“A letter to the Global Church from The Protestant Church of Smyrna
Dear friends,This past week has been filled with much sorrow. Many of you have heard by now of our devastating loss here in an event that took place in Malatya, a Turkish province 300 miles northeast of Antioch, the city where believers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).
On Wednesday morning, April 18, 2007, 46 year old German missionary and father of three Tilman Geske prepared to go to his office, kissing his wife goodbye taking a moment to hug his son and give him the priceless memory, “Goodbye, son. I love you.”Tilman rented an office space from Zirve Publishing where he was preparing notes for the new Turkish Study Bible. Zirve was also the location of the Malatya Evangelist Church office. A ministry of the church, Zirve prints and distributes Christian literature to Malatya and nearby cities in Eastern Turkey.
In another area of town, 35 year old Pastor Necati Aydin, father of two, said goodbye to his wife, leaving for the office as well. They had a morning Bible Study and prayer meeting that some other believers in town would also be attending.
Ugur Yuksel likewise made his way to the Bible study.None of these three men knew that what awaited them at the Bible study was the ultimate testing and application of their faith, which would conclude with their entrance into glory to receive their crown of righteousness from Christ and honor from all the saints awaiting them in the Lord’s presence.
On the other side of town, ten young men all under 20 years old put into place final arrangements for their ultimate act of faith, living out their love for Allah and hatred of infidels who they felt undermined Islam.
On Resurrection Sunday, five of these men had been to a by-invitation-only evangelistic service that Pastor Necati and his men had arranged at a hotel conference room in the city. The men were known to the believers as “seekers.” No one knows what happened in the hearts of those men as they listened to the gospel. Were they touched by the Holy Spirit? Were they convicted of sin? Did they hear the gospel in their heart of hearts? Today we only have the beginning of their story.
These young men, one of whom is the son of a mayor in the Province of Malatya, are part of a tarikat, or a group of “faithful believers” in Islam. Tarikat membership is highly respected here; it’s like a fraternity membership. In fact, it is said that no one can get into public office without membership in a tarikat.
These young men all lived in the same dorm, all preparing for university entrance exams.The young men got guns, breadknives, ropes and towels ready for their final act of service to Allah. They knew there would be a lot of blood.
They arrived in time for the Bible Study, around 10 o’clock.They arrived, and apparently the Bible Study began. Reportedly, after Necati read a chapter from the Bible the assault began. The boys tied Ugur, Necati, and Tilman’s hands and feet to chairs and as they videoed their work on their cellphones, they tortured our brothers for almost three hours*
[Details of the torture--* Tilman was stabbed 156 times, Necati 99 times and Ugur’s stabs were too numerous to count. They were disemboweled, and their intestines sliced up in front of their eyes. They were emasculated and watched as those body parts were destroyed. Fingers were chopped off, their noses and mouths and anuses were sliced open. Possibly the worst part was watching as their brothers were likewise tortured. Finally, their throats were sliced from ear to ear, heads practically decapitated.]
....The Church in Turkey responded in a way that honored God as hundreds of believers and dozens of pastors flew in as fast as they could to stand by the small church of Malatya and encourage the believers, take care of legal issues, and represent Christians to the media.
When Susanne Tilman expressed her wish to bury her husband in Malatya, the Governor tried to stop it, and when he realized he could not stop it, a rumor was spread that “it is a sin to dig a grave for a Christian.” In the end, in an undertaking that should be remembered in Christian history forever, the men from the church in Adana (near Tarsus), grabbed shovels and dug a grave for their slain brother in an un-tended hundred year old Armenian graveyard.
Ugur was buried by his family in an Alevi Muslim ceremony in his hometown of Elazig, his believing fiance watching from the shadows as his family and friends refused to accept in death the faith Ugur had so long professed and died for.
Necati’s funeral took place in his hometown of Izmir, the city where he came to faith. The darkness does not understand the light. Though the churches expressed their forgiveness for the event, Christians were not to be trusted. Before they would load the coffin onto the plane from Malatya, it went through two separate xray exams to make sure it was not loaded with explosives. This is not a usual procedure for Muslim coffins.
Necati’s funeral was a beautiful event. Like a glimpse of heaven, thousands of Turkish Christians and missionaries came to show their love for Christ, and their honor for this man chosen to die for Christ. Necati’s wife Shemsa told the world, “His death was full of meaning, because he died for Christ and he lived for Christ… Necati was a gift from God. I feel honored that he was in my life, I feel crowned with honor. I want to be worthy of that honor.”
Boldly the believers took their stand at Necati’s funeral, facing the risks of being seen publicly and likewise becoming targets. As expected, the anti-terror police attended and videotaped everyone attending the funeral for their future use. The service took place outside at Buca Baptist church, and he was buried in a small Christian graveyard in the outskirts of Izmir.
...Two assistant Governors of Izmir were there solemnly watching the event from the front row. Dozens of news agencies were there documenting the events with live news and photographs. Who knows the impact the funeral had on those watching? This is the beginning of their story as well. Pray for them.
In an act that hit front pages in the largest newspapers in Turkey, Susanne Tilman in a television interview expressed her forgiveness. She did not want revenge, she told reporters. “Oh God, forgive them for they know not what they do,” she said, wholeheartedly agreeing with the words of Christ on Calvary (Luke 23:34).
In a country where blood-for-blood revenge is as normal as breathing, many many reports have come to the attention of the church of how this comment of Susanne Tilman has changed lives. One columnist wrote of her comment, “She said in one sentence what 1000 missionaries in 1000 years could never do.”
...The missionaries in Malatya will most likely move out, as their families and children have become publicly identified as targets to the hostile city. The remaining 10 believers are in hiding. What will happen to this church, this light in the darkness? Most likely it will go underground. Pray for wisdom, that Turkish brothers from other cities will go to lead the leaderless church. Should we not be concerned for that great city of Malatya, a city that does not know what it is doing? (Jonah 4:11)
Please pray for the Church in Turkey. “Don’t pray against persecution, pray for perseverence,” urges Pastor Fikret Bocek.
The Church is better having lost our brothers; the fruit in our lives, the renewed faith, the burning desire to spread the gospel to quench more darkness in Malatya …all these are not to be regretted.
Pray that we stand strong against external opposition and especially pray that we stand strong against internal struggles with sin, our true debilitating weakness.This we know. Christ Jesus was there when our brothers were giving their lives for Him. He was there, like He was when Stephen was being stoned in the sight of Saul of Tarsus.
For the entire story and pictures of these martyrs for Christ Jesus the Lord's glory go here.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
I came across two articles today by John MacArthur that struck a cord with me. It seems that the Lord is showing him the same things He is showing me and some other solid Christians. And it is this: those within "conservative Christianity" are NOT proclaiming the true Gospel and that there is a war on the Word of God. Many of these professing Christians, (and increasingly within the Reformed Theology camp) are trying to use reason, logic, and philosophy to convince the unbelievers of God's truth. What they fail to recognize is that spiritual truth can ONLY be spiritually discerned and an unbeliever can't do that for he hasn't got the Spirit of Truth residing within him (1Cor. 2:14).
Not only are many folks relying on their powers of persuasion to open the minds of those who are God's enemies, but the gospel being proclaimed by these same folks, sometimes leave out important aspects of the Gospel: the Resurrection of Christ, and believing and confessing His Lordship (Rom. 10:9-10).
I hope you enjoy these articles (see below: Getting the Gospel Right, and Trustworthy Answers in Untrustworthy Times). They certainly express my thoughts on these issues. You might also enjoy hearing John MacArthur's message on the necessity of believing in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to be saved (1Cor. 15). The transcript for the audio message on the Overview of the Resurrection can be found here.
"If you remove the resurrection of Jesus Christ from Christianity, you don't have Christianity. You literally take the heart out of it. We accept that the resurrection happened by faith, faith in the Scripture, faith that is given to us by the Holy Spirit. We have been convinced by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is true and the Bible says Jesus arose from the dead and that settles that issue. And on the pages of Scripture there is ample convincing evidence." For more go here.
Not only are many folks relying on their powers of persuasion to open the minds of those who are God's enemies, but the gospel being proclaimed by these same folks, sometimes leave out important aspects of the Gospel: the Resurrection of Christ, and believing and confessing His Lordship (Rom. 10:9-10).
I hope you enjoy these articles (see below: Getting the Gospel Right, and Trustworthy Answers in Untrustworthy Times). They certainly express my thoughts on these issues. You might also enjoy hearing John MacArthur's message on the necessity of believing in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to be saved (1Cor. 15). The transcript for the audio message on the Overview of the Resurrection can be found here.
"If you remove the resurrection of Jesus Christ from Christianity, you don't have Christianity. You literally take the heart out of it. We accept that the resurrection happened by faith, faith in the Scripture, faith that is given to us by the Holy Spirit. We have been convinced by the Holy Spirit that the Bible is true and the Bible says Jesus arose from the dead and that settles that issue. And on the pages of Scripture there is ample convincing evidence." For more go here.
Getting the Gospel Right by John MacArthur
I am amazed at some of the things that have been said and written in recent years about the gospel. I fear that in many circles a different message is replacing the good news of salvation. I’m not talking about the attacks on the gospel from liberal religion or the theology of the cults, but a skewed message that has sprouted from right within conservative evangelicalism.
I have a copy of a training film now being used internationally to teach Christians what they should and should not say when leading someone to Christ. A respected, conservative organization produced the film, but frankly, the warped view of the gospel it presents is appalling.
In the entire half-hour film, there is not one mention of the resurrection. It speaks of forgiveness without defining sin, and it talks of trusting Christ without describing faith. Incredibly, the film counsels believers never to speak to a non-Christian about the lordship of Christ, submission to Him, surrender of the will, forsaking one’s sin, or obeying God. Those truths, according to the film, have no place in the gospel message but should be saved for later, after someone becomes a Christian....
Their desire, I’m sure, is to make clear the biblical truth that salvation may in no way be earned or obtained by man’s effort. Their approach, however, has been to eliminate from the gospel message anything that sounds like a work of righteousness, and to speak only of believing the objective data. They have erased the biblical words repentance, obedience, and submission from the vocabulary of evangelicalism.
Such teaching has taken a heavy toll. Faith has become merely an intellectual exercise. Instead of calling men and women to surrender to Christ, modern evangelism asks them only to accept some basic facts about Him. A person can believe without obeying. Thus faith is robbed of any moral significance, and righteousness becomes optional....
The gospel we present has eternal consequences. If it is the true gospel, it can direct men and women into the everlasting kingdom. If it is a corrupted message, it can give unsaved people false hope while consigning them to eternal damnation. This is not a trivial matter for theologians to speculate on. It is an issue every lay person must understand and get right.
Here are some questions that need to be answered biblically:
Do we receive Jesus as Lord and Savior, or as Savior only? Some say a person who refuses to obey Christ can still receive Him as Savior. They teach that the gift of eternal life is available by faith even to one who rejects the moral and spiritual demands of Christ. They accuse others of teaching “lordship salvation,” implying that it is novel to suggest that submission is a characteristic of saving faith.
Until relatively recently, however, no one would have dared suggest a person can be saved while stubbornly refusing to bow to Christ’s authority. Nearly all the major biblical passages calling for saving faith refer to Jesus as lord (cf. Acts 2:21, 36; Romans 10:9-10).
Is repentance from sin essential to salvation? Some say that turning from sin is a human work and therefore cannot be part of salvation. To accommodate the biblical call to repentance, they redefine repentance as nothing more than a change of mind about who Jesus is.
Biblically, however, repentance is a total about face—turning away from sin and self and unto God (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:9). That is no more a result of human effort than faith itself. Nor is it in any sense a pre-salvation work required to prepare a sinner for salvation. Real repentance is inseparable from faith and, like faith, is the work of God in a human heart. It is the response God inevitably generates in the heart of one He is redeeming.
What is faith? Some say faith is merely believing certain facts. One popular Bible teacher says saving faith is nothing more than confidence in the divine offer of eternal life.
Biblically, however, the object of faith is not the divine offer; it is the Person of Jesus Christ. Faith in Him is what saves, not just be¬lieving His promises or accepting facts about Him. Saving faith has to be more than accepting facts. Even demons have that kind of faith (James 2:19).
Believing in Jesus means receiving Him for all that He is (John 1:12). It means both confessing Him as Savior and yielding to Him as Lord. In fact, Scripture often uses the word obedience as a synonym for faith (cf. John 3:36; Acts 6:7; Hebrews 5:9). What is a disciple? In the past hundred years or so, it has become popular to speak of discipleship as a higher level of Christian experience. In the new terminology, a person becomes a believer at salvation; he becomes a disciple later, when he moves past faith to obedience.
Such a view conveniently relegates the difficult demands of Jesus to a post-salvation experience. It maintains that when He challenged the multitudes to deny self, to take up a cross and follow Him (Mark 8:34); to forsake all (Luke 14:33); and to leave father and mother (Matthew 19:29), He was simply asking believers to step up to the second level and become disciples.
But how does that square with Jesus’ own words, “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matt 9:13)? The heart of His ministry was evangelism, and those difficult demands are evangelistic appeals.
Every believer is a disciple and vice versa. A careful reading of Acts shows that the word disciple has been a synonym for Christian from the earliest days of the church (cf. 6:1-2, 7; 11:26; 14:20, 22; 15:10).
What is the evidence of salvation? In their zeal to eliminate good works as a requirement for salvation, some have gone to the extreme of arguing that good works are not even a valid evidence of salvation. They teach that a person may be genuinely saved yet never manifest the fruit of salvation—a changed life.
A few have even taken the absurd position that a born-again person may ultimately turn away from Christ into unbelief, deny God, and become an atheist—yet still possess eternal life. One writer invented a term for such people: “unbelieving believers”!
Scripture is clear that a saved person can never be lost. It is equally clear that a genuine Christian will never fall back into total unbelief. That kind of apostasy proves an individual was never really born again (1 John 2:19).
Furthermore, if a person is genuinely saved, his life will change for the better (2 Corinthians 5:17). He is saved “for good works” (Ephesians 2:10), and there is no way he can fail to bring forth at least some of the fruit that characterizes the redeemed (cf. Matthew 7:17). His desires are transformed; he begins to hate sin and love righteousness. He will not be sinless, but the pattern of his life will be decreasing sin and increasing righteousness.
For the full article go here.
I have a copy of a training film now being used internationally to teach Christians what they should and should not say when leading someone to Christ. A respected, conservative organization produced the film, but frankly, the warped view of the gospel it presents is appalling.
In the entire half-hour film, there is not one mention of the resurrection. It speaks of forgiveness without defining sin, and it talks of trusting Christ without describing faith. Incredibly, the film counsels believers never to speak to a non-Christian about the lordship of Christ, submission to Him, surrender of the will, forsaking one’s sin, or obeying God. Those truths, according to the film, have no place in the gospel message but should be saved for later, after someone becomes a Christian....
Their desire, I’m sure, is to make clear the biblical truth that salvation may in no way be earned or obtained by man’s effort. Their approach, however, has been to eliminate from the gospel message anything that sounds like a work of righteousness, and to speak only of believing the objective data. They have erased the biblical words repentance, obedience, and submission from the vocabulary of evangelicalism.
Such teaching has taken a heavy toll. Faith has become merely an intellectual exercise. Instead of calling men and women to surrender to Christ, modern evangelism asks them only to accept some basic facts about Him. A person can believe without obeying. Thus faith is robbed of any moral significance, and righteousness becomes optional....
The gospel we present has eternal consequences. If it is the true gospel, it can direct men and women into the everlasting kingdom. If it is a corrupted message, it can give unsaved people false hope while consigning them to eternal damnation. This is not a trivial matter for theologians to speculate on. It is an issue every lay person must understand and get right.
Here are some questions that need to be answered biblically:
Do we receive Jesus as Lord and Savior, or as Savior only? Some say a person who refuses to obey Christ can still receive Him as Savior. They teach that the gift of eternal life is available by faith even to one who rejects the moral and spiritual demands of Christ. They accuse others of teaching “lordship salvation,” implying that it is novel to suggest that submission is a characteristic of saving faith.
Until relatively recently, however, no one would have dared suggest a person can be saved while stubbornly refusing to bow to Christ’s authority. Nearly all the major biblical passages calling for saving faith refer to Jesus as lord (cf. Acts 2:21, 36; Romans 10:9-10).
Is repentance from sin essential to salvation? Some say that turning from sin is a human work and therefore cannot be part of salvation. To accommodate the biblical call to repentance, they redefine repentance as nothing more than a change of mind about who Jesus is.
Biblically, however, repentance is a total about face—turning away from sin and self and unto God (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:9). That is no more a result of human effort than faith itself. Nor is it in any sense a pre-salvation work required to prepare a sinner for salvation. Real repentance is inseparable from faith and, like faith, is the work of God in a human heart. It is the response God inevitably generates in the heart of one He is redeeming.
What is faith? Some say faith is merely believing certain facts. One popular Bible teacher says saving faith is nothing more than confidence in the divine offer of eternal life.
Biblically, however, the object of faith is not the divine offer; it is the Person of Jesus Christ. Faith in Him is what saves, not just be¬lieving His promises or accepting facts about Him. Saving faith has to be more than accepting facts. Even demons have that kind of faith (James 2:19).
Believing in Jesus means receiving Him for all that He is (John 1:12). It means both confessing Him as Savior and yielding to Him as Lord. In fact, Scripture often uses the word obedience as a synonym for faith (cf. John 3:36; Acts 6:7; Hebrews 5:9). What is a disciple? In the past hundred years or so, it has become popular to speak of discipleship as a higher level of Christian experience. In the new terminology, a person becomes a believer at salvation; he becomes a disciple later, when he moves past faith to obedience.
Such a view conveniently relegates the difficult demands of Jesus to a post-salvation experience. It maintains that when He challenged the multitudes to deny self, to take up a cross and follow Him (Mark 8:34); to forsake all (Luke 14:33); and to leave father and mother (Matthew 19:29), He was simply asking believers to step up to the second level and become disciples.
But how does that square with Jesus’ own words, “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matt 9:13)? The heart of His ministry was evangelism, and those difficult demands are evangelistic appeals.
Every believer is a disciple and vice versa. A careful reading of Acts shows that the word disciple has been a synonym for Christian from the earliest days of the church (cf. 6:1-2, 7; 11:26; 14:20, 22; 15:10).
What is the evidence of salvation? In their zeal to eliminate good works as a requirement for salvation, some have gone to the extreme of arguing that good works are not even a valid evidence of salvation. They teach that a person may be genuinely saved yet never manifest the fruit of salvation—a changed life.
A few have even taken the absurd position that a born-again person may ultimately turn away from Christ into unbelief, deny God, and become an atheist—yet still possess eternal life. One writer invented a term for such people: “unbelieving believers”!
Scripture is clear that a saved person can never be lost. It is equally clear that a genuine Christian will never fall back into total unbelief. That kind of apostasy proves an individual was never really born again (1 John 2:19).
Furthermore, if a person is genuinely saved, his life will change for the better (2 Corinthians 5:17). He is saved “for good works” (Ephesians 2:10), and there is no way he can fail to bring forth at least some of the fruit that characterizes the redeemed (cf. Matthew 7:17). His desires are transformed; he begins to hate sin and love righteousness. He will not be sinless, but the pattern of his life will be decreasing sin and increasing righteousness.
For the full article go here.
Trustworthy Answers in Untrusting Times by John MacArthur
The last fifty years have produced an information explosion unparalleled in human history. Yet with all we have learned and with all the volumes that have been written, modern knowledge has been unable to shed any new light on the most basic spiritual questions facing the human race. That’s exactly the situation the Bible ascribes to mankind in the end times: “always learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7).
Man has solved incredibly difficult problems in the fields of mathematics, astronomy, microbiology, and even space travel. But the true meaning of life stubbornly eludes those whose methods of pursuit are merely rational. They end up totally puzzled about life, death, God, man, sin, heaven, hell, love, joy, and peace.
The problem is that spiritual answers cannot be deduced by human reason alone (1 Corinthians 2:14). It’s not that spiritual truth is irrational or illogical, but human wisdom is defective because it is tainted by man’s sinfulness and unable to perceive the things of God.
Trustworthy Answers from the Unchanging GodThat is why the Bible is so important. It gives us the answers we can’t find on our own. It is God’s Word to mankind. Scripture is divinely revealed truth that fills the vacuum of spiritual ignorance in all of us. Psalm 19 contains a hymn of praise to God for the wonders of His Word. It is also a marvelous lesson about the authority and sufficiency of Scripture to answer all the questions of life.
Perfect AnswersVerse 7 says, “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul.” “Perfect” comes from a Hebrew word that means comprehensive, or complete. In other words, the Bible contains all the truth that is necessary to transform and restore the human soul.
Thus the Bible offers hope for those weighted down by a sense of their own failure. Because it is perfect truth, it can revive man’s broken soul and offer new life to those defeated by sin and failure. If you are apathetic, Scripture will convict you of sin and show you your real needs. If on the other hand you are crushed with emptiness, guilt, and anxiety, God’s Word contains truth that can transform your soul with new life in Christ.
Certain Answers--
The psalmist goes on: “The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (v. 7). Natural intelligence is at best a leap in the dark. Even the most perceptive philosopher will tell you that there is no certainty in human wisdom. At his best, man is totally inadequate in the pursuit of truth.
Not so with Scripture. God’s Word is sure, certain, infallible, inerrant, and totally reliable in every sense. In contrast to human wisdom, which is based on academic pursuit, the Bible can make a simple person wise. What a fantastic promise! Whatever you need to know in life is covered in the Word of God. Study it for yourself. It will tell you how to build lasting friendships, how to develop communication skills, and how to build a solid marriage. All you need is an open mind, a receptive spirit, and an obedient heart....
Verse 9 says, “The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever.” “The fear of the Lord” is parallel to “the law,” “the testimony,” “the precepts,” and “the commandment” (vv. 7-8). It is another of the psalmist’s names for Scripture. More than that, “the fear of the Lord” signifies the sum of man’s response to God’s Word.
The Bible, unlike any other book, endures forever. It is relevant in every generation—never out of date or obsolete. Though it is an ancient document, it never needs another edition. It has been translated to update the language, but for two millennia it has remained the same in content. It speaks to us as pointedly and authoritatively as it ever did to any generation since it was written.
Human philosophies come in and out of style. Every field of science known to man is constantly in a state of flux: changing, growing, discarding one maxim and replacing it with another. But one thing that never changes is the eternal Word of God.
For the complete article go here.
Man has solved incredibly difficult problems in the fields of mathematics, astronomy, microbiology, and even space travel. But the true meaning of life stubbornly eludes those whose methods of pursuit are merely rational. They end up totally puzzled about life, death, God, man, sin, heaven, hell, love, joy, and peace.
The problem is that spiritual answers cannot be deduced by human reason alone (1 Corinthians 2:14). It’s not that spiritual truth is irrational or illogical, but human wisdom is defective because it is tainted by man’s sinfulness and unable to perceive the things of God.
Trustworthy Answers from the Unchanging GodThat is why the Bible is so important. It gives us the answers we can’t find on our own. It is God’s Word to mankind. Scripture is divinely revealed truth that fills the vacuum of spiritual ignorance in all of us. Psalm 19 contains a hymn of praise to God for the wonders of His Word. It is also a marvelous lesson about the authority and sufficiency of Scripture to answer all the questions of life.
Perfect AnswersVerse 7 says, “The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul.” “Perfect” comes from a Hebrew word that means comprehensive, or complete. In other words, the Bible contains all the truth that is necessary to transform and restore the human soul.
Thus the Bible offers hope for those weighted down by a sense of their own failure. Because it is perfect truth, it can revive man’s broken soul and offer new life to those defeated by sin and failure. If you are apathetic, Scripture will convict you of sin and show you your real needs. If on the other hand you are crushed with emptiness, guilt, and anxiety, God’s Word contains truth that can transform your soul with new life in Christ.
Certain Answers--
The psalmist goes on: “The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple” (v. 7). Natural intelligence is at best a leap in the dark. Even the most perceptive philosopher will tell you that there is no certainty in human wisdom. At his best, man is totally inadequate in the pursuit of truth.
Not so with Scripture. God’s Word is sure, certain, infallible, inerrant, and totally reliable in every sense. In contrast to human wisdom, which is based on academic pursuit, the Bible can make a simple person wise. What a fantastic promise! Whatever you need to know in life is covered in the Word of God. Study it for yourself. It will tell you how to build lasting friendships, how to develop communication skills, and how to build a solid marriage. All you need is an open mind, a receptive spirit, and an obedient heart....
Verse 9 says, “The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever.” “The fear of the Lord” is parallel to “the law,” “the testimony,” “the precepts,” and “the commandment” (vv. 7-8). It is another of the psalmist’s names for Scripture. More than that, “the fear of the Lord” signifies the sum of man’s response to God’s Word.
The Bible, unlike any other book, endures forever. It is relevant in every generation—never out of date or obsolete. Though it is an ancient document, it never needs another edition. It has been translated to update the language, but for two millennia it has remained the same in content. It speaks to us as pointedly and authoritatively as it ever did to any generation since it was written.
Human philosophies come in and out of style. Every field of science known to man is constantly in a state of flux: changing, growing, discarding one maxim and replacing it with another. But one thing that never changes is the eternal Word of God.
For the complete article go here.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Why I Am No Longer A Republican
Today I have resigned from being a Republican of 19 years. I have found that the GOP has become increasingly liberal, while the Lord has caused me to become more biblical (and no, I haven't arrived and yes, I still have sin I deal with as the Lord convicts me of it by His Spirit and Word).
Here are some of my reasons for registering under "Decline to State" (I cannot find one party that reflects Biblical principles across the board):
I do not believe in:
Voting for “the lesser evil” which IS voting for Evil. I cannot do that while holding Christ Jesus over my name.
Islam is NOT a religion of peace. It is violent. It hates the Only True God. It denies Jesus Christ is God. It denies the Trinity. It denies Scripture. It seeks out blood of all who reject its system and thinking. Convert or Die is NOT peaceful.
Big government
Big spending
Raising taxes
Approval or acceptance of homosexuals
Illegal Immigration
Lying about Illegal immigration amnesty by calling it a “visitor” program
Encouraging illegal activity by giving benefits (free health care, education, etc)
Any type of homosexual “rights” that are different from those that are in the Constitution for EVERY American
Same-sex “marriage” even at the state level
Campaigning for Mexicans in Mexico
Compromising with the Democrats on any issue such as education or health care
What I Believe in:
Fearing God, never man
Trusting God, not man
Pro-life EVEN WHEN THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER is at stake. Either I am pro-life totally or not at all. Either I trust God or I don’t.
Smaller government
Minimal taxes
Backing our soldiers
Enforcement of existing laws; in particular that of illegal immigrants
No hypocrisy in enforcing laws for those in leadership versus the common man
No benefits for non- American citizen
No approval of homosexuals on any level
No same-sex “marriages” or anything “like” it on any level
Principles are what guide me in every situation. My principles are from Scripture. If I make loopholes or exceptions, then they are NOT principles but just opinions. Biblical Doctrine is not optional.
Daring to be a Daniel. He was a man of integrity before God and man. He did not compromise for the sake of his life or position. He obeyed God rather than the king. He was consistant behind closed doors as well as out in the open.
Here are some of my reasons for registering under "Decline to State" (I cannot find one party that reflects Biblical principles across the board):
I do not believe in:
Voting for “the lesser evil” which IS voting for Evil. I cannot do that while holding Christ Jesus over my name.
Islam is NOT a religion of peace. It is violent. It hates the Only True God. It denies Jesus Christ is God. It denies the Trinity. It denies Scripture. It seeks out blood of all who reject its system and thinking. Convert or Die is NOT peaceful.
Big government
Big spending
Raising taxes
Approval or acceptance of homosexuals
Illegal Immigration
Lying about Illegal immigration amnesty by calling it a “visitor” program
Encouraging illegal activity by giving benefits (free health care, education, etc)
Any type of homosexual “rights” that are different from those that are in the Constitution for EVERY American
Same-sex “marriage” even at the state level
Campaigning for Mexicans in Mexico
Compromising with the Democrats on any issue such as education or health care
What I Believe in:
Fearing God, never man
Trusting God, not man
Pro-life EVEN WHEN THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER is at stake. Either I am pro-life totally or not at all. Either I trust God or I don’t.
Smaller government
Minimal taxes
Backing our soldiers
Enforcement of existing laws; in particular that of illegal immigrants
No hypocrisy in enforcing laws for those in leadership versus the common man
No benefits for non- American citizen
No approval of homosexuals on any level
No same-sex “marriages” or anything “like” it on any level
Principles are what guide me in every situation. My principles are from Scripture. If I make loopholes or exceptions, then they are NOT principles but just opinions. Biblical Doctrine is not optional.
Daring to be a Daniel. He was a man of integrity before God and man. He did not compromise for the sake of his life or position. He obeyed God rather than the king. He was consistant behind closed doors as well as out in the open.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Reclaiming the Mind and Conversing With Scholars
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Is "All truth God's truth" really true?
I have heard many Christians say "all truth is God's truth." This caused me discomfort because it doesn't seem biblical. I came across this article (while looking for something else) and thought that it had some very good points. Its from PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries. I haven't yet checked out their website, so always proceed with caution, but I found this article honoring to the Word and the Lord.
Quote:
Lately, however, the important theological category of general revelation has been broadened to include all truth-claims made as a result of human efforts to understand the many aspects of the created order. Those who have broadened the category argue that the Scriptures are indeed the "special" revelation which God has left to us and that, because God is the Author of the entire created order, whenever men discover "truth" in that order, we can refer to that humanly discovered "truth" as "general revelation."....
Bookman summarizes this issue of Coe’s bibliology in a personal letter to us, in which he says:
The issue here relates very directly to the character of inspired Scripture. Wisdom literature, such as that which is represented by the sage in the book of Proverbs, is one of many precious and profitable genres of biblical literature. But the recorded message of the sage, no less than that of the prophet, the Gospelist or the writer of a New Testament epistle, is authoritative and dependable simply and only because it was breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16). The prophets received their messages by means of dreams (Num 12:6); that doesn’t suggest that the dreams of men today are just as authoritative as those of the prophets. The sage normally received his message by means of observation; it is erroneous to conclude that therefore the observations of any man are as authoritative and/or dependable as those observations of the sage which are recorded in the pages of sacred Scripture. Note carefully that the debate here is not whether any of the observations made by human beings might be true. Rather, the debate is whether the observations of men today ought to be regarded as possessing the absolute certainty and/or normative authority which the Bible possesses in all of its parts. The words of the sage are not certain and authoritative because they were discovered by observation, any more than the words of Jude are certain and authoritative because he cites them from the apocryphal book of Enoch (Jude 14). The words of all biblical writers are authoritative because the recording of them was done under the careful supervision of the Holy Spirit which is known as "inspiration." To regard the words of men as possessing the same sublime dignity and ultimate authority that the words of the Bible possess is remarkably dangerous (italics in original).
Unquote.
For the whole article go here.
Quote:
Lately, however, the important theological category of general revelation has been broadened to include all truth-claims made as a result of human efforts to understand the many aspects of the created order. Those who have broadened the category argue that the Scriptures are indeed the "special" revelation which God has left to us and that, because God is the Author of the entire created order, whenever men discover "truth" in that order, we can refer to that humanly discovered "truth" as "general revelation."....
Bookman summarizes this issue of Coe’s bibliology in a personal letter to us, in which he says:
The issue here relates very directly to the character of inspired Scripture. Wisdom literature, such as that which is represented by the sage in the book of Proverbs, is one of many precious and profitable genres of biblical literature. But the recorded message of the sage, no less than that of the prophet, the Gospelist or the writer of a New Testament epistle, is authoritative and dependable simply and only because it was breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16). The prophets received their messages by means of dreams (Num 12:6); that doesn’t suggest that the dreams of men today are just as authoritative as those of the prophets. The sage normally received his message by means of observation; it is erroneous to conclude that therefore the observations of any man are as authoritative and/or dependable as those observations of the sage which are recorded in the pages of sacred Scripture. Note carefully that the debate here is not whether any of the observations made by human beings might be true. Rather, the debate is whether the observations of men today ought to be regarded as possessing the absolute certainty and/or normative authority which the Bible possesses in all of its parts. The words of the sage are not certain and authoritative because they were discovered by observation, any more than the words of Jude are certain and authoritative because he cites them from the apocryphal book of Enoch (Jude 14). The words of all biblical writers are authoritative because the recording of them was done under the careful supervision of the Holy Spirit which is known as "inspiration." To regard the words of men as possessing the same sublime dignity and ultimate authority that the words of the Bible possess is remarkably dangerous (italics in original).
Unquote.
For the whole article go here.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Just Stop & Think: God's Way or My Way--Who's Lord in all of this?
I've been in contact with the producer of "Just Stop and Think" video. Originally I had emailed Francis Chan, the one in the video. My email got bumped to the producer. Ok, not the person I really wanted to address, but I'll talk with him.
What was given to me in three emails was appalling. Man-centeredness all over the place with no Scripture and sprinkled with insults. The communication on Johnny Karls' part left a lot to be desired-- one wonders how HE communicates to the lost who are deaf. I gave several Scriptures that say God hates the wicked (as opposed to the claimed "God is crazy about you...God loves you" in the video). Karls said, yes, God has wrath against sin. I said, no, God hates the wicked PERSON...see right here... and showed the Scriptures I had given to him previously. Again, he said, yes, God hates the sin. Sigh. Was he even reading the Scriptures or what I clearly and distinctly said?
Reading Steve Camp's post on this video today, I also saw a HUGE lack of communication between Karls and Chan. They apparently had conflicting intentions and accomplishments (can one expect any differently in such a man-centered Post Modern/Emergent thinking?):
Chan said: “I really just wanted to present the gospel to the world; just the plain simple, as I clear as I could make it gospel, but outside of a church setting....Cause we thought if the Lord comes back this year, we wanted to know that we got out the gospel to everyone. (source: Passion 2007 Podcast, December 2006)
Karls said: Mind you, our fifteen minute movie is by no means the totality of the gospel message (where did you the idea that that was our intention?) This movie was meant to be an introduction to the God of the Bible. Our intention was to be brief, to be relational, and to introduce the unbeliever or the "religious" to the Rightious, Just, Loving, Holy God of the Bible.
Our goal of this short movie was to introduce or wet the appetite of the view to get to know God, PERIOD! Where did you get that this was meant to be Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost?
End quote. Source: email correspondance
These two men are supposed to be "full time pastors" who communicate the truth to their flocks (Karls doesn't say where he is a "full time pastor" but was sure to remind me repeatedly that both he and Karls graduated from seminary--not sure why that was even brought up). But if they can't even 1) communicate with EACH OTHER about their goal and accomplishement with the film, and 2) communicate the actual Gospel, and 3) listen and respond to what is actually said to them, then they then have no business doing what they are doing as "spiritual leaders". A pastor and evangelist are to clearly present the truth, and both have failed in this.
Stand To Reason did a search through the book of Acts and found that no where does it declare that God loves all people. Rather, it focuses on Christ, the need for repentance, sin, God's wrath, forgiveness, and even God's sovereignty, etc.
I went through Acts myself and found that when the gospel was given, so was the Resurrection. In fact, it was precisely because of the preaching of a Resurrected Christ Jesus that the apostles were on trial (Acts 23:6;24:14-15) and were also presecuted (Acts 16:22-23; 17:32;18:6).
In Scripture the Gospel is proclaimed, and a bait is not used. We aren't to try to hook unregenerates in to what we say and tell them if they really want the rest of the story (like Paul Harvey gives to the news), then you have to go hunt them down and read more of their own words.
Secondly, the makers of this movie do not trust the Sovereign God and His ways in converting the lost. They use the world's ways and means, not God's. This is a huge indictment upon them.
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Rom 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
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. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!
Using Hollywood and paying top dollar for it in order to teach about spiritual things is NOT the way of God. Paul did not present the truth in an entertaining way, but rather used plain speech with the bold truth. Same with Peter and John. And they didn't HIRE someone to make it a prettier package so the God-haters wouldn't be so offended.
Karls told me: "I have witnessed to many many people and the majority RUN when you mention the Bible, or Jesus, or the resurrection, or church. Now is that to say these things should be left out of the total conversation? absolutely not! It just means we're dealing with cultural paradigms that are real. Though I agree with the "fire and brimstone" message, it initially chases more people away than it draws in."
Truth always makes sinners run.
Joh 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
Joh 6:60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? ...64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." 66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
Mat 15:12 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" 13 He answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
Karls continues: " I find the approach we used in Stop and THink much more effective. Is it the complete gospel, absolutely not! Is it bringing people to the true, authentic, message of scripture? I believe so. "
This is pragmatism and the way of the world. This is man-centered baloney. Of course God-haters will run from being told about their hate of God, their lack of having any good, that Christ Jesus is Lord and the ONLY way, truth, and life and that no one can go to the Father but by HIM. Of course they are offended and run when they are told they have no good works and can't get to heaven by what they do or don't do. Its unbelievable that a seminary graduate worries about this, and more, tries to change the gospel given and its offense.
Karls said,“If you have a means of inspiring more people to Christ then I am VERY interested to hear about it.”
Yes I do: preaching the Gospel, which IS the power of God unto salvation. Rom. 1:16-17; Rom. 10:12-17; Acts 16:14; Acts 13:48.
Hear the words of GOD:
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
1Co 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 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.
1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Why would "seminary graduates" ignore such clear truth from the Bible? Who are they to try and improve upon God's Word and HIS means?
Perhaps that's the biggest indictment on such people: Scripture is not enough. The Cross of the Resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is NOT enough, and the Lordship of Christ is denied.
Folks, its HIS Gospel declared in HIS given ways by HIS given means. If we call Him Lord, then let's do it HIS way, not our way. Or stop calling Him "Lord".
What was given to me in three emails was appalling. Man-centeredness all over the place with no Scripture and sprinkled with insults. The communication on Johnny Karls' part left a lot to be desired-- one wonders how HE communicates to the lost who are deaf. I gave several Scriptures that say God hates the wicked (as opposed to the claimed "God is crazy about you...God loves you" in the video). Karls said, yes, God has wrath against sin. I said, no, God hates the wicked PERSON...see right here... and showed the Scriptures I had given to him previously. Again, he said, yes, God hates the sin. Sigh. Was he even reading the Scriptures or what I clearly and distinctly said?
Reading Steve Camp's post on this video today, I also saw a HUGE lack of communication between Karls and Chan. They apparently had conflicting intentions and accomplishments (can one expect any differently in such a man-centered Post Modern/Emergent thinking?):
Chan said: “I really just wanted to present the gospel to the world; just the plain simple, as I clear as I could make it gospel, but outside of a church setting....Cause we thought if the Lord comes back this year, we wanted to know that we got out the gospel to everyone. (source: Passion 2007 Podcast, December 2006)
Karls said: Mind you, our fifteen minute movie is by no means the totality of the gospel message (where did you the idea that that was our intention?) This movie was meant to be an introduction to the God of the Bible. Our intention was to be brief, to be relational, and to introduce the unbeliever or the "religious" to the Rightious, Just, Loving, Holy God of the Bible.
Our goal of this short movie was to introduce or wet the appetite of the view to get to know God, PERIOD! Where did you get that this was meant to be Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost?
End quote. Source: email correspondance
These two men are supposed to be "full time pastors" who communicate the truth to their flocks (Karls doesn't say where he is a "full time pastor" but was sure to remind me repeatedly that both he and Karls graduated from seminary--not sure why that was even brought up). But if they can't even 1) communicate with EACH OTHER about their goal and accomplishement with the film, and 2) communicate the actual Gospel, and 3) listen and respond to what is actually said to them, then they then have no business doing what they are doing as "spiritual leaders". A pastor and evangelist are to clearly present the truth, and both have failed in this.
Stand To Reason did a search through the book of Acts and found that no where does it declare that God loves all people. Rather, it focuses on Christ, the need for repentance, sin, God's wrath, forgiveness, and even God's sovereignty, etc.
I went through Acts myself and found that when the gospel was given, so was the Resurrection. In fact, it was precisely because of the preaching of a Resurrected Christ Jesus that the apostles were on trial (Acts 23:6;24:14-15) and were also presecuted (Acts 16:22-23; 17:32;18:6).
In Scripture the Gospel is proclaimed, and a bait is not used. We aren't to try to hook unregenerates in to what we say and tell them if they really want the rest of the story (like Paul Harvey gives to the news), then you have to go hunt them down and read more of their own words.
Secondly, the makers of this movie do not trust the Sovereign God and His ways in converting the lost. They use the world's ways and means, not God's. This is a huge indictment upon them.
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Rom 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
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. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!
Using Hollywood and paying top dollar for it in order to teach about spiritual things is NOT the way of God. Paul did not present the truth in an entertaining way, but rather used plain speech with the bold truth. Same with Peter and John. And they didn't HIRE someone to make it a prettier package so the God-haters wouldn't be so offended.
Karls told me: "I have witnessed to many many people and the majority RUN when you mention the Bible, or Jesus, or the resurrection, or church. Now is that to say these things should be left out of the total conversation? absolutely not! It just means we're dealing with cultural paradigms that are real. Though I agree with the "fire and brimstone" message, it initially chases more people away than it draws in."
Truth always makes sinners run.
Joh 3:19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
Joh 6:60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61 But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? ...64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." 66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
Mat 15:12 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" 13 He answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."
Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one."
Karls continues: " I find the approach we used in Stop and THink much more effective. Is it the complete gospel, absolutely not! Is it bringing people to the true, authentic, message of scripture? I believe so. "
This is pragmatism and the way of the world. This is man-centered baloney. Of course God-haters will run from being told about their hate of God, their lack of having any good, that Christ Jesus is Lord and the ONLY way, truth, and life and that no one can go to the Father but by HIM. Of course they are offended and run when they are told they have no good works and can't get to heaven by what they do or don't do. Its unbelievable that a seminary graduate worries about this, and more, tries to change the gospel given and its offense.
Karls said,“If you have a means of inspiring more people to Christ then I am VERY interested to hear about it.”
Yes I do: preaching the Gospel, which IS the power of God unto salvation. Rom. 1:16-17; Rom. 10:12-17; Acts 16:14; Acts 13:48.
Hear the words of GOD:
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
1Co 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 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.
1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Why would "seminary graduates" ignore such clear truth from the Bible? Who are they to try and improve upon God's Word and HIS means?
Perhaps that's the biggest indictment on such people: Scripture is not enough. The Cross of the Resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is NOT enough, and the Lordship of Christ is denied.
Folks, its HIS Gospel declared in HIS given ways by HIS given means. If we call Him Lord, then let's do it HIS way, not our way. Or stop calling Him "Lord".
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
What We Say vs. What We Proclaim: More questions
What we say we believe vesus what we proclaim. Sometimes they are two different things. Why? Shouldn’t we give the gospel we say we believe? Do others need less of the gospel than we do? If Scripture says we MUST believe certain things to be saved, then why would we NOT say this to the lost? Is this not hording the treasure, the freedom? We have the truth, but let the others stumble in the dark trying to find bits and pieces, or worse, give them enough to bait them to come back to us later to find out the rest of the truth?
I suggest folks read Acts and see how the Gospel was proclaimed. The fact of Jesus being Lord and God, who lived and died on the cross on behalf of sinners for tthe forgiveness of their sin and then rose again from the dead "according to the Scriptures" is paramount.
Go here for a quick glimpse at what the Gospel declared in Acts did or did not entail in Acts (clue: "God isn't crazy about you" is missing ). But the most important place to go to, as I already suggested, is the Word first. Read Acts for yourself. Read 1Cor. 15, too.
I suggest folks read Acts and see how the Gospel was proclaimed. The fact of Jesus being Lord and God, who lived and died on the cross on behalf of sinners for tthe forgiveness of their sin and then rose again from the dead "according to the Scriptures" is paramount.
Go here for a quick glimpse at what the Gospel declared in Acts did or did not entail in Acts (clue: "God isn't crazy about you" is missing ). But the most important place to go to, as I already suggested, is the Word first. Read Acts for yourself. Read 1Cor. 15, too.
Fear of Man or Fear of God: The Wrath of God
I received this today from Grace Gems in my email box. I found this to be Providence, since lately the issue of God's love vs. His wrath has been part of a bigger issue about what the Gospel is and who God is.
The wrath of God(Thomas Boston, "Human Nature in its Fourfold State")"The wrath of God abides on him." John 3:36
1. The wrath of God is IRRESISTIBLE, there is no standing before it; "Who can stand in Your sight, when once You are angry?" Psalm 76:7. Can the worm or the moth defend itself against him who designs to crush it? Can the worm, man, stand before an angry God? Foolish men, indeed, bid a defiance against God; but the Lord often, even in this world, opens such sluices of wrath upon them, as all their might cannot stop--they are carried away thereby, as with a flood! How much more will it be so in hell!
2. The wrath of God is INSUPPORTABLE. What a man cannot resist, he will try to endure. But who shall dwell in devouring fire? Who shall dwell with everlasting burnings? God's wrath is a weight which will sink men into the lowest hell. It is a burden which no man can endure.
3. The wrath of God is UNAVOIDABLE to those who continue impenitently, and die in their sinful course. "He who, being often reproved, hardens his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed--and that without remedy!" Proverbs 29:1. We may now flee from it, indeed, by fleeing to Jesus Christ. But those who flee from Christ, will never be able to avoid it. Where can men flee from the avenging God? Where will they find a shelter? The hills will not bear them. The mountains will be deaf to their loudest supplications, when they cry to them to "hide them from the wrath of the Lamb."
4. The wrath of God is POWERFUL and FIERCE. "Who can comprehend the power of Your anger? Your wrath is as awesome as the fear You deserve." Psalm 90:11. We are apt to fear the wrath of man more than we ought; but no man can apprehend the wrath of God to be more dreadful than it really is. The power of God's wrath can never be known to the utmost; for it is infinite, and, properly speaking, has no utmost limit. However fierce it is, either on earth or in hell, God can still carry it farther. Everything in God is most perfect in its kind; and therefore no wrath is so fierce as His. O sinner! how will you be able to endure that wrath, which will tear you in pieces, Psalm 50:22, and grind you to powder! Luke 20:18.
5. The wrath of God is PENETRATING and PIERCING wrath. It is burning wrath, and fiery indignation. There is no pain more intense than that which is caused by fire; and no fire so piercing as the fire of God's indignation, which burns unto the lowest hell, Deut. 32:22. The arrows of men's wrath can pierce flesh, blood, and bones--but cannot reach the soul. But the wrath of God will sink into the soul, and so pierce a man in the most tender part.
6. The wrath of God is CONSTANT wrath, running parallel with the man's continuance in an unregenerate state; constantly attending him from the womb to the grave. There are few days so dark--but the sun sometimes looks out from under the clouds. But the wrath of God is an abiding cloud on the objects of it; John 3:36, "The wrath of God abides on him" who believes not.
7. The wrath of God is ETERNAL. O, miserable soul! if you flee not from this wrath unto Jesus Christ; though your misery had a beginning--yet it will never have an end! Should devouring death wholly swallow you up, and forever hold you fast in the grave--it would be kind. But your body must be reunited to your immortal soul, and live again, and never die; that you may be ever-dying, in the hands of the ever-living God. Death will quench the flame of man's wrath against us, if nothing else does. But God's wrath, when it has come on the sinner for millions of ages, will still be the wrath to come! Matt. 3:7; 1 Thess. 1:10. While God is, He will pursue the quarrel.
8. However dreadful it is, and though it is eternal--yet it is most JUST wrath! It is a clear fire, without the least smoke of injustice. The sea of wrath, raging with greatest fury against the sinner, is clear as crystal. The Judge of all the earth can do no wrong. "Is God unrighteous to inflict wrath? Absolutely not! Otherwise, how will God judge the world?" Romans 3:5, 6. The Judge being infinitely just--the sentence must be righteous. Therefore, stop your mouth, O proud sinner! Still your clamor against your righteous Judge!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath!"1 Thessalonians 1:10
"For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but toreceive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ!"1 Thessalonians 5:9
The wrath of God(Thomas Boston, "Human Nature in its Fourfold State")"The wrath of God abides on him." John 3:36
1. The wrath of God is IRRESISTIBLE, there is no standing before it; "Who can stand in Your sight, when once You are angry?" Psalm 76:7. Can the worm or the moth defend itself against him who designs to crush it? Can the worm, man, stand before an angry God? Foolish men, indeed, bid a defiance against God; but the Lord often, even in this world, opens such sluices of wrath upon them, as all their might cannot stop--they are carried away thereby, as with a flood! How much more will it be so in hell!
2. The wrath of God is INSUPPORTABLE. What a man cannot resist, he will try to endure. But who shall dwell in devouring fire? Who shall dwell with everlasting burnings? God's wrath is a weight which will sink men into the lowest hell. It is a burden which no man can endure.
3. The wrath of God is UNAVOIDABLE to those who continue impenitently, and die in their sinful course. "He who, being often reproved, hardens his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed--and that without remedy!" Proverbs 29:1. We may now flee from it, indeed, by fleeing to Jesus Christ. But those who flee from Christ, will never be able to avoid it. Where can men flee from the avenging God? Where will they find a shelter? The hills will not bear them. The mountains will be deaf to their loudest supplications, when they cry to them to "hide them from the wrath of the Lamb."
4. The wrath of God is POWERFUL and FIERCE. "Who can comprehend the power of Your anger? Your wrath is as awesome as the fear You deserve." Psalm 90:11. We are apt to fear the wrath of man more than we ought; but no man can apprehend the wrath of God to be more dreadful than it really is. The power of God's wrath can never be known to the utmost; for it is infinite, and, properly speaking, has no utmost limit. However fierce it is, either on earth or in hell, God can still carry it farther. Everything in God is most perfect in its kind; and therefore no wrath is so fierce as His. O sinner! how will you be able to endure that wrath, which will tear you in pieces, Psalm 50:22, and grind you to powder! Luke 20:18.
5. The wrath of God is PENETRATING and PIERCING wrath. It is burning wrath, and fiery indignation. There is no pain more intense than that which is caused by fire; and no fire so piercing as the fire of God's indignation, which burns unto the lowest hell, Deut. 32:22. The arrows of men's wrath can pierce flesh, blood, and bones--but cannot reach the soul. But the wrath of God will sink into the soul, and so pierce a man in the most tender part.
6. The wrath of God is CONSTANT wrath, running parallel with the man's continuance in an unregenerate state; constantly attending him from the womb to the grave. There are few days so dark--but the sun sometimes looks out from under the clouds. But the wrath of God is an abiding cloud on the objects of it; John 3:36, "The wrath of God abides on him" who believes not.
7. The wrath of God is ETERNAL. O, miserable soul! if you flee not from this wrath unto Jesus Christ; though your misery had a beginning--yet it will never have an end! Should devouring death wholly swallow you up, and forever hold you fast in the grave--it would be kind. But your body must be reunited to your immortal soul, and live again, and never die; that you may be ever-dying, in the hands of the ever-living God. Death will quench the flame of man's wrath against us, if nothing else does. But God's wrath, when it has come on the sinner for millions of ages, will still be the wrath to come! Matt. 3:7; 1 Thess. 1:10. While God is, He will pursue the quarrel.
8. However dreadful it is, and though it is eternal--yet it is most JUST wrath! It is a clear fire, without the least smoke of injustice. The sea of wrath, raging with greatest fury against the sinner, is clear as crystal. The Judge of all the earth can do no wrong. "Is God unrighteous to inflict wrath? Absolutely not! Otherwise, how will God judge the world?" Romans 3:5, 6. The Judge being infinitely just--the sentence must be righteous. Therefore, stop your mouth, O proud sinner! Still your clamor against your righteous Judge!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath!"1 Thessalonians 1:10
"For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but toreceive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ!"1 Thessalonians 5:9
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Where Has the Gospel Gone? And other questions I have
Where has the Gospel Gone?
Why is it that professing evangelical Christians don’t declare the gospel?
Why do they value style over substance?
Why do professing Christians ridicule, mock, and insult Christians who hold Scripture as the standard for all things, particularly about the Gospel and God?
Why do they Devalue Scripture when God values it and His name above ALL else?
Why does declaring the truth that God hates the workers of iniquity (not just their sin) make one divisive, mean, and hateful?
Why do professing Christians paint God as a romantic slob, “crazy” over those who utterly hate Him?
Why do professing Christians look to the world to woo people instead of looking to God and His Word to work in the hearts of those whom God has chosen to save?
Why do they see the world's way BETTER than God's way?
Why don't they trust the SOVEREIGN God and His living Word?
Why is it that professing evangelical Christians don’t declare the gospel?
Why do they value style over substance?
Why do professing Christians ridicule, mock, and insult Christians who hold Scripture as the standard for all things, particularly about the Gospel and God?
Why do they Devalue Scripture when God values it and His name above ALL else?
Why does declaring the truth that God hates the workers of iniquity (not just their sin) make one divisive, mean, and hateful?
Why do professing Christians paint God as a romantic slob, “crazy” over those who utterly hate Him?
Why do professing Christians look to the world to woo people instead of looking to God and His Word to work in the hearts of those whom God has chosen to save?
Why do they see the world's way BETTER than God's way?
Why don't they trust the SOVEREIGN God and His living Word?
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Supreme Court Justices Bryer and Scalia Discuss the Use of Foreign Law in Interpreting the US Constitution
Here's a transcript of Justices Bryer and Scalia, at AMERICAN UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW, THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 2005 on looking to foreign law to interpret American Law (US Constitituion). I heard this a while ago, the audio, and was shocked and angered by Bryer's views. What makes this worrisome is that the US Supreme Court is interpreting our Constitution in light of other countries' laws. Currently, Germany is trying to crack down on homeschoolers. You could be next. Go here for the news article.
Here's a few snippets:
Justice Bryer: Look, let me be a little bit more frank, that in some of these countries there are institutions, courts that are trying to make their way in societies that didn't used to be democratic, and they are trying to protect human rights, they are trying to protect democracy. They're having a document called a constitution, and they want to be independent judges. And for years people all over the world have cited the Supreme Court, why don't we cite them occasionally? They will then go to some of their legislators and others and say, "See, the Supreme Court of the United States cites us." That might give them a leg up, even if we just say it's an interesting example. So, you see, it shows we read their opinions. That's important.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't know what it means to express confidence that judges will do what they ought to do, after having read the foreign law. My problem is I don't know what they ought to do. What is it that they ought to do? You have to ask yourselves, Why is it that foreign law would be relevant to what an American judge does when he interprets -- interprets, not writes -- I mean, the Founders used a lot of foreign law. If you read the Federalist Papers, it's full of discussions of the Swiss system, German system. It's full of that. It is very useful in devising a constitution. But why is it useful in interpreting one?
Now, my theory of what I do when I interpret the American Constitution is I try to understand what it meant, what was understood by the society to mean when it was adopted. And I don't think it changes since then. Now, obviously if you have that philosophy -- which, by the way, used to be orthodoxy until about 60 years ago -- every judge would tell you that's what we do. If you have that philosophy, obviously foreign law is irrelevant with one exception: Old English law, because phrases like "due process," the "right of confrontation" and things of that sort were all taken from English law. So the reality is I use foreign law more than anybody on the Court. But it's all old English law. All right, if you have that theory, you can understand why foreign law is irrelevant. So he will never convert me. I just have a -- (laughter) --
But if you're looking for the evolving standards of decency of American society, why would you look to France? The only way in which it makes sense is if you have a third approach to the interpretation of the Constitution, and that is I am not looking for the evolving standards of decency of American society; I'm looking for what is the best answer in my mind as an intelligent judge. And for that purpose I look to other intelligent people, and I talk sometimes about conversations with judges and lawyers and law students. Do you think you're representative of American society? Do you not realize you are a small cream at the top, and that your views on innumerable things are not the views of America at large? And doesn't it seem somewhat arrogant for you to say, I can make up what the moral values of America should be on all sorts of issues, such as penology, the death penalty, abortion, whatever? That's the only context in which the use of foreign law makes sense, because what we're doing is not looking to history, as I do, not looking to the mores of contemporary American society, which we did for a while -- we used to see how many states had abolished, for example, in Koker -- how many states had abolished the death penalty for rape. All except one. Well, you could say we devolved. But we have put that behind us. And in our last Eighth Amendment case, eight states -- no, what was it? -- no -- 18 states out of the 38 states that have capital punishment refused to impose it upon the mentally deficient. The other states left it up to the jury as to how mentally deficient he was and whether that justified the crime, given how heinous it was. Nonetheless, we said even though only 18 out of 38, we have now reached a change in our moral perceptions. I suggest that change is based not upon the theory that you're looking for what the moral perceptions of America is, but that you're looking for moral perceptions of the justices. And I frankly don't want to undertake that responsibility. I don't want to do it with foreign law, and I don't want to do it without foreign law. I sleep very well at night, because I read old English cases. (Laughter.) And there's my answer.
JUSTICE BREYER: I think that's pretty good. I think that's really what's worrying people. And of course I think that underneath that my own views, it's really because I think, and I think many judges think, that your own moral views are not the answer; that people look other places for trying to find out in those few cases where such a thing is determinative how to find answers that aren't -- I mean, I'm tempted to say Bob Browker (ph), who is a good judge up in Massachusetts, used to say, "When I want to know what the common man thinks, I ask myself what I think, and I'm right every time." (Laughter.) That's not it. By the way, I want to keep a concession -- .....
JUSTICE BREYER: Well, I -- India -- India -- they've written a pretty good opinion. There was one in Canada. The U.N. had discussions on this. And they weren't all one way. And I cited things the other way too, anything I could find. And then I think I may have made what I call a tactical error in citing a case from Zimbabwe -- not the human rights capital of the world.
JUSTICE SCALIA: One of the difficulties of using foreign law is that you don't understand what the surrounding jurisprudence is so that you can say, you know, "Russia follows Miranda," but you don't know that Russia doesn't have an Exclusionary rule...
But most of all, what does the opinion of a wise Zimbabwe judge or a wise member of the House of Lords law committee, what does that have to do with what Americans believe, unless you really think it's been given to YOU to make this moral judgment, a very difficult moral judgment? And so in making it for yourself and for the whole country, you consult whatever authorities you want. Unless you have that philosophy, I don't see how it's relevant at all.
Here's a few snippets:
Justice Bryer: Look, let me be a little bit more frank, that in some of these countries there are institutions, courts that are trying to make their way in societies that didn't used to be democratic, and they are trying to protect human rights, they are trying to protect democracy. They're having a document called a constitution, and they want to be independent judges. And for years people all over the world have cited the Supreme Court, why don't we cite them occasionally? They will then go to some of their legislators and others and say, "See, the Supreme Court of the United States cites us." That might give them a leg up, even if we just say it's an interesting example. So, you see, it shows we read their opinions. That's important.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't know what it means to express confidence that judges will do what they ought to do, after having read the foreign law. My problem is I don't know what they ought to do. What is it that they ought to do? You have to ask yourselves, Why is it that foreign law would be relevant to what an American judge does when he interprets -- interprets, not writes -- I mean, the Founders used a lot of foreign law. If you read the Federalist Papers, it's full of discussions of the Swiss system, German system. It's full of that. It is very useful in devising a constitution. But why is it useful in interpreting one?
Now, my theory of what I do when I interpret the American Constitution is I try to understand what it meant, what was understood by the society to mean when it was adopted. And I don't think it changes since then. Now, obviously if you have that philosophy -- which, by the way, used to be orthodoxy until about 60 years ago -- every judge would tell you that's what we do. If you have that philosophy, obviously foreign law is irrelevant with one exception: Old English law, because phrases like "due process," the "right of confrontation" and things of that sort were all taken from English law. So the reality is I use foreign law more than anybody on the Court. But it's all old English law. All right, if you have that theory, you can understand why foreign law is irrelevant. So he will never convert me. I just have a -- (laughter) --
But if you're looking for the evolving standards of decency of American society, why would you look to France? The only way in which it makes sense is if you have a third approach to the interpretation of the Constitution, and that is I am not looking for the evolving standards of decency of American society; I'm looking for what is the best answer in my mind as an intelligent judge. And for that purpose I look to other intelligent people, and I talk sometimes about conversations with judges and lawyers and law students. Do you think you're representative of American society? Do you not realize you are a small cream at the top, and that your views on innumerable things are not the views of America at large? And doesn't it seem somewhat arrogant for you to say, I can make up what the moral values of America should be on all sorts of issues, such as penology, the death penalty, abortion, whatever? That's the only context in which the use of foreign law makes sense, because what we're doing is not looking to history, as I do, not looking to the mores of contemporary American society, which we did for a while -- we used to see how many states had abolished, for example, in Koker -- how many states had abolished the death penalty for rape. All except one. Well, you could say we devolved. But we have put that behind us. And in our last Eighth Amendment case, eight states -- no, what was it? -- no -- 18 states out of the 38 states that have capital punishment refused to impose it upon the mentally deficient. The other states left it up to the jury as to how mentally deficient he was and whether that justified the crime, given how heinous it was. Nonetheless, we said even though only 18 out of 38, we have now reached a change in our moral perceptions. I suggest that change is based not upon the theory that you're looking for what the moral perceptions of America is, but that you're looking for moral perceptions of the justices. And I frankly don't want to undertake that responsibility. I don't want to do it with foreign law, and I don't want to do it without foreign law. I sleep very well at night, because I read old English cases. (Laughter.) And there's my answer.
JUSTICE BREYER: I think that's pretty good. I think that's really what's worrying people. And of course I think that underneath that my own views, it's really because I think, and I think many judges think, that your own moral views are not the answer; that people look other places for trying to find out in those few cases where such a thing is determinative how to find answers that aren't -- I mean, I'm tempted to say Bob Browker (ph), who is a good judge up in Massachusetts, used to say, "When I want to know what the common man thinks, I ask myself what I think, and I'm right every time." (Laughter.) That's not it. By the way, I want to keep a concession -- .....
JUSTICE BREYER: Well, I -- India -- India -- they've written a pretty good opinion. There was one in Canada. The U.N. had discussions on this. And they weren't all one way. And I cited things the other way too, anything I could find. And then I think I may have made what I call a tactical error in citing a case from Zimbabwe -- not the human rights capital of the world.
JUSTICE SCALIA: One of the difficulties of using foreign law is that you don't understand what the surrounding jurisprudence is so that you can say, you know, "Russia follows Miranda," but you don't know that Russia doesn't have an Exclusionary rule...
But most of all, what does the opinion of a wise Zimbabwe judge or a wise member of the House of Lords law committee, what does that have to do with what Americans believe, unless you really think it's been given to YOU to make this moral judgment, a very difficult moral judgment? And so in making it for yourself and for the whole country, you consult whatever authorities you want. Unless you have that philosophy, I don't see how it's relevant at all.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
What We Claim Vs. What We Do
It turns out that Michael Richards, "Kramer" of Seinfeld fame, is said to have made anti-Jewish remarks earlier this year during yet another attempt at stand-up comedy. This would be the second time that this guy has been known to make racists remarks.
Yet he says he's not a racist. Just as Mel Gibson claimed.
My question has been: What makes you not a racist? Because you say you aren't? One can claim to not be racist till they're blue in the face, but if what keeps flowing out of their mouths is racist, we've got to go with their behavior, not their claim.
I've also observed this in the professing Christian community. People who profess to be conservative, biblical Christians are behaving as if God isn't in control of this country's elections and leaders. Rather, they vote liberally (pro-abortion, pro-homosexual rights), hoping that the lesser of the two evils will be "good enough" or perhaps "not quite as bad".
Huh?
Are you a conservative Christian because you say you are? Or are you one because your behavior bears that out?
Its as if professing Christians are scared to death that a very liberal person will win the elections, so they hope their vote for the less liberal man will make a difference. By doing so they reject biblical principles on a few different levels:
1. They show unbelief in a totally Sovereign God.
2. They fear man rather than God.
3. They don't live by biblical principles when it matters on a large scale.
4. They are hypocrits.
That last one hurts to even say, because I know some personally. But I can't compromise on truth, no matter who holds to error. I must answer to God. And I do realize we all are inconsistant at certain times. No one is sinless, least of all me. Just ask my family. But I'm finding the way professing Christians are behaving in light of their claims to be glaringly inconsistant. And these are folks under solid biblical teaching.
This year we've been going through the book of Daniel at church. Over and over we see in Scripture how Daniel feared God, not man, and he was a person of integrity. While showing respect for which ever king he was serving under, he never ever compromised God's commands. If that meant going into the firey furnace or a hungry lions' den, so be it. He would rather face death than disobey his God and Master.
So why do we Christians compromise on "lesser" things? If we so do in those, will we also not do so in the "larger" issues of life? Are we failing the test? Does that bode well for when harder issues come up?
Is God not the one who raises up and brings down leaders of the nations? Is He not in control of every atom of HIS creation?
Then why do we act like He is not? Why do we fear the enemy more than "the One who can destroy both body and soul"?
Do we really believe He is sovereign or do we just say we believe it?
Our behavior reflects what we really believe.
So did your vote this election reflect what you proclaim to believe about God?
Yet he says he's not a racist. Just as Mel Gibson claimed.
My question has been: What makes you not a racist? Because you say you aren't? One can claim to not be racist till they're blue in the face, but if what keeps flowing out of their mouths is racist, we've got to go with their behavior, not their claim.
I've also observed this in the professing Christian community. People who profess to be conservative, biblical Christians are behaving as if God isn't in control of this country's elections and leaders. Rather, they vote liberally (pro-abortion, pro-homosexual rights), hoping that the lesser of the two evils will be "good enough" or perhaps "not quite as bad".
Huh?
Are you a conservative Christian because you say you are? Or are you one because your behavior bears that out?
Its as if professing Christians are scared to death that a very liberal person will win the elections, so they hope their vote for the less liberal man will make a difference. By doing so they reject biblical principles on a few different levels:
1. They show unbelief in a totally Sovereign God.
2. They fear man rather than God.
3. They don't live by biblical principles when it matters on a large scale.
4. They are hypocrits.
That last one hurts to even say, because I know some personally. But I can't compromise on truth, no matter who holds to error. I must answer to God. And I do realize we all are inconsistant at certain times. No one is sinless, least of all me. Just ask my family. But I'm finding the way professing Christians are behaving in light of their claims to be glaringly inconsistant. And these are folks under solid biblical teaching.
This year we've been going through the book of Daniel at church. Over and over we see in Scripture how Daniel feared God, not man, and he was a person of integrity. While showing respect for which ever king he was serving under, he never ever compromised God's commands. If that meant going into the firey furnace or a hungry lions' den, so be it. He would rather face death than disobey his God and Master.
So why do we Christians compromise on "lesser" things? If we so do in those, will we also not do so in the "larger" issues of life? Are we failing the test? Does that bode well for when harder issues come up?
Is God not the one who raises up and brings down leaders of the nations? Is He not in control of every atom of HIS creation?
Then why do we act like He is not? Why do we fear the enemy more than "the One who can destroy both body and soul"?
Do we really believe He is sovereign or do we just say we believe it?
Our behavior reflects what we really believe.
So did your vote this election reflect what you proclaim to believe about God?
Monday, November 13, 2006
Prediction of Our Withdraw from Iraq and the Impeachment of George Bush
In last Tuesday's elections, the Democrats won back the House and Senate. I have a prediction I've shared with many folks and thought I'd share it with you.
*Within nine months we will be withdraw from Iraq.
*Iraq will collapse and the terrorists will take over their country, undoing all we've done thus far.
*The Democrats will then impeach George Bush for the failure of the Iraqi government.
Is. 40: 23 He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing. 24 No sooner are they planted, no sooner are they sown, no sooner do they take root in the ground, than he blows on them and they wither, and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.
Prov. 15: 3 The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.
Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
May those who claim Christ as Lord (owner, master, head, boss) ACT like it and therefore not fear man (or the opposition, politically speaking), but rather be biblically minded in how we vote and where we place our trust. If we say we are biblical and thus conservative, why would we support men who are pro-choice and homosexual rights, as well as pro-Islam?
Are you "conservative" because you say you are, or because you actually vote that way? I think that's a fair question.
Folks, true believers cannot be pragmatic when it comes to many things in life. I pray you see that and dare to be men and women of integrity. Be a Daniel at heart and in the secret recesses of your homes. And the voting booth.
*Within nine months we will be withdraw from Iraq.
*Iraq will collapse and the terrorists will take over their country, undoing all we've done thus far.
*The Democrats will then impeach George Bush for the failure of the Iraqi government.
Is. 40: 23 He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing. 24 No sooner are they planted, no sooner are they sown, no sooner do they take root in the ground, than he blows on them and they wither, and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.
Prov. 15: 3 The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.
Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
May those who claim Christ as Lord (owner, master, head, boss) ACT like it and therefore not fear man (or the opposition, politically speaking), but rather be biblically minded in how we vote and where we place our trust. If we say we are biblical and thus conservative, why would we support men who are pro-choice and homosexual rights, as well as pro-Islam?
Are you "conservative" because you say you are, or because you actually vote that way? I think that's a fair question.
Folks, true believers cannot be pragmatic when it comes to many things in life. I pray you see that and dare to be men and women of integrity. Be a Daniel at heart and in the secret recesses of your homes. And the voting booth.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Hypocrisy By the Democrats
I admit, I'm tired of it. Plain sick and tired. I think I need to go to bed. But then I'd have to STAY in bed for months and months, if not years.
The hypocrisy of the Left is so glaringly obvious and yet people are so blind.
To what, you might ask?
MSNBC reported today:
"First openly gay person elected to Congress dies--
Former Mass. Rep. Gerry Studds had a blood clot in his lung, husband says"
First off, there's no such thing as a homosexual marriage. This is just another way the liberal media is trying so incredibly hard to push their agenda down our throats.
Marriage, by the Creator's definition is: one man and one woman in an exclusive, monogamous relationship that foresakes all others.
Like Adam and Eve. That was the first wedding ever recorded. Its in the opening pages of the Holy Bible. Others are mentioned in Scripture, and interestingly, the Scripture ends in a marriage feast.
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Marriage is a beautiful thing. Most importantly, it reflects in many ways, of the believer's relationship with Christ Jesus:
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Eph 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph 5:28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
Eph 5:29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,
Eph 5:30 because we are members of his body.
Eph 5:31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
Eph 5:32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
2Co 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.
Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. [See also Rev. 19:7-9].
This is why, I believe, God hates homosexuality. It distorts and twists His creation of marriage, which ultimately is a slap in the face to Him. It turns what is beautiful and a reflection of our relationship with God, into something unholy, vile, and wicked. It dishonors God.
One of the reasons why God rightly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was that they practiced homosexuality:
Gen 18:20 Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave
Gen 19:5 And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."
Gen 19:6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him,
Gen 19:7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.
Gen 19:25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
Jer 23:14 But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his evil; all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomorrah."
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Ti 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
God sees homosexuality as an evil, illegitimate relationship which goes directly against His command. It is the result of a hardened, sinful, unbelieving heart. To enter heaven, one must repent of his sin (including homosexuality and all immorality), and turn to Christ Jesus alone for the forgiveness of those sins, and for eternal life. Sin requires judgement: it was either taken by Christ on your behalf or it will be personally required of you in hell. No matter the sin--"little" or "big". One sin earns death and hell. But the free gift of God is eternal life, found solely in His Son, Christ, and not of our own works.
Back to Mr. Studds....
What irked me was the double standard given to Studds in the majority-ruled House and how they Democrats today want the blood of Speaker Hastert.
One year after getting into office, Studds took advantage of a 17 year old page and had sex with him. He attempted to molested others as well. TEN years AFTER this, the House decided to move to censure Studds and Studds kept his job for another 14 years.
Where was the call for Tip O'Neil's resignation back then? Where was the accusation of O'Neil covering up information?
Dennis Hasterts dealt with Mark Foley. He was removed. Not censured so he could continue to work around pages. No, he was REMOVED from his position. So now the Democrats have the shoe on the other foot and are suddenly outraged over emails? Over advances? Folely, as we know it so far, did not have sex with underaged pages. Studds did. In my state, this would constitute rape, consenual or not.
Studds, the repeat sexual preditor of minors, skated free; Folely who sent sexually explicit emails gets removed. Tip O'neil kept his job; Hastert is being demanded to step down.
The double standard is glaring. Worse, it shows a lack of care and concern for the victims of Studds. And don't get me wrong. Foley needed to leave. What he did was absolutely inappropriate. He needs punishment. But there are others I wonder about. Where was the cry for blood by the Democrats back then? Suddenly they cry foul now, but when their own guy was found guilty of WORSE things, they didn't demand he skip town and loose the job. Nope.
Where was John Murtha back in the 70's? Why didn't he call for the removal of Studds AND O'Neil?
Where was Steny Hoyer?
Where was John Dingell?
Where was Robert Byrd?
Where was William J. Coyne?
Where was Ted Kennedy?
Where was Barney Frank?
A proven sexual preditor kept his job in the House. An accused email predator is told to get out of Dodge.
You do the math.
The hypocrisy of the Left is so glaringly obvious and yet people are so blind.
To what, you might ask?
MSNBC reported today:
"First openly gay person elected to Congress dies--
Former Mass. Rep. Gerry Studds had a blood clot in his lung, husband says"
First off, there's no such thing as a homosexual marriage. This is just another way the liberal media is trying so incredibly hard to push their agenda down our throats.
Marriage, by the Creator's definition is: one man and one woman in an exclusive, monogamous relationship that foresakes all others.
Like Adam and Eve. That was the first wedding ever recorded. Its in the opening pages of the Holy Bible. Others are mentioned in Scripture, and interestingly, the Scripture ends in a marriage feast.
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Marriage is a beautiful thing. Most importantly, it reflects in many ways, of the believer's relationship with Christ Jesus:
Eph 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Eph 5:24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph 5:28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
Eph 5:29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,
Eph 5:30 because we are members of his body.
Eph 5:31 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."
Eph 5:32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
Eph 5:33 However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
2Co 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.
Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. [See also Rev. 19:7-9].
This is why, I believe, God hates homosexuality. It distorts and twists His creation of marriage, which ultimately is a slap in the face to Him. It turns what is beautiful and a reflection of our relationship with God, into something unholy, vile, and wicked. It dishonors God.
One of the reasons why God rightly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was that they practiced homosexuality:
Gen 18:20 Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave
Gen 19:5 And they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."
Gen 19:6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him,
Gen 19:7 and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.
Gen 19:25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
Jer 23:14 But in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: they commit adultery and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his evil; all of them have become like Sodom to me, and its inhabitants like Gomorrah."
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Ti 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
God sees homosexuality as an evil, illegitimate relationship which goes directly against His command. It is the result of a hardened, sinful, unbelieving heart. To enter heaven, one must repent of his sin (including homosexuality and all immorality), and turn to Christ Jesus alone for the forgiveness of those sins, and for eternal life. Sin requires judgement: it was either taken by Christ on your behalf or it will be personally required of you in hell. No matter the sin--"little" or "big". One sin earns death and hell. But the free gift of God is eternal life, found solely in His Son, Christ, and not of our own works.
Back to Mr. Studds....
What irked me was the double standard given to Studds in the majority-ruled House and how they Democrats today want the blood of Speaker Hastert.
One year after getting into office, Studds took advantage of a 17 year old page and had sex with him. He attempted to molested others as well. TEN years AFTER this, the House decided to move to censure Studds and Studds kept his job for another 14 years.
Where was the call for Tip O'Neil's resignation back then? Where was the accusation of O'Neil covering up information?
Dennis Hasterts dealt with Mark Foley. He was removed. Not censured so he could continue to work around pages. No, he was REMOVED from his position. So now the Democrats have the shoe on the other foot and are suddenly outraged over emails? Over advances? Folely, as we know it so far, did not have sex with underaged pages. Studds did. In my state, this would constitute rape, consenual or not.
Studds, the repeat sexual preditor of minors, skated free; Folely who sent sexually explicit emails gets removed. Tip O'neil kept his job; Hastert is being demanded to step down.
The double standard is glaring. Worse, it shows a lack of care and concern for the victims of Studds. And don't get me wrong. Foley needed to leave. What he did was absolutely inappropriate. He needs punishment. But there are others I wonder about. Where was the cry for blood by the Democrats back then? Suddenly they cry foul now, but when their own guy was found guilty of WORSE things, they didn't demand he skip town and loose the job. Nope.
Where was John Murtha back in the 70's? Why didn't he call for the removal of Studds AND O'Neil?
Where was Steny Hoyer?
Where was John Dingell?
Where was Robert Byrd?
Where was William J. Coyne?
Where was Ted Kennedy?
Where was Barney Frank?
A proven sexual preditor kept his job in the House. An accused email predator is told to get out of Dodge.
You do the math.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Proud, dogmatic, and self-important
(Newton's letter on "Blemishes in Christian character")
"Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble." 1 Peter 3:8'
Austerus' is a solid and exemplary Christian. He has a deep, extensive, and experimental knowledge of Divine things. Inflexibly and invariably true to his principles, he stems with a noble singularity the torrent of the world, and can neither be bribed nor intimidated from the path of duty. He is a rough diamond of great intrinsic value, and would sparkle with a distinguished luster--if he were more polished. But, though the word of God is his daily study, and he prizes the precepts, as well as the promises, more than thousands of gold and silver, there is one precept he seems to have overlooked--"be compassionate and humble."
Instead of that gentleness and humility which will always be expected from a professed follower of the meek and lowly Jesus, there is a harshness in his manner, which makes him more admired than beloved; and those who truly love him, often feel more constraint than pleasure when in his company. His intimate friends are satisfied that he is no stranger to true humility of heart; but these are few. By others he is thought proud, dogmatic, and self-important; nor can this prejudice against him be easily removed, until he can lay aside that cynical air which he has unhappily contracted.
How lamentable are such blemishes in such a person!
I pray that the Lord would continue to help me find the balance of uncompromisingly standing for Truth, being fierce when needed, and yet also having a heart of love for Him and reflecting that to others. Grace and truth is our Savior. I need it too.
To the church at Ephesus:
Rev 2:2 "'I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. 3 I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary.
4 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.
"Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble." 1 Peter 3:8'
Austerus' is a solid and exemplary Christian. He has a deep, extensive, and experimental knowledge of Divine things. Inflexibly and invariably true to his principles, he stems with a noble singularity the torrent of the world, and can neither be bribed nor intimidated from the path of duty. He is a rough diamond of great intrinsic value, and would sparkle with a distinguished luster--if he were more polished. But, though the word of God is his daily study, and he prizes the precepts, as well as the promises, more than thousands of gold and silver, there is one precept he seems to have overlooked--"be compassionate and humble."
Instead of that gentleness and humility which will always be expected from a professed follower of the meek and lowly Jesus, there is a harshness in his manner, which makes him more admired than beloved; and those who truly love him, often feel more constraint than pleasure when in his company. His intimate friends are satisfied that he is no stranger to true humility of heart; but these are few. By others he is thought proud, dogmatic, and self-important; nor can this prejudice against him be easily removed, until he can lay aside that cynical air which he has unhappily contracted.
How lamentable are such blemishes in such a person!
I pray that the Lord would continue to help me find the balance of uncompromisingly standing for Truth, being fierce when needed, and yet also having a heart of love for Him and reflecting that to others. Grace and truth is our Savior. I need it too.
To the church at Ephesus:
Rev 2:2 "'I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. 3 I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary.
4 But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Church Of England: God as Male and Violent Leads Some to Abuse
According to World Net Daily: "Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is backing a Church of England report that claims viewing God in masculine terms can validate "overbearing and ultimately violent patterns of behavior" in intimate relationships and "contributes to domestic abuse," the London Daily Mail reports. "
The report, entitled "Responding to Domestic Abuse, Guidelines for Pastory Responsibility" claims that "misguided" or distorted views of God, based on the Old Testament portrays Him and His power in "unhealthy and oppressive" ways. Things like crediting God with violent acts and atittudes "requires 'careful' interpretation, the report warns." Apparently this view of God, in addition to Him being male, is at the heart of some who want to validate their own violent and abusive behavior.
This anti-biblical, liberal garbage is not new. However it continues to perpetuate a few things:
1. Pagan/gnostic feminism; 2. abusers are not responsible for their own actions, and 3. an unclear reading of biblical texts. What Scripture says seems to be clouded in mystery, which only the RCC or EOD, apparently, can interpret for us. It also echoes "Hath God really said?" from the Devil himself.
I have quoted John MacArthur on the pagan and gnostic roots of feminism here. What comes to mind regarding the Church Of England (COE) and its archbishop's view (Rowan is an honorary druid), is that they are trying to blurr the line of who God claims to be: masculine and Sovereign owner of His creation. In doing so, they change God into who they want Him to be, and they also perpetuate the anti-male notions that man is bad, violent, and a caveman; woman is best, loving, gentle, and kind. Pagan feminism has at its roots these ideas, with the solution of woman being the savior of people. Of course, this is also a slap in the face of Jesus Christ as Creator God and only Savior.
Abusers aren't totally at fault for their behavior because they, apparently according to this liberal thinking, are only acting on what they think is true about God... and thus try to what, immitate Him?
First, abusers are always at fault for their abuse. God expects and indeed calls to account man's sin. To abuse another is sin. For example Exodus 21 covers this. Secondly, God doesn't abuse anyone. All punishment He gives is completely owed to the one who has disobeyed. Thirdly, abusers aren't interested in who God is and loving Him and following Him. Rather, they are all about Self and their wants/needs/desires/demands. So to lay abusers' behavior back on God is a pitiful arguement. This view ties in with the gnostic/feministic view of man versus women (see the article I reference above with quotes from MacArthur showing this very thing).
Scripture clearly reveals who God is (Scripture is inerrant and infallible, making wise the simple, as God says)
Personal masculine pronouns used for God
Psa 25:8 Good and upright is the LORD; therefore He instructs sinners in the way. 9 He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble His way.
Isa 40:10 Behold, the Lord GOD comes with might, and His arm rules for Him; behold, His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him. 11 He will tend His flock like a shepherd; He will gather the lambs in His arms; He will carry them in His bosom, and gently lead those that are with young.
Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is God!), who formed the earth and made it (He established it; He did not create it empty, He formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Gen 5:2 Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and named them Man when they were created.
Deu 32:39 "'See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
Psa 2:4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. 5 Then He will speak to them in His wrath, and terrify them in His fury….
Psa 150:1 Praise the LORD! Praise God in His sanctuary; praise Him in His mighty heavens! [“Him” and “His” is used 13 times in this chapter of 6 verses.]
God refers to Himself as a bridegroom and husband:
Isa 62:5 For as a young man marries a young woman, so shall your sons marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you. [See John 3:29.]
Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
God refers to Himself as a Father
Jer 31:9 With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
Psa 68:5 Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation.
God is King
Psa 22:28 For kingship belongs to the LORD, and He rules over the nations.
“Father”, “Son”, “Prince” used in reference to Jesus Christ, who is God:
Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
God the Father and Jesus the Son are masculine
Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).
Joh 5:20 For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all that He Himself is doing. And greater works than these will He show Him, so that you may marvel.
Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God.
The Trinity is masculine:
Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. You know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
As far as attributing violent acts to God, Scripture says the following:
God took credit for destroying the whole world and all but eight people on it
Gen 6:17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die. [Gen. 7:17-24 we see that indeed it happened just as God said He would do it.]
God took credit for destroying Sodom and Gomorrah
Gen 19:28 And he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the valley, and he looked and, behold, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace. 29 So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow when He overthrew the cities in which Lot had lived.
Mat 10:15 Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.
2Pe 2:6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes He condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
God took credit for bringing disaster upon Israel
2Chron. 7: 20 then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. 21 And though this temple is now so imposing, all who pass by will be appalled and say, ‘Why has the LORD done such a thing to this land and to this temple?’ 22 People will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the LORD, the God of their fathers, who brought them out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why He brought all this disaster on them.’”
Jer 25:8 "Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: Because you have not obeyed my words, 9 behold, I will send for all the tribes of the north, declares the LORD, and for Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote them to destruction, and make them a horror, a hissing, and an everlasting desolation.
Jer 25:10 Moreover, I will banish from them the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the grinding of the millstones and the light of the lamp. 11 This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
[Indeed we see this happen in the historical book of Daniel.]
God took credit for moving kings to bring war to nations
Deut. 2: 30 But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For the LORD your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done.
Josh. 11: 20 For it was the LORD Himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that He might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
Prov. 21: 1 The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD; He directs it like a watercourse wherever He pleases.
God took credit for killing the firstborn in Egypt
Ex. 4: 4 So Moses said, “This is what the LORD says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.
Ex. 12: 12 “On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD.
Ex. 12: 29 At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.
Note: God uses evil men for His purposes. However, at the same time, Scripture says that God lays the sin at the feet of each person. The balance between this is seen here:
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.”
Jer. 25:9 and 27:6 calls King Nebuchadnezzar "My servant" and uses him to destroy Judah, Israel, and Egypt. However, He later punishes Nebuchadnezzar, because his heart was filled with sin and unbelief. The good news is that Nebuchadnezzar was saved and given a new heart and faith and he praised God and was humbled by Him. See Daniel 4.
Jer 44: 2 “This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: You saw the great disaster I brought on Jerusalem and on all the towns of Judah. Today they lie deserted and in ruins 3 because of the evil they have done.
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.
God destroys other nations:
Is. 14: 24 The LORD Almighty has sworn, “Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will stand. 25 I will crush the Assyrian in my land; on my mountains I will trample him down. His yoke will be taken from my people, and his burden removed from their shoulders.” 26 This is the plan determined for the whole world; this is the hand stretched out over all nations. 27 For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back?
Rev. 17: 16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish His purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God’s words are fulfilled.
God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is immutable. He doesn't change like shifting shadows. The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament. God is love, patient, perfect, merciful, kind, gracious, slow to anger and abounding in love. He is also pure, holy, righteous, just. Because of this He must always deal with sinners and their sin. His attributes are not in opposition to each other but actually work in harmony; therefore we cannot omit the attributes we dislike and talk only of the ones we do. To ignore any of His attributes as if "that was God then, not now" is to reject the God of Scripture.
Here are a few other New Testament verses about God's coming wrath:
Rev 19:15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
2 Thes. 1: 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.
Act 5:9 But Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.
I suggest reading Jonathon Edward’s “Sinners In the Hands of An Angry God” here.
May such men like Archbishop Rowan take heed:
Heb 10:29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Where I was On 9-11-01
Five years ago today I was awakened at 7 a.m. by a phone call from my sister telling me what had just happened. I sat in utter shock watching airplanes crash into the World Trade Center. At the time, two of my daughters were 8 and 4 years old.
But as we sat in disbelief, the news came in that there was another plane still in the air. That was Flight 93. Hostages were of course, on board.
That's when my oldest daughter and I stopped and prayed for those people.
Who would've thought it was God's plan to have so many in an airplane being held hostage, while His children down below praying for them? Its amazing how God works.
We saw the Lord's answer in part that day. Later we saw much more of what took place: heroes who stood against evil men that day, Americans fighting for other Americans, ready for battle in the face of the death they knew was imminent. The call to arms: Let's roll!
They did. We prayed. God answered.
Of all the things I remember about 9-11, the fact that God called me and my daughter to pray for those on Flight 93, is what stands out the most.
The rest of that day my oldest daughter played a song by Twila Paris, "God Is In Control" which speaks of God's faithfulness to His children. It was quite appropriate for her to choose that song, this little 8 year old girl. She knew who to go to, who to trust. She got it right that day.
We serve a sovereign God. His ways are not our ways; His thoughts, His plans, are not our's. We must trust Him not only for eternal life, but in the events of life--both little and big.
Out of His grace, the Lord has told us the end of human history: the return of the Lord Jesus Christ as Judge and Victor. Sin, death, the Devil, hell....will all be destroyed utterly. The Lake of Fire will be full for eternity. He WILL have His way. He WILL do away with His enemy and our's. And we will worship Him as we one day see all His glory.
I hope as we think about what happened 5 years ago, and what has happened since, and what will happen in the future, we turn to Christ for truth, eternal life, forgiveness of our wicked sin, peace, and hope. May we repent of our sin, recognizing that as individuals and as a nation, without true faith and trust in Christ Jesus, our hopes are vain, our strength is weak, our lives are fleeting, and our best efforts and intentions are full of sin, and we offend a holy God.
But as we sat in disbelief, the news came in that there was another plane still in the air. That was Flight 93. Hostages were of course, on board.
That's when my oldest daughter and I stopped and prayed for those people.
Who would've thought it was God's plan to have so many in an airplane being held hostage, while His children down below praying for them? Its amazing how God works.
We saw the Lord's answer in part that day. Later we saw much more of what took place: heroes who stood against evil men that day, Americans fighting for other Americans, ready for battle in the face of the death they knew was imminent. The call to arms: Let's roll!
They did. We prayed. God answered.
Of all the things I remember about 9-11, the fact that God called me and my daughter to pray for those on Flight 93, is what stands out the most.
The rest of that day my oldest daughter played a song by Twila Paris, "God Is In Control" which speaks of God's faithfulness to His children. It was quite appropriate for her to choose that song, this little 8 year old girl. She knew who to go to, who to trust. She got it right that day.
We serve a sovereign God. His ways are not our ways; His thoughts, His plans, are not our's. We must trust Him not only for eternal life, but in the events of life--both little and big.
Out of His grace, the Lord has told us the end of human history: the return of the Lord Jesus Christ as Judge and Victor. Sin, death, the Devil, hell....will all be destroyed utterly. The Lake of Fire will be full for eternity. He WILL have His way. He WILL do away with His enemy and our's. And we will worship Him as we one day see all His glory.
I hope as we think about what happened 5 years ago, and what has happened since, and what will happen in the future, we turn to Christ for truth, eternal life, forgiveness of our wicked sin, peace, and hope. May we repent of our sin, recognizing that as individuals and as a nation, without true faith and trust in Christ Jesus, our hopes are vain, our strength is weak, our lives are fleeting, and our best efforts and intentions are full of sin, and we offend a holy God.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Emergent/Contemplative Spirituality Coming to Mainstream T.V.
Sue Monk Kidd, author and Contemplative Mystic, has her book "The Mermaid Chair" coming to the small screen Saturday, September 9, 2006 on Lifetime channel.
The movie/book is about (what else?) a married women who must deal with various issues in her life (lonliness, questioning where she is now in her life, etc. etc.--same old complaints) and ends up falling in love with (surprise, surprise) a Bendict monk.
Full synopsis from Lifetime's website:
"I think a woman wants love and freedom at the same time. When I was writing the book, I was exploring that concept. I think a lot of women can relate to it."— Author Sue Monk Kidd
"Take a journey of mystery, passion and self-discovery with Academy Award® winning actress Kim Basinger in a powerful story based on the best-seller "The Mermaid Chair." The movie follows married mom Jessie, who just sent her daughter off to school and now feels alone and listless in her 20-year marriage. When this restless wife gets a disturbing phone call, she must return to her childhood home on a beautiful Southern island to deal with the shocking behavior of her mentally unstable mother. During this visit, she finds herself undeniably attracted to a Benedictine monk. While struggling with this temptation and delving into her family's secretive past, Jessie undergoes a spiritual, artistic and erotic awakening. Her experiences on the island lead Jessie to discover her true self and what she really wants from her life. "
Yes folks, its all about Self. This is the rebellion and sin of Satan and then of Adam and Eve. Feminism. Sadly being a mother , wife, and daughter isn't enough, even though for godly women it is.
Feminism is not only worldly, its pagan. Its founding is in Gnosticism.
John MacArthur says:
If you read ancient Gnostic literature you will see that they attack the Creator God, they mock Him, they disdain Him with a disdain that even has components of hatred in it. They hate the Creator God who made matter because to them matter was evil, and it becomes the prison of the free floating spirit.
According to one recently discovered Gnostic text, God the Creator is presented as, "Blind, ignorant, arrogant, the source of envy, and they call him the 'Father of Death.'" Gnostics believe that this fake god somehow (and they have to believe this or their whole thing would fall apart)--this fake god somehow, when he created the universe, accidentally infused into humanity some spark of divine life. They would have to say that or they would have no way to fan the spark of divine life that they want to believe that is in them. So that man is divine: there is a little component of divinity in him which he needs to fan until it just consumes him and he becomes fully divine. But here is this man with the divine spark, or this woman with a divine spark imprisoned in evil matter, and he has to find, or she has to find, a way to escape.
Gnostics taught that there is no such thing as sin, because there is no such thing as right and wrong in the human realm; therefore, there is no need for a Savior, there is no need for a death on the cross, there is no need for an atonement. What they needed to do to be saved was (listen to this) "Throw off the God of the Old Testament--this evil God." Throw off the God of the New Testament with all of His laws and all of His threats, and all of His so-called punishment. Throw off the whole Old and the whole New Testament and free yourself from the encumbering of this subgod, this bungling creator who did what he never should have done and created a prison for us in doing it.
So you can see that the first tenet of their system was a blasphemy against God--calling God evil, bungling, ignorant. The system also included (listen to this) lies that elevated women.
Ancient Gnosticism focused on women, this is what it said, for example, "Eve was a spirit endowed woman who saved Adam." They said, "Final salvation for the whole world from the imprisonment of matter will come through female power, and the key is female self-actualization, self-realization, self-knowledge, in which a woman becomes so fully in tune with herself and so well knows herself, and actualizes, and realizes and fulfills herself that she becomes fully divine, and as she becomes divine she will rescue the rest of these lame men just like Eve, fully divine, rescued poor Adam."
In fact, convoluting the creation account, Gnostic texts tell us that Dame Wisdom was the heavenly Eve. There was a mystical heavenly woman named "The Heavenly Eve" who is the same as Dame Wisdom (she is the source of all wisdom). She entered the snake in the garden, and she taught both Adam and Eve the true way of salvation. The snake then is not called the "Tempter," the snake in Gnostic literature is the "Instructor." The snake is ultimate wisdom, the snake was wiser than anybody else. The snake, it says in Gnostic literature, is the redeemer because the snake is the incarnated woman who comes to heavenly Eve and teaches the truth about self-realization, which is self-fulfillment, which is making yourself divine, which delivers you from being encumbered by matter.
"Though caught in matter," they say, the Gnostics, "humanity once again can become part of the universal whole by a process of self-realization." They say in the Book of Genesis, "The lack of self-realization is really the problem that man has." The Bible says that man's problem is sin--sin! And the root of his sin is his self-preoccupation, so they flip that completely around.
So the heart and core of Gnostic religion then is the "consubstantiality of self with God;" you make yourself into God. You are the only God that exists: you get in tune with yourself, you elevate yourself--self-esteem, self-knowledge, self-actualization, self-realization, self-fulfillment; whatever your self wants that's how you become God--you just give complete sway to your own self-desire.
End quote.
MacArthur shares a few quotes with us from the Feminist leaders which are right in line with the gnostic lies:
The "Declaration of Feminism" goes back to November of 1971 when they laid out their agenda and this is what it says, "The end of the institution of marriage is necessary for the liberation of women; therefore, it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not live individually with men. All of history must be rewritten in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft!" Mark that, "We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft!"
Anne Lori Gaylor writing an article called "Feminist Salvation" in the "Humanist" in 1988 says, "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women. 2,000 years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women towards the feminist salvation of the world."
End quote.
Back to Sue Monk Kidd:
Lighthousetrailsresearch says:
"[Sue] Monk Kidd's spirituality is spelled out clearly in her book, When the Heart Waits. She explains: There's a bulb of truth buried in the human soul [everyone] that's only God ... the soul is more than something to win or save. It's the seat and repository of the inner Divine, the God-image, the truest part of us"—Ray Yungen, A Time of Departing, 2nd ed., p. 134
"Her most powerful awakening, however, still lay ahead of her ... Sue's explorations and study took an unexpected turn into feminist theology. The result was The Dance of the Dissident Daughter."
The Dance of the Dissident Daughter"Sue Monk was a "conventionally religious, churchgoing woman, a traditional wife and mother" with a thriving career as a Christian writer until she began to question her role as a woman in her culture, her family, and her church. From a jarring encounter with sexism in a suburban drugstore to monastery retreats and rituals in the caves of Crete, Kidd takes readers through the fear, anger, healing, and transformation of her awakening."—From the Back Cover
This feminist is hailed by David Jeremiah (thought by many to be a mainstream, "solid" Bible teacher, and now Kidd's book is coming to t.v. to hook more women into her pagan religion.
Scripture clearly states that all mankind is born in hostility toward God, dead in sins and transgressions (Rom. 3:10-18; Eph. 2:1-4; Rom. 8:7). No one has any "good" in them. All are in desperate need of the Savior. Without trusting in Christ Jesus as the only way, truth and life, no one will go to heaven and to the Father, and God's wrath will continue to abide on him. The way to eternal life, Jesus said, is narrow and few that find it. Destruction's way is broad and many will go there.
In addition to that, God's high calling for women is to be wives and mothers; to learn to love their husbands and submit to them, and to learn to love their children, to be busy at home, to minister to their familes first and foremost, then to other women and children within the local church. Titus 2 isn't an option.
Don't be fooled, folks. Kidd is a false teacher and is NOT teaching biblical truths whatsoever.
The movie/book is about (what else?) a married women who must deal with various issues in her life (lonliness, questioning where she is now in her life, etc. etc.--same old complaints) and ends up falling in love with (surprise, surprise) a Bendict monk.
Full synopsis from Lifetime's website:
"I think a woman wants love and freedom at the same time. When I was writing the book, I was exploring that concept. I think a lot of women can relate to it."— Author Sue Monk Kidd
"Take a journey of mystery, passion and self-discovery with Academy Award® winning actress Kim Basinger in a powerful story based on the best-seller "The Mermaid Chair." The movie follows married mom Jessie, who just sent her daughter off to school and now feels alone and listless in her 20-year marriage. When this restless wife gets a disturbing phone call, she must return to her childhood home on a beautiful Southern island to deal with the shocking behavior of her mentally unstable mother. During this visit, she finds herself undeniably attracted to a Benedictine monk. While struggling with this temptation and delving into her family's secretive past, Jessie undergoes a spiritual, artistic and erotic awakening. Her experiences on the island lead Jessie to discover her true self and what she really wants from her life. "
Yes folks, its all about Self. This is the rebellion and sin of Satan and then of Adam and Eve. Feminism. Sadly being a mother , wife, and daughter isn't enough, even though for godly women it is.
Feminism is not only worldly, its pagan. Its founding is in Gnosticism.
John MacArthur says:
If you read ancient Gnostic literature you will see that they attack the Creator God, they mock Him, they disdain Him with a disdain that even has components of hatred in it. They hate the Creator God who made matter because to them matter was evil, and it becomes the prison of the free floating spirit.
According to one recently discovered Gnostic text, God the Creator is presented as, "Blind, ignorant, arrogant, the source of envy, and they call him the 'Father of Death.'" Gnostics believe that this fake god somehow (and they have to believe this or their whole thing would fall apart)--this fake god somehow, when he created the universe, accidentally infused into humanity some spark of divine life. They would have to say that or they would have no way to fan the spark of divine life that they want to believe that is in them. So that man is divine: there is a little component of divinity in him which he needs to fan until it just consumes him and he becomes fully divine. But here is this man with the divine spark, or this woman with a divine spark imprisoned in evil matter, and he has to find, or she has to find, a way to escape.
Gnostics taught that there is no such thing as sin, because there is no such thing as right and wrong in the human realm; therefore, there is no need for a Savior, there is no need for a death on the cross, there is no need for an atonement. What they needed to do to be saved was (listen to this) "Throw off the God of the Old Testament--this evil God." Throw off the God of the New Testament with all of His laws and all of His threats, and all of His so-called punishment. Throw off the whole Old and the whole New Testament and free yourself from the encumbering of this subgod, this bungling creator who did what he never should have done and created a prison for us in doing it.
So you can see that the first tenet of their system was a blasphemy against God--calling God evil, bungling, ignorant. The system also included (listen to this) lies that elevated women.
Ancient Gnosticism focused on women, this is what it said, for example, "Eve was a spirit endowed woman who saved Adam." They said, "Final salvation for the whole world from the imprisonment of matter will come through female power, and the key is female self-actualization, self-realization, self-knowledge, in which a woman becomes so fully in tune with herself and so well knows herself, and actualizes, and realizes and fulfills herself that she becomes fully divine, and as she becomes divine she will rescue the rest of these lame men just like Eve, fully divine, rescued poor Adam."
In fact, convoluting the creation account, Gnostic texts tell us that Dame Wisdom was the heavenly Eve. There was a mystical heavenly woman named "The Heavenly Eve" who is the same as Dame Wisdom (she is the source of all wisdom). She entered the snake in the garden, and she taught both Adam and Eve the true way of salvation. The snake then is not called the "Tempter," the snake in Gnostic literature is the "Instructor." The snake is ultimate wisdom, the snake was wiser than anybody else. The snake, it says in Gnostic literature, is the redeemer because the snake is the incarnated woman who comes to heavenly Eve and teaches the truth about self-realization, which is self-fulfillment, which is making yourself divine, which delivers you from being encumbered by matter.
"Though caught in matter," they say, the Gnostics, "humanity once again can become part of the universal whole by a process of self-realization." They say in the Book of Genesis, "The lack of self-realization is really the problem that man has." The Bible says that man's problem is sin--sin! And the root of his sin is his self-preoccupation, so they flip that completely around.
So the heart and core of Gnostic religion then is the "consubstantiality of self with God;" you make yourself into God. You are the only God that exists: you get in tune with yourself, you elevate yourself--self-esteem, self-knowledge, self-actualization, self-realization, self-fulfillment; whatever your self wants that's how you become God--you just give complete sway to your own self-desire.
End quote.
MacArthur shares a few quotes with us from the Feminist leaders which are right in line with the gnostic lies:
The "Declaration of Feminism" goes back to November of 1971 when they laid out their agenda and this is what it says, "The end of the institution of marriage is necessary for the liberation of women; therefore, it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not live individually with men. All of history must be rewritten in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft!" Mark that, "We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft!"
Anne Lori Gaylor writing an article called "Feminist Salvation" in the "Humanist" in 1988 says, "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women. 2,000 years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women towards the feminist salvation of the world."
End quote.
Back to Sue Monk Kidd:
Lighthousetrailsresearch says:
"[Sue] Monk Kidd's spirituality is spelled out clearly in her book, When the Heart Waits. She explains: There's a bulb of truth buried in the human soul [everyone] that's only God ... the soul is more than something to win or save. It's the seat and repository of the inner Divine, the God-image, the truest part of us"—Ray Yungen, A Time of Departing, 2nd ed., p. 134
"Her most powerful awakening, however, still lay ahead of her ... Sue's explorations and study took an unexpected turn into feminist theology. The result was The Dance of the Dissident Daughter."
The Dance of the Dissident Daughter"Sue Monk was a "conventionally religious, churchgoing woman, a traditional wife and mother" with a thriving career as a Christian writer until she began to question her role as a woman in her culture, her family, and her church. From a jarring encounter with sexism in a suburban drugstore to monastery retreats and rituals in the caves of Crete, Kidd takes readers through the fear, anger, healing, and transformation of her awakening."—From the Back Cover
This feminist is hailed by David Jeremiah (thought by many to be a mainstream, "solid" Bible teacher, and now Kidd's book is coming to t.v. to hook more women into her pagan religion.
Scripture clearly states that all mankind is born in hostility toward God, dead in sins and transgressions (Rom. 3:10-18; Eph. 2:1-4; Rom. 8:7). No one has any "good" in them. All are in desperate need of the Savior. Without trusting in Christ Jesus as the only way, truth and life, no one will go to heaven and to the Father, and God's wrath will continue to abide on him. The way to eternal life, Jesus said, is narrow and few that find it. Destruction's way is broad and many will go there.
In addition to that, God's high calling for women is to be wives and mothers; to learn to love their husbands and submit to them, and to learn to love their children, to be busy at home, to minister to their familes first and foremost, then to other women and children within the local church. Titus 2 isn't an option.
Don't be fooled, folks. Kidd is a false teacher and is NOT teaching biblical truths whatsoever.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Marilyn Hickey Promotes Unbelievers
Doing a some research yesterday, I found that false pastor and teacher, Marilyn Hickey and her daughter, Sarah Bowling, promote unbelievers to teach their audience about Christ:
Famous Christians in History is a chance to study the lives of renowned believers who made a difference in their world. You will be encouraged as you discover how God uses ordinary people to accomplish extraordinary things.
Includes:• Accounts of their struggles, triumphs, and failures• Looks into their private lives • Stories of how they defended our faith or became famous living it out• Timeline to help you relate their lives to world events
Among those they promote are: Madam Guyon, Roman Catholic mystic; and William Braham, who was an anti-Trinitiarian.
What is disturbing is the encouragement of professing Christians to read Madam Guyon (Jeanne Marie Bouvier De La Motte, 1648-1717). She was a Roman Catholic mystic and studied as well as taught the Eastern mystical contemplative spirituality. She is highly recommended by many in the Emergent Church Movement/Contemplative Spirituality circles. Christianity Today endorses her. As well, she is recommended on the dvd "Be Still".
Here are two her quotes, found from Lighthousetrailsresearch:
"Here [the contemplative state] everything is God. God is everywhere and in all things."
This is a pantheistic, perhaps even panentheistic, view of God, hardly biblical whatsoever. God is not everything, rather He is the Creator, unlike all He creator. He is unique, set apart:
Isa 40:18 To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?
Revelation proclaims the destruction of unbelievers, Satan, the Beast, death,and hell (Rev. 19:20; 20:10,14,15). This is incompatable with "all is in God and God is in all" view.
She also taught, "May I hasten to say that the kind of prayer I am speaking of is not a prayer that comes from YOUR MIND. It is a prayer that begins in THE HEART.... PRAYER THAT COMES FROM THE HEART IS NOT INTERRUPTED BY THINKING!"[Experiencing The Depths of Jesus Christ p. 4]
1Cor. 14: 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.
According to Richard Fisher, "The school of mysticism that Guyon adhered to, sometimes called Quietism, was an extreme form of Roman Catholic mysticism that emphasized the cleansing of one’s inner life and included the belief that one could see Christ visibly."
"She taught that we can know of God by “passing forward into God,”7 going into a mindless, meditative state where we can get in touch with the Christ within the self, merge with that Christ and be lifted into ecstasy."
To their shame, Moody Press published her autobiography. Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) offers her book online as well. If CCEL offers it for research purposes, they need to boldly designate it as such. Otherwise it can been seen as an endorsement.
Whitaker House now publishes the book, which given their line of heretical books (Mary K. Baxter, E. W. Kenyon, Rebecca Brown) is much more understandable (one wonders why they promote their fictional book, "Winds of Evil" by Sharon Gilbert as "Be afraid of things that go bump in the night". Christians are not to be fearful nor be anxious about anything--but I digress).
For a thorough treatment of what Guyon taught, read Fisher's article here.
Lastly, Marilyn Hickey and her daughter Sarah promote William Brahman to their readers.
Branham said, "...not one place in the Bible is trinity ever mentioned...It's Catholic error and you Protestants bow to it" (Conduct, Order, Doctrine Q and A, p. 182). "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is offices of one God. He was the Father; He was the Son; He is the Holy Ghost. It's three offices or three dispensations,..." (Ibid., p. 392). This view of the Godhead is called Modalism and is a false and heretical view of God.
Branham explained, "There never was a person baptized in the name of `Father, Son, Holy Ghost' until early Catholicc church" (Ibid., p. 178)....Branham attempted to explain the distinction, "You see, you misunderstand it then. It's one God in three dispensations....
The Trinity, however is not a Roman Catholic doctrine. Rather its biblical. The Trinity is defined as: One God, and within that one God there exists three co-equal and co-eternal persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son, nor is the Holy Spirit the Father or the Son. They are distinct from one another, having a loving relationship between them, communication between them, the giving of gifts between them, and submission (the Spirit to the Son, and the Son to the Father).
Interestingly, Robert Bowman says:
Oneness accuses the Church of being tied with Rome with the Trinity being of pagan origin. History shows the doctrine of the Trinity was there long before Constantine’s time when the Church in Rome became a center for Christianity after it was legal to be a Christian.
Despite the accusation's of the Roman Church inventing and promoting the Trinity we find the Church in Rome falling prey to numerous falsehoods that they tried to keep out, one of which was Oneness. Almost 125 years before Constantine conflict arose with what is classified as modalism (Oneness Pentecostalism). This teaching found support with two early Bishops of Rome, Zephyrinus and Callistus. Zephyrinus was the head Bishop at the time and was attracted to the Modalistic view. Caught between two major factions trying to keep the peace, he was advised by his soon to be successor Callistus on how to keep both sides satisfied. After Zephyrinus died in 217 A.D. Callistus kept his policy and Modalism became the official theory in Rome for almost a generation. He also was determined to excommunicate both Sabellius ( who promoted Modalism) as well as Hippolytus (who promoted the Trinity) who he accused of promoting two Gods. He devised a formulae that would satisfy the contention of both parties to keep the peace, since he considered himself the Pope.
Only the Christian God is triune, and consequently, to deny the Trinity is to say that, historically, Judaism and Islam have been right about the being of God, while Christianity has been wrong. Oneness writers have said as much.
--Robert Bowman Jr. www.gospeloutreach.net
For an outline of verses that show the Trinity, go here and here.
Branham also taught that Eve had sex with the Serpent in the Garden,with Cain as the product of that union:
"Here is what actually happened in the Garden of Eden. The Word says that Eve was beguiled by the serpent. She was actually seduced by the serpent. He was as close to being a human that his seed could, and did mingle with that of the woman and cause her to conceive" (The Original Sin, pp. 2, 3).
For a detailed article dealing with the life and doctrine of Branham, go to Watchman apologetic website*. I found excellent quotes there for this article.
Of course Gen. 4:1 says: Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD."
Scripture attributes the birth of Cain to Adam and God. Not the devil. This is so clear that a child can understand it.
Claiming to be the forerunner endtime prophet to Jesus' return (move over John the Baptist!), he tried to predict that America would be destroyed in 1977 (The Seven Church Ages, p. 322)., but as you know, we're all still here. This proves he was a false prophet in addition to being a false teacher and false pastor.
One wonders if either Marilyn or Sarah have ever bothered to read Branham's material or do research on him, because had they done so, they would not offer him as an influence Christian man. As far as I know, Hicky claims to be a Trinitarian. Supporting Branham would go against that doctrine. Perhaps, like other "Christians" we see on TBN, the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't matter to them. This is to their shame.
As you can see, Marilyn Hickey and her daughter prove Paul's words to be true:
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.
These two are decieved themselves and are disobedient to clear commands of Scripture. They should not be listened to.
*A cautionary note: on the page on Braham at Watchman, they offer Greg Boyd's "Oneness Pentecostals & The Trinity" for further reading on Oneness Pentecostals, but Boyd, once a Oneness Pentecostal himself, has since continued in heresy, the latest of which is the Open View of God--that God doesn't know all things and has limited understanding.
Famous Christians in History is a chance to study the lives of renowned believers who made a difference in their world. You will be encouraged as you discover how God uses ordinary people to accomplish extraordinary things.
Includes:• Accounts of their struggles, triumphs, and failures• Looks into their private lives • Stories of how they defended our faith or became famous living it out• Timeline to help you relate their lives to world events
Among those they promote are: Madam Guyon, Roman Catholic mystic; and William Braham, who was an anti-Trinitiarian.
What is disturbing is the encouragement of professing Christians to read Madam Guyon (Jeanne Marie Bouvier De La Motte, 1648-1717). She was a Roman Catholic mystic and studied as well as taught the Eastern mystical contemplative spirituality. She is highly recommended by many in the Emergent Church Movement/Contemplative Spirituality circles. Christianity Today endorses her. As well, she is recommended on the dvd "Be Still".
Here are two her quotes, found from Lighthousetrailsresearch:
"Here [the contemplative state] everything is God. God is everywhere and in all things."
This is a pantheistic, perhaps even panentheistic, view of God, hardly biblical whatsoever. God is not everything, rather He is the Creator, unlike all He creator. He is unique, set apart:
Isa 40:18 To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?
Revelation proclaims the destruction of unbelievers, Satan, the Beast, death,and hell (Rev. 19:20; 20:10,14,15). This is incompatable with "all is in God and God is in all" view.
She also taught, "May I hasten to say that the kind of prayer I am speaking of is not a prayer that comes from YOUR MIND. It is a prayer that begins in THE HEART.... PRAYER THAT COMES FROM THE HEART IS NOT INTERRUPTED BY THINKING!"[Experiencing The Depths of Jesus Christ p. 4]
1Cor. 14: 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.
According to Richard Fisher, "The school of mysticism that Guyon adhered to, sometimes called Quietism, was an extreme form of Roman Catholic mysticism that emphasized the cleansing of one’s inner life and included the belief that one could see Christ visibly."
"She taught that we can know of God by “passing forward into God,”7 going into a mindless, meditative state where we can get in touch with the Christ within the self, merge with that Christ and be lifted into ecstasy."
To their shame, Moody Press published her autobiography. Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) offers her book online as well. If CCEL offers it for research purposes, they need to boldly designate it as such. Otherwise it can been seen as an endorsement.
Whitaker House now publishes the book, which given their line of heretical books (Mary K. Baxter, E. W. Kenyon, Rebecca Brown) is much more understandable (one wonders why they promote their fictional book, "Winds of Evil" by Sharon Gilbert as "Be afraid of things that go bump in the night". Christians are not to be fearful nor be anxious about anything--but I digress).
For a thorough treatment of what Guyon taught, read Fisher's article here.
Lastly, Marilyn Hickey and her daughter Sarah promote William Brahman to their readers.
Branham said, "...not one place in the Bible is trinity ever mentioned...It's Catholic error and you Protestants bow to it" (Conduct, Order, Doctrine Q and A, p. 182). "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is offices of one God. He was the Father; He was the Son; He is the Holy Ghost. It's three offices or three dispensations,..." (Ibid., p. 392). This view of the Godhead is called Modalism and is a false and heretical view of God.
Branham explained, "There never was a person baptized in the name of `Father, Son, Holy Ghost' until early Catholicc church" (Ibid., p. 178)....Branham attempted to explain the distinction, "You see, you misunderstand it then. It's one God in three dispensations....
The Trinity, however is not a Roman Catholic doctrine. Rather its biblical. The Trinity is defined as: One God, and within that one God there exists three co-equal and co-eternal persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son, nor is the Holy Spirit the Father or the Son. They are distinct from one another, having a loving relationship between them, communication between them, the giving of gifts between them, and submission (the Spirit to the Son, and the Son to the Father).
Interestingly, Robert Bowman says:
Oneness accuses the Church of being tied with Rome with the Trinity being of pagan origin. History shows the doctrine of the Trinity was there long before Constantine’s time when the Church in Rome became a center for Christianity after it was legal to be a Christian.
Despite the accusation's of the Roman Church inventing and promoting the Trinity we find the Church in Rome falling prey to numerous falsehoods that they tried to keep out, one of which was Oneness. Almost 125 years before Constantine conflict arose with what is classified as modalism (Oneness Pentecostalism). This teaching found support with two early Bishops of Rome, Zephyrinus and Callistus. Zephyrinus was the head Bishop at the time and was attracted to the Modalistic view. Caught between two major factions trying to keep the peace, he was advised by his soon to be successor Callistus on how to keep both sides satisfied. After Zephyrinus died in 217 A.D. Callistus kept his policy and Modalism became the official theory in Rome for almost a generation. He also was determined to excommunicate both Sabellius ( who promoted Modalism) as well as Hippolytus (who promoted the Trinity) who he accused of promoting two Gods. He devised a formulae that would satisfy the contention of both parties to keep the peace, since he considered himself the Pope.
Only the Christian God is triune, and consequently, to deny the Trinity is to say that, historically, Judaism and Islam have been right about the being of God, while Christianity has been wrong. Oneness writers have said as much.
--Robert Bowman Jr. www.gospeloutreach.net
For an outline of verses that show the Trinity, go here and here.
Branham also taught that Eve had sex with the Serpent in the Garden,with Cain as the product of that union:
"Here is what actually happened in the Garden of Eden. The Word says that Eve was beguiled by the serpent. She was actually seduced by the serpent. He was as close to being a human that his seed could, and did mingle with that of the woman and cause her to conceive" (The Original Sin, pp. 2, 3).
For a detailed article dealing with the life and doctrine of Branham, go to Watchman apologetic website*. I found excellent quotes there for this article.
Of course Gen. 4:1 says: Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD."
Scripture attributes the birth of Cain to Adam and God. Not the devil. This is so clear that a child can understand it.
Claiming to be the forerunner endtime prophet to Jesus' return (move over John the Baptist!), he tried to predict that America would be destroyed in 1977 (The Seven Church Ages, p. 322)., but as you know, we're all still here. This proves he was a false prophet in addition to being a false teacher and false pastor.
One wonders if either Marilyn or Sarah have ever bothered to read Branham's material or do research on him, because had they done so, they would not offer him as an influence Christian man. As far as I know, Hicky claims to be a Trinitarian. Supporting Branham would go against that doctrine. Perhaps, like other "Christians" we see on TBN, the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't matter to them. This is to their shame.
As you can see, Marilyn Hickey and her daughter prove Paul's words to be true:
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.
These two are decieved themselves and are disobedient to clear commands of Scripture. They should not be listened to.
*A cautionary note: on the page on Braham at Watchman, they offer Greg Boyd's "Oneness Pentecostals & The Trinity" for further reading on Oneness Pentecostals, but Boyd, once a Oneness Pentecostal himself, has since continued in heresy, the latest of which is the Open View of God--that God doesn't know all things and has limited understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)