In Luke 19 Jesus told a parable about giving ten minas/pounds to his slaves. When He returns to find out what they have done with them he finds one has made ten more, another made 5 more and the last hid His and did nothing with it. Jesus takes it away and gives it to the one who made ten and finds that those observing the transaction begin to object because that one has ten already.
Each slave had the same opportunity. Freedom to use the money as they saw fit. The result was different for each. The two that did something with their money were rewarded while the one who buried it and did nothing, was not taken care of by the Lord, but stripped of even what he had.
Our founding Fathers understood that where there was true freedom there would be inequality among people regarding the things they possessed. Where there is liberty each has the opportunity to work and produce according to their ability or strength and the result may be very different, but that's what true freedom allows. If everyone ends up with the same amount of things it is because freedom has been taken away and oppression has begun on somebodies part.
Jesus even took away what the non-productive slave had and gave it to someone that would do something with it. I know some may be offended with this, but it makes sense to make sure your goods are being used to produce something rather than to give them away to be wasted. We should, as a nation, at least take into consideration the wisdom of this parable. Instead we have seen a rise in class warfare, where a cry goes out to take away from the rich and give to the poor. The Bible instructs the rich to be generous, but does not mandate equality of things for all. Different ones collected different amounts of Manna. The saints in Corinth did try to spread their wealth to the believers who were suffering from bad economic conditions, but it was their choice.
As I studied the information from the missionary Steve Parker who wrote about breaking the spirit of poverty, it was interesting that he noted that one of the symptoms of the spirit of poverty was class warfare, blaming the rich for your condition. While there is certainly oppression by some and a need to stop that oppression, a complaining spirit that is always blaming someone else for your condition, denies that it is God who gives the power to make wealth. And, creates a receiving rather than a giving mentality which is not one that God has decreed to bless. Give and it shall be given. This demand to have it given to me by someone who has more is rooted in class envy, jealousy and selfish ambition.
The whole spirit behind Marxism is class warfare and there are those in this nation who are promoting it. I believe it is against Bible principle and against the founding principles of this nation. As I dig deeper into the roots of this nation, I am amazed at the wisdom of the early leaders and their insight into the behaviors and attitudes that are harmful to a free society. We have adopted many of them or at least toyed with them sufficiently for them to have influence in our present culture and politics. COME QUICKLY LORD AND ESTABLISH YOUR KINGDOM!!!
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Do you Believe Evolution is a Myth?
I heard this one question from a political debate the other night. It really gets me riled up more than I like to admit. It seems when someone is asked this question they feel the responsibility to recoil and back pedal so as not to be thought of as "one of them ignorant religious fanatics that takes everything on faith".
I wish someone on the political scene would be able to take an on the spot stand for what they really believe. I understand the pressure of having a spontaneous answer that sounds intelligent makes it difficult to really address the issue, but if someone could answer this question for me this is what they could say.
Given what we know about irreducible complexity, the genetic burden, the complexity of the millions of bits of information "programmed" into each cell; given what we observe in nature and genetics that every kind of plant and animal produces offspring that is healthy only if it is genetically similar to itself and that there is no reasonable explanation for how each cell's information can be changed by chance to allow an animal to begin to breathe through the top of its head, grow hands instead of wings, grow lungs and gills at the same time so it can transition from water to air oxygen extraction, and given, simple logic declares that no one standing at the base of Mt. Rushmore ever concludes that the faces in the side of that mountain appeared there by chance, likewise the design of every living thing is evidence of a designer, given these things and many others, I consider evolution at best a bad theory and at worst an unscientific hoax disguised in scientific garb and language that has deceived a few generations of aspiring educators and students. (Do not turn me in to my high school English teacher because of this lengthy run-on sentence. I was just expressing some pent up frustration.)
Let's get real personal. Are you telling me that the type of skin that is on those sensitive parts of your body just happened to show up there. If it is by chance how does chance "know" that it is advantageous for that type of skin to be in those places. Chance by definition, "don't know nuttin'". That skin is a design to perpetuate the desire to perpetuate the human race. Where are the transitional forms of mammals that have 3 legs or 1 leg or 5 legs? It seems that there is a design that produces functional mammals with 2 or 4 legs. Evolution defies logic!!!! As each new form developed who did it reproduce with. Especially in those cases when you have changes in numbers of chromosomes. How did those forms transition? When the first living thing appeared what did it eat, ITSELF!!!!
Alexis De Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America cited a case where an American judge refused to admit a man to testify in court because he said he was an atheist. The judge thus concluded the man had destroyed beforehand any confidence the court had in what he was about to say, since he didn't have the sense to believe in God. God has made His existence evident, man is without excuse. Looking at the creation makes it obvious. You can't see it only if you look at things with the presumption there is no God. Can you imagine what the first fish born that could breathe with lungs had to do at birth? Get out of the water! You know there are some very unique forms of life on the earth, some seem to have traits of various types of animals, but there are not true transitional animals with an arm on one side and a wing on the other, hair on one arm and feathers on the other, etc.
We are the most intelligent life forms on the earth, but I cannot figure out how to start breathing through the top of my head. Do we understand all the changes that would just have to fall in place for that to happen!!!!!???!!?? Chance?? If that is chance, then chance is Almighty!! That is DESIGN, coordinated with complimentary parts in all the right places. If it is evolution it is evolution with incredible intelligence and purpose, which by definition it should have neither. How can chance have purpose? If it has purpose or intent it is not chance!!! Somebody rescue me from the insanity of our present day intelligentsia!!!!
The fact that there is design, morals, logic, emotion and compassion for the less fortunate all point to God, rather than survival of the fittest. And the dangers of believing there is no God is that with that belief we can make our own values and destroy the unborn. That is unnatural. There are evident laws of nature and nature's God.
To answer the question. Yeah, I believe evolution is a myth. Why would you believe anything else. What is the "evidence" for evolution? There should be "millions" of transitional forms living among us and in the fossils and it "just ain't there". There should be testable or observable genetic reasons how dogs can change to cats or at least dats. There are many fascinating things in nature, (caterpillars to butterflies for example) but their development and characteristics are all inherent within their genetic code.
Some day just think about what would have to take place step by step for evolution to happen. Things to eat, changes in genetic coding, partners of like kind to perpetuate your existence. If the eye developed by chance why is it located in front of the brain instead in front of the stomach. I tell you it's design!!! And there is a designer. If you want to know Him He revealed Himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth!! You can read about Him in the Bible. The truth is good. If evolution is true, we have no hope, everything is meaningless. YOU ARE A COSMIC ACCIDENT!!
The truth is you are here because of the creative love of your Heavenly Father. Be Blessed!!
I wish someone on the political scene would be able to take an on the spot stand for what they really believe. I understand the pressure of having a spontaneous answer that sounds intelligent makes it difficult to really address the issue, but if someone could answer this question for me this is what they could say.
Given what we know about irreducible complexity, the genetic burden, the complexity of the millions of bits of information "programmed" into each cell; given what we observe in nature and genetics that every kind of plant and animal produces offspring that is healthy only if it is genetically similar to itself and that there is no reasonable explanation for how each cell's information can be changed by chance to allow an animal to begin to breathe through the top of its head, grow hands instead of wings, grow lungs and gills at the same time so it can transition from water to air oxygen extraction, and given, simple logic declares that no one standing at the base of Mt. Rushmore ever concludes that the faces in the side of that mountain appeared there by chance, likewise the design of every living thing is evidence of a designer, given these things and many others, I consider evolution at best a bad theory and at worst an unscientific hoax disguised in scientific garb and language that has deceived a few generations of aspiring educators and students. (Do not turn me in to my high school English teacher because of this lengthy run-on sentence. I was just expressing some pent up frustration.)
Let's get real personal. Are you telling me that the type of skin that is on those sensitive parts of your body just happened to show up there. If it is by chance how does chance "know" that it is advantageous for that type of skin to be in those places. Chance by definition, "don't know nuttin'". That skin is a design to perpetuate the desire to perpetuate the human race. Where are the transitional forms of mammals that have 3 legs or 1 leg or 5 legs? It seems that there is a design that produces functional mammals with 2 or 4 legs. Evolution defies logic!!!! As each new form developed who did it reproduce with. Especially in those cases when you have changes in numbers of chromosomes. How did those forms transition? When the first living thing appeared what did it eat, ITSELF!!!!
Alexis De Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America cited a case where an American judge refused to admit a man to testify in court because he said he was an atheist. The judge thus concluded the man had destroyed beforehand any confidence the court had in what he was about to say, since he didn't have the sense to believe in God. God has made His existence evident, man is without excuse. Looking at the creation makes it obvious. You can't see it only if you look at things with the presumption there is no God. Can you imagine what the first fish born that could breathe with lungs had to do at birth? Get out of the water! You know there are some very unique forms of life on the earth, some seem to have traits of various types of animals, but there are not true transitional animals with an arm on one side and a wing on the other, hair on one arm and feathers on the other, etc.
We are the most intelligent life forms on the earth, but I cannot figure out how to start breathing through the top of my head. Do we understand all the changes that would just have to fall in place for that to happen!!!!!???!!?? Chance?? If that is chance, then chance is Almighty!! That is DESIGN, coordinated with complimentary parts in all the right places. If it is evolution it is evolution with incredible intelligence and purpose, which by definition it should have neither. How can chance have purpose? If it has purpose or intent it is not chance!!! Somebody rescue me from the insanity of our present day intelligentsia!!!!
The fact that there is design, morals, logic, emotion and compassion for the less fortunate all point to God, rather than survival of the fittest. And the dangers of believing there is no God is that with that belief we can make our own values and destroy the unborn. That is unnatural. There are evident laws of nature and nature's God.
To answer the question. Yeah, I believe evolution is a myth. Why would you believe anything else. What is the "evidence" for evolution? There should be "millions" of transitional forms living among us and in the fossils and it "just ain't there". There should be testable or observable genetic reasons how dogs can change to cats or at least dats. There are many fascinating things in nature, (caterpillars to butterflies for example) but their development and characteristics are all inherent within their genetic code.
Some day just think about what would have to take place step by step for evolution to happen. Things to eat, changes in genetic coding, partners of like kind to perpetuate your existence. If the eye developed by chance why is it located in front of the brain instead in front of the stomach. I tell you it's design!!! And there is a designer. If you want to know Him He revealed Himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth!! You can read about Him in the Bible. The truth is good. If evolution is true, we have no hope, everything is meaningless. YOU ARE A COSMIC ACCIDENT!!
The truth is you are here because of the creative love of your Heavenly Father. Be Blessed!!
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Has "American Government" Been Overthrown?
I was listening to a radio program the other day and they were discussing the military vow to defend the U.S. Constitution against every foe, foreign and domestic. A statement was made that it would be easy to identify and resist a physical enemy who had come to overthrow our governmental headquarters. With that statement I began to ponder the question, what makes up American government? Is it simply those who legislate, judge and serve in the executive branch? It seems to me it would relate to all of those, of course, and the control of our military, but wouldn't it also include how we govern, or even on what basis.
Today, if we set out to determine how do we establish law or what is right and wrong there would likely be diverse and contradictory opinions. We often hear people plead their case that a law should not be established because 52% or some such number are against it. This is a plea that finds its basis in the concept that law should reflect the majority opinion. Is that American?
We find that laws are sometimes established by a vote of the people, but then overthrown by a single Judge. Is that American government? What was the basis for the overturning? Public sentiment? Cultural tendencies? Interpretations of discrimination? And, if so, who defines these things?
So law comes sometimes from a judge's opinion. Where does his opinion find it's basis? Sometimes it is previous case law, sometimes precedents in other nations, and sometimes it seems to originate in his political bent.
Law in America sometimes comes from our legislative branch, called "lawmakers". What is their basis for determining legal statute? Is it the popularity polls? Often it seems to be their own logic as to what they think would be best.
In all of this we seem to have lost the foundation from which law originates in our nation. Our foundation varies and is shifting all the time. Shifting foundations are very treacherous.
Our nation was founded as a Republic, as in, "...and to the republic for which it stands.." from our pledge. The founders did not want a Democracy which allows people to change laws simply by majority vote. We were to elect representatives who protect the inalienable rights given by God.
Arguments are often engaged in these days whether we are a Christian nation. The Treaty of Tripoli says specifically that we are not a Christian nation. In the context of its purpose and world history, we are not a Christian nation in the respect that a Christian denomination or Church hierarchy does not rule this nation from its headquarters, as has been the case in other nations. However, we are a Christian nation, as is stated in many early court decisions, including statements by John Jay, our first chief justice of the Supreme Court, in the respect of the basis by which we form our Laws.
Our governmental buildings in Washington display Moses and the Ten Commandments in many places as a reminder of the origin of Law in this nation. The three branches of government find their origin in the scriptures and the initial laws in America found their authority through their consistency with the scriptures. As Washington stated in his farewell address, the government must stand on the pillars of religion and morality. Even a casual perusal of historical documents is enough to see that this religion and morality was religion and morality that proceeded from the Bible.
Soooooo, our present state of law making which comes from several sources and finds its basis in no particular foundational premise is a departure from American law and government. Thus it is my conclusion that this American government has been overthrown and the Constitution attacked by enemies within and has not been adequately defended.
The American founders gave up fortunes, family and some, their lives, in order to establish a Republic based in Biblical principles. Many saw it as a call from God. I would hope we could stand in this day to call a nation to repentance on many levels, including a return to Godly roots on a legal or governmental level. This doesn't mean everyone has to be a Christian who lives in America. It just means that the people in this nation understand that true "American" law has its basis in the Bible. Shalom!!
I am establishing a web site business/cause called letsroaramerica.com. The ROAR is an acronym for Restore Our American Roots. The website is under construction with the hope that it will be completed within a month. May you be blessed in pursuit of Him!!!
Today, if we set out to determine how do we establish law or what is right and wrong there would likely be diverse and contradictory opinions. We often hear people plead their case that a law should not be established because 52% or some such number are against it. This is a plea that finds its basis in the concept that law should reflect the majority opinion. Is that American?
We find that laws are sometimes established by a vote of the people, but then overthrown by a single Judge. Is that American government? What was the basis for the overturning? Public sentiment? Cultural tendencies? Interpretations of discrimination? And, if so, who defines these things?
So law comes sometimes from a judge's opinion. Where does his opinion find it's basis? Sometimes it is previous case law, sometimes precedents in other nations, and sometimes it seems to originate in his political bent.
Law in America sometimes comes from our legislative branch, called "lawmakers". What is their basis for determining legal statute? Is it the popularity polls? Often it seems to be their own logic as to what they think would be best.
In all of this we seem to have lost the foundation from which law originates in our nation. Our foundation varies and is shifting all the time. Shifting foundations are very treacherous.
Our nation was founded as a Republic, as in, "...and to the republic for which it stands.." from our pledge. The founders did not want a Democracy which allows people to change laws simply by majority vote. We were to elect representatives who protect the inalienable rights given by God.
Arguments are often engaged in these days whether we are a Christian nation. The Treaty of Tripoli says specifically that we are not a Christian nation. In the context of its purpose and world history, we are not a Christian nation in the respect that a Christian denomination or Church hierarchy does not rule this nation from its headquarters, as has been the case in other nations. However, we are a Christian nation, as is stated in many early court decisions, including statements by John Jay, our first chief justice of the Supreme Court, in the respect of the basis by which we form our Laws.
Our governmental buildings in Washington display Moses and the Ten Commandments in many places as a reminder of the origin of Law in this nation. The three branches of government find their origin in the scriptures and the initial laws in America found their authority through their consistency with the scriptures. As Washington stated in his farewell address, the government must stand on the pillars of religion and morality. Even a casual perusal of historical documents is enough to see that this religion and morality was religion and morality that proceeded from the Bible.
Soooooo, our present state of law making which comes from several sources and finds its basis in no particular foundational premise is a departure from American law and government. Thus it is my conclusion that this American government has been overthrown and the Constitution attacked by enemies within and has not been adequately defended.
The American founders gave up fortunes, family and some, their lives, in order to establish a Republic based in Biblical principles. Many saw it as a call from God. I would hope we could stand in this day to call a nation to repentance on many levels, including a return to Godly roots on a legal or governmental level. This doesn't mean everyone has to be a Christian who lives in America. It just means that the people in this nation understand that true "American" law has its basis in the Bible. Shalom!!
I am establishing a web site business/cause called letsroaramerica.com. The ROAR is an acronym for Restore Our American Roots. The website is under construction with the hope that it will be completed within a month. May you be blessed in pursuit of Him!!!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Choose Your Reformation
There is a reforming of American culture taking place. The consistent deterioration of Christian morals and the ever changing definition of what is virtuous have left the culture in no man's land. A culture cannot remain in a moral vacuum for long. Some standard will be raised to claim the right to define right and wrong. Europe has tried to exist in a neutral state regarding morality and religion. They have tried to become religionless, and with that have no moral background to stand against a direct assault to take over the cultural standards. Thus Islam is beginning to exert it's force to take over the laws of Europe. Since Europe has no standard for Law they also have no basis to resist a movement to overtake their legal system.
America has been following Europe's lead. Having abandoned our heritage of a society whose morality is based on scripture, we have no basis to restrict incoming philosophies. The doctrine of tolerance will be used against this culture to allow varying philosophies to gain a foothold and then the intolerance of these systems will begin to raise its ugly head. Truly the most threatening is Islam, as we can see by the boldness they have to establish a mosque at the site where Islamic jihadists, as an act of war, killed thousands of American citizens. This was done in the name of the god they want to erect this monument to.
What reformation will we choose? I would hope we would fall back to our roots. Noah Webster stated, "The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws." Jedidiah Morse who was an educator and Historian of the American Revolution said, "Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government - and all the blessings which flow from them - must fall with them."
This does not pretend to require that all become Christians, although many founders would have welcomed the idea that all would become Christians, it establishes the principles and foundation from which our law is derived. In other words, the Bible is the basis for our law. The U.S. House Judiciary committee in Congress, 1854 recorded this statement, "Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants." Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi releasing a declaration like this.
We will re-form. Either the present slide will culminate in a totalitarian takeover at some point or we will experience a return to a Biblical basis for law.
As I review the history of revivals in this nation, it appears that these moves of God are necessary to even maintain the mindset in this nation which allows for us to maintain our roots. We are rooted in revivalism and the cause of Christ. The initial "Constitution" of the colonies was called, The articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England established on May 19, 1643 which stated the intent of this nation in its introduction as this, "Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace." With this in mind I would propose that it is both just and right to return to the Bible as our standard for law. Those that want to ban Jesus, the Bible, the cross and Christian prayer from the public arena have tried to tell us we were not established upon Christianity and the Bible. If they can rewrite our history they can change our destiny. But if we understand the intent of this nation in its very establishment, there is no shame or injustice in returning to our roots and bringing glory to God and His Christ in the public arena.
We will reform from this point in history. We are faced with the same choice Elijah gave to Israel. How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, Follow Him!
Without a spiritual awakening and the demonstration of the Lord by His manifest Presence we, like Israel, will stand powerless unable to answer the call. As never before we need true revival that transcends the walls of the Church and transforms the culture we live in. CRY OUT!!!
America has been following Europe's lead. Having abandoned our heritage of a society whose morality is based on scripture, we have no basis to restrict incoming philosophies. The doctrine of tolerance will be used against this culture to allow varying philosophies to gain a foothold and then the intolerance of these systems will begin to raise its ugly head. Truly the most threatening is Islam, as we can see by the boldness they have to establish a mosque at the site where Islamic jihadists, as an act of war, killed thousands of American citizens. This was done in the name of the god they want to erect this monument to.
What reformation will we choose? I would hope we would fall back to our roots. Noah Webster stated, "The moral principles and precepts found in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws." Jedidiah Morse who was an educator and Historian of the American Revolution said, "Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government - and all the blessings which flow from them - must fall with them."
This does not pretend to require that all become Christians, although many founders would have welcomed the idea that all would become Christians, it establishes the principles and foundation from which our law is derived. In other words, the Bible is the basis for our law. The U.S. House Judiciary committee in Congress, 1854 recorded this statement, "Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants." Can you imagine Nancy Pelosi releasing a declaration like this.
We will re-form. Either the present slide will culminate in a totalitarian takeover at some point or we will experience a return to a Biblical basis for law.
As I review the history of revivals in this nation, it appears that these moves of God are necessary to even maintain the mindset in this nation which allows for us to maintain our roots. We are rooted in revivalism and the cause of Christ. The initial "Constitution" of the colonies was called, The articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England established on May 19, 1643 which stated the intent of this nation in its introduction as this, "Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace." With this in mind I would propose that it is both just and right to return to the Bible as our standard for law. Those that want to ban Jesus, the Bible, the cross and Christian prayer from the public arena have tried to tell us we were not established upon Christianity and the Bible. If they can rewrite our history they can change our destiny. But if we understand the intent of this nation in its very establishment, there is no shame or injustice in returning to our roots and bringing glory to God and His Christ in the public arena.
We will reform from this point in history. We are faced with the same choice Elijah gave to Israel. How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, Follow Him!
Without a spiritual awakening and the demonstration of the Lord by His manifest Presence we, like Israel, will stand powerless unable to answer the call. As never before we need true revival that transcends the walls of the Church and transforms the culture we live in. CRY OUT!!!
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Imminent Return of the Lord Jesus
This is a scary topic for me because some of what I am about to say goes against some of the most common declarations I have heard in the Church for years. The Bible warns against the ones who say their master will not return soon and begin to beat the slaves and eat and get drunk. Luke 12:45, 46 says that the master of that slave will come on a day He does not expect and cut him up and assign him a place with the unbelievers. That's serious stuff!!!
I am not going to say that the Lord is not coming soon. The events in the world, especially in relationship to Israel, cry out that the stage is being set for the day when the Lord returns to rescue Jerusalem from enemy onslaught (Zechariah 14).
The comment I often hear that I cannot just accept as I read the Bible is that the Lord could come any moment. The reason I say that is two-fold. In I Thessalonians 5 we are told that the Day of the Lord will not overtake us who are of the light like a thief in the night. We will know the time of the coming of Jesus and the accompanying events which make up the Day of the Lord. It would be good to review all references both in the Old and New Testaments on this topic.
The second and more specific reason that I hesitate to say the Lord could come any moment is the passage in II Thessalonians 2:1-3. Regarding the timing of the Day of the Lord Paul says to let no one deceive you, that it will not come unless the apostasy (falling away) comes first AND the man of lawlessness is revealed. That is where I must say I do not see the Antichrist (man of lawlessness) revealed. I know there can be interpretations that spiritualize this passage to mean many things, but Paul seems to believe that this revelation of this man will be so clear that it is one of two markers that he explains are to definitely happen before the Day of the Lord comes. Now I believe the Bible teaches the Day of the Lord is more than the coming of Jesus, but it does include His coming. So before He comes if I am not to be deceived, I should be able to see the man of lawlessness revealed.
Although, there are many moving under a strong antichrist spirit today I don't see the one revealed who will be destroyed by the Lord by His coming (II Thessalonians 2:8). It still looks to me that some things are going to be played out in this end of the age scenario that have not come to pass as of yet. Jesus will return to set up His kingdom and to gather His elect. In the meantime we are called to be salt (fertilizer which causes the good to grow and disinfectant which kills the bad) and light to this world. Presenting the very life, message and witness of Jesus to the world we live in.
So, I reserve the right to be wrong in this matter, but it seems to me that Jesus is not returning any moment unless we suddenly see Jerusalem under siege and before that the man of lawlessness revealed. Those that continue to contend for an any moment return, of course, believe in a pre-tribulation rapture that is not specifically talked about anywhere in the scriptures. Jesus commenting on His return said every one will see Him and it will not be silent or secretive, but with a shout and a trumpet blast.
All that said, I would make sure I am ready for His return and while waiting that we prepare the way of the Lord. Blessings to you, Ed
I am not going to say that the Lord is not coming soon. The events in the world, especially in relationship to Israel, cry out that the stage is being set for the day when the Lord returns to rescue Jerusalem from enemy onslaught (Zechariah 14).
The comment I often hear that I cannot just accept as I read the Bible is that the Lord could come any moment. The reason I say that is two-fold. In I Thessalonians 5 we are told that the Day of the Lord will not overtake us who are of the light like a thief in the night. We will know the time of the coming of Jesus and the accompanying events which make up the Day of the Lord. It would be good to review all references both in the Old and New Testaments on this topic.
The second and more specific reason that I hesitate to say the Lord could come any moment is the passage in II Thessalonians 2:1-3. Regarding the timing of the Day of the Lord Paul says to let no one deceive you, that it will not come unless the apostasy (falling away) comes first AND the man of lawlessness is revealed. That is where I must say I do not see the Antichrist (man of lawlessness) revealed. I know there can be interpretations that spiritualize this passage to mean many things, but Paul seems to believe that this revelation of this man will be so clear that it is one of two markers that he explains are to definitely happen before the Day of the Lord comes. Now I believe the Bible teaches the Day of the Lord is more than the coming of Jesus, but it does include His coming. So before He comes if I am not to be deceived, I should be able to see the man of lawlessness revealed.
Although, there are many moving under a strong antichrist spirit today I don't see the one revealed who will be destroyed by the Lord by His coming (II Thessalonians 2:8). It still looks to me that some things are going to be played out in this end of the age scenario that have not come to pass as of yet. Jesus will return to set up His kingdom and to gather His elect. In the meantime we are called to be salt (fertilizer which causes the good to grow and disinfectant which kills the bad) and light to this world. Presenting the very life, message and witness of Jesus to the world we live in.
So, I reserve the right to be wrong in this matter, but it seems to me that Jesus is not returning any moment unless we suddenly see Jerusalem under siege and before that the man of lawlessness revealed. Those that continue to contend for an any moment return, of course, believe in a pre-tribulation rapture that is not specifically talked about anywhere in the scriptures. Jesus commenting on His return said every one will see Him and it will not be silent or secretive, but with a shout and a trumpet blast.
All that said, I would make sure I am ready for His return and while waiting that we prepare the way of the Lord. Blessings to you, Ed
Monday, May 31, 2010
Jesus: Son of God
I've heard recently that some leaders in the current emergent church movement have stated that the virgin birth is not an essential doctrine. It seems the argument stems from the translation of the word virgin from Isaiah 7:14. Some contend the word can be better translated maiden. Even if that is the case, the New Testament makes it clear how the word is to be interpreted in the case of Mary.
Luke 2:26-38 is Mary's dialogue with the angel Gabriel. She questions the statement regarding the possibility of having a child since she has never had sexual relations. King James, I know no man. In Matthew 1:23-25 where the Isaiah passage is quoted, it says that Joseph kept her a virgin until after Jesus was born.
What happens to John 3:16 without a virgin birth? God so loved the world that He gave the son of the local milkman, or traveling goat salesman, or the sly census taker, or even Joseph. How does that fulfill the redemption story? A pretend perfect sacrifice, or a reasonable facsimile. God gave the perfect lamb. A man whose origin is in the creative work of God, much like Adam. Who having been saved from the fall by being born of the Holy Spirit, maintains His perfection and willingly offers Himself as the perfect sacrifice, required by the law, to purchase our freedom from the curse of sin by making full payment for it.
Some theology is trying to avoid some "embarrassing" doctrines of Christianity, and is trying to sidestep truth in order to be more acceptable to the world's embrace. I agree that Christians do not have to be mean-spirited toward homosexuals, abortionists and such. But to abandon truth to appear more "mainstream", reasonable, loving or acceptable (whatever the argument may be) leaves the message of the gospel without the power to save.
Here is the clear Biblical teaching, Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary. He is the Son of God!!
Luke 2:26-38 is Mary's dialogue with the angel Gabriel. She questions the statement regarding the possibility of having a child since she has never had sexual relations. King James, I know no man. In Matthew 1:23-25 where the Isaiah passage is quoted, it says that Joseph kept her a virgin until after Jesus was born.
What happens to John 3:16 without a virgin birth? God so loved the world that He gave the son of the local milkman, or traveling goat salesman, or the sly census taker, or even Joseph. How does that fulfill the redemption story? A pretend perfect sacrifice, or a reasonable facsimile. God gave the perfect lamb. A man whose origin is in the creative work of God, much like Adam. Who having been saved from the fall by being born of the Holy Spirit, maintains His perfection and willingly offers Himself as the perfect sacrifice, required by the law, to purchase our freedom from the curse of sin by making full payment for it.
Some theology is trying to avoid some "embarrassing" doctrines of Christianity, and is trying to sidestep truth in order to be more acceptable to the world's embrace. I agree that Christians do not have to be mean-spirited toward homosexuals, abortionists and such. But to abandon truth to appear more "mainstream", reasonable, loving or acceptable (whatever the argument may be) leaves the message of the gospel without the power to save.
Here is the clear Biblical teaching, Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary. He is the Son of God!!
Saturday, April 17, 2010
National Day of Prayer
There was a firestorm of controversy in the blogging world yesterday over the Wisconsin Judge's ruling that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional. Unfortunately the comments often became heated and derogatory on both sides of the debate. Those supporting the decision said it does not ban anyone from praying and they are right. One man said that this kind of mixture of religion in government began in the 1950's with the inclusion of "under God" in our pledge. Although that phrase was added to the pledge as a sort of declaration that set us apart from places like the U.S.S.R. that is not the beginning of presidential declarations for a nation to pray.
In 1789, 2 years after the Constitution was written, and just a few months before the final state ratified it, President George Washington made a proclamation declaring a day of national thanksgiving in November of that year that has actually stayed with us as a tradition we celebrate yearly. His proclamation was not giving thanks to the Indians, but begins by declaring that "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God". He then stated that "Congress... has requested me "'to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer'". This illustrates clearly the function of government, approved by those who wrote the Constitution, which clearly gives full authority to the president to recommend a national day of prayer. So my contention with those who endorse the ruling yesterday is not over whether or not Christians need a national day to pray or not, but simply over the ruling that such a day is unconstitutional. Not to the authors of the Constitution!
Some contended in the blogs yesterday that we did not have a Christian foundation. Our foundation is certainly a mixture in some ways, including the part Freemasonry had in the establishment of our present Capitol. However, the use of the Bible in schools, in law, and as the guiding document in the establishment of our present form of government is simply history. To understand the mindset of the earliest settlers in this land and their purpose it is helpful to go back to the lands first constitution.
In 1643 there was written The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England. This document began with this statement, "Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace." How clear can the intent of purpose and heritage of our founders be. Christianity is what has given us our rights in this nation and it will be what preserves them. As our Christian heritage wanes so do our rights. Muslim countries do not allow you to come to their country set up a church and evangelize their citizens, but Muslims can do that in America. Atheism has not been a bastion of light for liberty. Look at North Korea, China or the former Soviet Union. Try out your liberty in those places. It is the Christian foundation of our nation that has brought liberty and prosperity.
Obvioulsy we are in a crucial time in American and world history. When our 13 colonies were still a part of Great Britain Alexander Tyler wrote about the democracy of the Athenian Republic. He said it went through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith - spiritual faith to great courage - great courage to abundance - abundance to selfishness - selfishness to complacency - complacency to apathy - apathy to dependency; dependency back into bondage. He said democracies exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves a generous gift from the public treasury. From that moment on , the majority will always vote for the candidates promising the most benefits, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy and is always followed by a dictatorship.
Democracies can thrive with great spiritual faith and collapse under loose fiscal policy, selfishness. It seems just as Amadinejad wants to create chaos so the 12th Imam can arise out of a time of world chaos, it seems there is a spirit loosed in our nation to create loose fiscal policy and the collapse of this form of government so that a totalitarian regime will be accepted and welcomed to resolve the horrible mess. Our nation did not start without Christian faith and it will not be sustained without it. You cannot have a true secular society with freedom reigning. Europe has proved that secularism does not have the ideology to stop Islam from invading and taking over. Only a revival of true Christian faith can save our nation.
In 1789, 2 years after the Constitution was written, and just a few months before the final state ratified it, President George Washington made a proclamation declaring a day of national thanksgiving in November of that year that has actually stayed with us as a tradition we celebrate yearly. His proclamation was not giving thanks to the Indians, but begins by declaring that "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God". He then stated that "Congress... has requested me "'to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer'". This illustrates clearly the function of government, approved by those who wrote the Constitution, which clearly gives full authority to the president to recommend a national day of prayer. So my contention with those who endorse the ruling yesterday is not over whether or not Christians need a national day to pray or not, but simply over the ruling that such a day is unconstitutional. Not to the authors of the Constitution!
Some contended in the blogs yesterday that we did not have a Christian foundation. Our foundation is certainly a mixture in some ways, including the part Freemasonry had in the establishment of our present Capitol. However, the use of the Bible in schools, in law, and as the guiding document in the establishment of our present form of government is simply history. To understand the mindset of the earliest settlers in this land and their purpose it is helpful to go back to the lands first constitution.
In 1643 there was written The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England. This document began with this statement, "Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace." How clear can the intent of purpose and heritage of our founders be. Christianity is what has given us our rights in this nation and it will be what preserves them. As our Christian heritage wanes so do our rights. Muslim countries do not allow you to come to their country set up a church and evangelize their citizens, but Muslims can do that in America. Atheism has not been a bastion of light for liberty. Look at North Korea, China or the former Soviet Union. Try out your liberty in those places. It is the Christian foundation of our nation that has brought liberty and prosperity.
Obvioulsy we are in a crucial time in American and world history. When our 13 colonies were still a part of Great Britain Alexander Tyler wrote about the democracy of the Athenian Republic. He said it went through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith - spiritual faith to great courage - great courage to abundance - abundance to selfishness - selfishness to complacency - complacency to apathy - apathy to dependency; dependency back into bondage. He said democracies exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves a generous gift from the public treasury. From that moment on , the majority will always vote for the candidates promising the most benefits, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy and is always followed by a dictatorship.
Democracies can thrive with great spiritual faith and collapse under loose fiscal policy, selfishness. It seems just as Amadinejad wants to create chaos so the 12th Imam can arise out of a time of world chaos, it seems there is a spirit loosed in our nation to create loose fiscal policy and the collapse of this form of government so that a totalitarian regime will be accepted and welcomed to resolve the horrible mess. Our nation did not start without Christian faith and it will not be sustained without it. You cannot have a true secular society with freedom reigning. Europe has proved that secularism does not have the ideology to stop Islam from invading and taking over. Only a revival of true Christian faith can save our nation.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Building a temple mount house of prayer!
I mentioned in my last blog that I had the passing thought about Muslims offering to help the Jews rebuild the Temple as a sign of peace. A friend of mine heard about my speculations and forwarded me an article about a Turkish Muslim leader, Adnan Oktar, and the Jewish sanhedrin meeting together to discuss building a house of prayer, a new Temple, on the Temple mount.
The Turkish leader apparently has enough money to make this happen and here's the interestingly deceptive part. They claim by building this house of prayer they will be fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah that says, "my house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations." Their expectation is that Muslims, Jews and Christians will all then be able to pray in this common house of prayer. Then God will be the only One and His name the only One in the earth and therefore fulfill the prophecy of Zechariah also. It sounds like a wonderful coalition bringing everyone together in one happy family. To me it sounds deceptive enough to win many nominal Christians to this place of unity around a false understanding of God.
Interestingly enough, I then was able to talk to a Christian man who actually met with Oktar last June. We were able to spend about half an hour on the phone discussing eschatology. He knows from personal discussions that there is a desire on the part of these people to progress toward building a common Temple.
I don't know exactly how any of this will play out or if it even will, but if a "Temple" is built with Islamic help you will someday likely see someone seated in that temple of God displaying himself as being God. We live in a time when it is just good to know the scriptures. Though we may not be able to be say absolutely what lies ahead in every detail, we can certainly be aware of the spirit of what is happening and to keep our eyes open to various possibilities of how the scriptures may be fulfilled. Shalom!!!
The Turkish leader apparently has enough money to make this happen and here's the interestingly deceptive part. They claim by building this house of prayer they will be fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah that says, "my house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations." Their expectation is that Muslims, Jews and Christians will all then be able to pray in this common house of prayer. Then God will be the only One and His name the only One in the earth and therefore fulfill the prophecy of Zechariah also. It sounds like a wonderful coalition bringing everyone together in one happy family. To me it sounds deceptive enough to win many nominal Christians to this place of unity around a false understanding of God.
Interestingly enough, I then was able to talk to a Christian man who actually met with Oktar last June. We were able to spend about half an hour on the phone discussing eschatology. He knows from personal discussions that there is a desire on the part of these people to progress toward building a common Temple.
I don't know exactly how any of this will play out or if it even will, but if a "Temple" is built with Islamic help you will someday likely see someone seated in that temple of God displaying himself as being God. We live in a time when it is just good to know the scriptures. Though we may not be able to be say absolutely what lies ahead in every detail, we can certainly be aware of the spirit of what is happening and to keep our eyes open to various possibilities of how the scriptures may be fulfilled. Shalom!!!
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Antichrist Kingdom
Over the years I have been told by prophecy teachers that the antichrist will come from the Roman empire, a religious, military and political leader. The Pope was often suggested as a possibility. We have presently the most antichrist and anti-semitic group of nations ever, rising out of the middle east with a ready made "anti" Christ religion (Allah had no son) with political influence and military power.
One of the main prophetic reasons for interpreting a Roman empire antichrist is Daniel 9:26, "...and the people of the prince to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary...." The Roman empire under the rule of Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. That would seem to settle the issue. However, a closer look into the historical record of those times indicates that the actual military troops that comprised the Roman legions that destroyed the Temple were Arab, Syrian and some Egyptian. This information is gleaned from the Histories of Tacitus and from the writings of Josephus. This might seem like a stretch in interpretation and maybe it is, but an antichrist from a country now under Islamic control or influence is more logical in world circumstances, but more importantly, more consistent with the rest of the Biblical record.
The prophecies about a war against Israel in Ezekiel 38 and 39 describe an invasion by a coalition of nations that can be traced to areas that are now under Islamic influence. When God intervenes to rescue Israel in Ezekiel the result will be that God's name will no longer be profaned and He will be sanctified before the nations. This sounds like what we have called Armegeddon because if it is not Armageddon the antichrist would come into power after this and would definitely profane the name of the Lord.
The identifiable territories described in the Biblical account of those who directly come against Israel include Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Iran, and Iraq. They are described in the Bible with such names as Persia, Assyria, Babylon and Cush. The areas that the Messiah will destroy when he returns such as Edom and Bozrah are located in modern Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The thematic conflict of the ages described in the Bible is between the descendants of Isaac and the descendants of Ishmael which makes the main theme of the Bible consistent with this end of the age clash.
In Micah 5 the Messiah who is born in Bethlehem will defeat the "Assyrian" who invades the land. Assyria takes in much of the modern Muslim world. This "Assyrian" is a definite possibility of the identity of the antichrist.
Events in the Middle East are rapidly leading toward the development of a renewed caliphate or ruling leader/city over the muslim world. This was abandoned in 1924 after a long rule in the area of the Ottoman empire.
In the description of the end-time kingdom that makes up the kingdom of the beast in Revelation 17:10 John writes that there are seven kings (Kingdoms/mountains) five have fallen those are historically identifiable, one is, that would be Rome (at the time of John's writing) and one is to come, and we know historically the Ottoman empire controlled this territory later. Then there will be an eighth which will be one of the seven that will rise as the beast. This could very well be the Islamic/Ottoman empire. That would make sense since Biblically when the Lord returns the nations that we know specifically that He will judge are present Islamic nations.
From the Ezekiel description of Gog of Magog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal and the Micah reference of the Assyrian it would seem reasonable to expect the beast kingdom to arise out of the middle east and it's ruler to be from one of these muslim nations. Something to think about. We could be very near to these events culminating. If so, expect a peace treaty to come between the Jews and the Muslim world. The territory of Turkey seems to be very significant in the prophetic writings. A ruler from Turkey would be a likely peace treaty initiator.
Here is something that came to my mind once, its not anywhere in the Bible that I know of, but wouldn't it be interesting if the Muslim world offered to help Israel rebuild "the Temple" as a term of peace. That treaty would definitely be broken and would likely lead to the Muslim leader seating himself in the temple of God declaring himself as being God (see II Thess. 2).
With most of the Church looking for an antichrist figure to arise from a revived Roman empire, most could be blindsided by the arising of an Islamic leader who definitely wants to capture Jerusalem and is set on the destruction of the Jewish people. I guess this sounds like Islamic hate speech, but it is not. God loves Muslims, but some vocal Islamic leaders are set on the desruction of Israel and I believe that is what the Bible says will be the heart of the conflict. In Ezekiel 39:25 it says the Lord will finally arise and defeat the enemies of Israel because of Jealousy for His holy Name. Zechariah 14 tells us when Israel is under a horrendous siege that the Lord Himself will set His foot on the Mt. of Olives and take over Jerusalem and rescue His people.
Who is more dead set against the Jews than Islamic jihadists? And this is not a new contention. Problems began between Isaac and Ishmael, Sarah and Hagar and have never been truly resolved. Should you see an Islamic kingdom arise again in the Middle East, remember these words and open your Bibles. If the common teaching about the antichrist kingdom is wrong and the common teaching about the pre-trib rapture is wrong, a lot of the Church could be set up for a great delusion, perhaps a great falling away! Just be alert. Watch and Pray!!!
One of the main prophetic reasons for interpreting a Roman empire antichrist is Daniel 9:26, "...and the people of the prince to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary...." The Roman empire under the rule of Titus destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 A.D. That would seem to settle the issue. However, a closer look into the historical record of those times indicates that the actual military troops that comprised the Roman legions that destroyed the Temple were Arab, Syrian and some Egyptian. This information is gleaned from the Histories of Tacitus and from the writings of Josephus. This might seem like a stretch in interpretation and maybe it is, but an antichrist from a country now under Islamic control or influence is more logical in world circumstances, but more importantly, more consistent with the rest of the Biblical record.
The prophecies about a war against Israel in Ezekiel 38 and 39 describe an invasion by a coalition of nations that can be traced to areas that are now under Islamic influence. When God intervenes to rescue Israel in Ezekiel the result will be that God's name will no longer be profaned and He will be sanctified before the nations. This sounds like what we have called Armegeddon because if it is not Armageddon the antichrist would come into power after this and would definitely profane the name of the Lord.
The identifiable territories described in the Biblical account of those who directly come against Israel include Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Iran, and Iraq. They are described in the Bible with such names as Persia, Assyria, Babylon and Cush. The areas that the Messiah will destroy when he returns such as Edom and Bozrah are located in modern Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The thematic conflict of the ages described in the Bible is between the descendants of Isaac and the descendants of Ishmael which makes the main theme of the Bible consistent with this end of the age clash.
In Micah 5 the Messiah who is born in Bethlehem will defeat the "Assyrian" who invades the land. Assyria takes in much of the modern Muslim world. This "Assyrian" is a definite possibility of the identity of the antichrist.
Events in the Middle East are rapidly leading toward the development of a renewed caliphate or ruling leader/city over the muslim world. This was abandoned in 1924 after a long rule in the area of the Ottoman empire.
In the description of the end-time kingdom that makes up the kingdom of the beast in Revelation 17:10 John writes that there are seven kings (Kingdoms/mountains) five have fallen those are historically identifiable, one is, that would be Rome (at the time of John's writing) and one is to come, and we know historically the Ottoman empire controlled this territory later. Then there will be an eighth which will be one of the seven that will rise as the beast. This could very well be the Islamic/Ottoman empire. That would make sense since Biblically when the Lord returns the nations that we know specifically that He will judge are present Islamic nations.
From the Ezekiel description of Gog of Magog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal and the Micah reference of the Assyrian it would seem reasonable to expect the beast kingdom to arise out of the middle east and it's ruler to be from one of these muslim nations. Something to think about. We could be very near to these events culminating. If so, expect a peace treaty to come between the Jews and the Muslim world. The territory of Turkey seems to be very significant in the prophetic writings. A ruler from Turkey would be a likely peace treaty initiator.
Here is something that came to my mind once, its not anywhere in the Bible that I know of, but wouldn't it be interesting if the Muslim world offered to help Israel rebuild "the Temple" as a term of peace. That treaty would definitely be broken and would likely lead to the Muslim leader seating himself in the temple of God declaring himself as being God (see II Thess. 2).
With most of the Church looking for an antichrist figure to arise from a revived Roman empire, most could be blindsided by the arising of an Islamic leader who definitely wants to capture Jerusalem and is set on the destruction of the Jewish people. I guess this sounds like Islamic hate speech, but it is not. God loves Muslims, but some vocal Islamic leaders are set on the desruction of Israel and I believe that is what the Bible says will be the heart of the conflict. In Ezekiel 39:25 it says the Lord will finally arise and defeat the enemies of Israel because of Jealousy for His holy Name. Zechariah 14 tells us when Israel is under a horrendous siege that the Lord Himself will set His foot on the Mt. of Olives and take over Jerusalem and rescue His people.
Who is more dead set against the Jews than Islamic jihadists? And this is not a new contention. Problems began between Isaac and Ishmael, Sarah and Hagar and have never been truly resolved. Should you see an Islamic kingdom arise again in the Middle East, remember these words and open your Bibles. If the common teaching about the antichrist kingdom is wrong and the common teaching about the pre-trib rapture is wrong, a lot of the Church could be set up for a great delusion, perhaps a great falling away! Just be alert. Watch and Pray!!!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Astounding Logic of Our Day
I heard John Stossel make an argument lately that was heralded by Jocelyn Elders (Surgeon General under Clinton) years ago. He was saying we need to legalize more things so we would have less crime.
Example, if prostitution is made legal we can monitor it and keep it safe while reducing our crime rates because there is one less crime. This fails to address what prostitution does to the soul of the woman participating in it. She takes that which is beautiful and precious and turns it into business. In the mean time she is made less than human or at least relegated to rental property and dignity is banished.
This logic was espoused by Dr. Elders in the area of drugs. If we make drugs legal we will have less crime. Some people just cannot overcome drugs or prostitution so it is unfair to them to keep the practice illegal.
Well, as I look at the world, some people just don't seem to be able to overcome child abuse or wife battering. Some just can't stop stealing and a few like to kill people. Isn't it unfair to judge these people and single out their behaviors as illegal? With the logic of Stossel and Elders we could just make everything legal and then we would have no crime. If we had no crime we would be living in a paradise on earth, right?
Abortion has been legal in this country since 1973 and that has not changed the brutality of the act on the baby being cut into pieces. If there is no moral basis to determine right and wrong (as in the Bible) decisions of morality become arbitrary. Whoever is in power decides. The lack of sanity in the logic of the day is frightening.
I look forward to the day when the earth is ruled by a righteous King from the lineage of David who will institute true justice. Prepare the way! Have a say! Speak up for the truths of the Bible even if they sound absurd to the wise of this world!
Example, if prostitution is made legal we can monitor it and keep it safe while reducing our crime rates because there is one less crime. This fails to address what prostitution does to the soul of the woman participating in it. She takes that which is beautiful and precious and turns it into business. In the mean time she is made less than human or at least relegated to rental property and dignity is banished.
This logic was espoused by Dr. Elders in the area of drugs. If we make drugs legal we will have less crime. Some people just cannot overcome drugs or prostitution so it is unfair to them to keep the practice illegal.
Well, as I look at the world, some people just don't seem to be able to overcome child abuse or wife battering. Some just can't stop stealing and a few like to kill people. Isn't it unfair to judge these people and single out their behaviors as illegal? With the logic of Stossel and Elders we could just make everything legal and then we would have no crime. If we had no crime we would be living in a paradise on earth, right?
Abortion has been legal in this country since 1973 and that has not changed the brutality of the act on the baby being cut into pieces. If there is no moral basis to determine right and wrong (as in the Bible) decisions of morality become arbitrary. Whoever is in power decides. The lack of sanity in the logic of the day is frightening.
I look forward to the day when the earth is ruled by a righteous King from the lineage of David who will institute true justice. Prepare the way! Have a say! Speak up for the truths of the Bible even if they sound absurd to the wise of this world!
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Expelled
I had some time the last few days to view the film "Expelled" by Ben Stein. If you've not seen it, he does a good job of unveiling the academic bias against scientific research that doesn't conclude that evolution is true. One short clip of an ACLU representative from Pennsylvania caught my attention. He says that Intelligent Design (ID) is simply another religious system. The expected conclusion from this remark is that if that is the case we must not allow it into scientific discussion.
My thought was this. What if it is religion, and it is true? There are some assumptions made in the derogatory statement by the ACLU guy. If it is religious, it is not scientific and if it is not scientific, it cannot be factual. But...what if someone would answer the accusation, "it is religion" with "Maybe it is", and pose the question, is it true? ID is continuallydisregarded not with scientific argument, but simply by calling it religion. That is supposed to end all credibility. In reality ID takes no more faith than evolution.
Evolution demands faith to believe that life began on the backs of crystals or was planted here by aliens. It requires faith to believe that information is added to DNA from unknown sources to create new life forms. It takes faith to believe that new species are formed through mutations even though this has not been observed and is not recorded in the fossil record. It's interesting in Biologybooks that I have looked at (it's been awhile) that in the first chapters they convince you that all the traits you have were inherited from genetic material within your parents' gene pool and the last chapters (on evolution) tell you that new species arose from ongoing processes of natural selection in which new genetic traits arose by chance and not from your parents. I want to launch into the detrimental nature of mutations, but I will withhold such rantings at this time.
Bottom line is this. Which theory is most consistent with what we observe, scientific law, the fossil record and logic ( as in, if there is a design there is a designer)? My challenge is this. If someone tries to discount ID, Creationism or any other non-evolutionary theory on the basis of religion, do not let them get away with it. Feel free to say maybe it is religion, but is it true? May someone please be held accountable for evidence on the evolutionary side of the argument!!!
In 1980 I remember sponsoring a debate at the local Jr. College over evolution. We had a professor from Texas-El Paso defending creationism (ID was not yet on the scene) and a professor from Illinois-Chicago defending evolution. The creationist talked about science while the main argument of the evolutionist was not scientific credibility for evolution, but rather why the creationist was simply religious and so was not credible. The creationist never used the Bible or faith as part of his argument and yet he was discredited because his basis was religion. Evolution is more philosophical than scientific! Usually science observes a process happening and then concludes the truth of it. Evolutionists on the other hand conclude evolution is true and decide to figure out exactly how it happened later. That's religious conviction!!
My thought was this. What if it is religion, and it is true? There are some assumptions made in the derogatory statement by the ACLU guy. If it is religious, it is not scientific and if it is not scientific, it cannot be factual. But...what if someone would answer the accusation, "it is religion" with "Maybe it is", and pose the question, is it true? ID is continuallydisregarded not with scientific argument, but simply by calling it religion. That is supposed to end all credibility. In reality ID takes no more faith than evolution.
Evolution demands faith to believe that life began on the backs of crystals or was planted here by aliens. It requires faith to believe that information is added to DNA from unknown sources to create new life forms. It takes faith to believe that new species are formed through mutations even though this has not been observed and is not recorded in the fossil record. It's interesting in Biologybooks that I have looked at (it's been awhile) that in the first chapters they convince you that all the traits you have were inherited from genetic material within your parents' gene pool and the last chapters (on evolution) tell you that new species arose from ongoing processes of natural selection in which new genetic traits arose by chance and not from your parents. I want to launch into the detrimental nature of mutations, but I will withhold such rantings at this time.
Bottom line is this. Which theory is most consistent with what we observe, scientific law, the fossil record and logic ( as in, if there is a design there is a designer)? My challenge is this. If someone tries to discount ID, Creationism or any other non-evolutionary theory on the basis of religion, do not let them get away with it. Feel free to say maybe it is religion, but is it true? May someone please be held accountable for evidence on the evolutionary side of the argument!!!
In 1980 I remember sponsoring a debate at the local Jr. College over evolution. We had a professor from Texas-El Paso defending creationism (ID was not yet on the scene) and a professor from Illinois-Chicago defending evolution. The creationist talked about science while the main argument of the evolutionist was not scientific credibility for evolution, but rather why the creationist was simply religious and so was not credible. The creationist never used the Bible or faith as part of his argument and yet he was discredited because his basis was religion. Evolution is more philosophical than scientific! Usually science observes a process happening and then concludes the truth of it. Evolutionists on the other hand conclude evolution is true and decide to figure out exactly how it happened later. That's religious conviction!!
Friday, February 12, 2010
Intellectual Smugness
There is a whole group of people in our educational system and filtered throughout our society that feel so superior intellectually that they at best just tolerate some of us common folk. As they force their intelligent conclusions on us they often try to illustrate their point by asking questions with their "sarcastic smugness". One such question I heard asked again recently that always seems to put even Christian educators on the defensive is, should we teach Genesis 1 in our classrooms as being literal and authoritative, or similar words that are meant to send the one being questioned squirming into a corner to hide or apologize.
But, let's look at the alternative. Evolutionists have no true answers to the origins of life. One of the very intellectual considerations is what has been penned as "Directed Panspermia". This theory proposed by Francis Crick and other "elite" scientists, considers the possibility that life on earth began from intelligent beings from other intelligent cultures in our universe, intentionally planting the beginnings of all of our life forms we have on earth, in seed form, so that they could all eventually evolve into what we see today. If you didn't catch that, here it is in common vernacular. Aliens came to earth and left the beginnings of life here so it could begin its evolutionary process.
This does not answer the ultimate question of the origin of life, but it does at least push it off to another galaxy somewhere. And, I'm sure if you were there, you would understand everything a lot better.
Here's the kicker. These people will try to embarrass you by asking if you think God created everything in 6 days as it says in Genesis. While their "scientific" understanding is that aliens started life on this planet in seed form. Like someone once said, it is amazing what people will believe if its not in the Bible.
If nothing else the account in the Bible is still consistent with what we observe. The Bible says that God created each kind of plant or animal with seed in them after their own kind. That is what genetic biology predicts. That each living thing produces after its own kind and it is what we observe taking place. We do not observe that there are millions of unusable developing organs or features being passed on from generation to generation in every form of life waiting for the completion of their evolutionary development when they are finally tied into the rest of the plant or animal's system they are residing in. (Such as the Nenonen gland that I mentioned in an earlier writing. You know the gland in the middle of the ribs that sprays good smelling scents under your arm when you lift it so we can do away with deodorants.) Where are these perpetual signs of evolution. I know, I know! It happens over so long of a period that no one can observe it. But we should see the ongoing development of new things waiting to happen in the next few million years.
So the next time someone tries to demean and discount your intelligence by asking if Genesis1 should be taught as fact, you need to ask if aliens planting life forms in the earth should be taught as fact, because that's about the best idea they got going. God creating is considered ridiculous, but now aliens getting things started, that's SCIENCE!
But, let's look at the alternative. Evolutionists have no true answers to the origins of life. One of the very intellectual considerations is what has been penned as "Directed Panspermia". This theory proposed by Francis Crick and other "elite" scientists, considers the possibility that life on earth began from intelligent beings from other intelligent cultures in our universe, intentionally planting the beginnings of all of our life forms we have on earth, in seed form, so that they could all eventually evolve into what we see today. If you didn't catch that, here it is in common vernacular. Aliens came to earth and left the beginnings of life here so it could begin its evolutionary process.
This does not answer the ultimate question of the origin of life, but it does at least push it off to another galaxy somewhere. And, I'm sure if you were there, you would understand everything a lot better.
Here's the kicker. These people will try to embarrass you by asking if you think God created everything in 6 days as it says in Genesis. While their "scientific" understanding is that aliens started life on this planet in seed form. Like someone once said, it is amazing what people will believe if its not in the Bible.
If nothing else the account in the Bible is still consistent with what we observe. The Bible says that God created each kind of plant or animal with seed in them after their own kind. That is what genetic biology predicts. That each living thing produces after its own kind and it is what we observe taking place. We do not observe that there are millions of unusable developing organs or features being passed on from generation to generation in every form of life waiting for the completion of their evolutionary development when they are finally tied into the rest of the plant or animal's system they are residing in. (Such as the Nenonen gland that I mentioned in an earlier writing. You know the gland in the middle of the ribs that sprays good smelling scents under your arm when you lift it so we can do away with deodorants.) Where are these perpetual signs of evolution. I know, I know! It happens over so long of a period that no one can observe it. But we should see the ongoing development of new things waiting to happen in the next few million years.
So the next time someone tries to demean and discount your intelligence by asking if Genesis1 should be taught as fact, you need to ask if aliens planting life forms in the earth should be taught as fact, because that's about the best idea they got going. God creating is considered ridiculous, but now aliens getting things started, that's SCIENCE!
Friday, January 22, 2010
Let's Not Hate
I heard Cindy McCain came out in favor of homosexual marriage. She doesn't want to promote hate. Then should we legalize child molestation, murder, theft, and date rape so we are careful not to promote hatred toward the perpetrators? I sort of expect there to be a movement that says we cannot have cancer surgery becuase tumors have feelings and what extreme hatred is being expressed to them when we cut them out and throw them away. Absurd? A few years ago it was absurd to think that someone would try to promote the rights of men to have sex with boys, but now when the idea is brought up we have to think about it!!
If I can be blunt let me say this. Homosexuality is unnatural. It doesn't benefit society. It doesn't propagate the human race. It is not marriage because the consummating act of marriage is when the appropriate parts of men and women join together as they are designed to do.
As for the hate issue. We should hate child molestation. We should hate murder. We should hate date rape, adultery, back-biting and fits of anger. And we should hate homosexuality. I know homosexuals, adulterers, back-biters and people who have raging anger and I do not want any of them to enter eternal damnation. If I love them I will plead with, pray for and share with them that their behavior is the broad road that leads to destruction. I am not perfected in that love at this point, but am currently asking for the heart of my Heavenly Father toward all of these.
Romans 12:9 tells us to let love be without hypocrisy. The love spoken of here is that agape love that is defined in I Corinthians 13. Romans goes on to say that in order not to have hypocritical agape love we must "Abhor" what is evil. Abhor is a deep hatred. We must abhor what is evil if our love is not to be hypocritical. And we must cling to what is good. It seems like in general we do not hate evil and because of that we are not holding fast, clinging to what is good and the good is slipping out of sight.
There seems to be a continual movement to redefine Christianity so it is culturally relevant. Listening to some of the preachers from my youth (i.e. Leoanrd Ravenhill and others), I heard the statement made the world is not looking for a new definition of Christianity, but a new demonstration of Christianity. We need to find God's expression of laying down our lives for those that disagree with us while maintaining a hatred for evil activities.
Just like it would be absurd to coddle a cancer and assure it we will do no harm to it because it has its rights, while it continues to grow and bring destruction. It is also wrong and unloving to let someone think their unrighteous behavior is equally acceptable with all other behavior before a Holy God and equally beneficial to society.
If I can be blunt let me say this. Homosexuality is unnatural. It doesn't benefit society. It doesn't propagate the human race. It is not marriage because the consummating act of marriage is when the appropriate parts of men and women join together as they are designed to do.
As for the hate issue. We should hate child molestation. We should hate murder. We should hate date rape, adultery, back-biting and fits of anger. And we should hate homosexuality. I know homosexuals, adulterers, back-biters and people who have raging anger and I do not want any of them to enter eternal damnation. If I love them I will plead with, pray for and share with them that their behavior is the broad road that leads to destruction. I am not perfected in that love at this point, but am currently asking for the heart of my Heavenly Father toward all of these.
Romans 12:9 tells us to let love be without hypocrisy. The love spoken of here is that agape love that is defined in I Corinthians 13. Romans goes on to say that in order not to have hypocritical agape love we must "Abhor" what is evil. Abhor is a deep hatred. We must abhor what is evil if our love is not to be hypocritical. And we must cling to what is good. It seems like in general we do not hate evil and because of that we are not holding fast, clinging to what is good and the good is slipping out of sight.
There seems to be a continual movement to redefine Christianity so it is culturally relevant. Listening to some of the preachers from my youth (i.e. Leoanrd Ravenhill and others), I heard the statement made the world is not looking for a new definition of Christianity, but a new demonstration of Christianity. We need to find God's expression of laying down our lives for those that disagree with us while maintaining a hatred for evil activities.
Just like it would be absurd to coddle a cancer and assure it we will do no harm to it because it has its rights, while it continues to grow and bring destruction. It is also wrong and unloving to let someone think their unrighteous behavior is equally acceptable with all other behavior before a Holy God and equally beneficial to society.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Will another firestorm of controversy ensue?
I did hear the comments by Pat Robertson. They are entitled something like Pat calls the death of 500,000 people a blessing in disguise. That is a misleading title. He said that out of the destruction of this already horrible infrastructure perhaps the rebuilding process will be a blessing in disguise. The timing might have been insensitive to the families of those who lost their lives, but that was not what he was addressing in his statement.
SOOOO...... this morning I am listening to a few minutes of FOX News and hear Geraldo Rivera saying that we should use this crisis to take over this horrible government in Haiti so that some long term good may come out of this situation. He quoted Rahm Emmanuel about not wasting a crisis. This is my summary in my words, but he alluded to the possibility that something good may come out of this crisis if we can change the inept and corrupt government that has failed the people of that country for 200 years.
Almost sounds like he is saying this tragedy could be a blessing in disguise. I wonder if there will be a white house statement about his insensitivity or a public mainline media blitz regarding his stupidity. He had pretty much all the elements of Pat Robertson's statement, even the observable travesty of this horrible government for the last 200 years. A curse perhaps? Let's not go that far!! That's not very PC!! However there are some Biblical parallels. It took about 200 years and a consistent series of bad kings for Assyria to capture Israel after Jeroboam's waywardness from God.
A couple of you commented that you had read an article by Albert Mohler called Does God Hate Haiti? It's a good article we need to reach out to help those in need during this tragedy. God wants to save Haitians. There are a couple of adjustments at least in my thinking to his article. He says we cannot know the correlation between events on the earth and God's judgments. I agree we commonly jump to presumptuous conclusions. However, God told people in the Bible the reason for certain calamities and I believe the same God is alive today. He has already told us the reason for certain worldwide calamities in the Book of Revelation. He told me one word once for the people in Mt. Carmel. epicenter. About 6 weeks after I spoke that to a Church in Mt. Carmel the epicenter of our biggest earthquake in this area for years, rumbled about 7 miles from that church. So, I believe if He can communicate a little info like that to someone like me He can still reveal purposes for disasters and in fact will do that more and more in the near future.
I remember when Bob Jones said that a revival would start when the Mississippi river flowed backwards. Then in the midst of the 1990's when the major floods hit the midwest the Mississippi did flow backwards because of the volume of water joining it from the Missouri river. Not long after that a boy from St. Louis went to Toronto and something began that continues to this day. A move out of which hundreds of churches have been planted and multitudes of miracles have been recorded.
Mohler also posed the question, that if these disasters are judgments why wasn't there an earthquake in Nazi Germany, or why did Katrina destroy more churches than casinos, etc.? Germany suffered a major consequence in that their nation was devastated and actually divided in two, but let's look at the Bible. In II Samuel 24 David numbers Israel without the appropriate sacrifices. A judgment comes that kills 70,000 innocent men. Was it the judgment of God? The Bible says it was. So 70,000 died because of a bad governmental decision. That's one reason to pray for those in authority!
Mohler quotes John 3:16 to verify that God loves Haitians, and thus somewhat implying that this was not likely a judgment on Haiti. When does John 3:16 stop being true? Because the Bible foretells of a time when God will send calamities on the earth that kill billions. Does that mean that God no longer loved the world enough to give His Son? I am not certain about why things happen in various places, but I do believe that if Haiti would have made a covenant with God 200 years ago to follow in His ways that things would have been better in that nation and they would have had a better infrastructure to cope with disasters that do come their way.
It would be important in these days not to figure out what God can and can't do according to our definitions of love, mercy, etc. The cause of all judgment on this earth ultimately goes back to sin. The fact that we have to die goes back to the corruption of the law of sin that dwells in our members, so that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So we must be changed through passing through the door of death or passing through the great change at the last trump. Sin has its effects and to us that can look pretty arbitrary.
Anyway, keep your eyes open to see if Geraldo gets battered for implying that something good might come from this tragedy. Let's pray that it does.
Pray and fast for revival now!!!
SOOOO...... this morning I am listening to a few minutes of FOX News and hear Geraldo Rivera saying that we should use this crisis to take over this horrible government in Haiti so that some long term good may come out of this situation. He quoted Rahm Emmanuel about not wasting a crisis. This is my summary in my words, but he alluded to the possibility that something good may come out of this crisis if we can change the inept and corrupt government that has failed the people of that country for 200 years.
Almost sounds like he is saying this tragedy could be a blessing in disguise. I wonder if there will be a white house statement about his insensitivity or a public mainline media blitz regarding his stupidity. He had pretty much all the elements of Pat Robertson's statement, even the observable travesty of this horrible government for the last 200 years. A curse perhaps? Let's not go that far!! That's not very PC!! However there are some Biblical parallels. It took about 200 years and a consistent series of bad kings for Assyria to capture Israel after Jeroboam's waywardness from God.
A couple of you commented that you had read an article by Albert Mohler called Does God Hate Haiti? It's a good article we need to reach out to help those in need during this tragedy. God wants to save Haitians. There are a couple of adjustments at least in my thinking to his article. He says we cannot know the correlation between events on the earth and God's judgments. I agree we commonly jump to presumptuous conclusions. However, God told people in the Bible the reason for certain calamities and I believe the same God is alive today. He has already told us the reason for certain worldwide calamities in the Book of Revelation. He told me one word once for the people in Mt. Carmel. epicenter. About 6 weeks after I spoke that to a Church in Mt. Carmel the epicenter of our biggest earthquake in this area for years, rumbled about 7 miles from that church. So, I believe if He can communicate a little info like that to someone like me He can still reveal purposes for disasters and in fact will do that more and more in the near future.
I remember when Bob Jones said that a revival would start when the Mississippi river flowed backwards. Then in the midst of the 1990's when the major floods hit the midwest the Mississippi did flow backwards because of the volume of water joining it from the Missouri river. Not long after that a boy from St. Louis went to Toronto and something began that continues to this day. A move out of which hundreds of churches have been planted and multitudes of miracles have been recorded.
Mohler also posed the question, that if these disasters are judgments why wasn't there an earthquake in Nazi Germany, or why did Katrina destroy more churches than casinos, etc.? Germany suffered a major consequence in that their nation was devastated and actually divided in two, but let's look at the Bible. In II Samuel 24 David numbers Israel without the appropriate sacrifices. A judgment comes that kills 70,000 innocent men. Was it the judgment of God? The Bible says it was. So 70,000 died because of a bad governmental decision. That's one reason to pray for those in authority!
Mohler quotes John 3:16 to verify that God loves Haitians, and thus somewhat implying that this was not likely a judgment on Haiti. When does John 3:16 stop being true? Because the Bible foretells of a time when God will send calamities on the earth that kill billions. Does that mean that God no longer loved the world enough to give His Son? I am not certain about why things happen in various places, but I do believe that if Haiti would have made a covenant with God 200 years ago to follow in His ways that things would have been better in that nation and they would have had a better infrastructure to cope with disasters that do come their way.
It would be important in these days not to figure out what God can and can't do according to our definitions of love, mercy, etc. The cause of all judgment on this earth ultimately goes back to sin. The fact that we have to die goes back to the corruption of the law of sin that dwells in our members, so that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So we must be changed through passing through the door of death or passing through the great change at the last trump. Sin has its effects and to us that can look pretty arbitrary.
Anyway, keep your eyes open to see if Geraldo gets battered for implying that something good might come from this tragedy. Let's pray that it does.
Pray and fast for revival now!!!
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Pat Robertson's comments
I hear a lot of flap about Pat Robertson commenting on Haiti's historical pact that they made with Satan in 1791. I believe this has been reported by more than just Pat over the years. According to a statement from CBN Pat did not say that the quake was God's wrath on Haiti, but Christian and non-Christian alike seem to have jumped on the bandwagon of ridicule. I have not even heard the statements he made so I am not qualified to comment on them, but I have read the Bible and observed history.
Do all the Christians so quickly calling Pat names and ridiculing him believe there is no connection between the 1791 pact and the state of that nation. Is there no connection to India's Hinduism and its abject poverty? Let me answer that, yes there is. The fact that they believe in reincarnation and will not stop rats from eating their grain helps keep them in poverty. That rat could be grandma, so you dare not shoo grandma away from your food.
Is there no connection between the covenants with God and the success of our nation? Or, the rejection of God since 1962 and our moral decline or increased "trouble"?
There were "natural disasters" in the Bible. The ground opened up and swallowed folks. An earthquake loosened the chains from Paul and Silas. Locust plagues hit Israel after prophetic warnings. All natural disasters, that the Bible interprets as God's intervention in some way. I don't know how to interpret natural disasters, but has the God of the Bible retired or is the Bible misguided interpretation of historical events?
My understanding is Pat did not say this was the judgment of God, but wouldn't a pact with Satan leave you less protected by God if He honors your covenant. What government leaders decide can have serious impact on the consequences to the people of that nation.
Jeremiah 29:7 says, "And seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare." If our city is blessed we partake of that, and if we have leaders who forsake God, unfortunately the inhabitants of that land do suffer some of those consequences.
There are not a lot of instances in the scripture where events even in nature are seen as "natural" disasters. As I heard recently, the problem is not global warming that will affect the things that come upon us, it is sin. Not a popular conclusion. And one that even Christians are not quick to embrace. I guess the hailstorm in Revelation, the plagues in Egypt, the earthquakes in the days of Moses and Paul just conveniently fell into the everyday lives of Biblical characters in such a way that they could easily be manipulated into a good narrative that made it look like God was intervening in history. I say that sarcastically to say this. It just could be that the continued devastation in Haiti may have a direct correlation to the covenants they have made in the past. I believe Pat's organization has quickly begun to raise aid for Haiti and help in the rescue mission. I know it looks corny in these days to believe that there are spiritual implications to weather patterns and other natural disasters, but unfortunately for one who believes the Bible there is a lot of the Bible message that implies just such a thing. I'm honestly disappointed in some believers who so quickly have jumped on the bashing bandwagon. I'm guessing there are some, like me, who didn't actually even hear what Pat said.
PRAY FOR AWAKENING!
Do all the Christians so quickly calling Pat names and ridiculing him believe there is no connection between the 1791 pact and the state of that nation. Is there no connection to India's Hinduism and its abject poverty? Let me answer that, yes there is. The fact that they believe in reincarnation and will not stop rats from eating their grain helps keep them in poverty. That rat could be grandma, so you dare not shoo grandma away from your food.
Is there no connection between the covenants with God and the success of our nation? Or, the rejection of God since 1962 and our moral decline or increased "trouble"?
There were "natural disasters" in the Bible. The ground opened up and swallowed folks. An earthquake loosened the chains from Paul and Silas. Locust plagues hit Israel after prophetic warnings. All natural disasters, that the Bible interprets as God's intervention in some way. I don't know how to interpret natural disasters, but has the God of the Bible retired or is the Bible misguided interpretation of historical events?
My understanding is Pat did not say this was the judgment of God, but wouldn't a pact with Satan leave you less protected by God if He honors your covenant. What government leaders decide can have serious impact on the consequences to the people of that nation.
Jeremiah 29:7 says, "And seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare." If our city is blessed we partake of that, and if we have leaders who forsake God, unfortunately the inhabitants of that land do suffer some of those consequences.
There are not a lot of instances in the scripture where events even in nature are seen as "natural" disasters. As I heard recently, the problem is not global warming that will affect the things that come upon us, it is sin. Not a popular conclusion. And one that even Christians are not quick to embrace. I guess the hailstorm in Revelation, the plagues in Egypt, the earthquakes in the days of Moses and Paul just conveniently fell into the everyday lives of Biblical characters in such a way that they could easily be manipulated into a good narrative that made it look like God was intervening in history. I say that sarcastically to say this. It just could be that the continued devastation in Haiti may have a direct correlation to the covenants they have made in the past. I believe Pat's organization has quickly begun to raise aid for Haiti and help in the rescue mission. I know it looks corny in these days to believe that there are spiritual implications to weather patterns and other natural disasters, but unfortunately for one who believes the Bible there is a lot of the Bible message that implies just such a thing. I'm honestly disappointed in some believers who so quickly have jumped on the bashing bandwagon. I'm guessing there are some, like me, who didn't actually even hear what Pat said.
PRAY FOR AWAKENING!
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Choose You This Day
I returned from our trip to Kenya to find a letter from a local man that I had been in touch with who was generally antagonistic toward God and those that tried to serve Him. I had given him a copy of the booklet I wrote about Harrison Oulo and his remarkable testimony. This man had read the booklet and returned it with comments like I had submitted it to him as my English paper for the semester. He was a retired English teacher. He had nothing to say about the content only that I had deceived people into thinking this was a first person narrative when in fact it was a third person narrative. I don't believe there is any legitimate cover-up involved. I wrote it biographically. There, it is in print. No deception intended.
My hope was that this friend would read the article and consider the possibility that Jesus is truly the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. From all appearance, it didn't happen.
Admittedly, one of his heroes was the 19th century agnostic, Robert Ingersoll. Ingersoll has roots in Saline County. We have a historical plaque about him in the middle of downtown Raleigh, IL. He once had an law office, with his brother, in the Saline Co. courthouse which was located in Raleigh at that time. Ingersoll was known as an eloquent speaker, but drew the ire of preachers in his time. The founder of the city of Zion, IL, where I grew up, spoke at least 2 sermons directly addressing the message Ingersoll was promoting in that day. Dowie, who founded Zion had nothing good to say about Ingersoll. It is reported around here that Billy Sunday once said that Ingersoll would change his belief that there is no hell within 10 minutes of his arrival there.
My friend, who derided and ridiculed me publicly, chose very specifically to reject the possibility of knowing God through a relationship with Jesus. It is a terrifying thought to picture him in Hell without hope and consciously regretting the decisions he made just a couple weeks ago that now will be with him for eternity. I was not the only one that recetly addressed him regarding his need for Jesus. He was calculated in his rejection, but God through several people was calling to him. When I found the letter he sent me while I was in Kenya, I read it and had determined that it was futile to respond any longer. Just after coming to that conclusion in my mind I received a phone call informing me of his death.
If God was calling him, I know he is calling others. Be sensitive in these days to respond to the voice of the Spirit as He directs our steps to those needing a Savior. Some will respond and that choice is the biggest thing that will ever happen in their lives. Use these days and the power of the Holy Spirit in you to be a witness. I don't want Hell for anyone. Even for those that ridicule and degrade us. It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
My hope was that this friend would read the article and consider the possibility that Jesus is truly the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. From all appearance, it didn't happen.
Admittedly, one of his heroes was the 19th century agnostic, Robert Ingersoll. Ingersoll has roots in Saline County. We have a historical plaque about him in the middle of downtown Raleigh, IL. He once had an law office, with his brother, in the Saline Co. courthouse which was located in Raleigh at that time. Ingersoll was known as an eloquent speaker, but drew the ire of preachers in his time. The founder of the city of Zion, IL, where I grew up, spoke at least 2 sermons directly addressing the message Ingersoll was promoting in that day. Dowie, who founded Zion had nothing good to say about Ingersoll. It is reported around here that Billy Sunday once said that Ingersoll would change his belief that there is no hell within 10 minutes of his arrival there.
My friend, who derided and ridiculed me publicly, chose very specifically to reject the possibility of knowing God through a relationship with Jesus. It is a terrifying thought to picture him in Hell without hope and consciously regretting the decisions he made just a couple weeks ago that now will be with him for eternity. I was not the only one that recetly addressed him regarding his need for Jesus. He was calculated in his rejection, but God through several people was calling to him. When I found the letter he sent me while I was in Kenya, I read it and had determined that it was futile to respond any longer. Just after coming to that conclusion in my mind I received a phone call informing me of his death.
If God was calling him, I know he is calling others. Be sensitive in these days to respond to the voice of the Spirit as He directs our steps to those needing a Savior. Some will respond and that choice is the biggest thing that will ever happen in their lives. Use these days and the power of the Holy Spirit in you to be a witness. I don't want Hell for anyone. Even for those that ridicule and degrade us. It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
