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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)