Believers And Followers Qs and As

Republished from gracethrufaith.com   Thursday, January 28th, 2016

• Christian Life
• Salvation

Q. Have you ever done a study on Luke 14:33 and the surrounding text when Jesus was describing what it would take to be a true disciple? Was he talking only to the crowd in front of him or is it applicable today? Is he really asking us to give up everything or rather be willing to give up everything?

A. The Lord’s instructions in Luke 14:25-35 are for the entire Church age. It’s a detailed explanation of what Paul later summarized in Romans 12: 1-2:
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God–this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will.

It’s important to remember that the issue here is not salvation, which is free for the asking. It’s what we do in response to the salvation we’ve received that both Jesus and Paul were explaining.

It’s currently popular in the Church to distinguish between mere believers and true followers of Christ. To be saved we must only believe. But then in gratitude for such a remarkable display of God’s mercy, we should be willing to present our whole beings to be used for His glory. After all, Jesus ransomed us from death with His own blood (1 Peter 1:18-19). Therefore, our life actually belongs to Him (1 Cor 6:19-20).

In Luke 14:33 Jesus said we can’t be His disciples unless we’re willing to give up everything we have. We have to abandon all of our worldly dreams and aspirations in order to serve Him as He desires. This doesn’t mean we’re choosing a life of deprivation. Nor does it mean we have to leave family and friends behind and spend our life doing missionary work in some far off land. It means following him won’t give us the life many of us learned to desire as children. But it will give us a life filled with satisfaction we could not have found in any other way. Remember, the Lord said, “I have come that they may have live, and have it abundantly” (John 10:10).

J.D. Farag´s Mid-East Prophecy Update

John Haller January 24 2016

In Your Anger Do Not Sin -

Wednesday, January 20th, 2016

Republished from gracethrufaith.com 

• Forgiveness
• Past Featured
• Sin

A Bible Study by Jack Kelley
“In your anger do not sin. Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold (Ephesians 4:26).”

This is the verse the Lord impressed upon my heart as I was asking for a topic for this article. It’s familiar to anyone who has ever experienced any Christian counseling, and like many Bible verses it bears closer examination.  Translations differ slightly in rendering this passage and the Greek contains some interesting insights, but Paul was quoting from Psalm 4 where the intent of the passage was established. Let’s begin there.

Contained in the Old, Explained in the New

Answer me when I call to you, O my righteous God. Give me relief from my distress; be merciful to me and hear my prayer.
How long, O men, will you turn my glory into shame ? How long will you love delusions and seek false gods ?

Know that the LORD has set apart the godly for himself; the LORD will hear when I call to him.
In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent.  Offer right sacrifices and trust in the LORD.
Many are asking, “Who can show us any good?” Let the light of your face shine upon us, O LORD.
You have filled my heart with greater joy than when their grain and new wine abound.  I will lie down and sleep in peace, for you alone, O LORD, make me dwell in safety.

David was distressed by the Israelites’ continuing unfaithfulness to God. They were turning His glory to shame and seeking after false gods (Ps. 4:1-2). It is the same frustration we feel today in viewing the state of our world, so it’s logical to assume David was praying on behalf of all who would share his feelings, no matter how far into the future.

The Lord’s response was a warning to all of us not to let that frustration turn to sin, but to shift our focus away from what others are doing and search our own hearts instead.  I believe the Lord had David explain this because the next bit of advice is to offer the sacrifices of righteousness and put our trust in the Lord (Ps. 4:4- 5). In other words we’re to make our own peace with God and trust Him to deal with those who’ve aroused our anger. In Psalm 4: 7 David said that in obeying, he was given greater joy than those other people experience even after a bountiful harvest, and he was then able to sleep in peace, his anger gone.

So back to Ephesians 4:26.  Paul used two different Greek words translated anger in the NIV. The first one, at the beginning of verse 26, means to be provoked to anger. It’s a passive word, indicating the anger is the effect of an outside action. The other one, at the end of the verse, means rage or wrath and is used only here in scripture. The KJV translates the first as anger and the second as wrath, but the idea is the same.   What begins as a reactive impression can quickly become an active expression.

In the preceding verses Paul had been saying, “You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness “(Ephes. 4:22-24). 

It’s interesting that one of his first examples of behavior unsuitable to our new selves is anger.

It Feels So Natural

It’s natural to feel anger over the flagrant violation of God’s laws in the world, both inside and outside the church. It’s bad enough when this hurts others, but when it’s directed at us personally, it’s even worse.  And when that anger turns to resentment (anger stored for future use), or causes us to respond in kind toward  another person it becomes sin for two reasons. One, it puts us in God’s role of judgment, and two it causes us to presume that we’re better than the object of our resentment. That’s called pride.

Using the context from Psalm 4 then, the lesson becomes clear. Feeling anger is natural, but harboring it or acting upon it is sin, even if we convince ourselves we’re justified because the Lord’s on our side. Before we go to sleep at night we’re to realize that in different circumstances we’d be quite capable of the very behavior that has angered us.  Perhaps we’ve actually behaved that way at one time or another.

The Sermon on the Mount tells us that anger is as bad as murder from the Lord’s perspective (Matt. 5:21-22).  It’s the thought that counts, not just the deed.  As we lie on our beds we should let our hearts be convicted so we can confess and be forgiven of our own sins and purified from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). This is the sacrifice of righteousness counseled in Psalm 4:5. Trust the Lord, who judges the intent of every heart, to handle the rest and we’ll lose the anger and sleep peacefully.

Against You and You Only Have I Sinned, O Lord

If the object of our wrath is a friend or neighbor, or even the person lying in the bed next to us, it’s a good idea to patch things up with them.  But remember the sin is against God. By judging other people’s motives and meting out real or imagined punishment we’ve tried to make ourselves like Him.  Remember, He said, “It is mine to avenge, I will repay” (Hebr. 10:30). That means we’re not to worry about it.

Anger gives the devil a foothold (location or space) in our life. Footholds become strongholds (fortresses) and can be very difficult to demolish.  The anger that spews from them can compromise our witness, steal our joy, and impede our healing.  As the Lord’s brother said, Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires (James 1:19-20). Good advice.  Selah. 10-09-10

The worst surprise of all - North Bible Baptist Church

Question: "Spiritual strongholds - what is the biblical view?"

Republished from gotquestions.org

Answer: The word strongholds is found once in the New Testament, used metaphorically by Paul in a description of the Christian’s spiritual battle: “Though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses [strongholds]” (2 Corinthians 10:3-4, NASB). This passage reveals the following facts about our warfare:

1) Our battle is not planned according to the way this world fights; earthly stratagems are not our concern.

2) Our weapons are not physical, for our warfare is spiritual in nature. Rather than guns and tanks, our weapons are those of the “full armor of God” and consist of “the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:14-17).

3) Our power comes from God alone.

4) God’s plan is to demolish spiritual strongholds.

What are these “strongholds” or “fortifications” we face? In the very next verse, Paul interprets the metaphor: “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). The “arguments” are the philosophies, reasonings, and schemes of the world. The “pretensions” have to do with anything proud, man-centered, and self-confident.

Here’s the picture: the Christian, wearing his spiritual armor and bearing his spiritual weapons, sets out to “conquer” the world for Christ, but he soon finds obstacles. The enemy has erected strongly fortified garrisons to resist the Truth and thwart God’s plan of redemption. There is the fortress of human reasoning, reinforced with many subtle arguments and the pretense of logic. There is the castle of passion, with flaming battlements defended by lust, pleasure, and greed. And there is the pinnacle of pride, in which the human heart sits enthroned and revels in thoughts of its own excellence and sufficiency.

The enemy is firmly entrenched; these strongholds have been guarded for thousands of years, presenting a great wall of resistance to the Truth. None of this deters the Christian warrior, however. Using the weapons of God’s choosing, he attacks the strongholds, and by the miraculous power of Christ, the walls are breached, and the bastions of sin and error are battered down. The victorious Christian enters the ruins and leads captive, as it were, every false theory and every human philosophy that had once proudly asserted its independence from God.

If this sounds a lot like Joshua fighting the battle of Jericho, you’re right. What a great illustration of spiritual truth that story is (Joshua 6)!

Sharing the gospel is not the only time we see resistance. We can also face demonic strongholds in our own lives, in our families, and even in our churches. Anyone who has fought an addiction, struggled with pride, or had to “flee youthful lusts” knows that sin, a lack of faith, and a worldly outlook on life are indeed “strongholds.”

The Lord is building His Church, and the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). What we need are Christian soldiers, totally surrendered to the will of the Lord of Hosts, who will use the spiritual weapons He provides. “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God” (Psalm 20:7).

Recommended Resources: Victory in Spiritual Warfare by Tony Evans and Logos Bible Software.

Our World: Israel and the Russian challenge

Obama cannot take action against Russia without discrediting his entire Middle East policy, and so destroying his own legacy.

MILITARY ATTACHES and journalists talk after a Russian Defense Ministry briefing in Moscow about the attempt to interdict Islamic State’s oil trade.. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Israeli Air Force commanders are reportedly deeply worried about Russia’s military presence in Syria.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin deployed his forces to Syria last year, he claimed that the deployment would be brief. Russian forces were placed in Syria, Putin said, to protect Assad and would leave once he was able to defend himself.

Last week, when the terms of the deployment agreement concluded between Russia and Syria were made public, we discovered that those early claims were false. Under the terms of the deal, Russia can maintain permanent bases in Syria.

Israel’s Air Force is no match for Russia’s. The S-400 anti-aircraft system Russia is deploying to Syria covers half of Israeli territory. Russia’s deployment means that Israel has lost its regional air superiority.

To be sure, Putin’s decision to set up permanent bases in Syria is not directed against Israel. He is interested in defending Russian interests in areas like oil and Syria where Israel is not an actor. This is the reason that Russia and Israel have been able to reach tactical agreements over Syria.

Among other things, the sides agreed to deconflict their aircraft flying over Syria.

But Israel’s ability to reach tactical understandings with Russia doesn’t mean Israel can trust that Russia’s operations in the area will not harm its national security in significant ways.

For instance, the reports that Russia is transferring arms to Hezbollah are deeply worrying. For the past five years, according to reports in foreign media, the Air Force has repeatedly bombed shipments of Iranian weapons destined for Hezbollah forces in Lebanon.

Israel is not in a position to contemplate bombing Russian military shipments to Lebanon. It is also not in a position to challenge a Russian decision to allow Hezbollah to use advanced weapons like Yakhont anti-ship missiles against naval ships either from Lebanon or Syria.

And there is no reason to believe that Russia won’t do so.

Russia has been acting in alliance with Hezbollah, Assad and Iran since the 1980s. Putin’s reported willingness to cooperate with Israel in various areas does not mean that Russia is no longer Iran’s partner in supplying Hezbollah and facilitating its operations.

The government and military have no options for dealing with Russia’s sudden emergence as a major power in our backyard. And there is nothing new in Israel’s helplessness.

We’ve never had an option for reining in Moscow.

But until Barack Obama came into office, Israel never had to worry about Russia.

For 65 years, the US forced Russia to curb its activities in the Middle East.

Until Barack Obama entered the White House, every US president from Franklin Roosevelt on believed it was a US economic and strategic interest of the first order to curb Russian power in the Middle East. The chief reason the US began its strategic alliance with Israel after the 1967 Six Day War was because by defeating Russian clients Egypt and Syria, Israel proved its value to the US’s Cold War strategy.

In the succeeding decades, Israel and the US had a division of labor. It was Israel’s job to defeat or deter Russian – or Soviet – clients in the Arab world. It was the US’s job to deter Russia – or the Soviet Union.

Now, in the final year of the Obama presidency, all that is gone. Obama is content to see Russia exert power and influence that none of his predecessors would have countenanced. And so, for the first time, Israel finds itself standing alone against Russia, with no clear means of protecting its vital national security interests.

Obama’s refusal to take any steps to curb Russia’s deployment and ambitions in the region is not surprising.

It not that he doesn’t understand that Russia’s rise means America’s fall. He undoubtedly has been warned of the implications of Russia’s return to region by the relevant government agencies and the military.

But none of that matters to him. The only thing that Obama cares about is his legacy. Obama cannot take action against Russia without discrediting his entire Middle East policy, and so destroying his own legacy.

OBAMA’S POLICY in the region is based on the assumption that the US is responsible for instability and war in the Middle East. As a consequence, Obama’s regional policy is one that requires the US to abandon those who benefited from US protection and partnership – first and foremost Israel and Saudi Arabia, and appeasing those who most oppose the US and its allies – first and foremost Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood.

With Iran’s capture of the US naval craft and its illegal detention of 10 US naval personnel last week, Iran demonstrated, once again, that it has not been appeased by Obama’s nuclear and financial concessions.

Iran continues to view the US as its primary enemy and it continues to view itself as at war against America.

It is beyond dispute that Iran committed a war crime in photographing the US military personnel in humiliating ways and forcing one sailor to film an apology to Iran. The language of the Geneva Conventions is cut and dry on the subject.

But rather than take action against Iran, by among other things, delaying the revocation of economic sanctions against Iran, the Obama administration defended Iran’s act of war against the US.

In a press briefing, State Department spokesman John Kirby argued that Iran did not commit a war crime when it detained and photographed the US sailors in humiliating ways because Iran is not at war with the US.

This is an idiotic statement meant to hide an indefensible position. Obviously, if Kirby is right and Iran is not at war with the US, then the act of detaining and photographing the sailors moves from a mere war crime, to an act of international piracy and hostage taking.

In other words, in detaining US sailors and photographing them, Iran either committed a war crime and an act of war, or it committed an even larger crime – and initiated a war with the US.

But Obama cannot acknowledge that this is the case, because if he does, he will be unable to defend his larger policy – which is equally indefensible.

Iran began broadcasting photographs of the sailors kneeing before their Iranian captors and a video apology in which a sailor issued a groveling apology and thanked Iran for its kindness and hospitality the day before Secretary of State John Kerry stood before the cameras in Vienna and announced that the US and its partners would remove economic sanctions against Iran as soon as the IAEA announced that Iran was abiding by the nuclear deal.

The IAEA then duly announced that Iran was in compliance and it could receive its $150 billion in frozen funds.

Iran crowed that the American sailors cried and otherwise acted like cowards when they were apprehended just hours before Obama went before the cameras and congratulated himself for his brilliantly smart diplomacy that has prevented war. Obama similarly chastised unnamed critics for criticizing his decision to bow and scrape before Iran as it committed acts of war against America.

Obama was undoubtedly relishing the moment as he declared diplomatic victory over his political opponents, but even if he was unhappy about Iran’s behavior he couldn’t have done anything about it.

Obama brags that he was able to reach a nuclear deal where all his predecessors failed. But this hides the main distinction between him and those who came before him.

None of Obama’s predecessors concluded a nuclear deal with Iran because unlike Obama, none of his predecessors were willing to abandon US interests – including the interest of preventing the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism from acquiring nuclear weapons – in order to get a deal. Obama cannot attack Iran’s aggression on the high seas without calling into question the wisdom of his nuclear diplomacy.

He cannot take action against Russia without calling into question his belief that US power in the Middle East is the chief cause of all the region’s problems.

Israel’s military and political leaders are right to be concerned about the implications of Russia’s return to Syria. And it is far from clear that there is a way to credibly minimize the dangers. But, since we’re not going anywhere, we will have to make the best of a bad situation.

Whatever we do, we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that unless the next US president rejects Obama’s entire Middle East policy and shepherds the military and financial resources to abandon it, on Russia, Iran and beyond, Israel will have to fend for itself for the foreseeable future.

J.D.Farag - Mid-East Prophecy Update

Hal Lindsey - Prophetic year 2015 in review

Watch video!