Having reached the end of our discussion we may now endeavor briefly to formulate the important principles embodied in our Lord’s teaching on the Kingdom of God and the Church. They are teh following:

In the first place, the kingdom-conception involves the historic unity of Jesus’ work with the Old Testament work of God. These two constitute one body of supernatural revelation and redemption.

Secondly, the doctrine of the kingdom stands for the principle that the Christian religion is not a mere matter of subjective ideas or experiences, but is related to a great system of objective, supernatural facts and transactions. The kingdom means the renewal of the world through the introduction of supernatural forces.

Thirdly, the kingdom-idea is the clearest expression of the principle that in the sphere of objective reality, as well as in the sphere of human consciousness, everything is subservient to the glory of God. In this respect the kingdom is the most profoundly religious of all biblical conceptions.

Fourthly, the message of the kingdom imparts to Christianity, as Jesus proclaims it, the professed character of a religion of salvation, and of salvation not primarily by man’s own efforts but by the power of the grace of God. The kingdom represents the specifically evangelical element in our Lord’s teaching. The same principle finds subjective expression in his teaching on faith.

Fifthly, Jesus’ doctrine of the kingdom as both inward and outward, coming first in the heart of man and afterwards in the external world, upholds the primacy of the spiritual and the ethical over the physical. The invisible world of the inner religious life, the righteousness of the disposition, the sonship of God are in it made supreme, the essence of the kingdom, the ultimate realities to which everything else is subordinate. The inherently ethical character of the kingdom finds subjective expression in the demand for repentance.

Sixthly, that form which the kingdom assumes in the church shows it to be inseparably associated with the person and work of Jesus himself. The religion of the kingdom is a religion in which there is not only a place but in which the central place is for the Saviour. The church form of the kingdom rightly bears the name of Christianity, because in it on Christ everything depends.

Finally, the thought of the kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the ends of religion. The kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belongs to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone, can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects all by leading it to its final goal in service of God.

Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, 191-194.

Peter’s confession [Matthew 16:16-8; cf. Matthew 14:33; John 6:69], therefore, was distinctly a confession which stood in contrast with the rejection of Jesus by others [John 6:66-69]. From this we may gather, that the church of which Jesus speaks will have for its peculiarity the recognition of the Messiahship of Jesus in contradistinction from the denial of this Messiahship by those without. But this follows not only from the situation in which the words were spoken, we may also draw the same conclusion from the tenor of the words themselves. When Jesus says, “I will build my church,” he evidently places this church over against another, to which this designation does not apply. The word Ecclesia is the rendering of the Hebrew words Qahal and ‘Edah, which latter were the standing names for the congregation of Israel. In such a connection “my church” can mean nothing else than “the church which by recognizing me as Messiah will take the place of the present Jewish church.”

It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that the new church will rest exclusively on a subjective belief regarding the Messiahship of Jesus. Our Lord says emphatically, “I will build,” and thereby appropriates for himself the objective task of calling this church into existence by his Messianic acts. Though Peter confessing be the foundation, the church is not of Peter’s or of any human making, the Lord himself will build it.

Geerhardus Vos, The Teachings of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, 142-144.

Excerpt from Chapter 6, “Eternal Predestination: Election and Reprobation,” in Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, Vol. 1, 245-246.

Objection: I feel within my heart that I am not one of the elect but rather a reprobate, and that therefore I shall never be converted.

Answer: This is an untruth and nothing but imagination. No man can know whether he is a reprobate because God has not revealed this in His Word. The Lord does not have such intimate communion with the ungodly that He would make this known to them in an extraordinary way.

Objection: Some have known this, such as [Francis] Spira and others.  

Answer: They had no knowledge of this but it was mere imagination. I am neither suggesting that their imaginations could not have been true, nor that they did not belong to the elect, all of which could be true. I am saying, however, that they neither knew this from Scripture nor from immediate revelations, but rather from their imagination. It has happened that some who with such certainty imagined themselves to belong to the reprobate, just as these others, were subsequently converted. Others who were already converted received much assurance concerning their election.  

Objection: Those who have sinned against the Holy Ghost know that they are reprobates.

Answer: Those who have sinned against the Holy Ghost are indeed reprobates: however, such do not come to repentance after the commission of this sin, but persevere in wickedness and without any sensitivity continue in their rage against God. Since therefore you neither know nor are able to ascertain this, and all this is but imaginary, why are you then so foolish to torment yourself with unfounded imaginations? 

Objection: I know that I am unconverted, have once been enlightened, and that I have been hardened under the use of so many means. May I not conclude my reprobation out of all this? 

Answer: Suppose that you are presently unconverted, have resisted previous enlightenment and conviction, and have hardened yourself against the Word of God; even then you may not conclude your reprobation, for you can still be converted. It is also possible that you are neither conscious of your own condition nor of the grace which the Lord has already granted you. It is one thing to be a recipient of the life of grace, but it is additional grace to be conscious of those things which God has granted us. No matter how you view your state, you cannot know whether or not you are a reprobate, and therefore ought to desist from this foolishness and reject it outright. 

Thirdly, let the revealed will of God be your guide. In the gospel God offers His Son Jesus Christ, inviting all who are desirous to come to Him to do so. He promises that all who believe in the Son will have eternal life, while promising at the same time that none will be cast out who come to Him. God will never damn anyone but for his sins. God does not prevent anyone from repentance, believing in Christ, and salvation. God is not the cause of anyone’s damnation. Man and his own free will are to be blamed for the fact that he lives an ungodly life, and it is therefore just when God punishes and damns him for his sins. Let the Word of God be your rule and cease from entertaining these haughty imaginations. Seek Christ, believe in Him, pray, do battle against sin, and believe, so that, by proceeding according to Scripture, you will be saved. This way is both a steadfast and safe way.

The Dragon is a picture of Satan (Rev. 12:9), who in Revelation 13:1 imitates what God did in Genesis 1:27. But what sort of imitation does Satan produce? It is not genuine, but counterfeit. . . . Now Satan is a counterfeiter. He counterfeits God the Father by producing a counterfeit “son,” the Beast. The Beast is clearly a counterfeit of Christ the Son. Satan aspires to be God and to control everything for himself. He has a plan, analogous to the Father’s plan. He will work out his plan through his executor, the Beast.

Is there then a counterfeit of the Holy Spirit as well? Yes there is, in Revelation 13:11-18. Another beast comes out of the earth (13:11). This beast is later identified as “the false prophet” (16:13). The False Prophet works “miraculous signs” (13:13), reminiscent of the miraculous signs worked by the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. Through miraculous signs, the Holy Spirit draws people to worship Christ. Analogously, the False Prophet promotes worship of the Beast (13:12). As “another Counselor,” the Holy Spirit has the authority of Christ (John 14:16, 18). Similarly, the False Prophet “exercised all the authority of the first beast on his behalf” (Rev. 13:12). The Holy Spirit guides us into the truth (John 16:13). The False Prophet deceives (Rev. 13:14).

The Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet, therefore, form a kind of counterfeit trinity. They are linked together as a threesome when they organize people for the final battle (Rev. 16:13).

Vern S. Poythress, The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation, 18-19.

Can the book of Revelation be understood? Yes, it can. Its message can be summarized by one sentence: God rules history and will bring it to its consummation in Christ.

Vern S. Poythress, The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation, 11.

Henderson did speak of liberty versus tyranny, but with liturgical and eschatological qualifications. . . . It is important to keep Henderson’s arguments against episcopacy anchored in his struggle against idolatry. If not, his arguments can be easily transformed into some kind of appeal for political ends, or a historian can place them in a context relevant to his or her personal situation.

L. Charles Jackson, Riots, Revolutions, and the Scottish Covenanters: The Work of Alexander Henderson, 169.

[T]he Scots encouraged the habit of listening to the preacher. People were expected to be able to repeat the main points of the preacher’s sermon to a master or parents. Those who heard the word preached were under a divine obligation to meditate on it and to recall it to their hearts. Henderson said: “Therefore pray to the Lord, that whenever ye come to hear the word, ye may understand what is spoken to you and lay it up in your heart, that ye may have faith to believe, that ye may keep it into your memory, and the Spirit may bring it to your remembrance and that ye may have the word of promise also into your mouths to bring it out there as need is.” Henderson warned his listeners about the pitiful problem that sometimes neither the preachers nor hearers have faith as they deliver and listen to preaching.

L. Charles Jackson, Riots, Revolutions, and the Scottish Covenanters: The Work of Alexander Henderson, 116.

One element of Henderson’s success as a preacher may be related to his self-conscious instruction to his hearers regarding their obligations in what might be called godly listening. “In the hearing of the word,” said Henderson, “let us not only take heed what we hear, but let us also take heed to how we hear.” According to Henderson, the godly listener bears a responsibility to be an active hearer of the preaching of God’s word. Henderson’s exhortation to active or pious listening became a virtual plank in what could be called a Puritan theology of preaching.

L. Charles Jackson, Riots, Revolutions, and the Scottish Covenanters: The Work of Alexander Henderson, 115.

[Alexander] Henderson argued that a minister should not ignore human learning and the original languages, but he also argued that such learning should be put to the practical use of teaching or instructing the listeners with simplicity. Calderwood had accused the bishops of filling their sermons with unnecessary and arrogant displays of rhetorical flourishes that did little more than flaunt their learning. Such parades of learning may have impressed a listener with the speaker’s eloquence, but, according to Henderson, they had little power to inflict wounds to heal the soul, which was one of the primary purposes of godly preaching.

By simplicity Henderson did not mean that preaching should be dull in content, but that it need not be decorated with unnecessary rhetoric or showy displays of learning that might distract the humble listener from plucking the fruit of the sermon. Simplicity for Henderson did not mean that sermons were empty of good illustrations or rhetorical devices. In fact, when teaching his listeners with simplicity, Henderson used several useful rhetorical devices such as illustrations to exhort them further, saying: “The test it is the tree, the interpretation is the fruit that grows upon the tree, the application thereof is the hand whereby the fruit is plucked aff [sic] the tree.” He believed that preachers should use sermons to persuade God’s people to respond to God’s word in active faithfulness, and sermons were God’s primary instrument for such persuasion.

L. Charles Jackson, Riots, Revolutions, and the Scottish Covenanters: The Work of Alexander Henderson, 112-113.

It is the great truth, embedded in the Old Testament as well as in the New, that love is the fulfilling of the law, and that on two commandments, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God’ and ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’, hang all the law and the prophets (cf. Romans 13:10; Matthew 22:37-40). Among students of Christian ethics no datum is more universally admitted or regarded as more incontrovertibly established than this, that love is the fulfilling of the law.

John Murray, Principles of Conduct, 21.