Category: Uncategorized

We have been considering the Doctrines of Grace and that famous or infamous acrostic called TULIP. We have spent time on total depravity, unconditional election, and limited atonement. I trust you could now provide yourself some kind of basic explanation of these doctrines w/ one or two scriptures to demonstrate how these are what Scripture teaches.

We have, I remind you, established that these doctrines rise and fall together. They are interlocking doctrines or five aspects of one doctrine. The denial of any one of these doctrines is the denial of all of these doctrines.

We have also said that the only place you can find these doctrines are in the Bible and the only place you can find these doctrines defended is in the Reformed Church that we have admitted that the Reformed Church, sadly enough, has become itself very weak in a fulsome defense of these doctrines and their implications.

Some of you here are young. There will possibly come a day when you will have to find a Church to attend. Do not bother trying out Wesleyan, Nazarenes, Church of Christ, Pentecostals, Lutherans, or Roman Catholics because in such Churches you will not find Biblical Christianity.

Those that aren’t Calvinists are only Christians because of the Calvinism that surreptitiously yet remains in their system. This remnant of Calvinism serves in their system to rescue it from the complete paganism it would otherwise be, were it not for the presence of whatever Calvinism remains. Take the Calvinism out of their Christianity it would not longer be Christian.

So, you must find a Reformed Church and not just any Reformed Church, but one that is not ashamed of these doctrines. Not ashamed of the ongoing validity of God’s Law.

Some will and do object… “You Calvinist with your precious doctrines and theology. You need to give up your intellectual pursuit and just love and follow Jesus?

To this we answer but how can I follow Jesus unless I know who Jesus is and how can I know who Jesus is apart from a theology built up line by line with doctrine? You see nobody follows Jesus w/o having an understanding of who Jesus is. That understanding of who Jesus is the result of theology. The Jesus that we are to follow is the Jesus of Scripture.

And the Jesus of Scripture said that “all that the Father gives Me will come to me.” This clearly teaches what Calvinism later came to call irresistible grace.

With that said we today come to Irresistible Grace as we consider the Doctrines of Grace.

We find that in Scripture. There in John we find it plain as day. Jesus is contesting again against His enemies who have objected because He has said that He is the Bread of life come down from Heaven. He goes on to say,

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” John 6:44

Let us talk about the Greek word “draw” there (helskyse) When I was in undergrad at a Wesleyan School studying Arminian theology I remember being taught that the word there meant the idea of “wooing,” or “enticing.” I was taught that God woos all men equally by what they called “prevenient grace.” It is this prevenient grace equally distributed that some men will cooperate with so that God’s wooing is successful and someone is saved. However, others do not cooperate with this prevenient grace and so God’s wooing and enticing fails and they are lost. God tried to woo them but He failed.

Unfortunately, this paradigm does not stand up to the meaning of the Greek word there for “draw.” This is not a picture of hanging a t-bone in front of hungry dog to woo him into the dog pen. This idea of draw instead is a picture of being dragged. Consider a couple other times where this same Greek word used here in John 6:44 is used elsewhere in Scripture. See if you can identify which word is used in these passages that is used in this John 6:44 passage.

Acts 17:19 But when her owners saw that their hope of gain was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the rulers.

James 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?

The Greek word in all three cases is Helskyse and means — to drag, draw, pull, persuade, unsheathe.

So this is not a matter of wooing and enticing as if the wooing and enticing could result in any end but the success of the wooing and enticing.

Drawing there then is not wooing or enticing but the kind of reality that exists when you go to a well to draw water. One doesn’t seek to entice or woo the water into the bucket but pulls the water out of the well.

In this same chapter our Liege-Lord speaks of this same idea again,

“No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” John 6:65

Men being dead in sins and trespasses are not the ones who first initiate their fleeing to Christ. It is not a matter of their decision to own Christ without it first being God’s decision to own men or peoples. We must keep in mind in our theology that God is always prior. Men do not come to Christ until the Spirit of Christ comes to them w/ grace that is irresistible and effectual.

Now as to the character of this grace let us be clear. Some of our opponents, have, as I mentioned last week, seeking to smear this Biblical doctrine referred to this a “Holy Rape.” They are seeking to equate the marvel of God’s grace effectually working its wonder on those dead with the criminal act of violating a woman against her will.
How would we answer that?

Well, first we would say that

1.) In effectual grace God is NOT violating man’s will. Man’s will remains in tack. Man chooses Christ because that is what He wants with His whole being. So, it is not true that man’s will is being violated as a woman’s will is violated in rape. Instead what God does, in effectual grace is to change man’s nature. Man’s nature being changed His will is set free to operate consistent with that new nature.

2.) Secondly we would say that it is an odd thing to accuse God of this “Holy Rape,” when it is the case that God is rescuing the fallen and dead man from his unceasing and merciless rape upon him as conducted by Lucifer. Every day … nay, every minute, the person outside of Christ is being abused in every way imaginable by the prince of darkness. It is just like Lucifer to accuse the thrice Holy God of the very crime that He Himself is guilty of.

3.) Finally we would offer here that our opponents would be well advised here to be careful for their own souls because in saying that effectual grace is “Holy Rape,” they find themselves on the doorstep of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Well what might we say of this drawing… this dragging by which our nature is changed so that we come to Christ?

Calvin gives us some light here,

“As to the kind of drawing, it is not violent, so as to compel men by external force; but still it is a powerful impulse of the Holy Spirit, which makes men willing who formerly were unwilling and reluctant. It is a false and profane assertion, therefore, that none are drawn but those who are willing to be drawn, [153] as if man made himself obedient to God by his own efforts; for the willingness with which men follow God is what they already have from himself, who has formed their hearts to obey him.”

So … we have established that Scripture teaches that if a man is to choose Christ that person must be set free to choose Christ. Effectual grace is all over the Scripture. We see it again in these places,

John 1:11 He came to His [c]own, and His [d]own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the [e]right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.

Now, that we have established indisputably that the explanation for why some men choose Christ while others men don’t is this discriminating effectual grace of God that based on unconditional election and limited atonement makes some men alive while leaving others dead let us admit that this does not negate that men resist God. We know that they do because we find in the Scripture,

Acts 7:51 says, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.”

So yes… dead men resist routinely the Holy Spirit. It’s all that dead men can do is resist.

One of our brightest Reformed theologians of the 19^th century underscored this when he wrote,

“The term ‘irresistible grace’ is not really of Reformed origin but was used by Jesuits and Remonstrants to characterize the doctrine of the efficacy of grace as it was advocated by Augustine and those who believed as he did. The Reformed in fact had some objections to the term because it was absolutely not their intent to deny that grace is often and indeed always resisted by the unregenerate person and therefore could be resisted. They therefore preferred to speak of the efficacy or or the insuperability of grace, or interpreted the term ‘irresistible’ in the sense that grace is ultimately irresistible. The point of disagreement, accordingly, was not whether humans continually resisted and could resist God’s grace, but whether they could ultimately – at the specific moment in which God wanted to regenerate them and work with his efficacious grace in their heart – still reject that grace. The answer to this question, is as clearly evident.”

Dr. Herman Bavinck
Dogmatic Theology Vol IV. pg. 82

Bavinck goes on to say that the answer to this is bound up with the answer to the other doctrines of Grace. He denies that fallen man cannot reject the grace that makes men alive.

This is why the emphasis on effectual grace falls on the fact that God changes men’s nature which sets man’s will free to no longer resist. Man is born anew by the agency of the Holy Spirit. He has taken from him his nature … his disposition … his tendency as it existed in his unity with the first Adam and has given to him a a new nature… a new disposition … a new tendency that is what it is because He is united to the last Adam, Jesus Christ.

This was the testimony of Dr. Martin Luther

God has surely promised his grace to the humbled: that is to those who mourn over and despair of themselves. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realizes that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will, and works and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure, and work of Another — God alone.

Martin Luther

But this idea of effectual grace has not been the doctrine of many who have sneaked into the the Evangelical “Hall of Fame.” Finney, much like Formalist and Hypocrisy in Pilgrim’s Progress, instead of coming in to the Kingdom by the narrow path climbed over the wall and was present w/o warrant.

Finney in his systematic theology vehemently denied effectual grace casting aside Christian orthodoxy as he did on total depravity, unconditional election and limited atonement,

Finney argued strenuously against the belief that the new birth is a divine gift, insisting that , (Quote)

“regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence,” as moved by the moral influence of Christ’s moving example (p.224). “Original sin, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence” (p.236).



John Wesley similarly affirmed that God’s grace is universally present in all and irresistible in none.

But Mr. Wesley if God’s grace is universally in all and irresistible in none then by necessity that which distinguishes those who choose Christ and those who do not lie in something those who chose Christ brought to God’s grace that those who did not choose Christ did not bring and so the difference lies in something man can and should boast in. God thus no longer saves, but merely gives us the opportunity to save ourselves by adding the magic something.

We see here also that to deny irresistible that is effectual grace is to deny total depravity and makes dead men able to choose to be alive by cooperating with grace.

Let me make one more point here before we close… and I do think we may have to do a part II on Irresistible grace.

Note here, as I have said before the harmony of interest in our salvation. When we considered Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement we saw that the Father marks out some men for salvation from eternity past and that the Son comes to be the atonement only for those elect marked out. Now in irresistible grace we see that the Holy Spirit takes from the Father and Son and applies redemption via irresistible grace to the elect. Perfect harmony between Father, Son, and Spirit. There is no contradiction of purposes as we find in these other “systems” of thought. Believe me when I tell you that if you have a contradiction in your theology that contradiction is going to get in everything else you think. Contradiction isn’t satisfied in staying in soteriology. Finding contradiction in the members of the Trinity will lead to contradiction being part of your character.

Also notice that in the work of irresistible grace it is God the Spirit working in us. Whereas in Unconditional election and Limited atonement the work of the Father and Son is called extra nos – outside of us. Election is something the Father does quite apart from us. Similarly the work of the Atonement is done quite outside of us and apart from us. But in irresistible grace God the Holy Spirit is working in us. Taking from the Father and Son what was accomplished outside of us God the Holy Spirit now applies in us the wonders of the Triune God’s undeserved favor.

We note then that what is applied to and in me is based on what was accomplished outside of me. This is a important distinction because there have been those who have tried to make what has happened outside us dependent upon what is done in us. Our being made alive with Christ and our subjective union with Christ is based upon the objective work of the Father and Son. The objective precedes the subjective.
Conclusion

So we end where we only can end and that is in doxology…. lost in wonder, love and praise. That we would be caught up in so great a salvation. How can it be that I was so favored by this great grace that defeated my sin bred hostility and so made me love God’s law.

Because of this great grace we now are a people zealous for good works and how else can we know what good works except the standard of God’s never repealed law? There is a unity then in law and grace for the believer. Having been won by irresistible grace we are now the Champion of God’s Kingdom, Character, and Law-Word.

All because of irresistible, effectual, insuperable all glorious grace.

To God be the glory.

Just attended a funeral of a Sr. Citizen. She was appx. 83 years old. I did not know her well but all the same I found myself weeping during her eulogy and slide show. Not because I was missing or would miss the deceased. As I said I was there to support the family and did not know here well. I was weeping because in the eulogy and slide show giving glimpses into here life via photos I was hearing and seeing an America that is only barely remembered and is now almost dead itself. The eulogy that I was listening to was America’s Eulogy. The eulogy touched on the importance of the core Institutions of Family and Church in the life of the deceased. America was being eulogized by remembering times when the deceased was a wee one with both Grandmothers “living just across the field and so were easily visited.” The deceased grew up playing with cousins down by the stream where they would make tunnels in the tall grass when the tall grass would frost. America was being eulogized as a place where, when you saw your friends, you saw them in Church and in the one room school-house.

It was life on the small farm. Life where the little girls learned sewing, canning, baking and cooking and worked with mother to hand-make the Christmas gifts. The little boys on the other hand worked on the farm, cutting wood, milking, tilling, and baling hay.

One could not but help weep when the visions of these called forth memories came again to revisit, even though they were from the life of someone little known. The deceased’s eulogy could have been America’s eulogy. A different America. A forgotten America. An America that will not return… at least not in my lifetime for certain.

How could one but be deeply stirred when that America was remembered in light of the America that we see on the nightly news today? Even the Pastor couldn’t help but making an oblique comparison to then and now.

America wasn’t perfect but we were far closer to being a Nation in 1937. It was before the time when the third world began pouring in. A world where there was a shared world and life view. A world where there was enough of a common culture and history to unite us. Nobody was chanting “Diversity is our strength,” or had any idea of “White Privilege.” Sodomites were freaks in the closet and Trannies were properly laughed at. This “thinking” and these behaviors were still taboo when taboo functioned properly to protect the judicially innocent in the social order.

What a spectacle I must have been. A relative stranger weeping over the death of America in room full of people weeping over the death of their Wife, Mother, Grandmother, and Aunt; who was for me the embodiment of America when America was far greater then she is now. I could own that America — or at least much of it. This new America leaves me nauseated, revolted, ashamed and fighting angry.

I am not romanticizing the past. Even in the America I heard eulogized today there was already a great deal of destruction afoot. The war criminal FDR was in office and our boys were not long for being shipped over to a war which we had no business being involved. There was plenty to complain about even in 1937. (The deceased was born in 1937.) The Federal Reserve and the illegally passed 16th amendment had been in place already a generation by this point. We had been too late in shutting the doors to immigration and that turn of the 20th century immigration and its seed would forever change American into what it is now. Still, the ill effects had yet to sift down to the middle America the deceased lived in and knew.

Requiescat in pace Linda Ruth Ehnis. Would to God that America had remained the Nation you were born into and grew up in.

Avalanches never develop instantly. They typically are slow starting. A pebble here and pebble there. Pebbles become small stones, small stones become middling rocks, middling rocks become boulders and eventually the whole hillside is cascading downward and melting every bit of foliage in its path.

In the last twenty years I’ve lived through the collapse of the hillside. I lived to see the pebbles become unfixed and moving. Five years before I was born Brown vs. the Board of Education rattled the pebbles in the American social order. Ten years later (I’m now five years old) the Civil Rights Act passes, followed the next year by the Voting Rights act and the Hart Celler Immigration Act and the SCOTUS Griswold vs. Connecticut decision. Each and all contributing to the coming social order avalanche that is now in the “destroy everything in its path phase.” When I was fourteen Roe v. Wade was passed which was promissory that one day there would be a “Lawrence vs. Texas” which in turn guaranteed that one day there would be a “Obergefell vs. Hodges.” Pebbles to stone to rocks to boulders. Avalanche.

All of this and so much more (No fault divorce, the necessity of two incomes thanks to the feminist movement, mattachine, Kinsey, Hefner, The Authoritarian Personality, Cultural Marxism, etc.) have moved the earth from under the feet of Americans in Avalanche. The social order which had been loosely based upon a Christian heritage moved from under our feet in avalanche.

And now in 2020 I find myself waking up to view video of Psalm Singers in Moscow, Idaho being cuffed for the crime of not wearing a mask while Psalm singing. We have gone from the crime to drinking while driving to the crime of not masking while singing. As if that wasn’t enough, just a wee bit later I’m privy, by video, to watch a young lady in Ohio being cuffed for attending an outside football game in which her son was playing being tasered and manhandled by a Cop for the crime of not wearing a mask. More than that I am daily bombarded by “News Stories” that are a thin tissues of lies intended to outrage the American Public. Vice is covered up and reported as virtue. Virtue is denigrated as vice.

The avalanche is moving fast and furious. We are living in full blow anarcho-tyranny social order which has replaced the moderate Christian social order in which I was raised. Anarcho-tyranny is the idea that the virtuous law-abiding citizen is tyrannized by the State while the criminal class are allowed to engage in criminal anarchy with no reprisal against them. How can anyone doubt this analysis?

Example #1

Louisville burns w/ only a comparative handful arrested Meanwhile in Moscow Idaho they are cuffing people for singing Psalms and not social distancing.

Example # 2

No arrests for throwing Molotov cocktails in Portland, Or. Meanwhile a woman at a sparsely attended kiddie football game is cuffed for not wearing a mask.

Example #3

Criminals like Breonna Taylor, Jacob Flake, Ahmaud Arbery, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown are treated like departed saints while Kyle Rittenhouse, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, Darren Wilson, and  Nicholas Sandmann — men and women who merely defended themselves from bodily harm or smiled inappropriately are publicly crucified.

Example #4

Churches are restricted from meeting in many states but the “peaceful protests” (aka — riots) are encouraged in many cities and states around the Country.

This is social order madness and evidence that we are living in a social order avalanche.

In California the State has fined a previously healthy Church into impoverishment and is working on shutting down John MacArthur’s large Baptist Church. All this while the pot shops and liquor stores remain open.

Even in what had been known previously as conservative Churches in conservative denominations are feeding the avalanche. The Gospel Coalition is a thoroughly Cultural Marxist organization that prints the occasional orthodox piece for cover. Mark Dever’s 9Marks might as well be called 9Marx. R2K, by demanding that Church’s not engage culture by the standards of a full orbed Christianity creates a vacuum in Churches that is filled by cultural Marxism. Seminaries employ Cultural Marxists hiding under a very thin Christian veneer. The Southern Baptists embrace Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality as legitimate analytical tools by which our culture can be analyzed. The PCA is playing with Revoice. The OPC is playing with Feminism. Avalanche as far as the eyes can see and all of this is just the last few years.

I’ve gotten to the point that I’m leery of getting up in the morning for fear of reading of the next movement in our perpetual avalanche.

For those of us who see all this … for those of us who understand that where this is tending is towards the genocide of white people for the crime of historic association with Jesus Christ as a people and all Biblical Christians regardless of race, this is a time where all we can do is hold on to God’s Word which reminds us that


1 God is our refuge and strength,

    an ever-present help in trouble.

2 Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way

    and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea,

3 though its waters roar and foam

    and the mountains quake with their surging.

We just have to resolve ourselves that these are the times God has predestined us for and harden ourselves to being faithful in times of avalanche.

Allow me to say this in ending… this is a time to know the reason for the hope that lies within us. This is the age of the apologist. We need to stalwartly defend our convictions and viciously attack the convictions of the enemy. We need to realize that we are not going to be given any quarter and we need to steel ourselves against giving any quarter. The Black Flag has been raised against Christ and Christianity and we Christians need to give a good account of our loyalty to Christ by meeting the enemy by being valiant.

“The changes of the 1960’s, with civil rights at their core, were not just a major new element in the Constitution. They were a rival Constitution, with which the original one was frequently incompatible — and the incompatibility would worsen as the civil rights regime was built out. Much of what we call “polarization,’ or ‘incivility’ in recent years is something more grave — it is the disagreement over which two constitutions will prevail: the dejure constitution of 1788, with all the traditional forms of jurisprudential legitimacy and centuries of American culture behind it; or the defacto constitution of 1964, which lacks this kind of legitimacy but commands the near-unanimous endorsement of judicial elites and civic educators and the passionate allegiance of those who received it as liberation. The increasingly necessity that citizens choose between these two orders, and the poisonous conflict into which it ultimately drove the country, is what this book describes.

“Christopher Caldwell
The Age of Entitlement; America Since the Sixties — p. 6

The only error above is that the “new Constitution” that Caldwell speaks off didn’t arrive en toto in 1964 with the Civil Rights legislation. What happened in 1964 wasn’t a sudden break with the original Constitution but merely the natural extension of what was put into motion with the 13th – 15th amendments. One should think of 1964 as just another punctuated apex along the way from 1865 forward.

Other punctuated apexes came with Theodore Roosevelt and his square deal progressivism which advocated for TR’s “three C’s; “conservation of natural resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection,” each which were outside the bounds of the original Constitutions delegated and enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government. TR’s grasp at extra-Constitutional power is seen in his “New Nationalism” speech,

“When I say that I am for the square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fair play under the present rules of the game, but that I stand for having those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service.”

What else is the idea of “changing the rules” except for “changing the Constitution?”

Another punctuated apex that violated the original Constitution came with Woodrow Wilson’s Federal Reserve and 16th amendment. The original Constitution in Article I section 8 delegated to the Federal Government the power to coin money. Though admittedly long debated, the Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional addition to the original Constitution. In addition to that the 16th amendment was not legally passed. When Wilson left office the morphing of the original Constitution had continued.

Finally, FDR saw the original Constitution continued to be morphed into a new Constitution with FDR’s alphabet soup legislation which had no justification in the original US Constitution. None of FDR’s Fascist ABC legislation was connected to the original Constitutions enumerated and delegated powers.

Much more could be said on this subject. I do like the Caldwell quote but we need to keep in mind that the Constitution had long been morphing long before the Civil Rights legislation though indeed it is without doubt true that the Civil Rights legislation was and remains completely unconstitutional.

 “I don’t want liberty for secularists because secularism is true — it isn’t. Secularism is an opium dream, complete with flashing eyes and floating hair. I want liberty for secularists because Jesus is Lord.”

Doug Wilson
Moscow’s Pope

 We have a God-centered ground for making room for atheism….We believe this tolerance is rooted in the very nature of the gospel of Christ.  

John Piper
The Desiring Goof

1.) Jesus is Lord therefore we should allow in the public square those who, when consistent, would kill those who say “Jesus is Lord?” Jesus is Lord therefore we should allow in the public square those who are doing all they can to extinguish the Lordship of Jesus Christ? We should advocate liberty for Christ haters because Jesus is Lord?

Keep in mind that when Wilson says “Jesus is Lord,” and then desires to a social order that allows for people to deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ Wilson is saying that “Jesus isn’t Lord.” How can Wilson claim he is postmillennial when he pursues a pluralistic social order where all the gods and there adherents are allowed into the public square? Do those who believe that Jesus is Lord champion, by way of policy, a social order where Lord Jesus is relegated to competing with the other Lords?

If Pope Doug I were consistent why couldn’t he just as easily say; ” “I don’t want liberty for satanists, Muslims, Talmudists, etc. because satanism, Islam, and Talmudism, etc. is true — it isn’t. Satanism, Islam, and Talmudism is an opium dream, complete with flashing eyes and floating hair. I want liberty for satanists, Muslims, and Talmudists because Jesus is Lord?”

Wilson’s words are ridiculous.

2.) Turning to Piper we just have to laugh. The tolerance of atheists is rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Remember this Gospel finds Jesus saying… “I am the way the truth and the life. No man cometh to the Father except through me?” Remember this Gospel finds Jesus saying, “He who does not gather with me, scatters.” There is no tolerance in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Desiring Goof blasphemes God when he suggest that the tolerance of atheists in a social order is rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. How tolerant was Paul in Athens?

Both Wilson and Piper remain children of the Enlightenment. That is seen by their embrace of tolerance and false notions of liberty that include tolerance. What they are advocating doesn’t really allow for tolerance. Where is the tolerance for those Muslims who only want to see Allah served in the public square? Where is the tolerance for those Christians who only want to see the God of the Bible served in the public square? Now, it is possible that they would reply to this by saying, “Very well then. We want tolerance for all those who will accept tolerance but not for the intolerant.” However, at this point they have insisted that the one way tolerance must work is for their singular one way of allowing for every way except for those who desire just one way. Do you see the contradiction they are in? They and their tolerance in the end is just as intolerant as those who desire only the God of the Bible and His adherents to rule in and occupy the public square.

With these convictions Wilson and Piper really are working against the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.