Saying “Third side is God’s side” can sound simple until you try it. God’s side often costs you something.

It costs pride, because you may need to admit you misunderstood someone. It costs the comfort of quick alliances, because you might disappoint people who want you to echo their outrage. It can cost status, because peacemakers aren’t always celebrated in tense communities.

God’s side also asks you to hold two things at once: conviction and compassion. Many people only do one. They either protect the truth but crush people, or they protect people but water down the truth.

Jesus doesn’t do that split. He is “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). That doesn’t mean He softens reality. It means He brings reality with the aim of redemption. If you’re living on the third side, your goal is not to prove you’re right. Your goal is to honor God, seek what’s true, and pursue peace as far as it depends on you.

A simple personal test helps: When you speak into conflict, are you trying to build a person, or are you trying to win a moment?

Seeing conflict through God’s eyes

What Scripture shows about taking sides

The Bible doesn’t teach believers to be conflict-avoidant. It teaches believers to be God-centered. That difference matters.

Proverbs warns about hearing one story and assuming you understand the whole matter (Proverbs 18:17). James warns about quick speech and slow listening (James 1:19). Jesus warns about judging in a way that ignores your own sin (Matthew 7:1-5). Those passages don’t eliminate accountability. They confront the habits that make conflict worse.

God’s side is also shaped by the fact that every person involved bears God’s image. That doesn’t excuse sin, but it changes how you speak. You can’t treat a person like a monster when God calls them a neighbor.

Scripture also makes room for wise boundaries. Peace is not the same as closeness. Romans 12:18 says, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” That verse assumes peace is not always possible, especially when someone refuses repentance, continues harm, or manipulates others. God’s side does not require you to enable a pattern that destroys people.

So God’s view is wider than the fight. He sees motives, words, and wounds, and He cares about what conflict is doing to hearts. He cares about the truth, and He cares about the way truth is carried.

Holding humility, truth, and mercy together

Most relationship damage comes from imbalance.

Some people swing a hammer of “truth” to punish. Others hand out “mercy” that never leads to change. God’s side holds humility, truth, and mercy together, and that combination is rare.

Humility says, “I might be missing something.” Truth says, “Some things are wrong, even if everyone claps for them.” Mercy says, “Even when you’re wrong, I won’t treat you as disposable.”

In practice, this means you learn to ask better questions and make fewer accusations. It means you distinguish between what you know and what you assume. It means you slow down before you label someone’s intent. Many conflicts stay hot because people argue about motives they can’t prove.

God’s side also means remembering the cross. The cross is where God deals with sin without pretending it isn’t deadly. It’s also where God offers forgiveness without calling evil good. When Christians forget the cross, they either become harsh or vague. When Christians remember the cross, they can confront sin with tears, not with glee.

A church that lives on the third side becomes a safer place to tell the truth, because mercy is real and accountability is clear.

How to stand on God’s side without avoiding hard issues

Listening that honors people

Listening is not agreement. Listening is love.

When someone feels threatened, they often speak in extremes. If you respond to the extremes, you miss the pain underneath. Third-side listening tries to hear both content and concern: what happened, and what it meant to the person.

This kind of listening takes restraint. You don’t interrupt to correct every detail. You don’t rush to “fix it” in the first minute. You don’t treat the person like a problem to solve. You treat them like a soul to shepherd.

A practical approach is to reflect back what you heard before you respond. “What I’m hearing is that you felt dismissed when that happened.” That doesn’t declare the other person guilty. It shows you’re present.

Listening also includes listening to God. Prayer before a hard conversation changes the tone. It reminds you that your words are spoken in God’s presence. It reminds you that the Holy Spirit can convict in ways you can’t force.

If you want to know whether you’re listening well, watch what happens in the other person. Do they soften because they feel understood, or do they escalate because they feel managed? You can’t control their reaction, but you can make sure your posture is honest.

Standing on God’s side starts with honoring the people God made, even when you strongly disagree with them.

Speaking truth without scoring points

Truth is not a weapon, and it’s not a performance. Truth is a gift that should fit the moment.

Third-side speech avoids two traps: cowardice and cruelty. Cowardice hides behind “I don’t want drama,” when the real issue is fear of man. Cruelty hides behind “I’m just being honest,” when the real issue is pride.

Speaking on God’s side means your words match God’s goals. You aim for repentance, repair, and wisdom. You don’t aim for humiliation.

One way to keep your words clean is to focus on observable actions and clear outcomes, not sweeping labels. “When you said that in the meeting, it shut the conversation down,” is different from, “You always control everything.” The first invites a real response. The second invites a fight.

It also helps to be direct about what you want. If you want an apology, say so. If you want a boundary, name it. If you want clarity, ask for it. Vague spiritual language can become a fog that hides hard truths. God’s side is not foggy.

There are times when you must confront serious sin or abuse. In those moments, God’s side includes protection, wise counsel, and proper reporting when needed. Peace never means hiding harm.

The third side is strong enough to tell the truth, and calm enough not to enjoy the impact.

Everyday ways to live as a third-side peacemaker

In marriage and family

Family conflict can feel nonstop because you can’t escape each other. That’s also why family conflict can become a place of real growth.

Living on the third side at home often starts small. You slow down your tone. You stop bringing up old failures as ammo. You choose the right time for hard topics, not the worst time. You admit sin quickly, without excuses.

It also means you stop treating winning as the goal. If you “win” an argument but crush trust, you lost something bigger.

A third-side habit that changes families is confession that is specific. Not, “I’m sorry if you felt hurt,” but, “I was wrong to speak to you that way, will you forgive me?” That kind of honesty builds safety.

For parents, God’s side means discipline with purpose. You correct to train, not to vent. You stay steady. You don’t make your kids carry your adult stress. In tense homes, children often become the “third side” by trying to keep peace. Adults should carry that weight, not kids.

Family peace grows when everyone knows God is not another “side” in the argument. God is the Lord over the home, and His ways shape how people speak, forgive, and rebuild.

In church disagreements and online debates

Church conflict can cut deep because it mixes relationships with convictions. People may argue about worship style, leadership decisions, doctrine, or personal offense. The third side doesn’t pretend those things are small. It refuses to let them become church-splitting idols.

On God’s side, you resist gossip. You go to the person, not around them. You check facts before you repeat a story. You honor leaders while still asking honest questions. You also honor members who feel unheard, instead of brushing them off as “problem people.”

Online, the pressure to pick a side is even stronger. The crowd rewards heat, not wisdom. God’s side looks strange on the internet because it doesn’t feed the fire. It refuses sarcasm as a spiritual gift. It doesn’t share half-stories to score points.

Sometimes the most faithful third-side choice is to stop posting and start praying. Sometimes it’s to have a private conversation instead of a public correction. Sometimes it’s to say, “I don’t know enough to speak on that.”

If your witness matters, your tone matters. People learn what you believe by how you treat those who disagree with you.

Conclusion

Conflict will keep trying to force you into “my side” or “your side,” but Christians don’t have to live there. Third side is God’s side, and that stance changes how you listen, how you speak, and what you aim for. God’s side holds truth and mercy together, without fear and without pride. Choose one relationship this week where you will seek peace on purpose, with honesty and humility.

The Attempt of Reformed Theology to Replace Dispensationalism - Ep. 823

by: Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland

Some Christian debates don’t stay on the shelf. They come back because they shape how people read the Bible, teach Sunday school, preach sermons, and talk about the future. The question behind Reformed theology vs dispensationalism is simple to state but hard to settle: does Scripture present one unified covenant story that finds its center in Christ and the church, or does it also preserve a distinct future for national Israel that cannot be folded into the church?

That question affects how you read the Old Testament, how you handle prophecy, and what you expect from passages about the land, the kingdom, and the end times. It also explains why some people describe certain Reformed approaches as an “attempt to replace dispensationalism,” while others insist they are just being consistent with how the New Testament uses the Old.

What follows is a clear guide to the real issues underneath the labels.

Why this disagreement matters more than most people think

The dispensationalism vs Reformed theology discussion isn’t only about charts, timelines, or a few controversial verses. At its core, it is a disagreement about how the whole Bible fits together.

Both sides claim to be taking Scripture seriously. Both sides confess central Christian doctrines, like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace, and the authority of Scripture. The dispute shows up when readers ask how God’s promises unfold across history.

Dispensationalists tend to stress that God administers his plan across different eras, and that some biblical promises are tied to specific people groups, especially ethnic Israel. Reformed theology tends to stress the unity of God’s redemptive plan, and it often reads the Bible through covenants that show continuity from Genesis to Revelation.

That difference influences a lot:

How you read Old Testament promises (especially land, nationhood, temple, and kingship).

How you interpret prophetic language (literal, symbolic, typological, or a mix).

How you understand the church’s identity (a new people, the continuation of Israel, or a related but distinct body).

How you frame the future (millennial views, Israel’s future, and how Revelation fits with Old Testament prophets).

If you’ve ever heard someone say, “This view makes God break his promises,” that’s the emotional heat behind the debate. Each side fears the other side’s method will flatten Scripture and force texts to say what they don’t say.

Dispensationalism in plain terms: distinction, promises, and a future for Israel

Dispensationalism is best understood as a framework for reading the Bible that emphasizes distinctions in God’s dealings across time, while still affirming one way of salvation: by grace through faith. Many dispensationalists also emphasize a consistent approach to interpretation, often described as reading prophetic texts in their normal grammatical sense unless there’s a clear reason to treat language as symbolic.

A defining mark is the distinction between Israel and the church. In this approach, Israel refers to the physical descendants of Jacob in their national identity, while the church refers to the body of Christ formed beginning in the New Testament era. The two are connected in God’s plan, but they are not collapsed into one entity.

That distinction shows up most sharply in how dispensationalists read unconditional-sounding Old Testament promises, such as promises connected to:

A specific land and borders.

A restored national life.

A Davidic king and kingdom language.

Temple imagery, sacrifices, and priestly service in certain prophetic passages.

Because those promises are expressed in national and geographic terms, dispensationalists argue that fulfillment must include national and geographic realities. They often say that spiritualizing those promises turns them into something else, which raises a trust issue: if God promised a specific thing, does redefining it undermine the plain meaning?

Dispensationalists also commonly link this to end-times expectations, including a future period of tribulation and a future kingdom reign of Christ, though dispensationalists do not all agree on every detail.

Reformed theology in plain terms: covenant unity and Christ-centered fulfillment

Reformed theology is a broad tradition, not a single end-times chart. Still, it often shares a covenantal way of reading Scripture. In this approach, the Bible tells one unfolding story of redemption, and covenants function like structural beams holding the story together.

A typical Reformed emphasis is that God’s promises find their “yes” in Christ, and that the New Testament provides authoritative guidance for how Old Testament promises should be understood. This leads to a strong focus on fulfillment themes, such as:

Christ as the true Seed of Abraham.

Christ as the true Son of David.

Christ as the true temple (and, by union with him, God’s people as his dwelling).

A worldwide inheritance rather than a narrow geographic one.

In many Reformed readings, the church does not “replace” Israel in a crude sense. Instead, the church is understood as the continuation and expansion of God’s people, now including Jew and Gentile together through faith in Christ. This is often described as one people of God across history, with differences in administration before and after Christ’s coming.

That’s why Reformed theology tends to be comfortable with typology: real Old Testament institutions (land, temple, priesthood, sacrifices) that pointed forward to greater realities fulfilled in Christ. Once the greater reality arrives, the earlier shadow doesn’t keep the same role.

This approach often produces non-dispensational end-times views (such as amillennialism or postmillennialism), though some covenant theologians are premillennial as well. The main point is method: how the New Testament shapes the meaning of earlier promises.

What “replacement” usually means, and why the word causes so much confusion

The word “replacement” can mean several different things, and that’s a major reason the debate gets stuck. Some people use “replacement theology” as a catch-all label for any view that doesn’t keep Israel and the church distinct in the dispensational sense. Others reserve it for a harsher claim: that God rejected Israel completely and permanently, and the church took Israel’s place.

Those are not the same claim.

It helps to separate three ideas that often get blended:

1) Punitive replacement This is the idea that God is done with Israel as a people because of unbelief, and that Israel has no future role in God’s plan. Many Christians reject this because it can sound like God’s promises failed, and it can feed ugly attitudes.

2) Covenant continuity This is the idea that God has one covenant people across history, and that membership is defined by faith, with Christ at the center. In that view, the church isn’t a hostile takeover, it is the gathered people of God, including Jewish believers and Gentile believers together.

3) Fulfillment and transformation This is the idea that certain Old Testament promises are fulfilled in a greater form than the initial category suggested. For example, land and temple themes can be read as shadows pointing to Christ and the new creation.

When dispensationalists warn about “replacement,” they often mean that categories are being changed midstream. When Reformed readers object to the label, they often mean that they are not claiming God broke promises, but that God completed them in Christ.

Being clear about definitions lowers the temperature and lets the real disagreement come into view.

The key flashpoints: covenants, prophecy, and how the New Testament uses the Old

Most disputes between dispensationalism and Reformed theology cluster around a few repeated pressure points. You can think of them like intersections where interpretive traffic always jams up.

One is the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the new covenant. Dispensationalists often stress the unconditional elements and argue that unconditional national promises require national fulfillment. Reformed theology often stresses that covenant promises reach their goal in Christ and then extend to the people united to him.

Another is prophetic literature. The Old Testament prophets use a lot of vivid imagery, and they mix near-term and far-term horizons. Dispensationalists often insist that if the prophet speaks in national and geographic terms, interpretation should not convert that into something else. Reformed theology often argues that prophetic imagery is frequently symbolic, and that the New Testament shows how to read these themes in light of Christ.

A third flashpoint is the millennium and kingdom language. Dispensationalism is often linked with premillennialism and expectations of a future earthly kingdom where Israel has a distinct role. Reformed theology is often linked with amillennial or postmillennial expectations, where Christ’s reign is understood in a present spiritual sense, and final fulfillment comes with the new heavens and new earth.

Here’s a simple comparison of where the two frameworks often differ:

These are general patterns, not a checklist. There are variations within both traditions.

How to assess claims about “replacing” dispensationalism without losing the plot

If someone says Reformed theology is trying to replace dispensationalism, it helps to slow down and ask what kind of “replacement” is being claimed. Is the concern about method, about conclusions, or about tone?

Start with method. Systems don’t just differ by a few verses, they differ by rules. A small shift in interpretive rules can change the whole reading of Scripture, similar to how a new set of lenses changes what you notice first.

A fair evaluation usually requires at least three checkpoints.

First, ask which texts control the discussion. Some approaches prioritize Old Testament wording and press the New Testament to match it in a strict way. Other approaches prioritize how the New Testament re-uses Old Testament texts, even if it expands categories. Neither move is neutral. Each reflects a view of how progressive revelation works.

Second, ask whether the view keeps God’s faithfulness intact. The strongest argument on either side often comes down to this: does this framework preserve the integrity of God’s promises, or does it quietly redefine them? A view that makes God’s words unstable will not hold up for long, even if it sounds sophisticated.

Third, ask whether the view explains the full range of biblical data. Every system has passages it highlights and passages it struggles with. A serious approach won’t pretend those hard texts don’t exist. It will face them directly and explain why its reading makes better sense of the whole canon.

When those three checkpoints are clear, the debate becomes less like a slogan war and more like real Bible reading.

Conclusion: the real issue is how you read the whole Bible

Reformed theology and dispensationalism aren’t competing brands, they’re competing ways of putting Scripture together. The “replacement” charge often comes from a fear that God’s promises to Israel are being changed into something else. The Reformed reply is often that God’s promises reach their intended end in Christ, not in a lesser form.

If you want to think clearly about this debate, focus on the interpretive rules, not the rhetoric. The best next step is to test each framework with the texts that matter most and refuse shortcuts. Clarity here protects something bigger than a label, it protects confidence in God’s faithfulness.

The Political Disaster of Replacement Theology (Ep. 822): What It Is and Why It Matters

Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland

The debate over replacement theology is not just a technical argument for Bible scholars. It shapes how Christians read Scripture, how they speak about the Jewish people, and how they respond to modern political questions tied to Israel and the Middle East.

When theology reshapes a Christian’s view of God’s promises, it often reshapes their public instincts too. That is why replacement theology can become a political problem fast, not because Christians should “do politics,” but because beliefs always spill into real life.

Core Idea: How a Theology Becomes a Public Problem

Replacement theology is usually treated as an “interpretation issue.” But in practice, it often becomes an identity issue: Who are “God’s people” now, what promises still stand, and how should Christians talk about Israel today?

Those questions are never trapped in a classroom. They influence:

• How Christians explain the Old Testament.
• How churches teach Romans 9 to 11.
• How Christians talk about Jewish neighbors.
• How believers respond to news about Israel, Gaza, or broader Middle East conflict.

This is where a theological framework can turn into a political disaster. Not because theology should be replaced with activism, but because faulty categories can produce confident, careless public speech.

Defining Replacement Theology (Supersessionism)

Replacement theology (often called supersessionism) is the view that the Church has replaced Israel as God’s covenant people in such a way that Israel no longer has a distinct role in God’s plan.

People use the label in different ways, so clarity matters. Some versions are blunt and absolute. Others are more nuanced, claiming that the Church “fulfills” Israel, while still leaving room for some ongoing significance for Jewish people.

In everyday church life, replacement theology often shows up like this:

• Old Testament promises to Israel are treated as if they are now only “spiritual” promises to the Church.
• Israel’s story is read mainly as a shadow of the Church’s story.
• Future hope passages about Israel are assumed to be fully completed in the New Testament era, with no remaining “Israel-shaped” expectations.

Not every Christian who emphasizes the Church’s unity in Christ is teaching replacement theology. The issue is what you do with the specific promises God made to Israel, and how you read passages that speak about Israel’s future.

For a helpful discussion that focuses tightly on Romans 11, see About Replacement Theology: Romans 11:25-32.

Why Some Christians Find It Persuasive

Replacement theology often appeals to believers for understandable reasons. The New Testament does teach that Gentiles are grafted in, that the dividing wall is torn down in Christ, and that there is one people of God by faith in Jesus.

So why do some Christians conclude that Israel is “over” as a distinct category?

1) Because they want to protect the gospel from ethnic pride

Many believers fear that any continuing role for ethnic Israel could sound like salvation by bloodline. That concern can push people toward a model where “Israel” becomes only a symbol for the Church.

2) Because they read “fulfilled” as “cancelled”

The New Testament is full of fulfillment language. The problem comes when fulfillment is assumed to erase the original referent (Israel) rather than complete God’s purpose while keeping His promises intact.

3) Because it can simplify the Bible’s storyline

Replacement theology can make the Bible feel easier to organize. Israel is “then,” Church is “now.” But Scripture often resists simple charts.

If you want a straightforward primer from a Messianic Jewish perspective, see What is Replacement Theology? (Part 1).

Where the “Political Disaster” Begins

The political fallout usually does not start with someone saying, “I want a theology that harms people.” It begins with a mental framework that trains Christians to speak about Jewish people and Israel in flattened, overly confident ways.

Here are common pathways from theology to public harm.

When “Israel” becomes only an idea, Jewish people become an afterthought

If Israel is treated as nothing more than a metaphor, it becomes easy to ignore the Jewish people as real neighbors with a real history. That can lead to coldness, suspicion, or casual stereotypes.

This is not a minor issue. Christians have a long record of getting this wrong. Even if a modern believer has no hatred in their heart, they can still inherit categories that have a harmful track record.

When God’s promises sound reversible, politics gets cynical

Replacement theology can train people to think, “God dropped Israel, so God can drop anyone.” That is not always said out loud, but it can shape instincts.

In public life, that tends to produce a grim moral posture: power is what matters, and promises are temporary. That posture collides with the Bible’s consistent emphasis on God’s faithfulness to His word.

When prophecy talk becomes reactive, Christians speak recklessly

On the other side, some Christians reject replacement theology and swing into speculative prophecy talk. That can also create political trouble, because it turns headlines into sermons and makes complex conflicts sound simple.

The key issue is not whether someone is “pro-Israel” or “pro-Palestinian.” It is whether Christians are thinking and speaking with truth, restraint, and biblical categories.

A useful example of how Christians are wrestling with these questions in the current moment is the podcast episode Is Israel God's Chosen Nation?, which frames the issue around promises, peoplehood, and Christian responsibility.

A Simple Comparison: What Changes When You Adopt Replacement Theology?

The consequences often show up in what a Christian feels free to say.

This table does not capture every position. Christians disagree in good faith on difficult texts. The point is that ideas have outputs, and those outputs show up in public life.

What Romans 11 Forces Christians to Face

Romans 11 is hard to ignore because Paul does not speak about Israel as a discarded object. He uses language of continuity, warning, and future hope.

Even Christians who reject “two ways of salvation” still have to deal with Paul’s caution against arrogance. His picture is not “Israel was fake, now the Church is real.” It is more like a story of covenant faithfulness, mercy, and a future that keeps God’s integrity intact.

If you want to explore a focused argument on this passage, About Replacement Theology: Romans 11:25-32 is a helpful starting point.

Why This Issue Often Turns Toxic in Church Life

Replacement theology arguments can become heated because they touch sensitive nerves.

It feels like a test of biblical intelligence

People can treat this as a badge of being “serious about Scripture.” That is a fast path to pride, and pride always makes theology worse.

It can become a proxy war over modern Israel

Some people feel pressured to adopt a full political stance as proof of theological faithfulness. That pressure is unhealthy. Theology should shape ethics and speech, but it should not force believers into simplistic political tribes.

For a discussion that explicitly frames the question as “Has the Church replaced Israel?”, see Has the Church Replaced Israel? (Ep 195).

How to Think Clearly Without Turning It Into a Slogan

Christians can avoid the usual traps by keeping a few anchor points in view.

Keep these truths together

• Salvation is in Christ alone, for Jew and Gentile.
• God’s promises are not fragile.
• The Church is not an accident or a parenthesis.
• The Old Testament is not disposable background material.
• Jewish people are not a “prop object,” they are people made in God’s image, with real history and real pain.

If you want a conversation that connects these themes to present-day questions and pastoral caution, see Has The Church Replaced Israel?.

Watch your language

Bad theology often reveals itself in tone before it reveals itself in footnotes.

Be cautious with statements like:

• “God is done with the Jews.”
• “Israel has no place in God’s plan.”
• “Christians have to support everything Israel does.”
• “This conflict is simple if you read prophecy correctly.”

Those lines might sound bold, but they usually produce confusion, not clarity.

Key Takeaways: What the “Political Disaster” Looks Like in Real Life

Replacement theology becomes a political disaster when it trains Christians to do one or more of these things:

Flatten Scripture: treating Israel’s covenants as if they were only symbolic from the start.

Flatten people: speaking about Jewish people mainly as a theological problem, not as neighbors.

Flatten ethics: turning complex conflicts into easy talking points.

Flatten the gospel: slipping into pride, as if Gentile believers replaced Israel by being smarter or better.

The better path is not “pick the right tribe.” It is to read the Bible carefully, refuse arrogance, and speak with the kind of restraint that fits Christian witness.

Conclusion

Replacement theology is not only a question of labels, it is a question of what Christians believe about God’s faithfulness. When believers treat God’s promises as transferable in a way that erases Israel, it often produces careless speech and harmful public instincts. A more biblical approach keeps the gospel central, honors the integrity of Scripture, and refuses pride toward the Jewish people. If your theology shapes your politics, it should shape your tone first.

The Mission - Matthew 28:18-20

                            Alan Smith

If you’ve ever wondered what Jesus most wants His people to do, Matthew 28:18-20 answers it with plain words. These verses come at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, right after Jesus’ resurrection, when the disciples are still processing what they’ve seen and heard.

This moment is often called the Great Commission. It’s not a vague slogan or a church program. It’s Jesus giving His followers a clear mission, with clear authority, clear actions, and a clear promise.

What Jesus Said

Matthew 28:18-20 reads like a short speech, but every line carries weight. Jesus doesn’t start by assigning tasks. He starts by stating what’s true about Him. Then He tells His people what to do. Then He tells them what they can count on.

Jesus Has All Power

Jesus begins with a claim that changes everything:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18)

That opening matters because the mission that follows is bigger than human strength. Jesus doesn’t ask the disciples to go on their own credibility or skill. He sends them under His rule.

Here’s what Jesus is saying in simple terms:

• His authority comes from God the Father, it is “given to” Him.
• His authority covers everywhere, heaven and earth.

If Jesus has authority in heaven, then nothing spiritual outranks Him. If He has authority on earth, then no government, culture, system, or enemy has the final say.

No limits to Jesus’ rule.

That’s not abstract theology. It’s the foundation under your feet when obedience feels costly. It’s the difference between “I hope this works” and “Jesus sent me.”

Go Make Followers

Next, Jesus gives the core command:

“Go and make disciples of all nations.” (Matthew 28:19)

A disciple is not just someone who agrees with Christian ideas. A disciple is a learner and follower. Someone who trusts Jesus and begins to pattern life around Him.

Jesus’ words include movement, purpose, and scope. You can hear it in the key actions:

1. Go: Don’t stay frozen in place. The mission pushes outward.
2. Make disciples: The goal isn’t to collect crowds, it’s to form followers.
3. All nations: No group is outside Christ’s concern, and no culture is beyond His reach.

This is not a call for a few “professional Christians.” It’s a command for the whole church, carried out in many settings. Some will cross oceans. Many will cross the street. The location may change, but the mission stays the same.

A helpful way to picture this is like a lighthouse. A lighthouse doesn’t move, but the light reaches out. Jesus’ command includes both. Sometimes the church goes, and sometimes the church stays planted, shining where God placed it. Either way, disciples are made when people meet Jesus, learn from Jesus, and keep following Jesus.

Baptize in the Name

Jesus then gives a specific marker of entry into this new life:

“baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19)

Baptism is not presented as a private spiritual feeling. It’s a public step. It marks someone as belonging to the triune God.

Jesus names:

• Father
• Son (Jesus)
• Holy Spirit

This is Christian faith at its center, One God in three persons. Jesus doesn’t treat God as a distant force. He speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the living God into whose name believers are baptized.

Baptism points to cleansing and new life, but it also points to allegiance. It’s like saying, “My old life is not my master anymore. I belong to God.”

This is why baptism matters. It’s not a graduation ceremony after someone becomes “good enough.” It’s a beginning step of obedience for those who trust Christ.

Teach to Obey

Jesus continues:

“teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:20a)

This line guards the mission from becoming shallow. The church doesn’t just announce forgiveness and stop. The church teaches people how to follow Jesus in real life.

Notice Jesus doesn’t say “teaching them to know.” Knowing matters, but the target is obey.

That doesn’t mean obedience earns salvation. It means obedience is what discipleship looks like once someone belongs to Jesus.

Two key ideas are in the verse:

• Teach all Jesus’ commands, not only the comfortable ones.
• Teach people to obey, not just to admire Jesus from a distance.

That kind of teaching is patient. It takes time. It includes instruction, correction, encouragement, and repeated reminders.

It also means discipleship is more than a class. It’s life-on-life help. People learn obedience the same way children learn a language, by hearing it and practicing it, with someone who cares enough to keep walking with them.

If you want a simple way to check your own discipleship, ask one honest question: Am I learning Christ’s words, and am I putting them into practice this week?

Jesus Stays With Us

Jesus ends with a promise:

“And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:20b)

That sentence is not decoration. It’s strength for the work. Jesus doesn’t give a mission and then step back to watch from afar. He promises His presence.

The heart of the promise is this: I am with you always.

That means:

• You’re never alone on the mission.
• Jesus stays with His people until the end of the age.

The disciples who first heard this were not powerful by the world’s standards. They didn’t have money, status, or safety. Some of them would suffer for preaching Christ. Jesus doesn’t pretend the path is easy. He promises something better than ease, His presence.

Jesus’ presence gives strength.

When fear rises, His presence steadies you. When you don’t know what to say, His presence reminds you the mission isn’t built on your perfection. When obedience costs something, His presence becomes comfort that the world can’t offer.

Key takeaway: Jesus doesn’t just send you, He stays with you.

Our Part in the Mission

The mission in Matthew 28:18-20 is not only for “out there.” It shapes ordinary life, family life, work life, and church life. It answers the question, “What should Christians be doing until Jesus returns?”

At the center, the mission is to make disciples. That can sound big, so it helps to think in everyday steps that match Jesus’ commands.

Here are three practical ways to live this out:

1. Share with friends: Speak about Jesus in normal conversation, with clarity and care. You don’t need a stage. You need faithfulness.
2. Get baptized if you haven’t: If you trust Christ, baptism is a simple act of obedience that honors Him.
3. Teach others: Help someone learn Christ’s words and put them into practice, even if it’s one person over coffee or a weekly Scripture reading.

This mission also corrects a common mistake. Many people think the goal is to “get people saved” and move on. Jesus’ words are fuller. He calls His followers to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them to obey all He commanded. In other words, Jesus cares about beginnings and endurance.

What This Mission Is (and Isn’t)

It’s easy to overcomplicate the Great Commission, or to shrink it into something smaller than Jesus intended. These clarifications help keep the mission straight.

The mission is about disciples, not just decisions. A decision to trust Christ matters, but discipleship shapes a life.

The mission is for all nations, not one type of person. The gospel is not owned by any culture. Jesus sends His people outward.

The mission depends on Jesus’ authority, not our confidence. The command starts with “All authority,” because the work requires His power.

The mission includes teaching obedience, not just sharing information. Christian teaching aims at a changed life, by the Spirit’s help.

A Simple Way to Pray Matthew 28:18-20

If you want to carry this passage into your week, try praying through it in four short parts.

• “Jesus, You have all authority. Help me trust You.”
• “Send me where You want me to go.”
• “Help me help others follow You, make me faithful to make disciples.”
• “Thank You that You are with me always.”

Keep it simple. Keep it honest. Jesus’ promise is not fragile.

Conclusion

The mission in Matthew 28:18-20 rests on three solid truths: Jesus has all authority, Jesus gives clear commands, and Jesus stays with His people. This mission isn’t only for missionaries or pastors, it’s the normal life of the church. Start where you are, with the people God has put near you, and take one step of obedience at a time. Christ’s promise still stands: “I am with you always.”

Obedience and Spiritual Adulthood (A Christian Guide for December 21, 2025)

Jeff Rowland

Most believers want to grow up in their faith, not just stay inspired for a moment. Real growth shows up in everyday choices, especially when God’s direction is clear and the cost feels real. That’s why obedience matters so much. It isn’t a side topic for “serious” Christians, it’s the normal road God uses to form mature sons and daughters.

This post explains the pathway to spiritual adulthood, what obedience looks like in real life, what blocks it, and how to practice it with steady joy.

Defining Spiritual Adulthood

Spiritual adulthood means you’ve moved beyond basic faith into steady trust. You still need God every day, but you stop living like faith is only for emergencies. The pathway to spiritual adulthood is rarely dramatic. It’s often quiet, repeated choices to follow God’s will. You could call it maturity through obedience.

Three simple traits often show up in a spiritually mature believer:

• A steady “yes” to God, even when feelings change
• Wise choices that match Scripture, not pressure
• A growing life that blesses others, not just self

Signs of Spiritual Childhood

Spiritual childhood isn’t about age, it’s about patterns. Common signs include:

• Fear-driven choices
• Ignoring guidance
• Quick doubts

These habits keep a person reactive, not rooted.

Signs of True Spiritual Adulthood

Spiritual adulthood shows itself over time:

• Calm trust, even under stress (peace that holds)
• Active following, not delayed intention (obedience in motion)
• Fruit in daily life (more patience, cleaner speech, stronger love)

Maturity becomes visible because obedience becomes normal.

Obedience as the Key Pathway

Obedience is the straight line between hearing God and growing up in Him. It’s not a ladder you climb to earn love. It’s the route God uses to train the heart. On December 21, 2025, this theme is as timely as ever because distraction is loud, and obedience is often quiet.

Four reasons obedience leads to growth:

1. It turns belief into action.
2. It breaks the habit of self-rule.
3. It trains you to trust God’s character.
4. It produces fruit you can’t fake for long.

What Obedience Really Means

Obedience is doing what God asks, as He asks, without delay. It includes prompt action, not endless stalling dressed up as “waiting for peace.”

Why Obedience Builds Maturity

Obedience strengthens the inner life the same way training strengthens the body:

• It forms holy habits.
• It builds spiritual endurance.
• It teaches humility when pride wants control.

Obedience is a pathway, not a performance.

Childhood Habits That Block Growth

Many believers get stuck in spiritual childhood because certain habits feel natural. They are common, but they are costly.

A few growth blockers show up again and again:

• Self-will that refuses correction
• Excuse-making when conviction is clear
• Comfort-seeking that avoids sacrifice
• Selective obedience (doing the easy parts only)

The Self-Reliance Trap

Self-reliance sounds strong, but it often hides distrust. It says, “I’ve got this,” when God is inviting surrender.

Two common examples:

• Refusing counsel because you don’t want to be wrong
• Praying for guidance, then doing what you planned anyway

Fear of Surrender

Fear says, “If I obey, I’ll lose something.” Sometimes you will. But you’ll lose what would have shaped you into someone smaller.

The key is taking the surrender step, even if it feels small at first.

Steps to Start Obeying (Without Waiting for a Perfect Moment)

Obedience grows best when it’s practical. Start where you are, and let God strengthen you as you move.

1. Notice what God is already highlighting.
2. Get clear on the next right step.
3. Act while your heart is tender.
4. Keep your obedience simple and honest.
5. Build support so you don’t drift.

Step 1: Listen First

• Quiet your pace long enough to hear conviction.
• Let Scripture shape what “God’s voice” sounds like.

Step 2: Act Small

Small obedience is real obedience. Examples include telling the truth, apologizing first, keeping a promise, or turning away from a known temptation.

Step 3: Trust the Process

Growth is often slow. Obedience doesn’t always feel powerful in the moment, but it changes what you love over time.

Step 4: Review Wins

Write down one obedience win each day. Small victories build faith for bigger ones.

Step 5: Seek Help

God often uses community to keep you steady. Strong believers don’t hide, they stay connected.

Benefits of Obedient Living

Obedience brings what many people chase in other ways. It brings stability, clarity, and strength.

Four pathway rewards that often follow obedient living:

• Peace that doesn’t depend on good news
• Cleaner conscience and less inner conflict
• Stronger faith through repeated trust
• Visible fruit that blesses family and friends

Inner Peace Gained

Peace grows when you stop arguing with God. Obedience removes the double life, the one where you say you trust Him but live like you don’t.

Stronger Faith Built

Each act of obedience is a reminder: God is faithful. You learn by experience, not just ideas.

Real-Life Fruit

The fruit is practical. Better words, better choices, healthier boundaries, and a stronger witness.

Common Obedience Challenges (And How to Face Them)

Obedience isn’t hard because it’s confusing, it’s hard because it clashes with the flesh.

Three common hurdles:

1. Doubt that questions God’s goodness
2. Delay that turns conviction into distance
3. Pain that makes obedience feel too costly

Doubt Whispers

• Remember past faithfulness.
• Compare doubt with what Scripture already says.

Delay Temptation

Conviction often has a short window. The simplest rule helps: do it now when it’s clear and right.

The Pain of Obeying

Some obedience hurts. It can cost comfort, status, or a relationship you’ve outgrown. But pain is sometimes the price of maturity.

Daily Habits That Strengthen Obedience

Obedience becomes easier when your days have rhythm. You don’t need a complex plan. You need repeatable habits.

• Short prayer in the morning to offer your will to God
• A pause before major choices, so impulse doesn’t lead
• A brief evening review of where you listened or resisted
• Weekly reflection to notice patterns and make adjustments

Here’s a simple way to connect habits to results:

Morning Check-In

Start the day with surrender. A simple prayer works: “Lord, lead me today, and make me quick to obey.”

Pause Before Acting

Create a small gap between desire and decision. That pause is often where obedience wins.

Evening Reflect

Ask two questions: What did I obey today, and what did I avoid? Keep it simple and honest.

Weekly Review

Look for repeat struggles. Then choose one clear change for the next week.

Obedience in Tough Times

Hard seasons test what you really trust. When life feels unfair, obedience can feel pointless. But this is often where the pathway tested becomes the pathway that changes you.

Facing Hard No’s

• Stay faithful in what’s in front of you.
• Don’t use disappointment as permission to drift.

When It Hurts

Obedience under pressure forms spiritual backbone. It teaches you that God is worthy, even when the outcome isn’t what you hoped.

Measuring Your Growth

Growth can be hard to see day to day. A simple scale helps you stay honest without shame.

1. Level 1: Baby steps (you notice conviction)
2. Level 2: Small wins (you obey in easy areas)
3. Level 3: Steady path (you obey under moderate stress)
4. Level 4: Strong trust (you obey when it costs)
5. Level 5: Full adulthood (obedience is your reflex)

Self-check questions that reveal progress:

• Do I delay less than I used to?
• Do I confess faster when I fail?
• Do I obey even when no one sees?

Obedience vs. Perfection

Obedience isn’t the same as being flawless. God isn’t asking you to pretend. He’s training you to be faithful.

Three anchor truths:

• God honors repentance, not image.
• Obedience can be messy at first.
• Progress over perfect is still real progress.

The Joy of the Pathway

Obedience isn’t only serious, it’s also freeing. It lifts the weight of self-rule and the stress of trying to manage everything.

Three joys many believers discover:

• A lighter conscience
• A clearer sense of direction
• A deeper love for God’s ways

Obedience is the pathway to spiritual adulthood.

Avoiding Common Obedience Pitfalls

Some mistakes look spiritual, but they weaken your growth.

Watch for these traps:

• People-pleasing instead of God-pleasing
• Half-obedience that keeps a hidden “no”
• Ignoring small calls that train your heart to resist
• Quitting early when results don’t come fast

Renewing Obedience Daily

Most people don’t fail in one big moment. They drift through a thousand small choices. Daily renewal keeps your heart soft.

A simple rhythm helps:

• Admit where you resisted.
• Receive God’s forgiveness.
• Take the next clear step of obedience.

Conclusion

Spiritual adulthood doesn’t arrive by accident. It grows as you practice obedience in small choices and hard ones. When you fall, get up quickly, confess, and keep walking. The pathway stays the same, listen, obey, and trust God with what follows. Obedience: The Pathway to Spiritual Adulthood is not just a title, it’s a way of life.

Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16-34): The Unknown God, the Resurrection, and Mixed Reactions

Alan Smith

Athens was famous for ideas, art, and religion. It also became the setting for one of the clearest gospel messages in Acts. In Acts 17, Paul walks through a city filled with idols, speaks with everyday people, and then explains the true God to philosophers at the Areopagus.

This passage matters because it shows how to speak plainly about God in a culture that doesn’t share your Bible knowledge. Paul starts with what people already know, then he moves straight to creation, repentance, and the resurrection of Jesus.

Paul’s Heart Stirred in Athens

Seeing the City Full of Idols

Acts says Paul’s spirit provoked within him when he saw the city “wholly given to idolatry” (Acts 17:16). Athens was not neutral ground. It was crowded with objects of worship.

Idols in a place like Athens could include:

• Statues of many gods and goddesses
• Shrines and altars on public streets
• Temples built for civic pride as much as devotion
• Household gods, carried into daily life

Paul wasn’t irritated by art. He was grieved by worship aimed at anything other than the living God.

Why Idols Upset Paul So Much

Idolatry isn’t just “a different opinion.” It replaces the Creator with something made by human hands. For a man called to preach Christ, that is distressing because it leaves people trapped in darkness while thinking they are enlightened.

A Connection to Paul’s Letters

This moment in Athens matches the tone found throughout Paul’s ministry. He did not treat false worship as harmless. In his writings, Paul often warns that people can trade truth for a lie, then live with the results. Athens puts that struggle on display in public, with temples, statues, and proud philosophy standing side-by-side.

A Daily Preaching Routine Begins

Reasoning in the Synagogue

Paul doesn’t wait for a formal invitation. He starts where he often starts, in the synagogue. Acts 17:17 says he “reasoned” there, speaking with:

1. Jews
2. Devout (God-fearing) Gentiles
3. Anyone listening and ready to discuss Scripture

This was not a lecture. It was discussion, questions, answers, and proof from the Word.

Debating in the Marketplace

Paul also went to the public square. The marketplace was where news spread and ideas got tested.

“Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.” (Acts 17:17)

That word “daily” matters. Paul’s witness was steady, not occasional.

Who Listened First?

The first audience in the marketplace was ordinary Athenians going about life. Not everyone there was a philosopher, but many were curious. Athens had a reputation for talking, debating, and sharing new thoughts. Paul met them right in that stream.

Meeting the Philosophers: Epicureans and Stoics

Epicureans and Their Views

Epicureans were known for chasing a certain kind of peace, often tied to pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Many held that the gods, if they existed, were distant and not involved. Paul’s message challenged that at the root. He preached a God who made the world and who calls people to respond.

Stoics and Their Ideas

Stoics valued self-control and reason. Many leaned toward a view of the divine that was impersonal or woven into nature. Paul’s teaching confronted that too. He speaks of a personal God who rules history and commands repentance, not an impersonal force.

What They Called Paul

Acts 17:18 records some mocked Paul as a “babbler.” The word carries the idea of a scavenger who picks up bits and pieces, then repeats them without depth.

Their reactions included:

• Dismissing him as shallow
• Calling him a preacher of “strange gods”
• Treating him like an entertainer with a new message

Yet their mockery did not stop the conversation, it only moved it to a larger stage.

Brought to the Areopagus

Curiosity of the Athenians

Acts 17:19-21 explains why Paul was brought to the Areopagus. The Athenians loved to hear something new. That hunger for novelty can look like wisdom, but it often hides a deeper problem, people want fresh ideas more than true answers.

The Meeting Spot Explained

The Areopagus (also called Mars’ Hill) was a known place for public discussion. This was not necessarily a courtroom scene. It was a setting where ideas were examined, challenged, and discussed in front of others.

Paul’s Chance to Speak

Paul now has room to present the message clearly. He is standing before thinkers and influencers, but he doesn’t soften the truth to win approval. He speaks with respect, and with firmness.

Paul’s Message at Athens: The Unknown God and the True Creator

Addressing the “Unknown God”

Paul begins with observation. He notes their religious devotion and points to an altar.

“To the Unknown God.” (Acts 17:23)

Then he makes his opening move: the God they admit they do not fully know is the God he proclaims. Paul uses their own confession of ignorance as a bridge to truth.

No Temple Can Contain God

Paul quickly corrects a major assumption.

God is the Maker of heaven and earth (Acts 17:24). He doesn’t “dwell in temples made with hands.” In other words, no building can hold Him, and no human system can manage Him.

This is a simple but strong point: if God created all things, then God is bigger than anything people build for Him.

God as Creator and Giver

Paul adds that God is not served as though He lacks anything (Acts 17:25). God is not needy. He is the One “who gives to all life, and breath, and all things.”

A short way to track Paul’s logic:

• God made the world
• God rules the world
• God gives life to the world
• God doesn’t depend on the world

That flips pagan worship upside down. Idols demand gifts. The true God gives gifts.

All Nations From One Man, and God Is Near

One Human Family Under God

Acts 17:26 teaches that God made all nations from one man. Paul’s point is not only about origins. It is about unity and accountability. No group is self-made. No nation exists outside God’s rule.

God Sets Times and Boundaries

Paul says God determined the times and boundaries of nations (Acts 17:26). History is not random. Empires rise and fall, borders expand and shrink, and people migrate, but none of it escapes God’s governance.

Seeking the God Who Is Not Far

God’s purpose includes that people should seek Him (Acts 17:27). Paul says God is not far from any of us. That doesn’t mean everyone already knows God in a saving way. It means God is near enough to be found, not hidden behind locked doors.

Paul Quotes Their Poets, Then Rejects Idols

“In Him We Live and Move”

Paul supports his point by quoting lines familiar to his audience.

“In him we live, and move, and have our being.” (Acts 17:28)

He also quotes the idea, “For we are also his offspring.” Paul can cite their writers without blessing their religion. He uses what is true in their words to confront what is false in their worship.

We Are God’s Offspring

The “offspring” language strengthens Paul’s next argument. If humans are in some sense God’s offspring, then God cannot be like gold, silver, or stone (Acts 17:29). A lifeless statue cannot be the source of living people.

Idols Shrink God

Idols always shrink God down to something manageable. They turn worship into control. Paul refuses that. God is not a project. God is Lord.

The Call to Repentance and the Promise of Judgment

The Times of Ignorance Are Over

Acts 17:30 says God “winked at” (overlooked) former ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent. Paul is clear that God’s patience does not cancel God’s authority.

The command is universal:

• All people
• Everywhere
• Now

Judgment Day Is Set, and the Resurrection Is Proof

Acts 17:31 teaches that God has appointed a day of judgment, and He will judge the world “in righteousness” by the Man He has ordained. God gave proof by raising Him from the dead.

The resurrection is not an extra detail. It is God’s public confirmation that Jesus is the appointed Judge.

Reactions in Athens: Mocking, Delay, and Faith

Mockers and Scoffers

When Paul mentions the resurrection, some mock (Acts 17:32). For many Greeks, bodily resurrection sounded foolish. They could accept talk about souls and ethics, but not a risen body.

Mockery can sound like:

• “That’s ridiculous.”
• “You can’t believe that.”
• “Let’s move on.”

Curious Listeners Who Delay

Others say, “We will hear thee again of this matter” (Acts 17:32). Delay can look polite, but it still avoids a decision.

Named Believers: Dionysius and Damaris

Acts 17:34 names two who believed: Dionysius and Damaris, along with others.

Dionysius is described as an Areopagite, meaning he was connected to that council or gathering. Damaris is singled out by name as well, which highlights that the gospel was reaching people across social lines. In a city full of statues and ideas, real people trusted the risen Christ.

Lessons for Today From Paul’s Ministry in Athens

Paul Used Their Culture Without Copying Their Worship

Paul paid attention, listened, and spoke in a way Athenians could follow.

He used methods like:

• Observing their altars and language
• Starting with shared human experience (life, breath, creation)
• Quoting familiar writers to support a true point

Then he drew a clear line: idols are false, and God commands repentance.

Stay Faithful When You Feel Outnumbered

Paul looks alone in Athens, but he isn’t powerless. A provoked spirit is not panic. It is moral clarity.

Expect Mixed Responses

Acts shows a pattern that still holds:

1. Some mock.
2. Some postpone.
3. Some believe.

Success is not measured by applause. It is measured by faithful witness to Christ.

The Resurrection Is a Sticking Point

The resurrection often divides the room. It forces the question: did God act in history, or not? Paul refuses to trim that claim, even for an educated audience.

A Brief Preview: From Athens to Corinth (Acts 18:1)

Acts 18:1 says Paul leaves Athens and goes to Corinth. Athens was a center of philosophy, Corinth was known for trade and moral mess. The mission field changes, but the message stays the same.

Paul moves on because that is the pattern in Acts. He preaches, some believe, opposition or limits appear, and he continues to the next place. The gospel keeps advancing.

Quick Verse Breakdown (Acts 17:22-31)

1. Acts 17:23: The “Unknown God” becomes Paul’s starting point.
2. Acts 17:24: God made the world, He isn’t contained by temples.
3. Acts 17:25: God gives life and breath, He needs nothing from us.
4. Acts 17:27: God is near, people are meant to seek Him.
5. Acts 17:31: God fixed a day of judgment, proved by the resurrection.

Thoughts for Reflection

• What “idols” tempt people today, even in religious places?
• Where do you see people chasing new ideas but avoiding truth?
• If God is “not far,” what keeps people from seeking Him?

Conclusion

Paul’s message in Athens shows how to speak to a culture full of opinions and false worship. He starts with what people see, then he proclaims the Creator, the call to repentance, and the risen Christ as Judge. Some mocked, some delayed, and some believed, which is still the pattern many Christians see today. The main question remains the same: will you treat Jesus as a topic, or as Lord?

Another Gospel in Disguise: Intellectualism vs Dispensationalism (Ep. 820, 12-22-2025)

Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland

A message can sound Christian, quote the Bible, and still move your trust off of Jesus. That’s what makes another gospel so dangerous. It doesn’t always arrive with obvious heresy. Sometimes it arrives with a scholarly tone, a confident system, and a promise of “clarity” that feels safe.

Episode 820 (12-22-2025) raises a needed warning: not every “gospel” that sounds smart is the real gospel.

This article keeps it simple and pastoral. You’ll learn what counts as “another gospel,” how intellectual pride can replace trust, where dispensationalism can help, where it can distort, and how to test any teaching so you stay anchored to Christ.

What counts as “another gospel” and why it is so serious

When the New Testament warns about a “different” or “other” gospel, it’s not talking about minor disagreements. It’s talking about any message that changes the center of salvation. The danger is not just false facts, it’s false trust.

Another gospel can change at least one of these core pieces:

• The source of salvation: Is salvation from God’s grace, or from human effort and merit?
• The object of faith: Are you told to trust Christ, or to trust something else (your knowledge, your works, your group, your experience)?
• The finished work of Christ: Is the cross and resurrection treated as complete, or treated as a starting line that needs to be topped up?

A person can keep Christian words and still swap the meaning. “Grace” can become “God helps the ones who help themselves.” “Faith” can become “agreeing with the right ideas.” “Obedience” can become “earning your place.”

The results show up fast. Confusion replaces clarity. Pride grows, or fear grows, sometimes both. The cross gets blurred. People learn to perform, posture, and argue, but they stop resting in Christ.

The real gospel in one clear paragraph

God is holy, and we’re not. We sin in what we do, what we want, and what we ignore. Jesus Christ lived the life we could not live, died for sinners, and rose again. Salvation is God’s gift, received by grace through faith, not earned by works or intelligence. Real faith unites us to Christ and changes us, producing repentance, love, and obedience over time.

Here’s a quick checklist you can keep in your head:

• Who saves: God saves, not me.
• What saves: Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, not my record.
• How it is received: by faith, not by climbing.
• What it produces: a changed life, not a polished mask.

Common ways people sneak a new message into old words

False gospels rarely announce themselves. They blend in. Watch for patterns like these:

• Adding a gatekeeper: Only the “trained” or “inside” people can truly get it.
• Adding a ladder: You start with Jesus, but you stay saved by steps, rituals, or rules.
• Moving assurance off Christ: Your peace rises and falls with performance, feelings, or knowledge.
• Making prophecy charts the main point: The Bible becomes a codebook, not a story that leads to Christ.
• Treating the cross as entry-level: The cross is for beginners, and the “serious” people move on.
• Replacing repentance with identity: You’re “right” because of the tribe you’re in, not because you’ve been forgiven.

Not all bad teaching looks angry. Some of it looks tidy. Some of it looks “deep.” That’s why the test is not tone, it’s content and fruit.

Intellectualism in the church, when “being right” replaces trusting Christ

Intellectualism isn’t the same as being educated. It’s a heart posture. It’s when the mind becomes the altar, and being seen as right becomes a kind of righteousness.

God calls Christians to love Him with the mind. Study matters. Clear doctrine matters. Careful reading matters. But intellectualism turns gifts into idols. It tempts people to think, “If I can explain it, I must be safe.” It replaces childlike trust with a constant need to win.

It also reshapes how you treat people. Instead of patience, you become sharp. Instead of joy, you become restless. Instead of confession, you become defensive. That’s not spiritual maturity. That’s pride wearing a theology hoodie.

Healthy Bible study vs prideful “head-only” faith

Healthy study sounds like worship. Prideful study sounds like performance. The difference is often visible in ordinary habits.

Healthy study usually shows these markers:

• Humility before God, shown in prayer
• Willingness to repent when Scripture corrects you
• Growing love for people, including “simple” believers
• A desire to obey, not just to explain
• Comfort with saying, “I don’t know yet”

Prideful, head-only faith often shows these markers:

• Showing off knowledge, dropping facts to impress
• Mocking other Christians, especially those outside your camp
• Constant debate, with little prayer and little repentance
• Refusing correction, even from Scripture
• A cold heart toward ordinary church life

A short self-check can help. Ask yourself:

• Do I pray as much as I read?
• Do I confess sin, or mostly critique others?
• Do I serve people, or mostly grade them?
• When I’m corrected, do I soften, or do I sharpen?

Knowledge is a tool. It makes a terrible savior.

Red flags that your faith is resting on knowledge, not Jesus

Intellectualism doesn’t always show up as loud arrogance. Sometimes it shows up as subtle dependence. Here are red flags that often expose where your trust has moved.

Your assurance rises and falls with how much you know. When you feel “up to date,” you feel safe. When you feel behind, you panic. That shifts trust from Christ’s finished work to your mental grip.

You feel superior to “ordinary” Christians. You might not say it out loud, but you treat faithful, humble believers as second-class because they don’t speak your language.

You chase novelty. Old truths seem boring, so you need a new angle every week. The gospel becomes “basic,” and you start searching for a new rush.

You treat pastors like influencers. Instead of honoring faithful shepherding, you shop for the most impressive mind and the hottest take.

You excuse sin because you have good arguments. You can explain why your anger is “discernment,” why your coldness is “wisdom,” why your lust is “stress.” Clever excuses don’t cleanse guilt.

Each red flag does the same thing. It turns the mind into a mediator. But only Christ mediates. Only Christ saves.

Dispensationalism, where it helps.

Dispensationalism is a framework for reading Scripture that divides redemptive history into distinct eras (or “dispensations”). Many people appreciate it because it tries to take the Bible seriously, cares about context, and wants to read prophecies with care rather than vague symbolism.

Those are good instincts. Christians should read carefully. We should notice who is being addressed. We should avoid forcing meanings into the text.

That doesn’t protect the gospel. It weakens discipleship. It trains people to treat parts of Scripture as optional, which can make sin feel safer.

A healthy approach keeps two truths together:

• God’s Word has real historical settings and audiences.
• God’s Word is also written for the church’s faith and obedience, with Christ as the center.

When any framework tempts you to move Jesus out of the middle, the framework has become a problem.

How to test any teaching, and stay anchored to the real gospel

You don’t need to be a scholar to stay safe. You need clear tests, practiced often. These tests work in sermons, podcasts, books, small groups, and short social clips where context is thin.

Start with this principle: judge teaching by its gospel center and its fruit, not by its confidence level. A speaker can sound calm and smart while pulling you away from Christ. A speaker can also sound plain while feeding you well.

Be charitable on secondary issues. Be firm on the gospel. Many faithful Christians disagree on end-times details. That’s not the same as disagreeing on how sinners are saved.

Four quick gospel tests you can use this week

1) What’s the good news here, and is Jesus the center? If the “good news” is mainly a method, a timeline, or a secret, something’s off.

2) What am I told to trust for acceptance with God? Listen for the functional savior. Is it Christ, or is it knowledge, law-keeping, group identity, or spiritual experiences?

3) What happens to repentance and holiness? A true gospel produces a new life. A false gospel either crushes you with shame, or excuses sin with slogans.

4) Does this produce humility and love, or pride and division? Truth makes people humble. Error often makes people loud. Watch what it grows in the listener.

A final reminder: being “deep” is not proof of being true. Some lies are complex on purpose.

A healthier path, love the mind, but submit it to Scripture and the church

You don’t have to choose between serious thinking and sincere faith. The healthier path is to use the mind as a servant, not a master.

Here are steady practices that keep the gospel central:

Study in order to obey. Ask, “What does this call me to believe and do?” not just “How can I explain this?”

Pray for humility before and after you read. If your study life never includes confession, it’s drifting.

Sit under faithful preaching. Not flashy, not trendy, faithful. You need a shepherd, not a commentator you can mute.

Keep baptism and the Lord’s Supper connected to the gospel. These are not props. They preach Christ to your senses and remind you that salvation is received, not achieved.

Serve ordinary people. Pride hates hidden service. Love grows when you carry burdens, visit the lonely, and forgive someone who can’t repay you.

Keep prophecy in its proper place. Let it strengthen hope and endurance. Don’t let it replace Christ’s call to take up the cross today.

If you feel stuck in debate culture, try this simple one-week reset:

• Read one Gospel (or a large portion) with a pen and a prayer.
• Do one act of quiet service that no one will praise.
• Have one hard conversation where you confess wrong, not just argue right.
• Pray one honest prayer of confession each night, short and direct.

These are not steps to earn God’s love. They are ways to return to reality. Christ is the treasure. Everything else is supporting truth, not saving truth.

Conclusion

Another gospel can wear a smart mask, and it can also wear a system mask. Intellectualism tempts you to trust your mind. Dispensationalism can tempt you to trust a framework more than the Savior. The answer is the same in both cases: return to Jesus Christ, His finished work, and the plain good news that saves sinners.

Test what you hear. Pursue humility. Keep the cross in the center, because that’s where God meets us with mercy.

Why Is Your Church On The Sidelines? (Ep. 819, December 16, 2025)

Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland

A church can be busy every week and still sit on the sidelines. Programs run, sermons get preached, and calendars stay full, yet the congregation avoids the hard work of public faith, local service, and clear moral witness. The result is a church that feels safe, but also feels small.

This episode title raises a blunt question: why would a church choose the sidelines when it was called to be salt and light? If that question hits close to home, it helps to name what “sidelines” looks like, why it happens, and what moving back onto the field can look like in real life.

The Problem of Churches Sitting Out

“Sidelines” is not the same thing as “rest.” Rest is healthy. Sidelines is avoidance. It’s the posture of watching rather than acting, commenting rather than serving, and staying quiet rather than telling the truth.

Many churches don’t mean to drift there. It happens slowly. One tough issue gets skipped, one community need feels too messy, one conflict seems too risky. Over time, the congregation learns a habit: stay neutral, stay comfortable, stay unnoticed.

That habit has a cost.

A church that stays on the sidelines often loses clarity about its mission. People notice when the faith is treated like a private hobby instead of a public hope. Young believers notice. Neighbors notice. Even long-time members notice, even if they can’t name what feels “off.”

Signs Your Church Is on the Sidelines

Here are common warning signs that a church is drifting into a spectator mindset:

• A silent pulpit on issues that shape everyday life (family, truth, justice, life, integrity).
• A pattern of avoiding clear moral teaching to keep everyone comfortable.
• Little to no local involvement when the community is hurting.
• Service that stays inside the building, while needs outside go unanswered.
• Fear-driven decision-making, where the main goal is “don’t upset anyone.”
• A strong emphasis on attendance and giving, with weak emphasis on discipleship and obedience.

None of these mean a church is “bad.” They often mean a church is tired, uncertain, or led by people who feel boxed in. Still, the signs matter because they point to a deeper issue: hesitation to live out the faith with courage.

Why This Hurts Everyone

When a church sits out, the damage spreads wider than most people expect.

1. Believers stay shallow. If faith is never applied, it stays theoretical. People learn words, but not obedience.
2. The community loses a stabilizing presence. A healthy church often provides help, truth, and long-term care that no agency can replace.
3. The next generation grows skeptical. Many young people can spot performative religion. They’re drawn to conviction and action, not slogans.

A sidelined church doesn’t just lose influence. It can lose its confidence, its unity, and its ability to endure hardship.

Common Reasons Churches Stay Sidelined

Churches rarely say, “We want to be irrelevant.” The sidelines usually come from pressures that feel practical in the moment. Naming those pressures is the first step toward changing them.

Fear of Losing Tax Status (and Other Legal Worries)

One common fear is that speaking clearly about moral or civic issues will trigger legal trouble.

Church leaders hear phrases like “separation of church and state” and assume that clear teaching equals legal risk. Many also worry that any public stance could threaten a church’s standing, reputation, or finances.

A few realities help ground the discussion:

• Churches have the right to teach moral truth from the pulpit.
• Churches can speak about issues, values, and biblical standards without endorsing candidates.
• Wisdom still matters. Careless words can create confusion, and public statements should be accurate and measured.

Fear can cause leaders to treat every sensitive topic as a legal threat. Over time, that fear trains a church to say less and less, until “safe” becomes “silent.”

How Fear Shows Up Week to Week

Fear doesn’t always sound like fear. It often sounds like spirituality.

It can sound like:

• “We just want to focus on the gospel.”
• “We don’t want to be political.”
• “That topic is too divisive.”

Sometimes those statements are sincere. Other times, they become cover for avoiding hard truth. The gospel is not fragile. It does not need to be protected by silence.

Comfort in the Status Quo

Comfort is a powerful force in church culture because comfort feels like peace. But comfort and peace are not the same.

Common comfort traps include:

• Routine over mission: Keeping the schedule becomes the goal.
• Approval over truth: Avoiding complaints becomes the leadership win.
• Safety over service: Ministry stays tidy, predictable, and low-cost.
• Growth over depth: The church chases numbers, not maturity.
• Talk over action: The church discusses needs more than it meets them.

Comfort isn’t always sinful, but it becomes dangerous when it replaces courage. A church can become so focused on keeping people happy that it stops forming people to be holy.

Lack of Bold Leadership (and Shared Responsibility)

Leadership matters, but it’s not only a pastor issue. Churches can pressure leaders into caution, then blame them for being cautious. Members can demand “keep it positive,” then complain that sermons lack substance.

Bold leadership is not loud leadership. It’s steady leadership. It teaches truth clearly, it serves publicly, and it refuses to let fear set the agenda.

At the same time, churches need more than one voice. Elders, ministry leaders, and mature members should share the load. A single leader standing alone is easier to intimidate and easier to exhaust. A church with shared courage is harder to sideline.

Biblical Reasons a Church Can’t Stay on the Bench

A church is not called to be a weekly event. It’s called to be a faithful presence.

In Scripture, God’s people are repeatedly described in active terms: witnesses, ambassadors, servants, soldiers, lights, salt. Those are not spectator roles.

What Scripture Emphasizes About Engagement

Even without naming every passage, the themes are consistent:

1. Truth must be spoken. Love does not require silence. Love requires honesty with humility.
2. Good works should be visible. Not for applause, but for the good of neighbors and the glory of God.
3. The vulnerable must be cared for. A church that ignores the weak is out of step with biblical priorities.
4. Disciples must be made. Discipleship requires instruction, correction, and practice, not just inspiration.
5. Courage is normal for believers. Fear is human, but living in fear is not the goal.

A church that refuses engagement will eventually redefine faith as private opinion. That shrinks the church’s calling down to personal preference, which is not what Christianity teaches.

Old Testament Patterns: Faith That Acted

In the Old Testament, faith is regularly shown through action:

• People confront evil rather than accommodate it.
• Leaders call communities back to covenant faithfulness.
• Justice and mercy are not treated as optional add-ons.

The pattern is simple: when God’s people drift, they are called back, not to comfort, but to obedience.

New Testament Patterns: Witness With Skin On It

In the New Testament, the church grows in the middle of pressure, not in the absence of it. Believers serve, speak, sacrifice, and stay faithful even when it costs them.

A practical way to think about it is the difference between watching and witnessing:

The goal is not to pick fights. The goal is to stop hiding.

What It Looks Like When Churches Step Up

Active churches do not all look the same. A rural church will serve differently than a city church. A small congregation will not have the same resources as a large one.

Still, engaged churches tend to share a few traits:

They show up locally. They know the schools, the first responders, the struggling families, and the needs that never make the news.

They speak plainly. They don’t twist Scripture to match trends, and they don’t insult people who disagree. They tell the truth without acting superior.

They train people for real life. They help members apply faith at work, at home, online, and in the voting booth, without turning the church into a campaign office.

They measure fruit, not noise. They care about changed lives, restored marriages, freedom from addiction, generosity, and steady faith through suffering.

The strongest public witness is often quiet and consistent. Not every church needs a microphone. Every church needs backbone.

Steps to Get Your Church Off the Sidelines

If you’re a church member who feels the tension, the goal is not to vent. The goal is to help your church move forward in unity and conviction.

Talk to Your Pastor (With Clarity and Respect)

A productive conversation is specific, calm, and solutions-focused. Here’s a simple approach:

1. Share what you’re seeing in concrete terms (not accusations).
2. Ask what pressures the leadership is facing right now.
3. Offer help, not just critique.
4. Agree on one small next step and a time to follow up.

Helpful questions can be simple:

• “What community needs are we aware of, and which ones are we addressing?”
• “How are we training people to live out their faith outside Sunday?”
• “Where do you feel the church hesitates most, and why?”

Build a Team of Like-Minded Members

Change rarely happens through one person pushing alone. Build a small group that prays, serves, and plans.

A healthy starting point includes:

• A shared commitment to unity and truth
• A clear service focus (one need, one area)
• A willingness to do the work without seeking credit

Small teams can start ministries that later become church-wide efforts.

Start Small With Local Impact

A church doesn’t need a massive initiative to stop being sidelined. Momentum often begins with simple consistency.

A practical first-win checklist:

• Choose one local partner (school, shelter, pregnancy center, foster network).
• Commit to one monthly service effort for 90 days.
• Track needs, outcomes, and volunteer load.
• Share stories that highlight people served, not the church brand.
• Keep the effort sustainable so it lasts.

Small wins build trust. Trust creates room for bigger steps.

Final Thoughts

A church on the sidelines often looks calm, but it’s rarely healthy. The calling of the church is public, embodied, and costly, and it’s also deeply good. When a congregation steps onto the field, people grow, neighbors get served, and faith becomes more than talk.

If the question stings, let it. Courage usually starts as discomfort. The next step is choosing faithful action over safe distance.

Why the World Hates Strong Men (Ep. 818, December 16, 2025)

Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland

A strong man can feel like a rebuke without saying a word. He doesn’t panic when others panic. He doesn’t follow every trend. He carries weight that other people avoid. In a culture that rewards comfort, strength can look like a threat.

This post breaks down why strength gets mocked, feared, or punished, what people often mean when they say “strong men,” and how to pursue real strength without turning it into pride or cruelty.

What “strong men” really means (and what it doesn’t)

When people hear “strong men,” they often picture a stereotype: loud, domineering, angry, or selfish. That picture is common because it’s easy to attack.

But strength, at its best, isn’t about bullying. It’s about being steady under pressure and useful when it counts.

Real strength vs. fake strength

Real strength tends to look boring from the outside. It’s consistent and restrained. Fake strength needs an audience.

A strong man can be gentle. He can also be dangerous when he must be, but he doesn’t look for reasons to prove it.

Why strength gets hated in everyday life

People don’t always hate strength itself. They hate what it forces them to face.

Strength exposes excuses

A disciplined man makes excuses look weak. If one man can keep his word, show up early, train his body, and control his habits, it becomes harder for others to say, “That’s impossible,” or “No one can do that.”

Strength shines a light on the gap between what people want and what they’re willing to do.

Strength disrupts comfort

Comfort is fragile. It relies on avoiding hard truths. Strong men often bring hard truths into the open:

• “This isn’t working.”
• “We need standards.”
• “You can’t spend what you don’t have.”
• “You can’t fix this by pretending.”

That kind of talk makes a comfort-driven group feel judged, even when it’s simply honest.

Strength threatens weak leadership

Some leaders rely on confusion to stay in charge. They don’t want clear standards, because clear standards reveal who is competent and who is not.

A strong man is hard to manipulate. He asks direct questions. He notices patterns. He remembers what was promised. That’s dangerous to anyone who wants control without accountability.

Strength refuses emotional blackmail

A common way to control people is to punish them socially if they don’t agree. Strength doesn’t mean someone never feels the pressure. It means he doesn’t surrender his conscience to it.

That alone can make him a target.

How society rewards weakness (without saying it out loud)

A culture can say it loves courage while it trains people to avoid it. This happens through incentives. People follow what gets rewarded.

Three common signs a culture prefers weakness

1. Victim status becomes a form of currency. The person with the biggest complaint gets the most attention.
2. Standards get replaced with slogans. Clear expectations get called “harsh” or “harmful.”
3. Peace gets confused with avoidance. Keeping things “nice” matters more than telling the truth.

None of this happens overnight. It builds one small compromise at a time.

The language shift that hides the problem

Watch how words get used:

• Strength becomes “toxic.”
• Boundaries become “selfish.”
• Discipline becomes “extreme.”
• Leadership becomes “control.”

When a culture changes the meaning of words, it becomes easier to shame good traits and praise bad ones.

The institutions that often push against strong men

This isn’t about conspiracy. It’s about incentives. Many systems run smoother when people are compliant.

Media incentives: conflict sells, virtue is harder to show

Stories need villains. The simplest villain is a capable man who refuses to be managed. He can be painted as cold, arrogant, or dangerous, even when he’s simply competent.

Media also struggles to show quiet virtues, like patience, restraint, and duty. Those don’t fit into a short clip. Outrage does.

School and workplace pressures: sameness feels safer than excellence

Many environments reward fitting in more than improving. Excellence creates contrast, and contrast makes people uncomfortable.

A strong man often brings contrast just by doing the basics well:

• He prepares.
• He practices.
• He speaks clearly.
• He takes correction without melting down.
• He doesn’t need constant praise.

That can embarrass peers who want the rewards without the work.

Social media: mock what you fear, shame what you can’t match

Online spaces often punish anyone who speaks with clarity, especially about hard responsibilities. A man who says, “You should control your habits,” will get called judgmental by people who don’t want to change.

Social media also trains people to confuse confidence with arrogance. But confidence and arrogance are not the same thing.

The hidden cost of hating strong men

When strength is treated like a problem, everyone pays for it, including women and children.

You end up with fewer protectors

Strong men are often the first to run toward danger. They don’t do it for applause. They do it because someone has to.

If a culture mocks protectors, fewer people will volunteer to become one. Then the weak get preyed on more easily.

You get leaders who look safe but fold under pressure

A society still needs leadership. If strong men are pushed out, the vacuum doesn’t stay empty. It gets filled by people who crave approval and avoid hard calls.

That kind of leadership tends to collapse when real stress shows up.

You raise men who fear responsibility

If every attempt at strength gets labeled as “bad,” many men will stop trying. They won’t risk being misunderstood. They’ll aim for comfort and approval.

But a man built for comfort becomes fragile. When crisis hits, fragility spreads.

A biblical view of strength (KJV)

Biblical strength is not swagger. It’s courage tied to obedience, restraint, and duty.

Here are a few clear passages from the KJV that set the tone:

“Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.” (1 Corinthians 16:13, KJV) Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2016%3A13&version=KJV

That verse doesn’t praise chest-thumping. It ties strength to faithfulness and steadiness.

“Be strong and of a good courage, be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.” (Joshua 1:9, KJV) Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua%201%3A9&version=KJV

Courage isn’t the absence of fear. It’s doing what’s right with fear present.

“Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend.” (Proverbs 27:17, KJV) Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2027%3A17&version=KJV

Strong men help other men get sharper, not softer.

How to reclaim strength without becoming harsh

If strength is going to return, it has to be the right kind. The world doesn’t need more bullies. It needs more grounded men with self-control.

Build strength in layers

Think of strength like a house. You don’t start with paint. You start with a foundation.

1) Physical strength (baseline) You don’t need to be a champion. You need to be capable. Train consistently, eat like an adult, sleep like it matters.

2) Moral strength (the core) Moral strength means telling the truth, keeping your word, and doing the right thing when it costs you.

3) Emotional strength (stability) This is the ability to stay steady when criticized, tempted, or stressed. A strong man can hear “no” without falling apart.

4) Social strength (leadership) This is the ability to set direction, protect boundaries, and make decisions in public without begging for approval.

A simple self-check that stays honest

Ask yourself:

• Do I keep small promises when no one checks?
• Can I admit fault without adding excuses?
• Do I avoid hard talks to keep things pleasant?
• Do I chase comfort when I should chase growth?

You don’t need to answer perfectly. You need to answer truthfully.

What strong men do when they’re hated

If you choose strength, some people will label you. Don’t let labels steer your life.

A steady response often looks like this:

Strength doesn’t need to win every argument. It needs to stay aligned with what’s right.

Conclusion

The world often hates strong men because strength brings contrast, and contrast brings conviction. When a man stands firm, someone else has to decide if they’ll grow or stay comfortable. The answer isn’t to shrink, it’s to build the kind of strength that protects, provides, and tells the truth without pride. If you want a better culture, start by becoming harder to push around and easier to trust.

Paul in Athens (Acts 17): The Areopagus Message and What It Teaches

Alan Smith

What do you do when you walk into a place that’s full of religion, full of ideas, and full of confidence, yet missing the truth? Acts 17 gives one of the clearest pictures of Paul’s method and message as he enters Athens, a city known for its philosophers, its temples, and its many gods. The chapter doesn’t just record a sermon, it shows how Paul stayed steady under pressure, spoke plainly to a skeptical crowd, and called them to repentance and faith in the risen Christ.

Paul’s Journey to Athens

Leaving Berea while danger follows

Before Athens, Paul had been in Berea. The pattern in Acts continues: Paul preaches Christ, some believe, and opposition rises. Acts 17 explains that trouble didn’t stay local. Enemies came from Thessalonica and stirred up the crowd again.

Paul’s friends moved fast to protect him and keep the work going. Scripture records the basic travel detail like this:

“And they that conducted Paul brought him unto Athens: and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed.” (Acts 17:15, KJV)

Paul arrives in Athens while Silas and Timotheus remain behind for a time, then are told to join him.

Alone in a famous city

Athens was not a military power like Rome, but it carried cultural weight. People from across the world knew Athens for learning, debate, and art. It was the kind of city where people prided themselves on being informed.

Paul comes in with no show and no special advantage. He comes with the gospel, the same message he preached in synagogues and marketplaces across the empire.

Paul’s Burden: A City “Wholly Given to Idolatry”

Acts 17 doesn’t present Paul as impressed by Athens. It presents him as troubled by it.

“Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.” (Acts 17:16, KJV)

That phrase, “wholly given to idolatry”, explains why the chapter unfolds the way it does. Paul does not treat false worship as harmless culture. He sees it for what it is: people giving honor to created things instead of the Creator.

This is a good test of the heart. Many can spot sin in obvious places, but Paul is stirred when sin is polished and respected. Athens looked refined, but it was still full of idols.

Paul’s Everyday Outreach in Athens

Reasoning in the synagogue

Paul keeps his normal practice. He goes where Scripture is read and where people already talk about God.

“Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons…” (Acts 17:17, KJV)

Acts does not record every argument he made, but the book shows a consistent approach when Paul reasons from Scripture:

• He identifies Jesus as the Christ.
• He explains the necessity of the death and resurrection.
• He calls for repentance and faith.

Even in Athens, with all its new ideas, Paul does not shift away from the center of the message.

Speaking daily in the marketplace

Paul also takes the message outside the synagogue.

“…and in the market daily with them that met with him.” (Acts 17:17, KJV)

The “market” (the public square) is where ordinary life happened. It’s where you’d hear news, trade goods, and argue about whatever topic people cared about. Paul speaks there “daily,” not only on special occasions.

It’s one thing to deliver a sermon. It’s another thing to talk with people day after day, answer objections, and keep your patience when they don’t listen. Acts shows Paul doing both.

Encounter with Epicureans and Stoics

In the marketplace, Paul runs into two major philosophy groups of the day.

“Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him.” (Acts 17:18, KJV)

Their reactions show how unbelief often responds when it hears the gospel clearly:

• Mockery, because the message sounds strange.
• Dismissal, because the speaker seems unimpressive.
• Curiosity, because the message doesn’t match what they already assume.

Acts records some of their words:

“And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.” (Acts 17:18, KJV)

Notice what stands out to them: “Jesus, and the resurrection.” That part did not fit their categories. It still doesn’t fit the categories of many people now.

The Areopagus: Why Paul Was Brought There

The philosophers bring Paul to a place of public discussion and evaluation.

“And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is?” (Acts 17:19, KJV)

Acts also explains the mood of the city:

“For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.” (Acts 17:21, KJV)

This isn’t presented as a compliment. It’s a warning. A person can spend life chasing “new” ideas and still miss the truth. Novelty can become a substitute for repentance.

Paul’s Message on Mars’ Hill (Acts 17:22-31)

Paul now speaks to a crowd that does not start with the Old Testament. In a synagogue, he can reason from Moses and the prophets. At Athens, he begins with what they already know about themselves and what they openly admit about their worship.

1) He confronts their religiosity without praising it

“Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.” (Acts 17:22, KJV)

Paul is direct. He doesn’t flatter. He points out the problem: religion without truth still leaves people in darkness.

2) He uses the “unknown god” altar as a starting point

“For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.” (Acts 17:23, KJV)

Paul does not treat their altar as a bridge into polite interfaith talk. He treats it as an admission of ignorance. Then he tells them he will “declare” the God they do not know.

3) He teaches God as Creator and Lord

Paul begins with God’s identity and authority:

“God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” (Acts 17:24, KJV)

This is a direct strike against the temple system of Athens. If God made everything, no building contains him. If God is Lord, then idols are not options, they are lies.

4) He teaches God as the giver, not the receiver

Idol worship works like this: people “serve” their god by feeding it, dressing it, housing it, and carrying it. Paul flips that thinking.

“Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.” (Acts 17:25, KJV)

God is not needy. People are needy. Every breath is borrowed. That truth crushes pride fast.

5) He explains humanity’s shared origin and God’s rule over history

Paul continues:

“And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” (Acts 17:26, KJV)

This matters in a city that loved status and tradition. Paul states that all nations share the same human origin. Then he states that God rules the timeline and the borders. History is not random. God is not distant.

6) He calls them to seek God, while rejecting idols

Paul’s aim is not intellectual sparring. He wants repentance and faith. He says God ordered things so people would seek Him.

“That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.” (Acts 17:27, KJV)

He presses the point:

“For in him we live, and move, and have our being…” (Acts 17:28, KJV)

Then Paul lands the conclusion: if humans are God’s offspring in the sense of being His creation, then God cannot be an image made by human art.

“Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.” (Acts 17:29, KJV)

7) He commands repentance and warns of judgment

Paul does not end with a vague idea of spirituality. He makes a demand from God:

“And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.” (Acts 17:30, KJV)

Then he gives the reason:

“Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31, KJV)

Paul anchors the coming judgment to a real event: the resurrection. God has “given assurance” by raising Jesus from the dead. Christianity stands or falls here.

The Crowd’s Response: Mockery, Delay, and Faith

The resurrection exposes the heart. Acts records three responses.

Some mocked

“And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked…” (Acts 17:32, KJV)

Mockery is often a shield. If someone can laugh it off, they don’t have to face what it means.

Some postponed

“…and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.” (Acts 17:32, KJV)

Delay can sound polite, but it’s still dangerous. A person is not promised another day to “hear again.”

Some believed

“Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.” (Acts 17:34, KJV)

Acts gives names, not numbers. God is not counting crowds here. He’s showing fruit, real people in a hard place coming to faith.

What Acts 17 Teaches About Gospel Witness

Athens helps correct two common mistakes.

The gospel can meet thinkers without changing its center

Paul adjusts his starting point. He does not adjust his message. In the synagogue, he starts with Scripture promises. At the Areopagus, he starts with creation, God’s rule, and their admitted ignorance. But he still ends with the same cornerstone: repentance, judgment, and the risen Christ.

“Common ground” is not the same as compromise

Paul uses an altar inscription to begin. He uses their own statements about human life under God. Yet he also tells them they are wrong, they are ignorant, and they must repent. That is not people-pleasing. That is faithful witness.

Expect mixed reactions

Even in a setting built for ideas, the resurrection splits the room. That’s a steady reminder: the goal is not to win debates, it’s to speak truth and call for response. Some will mock. Some will stall. Some will believe.

Conclusion

Acts 17 shows Paul speaking to a culture full of confidence and still calling it to repentance. He doesn’t fight for attention with flashy words, he sets God before them as Creator, Judge, and Savior. Athens also reminds us that the resurrection is not a side topic, it is the proof God gives to the world. The most important question isn’t whether a message sounds new, it’s whether it’s true.

Joe Rogan’s “Jesus’ Journey” (Ep. 817, December 11, 2025): What Christians Can Take From It

When a massive podcast spends time on Jesus’ journey, it puts a familiar story in front of people who may not open a Bible on their own. Episode 817 (December 11, 2025) frames Jesus not only as a figure from history, but as a person whose life, death, and reported resurrection still press on the big questions: Who is God, what is a human life for, and what do we do with guilt, fear, and hope?

This post gives a clear summary of the episode’s major themes (without treating podcast talk as settled fact), shows where those themes line up with the Gospels, and offers simple ways to respond as a Christian this week. The goal is calm clarity, not culture-war heat.

What happened in Joe Rogan’s “Jesus’ Journey” conversation (Ep. 817)

Episode 817 centers on meaning. Listeners hear familiar tensions: belief and doubt, suffering and love, religion as comfort and religion as demand. The conversation circles around the idea that Jesus’ story still works on people because it is not only “inspiring,” it is costly. It asks for change.

At points, the talk also sounds like many modern conversations about Jesus: parts of the story are treated as moral wisdom, other parts as mystery, and other parts as claims that deserve pushback. A podcast can raise good questions, but it usually moves fast, so careful distinctions can get blurred.

The big themes: belief, doubt, sacrifice, and hope

• Belief under pressure: Faith is often described as trust when proof feels out of reach. For Christians, belief is not blind, it’s personal trust grounded in God’s character.
• Doubt and honesty: Doubt comes up as a normal part of thinking. The difference is whether doubt becomes a doorway to truth, or an excuse to never decide.
• Sacrifice and love: Jesus is often discussed as someone who chose loss for the sake of others. That theme matters because Christianity says love is proven in action, not talk.
• Forgiveness and guilt: Conversations about Jesus almost always hit shame, regret, and the desire for a clean start. The Gospel answer is grace that costs something, not denial.
• Power redefined: Jesus’ life flips status on its head. Strength is shown through service, restraint, and mercy.
• Hope that survives death: Even skeptical discussions feel the pull of the resurrection claim. If it’s true, it changes everything, if it’s false, Christianity collapses.

Where the episode connects with the Gospel story

Even when a show speaks in broad strokes, it often traces the same core points Christians hear in church:

• Incarnation: Jesus is not only a teacher, Christians confess he is God with us (Matthew and Luke’s birth narratives point this way).
• Teaching and parables: Jesus speaks about the kingdom of God, repentance, and true righteousness (think Matthew 5 to 7, or Luke 15).
• Compassion and miracles (as Scripture presents them): The Gospels show mercy as both words and deeds, healing, feeding, restoring, and forgiving.
• The cross: Not just tragedy, but purpose, Jesus gives himself for sinners (Mark 15 and the wider passion accounts).
• Resurrection: The central claim, God raised Jesus from the dead (John 20, Luke 24).
• Call to discipleship: Jesus doesn’t only offer comfort, he calls people to follow, obey, and endure (Mark 8 is a clear summary).

If the episode stirred curiosity or concern, return to the primary source. Read one Gospel straight through and let Jesus speak for himself.

A Christian lens on the claims: how to test what you hear

A popular show can be useful, but it can’t replace Scripture or the steady wisdom of the Church. Some claims about Jesus sound plausible because they match modern tastes, not because they match the Gospel. Discernment is not suspicion. It’s careful love for truth.

Think of it like tasting soup. One bite can tell you a lot, but you still need the recipe, the kitchen, and the cook’s intent to know what you’re eating.

Three filters for discernment: Scripture, the Church, and fruit

1) Scripture (what do the Gospels say?) Compare any claim to what Jesus actually says and does in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Example: if someone says Jesus never spoke about judgment, read Matthew 25 and see his own words.

2) The Church (how has faithful teaching understood this?) Check your church’s teaching, historic creeds, and trusted pastors and scholars. Example: if a conversation suggests the resurrection is “only symbolic,” measure that against the Church’s long confession that Jesus rose bodily.

3) Fruit (what does this produce in a life?) Jesus says you can recognize a tree by its fruit. Look for growth in love, humility, repentance, truthfulness, patience. Example: if a take on Jesus makes people proud, harsh, or lazy about sin, that’s a warning sign, even if it sounds spiritual.

Common pitfalls in pop discussions about Jesus

• Reducing Jesus to only a moral teacher: The Gospels present more than advice. Jesus forgives sins, receives worship, and claims unique authority.
• Treating faith as only feelings: Emotions matter, but Christian faith includes truth claims. Jesus calls people to believe, obey, and endure, even when feelings swing.
• Mixing in vague spirituality: “Be a good person” is not the Gospel. Christianity centers on Christ’s death and resurrection for sinners, and a new life by the Holy Spirit.
• Ignoring the hard parts (sin, judgment, repentance): Jesus speaks about mercy and warning in the same breath. A softer Jesus than the Gospels is not actually kinder, it’s less honest.

How to respond after listening: practical steps for faith this week

If Episode 817 got you thinking, treat that as an open door. The best response is not a hot take. It’s steady practice. Small habits, repeated, shape the heart.

Choose one simple action and do it within 24 hours. That keeps the conversation from staying only in your head.

A simple 15-minute practice: read, pray, reflect

1. Read (7 minutes): Pick one passage and read it slowly. Good options: Mark 8:27-38, Luke 15:11-32, John 20:1-18.
2. Pray (5 minutes): Use plain words. “Jesus, if you’re who you say you are, help me trust you. Show me what I’m avoiding. Teach me how to follow you.”
3. Reflect (3 minutes): Write two lines:

• What did Jesus do or say that stands out?
• What is one next step I should take today?

Talking about the episode with family or church friends

Use the episode as a starting point, not a finishing line. Keep the tone respectful, and don’t treat disagreement as disrespect.

Here are five prompts that stay close to Scripture:

1. What picture of Jesus did the conversation leave you with?
2. Which Gospel story best supports that picture, and which challenges it?
3. Did the talk treat the cross as necessary, or optional? Why does that matter?
4. What would change in daily life if the resurrection is true?
5. Where do you feel tension, doubt, or resistance, and what is one honest prayer you can pray?

If emotions rise, slow down. Let each person speak without interruption, then respond with one clear point, not a speech.

Conclusion

Joe Rogan’s “Jesus’ Journey” episode can spark honest thought, and that’s not nothing. Curiosity can be the first step toward repentance, trust, and real change. Still, a conversation is only as steady as its foundation, and Christian faith needs more than impressions.

Return to the Gospels. Read them with care, in community, and with prayer. Then live what you learn, forgive, serve, and tell the truth, even when it costs you.

Acts 17 and Paul’s Letters: Thessalonica Under Pressure (Lesson 93, Part 6)

Alan Smith

The scene in Acts 17 is busy, tense, and full of spiritual power. Paul and his team have come into Thessalonica, a key city on the Roman road, and the gospel has broken in like light at sunrise.

In this Lesson 93, Part 6 of A Study of the Book of Acts with Paul’s Writings, the focus is on how Luke’s short report in Acts 17 connects with Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians. Luke shows what happened on the street. Paul shows what happened in the hearts.

For believers today, this connection matters. It shows how a young church can grow strong under pressure, how Scripture shapes real people, and how hope in Christ’s return steadies us in a rough world.

Reviewing Acts 17 in Thessalonica: What Was Happening on the Ground

Acts 17:1–9 gives a short but rich picture of the birth of the church in Thessalonica. Paul follows his usual pattern. He goes to the synagogue first, where Jews and God-fearing Greeks gather.

For three Sabbaths, he reasons from the Scriptures. He does not shout empty slogans. He opens the Old Testament and shows that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. Then he says plainly that Jesus of Nazareth is that promised Christ.

Some Jews believe. Many Greeks believe. A number of influential women believe. A real church is born, right in the center of a busy pagan city. It starts with the Bible, clear preaching, and hearts opened by God.

But the same message that saves also stirs anger. Jealous Jews gather troublemakers from the marketplace and form a mob. They rush to the house of Jason, who has welcomed Paul and his team. When they cannot find Paul, they drag Jason and some brothers before the city leaders.

They accuse them of turning the world upside down and acting against Caesar, because they say there is another king, Jesus. The leaders take money from Jason as a kind of pledge, then let them go. That night, the believers send Paul and Silas away.

So this church is born in a storm. In only a short time, they hear the gospel, believe, face riots, and see their pastors rushed out of town. Young faith, heavy pressure, and a city on edge.

Paul’s Method: Reasoning from the Scriptures about Christ

Luke says Paul “reasoned,” “explained,” and “proved” that Jesus is the Christ. That means he walked through the Old Testament, passage by passage, to show:

• The Messiah would suffer.
• The Messiah would rise again.
• Jesus fits these promises.

Faith is not blind. It rests on what God has said and done. Paul calls people to trust Christ, but he does it with an open Bible.

For believers today, this is a clear pattern. When you share your faith, teach your children, or lead a small group, start with Scripture. Read it, explain it, answer honest questions, and point to Christ in the text. The Holy Spirit still uses clear Bible teaching to open hearts.

Conflict, Opposition, and the Birth of a Persecuted Church

The jealousy of some Jews sets off a chain reaction. They stir up the crowd, accuse the believers of rebellion, and throw fear into the small group of new Christians.

The charge is political: “They say there is another king, Jesus.” That is a serious claim in a Roman city. The message of Jesus as Lord touches every area of life, including loyalty and public order. From day one, these believers see that following Jesus is not a safe hobby.

The church in Thessalonica is born in a climate of fear, risk, and public shame. Yet this is the church Paul later praises for strong faith and bold witness. Their story reminds us that following Christ often brings trouble, especially for new believers. The pressure does not mean God is absent. It may mean he is doing deep work.

How Paul’s Letters Explain What Happened in Thessalonica

Acts gives the outside view. Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians give the inside view. They show what Paul felt, what the believers faced, and how the gospel shaped their daily lives.

In 1 and 2 Thessalonians, we see a sudden separation, deep affection, and ongoing concern. We see teaching about suffering, holiness, work, and the return of Christ. All of this grows out of those early days in Acts 17.

A Sudden Separation and Paul’s Deep Concern

In Acts 17, Paul has to leave by night. In 1 Thessalonians 2–3, he explains how that felt. He says he was “torn away” from them and uses the picture of being orphaned. His heart stayed in Thessalonica even when his body had to move on.

He worries that the tempter might have used the persecution to shake their faith. So he sends Timothy to check on them and strengthen them. When Timothy comes back with a good report, Paul is flooded with relief and joy. Their faith and love comfort his own heart in his trouble.

This gives a pattern for pastors, parents, and disciplers. Care for new believers with real affection. Pray for them. Check on them. Do not assume they are fine just because they started well. Spiritual care is personal and patient.

Persecution, Endurance, and the Call to Stand Firm

The mob in Acts 17 is not a small detail. It sets the stage for Paul’s strong teaching about suffering. In 1 Thessalonians 1 and 3, and in 2 Thessalonians 1, he reminds them that trouble is part of following Christ.

He thanks God that their faith works, their love labors, and their hope endures. Those three words show what real conversion looks like: trust that obeys, love that serves, and hope that holds on.

For believers today, this speaks straight into family rejection, social pressure, or even legal trouble for the faith. Hardship does not mean God has lost control. He uses it to grow steady faith. When the culture pushes, the answer is not fear or anger. The answer is firm trust, patient love, and quiet courage.

Living in a Pagan City While Waiting for Christ’s Return

Paul says the Thessalonians turned from idols to serve the living and true God and to wait for his Son from heaven. Their faith had two directions: present obedience and future hope.

They lived in a city filled with idols, sexual sin, and greed. Paul calls them to a quiet life, sexual purity, honest work, and mutual love. Waiting for Christ’s return did not excuse laziness or wild guessing about dates. It called for clean living and steady hands.

He also teaches about the Lord’s coming, the catching up of believers, the resurrection of the dead in Christ, and comfort in grief. He does not use these truths to stir fear, but to calm their sorrow and steady their hearts.

For us, the lesson is clear. We wait for Jesus, but we do our jobs, care for our families, serve our churches, and keep our hearts clean while we wait.

Lessons for Today from Thessalonica: Faith Under Pressure

The story of Thessalonica gives sharp, practical lessons for today’s churches and Christian homes. It shows how God can build strong believers in a short time and how hope holds when the culture pushes back.

How to Build Strong New Believers in a Short Time

Paul’s visit was brief, but the fruit was lasting. How?

• Center on Scripture: Open the Bible often and teach it clearly.
• Teach the cross and resurrection: Keep Jesus’ death for our sins and his rising again in front of people.
• Model holy living: Let new believers see what a clean, honest, loving life looks like up close.
• Stay connected when apart: Use letters, messages, visits, and steady prayer to keep walking with them.

These simple steps still build deep roots in new believers, even when time is short.

Holding Fast to Hope When the Culture Pushes Back

Many Christians today feel out of step with the culture around them. The Thessalonians knew that feeling well. They learned not to be shocked when truth stirred anger or mockery.

Remember the hope of Christ’s return. Remember the comfort he gives in grief. Remember that he sees every tear and every act of faith.

Two questions to ponder: Where is your faith under pressure right now? How might God be using that pressure to grow endurance and deepen your hope?

You can watch the full teaching linked below if you want to walk through these passages verse by verse.

Conclusion

Acts 17 and Paul’s letters together give a full picture of the Thessalonian church, born in conflict, rooted in Scripture, and strengthened by hope in Christ’s return. Their story shows that God plants strong churches even in hostile soil.

As you face your own pressures, hold tight to the Word of God, love your church family well, and fix your eyes on the coming King. May the Lord steady your heart, guard your faith, and help you stand firm in Christ until the day you see him face to face.

Blog: What Kind of Church Do We Have? (December 7, 2025)

Jeff Rowland

Teaching #154, “What Kind of Church Do We Have? - December 7, 2025,” calls believers to look with clear eyes at their local church in the light of Scripture, not feelings or trends.

This post walks through the main themes of that message and helps you ask, in a serious but hopeful way, what kind of church you are part of right now.

God cares what kind of church we are. He has given us a clear picture in His word. Here we will look at what a healthy, Christ-centered church looks like, how churches drift, and how you can respond in faith.

Why It Matters What Kind of Church We Have

The question “What kind of church do we have?” is not abstract. It shapes how you know God, how you grow, and how you reach others.

Your local church shapes how you think about Jesus, how you read the Bible, how you see sin, and how you treat people. Over time, a church either points people toward Christ or quietly pulls them away from Him.

Many churches in 2025 are busy and active, but not all are healthy. Some drift into comfort and entertainment. Others are driven by politics, traditions, or strong personalities. In some places, the Bible still gets read, but it no longer rules.

Jesus cares deeply about His churches. In Revelation 2 and 3, He walks among the churches, praises some, warns others, and calls several to repent or face judgment. That same Lord watches our churches today.

God’s Design for the Local Church

The Bible gives a clear picture of what a church is. The church is not a building or an event. It is the people of God, saved by grace, gathered around Jesus, under His word, in the power of the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 2:42-47, the first believers devote themselves to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer. They share their lives, meet needs, and praise God together. The Lord adds to their number.

Ephesians 4 shows the church as a body that grows as each part does its work. 1 Corinthians 12 describes many members with different gifts, all needed, all joined to one Head, Christ.

So a biblical church will be marked by:

• Worship that honors God.
• Teaching that explains Scripture.
• Fellowship that is real, not shallow.
• Prayer that depends on the Spirit.
• Serving and mission that reach the lost and care for the saved.

We are called to match our church life to this pattern from Scripture, not to the pull of culture.

How Churches Drift From God’s Plan

Most churches do not fall in a single day. They drift a little at a time.

Some place tradition or new trends above Scripture. Others chase numbers instead of discipleship. In some, a gifted leader becomes the center, and people rally around a personality instead of Christ.

You may see:

• Shallow teaching that avoids hard texts.
• Services that feel like a show, with people treated as an audience.
• A focus on image and brand, but little concern for holiness.
• A cold atmosphere where few know each other and love is thin.

This teaching calls you to honest assessment, not harsh criticism. The goal is not pride, but repentance and faithfulness to Christ.

Marks of a Biblical, Christ-Centered Church

On December 7, 2025, Teaching #154 calls the church to test itself by clear marks from Scripture. Use these as a humble checklist as you think about your own congregation.

A Church Built on the Authority of Scripture

A true church is ruled by God’s word, not by culture, feelings, or popular opinion.

In a Scripture-ruled church:

• Sermons open the Bible, explain the text, and apply it.
• Leaders and members submit to Scripture, even when it confronts them.
• Big decisions are weighed by what the Bible actually says.
• People are urged to read, study, and obey Scripture in daily life.

If most messages are about personal stories, vague inspiration, or self-help, with only passing Bible references, that is a warning sign. A faithful church lets the word set the agenda.

A Church That Exalts Jesus, Not People

A healthy church lifts up Christ above all. He is the center of worship, teaching, and mission.

In a Christ-centered church:

• Songs are rich with truth about who Jesus is and what He has done.
• Preaching keeps pointing back to His cross, resurrection, and reign.
• Ministry is described as serving Christ, not building a brand.
• Quiet faithfulness is honored more than talent or charisma.

Where a pastor, worship leader, or ministry brand feels like the “star,” the church is in danger. The Spirit works most clearly where Jesus is treasured most.

A Church Marked by Repentance, Holiness, and Obedience

A biblical church does not only speak kind words. It calls people to turn from sin and walk in holiness.

In such a church:

• Sin is named, not excused.
• Church discipline is practiced with grace when needed.
• People confess sin, seek help, and forgive each other.
• Over time, there is clear growth in purity, honesty, and integrity.

Repentance is not a one-time event. It is the ongoing path of real believers. When a church treats sin lightly or never calls for change, love is missing. Loving people means calling them to obey Christ.

A Church Filled With Real Love and Sacrificial Community

True Christian love shows up in daily life, not only in words.

In a loving church:

• People know one another beyond Sunday services.
• Needs are shared, meals are shared, burdens are shared.
• Members visit the sick, help in crisis, and pray with those who weep.
• New people are welcomed into real relationships, not left on the edges.

A cold, consumer type church lets people attend but stay strangers. Ask yourself, “Do people here really know and love one another, or are we just sharing a room for an hour?”

A Church on Mission to Reach the Lost and Make Disciples

A faithful church is not turned inward only. It carries the gospel out.

You will see:

• Regular prayer for lost friends, family, and neighbors.
• Teaching and training that help people share their faith.
• A heart for missions and mercy in the local community.
• Members who help new believers grow and obey Jesus.

Mission is not only for special events or a few gifted people. It is a lifestyle of the whole church, in homes, workplaces, schools, and beyond.

How to Honestly Ask: What Kind of Church Do We Have?

The teaching does not stop at description. It presses each listener to respond in a humble, biblical way.

Begin With Prayer, Humility, and Self-Examination

Before you judge your church, ask God to search your own heart.

You might pray:

• “Lord, show me where I need to repent.”
• “Strengthen our pastors and elders to be faithful.”
• “Reveal where our church is obeying You and where we are drifting.”

Ask for a gentle spirit and a desire to build up, not tear down. Remember that you are part of the body you are evaluating.

Use Scripture as the Measure, Not Personal Preference

Many church complaints grow from taste, not truth. Style of music, length of service, or favorite traditions are not the main issue.

Let Scripture be the standard. Compare your church to the marks above: word-centered, Christ-exalting, repentant, loving, and on mission. Do not measure it against churches you see online or against a perfect memory of the past.

This keeps your heart steady and fair.

Respond in Love: Stay, Serve, Speak, or Seek a Faithful Church

Once you see what kind of church you have, respond in love.

• If your church is mainly healthy, stay, give thanks, and serve with joy.
• If your church is mixed, pray, serve, and speak humbly with leaders where you see concern.
• If your church rejects the Bible and the gospel, it may be time to seek a sound church that honors Christ and His word.

In every case, seek patience, respect, and unity as far as you can, while keeping loyalty to Christ above all.

Living as the Kind of Church Jesus Deserves

Teaching #154 on December 7, 2025, is a fresh call from Christ to His people. He deserves a church that reflects His truth and love.

Your Personal Role in Shaping Your Church

Every believer has a part to play.

You shape your church when you:

• Pray faithfully for leaders and members.
• Serve in quiet ways that few see.
• Give with a generous heart.
• Forgive when you are hurt.
• Welcome those who are new or alone.
• Share the gospel in daily life.
• Use your gifts to build others up.

You might join a small group, mentor a younger believer, or quietly meet a need without seeking praise. When each person obeys Christ, the whole church grows healthier.

A Hopeful Vision for the Church in the Days Ahead

The pressures on churches in 2025 are real, but the promise of Jesus is stronger. He said He will build His church and the gates of hell will not overcome it.

Picture a church that shines with truth and love in a dark world. The Bible is opened, Jesus is exalted, sin is confessed, love is real, and the gospel goes out with power.

Conclusion

God cares deeply what kind of church we have. In Scripture He shows what a faithful, Christ-centered church looks like and warns about drift.Respond with prayer, obedience, and humble action in your own congregation. Ask how you can help your church be more rooted in the word, more focused on Jesus, more marked by repentance, land mission. Together, keep asking, “Lord, make our church faithful to You.”