John Haller Prophecy Update

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

 Nicholas Farrell 20 June 2015

Let us suppose that along the coast of Normandy up to one million non-EU migrants are waiting to be packed like sardines in small unseaworthy vessels and to cross the English Channel.
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.

The ones who stay long in the welcome centres are those who have revealed their identities in order to apply for political asylum in Italy. Last year, 64,900 migrants did so in Italy — roughly a third of those saved by the Italian navy. But this being Italy, the judicial system only had time to reach a decision on half those applications (accepting 60 per cent of them), and anyway, thanks to the byzantine Italian appeals procedure, those refused asylum can remain for years. Even if their asylum claim is finally rejected and by some cruel quirk of fate they are actually handed a deportation order, it is easily ignored: last year Italy forcibly deported just 6,944 people — a figure set to shrink even more once a law before parliament is passed banning deportation to countries where human rights are abused.

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.

Why are we afraid, after 1400 years - Dr. Bill Warner

Pope's climate agenda could bring genocide

Reblogged from http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/popes-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

Published: 13 hours ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/11/Norman_avatar_1.jpg
Alan Keyes About | Email | Archive

Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement. He is well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the constitutional republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He has worked to promote an approach to politics based on the initiative of citizens of goodwill consonant with the with the principles of God-endowed natural right.

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

The Parable of the Tenants

Wednesday, June 17th, 2015

Reblogged from http://gracethrufaith.com/topical-studies/parables/the-parable-of-the-tenants/

• Israel
• Old Testament
• Parables
• Past Featured
• Salvation

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 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.

Cern and Forbidden Gates - Part 4 with Tom Horn and Steve Quayles

Pr. J.D. Farag - Prophecy Update

John Haller´s Prophecy Update v.1

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]

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:

https://archive.org/details/PurposeDrivenModel

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".

The conference talk specifically references an earlier article critical of church covenants published by Discernment Ministries. Recently this paper, originally titled "The Shepherding Movement Comes of Age," was republished on the Herescope blog: http://herescope.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-troubles-with-church-covenants.html 

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.

Should we love false teachers?

Reblogged from the-end-time.blogspot.com
Posted: 12 Jun 2015 11:51 AM PDT

It's always nice to talk about love and tolerance. We know that God loved the world. He loves His Son. We are told to love each other, that is how they will know us (John 13:35). But sometimes love is not appropriate or warranted. Do I mean this, really? Well, we know we are supposed to hate sin. We know there are six things, no, seven, that the Lord hates. (Proverbs 6:16-19). We hate sin so much we're supposed to kill the old man in us. (Colossians 3:5). We don't endlessly give the Gospel to those who hurl it back, those hurlers are called swine. So when it comes to love, we know we don't 'love' everyone or everything, at least not according to the romantic or secular definition of love. So here is the question: are we supposed to love false teachers?

At The Berean Call, the question is posed:

To the world it might appear that all is well in the Christian realm. Much-beloved speakers hold forth from the pulpits of some of the largest churches in the world. Believers and nonbelievers alike buy their books, avail themselves of their programs, and utilize their methodologies. One might come to the conclusion that Peter must not have been referring to the church in our day regarding false teachers. Tolerance is the word of the day. We hear admonitions on a regular basis to "just get along" with those of opposing faiths. "Love" reigns supreme.

But what is this "love" of which they speak? What about those who identify a false gospel or a false teacher among some of the popular speakers these days? Does this "love" still apply to those who expose the ones who are actually deceivers among the flock?

A dear sister in the faith posed the question to me. To love those who are deluded and cannot understand the Word and care for them and not be critical. I thought about it for a long time, because I love poorly and I'm always appealing to the Lord to teach me love better.

So I began to think hard, should we love false teachers? Are they to be pitied? I decided, no. Though I value the opinions offered and they DO make me think, I don't necessarily always agree. I'd like to offer an alternate view about how far not to go in pursuing love, and to offer a different perspective of what love actually is.

If we read Jeremiah 14:16, there is not even a hapless non-believer who accidentally can't understand God's truth and accidentally follows false prophets because they don't know better. They DO know better. God said He will pour out their evil upon them because they knew better but followed false prophets anyway. 2 Timothy 4:3 also puts the blame on those who choose to follow false teachers because they wanted their ears tickled, so they went out and accumulated for themselves false teachers who told them what they wanted to hear.

But back to the false teachers themselves. I reserve my highest caring in this situation- for Jesus. We do care for the state of our neighbor's souls, and we do care for brethren, but in all this let us not forget caring about Jesus.

I care about His name and what people do in His name. The harshest criticism in the Bible from everyone, (Jesus, Paul, Peter, John the Baptist, John, James, Jude, etc) was aimed at those who pervert God's word. It is not a situation where we say "poor, poor false teachers. Let's understand them and open our hearts to them and care." I do hope they are saved someday, but beyond that they get no caring from me. I am highly CRITICAL of them in righteous indignation. Here is why-

The Bible tells us they do it on purpose. They disguise themselves- that isn't an accident. (2 Cor 1:13). They do it for greed. (1 Timothy 6:5). They do it to put us in bondage again. (Gal 2:4). They do it because they hate Jesus and love themselves. (1 Tim 6:4). They do it because they enjoy lying. (2 Peter 2:1).

These false teachers are already cursed and destined for hell. In the essay "The Pathology of False Teachers" we read,

Unfortunately, their prognosis is not hopeful. Their spiritual condition is terminal. Those who are deprived of the truth are headed for judgment. Hebrews 6:6 solemnly warns of such men that “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.” Peter says that they bring “swift destruction upon themselves” (2 Peter 2:1). The severest hell will be reserved for those who, having been exposed to the truth, turned away from it (cf. Hebrews 10:26–31).

The goal of the false teacher is not to create an environment of love, but to feed his ego and fill his pockets.
~John MacArthur
You notice they don't pervert Buddha's words. They don't pervert Allah's words. They don't pervert Shiva's words. They choose to pervert Jesus' swords for gain, for fame, for an audience, and all the other reasons. I am critical of that because I care about Jesus.

The Berean Call again:

Every epistle in the New Testament was written to correct error in the church. Did Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude not understand that to correct those who were in error was in truth a failure to love them? Did they believe that it was none of their business to bring correction to the false teaching? Do we consider them divisive for confronting error and holding fast to the truth? No! They boldly addressed the error and at times even named the offenders.

No, I do not love false teachers. I do not care about false teachers. I care about Jesus. I love His followers. Tim Challies said in his essay 7 Marks of a False Teacher,

False teachers are concerned with your goods, not your good; they want to serve themselves more than save the lost; they are content for Satan to have your soul as long as they can have your stuff.

Jesus called false teachers broods of vipers and hypocrites. (Mt 23:33)
So did John the Baptist in Mt 3:7
Paul said they were cursed. Twice in 2 sentences. (Gal 1:8,9)
Paul said their talk is gangrenous. (2 Tim 2:17)
Jesus called them ravenous wolves (Mt 7:15)
John called them deceivers (2 John 1:7)
Jude calls them ungodly perverters (Jude 1:4)
Peter called them depraved, disobedient, and destined for hell (1 Peter 2:8, 2 Peter 2:1,2)
John called them antichrists (1 John 2:22)
Never mind the harsh language from God in the OT against false prophets.

So. Were they wrong not to "love" the false teachers?

Indeed, we are told repeatedly we are to mark them, avoid them, not listen to them, close the hospitable door on them, put them out, warn them, keep away from them, give them to satan, but nowhere does it say to love them, care for them, or pity them.

Indeed, John advises the elder lady and her children not to even allow false teachers into their house NOR give them a greeting! If we do, God considers that we are participating in their evil deeds. (2 John 1:10). The John MacArthur Commentary on 2 John 1:10 says this-

Irenaeus relates that the church father Polycarp, when asked by the notorious heretic Marcion, "Do you know me?" replied, "I do know you, the firstborn of satan." (Against Heresies, 3.3.4)

John himself once encountered Cerinthus (another notorious heretic) in a public bathhouse in Ephesus. Instead of greeting him, however, John turned and fled, exclaiming to those with him, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is within." (Against Heresies, 3.3.4)

Charein, (greeting) means 'Rejoice' It was a common Christian greeting, conveying the joy believers had in one another's presence. But it is an affirmation of solidarity that is totally inappropriate for false teachers, who have no part in the truth of genuine Christian fellowship.Such emissaries of satan must be exposed and shunned, not affirmed and welcomed.

False teachers like to decry such treatment as harsh, intolerant, or unloving. But love forbids dangerous spiritual deception to gain a foothold among Christians. John's pastoral admonition is perfectly consistent with Jesus' denunciation of false teachers as ravenous wolves, thieves and robbers, whose only purpose is to steal, kill, and destroy. The church cannot aid or abet such spiritual outlaws by doing anything that would acknowledge them as Christians. The one who does so, even by doing something as seemingly innocuous as greeting them, participates in their evil deeds by helping them to further their deception.

I reserve all my criticism, judgment, and righteous indignation for the false teachers, and all my love for Jesus the Man-God, His people, and His revealed word. During the few times I've had opportunity to engage directly with a few of the false teachers I've written about, I hope I was lovingly showing them the error of their ways. THAT also is love, though the world doesn't call it love. Love is to admonish and correct so hopefully they do not persist in their tragic path, or worse, taking others with them.

Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

Source

Here are two resources on the subject:

How to Treat False Teachers

The Danger Facing the Church
Love also comes out of sincere faith, not the hypocritical faith manifested by false teachers. Faith that has no pretense creates love. A false teacher has a dirty heart because it's never been cleansed by the true gospel of faith in Christ. A false teacher has a guilty conscience because his impure heart triggers it. But his conscience may have reached the point where it's so scarred that it's lost its sensitivity. And a false teacher has hypocritical faith. He's a phony--he wears a mask. That kind of life will never produce the love of God. The goal of the false teacher is not to create an environment of love, but to feed his ego and fill his pockets.

A Final Warning: Beware of False Teachers

Lesson 107: A Final Warning: Beware of False Teachers! (Romans 16:17-20)
Years ago, a seminary professor told his class at the beginning of the semester that they would work together on one major project during that semester. They would move systematically through the New Testament to categorize every area of truth and determine how many times each area is addressed. Their goal was to find what one thing is emphasized more than any other in the New Testament. When they completed the project, they were amazed to see that warning against false doctrine is emphasized more than any other thing, even more than love, unity, and experience (Renald Showers, in “Israel My Glory,” [April/May, 1995], pp. 24-25). I have not verified their conclusion, but they’re probably right. ...

J. C. Ryle was a champion for the truth in the Church of England during the 19th century. I’d recommend that you read him. In Warnings to the Churches ([Banner of Truth], p. 110), he wrote about how difficult yet necessary controversy in the church is. Then he added, “But there is one thing which is even worse than controversy, and that is false doctrine tolerated, allowed, and permitted without protest or molestation.” After acknowledging that many would view what he writes as exceedingly distasteful, he states (p. 111), “Three things there are which men never ought to trifle with—a little poison, a little false doctrine, and a little sin.”

Read more: http://thelightseed.blogspot.com/#ixzz3d1tfrkcj