Many may not be aware that Salvation Army isn't a Christian church, although it claims to be one.
It is not a legitimate church nor Christian b/c it doesn't have male only leadership nor baptisms nor the Lord's Table. Rather, it has women in leadership:
"It was not until 1860 that Catherine Booth first started to preach. One day in Gateshead Bethesda Chapel, a strange compulsion seized her and she felt she must rise and speak. Later she recalled how an inner voice taunted her: "You will look like a fool and have nothing to say". Catherine decided that this was the Devil's voice: "That's just the point," she retorted, "I have never yet been willing to be a fool for Christ. Now I will be one."
"Catherine's sermon was so impressive that William changed his mind about women's preachers. Catherine Booth soon developed a reputation as an outstanding speaker but many Christians were outraged by the idea. As Catherine pointed out at that time it was believed that a woman's place was in the home and "any respectable woman who raised her voice in public risked grave censure."
1Tim. 2: 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Titus 1 6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife,
Jesus commanded for believers to participate in the Lord's Table and to be baptized as new Christians. To deliberately reject His commands is a denial of Him. Scripture however states:
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
The Salvation Army is ecumenical and inter-faith in nature. 2Cor. 6:14-18 talks about separation. Unity is based on biblical doctrinal Truth, which isn't optional.
It doesn't proclaim Christ Jesus alone for salvation by grace through faith alone; rather they teach one must keep one's self saved by works. This is a false gospel and denies the sufficiency of the solitary work of Jesus Christ on the Cross and His declaration, "It is finished!". Their covenant also requires a promise to give as much money as possible to this "church" even though it is not a legitimate church (see above).
"We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ." - Salvation Army Covenant
Scripture however, says that salvation and sanctification is by grace through faith. We are kept not by our works, but by Him who started our salvation:
Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
Heb 10:14 For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
Heb 12:2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith,
Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Eph 2:10 For we are HIS WORKMANSHIP, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Salvation by grace through faith, eternal security the same way, both done by way of Jesus Christ and HIS sufficient work, and to deny this is to deny the Gospel itself and HIS work on the cross and His resurrection.
In addition the Salvation Army doesn't use biblical titles or terms for leadership. Rather than pastors/elders and deacons, teachers,believers, brethern/children of God/sons, those in Christ, Christian, fellow slave/bond-servant, here are some of their terms that are deliberately military terms:
Adherent :A person who regards The Salvation Army as his/her spiritual home but has not made a commitment to soldiership. (More about becoming an adherent member.)Cadet :A Salvationist in training for officership.Chief of the Staff: The officer second in command of the Army throughout the world.
Corps :A Salvation Army unit established for the preaching of the gospel and service in the community.
Corps Cadet :A young Salvationist who undertakes a course of study and practical training in his or her corps, with a view to becoming efficient in Salvation Army service.
General :The officer elected to the supreme command of the Army throughout the world. All appointments are made, and all regulations issued, under the General’s authority (see under High Council).
Junior Soldier :A boy or girl who, having professed conversion and having signed the junior soldier’s promise, becomes a Salvationist.
Salvation:The work of grace which God accomplishes in a repentant person whose trust is in Christ as Saviour, forgiving sin, giving meaning and new direction to life, and strength to live as God desires. The deeper experience of this grace, known as holiness or sanctification, is the outcome of wholehearted commitment to God and enables the living of a Christlike life.
Self-Denial Appeal :An annual effort to raise funds for the Army’s worldwide operations; also known as the annual appeal in some countries.
Soldier :A converted person at least 14 years of age who has, with the approval of the census board, been enrolled as a member of The Salvation Army after signing the articles of war (soldier's covenant).
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Ergun Caner Continues His Lies And Arrogance
Ergun Caner continues in his arrogance and mocks his critics. James White discusses Caner's lies.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Lordship Salvation
1Pe 4:3 For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries.
1Pe 4:4 In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you;
1Pe 4:5 but they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.
1Pe 4:4 In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you;
1Pe 4:5 but they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Power of Scripture: excerpts from John MacArthur
Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple....
We must have childlike faith, not skeptic's unbelief. Logic cannot explain any miracle, much less the Death of the Sinless Lord and His resurrection! Man's mind is as fallen and deceitful as his wicked heart.
Excerpts from John MacArthur on why we believe the Bible--and he touches on various reasons, but this struck a chord with me:
Why We Believe The Bible :
That's why when you're trying to deal with a non-believer you can stack up and stack up and stack up all kinds of evidences, all kinds of reasonable arguments. And believe me, the truth is rational. And the truth is reasonable. But that doesn't take people there. If you want to present the case for biblical authenticity and I want to do that every single time I step in this pulpit, I do not get up here and tell you what are the reasonable evidences that the Bible is true, I just open it up for it is sharper, more powerful than any other weapon. It carries its own power with it.
You either believe that a human being has a rational power on his own to ascend to the truth of God's Word or you believe he doesn't. If you believe he does, you have an unbiblical view of man. If you believe he doesn't, then you know that the power is not in evidences to the rational mind, but the power is in the proclamation of the Word of God. And what you have in ministry today that is nothing but trying to convince people with cleverness and reasonableness and whatever other manipulating forces that somehow within the heart of man is the capability for him to rise out of his spiritual death, rise out of his spiritual blindness, rise out of divine judicial blindness and on his own believe because you've made it so easy for him. Ludicrous...but it's what drives so much of so-called evangelism. The sinner's opposition to the Word of God, the sinner's opposition to divine holy truth, the sinner's opposition to the gospel does not arise from legitimate intellectual issues regarding the truth or the veracity of Scripture. It rises from the rebellion of a sinful soul and because he is natural and even at his best rational level, he cannot attain to this spiritual knowledge. Man is not the final court of appeal. You cannot let the sinner think that his reason is the deciding factor in his salvation. According to God, God is the final court of appeal. His revelation decides what's true, not man's reason. Sinners have for centuries applied their reason to the Bible and come up with all kinds of damning heresies. "And all men...writes Van Til...do their thinking on the basis of a position accepted by faith and your faith is either in God...he says...or in yourself and your reason. I will not put my faith in human reason, so I do not preach things that manipulate human reason. I preach the Word of God because my faith is in His power and His Word. Thus to know divine truth and to understand the Bible, the sinner must call on God. The sinner must be overwhelmed with the truth of the Word of God. Preach anything other than the Scripture and you are wasting your time. The sinner must understand the truth. He must have that information. He must have that interpretation. We are begotten again by the Word of Truth, but he must cry out for God to save him, to give him life, to take off the blinders, to overpower the enemy who has blinded him, to remove the things that God Himself has hidden from him and bring them into the light. The sinner has to throw himself before the throne of God and cry out with the depths of his fearful soul, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner. Give me an understanding of the truth." It's all the work of God.
End quote.
And this is what I've been trying to say for so long. As a pastor friend said a few years ago, most professing Christians don't think the MIND FELL along with everything else at The Fall of Adam. That's why they appeal to the the intellect, which is a grave error, since the mind is just as consumed with sin as the heart and soul.
"The Bible Is God's Word" by MacArthur:
The New Testament agrees with the Old, calling God a God of truth. John 3:33 says, "God is truthful." John 17:3, Jesus said, "That they may know You, the only true God." 1 John 5:20, "He is the true God." Three times the Scripture says God cannot lie...Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; and Hebrews 6:18. God cannot lie. It is impossible. The Bible is therefore infallible and inerrant because it is written by God who is truth, speaks only truth, cannot speak anything but truth.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Kay Arthur Teaching Men And Women At Emergent "Break Forth Finland 2011"
Kay Arthur teaching to men and women again at Emergent Break Forth conference in Finland 2011:
"Break Forth Finland presenters included multi-million selling author, Kay Arthur. Her sessions were filled to capacity as people longed to learn more about growing deeper in their study of the Word. Other presenters came from Brazil, the USA, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and Israel." -Break Forth
Last year in an interview for BF Finland man, Pauli Hyppoen talks about Arthur's teaching.
"Break Forth Finland presenters included multi-million selling author, Kay Arthur. Her sessions were filled to capacity as people longed to learn more about growing deeper in their study of the Word. Other presenters came from Brazil, the USA, Canada, Sweden, Denmark and Israel." -Break Forth
Last year in an interview for BF Finland man, Pauli Hyppoen talks about Arthur's teaching.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Christ Could Not Be Tempted
Jesus is eternally God, therefore His very unchanging being is God and couldn't sin (impeccable). Nothing in Him is attracted to sin and disobedience.
Check it out:
Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
MacArthur states:
Paul began by affirming that Jesus is God. That is the point where the incarnation began and from which Christ began the descent of His humiliation. The Greek word translated "existed" (huparch[ma]o) is not the common verb for being (eimi). Huparch[me]o stresses the essence of a person's nature--the continuous state or condition of something (cf. William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], p. 35). It expresses what one is unalterably and inalienably by nature. Paul's point was that Jesus Christ is unalterably and continuously existing in the form of God.
The meaning of the Greek word translated "form" (morphe) is crucial for a proper understanding of this passage. In English we have used that word to form terms like endomorph and ectomorph. Morphe "always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it" (James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930], p. 417). The word describes the essential being or nature of what it refers to--in this case the essential being of God.
Morphe is better understood when compared to the Greek word schema. Both words are translated in English as "form." That's the best English word for each term, but the meaning of each is not properly represented unless a distinction is made between them.
Morphe expresses is the essential character of something--what it is in itself. Schema emphasizes outward form or appearance. What morphe expresses never changes, while what schema represents can. For example, all men possess manhood. They possess manhood from the time they are conceived until they die. That is their morphe. But the essential character of manhood is shown in various schema. At one time a man is an embryo, then a baby, then a child, then a boy, then a youth, then a young man, then an adult, and finally an old man. The morphe of manhood remains the same, but the schema changes.
In using the word morphe in Philippians 2, Paul was saying Jesus possessed the unchangeable essential nature of God. That interpretation of the first phrase of verse 6 is strengthened by the second phrase, which says Jesus was equal with God. Being in the form of God speaks of Christ's equality to God.
Though He had all the rights, privileges, and honors of being God, Christ didn't grasp onto them. The word translated "grasp" originally meant "robbery" or "a thing seized by robbery." It eventually came to mean anything clutched, embraced, held tightly, prized, or clung to. Paul meant that though He was God, Christ refused to cling to His favored position with all its rights and honors, but was willing to give them up for a season.
When Christ emptied Himself, He not only gave up His privileges, but also became a servant. Paul used the Greek word morphe ("form") again to indicate that Christ's servanthood was not merely external (Gk., schema), but of His essence. It was not like a cloak, which can be put on and taken off. Christ was truly a servant. The only other New Testament use of the word morphe is in Mark 16:12. There Jesus appears in a resurrection morphe--a form fully expressing the nature of a resurrection body. In Philippians 2 Christ is shown as a true bondservant, doing the will of the Father. He submitted to the Father and the needs of men as well. Jesus was all that is portrayed of Him in Isaiah 52:13-14--a Messiah who was a servant.
~Read more here
W.E. Best demonstrates why its impossible for Jesus to have sinned (as if Phil. 2:6 wasn't enough): "Christ Could Not Be Tempted".
Check it out:
Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
MacArthur states:
Paul began by affirming that Jesus is God. That is the point where the incarnation began and from which Christ began the descent of His humiliation. The Greek word translated "existed" (huparch[ma]o) is not the common verb for being (eimi). Huparch[me]o stresses the essence of a person's nature--the continuous state or condition of something (cf. William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], p. 35). It expresses what one is unalterably and inalienably by nature. Paul's point was that Jesus Christ is unalterably and continuously existing in the form of God.
The meaning of the Greek word translated "form" (morphe) is crucial for a proper understanding of this passage. In English we have used that word to form terms like endomorph and ectomorph. Morphe "always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it" (James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930], p. 417). The word describes the essential being or nature of what it refers to--in this case the essential being of God.
Morphe is better understood when compared to the Greek word schema. Both words are translated in English as "form." That's the best English word for each term, but the meaning of each is not properly represented unless a distinction is made between them.
Morphe expresses is the essential character of something--what it is in itself. Schema emphasizes outward form or appearance. What morphe expresses never changes, while what schema represents can. For example, all men possess manhood. They possess manhood from the time they are conceived until they die. That is their morphe. But the essential character of manhood is shown in various schema. At one time a man is an embryo, then a baby, then a child, then a boy, then a youth, then a young man, then an adult, and finally an old man. The morphe of manhood remains the same, but the schema changes.
In using the word morphe in Philippians 2, Paul was saying Jesus possessed the unchangeable essential nature of God. That interpretation of the first phrase of verse 6 is strengthened by the second phrase, which says Jesus was equal with God. Being in the form of God speaks of Christ's equality to God.
Though He had all the rights, privileges, and honors of being God, Christ didn't grasp onto them. The word translated "grasp" originally meant "robbery" or "a thing seized by robbery." It eventually came to mean anything clutched, embraced, held tightly, prized, or clung to. Paul meant that though He was God, Christ refused to cling to His favored position with all its rights and honors, but was willing to give them up for a season.
When Christ emptied Himself, He not only gave up His privileges, but also became a servant. Paul used the Greek word morphe ("form") again to indicate that Christ's servanthood was not merely external (Gk., schema), but of His essence. It was not like a cloak, which can be put on and taken off. Christ was truly a servant. The only other New Testament use of the word morphe is in Mark 16:12. There Jesus appears in a resurrection morphe--a form fully expressing the nature of a resurrection body. In Philippians 2 Christ is shown as a true bondservant, doing the will of the Father. He submitted to the Father and the needs of men as well. Jesus was all that is portrayed of Him in Isaiah 52:13-14--a Messiah who was a servant.
~Read more here
W.E. Best demonstrates why its impossible for Jesus to have sinned (as if Phil. 2:6 wasn't enough): "Christ Could Not Be Tempted".
Friday, September 17, 2010
Politics Of Evil
Oh, my head is about to explode. My friend sent me a few articles that demonstrate the problem of "Christians" in the political arena.
First is feminist Schafly: "Jesus isn't on the ballot"
So...what then? Vote for the evil? This is the same type of argumentation people use when they don't want to be held accountable for doctrine and behavior: "no one's perfect". Really? Jesus isn't on the ballot? I can't vote for Him? No one's perfect? Shoot! I'm devisated.
Pragmatism why we're in such a mess, especially in CA. Professing Christians voted for Schwarzeneggar TWICE (thank you "Christians" and "Conservatives")and he made our state far worse than it was. Socially liberal, he wasn't even a fiscal conservative (I know that will likely be the case with Meg Whitman, the RINO). Such an animal doesn't exist. Who ever thought Jesus is or SHOULD be on the ballot? Only those who reject His lordship put Him on the ballot of their heart, voting Him in and out at will, depending on the issue.
In another article about Schafly:
"Preaching to the CPAC choir in her allotted seven minutes on the "Saving Freedom from the Enemies of our Values" panel, Schlafly warned about the futility of a Tea Party third party. Too expensive, too inefficient, and, in the end, pointless because every single one of those 435 House members and 100 Senators will end up aligning with the Republicans or Democrats. Although she's thrilled that the GOP now has "the most conservative platform ever," she insists she doesn't want to "expel" anyone from its not-so-big tent."
CPAC is not conservative, its LIBERAL. It was sponsored this year by GOPROUD, the sodomite GOP group that claims to be "conservative". How sodomy can be akin to conservative is beyond my comprehension...unless one starts to REDEFINE terms.
This is what I mean. GOP = RINOS. She's one of them. Maybe she slipped a cog when she turned 55-60 (a theory of my friend that continues to be proven true --we see it in Evangelicalism too--the older people get, the more liberal they become...with a tiny few exceptions). The Tea Party is the revolt of the liberal GOP, but she doesn't get that. Politics as usual. Who said there has to be ONLY RINOS and DEMS? Where is that written? Funny how its the leadership of the GOP that cries about it---because they've had a liberal chokehold on the GOP for years. They see a political loss and can't handle the threat. They recoil at the demand of accountability, which is the Tea Parties (not an actual party...the very movement is not a singular party) are demanding.Its people like her that made me see that there was no one in the GOP standing for the principles it used to hold to and which I still do.
She goes on: "Although she's thrilled that the GOP now has "the most conservative platform ever," she insists she doesn't want to "expel" anyone from its not-so-big tent."
Ok, she's lost her senses. This is the MOST LIBERAL this party has been! CPAC is exhibit #1. Ann Coulter is exhibit #2. McCain is exhibit #3. Schwarzeneggaar is exhibit #4. #5 is Mitt Romney. (None of these is in order except #1). See what I mean? I could go on. If she means just the platform, then why did the liberals sponsor the CPAC? And let's say the platform is "conservative". Ok, well, is anyone in the GOP living up to said platform? NOPE.
Schafly's feminist mindset in guise of "tradition" is revealed in this interview:
"So, I asked Mrs. Schlafly -- you don't really think she's ever called Ms. Schlafly? -- when might this country elect a woman president?"I don't see it happening because I don't see one coming up the line in either party," she said. Democrat Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama because "people don't want to elect a feminist because they are not likeable. You have to be likeable to be elected." She paused a moment before musing that "the best route is probably being a governer," never mind that at this moment, "the pickings among [women] governors are very slim."
Elsewhere she indicates that time is what makes one not a feminist:
Quote:
To Schlafly, this is a simple question of practicality. "You can't have it all at the same time. There are not that many hours in the day," she asserts. "Now, with our lengthened lifespan, a woman can have it all; I think I've had it all," she says, "but you don't have it at the same time. A baby is extremely demanding -- even more demanding than a husband."
"A lot of the newspapers ... have published articles about how some of the most highly educated women -- women who graduated from the elite colleges and then got graduate degrees like MBAs or JDs -- have put their career ahead of husband and family," Schlafly notes. "In many of these cases, in the woman's scale of values, the husband is ranking third," she says.
The real issue is not women having careers, Schlafly says, but women making their careers their highest priority, above family. When that type of situation takes place, she observes, it is not likely that a husband will stick around.
End quote.
Time doesn't make one not a feminist. Its in the mindset. God says women are not to rule over men (Gen. 3, and below). Just having some years inbetween doesn't relieve one of the view that women CAN have it all (do men EVERY say that?) nor is it accurate. Because for a Christian, we're to be about our Father's business, not being poster girls for Loreal. A 60 year old woman working full time is cutting short her ministry to her own husband, kids, grandkids and church. Please, do not tell me women can have it all....someone will always suffer. Besides, that view of time just means that her desire to have something more fulfilling than mere family, etc., reveals it is seeded in her desire, as it was in Eve's.
And here's the more appalling article:
Quote:
Scarborough, himself a former Southern Baptist minister, told the audience his story of recognizing the need for pastors to snap out of political complacency and get involved in the cultural war for the soul of the nation.
Shortly thereafter, Scarborough explained at "Taking America Back," he began to free his congregation from excessive church responsibilities to take up civic duties. Members of his church were elected to the school board and city council and began to reassert Christian values in the public arena.
"We just got the people in the churches to stand up and do what they ought to be doing," Scarborough said.
End quote.
Is that why those of us who don't vote for any evil are bullied by those folks?
Here's another issue: its these very people who have doctrinal problems with the Lordship of Christ. Had "Christians" never sat there and questioned Scripture, but believed it and obeyed it, we wouldn't be in such a pathetic mess!
Morever, its too late. This country is under God's judgment and we're seeing it starting in the churches and work its way outward.
WOW. Deny the command to be ministrying in the church, but get tangled up in the affairs of the world. Switch a committment (whatever was left) from the church to the political scene??? Its because people see church as optional and doctrine as optional that people put their hope in politics!
Jeremiah 17:5, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord.’”
Isa 3:12 My people--infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths.
Psa 20:7 Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.
Isa 31:1 Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD! 2 And yet he is wise and brings disaster; he does not call back his words, but will arise against the house of the evildoers and against the helpers of those who work iniquity.
“You know what party politics are. We are all trying to [usher] in another set of maggots to eat the cheese; that is about all it amounts to; first turn out one lot, and then turn in another. It comes to little more than that. Even in the pursuit of really good matters of policy, do you know any Christian man who goes into politics who is the better for it? If I find such a man, I will have him stuffed if I can, for I have never seen such a specimen yet. I will not say, do not attend to politics; but I do say, do not let them spot you.”
- Charles Spurgeon
First is feminist Schafly: "Jesus isn't on the ballot"
So...what then? Vote for the evil? This is the same type of argumentation people use when they don't want to be held accountable for doctrine and behavior: "no one's perfect". Really? Jesus isn't on the ballot? I can't vote for Him? No one's perfect? Shoot! I'm devisated.
Pragmatism why we're in such a mess, especially in CA. Professing Christians voted for Schwarzeneggar TWICE (thank you "Christians" and "Conservatives")and he made our state far worse than it was. Socially liberal, he wasn't even a fiscal conservative (I know that will likely be the case with Meg Whitman, the RINO). Such an animal doesn't exist. Who ever thought Jesus is or SHOULD be on the ballot? Only those who reject His lordship put Him on the ballot of their heart, voting Him in and out at will, depending on the issue.
In another article about Schafly:
"Preaching to the CPAC choir in her allotted seven minutes on the "Saving Freedom from the Enemies of our Values" panel, Schlafly warned about the futility of a Tea Party third party. Too expensive, too inefficient, and, in the end, pointless because every single one of those 435 House members and 100 Senators will end up aligning with the Republicans or Democrats. Although she's thrilled that the GOP now has "the most conservative platform ever," she insists she doesn't want to "expel" anyone from its not-so-big tent."
CPAC is not conservative, its LIBERAL. It was sponsored this year by GOPROUD, the sodomite GOP group that claims to be "conservative". How sodomy can be akin to conservative is beyond my comprehension...unless one starts to REDEFINE terms.
This is what I mean. GOP = RINOS. She's one of them. Maybe she slipped a cog when she turned 55-60 (a theory of my friend that continues to be proven true --we see it in Evangelicalism too--the older people get, the more liberal they become...with a tiny few exceptions). The Tea Party is the revolt of the liberal GOP, but she doesn't get that. Politics as usual. Who said there has to be ONLY RINOS and DEMS? Where is that written? Funny how its the leadership of the GOP that cries about it---because they've had a liberal chokehold on the GOP for years. They see a political loss and can't handle the threat. They recoil at the demand of accountability, which is the Tea Parties (not an actual party...the very movement is not a singular party) are demanding.Its people like her that made me see that there was no one in the GOP standing for the principles it used to hold to and which I still do.
She goes on: "Although she's thrilled that the GOP now has "the most conservative platform ever," she insists she doesn't want to "expel" anyone from its not-so-big tent."
Ok, she's lost her senses. This is the MOST LIBERAL this party has been! CPAC is exhibit #1. Ann Coulter is exhibit #2. McCain is exhibit #3. Schwarzeneggaar is exhibit #4. #5 is Mitt Romney. (None of these is in order except #1). See what I mean? I could go on. If she means just the platform, then why did the liberals sponsor the CPAC? And let's say the platform is "conservative". Ok, well, is anyone in the GOP living up to said platform? NOPE.
Schafly's feminist mindset in guise of "tradition" is revealed in this interview:
"So, I asked Mrs. Schlafly -- you don't really think she's ever called Ms. Schlafly? -- when might this country elect a woman president?"I don't see it happening because I don't see one coming up the line in either party," she said. Democrat Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama because "people don't want to elect a feminist because they are not likeable. You have to be likeable to be elected." She paused a moment before musing that "the best route is probably being a governer," never mind that at this moment, "the pickings among [women] governors are very slim."
Elsewhere she indicates that time is what makes one not a feminist:
Quote:
To Schlafly, this is a simple question of practicality. "You can't have it all at the same time. There are not that many hours in the day," she asserts. "Now, with our lengthened lifespan, a woman can have it all; I think I've had it all," she says, "but you don't have it at the same time. A baby is extremely demanding -- even more demanding than a husband."
"A lot of the newspapers ... have published articles about how some of the most highly educated women -- women who graduated from the elite colleges and then got graduate degrees like MBAs or JDs -- have put their career ahead of husband and family," Schlafly notes. "In many of these cases, in the woman's scale of values, the husband is ranking third," she says.
The real issue is not women having careers, Schlafly says, but women making their careers their highest priority, above family. When that type of situation takes place, she observes, it is not likely that a husband will stick around.
End quote.
Time doesn't make one not a feminist. Its in the mindset. God says women are not to rule over men (Gen. 3, and below). Just having some years inbetween doesn't relieve one of the view that women CAN have it all (do men EVERY say that?) nor is it accurate. Because for a Christian, we're to be about our Father's business, not being poster girls for Loreal. A 60 year old woman working full time is cutting short her ministry to her own husband, kids, grandkids and church. Please, do not tell me women can have it all....someone will always suffer. Besides, that view of time just means that her desire to have something more fulfilling than mere family, etc., reveals it is seeded in her desire, as it was in Eve's.
And here's the more appalling article:
Quote:
Scarborough, himself a former Southern Baptist minister, told the audience his story of recognizing the need for pastors to snap out of political complacency and get involved in the cultural war for the soul of the nation.
Shortly thereafter, Scarborough explained at "Taking America Back," he began to free his congregation from excessive church responsibilities to take up civic duties. Members of his church were elected to the school board and city council and began to reassert Christian values in the public arena.
"We just got the people in the churches to stand up and do what they ought to be doing," Scarborough said.
End quote.
Is that why those of us who don't vote for any evil are bullied by those folks?
Here's another issue: its these very people who have doctrinal problems with the Lordship of Christ. Had "Christians" never sat there and questioned Scripture, but believed it and obeyed it, we wouldn't be in such a pathetic mess!
Morever, its too late. This country is under God's judgment and we're seeing it starting in the churches and work its way outward.
WOW. Deny the command to be ministrying in the church, but get tangled up in the affairs of the world. Switch a committment (whatever was left) from the church to the political scene??? Its because people see church as optional and doctrine as optional that people put their hope in politics!
Jeremiah 17:5, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord.’”
Isa 3:12 My people--infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths.
Psa 20:7 Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God.
Isa 31:1 Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD! 2 And yet he is wise and brings disaster; he does not call back his words, but will arise against the house of the evildoers and against the helpers of those who work iniquity.
“You know what party politics are. We are all trying to [usher] in another set of maggots to eat the cheese; that is about all it amounts to; first turn out one lot, and then turn in another. It comes to little more than that. Even in the pursuit of really good matters of policy, do you know any Christian man who goes into politics who is the better for it? If I find such a man, I will have him stuffed if I can, for I have never seen such a specimen yet. I will not say, do not attend to politics; but I do say, do not let them spot you.”
- Charles Spurgeon
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Kudos to Kirk Cameron
Kudos to Kirk Cameron for stepping away from endorsing Glenn Beck. Our loyalty is to God, not some political Mormon.
Monday, September 13, 2010
John MacArthur on Assorted Attacks On the Bible
We believe in the Word of God. We believe that it is inspired. We believe that it is without error in the original autographs and God has protected and preserved it to this day so that it substantially remains faithful to its original revelation. We believe that when the Word speaks, we are commanded to listen. That's why the Bible is the theme of everything we do. We define life and ministry in biblical terms. It is what we believe, it is how we behave and it is the message we proclaim. And the Bible claims to be the very Word of God and it does so in an unaffected and unambiguous way. Old Testament writers, for example, refer to what they wrote as the very words of God over 3800 times. New Testament writers quote the Old Testament as the Word of God 320 times and refer to it at least a thousand times. And New Testament writers repeatedly claim divine inspiration as did the Old. Jesus Himself claims that both the Old Testament and the New Testament are inspired by God.
Now obviously everything we need to know about God and about us and about salvation and about the future and time and eternity is contained in the Scripture. Everything is here. All that God wants us to know is here. That's why at the end of the last book, the book of Revelation, the Spirit of God prompted John to write not to add anything to this book, nor take anything away. This is consummate, this is complete. It is even referred to by Jude as "the once for all delivered to the saints faith," it is a body of truth that was delivered at one time, not to be diminished and not to be embellished. Everything we need to know is here in this book in terms of our understanding of the universe and God and our relationship to Him, as well as all other relationships.
Because everything that we need is in the Scripture, because we are saved by the Word of truth, because we are sanctified by the truth, the Word of God, because we find our hope of glory in the Word, because all instruction for living is contained here, this then becomes the point of the enemies constant and relentless assault...
...There are always attacks, finally, on the Scripture from carnal wisdom. The people look at the Bible and they say, "Well, that's not reasonable. I don't like the doctrine of election. I don't like the doctrine of eternal punishment. I'm going to trump God." The attacks from carnal wisdom. "I can't accept that." Dangerous stuff. We bow the knee completely to the Word of God. We stand in defense of it by lifting it up and letting it defend itself.
...To give you an illustration of the clarity of Scripture, I would only say this. The Old Testament Scripture which may seem to some people a bit unclear is in fact so clear that God holds people and has always held them responsible for what was revealed in the Old Testament. Jesus Himself, for example, in His teaching, in His conversations, in His dialogues and disputes and debates never ever one time said to the Jews, "I understand your confusion. The Old Testament is really hard, very difficult and often unclear." He never says that...never. He is speaking to first century people. They are...they are a thousand years from David. They are 1500 years from Moses. And they are two thousand years after Abraham. And Jesus still assumes that they are able to read and rightly interpret the Old Testament Scripture. If it were impossible to understand the Scriptures for some people who were removed a thousand years away, or two thousand years away as they're telling us it is for those of us now removed two thousand years from the writing of the New Testament, then we would expect that Jesus would say something like, "I see how your problem arose." But He never said that. And whether He is speaking to scholars, Pharisees and scribes, or to common people, He always assumes that they are to blame for their misunderstanding of any teaching in the Scripture. Again and again He says, "Have you not read? Have you never read? Have you never read the Scriptures?" He says to them, "You're wrong because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. Your problem is, you don't search the Scriptures. They are they which speak of Me."
Would you also go so far as to say this? It is even to be understood by uninitiated Gentiles. Paul writing to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 10, says, "The Old Testament Scriptures were given for our instruction even as Gentiles." And when the Lord was on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24, He opened the Old Testament, the law of the prophets and the holy writings, and He explained to them the things concerning Himself which they ought to have already understood.
I think about the New Testament epistles. You say, "Well, the New Testament's really hard." Is that right? New Testament epistles were not written to theologians, they were not written to church leaders, they were not written to scholars, they were written to congregations, to the church of God at Corinth, to the churches of Galatia, to all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, and so forth. Always to the churches, to the lowest common denominator, the person who was a new believer in Jesus Christ. And Paul assumes in every letter and so does Peter, and so does James, and so does John, so does Jude, that his hearers will understand exactly what he writes. For example, in Colossians 4:16 Paul says, "When this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans and see that you read the letter from Laodicea ." Spread the letters around and read them all in every church.
So you have to understand that first century Christians were held responsible for an understanding of the Scripture.
Read the whole article (or download the audio) here.
Friday, September 03, 2010
Glen Beck, The New Oprah
Beck is the new Oprah and foolish, silly "Christians" follow them around, instead of following Jesus Christ--the one of Scripture.
Some quotes by Beck as Brandon Howse reports:
“America’s religion. This is it gang, this is all you need to know. There is a God, He’s going to judge us, we should be good to each other, cause daddy’s gonna be pissed in the end if we’re not. That’s it. That’s called a big principle.”
On his September 2, 2010 TV program Beck said, "We need a Jesus or a Buddha."
Some quotes by Beck as Brandon Howse reports:
“America’s religion. This is it gang, this is all you need to know. There is a God, He’s going to judge us, we should be good to each other, cause daddy’s gonna be pissed in the end if we’re not. That’s it. That’s called a big principle.”
On his September 2, 2010 TV program Beck said, "We need a Jesus or a Buddha."
Glen Beck's Rallies: Mormon Evangelism
So what 's the difference between what Beck is doing and Obama/Jeremiah Wright? Both use politics to promote their false religion of works.
Christian Research Network reports:
Quote:
Brannon Howse gives this dire warning: Glenn Beck Rally Set Stage for “Christians” to Accept Paganism, and Mormons Say Beck Achieved 200 Year Goal of Getting Evangelicals to Declare That Mormons Are Christians Brannon laments:
I tried to warn evangelical leaders about Glenn Beck’s rallies but most of them laughed at me. Now Satan is the one laughing at them as “Christians” run head-long into embracing non-Biblical theology and call it “Christian”.
Greg West in the Mormon LDS Examiner validates my pre-Beck rally warnings to Evangelical leaders on my radio program, columns, e-mails, and phone conversations. I told them that partnering with Beck in a spiritual enterprise would send the message that Mormons are Christians.
End quote.
****
CRN: Beck Rally Causes More Evangelical Confusion
Quote:
Listen to Crosstalk host Vic Eliason’s inverview with Brannon Howse. The following was excerpted from Crosstalk’s promo:
When Beck credits the Native Americans as being God’s chosen people, he’s referencing the Mormon teaching that the Native Americans migrated here from Israel. When he encourages people to embrace phrases such as “I am that I am” and informs people to look to your higher self and find the truth within, he’s communicating New Age teachings.
Why are many evangelicals failing to see what should be obvious contradictions with the Bible? Are evangelicals apostatizing to the point that they feel we can link up with Mormons so that God can bless America?
End quote.
****
CRN:
The Glenn Beck Rally — Divine Destiny or Evangelical Scandal? :
From Dr. Paul M. Elliott, of Teaching the Word Ministries:
As Beck told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly after the rally, the group on the memorial steps consisted of “240 pastors, priests, rabbis and imams on stage [who] all locked arms saying the principles of America need to be taught from the pulpit.” Beck said that even atheists are welcome to be involved in the movement, because they know how to “self-regulate” in the same way that Christians and Jews follow the Ten Commandments.
According to published news reports, among those who have enlisted in Beck’s “Black-Robed Regiment” are Liberty University president Jerry Falwell, Jr.; former Focus on the Family president James Dobson; Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; rabbi and management consultant David Lapin; television star and columnist Chuck Norris; mega-church pastor John Hagee; a number of Roman Catholic priests; and even some Muslim imams.
Read the rest at Watcher’s Lamp.
End quote.
Watcher's Lamp goes on to report:
"Beck said, “These men and women here don’t agree on fundamentals. They don’t agree on everything that every church teaches. What they do agree on is that God is the answer.”
Echoing the spiritually bankrupt Moral-Majority philosophy of his late father, Jerry Falwell, Jr. said this: “Glenn Beck’s Mormon faith is irrelevant. People of all faiths, all races and all creeds spoke and attended the event. Nobody was there to endorse anyone else’s faith..."
End quote.
Yet religion WAS used, was appealed to. What is with these "Evangelical" "leaders"??!
He's sounding just like Rick Warren and others. Doctrine doesn't matter, a false god doesn't matter. It actually reminds me of Oprah Winfrey too, now that I think about it. Focus On the Family also is in that same mentality: teach "morality" to Atheist Chinese, but leave Jesus Christ out of it. What deception from those that claim the name of Jesus Christ!
Christian Research Network reports:
Quote:
Brannon Howse gives this dire warning: Glenn Beck Rally Set Stage for “Christians” to Accept Paganism, and Mormons Say Beck Achieved 200 Year Goal of Getting Evangelicals to Declare That Mormons Are Christians Brannon laments:
I tried to warn evangelical leaders about Glenn Beck’s rallies but most of them laughed at me. Now Satan is the one laughing at them as “Christians” run head-long into embracing non-Biblical theology and call it “Christian”.
Greg West in the Mormon LDS Examiner validates my pre-Beck rally warnings to Evangelical leaders on my radio program, columns, e-mails, and phone conversations. I told them that partnering with Beck in a spiritual enterprise would send the message that Mormons are Christians.
End quote.
****
CRN: Beck Rally Causes More Evangelical Confusion
Quote:
Listen to Crosstalk host Vic Eliason’s inverview with Brannon Howse. The following was excerpted from Crosstalk’s promo:
When Beck credits the Native Americans as being God’s chosen people, he’s referencing the Mormon teaching that the Native Americans migrated here from Israel. When he encourages people to embrace phrases such as “I am that I am” and informs people to look to your higher self and find the truth within, he’s communicating New Age teachings.
Why are many evangelicals failing to see what should be obvious contradictions with the Bible? Are evangelicals apostatizing to the point that they feel we can link up with Mormons so that God can bless America?
End quote.
****
CRN:
The Glenn Beck Rally — Divine Destiny or Evangelical Scandal? :
From Dr. Paul M. Elliott, of Teaching the Word Ministries:
As Beck told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly after the rally, the group on the memorial steps consisted of “240 pastors, priests, rabbis and imams on stage [who] all locked arms saying the principles of America need to be taught from the pulpit.” Beck said that even atheists are welcome to be involved in the movement, because they know how to “self-regulate” in the same way that Christians and Jews follow the Ten Commandments.
According to published news reports, among those who have enlisted in Beck’s “Black-Robed Regiment” are Liberty University president Jerry Falwell, Jr.; former Focus on the Family president James Dobson; Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; rabbi and management consultant David Lapin; television star and columnist Chuck Norris; mega-church pastor John Hagee; a number of Roman Catholic priests; and even some Muslim imams.
Read the rest at Watcher’s Lamp.
End quote.
Watcher's Lamp goes on to report:
"Beck said, “These men and women here don’t agree on fundamentals. They don’t agree on everything that every church teaches. What they do agree on is that God is the answer.”
Echoing the spiritually bankrupt Moral-Majority philosophy of his late father, Jerry Falwell, Jr. said this: “Glenn Beck’s Mormon faith is irrelevant. People of all faiths, all races and all creeds spoke and attended the event. Nobody was there to endorse anyone else’s faith..."
End quote.
Yet religion WAS used, was appealed to. What is with these "Evangelical" "leaders"??!
He's sounding just like Rick Warren and others. Doctrine doesn't matter, a false god doesn't matter. It actually reminds me of Oprah Winfrey too, now that I think about it. Focus On the Family also is in that same mentality: teach "morality" to Atheist Chinese, but leave Jesus Christ out of it. What deception from those that claim the name of Jesus Christ!
Focus On the Family: Morality Not Christianity for Atheist Chinese
2Co 4:2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.
Washington Post Reports:
"To work in China, however, Focus on the Family has had to make a pledge of its own: no politically sensitive material, and no religion. The evangelical group says it's strictly abiding by those terms. "
Problem: man without Christ has nothing to change the heart and therefore behavior. Morality isn't Christianity and is powerless. Then again FOC has been very psychologically driven (and therefore powerless) for years.
Jesus didn't tell the Samaritan woman she needed morality. He told her that her REAL issue was SIN. Being spiritually dead, all she could do is sin. But if she went to Christ alone for eternal life, THEN she could truly live and be forgiven of all her sins. FOC clearly ignores what Scripture says.
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Eph 4:17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.
Pragmatism is king over FOC, not Biblical doctrine, and certainly not faith in the Gospel which is the power of God for salvation.
Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;
Washington Post Reports:
"To work in China, however, Focus on the Family has had to make a pledge of its own: no politically sensitive material, and no religion. The evangelical group says it's strictly abiding by those terms. "
Problem: man without Christ has nothing to change the heart and therefore behavior. Morality isn't Christianity and is powerless. Then again FOC has been very psychologically driven (and therefore powerless) for years.
Jesus didn't tell the Samaritan woman she needed morality. He told her that her REAL issue was SIN. Being spiritually dead, all she could do is sin. But if she went to Christ alone for eternal life, THEN she could truly live and be forgiven of all her sins. FOC clearly ignores what Scripture says.
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Eph 4:17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.
Pragmatism is king over FOC, not Biblical doctrine, and certainly not faith in the Gospel which is the power of God for salvation.
Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;
Thursday, September 02, 2010
The Divine Election & Human Responsibility
Divine Election and Human Responsibility Commentary on Romans 9 by John MacArthur
So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? (Romans 9:18–20)
A question, or objection, that Paul anticipates and responds to is: Why does God then still find fault? For who resists His will? In other words, if God sovereignly has mercy on whom He desires and hardens whom He desires, how can human beings be held responsible? How can they be blamed for their unbelief and sin, when their destiny has already been divinely determined? Again, such reasoning challenges God’s justice and righteousness.As Israel was conquering Canaan, “Joshua waged war a long time with all these [Canaanite] kings. There was not a city which made peace with the sons of Israel except the Hivites living in Gibeon; they took them all in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the Lord had commanded Moses” (Josh. 11:18–20).
Such commands of God, with which the Old Testament abounds, seem totally capricious and cruel to worldly, carnal minds, which accept only what fits their preconceived ideas of right and wrong, justice and injustice. Consequently, they judge even God by their own finite, biased, and sin-tainted standards.
God’s utterly sovereign will is just as clearly taught in the New Testament. Later in this letter to Rome, Paul tells his readers: “That which Israel is seeking for, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened” (Rom. 11:7). In his first letter to Thessalonica, he declares that “God has not destined us [believers] for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:9).
In His perfect wisdom, and in perfect righteousness and justice, God has destined some people for salvation by His grace and, because of their sin and unbelief, has left others to damnation by His wrath. Speaking of unrepentant unbelievers, Peter writes, “These, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed” (2 Pet. 2:12).
Many critics of such doctrine, supposedly coming to the defense of God’s justice, fail to acknowledge that every human being since the Fall has deserved nothing but God’s just condemnation to an eternity in hell. If God were to exercise only His justice, no person would ever be saved. It is therefore hardly unjust if, according to His sovereign grace, He chooses to elect some sinners for salvation.
It is not, of course, that we can fully understand what God reveals about His sovereign election and predestination. It can only be accepted by faith, acknowledging its truth simply because God has revealed it to be true. As believers, we know that, in ourselves, we deserve only God’s rejection and condemnation. But we also know that, for His own sovereign reasons, God has elected us to be His children and, in His own time and way, brought us to saving faith in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, we also know that our human will had a part in our salvation. Jesus said, “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me.” That is the choice of God’s will. But Jesus immediately went on to say that “the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37). That is the choice of man’s will, which God graciously accedes to for all who believe in His Son.
Continuing simply to proclaim God’s sovereign righteousness and justice rather than trying to explain it, Paul turns a question back on those who would question the Lord. On the contrary, he says, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? In other words, it is blasphemous even to question, not to mention deny, God’s right to hold men accountable when they are captives of His sovereign will.
It is obvious from Paul’s wording that the ones who might be asking such questions would not be seeking God’s truth but rather self- justification. Attempting to excuse their own unbelief, sinfulness, ignorance, and spiritual rebellion, they would be apt to accuse God of injustice.
But because human understanding is so limited, even sincere questions about God’s sovereign election and predestination ultimately must go unanswered. As already noted, it is one of the many truths about God that we must accept by faith, simply because He has revealed it in His Word.
End quote.
Consider these powerful verses on God's absolute and unchanging sovereignty and also man's responsibility for his own sin:
Acts 4: 27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.
John 19: 11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”
As for man's part, God must first exchange the heart of stone and give a heart of flesh, along with giving faith and repentance. ONLY THEN can a person SEE his utter sinfulness before the thrice holy God and his total need for salvation, as well as his deserving of Hell. Without this regeneration (John 3 calls is being "born from above"), one can't see it at all and continues to consider the things of God to be foolish and can't understand them; he continues to be hostile in his mind toward God (1Cor. 2:14; Rom 8:7). The natural response of man toward God is hostility, anger, hate, rebellion. The natural response of a New Creation is to run toward the Only One Who has the words of eternal life: Jesus Christ, the ONLY way, Truth, and Life; the Great Shepherd of our souls; the Only Redeemer; the Resurrection And The Life: The One Who Alone offers Living Water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)