Is the Reverend Wright a Brother in Christ?

Jeremiah Wright, Evangelicals’ Brother in Christ, Christianity Today (5/7/2008)

The subtitle of the above post: Go ahead and disagree with Obama’s pastor. But remember: He’s family.

Jason Byassee, the author of the above post, argues that Evangelical Christians need to take the Reverend Wright seriously, because he is a Brother in Christ.

On the other hand:

James White recently spoke to the issue of Wright’s theology by quoting extensively from Wright’s teacher and favorite theologian, James Cone. (Wright references Cone and Cone’s contemporary, Dwight Hopkins, several times in the above video, starting at about 02:15.) White briefly and powerfully makes the case that Cone is a racist and, furthermore, a heretic outside the Christian faith. If White is correct, and Wright is on board with Cone’s Black Liberation Theology, are Evangelical Christians obligated to interact with the Reverend as a Brother in Christ?

Faith Death

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341869,00.html

The mother of an 11-year-old girl who died of untreated diabetes said Wednesday that she did not know her daughter was terminally ill as she prayed for her to get better.

Madeline Neumann died Sunday from a treatable form of diabetes.

…an autopsy determined Madeline died from diabetic ketoacidosis, an ailment that left her with too little insulin in her body.

She had probably been ill for about 30 days, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness…

The family does not belong to an organized religion or faith, Leilani Neumann said.

“We just believe in the Bible, that’s all,” she said. “This is our faith.”

Her husband added that, “We believe the word of God and live according to its precepts.”

—————-

I once heard Todd Bentley teach that a person’s lack of faith can forfeit a healing. He used the example of an individual being healed of some malady - I believe it was cancer - by a faith healer, and then being told the next day by a physician that the cancer was still present in the person’s body. Bentley argued that the individual now needed to decide who he would trust: man or God. If that individual allowed the physician to sow doubt in his heart, he would forfeit the healing.

So, when Benny, or Todd, or any number of other “faith healers” proclaim a healing over you, and it does not come to pass, it’s your fault.

Bentley & Co. are directly responsible for this girl’s unnecessary death. Anyone who teaches “God vs. Medicine” played a part and should repent. Shame on you, Todd.

—————-

http://www.americaslastdays.com/?page=theyshall-leilani

The dead girl’s mother posted twice on the above site. This tragedy should awaken us to the necessity of local church membership. We need one another to bring correction and rebuke when we stray from the faith into all kinds of sillinesses that sometimes have very serious consequences.

—————-

Now playing: Guided by Voices - The Brides Have Hit Glass [2001]
via FoxyTunes

21st Century Apostles & A Mysterious Absence of Biblical Qualifications

I recently listened to a podcast from Bob Dewaay’s Critical Issues Commentary, The Roots and Fruits of the New Apostolic Reformation, Part 1. (You can locate a print copy here, and the mp3 here.) Whilst discussing the early church’s view on the office of apostle, Dewaay made a keen observation I had not previously considered:

If the apostles (this would include the vast majority of New Testament authors) intended to perpetuate the office and envisioned others taking their places, why are there no explicit instructions on how this would come to be (or that it would come to be at all), and why no qualifications?

When Paul established a church, he placed elders over it. And Paul gives us a substantial list of qualifications these men must conform to in I Timothy 3 and Titus. Clearly, Paul intends the local church to be governed by elders. If Paul or the other apostles intended for these local churches to also remain under the authority of a continuing apostolic office, why no qualifications?

And why do we never see this happen in the New Testament? Paul’s protégé, Timothy, is established as an elder or pastor, not an apostle. If such a significant role was to be continued and passed on, why does scripture leave us no clue as to how this should take place?

—————-

To be fair, Scripture does seem to provide one qualification for an apostle:

So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.

Acts 1:21-22

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?

1 Corinthians 9:1

So, apostles are to have physically served with or seen the Lord. Unless one is willing to say he has physically seen the Lord, one cannot hold the office of apostle. Therefore, if one is going to accept the Five-Fold Ministry (or the Mormon Quorum of the Twelve Apostles), one would have to accept that Christ continues to physically appear and teach. (Unfortunately, some do continue to claim to have had such encounters. Oddly, the more goofy and heretical an individual’s teaching gets, the more likely such an individual seems to be ready to claim a physical Christ-encounter.)

Yet, even if one accepts the above, it still remains perplexing that Scripture leaves us no guidelines for the continuation of this office. If the office is to continue, we are put in the position of accepting an individual’s unverifiable claim that the risen Christ has physically appeared to him and anointed him an apostle. I find it hard to believe Christ intended to leave such an influential role open to this kind of ambiguity.

—————-
Now playing: Derek Webb - The Strong, The Tempted, & The Weak
via FoxyTunes

John Piper on Hal Lindsey & End-Times Speculation

Well, if I haven’t thoroughly outed myself as a “Piperite”, two posts in one day featuring my favorite pastor should do the trick.

———————-

I read Piper’s 1974 essay on Hal Lindsey’s The Late, Great Planet Earth this morning, and could not pass on the opportunity to forward it along.

Since reading Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins’ Left Behind and witnessing the ensuing marketing phenomenon more than a decade ago, I have been uncomfortable with the assurance, and often the stridency, with which some adhere to the Premillennial/Dispensational eschatological system.

I occasionally listen to a weekend radio program on the local Christian AM station that deals exclusively with this topic. While I do not doubt the sincerity of the host’s faith, I am often disturbed at the passion attached to such a tangential issue (the precise outworking of Biblical prophecy in current events). I am more disturbed by the passion with which this host often criticizes her brothers and sisters in Christ who don’t subscribe to this particular eschatological system (a system that has no history in the Church predating the 19th Century).

Piper writes:

This is the most important: among those who calculate about the time and sequence of the coming events and who try to give detailed descriptions of how it will be, there is, I think, a fundamentally wrong focus, a dislocation of our “blessed hope.” Throughout the New Testament the all-important focus of our hope is personal fellowship with God and our Lord Jesus Christ…

… But for the calculator of the end times this all-important personal focus of our hope gets blurred in a mass of secondary (often speculative) details.

Amen! This is my chief concern with so many Christian ministries wandering into various aberrant teachings. Dispensational end-times speculation, fixations on mystical experience and supernatural charismata, the Prosperity Gospel, the Megachurch self-improvement progams, and a myriad of other modern errors all have this in common: They are all a giant distraction from the main thing - Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

—————-
Now playing: Radiohead - All I Need
via FoxyTunes

John Piper & The Prosperity Gospel

I saw this at Greycoats yesterday and couldn’t resist posting it myself.

I love John Piper! (And I hate the Prosperity “Gospel”!)

IHOP, The Call, Shofars and Lasers… Yeah, Lasers

I can’t recall if I stumbled onto this or if someone directed me to it. Either way, this is one of the more absurd demonstrations of charismatic inanity I’ve seen in a while. (Probably since Rick Pino and Dutch Sheets messed us up with a little carrot cake!)

This video was shot at The Call 07.07.07. The Call was founded by Lou Engle and heavily promoted by IHOP. Mike Bickle currently serves as Director of The Call’s National Board.

Many in the audience are holding horns called shofars. Honestly, I had no idea what a shofar was before watching this video. I searched the KJV, NIV, ESV and NAS at BibleGateway.com for “shofar”. I was unable to locate the word. Apparently, these ancient horns were used in Old Testament religious ceremonies. The shofar-wielding audience members were instructed to toot their horns in order to garner some kind of special favor from Yahweh.

This is annoying, in and of itself. Why? Why are you blowing shofars? But it gets worse - much worse. Ray Hughes of MorningStar Ministries (Rick Joyner’s ministry) said the following before commencing the shofar-ing:

Right before we do this, I want you to know that a renowned scientist inventor has invented a device that literally takes the sound and converts it back to light. And there are five lasers going forth out of this, and every sound of our voice, the sound of our praise, the sound of our proclamation literally (inaudible) goes 25,000 miles into space beyond the (inaudible) , and we’re going to praise the Lord in the heights - in the heavens, according to the word of David.

Really? God needs lasers to convert our praise from sound into light and then beam it into outer space? (Though, not very far into space. Since God is obviously bound by the three-dimensional space of this universe, I hope He was in the neighborhood of Earth when all this noise was being transmitted.)

Those of you within this movement who find yourself reading this: Do you realize how insane you look to everyone else outside your fringe charismatic clique? Just when I start to think there are reasonable folks within these movements, I run into something like this. This junk drives me nuts! WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!?! What does this have to with ANYTHING?!?!

I Corinthians 1:22-24

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

“…but we preach Christ crucified…” Could we, please? Could we stop with the shofars and preach Christ crucified? Could we stop with the territorial spirits and preach Christ crucified? Could we stop with the generational curses and preach Christ crucified? Could we stop with the creepy wedding ceremonies and preach Christ crucified? Please?

—————-

It should be noted that Ricky Skaggs had the privilege of kicking this nonsense off with the first seven shofar blasts. (Of course, it had to be seven. What is it with modern-day charismatic/prophetic types and numerology? Oh, and Skaggs didn’t just play or blow these blasts - he released them! Whatever that means…)

—————-
Now playing: 16 Horsepower - Blessed Persistence
via FoxyTunes

Flirting With Amillennialism

Sam Storms, the charismatic Calvinist, recently defined himself theologically. While I disagree with Storms’ charismatic views of prophecy and continued Apostolic ministry, I have read quite a bit of the material he has made available on his site and have learned a great deal from this ministry.

Storms is an Amillennialist. I have read several of his articles on eschatology and have found them very reasonable, persuasive and biblical. Storms briefly sketches his Amillennialism:

I am an Amillennialist. This is a huge topic on which I am currently writing a book. So I’ll limit myself here to only a few specifics.

a. One of the primary reasons I am not a Premillennialist (neither Historic nor Dispensational) is because of what I read in the NT concerning the Second Coming of Christ.

To be a Premillennialist of any sort, you must believe that physical death and the curse on the natural creation will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s return. You must believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ. You must believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return. To be a Premillennialist, you must believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to Christ’s return and that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to Christ’s return.

But my reading of what happens at the Second Coming of Christ indicates that then, and not 1,000 years later, physical death is swallowed up in the victory of Christ, never again to exert its power; the natural creation is delivered fully and finally from its bondage to sin; the New Heavens and New Earth are inaugurated; all opportunity for salvation of the lost comes to an end; and both the final resurrection and final judgment of all mankind occur.

b. I find no biblical support for a pre-tribulation rapture, Christian Zionism, a distinction between Israel and the Church, or a future seven year period known as the Great Tribulation.

c. I believe Matthew 24:1-35; Mark 13:1-31; and Luke 21:5-33 (otherwise known as the Olivet Discourse) refer to events that transpired in the first century, beginning with the exaltation of Christ and consummating with the destruction in 70 a.d. of both the city of Jerusalem and its Temple.

As I said, I hope to finish a book on eschatology sometime in 2008, but in the meantime you may read several articles in defense of these beliefs, available on my website under Theological Studies, Eschatology.

To be honest, I find all of these arguments quite convincing. I was raised as a default Dispensational Premillennialist, believing in a literal 7-year Great Tribulation preceded by the rapture of God’s saints. I have since (before encountering Storms or Amillennialism) been convinced that scripture nowhere describes the world-shattering event of a pre-tribulational rapture. I just cannot find two Second Comings in scripture.

I also struggle with the idea of the world continuing on in sin and death after Christ’s return. I can’t even wrap my mind around how that would work. And what about the final unleashing of Satan after this literal 1,000 year period? Does Christ defeat Satan/Antichrist twice? I don’t know. It all just seems very confusing.

I have also become disabused of the notion that the Church and Israel are two distinct entities in the economy of God. The more I read scripture (particularly the Pauline epistles), the more I see the Church being grafted onto the tree that is Israel - one tree. God has one people. He has always had one people. I am a child of Abraham. My unbelieving Jewish neighbors are not. I think this insistence on distinguishing Israel and the Church drives much Premillennial thought (particularly the Dispensational variety).

(I know I run the risk of being labeled as an adherent of “Replacement Theology” with the above paragraph, but… well, that’s just how I see it right now. I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise.)

I don’t yet call myself an Amillennialist. Because I am thoroughly convinced that Christ will be returning for His Bride only once, I waffle between Historic Premillennialism (post-tribulational) and Amillennialism. I know Amillennialism is loathed by many Christians, so here’s your chance! Convince me Storms is wrong and rescue me from this eschatological heresy!

—————-
Now playing: Grits - Make Room
via FoxyTunes

The Myth of Libertarian Free Will

According to theopedia.com, “libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one’s nature, predisposition and greatest desires.”

This is my daughter, Lydia. She recently turned three years old and is the apple of her daddy’s eye. I would die for Lydia.

Mr. Libertarian-Free-Will-Man, riddle me this: Am I “free” to murder Lydia? When I get home from work early this morning and Lydia lies sleeping in her bed, will I be “free” to suffocate her?

(A note before answering this question: There are no unusual internal or external forces acting upon me or this situation. In other words, assume that I am as sane as I am most mornings, and there are no terrorists compelling me to kill Lydia in lieu of a nuclear bomb being detonated in downtown Minneapolis.)

Under normal circumstances, in what meaningful way am I “free” to murder Lydia? How is it that I can be 100% certain I will not murder Lydia when I arrive home this morning? The proponent of Libertarian Free Will must hold that I am “free” to murder Lydia this morning, and therefore cannot be certain of my sparing her.

This has seemed to me for some time to be absurd on its face. I am certainly not free to murder Lydia. I am not free to do that which I have no desire to do. I am not free to plunge the Sharpie lying within my reach on this desk into my eye socket. I am not free to arrive at work this evening in the buff. Am I physically capable of doing all of the above? Of course, I am, but we are speaking here of moral freedom, not corporal capacity.

I am physically capable of doing all sorts of things I will never do, because I do not wish to do them. So, in what sense am I truly “free” to do these things? I would submit that I am not free, at least not in a libertarian sense, to murder Lydia or do anything I do not desire to do. I believe I am free to act according to my nature, desires and inclinations.

So, Mr. Libertarian-Free-Will-Man, am I free to murder Lydia? If yes, how so? If no, well… then I think we are nearing a more biblical view of human will and freedom, and facilitating a more biblical (and rational) discussion of God’s foreknowledge and election…

—————-
Now playing: Switchfoot - Twenty-Four
via FoxyTunes

A Response to Zack H. on IHOP and Intercession

On 12/28/2007, I posited a question to Zack H. at Forever Nocturnal.

Zack has been gracious enough to devote a post to his response. I will likewise post my response here and over at Zack’s.

—————-

Zack,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. You make me think these things through a bit more thoroughly as well.

First, I should address the issue of God’s sovereignty and prayer/intercession. You said:

God is all sovereign. …He doesn’t need us. Yet that’s the glory of the gospel, He desires that we partner with him, to be with him.

I believe I have stated this before, but likely not as clearly and emphatically as I should have:

I am a Calvinist. I believe in God’s absolute sovereignty over all, including the wills of men. I believe nothing happens apart from God’s predetermined plan. I believe no one hinders or turns back God (Job) through unbelief, lack of prayer or by any other means.

I also believe God has sovereignly ordained to realize much of His will via the prayers of His people. I believe prayer moves God, though I would say it moves Him to a place He had already determined to go. That He folds us into His sovereignty in this way truly is glorious.

I don’t think you and I are very far apart here. I nowhere meant to give the impression that I do not believe God is moved by prayer.

(John Piper preached on prayer two Sundays ago. You and I would find much to agree on here.)

—————-

On to my persisting issues:

The purpose of IHOP is not to make Jesus come back faster. Our purpose is to fast and pray because we believe Jesus is coming back soon. (Again I speak for IHOP in that as well because it’s a public fact, but I am not an official spokesman nor can I be labeled as one.)

…

Do I or have I heard it preached at IHOP that we are praying for the purpose of bringing Jesus back faster? No. But IHOP and I do believe Jesus is coming back soon.

I’m not sure this is a distinction with any difference. Perhaps, I again need to be a bit clearer. I recognize IHOP intercessors are not praying “to make Jesus come back faster”, but believe He is coming back soon (faster?) and this return is contingent upon prayer (contingent in the manner I would defend above). And not just any prayer - 24/7, Bridally Paradigm-ed prayer. You said:

Our prayers fill the bowl not because He needs us, but because He wants us. (John 3:16; John17) Thus why the Bridal Paradigm is needed.

24/7 prayer and the Bridal Paradigm are necessary to propel the end-times saints into the kind of prayer and holiness that will be required to usher in Christ’s Second Coming. This is exactly what Jennifer Roberts spoke of when I saw her at onething Minneapolis. (See: Here and here for my comments on Roberts, onething and the Bridal Paradigm.) I will concede that it is probably not your, Roberts’ or IHOP’s intent to portray 24/7 prayer or the Bridal Paradigm as a means of manipulating God. However, when these are lifted up as necessary, it inevitably gives the impression that if these are not followed (at least by a small vanguard of full-time intercessors), then Christ will not return.

Creating a place on the Earth for the spirit of the Lord to dwell. Not saying that we need to reestablish the rabbinic tabernacle of David. But saying we need to create a place with in us for the Holy Spirit to rest. Christ is in us. The Spirit already abides in us, but by resting place I mean a place free of gossip and slander. A place free of lust and perversion. A place where the spirit can rest. The city of refuge is not a biblical quotation, but from a prophecy about cities of refuge being raised up at the end of the Age.

To which prophecy do you refer? This drives to the heart of my problem with IHOP and other modern charismatic/prophetic ministries: they are driven, at least in part, by a gnostic understanding of Christianity and the Bible. No one outside this clique has any knowledge of the Bridal Paradigm, Cities of Refuge, the Joseph Company, Joel’s Army, Tabernacle of David… because they are essentially extra-biblical. They are wrapped in biblical language, but are really founded on extra-biblical, personal, divine revelation. If God hadn’t “spoken” to Mike Bickle, Bob Jones, Paul Cain, etc., then none of the above concepts/paradigms would exist.

To get into this clique, one must have a similar special, divine, personal, extra-biblical revelation about these things. As you and Roberts have both stated, these things are essential to what “God is doing” in these “final days”. I believe you have stated elsewhere on your blog that you believe we are fast-approaching the eschaton, because God told you so.

But what about the rest of us - the 99.9% of believers who haven’t received these secret messages from God? When people accuse IHOP’rs and other prophetic/charismatic types of being elitist, I don’t think they necessarily mean it personally or individually, but corporately. The movement is definitionally elitist, because it hinges on personal, extra-biblical revelation from God. It is, in this sense, a gnostic elitism.

“…we need to create a place with in us for the Holy Spirit to rest.”

I honestly don’t know what that means. If I (or my family, local church, small group, etc.) need to be free of gossip, slander, lust and perversion in order for the “Holy Spirit to rest”, I am/we are in trouble. This smacks of a moral perfectionism I see in much modern charismatic/prophetic language. No one individual or community is or ever will be free of sin this side of eternity. We Christians, sinners all, are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit as a guarantee of our inheritance (Eph. 1), not because we cleaned house beforehand, but because God is gracious, merciful and good to His undeserving called-out ones.

Do you believe IHOP is a place free of gossip, slander, lust and perversion? I don’t believe you do, and don’t believe your point here was to say that you do. But, why say it at all then? What’s the point? I think this again drives to the perceived elitism - there seems to be the implication that the average Bible-believing Christian church/ministry does not strive for holiness in the same way IHOP does, because it is not devoted to 24/7 prayer and the Bridal Paradigm (and Joel’s Army, and the JoCo, and establishing Cities of Refuge, etc.). I know that’s not your intent, Zack, but I think it is an understandable perception taken by those on the outside. (I also understand IHOP leadership repeatedly states their mission is not for the whole Church, but a small troupe of intercessors. However, I think this only reinforces the perception of elitism. IHOP is not for everyone, but only a select few. It’s like the Navy Seals of Christian spirituality.)

Zack, please accept that I say all of the above out of a genuine concern and desire to understand more clearly, not a desire to be unnecessarily quarrelsome. I don’t doubt the genuineness of your faith, and I admire your zeal. I just believe it is a zeal that could be put to better use.

God Bless,

Jim B.

—————-

P.S. If you happen to read/listen to/watch Piper’s sermon on prayer, I believe he paints a much more biblical picture of 24/7 prayer. It is not the picture of an Intercessory Missionary, but of a common saint breathing prayer as a 24/7 lifestyle. Though I fall dreadfully short of this goal, it is my life’s aim in regard to prayer.

—————-
Now playing: The Beach Boys - Sloop John B
via FoxyTunes

How Not to Read the Bible

 

 

 

As a big Sign of Jonah fan, it will likely come as no surprise that I am not real hip on the International House of Prayer (IHOP) or very impressed with the teaching of their Apostle-In-Chief, Mike Bickle. However, because I have family members tangentially associated with IHOP, and because I am oddly drawn to all of its attendant goofinesses, I occasionally peek at Bickle’s teaching notes. Typically, it is an object lesson on how not to handle the Bible.

Example: Positive Trends, People and Events in the End Times - Bickle’s teaching notes from February 17, 2007.

I will only address (I.) of Bickle’s outline. He quotes Joel 2:11 and Malachi 4:5, both of which refer to the “great” and “terrible” (or “dreadful”, or “awesome” - depending on the translation) Day of the Lord.

The LORD thunders
at the head of his army;
his forces are beyond number,
and mighty are those who obey his command.
The day of the LORD is great;
it is dreadful.
Who can endure it?

Joel 2:11 (NIV)

See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.

Malachi 4:5-6 (NIV)

 

Now, it seems to me that your average fifth-grader would be able to deduce from these kinds of passages that the words “great” and “dreadful” are used in conjunction to emphasize the terrible gravity of the Day of the Lord. That they are expressing the same thing; namely, that the Day of the Lord will be an awesome (not synonymous with “cool”, but that which inspires admiration and wonder) and dreadful display of God’s power and wrath against His enemies.

But, no. Bickle teaches that these two words signify a dichotomous blessing/curse for those living at the end of this age - believers will be blessed, while sinners will be cursed.

The 2-fold nature of the day of the Lord is seen in the great blessing it releases for those who call on Jesus and it is terrible in judgment for those who refuse Him.

Mike Bickle (I., C.)

 

WHAT!? There is no conceivable way one could pull this meaning from these texts without some preconceived paradigm (perhaps of the Bridal variety?) being forced onto them. Of course, there is a sense in which the above is true: believers will ultimately be blessed and vindicated on the Day of the Lord. Contrariwise, sinners will be exposed to God’s terrible and eternal wrath. However, Bickle appears to be peddling a soft dominionism which anticipates a victorious Church dominating the world scene (and all of its seven spheres/mountains of influence).

First, the End-Time Church will be victorious and full of God’s glory (Eph. 4:13; 5:26-27; Mt. 16:18; Jn. 17:21-26; Acts 2:17-21; Rev. 7:9; 12:11; 15:2; 19:7-8; 22:17). The Church will live in purity or without spot (compromise) as they walk out Sermon on the Mount lifestyles (Mt. 5-7).

 

That He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish (compromise). (Eph. 5:27)

Mike Bickle (II. B.)

 

(A side note: Notice how Bickle turns Ephesians 5:27 from a description of Christ’s purchase of His Church/Bride into a perfectionistic legalism.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Ephesians 5:25-27

How does/did Christ sanctify, cleanse and wash the Church? The Cross. The Church does not earn this in the eschaton by finally achieving an uncompromised and pure ethos. (Does Bickle really believe that the end-times Church will be “holy and without blemish” - sinless?)

Not everything Bickle teaches here is wrong. Unfortunately, he launches this particular endeavor with an embarrassing mangling of scripture. It is never justifiable to alter the meaning of a text in order to fit it into your message. Let the text alter your message.