My last post was in response to a blog that was against Dispensationalism, but since there are a lot of readers/friends that might not be entirely or accurately familiar with what Moderate Dispensationalism teaches, or at least what I believe, I decided to put together a post to help explain what Dispensationalism.
Explaining Dispensational theology in one post is about as explanatory as describing an internal combustion engine by saying that it burns gas and turns a shaft to run a car. By that, I mean that Dispensationalism is such a vast and complex topic that a cursory explanation does little more than create a thousand questions in the minds of the readers, and in this case, almost every reader is going to have a thousand different questions than any other reader! However, I think it is important to make an attempt, if simply to help provide a well-rounded experience when it comes to Bible doctrine, as well as to open up dialogue with people who have never seen the Bible in this light.
Buckle up: here we go!
Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Saturday, August 1, 2009
More on the "theory" of Evolution
While contemplating this "Global Warming" "Climate Change" issue, one has to come to the conclusion that it is unchangeably tied to the farce that is Evolution.
For instance, both nonsensical belief systems require long periods of time with gradual changes. "Climate Change" simply insists that this parasitic creature, homo sapiens, is causing change to occur much faster than normal to the detriment of the rest of the ecological system.
Unfortunately, given the lack of education in the "education system," kids are being plopped out of Public Sewers spouting the party line of Evolution, Climate Change, and Socialist Politics. Isn't it strange that modern education purports to teach individuality and free thinking, yet almost all of its denizens quote the same mantra?
Well, this really isn't very long, as my day was long enough and my mind is rather scattered. Take it easy, and I'll try to update more regularly. Again.
For instance, both nonsensical belief systems require long periods of time with gradual changes. "Climate Change" simply insists that this parasitic creature, homo sapiens, is causing change to occur much faster than normal to the detriment of the rest of the ecological system.
Unfortunately, given the lack of education in the "education system," kids are being plopped out of Public Sewers spouting the party line of Evolution, Climate Change, and Socialist Politics. Isn't it strange that modern education purports to teach individuality and free thinking, yet almost all of its denizens quote the same mantra?
Well, this really isn't very long, as my day was long enough and my mind is rather scattered. Take it easy, and I'll try to update more regularly. Again.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Love your Modern Bible Version? So does the Pope
Ouch. Yeah, sorry, that's kinda' hitting below the belt, I know. However, it's 100% true and historically accurate. You doubt? It's easily ascertained.
Anyone who's very familiar at all with the Bible version debate knows that there are two main families of manuscripts (mss.), the Byzantine or Antioch, known as the "Majority Text," and the Alexandrian, known as the "Critical Text." For almost 1800 years, the only Scriptures available to the people were those of the Antioch line (where they were first called Christians, etc.). Antioch is located in Asia Minor, the location of the vast majority of Paul's missionary journeys.
These mss. are found in dozens of different languages the world over, and have resulted in every Reformation-Era Bible besides Wycliffe's, from the Gutenberg Bible down through the Bishops, Geneva, Great and Authorized Bibles (KJB). These, while differing and varying somewhat among the 10,000 or so different scraps and portions in so many different languages, still exhibit an incredible coherence as a whole, and to any objectie observer have resulted in every major revival and awakening movement on the globe since the time of Christ.
However, this family of mss. has been villanized by modern Christian scholarship as being newer and more modified from the "Original Autographs." They in turn offer the Critical line of mss. in their place, but even a cursory examination of these raises an immense number of red flags. For instance, the proponents of the Alexandrian family of manuscript were from Alexandria, Egypt, a place that no Apostle nor church father of character came from nor even visited. Alexandria was a hotbed of corruption and debauchery from the political sphere down through its culture and even into its band of Christians. This group included Origen, who castrated himself, and other men whose philosophy came directly from the humanistic philosophers of Greece. It's clear from their writings (Origen was a most prolific writer) that they held very few of the "orthodox" or fundamental doctrines, instead many times believing in multiple paths for salvation and other hereisies.
To return to the title, however: in the middle 1800s, Christian scholars who had studied in humanistic German schools of philosophy began uncovering new manuscripts and codices that had never been seen before. These included Alexandrianus (A), the least-known of the three main mss., Siniaiticus (א), found in a garbage heap in a monestary in the Siniai desert, and Vaticanus (B), a script that no Christian scholar, liberal or not, has ever actually studied in person. Dean Burgeon, a great defender of the Majority Text in the late 1800s, described the aforementioned codices as sloppy and lacking the care that important documents of any type merited, let alone the Scriptures themselves. It's believed that Origin and others actually modified at least two of these codices, though there are contradictions and ommissions located throughout.
The reason that Vaticanus (B) has never been actively studied is because it is kept securely locked away in the Vatican library. While photocopies have been made available, on which the overwhelming majority of modern translations are based, the codex itself is unattainable.
But all this doesn't necessarily answer the customary query or the reader: why would the Pope and the Catholic system look favorably upon the modern versions, while by implication frowning upon traditional translations? Simple this: thousands of people, from unknown thousands during the Dark Ages down through John Huss and William Tyndale, died for hiding, reading, posessing or memorizing the words of Scripture from the Majority Text, and their deaths were completely at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. While the "church" used political powers to carry out the public torture and executions, they were behind it and in control of it nonetheless.
After the Bible was out in the open and impossible for the Papists to control (thanks to men like Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale and others), they decided on another tact: if you can't beat them, join them. So as a result, the Chamelion Catholic Church changed their stance on the Bible, and manipulated Christian "scholarship" to use their "older," extremely corrupt manuscripts and codices to produce new versions of the Bible. In essence, the NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, and ASV are all based on the same source from whence came the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, while the King James Bible, the Bishops, Tyndale, Great Bible, Luther's German Bible, and all other Reformation-Era Bibles, are based on the manuscripts that Bible-believing men ans women died for through the centuries.
Hard words, yes, but very true. Not only are "updates" to the Bible unnecessary, but the very foundation for those updates is the corruption that the Roman Catholic Whore has infiltrated Christianity with to undermine the Authority and Power of the Scriptures. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together wouldn't accept the doctrines of Purgatory, Infant Baptism or Transubstantiation, but those same individuals turn around and correct the words of God with the corruption that the Catholic Bible is based on. Hardly makes sense, does it?
Anyone who's very familiar at all with the Bible version debate knows that there are two main families of manuscripts (mss.), the Byzantine or Antioch, known as the "Majority Text," and the Alexandrian, known as the "Critical Text." For almost 1800 years, the only Scriptures available to the people were those of the Antioch line (where they were first called Christians, etc.). Antioch is located in Asia Minor, the location of the vast majority of Paul's missionary journeys.
These mss. are found in dozens of different languages the world over, and have resulted in every Reformation-Era Bible besides Wycliffe's, from the Gutenberg Bible down through the Bishops, Geneva, Great and Authorized Bibles (KJB). These, while differing and varying somewhat among the 10,000 or so different scraps and portions in so many different languages, still exhibit an incredible coherence as a whole, and to any objectie observer have resulted in every major revival and awakening movement on the globe since the time of Christ.
However, this family of mss. has been villanized by modern Christian scholarship as being newer and more modified from the "Original Autographs." They in turn offer the Critical line of mss. in their place, but even a cursory examination of these raises an immense number of red flags. For instance, the proponents of the Alexandrian family of manuscript were from Alexandria, Egypt, a place that no Apostle nor church father of character came from nor even visited. Alexandria was a hotbed of corruption and debauchery from the political sphere down through its culture and even into its band of Christians. This group included Origen, who castrated himself, and other men whose philosophy came directly from the humanistic philosophers of Greece. It's clear from their writings (Origen was a most prolific writer) that they held very few of the "orthodox" or fundamental doctrines, instead many times believing in multiple paths for salvation and other hereisies.
To return to the title, however: in the middle 1800s, Christian scholars who had studied in humanistic German schools of philosophy began uncovering new manuscripts and codices that had never been seen before. These included Alexandrianus (A), the least-known of the three main mss., Siniaiticus (א), found in a garbage heap in a monestary in the Siniai desert, and Vaticanus (B), a script that no Christian scholar, liberal or not, has ever actually studied in person. Dean Burgeon, a great defender of the Majority Text in the late 1800s, described the aforementioned codices as sloppy and lacking the care that important documents of any type merited, let alone the Scriptures themselves. It's believed that Origin and others actually modified at least two of these codices, though there are contradictions and ommissions located throughout.
The reason that Vaticanus (B) has never been actively studied is because it is kept securely locked away in the Vatican library. While photocopies have been made available, on which the overwhelming majority of modern translations are based, the codex itself is unattainable.
But all this doesn't necessarily answer the customary query or the reader: why would the Pope and the Catholic system look favorably upon the modern versions, while by implication frowning upon traditional translations? Simple this: thousands of people, from unknown thousands during the Dark Ages down through John Huss and William Tyndale, died for hiding, reading, posessing or memorizing the words of Scripture from the Majority Text, and their deaths were completely at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. While the "church" used political powers to carry out the public torture and executions, they were behind it and in control of it nonetheless.
After the Bible was out in the open and impossible for the Papists to control (thanks to men like Luther, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale and others), they decided on another tact: if you can't beat them, join them. So as a result, the Chamelion Catholic Church changed their stance on the Bible, and manipulated Christian "scholarship" to use their "older," extremely corrupt manuscripts and codices to produce new versions of the Bible. In essence, the NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, and ASV are all based on the same source from whence came the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, while the King James Bible, the Bishops, Tyndale, Great Bible, Luther's German Bible, and all other Reformation-Era Bibles, are based on the manuscripts that Bible-believing men ans women died for through the centuries.
Hard words, yes, but very true. Not only are "updates" to the Bible unnecessary, but the very foundation for those updates is the corruption that the Roman Catholic Whore has infiltrated Christianity with to undermine the Authority and Power of the Scriptures. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together wouldn't accept the doctrines of Purgatory, Infant Baptism or Transubstantiation, but those same individuals turn around and correct the words of God with the corruption that the Catholic Bible is based on. Hardly makes sense, does it?
Saturday, May 2, 2009
"godly men"??
When dealing with the modern version issue, the names of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort are almost synonymous with Textual Criticism, and for good reason: they basically single-handedly (with the Vatican's and Satan's help, of course) demolished the solid foundation of the King James Bible. Of course they didn't damage the Word or change anything as far as God's words go, but they're responsible for destroying the faith of millions in God's written words.
When the average "scholar" starts talking about the Textual issue, they always eventually say something about the "godly, dedicated men" behind the "Bible-of-the-Month-Club" perversions being churned out of the Bible mills continuously. This is, of course, to try to change the focus to their character from their work, when their work should invariably be the subject of scrutiny. The same goes for Westcott and Hort.
Both men were Anglican ministers. Well so were many of the King James translators, you might say. True. However, those men had untarnished and unassailable testimonies of salvation and stellar reputations of spirituality and humility. Even modern KJB-haters have to attack their education (still unparalleled) or available materials (they had all the modern readings available in the Latin Vulgate) instead of their character. However, good Drs. Westcott and Hort are quite another story.
In their own personal writings, they expressed their interest in gardening, ornithology, spiritism, and animal rights, among other things. While their contemporaries, such as John Wesley, George Whitefield, George Müller, William Booth and Billy Sunday, were spending nearly every waking hour preaching the Gospel and serving God, these modern Textual Critics spoke very little of Spiritual things, even relegating the Scriptures themselves as of no more importance than any other ancient manuscript! Neither one of them believed in Salvation by grace through Faith alone, nor a literal Devil or a literal hell, but they did agree on Mariolatry, Purgatory, Universal Reconciliation and the Nicolaitine Catholic priesthood. These men revered the Papacy very deeply, and on many occasions lamented their church's (Anglican) lack of strong, Papal leadership.
But these are the "good, godly, dedicated" men whose work is so celebrated by modern Bible-rejectors. These men (Westcott and Hort) demoted the Bible to a menial collection of ancient scribbles and completely demolished its authority in modern society with their wrangling of the Critical Text, from which virtually every modern Bible perversion has sprung. Their pro-Vatican, anti-Biblical, un-spiritual babble has infiltrated every facet of "Christianity" and perverted the church that had held true to God's words for over 1800 years. With but a few years work, these reprobates cast doubt and confusion onto the textual line that millions had died for over the centuries, including men like John Huss, William Tyndale and others of their persuasion. From the Waldenses, Petrobrusians and other such groups, to men like Wycliffe and Luther that suffered persecution, Westcott and Hort undid almost two millenia of blood, sweat, tears and prayer. Today, God's precious words are scoffed at by billions, because of the confusion brought about by their work.
Good job, guys...Satan's really proud of ya.
When the average "scholar" starts talking about the Textual issue, they always eventually say something about the "godly, dedicated men" behind the "Bible-of-the-Month-Club" perversions being churned out of the Bible mills continuously. This is, of course, to try to change the focus to their character from their work, when their work should invariably be the subject of scrutiny. The same goes for Westcott and Hort.
Both men were Anglican ministers. Well so were many of the King James translators, you might say. True. However, those men had untarnished and unassailable testimonies of salvation and stellar reputations of spirituality and humility. Even modern KJB-haters have to attack their education (still unparalleled) or available materials (they had all the modern readings available in the Latin Vulgate) instead of their character. However, good Drs. Westcott and Hort are quite another story.
In their own personal writings, they expressed their interest in gardening, ornithology, spiritism, and animal rights, among other things. While their contemporaries, such as John Wesley, George Whitefield, George Müller, William Booth and Billy Sunday, were spending nearly every waking hour preaching the Gospel and serving God, these modern Textual Critics spoke very little of Spiritual things, even relegating the Scriptures themselves as of no more importance than any other ancient manuscript! Neither one of them believed in Salvation by grace through Faith alone, nor a literal Devil or a literal hell, but they did agree on Mariolatry, Purgatory, Universal Reconciliation and the Nicolaitine Catholic priesthood. These men revered the Papacy very deeply, and on many occasions lamented their church's (Anglican) lack of strong, Papal leadership.
But these are the "good, godly, dedicated" men whose work is so celebrated by modern Bible-rejectors. These men (Westcott and Hort) demoted the Bible to a menial collection of ancient scribbles and completely demolished its authority in modern society with their wrangling of the Critical Text, from which virtually every modern Bible perversion has sprung. Their pro-Vatican, anti-Biblical, un-spiritual babble has infiltrated every facet of "Christianity" and perverted the church that had held true to God's words for over 1800 years. With but a few years work, these reprobates cast doubt and confusion onto the textual line that millions had died for over the centuries, including men like John Huss, William Tyndale and others of their persuasion. From the Waldenses, Petrobrusians and other such groups, to men like Wycliffe and Luther that suffered persecution, Westcott and Hort undid almost two millenia of blood, sweat, tears and prayer. Today, God's precious words are scoffed at by billions, because of the confusion brought about by their work.
Good job, guys...Satan's really proud of ya.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Unity or cowardice?
How good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.
Of course it's good. It's awesome when believers can fellowship together in harmony and mutual understanding if not always mutual agreement on every little thing.
However, where does unity end and compromise begin?
I don't have the desire nor the time to go into detail, but I was recently berated for my "attitude" and my "anger" because I defended the words of God against a "Ph.D candidate" who made ridiculously idiotic statements about the "archaic" nature of the King James Bible and said that there were many terrible translations in it. This is a guy who apostatized a few years back and is now proudly a "renegade" who refuses to believe in any Authority that he can hold in his hands and OBEY. It always comes down to authority.
Basically, there was a thread to post what Bible version each person used, so I simply stated that I believed the King James Bible is the perfect, pure, preserved word of God, given by inspiration. I did not attack anyone, I did not list the errors and corruption in other "Bibles," and I did not even hint at my true belief about other translations.
"RenegadeBrad" comes along, though, and copy/pastes this huge list of ignorant "errors" that have been refuted more times than I care to mention, as well as a list of "archaic words" in the KJB, including such hard words as "onyx" and "osprey." (this from a self-described "Ph.D candidate" that admitted that he could understand fewer than 25% of these words) When I replied in the defense of the word of God, I was reviled for saying that I could understand 50-75% of the words without having attended college, and that anyone with a decent grasp of entymology and the English language should have no problem understanding even more of the "archaic" words than I even do.
But oh no, we can't have THAT: it turns out that the board administrator is personal friends with "Brad," and so now I'm "stuck up" because I was home schooled, and I'm a "clanging pot" and a "yapping dog" simply because I DEFENDED the WORDS OF GOD. I attacked nothing and no one: I simply defended against an attack by someone else: but I'm the one that gets castigated, not the individual who instigated the altercation with his attack.
Heck, I'm always up for an attack, and I'm more than willing to show where modern versions are corrupt and satanic in origin, but that's not what the thread was for. In fact, that's not even what the forum as a whole is for, and I had been very careful not to cross the wishes of the admin. But simply because the other guy was friends with the admin and he was more "gracious" in his attack on God's holy word than I was in its defense, I'm causing division and breaking the rules.
So, when does unity become compromise? When you throw truth out the window to preserve peace.
"You mess with that Book and I'll mess with you!" ~Dr. Peter S. Ruckman
Of course it's good. It's awesome when believers can fellowship together in harmony and mutual understanding if not always mutual agreement on every little thing.
However, where does unity end and compromise begin?
I don't have the desire nor the time to go into detail, but I was recently berated for my "attitude" and my "anger" because I defended the words of God against a "Ph.D candidate" who made ridiculously idiotic statements about the "archaic" nature of the King James Bible and said that there were many terrible translations in it. This is a guy who apostatized a few years back and is now proudly a "renegade" who refuses to believe in any Authority that he can hold in his hands and OBEY. It always comes down to authority.
Basically, there was a thread to post what Bible version each person used, so I simply stated that I believed the King James Bible is the perfect, pure, preserved word of God, given by inspiration. I did not attack anyone, I did not list the errors and corruption in other "Bibles," and I did not even hint at my true belief about other translations.
"RenegadeBrad" comes along, though, and copy/pastes this huge list of ignorant "errors" that have been refuted more times than I care to mention, as well as a list of "archaic words" in the KJB, including such hard words as "onyx" and "osprey." (this from a self-described "Ph.D candidate" that admitted that he could understand fewer than 25% of these words) When I replied in the defense of the word of God, I was reviled for saying that I could understand 50-75% of the words without having attended college, and that anyone with a decent grasp of entymology and the English language should have no problem understanding even more of the "archaic" words than I even do.
But oh no, we can't have THAT: it turns out that the board administrator is personal friends with "Brad," and so now I'm "stuck up" because I was home schooled, and I'm a "clanging pot" and a "yapping dog" simply because I DEFENDED the WORDS OF GOD. I attacked nothing and no one: I simply defended against an attack by someone else: but I'm the one that gets castigated, not the individual who instigated the altercation with his attack.
Heck, I'm always up for an attack, and I'm more than willing to show where modern versions are corrupt and satanic in origin, but that's not what the thread was for. In fact, that's not even what the forum as a whole is for, and I had been very careful not to cross the wishes of the admin. But simply because the other guy was friends with the admin and he was more "gracious" in his attack on God's holy word than I was in its defense, I'm causing division and breaking the rules.
So, when does unity become compromise? When you throw truth out the window to preserve peace.
"You mess with that Book and I'll mess with you!" ~Dr. Peter S. Ruckman
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Evolution? Are you nuts!?!
Besides the obvious fact that institutions of "higher learning" are breeding grounds for Evolutionist infidels, an article from FOX regarding a recent Gallup poll shows that less than 40% of Americans believe in evolution, and less than 25% of high school-educated people believe in the ridiculous nonsense.
Well, with no evidence for the "theory," no "transitional fossils" (which were a problem for Darwin and still give Evolutionists epileptic fits) and belief only in places full of educated idiots, proponents of this nonsensical pipe dream need to crawl back into their scummy little holes and suck an egg.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491345,00.html
Well, with no evidence for the "theory," no "transitional fossils" (which were a problem for Darwin and still give Evolutionists epileptic fits) and belief only in places full of educated idiots, proponents of this nonsensical pipe dream need to crawl back into their scummy little holes and suck an egg.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491345,00.html
Saturday, January 24, 2009
"Honest" Abe
In a list of America's great leaders, you'll invariably find George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and, of all people, Abraham Lincoln. Unfortunately, thanks to the liberal media and "political correctness," few really know the truth about Lincoln: who he really was, what he did and what he believed. Let's take a second and uncover some truth about the man that "freed the slaves."
Ooohh...didn't see that one coming, did ya'? So Lincoln believed that the white man should be superior to the black man! How different from the "Fourscore and seven years ago" man the history books extol!
Wow, what happened to that "the South seceded because Lincoln was gonna' free their slaves" garbage? Looks like someone has their facts WRONG!
So then, why did the South secede? Let's give you a little hint:
Where did that come from? Why, the Declaration of Independence, the original Founding Document of this nation! In it, Thomas Jefferson clearly states that it's not only their right, but their DUTY, to declare independence and create a new government that will satisfy the needs of their people. So how can one say that the South's secession was any different from the "rebellion" of the 13 Original Colonies?
Rev. John Killian preached a sermon titled "Would the Religion of Abraham Lincoln Save You?" and it can be found online HERE. Lincoln is quoted as saying:
Further, Abraham Lincoln invaded the Southern states without a Declaration of War or Congressional approval; it has recently been approved that the president can operate troops in foreign lands for a set period of time without Congressional approval, but this was not in place at that time: Mr. Lincoln overstepped his Constitutional boundaries by invading the South.
There is so much more that can be revealed: the moral differences between the sides, the actual reasons behind the secession and the actual state of slavery in the US, but the fact remains that a popular historical figure has been portrayed incorrectly by ignoring historical facts about him and glorifying him for "saving the Union" even though it was done by glaringly Unconstitutional means.
I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.
Lincoln in his speech to Charleston, Illinois, 1858
Ooohh...didn't see that one coming, did ya'? So Lincoln believed that the white man should be superior to the black man! How different from the "Fourscore and seven years ago" man the history books extol!
I acknowledge the constitutional rights of the States — not grudgingly, but fairly and fully, and I will give them any legislation for reclaiming their fugitive slaves.
The point the Republican party wanted to stress was to oppose making slave States out of the newly acquired territory, not abolishing slavery as it then existed.Lincoln in speeches at Peoria, Illinois
I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Lincoln's Inaugural Address
Wow, what happened to that "the South seceded because Lincoln was gonna' free their slaves" garbage? Looks like someone has their facts WRONG!
Do the people of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would directly or indirectly interfere with their slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy , that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.
Letter from Lincoln to A.H. Stephens
Public and Private Letters of Alexander Stephens, p. 150
So then, why did the South secede? Let's give you a little hint:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Where did that come from? Why, the Declaration of Independence, the original Founding Document of this nation! In it, Thomas Jefferson clearly states that it's not only their right, but their DUTY, to declare independence and create a new government that will satisfy the needs of their people. So how can one say that the South's secession was any different from the "rebellion" of the 13 Original Colonies?
Rev. John Killian preached a sermon titled "Would the Religion of Abraham Lincoln Save You?" and it can be found online HERE. Lincoln is quoted as saying:
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the sriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."
1862 letter to Judge J.S. Wakefield,
after the death of Willie Lincoln
Further, Abraham Lincoln invaded the Southern states without a Declaration of War or Congressional approval; it has recently been approved that the president can operate troops in foreign lands for a set period of time without Congressional approval, but this was not in place at that time: Mr. Lincoln overstepped his Constitutional boundaries by invading the South.
There is so much more that can be revealed: the moral differences between the sides, the actual reasons behind the secession and the actual state of slavery in the US, but the fact remains that a popular historical figure has been portrayed incorrectly by ignoring historical facts about him and glorifying him for "saving the Union" even though it was done by glaringly Unconstitutional means.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
"The Rest"
I did everything that I could do to try to pay the debt I owed,
And I'd gone as far as I could go working 'neath that heavy load.
While searching for a resting place, something strange occurred,
When a Voice from out of nowhere spoke the sweetest words I've heard:
(Chorus)
Come unto Me all ye that labour, and I will give you rest.
You can lay all your burdens down and receive My Righteousness;
For the Father is pleased with the work I've done and there's nothing left to do.
Come to Calvary's Cross where the labour is finished,
And I'll leave the rest to you.
Even now sometimes I still try to do things on my own:
I gather my strength, give it all I have, work my fingers to the bone.
When it seems that I can't go on and all my strength is spent,
I find myself down on my knees, where I hear these words again:
(Chorus)
Come unto Me all ye that labour, and I will give you rest.
You can lay all your burdens down and receive My Righteousness;
For the Father is pleased with the work I've done and there's nothing left to do.
Come to Calvary's Cross where the labour is finished,
And I'll leave the rest to you.
And I'd gone as far as I could go working 'neath that heavy load.
While searching for a resting place, something strange occurred,
When a Voice from out of nowhere spoke the sweetest words I've heard:
(Chorus)
Come unto Me all ye that labour, and I will give you rest.
You can lay all your burdens down and receive My Righteousness;
For the Father is pleased with the work I've done and there's nothing left to do.
Come to Calvary's Cross where the labour is finished,
And I'll leave the rest to you.
Even now sometimes I still try to do things on my own:
I gather my strength, give it all I have, work my fingers to the bone.
When it seems that I can't go on and all my strength is spent,
I find myself down on my knees, where I hear these words again:
(Chorus)
Come unto Me all ye that labour, and I will give you rest.
You can lay all your burdens down and receive My Righteousness;
For the Father is pleased with the work I've done and there's nothing left to do.
Come to Calvary's Cross where the labour is finished,
And I'll leave the rest to you.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Evolution "theory," pt. 2
Of course the Darwinists hit my previous "evolution" post like I expected them to; they don't like it when you question their faith.
I've tired of messing with them; lately I've instead focused on more Spiritual discussions. My current topic of focus is called "The uselessness of Religion." I named it that because I knew it would get peoples' attention; the reason I started it was because I know how stuck on "religion" people get, and how negatively it is viewed by outside viewers. Oh well, perhaps more on that later.
Evolution is a lie, ok? I know some new visitors won't agree, but that's fine, you'll get over it or leave. Darwin saw different species of finches and supposed that they "evolved" from a "common ancestor" instead of varying based on their habitats. Then he and some of his buddies forged a "missing link" that came to be known as "Piltdown Man." The thing was the skull of an ape, the jaw of a human, and some mis-matched teeth all filed down, treated with acid, and stuck on with BUBBLE GUM. Then they buried it in a gravel pit and someone "discovered" it a year or so later. Of course the "Scientific" community jumped all over it, claiming it was "proof" of their evolution garbage. But alas, someone who applied a bit of objectivity to the situation discovered that it was a hoax. However, you don't hear much about "Piltdown Man" anymore, do ya'?
The same with Nebraska Man: a man found a TOOTH and designed a whole RACE of "humanoids" based on the ONE TOOTH! It was later discovered that far from being a hominid tooth, it was actually from a species of extinct PIG. That's how "objective" evolutionists are.
The only real reason I bring it up is because I've met a lot of Christians that are confused about the evolution mess. They think that "science" contradicts the Bible, so in order to believe the Bible they have to reject "science." This is far from the case, ladies and gentlemen. The Bible is light years ahead of science: they're still catching up with the Bible.
Moreover, almost single field of modern science was pioneered by a Born Again Christian who believed the Genesis account of Creation. That's not even mentioning all the archaeologists that traveled all over the world to attempt to prove the Bible wrong but actually found the Bible to be 100% correct.
In the book "The Case for Christ," the author tells how he, an experienced journalist, lived his entire life as an atheist. At one point, he grew so tired of peoples' belief in Jesus Christ that he decided to approach His story from a legal standpoint: in effect he decided to come at Jesus and His existence like he would a questionable news story. Halfway through his study, he accepted Jesus Christ as his Saviour, as a result of his attack! He then proceeded to publish his findings in the book that I named above, showing that Jesus' existence is easily ascertained by eyewitness accounts.
Evolution, on the other hand, has no eyewitnesses, nor can it! (in the Scopes monkey trial, EVOLUTION LOST) Evolution is based on assumptions, guesses and lame hypotheses that cannot be proven nor ever will be.
If you're a Christian that has struggled with evolution and its attack on the Scriptures, rest assured that your Bible is 100% correct, and no person will ever prove otherwise. You can KNOW that Jesus Christ is real, His Word is Truth, and He IS the Creator of this Universe. Faith, at that point, changes from "believing" to KNOWING.
I've tired of messing with them; lately I've instead focused on more Spiritual discussions. My current topic of focus is called "The uselessness of Religion." I named it that because I knew it would get peoples' attention; the reason I started it was because I know how stuck on "religion" people get, and how negatively it is viewed by outside viewers. Oh well, perhaps more on that later.
Evolution is a lie, ok? I know some new visitors won't agree, but that's fine, you'll get over it or leave. Darwin saw different species of finches and supposed that they "evolved" from a "common ancestor" instead of varying based on their habitats. Then he and some of his buddies forged a "missing link" that came to be known as "Piltdown Man." The thing was the skull of an ape, the jaw of a human, and some mis-matched teeth all filed down, treated with acid, and stuck on with BUBBLE GUM. Then they buried it in a gravel pit and someone "discovered" it a year or so later. Of course the "Scientific" community jumped all over it, claiming it was "proof" of their evolution garbage. But alas, someone who applied a bit of objectivity to the situation discovered that it was a hoax. However, you don't hear much about "Piltdown Man" anymore, do ya'?
The same with Nebraska Man: a man found a TOOTH and designed a whole RACE of "humanoids" based on the ONE TOOTH! It was later discovered that far from being a hominid tooth, it was actually from a species of extinct PIG. That's how "objective" evolutionists are.
The only real reason I bring it up is because I've met a lot of Christians that are confused about the evolution mess. They think that "science" contradicts the Bible, so in order to believe the Bible they have to reject "science." This is far from the case, ladies and gentlemen. The Bible is light years ahead of science: they're still catching up with the Bible.
Moreover, almost single field of modern science was pioneered by a Born Again Christian who believed the Genesis account of Creation. That's not even mentioning all the archaeologists that traveled all over the world to attempt to prove the Bible wrong but actually found the Bible to be 100% correct.
In the book "The Case for Christ," the author tells how he, an experienced journalist, lived his entire life as an atheist. At one point, he grew so tired of peoples' belief in Jesus Christ that he decided to approach His story from a legal standpoint: in effect he decided to come at Jesus and His existence like he would a questionable news story. Halfway through his study, he accepted Jesus Christ as his Saviour, as a result of his attack! He then proceeded to publish his findings in the book that I named above, showing that Jesus' existence is easily ascertained by eyewitness accounts.
Evolution, on the other hand, has no eyewitnesses, nor can it! (in the Scopes monkey trial, EVOLUTION LOST) Evolution is based on assumptions, guesses and lame hypotheses that cannot be proven nor ever will be.
If you're a Christian that has struggled with evolution and its attack on the Scriptures, rest assured that your Bible is 100% correct, and no person will ever prove otherwise. You can KNOW that Jesus Christ is real, His Word is Truth, and He IS the Creator of this Universe. Faith, at that point, changes from "believing" to KNOWING.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
A Three-Dimensional Book!
Sitting in Sunday School this morning, I had a thought; pastor was teaching on Eternal Security and its application throughout the Bible and to whom it applies and to whom it doesn't. All of a sudden I thought of something: The Bible has three dimensions!
Of course, the first is "What" or "Where." What part of the Bible, what books, what doctrines, etc.
Secondly is "Whom." To whom was it written, to whom is it applicable.
Lastly is "When." When is What applicable to Whom?
Most "Independent, Fundamental, Hellfire and Damnation" Baptists haven't a clue that different parts of the Bible are applicable to different people at different times. God told Adam not to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; He didn't tell him to bring a lamb for sacrifice or accept Jesus Christ as his Saviour!! Noah was told to build a boat, not to be baptized for remission of sins or to refuse the Mark of the Beast. We, as Christians in the Church Age, are part of the Body of Christ: we haven't been commanded to keep the Law, build a boat, or follow the command of the Everlasting Gospel (Rev. 14:7).
Keep it in perspective and remember the Bible is a Three Dimensional Book.
Of course, the first is "What" or "Where." What part of the Bible, what books, what doctrines, etc.
Secondly is "Whom." To whom was it written, to whom is it applicable.
Lastly is "When." When is What applicable to Whom?
Most "Independent, Fundamental, Hellfire and Damnation" Baptists haven't a clue that different parts of the Bible are applicable to different people at different times. God told Adam not to eat of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; He didn't tell him to bring a lamb for sacrifice or accept Jesus Christ as his Saviour!! Noah was told to build a boat, not to be baptized for remission of sins or to refuse the Mark of the Beast. We, as Christians in the Church Age, are part of the Body of Christ: we haven't been commanded to keep the Law, build a boat, or follow the command of the Everlasting Gospel (Rev. 14:7).
Keep it in perspective and remember the Bible is a Three Dimensional Book.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
The Chastening of the LORD
My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: (Pro. 3:11)
Objectivity is a complex thing: you can slide out of objectivity almost as easily as you can slip into pride. However, it is one of the most needful things in the Christian life, because without it, one becomes self-centered, without the ability to see God's hand molding and shaping his life.
I have seen, in my life and in the lives of others, the tendency to assume control of ones' own life: this invariably winds up being disastrous, sometimes irreparably so. Take Jonah, as an example: when he tried to make his own choices against the will of God, he almost wound up dead. The second time (and you thought he learned his lesson!), God "shelved" him, never to be heard from again. I'm not saying that if you disobey God twice that He's going to retire you, but there comes a point where you'd think a person would learn his lesson and just simply OBEY!
But of course, that rarely, if ever, happens, even in the lives of the most devout among us. Every man falls, falters, fails or fumbles, and it's only God's longsuffering that allows us to keep on messing up and learning from our mistakes. I once preached a message on longsuffering: most people say that the word simply means patience, but third-grade etymology says otherwise. Longsuffering is suffering for a long time. God is LONGSUFFERING; He puts up with a lot of suffering because of us! Have you ever thought that your disobedience causes your God and Saviour to SUFFER?? Think about that next time you're tempted to complain, murmur, disobey or rebel.
Anyhow, back to my original topic. There are times when God needs to chasten or discipline us for something: in our predicament we can rarely see exactly what God is planning for us or preparing us for, but through it all, He knows what He is doing. That's where objectivity comes in: in the midst of my parents' most difficult times, they probably weren't thinking about the effect their faithfulness would have on their son who would eventually be called to the field: they were worried about the bills, groceries and tithe. Little did they know just how much God was using their struggles and even chastening to help prepare someone else for the task that He would give them.
If God has you in a tough spot; if you're up against the ropes getting the pudding pounded outta' you by a 240 lb. heavyweight; if you're wondering how you're going to make ends meet: just remember, God put you there, or at worst allowed you to get in that situation, and He is more than capable of taking care of you: He PROMISED to provide for you. Cheering up may be a bit beyond you right now, but take heart in the fact that God is working in you, to bring forth a vessel for the finer. (Pro. 25:4)
Objectivity is a complex thing: you can slide out of objectivity almost as easily as you can slip into pride. However, it is one of the most needful things in the Christian life, because without it, one becomes self-centered, without the ability to see God's hand molding and shaping his life.
I have seen, in my life and in the lives of others, the tendency to assume control of ones' own life: this invariably winds up being disastrous, sometimes irreparably so. Take Jonah, as an example: when he tried to make his own choices against the will of God, he almost wound up dead. The second time (and you thought he learned his lesson!), God "shelved" him, never to be heard from again. I'm not saying that if you disobey God twice that He's going to retire you, but there comes a point where you'd think a person would learn his lesson and just simply OBEY!
But of course, that rarely, if ever, happens, even in the lives of the most devout among us. Every man falls, falters, fails or fumbles, and it's only God's longsuffering that allows us to keep on messing up and learning from our mistakes. I once preached a message on longsuffering: most people say that the word simply means patience, but third-grade etymology says otherwise. Longsuffering is suffering for a long time. God is LONGSUFFERING; He puts up with a lot of suffering because of us! Have you ever thought that your disobedience causes your God and Saviour to SUFFER?? Think about that next time you're tempted to complain, murmur, disobey or rebel.
Anyhow, back to my original topic. There are times when God needs to chasten or discipline us for something: in our predicament we can rarely see exactly what God is planning for us or preparing us for, but through it all, He knows what He is doing. That's where objectivity comes in: in the midst of my parents' most difficult times, they probably weren't thinking about the effect their faithfulness would have on their son who would eventually be called to the field: they were worried about the bills, groceries and tithe. Little did they know just how much God was using their struggles and even chastening to help prepare someone else for the task that He would give them.
If God has you in a tough spot; if you're up against the ropes getting the pudding pounded outta' you by a 240 lb. heavyweight; if you're wondering how you're going to make ends meet: just remember, God put you there, or at worst allowed you to get in that situation, and He is more than capable of taking care of you: He PROMISED to provide for you. Cheering up may be a bit beyond you right now, but take heart in the fact that God is working in you, to bring forth a vessel for the finer. (Pro. 25:4)
Monday, December 22, 2008
"In My Father's Eyes"
From a distance He'd be watching me,
And I guess somehow He knew,
That in my heart I longed to be like Him.
In time the closer we became,
The more it seemed I grew;
I'd fall, He'd pick me up, and I'd try again.
He loves me even when I do
The things I shouldn't do
And when I fail to do the things I should.
I've heard it said that love is blind,
And I guess I know it's true:
He forgets the bad, and remembers all the good.
In my Father's eyes, there's no wrong I've done,
In my Father's eyes, I am the perfect son.
He must see Someone I can't see,
And it makes me want to try
To be like the Son that's in my Father's eyes.
And when this life is over,
My last trial I've gone through,
T'will be worth it all just to hear Him say "Well done."
And maybe then I'll understand
Just what He saw in me,
But I'm sure I'll find that He was blinded by the Son.
In my Father's eyes, there's no wrong I've done,
In my Father's eyes, I am the perfect son.
He must see Someone I can't see,
And it makes me want to try
To be like the Son that's in my Father's eyes.
And I guess somehow He knew,
That in my heart I longed to be like Him.
In time the closer we became,
The more it seemed I grew;
I'd fall, He'd pick me up, and I'd try again.
He loves me even when I do
The things I shouldn't do
And when I fail to do the things I should.
I've heard it said that love is blind,
And I guess I know it's true:
He forgets the bad, and remembers all the good.
In my Father's eyes, there's no wrong I've done,
In my Father's eyes, I am the perfect son.
He must see Someone I can't see,
And it makes me want to try
To be like the Son that's in my Father's eyes.
And when this life is over,
My last trial I've gone through,
T'will be worth it all just to hear Him say "Well done."
And maybe then I'll understand
Just what He saw in me,
But I'm sure I'll find that He was blinded by the Son.
In my Father's eyes, there's no wrong I've done,
In my Father's eyes, I am the perfect son.
He must see Someone I can't see,
And it makes me want to try
To be like the Son that's in my Father's eyes.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
"The Mirror"
I put down the Mirror and said do myself
"Was that really me that I saw?"
I thought there might be something wrong with the Mirror,
For it magnified every flaw.
The more grooming I tried
Made me realize that what I saw in the image was true.
The truth I can't hide,
"Lord change me!" I cried,
"Make me a reflection of You."
And I love this old Mirror, God's Holy Word,
And I've found that it always rings true.
Lord, if not for the Mirror, I know I'd be lost,
For it was there I found You.
When things come between this old mirror and me,
Your image won't be shining through.
But in view of the Mirror,
My purpose is clearer,
To be a reflection of You.
I pick up the Mirror and now I'm amazed,
That that's really me that I see.
And I know that there's nothing wrong with this Mirror;
I'm just not what I used to be.
The more that I grow,
It's so good to know,
That this transformation is true.
May it not be me Lord, but You that they see,
A living reflection of You.
And I love this old Mirror, God's Holy Word,
And I've found that it always rings true.
Lord, if not for the Mirror, I know I'd be lost,
For it was there I found You.
When things come between this old mirror and me,
Your image won't be shining through.
But in view of the Mirror,
My purpose is clearer,
To be a reflection of You.
"Was that really me that I saw?"
I thought there might be something wrong with the Mirror,
For it magnified every flaw.
The more grooming I tried
Made me realize that what I saw in the image was true.
The truth I can't hide,
"Lord change me!" I cried,
"Make me a reflection of You."
And I love this old Mirror, God's Holy Word,
And I've found that it always rings true.
Lord, if not for the Mirror, I know I'd be lost,
For it was there I found You.
When things come between this old mirror and me,
Your image won't be shining through.
But in view of the Mirror,
My purpose is clearer,
To be a reflection of You.
I pick up the Mirror and now I'm amazed,
That that's really me that I see.
And I know that there's nothing wrong with this Mirror;
I'm just not what I used to be.
The more that I grow,
It's so good to know,
That this transformation is true.
May it not be me Lord, but You that they see,
A living reflection of You.
And I love this old Mirror, God's Holy Word,
And I've found that it always rings true.
Lord, if not for the Mirror, I know I'd be lost,
For it was there I found You.
When things come between this old mirror and me,
Your image won't be shining through.
But in view of the Mirror,
My purpose is clearer,
To be a reflection of You.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Perspective
Bro.Forrest asked me to put up some ideas on how to stay out of a rut as a Christian; while my post was specifically about our testimony as it relates to our jobs, it's apparent that the outline God gave me is relevant to every part of our Christian life.
1. God's Pardon
While Jesus said not to look back after setting your hand to the plow, sometimes it's good to remember what God saved us from and where we could be today without Him. It's almost rote, this concept, but it shouldn't be. The problem in Christianity is that we KNOW things, but we don't MEDITATE on them like we're commanded to. We know that God saved us and gave us a new life in Him, but we fail to really ponder what that means to us and how we owe Him such a great debt. We are insignificant nothings in His sight, yet He took the time and sacrificed for US. God, giving us worms the time of day - marvelous!!
2. God's Provision
Where would we be without His daily provision in our lives? How could we take a single breath, walk a single step, utter a single word, without His direct allowance and care? Again, we take this for granted every day without really contemplating His incredible work in our lives. From the dwelling that He's given us, the food that He provides us the money for, the strength and skill to work and the very breath that keeps us alive, God is more gracious and caring than we could ever deserve. Remember that, next time you take a bite of something, take a step somewhere, or wake up alive and healthy, God didn't HAVE to allow you to do that: He is just providing another blessing that you and I don't even come close to deserving.
3. God's Promise
After all that, the Salvation of God and the blessings of God, He deigns to even bless us more: He promises to give us a home in Heaven for eternity. Not only does He view our scummy frame of dust and love us, He will reward us just for serving HIM! It reminds me of a song by Gary Duty:
"I stand in true amazement,
At Your vast and perfect Plan:
How you could save a wretch like me,
I'll never understand.
And to allow me, though unfaithful,
To serve you 'till the end,
And then to be rewarded,
I just cannot comprehend!"
To "go through the motions" or "get stuck in a rut" is an affront to the amazing, all-powerful God that made us, saved us, cares for us and has promised to reward us. If you find yourself in a day-to-day, hum-drum existence, just ponder and meditate on the things that God has done for us. Thinking about and knowing them is not enough: just as knowing that Christ died for our sins is not enough to save us, just knowing about God's miracles in our life isn't going to get us far. It's really a difference between a head knowledge and a heart understanding.
I hope this was a help to someone. God bless!
1. God's Pardon
While Jesus said not to look back after setting your hand to the plow, sometimes it's good to remember what God saved us from and where we could be today without Him. It's almost rote, this concept, but it shouldn't be. The problem in Christianity is that we KNOW things, but we don't MEDITATE on them like we're commanded to. We know that God saved us and gave us a new life in Him, but we fail to really ponder what that means to us and how we owe Him such a great debt. We are insignificant nothings in His sight, yet He took the time and sacrificed for US. God, giving us worms the time of day - marvelous!!
2. God's Provision
Where would we be without His daily provision in our lives? How could we take a single breath, walk a single step, utter a single word, without His direct allowance and care? Again, we take this for granted every day without really contemplating His incredible work in our lives. From the dwelling that He's given us, the food that He provides us the money for, the strength and skill to work and the very breath that keeps us alive, God is more gracious and caring than we could ever deserve. Remember that, next time you take a bite of something, take a step somewhere, or wake up alive and healthy, God didn't HAVE to allow you to do that: He is just providing another blessing that you and I don't even come close to deserving.
3. God's Promise
After all that, the Salvation of God and the blessings of God, He deigns to even bless us more: He promises to give us a home in Heaven for eternity. Not only does He view our scummy frame of dust and love us, He will reward us just for serving HIM! It reminds me of a song by Gary Duty:
"I stand in true amazement,
At Your vast and perfect Plan:
How you could save a wretch like me,
I'll never understand.
And to allow me, though unfaithful,
To serve you 'till the end,
And then to be rewarded,
I just cannot comprehend!"
To "go through the motions" or "get stuck in a rut" is an affront to the amazing, all-powerful God that made us, saved us, cares for us and has promised to reward us. If you find yourself in a day-to-day, hum-drum existence, just ponder and meditate on the things that God has done for us. Thinking about and knowing them is not enough: just as knowing that Christ died for our sins is not enough to save us, just knowing about God's miracles in our life isn't going to get us far. It's really a difference between a head knowledge and a heart understanding.
I hope this was a help to someone. God bless!
Monday, December 1, 2008
*runs out of ideas*
I just got home from work. Not too bad, overall; I'm very thankful to have a job right now, to say the least. It's just amazing, though, how keeping the Lord in mind and praying throughout the night (I'm on third shift) can make things go so smoothly. I work with a varied and somewhat odd group of people, each with their likes, oddities, preferred individuals and those they dislike. It gets a little complicated sometimes, but I just have to keep in mind that I'm there to serve God, and in turn my boss and the company, not the other people that I work with.
Sometimes it's easy to get into a rut (remember, a rut is simply a shallow grave with both ends kicked out ;) ) in work and get complacent with our abilities and our standard of work; it's those times that we need to remember that we should be doing our labor as unto the Lord that DIED for us and shed His precious BLOOD for us. We can do so little to repay Him, but our daily lives and walk with Him is the one thing that we have to repay Him with. We need to remember that not only is the Lord watching us when we work and go about our daily lives, but there are people out there that know that we are Christians, and are watching everything that we do. As the saying goes, we might be the only Bible those people ever read; will they see Jesus in us, or just us?
Sometimes it's easy to get into a rut (remember, a rut is simply a shallow grave with both ends kicked out ;) ) in work and get complacent with our abilities and our standard of work; it's those times that we need to remember that we should be doing our labor as unto the Lord that DIED for us and shed His precious BLOOD for us. We can do so little to repay Him, but our daily lives and walk with Him is the one thing that we have to repay Him with. We need to remember that not only is the Lord watching us when we work and go about our daily lives, but there are people out there that know that we are Christians, and are watching everything that we do. As the saying goes, we might be the only Bible those people ever read; will they see Jesus in us, or just us?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Blaspheming the Holy Spirit?
Ever since I was banned from a certain message board (against their own rules, might I add), I've been somewhat perplexed at the unending stream of questions and issues that go unanswered. So in order to salve my own conscience, I've decided to answer the most incorrectly-answered questions here on my blog. The most recent one is "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit," and most of the answers by the leaders of the board are sadly off by a long shot. The only person that's even close to correct (dead-on, actually) is a lady. Sad, no? You'd think a board like that would choose males that at least knew their Bibles.
Anyhow, the question, posed by a new Christian with a Charismatic mother, is more or less "What is Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost?" Pentecostals will tell you that questioning "Speaking in Tongues" is blasphemy, and therefore an unpardonable sin, but how does this line up when compared with Scripture?
Under the circumstances, it was because Jesus was on earth, and was the physical manifestation of God. Therefore, saying something like this against Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) was blasphemy. However, that's the only time you see that showing up; nowhere else is Blaspheming the Holy Spirit even mentioned, so you can rest assured that this time is already past. Until the LORD comes back again, and sets up an entirely new government (Rev. 14:6-7), there won't be the ability to actually blaspheme the Holy Spirit as the scribes did.
Anyhow, the question, posed by a new Christian with a Charismatic mother, is more or less "What is Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost?" Pentecostals will tell you that questioning "Speaking in Tongues" is blasphemy, and therefore an unpardonable sin, but how does this line up when compared with Scripture?
"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:" (Mark 3:29)The scribes had just accused Jesus of casting out devils by the power of Satan, or saying that the Holy Ghost was the Devil. Basically calling the Holy Spirit Satan is the blasphemy that Jesus was talking about.
Under the circumstances, it was because Jesus was on earth, and was the physical manifestation of God. Therefore, saying something like this against Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) was blasphemy. However, that's the only time you see that showing up; nowhere else is Blaspheming the Holy Spirit even mentioned, so you can rest assured that this time is already past. Until the LORD comes back again, and sets up an entirely new government (Rev. 14:6-7), there won't be the ability to actually blaspheme the Holy Spirit as the scribes did.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Christians for McCain?
I've often said about this election that we have a choice between a Liberal and a Socialist. It's not good odds, but there's something to be said for taking what you can get. Personally, I'd love to see Chuck Baldwin in the White House; there's just something gratifying about hearing a Presidential candidate say that Abraham Lincoln was one of this nation's worst presidents. However, In our largely Bi-partisan political climate, a vote for Baldwin is nothing less than a vote for Obama.
Sens. McCain and Obama are some of the last people I'd ever pick for my presidents, but that's what we're stuck with unfortunately. Obviously choosing the lesser of two evils still means you wind up with evil, but as Christians we have to live and operate within our system. I don't believe that Christians aren't allowed to be involved in politics or the government; far from it, in fact. If you have a chance to affect the system for good, then go for it! However, some of us are called to something else, and getting involved in politics would be nothing but a distraction from our God-given jobs.
I've seen many people say that they could not vote for McCain in good conscience; my question to those people is how can you vote for anyone else in good consciense, knowing your vote will give the Socialist Obama that much more of an opportunity? Every conservative vote for anyone other than McCain is nothing but a vote for Obama. That's how it's been for years; voting for Ross Perot simply put Bill Clinton in office that much easier. It's not the way the Founders intended, but as Christians we must live with what we have, and therefore the only candidates that we can honestly consider as options are those in the two main parties. Would to God that someone with character and honesty like Chuck Baldwin would be elected, but in our warped, godless society, that's not going to happen.
So no, McCain is not a good choice. He's not even a very well conscienced choice for many. But should a Christian vote for him? Yes, because a vote against him is one more vote for Obama.
Saying that God wouldn't bless voting for McCain is like saying He would have cursed Israel for not choosing Asa because he didn't campaign to remove the high places, and instead winding up with a Reheboam. God isn't going to bless inactivity when you have a chance to make a difference.
Sens. McCain and Obama are some of the last people I'd ever pick for my presidents, but that's what we're stuck with unfortunately. Obviously choosing the lesser of two evils still means you wind up with evil, but as Christians we have to live and operate within our system. I don't believe that Christians aren't allowed to be involved in politics or the government; far from it, in fact. If you have a chance to affect the system for good, then go for it! However, some of us are called to something else, and getting involved in politics would be nothing but a distraction from our God-given jobs.
I've seen many people say that they could not vote for McCain in good conscience; my question to those people is how can you vote for anyone else in good consciense, knowing your vote will give the Socialist Obama that much more of an opportunity? Every conservative vote for anyone other than McCain is nothing but a vote for Obama. That's how it's been for years; voting for Ross Perot simply put Bill Clinton in office that much easier. It's not the way the Founders intended, but as Christians we must live with what we have, and therefore the only candidates that we can honestly consider as options are those in the two main parties. Would to God that someone with character and honesty like Chuck Baldwin would be elected, but in our warped, godless society, that's not going to happen.
So no, McCain is not a good choice. He's not even a very well conscienced choice for many. But should a Christian vote for him? Yes, because a vote against him is one more vote for Obama.
Saying that God wouldn't bless voting for McCain is like saying He would have cursed Israel for not choosing Asa because he didn't campaign to remove the high places, and instead winding up with a Reheboam. God isn't going to bless inactivity when you have a chance to make a difference.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
New Blog for people in the Ministry
I've started a new blog to help people in the ministry understand and get advice on technology. Many pastors and missionaries aren't familiar with the tech field, but would be greatly helped by some of the things that modern technology has to offer. Lord willing, I'm going to cover things from computers, applications and external hardware to mobile phones, GPS devices and PDAs. There are many options to choose from in all of these areas, and I want to help people figure out what's best for them so they don't have to waste precious time doing the legwork.
Please check it out if this sort of thing interests you, and send this link along to anyone you know that might like some help when it comes to technology today. Whether they're a greenhorn or a seasoned pro, we'll have something in our blog for them.
Edit: if you want the link (helpful, perhaps), it's ministry-tech.blogspot.com.
Please check it out if this sort of thing interests you, and send this link along to anyone you know that might like some help when it comes to technology today. Whether they're a greenhorn or a seasoned pro, we'll have something in our blog for them.
Edit: if you want the link (helpful, perhaps), it's ministry-tech.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
