Amazing love, how can it be?! God bless those who are in Christ Jesus this New Year and may you continue to look to Christ Jesus in all things and find comfort in Him who is called Faithful and True!
He chose you to be trophies of His grace!
(Charles Spurgeon)
"You yourselves, as living stones, are being built into a spiritual house for a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 2:5
God builds a palace for Himself in heaven, made of 'living stones'. Where did He get them? Has He brought forth the richest and the purest marble from the fine quarries of Paris? No! Christians, look to "the hole of the pit where you were dug out of, and to the rock where you were cut from!" You were full of sin. Far from being stones that were white with purity--you were black with defilement, seemingly utterly unfit to be stones in the spiritual temple, which would be the dwelling-place of the Most High God. And yet, He chose you to be trophies of His grace!
Goldsmiths make exquisite jewelry from precious materials; they fashion the bracelet and the ring from gold. But God makes His jewels out of base materials. From the black pebbles of the defiling brooks--He has taken up stones, which He has set in the golden ring of His immutable love, to make them gems to sparkle on His finger forever. He has not selected the best--but apparently the worst of men--to be the monuments of His grace!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
False Teachers Rick Warren, Ron Parsely Beg for Money
Ricky Warren, PDL and PEACE huckster is begging for money, according to NewsMax.
Apparently his "church" is in the tank. That leaves one to question where all the millions of dollars he makes yearly from all his PDL paraphenalia and new books and speaking engagements, etc. has gone? He prides himself on reverse tithing. So? Where did all that money go? This was all above and beyond the weekly giving at Saddleback. Someone needs to follow the money in a big way. However, Saddleback doesn't reveal their finances to the public. I wonder why?
In the same vein, Ron Parsely, Word of Faith huckster doesn't seem to have enough faith to speak forth his positive confession to get money and now manipulates his audience to pay up.
Apparently his "church" is in the tank. That leaves one to question where all the millions of dollars he makes yearly from all his PDL paraphenalia and new books and speaking engagements, etc. has gone? He prides himself on reverse tithing. So? Where did all that money go? This was all above and beyond the weekly giving at Saddleback. Someone needs to follow the money in a big way. However, Saddleback doesn't reveal their finances to the public. I wonder why?
In the same vein, Ron Parsely, Word of Faith huckster doesn't seem to have enough faith to speak forth his positive confession to get money and now manipulates his audience to pay up.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Obama, Terrorism, and Gitmo: terrorism works even if you deny Muslim Terrorists exist
1)More attacks on the way via Yemen:
"Hundreds of al-Qaeda militants are planning terror attacks from Yemen, the country’s Foreign Minister said today.
Abu Bakr al-Qirbi appealed for more help from the international community to help to train and equip counter-terrorist forces.
His plea came after an al-Qaeda group based in Yemen claimed responsibility for the failed Christmas Day airliner bomb plot."
2)RAW DATA: Former Gitmo Detainees Who Returned to Terrorism:
"A growing number of former Guantanamo Bay detainees are said to be returning to terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The Pentagon most recently released a report in May showing that one in seven former detainees either returned, or is suspected of returning, to terrorist activity. At least two of them have taken leading roles in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the group that has claimed responsibility for the attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day. "
3)Administration Rejects Calls to Reconsider Guantanamo Closure Plan:
The Obama administration is pushing back against calls to halt or delay closing the Guantanamo Bay prison in light of the failed Christmas Day terror attack, suggesting that shutting down the prison will undermine terrorist recruitment in the very network that claimed responsibility for last week's plot.
Seniors officials told Fox News that nobody in the administration is reconsidering President Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay. Though the closure probably will not occur until 2011 due to a series of setbacks, officials said locking down Guantanamo is still in the "national security interest."
"The detention facility at Guantanamo has been used by Al Qaeda as a rallying cry and recruiting tool -- including its affiliate Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. As our military leaders have recognized, closing the detention facility at Guantanamo is a national security imperative," one senior official told Fox News.
End quote.
We should sue the government for not protecting us AND aiding and abetting terororists. This is the definition of insanity. These terrorists can't do anything while at GITMO, but only when they are released as the facts show.
One other thing is just as clear as the insanity and clear hypocrisy of this administration: terrorism works, especially with liberals. The cowardly appeasement is killing us and will continue to do so, and likely on the scale of 9-11 because the bullies know we are too afraid to do anything. Appeasement is agreement.
"Hundreds of al-Qaeda militants are planning terror attacks from Yemen, the country’s Foreign Minister said today.
Abu Bakr al-Qirbi appealed for more help from the international community to help to train and equip counter-terrorist forces.
His plea came after an al-Qaeda group based in Yemen claimed responsibility for the failed Christmas Day airliner bomb plot."
2)RAW DATA: Former Gitmo Detainees Who Returned to Terrorism:
"A growing number of former Guantanamo Bay detainees are said to be returning to terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The Pentagon most recently released a report in May showing that one in seven former detainees either returned, or is suspected of returning, to terrorist activity. At least two of them have taken leading roles in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the group that has claimed responsibility for the attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day. "
3)Administration Rejects Calls to Reconsider Guantanamo Closure Plan:
The Obama administration is pushing back against calls to halt or delay closing the Guantanamo Bay prison in light of the failed Christmas Day terror attack, suggesting that shutting down the prison will undermine terrorist recruitment in the very network that claimed responsibility for last week's plot.
Seniors officials told Fox News that nobody in the administration is reconsidering President Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay. Though the closure probably will not occur until 2011 due to a series of setbacks, officials said locking down Guantanamo is still in the "national security interest."
"The detention facility at Guantanamo has been used by Al Qaeda as a rallying cry and recruiting tool -- including its affiliate Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. As our military leaders have recognized, closing the detention facility at Guantanamo is a national security imperative," one senior official told Fox News.
End quote.
Monday Obama stated: "The American people should be assured that we are doing everything in our power to keep you and your families safe and secure during this busy holiday season. Since I was first notified of this incident I've ordered the following actions to be taken to protect the American people and to secure air travel." ~source
Everything but keep GITMO open and gathering up terrorists...oh wait, there is no such thing as a Muslim terrorist for Obama.
We should sue the government for not protecting us AND aiding and abetting terororists. This is the definition of insanity. These terrorists can't do anything while at GITMO, but only when they are released as the facts show.
One other thing is just as clear as the insanity and clear hypocrisy of this administration: terrorism works, especially with liberals. The cowardly appeasement is killing us and will continue to do so, and likely on the scale of 9-11 because the bullies know we are too afraid to do anything. Appeasement is agreement.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Ignoring The Signs of Islamic Terrorism, Yet Consider Christians The Extreemists
This Abdulmutallab terrorist (who clumsily tried to blow up the plane flying from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day) showed signs of his Islamic terrorism from as far back as 2001, but people are "shocked"? Let us review for a moment:
Abdulmutallab:
*comes from an Islamic country
*gave alms to the poor while in London
*defended the Taliban
*was a devote Muslim
*got upset when his teacher took studends to a pub that served alcohol
*showed signs of inflexibility
*kept to himself
*break the laws by sneaking into countries and hiding explosives
But he's not an Islamic terrorist. They are shocked he could "do such a thing"? Yes, this is also what they say about EVERY terrorist, including Hasan who commited jihad on Ft. Hood.
Yet the liberals (including those in the government) consider Christians as the extreemists and are dangerous by wanting to talk about Creation, the Bible, and Jesus, especially at Christmastime. The quran commands the slaughter of non-Muslims, while Scripture says Christians are not to take up the sword to persuade non-Christians.
Surah 4:89: If they turn apostates, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.
Surah 4:91: Seize them and kill them wherever you get them.
Surah 5:33: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his apostle...they shall be slaughtered, or crucified , or their hands and feet shall be struck off alternately, or they shall be banished from the land.
Surah 5:51: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends.
Yet Scripture clearly states:
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
Mat 10:14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Scripture teaches our battle is not with flesh and blood, but a spiritual one, which is why those who are true disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ cannot use a sword against those who reject the Lord or their message, unlike Islam where they are called to kill them. No, we Christians are apparently the red flag, not the Hasans and Abdulmutallab's of this world.
Abdulmutallab:
*comes from an Islamic country
*gave alms to the poor while in London
*defended the Taliban
*was a devote Muslim
*got upset when his teacher took studends to a pub that served alcohol
*showed signs of inflexibility
*kept to himself
*break the laws by sneaking into countries and hiding explosives
But he's not an Islamic terrorist. They are shocked he could "do such a thing"? Yes, this is also what they say about EVERY terrorist, including Hasan who commited jihad on Ft. Hood.
Yet the liberals (including those in the government) consider Christians as the extreemists and are dangerous by wanting to talk about Creation, the Bible, and Jesus, especially at Christmastime. The quran commands the slaughter of non-Muslims, while Scripture says Christians are not to take up the sword to persuade non-Christians.
Surah 4:89: If they turn apostates, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.
Surah 4:91: Seize them and kill them wherever you get them.
Surah 5:33: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his apostle...they shall be slaughtered, or crucified , or their hands and feet shall be struck off alternately, or they shall be banished from the land.
Surah 5:51: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends.
Yet Scripture clearly states:
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, 6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.
Mat 10:14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.
Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Scripture teaches our battle is not with flesh and blood, but a spiritual one, which is why those who are true disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ cannot use a sword against those who reject the Lord or their message, unlike Islam where they are called to kill them. No, we Christians are apparently the red flag, not the Hasans and Abdulmutallab's of this world.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
A.W. Pink: Signs of The Times (The Gospel Includes The Lordship of Christ)
Excerpts :
It is generally recognized that spirituality is at a low ebb in Christendom, and not a few perceive that sound doctrine is rapidly on the wane, yet many of the Lord’s people take comfort from supposing that the Gospel is still being widely preached and that large numbers are being saved thereby. Alas, their optimistic supposition is ill-founded and grounded in sand. If the "message" now being delivered in Mission Halls be examined, if the "tracts" which are scattered among the unchurched masses be scrutinized, if the "open air" speakers be carefully listened to, if the "sermons" or "addresses" of a "Soul-winning campaign" be analyzed; in short, if modern "Evangelism" be weighed in the balances of Holy Writ, it will be found wanting—lacking that which is vital to a genuine conversion, lacking what is essential if sinners are to be shown their need of a Saviour, lacking that which will produce the transfigured lives of new creatures in Christ Jesus.
It is in no captious spirit that we write, seeking to make a man an offender for a word. It is not that we are looking for perfection, and complain because we cannot find it; nor that we criticize others because they are not doing things as we think they should be done. No; no, it is a matter far more serious than that. The "evangelism" of the day is not only superficial to the last degree, but it is radically defective. It is utterly lacking a foundation on which to base an appeal for sinners to come to Christ. There is not only a lamentable lack of proportion (the mercy of God being made far more prominent than His holiness, His love than His wrath), but there is a fatal omission of that which God has given for the purpose of imparting a knowledge of sin. There is not only reprehensible introducing of "bright singing," humorous witticisms and entertaining anecdotes, but there is a studied omission of the dark background upon which alone the Gospel can effectually shine forth.
But serious indeed as is the above indictment, it is only half of it—the negative side, that which is lacking. Worse still is that which is being retailed by the cheap-jerk evangelists of the day. The positive content of their message is nothing but a throwing of dust in the eyes of the sinner. His soul is put to sleep by the Devil’s opiate, ministered in a most unsuspecting form. Those who really receive the "message" which is now being given out from most of the "orthodox" pulpits and platforms today are being fatally deceived. It is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but unless God sovereignly intervenes by a miracle of grace, all who follow it will surely find that the ends thereof are the ways of death. Tens of thousands who confidently imagine they are bound for Heaven will get a terrible disillusionment when they awake in Hell.
What is the Gospel? Is it a message of glad tidings from Heaven to make God-defying rebels at ease in their wickedness? Is it given for the purpose of assuring the pleasure-crazy young people that, providing they only "believe" there is nothing for them to fear in the future? One would certainly think so from the way in which the Gospel is presented—or rather perverted—by most of the "evangelists," and the more so when we look at the lives of their "converts." Surely those with any degree of spiritual discernment must perceive that to assure such that God loves them and His Son died for them, and that a full pardon for all their sins (past, present, and future) can be obtained by simply "accepting Christ as their personal Saviour," is but a casting of pearls before swine.
The Gospel is not a thing apart. It is not something independent of the prior revelation of God’s Law. It is not an announcement that God has relaxed His justice or lowered the standard of His holiness. So far from that, when Scripturally expounded the Gospel presents the clearest demonstration and the most positive proof of the inexorableness of God’s justice and of His infinite abhorrence of sin. But for Scripturally expounding the Gospel, beardless youths and businessmen who devote their spare time to "evangelistic effort," are quite unqualified. Alas that the pride of the flesh suffers so many incompetent ones to rush in where those much wiser fear to tread. It is this multiplying of novices that is largely responsible for the woeful situation now confronting us, and because the "churches" and "assemblies" are so largely filled with their "converts," explains why they are so unspiritual and worldly.
No, my reader, the Gospel is very, very far from making light of sin. It reveals to us the terrible sword of His justice smiting His beloved Son in order that atonement might be made for the transgressions of His people. So far from the Gospel setting aside the Law, it exhibits the Saviour enduring the curse of it. Calvary supplied the most solemn and awe-inspiring display of God’s hatred of sin that time or eternity will ever furnish. And do you imagine that the Gospel is magnified or God glorified by going to worldlings and telling them that they "may be saved at this moment by simply accepting Christ as their personal Saviour" while they are wedded to their idols and their hearts still in love with sin? If I do so, I tell them a lie, pervert the Gospel, insult Christ, and turn the grace of God into lasciviousness.
No doubt some readers are ready to object to our "harsh" and "sarcastic" statements above by asking, When the question was put "What must I do to be saved?" did not an inspired Apostle expressly say "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved?" Can we err, then, if we tell sinners the same thing today? Have we not Divine warrant for so doing? True, those words are found in Holy Writ, and because they are, many superficial and untrained people conclude they are justified in repeating them to all and sundry. But let it be pointed out that Acts 16:31 was not addressed to a promiscuous multitude, but to a particular individual, which at once intimates that it is not a message to be indiscriminately sounded forth, but rather a special word, to those whose characters correspond to the one to whom it was first spoken.
Verses of Scripture must not be wrenched from their setting, but weighed, interpreted, and applied in accord with their context; and that calls for prayerful consideration, careful meditation, and prolonged study; and it is failure at this point which accounts for these shoddy and worthless "messages" of this rush-ahead age. Look at the context of Acts 16:31, and what do we find? What was the occasion, and to whom was it that the Apostle and his companion said "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ"? A sevenfold answer is there furnished, which supplies a striking and complete delineation of the character of those to whom we are warranted in giving this truly evangelistic word. As we briefly names these seven details, let the reader carefully ponder them....
The nature of Christ’s salvation is woefully misrepresented by the present-day "evangelist." He announces a Saviour from Hell, rather than a Saviour from sin. And that is why so many are fatally deceived, for there are multitudes who wish to escape the Lake of Fire who have no desire to be delivered from their carnality and worldliness. The very first thing said of Him in the New Testament is, "thou shalt call his name JESUS: for He shall save His people (not "from the wrath to come," but) from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). Christ is a Saviour for those realizing something of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, who felt the awful burden of it on their conscience, so loathe themselves for it, who long to be freed from its terrible dominion; and a Saviour for no others. Were He to "save from Hell" those who were still in love with sin, He would be the Minister of sin, condoning their wickedness and siding with them against God. What an unspeakably horrible and blasphemous thing with which to charge the Holy One!
Should the reader exclaim, I was not conscious of the heinousness of sin nor bowed down with a sense of my guilt when Christ saved me, then we unhesitatingly reply, Either you have never been saved at all, or you were not saved as early as you supposed. True, as the Christian grows in grace he has a clearer realization now what sin is—rebellion against God— and a deeper hatred of and sorrow for it: but to think that one may be saved by Christ whose conscience has never been smitten by the Spirit and whose heart has not been made contrite before God, is to imagine something which has no existence whatever in the realm of fact. "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick" (Matt. 9:12): the only ones who really seek relief from the Great Physician are they that are sick of sin—who long to be delivered from its God-dishonouring works and its soul-defiling pollutions.
Inasmuch, then, as Christ’s salvation is a salvation from sin—from the love of it, from its dominion, from its guile and penalty—then it necessarily follows that the first great task and the chief work of the evangelist is to preach upon SIN: to define what sin (as distinct from crime) really is, to show wherein its infinite enormity consists; to trace out its manifold workings in the heart; to indicate that nothing less than eternal punishment is its desert. Ah, and preaching upon sin—not merely uttering a few platitudes concerning it, but devoting sermon after sermon to explaining what sin is in the light of God—will not make him popular nor draw the crowds, will it? No, it will not, and knowing this, those who love the praise of men more than the approbation of God, and who value their salary above immortal souls, trim their sails accordingly. "But such preaching will drive people away!" We answer, Far better drive the people away by faithful preaching than drive the Holy Spirit away by unfaithfully pandering to the flesh.
Salvation is by grace, by grace alone, for a fallen creature cannot possibly do anything to merit God’s approval or earn His favour. Nevertheless, Divine grace is not exercised at the expense of holiness, for it never compromises with sin. It is also true that salvation is a free gift. but an empty hand must receive it, and not a hand which still tightly grasps the world! But it is not true that "Christ has done everything for the sinner." He did not fill the sinner’s belly with the husks which the swine eat and find them unable to satisfy. He has not turned the sinner’s back on the far country, arisen, gone to the Father, and acknowledged his sins—those are acts which the sinner himself must perform. True, he will not be saved for the performance of them, yet it is equally true that he cannot be saved without the performance of them—any more than the prodigal could receive the Father’s kiss and ring while he still remained at a guilty distance from Him!
The way of salvation is falsely defined. In most instances the modern "evangelist" assures his congregation that all any sinner has to do in order to escape Hell and make sure of Heaven is to "receive Christ as his personal Saviour." But such teaching is utterly misleading. No one can receive Christ as Saviour while he rejects Him as Lord. It is true the preacher adds that the one who accepts Christ should also surrender to Him as Lord, but he at once spoils it by asserting that though the convert fails to do so, nevertheless Heaven is sure to him. That is one of the Devil’s lies. Only those who are spiritually blind would declare that Christ will save any who despise His authority and refuse His yoke: why, my reader, that would not be grace but a disgrace—charging Christ with placing a premium on lawlessness.
Alas, alas, God’s "way of salvation" is almost entirely unknown today. The nature of Christ’s salvation is almost universally misunderstood, and the terms of His salvation misrepresented on every hand. The "Gospel" which is now being proclaimed is, in nine cases out of every ten, but a perversion of the Truth, and tens of thousands, assured they are bound for Heaven, are now hastening to Hell, as fast as time can take them. Things are far, far worse in Christendom than even the "pessimist" and the "alarmist" suppose. We are not a prophet, nor shall we indulge in any speculation of what Biblical prophecy forecasts—wiser men than the writer have often made fools of themselves by so doing. We are frank to say that we know not what God is about to do. Religious conditions were much worse, even in England, one hundred and fifty years ago. But this we greatly fear; unless God is pleased to grant a real revival, it will not be long ere "the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people" (Isa. 60:2), for the light of the true Gospel is rapidly disappearing. Modern "Evangelism" constitutes, in our judgment, the most solemn of all the "signs of the times."
What must the people of God do in view of the existing situation? Ephesians 5:11 supplies the Divine answer: "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them," and everything opposed to the light of the Word is "darkness." It is the bounden duty of every Christian to have no dealings with the "evangelistic" monstrosity of the day; to withhold all moral and financial support of the same, to attend none of their meetings, to circulate none of their tracts. Those preachers who tell sinners they may be saved without forsaking their idols, without repenting, without surrendering to the Lordship of Christ, are as erroneous and dangerous as others who insist that salvation is by works and that Heaven must be earned by our own efforts.
It is generally recognized that spirituality is at a low ebb in Christendom, and not a few perceive that sound doctrine is rapidly on the wane, yet many of the Lord’s people take comfort from supposing that the Gospel is still being widely preached and that large numbers are being saved thereby. Alas, their optimistic supposition is ill-founded and grounded in sand. If the "message" now being delivered in Mission Halls be examined, if the "tracts" which are scattered among the unchurched masses be scrutinized, if the "open air" speakers be carefully listened to, if the "sermons" or "addresses" of a "Soul-winning campaign" be analyzed; in short, if modern "Evangelism" be weighed in the balances of Holy Writ, it will be found wanting—lacking that which is vital to a genuine conversion, lacking what is essential if sinners are to be shown their need of a Saviour, lacking that which will produce the transfigured lives of new creatures in Christ Jesus.
It is in no captious spirit that we write, seeking to make a man an offender for a word. It is not that we are looking for perfection, and complain because we cannot find it; nor that we criticize others because they are not doing things as we think they should be done. No; no, it is a matter far more serious than that. The "evangelism" of the day is not only superficial to the last degree, but it is radically defective. It is utterly lacking a foundation on which to base an appeal for sinners to come to Christ. There is not only a lamentable lack of proportion (the mercy of God being made far more prominent than His holiness, His love than His wrath), but there is a fatal omission of that which God has given for the purpose of imparting a knowledge of sin. There is not only reprehensible introducing of "bright singing," humorous witticisms and entertaining anecdotes, but there is a studied omission of the dark background upon which alone the Gospel can effectually shine forth.
But serious indeed as is the above indictment, it is only half of it—the negative side, that which is lacking. Worse still is that which is being retailed by the cheap-jerk evangelists of the day. The positive content of their message is nothing but a throwing of dust in the eyes of the sinner. His soul is put to sleep by the Devil’s opiate, ministered in a most unsuspecting form. Those who really receive the "message" which is now being given out from most of the "orthodox" pulpits and platforms today are being fatally deceived. It is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but unless God sovereignly intervenes by a miracle of grace, all who follow it will surely find that the ends thereof are the ways of death. Tens of thousands who confidently imagine they are bound for Heaven will get a terrible disillusionment when they awake in Hell.
What is the Gospel? Is it a message of glad tidings from Heaven to make God-defying rebels at ease in their wickedness? Is it given for the purpose of assuring the pleasure-crazy young people that, providing they only "believe" there is nothing for them to fear in the future? One would certainly think so from the way in which the Gospel is presented—or rather perverted—by most of the "evangelists," and the more so when we look at the lives of their "converts." Surely those with any degree of spiritual discernment must perceive that to assure such that God loves them and His Son died for them, and that a full pardon for all their sins (past, present, and future) can be obtained by simply "accepting Christ as their personal Saviour," is but a casting of pearls before swine.
The Gospel is not a thing apart. It is not something independent of the prior revelation of God’s Law. It is not an announcement that God has relaxed His justice or lowered the standard of His holiness. So far from that, when Scripturally expounded the Gospel presents the clearest demonstration and the most positive proof of the inexorableness of God’s justice and of His infinite abhorrence of sin. But for Scripturally expounding the Gospel, beardless youths and businessmen who devote their spare time to "evangelistic effort," are quite unqualified. Alas that the pride of the flesh suffers so many incompetent ones to rush in where those much wiser fear to tread. It is this multiplying of novices that is largely responsible for the woeful situation now confronting us, and because the "churches" and "assemblies" are so largely filled with their "converts," explains why they are so unspiritual and worldly.
No, my reader, the Gospel is very, very far from making light of sin. It reveals to us the terrible sword of His justice smiting His beloved Son in order that atonement might be made for the transgressions of His people. So far from the Gospel setting aside the Law, it exhibits the Saviour enduring the curse of it. Calvary supplied the most solemn and awe-inspiring display of God’s hatred of sin that time or eternity will ever furnish. And do you imagine that the Gospel is magnified or God glorified by going to worldlings and telling them that they "may be saved at this moment by simply accepting Christ as their personal Saviour" while they are wedded to their idols and their hearts still in love with sin? If I do so, I tell them a lie, pervert the Gospel, insult Christ, and turn the grace of God into lasciviousness.
No doubt some readers are ready to object to our "harsh" and "sarcastic" statements above by asking, When the question was put "What must I do to be saved?" did not an inspired Apostle expressly say "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved?" Can we err, then, if we tell sinners the same thing today? Have we not Divine warrant for so doing? True, those words are found in Holy Writ, and because they are, many superficial and untrained people conclude they are justified in repeating them to all and sundry. But let it be pointed out that Acts 16:31 was not addressed to a promiscuous multitude, but to a particular individual, which at once intimates that it is not a message to be indiscriminately sounded forth, but rather a special word, to those whose characters correspond to the one to whom it was first spoken.
Verses of Scripture must not be wrenched from their setting, but weighed, interpreted, and applied in accord with their context; and that calls for prayerful consideration, careful meditation, and prolonged study; and it is failure at this point which accounts for these shoddy and worthless "messages" of this rush-ahead age. Look at the context of Acts 16:31, and what do we find? What was the occasion, and to whom was it that the Apostle and his companion said "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ"? A sevenfold answer is there furnished, which supplies a striking and complete delineation of the character of those to whom we are warranted in giving this truly evangelistic word. As we briefly names these seven details, let the reader carefully ponder them....
The nature of Christ’s salvation is woefully misrepresented by the present-day "evangelist." He announces a Saviour from Hell, rather than a Saviour from sin. And that is why so many are fatally deceived, for there are multitudes who wish to escape the Lake of Fire who have no desire to be delivered from their carnality and worldliness. The very first thing said of Him in the New Testament is, "thou shalt call his name JESUS: for He shall save His people (not "from the wrath to come," but) from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). Christ is a Saviour for those realizing something of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, who felt the awful burden of it on their conscience, so loathe themselves for it, who long to be freed from its terrible dominion; and a Saviour for no others. Were He to "save from Hell" those who were still in love with sin, He would be the Minister of sin, condoning their wickedness and siding with them against God. What an unspeakably horrible and blasphemous thing with which to charge the Holy One!
Should the reader exclaim, I was not conscious of the heinousness of sin nor bowed down with a sense of my guilt when Christ saved me, then we unhesitatingly reply, Either you have never been saved at all, or you were not saved as early as you supposed. True, as the Christian grows in grace he has a clearer realization now what sin is—rebellion against God— and a deeper hatred of and sorrow for it: but to think that one may be saved by Christ whose conscience has never been smitten by the Spirit and whose heart has not been made contrite before God, is to imagine something which has no existence whatever in the realm of fact. "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick" (Matt. 9:12): the only ones who really seek relief from the Great Physician are they that are sick of sin—who long to be delivered from its God-dishonouring works and its soul-defiling pollutions.
Inasmuch, then, as Christ’s salvation is a salvation from sin—from the love of it, from its dominion, from its guile and penalty—then it necessarily follows that the first great task and the chief work of the evangelist is to preach upon SIN: to define what sin (as distinct from crime) really is, to show wherein its infinite enormity consists; to trace out its manifold workings in the heart; to indicate that nothing less than eternal punishment is its desert. Ah, and preaching upon sin—not merely uttering a few platitudes concerning it, but devoting sermon after sermon to explaining what sin is in the light of God—will not make him popular nor draw the crowds, will it? No, it will not, and knowing this, those who love the praise of men more than the approbation of God, and who value their salary above immortal souls, trim their sails accordingly. "But such preaching will drive people away!" We answer, Far better drive the people away by faithful preaching than drive the Holy Spirit away by unfaithfully pandering to the flesh.
Salvation is by grace, by grace alone, for a fallen creature cannot possibly do anything to merit God’s approval or earn His favour. Nevertheless, Divine grace is not exercised at the expense of holiness, for it never compromises with sin. It is also true that salvation is a free gift. but an empty hand must receive it, and not a hand which still tightly grasps the world! But it is not true that "Christ has done everything for the sinner." He did not fill the sinner’s belly with the husks which the swine eat and find them unable to satisfy. He has not turned the sinner’s back on the far country, arisen, gone to the Father, and acknowledged his sins—those are acts which the sinner himself must perform. True, he will not be saved for the performance of them, yet it is equally true that he cannot be saved without the performance of them—any more than the prodigal could receive the Father’s kiss and ring while he still remained at a guilty distance from Him!
The way of salvation is falsely defined. In most instances the modern "evangelist" assures his congregation that all any sinner has to do in order to escape Hell and make sure of Heaven is to "receive Christ as his personal Saviour." But such teaching is utterly misleading. No one can receive Christ as Saviour while he rejects Him as Lord. It is true the preacher adds that the one who accepts Christ should also surrender to Him as Lord, but he at once spoils it by asserting that though the convert fails to do so, nevertheless Heaven is sure to him. That is one of the Devil’s lies. Only those who are spiritually blind would declare that Christ will save any who despise His authority and refuse His yoke: why, my reader, that would not be grace but a disgrace—charging Christ with placing a premium on lawlessness.
Alas, alas, God’s "way of salvation" is almost entirely unknown today. The nature of Christ’s salvation is almost universally misunderstood, and the terms of His salvation misrepresented on every hand. The "Gospel" which is now being proclaimed is, in nine cases out of every ten, but a perversion of the Truth, and tens of thousands, assured they are bound for Heaven, are now hastening to Hell, as fast as time can take them. Things are far, far worse in Christendom than even the "pessimist" and the "alarmist" suppose. We are not a prophet, nor shall we indulge in any speculation of what Biblical prophecy forecasts—wiser men than the writer have often made fools of themselves by so doing. We are frank to say that we know not what God is about to do. Religious conditions were much worse, even in England, one hundred and fifty years ago. But this we greatly fear; unless God is pleased to grant a real revival, it will not be long ere "the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people" (Isa. 60:2), for the light of the true Gospel is rapidly disappearing. Modern "Evangelism" constitutes, in our judgment, the most solemn of all the "signs of the times."
What must the people of God do in view of the existing situation? Ephesians 5:11 supplies the Divine answer: "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them," and everything opposed to the light of the Word is "darkness." It is the bounden duty of every Christian to have no dealings with the "evangelistic" monstrosity of the day; to withhold all moral and financial support of the same, to attend none of their meetings, to circulate none of their tracts. Those preachers who tell sinners they may be saved without forsaking their idols, without repenting, without surrendering to the Lordship of Christ, are as erroneous and dangerous as others who insist that salvation is by works and that Heaven must be earned by our own efforts.
Oral Roberts: His Death and His False Gospel of the Word of Faith Movement
After all those false visions and prophecies and teachings and healings.
After stealing people's money and living a lavish lifestyle.
After threatening God would kill him if he didn't raise $8 million in 12 months for his ORU scholarships.
After the failure of the City of Faith.
After a 900 foot Jesus appeared to him.
Now he's gone.
Now he knows with Whom he has triffled with.
Now he pays for swindling and lying in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, twisting and abusing HIS Word for his own gain.
Will the WOFers get it NOW? The "great healer" DIED of sickness. The "great healer's" wife DIED of sickness. The "great healer's" grand-child DIED of sickness. So either Oral Roberts lacked faith OR his doctrine was wrong. Which was it? Which are you, Charismatics (WOFers) willing to say? If your leader lacked faith, do you think you can out-faith him? If his doctrine was wrong, are you willing to reject it for the Truth of Scripture?
WOF doctrine of health and wealth, their blasted Genie on High whom they can command at will, is putrid, fake, empty, cruel, and evil.
It is without power, purity, integrity, and agape love.
It hates Truth, but loves error.
It hates Christ, but loves the world.
It hates the Cross but loves money, fortune and fame.
It hates humility but loves power.
It hates the souls of men, but loves the soul of Self.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
After stealing people's money and living a lavish lifestyle.
After threatening God would kill him if he didn't raise $8 million in 12 months for his ORU scholarships.
After the failure of the City of Faith.
After a 900 foot Jesus appeared to him.
Now he's gone.
Now he knows with Whom he has triffled with.
Now he pays for swindling and lying in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, twisting and abusing HIS Word for his own gain.
Will the WOFers get it NOW? The "great healer" DIED of sickness. The "great healer's" wife DIED of sickness. The "great healer's" grand-child DIED of sickness. So either Oral Roberts lacked faith OR his doctrine was wrong. Which was it? Which are you, Charismatics (WOFers) willing to say? If your leader lacked faith, do you think you can out-faith him? If his doctrine was wrong, are you willing to reject it for the Truth of Scripture?
WOF doctrine of health and wealth, their blasted Genie on High whom they can command at will, is putrid, fake, empty, cruel, and evil.
It is without power, purity, integrity, and agape love.
It hates Truth, but loves error.
It hates Christ, but loves the world.
It hates the Cross but loves money, fortune and fame.
It hates humility but loves power.
It hates the souls of men, but loves the soul of Self.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
False Prophet and Teacher, Oral Roberts, Dies At 91
Act 8:18
Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, "Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." 20 But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!TULSA, Okla. – Oral Roberts a pioneer in televangelism who founded a multimillion-dollar ministry and a university that bears his name, died Tuesday. He was 91. Roberts died of complications from pneumonia in Newport Beach, Calif., according to his spokesman, A. Larry Ross. The evangelist was hospitalized after a fall on Saturday. He had survived two heart attacks in the 1990s and a broken hip in 2006.
Roberts was a pioneer who broadcast his spirit-filled revivals on television, a new frontier for religion when he started in the 1950s. He was also a forerunner of the controversial "prosperity gospel" that has come to dominate televangelism. The evangelist's "Seed-Faith" theology held that those who give to God will get things in return.
"If God had not, in His sovereign will, raised up the ministry of Oral Roberts, the entire charismatic movement might not have occurred," said Jack Hayford, president of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, in a statement.
His ministry hit upon rocky times in the 1980s. There was controversy over his City of Faith medical center, a $250 million investment that eventually folded, and Roberts' widely ridiculed proclamation that God would "call me home" if he failed to meet a fundraising goal of $8 million. A law school he founded also was shuttered.
Semiretired in recent years and living in California, he returned to Tulsa, Okla., in October 2007 as scandal roiled Oral Roberts University. His son, Richard Roberts, who succeeded him as ORU president, faced allegations of spending university money on shopping sprees and other luxuries at a time the institution was more than $50 million in debt.
Richard Roberts resigned as president in November 2007, marking the first time since Oral Roberts University was chartered in 1963 that a member of the Roberts family would not be at its helm. The rocky period for the evangelical school was eased when billionaire Oklahoma City businessman Mart Green donated $70 million and helped run the school in the interim, pledging to restore the public's trust. By the fall of 2009, things were looking up, with officials saying tens of millions of dollars worth of debt had been paid off and enrollment was up slightly.
End quote.
Richard Roberts' scandal here. Oral Robert's interview this year (summertime I think).
Jer 23:32 Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the LORD, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the LORD.
Could it be that his doctrine and practice were false and without power? The answer is clearly, yes.
Now the question that remains: will they place Oral Roberts' body in front of Benny Hinn to be raised to life, as Hinn claimed on Oct. 19, 1999?
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Supressing Evidence By The "Scientific" Community:anything to defend their religion
Recent news of the research censorship by Global warming "scientists" is nothing new. Back in October I read about this very thing within the Evolution religion. Climategate only confirms the presupositional and agenda driven bias of the religion of science.
Dinosaur DNA Research by ICR excerpts:
This article referenced then-recent
findings of fresh dinosaur tissue:
Mary Schweitzer, a biology graduate
student at Montana State University’s
Museum of the Rockies, was examining a
thin section of Tyrranosaurus rex bone…
when she noticed a series of peculiar
structures. Round and tiny and nucleated,
they were threaded through the bone
like red blood cells in blood vessels. But
blood cells in a dinosaur bone should
have disappeared eons ago. “I got goose
bumps,” recalls Schweitzer. “It was exactly
like looking at a slice of modern bone. But,
of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the
lab technician: ‘The bones, after all, are 65
million years old. How could blood cells
survive that long?’”2
Why was Schweitzer, an eyewitness
who microscopically observed the insides of
a T. rex bone, afraid to believe her own eyes?
Isn’t empirical science all about observation?
Furthermore, Morell reported, “Schweitzer
has already extracted a molecule that might
be dinosaur DNA.”
However, connective tissue ruins and
degrades over time, such that DNA should
not survive at all, even if the creature only
lived 50,000 years ago.3 The existence of
65 million-year-old DNA
is biochemically unthinkable.
In other words, the
old-earth evolutionary tale
is clearly at odds with the fresh dinosaur
bone evidence. How embarrassing to the
academic establishment! This may be why
ongoing dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are
generally not broadcast through popular
media channels.
In suppressed dinosaur DNA research—
which is a subset of the irrefutable, but hushed,
dinosaur soft tissue discoveries—the same
issue of evidence spoliation is relevant. Why?
Because today’s dinosaur DNA controversy in
particular, and today’s dinosaur “connective
tissue” controversy in general, directly puts at
issue the real age of the dinosaurs: Did they live
millions of years ago, or in much more recent
history on an earth inhabited by humans—
descendants of Adam and Eve?9
This purposeful pattern
of coerced concealment of the
nonconforming DNA data from
unfossilized dinosaur bones (labeled
“an anomaly” on the chart) involves
what courtroom lawyers and
judges call “chilling” coercion and
“spoliation of evidence”—inducing
the concealment (and eventual
destruction) of embarrassing information
in order to prevent one’s
opponent from using it at trial.
Whenever any kind of evidence
is concealed, one immediately
questions the spoliators’ motives
for doing so. The intuitive answer is
that they dislike what the information
would reveal. Therefore, to spoliate evidence
suggests that the spoliators’ argument or
theory would be weakened, or embarrassed,
by that evidence. This suggestion is so strong,
forensically speaking, that it is treated as a rule
of presumptive inference in law courts. In other
words, if someone hides evidence in this way,
the law presumes that the hidden evidence was
damaging to the argument of the spoliator. The
spoliator then bears the burden of proof to
show otherwise.6
The coerced suppression of the results
by the evolutionary scientific community
has dissuaded anyone else from publishing
dinosaur DNA research that is not in line with
evolutionary dictates. Such self-censorship
“chills” empirical research, which prevents the
public reporting of observable DNA sequences
in order to insulate the larger story of particlesto-
people evolution from cross-examination.
Dinosaur DNA Research by ICR excerpts:
This article referenced then-recent
findings of fresh dinosaur tissue:
Mary Schweitzer, a biology graduate
student at Montana State University’s
Museum of the Rockies, was examining a
thin section of Tyrranosaurus rex bone…
when she noticed a series of peculiar
structures. Round and tiny and nucleated,
they were threaded through the bone
like red blood cells in blood vessels. But
blood cells in a dinosaur bone should
have disappeared eons ago. “I got goose
bumps,” recalls Schweitzer. “It was exactly
like looking at a slice of modern bone. But,
of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the
lab technician: ‘The bones, after all, are 65
million years old. How could blood cells
survive that long?’”2
Why was Schweitzer, an eyewitness
who microscopically observed the insides of
a T. rex bone, afraid to believe her own eyes?
Isn’t empirical science all about observation?
Furthermore, Morell reported, “Schweitzer
has already extracted a molecule that might
be dinosaur DNA.”
However, connective tissue ruins and
degrades over time, such that DNA should
not survive at all, even if the creature only
lived 50,000 years ago.3 The existence of
65 million-year-old DNA
is biochemically unthinkable.
In other words, the
old-earth evolutionary tale
is clearly at odds with the fresh dinosaur
bone evidence. How embarrassing to the
academic establishment! This may be why
ongoing dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are
generally not broadcast through popular
media channels.
In suppressed dinosaur DNA research—
which is a subset of the irrefutable, but hushed,
dinosaur soft tissue discoveries—the same
issue of evidence spoliation is relevant. Why?
Because today’s dinosaur DNA controversy in
particular, and today’s dinosaur “connective
tissue” controversy in general, directly puts at
issue the real age of the dinosaurs: Did they live
millions of years ago, or in much more recent
history on an earth inhabited by humans—
descendants of Adam and Eve?9
This purposeful pattern
of coerced concealment of the
nonconforming DNA data from
unfossilized dinosaur bones (labeled
“an anomaly” on the chart) involves
what courtroom lawyers and
judges call “chilling” coercion and
“spoliation of evidence”—inducing
the concealment (and eventual
destruction) of embarrassing information
in order to prevent one’s
opponent from using it at trial.
Whenever any kind of evidence
is concealed, one immediately
questions the spoliators’ motives
for doing so. The intuitive answer is
that they dislike what the information
would reveal. Therefore, to spoliate evidence
suggests that the spoliators’ argument or
theory would be weakened, or embarrassed,
by that evidence. This suggestion is so strong,
forensically speaking, that it is treated as a rule
of presumptive inference in law courts. In other
words, if someone hides evidence in this way,
the law presumes that the hidden evidence was
damaging to the argument of the spoliator. The
spoliator then bears the burden of proof to
show otherwise.6
The coerced suppression of the results
by the evolutionary scientific community
has dissuaded anyone else from publishing
dinosaur DNA research that is not in line with
evolutionary dictates. Such self-censorship
“chills” empirical research, which prevents the
public reporting of observable DNA sequences
in order to insulate the larger story of particlesto-
people evolution from cross-examination.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Emergent Conference: Exponential 10
Exponential 10
Speakers: http://www.exponentialconference.org/speakers/ :
Ed Stetzer, Ken Blanchard (New Age/Contemplative promoter), Alan Hirsch, Darrin Patrick, Francis Chan, Shane Claiborne, Matt Chandler. This conference includes women "pastors" and head over various church ministries. Also speaking: Tim Stevens, head Goat-Herder at X-rated Granger Community "Church".
Wake up folks, Chan and Chandler continue to speak at these aweful Emergent conferences. They ARE supporting and finding common ground with this anti-biblical movement.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Roman Catholicism: Bloody History of Christ's Martyrs
Martyr's Mirror: History of Christians being tortured and persecuted for Christ, much of which was done by the hands of the Roman Catholic Church--the one that people want to hold hands with today for "social justice":
People were banished out of their town or country, their goods confiscated,their books burned, their bodies burned alive ; others were hanged,or branded on their foreheads, all for disputing with Rome's doctrine on "infant baptism"(yes, today its such a non-issue!), the eucharist, etc.and instead holding to the Gospel.
People were banished out of their town or country, their goods confiscated,their books burned, their bodies burned alive ; others were hanged,or branded on their foreheads, all for disputing with Rome's doctrine on "infant baptism"(yes, today its such a non-issue!), the eucharist, etc.and instead holding to the Gospel.
Fox's Book of Martyrs: an example of Rome
"Dominicus, a learned soldier, having read several controversial writings, became a zealous Protestant, and retiring to Placentia, he preached the Gospel in its utmost purity, to a very considerable congregation. One day, at the conclusion of his sermon, he said, "If the congregation will attend to-morrow, I will give them a description of Antichrist, and paint him out in his proper colors."
A vast concourse of people attended the next day, but just as Dominicus was beginning his sermon, a civil magistrate went up to the pulpit, and took him into custody. He readily submitted; but as he went along with the magistrate, he made use of this expression: "I wonder the devil hath let me alone so long." When he was brought to examination, this question was put to him: "Will you renounce your doctrines?" To which he replied: "My doctrines! I maintain no doctrines of my own; what I preach are the doctrines of Christ, and for those I will forfeit my blood, and even think myself happy to suffer for the sake of my Redeemer." Every method was taken to make him recant for his faith, and embrace the errors of the Church of Rome; but when persuasions and menaces were found ineffectual, he was sentenced to death, and hanged in the market place."
Rome hasn't changed its doctrines. To join hands with it is to tread upon the blood of those who wouldn't side with the RCC and its horrific doctrines to save their lives. They were willing to be TORTURED for biblical doctrine at the hands of Rome. Why are so many "Evangelicals" willing to bow to Rome for lesser causes?
Spurgeon On the Roman Catholic Church: do you know the history?
With all this hand holding with Romanists and their sister, the Easter Orthodox, I'd like to remind folks of something Spurgeon said:
Quote:
We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never come from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men. (From The New Park Street Pulpit, Volume VII, page 225).
End quote.
Does anyone see Rome this way any more? Is anyone WILLING to speak out this way?
It is Rome who killed Christians for not submitting to its authority or baptism. Its Rome who has lied about Scripture and its Gospel, keeping its people from reading the Bible because they would be revealed for the horrific monstrosity it really is. Folks, Rome hasn't reformed and can't reform, because its DEAD.
Quote:
We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never come from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men. (From The New Park Street Pulpit, Volume VII, page 225).
James White On the Problems With the Manhattan Declaration
Blessedly, James White refused and rejects the Manhattan Declaration:
In part he states:
Quote:
....The general statements of the document relating to life, abortion, marriage, sexuality, and religious liberty, are well stated and timely. There is something reassuring in realizing that the concerns we have had are shared across a broad spectrum.
In part he states:
Quote:
....The general statements of the document relating to life, abortion, marriage, sexuality, and religious liberty, are well stated and timely. There is something reassuring in realizing that the concerns we have had are shared across a broad spectrum.
But there are a number of troubling things that I cannot get past in examining this document and considering its implications. When I see some of the leading ecumenists in the forefront of the documents' production, I am made uneasy, and for good reason. Great damage has been done to the cause of Christ by those who have sought to promote the Kingdom by compromising the gospel, the only power given to the church that can change hearts, and hence change societies. By relegating the gospel to a matter of opinion and difference, but not something that defines the Christian faith, these ecumenists have left their followers with a cause without power, a quest without a solution. And though their open-mindedness fits better with our current post-modern culture, from a biblical perspective, they have truly betrayed the apostolic example.
This document presents a Christianity ostensibly based upon bare Trinitarianism. I listened to Chuck Colson speak on the Hugh Hewitt program this afternoon. He made it very clear that this is, in fact, a theological document, despite the assertions of others that it is not. He was asked why Jews, Mormons, and others, were not invited to sign the document. He said they were not asked because this is a specifically Christian statement, quoting from the Christian scriptures. Once again we are led to the inevitable conclusion that "Christian" then is "Trinitarianism plus agreed upon historical truths such as the crucifixion and resurrection, but, most importantly, without any gospel content." It does no good to muddle this discussion with "Well, what about the medieval church" questions, since we are talking about a day and age when the issues are well known. We are not talking about a dark period of biblical ignorance. There is more light available today than ever before. And for many, the gospel is simply no longer part of the "non-negotiables."
But I am left confused by the inconsistency of the document. Mormons are not invited. Understandable, given that the LDS faith is the most polytheistic faith I've ever encountered. Trinitarians only need apply. I can fully understand that. So...why are we told toward the end of this Declaration that Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote from an explicitly Christian perspective? A brief visit to Martin Luther King's writings will reveal he was hardly orthodox even using the limited definition utilized by this Declaration. For example, writing in a paper while in seminary, Martin Luther King, Jr. said:
The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: "Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possible have." In other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.
So why put forth King as explicitly Christian, but not invite the Jehovah's Witnesses, who would "quite readily deny" the deity of Christ as well? Perhaps a document that identifies Papal actions as explicitly Christian actions can be excused for its inherent self-contradiction.
There is no question that all believers need to think seriously about the issues raised by this declaration. But what is the only solution to these issues? Is the solution to be found in presenting a unified front that implicitly says "the gospel does not unite us, but that is not important enough to divide us"? I do not think so. What is the only power given to the church to change hearts and minds? United political power? Or the gospel that is trampled under foot by every Roman Catholic priest when he "re-presents" the sacrifice of Christ upon the Roman altar, pretending to be a priest, an "alter Christus"? Am I glad when a Roman clergyman calls abortion murder? Of course. But it exhibits a real confusion, and not a small amount of cowardice, it seems, to stop identifying the man's false gospel and false teaching simply because you are glad to have a few more on the "right" side of a vitally important social issue.
This takes me back to my original response to the ECT document. I have seen so many re-organize their priorities in light of having made "common cause" with those who have a false gospel all in the name of doing social good. I am glad Rome retains elements of God's truth and morality. But when did being good or moral bring one salvation, as if anyone is ever truly good, or truly moral?
These are the matters that truly concern me about the Manhattan Declaration. Why does God have the right to determine human sexuality, marriage, and to define life itself? It all goes back to the gospel, does it not? If we are going to give a consistent, clear answer to our culture, we dare not find our power in a false unity that overshadows the gospel and cripples our witness.
End quote.
Justin Taylor, Reformer Blogger, Endorses The Manhattan Declaration
Another Reformer, Justin Taylor, has endorsed the Manhattan Declaration, calling it " a carefule, thoughtful statement, worthy of study and acceptance. I encourage you to read it and sign it."
Is he serious?? Agree that Romanists and EO's are brothers in Christ??? When they have a false gospel???? Is the doctrine of Justification optional???? Is salvation by GRACE ALONE in CHRIST ALONE merely one's own opinion????
Rome is welcoming you Reformers back with open arms. Here's one little secret: she hasn't reformed nor could she for she is an illegitimate church with a false gospel that can't save.
Is he serious?? Agree that Romanists and EO's are brothers in Christ??? When they have a false gospel???? Is the doctrine of Justification optional???? Is salvation by GRACE ALONE in CHRIST ALONE merely one's own opinion????
Rome is welcoming you Reformers back with open arms. Here's one little secret: she hasn't reformed nor could she for she is an illegitimate church with a false gospel that can't save.
John MacArthur Refuses To Sign The Manhattan Declaration
At least one well-known bible expositor and pastor refused to sign the Manhattan Declaration (the fact it started in Tim Keller's city makes me wonder if he had a hand in bringing this together on some level): John MacArthur. Here's his response to why he wouldn't sign it. My question is, if I saw the same problems and he did too, as well as other solid Christians, why couldn't any of the signers?--this isn't hard to figure out....unless they agree with Roman Catholicism or they honestly haven't a clue WHAT the Gospel is.
The Manhattan Declaration
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009
(By John MacArthur)
Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:
• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.
• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.
• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.
• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.
• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.
In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.
John MacArthur
End quote.
So why WOULD these people like Joni Tada, Kay Arthur, Tim Keller, Al Mohler actually sign a document that calls Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as "brothers" and "fellow believers"? That fact is, any religion that holds to a works-based salvation is condemned by God and the one through whom that "gospel" (which is no gospel at all) is proclaimed, is condemned as well (Gal. 1:8-9).
Either these people know nothing of the RCC and its "gospel" (and therefore shouldn't be endorsing it) or they know nothing of The Gospel of Jesus Christ, or the Gospel and all doctrine related to it (total depravity, justification by faith, salvation by grace through faith; Jesus as the sole Author and Redeemer --no need for Mary), is merely optional.
Rome is welcoming these people with open arms but it hasn't changed. "Evangelicals" have. And Rome knows it.
The Manhattan Declaration
Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009
(By John MacArthur)
Here are the main reasons I am not signing the Manhattan Declaration, even though a few men whom I love and respect have already affixed their names to it:
• Although I obviously agree with the document’s opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion, and other key moral problems threatening our culture, the document falls far short of identifying the one true and ultimate remedy for all of humanity’s moral ills: the gospel. The gospel is barely mentioned in the Declaration. At one point the statement rightly acknowledges, “It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season”—and then adds an encouraging wish: “May God help us not to fail in that duty.” Yet the gospel itself is nowhere presented (much less explained) in the document or any of the accompanying literature. Indeed, that would be a practical impossibility because of the contradictory views held by the broad range of signatories regarding what the gospel teaches and what it means to be a Christian.
• This is precisely where the document fails most egregiously. It assumes from the start that all signatories are fellow Christians whose only differences have to do with the fact that they represent distinct “communities.” Points of disagreement are tacitly acknowledged but are described as “historic lines of ecclesial differences” rather than fundamental conflicts of doctrine and conviction with regard to the gospel and the question of which teachings are essential to authentic Christianity.
• Instead of acknowledging the true depth of our differences, the implicit assumption (from the start of the document until its final paragraph) is that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant Evangelicals and others all share a common faith in and a common commitment to the gospel’s essential claims. The document repeatedly employs expressions like “we [and] our fellow believers”; “As Christians, we . . .”; and “we claim the heritage of . . . Christians.” That seriously muddles the lines of demarcation between authentic biblical Christianity and various apostate traditions.
• The Declaration therefore constitutes a formal avowal of brotherhood between Evangelical signatories and purveyors of different gospels. That is the stated intention of some of the key signatories, and it’s hard to see how secular readers could possibly view it in any other light. Thus for the sake of issuing a manifesto decrying certain moral and political issues, the Declaration obscures both the importance of the gospel and the very substance of the gospel message.
• This is neither a novel approach nor a strategic stand for evangelicals to take. It ought to be clear to all that the agenda behind the recent flurry of proclamations and moral pronouncements we’ve seen promoting ecumenical co-belligerence is the viewpoint Charles Colson has been championing for more than two decades. (It is not without significance that his name is nearly always at the head of the list of drafters when these statements are issued.) He explained his agenda in his 1994 book The Body, in which he argued that the only truly essential doctrines of authentic Christian truth are those spelled out in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. I responded to that argument at length in Reckless Faith. I stand by what I wrote then.
In short, support for The Manhattan Declaration would not only contradict the stance I have taken since long before the original “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was issued; it would also tacitly relegate the very essence of gospel truth to the level of a secondary issue. That is the wrong way—perhaps the very worst way—for evangelicals to address the moral and political crises of our time. Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals.
John MacArthur
End quote.
So why WOULD these people like Joni Tada, Kay Arthur, Tim Keller, Al Mohler actually sign a document that calls Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as "brothers" and "fellow believers"? That fact is, any religion that holds to a works-based salvation is condemned by God and the one through whom that "gospel" (which is no gospel at all) is proclaimed, is condemned as well (Gal. 1:8-9).
Either these people know nothing of the RCC and its "gospel" (and therefore shouldn't be endorsing it) or they know nothing of The Gospel of Jesus Christ, or the Gospel and all doctrine related to it (total depravity, justification by faith, salvation by grace through faith; Jesus as the sole Author and Redeemer --no need for Mary), is merely optional.
Rome is welcoming these people with open arms but it hasn't changed. "Evangelicals" have. And Rome knows it.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Your Famous Evangelical Leaders Who Are Holding Hands With Roman Catholics
Look at this new inter-faith document.
My friend, who showed it to me rightly noted:
"Its basically Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox & Evangelicals finding common cause to unite over. What is interesting is looking at the list of original signers.. and how the evangelicals in signing proclaimed that Rome gave them the bible : "After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture...."
And how far they are willing to drop doctrinal differences for common cause & proclaim the other has the same gospel: "We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right - and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty."
In signing such a document they also show the world that they consider each other as fellow Christians."
She's right.
A news report noted,"The declaration lists the "fundamental truths" as the "sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty." Interesting they list these as fundamental truths--not about God, Scripture, Salvation, total depravity--so they can hold hands and still have "truth". But its not. They don't all serve the God of Scripture, nor have the only Gospel that can save. Take a look:
The Declaration states in part:
"We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image.
We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right - and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation - to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty."
They ingore the history of the RCC toward biblical Christians--Baptists in particular, and how they slaughtered hundreds of thousands through its existance... and how these folks assume the RCC was the keeper of Truth.
Look at the signers of interest that are holding hands with ROME (a look at the document shows the Romanists signers as well, but I'm more interested in the "Evangelical Christian" signers):
Timothy George
Randy Alcorn
Kay Arthur
Gary Bauer
Joel Belz
Ken Boa
James Dobson
Jonathan Falwell
Wayne Grudem
Jerry Jenkins
Timmy Keller
Peter Kreeft
Josh McDowell
Al Mohler
Marvin Olasky
JI Packer
Cornelius Platinga
Dennis Rainey
Joni Eareckson Tada
Paul Young
Ravi Zacharias
These people are holding hands with Rome for what? Rights?? To what end? We who are in Christ are NOT of this world, and HIS kingdom is NOT of this world. We who are in Christ have NO SHARE with Romanists.
I recently quoted from John MacArthur on the doctrine of separation from unbelievers. Its worth a look.
Moreover, to agree that the Romanists have the same God as Christians is downright wrong. They have a works-based justification and salvation, a helpless and unapproachable Jesus who can't be separated from his mother, Mary; a co-redemptrix and fourth in the godhead (yes, according to their own RCC catechism, they insert Mary's name into the 4th commandment to not take the Lord Your God's name in vain; they also admit that what they believe about Jesus they apply to Mary).
Rome adds: works to grace, Mary to Jesus, the Pope to Scripture, purgatory to the cross.
For more info go to Berean Beacon.
Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--
Gal.1:7not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you,
2Co 6:18 and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty."
Friday, November 13, 2009
Put Away Your Sentimental God
"A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to Him, crying out, 'Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession!' Jesus did not answer her a word!" Matthew 15:22
There are 'sentimental ideas of God' prevalent, which are dishonoring to Him. There are those who imagine that God's love means tenderness that cannot cause pain. They think that He cannot look a moment on suffering, without relieving it; that He must instantly hear and answer every cry for the removal of trouble.
Not such a God--is the God of the Bible! When suffering is the best thing for us--He is not too sympathetic to let us suffer--until the work of suffering is accomplished in us. He is not too kind to be silent to our prayers--when it is better that He should be silent for a time, to allow . . .
faith to grow strong,
self-confidence to be swept away, and
the evil in us--to be burned out in the furnace of pain!
There is a danger with all of us--our tenderness lacks strength. We cannot tolerate to see people suffer, and so we hasten to give relief--before the ministry of suffering is accomplished. We think of our mission to others, as being only 'to make life easier for them'. We are continually lifting away burdens, which it were better to have left resting longer on our friend's shoulder! We are eager to make life easy for our children--when it were better if it had been left hard.
We must learn that God does not deal with us in this 'sentimental' way. He is not too tender to see us suffer--if more suffering is needed to work in us the discipline that will make us like Christ!
Here we have the key of many of the 'mysteries of Providence'. Life is not easy for us--and God does not intend it to be easy!
Suppose for a moment, that God immediately gave us everything we ask for--and immediately removed every little pain, trouble, difficulty, and hardness that we seek to have removed; what would be the result on us? How selfish it would make us! We would become weak, unable to endure suffering, to bear trial, to carry burdens, or to struggle. We would be only children always--and would never rise into manly strength. God's over-kindness to us--would pamper in us all the worst elements of our nature, and would make us only poor driveling creatures!
On the other hand, however, God's wise and firm treatment of us, teaches us the great lessons which make us strong with the strength of Christ Himself.
He teaches us to yield our own will to Him.
He develops in us--patience, faith, love, hope and peace.
He trains us to endure hardness--that we may grow heroic, courageous and strong.
It is well for us to make careful note of this--that in all God's delays when we pray--His aim is some good in us.
At the least, we may always know that silence is not refusal--that God hears and cares, and that when our faith has learned its lessons--He will answer in blessing!
"The Lord disciplines the one He loves, and punishes every son whom He receives." Hebrews 12:6
"God disciplines us for our good--that we may share in His holiness." Hebrews 12:10
~Excerpts from J.R. Miller, "The Silent Christ" (Grace Gems)
God never wastes our pain, if we are in Christ and bow to His sovereignty.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
YOU LOVE JESUS; GOOD FOR YOU, BUT WHICH ONE? by Ken Silva
For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. (2 Corinthians 11:4, NASB)
But Which Jesus Is It Whom You Claim To Love?
There is certainly no shortage of people claiming to “love Jesus” today; and, there’s also a veritable cornucopia of ideas about who this Person Jesus is as well. As most of you know, there are many different “Jesuses” running around all over the countryside these days. As we show you in Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up the major views about Him that you are most likely to run into are quite varied–and surprising–to be sure.
The Jesus which is probably the most widely known in this pagan “postmodern” culture is the so-called “historical Jesus”. Let me be perfectly clear, this Jesus is just as much a myth as any of the “gods” of Greek mythology. And notice from our text above God warns us that there really is such a thing as another Jesus. Here I must also point out to you a vitally important point the Bible—the Word of our Creator—makes regarding the only way in which a sinner is saved from his sins.
Perhaps you’ve heard Acts 4:12 before — Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other Name under Heaven given to men by which we must be saved. Do you see: No other Name; we must be saved. Indeed, very narrow, and completely exclusive and definitive claims. The wise person is going to ask the key questi0n here: Because I must be saved, what Name are we talking about here? That answer is found two verses prior in Acts 4. We are clearly told that the “Name” being discussed concerning our salvation is: Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Do not love the world nor the things in the world: Baptist "church" to spend $130 Million to Bait Unbelievers to Join
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif., Nov. 12 /Christian Newswire/ – First Baptist Church of Dallas recently announced plans to build a $130 million church campus with the intention of transforming the city and setting up a “beacon of truth.” House church leader Ken Eastburn commented saying the building will not be able to accomplish its goal, “I applaud First Baptist Church for desiring to impact their community, but we need to get beyond a consumer mentality when we think about transformation. Expensive church buildings do not communicate the transforming Truth of the Gospel, they enslave people to the consumerism of our culture.”
According to their website, the 1.5 million square foot campus will utilize innovative technology in the interest of environmental friendliness and will include a stone watering tower with a luminescent cross, a 3,000-seat worship center with 7 high-definition screens, a six- floor education building for youth and children’s ministries, two side-by-side gymnasiums, and an outdoor concert space. According to church fundraising experts, it will be the most expensive church building program the United States has ever seen.
“Attractive buildings, entertaining preachers, and concert-like music have become staples in churches around the country in their effort to reach out to the lost,” says Eastburn, “The problem is that these churches are reinforcing the very things that are entrapping people and keeping them from a transforming relationship with Christ. The church cannot curb consumerism by leveraging consumerism.”
End quote. More here.
While I can't endorse Eastburn's The Well, since I don't know about them, the point he makes is right.
So all of you who are just dying to renew your city, listen up. This isn't the way to do it. Its not the way they did it in Scripture. We are not of the world. It is the GOSPEL that saves, not pragmatism and gimmicks. Pagan-friendly "churches" are indeed friendly to the God-haters, but certainly not to God and His Truth.
To borrow from a song: they turn their eyes upon the world, look full into its fleshly ways, and with the things of the world, HIS face grows strangely dim, in the light of the popularity race.
Just think what true Christians could do with $130 million dollars with real mission work. This isn't a need, as I've talked about recently. This is coveting while slapping the holy name of Jesus onto it, justfying their sin. And yeah, I just called it sin, because that IS what it is. Its a love of the world and taking the money of the sheep to look impressive. Its of the flesh and pride, NOT of Christ Jesus nor humility. What was it that Peter said? Silver or gold have I none, but what I do, I give to you....then he proclaimed the paralytic to get up and walk. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe (Rom. 1:16). The real power is in the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit....the third Person in the Triune Godhead that most "Christians" ignore.
1Jn 2:15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him, 16 because all that which is in the world: the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)