Paul admonished the Ephesians, (Eph 5:16) Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. If one does not keep up with the news, he may not realize just how evil the days are in our time. It would be pleasant to cover up and ignore the conditions of the world in which we live, but it wouldn’t be very smart. Europe is described as having no moral boundaries. It has accepted wholeheartedly the Humanist philosophy that there is no moral standard; everyone should do what feels good with no strings attached. Sadly, America is well on its way to that same destination. Immoral conduct in our country has reached epidemic stage. In England a thirteen year old kid had fathered a child with a fifteen year old girl, and It has received a circus atmosphere. It has been featured in newspapers all over the world, not in condemnation, but as a phenomenon to behold, and marvelled at. Children are being abducted, raped and killed. New cases are featured in the news every day. Parents are being killed by their children, and children by their parents. Our president is for abortion of all kinds, and it appears that to be qualified for his cabinet one must have cheated on his/her income tax, or is being investigated for some other crime. These crimes are excused by the president and his cohorts as “innocent oversights.” So the majority of his cabinet is made up of people who ought to be in prison! That’s exactly where you or I would be under the same circumstances. A Muslim executive of a Television station existing in the US and owned by Muslims for the purpose of trying to convince people of the virtues of Islam, has beheaded his wife, and is in prison charged with second degree murder. (I don’t know how it could possibly be 2nd degree; it looks first degree to me). This happened in the good old USA! This character even called the police and told them where to find the headless body. To cap the climax, Muslims call it an honor killing, and are commending the dirt bag that did it. This is supposed to give us a better view of the virtues of Islam? (Give me a break!) The reason he is being commended for this dastardly act is that he is practicing true Islamic religion regardless of those who like to call it “radical Islam.” It is not “radical Islam,” it is true Islam because it is following the teachings of their so called “holy book.” This is the society in which Christians must exist (And the half has not been told in this short article). It is my desire to keep people apprised of what is coming up down the way, and to strongly admonish one and all That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world (Phil. 2:15).
This article currently has no files available for download. Please check back soon.
(Titus 1:12) One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies (gluttons). (2 Pet 2:12) But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption... I’m in good company when I call some men “evil beasts.” A news item last week told of one of these hijacking a car driven by a lady who had her 13-month-old baby in the back seat. The “evil beast” shot and seriously wounded the mother, and shot the baby in the head! While there have been heartless atrocities in the past, Paul says, (2 Tim 3:13) But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. We must not overlook the fact that Peter says they are “made to be taken and destroyed.” We have a lot of “bleeding hearts” in the world that oppose capital punishment, but they need to realize that they are fighting against God. We need to realize that God says it is possible for men to forfeit their right to live.
Bart Ehrman dissects what he says led to mistakes in the Bible
By MARK I. PINSKY
SENTINEL STAFF WRITER
"When Ned Flanders - the zealous evangelic Simpsons- family is visited by a series of catastrophic misfortunes, he asks why God lets bad things happen to good people. Especially to true believers such as he."
"I've done every thing the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff," Flanders pleads to the Almighty. Still, although the cartoon character's faith is shaken for a moment, it is not shattered.
For Bart Ehrman, 50, the problem of biblical inconsistency is similar but the outcome has been different. Born again as a teenager, and educated at evangelical citadels such as Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, Ehrman's New Testament scholarship is one factor that has led him away from Christianity.
(JPN comment: I deny that true "New Testament scholarship" "has led him away from Christianity." Scholarship is knowing who said what and where. It has nothing to do with what interpretation or misrepresentation the so-called "scholar" makes regarding what he knows about who said what and where.)
"For example, the early Greek manuscripts had no capitalized letters, no punctuation or even spaces between the "words.'"
(JPN comment: The fact that the original manuscripts had no punctuation or space between the words, is a factor in this "scholar's" giving up his faith in the New Testament? Give be a break! That probably was necessitated by the scarcity of writing materials. Obviously the public knew how to read it, so what is the problem? The fact that this "scholar" objects to it is supposed to be a factor in his giving up his faith in the New Testament? I don't think he had much faith to give up!)
"Until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, all of the scribes were educated amateurs. Along the way, some scribes made changes to conform to their theology."
(JPN comment: How did he find out that previous to Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire, "the scribes were educated amateurs"? With all due respect, it would appear that that describes him quite well, that is he sounds like an "amateur" I am in doubt about the education.)
"Also some scribes made changes to conform to their theology."
(JPN comment: How does he know this? History shows that the scribes were very conscientious and careful to copy accurately the text, even to the point of washing out their pens and taking a bath before they would copy the word Jehovah or God.)
"Among the things Ehrman claims were changed or added by scribes are the Lord's Prayer, the Last Supper and the woman caught in adultery, which he says was not part of any of the four Gospels as originally written."
(JPN comment: This, like many other things said by this "scholar," are simply assertions without proof. What proof does he offer for these assertions? NONE!)
"If we can't be sure that the words are right words," he asks, "how can they be inerrant--without error, as evangelicals believe?" So, after 30 years of study, Erhman is now a nonchurchgoing agnostic.
"But Ehrman, chairman of the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina, says that his textual criticism is not the fundamental reason he has lost his faith, He asked himself a timeless question: 'How can there be a world of such misery if there is a benevolent God in charge of it?'
(JPN comment: Is it not amazing what goes on at our universities. Here is a confessed agnostic, really an atheist, who is chairman of religious studies in a state university. If in all his studies he is unable to explain the problem of human suffering, I would have to question his claim to scholarship).
"Some prominent orthodox scholars dismiss the book as 'utter nonsense' and beneath serious consideration, while declining interview requests. Others who believe in biblical inerrancy such as Reggie Kidd, professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Oviedo, are less bashful, 'The issues are more nuanced and complicated than he presents them,' says Kidd, author of With One Voice: Discovering Christ's Song in Our Worship.
(JPN comment: I couldn't agree more with Mr. Kidd. But Mr. Ehrman's views are quite common among professors in the universities of our land where they can spew out their misguided ideas with the protection of tenure.)
However, Kidd says he appreciates Ehrman's honesty, his sharing with the reader "the way his personal story, his wrestling with whether the New Testament is divine or human in origin shapes his craftsmanship as a text critic." (Orlando Sentinel, 4-3-06).
(JPN comment: With a professor like Mr. Ehrman being head of religious studies in a State University, is it any wonder that the pulpits of the denominations are filled by infidels? This is the kind of things they are taught in the religious departments of many educational institutions. Then they go out and fill the minds of their congregations with their blasphemous errors).
“MANY PATHS TO GOD” Religion and politics have become so intermingled that it sometimes is difficult to tell one from the other. That seems to be more true in the present political campaign than in most. The newspaper reporters, magazine writers, and talk show hosts are walking on eggs in trying to be politically correct and avoid saying anything that would give the idea that one religion is better than the other, so one hears it said, “there are many paths to God.” This country is between the devil and the deep blue sea. Its freedom of religion is the source of many of our problems. The founding fathers had no thought that that provision of the constitution would turn out this way. You see, they failed to define what is religion. The Supreme Court never attempted to define religion until 1870, in a widespread controversy over the Mormon church and Polygamy. Previous to that time religion was assumed to be theism, or , more specifically, “Christianity.” The efforts of the Supreme Court to define religion forms the basis for much of the danger we face as a nation. The Court has defined religion as any “belief of ultimate concern.” That is, if one’s belief, regardless of how absurd, is his religion if he his devotion to it equals the devotion of those who believe in God. Thus, in the Court’s definition of religion, God plays no part. One can see, then, why the Court has made some of the decisions that aid and abet the secularization of our society. So, the prevalent notion in society today is anything one wants to call religion is religion, and has the protection of the first amendment of the constitution. One can believe most anything as his religion, but practicing that believe may run into conflict with civil law. Devil worship with human sacrifice for instance. Human sacrifice is murder, and therefore against the law. Many Mormons believe in polygamy. They are free to believe in it but to practice it is against the law. But again one must ask if the state or the federal government has a right to make a law that contradicts the constitution. The constitution says that congress shall make no law restricting the free exercise of one’s religion. If Mormons believe that polygamy is a tenant of their religion, or devil worshipers believe that human sacrifice is part of their religion, and “Christians” believe that they have a right to public prayer in school, etc. how can it be constitutional to restrict these acts?
A major problem we face now is the religion of Islam. It is a religion that would destroy our constitution, and rule by the Koran. It would eliminate or subjugate everyone who refuses to accept its religion.These heresies are well known by anybody who knows anything about Islam. Many of our politicians are more interested in maintaining their power than in facing the truth about Islam. They portray Islam as a peaceful religion which is false and pure nonsense. It never has been a peaceful religion and never will be as long as they follow the Koran.
Islamics are pouring into this country by the thousands with the specific purpose of taking it over and making it an Islamic nation. They have 2000 mosques already in which their religion of hate and violence is taught. Obama may well be a Muslim disguised as a “Christian” marking time until he gains sufficient power to work Islam’s way on this nation. What proof of this is available? Just this: in his book he says, “I stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
The sad thing about this whole matter is that our government and politicians, either by ignorance or stupidity, are accommodating Islam at every turn.Whether we know it, or whether our politicians recognize it, Islam is the greatest threat to our way of life.Will our nation wake up in time to save our way of life? I fear it won’t. So we are told that there are many paths to God, and Islam is one of them, so let them alone. The blindest people on earth are those who refuse to see. We allowed humanism to gain the status of religion and infiltrate our public education, our judicial system, and the minds of a large percent of our population. After all, they have a belief of ultimate concern!!!!
(1 Tim 6:5) Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
(2 Pet 2:3) And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
(Rev 18:12,13) The merchandise of...souls of men.
In the Orlando Sentinel, July 27, 2005 is an article about Clint Brown,a preacher who took over Bennie Hin's facility when he moved to Texas, assuming a 5.8 million dollar debt. He goes to one of his members who had received a large insurance settlement from her husband's death, and borrows $200,000 dollars, but refused to pay it back, contending that it was a gift, not a loan. He also borrowed $100,000 from a church in Denver, which he never paid back. His wife filed for divorce,and then their extravagant lifestyle was revealed. They live in a 1.4 million dollar home, and have $450,000 credit card debt. And last but not least, they have 7 cars!!!
As one can well imagine, lawsuits have been flying, and it is said that the matters have been settled amicably. The article says that Brown's church has 6,000 members. I never cease to be amazed at how shister preachers are able to prey upon a gullible public. How is it possible that a false teacher can get 6,000 people to follow him? What is wrong with people? Can they not see that these shisters are making merchandise of them; do they not understand that these preachers are using them for their own selfish desires, and palming it off as religion?
As the passages at the beginning of this article show, God foresaw this kind of skulduggery, and predicted and exposed it for what it is. Paul said of these people, "For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple," Rom. 16:18.
What do we have to do to call people back to God and His word? "All day long I stretched out my hand unot an unbelieving and a gainsaying people,"Rom 10:21.
Solomon said, "The fear of man bringeth a snare, but whoso putteth his trust in God shall be safe."(Prov. 29:25). This world is full of people who fear man. Certainly there are men of whom we should be afraid. In Rom. 13, Paul said, "If thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he (that is the civil power) beareth not the sword in vain."(Rom. 13:4). It is good for men to fear the civil powers. The world would be a safer place if more people did.
One of the great problems of our time is that the civil government has become so lenient toward crime and criminals that men have no fear of the powers that be.
But, what about fearing man in religion? That, my friends, is a blight upon society and a hazard to the souls of men. Some people fear their relatives. When they hear the truth, they shy away from it because it is different from what they have been taught. They fear changing because it will bring them into conflict with their relatives. People sometimes say, "My religion was good enough for my mother, grandmother," or some other beloved relative, "so it's good enough for me." Our Lord spoke to this matter when He said, "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. He that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Mt. 10:37). This is obvious, if we will think about it. Jesus gave His life for the sins of the world, and any person who is not willing to give up even the goodwill of his relatives in order to obey Him, is hardly worthy of Him.
John tells us of some chief rulers who believed on Jesus but would not confess him because they feared the Pharisees (Jn. 14:42). The Pharisees were religious teachers. Many today are like these chief rulers, they fear their religious teachers. They cannot bear to go contrary to what their religious leaders have taught them. Of these chief rulers Jesus said, "They loved the praises of men more than the praise of God."
We can see the meaning of Solomon's warning; "The fear of man bringeth a snare."
One falls into a Satanic trap when he allows the fear of man, any man, to keep him from obeying the Lord, because no man can be saved who fails to obey Christ. It is better to lose everything here to gain everything in the world to come, than to gain the whole world by compromise and then to lose everything at the judgment.
These are serious matters that should arrest the attention of all of us. May we each consider them well and determine to obey Christ while still we can.
Paul said, (Gal 1:15-16) "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood."
Nations come and go as we see from the anals of history. Powerful empires of the past rest upon the junk heaps of the past. A close examination will show that most nations are destroyed from within. It is well said that “power corrupts absoluetly, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is mostly the case that when nations have it too good, they take their power and existence for granted and are lulled to sleep by ever favorable circumstances and depart from the ideals that made them great. At that point they begin to deteriorate. Leaders become more interested in maintaining power than in the common good of those they represent. Our nation is at this point now; the tipping point seems ever nearer. Our leaders have departed form the core values that made us great, and have adopted the greedy attitude of what’s in it for me? To a large extent, the nation has departed from the principles laid down by the founding fathers: God,honesty, personal reliance, love of neighbor, hard work, and the rule of law. Today we have rape, murder, child molestation, greed, millions of couples living together without marriage, almost as many divorces as marriages, corruption in government, homosexuality,same sex marriages, abortion, and even partial birth abortion, Pornography, twelve million illegal aliens acting as parasites on our economy which is illegal, but our officials simply look the other way or try to defend these criminals. John McCain, a presidential, candidate, says, “These are also God’s children.” My first thought upon hearing this was: all the hundreds of thousands of criminals in the nation’s jails who have committed crimes are God’s children also, so on his logic, we should turn them all out and grant them amnisty. Signs of the deterioration of our nation are the facts that millions of people, including the democrat party and many republicans, are against every proposed measure that would put us back on the right track. There are citizens of our country who seem to glory in and even help to accomplish the nation’s departure from its traditional values. Witness the recent Supreme Court ruling that the war prisoners at “Gitmo“have the same rights to our court system as do citizens, and the ever increasing accommodation of the murderous religion of Islam.
Aiding in the downfall of our country is a movement to turn it into a one hundred percent secular society. They are trying to kick God out of the public arena and worship at the shrine of humanism and secularism. All of these matters are a challenge to the Christian. What can we do to improve this intolerable situation? There is not a whole lot we can do, but we still have the power of the ballot. We can lay aside all the political pressure and nonsense and vote for the candidate whose value system is nearest to God’s and pray for favorable results in our struggle. I know this article is pesimistic, but there is very little that I see to inspire optimism.
It is interesting that a Baptist preacher has written a 250 page book entitled “Old Light on New Worship, Musical Instruments and the Worship of God” in which he is trying to start a movement among the Baptists to remove instrumental music from the worship because there is no New Testament authority for it. It will be interesting to see how far he gets with it. The average person, uninformed in church history, assumes that instrumental music has always been, and they think it is strange that some oppose it. In fact, instrumental music in worship was first introduced into church worship in the 7 century by the Catholics. That’s about 700 years this side of the New Testament. The Protestant church introduced it in the 17th century amidst a storm of controversy. Charles Spurgeon, probably the greatest Baptist preacher ever to live and who preached to 10,000 people in his London Baptist Tabernacle every Sunday, would not allow instrumental much to be used in his services. There was a division in the Catholic Church in 1095 AD, which originated the Western church (Roman) and the Eastern church (orthodox or Greek or Russian orthodox church).The Roman Catholics use instrumental music in worship, but the Russian orthodox don’t and never have. Churches of Christ have stood almost alone in our opposition to the use of instrumental music in worship. It is ironic that while the Baptists are starting a movement to remove it, some of the liberal churches of Christ are moving it in!!!! In fact some few already have begun to use it. Fessenden’s Encyclopedia says, “That instrumental music was not practiced by the primitive Christians, but was an aid to devotion of later times, is evident from church history.” (p. 852). Shaff-Hersogg Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 1702: “In the Greek church the organ never came into use. But after the eighth cnetury it became more and more common in the Latin church: not, however, without opposition from the side of the monks.” Lyman Coleman, a Presbyterian author and scholar says: “The tendency of this (intstrumental music, jpn) was to secularize the music of the church, and to encourage singing by a chior. Such musical accompaniments were gradually introduced, but they can hardly be assigned to a period earlier than the fifth and sixth centuries. Organs were unknown in the church until the eighth or ninth century. Previous to this they had their place in the theater, rather than in the church. They were never regarded with favor in the Eastern church, and were vehemently opposed in many places in the West. (Primitive Church, p. 376, 377). There would be a plethora of changes in all the denominational churches if suddenly they decided to go by the divine pattern rather than being guided by human desire for entertainment.
A person’s attitude is the well out of which his actions are drawn. Attitude is basic and exceedingly important: Every thought, word and deed is colored by one’s attitude, whether in religion or some other phase of life. Get a man's attitude right and his activities will be in harmony with the laws of God and man. If his attitude be wrong his actions right, it is usually due to convenience or cowardice; acting in accordance with his attitude could bring discomfort which he doesn't want, or he is afraid to act the way it dictates. If one's attitude is right, he can "stand" poverty or plenty, persecution or praise, gladness or sadness without any change in his attitude or, ill affect upon his general actions or thinking. That there has been a drastic change of attitude in the church of our Lord within the past several years, no informed person will deny. This change has taken its toll, both among preachers and brethren in general. It is due largely to the material prosperity of the brethren in general. We have moved our meeting houses from "goat alley" to Main Street, and out of dilapidated shacks into modernsuperstructures of ultra modem architecture. We have at least doubled our membership in most communities, and have large contributions and attendances. This is all very wonderful IF OUR ATTITUDE IS RIGHT! An institution as costly and essential to the salvation of the most valuable thing in the world deserves a place of dignity in any locality. If the church improves and advances in the next fifty years like it has in the past fifty, all will be well IF OUR ATTITUDES REMAIN RIGHT! But, with material prosperity of the past several years has come a change of attitude. This rage has led to spiritual deterioration among us, thus, to a concerted effort to make of the church a sort of social club, or another denomination. The time has come when many preachers have turned from exposing error, fighting the devil, and hellfire and brimstone preaching, to a social gospel, soft soaping the truth, sugar coating the plain word, and “dehornng" the plain teachings of Christ. The time has come when preachers who call names and identify sin by scriptural designations, and in general preach like Christ and the apostles, are not welcome in many pulpits. There was a time when preachers used the back of their pants legs for shoe shines, rode mules or walked to preaching appointments, got paid for meetings with a side of salt meat or a new pair of socks, and wore the same suit when they preached and when they baptized. They were not flattered with favors of men or praised by the public because of their prominence. This is no longer true. Our preachers pay quarters for shoe shines, drive latest model automobiles to preaching appointments, get paid well, and wear different suits every day; they baptize in a modern baptistery with dimming lights rather than in a muddy farmer’s pond and many are loved, praised and adored by thegeneral public, including sectarians. We do not hesitate to say that most of this is wonderful, IF THE ATTITUDE DOES NOT CHANGE! But, it is astounding and disgusting to see the number of preachers among us who have determined to give both the church and the world what they want—and multitudes of brethren "love to have it so” (Jer. 5:31). When our attitudes become as modern as our buildings, our preaching as soft as our dress, and our praise from the sectarian world as abundant as our pay checks, the church is not drifting—it has fled! When the plain truth of the blessed gospel meets with its first and foremost opposition within the church, it is past time for alarm, its time for action! It is now a common thing to find preachers and brethren in general who condemn debating as a "terrible disgrace to the cause of Christ." They say, "let error alone, it will eventually die out," not knowing that error never dies out, but instead it has to be fought out! In their determination to please the world and sign a truce with Satan, they deceive them-selves into believing that their attitudes are acceptable to God and in harmony with Spirit of Christ. They have forgotten, if they ever knew, that the very ground they occupy today was won by debating, devil fighting, name calling preachers who gave their lives, generally without monetary nuneration, in the struggle to plant the cause of Christ all over this nation, and who died in hope that those who inherited the obligation to continue the "good fight of faith," would not falter and faint under the force of divine duty. God be thanked, there is a remnant of brethren who are not ready to fail those grand old soldiers of the cross, count for naught their sacrifices, fail to appreciate our grand heritage, and turn traitors to the kingdom of God. Some brethren either cannot see, or do not care, that in their efforts to retard the plain progress of the plain preachers and able debaters among us today, they condemn and castigate both the founders and restorers of Christianity. We have seen the result of this changed attitude both in meeting and local work. One of the quickest ways to be moved on "for the good of the Cause," or to eliminate the possibility of being called back for another meetting in many communities, is to preach like Christ and the apostles. While that is a sad commentary on the churches, it is, nevertheless, a true one. We've been told "not to use the words hell, denomination, and sectarian in the pulpit," to "tell folks they will be condemned instead of telling them they will go to hell." Brethren demanded that we not "call names, preach on baptism and instrumental music." We've had our own brethren in the Lord to demonstrate more sympathy for sectarian preachers than for us, in certain battles, and apologize to Catholics for the plain truths we preached about them. We've known members of the church who hear false teachers and compare the body of Christ to "other denominations." To preach in many congregations, one must be highly skilled in the damnable art of deviation and dodging, if he has set his heart to stay in the "good graces" of the brethren. Their idea of "conversion" is to rock worldings to sleep in the cradle of carnality and wake them up in the loving arms of Jesus, without their ever knowing what happened. If one tells folks that every plant my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up (Mt. 15:13, some brethren will kindly tell him to move on “for the good of the Cause, and forever brand him as a preacher withoutthe spirit of Christ” If one will stifle his consicience and burn his sermon outlines on hell, denonmi-nationalism, the all sufficiency of the New Testament church, he can be in great demand over night. If he will preach everything in general and nothing in particular, assure the visiting sectarians that they can atttend the church of Christ without having their names called or their false doctrines exposed, brethren, and especially the socialite sisters, will look upon him as "one of our best preachers" and go away singing his praises to the tune of "Isn't he just wonderful?!" They will write him up in the leading papers as having "conducted the greatest meeting in the history of this congregation," and before we know what is happening, the preachers meeting schedule will be filled for ten years in advance! On the other hand, watch the brother whose interest is "getting" souls instead of meetings and see how many times he gets "called back." He will usually give dissatisfaction the first trip and soon become known as “one punch Charlie." If Godly shepherds are determined to feed their flocks on sound doctrine instead of empty husks and invite him back, some of their sheep will rebel, scatter and boycott them, the preacher, and the meeting. What we have said is not to be interpret-ed to mean that we think all preachers and congregations have changed their attitudes. Let no one conclude that we are herein advocating ugliness or unkindness on the part of preaching brethren. That is as unscriptural as compromise and we'd condemn it just as quickly! We must never fail to let the sinner know that we love his soul and that love motivates us to be plain in our preaching. Many brethren need to study the word "love" and determine its meaning and discover what it demands! Brethren, unless the 20th Century atti-tude of compromise is not obliterated from the church of Christ immediately, the number of faithful brethren will continue to decrease by the year until finally those who contend for the ancient order of things will become like a "wee, small voice" crying in a wilderness of soft-ness, sectarianism and professionalism, and the New Testament church will become an unknown organization. The time has come, yea it has past, for truth loving, God-fearing brethren to strike, and strike hard! We must usheath the sword of the Spirit and put on the whole armor of God and revive the scriptural manner of delivering the greatest message ever heard. Brethren may croak, the socialite sisters faint, and many "church rolls" diminish, but ultimate victory is assured. This editorial is to serve as a spring board for many articles along this same line. The editors and writers of Bible Bulwarks are not in sympathy with the movement toward professionalism among preachers and general softness among brethren so prevalent today. We believe it must be smitten hip and thigh, and intend to discharge our obligations along this line. We kindly insist that brethren inspect their attitudes and determine whether or not they have changed them from what they should be, and if so, to be willing to get them in tune with the New Testament, in the interest of their own salvation as well as the salvation of others. The prevalent need of the hour is for brethren to read the works of God more and more, and the works of men less and less, and drink deeply of the spirit and manner of preaching (NOTE: This article was an editorial I wrote in the 1950's for a paper I published known as BIBLE BULWARKS. It was appropriate then, and it is just as appropriate now. jpn)
I have witnessed many mistakes in the church in the last 61 years. One of the most serious is committed by parents with young children. That mistake is giving their children little,if any, religious education. The church spends thousands of dollars to build class rooms where children can be taught about God and the Bible, and godly church members are willing to donate their time and talent to teach them, but parents, for some reason, fail to bring their children to class, so they grow up ignorant of God and the Bible. These parents would not think of not sending their children to public or private secular schools where they can learn how to make it in the physical world, yet they often neglect the most import education a child can receive. It doesn’t make sense to me. Children raised without religious education become teenagers and adults without a moral compass. They are easily influenced by the company they keep, and have no conviction about right and wrong.In this, we have a double mistake. Obviously, if parents don’t bring their children to Bible classes, they don’t come themelves. Thus they miss out on Bible study, and set a poor example for their children. There are enough children of members in most congregations to have some nice children’s classes, but they are not present for Bible classes. When we ignore the needs of young people, what can we expect from the next generation?
Nancy Grace is a legal reporter on CNN. She has interviewed two Baptist preachers about the wife who shot and killed her preacher husband in Selmer, TN. He was the preacher for the church of Christ there.
First off, it is odorous that she would interview Baptist preachers about the church of Christ. I am suspicious that this was a set up. Why didn't she interview preachers of the church of Christ?
So, she asked these Baptist preachers what they knew about the church of Christ. It is predictable what they would say; same old thing they have been saying about us for hundreds of years: "They are cult like," "they teach that if you are not baptized you will go to hell," "They think they are the only people who are going to heaven," "The church of Christ was started by Alexander Campbell in West VA in the 19th century,"etc.
The tragic shooting gave them an opportunity to vent their time-warn gripes against the church of Christ. This prejudices the public against the church because many people think if its on TV or in the newspaper, it must be true, when often the very opposite is true.
This is a means of closing the minds of people to the truth. You see, what the church of Christ teaches is what the Bible teaches. But the public will never make that connection when the church is presented in such a prejudicial fashion.
The church of Christ was started by Jesus Christ in 33 AD in Jerusalem Palestine, not by Alexander Campbell in the 19th century in W. VA. The church existed in England and Scotland before the Campbells came to this country. Indeed, they brought it from England and Scotland to this country. To go beyond that, they were not the first ones to preach the gospel in America. Barton W. Stone in KY was preaching the truth before the Campbells arrived.
We used to be able to answer these false charges in debates with the Baptists, but not any more. They decided that debating didn't help their cause, so they quit. (N. B. Hardeman used to say that denominational preachers won't debate for the same reason that muly cows won't engage in a hooking contest). I will grant you that you couldn't hog-tie those Baptist preachers and drag them into a debate with a gospel preacher to defend their false doctrines and misrepresentations.
As of Tuesday, January 20, 2009, we have the most liberal president in the history of the country. Many of his policies are diametrically opposed to the Lord’s. He promises that one of the first things he will do is issue an executive order which will remove all restrictions on abortion across the nation. He also will abolish the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for homosexuals in the military, which means that known homosexuals will be admitted to military service just like anyone else. He also is in favor of homosexual partnerships that will give homosexual couples the same rights granted to families in hospitals, insurance, etc. He said in his book that “if the political situation gets rough, he will side with the Muslims.”
These and other Obama policies are strongly objectionable to Christians, and some others. One wonders what the American public was thinking to put such a person in the White House. We wondered the same thing when they put Bill Clinton in the White House, a man without morals. Most Christians believe that God still rules in the kingdom of men and sets over nations whomsoever He will. If that is the case, one wonders what God is thinking to allow such men to rule over a nation that has honored Him throughout its history. I believe that if this Old Testament principle still applies, maybe God is trying to wake up the nation; to shock it into its senses. As to say, “Look how far you have drifted from you traditional moorings. Return from your backslidings.” With the election of the most liberal president in the history of the country, the disastrous economic situation, the country’s entanglement in foreign wars, and the prospect of its getting more and more involved, one wonders how the country can survive. One thing is for sure, the nation will never be what it once was in our life time,and maybe never again. The disastrous economic situation is just one indication of the disgusting moral situation of the country. It was brought about by unscrupulous financial mechinations of Wall Street crooks, and the big banks whose downfall was human greed. God’s word warns us, “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God” (Psa 9:17). There is a distinct possibility that this is happening right before our eyes. The America we have known will likely become just a footnote in history. The historians will write about the America that once was. Christians must keep the faith and ride out the storm and see the light at the end of the tunnel--heaven at last!
A SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENT"IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF" Article two
In article one, I chronicled a change in attitude and strategy in and around Nashville, TN that had a far-reaching influence on the churches. It was a precursor to the overwhelming avalanche of liberalism that divided the church in the 1950's and "60's and has led some liberal churches to merge with the Christian Church. Four young preachers and some older ones too, grew weary of the "fighting style" of Foy E. Wallace, Jr., and others, and determined to move to a passive soft-soaping style of journalism. Here is a record of that happened:
"M. Norvel Young, James D. Bales, George DeHoff, and Woodrow Whitten - conceived the idea for this journal (20th Century Christian, jpn) in 1938. Disillusioned with the fighting style that increasingly characterized journalism in Churches of Christ and concerned that Churches of Christ had failed to communicate effectively with the younger generation, these students determined to bring the message of Churches of Christ more into line with contemporary concerns - a goal strikingly similar to that of the new Christian Leader. Further, like those who pioneered the new Christian Leader, these young men also were committed to positive, constructive journalism.
"But when Young took this idea to E.H. Ijmes, at that time President of David Lipscomb College in Nashville, he received little or no encouragement. Ijams informed Young that a group of older men was about to launch a significant journal, backed by substantial funding, that would accomplish precisely what these younger men had in mind. Ijams therefore advised Young and his colleagues to stand aside and entrust their common vision to the older generation.
"Despite this advice, the graduate students determined to press ahead. With their own funds and their own resources, they issued the first number of the 20th Century Christian from the basement of Nashville's Hillsboro Church of Christ in October 1938 - only three months before the new Christian Leader appeared. Knowing that none of them carried sufficient weight among Churches of Christ to serve as editor, they secured for that position J. P. Sanders, at that time the preacher of the Hillsboro Church of Christ. They also signed on Hugh Tiner (dean of Pepperdine College in Los Angeles) and Athens Clay Pullias (vice president of David Lipscomb College) to serve along with Sanders and themselves on an editorial council.? (Revival of the Ancient Faith, Richard T. Highes, p. 210,211).
This was a historically significant event that largely was overlooked, and the creeping disease of softness swallowed up most of the churches between Nashville and Memphis and eventually throughout the nation. As one can see from the above quotation, the 20th Century Christian's policy was orchestrated by the principal figures of the institutional/sponsoring church movement which was to come shortly. It opened up the floodgate to apostasy. If the powers that were in Nashville (certain preachers and David Lipscomb College) and Freed-Hardeman College sneezed, every church but 3 or 4 between Nashville and Memphis said, "Bless you."
Now, I am disturbed at the likelyhood that history is repeating itself. There is the old adage that "those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I fear that the creeping disease of softness is invading the conservative churches of our time. And again, it is being fostered by a periodical and an organization (human) formed by brethren is not surprising! Be it remembered that the forces of softness in the 1940's and "50's continued to repeat the characteristic mantras, "We speak were the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent." They also emphasized "the restoration movenent " and were proud of their "Restoration heritage." This was also the case with the missionary society and instrumental music apostasy in the 1800's.
I have reference to the change in editorial policy of Truth Magazine. In announcing the policy change, Brother Mike Willis, like those of the 1940's says,
"We reject the compromising spirit of our age which tries to accept all doctrinal beliefs and ethical behavior as evidence of their tolerant spirit." And he avers that "We have reached the conclusion that most of the doctrinal issues facing brethren will be fought through the Internet rather than through the papers. We are adjusting our approach to reflect this conclusion."
Brother Mike seeks to justify the change in 5 arguments:
1. "...Most of the doctrinal issues facing brethren will be fought through the Internet rather than through the papers." One must wonder what evidence he used to reach this conclusion. Did he not realize that not everyone has a computer, thus no access to the internet? I personally know a number of brethren who are avid readers of the periodicals who don't have a computer, and have no plans to purchase one, thus will have no access to both sides of any issue by means of Truth Magazine. Surely, this is not the agenda of Mike and his associates by the change of policy, but it is the undeniable result.
2. "Generally only a small percentage of our readers are interested in the doctrinal conflicts occurring among us." How did he learn this? And if it is true, it explains much that is occurring among the conservative churches. I have engaged in religious journalism most of my preaching life (almost 62 years now). I was a staff writer for Truth Magazine when Bryan Vinson was editor. That was soon after it began. I resigned when he apologized for an article I wrote on the then current issues of the sponsoring church and institutionalism. I again became a staff writer and part owner of the magazine at the insistence of Cecil Willis and Bill Wallace after they acquired it. I was reluctant to be re-associated with the paper but they wouldn't take no for an answer. I must say that my experience says that Mike's assumption lacks evidence. If brother Mike's conclusion that "only a small percentage of Truth Magazine readers are interested in conflicts occurring among us" is correct, why do I receive letters and phone calls from all over the country and from regions afar concerning my feeble efforts at writing, and how was a faithful remnant saved from the heavy artillery of the Nashville movement in the institutional/sponsoring church struggle? Was that because brethren didn't read the papers? It was the consensus of brethren generally that the Gospel Guardian and local church bulletins saved the day for conservatism. Mike's assertion does not harmonize with hard facts.
3. "Most brethren think these doctrinal exchanges are distractive." "Most brethren," brother Mike? How does he know this? Did he take a poll? Where is the evidence for his dogmatic conclusion? I think he is desperate to justify what he has done, and I think I detect some sub-conscious doubt in his mind at what he has done. Mike has to know that he is taking a giant leap with the acquiescence of the board and staff of the paper. The Cecil Willis I knew and worked with so closely for years would abhor this change of policy, and I think Mike must know this. It is a drastic change of direction for the paper, and a scar on the memory of the work done by his deceased brother and the many brethren who gave and loaned money to the magazine to keep it alive.
. "Some turn off the magazine because they view them as preacher fights.?" Yes I have heard this from some few brethren for almost 60 years now. That some brethren so view honorable discussion of issues as "preacher fights" is absolutely true, and not new. There are always brethren whose convictions are as flimsy as jello, and have more sympathy for softness than for a straight-forward presentation of the truth. Now, I must ask, are Mike and his associates saying that the policy of Truth Magazine from now on will be governed by those of indefinite and flimsy convictions? We heard this over and over from weak brethren during the institutional/sponsoring church struggle, but we didn't change our policy or preaching to accommodate it. Brother Mike says "I believe that brethren who have this conclusion are wrong and that the issues discussed in the papers are usually very relevant." Even so, he uses it in his chain of reasoning in an effort to justify changing the policy of Truth Magazine.
Following is Mike's solution to this problem, "To accommodate this change in communication style, we generally will address relevant issues in an informative article in the magazine and refer our readers who have interest in a particular issue to our web site which will distribute more materal relevant to the subject for those who have the interest to pursue it." Brother Mike, what about the thousands of brethren who don't have computers and have no plans to purchase one? Did the Lord and the apostles refer inquirers to a source to which many had no access if they wanted to argue with the truth?
5. "Many Christians do not take the time to read the magazine." If this is true, then how does that justify changing the policy? If many Christians do not read the magazine, how is changing the policy going to remedy that? If many Christians don't read the magazine, how will they be drawn to it by a change of policy? How will they learn about the change of policy if they don't read the magazine?
BRETHREN BEWARE!!!
What has happened to Truth Magazine is a water shed event. There is a definite possibility that history is repeating itself. It smacks of B. C. Goodpasture and the Gospel Advocate of the 1940's and forward. The Gospel Advocate announced that it would print only one side of the issues, and refused to even consider printing rebuttals, even when brethren offered to pay for the space. It also favors the Nashville softness movement which said they would not be discussing the premillennial issue (and others), which was raging then. Had it been left up to them R. H. Boll and his cohorts would have spread premillennialism all across the nation among the churches. Goodpasture said he had no responsibility to print error! Thus he became the brotherhood arbiter of truth to determine what brethren could read, and they could be assured that he would screen out all error and print only the turth!!!! He must have thought he was infallible. So, we had a brotherhood determiner of what was the truth on every issue. Is this what brother Mike and his associates have become? Not intentionally, I am sure.
Now please notice: Brother Willis has departmentalized his writing staff which pretty well dictates the subject matter that will be presented in the magazine. If anyone objects to the material presented, their objection will not be presented in the magazine, but will be referred to a web site, if the person has a computer. If they don't, well they can forget any possibility of being heard. The readers of the magazine will hear only Truth Magazine's view of the matter, shades of the Advocate and Goodpasture.
I feel quite certain that most of the material that will be presented in the Magazine from now on will be good, true and edifying, but it will lack the balance that the paper has had in the past. I will now make a statement that brings chills to my spine and should do the same for every gospel preacher: It is possible for a preacher to preach only truth, and never preach any error, and and still go to hell for not declaring the whole counsel of God. We should take no comfort as preachers in the fact that we have never preached error, we should take a serious look to see if we have preached all the truth.
Brethren Mike Willis and Connie Adams are diligent to assure us that they have not changed their convictions on current issues among the brethren. I wonder why they felt it necessary to so assure us of this? Is it possible that they know that their change of policy is a close companion of compromise? Is it not obvious that something untoward and invisible to most people motivates this change? Maybe those involved in it are unaware of it, but anyone who can see through a ladder can see that something unusual is happening. A small hole has been punched in the dike, and we all know that small holes in dikes don't we? They don't remain small, they wash out and become gushing, overwhelming floods. My knowledge of church history forces me to this conclusion. I have no ax to grind in this article. I am saddened by this turn of events. The writing staff and most of the board members of Truth Magazine have been long-time acquaintances of mine. Some have been close friends and yokefellows; brethren who stood shoulder to shoulder with me and others in the institutional/sponsoring church struggle. My association with the Willis family has been long, warm and friendly. Cecil and I worked together for years on the magazine, in gospel meetings and public debates, and we became almost like blood brothers.
Much of Paul's letters could not appear in Truth Magazine under the new policy, because they were written in rebuttal to the false doctrines of people who opposed the truth and were trying to lead brethren in the wrong direction. Most of the letters to the seven churches of Asia could not be printed in Truth Magazine under its new policy, because in them THE LORD was calling for the exposing and expelling of false teachers.
Organizations formed mainly for church members are dangerous. They get too close to the church and many brethren lose sight of the demarcation between them and the church. A family known to me recently made a large contribution to a college. The wife, in commenting on the gift, said, "The college is an extension of the church." This attitude is prevalent in the minds of many brethren. This has been proven over and over again. A blind man can see what happened in the 1800's with Alexander Campbell and his school and periodicals. We can see the influence that David Lipscomb College, Freed-Hardeman College, and other such institutions had on the churches from 1940 and forward. We can see the dangerous influence now wielded by Florida College, the Cogdill foundation and Truth Magazine. They not only think of themselves as extensions of the church, they even supplant the church, they do what God commissioned the church to do. When such organizations get on the wrong track, there is no turning back. This because they are commercial enterprises and money becomes a ruling factor. The administration of these organizations depends upon them for their employment, and their living. The strong inclination is to follow the money. Money is power. These institutions never get enough money. Wealthy brethren make large contributions to them, and wealthy brethren tend to be liberal. If they make large contributions to these institutions, they expect to have a voice in their direction. As time goes by liberal donors' philosophy begins to dominate. We know the rest of the story.
CONCLUSION
It would gladen many hearts if the Truth Magazine administration would reverse their policy change. I can tell you that many brethren are deeply concerned about what is happening, but I fear it won't matter. I warned the president of Florida College some years back that some of his actions were alienating brethren who had supported the college for many years, and that he was about to lose some old friends that he was going to need. My words were acknowledged, but unheeded. Things a hundred times worse than what I had in mind then have occurred since I sounded that warning. Unfortunately that follows the pattern of history.
I am nearing my 83rd birthday. I have been preaching the gospel for almost 62 years. I know that "life's evening sun is sinking low," and soon I shall go the way of all the earth. I have reached the point to where I know more people on the other side than I know on earth. I have seen many changes in the kingdom of God, and in our nation. To say I fear for the future is to put it lightly. I fear for the kind of country in which my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will live. I even fear worse for the church of the future. Forces are at work in and out of the church that eventually will destroy its existence in this country if certain evil forces are not halted. We are seeing it happen before our very eyes.
James P. Needham
1600 Oneco Ave.
Winter Park, FL 32789
September 12, 2006
A SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENT"--IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?"
Article one
I have been trying to preach the gospel since 1948. When I started the churches were at peace so far as I could tell. I was invited to preach in many of the churches in the area where I grew up. (They wouldn't let me make announcements now, muchless preach!) In a summer during the 1950's I held 7 meetings in West Tennessee in all of which I preached the truth on the relationship of the church to human institutions. I have not been invited back since!!! (From the reaction I received, I didn't really expect to be). I entered Freed-Hardeman College in the fall of 1948, and studied under N. B. Hardeman, L. L. Briggance, Jim Cope, Clinton Hamilton, and others. The peace and harmony that I enjoyed was to be short lived. While I was a student at FHC the Gospel Guardian was begun by Roy E. Cogdill, Yater Tant and Luther Blackmon, et. al. A bundle of them was put on the table in the library for all who cared to take one. It was begun for the purpose of examining the sponsoring church and orphan home issues. As I studied the Bible and read the Guardian, I began to see that things were turning in the wrong direction. Intensive efforts were made by the Gospel Advocate and others to defend these things for which there was no scriptural authority. In time the Advocate spearheaded a movement to "quarantine" those who stood against the sponsoring church concept and church grants to orphan homes. Division was now in the wind. Churches began to divide all across the nation.
N. B. Hardeman was a straight shooter. He had a firm conviction that the Bible is God's word and must be our rule and guide and everything contrary to it must be opposed. He had no time for a soft approach to religious issues. He taught the truth on missionary societies, Premillennialism, and other pressing issues. He constantly disparaged other colleges for their softness on religious denominationalism and their errors. One of his famous expressions was, "If you want to know what I believe on any Bible subject, write and ask me, and I can answer you on a post card and have enough room left to ask you about your wife and kids." Before he died, however, he joined forces with those he had opposed, and spoke publically in favor of the issues. Brother B. G. Hope had been a student of brother Hardeman's and had become a dear and close friend to him. He said he asked brother Hardeman, "Should I preach it like you taught me, or like you preach it now?" He said brother Hardeman replied, "Preach it like I taught you." Brother Hope asked him, "Why don't you"? He said Hardeman replied, "I can't afford to." At the end brother Hardeman joined forces with those he had opposed and was invited to hold a gospel meeting at David Lipscomb College.
During this time I also became acquainted with the writings of Foy E. Wallace, Jr. His writings were pungent and to the point. I read just about everything he wrote with great profit..
I. THE COLLEGE-IN-THE-BUDGET ISSUE:
The controversy over church contributions to colleges took place while I was in the military in Europe, so I knew little of it except a few references that were made to it among the students that were in school while that issue raged between N. B. Hardeman and Foy E. Wallace, Jr. In time I became friends with Yater Tant who loaned me bound volumes of the old Bible Banner which I read with enthusiasm and much profit. In these bound volumes was the Hardeman-Wallace discussion of the college in the church budget issue. They discussed this issue at length.
Brother Hardeman finally compared church contributions to colleges to church contributions to orphan homes. He pointed out the inconsistencies of those who beat the drums for church contributions to orphan homes, but denied the scripturalness of church grants to colleges. This was a strategic move, because it turned the discussion from the college-in-the-budget issue to church grants to orphan homes which a large part of the brotherhood approved and practiced. This was the beginning of an extended discussion in the Gospel Guardian and the Gospel Advocate on this issue. The orphan home issue was well suited to break down brethren's opposition to church grants to colleges and other human organizations because of its emotional appeal and because Hardeman had it right, church contributions to colleges and orphan homes do, indeed, stand or fall together, and the truth is, they fall together scripturally. In time opposition to church support of colleges melted away, because, as brother Hardeman said, "They stand or fall together." So, many brethren, rather than give up the practice of church grants to orphan homes, accepted church grants to colleges. They obviously were more interested in consistency than in the truth. Thus, many of the liberal churches of Christ began to put the colleges in their budgets for regular contributions. To give up church grants to orphan homes was too much to ask, so since they and church grants to colleges "stand or fall together," they chose to accept both. It would be a mistake to overlook the party spirit that plagued this issue. Well-known anti-institutional brethren began to make their confessions of change in articles to the Gospel Advocate, and B. C. Goodpasture, editor of the Gospel Advocate, virtually became the "father confessor." The liberals gloated!
Foy E. Wallace, Jr. was a leader in the struggle against the sponsoring church concept and church grants to any kind of human institution. His writings were often sharp, to the point, and clear. (This can be clearly seen in the first and only volume of TORCH he edited, and in others of his writings. I can supply you with a bound volume one of TORCH for $6.00 post paid). He was the first preacher I ever heard preach against the sponsoring church idea. A group of us students traveled from Henderson, TN to Mayfield, KY to hear him in a gospel meeting. The night we attended he opposed the Broadway church in Lubbock, TX for their sponsoring church setup for the work in Germany following WWII. He spoke of their trying to be a brotherhood eldership, and a brotherhood treasury.
This aggressive style of preaching was quite prominent in those days by men like Roy E. Cogdill, N. B. Hardeman, Luther Blackmon, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., his brother Cled, and many others. While it was popular with many brethren, it was too harsh for some.
II. A MOVEMENT TOWARD BLUNTING THE ARROW OF TRUTH
All who lived through the period sensed a change in attitude particularly by the Nashville, TN contingent. That attitude was one of softness and leaning heavily toward the Protestant attitude of live and let live, or unity in diversity. There was a loud outcry against preachers who called the names of the denominations and exposed their errors. (Brethren often don't realize that false doctrine doesn't lead to heaven). A large contingent in the church didn't know the difference between the Lord's church and the churches of men. They often spoke of "other denominations." I often heard brethren say, "I don't like that preacher, he is a fighter."
Maybe others knew that this softening was a planned and promoted movement by some Nashville preachers, but I certainly did not. (It was a religious conspiracy to change the general attitude and practice of the brethren). Now I know its source. I recently read a book entitled "REVIVING THE ANCIENT FAITH, The Story of Churches of Christ in America," by Richard T. Hughes. (If you have not read this book, I highly recommend that you do so, it is an eye opener). I shall here quote a few lines from this revealing book on the subject at hand.
"Resisting the Fighting Style
"Four graduate students at Nashville's Peabody College - M. Norvel Young, James D. Bales, George DeHoff, and Woodrow Whitten - conceived the idea for this journal (20th Century Christian, jpn) in 1938. Disillusioned with the fighting style that increasingly characterized journalism in Churches of Christ and concerned that Churches of Christ had failed to communicate effectively with the younger generation, these students determined to bring the message of Churches of Christ more into line with contemporary concerns - a goal strikingly similar to that of the new Christian Leader. Further, like those who pioneered the new Christian Leader, these young men also were committed to positive, constructive journalism.
"But when Young took this idea to E.H. Ijmes, at that time President of David Lipscomb College in Nashville, he received little or no encouragement. Ijams informed Young that a group of older men was about to launch a significant journal, backed by substantial funding, that would accomplish precisely what these younger men had in mind. Ijams therefore advised Young and his colleagues to stand aside and entrust their common vision to the older generation.
"Despite this advice, the graduate students determined to press ahead. With their own funds and their own resources, they issued the first number of the 20th Century Christian from the basement of Nashville's Hillsboro Church of Christ in October 1938 - only three months before the new Christian Leader appeared. Knowing that none of them carried sufficient weight among Churches of Christ to serve as editor, they secured for that position J. P. Sanders, at that time the preacher of the Hillsboro Church of Christ. They also signed on Hugh Tiner (dean of Pepperdine College in Los Angeles) and Athens Clay Pullias (vice president of David Lipscomb College) to serve along with Sanders and themselves on an editorial council.
"Far from being disillusioned with the core message of Churches of Christ, these students were deeply committed to the traditions of their heritage and to the ideal of primitive, nondenominational Christianity. They sought, however, to make that traditional message relevant to their own time. The cover of this periodical, for example, bore the motto, "New Testament Christianity in the Present Age." Further, Young and his cohorts found inspiration for the title of their journal- 20th Century Christian - in two sources. First, it played on the theme of first-century Christianity and implicitly pointed backward, in good primitivist fashion, to the first Christian age. Second, it celebrated the present and the modern. The Hollywood film studio Twentieth Century Fox, for example, helped to inspire the title 20th Century Christian. When the magazine changed its name to 21st Century Christian in January 1990, it dropped from its cover the motto "New Testament Christianity in the Present Age."In spite of their preoccupation with the modern world, though, these students maintained significant links to the Stone-Lipscomb tradition. James D. Bales, George DeHoff, and Woodrow Whitten, on the one hand, all graduated from Harding College, where they had been influenced by J. N. Armstrong. Norvel Young had been immersed in this tradition from his earliest years growing up in Middle Tennessee. His mother's father and uncle both owned farms adjoining David Lipscomb's, and his mother, Ruby Morrow Young, studied not only under Lipscomb but also under James A. Harding and T. B. Larimore. Young himself graduated from David Lipscomb College, the successor to the old Nashville Bible School. In later years, Young claimed no memory of either a legalistic or exclusivist outlook in the churches of his youth in Middle Tennessee. Rather, he recalled a pietistic perspective, centered on prayer, love and one's relation to God through Christ. Further, in the 1930s all four of these students had embraced the pacifist tradition that for years had been central to the apocalyptic worldview. (P. 210, 11).
"It is not surprising then, that they sought to reconcile Churches of Christ to the spirit of the modern age. But the old apocalyptic perspective of the nineteenth century constitutes an obstacle to such a reconciliation" (p. 212).
"Further, they positioned their new journal as inspirational rather then polemical, thereby withdrawing from the battlefield that Foy Wallace claimed as leader and watchdog..." (p.212).
'second, they steered clear of all discussion of premillennialism, focusing instead on postive, constructive values that many, if not most, among Churches of Christ could accept.? (p.215).
"Foy Wallace and others of his stripe never sensed the threat to sectarian values implicit in the 20th Century Christian. But that threat became increasingly easy to detect in the period during and following World War II. Many of the people, in the 1930's prized a kind of gentle spirit, who refused to attack R. H. Boll, and who sought to undermine the fighting style of Foy Wallace, worked to develop the insititutional machinery of Church of Christ in the 1940's. Their efforts set the stage for the next major battle in this communion and the next major transitional move from sectarian status among Church of Christ toward full-fledged denominational standing ." (P.216).
'the new journalism and associated theology would move Churches of Christ further and further away from the sectarian mentality of the nineteenth century and would increasingly celebrate the values of conservative Protestant culture in the United States.
"In this way, the Christian Leader initiated a transition fundamentally similar to the one Alexander Campbell had made in 1837 (see Chap. 2), when he elected to defend American Protestantism. The difference was that while Campbell acknowledged that transition, those directing the Leader apparently possessed little or no awareness of this dimension of their work. Their naivete in this regard was closely connected to their continued commitment to the primitive Christian faith.
'the truth was that since the days of Campbell and Stone, the notion of primitive Christianity had become so central to the thinking of Churches of Christ - and so foundational to orthodoxy in every aspect of this tradition that no one who cared about his or her standing in the church could afford to waffle on the theme, much less abandon it outright. Put another way, primitive Christianity had become the defining, foundational myth for this tradition. In this context, few progressives sensed any disjunction between the celebration of modern values and commitment to the primitive Christian faith. On the other side of the fence, however, Foy Wallace and his people were fully convinced that the progressives had abandoned their historic, sectarian posture.
"Of all the literature of Churches of Christ through this period, the 20th Century Christian perhaps most graphically depicts the fusion of conservative twentieth century Protestant values with a commitment to primitive Christianity. And once again, the individuals who led this project had all enjoyed opportunities in higher education. (p.210).
I will now make some observations on the above quotations and let that suffice for this first article.
1. This was a "landmark" development that would have long range effects on the church in the future. We can see the fruits of this softness movement in the liberal churches today. We see church contributions to human institutions, church furnished recreation, family life centers, church operated schools, church grants to colleges, milktoast preaching, and even merges with the Christian Church, etc.
(Gen 11:6) "..now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
Closing the door to open discussion of current issues, opens the door for just about anything. "...they positioned their new journal as inspirational rather then polemical, thereby withdrawing from the battlefield that Foy Wallace claimed as leader and watchdog..." (p.212)....they steered clear of all discussion of premillennialism, focusing instead on postive, constructive values that many, if not most, among Churches of Christ could accept.? (p.215).
2. We can't help but notice the connection between the 20th Century Christian and the Colleges. Note,
" They also signed on Hugh Tiner (dean of Pepperdine College in Los Angeles) and Athens Clay Pullias (vice president of David Lipscomb College) to serve along with Sanders and themselves on an editorial council,? (P. 212). All these men were leaders in the softness movement. This brings to mind the fact that periodicals and colleges have played a major role in every departure in the church since it's beginning in the United States. While these entities have potential for great good they have an equal if not more than equal potential for evil. To deny this is to deny the undeniable.
4. Throughout his book, Hughes denigrates the "fighting style" of Foy Wallace. I counted 95 times that Wallace's name appears in the book (there are, no doubt more).Hughes attaches such descriptives to Wallace's name as "the Wallace crowd," "Wallace followers," "Wallace program," "Wallace people," "Wallace faction," "Wallace camp," "Wallace crowed," "Wallace and his people" "leader and watchdog." While Hughes, throughout his book of 448 pages, opposes the "fighting style" of Foy E. Wallace and his "crowd," he engages in that same "fighting style" against Wallace with a vengeance! If he intended to portray his so-called "gentle style of journalism" he really missed the boat. He loses his argument that it is wrong to argue because he argues that it is wrong to argue. His contempt for Wallace and those like him shows on almost every page. While he sets himself forth as a professional historian, his personal agenda and religious posture are obvious throughout the book. In fact he calls the idea of practicing New Testament Christianity a "myth." "Put another way, primitive Christianity had become the defining, foundational myth for this tradition," p. 210. He who can see through a ladder can see where he is coming from.
Hughes has not one good word for Foy E. Wallace, Jr. He has no appreciation for the good influence he had in those early days when he was battling Premillennialism, institutionalism and the sponsoring church concept. If Hughs' policies had been followed, where would the church be today? Brother Wallace was a very complex personality, capable, it was said, "of making close friends and bitter enemies." He had no equal as a preacher, writer, and defender of the faith (Though I'm not a judge in such matters, he probably was a genius). Regardless of everything else, he deserves credit for the great good he did. He practically stopped the spread of Premillennialism in churches of Christ its tracks, and was likely first to raise opposition to the issues of sponsoring churches and church grants to human institutions.
Because of some personal problems, Foy allowed his influence to be used by the very people he had spent his life opposing. For reasons I won't discuss here, he saw the liberal camp as his only refuge in his latter days. But be it remembered, he didn't fit well there! Some of the big liberal churches tried to use him, but he couldn't stomach their liberalism, and when he spoke out against it, they ditched him, though they rejoiced to count him as a convert from "antiism," which he really wasn't, deep down. The liberals claimed him in order to take advantage of his wide influence among conservatives, and tried to make it appear that he had renounced the hated "antis," but they didn't really care for him. Brother Wallace tried to save face by trying to spin his well-known anti-institutional, sponsoring church stance, but his spinnings fell short of refuting the truths he had defended in earlier days. There is no way that he could convince reasonable people who had read his past writings that he had not changed.
5. Throughout Hughes' book, he exalts elitism ("one of whom he thinks he is which") and extols higher education which has never been a friend of the Lord's church. For instance he says, "And once again, the individuals who led this project (20th Century Christian, jpn) had all enjoyed opportunities in higher education,? (p.210). Is that supposed to be significant? Well, it is, but not the same significance Hughes gives it. The Lord's church has probably suffered more from brethren who have "enjoyed the opportunities in higher education" than from any other source. My good belated, beloved, and witty friend, Luther Blackmon, used to say, ?The problem with higher education is that one has to learn so many things that "ain't" so.? Throughout Hughes' book, he extols higher education, and looks down his elitist nose at men like Ben Franklin, Tolbert Fanning, et al, who likely did more good for the cause of Christ than Hughes ever will, (see chapter 4, and other places in his book). Tolbert Fanning said, "...we think the schools generally are well calculated to make infidels," (Gospel Advocate, Nov. 1856, p. 326,27).
6. Those who lived through the drastic change that came over the church in and around Nashville, TN in the 40's and forward, saw it happening and observed who was involved, but I never knew it was so well planned by its perpetrators. As Hughes shows, there were meetings and plans laid to change the direction of the churches of Christ toward a protestant denominational posture, and deliberately avoid the discussion of pressing issues of the time like Premillennialism. ("...they positioned their new journal as inspirational rather then polemical, thereby withdrawing from the battlefield that Foy Wallace claimed as leader and watchdog..." (p.212). "...they steered clear of all discussion of premillennialism, focusing instead on postive, constructive values that many, if not most, among Churches of Christ could accept." (p.215). One sage observed in the 1950's that "Nashville would become a mission field." He was pretty close to correct, for liberalism swept over at least 90% of the Nashville churches.
7. This movement within the church of Christ followed the pattern of the instrumental music/missionary society apostasy. The leaders of both movements continued to mouth the old line mantras "the restoration movement," ?where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent,? "We call Bible things by Bible names, and do Bible things in Bible ways." This softened the impact of the drastic changes they were making, because it deceived the people into believing that nothing had changed. It's one thing to mouth a motto, and quite another to practice what it projects.
We see that the softening movement of the 40's and forward followed the same historical pattern of previous apostasies. On the masthead of the "20th Century Christian they carried the "New Testament Christianity in the present age." It is significant, however, that later they dropped that from the masthead. Hughes says, "When the magazine changed its name to 21st Century Christian in January 19990, it dropped from its cover the motto "New Testament Christianity in the present age." (p. 211). Did they realize that they had ceased to practice "First Century Christianity in the 21st Century"? Or had such a thought lost its meaning to them and they had adopted Hughes' idea that the idea of practicing first century religion in the 21st century is a "myth"? This was a subtle, but significant change, the impact of which is vividly seen in the liberal churches of Christ today.
This calls to mind Hughes' statement about Norvil Young, "In later years, Young claimed no memory of either a legalistic or exclusivist outlook in the churches of his youth in Middle Tennessee. This is difficult to believe in view of Highes" statement that ?Norvel Young had been immersed in this tradition (the restoration movement philosophy jpn) through the years growing up in Middle Tennessee. His mother's father and uncle both owned farms adjoining David Lipscomb's, and his mother, Ruby Morrow Young, studied not only under Lipscomb, but also under James A. Harding and T. B. Larimore. Young himself graduated from David Lipscomb College, the successor to the old Nashville Bible School. Rather, he recalled a pietistic perspective, centered on prayer, love and one's relation to God through Christ. Further, in the 1930s all four of these students had embraced the pacifist tradition that for years had been central to the apocalyptic worldview.? (P. 210, 11). Either Norvil Young has a short memory, or he is ignorant of the history of "the restoration movement" (which I seriously doubt) in which hundreds of public debates were conducted with the denominations and thousands and thousands of people left the denominations and came into the churches of Christ. Hughes engaged in some wishful thinking here, and the re-writing of history. To say that Lipscomb and Harding and Fanning and others of their contemporaries were passivists with only a "pietistic perspective, centered on prayer, love and one's relation to God through Christ," and were not exclusivistic of human denominations and religious error is to call in question Young"s integrity or Hughes' credentials as the true-blue historian he tries to project himself to be. Historical revisionism is a mixture of dishonesty and wishful thinking.
III. THE ADMISSION OF AN HISTORICAL TRUTH:
It is commendable that Hughes' is honest enough to admit an historical truth, namely that those who opposed centralized control and the sponsoring church concept were not the ones who changed, but rather those who promoted these matters. Not these lines from Hughes' book:
"...the anti-institutional movement among Churches of Christ was not a product solely of the Campbell tradition nor solely of the Stone-Lipscomb tradition but was rather a product of both mixed together, blended, and amalgamated. Second, it means that those who opposed the development of institutions stood squarely in the democratic, anti-institutional mainstream of their nineteenth-century heritage, contrary to the assertions of mainstream Churches of Christ that they were deviants, radicals, and schismatics.
"Not only did these people stand squarely in the historic mainstream of Churches of Christ by virtue of their democratic biases and their opposition to anything smacking of institutions and centralized control but they also stood squarely in the legal tradition of Churches of Christ. In this regard, they simply carried to a higher key the outlook popularized by Arthur Crihfield, John R. Howard, Moses Lard, Benjamin Franklin, and others who had radicalized Alexander Campbell's Christian Baptist," (see Chapters. 3-4).(p. 226).
It is the common practice of those who trim their sails to the prevailing winds of liberalism to deny that they have changed. Campbell did it, Guy Woods and Foy E. Wallace, Jr. did it. This is one of the worst no brainers of all time. Anybody who can read can see in the previous articles the anti-institutional posture of nearly all the leaders of the pro-institutional and sponsoring church movement among churches of Christ since the 1930's. I can express my anti-institutional/centralized control position in the writings of these leaders in the 1930's and forward. In fact, they can often express my views better than I can!
If the general stance of the churches of Christ had been anti-institutional and centralized control, how could "pacifism" have "been central to the apocalyptic worldview" of churches of Christ, as Hughes avers? If the position of the conservative brethren today is identical to what brethren believed before the change came, then the pacifist position had not been "central to the apocalyptic worldview." There was a battle royal between the conservatives and the liberals over the instrumental music and the missionary society, and constant conflict with the denominations. That's hardly pacifism. Hughes can't have It both ways.
That the so-called antis are not "deviants, radicals, and shismatics" will come as a surprise to the thousands of brethren who have been brainwashed with the liberal propaganda to the contrary: Note what Highes says: "..it means that those who opposed the development of institutions stood squarely in the democratic, anti-institutional mainstream of their nineteenth-century heritage, contrary to the assertions of mainstream Churches of Christ that they were deviants, radicals, and schismatics,"(p. 226). How could an honest historian make this admission, and yet call the liberals the "mainstream Churches of Christ." How can they be the "mainstream" when they are the ones who separated from the mainstream? Hughes often meets himself coming back. In the above quotation he called both the conservatives and the liberals the "mainstream." How can both be the "mainstream"?
CONCLUSION:
In the next article I will show that certain brethren among the conservatives are following the pattern of apostasy in the past. It happened with Alexander Campbell, it happened in the institutional/sponsoring church controversy in the last half of the 20th century, and it is now happening among the conservatives. As Thomas Paine said, "These are times that try men's souls." Remember, crises don't make the man, they just declare him.
James P. Needham
1600 Oneco Ave.
Winter Park, FL 32789
October 22, 2006
Conclusion:
In the next article I will show that similar changes are being made today designed to change the attitude and outlook of the conservative churches. It is important that we realize what is happening lest our lack of perception cause us to sleep the sleep of death.
A worried woman went to her gyn-ecologist and said: "Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I’m pregnant again. I don’t want kids so close together.’"So the doctor said: "Ok, and what do you want me to do?" She said: "I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this."
The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: "I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too." She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request. Then he continued: "You see, in order for you not to have to take care of two babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms. “The lady was horrified and said: ‘No doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child!’ 'I agree’, the doctor replied. ‘But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution. The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. “He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that’s already been born and one that’s still in the womb. The crime is the same! Together we can help save precious lives!” ”For You have formed my inward parts; You have covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.”Psalm 139:13-16 . (Author unknown--Source: Internet)
(EDITOR’S NOTE: This story brings out the true fact about abortion. Abortion is the shame of our nation, and will be until it is outlawed. That may never be. President Abama not only believes in abortion, he believes in partial birth abortion, and even infanticide. He voted four times against a bill that would have outlawed allowing babies who survive botched abortions to die without medical assistance. To me, that scrapes the bottom of the whole sleazy barrel of the abortion scandal. What kind of nation have we become? jpn).
Cass Sunstein, the President’s regulatory Czar, proposes abolishing marriage. His proposal would remove the word marriage form our vocabulary. He doesn’t think the government should be in the business of sanctioning marriages. All he thinks the government should do is document agreements between people who are living together. This kind of thing is what happens when the president appoints czars without congressional vetting. It is an end run around the consti-tution and poses a threat to the country. Marriage and family as we know it in this country, and as God designed it, has been under vicious attack for some time. Humanism has said long ago that marriage is a social arrangement, that it was created by society therefore man can change it to suit himself. They don’t believe God had anything to do with it, because they don’t believe in God. Much of our society has bought this devilish bill of goods, and so we have millions of couples living together without marriage, and children by the millions being born out of wedlock, many of them on welfare and raised by foster parents or a mother struggling to keep them together in a sing- le parent home or perhaps by grandpar-ents who give them their old age when they are supposed to be enjoying their retirement. We live in a society where people feel freel to have children for someone else to raise. What right do people have to do this? It is thrust upon them without thier consent,and it violates God’s laws of marriage and family. We have a fornicating society. It is likely the most prevalent sin in society.But it is not looked upon as a sin, but as a natural phemonenon without regulation. It is said to be a natural act, so why not indulge? Children are taught how to indulge in this activity at an ever earlier age in government schools whose curriculum is dictated by the National Teachers Association, which is humanist to the core. They are even being taught about homosexuality in the lower grades, and thus children are having babies out of wedlock. We can attribute this partially to the teaching of evolution. If kids are taught that they are descended from lower animals, then the logical conclusion is, they can live like animals with impunity. One of the great dangers to God’s way is the government schools. This is where much of the social engeneering takes place. This is logical. The best way to change a society is to start with young people. This has been the practice of every dictator in history. The older people are experienced and less likely to change their beliefs. Young people, therefore, are glorified and pampered and molded in the image of the government.
1.Three little puppies for three little pigs!!! A school in England has changed the characters in the children's fairy tale of the three little pigs to three little puppies lest the mentioning of pigs offend the Muslims who consider swine unclean. Muslims will neither raise nor consume swine meat. England has a large Muslim population and if she doesn't do something, it will become a Muslim nation ruled by imams.
2. The Islamic imams are suing!!! The Islamic Imams who were put off the plane because they were acting in ways what other passenger perceived to be threatening, are now suing the airline and are thinking of suing the passengers. In view of some of the judges we have and the ACLU, they probably will win.
It is amazing how the Western countries are accommodating Islam. They have to know the agenda of the Muslims, and any accommodation of them is at our own peril. Our tolerance and accommodation of their activities is done at our own peril; We are helping them destroy our way of life, convert us, enslave us or kill us.
Expelled from school for praying: In Washington State 10 highschool students were expelled from school for 10 days for praying on campus. It so happens that they were children of Russian immigrants!
Isn't this just wonderful???? They thought they had come to "the land of the free and the home of the brave," where people love liberty and believe in freedom of religion. Maybe they should return to Russia, I understand one can pray and study the Bible in Russian schools.
A large crown was gathered on the school ground. A teacher rushed out to see what was going on. Amidst the large ring of onlookers was a fight between two students. The teacher sighed, and said, "Oh, I thought your were praying."?
A skeptic asked, "If there is a God why didn't He prevent the shooting at Columbia High?" To which someone replied, "God is not allowed in schools."
The Bible says, (Psa 9:17) "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." A nation that kicks God out of public arena is kicking itself in the pants. If one doubts this he should read Romans the first chapter and see what happened to the Gentile when they "did not wish to retain God in their knowledge," (Rom 1:28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient..."
God is greater than His creation including all nations:
(Isa 40:15) Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
(Isa 40:17) All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
I have pointed out constantly how our government and many citizens are helping Islam destroy our way of life, and give us the alternative to embrace Islam, submit to it and pay taxes to it, or be killed (probably beheaded). It is obvious to me that our country to a large degree is either ignorant or just ignoring the facts about this violent exclusive religion. I have pointed out many instances where our government and citizens have gone out of their way to accommodate Islam, but have just as determinedly done what they could to hamper “Christianity.” We now have 2 Muslims in the congress, one of whom was sworn in with his hand on the Koran. (The first time in history that something other than the Bible was so used). Now the democrat’s convention has a Muslim, who is an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist case, to speak to millions of people in America and around the world. Can you believe it, and who would have thought such a thing? This shows how far we have drifted as a nation, and portends a doleful future for our country.
Barak Obama, the democrat nominee for president, has said that if the political situation gets tough he will side with the Muslims. Here is a person who has a Muslim name, a Muslim father, and a Muslim background, even attended a Muslim school for a time, and is so sensitive about this that he disallowed two veiled Muslim women to sit on a stage behind him while he made a speech. I have said that it is possible that he is a closet Muslim, and, if he wins the presidency, he might just gradually impose Muslim thoughts and practices on the country, especially if his party maintains control of both houses of the congress.
I am not the only one who has broached the idea that he is a closet Muslim. The news media are helping the Muslims take over by propagating the idea that all the terrorism is done by radical Muslims, when in reality, they are practicing what is mandated in the Koran, their “holy” book which they claim came from their god (Allah). Those few Muslims who oppose their violence are the radicals. A radical is one who is opposed to the usual. The usual conduct of the Muslims throughout its history has been violence, from Mohammed right on down to the present. Now those few Muslims who are preaching peace and condemning the terrorists are the radicals. The conduct of those they call radicals are practicing true Islam. I wish I had the power to wake up this nation to the dangers it is facing. I won’t hold my breath until it happens. As the Bible says (2 Tim 3:1) This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. THEY ARE HERE NOW!
The Islamic religion is determined to kill, or enslave all non Muslims. This is their stated aim and policy. They are immigrating to non-Muslim countries by the thousands, and demanding that the government accommodate their religion. Politicians determined to get their vote so they accomodate them by catering to their religious traditions.This is how Muslims will take over non-Muslim contries. Case in point: Italy now designates a part of a beach where Muslim women can remove their religious garb and enjoy the ocean. I wonder what Muslim country would designate a part of a beach for non-Muslim women. I will give you three guesses, and the first two don’t count. In strict Muslim countries non-Muslim religious people are not allowed to have Bibles or religious assemblies. Muslims in this country will use our freedoms to destroy our freedoms. In Iran I met with a church in Isfahan in secret because the city prohibits all religious assemblies but their own. The brethren allowed me to preach 5 minutes before we took the Lord's supper. How is that for religious freedom? How does it compare to what Muslims are allowed to do in America?
Afflictions, consisting of illness, tragedies etc. are the common lot of mankind in this mundane sphere. They come on the good and the bad. They often cause people to question the goodness and mercy of God. Men sometimes ask, "If God knows of our pain and sorrow, why doesn't He stop them" If He doesn't know about them, then what kind of a God is He? Or sometimes it is approached like this: "If God can't stop suffering, He is not God. If he can stop it and doesn't then he is not a loving God."
These are the logical questions that grow out of desperation, but they portray a woeful lack of insight and knowledge of God, the Bible and the world. I freely admit that this is a very complex area of thought, and I am sure I don't have all the answers to all the questions that men ask about such matters, but let me share with you some thoughts on the matter.
The Bible depicts heaven as the place where there is no pain and no sorrow; no crying, sighing or dying. Now, if that were true of this earthly existence, what would motivate people to want to go to heaven? They would think they were already there. God never intended for this earth to be our final abode, so pain and suffering make us want to move to a better place. Like Paul the apostle who said, "I have a desire to depart to be with Christ which is far better" (Phil. 1:23). How would he have known it would be better to depart if he had experienced no pain or suffering here? How could it be better?
Furthermore, if we experienced no afflictions here we would probably think we have it bad because we would have nothing with which to compare it! So, in reality, how would we know we have it good, if we'd never had it bad? The pain and sorrow make us appreciate the good. Reminds me of the person who said, "I like to hit myself on the head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop." One knows that pain is bad because it feels so good when it is absent. It will be totally absent in heaven.
Again, pain is like a refiner's fire, it removes the dross and brings out our true mettle. David said, "Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word" (Psa. 119:67). Again he said, (Psa 119:71) "It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes."
Many men have turned to the Lord following a serious illness, or a tragic accident. Sometimes it takes the lumps and bumps of life to wake us up, to draw our attention to the more serious side of life. The thorns make us appreciate the roses; the bitter makes us like the sweet; the bad makes us prefer the good. The God who made the world knows how to run it. Let us attend to our business, and let God's alone. This is the road to true happiness in this world.
Samuel Butler, an English writer who lived 1835-1902, said, ”It must be remembered that we have heard only one side of the case. God has written all the books.” (Note-Books). This is a typical slander against the Bible. It says the Bible is not reliable because it presents a biased view, and yet, nothing could be further from the truth. Man could not have written the Bible if he would have, but he wouldn’t have if he could have. We all know that when men write about themselves, the view is nearly always biased. They want to make themselves look as good as possible; they don’t expose all the “warts.” But the Bible does. It tells it like it is. Abraham is one of the great heroes of the Bible, but the Bible records how he lied upon two occasions. There is no greater hero in the Bible than David, but the Bible tells us he committed adultery with another man’s wife and had her husband killed. This doesn’t sound like something written by man about himself, does it?
The skeptic says the Bible affirms the existence of God and claims to be His revelation, so we can’t use it as a witness, since it is testifying in behalf of its own supposed author? Basic in this affirmation is that God cannot be proven apart from the Bible. Nonsense! All we need to prove the existence of God apart from the Bible is listen to the Atheists’ explanation of the origin of the universe and life without God. Isn’t their explanation of the origin of the universe and life one-sided? They offer no adequate first cause and no adequate explanation for the origin of life; it was just one colossal accident; a happenstance! Who can believe such a thing? Someone has well said, ”The world we inhabit must have had an origin; that origin must have consisted in a cause; that cause must have been intelligent; that intelligence must have been supreme; and that supreme, which always was and is supreme, we know by the name of God.” The atheist who says the world and life with all its evidence of design and beauty just happened has a lot more faith than I do. It is a thousand times easier to believe in an intelligent first cause than to believe that design had no designer, and that life sprang from nonlife. You can call that intelligent, if you like, but I call it nonsense, and the Bible calls it foolishness.
The Anglicans are in turmoil over the ordination of a homosexual priest. In Connecticut six priests face possible suspension for refusing to submit to the bishop's authority in the acceptance of a homosexual priest. About a dozen churches have broken with the Anglican church over this matter.
This shows the folly of human churches, ruled by human authority. One must surrender his loyalty to God and his conscience and submit to some human appointed authority. What the Bible says means nothing when it conflicts with man's rules.
The aggressive homosexual movement is being forced on almost every facit of society under the mandate of multi-culturalism, minority and civil rights. Many of the major corporations are falling in line, and giving aid and comfort to it for political reasons.
There is a foolish notion in our country that there is strength in diversity, which is contrary to everything we have known. Strength is in unity, not in diversity.
Sometimes people think thee is a contradiction between Heb. 10:4 and Lev. 16:30.” Heb. 10:4 says, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins” Lev. 16:30 says, “For on that day (that is, the day of atonement) shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.” There is no contradiction here. The point is, that sins were forgiven PROVISIONALLY under the O.T. remedial system. They are forgiven ACTUALLY under the N.T. The Hebrew writer says that under the law, they could “never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comer thereunto perfect...but in those sacrifices there is remembrance made again of sins every year” (Heb. 10:1,3). He explains this more fully in 9:15 when he says, “And for this cause He (that is, Christ) is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death (that is, Christ’s death) for the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” This means that whatever forgiveness O.T. worshipers had was obtained by offering animal blood, which was DEPENDENT upon the future shedding of the blood of Christ; that is, animal blood sacrifices were VALIDATED by that which they foreshadowed, namely, the blood of Christ (Heb. 10:1).
Without the blood of Christ, animal blood would have been useless since “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin.” That is, standing by itself. Paul has reference to this same idea when he says, “For what the law could not do (that is, actually forgive sins), God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:3,4).
by Dennis Gulledge
A movement among churches of Christ that continues to grow and exert a divisive influence is that of the A.D. 70 doctrine, most often associated with Max King of Warren, Ohio, who has written two books espousing his views. The premise of this novel teaching is that all Biblical prophecy was completed by A.D. 70: the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish state took place. Thus, according this ideology, all such events as the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead the judgment day, and the end-of-time have already occurred. That is, all of the-end-of-time things have supposedly been “realized,” according to the students of this theory. For that reason, the doctrine is also called “Realized Eschatology.” The advocates of this theory firmly believe that if the second coming of Christ did not occur during the supposedly expected time frame of the first century, then inspiration has been impugned and the New Testament writers were not only mistaken, but also uninspired. Edward E. Stevens, a proponent of “realized eschatology,” said that we cannot now expect the future coming of Christ “without casting doubt upon the integrity of the New Testament’ (“What Happened in 70 A.D.? - A Study In Bible Prophecy,” p .3). This doctrine may be unheard of to some of you, but apparently it is making itself known in churches of Christ all over the country.
How does it manifest itself in a congregation? Allow Wayne Jackson to explain: “Someone within a congregation becomes infected with the A.D. 70 dogma (or someone who endorses these ideas moves in and identifies with the local church). The teacher may discreetly circulate literature and/or tapes, etc. Gradually, if they have a public teaching capacity, they move into the open, and congregational conflict results. In some cases faithful brethren are forced to move elsewhere; in other instances more dramatic division occurs” Christian Courier, “ June 1992, p. 7).
It seems to work very much the same as other heresies have worked in the past to destroy the unity among the brethren. It begins with “private home studies,” and the secret circulation of tapes or literature. It is brought in piecemeal and is spread, in most cases, before elders are even aware that such a thing is in the works. A teacher can successfully sow the seeds of the A.D. 70 doctrine by becoming a closet-preacher and see to it that his views are heard in a cleverly veiled strategy. Proponents of this doctrine realize that their notions are so unorthodox that to win converts is a formidable one at best. They are very critical of what they call ‘traditional views’ of Bible teachings on the last things. They expect to stimulate interest by a “new view of the Scriptures,” or, “a fresh approach..” Dennis Gulledge preaches the gospel in Mablevale, Arkansas.
(EDITOR’S NOTE: I am quite familiar with this heresy, having dealt with it in a debate with a denominational preacher in the 60’s. Little did I realized that we would have to deal with it among the brethren. Max King is the father of it among us,and he is the son-in-law of a school mate of mine jpn.)
John Calvin lived in the 16th century. He was a brilliant religious and sincere young man, and wrote a book called Institutes of the Christian Religion. I have his work in 2 volumes consisting of 1286 pages. (They are a perfect cure for insomnia). He wrote these books when he was 23 years old and never revised them. The things he taught had been kicked around by various theologians before him, but he took them and fabricated a systematic false theology. They are presented under the acrostic T-U-L-I-P. “T”-- Stands for total depravity. That means all persons are born guilty of the sin of Adam. It is called “original sin,” “Adamic sin and “inherited sin”. “U”--Stands for unconditional election. That means that before God created the world He chose who will be saved and who will be lost, and the number is so certain that not one can be added to it or taken from it. It is without condition on man’s part. Those chosen to be lost can’t be saved and those chosen to be saved cant’ be lost. “L”--Stands for limited atonement. If only the elect can be saved, then Christ did not atone for all sin, but only for the sins of the elect. “I”--Stands for irresistible grace. Since certain persons were eternally chosen to be saved,they have to be saved, so salvation is forced upon them, even if they don’t want it, It is irresistible. “P”--Stands for perseverance of the saints. If the elect will be saved even if they don’t’ want to be, then they will persevere, never be lost.This is known as “once saved always saved,” or “the impossibility of apostasy.”
The basis of this whole erroneous system, is the assumption that babies are born guilty of the sin of Adam, which is impossible. They say that the sin of Adam is passed to all his descendents by natural generation, that is, by biological birth. This is untrue because it is impossible. The acts of the parents are not charged to their off-spring, because their acts cannot get into the germ plasm and the guilt of them transferred to their offspring.
A Calvinist preacher said on his radio program, “You may call a new-born child innocent and pure. We have heard mothers who are supposed to be Reformed as to their faith say of their babies, ‘Isn’t he or she a sweet innocent little thing.’ But let me inform you that you are not talking scriptural language when you speak thus. You are denying the fact that almost the moment the child sees the light of day, it reflects its rebellious and evil nature. That first cry of the child, which is quite natural, is nevertheless an indication of it corrupt nature. It is the result of sin and misery that is incumbent on the entire race of men.”(From a copy of his 851at Broadcast, Apr. 26, 1959, in my possession). This is the height of absurdity, and completely foreign to scripture. Jesus said in Mt. 18:3), “...Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Notice this reasoning: If one must become as a little child to enter the kingdom, and little children are totally depraved, then one must become totally depraved to enter the kingdom. But according to Calvinian doctrine everybody is already totally depraved, so how can one become what he already is? According to the concept of “total depravity,” a new-born baby is as bad as the devil himself. The devil is totally depraved, and if a baby is totally depraved, then it is as bad as the devil himself. Beside that, sin is the transgression of law (1 John 3:4) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of law. What law has a baby transgressed? Also, to be saved one must repent and confess Christ (Mk. 16:16; Rom. 10:10). No baby ever born is capable of either or both of these. If all men since Adam are born in sin, then they are born spiritually dead. But Paul said, (Rom 7:9) ...I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Paul says that at sometime in his life he was spiritually “alive without the law.” That was when he was a child. This could not have been true if he were born totally depraved. “But when the commandment came” that is, when he became old enough to realize that the law applied to him, “sin revived and I died” spiritually. I would like to have a Calvinist explain when Paul was “alive without the law.” He can’t explain it and stick with hid false doctrine of “total depravity.”
John Calvin’s theories show the tremendous influence one person and false doctrine can have on religion. I would say that 99% of the denominations teach some form of Calvinism. Some of them won’t buy the whole package, but they preach “original sin” and the sprinkling of babies. (That supposedly is to remove their Adamic sin). They also teach salvation by faith only and the perseverance of saints, or once saved, always saved. It is a fact that a large part of the members of denominations haven’t the slightest idea what they are supposed to believe. Many will deny that they believe or that their church teaches “once saved always saved.” One person called his preacher and asked if he was supposed to believe that. The preacher answered affirmatively. I talked with a Presbyterian just the other day who had no idea that his church teaches and he is supposed to believe “once saved always saved.”
An atheist, under the title, "Happy Heathen," wrote in a "Dear Abby" column:
"I, like many atheists, consider religion to be superstition, which, for the most part, is harmful to people. At its worst, religion prompts people to blow up buildings with innocent people in them: Examples include the "Christian" gangsters who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma and the Muslims who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." (Source: Orlando Sentinel, 7-5-05).
This always has been the hue and cry of atheists when they want to bash religion. It manifests their abysmal ignorance of reality and their indomitable prejudice. No CHRISTIAN ever was a "gangster," and no CHRISTIAN ever blew up a building killing innocent persons. His ignorance looms large when he attributes such unconscionable acts to CHRISTIANS, or to religion in general. Those who perpetrate such atrocities may claim to be Christians or religious, but they are not Christians and they are not religious in the Biblical sense. They are as phoney as a three dollar bill!
True Christians advocate love and do not preach or practice violence. They are followers of Christ who preached and practiced the very opposite of the many atrocities perpetrated by vicious people in the name of religion or falsely claim to be "Christians." Being a Christian requires more than a false claim. What have atheists done for the world? They don't build hospitals, start schools, or write hymns. Atheists Hitler, Stalin, Edi Amin, of their ilk have killed millions of innocent persons, including women and children. Would "Happy Heathen" like to have all atheists painted with this wide brush as typical of all atheists? I think not!
It is a settled fact that people claiming to be Christians and/or religious have committed the atrocities to which "Happy Heathen" refers, but it is also true that they have hardly outdone the atheists of the world. Condemning all religion because of these atrocities is like condemning soap because you saw a boy with a dirty face.
Typically atheists say "Religion has been the cause of most of the wars in history." That is correct, but the religion revealed in the New Testament never caused a war. Men have used false religion for many nefarious purposes. There are shysters all over television who have become filthy rich by deceiving the gullible public. It is unfortunate that true Christians and gospel preachers get painted with this same brush even though they are the first to condemn it and would never be a part of it.
There was a time when a preacher was highly respected by most people, but not any more. I used to travel throughout the country holding gospel meetings. I often would strike up a conversation with a seat mate. The question usually arose, "What kind of work do you do"? When I would say, "I am a preacher," the person would say, "oh," and that would pretty well end the conversation for the remainder of the trip. The shysters have ruined the reputation of the Lord's church and gospel preachers by painting everybody with the same brush.
In a tape from Ben Laden, he lectures Americans and tells how to stop the war in Iraq. Very generous of him! He says, “There are two solutions to stopping it (the war jpn). One is from our side, and it is to escalate the fighting and killing against you. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out. The second solution is from your side, I invite you to embrace Islam.” So, what does this mean? It means that if we don’t capitulate and embrace Islam, the war will go on until one side has victory. Now this confirms what I have been saying, namely, that this is a religious war; it is a war between those who are Islamic and those who are not. And I will guarantee you that the historians will so describe it. The Islamics have plainly stated that they will take over the world and eliminate all religions but their own. The sad thing about this is that non-Islamic nations, including our own, are accommodating them little by little, because they refuse to acknowledge that it is a religious war. Religious tolerance is a good thing in all nations, if it is tolerance for religion. But when a religion is both a political system and a religion intermingled like Siamese twins, both to be advanced by wholesale killing of those who dissent, then tolerance should cease. Islam is the whole ball of wax; it is a theocracy where religion rules the day; if one violates a religious regulation he will pay civil penalties; which in this case likely is decapitation. The war in Iraq is a ridiculous religious war; it is not a war with Iraq, but a war with Islam. Some of the fighters are from Iraq, but many are from surrounding Islamic countries. Even many of Iraqi fighters are trained in neighboring countries.
So it is not a war with Iraqis, but with Islam. Not to see and admit this is a big part of our problem in Iraq.What would happen if we do as Ben Laden says, and we “embrace Islam”? First we would be required to give up our religion and worship Allah, Arabia’s moon god! We would be required to financially support a bunch of parasitic hate mongers called Mullahs. We would be required to prostrate ourselves in prayer 5 times a day facing Mecca. I try to stay away from politics in my preaching and my writing, but when politics and religion are so intermingled that they can’t be separated, and the system wants to take away our freedoms, which include freedom of speech, assembly and religion, then to oppose it is not dabbling in politics but defending our right to worship Jehovah according to His law.
It is my studied conviction that the American people love their country and its freedoms too much to capitulate to this heathen physiology, once they realize what really is going on (which the politicians who are more interested in power than the good of the nation are trying to keep them from realizing). All this propaganda about terrorism is being carried on by “radical” Islamists who have hijacked a peace-loving religion is pure hogwash propaganda; pure balderdash. Those who are doing this are either ignorant or dishonest, maybe both. If they are ignorant, that can be cured by an evening of reading the Koran; if they are dishonest, that is worse, and they will have to take that up with God and reap what they have sowed. Meanwhile the public, which has been brainwashed with all this political hogwash, need to discover and recognize what is happening and get with the matter of relieving these power mongering politicians of their jobs. Islam has practically taken over the nations of Europe; in a few years most, if not all, of these nations will be ruled by the mullah’s. Spain is already gone, and England is not far behind. Africa is practically there already, and much of Southeast Asia is ruled by Islam. Indonesia has the largest population of Islamics outside of the Middle East. When all this happens, what will happen to the USA? We will be standing alone with probably Australia being our only ally (maybe japan). Perilous times are here, and optimism for the future is hard to come by. We need to do a lot of praying and soul-searching.
This story is told of Tolstoy, the great Russian writer. One day he was walking down the street when a beggar stopped him and pleaded for alms. He searched his pockets, and found nothing. He regretfully said to the beggar, “Please don’t be angry with me, my brother, but I have nothing with me. If I did I would gladly give it to you.” The beggar’s face came alive, and he said, “You have given me more than I asked for; you have called me brother.” What a different world this would be if all men could realize that they are brothers. There are so many walls of separation among the human race: racial, political, national, religious, social, economic, gender, and I could go on and on. All such distinctions are not necessarily bad, but we allow them to become bad. They are bad only because humans make them bad. Men rise to their highest level of self-esteem and to the greatest love for their fellow men when they see all men as made in the image of God, and are therefore brothers. If men believe, as the humanists, atheists and evolutionists teach, that man is just an animal, then there is no basis for loving and trying to understand others. It’s every man for himself; it becomes a “dog-eat-dog” society. This is pretty well what we see today. This is why we have so much murder, rape, the blowing up of airplanes, the taking of hostages, the bombing of airports, etc. Many people in the world live like animals because they have been taught that they are just animals. It stands to reason that if we teach people that they are just animals, they are going to live like animals. Can you not see the reasons for the atrocities we now witness almost every day? Men rape, murder their spouses, their children, and even themselves, with no compunction of conscience.
1.The church Is God's house, household, or family (I Tim. 3:15; Eph. 2:19; 3:15). Only the saved are children in God's family (Rom. 8:16. 17). All of God's children are in His family, the church; therefore, all the saved are in the church; unless God has children outside His family.That is scandalous and unthinkable.
2. Christ is High Priest over God's house (Heb. 10:21), which is the church (I Tim. 3:15). It Is the duty of high priests to offer sacrifices for sins (Heb.5:1; 8:3).
2.Christ as our high priest offered Himself as a sacrifice for our sins (Heb. 8:3; Cf. 7:27). But He "gave Himself" for the church (Eph.5:25), and bought it with His blood (Acls 20:28). Therefore, if one can be saved outside the church he can be saved without a high priest(Christ); therefore without a sacrifice for his sins; yet tbe Bible says this is impossible (Heb. 9:22).
3. The church is Christ's kingdom (Mt. 16:18; Lk. 22:30; I Cor. 11). There are only two kingdoms: Christ's and Satan's (Col.l:13; I John. 5:19). One is either in one or the other (Mt. 12:30). Therefore, if one can be saved outside the church he can be saved in the devil's kingdom. But Christians have been translated out of Satan's kingdom into the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. 1:13).
4. The church is Christ's bride (Eph. 5:32; 2 Cor. 11:2). The bride is to bring forth fruit unto God (Rom 7:4). If one can be saved outside the church, then Christ has children (fruit) by others than his bride--scandalous and unthinkable!
5. There are only two ways, the broad and the narrow. Mt. 7:13,14. The church is either the broad or the narrow way. If it is the broad way, none can be saved in it; if it is the narrow way, none can be saved out of it. We know the church is the narrow way; thus nobody can be saved outside of it; and if this is not true, the broad way does not lead to destruction as Jesus said. Don't be deceived by false teachers Rom. 16:17, who teach false doctrines that will damn the soul.
6. God said he would put salvation in Zion for Israel His glory, Isa. 46:13. The church is spiritual Mt. Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, Heb. 12:22,23; and the "Israel of God" Gal. 6:16. Therefore, salvation is in the church.
7. Isaiah prophesied that the "house of the Lord" which is the church (1Tim. 3:15), would be established in Jerusalem in the "last days," (Isa. 2:1-4), which began on Pentecost in Acts 2 (Acts 2:17), and that "out of Zion would go the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem," (Isa. 2:3). This occured when Peter preached the first gospel sermon under the great commission on Pentecost in Acts 2, and remission of sins was offered on the conditions of repentance and baptism for remission of sins (Acts 2:38). To confirm this, Acts 2:47 says for the first time in the Bible that "The Lord added to the church daily those that were saved," (Acts 2:47).
The atheists, humanists, and so-called scientists have, for generations, questioned many parts of the Bible. There is always the specious claim that the Bible contradicts the known facts of science. When a so-called scientist says this, many people swallow it without question because, to a large extent, our generation has deified science.
It is a bit strange however, that if the Bible is all that illiterate where science is concerned, why the order of creation as stated in Genesis one is exactly the order in which science, and even evolution, says it occurred. William E. Gladstone, who lived from 1808-1898, was one of the greatest statesmen England ever had, beside that, he was a scholar and prolific writer. He made this astounding statement; he said, "The Biblical order of statement as to the creation may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion and established fact."
Bible believers contend that the book of Genesis was written about 1500 B.C. by Moses. We all recognize that scientific knowledge was in its infancy at that time, and very little was known by ordinary men about the order of creation and other such matters, and yet Moses stated the order of creation exactly as modern science says the world came to be.
I am amazed at how blind modern would-be educated men and women can be when they come up against facts which don't suit their particular presuppositions, but I appeal to your good common sense, and say that you cannot help but see that Moses' knowledge of the order in which the world came into being did not come from the conventional scientific knowledge of his time. It had to have had a higher source. That source is the God who made the world and all that in it is. He who says he cannot see the significance of this is indeed blind, but blind by choice. There is an old adage which says, "None is so blind as he who will not see."
The scientific foreknowledge of the Bible is one of the proofs of its divine inspiration. The Bible is not a text book on science or history, but when it touches these fields it is discovered that it states many facts of science and history that were not known by man for many years later. This proves that its source of knowledge was not man, but God who made the world and understands how it works.
The Catholic doctrine of Limbo is this: Babies who die without "baptism," thus are guilty of "original sin," go to Limbo rather than to heaven. There they enjoy natural happiness but not supernatural happiness. This has been taught by the Catholics for centuries, but now they are reconsidering it. An article in the Orlando Sentinel, 10-7-06, it is said, "Vatican theologians are leaning toward revising centuries-old teaching that babies who die without baptism go to limbo instead of heaven, officials said Friday. " The false doctrine of Limbo was invented by the Catholics, so I guess they can change it if they desire. It certainly didn't come from the Bible. Such a doctrine is not one time mentioned in God's word, so it is wholly of human origin. It was invented because of the false doctrine of original sin, namely, that babies are born guilty of Adam's sin, called "original sin." In the Catholic Church babies are "baptized" (a little water poured on their forhead) on the 8th day of life and that supposedly removes the guilt of "original sin." That false doctrine logically brought up the question: what about babies who die without baptism? So, rather than say they are lost, they invented the doctrine of Limbo. One false doctrine always calls for another. Necessity is the mother of invention.
You will be surprised to see proof of Pharaoh’s chariot and bones of horses and men found in the Red Sea. Evidence of the crossing of the Red Sea . . . Pharaoh’s drowned army. Confirmation of the actual Exodus route has come from divers finding coral-encrusted bones and chariot remains in the Gulf of Aqaba. One of the most dramatic records of Divine intervention in history is the account of the Hebrews’ exodus from Egypt. The subsequent drowning of the entire Egyptian army in the Red Sea was not an insignificant event, and confirmation of this event is compelling evidence that the Biblical narrative is truly authentic.
Over the years, many divers have searched the Gulf of Suez in vain for artifacts to verify the Biblical account. But carefully following the Biblical and historical records of the Exodus brings you to Nuweiba, a large beach in the Gulf of Aqaba, as Ron Wyatt discovered in 1978. Repeated dives in depths ranging from 60 to 200 feet deep (18m to 60m), over a stretch of almost 2.5 km, has shown that the chariot parts are scattered across the sea bed. Artifacts found include wheels, chariot bodies, as well as human and horse bones. Divers have located (artifacts jpn) on the Saudi coastline opposite Nuweiba as well. Since 1987, Ron Wyatt found three four-spoke gilded chariot wheels. Coral does not grow on gold, hence the shape has remained very distinct, although the wood inside the gold veneer has disintegrated making them too fragile to move.The hope for future expeditions is to explore the deeper waters with remote cameras or mini-subs. Mute witness to the miracle of the crossing of the Red Sea by the Hebrews 3,500 years ago. Found with a metal detector. Coral-encrusted chariot wheels, filmed off the Saudi coastline, matches chariot wheels found in Tutankhamen’s tomb. Mineralized bone, one of many found at the crossing site. This one tested by the Department of Osteology at Stockholm University, was found to be a human femur, from the right leg of a 165-170cm tall man. It is essentially ‘fossilized, ‘ i.e., replaced by minerals and coral, hence cannot be dated by radiocarbon methods, although this specimen was obviously from antiquity. Exodus 14:25 ‘And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily...’ When Ron Wyatt first visited Nuweiba in 1978, he found a Phoenician style column lying in the water. Unfortunately the inscriptions had been eroded away, hence the column’s importance was not understood until 1984 when a second granite column was found on the Saudi coastline opposite — identical to the first, except on this one the inscription was still intact! In Phoenician letters (Archaic Hebrew), it contained the words: Mizraim (Egypt ); Solomon; Edom; death; Pharaoh; Moses; and Yahweh, indicating that King Solomon had set up these columns as a memorial to the miracle of the crossing of the sea. Saudi Arabia does not admit tourists, and perhaps fearing unauthorized visitors, the Saudi authorities have since removed this column, and replaced it with a flag marker where it once stood.
How deep is the water? The Gulf of Aqaba is very deep, in places over a mile (1,600m) deep. Even with the sea dried up, walking across would be difficult due to the steep grade down the sides. But there is one spot where if the water were removed, it would be an easy descent for people and animals. This is the line between Nuweiba and the opposite shore in Saudi Arabia. Depth-sounding expeditions have revealed a smooth, gentle slope descending from Nuweiba out into the Gulf. This shows up almost like a pathway on depth-recording equipment, confirming it’s Biblical description, ”. . . a way in the sea, and a path in the mighty waters” (Isaiah 43:16). The Bible writers frequently refer to the miracle of the Red Sea crossing, for it was an event which finds no equal in history. The Hebrew prophets describe the sea at the crossing site as “ . . . the waters of the great deep . . . the depths of the sea . . .” (Isaiah 51:10). Knowing the exact spot to which the Bible writers were referring, what is the depth there? The distance between Nuweiba and where artifacts have been found on Saudi coast is about 18km (11 miles) along this line, the deepest point is about 800m (2,600 feet). No wonder that Inspired writers of the Bible described it as the mighty waters. And no wonder that not a single Egyptian survived when the water collapsed in upon them.(SOURCE, Orlando Sentinel). .
(EDITOR’S NOTE: The two articles above demonstrate the blindness of modernists when it comes to the Bible. They flaunt their so-called scholarship and expect the public to accept it as the truth while they ignore plain facts that deny their fallacious claims. The archaeologists’ spade has made liars of them so often that one would think educated people would finally get the point and embrace the truth. Their scholarship is highly doubtful. A true scholar wants to know the truth wherever it leads.
The Bible is under attack from every angle today. There is a determined effort from several groups to debunk it as a revelation from God. There is widespread denial on the part of religious people, including liberal church members, that the Bible provides a pattern for personal and church activity. I believe this is the reason that there is so much tolerance in our country for Islam and the Koran. It gives one an avenue to question the Bible and whether there are not other revelations from God. As one recently said, “There are many channels to God.” Men don’t like the Bible for the same reason criminals don’t like the law. Man is a sinner and the Bible condemns all sin, thus sinners don’t like the Bible because it places too many restrictions upon their life-style, thus, they seek ways to deny it. However, the Bible will read on judgment day just like it does now, and all men will be judged by what it says. (John 12:48) He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
What is the difference between the terms Christian and child of God? A quick way to answer this question is to say, “All Christians are children of God, but not all children of God are Christians.” People commonly think the two terms are synonymous, thus we hear people speak of “good Christians,” and “delinquent Christians,” etc. but I see nothing in scripture to support such a concept. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines the word Christian as “A follower of Christ.” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of N.T. words says it means “an adherent of Christ.” A “Child of God” is a person who has been born into God’s family as taught in John 3:1-5. It is proper to say “Once a child of God, always a child of God,” but it is not proper to say, “Once a Christian, always a Christian.” That is, once I am a son of God, I can’t be unborn. I will always be a son of God, even though I don’t follow Christ, but if I don’t follow Christ, I won’t be a Christian. I am a son of my mother regardless of how I live. I may disgrace her name, and cause her to disinherit me, but she can’t “unborn” me. If I should so act, it could not be said that I was following my mother. By the same token, once I am born into God’s family, I will always be a child of God. I may live in such a way that He will disinherit me as Num. 14:12 says He sometimes does, but a disinherited son is still a son. But it cannot be said that a disinherited son of God is still a follower of Christ, a Christian. If this is not the case, then the definition of words means nothing.
One may say this is a war of words, but so let it be. Words are important. We are commanded to speak “as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Surely nobody will deny this. And certainly all will agree that one does not do this when he uses language that does not convey scriptural thought. The name Christian is a “worthy name” (Jas. 2:7), and one given by the “mouth of the Lord” (Isa. 62:2; Acts 11:26). It can be blasphemed (Jas. 2:7), and is so treated when it is misused, or applied to people who don’t follow Christ. Let us not be guilty of this, but rather let us “glorify God in this name” (1 Pet. 4:16). The name Christian is much abused. People say they are Christians who are not children of God; they have never been born into the family of God, so they are neither children of God nor Christians. Ask most anyone on the street or in your neighborhood, “Are you a Christian?” and they will usually say, “yes.” Yet they make no pretense of acting like a follower of Christ. So, to such persons being a Christian is just saying they are one. It requires a good deal more than that.
Christianity, by which I mean all religions which claim to believe in and follow Christ (even many don't do what they claim to do), is under vicious attack in this country. It is amazing that a country that was founded, and has been known throughout its history, as a "Christian" nation, is now being trashed by secularists, Islamics, atheists and humanists in our own country.
We see this in the constant protest of anything related to Christ in the society, such as "Christmas," (now winter holidays), "nativity scenes" (the birth of Jesus) on public property, prayers in Jesus' name in schools, and at ball games, on and on it goes.
I saw where some school has ruled that there should be no red and green decorations at "Christmas" time. This is getting too silly for words!
Have you heard any protest of Muslims wearing their religious garb to school? Have you heard any protest of the display of the "star of David"?
Hillsborough county Florida has decided that the school system will no longer dismiss for Jewish Honika, Muslim or Christian holidays, celebration of the end of Romadon, or Catholic Good Friday, but students of these faiths can miss school on those days without penalty.
I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count, to tell me who is protesting this ruling. You are correct, the Muslims! Do you know why they don't like it? Because they are determined to force their religion on everyone. It's not enough that they can observe their religious holiday, they want to force everyone else to do so. If that is not the case, why would they protest the ruling when it allows their adherents to miss school and observe the day without penalty.
The plan and purpose of the Muslims is to eradicate from the earth all who don't follow their man-made religion. If they can't do it peacefully, they will do it by mindless violence. Look at what is happening in France, Belgium, and Germany. The riots lasted 12 nights in France, and over 4,000 cars have been burned. Who are these rioters? They are Muslims! They are moving in droves to non-Muslim countries and demanding that their religion be observed or else. This is why there are so many Muslims in the world today. In the past countries were given the choice of Islam or death. That's what is playing out now. They use the freedom of other countries to destroy their freedoms.
It is hard to understand why the democrat party in this country is standing up for the Muslims, and manifesting hate for our president, his war on terrorism, and our country. If we followed the democrat's thinking, Hussein would still be in power and practicing his horrible atrocities. Our beloved country is experiencing a revolution with the help of its own politicians, and much of the nation is sleeping through it.
Throughout history, Christians have lived under various political and social orders. They have lived under ruthless dictatorships, democracy, fascism, communism, etc. Obviously, the system that harmonizes best with Biblical principles is democracy, which does not interfere with our God-given rights such as individual freedom, where citizens are free to practice the religion of Christ without interference from the government. Socialism is a system that was expressed by Karl Marx, the father of atheistic communism (practiced in Russia, China and Cuba) where the government owns everything. Marx’s philosophy went like this: “From each according to ability, to each according to his need.” This, of course, is a myth. In socialism this philosophy never works out. The ruling class takes more than they need, and live in luxury, the common people live in poverty, and the freeloaders don’t produce, but eat at the public trough. Socialism has been tried by various countries, and it has never worked in the end. It tends to make everybody poor. Winston Churchill said, “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”Socialism violates several Bible principles. It encourages laziness on the part of people who want others to care for them from the cradle to the grave. Paul said,” (2 Th 3:10) For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. (1 Tim 5:8) But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (Gal 6:4,5) But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. (5) For every man shall bear his own burden. (Gen 3:19) In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Laziness is a sin against God and our fellowmen. (Prov 10:26) As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to them that send him. (Prov 13:4) The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat. (Prov 20:4) The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing. (Prov 6:10-11) Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man. Democratic societies always gravitate toward socialism. Politicians promise more and more entitlements from tax money to those of lower income in order to buy their votes and stay in power. Some people are always looking for a handout. Our president elect speaks of “spreading the wealth.” President Johnson spoke of “Taking from the haves, and giving to the have nots,” and spoke of this as “the great society.” Thomas Jefferson said, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”This, of course, is socialism. America has been a living example to the world of the advantages of democracy, and the freedom that goes with it: freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of religion, but as usual, the politicians move us closer and closer to socialism and the curtailment of these freedoms. There are people who are thrilled with it. Following the present election, a lady was filmed jumping up and down and saying, “Now I won’t have to pay my mortgage or buy gas for my car.” Socialism encourages freeloading. Thomas Jefferson said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” Our present financial crises is the result of violating Bible principles, which is leading to the violation of other Bible principles and was caused by the same, namely, greed, and is being “fixed” by socialistic principles. Democracy is now devolving into rabid socialism. The result of this trend to the church and Christians is ominous. In socialism the state takes the place of God, and atheism escalates. We can see this happening in the growing success of those who want to kick God our of the public arena. The tool of socialism is confiscatory taxes. The government will take more and more of your income by changing the tax laws, and giving more and more tax breaks to those who will vote to keep the socialist politicians in power. The Christian’s only alternative in a socialistic society is to continue to live by Bible principles and (Heb 13:5) Let your conversation be without covet-ousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. In a democratic society we can always exercise our right to vote. If enough people do this, changes can occur, if they don’t, then the status quo prevails. The more the government is willing to care for people from the cradle to the grave, the longer socialism will exist.
Jesus told a story about a Publican (a tax collector) and a Pharisee (a self-righteous religious radical) who went to the temple at the hour of prayer. The self-righteous Pharisee prayed to God in these words, “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.” (Lk. 18:11). We should be very careful about comparing ourselves to others. If the comparison makes us think we are superior to others, it may make us arrogant. If it makes us feel inferior to others, we may become envious, or discouraged; depending upon our disposition. It is best just to be ourselves, and let others do the same. We are not all equally endowed. We have gifts that differ, and each must paddle his own canoe, or, as they say today, “do our own thing.” Paul, the apostle, said, “We dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare our-selves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise” (2 Cor. 10:12).
None of us should be content to rest on our laurels, but neither is it wise to make life a constant competition with our fellowmen. For me, that takes the joy out of a relationship. We can improve ourselves, multiply our talents, by personal diligence and accepting help wherever we find it without considering every person we meet an adversary to be conquered and overcome. A great deal of the hostility we see in the world comes of senseless rivalries and foolish efforts to “keep up with the Joneses,” as we say. Competition in life is good in its place, but consid-ering every person to be a competitor against me is to make myself very unlikable. I know some very nice persons whose company I don’t relish because they make a personal battle out of everything: a golf game, a fishing trip or hunting trip, etc. If they can’t beat me at everything we undertake, they’re unhappy. Such removes the enjoyment from the activity and the association. If we can improve ourselves, it is wise to do so, but not at another’s expense, or at the cost of friendships and the pleasure of good company. If we are bound and compelled to compare ourselves to someone, then compare ourselves with Christ and strive to reach the ideal He sets for us. Indeed, the Bible says, “For even hereunto were you called, for Christ also suffered, leaving us an example that we should follow in his footsteps” (1 Pet. 2:21). If we strive so to do, we shall have no lack of challenge, and life will be much more enjoyable.
DAVID LIPSCOME ON CONGREGATIONAL COOPERATION
This work (evangelism, jpn) is as clearly and fully committed to the church as the worship, the discipline, or the care of the poor. It is said sometimes that this is the work of the church universal; but the church universal has no existence on earth, save through the local churches. They are its only manifestations, its only organs. It cannot manifest itself save through these. It can do no work save through these its organs. It is just as much the church universal that maintains the worship or feeds the poor as it is the church universal that does the evangelizing. It does all these works through the churches-its only manifestations on earth. The church, or its members are loyal to their head only as they work through these divinely appointed organs of the church; not to work in and through these, is not work in the name of Christ; for on these alone, the name of Jesus is recorded on earth." (David Lipscomb,-"The Church How It Works," Gospel' Advocate, Vol.XXVII - No. 16 (April 22, 1885) p. 241. "We sincerely and earnestly believe all organized bodies for religious purposes outside of, within, above or below the congregation of the Lord are sinful and teasonable." (Quoted by Earl West in the Gospel Guardian, Vol. 5, Sept. 3, 1953, p. 267, no Gospel Advocate documentation given). "Two neighbor farmers work independently. One farmer faces an emergency which he cannot handle alone. He calls in his neighobor for aide. "Each, pursuing his own course, cooperate." When the emergency is over, no cumbersome machinery is left. Lipscomb was convinced that much of the controversy over cooperation was due to a lack of understanding of what constituted cooperation. Two congregations, although a thousand miles apart, each pursuing its own independent course in the work of the Lord, are necessarily cooperating. Their work is cooperative, (Gospel Gurardian, vol. 5, no. 16, Aug. 27, 1953, p. 249).
The government is filled with contradictions: 1. The government tries to get people to stop using tobacco, but it subdizes the farmers who grow it. It’s like a dog chasing its tail!!!! 2. The government authorizes the sale of alcohol, but arrests and prosecutes people for the crimes committed under its influence. 3. The government spends millions of dollars fighting illegal drugs, but ignores the fact that alcohol is a drug legalized by the government. 4. The government goes to great lengths to point out the deleterious effects of the use of tobacco and alcohol, but spends hundreds of millions of dollars through Medicare to treat the harms to health they cause. 5. The government goes ever deeper in debt, but continues to give billions of borrowed dollars to people who spend it unwisely or put much of it in the bank acounts of corrupt leaders who despise us. 6. The government goes ever deeper in debt, but borrows more and more money from tax payers and from foreign governments who constantly work against us. They consistently vote against our interest in the United Nations. I have not figured out how one can get out of debt by borrowing more money!!!! 7. The government beats the drums for respect for a constitution which it doesn’t follow. This is like people who claim great love for God’s word, and forthwith disobey it. It has been said, “consistency is a rare jewel.” --jpn
The U.S. has been known as a country ruled by law, not by emotion. When it comes to judging conduct, there is no justifiable way to circumvent the law. If one commits a crime, justice says one must pay the penalty without regard to any emotional circimstance one might conger up. It doesn’t take a Solomon to see that this principle is no longer viable in the U.S.A. Our constitution is the law of the land, and is supposed to be enforced regardless of circumstance. But this is no longer the case. Our president now has the task of nominating someone for the Supreme Court. He said he wanted someone with empathy. This is another way of saying that in the judgment of conduct, the judge should take into consideration one’s race and background and not the requirements of the law. This means that rape will not always be rape, and muder will not always be murder, and child molestation will not always be child molestation. That is, these crimes will not receive their just due according to the law, because certain empathetic emotions of the judge. That is not justice. That's legislating from the bench.
The lady that our President has nominated to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court is just what the President was looking for. She is on record as saying that an Hispanic woman would make a judge superior to a white male because of her background and upbringing. She is an Hispanic. This means that emotion should trump the law. She is obviously a racist, and a bigot and unfit to sit on the any court, muchless, the highest court in the land.
Now, I have said all of that to say this. This has a strong religious application. The New Testament is the constitution of the church (the law). But the religious world is full of people who say that even though the Bible requires baptism in order to be saved, they know they are saved because they feel saved. Emotion trumps the law. A lady said to me, “I would trade what I feel in my heart for all the Bibles you could stack in your church.” I have heard denominational preachers “preach people into heaven” because the preacher and the subject feel like he/she was saved, even though these persons never obeyed the gospel. I heard a preacher say that a fellow was saved even though he was killed drunk in a car wreck. That’s in utter disregard for God’s law, and is judged solely by emotion. Emotion trumps even God’s law. I have often said, and I know it is ture, that the more emotion one puts into the judgment of any situation, the less truth it takes to satisfy him. People find it much more satisfying to walk by feeling rather than by faith (2Co. 5:7). In the 1940’s and forward in the institutional struggle, we often heard it said, “But it is a good work.” That is judging by emotion. Yes, it may be a good work for the individual, but to do the church’s work through a human institution is to violate the law. There is absolutely no scriptural authority for such action, but that didn’t matter to the promoters of human institutions. The scripture says we must make ALL THINGS according to the pattern (Heb. 8:5). Does this passages mean all things except when there is some emotional circumstance that allows us to violate God’s law?
I continue to record how Muslims plan to infiltrate our government and influence our laws. The first Muslim is running for Congress in one of the states, I failed to remember which. But, if he wins, he will be the first Muslim in congress.
I have said that Islamics will gradually try to take over the government, and then it is possible that the USA will become a Saudi Arabia. What makes this possible is the spirit of tolerance in the U.S.of anything that claims to be a religion. This makes the US easy prey for the Islamic purpose and plan and turns our country into the ultimate in gullibility.
One need not think that the Islamics are ignorant of our laws protecting anything that is called religion, and the freedoms guaranteed under our constitution. As I have said many times, they plan to use our freedoms to destroy our freedoms.
The American government is stupid enough to sit idly by and let it happen. You see, here are the problems.
(1) If an American citizen converts to Islam, who can stop him/her from running for public office? Under the constitution, any citizen can run for public office.
(2) Muslims from Islamic countries are coming to this country in droves. They in time can become citizens, and will be eligible to run for public office. Henry Kissenger is a prime example of what I am saying. He is a Jewish immigrant from Germany many years ago. He became a citizen, and became Secretary of State. Any Muslim from the most rabid Islamic country can do the same thing. The more Muslims that do that, the greater their power to influence our government to favor their religion.
One may think this scenario is far-fetched. Such an attitude plays right into the hands of the Islamics. This is what they hope we will say and think while they work their plan silently in the background by gradualism to become a voting block in the American electorate like other voting blocks that are able to influence the outcome of elections.
Which had you rather have, a frowning friend, or a smiling enemy? Oh, you think the question is dumb? Well, don't judge too quickly! Get all the facts before you decide.
Do you know someone who is always smiling, always flattering you, always acting kindly toward you, but you were terribly disappointed one day to find that the knife sticking in your back was wielded by that very person? Who among us has not had that experience? Well, there are people around who climb to the top over the dead bodies, so to speak, of those they destroyed to get there, smiling and back-stabbing all the way up! All their smiling and seeming goodwill are as phoney as a three-dollar bill. It is just one of their many devious methods of attaining their selfish ends.
But what about frowning friends? Who on earth would want a frowning friend? Well, any sensible person would rather have a frowning friend than a smiling enemy! If you feel otherwise, it has to be because you have spent very little time in the bivouac of life. Call me back in 10 years and let me know if you have changed your mind.
Solomon said, "A friend loveth at all times" (Prov. 17:17), yes, even when it is necessary for him to frown at us.
A friend may frown upon our action, criticize us, maybe even shun us for a time, but all for our good, and because he is a friend. A friend does not turn his head when he sees us do wrong; neither does he smile upon our wrong-doing - he speaks his piece.
That is what friends are all about. Solomon said, "A brother is born for adversity"? (Prov. 17:17). That is, to help us through adversity. Many times the best help we can get in time of trouble is to have a loving friend tell us what we are doing wrong.
If you say to your friends, love me but don't criticize me, you are not looking for a friend, you are looking for a parrot! Maybe YOU would like for things to be well laid out - you want your friends to smile and your enemies to frown. If that is your preference, alright, but somewhere in the game of life, you will change your mind.
Jack Farabee, and Valerie First in letters to the editor of the Sentinel, demonstrates typical bias and fuzzy thinking when it comes to intelligent design vs. chance process evolution. In taking issue with Kathleen Parker's recent article they say: "Kathleen Parker in her recent column on intelligent design (ID) carefully obscures the point that the courts have repeatedly held that ID is a variation of creation science and that forced inclusion of ID in the science curriculum by any government agency is a violation of the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment."
(JPN--I say to Mr. Farabee, the fact that the theory of evolution is a variation of humanism which has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be a religion, and any forced inclusion of it by any government agency is a violation of the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment.)
"The National Academy of Sciences states in "Science and Creationism" that creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes.?"(JPN--Numerous well-known scientists have stated that evolution is not science and should not be presented as such in classes. Science is stystemized knowledge, and evolution is not that, but systemized guess work).
"The Creator in ID arguments is the Christian God and the proponents of ID are active fundamentalist Christians."(JPN-- the creator in the evolution theory is random chance dreamed up by humanist philosophers and its proponents are fundamentalist religious humanists. It is false to say that all who oppose evolution are "fundamentalist Christians." Some boni fide scients are among those who oppose it).
"Certainly no one doubts that President Bush is a devout Christian. His espousal of ID represents an attempt to inject his religion into science education and is a violation of the First Amendment."
(JPN--The evolutionist's espousal of evolution represents an attempt to inject their religion into science education and is a violation of the First Amendment).
Valerie First opines, "If we brought the concept of ID, intelligent design, into the science classroom, it would be a short-lived subject. Intelligent design has no scientific basis. It is not a theory in any scientific sense." (JPN--If we brought the truth about evolution into the class room, it would be a short lived subject, because it is just an unproved theory based upon faith. ID is so obvious in the universe that it is a necessary inference).
"What we don't know, we delegate to faith or a higher intelligence, but that doesn't mean we can't know it."(JPN--There are so many missing links in the theory of evolution that are not known, so according to Ms. First, the evolutionist must walk by faith, which most of them deny that they do. Evolution has not been proven).
"The main point in evolutionary science is that we need more scientific input. Evolution is a fact but the mechanisms are still only partly known. "(JPN-- The mechanism of evolution is not "partly known," it is not known at all. Evolution is not a fact; it is a faith just like ID is a faith, but ID faith is based upon undeniable facts visible to everyone every day and night, while evolution is based upon mere fiction. Intelligent design demands and intelligent designer.)
"Do we just say it is intelligent design and then stop thinking"?JPN--Do we just say evolution and ignore plain facts?)
"What is empowering about studying evolution is that we have this great puzzle that we may still contribute to."(JPN-- Yes, and there are so many missing pieces of this puzzle that we don't know it even exists, so how can we ever find pieces to a puzzle that doesn't even exist?)
Evolution is not being taught as a theory in the public schools, but rather as a FACT. Evolution has never been proven, and never will be proven because it defies logic and violates every scientific law known to man. It never has been demonstrated, and cannot be. Like produces like, and life produces life. Every effect has a cause and the cause must be adequate to produce the effect. Nonlife is not an adequate cause to produce life. This puts so-called evolutionary science on the junk heap.
I heard a talk sow host say, "There are good Muslims and bad Muslims." I wonder if he is well enough informed about Islam to know the good ones from the bad ones. And good or bad by whose standard?
A good Muslim according to the Koran is one who is willing to murder those who disagree with him. A bad one is one who is unwilling to commit murder in spreading his religion according to the Koran.
People must begin to face reality. A Muslim who refuses to commit murder in the spread of his religion is not a good Muslim according to the Koran. Look at just one example:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft forgiving, Most Merciful"? (Qur'an 9:5).
This is what their "holy book" tells them to do, and there is no way that one can be a good Muslim and ignore it. It is high time the American government and its citizens wake up and face reality.
No Muslim should be admitted to this country period. Why does it make any sense to admit people to this country who are avowed murderers, and who cannot escape the fact that they believe it is all in the name of "Allah"? Furthermore, whose leaders are determined to destroy our form of government and put us under a bunch of religious thugs who are determined to kill us.
This country is well known for its freedom of religion. Muslims would take this away in a heart beat and give everyone the choice of converting to Islam, murder, or slavery.
We delight in our freedom of religion, assembly, speech and press, but there would be none of that under Islam.
Christians have never suffered physically in this country for their faith but the way things look these days, we'd better screw our courage to the sticking place and get ready for it. We are gradually reaching the point of no return. Some say just 5 more years.
By HAL BOEDEKER Sentinel Television Critic BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. —Abraham didn’t exist? The Exodus didn’t happen? The Bible’s Buried Secrets, a new PBS documentary, is likely to cause a furor. "It challenges the Bible’s stories if you want to read them literally, and that will disturb many people,” says archaeologist William Dever, who specializes in Israel’s history. But it explains how and why these stories ever came to be told in the first place, and how and why they were written down.” The Nova program will premiere Nov. 18.. PBS presented a clip and a panel discussion at the summer tour of the Television Critics Association. “The program says the Bible was written in the sixth century and that hundreds of authors contributed. “At least the first five books of the Bible come together during the Babylonian exile,” says producer Gary Glassman.
The program challenges long-held beliefs. Abraham, Sarah and their offspring probably didn’t exist, says Carol Meyers, a religion professor at Duke University. “These stories are unlikely to represent real historical events, but rather there’s some kernel of ancient experience in there which has survived and which helps give identity to the people at the time the Bible finally took shape centuries later,” Meyers says. "There’s no archaeological evidence of the Exodus, either, she says, but “it doesn’t mean that there’s no kernel of truth to it.” "Nova series producer Paula Apsell says she found it “extremely shocking” to learn that mono theism was a process that took hundreds of years. “I was always brought up to believe that the minute Abraham and the patriarchs came on the scene, the Israelites accepted one God and there was just always one God and that was it.” "Aspell says, “I think people are going to rally be stunned by that.” "Another shocker: The program contradicts the biblical view that the Israelites came from somewhere else into the land of Canaan. “The film shows that they were Canaanites,” Apsell says. (Source: Orlando Sentinel, 7-12-08)
We are all aware that public morals in this country are in the sewer. Millions of couples are living together without marriage. Millions of children are thus brought into the world that will never have a normal home life, and will be less likely to succeed. Homosexualism is rampant in the world, and demands are being made to redefine marriage so as to accept same sex-marriages as normal behavior.. Pornography is an ever-growing industry, and its most lucrative source of income is the internet; producing upwards of 7 billion dollars a year, and is growing by leaps and bounds. I am told that there are a thousand new sites added every day.
There are almost as many divorces as marriages, and more in some areas.It is interesting to compare the number of marriages and divorces in the daily newspaper. Every Bible student knows that all this is contrary to God’s word, and it will use every means available to get into the church, indeed, to some extent it already has. All kinds of fallacious arguments are being made in efforts to justify unscriptural marriages.
Some churches already are filled with couples living in adultery in full fellowship with the church. I know of a church that accepted a couple who are living together without marriage, and another one who uses known homosexuals in their services, along with at least one brother who is living in adultery.
Let me make it clear: Azalea Park church will not knowingly take into our fellowship any of the above. Our stated purpose as the body of Christ is to follow the law of Christ. It is not that we don’t love people, it is that we don’t intend to jeopardize our own salvation by making lost people think they are saved. In such a case we would endanger our own salvation and their's. No person has the right to expect that of us or anyone else. We will gladly receive into our fellowship anyone who is in fellowship with God. We fully realize that this is contrary to a growing trend in society and in some churches--so let it be.
Anybody who knows anything about the Bible knows that nobody can be saved without the blood of Christ. It is the price paid for our redemption, but how does one appropriate that price to his own benefit? That’s the crucial question. It is obvious that one can appropriate the blood of Christ to himself only by utilizing those things which the Bible says contain the blood. What are they? First, the Bible says Christ’s blood was shed in His death. Jn. 19:34 says that when the Roman soldier pierced His side, “forthwith came there out blood and water.” So, His blood was shed in his death. Obviously, then, to have the benefits of the blood one must enter the death where it was shed. How does one do that? Listen, “Are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Rom. 6:3). Then, the Bible says the blood of Christ is in His supper. When he instituted the supper He said, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.” (Mt. 26:28). Obviously, then, one must partake of the supper to partake of the benefits of the blood. Next, in this same passage he says, “This is my blood of the covenant...” His blood sealed the covenant, so one must be in the covenant to have the benefits of the blood. And, finally, the blood of Christ is in His body, which is his church (Col. 1:18). So, to have the benefits of the blood, one must be in the body, the church. 1 Cor. 12:13 tells us that “by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body.” Friend, have you noticed something significant in this lesson? Look, the blood of Christ is in his death, and in his body. The Bible plainly says we are baptized into both, yet men absolutely deny that baptism has anything to do with salvation. If that is true, then we don’t need the blood of Christ. If there is any other way to contact it than through baptism, I’ve not found it. Again, the blood of Christ is in His supper and in His covenant, but the religious world denies that partaking of the supper each week as the Bible directs (Acts 20:7) is necessary, and they also deny that strict adherence to the blood-sealed N.T. is essential. So, the bottom line is that the religious world denies everything connected with the blood of Christ, all the while affirming that the blood is essential to salvation. They affirm the essentiality of the blood of Christ, then deny everything connected with it. You figure it out, I can’t!
Well, finally the election is here, and if you are like me, you are sick and tired of all the charges, counter charges, lies, misrepresentations, and character assassinations, and yearn for some sanity. This is the most contentious and controversial campaign of my memory. It pits a young neophyte against a national hero of great experience and outstanding record against an orator who can draw crowds like a rock star, but, who, in reality, is an empty suit. He is without experience and without accomplishment to prove his ability to take on the leadership of the free world. In fact he proves the opposite. His morals stink to the clouds when it comes the moral issues of abortion and telling the truth. We know so little about him because he has all his personal documents sealed, (what is he hiding?), but what we have been able to find out is scary and disturbing.
We know that he is for abortion under all circumstances, even partial birth abortion, and infanticide. When he was a legislator in Illinois he voted four times against a bill that would have outlawed failing to give medical attention of babies that survived a botched abortions. These babies are laid on a table and allowed to die without medical help. How barbaric!!! This is nothing short of legalized murder. We know also that he comes from a background of a plethora of unsavory characters who hate America, and who are rabid racists. They are anti American in their speech and actions and among them is a confessed and unrepentant terrorist.
We know also that at least some of these characteristics have been absorbed by Barak Abama. He manifests them in several ways. He refuses to salute the flag, or wear a flag pen (until pressure forced him to do so), he refuses to honor our national anthem, or stand at attention when it is performed.He refused to reject his radical friends and associates until political pressure made it expedient for him to do so. He emphatically denies that he is a Muslim, but he spoke of his “Muslim faith” (claiming it was a slip of the tongue), but he said in his book “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
As in the past, God may use a wicked nation to punish America for its departure from His will and way. In such a case, the innocent will have to suffer for the sins of the guilty, but this is nothing new. In the Babylonian captivity, there was a small remnant of people who remained faithful to God who had to go to Babylon for 70 years just like the wicked, and suffered just like the guilty. (Isa. 1:9) Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. The prophet Habakkuk had a problem with this and wondered why God would use a nation more wicked than the Jews to punish them. He finally came to the realization that he had no right to question God’s judgment, and concluded that (Hab. 2:4) Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. It is possible that America may not have enough salt to save it. More and more it has departed from the Biblical principles upon which it was founded and existed. It has not heeded thousands of warnings that it was sealing its own doom, but these warnings have fallen on deaf ears. As a nation the time may have arrived when we shall get our just deserts, and those who claim to be Christians will have their mettle tested as never before.
If you think this article is too political for a church bulletin, just remember that the above information is definitely related to religion. When politics pushes itself into religion, I for one, will push back without shame. I will earnestly contend for the faith. So, what should Christians do in reference to this election? Let me tell you what I will do, and I will recommend that each Christian consider it. I will vote for the candidate whose value system is closest to mine (a 100% match is not possible). I will consider the outcome of the election to be the will of God and will continue to live for Christ no matter what.
The next president will likely appoint one and maybe two justices to the Supreme Court. If Abama is elected it is easy to see that liberal judges will be appointed who will rule in favor of his immoral liberal agenda. Abortion at any stage, infanticide, Homosexuality, same-sex marriages, and you name it. Which is more important to you, your political affiliation, or your religion? How you vote will tell. In view of the dark clouds on the horizon, we must fortify our faith and devotion to Christ and “screw our courage to the sticking place.” The living of our lives for Christ has been quite easy for most Americans, but there is certainly no guarantee that will always be that way.
How is the church of Christ different from other churches is a question that many ask that deserves an answer. About 99 per cent of the Protestant denominations are strongly influenced by the theology of John Calvin who lived in the sixteenth century, and took the doctrines of Augustine, Luther, and others, and built them into a theological system that has had tremendous influence over the religious thinking of the world to the present. Calvin’s theology consists of 5 cardinal points presented by the acrostic TULIP 1.Total depravity, 2. Unconditional election, 3. Limited atonement, 4. Irresistible grace, and 5. Perseverance of the saints. Some of the Protestant denominations have long since given up part of Calvin’s theology, but they cling to parts of it, particularly his doctrines of justification by faith only, and the impossibility of apostasy.
These two doctrines, and especially, faith only, form the basis of the theology of nearly all the Protestant denominations. We do not teach these doctrines in the church of Christ because they are not taught in the Bible. We duplicate in the 21th century what the Holy Spirit revealed by the apostles in the first century, and He certainly did not reveal these two popular Protestant doctrines. Instead, he revealed the very opposite. Let’s take a look: In James 2:24, the Bible plainly says, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” What could be plainer? It says we are not justified by faith only." That’s enough for us, so we, like the Bible, reject and condemn this false doctrine.
The teaching of the Bible is just as plain on the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy; that is the teaching that the instant one believes in Christ he is so saved that he can never be lost, no matter how he lives. But what does the Bible say? Look at (Gal. 5:4) “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” This is the very thing many Protestants say one cannot do, so they flatly contradict the Bible. So, the church of Christ is different from denominations in its teaching on faith and apostasy. We stand poles apart on these and other teachings which we shall show in succeeding articles.
I have read some Greek philosophy where nearly everything revolved around the gods, and makes perfect nonsense.I have read Shakespeare and Milton. None of their words even begin to approach the wisdom of the Bible. Any good thoughts and ideas they verbalized were not as clearly stated as in the wisdom of Solomon, or David or the prophets, or Christ. Modern day psychology and psychiatry are praised for their theories and therapies. I know a brother in Christ who is a psychologist, and I have heard him say many times, “Any good that modern psychologists or psychiatrists have found was first found in the Bible.”
Man has never had a problem, doesn’t have one now, and never will have one in the future, that cannot be solved by following God’s word. In fact, all, human problems come about by failing to heed God’s word. This is a thought, however, that the majority of men have never had, and they resist it when it is pointed out to them. Men want their problems fixed by some psychologist or psychiatrist with some pill or human wisdom couseling. They don’t want God’s word for it is too constraining on their wanted lifestyle.
People some times come to me for marriage counseling. I counsel them to follow God’s marriage law and everything will be fine. I read with them Eph. 5, and other passages that command love for one another. If true love is there it covers a multitude of sins. If it is not there nothing man or God says will solve the problem. Love cannot be forced or faked. Someone well said, “If we took the best of all the philosophers who ever lived, and put it all together, it would be an akward rendition of the Sermon on the Mount.” Paul sad, "The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God"(1Cor. 3;19).
Satan has convinced hundreds of millions of people that baptism, a burial in water for the remissions of sins, is not essential to salvation. All sorts of quibbles and dodges have been fabricated to try to prove by God's word that, even though baptism is mentioned several times in connection with salvation, it doesn't mean that one can't be saved without it.
The success of this false doctrine is due to blindness brought on by the unscriptural confidence people have come to place in preachers. Nobody ever decided that baptism in water is not essential to salvation by reading the New Testament as can be seen from the following passages:
Mark 1:4, "John did baptize In the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."
Luke 3:3. "And he came Into all the country about Jordan preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission
of sins.?
Acts 2:38, "Then Peter said unto them. Repent and be baptized everyone of you In the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Acts 22:16. "And now why tarriest thou" Arise, and be "baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
Mark 16:16, ?He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.?
I Peter 3:21, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth olso now save us..."
These are ALL of the passages in the New Testament in which baptism and salvation are mentioned together and in every instance, salvation follows baptism--not one time is salvation placed before baptism. This is so simple that only hidebound prejudice can keep one from seeing it.
I ask you kindly, did God state it wrong six times? Or do men just wish He had? (I made this argument in a debate with a Baptist preacher, and it brought him to his feet!) Who will you believe, your preacher or God? Why not read the Bible for yourself, your preacher could be wrong and HE IS WRONG if he tells you the New Testament teaches that baptism in water is not essential to salvation.
It is strange that 99 per cent of all the denominations require something they call baptism; it may be sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, (one preacher "baptized" a baby with rose peddles, and another "baptized" a baby over the telephone), but they do not believe it has anything to do with salvation. Read the above six passages and decide for yourself.
It is even stranger that preachers will preach long and loud about how they believe the Bible, and how they love the word of God, but then they will spend their lives persuading people that it doesn't mean what it says. There is nothing difficult about understanding what the above six passages say. They are written in plain everyday English, the same English you read in your daily news paper, yet, when these same everyday words are found in the Bible, they don't mean what they say.
If a car dealer were to print an ad in the daily news paper that said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall receive a new car," I wonder if anybody would have trouble understanding it. I tell you nay! The dealer would clean out his inventory pronto. Everybody in town would understand the meaning of the ad. But, when God says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," well, that's difficult to understand!!!
I read this statement recently: “Young Evangelicals are questioning whether right is always right.” This sentiment comes straight out of humanism which says truth is relative. Right is not always right. It is relative. What is right for one person many not be right for another. Thus, there are no unalterable principles of right and wrong--circumstances alter cases. This tripe is being taught in the government schools from K-college. The universities are full of professors who buy whole heartedly into this error. The curriculum of public education in this country is largely controlled by the National Teachers Union. It is staffed with rabid humanists. It is a powerful organization, and the government looks to them for educational trends. It is not over the top to say they hate the America of the founding fathers, and their philosophies and historical revisions are to be found in the text books of government schools. For instance in some history text books Thanksgiving is treated with no mention of God. The National Teachers Union is determined to take all references to God and religion from the government schools, and the ACLU and other organizations are determined to take Him out of the public arena. We need to heed Peter’s advice on Pentecost,”Save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40).
Friend, do you think the Bible is believable? Many today answer in the negative. This is a skeptical age. Many seek to discredit the Bible and charge that it is myth and folklore; that it is simply the invention of men. But, any method that would discredit the historicity of the Bible would discredit any other alleged historical fact. There are three alternatives in reference to any alleged fact of history: (1) We could say the writer didn’t know the truth. (2)We could say, the writer knew the truth, but lied about it, or, (3)We could say, the writer knew the truth and told the truth. Let’s try these out on a widely accepted alleged historical fact. Notice, nobody now living personally knows that George Washington was the first president of the United States. We must accept or reject the written record of that claim. Now, we have to deal with the same three possibilities. We can say that those who recorded this as a fact either: Didn’t know the facts, knew them, but lied about them, or knew the truth and told it.
These three possibilities apply to every supposed fact of history. If one can disprove the Bible by them, I can use them to disprove that George Washington was our first president. Now, let’s apply them to the Bible. (1) Did those who wrote the Bible know the facts, or were they deceived, of deceivers? To claim that they were ignorant or deceived requires proof. We can’t charge a historian with ignorance or deception without proof. Is there any proof of either ignorance of deception on the part of the Biblical writers? If so, where is it? (2) Did Biblical writers know the truth, but they lied about it? That is, were they deceivers? Again, to claim such a thing without proof is inexcusable. There is no indication that they were liars. They gave their lives for what they believed. People will die for what they believe, but not for what they know is not true. (3) Did they know the truth and told us the truth? There is every indication of it. ` So, there is better proof of the Bible than any other fact of history because its facts were attested to by miracles. The Bible is a credible book. That being the case, we need to obey it while there is still time and opportunity. If you would like to know more about the Bible, we would be happy to study it with you. .
A RELIGIOUS WAR
Atheists sometimes assert that religion has been the cause of most wars in history. There is a lot of truth in that, though it is not absolutely the truth. I must add hastily, however, that the religion of Christ never caused a single war. Unlike some human religions like Islam, and the ancient Catholics, the religion is not advanced by violence, but by moral persuasion. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual (2 Cor 10:4-5) (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.
It seems that many Americans don't realize that we are now involved in a religious war; basically, it is a war between Islam versus Christians, Jews and non Muslims. The new young president of Iran recently said that Israel should be wiped off the map, and he asked Muslims to imagine a world without the United States.
If we don't wake up we are sleeping the sleep of death. We are living in troublous times, but I fear that many in our country don't realize the danger they are in. Irann arrogantly is defying the rest of the world, and violating a nonproliferation treaty regarding the spread of nuclear weapons. They are determine to develop such and use them on Israel, the USA and Europe. The young arrogant president of Iran has said that their goal is for the world to become Islamic.
What this says is that the war in which we are now engaged will be a long one. And its outcome will determine the kind of world our children and grand children will live in. While many of the terrorists are being killed and taken prisoner, more and more are being trained. The mosques are but the breeding grounds for the hate that is manifested by suicide bombers, kidnappers, beheaders.
This hate is so intense that they are now killing their own people who show any sympathy for non-Muslims. The person doesn't live who can predict the end of this war. It could well last a hundred years. It is hard to realize that all of this was started by an illiterate camel driver.
The saddest part of this matter is that we have a political party that is so angry at being out of power, and seemingly unable to regain it, that they are aiding and abetting our enemy and calling it patriotism. They hate the president, and those who are standing up for our way of life, and they make no bones about it. If their philosophy had been followed, Saddam Hussein would still be in power killing and raping and torturing all who opposed him.
Something is badly wrong in our country, and the future does not look bright unless changes are made. The day could surely come when Americans will have to choose Islam or death.
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a radical as follows: “Marked by a con-considerable departure from the usual or traditional. Extreme. Tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views , habits, conditions or institutions.” The printed, and electronic media, and the politicians are pulling the wool over the public’s eyes by referring to the murdering Islamics as radicals. This is one gigantic lie. They are not the radicals, and the people who are doing this are smart enough to know it. The radicals are those who refuse to murder infidels (non-Muslims) as commanded by the Koran. The Islamics claim that the Koran is the word of God. As such it must be obeyed to the “T” to please Alah, their God. Those who are doing all the ruthless murdering are following the Koran as they have been taught and as it clearly commands. Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191 Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation: Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (Another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers.... These quotations are only examples of many one can read in the Koran.
Now, in view of the definition of radicals, who are the radicals?If language means anything, the radicals are the so-called peace loving Muslims. They are the ones who are departing from the norm, not the murderers. The murderers are the true Muslims, and the peace lovers are the radicals. The American people are being sold a bill of goods by so-called political correctness. Those reporters and commentators who vow to tell it like it is are hypocrites and are afraid to tell it like it is. They would stand to lose followers and be objects of serious criticism and censure if they called this situation accurately. That would mean loss of income, and as usual, if you want to get to the heart of a matter, follow the money. I have not heard a single reporter or commentator say what I am saying in this article. As we said as kids, “I double-dog dare” them to do it. I won’t hold my breath until they do. There are some reporters and commentators that are bolder than the liberals, but there is not a one of them, to my knowledge,who love the truth and the country enough to expose this subterfuge about “radical Islamics.” We have an Islamic sympathizer, if not a closet Islamic, who talked himself into the Whitehouse and who is moving us closer and closer to an Islamic state that will rob us of our freedom of religion and the other freedoms we have enjoyed for over two hundred years. All of the socialism that he is imposing upon the country is a step toward Islam. He is moving closer and closer to a dictatorship. Already there are rumors in the wind that efforts will be made to remove term limits on the President. A leading Islamic cleric said, “I hate democracy.” Show me an Islamic state that has democracy. The time may soon come which an article like this will be a crime.
I have kept before the reader a gradual advancement of Islam on our country. I have even suggested that Obama could be a closet Muslim, and an agent of their agenda to take over our country. I see more and more evidence of this as we see the naivete of our elected officials who accommodate it on every hand. The latest and most significant evidence, and one of the most telling, is the fact that Obama bowed to the king of Saudi. This is beyond the traditional protocol: American presidents do not bow to royalty. If you noticed, Obama did not bow to the queen of England, and his wife violated traditional protocol by putting her arm around the queen. One is not supposed to touch her unless she invites it. The significant thing about his bowing to the king of Saudi is that it is saying that the American president and thus the American people are subservient to the Muslim king. Typically, Obama and all his cohorts are denying that he bowed to the king, but all one has to do is watch the pictures. The explanation is that he bent over to shake hands with someone who was shorter than he. That is simply not so. If one looks at the picture, there is nobody around him shorter than he. This foolish denial is typical of politician skulduggery; they do and say things which they later deny. They often deny the obvious, and some people are naive enough to accept their obvious deception. But let’s go a bit further.
President Barack Obama’s first judicial nominee, David Hamilton, is a former ACLU attorney, who as a federal trial judge issued a court ruling that said “No” to Jesus and “Yes” to Allah. That is, prayers to God were ruled unconstitutional in schools, but prayers to Allah are permissible. Can you believe this? There already are two Muslims in the congress, and Obama is searching for qualified Muslims to work in his administration. Gradually, step by step, the Islamic agenda will be pushed upon our naive society, and the liberal minded citizens will eventually accept it without protest. This already is well advanced, and what is the bulk of American society doing about it? Almost nothing.
There are some conservative lovers of America and American values that were protesting with vigor, but their voice is like one crying in the wilderness of political correctness and tolerance. We must remember that Islam is not just a religion, but also a political system. It is a theocracy, meaning that the religious principles override all other considerations. They will tell the citizens how to dress, how to talk, how to worship, how to marry, and the subjection of women. Violations of their religious laws will bring civil punishment. That is, one can go to jail, or even be beheaded for violations of religious law. Citizens will have the choice of accepting the Muslim religion, be subjected to it, or be killed.
JUDICIAL NONSENSE
Did you take note of the judge who gave a child molester probation? He said he no longer believes in punishment. The prevailing conclusion concerning child molesters is that they are incurable. This is supported by the facts. Child molesters are known to serve time in prison, and after release they repeat the crime. There is a direct relationship between immediate punishment for evil doing and its preponderance. (Eccl 8:11) Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.
There is a direct link between lenient judges and weak judicial decisions and the preponderance of evil in our society.. Blackstone, the father of English law, said where there is no punishment for breaking the law there is respect neither for the law nor the law giver. Why this has not been learned in America is indeed a tragedy, and will lead us more and more toward anarchy.
God ordained governments to be a "terror to evil works" (Rom. 13:3), and to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Rom. 13:4). A government that coddles evil doers is failing to fulfill its God-ordained mission, and the consequences are far reaching.
I am absolutely flabergasted at the rash of kidnappings, rapes and murders of children in our society and the laxity of our judicial system that allows such people to repeat the crime over and over. The State of Texas has just passed a law that will give a person 40 years in prison for multiple child molestations!!! Can you imagine that? Not for just one, but for more than one. Any judge worth his salt knows the statistics on child molesters--they never are cured. They can be put in prison, serve their time, and repeat their crime over and over. Judges know that, but they continue to repeat their stupid practice of putting these people back on the street. According to this crazy Texas law, the rapist can molest once, and get a slap on the wrist, but twice and he gets 40 years in the slammer. The law should say one rape and murder and you have forfeited you right to live.
I can't think of a worse crime than molesting a child. It inflicts a scar that never will heal. It screws up a person's ability to form a proper and peaceful relationship with the opposit sex; is the cause of troubled marriages and even divorce.This is a problem that has been around for a long time, but nobody can convince me that it hasn't gotten worse. There are new cases every day.
Some progress has been made with the problem in that sex offenders are required to register with the police, and a neighborhood is to be notified that they live in the community. (There are four known sex offenders in my own neighborhood). If I had my way about it, there wouldn't be even one. These people should either be in prison for life, or in the cemetary. There is just no place for this vermin in society.
Furthermore, if you don't know whether there are sex offenders living in your neighborhood, you can go on the internet and find a data base that registers all known sex offenders and their last known address in every state and community. Or you can contact the police department in your area and get a list of them. Don't be caught unaware.
I am sure you have been following the bruhaha about Mr. Vick, the Atlanta professional quarterback, who got caught in a dog fighting ring. The story is that the dogs that didn’t do well in the fight, were put to death by electric shock, shot in the head or drowned. Mr. Vick supposedly put several of these un-skilled dogs to death. Well, I am not for the inhumane treatment of animals, but let me point out something to you. Millions of unborn babies are put to death annually in this country, and to a large degree, the people who are making so much noise about killing the dogs are the same people who promote and approve abortion. Is this convoluted, or what? At the same time, it is well known that the greyhounds who get old and can’t win races any more, are also killed. We have heard very little noise about this. Why? Well one reason is dog racing is legal, and dog fighting is not. But how does that change the complexion of the situation? Well, it doesn’t. I have said it before and I will say it again, there is an element in our society that values animals above humans. Millions of babies can be killed with the approval of much of society and the government, but the mistreatment of animals is the unpardonable sin. I here protest both. Our society is suffering from a bad case of mixed up values.
Introduction: Since the Islamic religion is so much in the news today, perhaps we should learn something about it.This is a lengthy article surveying the founding, teaching, distribution, and doctrine of Islam. I hope it will help you to gain some insight into this false religion which we are now facing. I have traveled extensively in the Moslem world, and have given a good deal of study to the subject. 1. Statistics: There are 1,155,109,000 Muslims in the world, and it is said to be one of the fastest growing religions in the world. It is growing by leaps and bounds in the USA, largely by of immigration from Muslim countries. 2. Distribution: The following countries have Islamic populations: Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Russia, Iran (36,000,000 population 33,000,000 Shi’ites), England (There are presently more Moslems in England than there are people in the churches in England on Sunday, (Monroy, p.342), United States, 5,780,000 Muslims (They are buying buildings in the United States and turning them into Mosques, meeting places), Philippine Islands, Syria, Kuwait, Yemen, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia (Has the largest population of Moslems in the world), Greece, Jordan, Egypt. The Islamic religion is the second largest religious force in the world, embracing 1/7 of the earth’s population, 1,155,109,000. 3. Nomenclature (terminology): Names of the two main divisions in Islam: Sunnites--They insist upon the “Sunna” (The way). They claim to be the true followers of Mohammed’s traditions or acts. They are the moderates and interpret the Jihad (holy war) as a spiritual struggle, not a physical one. a. Shi’ites-”Separatists”. “The Shia sect split off early in the history of Islam. They contend that the first really legitimate successor (to Mohammed jpn) was AIi, who, as being personally in the family of Mohammed (he was his son-in-law), was The one to continue the true succession from Mohammed”(Hume,p.240).Before Mohammed’s death he appointed Ali, his son-in-law, to be his successor, but at his death the Shi’ites wanted to accept his choice, Ali, but the Sunnites wanted to follow Abu Bakr, Mohammed’s scribe.There followed a succession of four Caliphs, all of whom were assassinated by Muslims. In His book A Christian’s Response to Islam William M. Miller, says, “There are two major groups in the Muslim world. They are the Sunnites, who claim to follow the true traditions of Muhammad, and the Shi’ites who are a minority. The most important doctrine of the Shi’ites is belief in the Imams, a doctrine which is rejected by the Sunnites. Since most of the Muslims in Iran, and many in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other lands are shi’ites, it is necessary to explain their belief. The basic cause for this division among the people of Islam was a difference of opinion as to who should succeed Muhammad. For Muhammad was both a religious and also a civil ruler over most of the people of Arabia. On his death who should continue his rule? The majority of Muslims held that the successor should be the best man in the community and they accepted the four caliphs who in turn ruled the Muslim empire after Muhammad.” (Miller, p.54). b.Their name for God is Allah. Supposedly this is their name for the God of Abraham, but that has been much disputed. Some believe “Allah” is a god of their own making, and not the God of the Bible. c. Their names for their “holy” men, or religious leaders: Imam--Arabic, literally, “He who stands before.” “In Shi’ite Islam, a spiritual leader whose authority is derived directly from The prophet Muhammad through a line of succession through Ali and his descendants. He alone is endowed with the power of interpreting Islamic truth in the age in which he lives. He is regarded as infallible and as possessing the light of God which attracts people to him. There is an imam in every age, but he may be concealed, because God is enraged at those who have threatened the safety of the imam. In the Imamiya branch of Shi’ism the twelfth imam is expected to return as the Mahdi (the guided one, Messiah jpn) and institute a just Islamic society. “In SUNNITE Islam, the leader of worship in the MOSQUE, who stands in front of the assembly of believers to ensure unison in the movements of the prayers; also a jurist who is consulted in matters of SHARIA. Sunnis also accord the title to such prominent figures as Ali, an imam of the Shi’ites.” (Abington, p.337). d. Ayatollah-(Aya-to-la). In Arabic, literally, “Sign of God. “Among the Shi’ites, a Jurist (Mujtahid) who is regarded by his followers as the most learned person of the age, whose righteousness and piety are well established, and whose knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence enables him to make independent judgments. The full title is ayatollah ‘uzma (‘the supreme). He is backed by the authority of the infallible Shifte IMAM, and his legal rulings are made accessible to his followers throughout the world.” (A.S. Sachedina, Abington Dictionary of Living Religions, Abington, Nashville. p.84). There are thought to be about 1200 Ayatollahs in all of Islam. They are considered representatives of Mohammed and of politics and economics is great indeed. Local priests or leaders: Mullah (Iran), Hodja (Turkey), Imam (Arab countries). (One who stands before; that is leads in the prayers). These can be identified by their distinctive attire. Imam has a different significance in Shi’ite and Sunni Islam. e. The name of their “holy book” is the Koran meaning “recitation”. God supposedly gave it to Mohammed and he “recited” it. f. Islamics are called by various names: Mohammedans--Followers of Mohammed, though they disavow this name saying they follow God not Mohammed. Islam-Infinitive of the Arabic “AS-LA-MA” and means “to submit.” Muslim or Moslem-Present article, therefore a Muslim is a “submitting one.” THE ORIGIN, HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF ISLAM William Miller says, “...it is not possible to tell the story of Muhammad’s life with complete historical accuracy, for the sources available consist largely of tradition, some of which originated long after the death of Muhammad. The source that is most reliable is the Koran...” (A Christian’s response to Islam, WM. Miller, Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co, Phillipsburg, NJ., 1979, p. 13. The early life of Muhammad, the founder of the Islamic religion: He was born in Mecca in West Central Arabia in 570 AD to an extremely poor family. Greer, in his book What the Great Religions Believe, p. 148, says, “...after his death, legends arose about the many miracles that accompanied his birth. The stars sang in praise of God, and mountains and valleys responded, lauding the newborn child. Temples crumbled in far-off countries. And in distant Persia, in the temples of Zoroaster, the Eternal Fire which had burned steadily for centuries, suddenly went out. The earth quaked with joy, and idols all over the world tumbled down from their pedestals. And everywhere the omens foretold that a great and godly manchild had been born to cleanse the earth of idolatry and corruption.” Abdula, (meaning slave to Allah) Mohammed’s father, died before he was born. Amina, his mother, died when he was 6 years old. He was taken by his grandfather, who soon died also. He then was taken by an uncle, Abu Talib, who treated him very kindly. He grew up to be a fine man, with ability and good character. At age 25 he was employed as a camel driver by a rich widow named Kahdijey, to accompany her caravan to Syria. She was so pleased with his work that upon his return she proposed marriage which he accepted. She gave him both love and wealth. They had two sons and 4 daughters. Khadijeh, died 25 years later in the 10th year of his ministry. After a few months he married a widow of one of his followers. He also married Ayisha, the seven-year-old daughter of his friend Abu Bakr. She became his favorite wife. The beginning of his mission His mission began when he was 42 years old after a long period of meditation. He claimed he saw a vision from God in which He demanded the eradication of paganism, and total submission to the one true God (the meaning of the word Islam). Succession of Leaders “Mohammed died without leaving a son or any appointed ‘successor.’ Then for twenty-eight years the leadership was maintained in turn by four valiant personal comrades of the Prophet. Abu Bekr, who ordered the collecting of Mohammed’s sayings. Omar who conquered Syria and Persia; Othman, who ordered a revision of the Koran and the insertion of the vowel-points into the consonantal text; and Ali, Mohammed’s son-in-law, with whose assassination Islam became permanently divided into sects. Then there arose a series of different caliphates, some of them simultaneous, and warring against each other,” (Hume, p. 239). From Mecca to Medina and back to Mecca “...the leading people of the city (of Mecca, jpn) whom Muhammad was eager to win, ignored and soon began to ridicule him. Who was he, a common man, to make such a claim for himself? As his message about the resurrection was incredible. How could dead bones come to life again.? They accused him of sorcery and fraud. As Muhammad began to attack the gods in the Ka’aba, saying they were no gods, the men of Mecca became increasingly angry and began to persecute his little band of a hundred followers....The persecution became so severe that Muhammad sent eight of his followers to Ethiopia, a Christian country...” (Miller, p. 21,22). His move to Medina (called the He-gi-ra). After 13 years in Mecca the opposition to him and his claims were so great that he fled to Medina, 280 miles north of Mecca. Medina previously had been known as Yathrib, but after his move there its name was changed to Medina, meaning, “The city of the prophet.” His vision and ascension “As the time of departure (from Mecca to Medina) approached, Mohammed had a vision which mush that changed as he contemplated his thirteen years of unsuccessful effort to win the people of his native city to his side. He saw himself carried from Mecca to Jerusalem, the city which he and his followers faced in their worship, as did the Jews. From Jerusalem he was carried up into heaven, where he talked with apostles and prophets of the past, and was attested and honored by them. In some traditions this ‘Night Journey’ is related as a bodily ascension to heaven, but in another tradition his wife Ayisha stated that on that night Muhammad did not leave his bed” (Miller, p. 24). His migration to Medina is recognized as the beginning of Islam, and so became the beginning of their calendar. So in Islam the present year 2001 is the year 1379. In Medina he built the first Mosque (meeting place) of Islam, and preached his first sermon on Friday; thus Friday is their day of worship. His return to Mecca By 630 AD, his influence and power grew to the point that he returned to Mecca with an army of 10,000 and established the religion of “the one true merciful Allah.” The cause of the spread of Islam By the 8th-10th century, there was rapid expansion of Islam, and the “Christian” world suffered great losses to it. This was due to several causes: (1) Islamic military conquests. Muhammad had his own army and spread his religion by the edge of the sword. (2) The corruption of Catholicism and its idolatry which was equated with “Christianity,” as it still is. (3) The westernization of “Christianity.” Due to Constantine’s “conversion” in 321 AD, “Christianity” took on more and more of a Western flavor, and the home of its birth was all but forgotten as it was absorbed by the followers of Muhammad. (4) The Crusades. In the 11th and 12th centuries the pope used military force in an effort to rest the “holy land” from the control of Islam. The crusades were the beginning of a thousand years of conflict between the people and Islam. The control of the “holy land,” alternated between the Catholics and Islam, with Islam finally gaining the upper hand. Thus, the Mosque’s of The Dome of the Rock, and of Omar stand in Jerusalem today as monuments to Islamic control of certain so-called “holy places” in the land of the Bible. Some Positive aspects of the spread of Islam (a) Destruction of paganism and animism. (b) Destruction of immorality and corruption that accompanied these evils. (c) Warring tribes were united under “Allah.” (d) Infanticide was forbidden, even with female babies. (e) Genuine concern for the poor was taught and practiced. (f) Religious freedom for Jews and “Christians” was respected. Though it is not true today in some Islamic countries. THE ORIGIN OF THE KORAN The Koran is their “holy book,” supposedly revealed to Mohammed by than angel Gabriel. It contains 114 suras (chapters), and 7,639 words, and is about the size of our New Testament. It is the source document of Islam. It is revered beyond measure as a holy object. One can receive life in prison for desecrating Mohammed or the Koran: “Islamabad, March 18, 1982. In view of the absolute sanctity of the Holy Book and the need to prevent copies thereof from being defiled or used in an unlawful manner, the President has promulgated an Ordinance which amends the Pakistan Code so as to provide for punishment of a person committing the offence with imprisonment for life.... Defiling, etc., a copy of Holy Quran: Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom or uses in any derogatory manner for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life” (Karachi Newspaper, March 18, 1982.Source, Gospel Advocate, November 18, 1982). Salman Rushti is under death sentence for telling the truth about the immoral life of Mohammed. To protect his life he has been in exile in England for several years. One desecrates the Koran by Marking or wiring on it, preaching against it, discarding a worn out copy of it. About the year 610 AD in the month of Ramadan, at age 40, the angel Gabriel came to Muhammad as he slept and commanded him to recite. He asked, “Recite what?” Gabriel said, “Recite thou in the name of the Lord, who created man from clots of blood” (Koran, Sura 96). He was troubled over this incident; confided it to his wife, and she assured him that it was Allah’s calling him to be prophetic office. One must ask how did she find out? For several months he received no further revelations, and was deeply troubled, and contemplated suicide. After two years, revelations began to come in various forms. Sometimes he saw the angel Gabriel. Sometimes he heard a bell. Through the sound of the bell the words of the angel were brought to him. Sometimes the message came in a dream. At other times the message came through thoughts in his mind. When messages would come to him his whole body would become agitated, and perspiration would pour oft his face, and he would fall to the ground and foam at the mouth. (Sounds as though he might have been a epileptic.) Revelations always came in the Arabic language. Mohammed would repeat the words he received and the people around him would write them down. Muslims generally believe that Mohammed was illiterate, and the Koran indicates as much. Sura 7:158 calls Mohammed an “unlettered prophet.” “The boy was not sent to school. He worked in the stables helping to care for his uncle’s camels” (Gaer, p.148). About the year 610 AD in the month of Ramadan, at age 40, the angel Gabriel came to Muhammad as he slept and commanded him to recite. He asked, “Recite what?” Gabriel said, “Recite thou in the name of the Lord, who created man from clots of blood,” (Koran, Sura 96). He was deeply troubled over this incident; confided it to his wife, and she assured him that it was Allah’s calling him to the prophetic office. One must ask, “How did she find out”? For several months he received no further revelations, and was deeply troubled, and contemplated suicide. After two years, revelations began to come in various forms. Sometimes he saw the angel Gabriel. Sometimes he heard a bell. Through the sound of the bell the words of the angel were brought to him. Sometimes the message came in a dream. At other times the message came through thoughts in his mind. When messages would come to him his whole body would become agitated, and perspiration would pour oft his face, and he would fall to the ground and foam at the mouth. (Sounds as though he might have been a epileptic.) Revelations always came in the Arabic language. Mohammed would repeat the words he received and the people around him would write them down. Muslims generally believe that Mohammed was illiterate, and the Koran indicates as much. Sura 1:158 calls Mohammed an “unlettered prophet.” “The boy was not sent to school. He worked in the stables helping to care for his uncle’s camels” (Gaer, p.148). About a year following his death, his messages were collected by Abu Bekr, his successor, and incorporated in the Koran (meaning “recitation”). Mohammed never ordered the compilation of his “revelations” into a book called the Koran. The present version of the Koran is the second, and a revision of the first, which was destroyed. “...the historic facts seem to be that Mohammed himself did not write one word of the Koran as the document has come down in its present form. About a year after his death, Abu Bek,; his successor, ordered a compilation of the teachings of the Prophet, which could be remembered accurately, or which otherwise had been preserved by devoted disciples. Eleven or twelve years after the death of Mohammed, an account of the variations and confusions which had arisen among the reported sayings of Mohammed, the third caliph, Othman, ordered a revision to be made, and all existing copies of the previous compilation to be destroyed. Thus, the present text of the Koran is not the first edition, but a second edition, which had been made in order ‘to stop the people before they should differ regarding scriptures, as did the Jews and Christians” (Rodwell, The Koran translated from the Arabid, 1; Muir, four-volume Life vol.1, p. Xiii). (From The World’s Living Religions. Robert E. Hume, Scribners, 1959. p. 229,230). Mohammed believed the words which came to him were the words of God, and that he was only the reciter. Muslims believe the Koran is not Mohammed’s book, but God’s.The Koran says, “No one knows its hidden meanings except God” (Sura 3:7). (NOTE: The Islamics sometimes spell Mohammed Muhammad, and Koran is sometimes spelled Qu’ran, Moslem is sometimes Moslim. The history and composition of the Koran cast serious doubt upon its authenticity and divine inspiration. jpn). THE THEOLOGY OF ISLAM The Islamics deny that Jesus is the Messiah.They say God has had four prophets in history: Adam, Moses, Christ and Mohammed, but Mohammed is the greatest of them all. They teach a doctrine of a Messiah, the Mah-di. He will come and establish an Islamic religio-political system and rule the world. Jesus is paid high tribute in the Koran, but they abhor the idea that He is the Son of God, for they say God had no wives, and certainly no intercourse necessary to the begettal of a son. Sura (chapter) 112.3 says Allah (God) “Begetteth not, and is not begotten.” They claim the Bible predicted the coming of Mohammed. The Koran states, “And remember, Jesus the Son of Mary said, ‘O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of God (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving glad tidings of an Apostle to come after me, whose name is Ahmad’” (Sura 61:6). “Many Muslim commentaries on this verse will point out that ‘Ahmad,’ a name for Muhammad, means ‘praised one’ which in the Greek is translated into the world periclytos. In John 14:26, Jesus did promise the apostles that the parkleton or ‘Comforter’ would come and remind them of all that He taught. Thus, the Muslims claim the word was corrupted and originally read the ‘Praised one,’ namely, Muhammad’” (Huffard, p. 103). The fallacy of this is seen in the fact that the Comforter Jesus promised to send was a spirit, not a physical person named Mohammed. God the Father certainly would not send a person in Christ’s name who would deny His Messiahship as Mohammed did. John says, (1 John2:23) “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” What Christ promised to send when He went away surely was not to come 600 years after His ascension! In such a case the Comforter would not be sent to those to whom Jesus promised Him, for in 600 years they would all be dead! Furthermore, Mohammed began His ministry in 612 AD. Christ ascended in about 33 AD. The word PARACLETOS (comforter) appeared In the Codex Vaticanus manuscript of the Bible which was written long before Mohammed lived. They say the “Epistle of Barnabas” denies that Jesus is the Messiah, but the one who would follow Him, namely, Mohammed. This “Epistle of Barnabas” is not the same as the one quoted by Irenaeus in the second century (130-200 AD), which is also spurious. Errors in the Koran: (a)It says the Jubilee year in the O.T. was held every 100th year. Not so, it was held every fiftieth year. Around 1300 AD the Catholics introduced the Jubilee year as a centenary event, so this is likely a carry over of Catholic error. (b) The Koran contains almost direct quotes from Dante, and contains other traces of Medieval Italy that clearly date it. (c) It shows a woeful ignorance of Palestinian geography and history. The author stated that Jesus took a ship on the Sea of Galilee and sailed to Nazareth. Nazareth has no water connection to the Sea of Galilee. So how could one sale to it on the Sea of Galilee? Nazareth is 1500 feet above sea level, so how could one sail up hill 1500 feet where there was no water? (d) It says the wine of Jesus’ first miracle was stored in casks or barrels. In the Roman world wine was stored in pottery jars or skins. This Epistle of Barnabas attacks the teachings of the Koran on such issues as: Its account of the creation. The number of prophets sent by God. Its attitude toward evil. So they use it when it suits their error. Their creed: (a)“There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah.” The Shi’ites: (b) The affirmation of the unity of God; (c) Belief in the justice of God; (d) Belief in prophecy. (e) Belief in the i-mam-ate. (Imams are like priests). (Sunnites don’t believe this one is a fundamental of religion). (f) Belief in the day of judgment. (Abington, p. 337). (g) Belief in heaven: They believe God “will reward with the pleasures of a sensual paradise those who worship him and do good deeds...” (Miller, p. 21). (h) Belief in hell:They believe Alah will “condemn to the fires of hell those who do evil deeds, the worst of which is associating other gods with God (Alah)” (Miller, p. 21). The five pillars of Islam: 1. SHA-HA-DAH—The duty to recite the creed: “There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.” 2. SA-LAT—Daily prayers facing Mecca. Sunnites—5 times a day: At dawn, Noon, Afternoon, Sunset, After dark. Shi’ites—three times a day. 3. ZA-KAT—Tithe. 1/5 of all assets must be given to the Imam. (In Iran I saw the Imams going from business to business to collect this. Those who refused to give it were put under a curse). Imams, especially in Shi’ite Islam, or wealthy people. Hemeini’s estate estimated to be worth $40,000,000. 4. RA-MA-DAN—Fasting during the daylight hours of the 9th month of the Moslem calendar in commemoration of the first revelation of the Koran. 5. HA-DJ—The duty to make the pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime, if possible. Wears seamless gown. Walk around the Kaaba (a cube like temple in Mecca supposedly built by Abraham and Ishmael) 7 times while praying. (The ‘black stone’ is a meterorite about the size of an apple. Supposedly it has been handed down from Adam who brought it out of the Garden of Eden. Legend says it turned black over the sins of the people. It is kept in the Kaaba (cube-like temple in Mecca). JI-HOD--The holy war. This one is not mandatory. (More about this later).Where the Bible conflicts with the Koran they say the Bible has been corrupted. Here are a few examples of such contradictions. (1) Angels to worship Adam, and the origin of Satan (Sura 7:11). “It is stated several times in the Koran that when God created Adam he commanded the angels to worship him. All did so except Iblis (Diabolos, Satan), who refused, saying, ‘He is made of clay, but I was made of fire. I am better than he, so why should I worship him?’ God cursed Iblis for his disobedience and cast him out of paradise, and he became man’s chief enemy. He is the head of all the demons...” (Miller, p. 46). How to be saved. Muslims say, “Believe in God and in his Apostle, Mohammed, and do what God requires and if God so wills He will accept you,”(Miller, p. 81). The Koran against the Koran: Sura 2:257--”Let there be no compulsion in religion.” Sura 9:74--”O Prophet, contend against the infidels and be rigorous with them.” Sura 9:5--”When the sacred months are past, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them, and seize them, besiege them, and law wait for them with every kind of anguish; but if they shall convert and observe prayer and pay the obligatory alms let them go their way.” Islamics claim that the Koran authorizes only defensive warfare, but this sounds very aggressive! Using the revelation as a basis, Mohammed and his followers began to plunder, and murder as they robbed the caravans. Mohammed used his success at this as proof that God was with him. (This would prove that God was with Al Capone and other notorious gangsters because they were very successful at advancing their causes by violent means). From this time forward the Islamic religions has been advanced by the edge of the sword. Many of the Islamic countries of the middle East are such due to the violent conquests of Mohammed. Even at this late date the sings of Islamic conquest of Iran are still visual. They mutilated the faces of beautiful sculptures which abound in Iran because of their misguided believe that such sculptures violate the prohibition of graven images. It is a myth that the Islamic religion is a religion of love and mercy. This image is being projected by our President for political reasons, or out of ignorance of the history of the religion. In the process of this series of articles I will show from the Koran and history that this is a false image of the religion, and the world will do well to fear its efforts to advance its cause by senseless violence and unbelievable terrorist incidents. EXPANSION PLANS OF ISLAM Homeini, (now dead) said, “In the years that I have left, I am hoping to dedicate to producing an- Islam for the whole world; that humanity may know that Alah is great.” (Juan Monroy, Firm Foundation, May 29, 1979. p. 342, 344). Jihad—”Holy war”: “Some Muslims have always looked forward to a time when they would be able to conquer all non-Muslims and establish Islam as the religio-political system for the world. They see the world divided into two hostile camps, that of the Believers and that of the Infidels, and there must be war till God’s army prevails. However, many Muslims today interpret jihad (struggle) in a spiritual manner, and say it means a striving for the cause of God. Islam, they maintain, must be advanced not by the sword but by peaceful means, such as missionary effort” (Miller, 63). (More on this later). Christians need have no fear of Islam doctrinally. We do well to fear their physical violence and terrorism. We can and will meet them doctrinally on every street corner in America and defeat their advance with God’s truth. But we need to try to understand where they are coming from: “The Muslim has generally not taken the Qur’an and studied it and after serious thought decided to be a Muslim on the basis of that study. He is a Muslim because he was born such. Also, his whole way of life, inconsistencies or contradictions, are no threat to his faith. But, we still should not give up or see this as an impossible challenge” (Huffard, Firm Foundation, Feb. 26, 1980,p. 135). How to approach an Islamic: 1. Don’t reflect unfavorably on what he considers holy such as the following; a. Mohammed: “One hears this name in the bazaar and in the street, in the mosque and from the minaret, sailors sing it while hoisting their sails, coolies groan it to raise a burden, the beggar howls it to obtain alms; it is the cry of the faithful in attack, hushes babies to sleep as a cradle song, it is the pillow of the sick, the last word of the dying; it is written on the doorpost and in the hearts, as well as, since eternity, on the throne of God; the best name to give a child, the best to swear by for an end of all disputes” (A Christian’s Response to Islam, p. 51). Nobody should be so naive as to think he can get anywhere with a Moslem while showing disrespect for one so revered by them. b. Koran. This is their “holy book,” and it receives reverence beyond a Westerner’s imagination. One can be stoned to death for desecrating the Koran. c. Holy places. Mecca, Medina, and even the countries dominated by Muslims. Ben Ladin’s main “beef” is the presence of American troops in the “holy lands” of Islam. 2. Challenge him to prove by internal and external evidence that Mohammed is a true prophet: The burden of proof is on the affirmative. Neither Mohammed nor the Koran can pass God’s test of a true prophet; namely, that what they prophesy came to pass. NOTE: Mohammed uttered not a single prediction. And his so-called miracles are based upon hear say testimony; there were no eyewitnesses. 3. Compare your internal and external evidence that Christ is the Messiah and that the Bible is trustworthy and God’s final revelation. Show how the testimony of the Apostles is eyewitness testimony confirmed by miracles. 4. If possible get him into a study of the comparison between: a. Christ and Mohammed. b. The God of the Bible and Allah. c. The religion of Islam and the religion of Christ. d. The Bible and the Koran. Ask why the original Koran was revised and then burned? EVALUATION OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION Some strong points of Islam: (1) Its theory of one supreme deity, versus common for many sins idolatry. (2) Its confidence in a really sovereign world ruler. (3) Its principle of total submission to the will of God. (4) Its theory of an inescapable just judgment day. (5) Its insistence upon a continuous life of prayer. (6) Its high moral standard is: NO: fornication, stealing, cheating, drinking of alcohol, drugs, pornography. There is an inconsistency here; while they condemn the drinking of alcohol, Afghanistan is one of the most drug ridden and drug using countries in the world. What is the difference between alcohol and drugs? (7) Its belief in fatalism, and predestination: “Nothing will happen to us except what God has decreed for us...” (Sura 9:51). “Nor can a soul die except by God’s leave. The term being fixed as by writing” (Sura 3:145). In Islam Republics (theocracies) (Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.) these sins receive civil penalties (often death). Some weaknesses of the religion: (1) Its weak concept of God, ascribing to Him unworthy qualities: A) He causeth to err 35:8;45:23. B) He endorses lying and denying the faith under compulsion: “Anyone who, after accepting Faith in God, utters unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in the faith --but such as open their breast to Unbelief--on them is wrath from God, and theirs will be a dreadful penalty” (16:106). This is like the Catholic doctrine of mental reservation that allows one to lie without penalty if it is under duress or is expedient. C) God forgives sins even before they are committed.“ Verily We have granted thee a manifest victory’ That God may forgive thee they faults of the past and those to follow; fulfill his favor to thee; and guide the on the straight way”(46:2). This is similar to the Catholic’s sale of indulgences. Something similar to a License to sin with impunity. D) It makes God capricious by its doctrine of cancellation and abrogation” (2:106;16:101). E) It makes God a respecter of persons by giving Mohammed privileges He denies to others. Its Weak and erroneous concepts: A) Its reliance upon force to advance its cause. “...fight them on [unbelievers jpn] until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God alto gether and everywhere...” (Sura 8:39). “Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden w h i C h hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay tribute of their hands, and be as little ones” (Sura 9:29). “Truly God loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure”(Sura 61:4). B) Eliminate “Christian” missionaries: “...leaders of 37 Arab and African countries have made an agreement to drive out the Christian missions from their territories’ (Monroy,344). C) Death to apostates: “According to Islamic law, the penalty for apostasy is death. In some countries a Muslim who is baptized, or who has only shown interest in Christianity, may quite possibly be poisoned by his own family In countries in which Islam is the national religion the abandonment of Islam is considered an act of disloyally to the state” (Miller. 95) Salman Rushti is a Muslim author who for years has been in exile in England under a death sentence because in one of his books he told the truth about Mohammed’s immoral conduct. E) Excessive emphasis upon fear and reward. F) Excessive reliance upon a merit system of works for salvation. Grace plays no part in salvation. G) Its belief in fatalism, and predestina tion: “Nothing will happen to us except what God has decreed for us... “(Sura 9: 5 1). “Nor can a soul die except by God’s leave. The term being fixed as by writing” (Sura 3:145). The hectic traffic in Iran about drove me wild. Nobody obeys any traffic laws, and it is every man for himself. I asked my driver how they keep from killing each other. He replied, “Allah takes care of everything.” One day we came upon a bad wreck with a man lying on the street bleeding profusely. I asked how did this happen if Allah takes care of everything? His reply, “Allah was asleep!” H) Its low estimate of women. In Muslim republics women are treated worse than we treat animals. They must be veiled so thoroughly that one would not recognize his own mother, wife, or sister in public. The extreme of this is seen under the Taliban in Afghanistan where women are beaten for showing their hands or their ankles. Women are not allowed to work or appear in public unless with a close relative. If they are seen with someone other than a close relative it is assumed that fornication is being committed and they are stoned. The Taliban say that the only place for a woman is in her husband’s house or in the grave. Under the Taliban in Afghanistan women are not allowed to work or go to school once they reach eight years old. Women teachers and physicians were taken out of service and made to stay at home. Women are denied all medical care. In Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive, or purchase anything in a store. They must have a man do it for them. During the gulf war, American military women were not allowed to drive or purchase anything on their own in Saudi stores. American service persons were not allowed to take their Bibles to Saudi. Our government is to be blamed for allowing such nonsense. Is it a fact that we are willing to do anything for oil? This puts materialism above principle. I) Its sensuous concept of heaven. Those who die for the cause will go immediately to paradise and be sensually served by beautiful dark eyed young virgins who are virgins every time they approach them. M) Its inconsistent animism (All reality is inhabited by souls or spirits, demons): Jinn, devils, kaaba stone, repetitious prayers. Certain obvious flaws in the moral character of its founder. A) He had 12 wives and 2 concubines, B) He robbed caravans, C) He massacred a Jewish settlement because they refused to help him in battle, D) He practiced wife stealing, E) Revelations of convenience (Post factum). Its founder claimed revelations to justify what he wanted to do; giving himself privileges which he denied to his followers. These so-called revelations resulted in hundreds of dogmas and practices which rest solely upon his whims, personal desires, and ipse dixits. Everet W. Huffard, who worked among the Muslims for several years says the Islamic religion does not stand the test of prophecy. One may find, that the beliefs of the common Muslim are often as distant from the Qur’anic (classical) Islam as the beliefs of a Catholic peasant in Galilee are from the New Testament itself’ (Huffard, Gospel Advocate, Feb. 19:80). Mohammed prophesied nothing. If he spoke by the same spirit as the other prophets of Jehovah, why did he not prophesy? If the Koran is a revelation from God, it is not progressive but regressive. It reverts to the O.T system of carnal ordinances and works, and turns away from the spiritual covenant of the New Testament. It degrades women to a sort of subspecies to man. The Islamic religion is widespread and powerful. It is based upon the so-called revelations of an illiterate man who showed signs of epilepsy, and whose so-called revelations were written down by others (he was illiterate), and which have been revised since his death. The present Koran is not the original one. The original one was revised by others following the death of Mohammed and the original was burned. The Islamic religion is an example of what one person can accomplish. It started with Mohammed, and now is found in most countries of the world. Its goal is to rule the world. By means of immigration, it is growing rapidly in America, and we can now see the reason why. SOME ISLAMIC PRACTICES Giving: Muslims are obligated to give 1/5 of all their income to the Ayatolla. The personal fortune of Homeini is estimated to be $40,000,000. In Iran I saw Imams (priests) going from business to business to collect this toll. When a merchant refuses to give it, the Imam puts him under a curse. Violation of religious laws carry civil penalties: The president of Pakistan said, “Adulterers will be stoned to death in public squares, the hands will be cut off and eighty lashes will be given to one that consumes alcohol.” (Monroy, p. 343,344) The Koran calls for death to those who leave Islam, lest they convert others, especially family members. Often he is killed by his own family. In fundamentalist Moslem countries women must be veiled in public. In Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan one would not know his own wife, mother, or sister in public. Divorce: Women cannot divorce their husbands, but men can divorce their wives at will for any cause whatsoever, or for no cause at all. Circumcision: Though it is not commanded in the Koran, it is Islamic tradition to circumcise all mail babies. Rosary: Islamics have a string of beads like the Catholic Rosary, each standing for the 99 names given to God in the Koran. They say these names and move a bead on the string as a religious exercise. Revelations of convenience:(post facto): When Mohammed wanted to do something, even if it was against the Koran, he always justified it by claiming he got a revelation from God permitting it to him. Examples: Justification of conversion by violence: During the second year in Medina life became very difficult for him and his followers; funds were exhausted; something had to be done if the movement was to continue, so he got a revelation which superseded the prohibition against the use of compulsion. It said:” O Prophet, contend against the infidels and be rigorous with them” (Sura 9:74). He used this as justification for forcing his religion upon unbelievers by violence: Robbing caravans to obtain funds to support his movement, robbing during the “sacred months. The Koran forbids Arabs from engaging in warfare during the sacred months, but when Mohammed wanted to rob a caravan belonging to Mecca during this season, he got a revelation that permitted it. An army of 1000 men from Mecca came against Mohammed at Medina. He went out to meet them and was soundly defeated, and humiliated. God reassured him, however, with a revelation, that He had permitted this defeat because some of Mohammed’s soldiers had disobeyed orders. He assaulted the Jewish settlement of Banu Quraiza. Mohammed was angry with them because they refused to help him in a battle. In a “revelation” God told him to attack them, which he did. When they refused to surrender, the women and children were sold as slaves, and 800 men were taken to Medina and massacred. Mohammed wanted to marry the beautiful wife of his adopted son, Zaid. The Koran forbids one marrying his daughter-in-law. (Shades of the Mosaic law). God gave Mohammed a “revelation” saying it was alright for him to marry his daughter-in-law, so he forced his adopted son to divorce her, and she became one his wives. Marriage, divorce and polygamy: The Koran forbids a man’s having more than 4 wives, (33:50-51). But when Mohammed wanted more than 4 wives, he got a revelation allowing him to have more: “Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and also thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated from Mecca with thee; and any believing women who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her; this only for thee, and not for the believers (at large) We know what we have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom thy right hand possesses in order that there should be no difficulty for thee” (Sura 33:50). Mohammed’s marriage to Zeinab: “Then when Zakihad had dissolved his marriage with her, with the necessary formality, we joined her in marriage to thee: In order that in the future there may be no difficulty to the believers in the matter of marriage with the wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary formality their marriage with them. And God’s command must be fulfilled” (33:37). Since the Islamics are such sticklers for one God, one wonders who the ‘we” is in this revelation! War in the Sacred Month (2:217). The Koran forbids war during the sacred month, Ramadan, but when Mohammed wanted to do it, he got a revelation permitting it. Transfer of the Kibla (2:144). Before Mohammed captured Mecca, they were to pray toward Jerusalem, but after he conquered Mecca, he got a new revelation that said they were to pray towards Mecca! “The fools among the people will say: ‘what hath turned them from the Qibla to which they were used?’ Say: To God belong both East and West: He guideth whom he will to a Way that is straight,” (2:142). Consorting with wives during the Fast: The Koran forbids sexual contact with one’s wife during the fast, that is during the month of Romadan, but, you guessed it, Mohammed got a revelation permitting him to do so: “Permitted to you, on the night of the fasts, is the approach to your wives. “2:187. While I mean no disrespect to Islamic people, I must say that they either don’t know these things about their own religion, or they simply choose to ignore them. I think it is the former and not the latter. From infancy these people are taught to revere Mohammed without question, and are never informed of his checkered history, or that of the movement. The same is true of most religions. People are committed to that in which they were reared, and are blind to those things that make it absurd or immoral. This is immanently true of Catholics and their history. The average Catholic knows little or nothing about the murderous and immoral actions of popes and priests throughout their history. Many Catholics would be terribly offended if one brought these facts to their attention, and would accuse one of distorting or lying about their religion. Facts don’t lie, and all of the protestations and distortions men invent won’t change them. Our President today is presenting Islam as a loving and peaceful religion. He is either ignorant, or willingly is ignoring the facts of history and the very plain language of the Koran. I understand that he is doing this for political reasons. He is trying to keep the moderate Muslims in the coalition against Afghanistan. Politics has been defined as the art of the possible.” That is, do anything necessary to defeat your enemy. Winston Churchill said during World War II, that he would make an alliance with the devil if it would defeat Hitler. Such is not unusual in the political world. It is said that the best way to make friends of enemies is get them mad at a common enemy. The Islamic religion is anything but a peace loving religion. It always has been violent and this is well established in history and is well documented in the Koran as I have shown. The President says that those practicing violence and terror are perverting lslam. It is the very opposite; these people are practicing what is advocated in the Koran, and exemplified in the history of the movement, and the moderates are not. The moderates are the perverters of Islam. This is a bitter pill for some to swallow, but it is what the doctor ordered and what the founder practiced. Let the truth be told, and let the chips fall where they may. WILL THE TRUE ISLAM PLEASE STAND UP! He world is confused! What is true Islam? There are the Islamics who brought down the World Trade Center and the Pentagon by flying commercial Jets into them with several hundred people on board on 9-11-2001; in all killing approximately 6,000 persons and injuring about that many more, and their intention was to kill the president but their devilish plan was foiled by the courageous passengers who crashed the plane in Pennsylvania. Since these tragedies the politicians and some Muslims throughout the world have been trying to put a kindly, loving and peaceful face on Islamic religion but that is directly opposite from that portrayed in their “Holy Book.” Our president has gone to great lengths in this propaganda effort for political expediency. I have said before and I will say it again, that Bin Ladin’s activities are the true face of Islam if their “Holy Book” means anything. We are asked to believe that the Koran is God’s final revelation and Mohammed is His last prophet, and the greatest of them all. Well, what face does the Koran and Mohammed’s life put on Islam? These are our only sources, so let them speak: By one count there are 29 passages in the in the Koran that call for hatred and violence against unbelievers. Let’s look a some of them: 1. Enmity and hatred will reign between us until ye believe in Allah alone,” (60:4. 2. “Those who follow Muhammad are merciless for the unbelievers but kind to each other.” (48:29) 3. “Make war on them until idolatry does not exist any longer and Allah’s religion reigns universally.” (8:39;2:193). 4. “The Jews and Christians and the Pagans will burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.” (98:51). 5. “Fight the unbelievers in your surroundings, and let them find harshness in you.” (9:123). 6. “Kill the unbelievers wherever ye find them, capture and besiege them and prepare for them every kind of ambush.” (9:5). The Muslim’s stock in trade response to this is (1) The English version is mistranslated, or (2) This is figurative language and means a moral struggle not a violent one. At other times they, like Mohammed, will seek justification from the wars of the Old Testament. All of these responses are false. All English translations say the same thing, and there is no way that all these passages are figurative when they incite violence in no uncertain terms plus the violence practiced by Muslims throughout their checkered history using the Koran for their justification. The wars of the Old Testament were often order by God to accomplish His eternal purpose to bring Christ, our redeemer, into the world through a people who had the true knowledge of God. To do this he separated the descendants of Abraham and built Israel, a separate nation, as a people whom he would teach the nature of the true God, and through them bring Christ into the world. He brought foreign nations upon them as a means of punishment when they departed from His way. That is not a 42nd cousin to engaging in murder and robbery to obtain funds to support a cause. The politicians in America and throughout the world are doing their usual thing, playing politics. They are emphasizing that we are not at war with Islam; that Bin Lodin and his cohorts are hijacking Islam, and are not properly portraying it. All I ask you to do is read the above passages and look at Islamic history and don’t be deceived. Consider the life of Mohammed (7th century). He was a murderer, a rapist, and a robber. He robbed the caravans, and murdered in order to support his cause. A study of the life of Mohammed will reveal him to have been a ruthless killer similar to Bin Ladin. His theology was violence against the “infidels,” His love was for himself, his hatred was toward all none Moslems. Hitler and Stalin had nothing on him! In Cardinal Gibbon’s famous work, The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire he says, That in an assembly Mohammed said, “‘Friends and kinsmen, I offer you, and I alone can offer, the most precious of gifts, the treasures of this world [that obviously means the spoils of war, jpn] and of the world to come. God has commanded me to call you to his service. Who among you will support my burden? Who among you will be my companion and my vizier?’ No answer was returned, till the silence of astonishment, and doubt, and contempt was at length broken by the impatiened courage of Ah, a youth in his fourteenth year of his age. ‘0 prophet, I am the man: whosoever rises against thee, I will dash out his teeth, tear out his eyes, break his legs, rip up his belly. 0 prophet, I will be thy vizier over them.’ Mohamet accepted his offer with transport, and Abu Taleb was ironically exhorted to respect the superior dignity of his son”(Vol. 5, p.233). “...the prophet of Medina assumed, in his new revelations, a fiercer and more sanguinary [murderous jpn] tone, which proves that his former moderation was the effect of weakness: the means of persuasion has been tried, the season of forbearance was elapsed, and he was now commanded to propagate his religion by the sword, to destroy the monuments of idolatry~ and, without regarding the sanctity of days or months, to pursue the unbelieving nations of earth” (The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 5,p. 241). That includes Ramadan!ll In Iran I witnessed the destruction of the monuments to idolatry,’ so called. Throughout Iran thee are beautiful sculptures cared in the side of mountains that date from the early centuries. In the 7th century the Mohammedans invaded Iran and forced the nation into the Islamic religion by the edge of the sword. They mutilated these beautiful sculptures by chiseling of their noses and otherwise defacing them. To the Muslims these sculptures were part of idolatry. Gibbon says further, “...the martial apostle fought in person at nine battles or sieges; and fifty enterprises of war were achieved in ten years by himself or his lieutenants. The Arab continued to unite the profession of a merchant and a robber; and his petty excursions for the defense of the attack of the caravan insensibly prepared his troops for the conquest of Arabia...the apostle sanctified the license of embracing the female captives as their wives or concubines; and the enjoyment of wealth and beauty as a feeble type of the joys of paradise prepared for the valiant martyrs of the faith. ‘The sword,’ says Mohamet, ‘is the key of heaven and of hell: a drop of blood shed in the cause of God, a night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting and prayer: whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven: at the day of judgment his wounds shall be resplendent as vermilion and odoriferous as musk; and the loss of his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim.’ The intrepid souls of the Arabs were fired with enthusiasm: the picture of the invisible world was strongly painted on their imagination; and the death which they had always despised became an object of hope and desire” (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 5; p.245). Gibbon tells of one of Mohammed’s battles in the following passage, “The Jews had excited and joined the war of the Koreish: no sooner had the nations retired from the ditch, than Mohamet, without laying aside his armor, marched on the same day to extirpate the hostile race of the children of Koridha [Jews, jpn]. After a resistance of twenty-five days, they surrendered at discretion. They trusted to the intercession of their old allies of Medina: [the Mohammedans jpn] they could not be ignorant that fanaticism obliterates the feelings of humanity. A venerable elder, to whose judgment they appealed, pronounced the sentence of their death; seven hundred Jews were dragged in chains to the marketplace of the city; they descended alive into the grave prepared for their execution and burial; and the apostle beheld with an inflexible eye the slaughter of his helpless enemies. Their sheep and camels were inherited by the Mussulmans: three hundred cuirasses [armor jpn], five hundred pikes [a spear jpn], a thousand lances, composed the most useful portion of the spoil” (Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, V. 5, p 249). I just received a book written by two Muslims which says that Islam will conquer all other religions and American power will diminish. They say the Islamic religion is growing in America, and this is a sure sign that it is on its way to ruling the world. It is a fact that it is growing in America, but largely by loose immigration, not by conversion. Some black Americans have joined the religion, I think more for political reasons than from religious conviction. There is something good in most bad things. As bad as the Trade Center thing is, perhaps the good that will be derived from it will be an awaking in our country to the danger of this violent religion that has no regard for the lives of those outside it, and is capable of brainwashing its own adherents to the point of a willingness to commit suicide for the cause in order to kill others it hates on the ridiculous promise that to do so gives them a ticket to immediate paradise where they will be sensually served by beautiful young maidens. Gibbon says of this matter, “Seventy-two, houris, or black-eyed girls, of resplendent beauty, blooming youth, and virgin purity, and exquisite sensibility, will be created for the use of the meanest believer; a moment of pleasure will be prolonged a thousand years, and his faculties will be increased a hundredfold, to render him worthy of his felicity” (Vol. 5, p. 229). What we are being told about Islam is the very opposite of the truth. We are told that we are not at war with Islam, but indeed we are, as seen from this article. We are told that the Islamic religion is a peaceful, loving and merciful religion. The very opposite is true as can be seen from the Koran and the history of the life of its founder and of the movement. The propaganda needs to cease, and the truth be told. To be sure, there are some moderate Islamics who do not hold with the horrific violence of some, but it is a travesty on the truth to say they represent boni fide Islamic religion as taught in the Koran. These Muslims are like many so-called Christians who profess great devotion to the Bible but do not obey its teaching. Many so-called moderates in the present crisis have made conciliatory statements and have disavowed the horrors of New York City and the Pentagon, but some of these same Muslim leaders are on record of having made ugly statements about the United States and what they want to happen to it. Even the imam who took part in the multi-religions service in Washington has been quoted from a pervious speech expressing hatred for non-Muslims. We must be not practice our usual gulliblity here. The cost is too great. BIBLIOGRAPHY William M. Miller. Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., Phillipsburg, NJ. 1979. Gospel Advocate, Nov. 18, 1982, p. History of the Christian Church, G. P. Fisher, Scribner’s Sons. 1887. How To Respond to Islam, Philip H. Lochhaas, Concordia, St. Louis, 1981. Huffard, Everett W. Firm Foundation, Jan., Feb. 1980, pp. 87,91,103,119,124, 135,140. Islam, A Survey of the Muslim Faith, C. George Fry and James R. King. Baker, Grand Rapids, MI. 1980. Religions in a Changing World, Moody, Chicago. 1959. The Hutto-El Dareer Debate, Hutto, Athens, AL 1978. The Religions of Man, Huston Smith. Harper & Row, N. Y. 1958. The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, 2 Volumes. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Dar Al-Kitab Al-masri, 33Kasr El-nil St. Cario, Egypt P. O. Box 156. The World’s Living Religions, Robert E. Hume. Schribner, N. Y. 1959. What the Great Religions Believe, Joseph Gaer, Signet, 1963. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 5, Cardinal Gibbon, Bibelow, Brown and Co. New York. James P. Needham 1600 Oneco Ave. Winter Park, FL 32789 407 628-2995
Afghanistan, Europe, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Kashmir, Kurdistan, Maldives, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Philippines, Russia, Sudan, USA These are just a handful of ongoing Muslim wars around the world. Consensus from this information compiled clearly shows that what the Islamics want is control of the world and death to all who refuse to convert. (Adapted from the internet).
(EDITOR'S NOTE: It is so easy to ignore dangers because we don't recognize them as such. Beside, we human beings have a tendency to take the line of least resistance. While we sleep, evil forces creep in the back door and steal us blind. We did this with Humanism. We didn't see the danger of it, and so today our society is saturated with it, which accounts for the sorry state of public morals in our country. Did you know that 40% of all babies born in the USA are born out of wedlock? Does that disturb you? Did you know that a very small percentage of first marriages reach the "altar" as virgins?
Little by little Islam is expanding its power in this country. We now have a Muslim in Congress who took his oath of office with his hand on the Koran. Mosques are being built by the dozens throughout the country. These are where Muslims are taught to hate and kill non-Muslims, that means you, my friend, and your family.
The more people are deceived by the propaganda that Islam is a peaceful and loving religion that should be given the same treatment as other religions, its influence and power will be like a creeping paralysis in our country.
How can we give equal rights and constitutional protection to a so-called religion that openly vows to convert us, or subjugate us, and if that fails, kill us? Our politicians are more interested in getting the Islamic vote, than in the common good of the nation. The bigger that vote gets, the more power will be in the hands of the Islamics, until finally there will be enough Islamic votes to control elections. Then what?
I am for religious tolerance of society, but I am against giving it to people bent on converting us, subjugating us, or killing us. You can call such a religion if you want to, but I called it barbarism. That it should have equal status under our constitution is the most absurd idea to come along in my lifetime.
Unidentified machete-wielding assailants attacked a group of girls attending a private Christian high school in eastern Indonesia’s Central Sulawesi Province on Oct. 29, beheading three of them and seriously wounding a fourth, police said. The students were ambushed while walking through a cocoa plantation on their way to class in the Poso Kota Subdistrict. The three headless bodies of the girls, dressed in brown uniforms, were left at the site of the attack. Their heads were found at separate locations by residents two hours later. The attacks occurred despite a government-mediated truce signed in early 2002 that brought Muslims and Christians together after fighting on the Moluccan Islands left up to 9,000 people dead in three years. But since then a series of bomb attacks and assassinations have targeted believers. Christian leaders have repeatedly criticized the authorities in Jakarta for not doing enough to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice. (Assist News Service/Christian Solidarity Worldwide--via Pulpit Helps).
(EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an example of what America has to look forward to when the Muslims gain the upper hand politically, which they are doing rapidly in this country with the help of our benighted politicians. We can complacently sit back in our easy chair and say, “that won’t ever happen here.” Famous last words! It is uncanny that our politicians are helping the Muslims gain the upper hand in this country. Politicians tend to do what is best for them rather than what is best for the country. We can get a taste of this in the illegal immigration situation. The politicians are “walking on eggs” to keep from offending the Hispanic voters, if the democrats or republicans make the wrong move, they will lose the Hispanic vote which might throw the election. Generally, they are not concerned about what is best for the country, but what is best for them and the party politically. The Muslims are working harder to gain the upper hand than our politicians are working to keep them from it. In fact some of the politicians are doing what helps them in this endeavor. It doesn’t take a Solomon to figure out what will be the outcome of that. In fact, all the gobblegook by the President and other politicians about Islam being a peace loving religion is as false as anything could be and the politicians keep repeating this lie with a straight face. It is difficult for me to believe that they don’t know better. If they are so ignorant of Islam, a growing menace to the country, they ought to be digging ditches rather than running the country. As an old sage said, “We have the best politicians that money can buy.”
“Christians in Indonesia are facing a severe escalation of terrorism, intimidation and persecution with 60 churches forced to close in West Java alone in the last three months. ‘This escalation is part of the process to implement sharia (Islamic law),' said Pastor Johan Bandi, secretary of the Indonesian Churches Together, in an e-mail report. He added that some of the publicly known radical Islamic groups such as the Defense of Islam (FPI) and the Alliance Against Apostasy (AGAP), have broken into churches in the middle of services, ordered pastors and congregations out of the church, and forced them to sign statements that the building would no longer be used for church services. Often they carry letters of authorization from the mayor and chief of police and are accompanied by government officials and police who stand by doing nothing. "This is not just a West Java problem," Bandi said. ‘This is a national problem facing every church group throughout the country.’ At least 35 churches in Bandung, for example, have been closed in the last 12 months.
I recently pointed out some negative facts about Islam. Following the serice things I had said in an article and a comment I made in the pulpit were challenged. I was told tht there are American-born Muslims who don't believe in killing infidels, that is, non-Muslims. I grant that this probably is true, but I pointed out that this is mandated by the Koran, their “holy” book, which they claim is from God. It plainly says: 2:190-191 “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight and persecute you, but commit no aggression ... and slay them when and where you get the better of them” 2:193 “Fight them until persecution is no more and religion is for Allah.” 2:216 “Fighting has been ordained for you.” 2:244 “Fight in the cause of Allah.” 3:12 “Say to those who disbelieve, “You shall soon be overcome and gathered together to be driven towards hell.” 3:32: “Allah does not love the disbelievers.” 3:141 “And ... Allah will wipe off the disbelievers gradually.” 3:148 “Lord grant us victory over the disbelieving people.” 3:151-152 “We shall certainly strike terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved. .. and certainly Allah had made good his promise to you when you were slaying them to pieces by his permission.” I was told that “American-born Muslims don’t follow that.” Well, consider this: These are only a few of the murderous passages to be found in the “holy” Koran. If those Muslims born in America choose not to obey the Koran, then they are not true Muslims, and they feel at liberty to deny and disobey the mandates of a book they claim is from God!! Imagine that!!! I realize that the murderous passages of the Koran are an embarrassment to some peace-loving Muslims, but they have the serious problem of explaining how they can defy the book they claim came from God but which they choose not to follow. This is like “Christians” saying, “I know the Bible mandates that we love our enemies, but I choose not to do it.” As long as the Koran exists and the preaching of it makes Muslims, they are going to be faced with this dilemma. Mohammed murdered thousands of people and called his sword, “the sword of the Lord.” His murderous attitude found its way into the Koran and it will remain a mill stone around the necks of all Muslims all over the world as long as they claim it is from Allah (God), regardless of whether they choose to follow it. And they should not expect us to ignore that fact. Another charged that the facts I printed about Abama were copied form the Internet, and are not true. In the first place, how does he know where I got the facts? Secondly, his charge that they are not true is one thing, but proving his charge that they are false is something else. If he will point out any thing I printed about Abama that is not true, I will be more than glad to apologize and retract it. Until he does, he is just blowing smoke. I have studied the Koran for years, and have written and publicly spoken about it, and I didn’t get the facts I printed from the internet, but even if I did, that doesn’t disprove them. What difference does it make where I got them, as long as they are true? To expose Abama for what he really is, one doesn’t have to fabricate things that are not true. There are enough true facts available to adequately prove their character and agenda.
Acommon practice of those who advocate "once saved, always saved," is to list all of the things by which the Bible says one can be saved and then charge those who disagree with not believing what the Bible says. But the truth is, MAN CAN NULLIFY EVERYTHING THAT ENTERS INTO THE SAVING OF HIS SOUL! Note the following.
One is saved by FAITH , but one can depart from the faith, I Tim. 4:1.
One is saved GRACE, but one can fall from grace, Gal. 5:4, and "fail of the grace of God," Heb. 12:15.
One is saved by HOPE, but one can be moved away from hope Col 1:23.
One is saved by THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, But one can "count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing," Heb. 10:29.
One is saved by THE LORD, but one can "deny the Lord that bought him,"2 Pet. 2:1.
One is saved by the TRUTH, but one can err from the truth, James 5:19.
One is saved by LOVE, but one can fail to "keep oneself in the Love of God." Jude 21.
One is saved by the GOSPEL, But one can believe it in vain, I Cor. 15:1, and be "moved away from the hope of the Gospel." Col. 1:23. .
One is saved by PROMISES, but one can come short of the promises, Heb.4:1.
One is saved by GOD, but we can depart from the Living God, Heb. 3:12.
One is save by the HOLY SPIRIT, But ONE can ?do despite unto the Spirit,Heb. 10:29.
One is saved by ENDURANCE, but one may fail to endure, Matt. 10:22.
Now, so far as faith, grace, hope, blood, the Lord, the truth, God's love, the Gospel, God's Promises, God, the Spirit, and Endurance are concerned, a Christian's salvation is as secure as God Himself! But to say that, is not to say that man's salvation is secure so far as he is concerned! It all depends upon his disposition toward these matters.
Would advocates of the impossibility of apostasy want to say that one cannot make the disposition of these matters that the Bible plainly says he can? Will man deny God's word? or will he say that man can make these dispositions of these matters, but God will save him in spite of it? Either way, they will deny the plain word of God. Why not just admit the truth, and forsake the errors of man?
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ONE'S FALLING FROM GRACE?
The Bible warns Christians against falling, 1 Cor. 10:12; Heb. 3:12. It would be foolish to warn one against something that can't happen.
The Bible says Some did fall, 1Cor. 10:6;Acts 1:25. Would the advocates of the imposibility of apostasy deny that they fell?
The Bible teaches Christians to avoid the causes of falling, James 5:12; II Pet. 3:17. It would be foolish to list the causes of falling if such were impossible.
The Bible reveals the duty of the faithful toward the fallen, Gal. 6:1. It would be foolish to assign one a duty for which there is never a need.
The Bible says that Christians can fall from grace, Gal. 5:4;Heb. 12:15. Those who say he can't, contradict God's word.
The Bible prophesied that some would fall from away, II Thes. 2:3;I Tim. 4:1.
I believe I have shown conclusively that this is a false doctrine. We hope that someone will be led to the truth by these facts.
If you would like to study this matter further, please feel free to call these phone numbers: 407-628-2995 or 407-782-2392. If your preacher believes it, I would be happy to study it with him in your presence. Truth has nothing to fear. We have open minds and open Bibles. Try us!!!
Here I want to examine some proof texts used to try to substantiate this doctrine::
John 5:24. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." The emphasis is put upon the "Hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation." It is contended that the verse is unconditional so far as man is concerned. It is urged that "shall not" means that it is impossible for a child of God to be lost. This is a perversion of the passage.
That the verse is conditional so far as man is concerned, is seen from the fact that Jesus said, "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me sent me, hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation." What if one ceases to believe and hear the words of Christ, and ceases to believe on God? Would he still "not come into condemnation"? But someone says, "Preacher, one cannot cease to be a believer." Well, now, who said so? Did anyone read anything like that in the Bible? Certainly not! Let us just see what the Bible says can happen to our faith.
Faith may fail, Lk. 22;32.
Faith may be ship wrecked, 1 Tim. 1:19.
One may depart from the faith, 1 Tim. 4:1.
Faith may be denied, 1Tim. 5:8.
Faith may be cast off, 1 Tim. 5:12.
Faith may be overthrown, 2 Tim. 2:18.
Now since one's salvation is depends upon his believing, and since one can stop believing, it follows that he can be lost, unless God will save unbelievers. But let us see what the Bible says about that: "But the ...unbelieving....shall have shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.
So we see that one cannot possibly be saved without faith and one can lose his faith; believers can become unbelievers. . Actually I would be willing to rest the whole case upon whether or not a believer can become an unbeliever. The advocate of the impossibility of apostasy must take one of two routes: he must either say that a believer cannot become an unbeliever, or contend that God will save unbelievers, the Bible denies both!
Now, does "shall not come into condemnation" mean that it is impossible for one to come into condemnation? If your answer is yes, note the following: in ,John 3:36 Jesus said, ". . . he that believeth not the Son SHALL NOT see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." If "shall not come into condemnation" when speaking of believers means that it is impossible for a believer to be lost, then "shall not see life" when used in connection with unbelievers would mean that it is impossible for an unbeliever to become a believer. If not, why not?
"BELIEVERS SHALL NOT COME INTO CONDEMNATION" John 5:24
"UNBELIEVERS SHALL NOT SEE LIFE" Jn. 3:36.
WHICH "SHALL NOT" IS THE STRONGEST? ? ?
The two passages actually harmonize perfectly, when one understands them. No true believer will be lost, no unbeliever will be saved. The Believer must continue to believe if he is to be saved, the unbeliever must cease to be an unbeliever if he is to be saved.
Another favorite proof text of the Calvinists is, Rom. 8:1, "There is therefore, now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. .." This is supposed to be one of the strongest passages in proof of the doctrine of "the impossibility of apostasy." If I advocated the doctrine, I would never use this verse, because someone might read the rest of the verse and embarrass me!
It's easy to "prove" false doctrines by the Bible when it is treated like men treat this scripture. Nobody believes this verse, or any other as for that matter, any stronger than do I. But I believe it for what it says. Let us note what the verse says in its fullness:
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, WHO WALK NOT AFTER THE FLESH, BUT AFTER THE SPIRIT." That makes a different verse out of it, doesn't it? Surely, there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who WALK AFTER THE SPIRIT. Paul said in verse 14 of this same chapter, "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." What if one chooses rather to WALK AFTER THE FLESH? Is there no condemnation for him because he is a "Christian"? If that is true, it denies everything in the Bible that demands a righteous life of the people of God. There is no danger that a righteous life will earn salvation; salvation is a free gift. But that does not mean that it is unconditional.The Bible is clear, the impossibility of apostasy is a FALSE DOCTRINE.
OUR MUSLIM PRESIDENT For a long time in this bulletin I have expressed my belief that Obama is a closet Muslim. Well, he has come out of the closet now. He made a speech in Egypt in which he said, “I know Muslims for I am one...” He spoke openly of his “Muslim Faith.” Everything pointed in that direction, and now we know. During the campaign he vowed that he was not a Muslim but a Christian. Then, at first, there was the fuss about his finding a church home for him and his family in Washington. What have you heard about that lately? Has he and his family identified with a “Christian” church in Washington? If so, which one? Nothing has been said about his family’s attending church, I would say because they haven’t gone. There have been pictures of him praying at a Muslim Mosque! It is obvious to me that he is part of a well planned Islamic conspiracy to take over this country. Believe me, he has gone a good way down that road. He is determined to undermine our political and economic system and make us in the image of a Islamic third-world country. My interest in this is mainly religious. I value our religious freedom in this country; that I can get out of bed on Sunday morning and go to church and worship God as He pleases, and as I choose to without the government interfering. In most Islamic countries religious freedom is unknown. In most of such countries, no religion is allowed but Islam. Church buildings are burned to the ground. I remember several years ago that 16 “Christian“ church buildings were burned down in Packistan. “Christians” are persecuted or killed in Islamic countries. Surely, we are not sufficiently naive to believe that it will be different here, if and when the Muslims suspend our constitution and substitute the Koran as the basis of government. It is time for Americans, especially our politicians, to realize what is happening. If I had my way, any religion that does not practice toleration would not be allowed to exist in this country. It is absurd for us to tolerate their existence in this country when they don’t allow us in theirs. They have told us what they have in mind for us, but we blindly accomodate their vicisous ways, and allow them freedoms they would never give us. As absurd as it is, they are using our freedoms to destroy our freedoms, and we allow it. No religion should be allowed to exist in this country that endangers or openly advocates harm to others. Not only have the unsuspecting Americans elected a Muslim president, the democrats are sitting idly by while he dismantels the country, and does an end run around the constitution with his many zars, and appoints Muslims and crooks to his cabnet who for personal gain gladly push his agenda. All this is part and parcel of his plans to, as he promised, “transform this country.” Pray for our country--God bless America. In most Islamic countries religious freedom is unknown. In most of such countries, no other religion is allowed but Islam. Church building are burned to the ground. I remember several years ago tht 16 “Christian“ churches were burned down in Packistan. “Christians” are persecuted or killed in Islamic countries. Surely, we are not sufficiently naive to believe that it will be different here if and when the Muslims suspend our constitution and substitute the Koran as the basis of government. It is time for Americans, especially our politicians, to realize what is happening. If I had my way, any religion that does not practice toleration would not be allowed to exist in this country. It is absurd for us to tolerate their existence in this country when they don’t allow it in theirs. They have told us what they have in mind for us, but we blindly accomodate their vicisous ways, and allow them freedoms they would never give us. As absurd as it is, they are using our freedoms to destroy our freedoms, and we allow it. No religion should be allowed to exist in this country that endangers or openly advocates harm to others. Not only have the unsuspecting Americans elected a Muslim president, the democrats are sitting idly by while he dismantels the country, and does an end run around the constitution with his many zars, and appoints Muslims and crooks to his cabnet who for personal gain gladly pursue his agenda. All this is part and parcel of his plans to, as he promised, “transform this country.” Pray for our country--God bless America.
PAT ROBERTSON DOES IT AGAIN
Pat Robertson, a TV evangelist, would be funny if what he says did not pervert the scripture. He constantly makes wild statements that get him in trouble and cause him to act like the politician he is. Like a politician, he makes wild statements for which public complaints cause him to back track.
His latest statement is that Prime minister Arial Sharon's stroke is God's punishment for his pulling out of Gaza. Robertson says he gave away part of "God's land."
This is part of his premillennial theology. Robertson, along with the Jews, believes that the Old Testament promised land still belongs to the Jews in perpetuity, and all the Jews in the world will eventually be gathered to the ancient promised land, Christ will return and fight the battle of Armageddon and destory all evil, and set up the throne of David in Jerusalem and rule the world for a thousand years in universal peace and no evil will exist. All Jews will be converted to Christ.
All this is pure fabrication and has no scriptural support. It is as full of holes as Swiss cheese. In the first place, the person doesn't live who can take the Bible and show that Christ will ever set foot on this earth again. The Bible says the saints will meet Him in the air, and "so shall they ever be with the Lord" (1 Th 4:17). The premillennialists say the saints will meet the Lord in the air, but He will take them to heaven for 7 years, then return to the earth with them and fight the battle of Armageddon. There is not a jot or a tittle of scripture to support this.
It is a fact that the land of Israel is God's land, but so is all land in the world, Psa. 47:2. (1 Cor 10:26) For the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.
The land of Israel is a part of God's earth that He conditionally promised to the seed of Abraham. The condition was that they obey His law, but if they failed he would scatter them among the nations (Lev 26:33) And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.(Neh 1:8) Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou commandedst thy servant Moses, saying, If ye transgress, I will scatter you abroad among the nations:
The land was their's as long as they were faithful until God, fulfilled His eternal purpose through the descendents of Abraham. That was accomplished when Christ came and died for the sins of the world.
God is finished with the ethnic Jews as His special people; God's special people today (His "Jews") are those who obey the gospel. Look, (Rom 2:28-29) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Jews, as well as many others, generally mistakenly believe that the land of Palestine still belongs to them, and the Arabs have no claim to it. Only misinformed Jews and premillennialists have this erroneous view. Since the ethnic Jews are no longer God's special people, the land of Palestine is no longer their special land. Since God has fulfilled His eternal purpose for which he used the seed of Abraham and the land of Palestine, both the land and the Jews become common with every other human being. If all the Jews move back to Palestine, it won't be in fulfillment of anything God has done or said.
God promised to scatter them among the nations if they disobeyed Him. They were in terrible disobedience when Christ came; so much so that they crucified the Lord of glory. In A.D. 70, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple, as retribution for their rejection of Christ, and the Jews were scattered to the four winds. Where are they now? They are scattered among the nations of earth. There are thousands more Jews outside of Palestine than are in it, and some that are in it want to get out. One would think that Pat Robertson and his fellow travelers have never seen a copy of the Bible. If they have, they certainly are not reading it correctly.
The reason the Jews think Palestine is still their land is because they don't believe in Christ or the New Testament which shows that the land promise was fulfilled when God finished with His eternal purpose which is fulfilled in the church which began on Pentecost in Acts 2; Eph. 3:10.
Pat Robertson, a TV evangelist, would be funny if what he says did not a perversion of scripture. He constantly makes wild statements that get him in trouble and cause him to act like the politician he is. Like a politician, he makes wild statements for which public complaints cause him to back track. His latest statement is that Priminister Arial Sharon?s stroke is God?s punishment for his pulling out of Gaza. Robertson says he gave away part of ?God?s land.? This is part of his premillennial theology. Robertson, along with the Jews, believes that the Old Testament promised land still belongs to the Jews in perpetuity, and all the Jews in the world will eventually be gathered to the ancient promised land, Christ will return and fight the battle of Armageddon and destory all evil, and set up the throne of David in Jerusalem and rule the world for a thousand years in universal peace and no evil will exist. All Jews will be converted to Christ. All this is pure fabrication and has no scriptural support. It is as full of holes as swiss cheese. In the first place, the person doesn?t live who can take the Bible and show that Christ will ever set foot on this earth again. The Bible says the saints will meet Him in the air, and ?so shall they ever be with the Lord? (1 Th 4:17). The premillennialists say the saints will meet the Lord in the air, but He will take them to heaven for 7 years, then return to the earth with them and fight the battle of Armageddon. There is not a jot or a tittle of scripture to support this. It is a fact that the land of Israel is God?s land, but so is all land in the world, Psa. 47:2. (1 Cor 10:26) For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. The land of Israel is a part of God?s earth that He conditionally promised to the seed of Abraham. The condition was that they obey His law, but if they failed he would scatter them among the nations (Lev 26:33) And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste.(Neh 1:8) Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou commandedst thy servant Moses, saying, If ye transgress, I will scatter you abroad among the nations: The land was their?s as long as they were faithful until God fulfilled His eternal purpose through the descendents of Abraham. That was accomlished when Christ came and died for the sins of the world. God is finished with the ethnic Jews as His special people; God?s special people today (His ?Jews?) are those who obey the gospel. Look, (Rom 2:28-29) For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: {29} But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Jews generally believe that the land of Palestine still belongs to them, and the Arabs have no claim to it. Only misinformed Jews and premillennialists have this erroneous view. Since the ethnic Jews are no longer God?s special people, the land of Palestine is no longer their special land. Since God has fulfilled His eternal purpose for which he used the seed of Abraham and the land of Palestine, both the land and the Jews become common with every other human being. If all the Jews move back to Palestine, it won?t be in fulfillment of anything God has done or said. God promised to scatter them among the nations if they disobeyed Him. They were in terrible disobedience when Christ came; so much so that they crucified the Lord of glory. In A.D. 70, the Romans destoryed Jerusalem and the temple, as retrobition for their rejection of Christ, and the Jews were scattered to the four winds. Where are they now? They are scattered among the nations of earth. There are thousands more Jews outside of Palestine than are in it, and some that are in it want to get out. One would think that Pat Robertson and his fellow travelers have never seen a copy of the Bible. If they have, they certainly are not reading it correctly. The reason the Jews think Palestine is still their land is becasue they don?t believe in Christ or the New Testament which shows that the land promise was fulfilled when God finished with His eternal purpose which is the church (Eph. 3:10).
This article currently has no files available for download. Please check back soon.
I have been preaching the gospel for almost 60 years, and I have come to know a good many preachers. My preaching life was contemporary for a while with, and I was acquainted with and worked some with such great men as W. Curtis Porter, Cecil and Boone Douthitt, C. R. Nichol, N. B. Hardeman, Luther Blackmon, Yater Tant, Roy Cogdill, James P. Miller, and Ross O. Spears and many others, all of whom have gone to their eternal reward. It is my observation that the majority of gospel preachers are of sterling character and are willing to make almost any sacrifice for the Cause of Christ. But I have to say that I have known several preachers who were and are otherwise. One of Paul’s many admonitions to young preachers is, “Flee youthful lusts.” (2 Tim 2:22) Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness... with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.” All of my preaching life I have known a few preachers who had “female trouble”; they shunned Paul’s advice to (1 Tim 4:12) “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.” and to treat “the younger as sisters, with all purity.”(1 Tim 5:2). This must have been a problem or Paul would not have said so much about it. The fleeing of youthful lust is not just directed at young preachers; I have known some older preachers who had not fled from youthful lust. They were well known for their adulterous behavior. One such older preacher called a group of preachers together. Here is his advice to them, “Brethren, I am eaten up with syphilis, my advice to you is, ‘Be careful.’” (What an insult!) He was separated from a Godly wife for many years until his death. This individual had the unmitigated gall to stand up at the end of one my sermons and say, “If you can’t strike oil in 15 minutes, stop boring.” A hypocritical preacher who didn’t know how to live, tried to tell me how to preach!!! I replied, “But I was not trying to strike oil, I was trying to strike sin.” I had a preacher friend to hold a meeting where I was preaching. He held an excellent meeting, but I found out later that he had a girl other than his wife pregnant during the meeting and he knew it. What a hypocrite! I knew a young preacher whose wife complained because her husband spent more time at a young widow’s house than at his own home with her. We are supposed to visit “widows in their affliction” (not in their affection), but we are also supposed to “keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27). I. THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY PREACHERS FALL FOR SEXUAL TEMPTATIONS: 1. Disfunctional marriages: Marriage is one of the greatest and most serious commitments one will ever make in this life. It can be heaven on earth, or a living hell! Husband and wife are to become “one flesh,” and as Paul said, (1 Cor 7:4.5) The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. (5)Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. Both husbands and wives need to read these scriptures and make sure they practice them. To practice them is to solve a major problem in marriages. I knew two Christians who broke up their marriage over the husband’s adultery, and the wife confessed that she had not been the wife to her husband that the Lord expected her to be. (For shame!). In failed marriages, this is frequently the case. It can work both ways. One of the greatest joys of marriage is a harmonious sex life. The party that disrupts this will answer to God.(1 Cor 7:15) “... but God hath called us to peace.”(1 Cor 7:4-5) The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. This is plain enough to understand, but no doubt, there are those who defraud their spouses for many reasons other than for “fasting and prayer.” A brother recently told me that he had not had conjugal relations with his wife in 8 years! Divorce soon occurred. Marriage is a complex subject, and many issues get involved. Marriage is a give and take proposition; neither spouse should do all the giving nor all the taking. Selfishness has no place in this matter, and deprivation of conjugal relations should never be used as punishment for either party for anything. Such is a violation of the word of God. 2. Shallow commitment to the Lord and to one’s spouse: The Lord’s church today is suffering from shallow commitment, even among preachers. This is manifested by a lukewarm attitude toward the church and its work: Spasmodic attendance, lack of serious Bible study manifested by ignorance of the scripture, a general failure to “seek first the kingdom of God” (Mt. 6:33). Some preachers are committing adultery to an alarming degree. Without a lot of thinking, I was able to write down the names of more than a dozen preachers that I know who have committed adultery. That’s just the ones I know. There is also shallow commitment to the marriage. Young married people sometimes want to continue to hang out with the old gang rather than stay home and do something enjoyable with their spouse. Or they want to continue to pursue their hobby or interests to the neglect of the spouse. It may be some sport, or his/her career. Preachers sometimes get so involved in meeting work that they are more gone than at home. They get so involved in trying to save other they they lose their own families. This places a heavy responsibility on the wife. Some are better at handling it than others. It is a sacrifice that dedicated wives are often willing to make, but not all. I have known of preachers wives who protested strongly their husband’s absence, but their cries were ignored. In time this adversely affects the marriage relationship, and leads to the problem of adultery and divorce. The solution to the fornication problem among preachers as well as others is found in the sincerity and depth of one’s commitment. Paul said, (Rom 13:14) “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.” This reminds me of young Daniel when he was taken to Babylon, it is said, (Dan 1:8) “But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank:...” When Barnabas came to Antioch he “exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord” (Acts 11:23). SOLOMON’S ADVICE: (Prov 5:15-21) Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. (Love your own wife, not somebody else’s) Let thy fountains (children jpn) be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. Let them be only thine own, and not strangers' with thee (no out of wedlock children jpn). Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger? For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings. Shallow commitment leaves one wide open for Satan’s allurements. Don’t forget (1 Pet 5:8) ....your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” I suspect the reader knows whom he seeks to devour; its not the alien sinner because he already has all of them, he seeks to devour members of the church, and guess whom he seeks first? The most vulnerable, the members with a shallow commitment. The preacher who does not possess his vessel in sanctification and honor. The devil is not dumb, he knows who you are, and he will come after you! One can imagine that he shouts for joy when a preacher yields to his temptation. 3. A failure to consider the consequences of their actions. It is exceedingly dumb to trade a moment of ecstacy for a life time of regret, a broken marriage, and a withering blight on the church for which our Lord died. Think of how long it takes a local church to overcome the local preacher’s adulterous trysts. All of the following passages say that God will judge us according to the fruit of our doings: (Isa 3:10; Jer 17:10; Jer 21:14; Jer 32:19;Micah 7:13).Not just our doings, but the fruit of them; the results of them. It is appropriate to ask adulterous preachers the same questions Paul asked the Jews in Rom. 2. (Rom 2:19-24) “And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.” Indeed, as Paul said, They “hinder the truth in unrighteousness” (Rom. 1:18). 4. A lack of seriousness toward the marriage vow. Solomon said the following about vow taking: (Eccl 5:4-7) When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands? For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God. I have performed many weddings in my work as a preacher. I have always been impressed with the lack of seriousness at weddings. I think many times the parties want a short ceremony about which they will remember little after it is over. They say the marriage vows but they just mouth them without really thinking about what they are saying. That being the case, they don’t know or care when they violate them. In every wedding I perform I have them to say, “And forsaking all others to keep my self to you and to you alone until death do is part.” Are those just empty words, just ceremony, or do they really mean something? A young church member called me to a private room before services on Sunday morning. He began to cry like a baby. He said, “I have broken my marriage vow. I was on a business trip with some fellow workers. We were in a hotel room, and they called in some girls and some beer. I drank some bear and had relations with one of the girls.” He had two small children and a beautiful spiritually minded wife. One can imagine the heartache and that regret resulted. 5. Marriage for the wrong reason: It is difficult for young people who are contemplating marriage to think beyond the physical aspects of it when youthful hormones are “champing at the bits”in their bodies. This is why marriage is not for children. Sound judgment is hard to come by at such a time. This is why the highest number of marriage failures occur among teenagers. Paul said, (1 Cor 7:36) “But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin (that is, his virgin daughter), if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.” While I don’t know exactly what “if she pass the flower of her age” means for sure, it certainly says age has something to do with when one is to marry. It certainly means that marriage is not for children. I knew a man who wanted to get away from his wedding reception as soon as possible because he said, “He was ready for the marriage bed.” I fear this is characteristic of many marriages. 6. Character flaws: The preacher who commits adultery has certain character flaws that are destructive to anyone, but especially to preachers. (1) A lack of integrity, (2) Dishonesty, in most, if not in all cases, the adulterer lies to his wife, and (3) a lack of self-discipline. In my humble judgment, such an one should not preach until he is able to conquer these proclivities. John the Baptist demanded that people “bring forth fruit, meet for repentance.” Preachers should practice what they preach, and if they are not doing so, they should quit preaching until their practice catches up. II. THE VULNERABILITY OF PREACHERS : The preacher hasn’t lived who has not had multiple opportunities to commit adultery. Brother C. R. Nichol once said to me, “Some women are attracted to men in public positions.” This seems to be the case. I once heard of a sister in Christ who said she wanted to have an affair with a preacher. Preachers must be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves”(Mat 10:16). They must be careful to avoid all circumstances where their conduct could be questioned, because if it ever is, it will be practically impossible to convince everyone that he is innocent, even if he is. Especially will this be the case with rumor mongers and persons who don’t like him and are always looking for something against him. I refuse to visit a woman in her home alone. I have had women insist that I do so, and have actually objected to my bringing my wife along. When this happens I tell them that either my wife will come along, or she will have to come to my home when my wife is present in the house. I can understand that situations exist where absolute privacy is desired, but I can always find a way to accommodate that without putting my morals in question. Paul said we should be circumspect (Eph 5:15) See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise...” This means to pay attention of all circumstances. I once held a meeting and stayed in the home of one of the elders. His beautiful young daughter was divorced from her husband and had moved back home. She was overly friendly to me all week. She made a date for us to play golf several miles form the town were I was holding the meeting. I knew this was highly questionable, so following services the night before the golf date, I made a special trip home and got my wife and daughter. This young lady didn’t speak to me the rest of the week! Sometimes one has to do like Joseph. III. WE SHOULD NOT SHOOT OUR WOUNDED: In conclusion, I must caution us against shooting our wounded. The Lord’s army is the only one that often shoots its wounded rather than trying to nurse them back to spiritual health. We are all human, including preachers, and we all make mistakes. While sin is sin, some sins have a greater impact than do others and are much harder to repair. Jesus said to Pilate, (John 19:11) Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. All sin is great, but if there is such a thing as a “greater sin,” then the Lord must recognize that all sin is not of the same magnitude. Preachers who violate their marriage vow are not necessarily fatally wounded, and can be rehabilitated, if they truly repent and learn from their mistake. It will not be easy for them because of the damage it does to their reputation, their family and the church. If loving brethren will “go to bat” for them and encourage others to have the proper attitude toward them, in many cases, good can result. All this depends upon their “bringing forth fruit meet for repentance” (Mt. 3:8). There is always some suspicion toward one’s repentance when he says he has repented only when he gets caught. If he had not been caught, would he still be doing it? There is a difference between being sorry for our sins, and being sorry we got caught in them. We are now well into the sexual revolution, and the public’s attitude toward marriage is not what it once was, and certainly not what the Bible demands. Fornication is no longer a scandal in the minds of many, but a natural act that bears no evil-- its creativity! (Yes, Satan’s). Young people are becoming sexually active at ever younger ages. This libertine attitude is affecting the church as the world around it always has. Gradualism is swallowing the church with all kinds of libertine ideas. Some brethren are compassing land and sea to find some way to justify violations of God’s simple marriage law, and filling some churches with adulterous couples. We have a right to look to preachers as role models. James said, (James 3:1) My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. Does this not say that teachers are held to a standard different from non-teachers? If not, what does it say? I think teachers are held to a special standard by both men and God. Paul makes this clear when he admonished Timothy, (1 Tim 4:16) Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. False teaching carries a double whammy, it damns the soul of the teacher and all who believe him. CONCLUSION: I have always had great respect for dedicated righteous living preachers. My respect is greatly diminished for those who do not practice what they preach. They are a cancer on the body of Christ, and should be treated as such. When they get involved in the sin of adultery more than once, a serious doubt of their integrity raises its head. This is not the fruit of repentance. The sexual revolution has found its way into the church, and strong biblical teaching needs to be done along this line. A lack of Bible teaching on any subject creates a vacuum that Satan gladly will fill. Let us not have a situation like existed in Israel: (Isa 56:10) His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.
PRESIDENT ELECT ABAMA was elected by appealing to and influencing people to vote who had never voted: Young people, disabled people, illiterate persons, even felons, and workers were paid to get out and register, including Micky Mouse and dead people, one young man admitted to registering 70+ times, so the registrar could make more money. All of which proves a great flaw in our electorial system. Any body who can raise enough money, put on a massive effort to get anybody and everybody to vote, furnish them transportation to the polls, etc. can win a presidential election in America. It is through this flaw in our electorial system, that will be used by the Muslims to take over our country, and eliminate all religions but their own. They will use our constitutionon to destroy our constitution and our way of life.With a Muslim sympathizer (if not a Muslim) and the liberal democrats in power, Christians can expect the effort to take God out of the public arena, and put Allah in his place and the pressure on “Christianity” to increase. The next few years will see these efforts escalate and all opposition to them to be quashed by new laws and regulations. All “Christians” had better fortify their faith or they will be swept along with the flood of anti-God forces in our beloved country. Don’t be naive and think that these efforts will be in any way retarded by Washington. They will be helped by Washington. Abama said in his book: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Facts are stubborn things!!!
Religious cliches are often accepted as authority for many religious ideas. Some think these sayings are quotations right out of the Bible, when in reality they are just religious propaganda spread around by those who are looking for a loophole in God’s law. When people accept such cliches as authoritative, they have sort of been brainwashed. It is amazing how easily people can be satisfied in religion. In other areas of their lives they want authority for everything. They want their grocery weights and measures verified by an authoritative standard, but not their religion. Just any old cliche will suffice, as long as it does not conflict with what they want to do or believe.
Did you ever hear it said, “One doesn’t have to be baptized as long as his heart is right”? I am sure you have, because it is very prevalent among religious persons. But, did you ever ask yourself, “How does it stand up in the light of the Bible? Maybe we had better take a look at it.” Did you know that baptism is a command of God? Take a look at Acts l0:48; Mk. 16:16, and Acts 2:38. Commands must be obeyed (Rev. 22:14). But the heart is purified by obedience, Peter said, “Seeing you have purified your souls in OBEDIENCE TO THE TRUTH...” (1 Pet. 1:22), therefore, baptism is a part of the obedience essential to the purifying of the heart, so, it is impossible to have a “right heart” while refusing to be baptized, which is one of God’s commands. Baptism is a part of the obedience essential to the purifying of the heart, so, it is impossible to have a “right heart” while refusing to be baptized that makes the heart right! Such clever cliches are inventions of Satan designed to blind people to the truth (2 Cor. 4:4). They are his sly ways of duping people into being satisfied with less than the whole truth. We should always look beyond the label, especially in religion. The devil is a deceiver (Rev. 20:10; Jn. 8:44). He transforms himself into an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:14). When people accept without question those cliches which are constantly floating around in the religious world, they are liable to buy a pig in a poke. Let us never be satisfied until we are certain we have obeyed all the truth of God.“You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (Jn. 8:32).
The founding fathers who wrote our constitution were religious persons. They had fled from religious oppression and yearned to be free to worship God as they saw fit. So, they put in the constitution the following: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The founders forbad the state from embracing and making official a particular religion, but leaving the public free to practice any religion they choose. While this is a wonderful statement, I am sure they did not foresee its unintended consequences. What about those who handle poisonous snakes as religion? What about the church of Satan that engages in human sacrifice? What about polygamy,and the use of drugs as religion? What about a whole town in the Northeast that declared itself a religion to avoid taxes? What about the murderous Muslims, and their practice of adults marrying children, and killing those who differ from them? This amendment to the Constitution has our country in a quandary now. The murderous Muslim religion has invaded this country with vengeance, determined to absolutely destroy our religion and impose upon us their religion by force.When they gain the power to do so, they will give us three alternatives: Convert to it, submit to it and pay taxes to it, or be killed. All of this using the freedom of religion clause in the Constitution. They are going to use our freedom of religion clause to destroy our freedom of religion. How do you like that? The Supreme Court has attempted only once to define religion. They said it is any belief of ultimate concern. That, of course, is so ambiguous as to allow almost anything as a religion, which it certainly does as one can see from a previous paragraph. This means that secular humanism is a religion (it claims to be such) and this has been admitted by the Supreme Court.But let me show you what this does: Religion is forbidden in the public school system, but the tenants of secular humanism are taught every day: Evolution, atheism, sexual freedom, etc. are all part and parcel of Humanism. The greatest advocate of Secular Humanism in the country is the National Teachers Association.They are the originators of much of the curriculum in the public schools. Our foolish government looks to them to set the trends of public education.They are responsible for text books that promote evolution, sexual freedom, and history books that revise history and eliminate much of our precious heritage. How can the Supreme Court define what is religion and be consistent with the religion clause of the Constitutin? However they define religion will certainly not include what many call religion, and yet they are not to hinder er "the free exercise thereof." It is a settled fact that this problem is caused by the fact that the religion clause of the Constitution is based upon the "Christian" religion: belief in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. They did not foresee the situation we are in now with none Christian religions, all the foolishness that is called religion. Curtailing anything called religion would violated the Constitution as it is now written.
The Bible is quite clear that Christians are supposed to respect and honor civil rulers Rom. 13, (1 Pet 2:17) Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. Is it not necessarily implied that the ruler is to be deserving of honor? How can a Christian honor a ruler who is immoral and corrupt to the core? Who is dishonest and lies when the truth would fit better? Our present situation puts the Christian in a dilemma. We have a president who approves abortion of all kinds, infanticide, in that he voted four times against a law in Illinois which would force doctors to render life-giving medical aid to living infants who survived botched abortions. A nurse testified that in such cases the infants were laid on a table in the soiled linen room and left to die. He also is dishonest in that he made wild promises in his election campaign that he has forthwith violated. For instance: he said no lobbyists would serve in his cabinet, 12 do. He said all bills for him to sign would be posted 5 days before he signed them so the public could examine them. He has already signed bills without this. He promised that he would have a cabinet made up of reputable experts. Four or five persons have been nominated and/or confirmed who have evaded hundreds of thousands of dollars of income taxes.
These persons were allowed to settled their tax problems, penalties and fines waived, and then appointed to serve.Don’t think for a minute that you or I would get this kind of treatment from the IRS. This is absolute corruption. If one owes back taxes and doesn’t pay them, the IRS will take everything you have to collect it. One elderly lady said they took the last $40.00 she has from her checking account. One of his main promises in the campaign was CHANGE. Yet his cabinet is made up largely of persons who served in the corrupt Clinton administration. The whole atmosphere in Washington is contrary to Biblical principles.
How can Christians honor rulers that stand against and practice so much that is against their value system? We are to pray for rulers (1 Tim 2:1-3) I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour... Should we not pray that the present administration will fail in matters mentioned herein? How can we pray for his success in matters that are against everything we believe in?
There are determined efforts to eliminate “Christianity” and God from the public arena. The noose is getting tighter every day. There is even a case where students are not only forbidden pray, but to say the word prayer. While our constitution guarantees freedom of speech, that provision is becoming a joke in our society. The only people who have it are the atheists, the evolutionists, and the secularists. The government is constantly accommodating the Muslim religion while it seeks to suppress “Christianity.” Christians who lived under the corrupt Roman government were told to live righteous lives and pay their taxes (Rom. 13). That’s the scenario that we must follow in our present situation. While the situation doesn’t look good for “Christians” in the future of this country, we must pray that God will intervene.
The constitution of the United States is one of the greatest, and probably the greatest, document ever produced by the human mind. This is largely true because the framers believed that man’s rights come from God and not from the government, and to abridge these rights is to go against what God intended for His creatures. A misconception of the Constitution is that it is a living document, meaning that it must take into consideration the changes that occur in society, so it must be interpreted to harmonize with the changing traditions of each generation.
President Clinton expressed the liberal view of the constitution when he said, “Each generation must define what it means to be an American.” This is the prevailing view of the majority of the Supreme Court which acounts for the unconstitutional decisions that it hands down.
I have said the above to say this: There is a direct parallel between this attitude toward the Constitution and the attitude of liberals toward the New Testament. Liberals deny that the New Testament presents a pattern of authority, they say it is a living document that must be interepreted in the light of the prevailing beliefs and traditions of society. In other words, each generation must define what it means to be a Christian. They say the first-century church observed the Lord’s supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7), but that doesn’t mean we have to. They say it practiced baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, but that doesn’t mean we have to, etc. We must understand that the Constitution defines what it means to be an American in any and every generation. It is the law of the land that should be followed to a “T”. Some of the Supreme Court’s rulings are direct contradictions of the Constitution, this is called “Judicial activism,” where the Supreme Court makes laws rather than interpret the constitution which is its proper function.
The New Testament defines what it means to be a Christian in any and all generations. We have no right to make a single change in what it says, or interpret what is says in a way that contradicts it. When God says what He wants, that includes everything He wants, and excludes everything He doesn’t want. We are not at liberty to add to or take from or preach or accept anything else (Gal. 2,8,9; Rev. 22:18,19.This is exactly what human creeds do. This is what those who claim latter day revelations do. They can’t prove what they want to do, or are doing, by the scriptures, so they claim new revelations from God which supposedly approve what they want to do or are doing. Men sometimes mistranslate the Bible, putting into it so-called authority for their practices and beliefs.
Our country is facing a troubling future. Socialism is knocking at the door under the name of “bail out.” The government is taking over large corporations and supporting the unionization of all trades and professions by destroying the private ballot for employees to decide whether their trade or profession should be unionized. This will lead to bullying those who openly vote against it. Socialism was best expressed by Karl Marx, the father of communism; he said, “To each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
President Obama has expressed it as “spreading the wealth.” This means that the dead beats and the free loaders will share the fruits of those who go to work every day and earn their own way. Everybody will eat at the public trough even though they added nothing to it. Sir Winston Churchill said, “Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.” Socialism violates the Bible principles of personal responsibility and the work ethic. The Bible says “Every man shall bear his own burden” (Gal. 6:5) and “if any will not work neither should he eat” (2Thes. 3:10). Every man should “with quietness work, and eat their own bread” (2 Thes. 3:11). (Eph 4:28) Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
Democratic governments traditionally gravitate toward socialism. This trend has been seen in this country almost from its beginning. When enough of the deadbeat population lobbies for the government to take care of their wants and wishes, politicians can’t resist using them to get elected. When Obama was elected one lady said now she wouldn’t have to pay her mortgage or buy gas for her car. Socialists want the government to take care of their every need from the cradle to the grave.
The government now owns 80% of one of the largest corporations in the country, plus a good portion in many others. Thomas Jefferson saw this coming and said, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” “It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half of the wars of the world.” “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." 1802: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
The world refuses to admit that we are in a religious war: It is Islam vs. the rest of us. They have openly stated that they will eventually convert the world to Islam, kill it, or subject it to tribute. The world refuses to take them seriously. Gradually, they are fulfilling their mission. Ten percent of France’s population is Islamic, and it is predicted that in a few short years France will be an Islamic nation. Millions of Islamics and thousands of Mosques now occupy a large place in America, and it is growing by the day. The army now has Islamic Chaplains, paid by American tax money, to minister to the Islamics in the American military. Many nations of the world are urging Israel to use restraint in its response to Iranian supported Arabs invading Israeli territory, killing two of its soldiers and capturing another. I have yet to hear a plea for the Arabs to use restraint who are hurling 100’s of rockets and missiles into Israel killing dozens of innocent civilians. Much of the world is determined to paint a false image of Islam through false information or pure inexcusable ignorance of its religion. The terrorists are said to be “radical Islamics.” They are said to be “hijacking a peace loving religion.” Some call them “extremists.” This is pure falsehood. All one has to do is read the Koran. It is Islam’s Bible and the so-called radicals are not radicals at all, but are practicing pure Islamic religion as it is presented in their “holy book,” and as it was practiced by its founder Mohammed, and his followers throughout history. If the politicians of the world don’t know this, then they are out of touch with reality and ought to shut their mouths until they learn the truth. I emphasize that the world is involved in a religious war: Islam vs. the rest of us. They openly state that they want to destroy the USA and its way of life. The reason the Islamics are against democratic society is that in an Islamic society the Mulahs (religious leaders) make and enforce Islamic rules as stated in the Koran.
STONEWALLING REALITY Psychiatry and Psychology have spent centuries trying to understand the human mind; they have not succeeded and probably never will. We see the stonewalling of reality in almost every phase of life. 1. In politics: We have in this country what is called a two-party system. It is a vivid demonstration of how the human mind can stonewall reality. The generals, the officials in the state department, and the president say progress is being made in the Iraq war. Political opponents refuse to believe it and can find all kinds of hateful things to say about the President and those who support him. They can find nothing good to say about any progress that is being made regardless of how undeniable it may be. 2. In “science”: There are those who believe in evolution. Their minds are made up and they refuse to be confused with the facts. They have never proven that it has occurred, and they never will. But it has occurred and that’s that! No matter how obvious its weakness, or the strength of opposing data, it happened and that’s that. All kinds of efforts are made to stifle the opposition, and have the other side presented. Stonewalling reality. 3. In abortion: The pro-abortion crowd are just certain that the fetus is not a person. They have drummed up all kinds of seemingly scientific names for it as long as it doesn’t indicate that it is human life. The only way they can “justify” abortion is to demonize the unborn child. The strength of the contrary evidence is of no value. They have their minds made up, and that’s that! Stonewalling reality. 4. In religion: People have concrete positions in religion, They are all mixed up and firmly set, and have built a stone wall that no biblical evidence can penetrate. They are what they are and that is what they are and what they are going to be, no matter that it means the damnation of their souls. No matter that one can show that their belief contradicts the plain word of God. One can convince them against their will, and they will be of the opinion still! Some people are often wrong, but never in doubt.Stonewalling reality.
Do you feel abused? Maybe on the job? in your neighborhood? or at school? Do you feel like someone is walking on you with cleated shoes? Are you having trouble explaining why you are abused? Do you find yourself asking the question, “What have I said or done to deserve this treatment?” Well, as bad as it is, it may not be as bad as you think it is. Do you realize that many of those who abuse others do it because they are envious or jealous of the people they abuse? Their abuse of you may be a tribute to your ability and importance which they realize they cannot attain. Nobody kicks a dead dog! Do you feel insulted at the cheap verbal shots that others take at you? Well, remember, it is not the words of the abuser that offend you, but your opinion of those words. So, when one provokes you, it is your opinion that is provoked. I have known people to get into serious fights over unkind words spoken; maybe an ugly name the abuser called them. Some persons get absolutely furious if someone calls them a liar. But, as I said, these words don’t provoke one, but one’s opinion of those words. Maybe we need to be a little thicker skinned! If someone calls you a liar, that doesn’t make you one. If someone takes a cheap shot at you, let it roll off your knife like boiled peas; consider the source. To get upset only pleases the abuser. If we allow him to get under our skin, then we are not only playing his game, we are allowing him to win. If we allow the abuser to provoke the WORST in us, then we have truly been injured. But, if it provokes the BEST in us, then the abuse may indeed be a blessing, and we may even help the abuser. Take the attitude that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words shall never hurt me.” The most abusive people of all are those who are most worthy of abuse themselves. But, if we become abusers, then we act hypocritically, for we then practice what we dislike in others. Paul said, “Recompense to no man evil for evil...avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Rom. 12:17,19). If you follow this divinely inspired advice, you will have no occasion to regret it. --jpn
This article currently has no files available for download. Please check back soon.
LAKELAND FAKE HEALER BENTLY A fake healer named Bently is con- ducting a lengthy fake “healing” campaign in Lakeland, Fl. He is supposedly healing all kinds of physical problems. He supposedly caused a man to see through his glass eye! Bently uses some un-heard-of methods in his so-called healing escapades. For instance, he kicks people in the face, punches them in the stomach, etc. in the process of “healing” them. Did you ever read of Jesus and the apostles using such absurd methods? The reaction of the public to his campaign is various. Some think he is a man of God, some call him a fake, a shyster, and a money grabber. I am particularly interested in the following comment made by one person: “If we focus on God, often our legalistic prejudices fall by the wayside as we worship Him together.” This statement portrays a typical attitude that is prevalent in our society and explains why it is so difficult to find people interested in God’s truth. If we will just ignore the Bible and focus on God, then our “legalistic prejudices” will disappear. That means, ignore what the Bible says and just focus on God; nothing else matters. So, the Bible is kicked out of the picture and human wisdom and emotions are substituted in its place. Every man has a right to his own belief as long as he is sincere, and nobody should sit in judgment upon another man’s religion. Of course, this means that we should not judge those who don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God, like the Jews and the Muslims. We should make no judgment about the rattle snake handlers, or the murderous Islamics. While those who think this way won’t buy it, but logically, we should not judge the devil worshipers who practice human sacrifice. It is this errant philosophy that causes our government to accommodate the Islamic religion as it gradually, like a creeping paralysis, takes over the world and eliminates all other religions. The charismatics contend that God still performs miracles. I once debated a charismatic who affirmed that he could do the same miracles performed by Jesus and the apostles. He refused to drink a make believe poison I provided, nor would he allow me to furnish him a poisonous snake. People ignore the fact that Bible miracles were proof that God was with those who performed them, and they ceased when the revelation of the mind of God was complete. To preach and accept the simple truth which the miracles confirmed to be the truth (Heb. 2:1-4) is not exciting to those who desire to be entertained by a fake healer, and ignore the truth revealed in God’s word.
This article currently has no files available for download. Please check back soon.
Jesus encountered these during His personal ministry, and so he said, (Mat 13:15) For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. It is a sad fact that some people are like this. In spite of all the loving efforts put forth to get them to acknowledge God’s truth and obey it, they remain outside of Christ and lost. They hear the gospel over and over, but it doesn’t seem to penetrate their stopped ears, blinded eyes, and hardened hearts. We pray, plead, and preach God’s truth to them but they turn a deaf ear to it. The truth is so plain that it is hard to believe they don’t understand it. We try to appeal to them in every way we know how, but it seems to be like pouring water on a duck’s back, it just runs off them, never getting through to their hardened heart. What a shame that they cannot see the result of a life lived without Christ to finally face the judgment bar of Christ and hear him say “depart from me, ye that work iniquity into the lake of fire prepared for the devil and all his angels." That will be a sad day, but it will be too late to do anything about it. We only have one life to live for Christ or Satan. It’s each person choice, but the consequences are his/her responsibility, and nobody else’s.
LIBERALISM IN THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST
(NOTE:This is another article from the series on “Studies in the Restoration” that appeared in the Gospel Advocate in the 1940's. It proves a well-known saying, “They who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” He who cannot see the same pattern that we have noticed in the apostasies in our generation must be blind. I grew up among churches that scorned preachers who preached against denominations and their doctrines. Such preachers were called “fighters,” and the church avoided them. I was fired at my first location because I refused to comply with the elders dictum that I eliminate the word hell from my preaching. I went to school to L. L. Brigance at Freed-Hardeman College, and I admired him greatly. He was a kind and pius man. I heard him preach a few times. James P. Needham).
LIBERALISM IN THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST: Liberalism among the "Disciples," or "Christian Churches," has been our theme for several articles past. We have tried to show its origin, development, and final consequences. It was this spirit of liberalism that led to the great schism in the ranks of the Restoration Movement. Following this major division, there were two groups—liberals and conservatives. The "Disciples," or "Christian Church," of course, were the liberals and the churches of Christ the conservatives. But liberalism became too liberal for the liberals. Some of them began to pull back, others continued to press on. A near division is the result. It is not yet open and formal and may be averted a few years longer, but there is now a liberal and a conservative group among the liberals.
The Christian Standard, which was founded to champion liberalism, now represents the conservatives among the liberals. The Christian-Evangelist is the mouthpiece of the liberals, and the Christian Century, perhaps, speaks for the ultra liberals. So, then, there are two or three groups among the liberals, based upon different degrees of liberalism.
HOW ABOUT THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST? The churches of Christ constitute the original conservative group in the Restoration Movement. Have they remained true to their strict adherence to the word of God? Do they still oppose both in theory and practice every innovation "upon the ancient order," or have they weakened here and .there? Perhaps no clear-cut, definite case of liberalism can be made out against them, yet there are evidences of trends in that direction.
Attitudes Toward Sectarianism. One of the evidences of a trend toward liberalism is a more tolerant attitude toward sectarianism. To say that the New Testament nowhere recognizes, countenances, or tolerates sectarianism is to state a fact well known to everyone familiar with that volume. The Restoration Movement was a protest against sectarianism. The pioneer preachers and the brethren generally in their day condemned it in no uncertain terms. They fought it both publicly and privately. There was no compromise anywhere along the line. Religious debates were common. Of course it made enemies, it alienated friends, it divided families, it disturbed the community, it brought the wrath and rage of sectarians against the church. The brethren were boycotted in business and ostracized socially. Speaking of the persecutions of the members of the Brush Run Church, Dr. Richardson says:
"Misrepresentations of all kinds were freely circulated amongst the people; friendships were broken up; the ties of family relationship were weakened; and the discord of religious controversy invaded the quietude of the most secluded habitations."
The opposition, however, by no means confined itself to private intercourse, or even to the pulpit, but manifested itself in business relations in the withdrawal of custom from members whose callings were dependent upon public patronage, and in slights at public gatherings whenever it was supposed an indignity might be safely offered to any member present.This was no indication that the brethren were wrong, but rather that they were right, for Jesus said: “Think not that I am come to send pace on earth: I came to send peace but a sword. For I am com to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes will shall be they of his own household.” :(Matt. 10:34-36). “Know ye not that friendship of the world is enmity with God? (James 4:4). If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). “Woe unto you, when all men speak well of you” Lk. 6:26). Again: "yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall stuffer persecution." (2 Tim. 3: 12.)
If we are not being persecuted today as in former times, it is because we have let up in the battle against denominationalism. And that is just what we have done. There are congregations among the churches of Christ today that do not want the whole gospel preached. They want that part of it preached that does not condemn sectarians and the rest of it left off. They want the preacher to tread softly all controversial points. There are places where the church has grown strong numerically and economics among its members are men prominent in the business world. It is an important factor in the civic and social life of the community. Some members are elected to public office. All of these relationships tend to weaken one’s stand against sectarianism. To condemn it is unpopular. Consequently the church lets up in its condemnation of denominational doctrines and practices. It selects those preachers that are known to be "sweet-spirited."! Attitude of the Preachers. There is an old adage which says: "Like priest, like people."
No doubt a strong energetic, uncompromising preacher and leader can make his congregation into almost anything he likes. He can lead the members to accept his teaching, to imitate his example, to be like himself. On the other hand, if he is a weakling, this old saying will be reversed and become "Like people, like priest." He will find out what the church wants preached, and will preach it. He will discover what it does not want preached, and he will not preach it. He is like the country school teacher a generation or two ago in applying for a school. He was asked whether he taught the earth was round or flat. He replied that he could teach it either way. Which way do you want it? The job-hunting and job-holding preacher, hirelings are ready to preach it either way, round or flat . I
If the elders and other leaders have some good, influential sectarian friends whom they caution him not to offend, he will put on the soft pedal and preach a "sweet-spirited sermon." He will not be Like an old pioneer preacher in Middle Tennessee who was about to ascend the pulpit Sunday morning, when a brother caught him by the coat tail, pulled him down, and whispered in his ear: "Be careful what you say; I see General Jackson coming at the door." The old preacher jerked loose, mounted the platform, and shouted: "Yes, and General Jackson will go to hell just like anybody else, unless he obeys the gospel ." Instead of "Old Hickory" being offended, he came around at the close of the service and congratulated the preacher on having the "intestinal fortitude" to speak his convictions regardless of persons. You have heard, perhaps, of the weak-kneed, spineless preacher who said idly to his audience: "If you don't believe somewhat, repent in a measure, you'll be damned to a certain extent. Pardon me however, for saying so.
There are among the churches of Christ today "sweet-spirited," "soft-pedaled," "gum-booted" preachers who will not preach ”the whole counsel of God.” They preach that part of it that will offend neither saint nor sinner, sectarian nor infidel, and leave the rest of it off. It is not so much what they preach as it is what they do not preach. they leave off the very things the denominational world needs. They cannot say as did Paul: “I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you.” Some of these “soft-soaping,”compromising preachers recognize sectarians as Christians by calling on their preacher to “lead the prayer” or “dismiss the audience.” These things are the beginnings of liberalism among the churches of Christ. How far will it go? –Gospel Advocate May 22, 1941, p. 486.
(NOTE: in the 1940's, brother L. L. Brigance wrote a series of articles about the division in the “restoration” movement. He was one of my beloved professors at Freed-Hardeman College where he taught for many years. He was a man of piety, and strong convictions. Since some of the things he said this apply to the present sitution in the churches of Christ, I print them here as being extremely importsnt. There printed in series, and I shall print the ones that I feel are most appropriate for our time. JPN). Liberalism Liberalism and Conservatism. Liberalism carries the idea of freedom from restraint; of not being bound by established forms or doctrines; free to follow one’s own opinion, judgment, or sense of expediency. In religious matters liberalism is opposed to a strict construction of God’s word. It permits the modification of the teaching of the Scriptures to suit the circumstances and conditions of the times. It allows the exercise of human judgment and wisdom in carrying out God’s commands. It would condone the ignoring of some of God’s commandments and the substitution of something else for others. In short, it does not believe that we must have authority, from the Scriptures for all we teach and practice, but that where they are silent we may do whatever we think to be good.
On the other hand, conservatism believes in conserving existing institutions; in preserving the status quo. It is “opposed to change or innovation,” but believes in “letting well enough alone.” In spiritual things it believes that God’s word is supreme and sole authority. It insists that God does not speak loosely or carelessly, but that “he says what he means and means what he says.” It would, therefore, put a strict construction upon the word of God—taking it at just what it means, adding nothing to it and taking nothing from it. It believes that where the Scriptures are silent, we should be also—believing nothing, teaching nothing, and practicing nothing. Beyond the peradventure of a doubt, this is what Thomas Campbell meant by his famous expression.
Who Are the Progressives? The liberals in the Restoration Movement have always considered thernselves the “progressive element”; in fact, they took pride in calling themselves the “progressives,” and their conservative brethren they stigmatize as “nonprogressives,” “old fogies,” “mossbacks,” “antis,” and other complimentary and endearing terms. The writer of these lines is a progressive, both by nature and by practice. He believes in that “noble discontent” that is never satisfied this side of perfection. Growth, development, improvement, greater usefulness, efficiency, success should be our aim in all things physical, mental, and spiritual. I believe in religious progress. I think all Christians ought to be “progressives.” But what is religious progress? And what is a progessive Christian? Religious progress does not consist in departing from the “beaten path” and introducing new “ways and untried means.” It does not consist in abandoning old beliefs and practices and substituting something modern and up to date.
God gave the world a perfect system of religion at the beginning of the Christian age, and it cannot be improved. It is fixed and permanent. It is inflexible. It is perfectly adapted to the needs of humanity in every age. To modify it is to impeach the wisdom of God and to usurp his authority. It is the sin of presumption. Religious progress, then, consists in discovering just what this divine system requires of man and conforming to it in all its particulars. It is the complete subordination of man’s will to God’s will. It is that course of self discipline and self-control that leads to perfect trust in God and to perfect obedience of his every command. Religious progress, to use the word of the beloved Larimore, is “to take God at his word, believe what he says, do what he comnmands, and trust him for the consequences.”A progressive Christian is one who is coming nearer and nearer to the divine standard.
Yes, every Christian ought to be a “progressive.” But the fact is that these self-styled “progressives” are really retrogressives or digressives—maybe both. Instead of going forward toward the perfect standard revealed in the New Testament, they have gone away from it. They began their departures by the organization of unscriptural societies to do the work of the church, and they have come on down through various innovations, to downright infidelity on the part of many of them. Not a few of their preachers and college professors are modernists, modernists, skeptics, infidels. R. C. Foster, in a recent article in the Christian Standard, charges Dr. A. W. Fortune preacher and a professor in the College of the Bible, Lexington, Ky., with denying the resurrection of Christ and ridiculing anyone who believes it. He quotes him as a saying to a class, presumably of young preachers: “No one believes any more that Jesus was actually raised from the dead.” This is nothing but straight-out infidelity.It is a rejection of the very foundation of Christianity; “if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, a your faith is also vain; . . . ye are yet in your sin Other Departures.
Another innovation that followed soon after the organization of unscriptural societies: the introduction of instruments of music into the work of the church. From the beginning of the Restoration Movement till about 1860 no mechanical instruments music was ever used in the churches of Christ. But along with the agitation for a “higher order of literature,” “more cultivated ministry,” “improved music,” the “settled pastor,” etc., there arose a demand for an organ in the worship. The first instance of the use of such an instrument, so far as is known, was at Midway, Ky., in 1860. Dr. DeGroot says in his “Grounds of Divisions Among Disciples of Christ”: “L. L. Pinkerton closed a sixteen-year pastorate at Midway, Ky., in 1860, where he achieved the unique distinction of being the first Midwest Disciple to introduce a melodeon into church worship.” The following quotation from J. W. McGarvey suggests another time and place where instrumental music was introduced and something of the evil it has wrought. From a lengthy letter which he wrote in reply to a brother who had asked some questions about what to do in a congregation that was having trouble over the introduction of an organ. We quote one paragraph as follows: “That a vast amount of evil has been occasioned by introduction of instrumental music into Christian worship is undeniable. Beginning with the first instance of it among us which I can remember, that which caused schism in the church in St. Louis, in the year 1869, progress has been attended by strife, alienation, and division , with all their attendant evils, in hundreds of congrgations. Before this it had bred similar evils amog the Methodist societies and Baptist and Presbyterian Churches; for all of these bodies in their early days knowing that the practice originated in the Roman Catholic Church, regarded it as Romish corruption, and refused to tolerate it until it was forced upon them by the spirit of innovation which characterizes the present century.”
Of all the immediate causes of the great division among the disciples of Christ within the past century two things stand out preeminent—”organized effort” and instrumental music, these two, but the greatest of these is instrumental music. It has been our observation and experience that the organ has caused more strive, bitterness, division than any other single thing. It still remains as one of the principal bariers to any reunion of the liberal and conservative groups. Thus we see how “liberalism” kept on growing and adding one innovation after another until it brought instrumental music into the churches which precipitated the division, but the end is not yet. GOSPEL ADVOCATE, March 27, 1941. p.294
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) " Senior Muslim clerics are demanding that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to 'pull him into pieces.'" (Nice, peaceful, and loving!)
"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf. (internet).
One of the many lies being perpetrated on the public is that the Islamic religion is a loving, peaceful religion. This is done for political reasons, because Muslims in this country do have the right to vote, and the officials in the Muslim community don't want their true nature publicized. So, to make nice with them many of our politicians, including our President, continues to parrot the lie that the Muslim religion is being hijacked by a bunch of radicals.
To prove to yourself this is not the case, read the Koran, and observe the silence of Muslims in all countries when Muslim atrocities are committed by the so-called radicals. The reason for this is that the so-called radicals are practicing true Islam and they know it.When I was in the Philippines, a member of a Muslim family converted to "Christianity," and was killed and his family promoted it and approved of it.
The new Afghanistan constitution calls for religious freedom. The judge has dismissed the case "for lack of evidence." Give me a break! The man said he is a Christian and will be one until the day of his death. The truth is, the case is being dismissed due to the extreme pressure I am sure, mainly by the USA.
A gentleman said to me the other day, “I heard a preacher say that the anti-Christ would come from the East dressed in purple. I have searched my Bible through and through and I can’t find it.” I said the reason you didn’t find it is because it is not there. The word antichrist occurs 4 times in the N.T. Let’s read all four passages: 1JO 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 1JO 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 1JO 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 2JO 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Theories about “the antichrist” are part and parcel of the outlandish and unscriptural theory of premillennialism. The “end time” is part of the false premillennialists theory. The theory says that somewhere near the so-called millennium, “the antichrist” will arise. As you can see from the reading of the only times the antichrist is mentioned in the Bible, the millennialists do this like they do just about everything else, they find something mentioned in the Bible then read into it whatever they need to construct their outlandish theory. All we know about an antichrist is what these 4 passages say, and they say nothing about an antichrist rising in the so-called “end time” of the millennial theory. John wrote his epistles about 90 AD, and he said, “it is the last time” and there were, at that time, many antichrists in the world and he identified them as those who denied that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, and those who deny the Father and the Son. Premillennialists make “the antichrist” a single individual who will arise to oppose Christ near the so-called millennium. Some of their outlandish speculators even try to identify who it will be. I venture to say that the preacher had the following passage in mind: (Rev 17:4) And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication...
This person obviously was antichrist, but I ask you kindly, what does it say about “the antichrist”? Theorists find a word in the scripture that is essential to their theory, then misappropriate it to support their theory. There is no “the antichrist.” There are antichrists. The word “anti” means against, thus any person or movement that opposes Christ is antichrist. There were some in the first century, namely, the gnostics who denied that God came in the flesh, but there were others then and their are many now. So let us follow the first rule of honest interpretation, namely, context. Let us not find a word in the Bible that is essential to some theory, then lift it out of its context and assign a meaning to it which was never intended. We must handle aright the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).
What you find written here is disturbing to say the least. All of the facts mentioned about the San Diego instance are not yet in. That case may be just an overzealous county official and his department with a personal agenda. However, I really don’t think that’s the case because it is not an isolated incident. Attacks on “Christians” are cropping up all over the nation. And, once a major court ruling is made in our opposer’s favor, it will be used against us nationwide. The atheist/socialist ACLU claims by their name to stand for civil liberties and that is a lie. They are a real danger to our Constitution, culture and the Bible. A simple search of the internet in your browser will uncover the fact that anti-Christian sentiment is running rampant in numerous nations in the world. China has long practiced restrictions on Christians and even England is beginning to establish rules that would do the same because Christianity is considered distasteful to other religions, such as the Muslims. Already in Britain, mentioning the holocaust under Hitler, that killed six million Jews, is forbidden, because the Muslims deny that it ever happened and they don’t want to offend Muslims. However, Muslim atrocities against Christians and Jews, beheadings and the like, are never considered nor condemned. We are seeing the beginnings of that attitude in this country. The reasons being given as to why “Christianity” is being suppressed in the USA is that we don’t want to offend anyone. It seems that the only ones they don’t mind offending are Christians. On the other hand, Muslims are given allowances and treatment that are denied to Christians. Muslims are allowed to practice their religion on public property, even public schools, where Christians cannot even mention God nor have a prayer. It can only get worse as catering to Muslim sensitivities increases. We have been seeing, ever since Obama took office, and even during the election, strong indications of a coming persecution prompted by atheists, homosexuals, pornographers, drug trafficers, socialists and others who hate Chris-tians. With the liberal Democrats in power, these home grown self-interest groups have become more openly powerful and vocal in their goals. Legislation has been proposed that would silence any public opposition to the liberal agenda. Ideas have already been voiced that would lead directly to what happened in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, China and other places. The guarantees of our Bill of Rights are slowly being chipped away and freedom of speech, assembly and religion may come to an end in the future; maybe sooner than we think. Our only hope of this being reversed is if the majority of Americans wake up and change it. Already in the news, interruption of Church services by homosexuals has happened in three churches—Lansing, MI., Seattle, WA., and Boston, MA. We can only imagine what they will try once the Hate Crimes Bill is initiated and the new, liberal, Supreme Court judge is installed. I expect the Homosexual militants to provoke us in some way so charges can be brought against us based on that bill. They will disrupt our meetings and demand membership in churches who do not approve of their lifestyle so that a rejection of them will be the basis to use the law to prosecute the church. Preachers may well face imprisonment and our church property be taken from us. Don’t underestimate the wickedness. Muslims have vowed to destroy our nation and kill all Jews and Christians. Obama has apologized to Muslims, spent taxpayers money by the millions to bring thousands of Muslims here, and millions more for relief in Muslim nations overseas. Some 20 million dollars have gone to the radical Hamas in Palestine. They are the very ones who have been waging a war of terror against Israel. We are now bringing thousands of radical terrorists to our nation, embracing them with taxpayer money and encouragement. Muslims have already had public demonstrations in this country against Jews. What next?Our liberal politicians, led by our President,try to mask the inherent dangers in their actions by smooth and fair speech with the intent to deceive us, lulling us into complacency. Inch by inch, based on the laws already on the books, and new ones that they have prepared to foist upon us, they will add more and more applications of those laws until our freedoms are completely gone. Even now, existing laws are interpreted to nullify freedom of assembly, speech and religion. It is widespread over our country. It has been going on for some time and is more widespread than we have ever realized.There is no doubt that severe persecutions are coming and they will hit us from all directions. We must be spiritually and psychologically ready for them when they come. World Net Daily for May 22, 2009, reports the following—A San Diego Minister and his wife say they were interrogated by a county official and warned they will face escalating fines if they continue to hold Bible studies in their home. A county government employee knocked on their door on Good Friday, asking a litany of questions about their Tuesday night Bible studies, attended by approximately 15 people. .“Do you have a regular weekly meeting in your home? Do you sing? Do you say ‘amen’?” the official reportedly asked. “Do you say, ‘Praise the Lord’?” The Minister’s wife answered yes.She says she was then told, however, that she must stop holding “religious assemblies” until she and her husband obtain a Major Use Permit from the county, a permit that often involves traffic and environmental studies, compliance with parking and sidewalk regulations and costs that top tens of thousandsof dollars.And if they fail to pay for the MUP, the county official reportedly warned, the couple will be charged escalating fines beginning at $100, then $200, $500, $1000, “and then it will get ugly.”. On May 23, 2009, a small religious group conducted a legal “mission” demonstration as part of freedom of speech and religion in front of Sinclair Community College in Dayton, Ohio. Four were arrested,one on a bogus charge of felony assault on a police officer. There have been steps taken in several schools, prohibiting Bible studies in dorms. Of course, having such studies would be permissible if they involved only the acceptance of homosexual conduct or atheist evolution. In fact, professors in some of our universities are freely allowed to rant against Christians and the Bible. The faith of Christians in the classes is severely ridiculed. In numerous places in this country over the past few years, attempts to shut down Bible classes in private homes have taken place. “Interpretations” of existing zoning laws are being used to stop home Bible classes and construction of church buildings. In one instance, a Bible class was said to be “illegal conduct of a home business.” One couple was forbidden to have more than one home study a month. Get ready.
(EDITOR’S NOTE: I appreciate this excellent article from brother Banett. I have been dismayed by the lack of such articles in brotherhood publications. In these treacherous times, the publications should be full of such articles. I have, over the years, tried to inform brethren of the growing dangers we now face from Islam and our own government. Our bulletin has aroused the ire of at least one Muslim ,and we hope many more. Muslims need to realize that the majority of freedom-loving Americans won’t take their onslaught lying down. We will fight them and our Islamic-accommodating government to the bitter end. We will never surrender to their evil and vicious attacks upon us. Jpn).
The Episcopal Church, that is the American version of the Church of England, for some time, has had quite a controversy over the ordination of homosexuals as priests. I recently heard two of their clergymen interviewed on television who were on opposite sides of this issue. The one in favor of accepting homosexuals made a typical statement for this school of thought. He said something like this, “To reject homosexuals... because the Bible makes no provision for them, or because it condemns them, is to impose an ox-cart cultural provision on the space age. The Bible was written for a culture much different from our own.” This is a typical concept of the Bible in the world today. It is contended that the Bible is not relevant to our modern age, that its principles and precepts don’t apply because they are outmoded and outdated.
This theory says the content of the Bible grew out of the peculiar needs of the culture in which it was produced, and does not apply outside that. This is a tacit denial that the Bible is divinely inspired. It is a denial that it is a revelation from God. If it is the revelation of the mind of an all-powerful, infinite God, then such a God, having made man, knows his needs in any and every age regardless of time or culture. Now, this is what we believe.
We contend that the Bible is a timeless book, and its precepts and principles are just as literal and applicable in the 21st century, and in every century, as they were to the century in which they were first written. Surely, there are some cultural matters incidently mentioned in the Bible, but these are easily detectable, and obviously don’t apply where those customs don’t obtain, like, for instance, the head covering for women, and the washing of feet , and the Lord’s supper in an upper room.
The Bible clearly condemns homosexualism, both in the Old and New Testaments. God destroyed whole races of people and entire cities because of it. His law says both in the Old and New Testaments that they which do such things, or consent with them that do them, are worthy of death: Lev. 20:13, states, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood {shall be} upon them.” Rom. 1:32,”Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” This has nothing to do with time or culture; it has to do with God’s standard of morality and His law regarding sexual desire and function. God knows what’s best for the creatures He created, and to violate that, at least in this case, is a capital offense. That’s the way it is and no amount of theological gymnastics by modernistic theologians can change it. This fits well Paul’s saying, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1: 22).
The atheists, humanists, and so-called scientists have, for generations, questioned many parts of the Bible. There is always the specious claim that the Bible contradicts the known facts of science. When a so-called scientist says this, many people swallow it without question because, to a large extent, our generation has deified science.
It is a bit strange however, that if the Bible is all that illiterate where science is concerned, why the order of creation as stated in Genesis one is exactly the order in which science, and even evolution, says it occurred. William E. Gladstone, who lived from 1808-1898, was one of the greatest statesmen England ever had, beside that, he was a scholar and prolific writer. He made this astounding statement; he said, "The Biblical order of statement as to the creation may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion and established fact."
Bible believers contend that the book of Genesis was written about 1500 B.C. by Moses. We all recognize that scientific knowledge was in its infancy at that time, and very little was known by ordinary men about the order of creation and other such matters, and yet Moses stated the order of creation exactly as modern science says the world came to be.
I am amazed at how blind modern would-be educated men and women can be when they come up against facts which don't suit their particular presuppositions, but I appeal to your good common sense, and say that you cannot help but see that Moses' knowledge of the order in which the world came into being did not come from the conventional scientific knowledge of his time. It had to have had a higher source. That source is the God who made the world and all that in it is. He who says he cannot see the significance of this is indeed blind, but blind by choice. There is an old adage which says, "None is so blind as he who will not see."
The scientific foreknowledge of the Bible is one of the proofs of its divine inspiration. The Bible is not a text book on science or history, but when it touches these fields it is discovered that it states many facts of science and history that were not known by man for many years later. This proves that its source of knowledge was not man, but God who made the world and understands how it works.
The Bible is a final book. James 1:25 says, “Whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, he being not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deeds.” The word perfect in Greek, the language in which the N.T. was originally delivered, means that which is not lacking in any of its parts, therefore complete. The Bible, therefore, is complete, not lacking in any of its parts. There will never be anything added to it, or taken away from it by God. When God finished delivering the ten commandments, Moses said, “And he added no more...” (Deut. 5:22). This can be said of the New Testament also. It is a complete, therefore a final revelation. To add to it or take from it will damn the soul (Rev. 22:18,19). Anything we do to the word of God will only destroy its perfection—one cannot improve on perfection. This means the Bible is a revelation of everything that God intends for us to know. It is futile to look for more, or to claim divine inspiration for something other than the Bible.
Many modern religions claim to have revelation in addition to the Bible. They do not deny the inspiration of the Bible, but they claim inspiration for something in addition to the Bible. Don’t believe it! In fact, you cannot believe it and believe the Bible. If such claims are true, the Bible is not true. James 1:25 which says the Bible is complete and perfect would be a false statement. All who claim latter day revelations, also claim to believe the Bible. Such is impossible. How can one believe the Bible when it says it is perfect, and complete, and at the same time claim he has something which supplements it? Peter said the Bible gives us “All things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). 2 Tim. 3:17 says it furnishes us completely unto all good works. It is all we need, friends. There is nothing in religion that God either wants, or intends for us to know, that is not found in the Bible. Anyone who claims a revelation form God is thereby saying he can’t prove his doctrine by the Bible, so he claims God has told him what he wants to believe. Paul said, (Gal 1:8-9) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. SO, LET IT BE!!!!
It is saddening to observe the cheapen- ing of human life in our beloved country. Man is made in the image of God, and every minute of life is precious. Billions of dollars are spent to save human life, but generally, the value of human life has been cheapening since abortion on demand was authorized by the Supreme Court. The downward spiral in the value of human life began when evolution came on the scene. Darwin’s theory of evolution has been readily accepted by the educational establishment in our country. I am convinced that a century of teaching children that they are just graduate beasts evolved from lower animals, is to destroy their self esteem and cheapen the value they place upon human life. The teaching of evolution to a generation of children who became adults made it easy for the public to accept abortion. Abortion was first authorized and practiced in cases of early pregnancy. I predicted that as time went by it would be accepted closer and closer to the birth date. I am not a prophet nor the son of one, but I got this one right. Now abortion takes place during delivery (partial birth abortion), and even beyond delivery which becomes infanticide. Occasionally babies survive attempts to kill them in the womb, so, what to do? In some states such babies are laid aside and allowed to die without the medical attention that could save them. In one such case the doctor personally killed the baby. That’s all right as long as he didn’t kill a dog!!! As terrible as this is, it is not the end yet. A person on our President’s staff advocates abortion up to 2 years old. He says a dog has more to offer society than a two-year old child. Euthanasia (mercy killing) is next on the horizon. It has been practiced and there are concerted efforts to make it legal. It already is in some countries. A former governor of Colorado said old people need to do their duty and die and get out of the way. The health care bill now being so hotly debated in Washington, is likely to contain a provision for rationing health care. If one is 80 or so years old, and has a critical problem, a board would decide if to supply what is needed would be worth it. So, if one needed a major operation a board would decide if one gets it. The argument would be: this person doesn’t have many years of life left, so why spend the money on them? Use it to help a younger person and send the older person home with a pain pill and tell them to “live with it.” I can guarantee that if the case is the mother of the person advocating this nonsense, he would compass land and sea to keep his mother alive. It’s only appropriate for other people’s mothers, wives or other loved ones. The Constitution calls for equal protec- tion under the law, but who cares what the Constitution says?
The Christian church was formed out of the church of Christ in the late1800's over the use of human societies, and instrumental music in worship. They have steadily pursued a wayward path of apostasy as expected. Once one gives up on the authority of Scripture, the sky is the limit. They long ago admitted that they are a denomination.
They now have nominated "Rev. Sharon E. Watkins," as leader of the Christian church (Disciples of Christ). Human churches can do whatever they like since they are ruled by human authority, but they have no right to claim God's approval.
God has prohibited women from leadership positions in His church; not because they are inferior to man, but because He has a different role for them. Women are to be subordinate to men in the church, but certainly not inferior (1Tim. 2:11-15).It is sinful to violate this regulation. The feminist movement like the homosexual movement affects every facit of society. If we are not very careful we will get sucked into these concepts. Our only hope is to study the Bible and be detemined to stick to it (Psa 119:31) no matter what society does.The church must exist in the world, but must not be of the world. The church is in the world, but the world must not be in the church.
I have written about the Catholic and Protestant attitude toward the Bible.Now I want to discus what is the Christian's attitude toward the Bible.
First, the Christian starts out with the attitude that "the way of man is not in himself, for it is not in man to direct his own steps" Jer. 10:23. This means that the only way we can know God's will is for Him to reveal it to us, which He has done in the Bible. This means further that the Bible is perfect (complete), Jas. 1:25; 1Ti. 3:16,17. Coming from God we could expect no less. Thus no room is left for us to change what it says and requires, Gal. 1:8,9; Rev. 22:18,19. God's revelation has been once for all time delivered, Jude 3, and it will stand forever Mat. 24:35.Since the Bible came from God the Christian believes it to be infallible, inerrant, and in perfect harmony with itself. It contains no contradictions because truth does not contradict truth.
When Jesus said,"Thy word is truth," Jn. 17:17, that settles the age-old question, "What is truth?"
Where spiritual matters are concerned we look nowhere else than the Bible for all spiritual truth. It answers all questions and refutes all error that has ever existed or every shall be invented. No man or group of men, indeed, the most intelligent man or men who ever lived could not have come up with such a book. As Paul said so clearly, (1 Cor 2:9-10) "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God."
We read the Bible to be informed, and we obey it to be saved. There is no other source of divine truth. What more could we expect from a perfect, all powerful God. If we firmly believe this we should not expect anything more or better from man.
Paul admonished the Ephesians, (Eph.5:16) Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. If one does not keep up with the news, he may not realize just how evil the days are in our time. It would be pleasant to cover up and ignore the conditions of the world in which we live, but it wouldn’t be very smart. Europe is described as having no moral boundaries. It has accepted wholeheartedly the Humanist philosophy that there is no moral standard; everyone should do what feels good with no strings attached. Sadly, America is well on its way to that same destination. Immoral conduct in our country has reached epidemic stage. Its like a wild fire. In England a young teenager has fathered a child with a fifteen year old girl, and it has received a circus atmosphere. It has been featured in newspapers all over the world, not in condemnation, but as a phenomenon to behold, and marvelled at. Children are being abducted, raped and killed. New cases are featured in the news every day. Parents are being killed by their children, and children by their parents. Our president is for abortion of all kinds, and it appears that to be qualified for his cabinet one must have cheated on his/her income tax, or is being investigated for some other crime. These crimes are excused by the president and his cohorts as “innocent oversights.” So the majority of his cabinet is made up of people who ought to be in prison! That’s exactly where your or I would be under the same circumstances. A Muslim executive of a Television station existing in the U.S. and owned by Muslims for the purpose of trying to convince people of the virtues of Islam, has beheaded his wife, and is in prison charged with second degree murder. (I don’t know how it could possibly be 2nd degree; it looks like first degree to me).
This happened in the good old USA! This character even called the police and told them where to find the headless body. To cap the climax, Muslims call it an honor killing, and are commending the dirt bag that did it. This is supposed to give us a better view of the virtues of Islam? (Give me a break!) The reason he is being commended for this dastardly act is that he is practicing true Islamic religion regardless of those who like to call it “radical Islam.” It is not “radical Islam,” it is true Islam because it is following the teachings of their so called “holy book.”
This is the society in which Christians must exist (And the half has not been told in this short article). It is my desire to keep people apprised of what is coming up down the way, and to strongly admonish one and all that ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world (Phil. 2:15).
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on immigrants and being an American1907.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt 1907.
Some power hungry American politicians are selling our birthright for a mess of political pottage. Their only interest is in doing what will keep them in power by pandering to special interests that will keep them in power, even though it may be doing what is contrary to our long standing traditions or surrendering the principles laid out clearly in our consituation. When Iraq was trying to write a constitution someone observed, "Let them have our's, we're not using it."
Some of our politicians are parroting the gobbledygook that "our strength is in our diversity." This is pure nonsense! There is an old adage that says, "Divide and conquer." So said our Lord, (Mat 12:25) And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.
This same nonsense is used to try to justify religious division. Billy Graham said,"Real competition serves purpose, even in religion...If they [all the churches jpn] were all united into one congregation and under one organization, they might not reach as many people to effective work for Christ." (My Answer, 3-12-54).
"Many are the routes that lead to God...every one goes his own way from God and then every man must find his own way back," (My Answer, 3-9-54).
"Join the church of your choice and glorify God." (My Answer, 12-15-55).
From some of the things one hears denominational preachers say, one wonders if they own a copy of the Bible. Contrast what Billy Graham says with what Christ and the apostles say:
(John 17:20-21) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
(1 Cor 1:10) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
(Eph 4:3-6) Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
"Join the church of YOUR choice, and glorify God"? The Bible teaches us to become a member of the church of God's choice, and glorify God, (Eph 3:21) .
When I learned to fly an airplane, I was warned of “the graveyard spiral.” That is a spiral that in some planes from which one can not recover due to the design of the airplane. So, when I refer to the graveyard spiral of American Society, I have reference to the deterioration of the morals in our society. It goes without saying that our beloved country was founded by religious persons who based our constitution on biblical morals. This will always be an historical fact in spite of all the efforts being made to deny it. Newt Gingrich has just published a book entitled “Rediscovering God in America.” It is a walk through Washington showing the many places where scripture and religious sayings are to be found in the many monuments in the Capital area. If you have been there you have seen them. There are forces in our country that are doing everything at their disposal to deny that our country was founded upon Bible principles. It is a loosing battle for them, unless they burn all the document and books to the contrary and hire someone with hammer and chisel to remove those that are written in stone. There is a movement in this country to completely “transform” America,as Abama put it during the campaign. He is well on the way to that end. The America we have known will become a footnote in history if he gets his way. We now have daily cases of kidnappings, rapes, and killing of children by evil breasts who should be taken and destroyed.(2 Pet 2:12) But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption...” rather than giving them room and board at the rate of thousands of dollars of tax money. They serve a short sentence in prison then are turned back to the street to repeat their dastardly deeds. We have homosexuals honored by the government, abortion of all kinds on demand: partial abortion in which babies are killed by the doctor as they begin to emerge from the birth canal. We have infanticide, where babies who survive the abortion process are allowed to die without medical attention, and a president who voted 4 times as an Illinois legislator against a law that would have banned such. We have a person on the president’s staff who advocates allowing abortion up to two years old. He says a dog has more intelligence and contributes more to society than a two-year-child. We have a government that is immoral and corrupt to the core, and is trying on every hand to eliminate the principles upon which the country was built.
“WASHINGTON - Another Pakistani journalist is reporting receiving another threat - this one from a senior Taliban leader - warning all Muslims to leave the U.S. in anticipation of a major terrorist attack before the end of Ramadan. The head of the Islamabad-based al-Quda Center reported receiving an audio message from Mullah Masoom Afghani urging U.S. Muslims to get out of the country "because Allah's punishment would fall on America in the month of Ramadan." Muslims are observing Ramadan this year Sept. 24 to Oct. 23. Gradually the Islamic noose is tightening around the neck of America. More and more American officials are capitulating to the tightening noose. We now have our first Islamic running for the U.S. House of Representatives. He was sworn in with his hand on the Koran, not the Bible. I am not a prophet or the son of one, but predicted that it would be allowed, and it was. In Great Britain they have this scenario. Airport guards employ both “Christians” and Muslems (Greatr Britain has a large Islamic population). A “Christian” guard was told she could not wear a visible cross, but the Muslims are allowed to work in their religious garb. In this country “Christian” students are not allowed to wear any religious symbol, but Muslems students are allowed to wear their religious garb. What we need to realize is that there is a worldwide vicious attack upon all who claim to be Christians. While Islam is tolerated and accommodated, “Christians” are verbally and physically attacked. Church buildings are being burned by the dozens. We are engaged in a religious war in spite of the fact that our government denies it for political reasons. Our religious freedoms are being used against us by the Islamic world.Our nation’s religious tolerance is a good thing when properly used, but it is being abused by Islamics. No so-called religion that openly vows our destruction should be tolerated. No religion whose policy is to kill everyone or subject to tribute all who refuse to embrace it, should be tolerated. To tolerate such is absolute suicide. Our government needs to put our safety before politics.
THE RESTRICTIVE NATURE OF SILENCE "DOES SILENCE GIVE CONSENT?"
Recently in a discussion with a long-time friend over human organizations holding gospel meetings, I said the Bible says the church, not human organizations, is "the pillar and ground of the truth." His reply was surprising, he said but it doesn't say "the church is the only pillar and ground of the truth." Over the centuries men have ignored the restrictive nature of silence in determining scriptural authority. It usually comes in the form of "but God didn't say ONLY," Or "The scripture doesn't say not to." Or, "Where there is no law there is no transgression." Let's look at some Bible examples where silence was definitely restrictive--it did not give consent.
1.To Cain and Abel God didn't say the "firstling of the flock" ONLY for sacrifice. He did not specifically forbid other kinds of offerings. So, Cain offered the "first fruits of the ground." But God rejected Cain's sacrifice. (Hebrews 11:4) By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. Abel offered the firstling of the flock by faith, because that is what God specified (Rom. 10:17). Cain obviously thought God's silence was not restrictive. God said he was wicked (1 Jn. 3:12). What do you say?
2.God told Noah to build the ark of Gopher wood. He was silent concerning all other kinds of wood; He didn't say "Gopher wood only," nor did he say don't build the ark of oak, cedar, or pine,etc. But who will dare to affirm that any other kind of wood would have been acceptable? Had he used some other kind of wood, the ark would never have floated!
3.God told Abraham to offer Isaac sacrifice, but he didn't say "Isaac only," so if silence is not restrictive, Abraham could have offered Ishmael, (which Muslims say he did) or anyone else. But Abraham, being a man of faith, understood that when God says what he wants, that includes everything He wants and excludes everything He doesn't want.
4.God told Nadab and Abihu to take fire from the altar to burn incense, and He didn't say,"altar fire ONLY," so they offered "strange fire which the lord commanded them not." The result was death, (Lev. 10:1,2). Was silence Restrictive? What do you say?
5. In the transporting of the ark of the covenant, God specified that it should be conveyed on staves by the priests; but He didn't say on staves by the priests ONLY. He didn't say don't convey the ark on a cart pulled by oxen, so David had it transported on a cart drawn by oxen driven by Uzzah who was not a priest. The result was death to Uzzah. David got the point however, for when they transported it later, David said that the time before they did not transport it "according to the due order" (1 Chron.15:13). Was silence restrictive? What say you?
6. When God ordered Moses to bring water from the rock by speaking to it, He didn't say ONLY speak to the rock; so Moses smote the rock instead which act barred him from entering the promised land. Was silence restrictive? What say you?
7. King Saul was about to go to war with the Philistines. He waited for Samuel at Gilgal to come to offer a sacrifice. When Samuel didn't come when expected, Saul offered the sacrifice, which was to be done by a priest of the tribe of Levi, but God didn't say by a priest ONLY. Saul obviously proceeded on the basis that God didn't say the priest ONLY, and God rejected him from being king (1 Sam. 13). Was silence restrictive? What say you?
8. In Acts 15, a meeting was held in Jerusalem to determine if Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be Christians. Certain brethren came to Antioch and claimed that the Jerusalem elders had commissioned them to preach circumcision for Gentiles. The elders told the Jerusalem meeting "To whom we gave no such com-mandment." (Acts 15:24). They were acting without a commandment, thus they proceeded on silence. Was silence restrictive? What say you?
9. The Hebrew writer argues that Christ could not have been a priest on earth according to the Law of Moses, because He was not a Levite, but God didn't say Levite ONLY (The Mormons evidently prosume upon God's silence, and say Jesus was a priest on earth). Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, and the writer says the law said nothing about a priest from the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14).Was silence restrictive? What say you?
10. In 1860 instrumental music was introduced into the worship of the church at Midway, KY. One of the main arguments for it was that God didn't say sing ONLY. Was silence restrictive? What say you?
11. In 1849 when the missionary society was formed one of the main arguments was that God didn't say the church is the only pillar and ground of the truth.Was silence restrictive? What say you?
Today, history is repeating itself: we have a controversy over human institutions holding lectureships (gospel meetings). It is based on the silence of the scriptures.If not, where is the scripture that authorizes it?
Several years ago brother Cope made and argument from silence at the FC lectures. He framed it this way, "Where there is no law, there is no transgression." (Rom. 4:15). This argument is based upon the silence of the scripture and it says that everything is authorized that is not expressly forbidden. It says, "Silence is not restrictive." What say you?
The argument that the silence of scripture is not restrictive is saying that,"Anything God has not expressly forbidden is allowed." This has been around since Cain. Martin Luther had it as a philosophy of religious authority.
It is amazing how brethren can put on blinders when their long-held views are found to be out of harmony with God's word, and more especially when money is involved. It appears that pride and money get in the way of open-mindedness and the truth is viewed through colored glasses. Brethren determined to have it their way, refuse to be confused by the facts. These human organizations must have money to survive. Lectureships (gospel meetings) bring large numbers of brethren together and are a means of financial gain and acquiring new customers. This is using the gospel to promote a human organization.
The idea that we are at liberty to do anything which God has not expressly forbidden is the devil's snare that has caught people from the time of Cain and Abel. Solomon says, (Pro. 1:17) "Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird." This is a truth well taken. A bird that is caught in a net that he sees being set, is a careless bird indeed! History provides overwhelming evidence of the snare of the silence of scripture in determining Bible authority. We are seeing the net being set before our eyes this very day. We are very careless and unwise if we get caught in it as brethren did in the past. It is disappointing that such a false argument is being made in plain sight and in view of undeniable historical evidence of its unscripturalness and devastating results, and yet some brethren are being caught in this devilish net again. One would think all would avoid it like the plague.
If the fact that God didn't say the church is the ONLY pillar and ground of the truth justifies human institutions usurping the function of the church by holding gospel meetings (lectureships), then Cain, Nadab and Abihu, David, Moses and King Saul were all justified in what they did, and God should not have condemned them. Noah could have built the ark of the wood of his choice, and instrumental music would be justified along with the missionary society. Also, we should apologize to the liberal brethren for the sponsoring church/institutional division, and to the Christian church for the division over instrumental music and the missionary society.
If the church is not the only pillar and ground of the truth, where is the scriptural authority that says something else is? All we have heard from those promoting these human organizations to do exactly what God established the church to do is human reasoning. Where is the scripture? keeps ringing in my ears. The argument that it is parallel to something else proves nothing. Bowl weevils and elephants have some likenesses, (both have shouts, legs and eyes) but they certainly are not identical. The argument that when Paul and Barnabas, or Paul and Silas working together is parallel to some human organization preaching the gospel is not worthy of consideration by right-thinking brethren. If it is a valid argument, then when Corinth, Macedonia and others working together and the churches that supported Paul at Corinth (2 Cor. 11:8), or any time more than one church works together would also constitute an organization. If the argument about individuals working together constitutes an organization, then churches working together does the same thing. Now, if this is valid argument, then these constitute organizations that are larger than the local church, and we all surely know that no such thing is scriptural. We have rightly argued that the churches are independent and have no organic ties to each other. Have we been wrong?
If Paul and Silas constituted an organization, then who was the president, treasurer,secretary, and the board of directors. There is a difference between an organization and an orderly arrangement.
When brethren work together as individuals, and when churches work together while maintaining their independence, it is simply an orderly arrangement, not an organization parallel to a well endowed human organization with a president, secretary, and board of directors and a gainful business..
PRESUMPTUOUS SINS:
David prayed that God would (Psalms 19:13) "Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression." The word presumptuous is defined as "not dreading or shunning through fear," "daring," "to be very bold" (Vine). To proceed in any matter without divine authority is indeed, very daring and bold; it is to proceed without fear. It takes a lot of courage to so do. David called the sin of presumption "the great transgression." Peter says a characteristic of it is selfwilledness (2 Peter 2:10).
Arguments based on the silence of scripture have been answered so many times that it is simply amazing that informed and intelligent brethren are still making them. When will they ever learn?
Silence is restrictive and it does not give consent.
James P. Needham
1600 Oneco Ave.
Winter Park, FL 32789
jneedham3@cfl.rr.com
October 5, 2006
We have reason to be disturbed as a nation because of the status of public morals in our country. Incest is the unthinkable sin. The ever increasing rate of incest serves as a measure of the depth of immorality characteristic of our society. It says that immorality has reached its peak. Incest, rape, pornography, homosexuality and other unspeakable forms of immorality have become common in the world.
There are those who actually defend incest as something positive. It is actually defended as the ideal avenue of sex education for children.The Humanist Manifesto says, "Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire," (p. 18). This, of course, would permit incest, which humanism says can be a good thing.
Incest is severely condemned in God's word. It has a long and dreadful history. When Lot, his wife, and two daughters fled Sodom, his wife looked back, which she was not supposed to do, and became a pillar of salt. That left Lot alone with his two daughters who took refuge in a cave. The daughters, thinking they would be without children, made their father drunk and committed incest with him which resulted in the birth of Moab and Amon, both of whom became nations who were enemies of God's people, (Gen. 19:33).
Both the Old and New Testaments are very strict toward the sin of incest: (Lev 18:8;Lev. 20:11;Deu. 22:30;Deu 27:20;1 Cor 5:1).
I am appalled at the number of cases of incest that come to light in our country. I have actually dealt with cases in the church! It is estimated that only a small percentage of them ever come to light. It is an unthinkable act against all that is decent and right. How people who commit this sin can live together and face each other from day to day is absolutely a manifestation of moral depravity.
What may be surprising is that it occurs in families of all social classes. "Incest occurs in families of every description and across all socio-economic groupings. Research indicates that there is little to distinguish between families where incest takes place and those where it doesn't.... The "average" offender is likely to be a "normal" married man with a family and a job. He is often well respected in the community and otherwise unidentifiable as an offender. The only common factor which researchers have found is that the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are male." (South Eastern Centre Against Sexual Abuse).
A lady who, after winning the "Miss America Pageant," confessed that her father had sexually abused her most of her life. He subdued her by saying that if she ever exposed him he would commit suicide. He died of an heart attack soon after she exposed it.
Victims of rape are adversely affected for life; how much more a son or daughter that has submitted to an incestuous relationship with a member of the immediate family.(JPN)
Solomon said, "Every way of man is right in his own eyes..." (Prov. 21:2), Don't you find this to be true? Not many persons will walk in a way which they admit to be wrong. No honest person could ever do that, but what we need to realize is, that a way is not right just because it seems to be. Solomon said, "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Prov. 16:25). So, you see, there has to be a better standard by which to measure our ways than our own feelings, or "think-sos". If every man is his own standard, then nothing is wrong; But, Solomon denies that; he says, "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death," that is, it is possible for a person to walk in a way that to him seems perfectly right, and yet to follow it is to plunge headlong into death; not only physical death, but, what is a million times more serious, spiritual death, which is eternal separation from God. . Jesus said concerning the ways of the Pharisees, a religious sect that prevailed in His day, "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Mt. 15:9). Then a few verses later he said of them, "Every plant that my heavenly father hath not planted, shall be rooted up" (v.13). So, my friends, the popular idea that every man's way is right as long as he is honest and sincere, is deceitful and dangerous. Don't be misled into believing you are right in religion just because what you do "seems" to be right. Remember, it is possible for a way that seems right to lead to death. God's way is the only way, and no man is walking in God's way who does not obey His word, the Bible. It reveals unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3) According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue(2 Pet 1:3).
In the almost 60 years I have preached the gospel, I have held hundreds of gospel meetings in all parts of the USA, and abroad. I have observed a few weak links that are systemic in the churches, one of weakest, if not the weakest, is the eldership. Now let it be understood that I believe no congregation is everything God wants it to be until it has qualified elders and deacons. Here are a few things I have observed about elders:
1. I have seen a tendency to appoint young men to the eldership. Yes, I know that is a contradiction. How can we appoint young men to a position God designates for the older? The word elder means an older person. I know one can quibble that a 30-year old man is an elder to a 20-year old. But, really, do you think this is what the Holy Spirit has in mind?
2. I have seen men who are called elders who don't do the work of elders. I have seen elders do the work of deacons, and I have seen deacons do the work of elders. I have seen both do almost nothing.
3. I have seen men who were called elders who could not recognize nor refute false doctrine. I have seen such men compromise with and accommodate error to keep peace. At one place I detected false doctrine being taught from the pulpit and in the weekly bulletin. When I asked the elders if they approved such, they replied, "No, but we can't publically refute it."? One elder tried to defend it until I pointed out where it would lead to. They ask me to be their spokesman and refute the false doctrine.
4. I have seen elders become veritable dictators over the congregation. They lorded it over God's heritage in direct contradiction to 1 Pet. 5:3. The eldership becomes a separate entity from the church. They meet in private and make decisions which the church supposedly is duty bound to accept, even though they had absolutely no input in the decision making process. Elders sometimes do things which the church doesn't even know about. When I charged the elders with lording it over God's heritage, they fired me. It is even thought by some that the voice of the elders is the voice of God. (One brother even said this to me). Elders certainly have the final decision in matters of judgment, but they should get input from the congregation and make a decision for the common good of the congregation. One sister said to a brother, "What the elders do is none of your business."
Dictatorial elders often give no account to the church of congregational finances. No financial report is made available to the persons who gave the money and they have no say in how it is spent. The elders of one church had $200,000 in a separate bank account in the name of the church that the church didn't even know about which they dispersed at their will.
There is no authority for the church to go into the banking business. The only justification for a church to have a large bank account is if they have a need for it for some up-coming project. The first day of the week contribution (1 Cor. 16:2), is for the scripturally authorized work of the church, not for building huge bank accounts with no purpose for their use.
We must be judicious in the spending of the Lord's money, but realize that it is the Lord's money, not our's, and it is to be used to further His cause, not to be laid up in a local bank account. Remember, the one talent man. It is better to have no elders than to have unqualified ones. It is easier to prevent unqualified men from becoming "elders" than to get rid of them once they are in. One brother said he would resign from the eldership, but his wife wouldn't let him!!!
In John 17 there is recorded a prayer which Jesus uttered in the shadow of the cross. No man can know the agony He was experiencing when these words were spoken; He was in the very shadow of the horrible cross upon which He knew He would suffer an ignominious death at the hands of wicked, blood thirsty men. Certainly we attach tremendous importance to every word Jesus ever spoke, and every prayer He ever prayed; but there is something about this prayer that causes it to stand out above others as you read it. It's like the last words of a dying loved one which remain in your heart the rest of your life.
One thing that weighed heavily upon the mind of Christ in this prayer was the condition He desires to exist among those who would believe in Him through the apostles words in generations then unborn. His desire is expressed in the following words: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." Yes, friend, he prayed "that they all may be one. . .." It's Jesus' prayer for unity among believers. Would it not be absurd, and border on blasphemy, to attach little importance to a matter which Jesus called to mind at such a troublous time? Yet, that is exactly what the majority of people do in our day. They tell us that it is impossible for us to have unity among all who believe in Christ, they even thank God that we don't have it! The early church had unity and Paul commanded them to keep it, Eph. 4:3. They couldn't keep something they didn't have!
Have you not heard preachers thank God that we have so many churches so each can "have the church of his choice"? Instead of being one, those who believe in Christ in our day are hundreds. The common language among those who accept this condition as right is, "one church is just as good as another." Is this right? Can it be that those who contend for that unity for which Jesus earnestly prayed and died are wrong?
Reader, have you ever thought of what the denominational concept of Christianity does for Christ, the Saviour of the world? I mean, what denominationalism does for Him IF DENOMINATIONALISM IS RIGHT!! If denominationalism is right certain conclusions with reference to Christ are undeniable. It's our purpose to point out some of these conclusions.
1) Denominationalism makes Christ either insane, or a hypocrite!! How so? Denominationalism says Christ is with or in all the denominations. If He is in all of the hundreds of denominations, then everyone should be also. We are to follow Christ. If I joined all the churches in my community, people would say I am either insane or a hypocrite. If that's true of me, then it is also true of Christ.
2) Denominationalism makes Christ a polygamist: The church is the bride of Christ ((2 Cor 11:2). Then if all the churches make up the bride of Christ, then he has hundreds of brides because all the churches are different from each other. Would any husband be willing for his bride to wear hundreds of names?
3) Denominationalism makes Christ a monstrosity: The church is the body of Christ, and He is the head, (Col. 1:18). The denominations are hundreds of bodies; so we have Christ the head, with hundreds of bodies. All the denominations cannot constitute one body, for they have hundreds of names and practices.
Another way denominationalism makes Christ a monstrosity is this: they say Christ is the vine and the denominations are branches (Jn. 13). If that's true, then we have a vine that bears hundreds of different fruits, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, etc. This also places them in a dilemma: They say one doesn't have to be a member of any church to be saved, but Jesus said the branch must be in the vine to live. Thus, this argument makes it necessary to be in one of the branches, churches!!!
4) Denominationalism makes Christ a false teacher. Jesus said there is only one way, but denominationalism says there are many ways, the Protestant way, the Catholic way, the moralist way, etc.
Religious unity is much to be desired, but it cannot exist without a common standard that all will accept to settle all religious questions. It can only be attained by everyone's accepting the standard stipulated by Jesus in John 17. He prayer that all would be one that believe the Apostles' words, that is the New Testament.
All denominations are based on human creeds, written or unwritten. They all have devised their concept of what one must do to be saved. One cannot become a member of a denomination without in some way pledging allegiance to its particular creed. Thus, we have a multiplicity of standards, one says one thing, another says something else. That is division and confusion, and can never be the basis of unity.
God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) "...God is not the author of confusion, but of peace..."
Until everyone is willing to accept the Bible as an all sufficient and alone sufficient rule of faith and practice, religious unity will never be attained.
If a worldwide convention of all denominations were held and a representative of each denomination were to give a speech on how to attain unity, here is what would happen: each would hold up his human creed and say, "We can have unity when we all agree to follow my creed." At the end of the day, what condition would exist? Chaos, and strife, and almost universal disagreement.
Man can never dictate the conditions of religious unity; only Christ can do that and He has done it through the words of the inspired apostles. That is what He prayed for, and that is the only way it can ever be attained..
It is easy to become discouraged when looking at the present confused state of our country. The Christian is bewildered and wonders what comes next. Believers definitely have reason to fear the future. If God continues to rule in the kingdom of men, what does He have in mind for this country? A person who may not be constitutionally eligible to be president of our country (no proof that he was native born) has gained power under highly questionable circumstances. His policies are foreign to nearly every principle upon which this country has existed to say nothing of Judeao/Christian values. The Democrat party is awed by him. His policies are socialistic and anti-Biblical. Notice: 1. He is for abortion of all kinds, even denying life support to a baby who survives a botched abortion. 2. He is about to suspend protection of doctors’ consciences who cannot perform abortions for religious scruples. Doctors are saying they will go to jail rather than be forced to violate their conscience by being forced to perform abortions (legalized murder). This is against the long-standing provision that protects people from violating their conscience. For instance, conscientious objection to military service. 3. He is for doing away with secret ballots for workers to vote for or against unionizing their work place. Heretofore elections of workers voted secret ballots as to whether they were in favor or against unionizing their work place.This bill would make their vote public and subject them to all kinds of mistreatment if they voted against unionizing.This is paying the labor unions for their helping to in electing him. 4. He is for same-sex partnerships and for inducting declared homosexuals into the military. This is reducing the number of reenlistments and voluntary joining the military. Decent persons do not want to share barracks and other activities with men/women who have lustful desires for them. What Christian would be willing to enter a community shower (which is common in the military) with an homosexual? 5. His cabinet is filled with lobbyists (which he said during the campaign could not serve in his cabinet), and tax cheats, and people who were under criminal investigation. Tax cheats were excused because they made “honest mistakes.” Don’t think they will be that generous with the rest of us under such circumstances. We are beginning to see an awakening of the conservatives across the country. Maybe this is what God has in mind.We had an immoral president which was impeached, and then conservatives had a chance which they squandered. So, maybe God is digging a little deeper into our conscience this time to arouse us.
Can it be possible that God has allowed the present situation in order to awaken believers to the fact that He is trying to get our attention? Conservatives had their chance when they controlled both houses of congress and the whitehouse and all they did was compromise their principles, acted like socialists. We can look for more and more tolerance of Islamic religion. It is active in it agenda to take over the world and eliminate all other religions through violance while our government helps it along.
I am more and more convinced that many church members either do not know, or just plain refuse to accept, the responsibility attendant upon church membership.
This is manifested by indifference toward attendance at all services of the congregation; habitual late coming when it could be avoided by simply leaving home a few minutes earlier, a draggy, indifferent attitude in worship, untidy dress for worship, failure to sing in worship, slumping in the seat and obviously not really joining in the worship or listening to the lesson. In most cases when people say they are bored by the preacher, the preacher would probably say, "same to you." I have to admit that I am bored by indifferent, bored listeners.
I knew a preacher who had a sleepy audience, so he said, "It is obvious that you people are not listening to me, so he closed the service and left."
Unless I misjudge some folks' attitude, it is obvious that during worship some appear that they would prefer not to be there, or prefer to be somewhere else. They sleep, talk to each other, and write notes; which means they are not listening, and likely are distracting people around them.
Let's look at a few passages of scripture that indicate what should be our attitude as Christians:
(Acts 2:42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
(Acts 5:42) And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
(1 Cor 15:58) Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.
(Heb 12:12-13) Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
(John 15:1-2) I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
(Rev 3:15-16) I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
I don't want to be a grouchy old preacher, but I feel for the souls of indifferent, lukewarm, semi-active church members who think nothing of allowing secular and worldly things to hinder them from being what God would have them to be. I could just ride the tide, and go with the flow, and say nothing to try to encourage and help, but then I would jeopardize my own soul and I refuse to do that for any person or reason. It is said that the best way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Inventory your life and do better.
As Jesus sometimes did, let me answer this question by asking one. If a farmer sowed six different kinds of seed in six different fields, could you answer me if I were to ask you, “Why does the farmer have so many different kinds of crops?” Oh, I think you could. You would say, “because he planted different kinds of seed.” Now, that is the exact answer to the question as to why there are so many different churches: because different kinds of seeds have been sown. Jesus said in Lk. 8:11, that “the seed of the kingdom is the word of God.”
Now, if one sows, or teaches, only the word of God, it will produce only what it is supposed to produce—Christians. The word of God ONLY makes Christians ONLY. One must teach something else to produce something else. Wheat seed makes wheat only, one must sow something else to make something else. Can anyone believe that sowing the same seed, the pure, unadulterated word of God, will produce 600 different products? Come, now! If a farmer sowed wheat seed in six different fields and produced six different crops, the scientific world would absolutely go berserk! Nobody expects such to happen, but many contend that this is exactly what happens in religion. They say all preachers preach the same word, but it produces 4 or 5 hundred different varieties of religionists, and many think this is fine. How inconsistent can people be?
The many differences among churches is due to sowing different kinds of seed. Becoming a Baptist is the result of sowing Baptist seed, or preaching Baptist doctrine. Becoming a Methodist is the result of sowing Methodist seed, or preaching Methodist doctrine, etc. Sowing Methocist seed will never yield a Baptist, and vise versa. Nobody will ever become a member of a human denomination by obeying the word of God only. It doesn’t make people members of human churches, any more than sowing wheat produces watermelons! It makes Christians, nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. Whatever differences exist in the religious world are not the fault of the perfect, certified seed of the kingdom. The fault is with those who sow and those who receive into the soil of their hearts the tares of human traditions and doctrines. If you have a Bible question, we invite you to contact us.
The reader may wonder why I write so much about Islam. It's because they constantly are in the news. In fact, they dominate the news every day. Secondly, I am deeply concerned about their plans for America, and how well that plan is being carried out with the help of dim-witted politicians.
The Islamic leaders have plans to change the American society down to its very roots. They plan to take away our freedoms, including our religious freedoms. And if we are not willing to give them up, then they plan to bury us.
They, along with atheists, are making headway in their persecution of everything connected with Christ. In New York schools Jewish menorah, and Muslim symbols and Christmas trees are allowed, but not nativity scenes. Excuse: Nativity scenes are too religious. Are we to suppose that Jewish menorahs, and Muslim symbols are not religious? The reason Christmas trees are allowed is that they are thought of as "secular"?, which is pure nonsense. You see what I am talking about when I say the tap root of all of this is an attack on Christ and the promotion of Islam.
There are 1,209 Mosques in our country, and there is estimated to be 6, or 7 million Muslims.
Recently in Minneapolis, 6 Muslim Imams were taken off an air liner because passengers heard them praying before and after they boarded the plane, and making negative remarks about America. They also asked for extensions for the seat belts when non of them physically needed such. Passengers and the plane crew became suspicious and called the police, and these persons were handcuffed and removed from the plane.
Now they are crying like a pig caught under a gate about their civil rights being violated, and that they were profiled because they are Muslims. They were not profiled because they are Muslims but because of their foolish actions which seems to have been a special effort to cause an incident they could later use.
It amazes me that people from countries that have no civil rights, demand them here. You see, these people are using our freedoms to destroy our freedoms, and our government is going to fail or refuse to see what is happening and are helping them in their endeavor.
Did you know that in the recent election a Muslim was elected to Congress? All they need to do is get enough of these in Congress to influence legislation in their favor. In 25 years or so, our land of liberty could be run by a bunch of Islamics with the Koran being the law, and the Islamic clerics calling the shots. If that is what the American people want, then they should continue to do what they are doing; sitting by and allowing it to happen.
I am not being political, I am trying to do my little part to try to make brethren aware of what is going on and hope that in so doing we can, in some small measure, help put a stop to what is happening. Those who are not willing to contend earnestly for their freedoms, don't deserve to have them.
So, I urge you to keep yourself informed of what is going on and speak up in defense of the continuance of your freedom to worship God according to the Bible. If you doubt what I am saying, read the Koran and the history of the development and spread of Islam.