Misplaced Faith

Misplaced Faith
Vol: 166 Issue: 31 Friday, July 31, 2015

Faith in Christ means a pretty substantial faith that you are right about where to put your faith. I have to admit that, from time to time over the years, I’ve heard some skeptic’s argument, some new interpretation of an accepted doctrine, or heard of some new archeological discovery that caused me to go, ”Hmmm”.

I admit that I’ve asked myself on more than one occasion if maybe I am following ‘cunningly devised fables’ concocted by brilliant men who lived centuries ago and refined in secret in the centuries since.

After all, if the Bible is true, then the writings of Buddha, which are unquestionably brilliant, are false. But one seldom hears of Buddhist suicide bombers or Buddhist killers or even Buddhist thieves. Their doctrine of ‘karma’ is not too much different than Jesus’ doctrine of ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’

‘Karma’ is the belief that what goes around, comes around. A good man in this life comes back a better one in the next. A bad man in this life may come back in the next one as a dog. Or a pigeon. Or a chicken. (Karma also explains Buddhist vegetarianism. Yuck)

Still, while there are bad Buddhists (just as there are bad Christians) most of the followers of Buddha are pacifists who work hard at being good neighbors.

An evolutionist’s faith is rooted, first and foremost, in his own conviction that he is right about where to put his faith. As when one comes to Christ, that decision comes first. The search for confirmation that one’s faith is correctly placed comes afterwards.

The dedicated evolutionist is one who first concluded evolution made sense, then investigated his conclusion until he was satisfied he was right in reaching it. The rest of his energy is devoted to convincing others that his conclusion is right, creating new dedicated evolutionists in the process.

That is not too different in practice than is Christian dedication to leading others to Christ. But is it truly different in theory? Is it a case of being right? Or of being saved?

The evolutionist will make his point, and your reaction is to disprove his point first, then go back to your point, and so on, by which time the point you were trying to make gets lost in the argument over details. Soon, you find yourself, red-faced, eyes bulging, shouting, “Jesus loves you!” while resisting the temptation to grab the guy by the lapels and shake some sense into him.

What’s happened is that your faith is less in Jesus than it is in being right personally. It’s no longer about Jesus. It’s now about you. All somebody has to do to shake your faith is seemingly prove you wrong.

And you didn’t even see it coming.

Assessment:

Nobody puts their faith in something they don’t believe in. Evolution has been disproved so many times that, even though it is taught as fact in schools, it still bears the label ‘theory.’ ‘Theory’ means ‘unproved’. The evolutionist’s faith isn’t in the evidences from science. The evolutionist believes he is right because he has faith in himself.

Salvation comes by putting one’s faith in Christ instead of in oneself. It isn’t a case of being right so much as an understanding of how wrong you are by nature.

It is possible to put one’s trust in Jesus for their salvation and still be wrong.

One can be wrong about the timing of the Rapture and still be right about trusting Jesus for their salvation. One can be wrong about Bible prophecy and still be right about trusting Jesus for their salvation.

One can be wrong about their understanding of who the antichrist is, or is not, and still be right about trusting Jesus for their salvation.

It is even possible for one to be wrong about their church and its doctrine and still be right about trusting Jesus for their salvation.

Beyond the need for salvation and the way to obtain it, the battle isn’t over faith in Jesus, it is over one’s personal faith in oneself and one’s own rightness. What happens to that person when they lose the battle to someone with superior debating skills?

I’ve known many Christians who’ve been utterly demolished by skeptics who make a career out of debating the existence of God.

The Christian marches in, full of faith in his knowledge of details and doctrine, and has his faith shattered because his faith was rooted in his being right on all the details, rather than being in Jesus.

He gets a few details wrong, the skeptic uses those details to obscure the central truth, and the Message is lost in the debate. But the debate was supposed to be about the Message. Instead, it became about him.

The Christian’s faith in himself is in shambles. The skeptic walks away more convinced than ever of his rightness.

The final score? One wounded Christian. No victories for the Kingdom. Our faith was more in being right than being in Christ. And we pay the penalty for our misplaced faith.

None of us knows everything there is to know of God and His plan for the individual believer. What we DO know is that there are as many denominations within Christianity as there are letters in the alphabet, and each is convinced that their way is the only ‘right’ way.

But the Bible says that the ONLY way to heaven is through faith in Jesus. Everything else leads to bitter and endless debate that always degenerates into an argument over who gets to be right.

Debates are useful tools for sharpening one’s understanding of the things of God. But the problem with debates is that somebody has to be wrong. That doesn’t mean that it was God.

The Bible says, and logic and experience confirm, that all men are sinners who have missed the mark and come short of the glory of God. The Bible further says, and logic further confirms, that man is by nature a sinner from the day he is born until the day he dies.

The Bible says, and logic further confirms, that man is spiritually hopeless on his own. Spiritually, all men are equal.

Logic says that man is therefore lost without Someone to save him. The Bible says that God Himself took on human form in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Jesus lived the life God expects of each of us, and, having complied with God’s standards, was uniquely qualified to pay the penalty failure to meet God’s standards demands.

Our faith is rooted in understanding our inability to meet God’s standards, first, with our faith in Jesus Christ to meet that judicial standard on our behalf rising out of that first understanding.

There is a difference between winning a debate and sharing the Gospel. Sometimes, listening to Christians debating non-Christians (or especially each other) it seems like a distinction without a difference.

It becomes more about the personal vindication by being ‘right’ than it is about sharing what you know and leaving the rest up to the Holy Spirit. Salvation comes by putting one’s faith in Christ instead of in oneself.

To the unsaved observer, that looks like ‘humility’ — which is a lot more attractive than arrogance. And it is the unsaved observer that is the mission. Leading him to a saving knowledge of Christ is the mission.

Not winning the debate. That’s a mission you take on for yourself.

Originally Published: July 7, 2006

Featured Commentary: Is the Rapture Really Imminent ~ Alf Cengia

Religion and Salvation

Religion and Salvation
Vol: 166 Issue: 30 Thursday, July 30, 2015

At Babel, God deliberately confused the languages of men and dispersed them into different nations. The purpose, according to Genesis, was to prevent them from all coming under the authority of a single dictator, as happened under Nimrod.

“And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” (Genesis 11:6)

Denominationalism is the spiritual equivalent, ensuring that one powerful leader couldn’t take over Christianity and lead the true Church into error, as the Bible says the antichrist will during the Tribulation Period.

There is an effort by some world church denominations to reverse the process and bring all denominations together under the banner of ‘ecumenism’ but, because the separation is Divinely ordained, it has been unable to attract those denominations that most closely follow the Bible.

The World Council of Religious leaders is such an organization.  Formed at the Millennium World Peace Summit in 2002, The World Council adopted its own charter outlining how they can play an active role in global government:

“The World Council of Religious Leaders aims to serve as a model and guide for the creation of a community of world religions. It seeks to inspire women and men of all faiths in the pursuit of peace and mutual understanding. It will undertake initiatives that will assist the United Nations and its agencies by providing the spiritual resources of the world’s religious traditions in the prevention, resolution and healing of conflicts, and in addressing global social and environmental problems.”

Jesus Himself addressed denominationalism, writing to the seven Churches in the first three chapters of Revelation. Each of these churches is different, both in their doctrine and in the emphasis they place on it.

Thus, we have the Church of Ephesus ‘hating the deeds of the Nicolaitanes’ (a separate status for clergy and ‘laity’) whereas the Church of Pergamos is depicted as holding to “the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.” (Revelation 2:6,15) 

It isn’t the denominationalism that Jesus ‘hated’ but the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, who developed a complicated hierarchy of bishops, priests, and ‘laity’ to oversee a Grand Church, as opposed to the Biblical model of local church self-government. 

Theoretically, Christian denominations share the same basic statement of faith, that of the sin nature, the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, the Power of the Shed Blood of Christ to cover sin, the free offer of salvation to all who trust Jesus’ sacrifice, and who share the belief that salvation is the product of a relationship with Christ, not a relationship with a church.

How can you tell if you are a member of a Christian denomination or a form of ‘Christian religion’? There are eight sure signs, any of which should make a Bible-believing Christian sit up and take notice. 

‘Religion’ can be defined as man’s way of making himself acceptable to God, whereas Christianity is God’s way of making man acceptable to Himself through a personal relationship. 

The first sign that a denomination has gone ‘religious’ is the denial of the true nature of God.

The Unitarians deny the Triune nature of the Godhead, for example. Many allegedly ‘Christian religions’ deny the Deity of Christ, commonly claiming that Christ as God was not an early Church teaching.  

A second warning sign is the emphasis on salvation by works.

Although many denominations include the idea that God’s grace is important in the role of salvation, the leader normally emphasizes the idea that salvation ultimately comes through one’s own efforts — as defined by ‘the church’.

This imparts power to the denomination, since it changes salvation from a gift to wages, and gives the religious hierarchy the authority to act as paymaster.

The third sign is that of exclusive truth.

Denominations tend to universally identify themselves as the ‘one true church’ to the exclusion of all others. They will agree that some other denominations have some truth, but teach that full truth has somehow been lost and can now only be found in their ‘one true church’.

Fourth, religions prefer an authoritative leadership.

In some denominations, that authority is carried to the extent that they claim to speak directly for God. This is the ultimate result of the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes that Jesus twice said He ‘hated’.

The authoritative leadership of the Pharisees and Sadducees came under withering condemnation by the Lord during His earthly ministry.

Religions and Christian ‘religious’ denominations both tend to follow the letter of the law — but as theyinterpret it, rather than observing the spirit in which it was intended.

We’ll explain the difference between the ‘letter of the law’ and the ‘spirit of the law’ using a secular example that is in all the headlines today.

The ‘spirit’ of the graduated income tax law was to ensure, (in theory, at least) that all citizens pay their fair share of the tax burden. This is the ostensible claim of the Occupy Wall Street movement — except they define “fair” by placing most of the tax burden on the 1% to pay for the benefits of the 99%.  

The spirit of the law is that it calls for shared sacrifice. The letter of the law exempts nearly half of American citizens from any federal tax burden at all. 

Fifth, religions also tend to impose their own form of taxation as a condition of salvation.

Some religions equate tithing with salvation or staying in a right relationship with God. The Bible imposes no such burden.

The Pharisee tithed, loudly and with great pomp and circumstance. The widow, on the other hand, gave two ‘mites’ — the smallest coin values of Jesus’ day. Jesus condemned the Pharisee, and commended the widow.

Giving is prompted by the Holy Spirit, Whose ministry the true Church belongs to in the first place. ‘Giving til it hurts’ is a man-made doctrine with an obvious goal that has nothing to do with the things of the Spirit.

A sixth warning sign of a denomination going ‘religious’ is the threat of loss of salvation.  Salvation is conditional on Church membership. If you aren’t a member of the proper denomination, you can’t be saved. 

One group with such a belief is the Boston Church of Christ, also known as the International Churches of Christ. The leaders of the ICC teach that there should only be one church in any particular city, which they say is the New Testament model.

If you leave to attend another, you leave your salvation behind at the door.

Seventh, religions also tend to heap to themselves extra-Biblical authority.

The ex-cathedra teachings of the Roman Catholic Popes are given equal weight with Scriptures, and in the case of conflict, are considered superior.

The same principle applies to Catholic Church dogma. Catholics are taught that when dogma and the Scriptures conflict, Church teachings and tradition are to be given superior weight.  

According to Catholic dogma, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and one’s salvation within the Church is dependent on observing Church law on sacraments, mass attendance, holy days of obligation, etc. 

Finally, the eighth sign of Christianity being perverted into a religion is the offer of unique truths never before revealed.

The idea that a hidden mystery or new truth is available only through a particular church should be taken as a strong sign that this group is a counterfeit Christian religion.

God has very clearly shown His truth through the pages of the Bible. A new doctrine, new truth, or special word from God suggests that God left something out of Scripture.

For example, that very doctrine — that God left something out — is the foundation of Mormon teaching. The LDS teaches that God forgot to mention Jesus’ coming to the New World to preach to the “Indians” (who were really the “Lost Tribes of Israel.”) 

But Scripture says of itself that it is complete, so by its nature, if it is some ‘new’ doctrine or truth, it is contradictory with the revealed Word of God.  And things that are different CANNOT be the same. 

Salvation is not the product of religion — indeed, religion is an obstacle to salvation. Salvation comes by trusting in the Shed Blood of Christ as full payment for all sins. 

Conversely, religion offers salvation in exchange for putting your trust into that particular religious system.

Salvation is part of an direct and individual relationship with Christ. Religion offers salvation as part of a corporate system of conditions and works. 

That is not to say that Christians shouldn’t attend church — I don’t want to send the wrong message. It is important to meet regularly with like-minded believers and we are told in Scripture not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together. 

But church is NOT religion. It is an expression of corporate worship by individual believers. The person who thinks membership with a church makes one a Christian is as deluded as a person who thinks standing in a parking lot makes one a car. 

The Bible teaches that all men are sinners, and all men require salvation to enjoy fellowship with God. (Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23)

There is only one way to be saved during the Church Age, and that is by accepting the free gift of pardon procured at the Cross and offered freely to all men through Jesus Christ. (John 3:36, 5:24, 14:6)

That the gift of salvation is offered freely to all men is the expressed Will of God, as recorded in 2nd Peter 3:9.

It doesn’t matter how bad a sinner one is, Jesus offers salvation to even the worst sinners. Wrote the Apostle Paul,

“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.” (1st Timothy 1:15-16)

Paraphrased into modern vernacular, Paul’s statement boils down to, “If Jesus saved me, He’ll save anybody!” All anyone need do is ask. 

Finally, the Bible assures us that once we are right with God, no religion or system has any claim to our eternal salvation. 

“For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39)

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Religion offers bondage — Christianity offers freedom.  Even today, they aren’t that hard to tell apart. 

Originally Published: October 29, 2011

Featured Commentary: We’ve Lost Some Angels this Year ~ J.L. Robb

The Question Nobody is Asking

The Question Nobody is Asking
Vol: 166 Issue: 29 Wednesday, July 29, 2015

The Bible has, over the past two thousand years, been subjected to every form of criticism; textual criticism, archeological or historical criticism, criticism of its form, authorship and content, but has survived every effort to find even a single, documentable, provable mistake in its pages.

The Bible is the #1 best-seller in history.  It has been translated into 2,123 languages and dialects.  Nine out of every ten Americans own a Bible.

There are plenty of folks who claim they’ve found mistakes in the Bible, but the simple fact is this.  If somebody actually found a verifiable, provable error contained in Scripture, they have yet to demonstrate it.

While there are clever and articulate Bible-haters who have dedicated their entire lives to disputing Scripture, not one of them has made it into the history books as the one who disproved the foundational text of Judeo-Christianity.

Instead, they generally find themselves on the list of folks who take the more difficult parts of Scripture that they don’t understand and call them ‘errors’.

And despite the Bible’s record for being 100% accurate in every area in which its accuracy can be measured, there is no shortage of folks willing to step up to the plate, put their reputations on the line, and announce that they, of all the skeptics that have lived in the past two thousand years, have discovered ‘evidence’ the Bible contains mistakes.

Entire organizations and groups have been created for the express purpose of disproving the accuracy of Scripture, from avowed atheists to ‘professing Christians’ like the self-appointed members of the ‘Jesus Seminar’ who vote on which quotes attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by Him.

As an example, the Jesus Seminar’s theologians once considered Jesus’ teaching of the Lord’s Prayer and concluded that the only words of that prayer actually spoken by Jesus were ‘Our Father’.  (They say the rest was added later.)

Christians are use to seeing the world twist and pervert the Bible, deny its Authorship, question its teachings and condemn it as ‘hate literature.’  There are entire collegiate-level curriculums exclusively devoted to Biblical criticism.

Even the phrase, ‘Biblical criticism’ refers to anyone who takes a position, pro or con, on the accuracy of Scripture.  Although almost 90% of Americans identify themselves as ‘Christian,’ Bible critics are among America’s most respected thinkers.

Critics of the Koran are among America’s loneliest.

Assessment:

Ever notice that other religious books, like the Hindu Upanishads, the writings of Buddha or Zoroaster, and, most particularly, the Koran, are never subjected to a scholarly analysis of their historical or textual accuracy?

Well, maybe ‘never’ is a strong word, but I can’t think of any famous Koran critics.

The Angel Gabriel is said to have told Mohammed: “This book is not to be questioned.” That is an article of faith among Muslims — subjecting the Koran to the same kind of textual criticism given the Bible would be suicide for a Muslim.

Questioning the Koran isn’t a popular enterprise among non-Muslims, either. It’s a great way to wake up one morning to discover you are dead.

The Arab scholar, Suliman Bashear, argued that Islam developed over time as a religion rather than emerging suddenly.  His students in the University of Nablus threw him out the window as a result.

Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” resulted in a fatwa because it was thought to mock Mohammed.  Islamic scholar Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed because his works were said to be ‘irreligious.’

One scholar of Semitic langugages, writing under the psuedo-name Christopher Luxenberg, published a criticism of the Koran in which he claims the text is both mistranslated and misread.

His work involving the analysis of the earliest copies of the Koran led him to the conclusion that parts of the Koran came from preexisting Aramaic texts.  These, he says, were misinterpreted by later Islamic scholars who composed the Koran as it is circulated today.

The classic example of this relates to the virgins supposedly awaiting loyal Muslim martyrs. Rather than ‘virgins,’ Luxenberg observes that in the original text, the Koran actually promises “white raisins” of crystal clarity.

This, one would think, would be a verse carefully scrutinized by Islamists.  Especially those Islamofascists planning to blow themselves up.  Who would want to commit suicide in exchange for a box of transparent raisins?

Those Semitic scholars who dare to voice an opinion are unanimous in their contention that there is no historical evidence of the existence of the Koran prior to 691 AD, about sixty years after Mohammed’s death. Much of what is known of Mohammed is based on texts that were written 300 years after his death.

John Wansbrough of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says the text of the Koran now used appears to have been a composite of different texts complied over perhaps hundreds of years.  It appears to academicians to have continued to evolve until the end of the seventh century.

There are three schools of thought about who actually wrote the Koran and how it was assembled.  The first school of thought maintains Mohammed wrote the Koran.  The second says the Koran was simply assembled from notes left behind after the prophet’s death.

(It is a matter of accepted historical fact that Mohammed was illiterate. Illiterate men don’t leave behind notes so copious that, assembled together, they could form a six hundred page book.)

The third school of thought maintains that Mohammed dictated the Koran to a trusted [unknown] aide who faithfully transcribed the words of the prophet.

Originally Published: June 12, 2012

The Koran itself is more accurately an Arab commentary on the Bible, of which the Koran claims to be the final testament.

However, the Koran contradicts both the Old and New Testaments in both spirit and substance.  So Islam claims that the original Bible was changed by the Jews.

A complete copy of the Book of Isaiah was unearthed in 1948 at Qumran as part of the larger collection known as the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’.  Although the exact age of the document is unknown, what is unquestionable is the fact it lay hidden (and untampered with) since at least AD 70 — five hundred years before Mohammed.

The Isaiah Scroll is now on display at the ‘Dome of the Tablets’ in Israel.  I have seen it with my own eyes.  Scholars universally agree that the 2000 year old scroll is identical to the Book of Isaiah in a modern Bible.

Christianity welcomes, even invites textual criticism of the Scriptures.  Each effort merely serves to confirm the Bible’s Divine Authorship.  And, logically speaking, who would want to trust their eternity to a God Who might not be real?  (If the Bible wasn’t true, I know that I’d want to know about it).

But examining the Koran for accuracy and textual consistency is not just unpopular, it is dangerous to the point of being deadly.

If it is true, then what is there to fear?

Seven Are An Abomination

Seven Are An Abomination
Vol: 166 Issue: 28 Tuesday, July 28, 2015

According to the Book of Proverbs, although God hates sin, He has seven sins in particular that He hates more than all the rest. 

“These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” (Proverbs 6:17-19)

These seven sins are not separate from or stand above all other sin. Rather, they are the wellspring from which all other sins originate. 

Note  that God HATES the first six on the list. Note even more carefully His opinion of the seventh — it is an ABOMINATION to Him. 

The first deadly sin on the list is pride. Although it doesn’t make the ‘abomination’ category, it is the first step on the road that leads there. 

Pride is the most insidious sin, since it might easily be termed the ‘silent’ sin. Its very nature prevents us from either recognizing it in ourselves or admitting to it when it is finally recognized (usually by somebody else.) 

God hates pride. ‘Pride’ is arguably the seminal sin of the universe out of which all other sin arises. The first recorded sin in the history of the universe was not the fall of man, but the fall of Lucifer. 

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12) 

What follows is Satan’s indictment, often called the five ‘I wills’ — each of which are the byproduct of Lucifer’s pride. 

“For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” (14:13) 

Some preachers have made the case that sin can be defined through this passage. “I will” — rather than “God’s will.” It’s pithy and elliptical — and even accurate, up to a point — but it doesn’t quite hit the bullseye. Close, but not exact. 

If one were seeking to locate the root and branch of sin, “I will” is a lesser included offense, so to speak, but not the original sin.  “I will” is merely the outward expression of the original sin of pride. 

If you take God’s list in order, “pride” is first because without pride, the rest of them haven’t a leg to stand on. 

The secular dictionary defines ‘pride’ thusly: “A sense of one’s own proper dignity or value; self-respect.” 

Pride breeds lies. Why do people lie? Generally speaking, it is to conceal some secret that would make them look bad. There is a standing joke in prison that the one thing all inmates have in common is that they are innocent. 

Even after having served their time, few convicts own up to the crimes for which they were convicted, even though vindication wouldn’t give them back their time served. It is gone forever, so why bother continuing to deny it? Pride. 

“Hands that shed innocent blood” immediately brings abortion to the forefront of my mind. Why are abortion records kept secret? After the abortion is accomplished, the ‘problem’ is ‘solved’.

It isn’t illegal to have an abortion, so there is no legal jeopardy attached to having had one. The records are sealed to protect the privacy (and pride) of the perpetrator. 

And while there are many ‘reasons’ for wanting to get an abortion, when they are distilled down to their essence, one will find pride in there somewhere. The pro-life slogan, “It’s MY body” is an expression of pride. The abortion destroys the baby’s body, not the mothers. 

“A woman’s right to choose” is another. A pregnant woman already made her choice when she did the deed that produced the pregnancy. Claiming a special ‘right’ to a SECOND choice to correct the first wrong choice — as an expression of the uniqueness of womanhood, is rooted in pride. 

Men are expressly forbidden the same ‘right’ to correct a wrong choice. And not only is their sin NOT concealed, it is a matter of public record, accessible by anybody searching through court-ordered child support records. 

The identities of those who actually shed innocent blood are protected, to protect their pride. Those just as involved in the creation of the child, but who have no say in the matter of abortion, are often held up to public ridicule. (Or even imprisonment) 

The ‘innocent blood’ shed in the process is secondary to protecting the reputation of those who shed it. I would venture to bet that there would be lots fewer abortions if there were a legal requirement to post the particulars of an abortion in a local paper, the way the law requires public notification of a death, an estate, or a bankruptcy. 

A heart devising ‘wicked imaginations’ and feet that are ‘swift to be running in mischief’ would be less divisive and less swift if the particulars were certain to be published on the front page of the newspaper, even when no crime has been committed. 

We’ve discussed pride’s role in bearing false witness.  Now we come to that final pride-sponsored abomination: “he that soweth discord among brethren.” 

Assessment: 

Ever find yourself in a discussion over doctrine that turns nasty? Where what ostensibly began as an effort to ‘straighten out’ someone else’s doctrinal error degenerates into an argument over whose understanding of doctrine is the correct one? 

You can tell when it has made that shift from discussion to debate to argument, even if you aren’t part of it. It becomes less about the doctrine in question and more about who is right. 

Even after both sides have agreed to disagree, the debate lingers as each side waits for an advantage, some unrelated event or circumstance that will re-open the debate and give one side or the other a hope for the opportunity to say, “Aha! Told ya!” 

Pride, by its insidious nature, blinds us to the fact (obvious to most observers) that the goal of the debate has morphed. It’s no longer about the doctrine. It’s about being right. 

The debate about the timing of the Rapture is a perfect example. It is a given that, when two genuinely saved, born-again Christians start debating the timing of the Rapture, both sides sincerely believe that they are right. Why else would they want to argue about it? 

What neither side can articulate very effectively is what difference the timing of the Rapture makes to their own salvation. Or what difference it makes to the mission of leading souls to Christ. 

A pre-trib Rapturist is no more saved than a post-Trib Rapturist. One is saved by grace through faith in Christ, not by faith in Christ’s appointment calendar. An understanding of the timing of the Rapture is necessary to rightly dividing the Word insofar as understanding the Bible’s prophetic outline.

But we aren’t saved by our understanding of the Bible’s prophetic outline. It isn’t when He comes that saves us, it is faith in the One Who is coming. 

But spend a little time reading through some of the debates and it is hard to find much about Christ in them. It’s about being right. Pride. Bragging rights. 

Proverbs says that ‘pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18)

In our forums, debates about the timing of the Rapture has driven many members right out of our fellowship. Those who remain are vindicated — some even rejoice at having driven such a one away. 

Nobody has learned anything from the exchange except which party is the better debater. Each side remains convinced of their own position, because the goal is to defend their own view, not consider the merits of the other side. 

And pride won’t allow us to see that the damage being caused in the process far outweighs any eternal value that might be gleaned from winning over a post-tribber to the pre-trib side. 

Nothing of eternal value is obtained by driving away a brother or sister from fellowship over an issue that can never be proved until after the fact. 

It serves only to spread unnecessary discord among brethren, which the Scriptures identify as an ‘abomination before the Lord’.

The discussion at hand in today’s briefing is the insidious nature of the sin of pride. It sneaks up on us, unawares. By the time we recognize the role it plays, (if ever) it is too late to undo the damage its caused. 

It shatters relationships, spreads discord among brethren, damages the shared mission of all Christians — to demonstrate the truth that sets men free:

“God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

As we have discussed in the recent OL brief, “A Difficult Book” the doctrinal differences between Christians are there because that is the way God has ordained it to be. 

In the Book of Genesis, we read of Nimrod’s efforts to rally the whole world to his cause, to build a tower that would thwart God’s effort at judgment in the event of another flood. 

To prevent the whole world from falling under the sway of one man’s heresy, God confused the languages and divided the world into nations, confusing their languages so that they would be able to form their own opinions about God’s will for their lives without the influence of a single, powerful human leader. 

Within the Church, there are doctrinal differences between denominations that serve the same purpose.

Interestingly, it is only AFTER those doctrinal divisions are ‘taken out of the way’ at the Rapture that the antichrist is free to advance his own personal doctrine, whereby he seizes control of the global religion and declares himself to be God. 

His plan could never work during the Church Age. Christians can’t even agree among themselves about the details of the Eternal God, despite the fact they were revealed by God Himself, let alone buy into the unified doctrine of antichrist. 

There is but one universal Christian doctrine, summed up in Acts 4:12: 

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”  

The Apostle Paul addressed the doctrinal divisions that had already stirred up the pride of the early Church, as some Christians declared themselves followers of Peter, and others, followers of Paul. 

“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.” (Romans 14:1) 

There is probably no better example of a ‘doubtful disputation’ than the timing of the Rapture. Nobody knows for certain if the view they hold is right.  Moreover,  nobody can know until the Trumpet sounds. 

As Paul noted in his letter to the Corinthians; “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?”

We teach what we believe, but nobody should be forced to agree with every detail in order to keep fellowship. We are all one in Christ as sinners saved by grace. 

I am convinced of a pre-trib Rapture, but if somebody wants to reject that in favor of another view, his eternity is not in jeopardy. Just his understanding. 

As to endless debate about peripheral details not related to salvation, Paul says,

“But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” (1st Corinthians 14:36,38)

In addressing the minor doctrinal divisions of his day, Paul writes,

“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded IN HIS OWN mind.” (Romans 14:5)

The operative phrase here is for each man to be fully persuaded of his own doctrine in his OWN mind. We don’t agree on all points of doctrine because that is the way God designed it. That is the genius of the Bible. 

It is what keeps us free.  What an amazing God!

Originally Published: January 17, 2011

Featured Commentary: As We See the Day Approaching ~ Wendy Wippel

The Quest for An ”Age of Reason?”

The Quest for An ”Age of Reason?”
Vol: 166 Issue: 27 Monday, July 27, 2015

It is a bedrock article of faith among environmentalists that human beings have become a ‘cancer’ on the planet, multiplying and consuming resources the same way cancer cells overrun and destroy a living organism.

To a hardcore environmentalist, the “Georgia Guidestones” function as a sort of Green ‘Ten Commandments’ handed down to mankind from Mother Earth.

The ‘Guidestones’ were erected by an anonymous group and arranged to resemble Stonehenge. The display consists of six granite slabs twenty feet tall and weighing more than one hundred tons.

One slab stands in the center, with four arranged around it. A capstone lies on top of the five slabs. The slabs are astronomically aligned, hence its nickname, “American Stonehenge”.

An additional stone tablet, which is set in the ground a short distance to the west of the structure, provides some clarifying notes on the history and purpose of the Guidestones.

The capstone declares: “Let These be Guidestones to An Age of Reason”, and identifies its sponsors as “A small group of Americans who seek the Age of Reason.”

The Georgia Guidestones list ten ‘reasonable’ guidelines for maintaining global harmony:

1) Maintain humanity under five hundred million in perpetual balance with nature.

The current population of the earth is 6.6 billion. To achieve the goals demanded by ‘reason’ would require ‘eliminating’ 6.1 billion of them somehow. One way of accomplishing that goal is to:

2) Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity..

Abortion is a fairly effective way of reducing both the surplus population and ‘improving fitness and diversity’.

That is one reason the majority of abortions in America are performed for free, or are subsidized, particularly for members of the African-American community. One third of all abortions performed in the United States are performed on African-American babies.

And one pregnancy in four in the United States is terminated by abortion.

Four-fifths of abortions are performed on single women, a third of them teens.

3) Unite humanity with a new ‘living language’

A ‘new’ language would be necessary, since carrying out just the first two guidelines would necessarily involve the words, ‘eugenics’, ‘genocide’ and ‘infanticide’. Those words would have to be eliminated and replaced with something a bit less ‘offensive’. (Think, “Soylent Green”)

4) Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.

“Faith and tradition” are code-words for Judeo-Christianity, which, to the Greens, is the antithesis of ‘reason’.

5) Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.” .

“Fair” laws and “just” courts would be those that protect the earth from humanity, rather than the other way around.

6) Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

Why should anyone be surprised to learn that environmentalists are also globalists? It is the planet — the globe — that is important, not its inhabitants.

7) Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

Presumably, ‘petty laws’ refer to laws that put human rights ahead of ecological concerns and and ‘useless’ officials as officials who put getting re-elected by humans ahead of being loved by spotted owls.

8) Balance personal rights with social ‘duties’.

The moment somebody suggests ‘balancing’ personal rights against ‘social duties’ the term ‘personal rights’ becomes meaningless. A right that is not a right is a ‘privilege’ to be extended or withdrawn to comport with ‘social duties’ . . . as interpreted by whom?

9) Prize truth — beauty — love –seeking harmony with the infinite.

I wouldn’t know where to begin with this one. So far, we’ve eliminated 6.2 billion useless people, made abortion a social duty to improve fitness and diversity, created a new universal earth-language, eliminated personal rights and replaced them with social ‘duties’ and eliminated any need or mention of God.

Having accomplished genocide via deception, NOW its time for truth, beauty and worship of ‘the infinite’ — presumably the earth. So, finally, the kicker:

10) Be not a cancer on this earth. Leave room for nature. Leave room for nature.

That isn’t a typo — ‘Leave room for nature’ is repeated twice on the slabs, too. The symbolic meaning is clearly that nature is twice as important as the cancer that infests it.

Human beings are the cancer and that cancer must be excised or it will kill its host.

Assessment:

When Al Gore wrote his 1991 “Earth in the Balance” he pretty much followed the outline of the Georgia Guidestones, also likening humanity to a cancer on planet earth that can only be controlled by reducing the population to ‘sustainable levels’ and maintaining it in ‘balance’ with nature.

How is that accomplished in nature? Survival of the fittest. Natural selection. “Natural selection” is the culling process in which the weakest segments of a population die off until there are few enough for the environment to sustain them.

Al Gore and his followers knew twenty years ago what effect biofuel would have on the global food supply. He says so in his chapter “Seeds of Privation” in which he also argues AGAINST genetically modifying crops to increase the available food supply.

It takes roughly four hundred pounds of corn to produce 25 gallons of ethanol. That is roughly the equivalent to the amount of corn it would take to feed one person for an entire year.

There are other technologies, such as Thermal Depolymerization, that can convert ANY carbon-based garbage (which is essentially anything) into light Number Six Crude oil indistinguishable from that pumped from the ground.

The process has been proved at two thermal depolymerization plants, one at Carthage, Missiouri, the other outside Philadelphia. Both were set up outside Butterball Turkey plants to process their waste products — but it works equally well with other animal waste parts, most household garbage and even ground up computer parts.

At present, the process can turn garbage into oil for about $18.00 a barrel — its inventor, Brian Appel, says mass production could bring it down to about $11.00 a barrel.

A Canadian study released this week predicts that the price of fossil fuel oil will double again to more than $200 per barrel by 2012. That translates to roughly $11.00 a gallon at the pump, or roughly $220.00 to fill a 20 gallon tank.

So why is Al Gore championing the production of biofuel alternatives? Wouldn’t turning the excess garbage created by the surplus population into energy, carbon black and clean, potable water be ‘green’ enough?

Evidently not, since the objective is not to reduce dependence on fossil fuel, but instead to reduce the surplus population that depends on it.

Environmentalism is not a social cause, or a political agenda so much as it is a religion rooted entirely in the tenets of the New Age and Al Gore has become its high priest. Anyone who disagrees with its doctrine is immediately labeled a ‘heretic.’

Taking a look at the Big Picture, we see the following: There are two solutions for the energy ‘crisis’ brought on by high oil prices.

One solution is to spread the pain across the planet, creating an artificial food shortage and raising food prices to famine levels.

Appel Technologies is real — the process is real — and it works. But it’s main drawback is that it solves the energy crisis without the
necessity for the ‘Ten Guidelines’ (which begins by calling for the elimination of 6.2 billion people).

The other solution is to buy carbon credits from some tribesman in Ubangi who doesn’t have a car, and then starve him to death by using his food to fuel mine.

Using his food to run my car is acceptable; using garbage nobody wants is evidently not even worth discussing.

Maybe I’m just a thick-headed paranoid. You tell me.

Origianlly Published: April 26, 2008

Featured Commentary: Memories of Things to Come ~ Pete Garcia

Goodness Must Be Learned

Goodness Must Be Learned
Vol: 166 Issue: 25 Saturday, July 25, 2015

One of the fundamental flaws in liberal thinking that puts it in direct opposition to Scripture is the notion that people are basically good.

In this line of thinking, bad or immoral behavior is the exception, and bad or immoral people are largely the product of bad environments. 

The Bible teaches the exact opposite. So does experience. Bad or immoral behavior is the first behavior exhibited by babies as soon as they are old enough to express it.

They have to be taught not to hit. They have to be taught not to bite.  I never personally witnessed anybody teaching babies to be bad or immoral. THAT comes naturally.

They have to be taught to behave. Parents teach children morals and standards of behavior that conform to their cultural environment. No person is inherently moral. It is learned behavior. 

Despite the conflict posed by both reason and their own experience, this idea of the basic goodness of mankind is nevertheless foundational to liberal thinking. 

And dangerous beyond comprehension. There is an old joke to the effect that ‘a liberal is a conservative who’s never been mugged’. The problem is, not everybody survives a mugging. 

This isn’t intended as a screed against liberals; the Bible says that the application of wisdom and knowledge brings forth understanding. Understanding our nature helps us to appreciate our little victories over it along the way. 

The Bible says, “There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD.” (Proverbs 21:30) 

The concept of man as basically good flies in the face of both reason and personal observation. Man is born a selfish sinner who must first be taught right from wrong. 

The Bible also teaches the total depravity of man; 

“Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Psalms 53:3)

“They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Romans 3:12)

It is in our base nature that we find conclusive evidence to the age old question of whether or not God exists. If man is not basically good, as liberals prefer to believe, then how did we develop such a complicated and rigid moral code? 

That is why they reject the depravity of man despite the evidence of reason and experience. Because accepting it demands accepting some Lawgiver beyond mankind itself. 

The Apostle Paul explains: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;” (Romans 1:28)

Assuming the basic goodness of man is hardly convenient. To make that assumption, one must ignore everything they know about themselves and other people, but they make the leap BECAUSE they do ‘not like to retain God in their knowledge’ exactly as Paul said. 

What follows is a line by line description of the fruits of liberalism:

“Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” (Romans 1:29-32)

Recognizing the depravity of man brings with it a recognition of man’s need for a Savior. And for those who believe and are saved, a profound sense of gratitude for the unmerited gift of salvation through faith. 

Because we know could never make it on our own.

Ignorance: The Higher Moral Ground

Ignorance: The Higher Moral Ground
Vol: 166 Issue: 24 Friday, July 24, 2015

Political Correctness, or ”PC” is a term that applies to language, ideas, policies or behavior that seeks to minimize causing offense to identifiable minority groups. As a concept, political correctness has some merit.

But only as a concept. (Conceptually, communism has merit. Everybody shares equally.) In between concept and practice, however, one finds the sin nature of man. Communism would be a great idea, were it not for mankind’s ingrained senses of greed and selfishness.

Greed and selfishness is not something a person learns, but something that comes naturally that must be unlearned. The same applies to things like racism. Racism isn’t something a person is taught — it is something that must be untaught.

Studies with preschoolers have shown that one black child in a room full of white kids gets singled out for abuse by the other kids based entirely on the fact the black kid is ‘different’.

Researchers ALSO found that reversing the dynamic does nothing to change the outcome. A room full of black kids will turn on the white kid just as reliably.

Political correctness seeks to use the natural inclinations of humanity as a method of controlling the masses.

The originator of both the phrase and its application was that champion of the downtrodden, that hero of the underprivileged, that great thinker, orator and writer, the author of the Little Red Book, Chairman Mao Tse Tung of China.

“Correctness” in Marxist-Leninist thought is a reference to toeing the party line, called the ‘correct line’ and Mao Tse Tung insisted on it.

Pat Buchanan described its effect on Western society in his book, “Death of the West” as,

“Cultural Marxism — a regime to punish dissent and to stigmatize social heresy as the Inquisition punished religious heresy. Its trademark is intolerance.”

It is politically incorrect to suggest any connection between same sex behavior and the spread of the AIDS virus, despite reams and reams of medical evidence to the contrary.

I’m not going to re-argue the evidence here — it wouldn’t be politically correct — but will instead point out the absolute insanity allowing a deadly disease to spread in the name of political correctness.

It is politically incorrect to oppose same-sex marriage, despite the biological evidence for marriage (its how we make and train new humans) and the social argument for marriage (we’ll all have to live with these newly trained humans one day).

It is politically incorrect to oppose abortion, easily one of the most egregious examples politically correct ignorance every foisted on a human society. One needn’t be a Christian to see what is wrong with abortion. One needn’t even be religious.

First, the argument is specious. Abortion proponents claim a ‘woman’s right to choose’. In 99.9% of pregnancies, the woman has already exercised her right to choose and that choice resulted in pregnancy. This is a special second ‘right to choose’ extended exclusively to the mother. Neither the father or the baby have any choice in the matter at all.

Even an atheist has as compelling a reason for opposing abortion as does the most devout Christian. Only half of the human race has ever had a baby — but we ALL were babies once. To argue that a fetus is not human is astonishingly self-delusional.

Left to itself, a fetus will never become a Chevrolet, a Doberman Pinscher or a coffeepot. Once the egg’s been fertilized, it can only become one of two things — a dead human fetus or a live human being. But it is politically incorrect to say so.

In fact, in many places it is not just politically correct, it is illegal.

Assessment:

If you are politically correct, then you believe in something called ‘moderate’ Islam. You’ve never seen it, can’t point out an example of it, but you’re sure that it exists.

In Islam, the “Sunna” records the words and deeds of Mohammed. Sunna is the words and deeds of Mohammed, the perfect pattern for all Muslims. The Koran says over 70 times that all Muslims are to imitate Mohammed in every detail of their life.

To that end, Islam has an enormous literature about Mohammed in the Sira (his sacred biography) and the Hadith (his sacred traditions). It is the model of Mohammed who determines what Islam is.

So if a Muslim imitates the Sunna of Mohammed, then that makes that Muslim a moderate within Islam. A Muslim extremist would go beyond Mohammed’s example, whereas a Muslim apostate would fall short.

The Koran makes up about 16% of the Islamic canon — the remaining 84% of Islamic doctrine is derived from the Sira and Hadith. The Hadith devotes 20% of its text to jihad, whereas 75% of the Sira’s doctrine revolves around jihad.

Sura 5:51 in the Koran says,

“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”

So if you, as a Christian, have a Muslim friend, either he disbelieves the Koran, or he wants you to believe that he does. By definition, by claiming to be your friend, he is either an apostate or a deceiver.

But that is not politically correct, even though it is factual. And not merely factual, but potentially life-saving.

But when it comes to PC, facts must submit to feelings. Ignorance is the higher, if not the highest possible, moral ground.

The less I know about Islam, the more I can defend it as “one of the world’s three great monotheistic religions.” The more I know about it, the less defensible it becomes.

In our society, being politically correct is the same thing as being willingly ignorant. If you are PC, then you don’t know that racism is like greed or selfishness and must be unlearned. If you don’t know that, how will you know it must be untaught?

If you are PC, then you don’t know that the primary method of transmitting AIDS is through unprotected gay sex. Knowing a deadly disease’s primary mode of transmission seems important to preventing its spread, no?

If you are PC, then you’ve no problem with gay marriage and gays adopting and raising children. The remedy is to let gays adopt children on the assumption that growing up gay in America is harmless.

But you oppose second-hand smoke on the grounds it may cause respiratory problems in children. The remedy is to outlaw smoking anywhere in public on the grounds that children come first.

If you are PC, then you believe that if your child doesn’t want to pray in school, then the remedy isn’t to excuse your kid from prayer. The remedy is to not let ANYBODY pray.

If you are PC than you believe that abortion is a woman’s ‘right to choose’ but deny the choice is to kill her baby. If you are PC, you find no inconsistency between ‘right to choose’ and legal barriers preventing pro-life counsellors from coming with 100 feet of an abortion clinic.

Political correctness, as it is used by the politically correct, is a form of censorship that seems like the best kind possible. It seems to be rooted in the finest traditions of human behavior — language carefully worded so as not to give offense.

But like all human based traditions, it is fatally flawed. It assumes that offense is something that is given, rather than the factually correct position that offense is something that must be taken by the person claiming offense. You can’t offend me unless I let you.

Political correctness is a way that seems right unto a man. Abortion is politically correct. Denying any connection between AIDS and gay sex is politically correct. Denying that Christ is the only way to heaven is politically correct. Denying that Islamic doctrine is responsible for Islam’s murderous tendencies is politically correct.

The Bible is politically INcorrect. Proverbs 16:25 describes the appeal of political correctness, particularly as it applies to unregenerate man.

“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

Featured Commentary: Is God Finished With Israel ~ Alf Cengia

When Is Too Late Too Late?

When Is Too Late Too Late?
Vol: 166 Issue: 23 Thursday, July 23, 2015

For my birthday, one of my kids gave me a placard that says, ”If at first you don’t succeed, try doing it the way your wife tells you.”

Two recent OL columns, “The Times of the Gentiles” and “Perspective is Everything” appear to have generated more confusion than they have shed light on the issue, if I am to judge from my emails and from the forums.

So I asked my wife what she thought I should do.  She said to try, try again, but this time, keep it simple.

So here goes.

The general confusion revolves around the idea that Gentiles cannot be saved during the Tribulation or that no Gentiles will be saved during the Tribulation.

I didn’t say that and don’t believe that, but rather than repeating what I already wrote; (you can read them here and here,) I thought it more constructive to step back and look at the issue again, and in the context of the Big Picture.

The “Gentiles” means every person from Adam that isn’t either of the tribe of Israel or a Christian.

I don’t believe that every Gentile who lived before the time of Christ was condemned, but neither do I expect to see any huge number of Gentiles from the pre-Christian era when I get to heaven.

There is no Biblical record of a huge outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Gentiles during the Old Testament period.  The Holy Spirit did not indwell the Old Testament saints in the sense that He indwells believers during the Church Age.

There will be some Gentile Old Testament saints in heaven, of course.  Cyrus, maybe, or Nebuchadnezzar, maybe.  Enoch.  Noah.  Lot.  Melchizedek.  Job.  A few more, maybe.

But in the main, God’s attention was focused on the spiritual condition of His Chosen People, the Jews.

The entire future history of God’s plan for His Chosen People is laid out in detail to the Prophet Daniel by the revealing angel:

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”

Daniel’s people were Jews.  Daniel’s holy city is Jerusalem.  This is a prophecy concerning them.  Both the Church and the Gentiles are excluded.

The “Seventy weeks” are weeks of years, or periods of 7 years each.  The full length of the prophecy thus runs 490 years in total.

“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

This period of time, from the order to rebuild to the coming of the Messiah 7+62 adds up to 69 weeks or 483 years.

“And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary . . .” (Daniel 9:26-27)

Josh McDowell did the calculations in his “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” showing that the commandment was issued on March 5, 444 BC.  Jesus rode into Jerusalem where He was received as King 173,880 days later, exactly 483 years.

It is at the point where the Messiah is “cut off, but not for Himself,” that the focus shifts to the salvation of the Gentiles.

“For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” (Romans 11:25)

The “fulness of the Gentiles” means what it sounds like it means. 

“Fulness” (pleroma) means, “completion, what fills (with contents) what is filled (as in container, performance period) which is put in to fill up, full.”

When the full complement of Gentiles who will be saved are saved, Paul writes, then God’s attention turns back to Israel.

The born-again, Blood-bought Church, formerly Jews and Gentiles (but primarily Gentiles) and now, new creatures, are the individuals that corporately constitute the Body of Christ.   

The “fulness of the Gentiles” is followed by the Rapture of the Church, because the Body of Christ is complete.  Now, God’s attention returns to the national redemption of Israel.

Follow along in chronological order. 

“And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (Romans 11:26)

At some point after the Rapture of the Church, a ruler from the same people that destroyed the Temple in AD 70 will confirm a seven year covenant between Israel and ‘many’ restarting the timeclock that stopped, according to McDowell’s calculations, on March 30, AD 33 on a hill outside the city walls of Jerusalem.

Note that there was an interval of time between the Resurrection and Pentecost of forty days.  Note also that there was an interval of time between Pentecost and the destruction of the Temple of about forty years.   

That clearly establishes precedent for the view that there will be an interval of time between the Rapture and the onset of the Tribulation.

The Rapture is NOT the first day of the Tribulation.  But the Rapture is certainly the last day of the Age of Grace.

Assessment:

The period from the time of Moses to the time of Christ is the period of the Dispensation of the Law.  During this Dispensation, the children of Israel were obligated to keep the Law of Moses as a condition of their covenant relationship with God. 

The Dispensation of the Law concluded at Calvary when sin and death were nailed to the Cross.

“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: ” (Romans 8:2-3)

The Dispensation of Grace is the period of time from Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended and indwelt the twelve Apostles and all that believed thereafter, until the day that the fulness (pleroma) of (primarily) Gentiles that complete the Body of Christ.

The Apostle Paul says that the antichrist, “that Wicked” cannot be revealed until AFTER the Restrainer (the Holy Spirit) has been taken out of the way.

“For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth will let, until He be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.” (2 Thessalonians 2:2-8)

So the Restrainer (the Holy Spirit) and the vessels He indwells (the Church) is taken out of the way and then that “Wicked” is revealed.  At this point, by definition, the only people remaining upon the earth are Jews and Gentiles.

Not every Jew or every Gentile has heard the Gospel.  But of those that have, Paul writes that they “received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”  So these are they that rejected the Gospel.   And for THAT reason, Paul writes,

“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thessalonians 10-12)

This is clearly not every Jew or Gentile on earth – just those that heard and rejected the Gospel of salvation.

Note that Paul says that GOD sends them “strong delusion.”  I am not going to debate why God would do that – I am not God. 

But I can’t pretend that part is irrelevant to the overall unfolding of Bible prophecy — or take the risk that the Bible doesn’t mean what it clearly says. 

Which is that God’s plan for the salvation of the Gentiles comes to an end and is replaced with God’s judgment upon a Christ-rejecting world.  It doesn’t mean no more Gentiles CAN be saved — it simply means that Gentiles are no longer the central focus of God’s plan. 

The Tribulation begins with the antichrist, the rider on the white horse of Revelation 6:2.  Revelation Chapter six concludes with breaking of the Sixth Seal, and the onset of the last half, or the Great Tribulation.  

It is at this point that the antichrist seats himself in the Temple, committing the abomination of desolation that Jesus warned of.

The antichrist unleashes a wave of persecution against the Jews so severe that Jesus warns them that are in Judea to flee to the mountains.  He also imposes his mark as a form of worship and ordering the execution of anyone that refuses to accept it.  

Those that refuse to accept the Mark of the Beast are the Tribulation Saints.  Where do they come from?  Let’s step back a bit, and again, follow along in chronological order. 

There is something else that takes place at just about that time that is often overlooked.  What happens immediately after the breaking of the sixth seal but before anything else?

“Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.” (Revelation 7:1)

In Israel, just as the Great Tribulation begins, 144,000 Jews are sealed with the Holy Spirit.  In the same breath, and as they are being sealed, Scripture speaks of;

“a great multitude (who are already in heaven) which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands . .  (Revelation 7:9)

Who are they?  Again, the chronology is helpful, here.

This multitude is identified in Revelation 7:14 as having come out of ‘great tribulation’ — but not THE Great Tribulation. 

(Note the chronology: First, seal the 144,000 — THEN the judgments are resumed.  This great multitude is already in heaven as the Great Tribulation begins with the sealing of the 144,000.)

The seventh angel sounds his trumpet in Revelation 11:15. The judgments continue as the evangelists preach and the Two Witnesses are resurrected after three and a half days. (Revelation 11:11) 

In Revelation 13 the perspective shifts from heaven back to the earth.  We are given a brief history of his rise to power, the rise of the false prophet, the persecution of the Tribulation saints and their ultimate martyrdom (Revelation 13:15)  rather than submitting to the Mark of the Beast. 

So who are the tribulation saints of Revelation 13:15-18 that refuse to accept the Mark?  The next verse is Revelation 14:1 – chronologically, the MOST obvious place to look for them, since the last few verses were about their martyrdom.

“And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with Him an hundred forty and four thousand, having His Father’s name written in their foreheads. . . . And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.” (Revelation 14:1,3)

What are the odds that these are a DIFFERENT 144,000 than the 144,000 sealed in Revelation Seven, just before the Great Tribulation began?

Follow along with me.  To this point in the Tribulation, the only thing God has visited upon the Gentiles is strong delusion and judgment for sin.

And the only thing that God has visited upon the Jews so far in the Tribulation is His Holy Spirit.  Sounds kinda backwards from the usual order of things, doesn’t it?

“. . .blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” (Romans 11:25)

This seems fairly well in keeping with the observation that the Tribulation Period is set aside for the judgment of a Christ-rejecting world and for the national redemption of Israel.

But that accuracy of that observation would largely depend on what happens next:

“And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come: and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.”

An angel is sharing the Gospel.  But there is no outpouring of the Spirit.  No massive revival of souls.  

The 144,000 that were sealed (indwelt) by the Holy Spirit had the power to lead others to Christ.  The Scriptures say that nobody can be saved apart from the Holy Spirit.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

But that doesn’t mean that they are saved the way that we are in the Church Age.  The Tribulation saints are not in the Age of Grace.  They are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

This is the Seventieth Week of Daniel – the final Week of the Dispensation of the Law.  The rules are different for the Tribulation saints than for the saints of the Church Age.  

“Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.” (Revelation 14:12-13)

The Tribulation saints, like the Old Testament Jews, evidently must keep the Commandments AND faith in Jesus.  And for those “which die in the Lord from henceforth” their works, (unlike ours), DO follow them.  

The Old Testament saints (primarily Jews) had to keep the commandments of God, look forward to the promise of a Messiah, and expected to be judged according to their works.

How can this be?  The Time of Jacob’s Trouble is the seventieth week of Daniel — the final week of the Age of the Law.  It is a different Dispensation than the Age of Grace. 

There will be Gentiles saved during the Tribulation, just as there are Jews saved during the Church Age, but God’s focus during the Church Age is on evangelizing the Gentiles, not the Jews.  

His focus during Daniel’s seventieth week is on Daniel’s people, his holy city, and finishing the transgression, making an end of sins, making reconciliation for iniquity, bringing everlasting righteousness, sealing up the vision and prophecy, and anointing the most Holy.

“Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved.”

It is no heresy to say that the only sure way for a Gentile to get to heaven is not to wait until after it is too late to apply.  How late is too late? 

What do you think?

Originally Published: August 26, 2013

Featured Commentary: The First Murder ~ J.L. Robb

”Remember That I Told You”

”Remember That I Told You”
Vol: 166 Issue: 22 Wednesday, July 22, 2015

”Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.” (2nd Peter 3:3-4)

Peter begins his outline of the last days saying, “Knowing this first” – giving notice that what we are about to read is a principle point the Lord wants us to get.

“There shall come in the last days scoffers. . .” 

Literally, it reads, “in the last of days.”  The times referred to are those immediately preceding the Return of Christ, which also serves to introduce the fact that there is an age to come.

“Scoffers” (Gk.empaiktes) can also mean a false teacher or a mocker “walking after their own lusts.”   The reference to the scoffers ‘walking after their own lusts’ is more than simply a phrase.

All sinners walk after their own lusts. So the lustful life and the scoffing voice are not associated here without purpose.

These scoffers and false teachers openly stand in direct opposition to God’s Word, but not as wolves in sheep’s clothing, but walking openly as wolves.   The masks are dropped – they don’t even pretend anymore.

“Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of Creation.”  

First off, note the question, “Where is?” – by implication the answer is “nowhere” – the Promise has, they imply, passed away and disappeared.  The second thing to notice is the question itself.  It shows how familiar the early Church was with the Promise of His return.

There are those that argue that the Rapture is of recent origin – something that was invented by J.N. Darby or Margaret MacDonald or C.I. Scofield.  But as a doctrine, it was actually invented by Jesus Christ and propagated by the Apostles Peter and Paul.

The scoffers here are referring to the promise given to “the fathers” before they ‘fell asleep’ or died.  They were expecting the fulfillment of the promise given in the Gospels and especially that given by two angels to the Apostles and recorded in Acts 1:11:

“Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.”

The first generation of Christians believed the Lord could, and probably would, return for them in their lifetime – that’s what 2^nd Thessalonians 2:1-12 is all about.  The scoffers were mocking those believers that were still looking up.

The implication here is that the scoffers knew Christ had not come because they expected to know when He did.

Peter notes in his rebuttal that the scoffers were willingly ignorant  (that is to say, they knew the truth but preferred the lie), of the fact that the world that once was had perished in the flood.  Therefore the statement that all things continued as they did from creation is not true.

Moreover, Peter says, the same Word of God that caused the world to overflow with water and perish is the Word that promises His return.  Peter goes on to explain to the scoffers why the Lord has not yet returned.  He is holding out until the very last convert.

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

I’ve heard uncounted interpretations of the ‘day equals a thousand years’ reference.  Peter is restating a fact from Psalms 90:4.

“For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”

It could be interpreted as a reference to the eternal nature of God, Who exists outside of time and space in a state of ever-present ‘now’- and to Whom the passage of a thousand years is nothing.

Or it could be interpreted as a reference to the six days of Creation and the six thousand year reign of man. On the seventh day of Creation, God rested.

In this view, the Thousand Year Millennial Kingdom that follows the Tribulation begins with the dawn of the seven thousandth year since Creation.   This view finds some support from the prophecy of Hosea 6:2;

“After two days will He revive us: in the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live in His sight.”

Israel was scattered into the Diaspora almost two thousand years ago (two ‘days’).   It was restored physically in 1948 but has yet to be fully redeemed.

Zechariah predicts the national redemption of Israel at the Second Coming, Revelation promises a thousand-year reign of Israel’s Messiah.

Assessment:

The scoffers of whom Peter speaks are primarily believers.  Peter speaks of their being “willingly ignorant.”  They prefer the lie because they fear the truth.

The willing ignorance of the last days is amply demonstrated in those churches where Bible prophecy is categorized somewhere between exorcism and faith-healing in terms of doctrinal importance.

Part of the reason is because they don’t understand it. But the main reason, I believe, is because it scares them.

It’s depressing.  For many Christians, Bible prophecy is darkness and gloom and fear and catastrophe.  Well, maybe.   But so is our human existence.

Life isn’t all darkness and gloom, of course, but neither is Bible prophecy.  Rationally, there is no more reason to fear what will happen to the world at the end than there is to fear what will happen to me at my end.

After all, when I die, I will be as dead as I can get. I won’t be any deader whether I go alone or if I go in a blinding nuclear flash.  But according to the Scriptures, the moment that I die I will be present with the Lord.

If the Rapture happens before I die, then I will get to skip the dying process and go straight into the Lord’s presence, body and soul.

The Bible offers but two possible alternative fates for a Christian in the last days. Either I die and go to heaven. Or I just go straight to heaven.

There is no third option, so what is there about Bible prophecy that should be scary?

Unfolding Bible prophecy provides a glimpse into the mindset of the Apostle Paul as he awaited his execution in Rome.

“For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.” (2 Timothy 2:1:12)

Paul knew what was coming after Nero’s axe fell, so Paul had no fear of the axe itself.

Bible prophecy is like that.  Watching Bible prophecy unfold with such precision and attention to detail reassures us that it isn’t the axe that is important, but what comes afterwards.

Bible prophecy is instead hard evidence that the One ‘Whom I have believed’ remains as firmly in control of world events as He has proved to be in my personal life, “which I have committed unto Him against that day” and that, in Paul’s words, “He is able to keep it . . .against that day.”

Understanding the Big Picture opens the door to an entirely new outlook on unfolding Bible prophecy. Scoffers fear it because they don’t understand it. Put into proper perspective, Bible prophecy is proof positive that the Lord remains just as firmly in control of world events as He is of whether or not you get a raise or a new job.

Bible prophecy is an antidote to depression and fear.  It is an affirmation of faith from the One in Whom we have believed, are reminder of the Promise.  It is why Jesus gave us prophecy.   It isn’t a parlor trick to use to amaze our friends.

It is a retainer on the Promise.  In this generation, we live in an age of miracles. There appears that there is nothing that science won’t be able to accomplish eventually, thanks to the advent of computers.

It is incontrovertible evidence that cannot be shaken by modern scientific ‘miracles’.  When the skeptic argues for evolution and random selection, trotting out fossils, skeletons and diagrams, it seems pretty convincing.  Especially since modern science can replicate almost any miracle.

Except one.

Mankind cannot predict the future. It simply can’t be done. No computer could calculate every detail of every life in advance, which is what would be necessary. Should one person do something unexpected then the whole course of future history would change.

The Bible gives a single explanation for a fluid, changeable series of events predicted to happen thousands of years in the future — the events that define our present day.

The skeptic has multiple explanations for static events that have already happened.  Which is more convincing?

Bible prophecy proves Jesus was the Son of God, regardless of the latest scientific, archeological or historical discovery. No matter what else might be offered as ‘evidence’ to the contrary, there is no other explanation for Bible prophecy.

It is our generation’s unique miracle.

Bible prophecy was given to the Church in the last days for the same reason that the Apostles were given miracles, signs and wonders following Pentecost.

To demonstrate the power of God. To establish the authority to forgive sins. To herald when the time of His soon return is near. To remind us of the Promise.

“But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them.” (John 16:4)

We remember, Lord.

The Rapture: Why?

The Rapture: Why?
Vol: 166 Issue: 21 Tuesday, July 21, 2015

”These things have I spoken unto you, that in Me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)

According to the editors of the “World Christian Encyclopedia“: A comparative survey of churches and religions – AD 30 to 2200,” there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones.

For eighteen of the world’s major religions and its 270 sub-divisions, the concept of the sudden and instantaneous translation of millions of adherents from one form of existence into the next is completely unheard of.

It is even a controversial doctrine within Christianity. There are entire huge subdivisions, or denominations within Christianity that totally dismiss the concept of the Rapture.  

I found a column at the appropriately-named AgainstDispensationalism.com that argues belief in the Rapture is little more than “The Arrogance of the West.”  I chose that column to highlight because it is a shining example of why the Rapture is so controversial. 

To Jerry Johnson, the president of something called the Nicene Council, the Rapture is “paperback” theology and a recent theological concoction never taught by the ‘historic church’. 

(For context, the ‘historic church’ would be the one that embraces replacement theology. And my Bible is paperback).

Notes Johnson: “One is hard pressed to think that all of the great minds from St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin and Charles Haddon Spurgeon, that though they had read I Thessalonians 4 failed to understand the important teaching of a pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture.”

Then he lashes out with his best, Sunday punch.

“Pre-tribulation rapture theology is at its foundation conceited!”  

This is the main objection to the doctrine of the Rapture – the misconception that the Rapture is a Great Escape.  Why should Christians escape the Great Tribulation while others do not? 

“It’s unfair and God isn’t unfair.”

One wonders if they find it equally unfair that some go to heaven and others go to hell.  My bet is that some do, but others don’t.  (But all would agree that Hitler shouldn’t go to heaven.)

That’s why God is God and theologians are not.

Assessment:

As noted, no other religion has anything resembling a Rapture doctrine, including whatever ‘historic church’ Jerry Johnson was referring to.  So where did it come from and why is it there?

The first thing anybody does when trying to answer that question is to hopelessly complicate the issue so that whatever answer they come up with, it is practically impossible to decipher. 

If you take enough verses from different places throughout the Bible, you can make a case for a Rapture, against a Rapture, for pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, amillennial, premillenial, or post millennial, with or without a 1000 year Kingdom.

I know that to be true because there are scholars that adhere to each and every one of those positions (which is why they have names for them) and I refuse to believe that they hold those positions without some kind of Scripture to hang them on.

If one sees the purpose of the Rapture as a “Great Escape” then it is easy to take verses from all over the Bible to refute it.  Not because the Rapture is a false doctrine.  

But because that isn’t the purpose of the Rapture. Knowing why provides valuable clues as to when and how.

Two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ promised His disciples that when He ascended into Heaven, the Holy Spirit would come upon them and indwell them and empower them.  That indwelling Power would come upon and indwell all who believed.

Jesus called Him the Comforter.  Jesus promised that He would abide with me forever.  

Let’s examine the simplest questions first.

What does it mean when Jesus Christ makes a promise to the Church? Is it reliable? What does “forever” mean?  Is there a time constraint on forever? When would forever run out?  Does abide forever mean “abide forever for every generation but one?”

Houston, we have a problem. According to my paperback theology, the Comforter is:

“Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”  (John 14:7)

So, the Comforter is the Spirit of Truth and He indwells me.  That’s what my paperback theology teaches me.  Then comes Part Two of the paperback Promise.

“I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you.” (John 14:18)

So how to resolve this obvious “contradiction” in Scripture?  There is only one way.  The Holy Spirit continues in indwell me throughout the Tribulation Period.  Therefore, by the authority of the Word of God, specifically, 1^st John 4:4, “Greater is He (the indwelling Holy Spirit) than he that is in the world.”  

Since the indwelling Holy Spirit is greater and since He will not leave or forsake me during the Tribulation, it is not possible for the antichrist to overcome my indwelling Spirit and pledge allegiance to him. 

But that contradicts Revelation 13:7 which says that he can. And it’s not a little contradiction, either.

For the antichrist to overcome an indwelt child of the Living God, he must defeat the Indweller.  Unless the Holy Spirit no longer indwells me.  And if He doesn’t, did He ever? 

And if He did, where did He go? And how did He do that without breaking Jesus promise not to leave me Comfortless?  The Tribulation is, after all, the time of greatest spiritual trial in all of human history. 

And although every generation, from those thrown to the lions to those being massacred today in Iraq, have the benefit of the indwelling Holy Spirit, during the Tribulation I will be Comfortless? 

How does that work?  If the Rapture is a Great Escape from Tribulation for Christians, then wouldn’t the opposite be when Christians suddenly have the Comforter ripped from them just when He is most needed?  

And if I am still indwelt, then what is the purpose in sealing the Jews of Revelation 7 with the Holy Spirit so they can share the Gospel?  What’s wrong with using me?  Isn’t that my job since the Great Commission?

Here’s the Rapture narrative in summary. The Age of Grace began at Pentecost with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  The Age of Grace concludes at the Rapture with the withdrawal of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

The Promise to the Church is kept precisely as it was given by the Lord Himself.  

Now, if one really works at it, one can find creative ways to portray the Rapture as the Great Escape and from there, all kinds of creative ways to dismiss it as paperback theology.   

But the simplest answer is still the only one that makes sense.

Originally Published: November 13, 2010

Featured Commentary: Still in the Dark ~ Wendy Wippel