ENGLISH ONLY EDITION. Light is sown like seed for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Psalm 97:11
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Monday, June 29, 2015
Sunday, June 28, 2015
While We Were Distracted With The Confederate Flag Flap, Congress Quietly Forfeited our Entire Economic Future Via Fast Track Trade Authority
Reblogged from worldtruth.tv
source
Founder of WorldTruth.Tv and WomansVibe.com Eddie (4767 Posts)
Eddie L. is the founder and owner of WorldTruth.TV. This website is dedicated to educating and informing people with articles on powerful and concealed information from around the world. I have spent the last 30+ years researching Bible, History, Secret Societies, Symbolism
While America was distracted by a
contrived, pre-planned Confederate flag distraction, the U.S. Congress
forfeited the entire economic future of the country by quietly passing so-called “fast-track authority” which will allow President Obama to approve the TPP “free trade” agreement.
The TPP, as you may have heard, outright
surrenders U.S. sovereignty to multinational corporations, handing them
total global monopolies over labor practices, immigration, Big Pharma
drug pricing, GMO food labeling, criminalization of garden seeds and
much more. In all, the TPP hands over control of 80% of the U.S. economy to global monopolists, and the TPP is set up to enable those corporations to engage in virtuallyunlimited toxic chemical pollution, medical monopolization, the gutting of labor safety laws and much more.
Plus, did I mention the TPP will displace
millions of American works as corporations outsource jobs to foreign
workers? While corporations rake in the profits from new global powers,
everyday American workers will lose their livelihoods and their jobs
(not to mention their pensions).
Political sleight of hand: It was SOOOO easy to distract the American people with a flag flap!
Essentially, America just got sold out by people like Marco Rubio.
And it was incredibly easy to pull off, too. First, America was
distracted by a contrived, pre-planned mass hysteria / outrage event now
known as the Confederate flag flap. Hilariously, this literal false flag controversy doesn’t even involve the actual Confederate flag. It involves a battle flag that people mistakenly think is the Confederate flag. (But who needs historical accuracy when there’s hysteria to spread?)
While Amazon.com was frantically deleting Confederate flag products from its website and everybody was going bat-crap insane over the 1970’s comedy TV series Dukes of Hazzard
and its use of the so-called Confederate flag on a hot rod car,
Republicans and the President were busy committing outright treason at
the highest levels: surrendering American sovereignty and economically enslaving all of America’s future children.
And that’s the tragic irony of all this: While the political left falsely believed
it was denouncing slavery by pressuring every online retailer and
government entity to ban the Confederate flag, the U.S. Congress was
busy enacting a whole new level of total economic enslavement for everyone, regardless of their skin color.
While ignorant “activists” ran around in
mass hysteria, thinking they were banishing a symbol of enslavement to
the history books, they were actually providing the necessary public distraction for quiet passage of the TPP’s fast-track authority.
In other words, they played right into
the hands of the real slave masters: the globalist, monopolist
corporations and their fascist government puppets who betray the People
at every opportunity.
Believe me: These corporations don’t care
about the skin color of their slave workers. They gladly enslave
everyone, including you and me, if we’re stupid enough to allow our own
elected representatives to forfeit America’s future (which they just
did).
Screw the Confederate flag issue, folks: All Americans are now the “property” of multinational monopolist corporations
that have turned national governments against their own people. The
Confederate flag flap was merely a useful distraction to trick the
population using political sleight of hand to fool everyone about the real agenda being pursued in Washington.
America is now officially a nation of
slave workers beholden to multinational corporate interests. How does
your silly flag outrage feel now?
Saturday, June 27, 2015
The Story Behind The Redeemer - Jack Jelley
Commentary by Jack Kelley
As many of you already know, my newest book, The Redeemer, became available this week. Since it’s a little different from my previous efforts I want to give you some background on why I wrote it.
There are three reasons why I think it makes sense for someone in my position to consider this. First, of course, is the rapture of the Church. Without Christians around to maintain them, Christian websites would soon disappear too. And try as I might, I just can’t imagine asking one of my non-believing friends to take over in my absence if I should suddenly disappear, although that could certainly be the spark to ignite a conversation of a different sort. The problem is if the conversation resulted in the friend’s conversion I’d be right back in the same situation. I’d have to find someone who is not a believer now, but was guaranteed to become one right after the rapture. So far the Lord hasn’t revealed such a person to me.
The second reason is an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack. A nuclear warhead detonated in the atmosphere above the US would send an electromagnetic pulse hurtling to Earth at the speed of light. Depending on the height, the location, and the power of the explosion it could destroy all computers and other electronic devices in the US instantly. No more internet. No more electronics of any kind. Experts say this is where we are most vulnerable to terrorists because the capability already exists, it’s a relatively inexpensive weapon, and we have no defense against it.
The third reason is something that’s also in the works. The UN is persisting in their effort to gain control of and regulate the internet. One of their stated goals is to eliminate hate speech, but as we know in some people’s view hate speech includes Biblical Christianity. This is partly due to the fact that we’re opposed to homosexuality and abortion, and believe that non-believers will be condemned. If the UN gets the power it wants, Bible study websites like ours could soon be censored to the point of ineffectiveness.
For these reasons, I concluded that we should also pay attention to some of the more traditional means of mass communications, and that includes writing books. Books are more durable. Once they’re in circulation no one can push a button somewhere and erase them. In short they’re better suited to times of political uncertainty.
The majority of today’s believers are represented by the seed that fell among thorns in Matt. 13:7, which is part of the Kingdom Parables. Jesus described them as being unfruitful because they are too concerned about the things of this world (Matt. 13:22). According to recent surveys over 90% of people who call themselves Christians fall into this category. Now I’m not questioning their salvation. I’m talking about their fruitfulness. Salvation is not a fruit bearing event. It’s what we do after we’re saved that determines our fruitfulness.
An apple tree is born because the seed that was planted in the ground has germinated and produced a new life. It grows to maturity and begins to produce apples. Although the tree was alive from the moment it sprang forth from the soil it wasn’t considered to be fruitful until it produced more of its own kind. After all, apples aren’t just for eating. They’re also for producing more apple trees.
So it is with believers. We’re born again because the seed of the gospel was planted in our heart. But although we’re a new creation from the moment we believe we’re not considered to be fruitful until we produce more of our own kind. We’re not just for singing and praising God. We’re also for producing more Christians (Matt. 28:19-20)
From this I determined that three groups of people could benefit from knowing more about what Christians believe and why we believe it. In no particular order, they are curious unbelievers, new believers, and long time believers who want to become more fruitful.
After some prayer and reflection on this, I felt like the Lord had told me what to write about and who to write it to. I divided the message into eight parts, which became the book’s eight chapters. Eight is the number of new beginnings and it’s my prayer that many who read the book will be motivated to begin their life anew, whether by deciding to become a believer, or by having their faith strengthened through a deeper understanding of what the Lord has done for them.
This
chapter is devoted to a summary of things Jesus taught us about what He
had come to do and why it was important for us to understand that He
wasn’t starting a new religion. On the contrary, He was trying to
re-establish a relationship.
As I did with my last book, I’ve included an appendix with eight of our most popular studies on prophecy, eternal security, and faith. These will facilitate continued growth and understanding.
All that said, I think The Redeemer will accomplish its stated goals in the life of anyone who reads it with a sincere desire to learn. I also think it will make an ideal gift for a person who has expressed interest in our faith, whether as a prelude to a personal discussion or to supplement one you’ve already begun.
Of course, you’d expect me to say something like that. After all, I wrote the book. The best way to see if I’m right is to get a copy and read it for yourself. Selah 01-26-13
As many of you already know, my newest book, The Redeemer, became available this week. Since it’s a little different from my previous efforts I want to give you some background on why I wrote it.
Why Did You Do That?
The
current trend among ministries like ours is to tap into all the
different social networking media in an effort to broaden their
audiences. And while we’ve begun to do that as well, we’ve also been
taking a look at what the world would be like if suddenly there were no
internet ministries.There are three reasons why I think it makes sense for someone in my position to consider this. First, of course, is the rapture of the Church. Without Christians around to maintain them, Christian websites would soon disappear too. And try as I might, I just can’t imagine asking one of my non-believing friends to take over in my absence if I should suddenly disappear, although that could certainly be the spark to ignite a conversation of a different sort. The problem is if the conversation resulted in the friend’s conversion I’d be right back in the same situation. I’d have to find someone who is not a believer now, but was guaranteed to become one right after the rapture. So far the Lord hasn’t revealed such a person to me.
The second reason is an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack. A nuclear warhead detonated in the atmosphere above the US would send an electromagnetic pulse hurtling to Earth at the speed of light. Depending on the height, the location, and the power of the explosion it could destroy all computers and other electronic devices in the US instantly. No more internet. No more electronics of any kind. Experts say this is where we are most vulnerable to terrorists because the capability already exists, it’s a relatively inexpensive weapon, and we have no defense against it.
The third reason is something that’s also in the works. The UN is persisting in their effort to gain control of and regulate the internet. One of their stated goals is to eliminate hate speech, but as we know in some people’s view hate speech includes Biblical Christianity. This is partly due to the fact that we’re opposed to homosexuality and abortion, and believe that non-believers will be condemned. If the UN gets the power it wants, Bible study websites like ours could soon be censored to the point of ineffectiveness.
For these reasons, I concluded that we should also pay attention to some of the more traditional means of mass communications, and that includes writing books. Books are more durable. Once they’re in circulation no one can push a button somewhere and erase them. In short they’re better suited to times of political uncertainty.
What’s It All About?
So
then the question became what to write about. My experience answering
Biblical questions over the past five years has taught me that a lot of
Christians really don’t know very much about our faith. At some point in
their lives they chose to become believers, but because there are so
few opportunities for meaningful discipleship, they frequently just go
on living as they had before. If someone asks them to explain their
faith, they have a hard time doing so because what little knowledge they
have is largely hearsay. And as for having a meaningful discussion with
a curious non-believer, forget about it.The majority of today’s believers are represented by the seed that fell among thorns in Matt. 13:7, which is part of the Kingdom Parables. Jesus described them as being unfruitful because they are too concerned about the things of this world (Matt. 13:22). According to recent surveys over 90% of people who call themselves Christians fall into this category. Now I’m not questioning their salvation. I’m talking about their fruitfulness. Salvation is not a fruit bearing event. It’s what we do after we’re saved that determines our fruitfulness.
An apple tree is born because the seed that was planted in the ground has germinated and produced a new life. It grows to maturity and begins to produce apples. Although the tree was alive from the moment it sprang forth from the soil it wasn’t considered to be fruitful until it produced more of its own kind. After all, apples aren’t just for eating. They’re also for producing more apple trees.
So it is with believers. We’re born again because the seed of the gospel was planted in our heart. But although we’re a new creation from the moment we believe we’re not considered to be fruitful until we produce more of our own kind. We’re not just for singing and praising God. We’re also for producing more Christians (Matt. 28:19-20)
From this I determined that three groups of people could benefit from knowing more about what Christians believe and why we believe it. In no particular order, they are curious unbelievers, new believers, and long time believers who want to become more fruitful.
After some prayer and reflection on this, I felt like the Lord had told me what to write about and who to write it to. I divided the message into eight parts, which became the book’s eight chapters. Eight is the number of new beginnings and it’s my prayer that many who read the book will be motivated to begin their life anew, whether by deciding to become a believer, or by having their faith strengthened through a deeper understanding of what the Lord has done for them.
Chapter 1. The Redeemer Is Promised
The book begins at the beginning, explaining how mankind became estranged from God and why we need a redeemer to bring us back to Him.Chapter 2. The Redeemer Awaits
Chapter two is an overview of what God was doing between the time He promised to send a redeemer and the time of His actual arrival. Think of it as a very brief summary of the Old Testament as it concerns man’s redemption.Chapter 3. The Redeemer Is Given
This is the Christmas story. To show that the Redeemer is the focus of the entire Bible I made liberal use of Old Testament prophecies that foretold of His coming.
Chapter 4. The Redeemer In Ministry
Chapter 5. The Redeemer In Victory
This is the longest chapter in the book and gives a day-by-day description of His official presentation as the Redeemer, His final days of teaching, His crucifixion, and His resurrection, eight days that changed everything between God and man.Chapter 6. The Redeemer In The Church
Following His ascension, the men He had trained and mentored began to build His Church. This chapter shows how the Church began, why and when the New Testament was written and what effect the Redeemer has had in the world. It ends with a prayer that allows those who began reading out of curiosity to become children of God.Chapter 7. The Redeemer In Prophecy
Jesus didn’t die for us just so our sins could be forgiven. He died so whoever believes in Him can have eternal life. Chapter 7 explains why Christians have a right to believe there’s a future in store for us that exceeds our wildest expectations.Chapter 8. The Redeemer Returns
We conclude with a summary of end times events that will take place after the rapture. It shows how God will fulfill the promise he made so long ago to reverse the devastating effects of sin and restore planet Earth to its original condition.In Summary
I wrote the book in simple straight forward language so even people who are not believers could see the importance of changing their lives and becoming born again. I included hundreds of Bible references within the text so new believers could use the book as a study guide to help them understand what our faith is all about. After a few hours of diligent study with nothing but this book in one hand and and a Bible in the other, a new believer can come away with a greater understanding of our faith than most seasoned veterans have. These references will also help long time believers search the Scriptures to prove whether what I’ve written is true in accordance with Acts 17:11, and rekindle the flame of faith they had at the beginning.As I did with my last book, I’ve included an appendix with eight of our most popular studies on prophecy, eternal security, and faith. These will facilitate continued growth and understanding.
All that said, I think The Redeemer will accomplish its stated goals in the life of anyone who reads it with a sincere desire to learn. I also think it will make an ideal gift for a person who has expressed interest in our faith, whether as a prelude to a personal discussion or to supplement one you’ve already begun.
Of course, you’d expect me to say something like that. After all, I wrote the book. The best way to see if I’m right is to get a copy and read it for yourself. Selah 01-26-13
Friday, June 26, 2015
A Dirge For America… Pr. Bill Randles
Take up this Lamentation for the Land of the Free,
America, once the liberator of others, who will liberate you?
Are you really free? Free of what?
You have set your self free alright,
By your social revolution, you are now free from
Marriage, commitment, family, and fruitfulness
Yours is the freedom of the madman,
who observes no conventions, who wears no clothes,
and who breaks all chains, (He will NOT be restrained)
and who now lives among the tombs crying and cutting himself…
Yours is the Freedom of Adam and Eve,
Who broke away from God, and from Eden, and from all that was good…
Do you know what you have forfeited? Do you know what you have lost?
Sing this dirge for America the Beautiful….
America you really were beautiful,
What an idea! A republic based upon self rule,
Limits upon Government power, based upon a biblical view of man,
Lex Rex, and not Rex Lex,
So compatible with virtue!
Hard work and Merit were rewarded in you,
You put no limits on success or failure…
No wonder the oppressed around this sad world looked to your shining light!
Why wouldn’t people flock to the shores of the opportunities you offered?
But there is no Beauty without goodness…(Envy isn’t good)
and we seem to be forsaking goodness…
Cry aloud for the home of the Brave…
You left all to come here, O nation of pioneers,
You cleared the paths for others, and pushed back the frontiers,
O Pilgrim people, who wanted only to worship God,
Bravely you set out, with the Bible in hand…
When did the Word become the enemy?
Who has bewitched you America?
What is this Separation of church and state? Who invented this?
Didn’t we know that men such as Winthrop, Jonathan Edwards, and Washington,
were gifts from God, the right men for the right time?
How could we forget? Only if the Lord guards the city, that we are safe?
O People who sent their sons overseas to fight to free others,
Should one drop of blood be shed to promote “gay rights”?
Do we give our sons to die for abortion?
Mourn that these are your leaders,
they are Reeds Shaken by the wind!
Politicians who lick their fingers,
They sniff the air like a dog in heat, howling, ‘where is the money?
Where is the power?’ and ‘ Whats in it for me?’
Their primary loyalty is to self,
They are Prostitutes who sell their power for gain.
Like a fox in the hen house, Moslems have infiltrated our services,
Homosexuals have desecrated our military,
Degenerates besiege the family!
O Who will rise up for us against the evildoers?
The prophets warned us, that When the Lord judges a people,
He takes away from them the statesmen, the general, the honorable man,
Until the worst among us are given the rule,
Remember the Words of Isaiah?
“And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.”
Plead for the Prodigal Nation,
For the LORD whom she has forgotten,
Is gracious and kind,
His very nature is to restore, to forgive and Heal,
The source of our blessings Is of long endurance,
Yea, the longsuffering of God is salvation,
He is likely to forgive, His mercies are ever new,
If we turn to Him with all of our hearts,
If we agree with Him again, as in olden times
When real leaders called us to prayer, and humble supplication,
And God shed his grace upon us in countless ways!
HOWL for the Day of the Lord is at hand!
weep for the miseries soon to descend!!
You thought you were a queen and could not be touched,
You boasted that you were immune to the suffering of the others
But you didn’t understand, you wouldn’t consider
that the protection and abundance you once knew,
were gifts from the one your elites have spurned!
Those who Seduced You have now turned against you
They have slain you, and exposed your nakedness,
they have not been protectors of your rights or persons,
instead they have sold you to your enemies,
Because they have despised you all along, and all that you once stood for,
They would lead you, and your children to Hell.
Come back to the One who founded you, to the Shepherd who laid his life down, to the only author of liberty…seek ye the Lord while He can be found, call upon Him while he is near!
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.( I Corinthians 6)
Question: "What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?"
Reblogged from gotquestions.org
Answer: While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.
Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.
The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.
So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman—why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive of—or at least far less opposed to—gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?
The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”
To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.
According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).
Recommended Resources: The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage: 6 Things You Must Know About What's Really at Stake by Erwin Lutzer and Logos Bible Software.
Related Topics:
Why are Christians opposed to marriage equality?
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?
What is a Third Way church?
Should a Christian attend the wedding of a gay couple?
Is it possible to be a gay Christian?
Answer: While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.
Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female. The first mention of marriage, Genesis 2:24, describes it as a man leaving his parents and being united to his wife. In passages that contain instructions regarding marriage, such as 1 Corinthians 7:2-16 and Ephesians 5:23-33, the Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.
The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.
So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman—why is there such a controversy today? Why are those who are opposed to gay marriage/same-sex marriage labeled as hateful, intolerant bigots, no matter how respectfully the opposition is presented? Why is the gay rights movement so aggressively pushing for gay marriage/same-sex marriage when most people, religious and non-religious, are supportive of—or at least far less opposed to—gay couples having all the same legal rights as married couples with some form of civil union?
The answer, according to the Bible, is that everyone inherently knows that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural, and the only way to suppress this inherent knowledge is by normalizing homosexuality and attacking any and all opposition to it. The best way to normalize homosexuality is by placing gay marriage/same-sex marriage on an equal plane with traditional opposite-gender marriage. Romans 1:18-32 illustrates this. The truth is known because God has made it plain. The truth is rejected and replaced with a lie. The lie is then promoted and the truth suppressed and attacked. The vehemence and anger expressed by many in the gay rights movement to any who oppose them is, in fact, an indication that they know their position is indefensible. Trying to overcome a weak position by raising your voice is the oldest trick in the debating book. There is perhaps no more accurate description of the modern gay rights agenda than Romans 1:31, “they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”
To give sanction to gay marriage/same-sex marriage would be to give approval to the homosexual lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage. Further, there are strong and logical arguments against gay marriage/same-sex marriage from contexts completely separated from the Bible. One does not have to be an evangelical Christian to recognize that marriage is between a man and a woman.
According to the Bible, marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Gay marriage/same-sex marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. As Christians, we are not to condone or ignore sin. Rather, we are to share the love of God and the forgiveness of sins that is available to all, including homosexuals, through Jesus Christ. We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) and contend for truth with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15). As Christians, when we make a stand for truth and the result is personal attacks, insults, and persecution, we should remember the words of Jesus: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).
Recommended Resources: The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage: 6 Things You Must Know About What's Really at Stake by Erwin Lutzer and Logos Bible Software.
Why are Christians opposed to marriage equality?
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?
What is a Third Way church?
Should a Christian attend the wedding of a gay couple?
Is it possible to be a gay Christian?
Monday, June 22, 2015
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Welcome to Italy: this is what a real immigration crisis looks like
Reblogged from http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9560982/the-invasion-of-italy/
With 50,000 boat people in just six months, and more to come, the politics of asylum here is becoming increasingly toxic
Let us suppose that first the Royal Navy, then the navies of a dozen other EU countries, start to search for all such vessels in the Channel right up to the French coast, out into the North Sea and the Atlantic even, and then ferry all the passengers on board to Dover, Folkestone, Hastings, Eastbourne and Brighton in a surreal modern-day never-ending version of the Dunkirk evacuation of 1940. Would the British government agree to take them all? What of the British people? And if they did agree, what would the British government and people do with all the migrants? How would they cope?
Well, Italy has been invaded in just this way, by migrants from many nations all coming over here from Libya. And Italy’s unelected government has agreed to take them all. This makes the Italian people — who are among the least racist in Europe — very angry. It’s hard to blame them.
In October 2013, Italy’s previous unelected government, which like the current one was left-wing, ordered the Italian navy to search for and rescue all boat people in the Sicilian channel and beyond. This hugely expensive operation — ‘Mare Nostrum’ — ran until October last year and rescued nearly 190,000 people. The Italian government took this decision after a migrant boat sank with the loss of 360 lives 500 yards from an idyllic beach on the island of Lampedusa, once a resort of choice for the right-on rich.
The same left-wing Italian government also took the extraordinary step of decriminalising illegal immigration, which means among other things that none of the boat people are arrested once on dry land. Instead, they are taken to ‘Centri di accoglienza’ (welcome centres) for identification and a decision on their destinies. In theory, only those who identify themselves and claim political asylum can remain in Italy until their application is refused — or, if it is accepted, indefinitely. And in theory, under the Dublin Accords, they can only claim political asylum in Italy — the country where they arrived in the EU. In practice, however, only a minority claim political asylum in Italy. Pretty well all of them remain there incognito, or else move on to other EU countries.
Here’s how it works. In the welcome centres, they are given free board and lodging plus mobile phones, €3 a day in pocket money, and lessons — if they can be bothered — in such things as ice-cream-making or driving a car and (I nearly forgot) Italian. Their presence in these welcome centres is voluntary and they are free to come and go, though not to work, and each of them costs those Italians who do pay tax €35 a day (nearly €13,000 a year). Yes, they are supposed to have their photographs and fingerprints taken, but many refuse and the Italian police, it seems, do not insist. As the Italian interior minister, Angelino Alfano, explained to a TV reporter the other day: ‘They don’t want to be identified here — otherwise, under the Dublin Accords, they would have to stay in our country. So when a police officer is in front of an Eritrean who is two metres tall who doesn’t want his fingerprints taken, he can’t break his fingers, but must respect his human rights.’
This year, there is space for just 75,000 migrants in such places. Hotels are filling the breach, including the four-star Kulm hotel perched high above the luxury resort of Portofino on the Ligurian coast. But most of the rescued migrants could not care less about all that jazz and have just disappeared.
Fair enough, you might say, if all the asylum seekers were genuine refugees from war zones. But contrary to the impression given by most of the world’s media, hardly any of 2014’s intake were from war-torn countries such as Syria or Iraq (though it is true that the number of Syrians is now rising).
Last year, most were from sub-Saharan Africa. Top of the league table were the Nigerians, followed by the Malians and the Gambians, the Senegalese and even the Pakistanis — who together made up 70 per cent of the total. No doubt these countries are no picnic to live in, and parts of some of them are war zones, but that should not, and in theory does not, guarantee refugee status. It is also a fact that most boat people are young single men and the price of a ticket on a people-smuggling boat is €2,000 (nearly two years’ pay for the average worker in Mali).
It’s worth remembering here that the majority of the boat people are Muslims and reports suggest that a small number are Islamic terrorists. The terrorists of ISIS are, we know from their Twitter feeds, obsessed with taking their crusade to Rome. One of those arrested in connection with the Islamic terrorist attack on the Bardo National Museum of Tunis in March had crossed the Mediterranean from Libya to Italy in a migrant boat in February.
Many refugees have no intention of staying in Italy, which is hardly surprising. For a start, only people who lose a full-time job are entitled to unemployment benefit. Italy, thanks to the straitjacket of the single currency, has been mired in recession for most of the past six years, with an official unemployment rate of 13 per cent (the real rate is probably 20 per cent) and the youth unemployment rate at a staggering 43 per cent.
The government of Matteo Renzi — the man billed as the Latin left’s answer to Tony Blair — seems happy to ferry into Italy a vast army of migrants with no real idea what to do with them except hope that they move on to other EU countries. The Italian premier has also been quick to champion the Euro-luvvie definition of this as a ‘European’ and not an ‘Italian’ crisis. So as of spring 2015, the ferry service is now operated not just by the Italian navy in the Sicilian channel but across the entire Mediterranean by the navies of many other EU countries, including the Royal Navy. This year, they have brought 54,000 boat people into Italy and a further 48,000 into Greece, and the summer migration season is not even in full swing yet.
Recently, Nick Cooke-Priest, captain of the British vessel involved in the rescue mission, HMS Bulwark, told reporters that ‘the indications are that there are 450,000 to 500,000 migrants in Libya who are waiting’ to reach Italy. The British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said ‘We could see hundreds of thousands trying to cross this summer.’ Fabrice Leggeri, the head of the EU’s border agency Frontex, has put the figure even higher, at ‘between 500,000 and a million’. So huge are the numbers that Italian police often just dump coach loads of migrants in town squares or at main railway stations which are then turned into temporary camps. Government policy is to try and spread the migrants out throughout the peninsula to lessen their impact; but now many regional and town councils (of all political persuasions), especially in the north, are in open revolt and refusing to take any more. Scabies is rife (of 46,000 migrants tested this year, 4,700 were infested) and one in four migrants is said by doctors to have Hepatitis C. The anti-immigration vote is rocketing and the Italian left has taken a hammering in the recent regional and city elections.
The EU — urged on in particular by an increasingly desperate Italy and Greece — is trying to draw up a quota deal to distribute the huge migrant army; but as with the single currency, when push comes to shove, it is every nation for itself. Despite months of talks, there are few signs of an agreement even on the small numbers being bandied about. A couple of months ago, there was much talk about UN sanctioned military action by the EU to stop the smugglers’ boats putting to sea from the Libyan coast. For weeks now, the silence on that subject has been deafening.
The French have ‘closed’ their border with Italy on the Côte d’Azur in defiance of the Schengen Agreement, which guarantees free movement within member nations. They are rigorously checking trains, cars and even footpaths across the mountains, and sending any illegal migrants back to Italy; they say they have sent back 6,000 this year. The justification is simple: the Italians are failing to identify these people and distinguish economic migrants from refugees. Who can argue with that? The Austrians are doing the same at the Brenner Pass in the Alps.
Pope Francis said last month that leaving the boat people to drown (about 3,500 are known to have died last year, and already nearly 2,000 this year) is ‘an attack against life’ akin to abortion. All of us feel it to be our moral duty to save lives where we can. Yet it cannot be our moral duty to ferry such vast numbers across the Mediterranean into Italy and Europe for ever, unless they are genuine refugees. In fact, our moral duty is not to do so — and the only solution is the one which few politicians dare even talk about, let alone implement: that the navies of the EU should stop the ferry service and start a blockade of Libya.
Prime Minister Renzi tried to pretend that the migrant crisis did not exist, but now that it has turned into an emergency he can remain silent no longer. He blames other EU countries for putting the nation before the union — in this latest meltdown of EU collective responsibility — and the British and the French in particular for getting rid of Muammar Gaddafi and turning Libya into a failed state. When Gaddafi was in power, thanks to a deal struck with Berlusconi, who like Blair had an excellent rapport with the Colonel, the number of boat people slowed to a trickle.
Signor Renzi now threatens his EU partners with what he calls ‘Plan B’ but refuses to reveal the details. It is thought to involve, among other things, refusing the EU fleet permission to land rescued migrants in Italy, and giving all migrants already here temporary leave-to-remain cards — in order to fox the French and flood Europe with them. That’ll teach them. The Italians call Renzi ‘Il Rottamatore’ (the Demolition Man) because of his vow to reform Italy root and branch. The nickname may end up being more apt than anybody realised.
Nicholas Farrell is the author of Mussolini: A New Life.
Friday, June 19, 2015
Pope's climate agenda could bring genocide
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
Exclusive: Alan Keyes wishes he'd hear 'Who am I to judge?' response in this case
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/11/Norman_avatar_1.jpg
Alan Keyes
About
| Email
| Archive
I don’t think I should take instruction on the meaning of genuine Christian faith from Rush Limbaugh any more than I take my example for Roman Catholic faith from Nancy Pelosi. However, I will be instructed by the words and example of Jesus Christ, even when I receive what purports to be moral instruction from my local pastor, or even the Bishop of Rome.
The priests and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, including the Bishop of Rome, are just as likely as I or any of the rest of us to be flawed, confused human beings. Given the facts in evidence in recent years, there’s no need to belabor the point with erudite proofs. So if I happened to live in a parish where the pastor let it be known that he was voting for Barack Obama, I would be under no obligation to mistake his example for the gospel truth. That’s especially true when, without much labor, I can see that his example contradicts Christ’s admonition to “Seek … first the Kingdom of God,” which means that I must decide all my actions as a member of the sovereign body of the people on Election Day in obedience to God and Christ, not my pastor’s predilections.
Some priests have been known to molest children. Some under vows of chastity have committed fornication with married or unmarried women under their pastoral care. This includes even popes, like Alexander VI, father to the demonic tyrant Cesare Borgia, whom that duke of political immorality, Niccolo Machiavelli, held up as the subject in his famous “mirror for princes.” With all these things in mind, Roman Catholics cannot pretend to escape the dilemma that must arise when the words or example of the pastors of the Church evidently conflict with the words or example of our Lord, as stored up in the rich deposit of faith accumulated over the centuries, by the efficacious grace of God through the power of His Holy Spirit, in the lived faith of the members of the body of Christ.
Since the election of Pope Francis, his words have, for better or worse, posed this dilemma on more than one occasion. A pall of confusion still hangs in the air on account of his self-effacing response to the question about the compatibility of Christian faith and practicing homosexuality – “Who am I to judge?” With respect to those who trespass against us, Christ instructed us to forgive those who repent. But he also said that we should judge people not by what they say but by their fruits. Being led by God, John the Baptist foreshadowed this when he chastised the crowds that came forward to be baptized saying: “Ye offspring of vipers. … Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance: and do no begin to say, ‘We have Abraham for our father. …’”
There are many times in life when, by dint of our vocation from God, we are called to judge. When my children were not yet of age, I was called to judge when their behavior was harmful to themselves or others, and to chastise them at times on account of it. Could I say “Who am I to judge?” and let it be? As a government official, I was called to judge, in light of my Christian conscience, the actions I was called upon to take. Could I say “Who am I to judge?” Pope Francis was responding to a question fraught, in our day, with immediate moral implications as a near occasion of sin, a pitfall for children in faith and for people of goodwill in the world at large. Pope Francis had been elected to occupy the seat from which the mouth of the living body of Christ, as active in this world, is supposed to speak with the authority of Christ, on matters of faith and morals. Given the circumstances, there is an obvious answer to the question “Who am I to judge?” when the Vicar of Christ purports to ask it.
There is no doubt that Pope Francis sowed confusion with this answer, softening the ground of authority on which every Roman Catholic stands to deal with matters of moral judgment as required by God’s vocation for their lives. I know that many shared my earnest prayer that the pope would give priority to dispelling that confusion. To do so would be a work of instruction and also be a work of spiritual mercy. Instead, in his latest encyclical, Pope Francis undertakes to instruct the faithful with respect to a controversial matter of scientific fact about which he could very well ask, “Who am I to judge?” since it is only fraught with questions of human moral responsibility after the facts have been established.
We are called to be good stewards of what God has entrusted to our care. About this there is no doubt. That it is we, rather than God, who are responsible for pervasive and massive changes in the condition of our little corner of the universe is, to say the least, an assertion freighted with controversy. That’s especially true given the fact that the issue of man-made climate change is being exploited as an excuse to advance a totalitarian agenda for the use or abuse of government power throughout the world. The massively life-destroying human catastrophes of the 20th century prove beyond doubt that it is an agenda fraught with evil consequence for the moral, spiritual and material life of the human race.
The “Richter Scale” that indicates the size of the 20th century’s government-centered catastrophes must be calibrated to measure scores of millions of murders perpetrated by governments or in wars that were the consequence of the totalitarian ambitions of the people in control of them. If the facts of humanity’s responsibility for global climate change were incontrovertibly established by dint of the most scrupulously conducted and verified scientific observation and analysis imaginable, the last century’s appalling record of government power abuse would caution against any policies that might spawn more such government-centered hurricanes of fear, oppression and mass murder.
But the facts have not been thus established. In fact much that has come to light supports the view that scientific data were purposely skewed to support a conclusion contrary to fact. But this would be that the human race stands falsely, or at least very dubiously, accused of a great crime, for which the pope is now standing with others to demand the harsh punishment of what amounts to perpetual imprisonment in a global penal colony under the totalitarian control of a government with unprecedented global powers.
More than that, John Schnellnhuber, one of the academics reportedly chosen by the Vatican to explain the pope’s recently released encyclical, has “previously said the planet is overpopulated by at least 6 billion people. Ted Turner, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller and Bill Gates have envisaged similarly drastic goals for planned depopulation, along with the abuse of “vaccines” targeting vulnerable populations to achieve it. So the agenda Pope Francis seems willing to promote, at the risk of slandering humanity, encompasses punitive action near unto genocide against the human race. Those left will amount to the elitist few and the people needed to cater to their whims.
Last I heard, the intent to commit genocide is in one of the things prohibited by “Thou shalt not murder.” Another of the Ten Commandment proclaims “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” But if the climate change allegations against humanity are unproven, the whole push for totalitarian government remediation of the allegedly terrible damage we are inflicting on God’s creation is a slander against the human race, a sin against humanity being committed as a pretext for the rape of human life, human conscience and God-endowed human liberty. This looks awfully like a crime against humanity, perpetrated by way of unproven allegations and outright lies in order to subject the earth to a regime of government that demands that people live by lies.
Simply put, if the science is not proven true, the charge is not proven true. So the discussion for Pope Francis’ new encyclical does not extend to arguments about faith and morals. It has everything to do with the proof or disproof of scientific fact. In the encyclical, the pope labors mightily to lay out what he claims is the “scientific” consensus on the issue of man’s responsibility for global climate change. But modern science was born, and sustains itself, by rejecting the notion that a consensus of opinion is any substitute for scientifically observed and demonstrated facts.
When it comes to a matter of obvious moral substance (sexual sin) Pope Francis humbly wonders “Who am I to judge?” When it comes to a matter of scientific fact and methodology, he not only judges, he demands the imposition of a harsh sentence of perpetual deprivation and servitude upon the whole human race, with a view perhaps near unto genocide. I doubt that I’m alone in seeing something dreadfully wrong with this picture.
Even if the facts “Laudato Si’” relies upon were scientifically verified (and at this point, God only knows), the harsh sentence demanded would be for Christ to impose upon the whole sinful human tribe, when he comes again in judgment. Yet when I look in the mirror of reason at the reflections Pope Francis offers in his encyclical, what I see looks unlike Jesus Christ (who as of now still comes to save and not harshly to penalize humanity). Pope Francis’ reflections look more like Marx, Stalin or Mao Zedong – materialistic ideologues who punished not for the sake of God or truth, but on account of resentful, self-idolizing human will and ideology.
Alan Keyes
About
| Email
| Archive
I don’t think I should take instruction on the meaning of genuine Christian faith from Rush Limbaugh any more than I take my example for Roman Catholic faith from Nancy Pelosi. However, I will be instructed by the words and example of Jesus Christ, even when I receive what purports to be moral instruction from my local pastor, or even the Bishop of Rome.
The priests and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, including the Bishop of Rome, are just as likely as I or any of the rest of us to be flawed, confused human beings. Given the facts in evidence in recent years, there’s no need to belabor the point with erudite proofs. So if I happened to live in a parish where the pastor let it be known that he was voting for Barack Obama, I would be under no obligation to mistake his example for the gospel truth. That’s especially true when, without much labor, I can see that his example contradicts Christ’s admonition to “Seek … first the Kingdom of God,” which means that I must decide all my actions as a member of the sovereign body of the people on Election Day in obedience to God and Christ, not my pastor’s predilections.
Some priests have been known to molest children. Some under vows of chastity have committed fornication with married or unmarried women under their pastoral care. This includes even popes, like Alexander VI, father to the demonic tyrant Cesare Borgia, whom that duke of political immorality, Niccolo Machiavelli, held up as the subject in his famous “mirror for princes.” With all these things in mind, Roman Catholics cannot pretend to escape the dilemma that must arise when the words or example of the pastors of the Church evidently conflict with the words or example of our Lord, as stored up in the rich deposit of faith accumulated over the centuries, by the efficacious grace of God through the power of His Holy Spirit, in the lived faith of the members of the body of Christ.
Since the election of Pope Francis, his words have, for better or worse, posed this dilemma on more than one occasion. A pall of confusion still hangs in the air on account of his self-effacing response to the question about the compatibility of Christian faith and practicing homosexuality – “Who am I to judge?” With respect to those who trespass against us, Christ instructed us to forgive those who repent. But he also said that we should judge people not by what they say but by their fruits. Being led by God, John the Baptist foreshadowed this when he chastised the crowds that came forward to be baptized saying: “Ye offspring of vipers. … Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance: and do no begin to say, ‘We have Abraham for our father. …’”
There are many times in life when, by dint of our vocation from God, we are called to judge. When my children were not yet of age, I was called to judge when their behavior was harmful to themselves or others, and to chastise them at times on account of it. Could I say “Who am I to judge?” and let it be? As a government official, I was called to judge, in light of my Christian conscience, the actions I was called upon to take. Could I say “Who am I to judge?” Pope Francis was responding to a question fraught, in our day, with immediate moral implications as a near occasion of sin, a pitfall for children in faith and for people of goodwill in the world at large. Pope Francis had been elected to occupy the seat from which the mouth of the living body of Christ, as active in this world, is supposed to speak with the authority of Christ, on matters of faith and morals. Given the circumstances, there is an obvious answer to the question “Who am I to judge?” when the Vicar of Christ purports to ask it.
There is no doubt that Pope Francis sowed confusion with this answer, softening the ground of authority on which every Roman Catholic stands to deal with matters of moral judgment as required by God’s vocation for their lives. I know that many shared my earnest prayer that the pope would give priority to dispelling that confusion. To do so would be a work of instruction and also be a work of spiritual mercy. Instead, in his latest encyclical, Pope Francis undertakes to instruct the faithful with respect to a controversial matter of scientific fact about which he could very well ask, “Who am I to judge?” since it is only fraught with questions of human moral responsibility after the facts have been established.
We are called to be good stewards of what God has entrusted to our care. About this there is no doubt. That it is we, rather than God, who are responsible for pervasive and massive changes in the condition of our little corner of the universe is, to say the least, an assertion freighted with controversy. That’s especially true given the fact that the issue of man-made climate change is being exploited as an excuse to advance a totalitarian agenda for the use or abuse of government power throughout the world. The massively life-destroying human catastrophes of the 20th century prove beyond doubt that it is an agenda fraught with evil consequence for the moral, spiritual and material life of the human race.
The “Richter Scale” that indicates the size of the 20th century’s government-centered catastrophes must be calibrated to measure scores of millions of murders perpetrated by governments or in wars that were the consequence of the totalitarian ambitions of the people in control of them. If the facts of humanity’s responsibility for global climate change were incontrovertibly established by dint of the most scrupulously conducted and verified scientific observation and analysis imaginable, the last century’s appalling record of government power abuse would caution against any policies that might spawn more such government-centered hurricanes of fear, oppression and mass murder.
But the facts have not been thus established. In fact much that has come to light supports the view that scientific data were purposely skewed to support a conclusion contrary to fact. But this would be that the human race stands falsely, or at least very dubiously, accused of a great crime, for which the pope is now standing with others to demand the harsh punishment of what amounts to perpetual imprisonment in a global penal colony under the totalitarian control of a government with unprecedented global powers.
More than that, John Schnellnhuber, one of the academics reportedly chosen by the Vatican to explain the pope’s recently released encyclical, has “previously said the planet is overpopulated by at least 6 billion people. Ted Turner, Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller and Bill Gates have envisaged similarly drastic goals for planned depopulation, along with the abuse of “vaccines” targeting vulnerable populations to achieve it. So the agenda Pope Francis seems willing to promote, at the risk of slandering humanity, encompasses punitive action near unto genocide against the human race. Those left will amount to the elitist few and the people needed to cater to their whims.
Last I heard, the intent to commit genocide is in one of the things prohibited by “Thou shalt not murder.” Another of the Ten Commandment proclaims “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” But if the climate change allegations against humanity are unproven, the whole push for totalitarian government remediation of the allegedly terrible damage we are inflicting on God’s creation is a slander against the human race, a sin against humanity being committed as a pretext for the rape of human life, human conscience and God-endowed human liberty. This looks awfully like a crime against humanity, perpetrated by way of unproven allegations and outright lies in order to subject the earth to a regime of government that demands that people live by lies.
Simply put, if the science is not proven true, the charge is not proven true. So the discussion for Pope Francis’ new encyclical does not extend to arguments about faith and morals. It has everything to do with the proof or disproof of scientific fact. In the encyclical, the pope labors mightily to lay out what he claims is the “scientific” consensus on the issue of man’s responsibility for global climate change. But modern science was born, and sustains itself, by rejecting the notion that a consensus of opinion is any substitute for scientifically observed and demonstrated facts.
When it comes to a matter of obvious moral substance (sexual sin) Pope Francis humbly wonders “Who am I to judge?” When it comes to a matter of scientific fact and methodology, he not only judges, he demands the imposition of a harsh sentence of perpetual deprivation and servitude upon the whole human race, with a view perhaps near unto genocide. I doubt that I’m alone in seeing something dreadfully wrong with this picture.
Even if the facts “Laudato Si’” relies upon were scientifically verified (and at this point, God only knows), the harsh sentence demanded would be for Christ to impose upon the whole sinful human tribe, when he comes again in judgment. Yet when I look in the mirror of reason at the reflections Pope Francis offers in his encyclical, what I see looks unlike Jesus Christ (who as of now still comes to save and not harshly to penalize humanity). Pope Francis’ reflections look more like Marx, Stalin or Mao Zedong – materialistic ideologues who punished not for the sake of God or truth, but on account of resentful, self-idolizing human will and ideology.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/popes-climate-agenda-could-bring-genocide/#9yjZXpML5xxDDt1m.99
Thursday, June 18, 2015
The Parable of the Tenants
A Bible Study by Jack Kelley
It was one of those contentious discussions between the Priests and the Lord. They were questioning His authority again, and since they were unwilling to answer His question about the origin of John’s baptism, He refused to answer their question about His authority.
Then He told them two parables.
“The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.
“But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ” ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet (Matt 21:28-46).
The Lord’s point was that those who realized their hopeless condition and received their cleansing by faith would enter the Kingdom ahead of those who felt no need for a cleansing and relied on their behavior instead. Way ahead.
The Pharisees worked hard to maintain the outward appearance of keeping the law but failed miserably in their hearts, what with their pride and feelings of superiority. The “sinners” on the other hand admitted they hadn’t been able to please God with their behavior and came in faith alone with broken and contrite hearts. The Lord’s preference for that attitude had been documented in their Scriptures for nearly 1000 years. (Psalm 51:16-17)
As for the Parable of the Tenants, only the naming of names could have made this a clearer summary of their history. The Landowner was the Lord, the vineyard His Kingdom on Earth, the workers were the Israelites, His servants represented the prophets He regularly sent to Israel, and of course His son was Jesus. And when they answered the question about what should be done, they gave as pure a prophetic utterance as has ever come from the mouths of men. “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”
The Lord agreed. “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”
Here then are the only two options available. Fall on the stone (the Stone the builders rejected) and be broken, be humble and contrite, be born again and live by faith. Or keep going your own way till someday when you least expect it the Stone falls on you, and be called to account for your behavior, be crushed and die in your sins.
Back then the officials typically had people who disagreed with them arrested, but they were afraid of Jesus because of His popularity. Still, they understood that He was threatening to take the Kingdom away from them and give to others who would produce its fruit.
Now don’t let anyone try to tell you that the vineyard represents the Land of Israel in this parable. The Lord Himself explained to them that the vineyard represented the Kingdom of God. The land was given to them unconditionally. But beyond that, Israel was chosen by God to accomplish four things; to transmit His word (Isa. 42:9), be a witness for Him (Isa. 43:10), show forth His blessing (Isa. 49:3) and be the channel for the Messiah (Isa. 49:5).
They did such a remarkable job in transmitting God’s word that today hardly any of the Old Testament varies from the way God originally spoke it. And as a showcase for His blessing, the reigns of David and Solomon are unparalleled in previewing life in the Kingdom. Of course it goes without saying that Israel was the channel for the Messiah. It was in the area of being a witness for Him, where they had failed. and that’s why he accused them of bearing no fruit.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are,” Jesus accused them. (Matt23:15)
On the Temple Mount, the Court of the Gentiles was as close as non-Jews could get to the Holy of Holies, and the only place they could legally worship the Lord. Any attempt to get closer was a crime punishable by death. At the time of Jesus it had been turned into an open air market (it’s the place from which Jesus drove the money changers and sellers of animals) making it impossible for gentiles to worship there. In short the Lord promised He would be their God and they had refused to share Him with anyone else.
True to His word, the vineyard was taken from them and given to other tenants. Pretty soon now, we’ll find out if we’ve done any better at producing its fruit. Selah 2-22-04.
It was one of those contentious discussions between the Priests and the Lord. They were questioning His authority again, and since they were unwilling to answer His question about the origin of John’s baptism, He refused to answer their question about His authority.
Then He told them two parables.
The Parable of the Two Sons
“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him (Matt. 21:28-32).The Parable of the Tenants
“Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.“The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.
“But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ” ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
“Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew he was talking about them. They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet (Matt 21:28-46).
I Think They Got The Point
These two parables are so obvious in their meaning, it’s no wonder they got it. John’s Baptism was one of repentance. By the way, let’s correct the meaning of that word. Repent means to change your mind about your behavior, not change your behavior. When John said, “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near,” he wasn’t warning people to clean up their act so they could qualify for the Kingdom. He knew that was impossible. He was telling them to change their mind about needing a Savior to save them instead of trying to earn their own righteousness. By allowing John to baptize them, the tax collectors and prostitutes were showing that they had made the change. They were now ready to receive the Messiah when He came to offer cleansing from their sins.The Lord’s point was that those who realized their hopeless condition and received their cleansing by faith would enter the Kingdom ahead of those who felt no need for a cleansing and relied on their behavior instead. Way ahead.
The Pharisees worked hard to maintain the outward appearance of keeping the law but failed miserably in their hearts, what with their pride and feelings of superiority. The “sinners” on the other hand admitted they hadn’t been able to please God with their behavior and came in faith alone with broken and contrite hearts. The Lord’s preference for that attitude had been documented in their Scriptures for nearly 1000 years. (Psalm 51:16-17)
As for the Parable of the Tenants, only the naming of names could have made this a clearer summary of their history. The Landowner was the Lord, the vineyard His Kingdom on Earth, the workers were the Israelites, His servants represented the prophets He regularly sent to Israel, and of course His son was Jesus. And when they answered the question about what should be done, they gave as pure a prophetic utterance as has ever come from the mouths of men. “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”
The Lord agreed. “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”
Here then are the only two options available. Fall on the stone (the Stone the builders rejected) and be broken, be humble and contrite, be born again and live by faith. Or keep going your own way till someday when you least expect it the Stone falls on you, and be called to account for your behavior, be crushed and die in your sins.
So What’s The Big Mystery Here?
They knew He was talking about them, yet their response was contention not contrition. Their hearts had become so hardened, they could no longer consider the possibility they might be mistaken. They had to shut Him up because they couldn’t risk having to re-think things.Back then the officials typically had people who disagreed with them arrested, but they were afraid of Jesus because of His popularity. Still, they understood that He was threatening to take the Kingdom away from them and give to others who would produce its fruit.
Now don’t let anyone try to tell you that the vineyard represents the Land of Israel in this parable. The Lord Himself explained to them that the vineyard represented the Kingdom of God. The land was given to them unconditionally. But beyond that, Israel was chosen by God to accomplish four things; to transmit His word (Isa. 42:9), be a witness for Him (Isa. 43:10), show forth His blessing (Isa. 49:3) and be the channel for the Messiah (Isa. 49:5).
They did such a remarkable job in transmitting God’s word that today hardly any of the Old Testament varies from the way God originally spoke it. And as a showcase for His blessing, the reigns of David and Solomon are unparalleled in previewing life in the Kingdom. Of course it goes without saying that Israel was the channel for the Messiah. It was in the area of being a witness for Him, where they had failed. and that’s why he accused them of bearing no fruit.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are,” Jesus accused them. (Matt23:15)
On the Temple Mount, the Court of the Gentiles was as close as non-Jews could get to the Holy of Holies, and the only place they could legally worship the Lord. Any attempt to get closer was a crime punishable by death. At the time of Jesus it had been turned into an open air market (it’s the place from which Jesus drove the money changers and sellers of animals) making it impossible for gentiles to worship there. In short the Lord promised He would be their God and they had refused to share Him with anyone else.
Go Ye Into All The World
And so the Great Commission was given to the disciples, and through them to the Church. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” Jesus told them. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)True to His word, the vineyard was taken from them and given to other tenants. Pretty soon now, we’ll find out if we’ve done any better at producing its fruit. Selah 2-22-04.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Monday, June 15, 2015
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Covenant-Driven
Ten Years and Counting. . .
"When you sign a membership covenant, you are signing a legal document.
Ask yourself if you were told that this is the case.
If you were not told this, ask why you weren't.
In every other venue outside of a church,
you would most likely get legal advice before signing a contract.
Why would you not do the same for a church contract?"[1]
Ask yourself if you were told that this is the case.
If you were not told this, ask why you weren't.
In every other venue outside of a church,
you would most likely get legal advice before signing a contract.
Why would you not do the same for a church contract?"[1]
An audio file has just been posted online of a talk given over 10 years ago at a Discernment Ministries conference. The presentation was by Discernment Research Group member Sarah H. Leslie, and it was an early refutation of the Purpose-Driven church covenant model being widely disseminated by Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California.
Early on we recognized and warned about the many problems that would develop as a result of the covenant church model which was based on the corporate business model introduced into the church by Peter Drucker via Bob Buford's Leadership Network. The purpose-driven brand name was the most recognizable, but many other networks within Leadership Networks' vast array of downline networks, especially including Acts 29, would also rely heavily upon this covenant-driven model. We anticipated that there would eventually be fallout in churches - particularly among women, children, handicapped, disabled, elderly and others - who would slip through the cracks, be damaged, or penalized for their imperfections.
Listen to the audio:
The Herescope blog began posting 10 years ago, so if you listen to the audio file you will recognize the references to the many of topics that have been posted on Herescope. However, for those who seek additional documentation, and wish to research these issues further, below is a partial list of topics mentioned in this comprehensive overview conference report.
The audio talk was given shortly after the 2004 monograph The Pied Pipers of Purpose was published. This monograph is available for purchase at the Discernment Ministries office,
903-567-6423, and it is also available for download here: http://www.discernment-ministries.org/Purpose_Driven.pdf
The talk mentions education reform issues, specifically the book the deliberate dumbing down of america by Charlotte T. Iserbyt, available at Amazon.com or for a free download at: http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com. Also read the 3-part article series about so-called school "choice" titled "The Choice Charade".
Here is the issue of Leadership Network's newsletter NEXT that included the eastern religious Ying/Yang sign in its discussion about management guru Jim Collins. Notice the clock graphic and note that each subheading includes a ying/yang graphic. The use of such a well-known occult symbol has raised many questions about which faith Leadership Network promotes.
 |
| Leadership Network, NEXT, Vol. 3, No. 1, May 1997 |
Regarding Rick Warren, our early warnings in 2005 were sadly quite accurate. We believe that the most important post we ever wrote about Rick Warren is "Rick Warren - Is He Scary?" Most of the questions that we raised in this post have never been answered. Rick Warren took his entire P.E.A.C.E. "missionary" plan under the radar and the press has given him a free pass to work his global agenda without critical scrutiny. Below is a sampling of articles (including some that are part of a series) we wrote about Rick Warren's attempt to turn purpose-driven into a global movement:
- The Reinvention of Rick Warren
- PSEUDO-MISSION: Rick Warren's 3-legged Church
- 3-Legged "Health" Care: The Agenda of Rick Warren's "Daniel Plan"
- The Tyranny of 3-Legged Branding
- The Mental Health Church
- PyroMarketing Hagiography (see links to the Dopamine-Driven Church series)
- Foundation Imperialism
- Bill Gates Fund$ Rick Warren
- Rick Warren & the CFR Revisited
- A Back-Channel for P.E.A.C.E.
- Legged Stool Teetering in Rwanda
- When the 3 Legs Intertwine
- When the 3 Legs Intertangle. . .
Missionaries who were specifically told to NOT preach the Gospel is documented here: Africa Watch Update: Missionaries told "not to minister the Word"! Rick Warren's early partner, Bruce Wilkinson, experienced a failed venture in Swaziland: Breaking News! Mr Jabez's Dream Turns to Nightmare
The original 2-part article about Rick Warren's launching of his Global P.E.A.C.E. Plan is archived in the Discernment Newsletters:
- May/June 2005: The Global Day of Prayer
- July/August 2005: The Second Reformation: Global Day of Prayer (Part 2)
For our writings on the recent Mars Hill debacle, and its connections to the Leadership Network organization and these same organizational structure and ideologies, see the series "The Culture Which Gave Rise to Mark Driscoll":
- Part 1: "We Are Not ABANDONED"
- Part 2: "Under the Bus" and "Off the Map" - The Out-of-Control Bus That Runs Over Sheep
- Part 3: The MegaChurch Transit Authority and How it Operates
- Part 4: The "Visionpath" Bus Route: The Road Most Traveled
Finally, we wish to point out that many of the topics covered in this 2005 talk were influential in the publication of Paul Smith's book New Evangelicalism: The New World Order. Read about his book here: http://herescope.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-evangelicalism-new-world-order.html
Discernment Ministries has recently authorized Dr. Martin Erdmann to post a number of our current and older, but still relevant, conference files on the Internet. As Dr. Erdmann puts up more of the Discernment conference videos and audios online, we will post notifications and links for Herescope readers.
Endnote:
1. "The Village Church/Matt Chandler: The Problems With Membership Contracts," 6/1/15, http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/06/01/the-village-churchmatt-chandler-the-problems-with-membership-contracts/ For another recent covenant horror story, see "Do Acts 29 Churches Share the Same DNA as the Mothership – Matt Chandler’s The Village Church?" 1/3/15, http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/06/03/do-acts-29-churches-share-the-dna-of-the-mothership-matt-chandlers-the-village-church/
Note: The audio file may experience problems in the Firefox browser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Most Visited
-
Reblogged from the-end-time.blogspot.com I wasn't saved by love. The Gospel was not attractive to me. It was not made attractive t... -
Not what the left, the media and quite a few Christians would have you think. By Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives November 20, 2015...
-
Reblogged from Pastor Bill Randles blog via servehiminthewaiting.com Posted on April 12, 2015 by billrandles ...
-
Written and posted by Jean-Louis http://thelightseed.blogspot.com (This is the mountain range called the Djurdjura in... -
Omega Letter Community The Chronicles of Life and Death - by Pete Garcia ''God pours life into death and death into life w...
-
Post by Hakan Mengüç .
-
Since we know Written and posted by Jean-Louis.1995 http://lightnseed.blogspot.com http://thelightseed.blogspot.com Since we kno...
-
Published December 10, 2014 Reblogged from FoxNews.com Oct. 5, 2014: Palestinians from Gaza ...
-
Reblogged from Grace Trough Faith / Ask a teacher Sunday, March 22nd, 2015 Spiritual Gifts Q. What is prophecy? How do peo...
-
Reblogged from: concerningthetimes.com Posted by: Howard Green What is it about Bible prophecy and end times dialogue th...
