• Register
  • Login
  • Forgot Password?
  • My Profile
  • Choose An Icon
  • Upload An Icon
  • Messenger
  • Member Search
  • Who's Online
    Members: 1585

    ONLINE:
    Members: 0
    Anonymous: 0
    Today: 3
    Newest Member:
    Karen Stanton
  • You are here: Blogs Directory / Ministries / Confederate Crusader Welcome Guest
    Confederate Crusader
          "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Galatians 4:16)

    Mon, Apr 26th - 12:35PM

    How Essential Are Church Programs & Age Segregation?



    A few months after I was saved and called to ministry I was given a Nursing Home ministry, where I taught Sunday School and eventually started a worship service. On Saturday afternoons I would visit as many patients as I could to talk with them and pray with them, and I made a point of asking about their salvation experience, church background, and current spiritual life. Numerous senior citizens related that they were saved young and that when they were growing up in church it was normal for the young to convert and unusual for young people to stop attending church when they left home, even though they didn't have the programs often deemed necessary today. This made me wonder if perhaps the modern emphasis, reliance, and dependence on church programs and age segregation might be indirectly defeating the purpose, which I still sometimes wonder about.

    http://www.unlessthelordmagazine.com/articles/church_youth_groups.htm

    http://www.fortifyingthefamily.com/Separation_Church_and_Family.html

    http://www.calvarybiblechurch.org/calvary_review.aspx/2003/02/3

     



    Comment (0)

    Sun, Apr 25th - 7:45PM

    Countering Heresy & Church Corruption



     II Timothy 3:1-13 is often considered a description of world conditions during the endtimes, but how could this be a prophecy of future world conditions when the world (the wicked world system) has always manifested such bad characteristics? The term "last days" in II Timothy 3:1 refers to the whole Christian era that began at Pentecost. (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21; Hebrews 1:1,2; II Peter 3:2,3; note that "Houses" in II Timothy 3:6 refers to churches. -Romans 16:5; I Corinthians 6:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 2; II John 10)

     Corruption does not just come from without the church. (Romans 12:2; etc.) One of the burdens of the New Testament is the determined effort of men to corrupt the church from within. (Matthew 7:15-23; Acts 20:29,30; II Corinthians 11:3-4,13-15; Colossians 2:8-10; I Timothy 4:1-3; II Timothy 3:1-13; 4:3,4; II Peter 2:1-19; Jude 3-19) The antidote against this defection from the faith is the Word of God. Heresies became established doctrines throughout Christendom due to widespread neglect and rejection of the Bible, and truths began to be restored as a result of believers rediscovering the Bible and putting the Word of God above human ideas. It is important that Christians counter falsehood and church corruption by studying, defending and declaring Bible Truth. (Psalm 33:4,10,11; 119:130; Proverbs 2:3-11; 11:9; II Timothy 3:14-4:4)



    Comment (0)

    Wed, Apr 21st - 6:14AM

    Something For Singles To Consider



    Christian singles normally are, and should be, concerned about being attractive to the opposite sex. It is certainly normal, natural, and expected for a Christian single to want love and companionship of the opposite sex, but it is important to consider what kind of person you are hoping to attract and what kind of relationship you hope to find or initiate; for obvious reasons I have never tried to catch a fish by putting Deer Lure on a hook.

    For example, immodest appearance and unseemly behavior will certainly help a woman to get fornication or get herself matched with a "man void of understanding," but this could also make Christian gentlemen decide that she is an unsuitable prospect for potential marriage. (Proverbs 7:6-14,25; 9:13; 11:22; 12:4; 14:1; 19:14; 25:24; 27:15; 31:10-12,30)

     Many Christian singles will say they want a Christian spouse while demonstrating that they want someone who is irreligious, materialistic, or sexually immoral. How? Through immodest appearance and unseemly behavior, or by being indifferent or unfriendly toward dedicated believers while gravitating to the worldly and ungodly. (Psalm 119:63; Proverbs 19:1; Amos 3:3; Romans 13:14)

    Try looking at yourself objectively: What does your appearance and behavior say about you?



    Comment (0)

    Tue, Apr 20th - 9:46AM

    Nothing Is Really New, Just Revivals Of The Old



    While trends and technology change, truth and basic human nature do not.(Proverbs 33:11; Ecclesiastes 1:9,10) Perhaps modernism should be called something else, as the modernists (whether secular or religious) never manage to introduce anything that is genuinely new. The Twentieth Century provided many examples of ancient paganism being introduced as something new by changing titles and dressing: If a fruit looks, smells, and tastes like an apple it does not become an orange no matter how dogmatically you call it an orange. Consider socialism, which is often applied as communism or fascism; the difference between the two being that communism is a theory or system of ownership of all property by the state, and fascism allows private ownership of property while the state maintains control of property. Socialism makes man (corporate man, the state) the measure of all things and the standard of truth and is merely a modern version of ancient paganism. The New Age Movement is merely a revival of ancient paganism. The theory of evolution did not originate with modern science, it has been part of pagan religions and occultism for thousands of years. Humanism is a revival of the pagan concept of the godhood of man. Feminism is not new. The historic and prophetic books of the Old Testament mention this form of paganism corrupting God's people. The "new morality" is merely a revival of ancient pagan philosophy and licentiousness. More examples could be given, but these should suffice for now. It is ironic when modernists refer to conservatives as old-fashioned.

    Comment (0)

    Mon, Apr 19th - 10:17AM

    The Plight Of Christian Singles




    We are naturally social creatures, born with a natural need for human fellowship and human friendship.

    Over the years I have met numerous single adults who were active in a church in the past, but will not now attend church because they know from experience and observation that being a single Christian often means living life as an outcast.

    It is ironic that in so many churches are concerned about the social needs of children, teenagers who live with their families, and married couples are readily recognized and addressed, while oftentimes the solo adults are left out (often conspicuously). All too often those who do recognize the social needs of single adults insist on segregating the single adults.

    Christian singles also deal with myths and stereotypes that have become common in many Christian circles.

    It is often assumed that a prolonged state of singleness means that a single Christian brought the situation upon himself (or herself), or that God is disciplining or punishing him for something. It should be noted that in many cases a prolonged singleness is the result of wise choices that should be commended instead of criticized.

    One common myth is that God will provide a mate when a single Christian learns to be content with being single; this is comparable to telling a sick person that God will heal him when he learns to be happy that he is sick. We are all told to be content in our relationship with God in whatever state we find ourselves, but this does not mean we must prefer that state; can you imagine Christ or an Apostle telling a slave to decline an opportunity to legally secure his freedom from bondage if the opportunity arose?

    Another myth is that prolonged singleness is evidence that it is God's will for that person to remain single. Prolonged singleness, and even having good morals, does not necessarily mean that a single Christian has the gift of celibacy. (Incidentally, where is the "gift of celibacy" found in Scripture?)

    Still another popular myth, often perpetuated by married Christians, is that God is a divine matchmaker and has chosen one soulmate for everyone, and the secret to marital happiness is finding that soulmate. So instead of looking for their sole mate, many pursue an ideal that cannot become reality. Because of this myth many assume that any mutual attraction or a flood of strong emotions is evidence that they have found "the one," often in spite of very serious character flaws and religious incompatibility. Often after they marry and their unrealistic expectations meet reality they can't wait to divorce so that they can continue searching for "the one." Others forego marriage for years and decades, even declining numerous opportunities to marry extremely suitable prospects (even prospects that meet their own personal criteria or preferences), believing that they will someday meet "the one."

    I won't deal with this in-depth, but consider this: If the divine matchmaker theory was true, anyone marrying the wrong person would thus keep others from finding and marrying their soulmate, and the domino effect would eventually touch everybody. How is it possible that so many widows, who were happily married with their late spouse, went on to become happily married again? Why does God give guidelines on the choice of a mate that allow so much room for personal tastes and preferences within those guidelines?

    Human nature often leads Christians to make personal preferences and conscientious differences of opinion into doctrines and man-made measurements of spirituality. It is not wrong for a Christian to have personal opinions and convictions, but it is important not to let debatable
    matters and conscientious differences of opinion hinder Christian fellowship or cause occassions for stumbling, and this includes matters relating to Christian singles. (Romans 14:1,13,19; Ephesians 4:1-3; II Timothy 2:14,15)

    The Bible clearly tells the unmarried to remain celibate until marriage and instructs Christian singles to marry only in the Lord and not to become unequally yoked. Advising Christian singles to look for an unmarried Christian of the opposite sex and like faith to marry and advising and encouraging them to decline and avoid opportunities to be matched with unsuitable prospects (unchurched, unbelievers, selfish, materialistic, immoral, etc.) is good advice.

    However, many married christians, though probably well-intentioned, and perhaps even believing the myths and stereotypes they propogate, are quite adept at offering worthless or meaningless advice and saying hurtful and insensitive things to Christian singles. Let me share just a few examples:

    "Celibacy should never be a problem for someone who really loves the Lord."

    "How can you feel lonely if you have Jesus?"

    "All you need is to devote more time to serving the Lord, helping others, etc.."

    "The Bible says it is wrong for an unmarried Christian to look for a mate." (Some try to offer New Testament support for this counsel. They should be advised to examine the Greek text of their proof texts.)

    "If you would draw closer to God then loneliness wouldn't be a problem."

    "It is not God's will for you to marry because ... ."

    "God apparently wants you to delay marriage as long as you can."

    "God is teaching you a lesson, and when you learn the lesson (whatever that lesson is supposed to be) God will give you a mate."

    "God will give you a mate when you learn to be content to be single, or when you are not looking for a mate."

    Etc..

    Many married Christians do not understand the gravity of their words or the difficulties involved because many simply fail to realize that this is possibly the greatest challenge that a Christian single must face: Being a single Christian, remaining faithful, and following Bible guidelines carries the very real possibility of never marrying, and humans (whether male or female) are not designed to enjoy or look forward to continual loneliness or perpetual singleness.

    Opportunities to date or marry abound, and there is usually a wide selection of potential dates or mates from which to choose, IF one steps outside of Bible guidelines.

    Try to keep this in mind when dealing with Christian singles.





    Comment (0)

    Sat, Apr 17th - 10:18AM

    Liberals Indirectly Support Conservatism




    It is ironic that the liberal agenda indirectly supports patriarchy and other conservative principles. How?


    -Gun-control. Liberals insist on being victims and increasing their odds of becoming crime statitics.


    -Promoting birth control and abortion-on-demand.


    -Promoting and encouraging promiscuity. (Does "STD" mean anything to anyone?)


    -Condoning and encouraging the homosexual lifestyle and agenda; e.g., legalizing homosexual marriage, special rights for sexual perverts, etc..


    -Pushing feminist ideology and encouraging women (and men) to be feminists, thus making marriage less appealing to either sex and making women increasingly unattractive to responsible men who desire marriage and family.


    -Pushing young women to pursue everything but their domestic calling and delay marriage and childbearing for as many years as possible.


    The list could go on but you probably see my point by now. If the liberals do manage to get their way on everything then conservatives could eventually become the overwhelming majority, in possibly one or two generations.





    Comment (0)

    Fri, Apr 16th - 2:36PM

    Lessons From Bible Stories




    The Bible teaches truths and principles that provide guidance in every area of human existence. While specific rules of necessity require periodic alterations and additional rules because of differing cultures and changing technology, the Bible provides principles that apply to every generation and culture. (Psalm 33:4,10,11; 119:89,152; Ecclesiastes 1:9,10)
    The Bible is often dismissed as containing many stories having no relevance to us today, but, while we can make allowances for differences in customs between Bible times and modern times, Bible stories teach us valuable lessons and truths. (Psalm 33:11; I Corinthians 10:6; II Timothy 3:16)

    As you read each chapter try asking questions, such as:
    -What did this account convey to the first readers?
    -What does this tell us about God's Providence, and His truths and standards?
    -What lessons can we learn from this that apply to us today?
    -How does this account (and each passage) relate to context and the whole Bible?

    You won't always be able to answer each question, but you will find that each chapter becomes more interesting when you look at it in this way. As you continue to read and study the Bible the chapters will become even more interesting as you relate them to the whole Bible.

    Consider a few examples:

    Read chapter 34 of Genesis and consider a few questions:

    What made Shechem assume that Dinah was available to him for sexual immorality (verse 31)? Why did Shechem assume that Dinah would yield to his advances? Why wasn't Dinah offended or resistant to Shechem's advances ("Took" in verse 2 means that he petted or fondled her)? What made Shechem assume that Dinah's family would not be offended by his actions? Why did Hamor assume that Dinah's family would not be offended by Shechem's actions? What made Shechem assume that Dinah's family would willingly consent to let her marry an idolater? Why would Hamor assume that Dinah's family would consent to intermarriage with idolaters? The answer to these questions is in Genesis 34:1. (consider Psalm 119:63,115; Proverbs 13:20; Amos 3:3)


    Why did Abraham stop pleading with God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah after God agreed to spare them if there be ten righteous found there? (Genesis 18:32,33)

    Lot lived in Sodom, and his wife and his unmarried daughters lived with him in his house. Lot also had at least two sons, at least two married daughters, and at least two sons in law living in Sodom; this amounted to at least ten people. (Genesis 19:12,14,15)

    But Lot was worldly and materialistic and kept close company (or fellowship) with wicked and ungodly associations. (Genesis 13:10-13; II Peter 2:7,8) What effect did this have?

    In a crisis Lot offered to let a mob sexually abuse his daughters, thus demonstrating a heathen attitude toward daughters. (Genesis 19:8) Lot apparently never expressed any disapproval of moral abominations until a mob wanted to abuse his angelic visitors. (Genesis 19:9) He did not witness to his sons in law until the day before the destruction. (Genesis 19:14) His younger daughters were aware and convinced of his moral weaknesses, and apparently assumed from his example that fornication is acceptable in some cases.(Genesis 19:31,32; compare Genesis 19:5-8; also note that Genesis 2:24 made it clear that sexual relations were to be restricted to wedlock.)

    Was Lot really the last man alive on earth after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? (Genesis 19:31,32) This excuse sounds like the excuses often used by many modern Christians to justify unequal yoking and fornication, excuses that, like the excuse of Lot's daughter, run
    counter to facts as well as Scripture. (Proverbs 13:13. For example, I Corinthians 7:16 and similar passages are addressed to Christians who were already married when they converted and give no assurance that God will bless willful disobedience.)

    If Lot had followed Abraham's example there could have been ten righteous in Sodom who possibly could have influenced and transformed their community and persuaded unbelievers to become believers. (Genesis 18:19)

    What about us? Are we separated or conformed? (Romans 12:2; II Corinthians 6:14-7:1)
    Samson allowed his lust for women to prevent him from being more effective in his service to God.

    Samson preferred wicked and ungodly women even though there were dedicated believers available: Of the three women Samson was romantically involved with, two were prostitutes and the other behaved like a prostitute. (consider Judges 14:3)

    This was apparently a result of the influence of the company he kept, as Samson preferred the company of wicked and ungodly associations: Back then it was customary for a groom to make a feast ("throw a party") and invite his closest friends to celebrate his wedding with him, and it is noteworthy that Samson's closest friends were pagan idolaters. (Judges 14:10,11)

    Samson's words in Judges 14:3 sounds like some of the excuses or reasons often used by many Christians to justify unequal yoking and fornication, reasons that, like the reason given by Samson, run counter to Scripture and actually have little or no meaning. For example, merely saying that you love someone or are in love with someone says something about yourself but says nothing about the object of that emotion. Saying that the women pleased Samson said something about Samson but didn't actually say anything about the object of his affection, nor did this change God's standards.

    The account about David and Goliath presents an interesting contrast between Saul and David, and teaches lessons that we would do well to apply today. While our situation is different, the truths and principles involved remain the same.

    Saul was already rejected by God because of disobedience and indifference toward God's Word. (I Samuel 10:8; 13:4-14; 15:1-11,22,23,28; consider Deuteronomy 25:17-19; Proverbs 12:15; 13:13)

    David's walk with God made him courageous. David knew from experience that God would give him victory, especially since killing a bear or a lion is more difficult than killing a man. (I Samuel 17:33-37)

    David even used a superstition of the Philistines against them. Why would an entire army flee because one man was killed, especially since their religion promised heaven if they died in battle? (I Samuel 17:51-53)

    The Philistines saw the Isrealites send an unarmored shepherd to successfully defeat their champion and then quickly decapitate him.(I Samuel 17:42,49-51) Philistines and other heathens in the Middle East believed that if someone was decapitated his spirit was doomed to forever wander the earth aimlessly, drinking urine and eating feces and garbage.

    Saul and his men saw a heavily armored giant.

    What did David see? An uncircumcised Philistine. (I Samuel 17:26,33-36; Deuteronomy 31:6)

    In the Old Testament, circumcision represented a covenant relationship with God and was illustrative of purity and obedience to God. (Genesis 17:10-14; Exodus 6:12; Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6;Jeremiah 6:10)

    The word Philistines means immigrants. Even though they spoke a Semitic language or dialect very similar to Hebrew, their conduct, appearance, speech, and hostility toward Israel demonstrated that they were not God's people. The philstines and other heathens were familiar with the
    theology of the Israelites, which is why they were hostile toward the Israelites.

    The Gentiles were not without choice or recourse in this matter. A Gentile could repent and convert to Yahwism and submit to the Law Covenant (and be circumcised if a male) and thus become a Jew, and likewise today an unbeliever can repent and convert and become a Christian.
    (Exodus 12:48-49; Leviticus 19:33-34; 24:22; Joshua 6:25; Ruth 1:16; I Samuel 21:7; II Samuel 11:3,11; I Kings 8:41-43; Esther 8:17; John 1:12; I Timothy 2:3-6; II Peter 3:9)

    There are important principles here that apply to conduct, appearance, choice of amusements and companionship, and willingness or unwillingness to stand for righteousness and the Biblical worldview. We should not assume that everything secular is evil, and you should avoid being against so much that you aren't for anything, but it is essential to choose and distinguish which side you are on.
    The Bible account of David and Bathsheba illustrates the importance of abstaining from the appearance of evil and not making provision for the flesh, and also demonstrates that nobody is immune to sin. (I Thessalonians 5:22; Romans 13:14; I John 1:8-10)

    Would merely knowing what is right and deciding not to fornicate have prevented sexual immorality? No. King David already knew God's law.(Deuteronomy 17:18; Matthew 15:19; Galations 5:19)

    David had already allowed his lust to lead him into compromising standards and becoming a polygamist contrary to God's command for kings. (Deuteronomy 17:17) Compromising in ways that seem insignificant often leads to greater compromises. (Luke 16:10)

    The problem started with David staying home in bed instead of leading his troops in battle. (II Samuel 11:1,2)

    If the problem was merely a desire for sex David already had several wives, but David was in bed alone and got out of bed in the evening. (II Samuel 11:2; 12:1-9)

    Having several wives may have contributed to the problem. While David's physical needs would have been met, emotional needs would have remained unsatisfied: How can a man have an intimate bond with a woman if he has more than one lover? (consider Ecclesiastes 7:26-28)

    In the Bible domestic happiness is always associated with monogamy. (Psalm 128:1-6; Proverbs 5:18-19; Ecclesiastes 9:9; etc.) While polygamy was tolerated in the Old Testament, monogamy was the normal standard. The Law discouraged polygamy and made it impractical by
    requiring standards and restrictions that led to the eventual abolition of polygamy when applied; for example, a husband was obliged to provide each wife with sufficient food, proper clothing, and regular sexual relations. (Exodus 21:10; Leviticus 15:16,18)

    Violating the tenth commandment naturally led to violating the seventh commandment. (II Samuel 11:2-4)

    Why would King David be concerned about hiding his adultery in a world and a time when this was considered a royal privilege? While this may have been acceptable among the heathen nations, adultery was not among the privileges granted the king of Israel. If David's officers learned how David behaved while they were fighting on his behalf there could easily have been a mutiny or an assassination. When Bathsheba gave birth to a child that was obviously illegitimate she would surely tell Uriah and everyone else who the father was in her defense. These and many other likely scenarios made David determined to keep his adultery hidden.

    The account indicates that Uriah knew what happened, but devotion to duty and a rare nobility of character kept him from acting irrationally or being quick to make accusations.

    David and Bathsheba were not entirely discreet. David sent messengers to bring Bathsheba to him, and after his enquiries the purpose of this visit was obvious. (II Samuel 11:3,4) Bathsheba did not personally tell David that she was pregnant, she used a messenger. (II Samuel 11:5)
    Obviously the people at the palace knew what happened, and Uriah had friends in the palace who would have informed him. (II Samuel 11:9)

    Uriah was not a new recruit. Uriah was an experienced soldier who would know that king David was already receiving the answers to his questions in regular reports from his officers. (II Samuel 11:7)

    His devotion to duty as a soldier in the army of Israel during a military campaign would explain why Uriah did not sleep with his wife, butthis does not explain why he would not eat a meal with her or even greet her. (II Samuel 11:8-13)

    Could David have avoided adultery with Bathsheba? If David had been leading his troops in battle he would not have given himself opportunity to fulfill this temptation. If David had concerned himself with loving his wives he would not have been giving himself  opportunity to be romantically involved with another man's wife. The prophet Nathan was in Jerusalem while this was going on, and David could have called for Nathan before calling for Bathsheba and received wise counsel. But after arranging a romantic interlude with immorality as the goal and then becoming intimate it was too late. (Romans 13:14; I Thessalonians 5:22)

    Could David have avoided murdering Uriah? Yes, but it is doubtful that he would have avoided this after he committed adultery and felt compelled to do whatever was necessary to hide this.

    Was it possible to avoid killing other innocent soldiers in the process? Not after it was decided to make Uriah's death look like a natural consequence of war. (II Samuel 11:15-17)

    The account also demonstrates the mercy of God. In spite of David's wicked behavior, God forgave him when he repented. (II Samuel 12:13)

    No matter what you have done, God wants to forgive you more than you want to be forgiven. (Psalm 103:8-14)

    The account also demonstrates that sin always has a negative effect and plants a seed that keep growing. (Galations 6:7)

    What led to Absalom's rebellion against King David his father? Absalom had a little sister, Tamar, who was raped by their older brother Amnon.

    As the heir apparent, Amnon apparently assumed from his father's example that using women is a royal privilege.

    Apparently Amnon's lust for Tamar was obvious to others. (II Samuel 13:1,2) When Absalom saw that Tamar had been violated he automatically assumed that Amnon was responsible. (II Samuel 13:19,20)

    It would be natural for an older brother to seek or desire to avenge a younger sister.

    When David heard what happened he was angry, but he did nothing.

    What Absalom did to Amnon is what David was expected to do. (consider Deureronomy 22:26)

    While David could not bring himself to do anything against Amnon, Absalom had to flee the country to escape his father's wrath. David mourned over Amnon a long time but apparently did not mourn over Tamar, and David could never bring himself to fully forgive Absalom. If David had punished Amnon, or at least declared that a rapist could not inherit the throne, then perhaps Absalom would not have turned against David. While it was wrong to try to usurp the throne and lead others in rebellion against his father, Absalom apparently assumed that these things gave him a right to take the throne.

    Ahithophel was David's counsellor and close friend, and David was astonished by Ahithophel's treachery.

    Why was Absalom confident that Ahithophel would switch loyalty and take his side against David? (II Samuel 15:12; Psalm 41:9; 55:12-14)

    The names of Eliam the son of Ahithophel and Uriah the Hittite occur in the list of the officers of David's guard, so we know that Uriah and Ahithophel's son were colleagues. (II Samuel 23:34,39) Bathsheba was the daughter of Eliam. (II Samuel 11:3)

    The woman David seduced was Ahithophel's granddaughter, and the man David murdered was Ahithophel's grandson by marriage and a family friend before that.

    David's passions blinded him to the effect his actions would have on his friend. 
    Like many modern believers, King Solomon was deceived by modernism. (Ecclesiastes 1:9,10,13; 7:23-25) It is sad that so many professed Bible-believers put trends, culture, and so-called science above the Word of God and so readily accept an unscriptural (or even antibiblical) teaching, concept, or practice as right or true if it is new or modern (or appears to be scientific), and tend to readily dismiss a teaching, concept, or practice as wrong or irrelevant if it is old or old-fashioned. (Psalm 33:4,10,11; 119:89,160; Proverbs 3:5-7; 19:21; Romans 12:2; Colossians 2:8)



    These are just a few examples.

    Many disregard the Old Testament as irrelevant to Christians, which is a mistake: While the New Testament teaches a different application of grace, the New Testament echos the truths taught in the Old Testament, reaffirms the moral principles or standards of the Old Testament, and you cannot understand the New Testament without the Old Testament. (consider Acts 24:14; Romans 3:31; II Timothy 2:15; 3:16)

    For example, salvation has always been through blood, starting with the blood that was shed for Adam and Eve: Making a coat of skin required the slaughter of an animal. (Genesis 3:21) Abel sacrificed animals while Cain offered the product or fruit of his labors, and Abel's offering was respected. (Genesis 4:3-5; incidentally, the issue was salvation by blood or works, and Genesis 4 gives the first account of a liberal attacking a conservative.) The blood of animals prefigured the blood of Christ. Old Testament saints looked forward to the Cross and New Testament saints look back to the Cross. (Hebrews 10:1-12)


    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 15th - 12:29PM

    The Lure Of The Cults & The Occult



    Many well-meaning ministers express a longing to return to the 1950s era, some even describing the 1950s as a golden age for Christianity in America, either forgetting or failing to realize that the cultural and religious trends of the 1950s led to the accelerated and enormous increase in the cults, the occult, and modernism that characterized the 1960s and still continues. Consider just a few examples:

    -The teaching that Bible standards only apply to the religious (church) aspects of life and not the secular realm. (Thus making Christianity appear ineffective and pointless.)

    -Denying the influence of the Bible and Christianity in American history, and denying the impact of the Bible and Christianity on the moral and political character of the United States of America, in school textbooks and mass media. (Again, Biblicism and Christianity appear ineffective and pointless.)

    -Acceptance of the theory of evolution in Christian circles, and endorsement of the theory of evolution by many respected clergy and mainline churches.

    -Replacing Biblical separation (godly relationships, conduct, and distictions within society) with isolation and neutrality.

    -Putting material prosperity, appearance, and social status above character in importance.

    -Replacing ministry and patriarchy with church programs.

    -Ministerial exemption from the draft encouraged cowards, infidels, and sexual perverts to pursue positions and careers in ministry.

    The list of the cultural and religious trends of the 1950s that increased the appeal of the cults and the occult could continue but these examples should suffice to help you see the point. Rather than romancing the past or longing for a return to the past, we should focus on how we can avoid the mistakes of the past and prevent others from being misled.

    In dealing with this subject I am not entirely comfortable with the word "cult," as it has become so popular to apply this term to any religious group that one happens to disagree with, and also because so many fail to realize that spiritual abuse, deception, and false doctrines are not limited to cults. (Matthew 7:15; Acts 20:28-31; Romans 16:17,18; II Corinthians 11:3,4,13-15; Colossians 2:4,8; II Peter 2:1-3)

    What leads so many into cults or the occult, especially since so many or most (depending on which study or survey) initiates into cults and the occult come from a religious background in a mainstream church or denomination?

    Replacing personal study, discernment, and growth with a childlike dependence on a religious leader is normal and accepted in many Christian circles, and this makes people vulnerable to deception and spiritual abuse. (Acts 17:11; Ephesians 4:11-16; I Peter 5:1-3; consider Proverbs 2:3-15)

    Hungry sheep will wander in search for food. Looking at church ads, and considering what people are being fed in most churches and through Christian radio, Christian television, and Christian literature, it should surprise us that the cults and the occult do not attract more 'wandering sheep' than they do. (consider Acts 20:28)

    The Hebrew word rendered "world" in Ecclesiastes 3:11 means eternity. In other words, people are born with a natural need for spiritual guidance and an effective religion/belief system. Even though they are wrong, the cults and the occult do fill a basic need and provide answers.

    Cults use the heart to trap the mind. Think of this in terms of fishing: Emotion is the lure, doctrine (false doctrine mingled with truth) is the hook, and fear (and guilt) is the barb that helps keep the "fish" from getting away. (consider Proverbs 3:5-7; 14:12; 28:26; Jeremiah 17:9)
    Beware of a distorted faith. Biblical faith is based on facts or knowledge of God's Word, and, while feelings may result, feelings are not the basis of Biblical faith. Remember the pattern: 1.)Fact, 2.)Faith, 3.)Feeling. In cults and the occult this pattern is usually reversed.
    American students, who were born and raised in the USA, often have far more difficulty with English classes and English grammar than many foreign students who learned English when they were grown or almost grown. Often the students in a foreign language class having the most difficulty are children of immigrants who speak that language as their native tongue; in many cases they know just enough of the language to communicate with family and assume that they are fluent. We have a similar situation in Christian circles.

    Normally the typical cult recruit or initiate is someone from a religious background who is not well-studied and grounded in faith and Bible knowledge.

    All too often Christians assume that knowing just enough of the Bible to argue about it or give pet theories a semblance of Christian truth is somehow adequate.


    http://www.watchman.org/



    Comment (0)

    Wed, Apr 14th - 9:20AM

    The Importance Of Fundamental Doctrines




    "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." -Jude 3


    "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." I Timothy 4:16


    "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the the simplicity that is in Christ.For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." -II Corinthians 11:3,4






    Scripture identifies Satan as the one who used the serpent. (Genesis 3:1; Revelation 12:9; note that the Greek word here rendered "dragon" means big snake.) The example of the Genesis account warns us to expect Satan to use dupes and envoys and subtilty to deceive. The Genesis account also serves to warn us to expect Satan to deceive by twisting, distorting, and casting doubt upon the Word of God, especially concerning important or essentials doctrines and standards, and demonstrates that neglect, indifference toward, or ignorance of God's Word makes us more vulnerable. (compare Genesis 2:16,17 & Genesis 3:2-5)


    The purpose of attacking essential doctrines is to make believers ineffective in the Lord's work and prevent unbelievers from becoming genuine believers. We are not told that we must always agree on every minor point, but II Corinthians 11:3,4 refers to teachings directly related to salvation and spirituality.


    II Corinthians 11:3 shows us why the inerrancy of Scripture is so often attacked and denied. Satan continues to come up with with new versions of "Yea hath God said ...," and "For God doth know that... ." (Genesis 3:1,5)


    The Holy Bible is the inerrant word of God, God's message to mankind. Those who do not believe this are challenged to study for themselves and examine the evidence honestly and objectively to see that the Bible is accurate and reliable. Bible-believers should not be afraid to examine the evidence or worry that this will weaken their faith; examining the evidence will strengthen your faith. (especially Biblical Creationism and the evidences of the Noachian Deluge)


    From beginning to end the whole Bible claims to be the infallible word of God, and this claim is either true or it is not. If this claim is not true then none of the Bible is reliable, there is no basis for faith, and there is not foundation or support for Christianity. If this claim is true, then Christians are obliged to accept all of the Bible to be what it claims to be, and no compromise is logical or even possible.


    How is it that cult members and liberal theologians sincerely believe obviously unscriptural and even antibiblical teachings even though they often appear to study more than most? The problem lies with what they respect as the final authority or the standard of truth.


    All too often attention is drawn away from God's Word and focused on theories of men, so that a religious leader, gifted teacher, or a pet theory is the authority. (I Timothy 1:5-7; II Timothy 2:15; II Peter 3:16)


    When someone puts the words of men above the word of God they naturally interpret passages of Scripture in relation to publications and human theories instead of interpreting Scripture passages in relation to context and the whole Bible.


    We are also warned about "another Jesus," a Jesus who differs from the Jesus presented in Scripture. (II Corinthians 11:4) Faith, like love, always has an object, and it is essential that the right Jesus is the object of one's faith, which makes the virgin birth, the sinless life of Christ, the complete deity of Jesus Christ, the bodily resurrection, and the second coming of Christ in bodily human form essential teachings.


    We are also warned about "another spirit." (II Corinthians 11:4) The warnings about "another Jesus" and "another spirit" are related to other Bible warnings about "other gods" and denial of the true God. (Exodus 20:3; Jude 4) Not only does this indicate the importance of
    recognizing the personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit, but also indicates the importance of the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the correct identification of Jesus Christ. (I John 4:1-3; II John 1:9)


    We are also warned about "another gospel." (II Corinthians 11:4) The Gospel is the death, burial, and literal resurrection of Christ through which sinners can be declared righteous through faith in Jesus Christ when they repent. (John 3:13-15; Acts 4:15-19; I Corinthians 15:1-4) Denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ is calling Him accursed, for this would mean that He died under judgement of sin and is still under that judgement. (I Corinthians 12:3) The Bible clearly teaches the physical resurrection of Christ and all dead. (Job 19:25-27; Isaiah 26:19; Luke 24:36-43; John 5:28,29; 2:19-21; Acts 24:15; Romans 10:9-10; I Corinthians 15:13-18,42-49; Philippians 3:21; Revelation 20:12,13) The resurrection was central to the preaching of the Apostles, as there is no Christian faith without the bodily resurrection. (Acts 3:15; 4:1,2; 10:39-41; 17:18; 24:15; I Corinthians 12:12-20) There is no hope of eternal salvation without the bodily resurrection of Christ. (Romans 5:8-10; 10:8,9) Without the bodily resurrection of Christ there is no blood atonement, and there is no salvation without the blood atonement. (Leviticus 17:11; Isaiah 53:5,6; Romans 5:8-11; II Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9:14; 10:12-14; I Peter 1:18-21; 2:24)


    It is important for Christians to be Bible students and that they apply, teach, and defend the teachings of God's Word, especially the fundamentals of the faith. I may not need to know all about the source and composition of water if I am thirsty, but later if I wish to acquire water in a dry and thirsty land or provide others with good water to sustain their life and health some facts about water would be helpful, even necessary. while simple child-like faith is all that is required to be saved, what a believer should believe and be doing after being a believer for a little while is another matter. (II Timothy 2:15; James 1:21,22; I Peter 2:2,3; II Peter 3:18; etc.)







    http://www.theologue.org/fundamentals.html

    http://bible.christiansunite.com/Torreys_Topical_Textbook/

    http://www.livingvinechurch.org/ds/q0608/q0608.html




    Comment (0)

    Tue, Apr 13th - 8:32AM

    Problems With Psychology



    "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." -Colossians 2:8





    Psychologists are not always wrong, but then nobody is always wrong. Observation and analysis of those observations can reveal many helpful truths and insights, and we should also acknowledge that some problems do have a medical or biological basis. But Christians have good reasons to be wary of psychology.


    Today people are being encouraged to turn to psychology, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis for solutions to problems, instead of God and His Word,especially problems involving mental and emotional conflict or stress.

    Why is this a dangerous trend?


    -This leads people to seek solutions to their problems apart from submission to God and His Word.


    -The accepted authorities in psychology and related fields start from the theory of evolution and deny man's eternal existence and spiritual needs, and people in these fields have become High Priests of Humanism.


    -Psychology and related fields are extremely speculative, experimental, contradictory, and antibiblical in their basic theories, suppositions, and assumptions. As with other fields of expertise, because experts are usually right when it comes to facts they are often inclined to give their own opinions or interpretations of facts too much credibility and authority, even to the point of blurring the line between fact and opinion. (For example, many of the experts who accept and teach that eighty percent of the personality is developed before a person is six years old and that all or most of the personality is developed before the teen years also insist that children and teenagers should not be taught religious and moral values until they are older, even though the facts indicate that the longer you wait the closer you come to being too late.)


    -Psychology and related programs, including Christian Psychology, give the words and theories of men precedence over the Word of God. Consider a just a few examples of this:


    Psychology: Man is a product of evolution with a body, mind, and personality.
    Holy Bible: God created man with spirit, soul, and body. (Genesis 1:26; 2:7; I Thessalonians 5:23)


    Psychology: Man is naturally good and bad behavior is the result of environment, culture, sex, etc..
    Holy Bible: Man is a natural-born sinner. Man is not a sinner because he sins, man sins because he is a sinner. (Psalm 51:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:23; I John 1:8)


    Psychology: Experts in psychology set the standard of what is right and what is wrong.
    Holy Bible: God is the ultimate and supreme authority. (Exodus 20:2,3; Proverbs 3:5-7; Ecclesiastes 12:13,14; Ephesians 1:11)


    Psychology: The norms of society determine the standard of behavior.
    Holy Bible: The Word of God is the standard of behavior. (Psalm 119:9-11,105; II Timothy 3:16)


    http://www.biblebb.com/files/PSYCHOLOGY.HTM

    http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/526


    Comment (0)

    Mon, Apr 12th - 12:21PM

    Holiness




    In the political arena conservatives are not always a united movement because they are often divided between traditionalism and libertarianism. Both positions have valid points, and the balanced and rational position is normally somewhere in the middle.

    This also happens in religious circles. A similar situation exists among Christians when it comes to practical holiness and the extreme positions of legalism and liberalism.

    Here are a few points to keep in mind when it comes to practical holiness:

    -Both legalism and liberalism put the words and theories of men above the Word of God. (Proverbs 3:5-7; Isaiah 29:13; 55:8,9)

    -Both the anti-everything mindset and the anything-goes mentality must be avoided. (Isaiah 5:20,21)

    -Legalism (self-righteousness; pharisaism) and genuine holiness often look and act the same; the difference is the motivation. (Isaiah 42:19; Romans 10:2,3)

    -Obedience to God and His Word is not legalism. (Matthew 7:21; 15:3,7-9; I John 2:3-5)

    -While technology and trends change continually, God's truths and basic human nature do not. If a teaching or principle is true then it was true in the distant past and will be true in the distant future. A Bible truth or principle will inevitably be considered old or old-fashioned, but it will still be right. (Psalm 33:4,10,11; 119:89,160; Proverbs 24:21; Ecclesiastes 1:9,10; Jeremiah 6:16,19; Romans 12:2; Colossians 2:8; James 1:17)

    -The Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God and the final authority, opinions are not. (Proverbs 3:5-7; Isaiah 55:8,9; I Timothy 1:5-7; II Timothy 2:14,15)

    -Holiness without love is not genuine spirituality. (Luke 10:25-37; I Corinthians 13)

    -Selfishness and materialism are destructive to spirituality and relationships. (Psalm 10:3; 119:72,127,162; Proverbs 15:27; 28:20; Ecclesiastes 5:10; Matthew 6:21,24,33; 16:24; Luke 8:14; 12:15,34; Colossians 3:5; I Timothy 6:6-11,17)

    -Sanctification is both instantaneous and progressive. Sanctification is also the work God does in believers to give them power over sin when they dedicate or surrender themselves unto Him. (Romans 6:11-13; 12:1,2)

    -Holiness standards should not be considered an end in themselves. Sanctification is apreparation for service. (II Timothy 2:21)

    -There is a difference between purity and maturity. (I Peter 2:2)

    http://www.livingvinechurch.org/ds/q0305/q0305.html

    http://www.livingvinechurch.org/ds/hp931/hp931.html


    Comment (0)

    Mon, Apr 12th - 12:19PM

    US Constitution




    Here are a few things you should know about the US Constitution:

    -Various rights are specified in our founding documents because they are taught in the Bible: Right to life (Exodus 20:13; Acts 17:25), liberty (II Corinthians 3:17), property/pursuit of happiness (Exodus 20:15; Ecclesiastes 5:18; Acts 5:3,4), freedom of religion (Joshua 24:15; I Kings 18:21; Acts 5:29), freedom of speech (Matthew 28:19,20; Mark 16:15; Acts 4:20), freedom of the press (Habakkuk 2:2), freedom of assembly (Hebrews 10:25), right to keep and bear arms (Luke 22:36), etc.. These rights are not spelled out, they are self-evident; the Bible makes it obvious that God wants people to have these rights.

    The First Ammendment says nothing to restrict religious people and religious groups from influencing government and government decisions and says nothing to keep God, religion, or Scripture out of government, nor does any of the rest of the US Constitution.

    Many insist that 'separaration of church and state' is in the US Constitution. When they are challenged to show where this is in the US Constitution they inevitably go to the First Amendment, often to be surprised that the words are not there, or they insist that while the exact words are not there the meaning is there.

    In the Founder's discussions of the First Amendment the word "religion" was often used to mean a single denomination. The Founder's prohibited the federal Congress from establishing a single national denomination or ruling in religious matters through a state church ("establishment of religion"). The Founder's also opposed governmental separating of Bible principles and values from the public sphere, and they expected basic Bible priciples and values to be present throughout society ("... nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."). For over a century-and-a-half this was the only way in which the religion clause of the First Amendment was interpreted because that is what it says.

    The purpose of the Second Ammendment is to protect freedom and discourage government from becoming oppressive or a police state.

    When the Second Ammendment was ratified the word "militia" was universally understood to refer to the general population of adult males, and this definition/usage of the word militia can still be found in modern dictionaries. A well-regulated militia is necessary as opposed to a disorderly mob which is destructive to the security of a free State. The Second Ammendment is not referring to the National Guard (organized militia).

    A major purpose of the Fourteenth Ammendment was to keep abortion illegal. (while not a citizen, an unborn child is a person)

    Federal programs that are not authorized by the US Constitution clearly violate the Tenth Ammenment. (Yet we wonder why taxes are so high when the answer is obvious.)

    Due to the sinful nature of man and the corrupting effect of power it is necessary to establish safeguards to prevent the abuse of power. According to the Bible there are three kinds of government power: judicial, legislative, and executive. (Isaiah 33:22) These powers are separated in the US Constitution to prevent the abuse of power, so that each branch can check and balance the other two.

    Power is delegated to representatives because the masses are so easily suaded by emotion and selfishness. The republican form of government (not a reference to a political party), representative government rooted in moral law, is based on Bible precedent. (Deuternonomy 16:18) We are a democracy only in the sense of rule through elected representatives. Pure democracy is dangerous (a lynch mob is a good example) and unconstitutional. (Constitution Of The United States Of America, Article IV, Section 4)

    Have you read the US Constitution? You should.

    Have you studied America's Christian history and the Christian history of the US Constitution? You should, and there are plenty of good books on the subject available (They're just not used in public schools.).

    http://constitutionus.com/

    http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin030530.htm

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/

    http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Hst/US/00USHst.htm

    http://www.restoringourheritage.com/resources.htm

    http://www.txfb.org/TexasAgriculture/2002/111502/111502opinions.htm


    Comment (0)

    Sat, Apr 10th - 10:20AM

    Allies Or Enemies?



    In this and other wars the USA has worked with other nations who fight for the same cause. While it may be possible to do this without help, we increase our strength and make things easier on ourselves by working with allies.

    We can apply this principle to Christian work and spiritual warfare. We should be careful not to hinder the cause of Christ through a spirit of competition.

    The purpose of the church is to exalt Christ in the community and the world, leading lost souls to Christ, edifying believers, and influencing the society in which we live for righteousness. While this limits or precludes fellowship and cooperation with some religious groups, Bible-believing, Gospel-preaching churches that agree on fundamental doctrines and basic Biblical moral values of the Bible should be considered allies and brethren and not enemies or competitors. (Personally, I've never met anyone with whom I always agree on every point, especially on minor points of belief.)

    This is not a suggestion that we compromise truth or compromise with error, but rather a reminder that it is often possible to tolerate differences without compromising truths or convictions. For example, if we lead a lost soul to Christ and he conscientiously chooses to join another Bible-believing church this is not a loss or failure, but a cause for rejoicing.






    Comment (0)

    Sat, Apr 10th - 10:19AM

    Concerns About Secular Education




    "... the Greeks seek after wisdom." -I Corinthians 1:22




    It is not my purpose to condemn secular education, or discourage the pursuit of further education, but merely to direct attention to a few dangers too often overlooked.

    Too many Christians pursue higher education for the wrong reasons, or put acedemics above spiritual training, Christian duties, and Bible principles. Many Christian leaders encourage young preachers to get a secular college education prior to a seminary education just in case the ministry doesn't work out. Young women are often encouraged to pursue higher education so that they will have something to fall back on in the event of divorce and so they won't have to be housewives (as though that would be degrading or wrong), thus indirectly commending divorce as an option when they marry and discouraging them from pursuing their domestic calling.

    The attitude of many Christians can make one wonder if they expect to be judged on acedemics (or material prosperity) at the Judgement Seat of Christ. We need to question if we are putting too much emphasis on education itself, perhaps even making an idol of secular education.

    Are there any spiritual dangers involved in the pursuit of institutional higher education? Yes. Consider a few:

    The emphasis on secularism and humanism. (I Corinthians 1:18-31; Colossians 2:3,8)

    The emphasis on material prosperity. (Job 31:24,25,28; Proverbs 11:28; 18:11; Mark 10:24; I Timothy 6:17)

    While the pursuit of knowledge is commendable, the attitude that we are right, that we know, causes pride, which is why we are admonished to put a priority on love. The emphasis on educational advancement and success in various endeavors can lead to intellectual arrogance (which tends to hinder logic and intelligence) and being lifted up in pride. (I Corinthians 8:1; Proverbs 13:10; Romans 12:3).


    Comment (0)

    Sat, Apr 10th - 10:16AM

    Racial Tensions



    This has long been a nationwide (and worldwide) problem, but in this writing I tend to focus on racial problems in the South because the South has received more notoriety on this.

    Most of the racial problems in the South during the twentieth century, along with the resentment toward the North that is still sometimes evident, trace back to Reconstruction (1865-1877) when Federal extremes proked extreme reactions and attitudes that lasted for generations (problems that could have been avoided if Abraham Lincoln had lived longer, but that is another subject).

    For example, the Fourteenth Amendment should not have meant the loss of voting privileges or political opportunities for Confederate veterans since they had an official pardon, but Reconstruction laws and measures virtually eliminated the White vote and made illiterates the overwhelming majority vote in the South. This enabled Carpetbaggers and Scalawags to take advantage of a bad situation, use and exploit freed slaves, and win elections with empty, outrageous, and unrealistic campaign promises, such as the promise of forty acres and a mule for
    every freed slave.

    In the twentieth century racial segregation was on the way out, but when liberals turned the Civil Rights Movement into a campaign against State's Rights this naturally aroused the collective memory of White Southrons in general and rekindled their defensiveness.

    Today, many White Southrons who think conservative will vote for a liberal based on the party affiliation because they don't wish to violate tradition by voting against their grandfather's party, and many minorities think it is wrong to vote against the party that opposed the Civil Rights Movement (so-called) and desegregation in the South because it claims to represent them. (I am trying to avoid naming parties, but which political party was in control in the South, in many cases maintaining a monoploy, in the 1940s, '50s, and '60s?)

    Modern Liberals often perpetuate the belief that Black people are inferior (and therefore unable to succeed on their own merits) with special rights and reverse discrimination.

    Many efforts to promote racial harmony have the opposite effect. Hearts cannot be changed for the better through legislation and court orders. Egalatarian socialism, reverse discrimination, and Ex Post Facto laws do not alleviate racial tensions or promote racial harmony, but instead foster resentment and a we-versus-they complex.

    It is sometimes argued that racial equality would not be possible without the US Supreme Court. While I am not denying to need for the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is not infallible and many racial problems were the result of Supreme Court decisions. Consider a few examples:

    By 1857 slavery in America was a dying institution. But in the Dred Scott Decision of March 6, 1857, the Court ruled that Negroes are inferior and that laws prohibiting the spread of slavery into U.S. territories were unconstitutional, thus fueling pro-slavery forces.

    In the 1890s racial segregation was on the way out, but the Plessy VS. Ferguson Decision of 1896 enunciated the doctrine of "separate but equal." This protected racial segregation and ensured that federally mandated desegregation in the twentieth century would meet much opposition and resentment after racial segregation had been official federal policy for over fifty years.

    How can Christians promote racial harmony? One important thing we can and must do in this regard is to uphold and promote the Holy Bible as the infallible Word of God and the final authority, especially the Genesis account of creation. If the theory of evolution (whether atheistic evolution or theistic evolution) is correct then it naturally follows that some races are less or more highly evolved and are therefore superior or inferior. (Not all evolutionists are racists, but evolution lends credence to racism and does not contradict theories of racial superiority.)



    Comment (0)

    Sat, Apr 10th - 10:13AM

    A Few Reasons We Are Losing A Generation



    There is a principle in Malachi 4:6 that prepares children and youths for a relationship with God. It should be noted that the Generation Gap is a modern phenomenon, and teenagers were not given a separate identity or segregated into a different class of people until after World War II.

    A deceptive philosophy that destroys many Christian youths is the philosophy that we must compete with the world to keep our youths, that we must offer them good, clean fun, recreation, and entertainment or we will lose them to the world. This philosophy loses both ways.

    We can never expect to win competing against the world when it comes to fun and thrills. The high of a hay ride or a roller coaster cannot compare to the high they can get from drugs. The fun of rafting or roller skating cannot compare to the fleshly satisfaction they can get from fornication.

    All too often a youth ministry is ministry to youths and not ministry of youths. All the preaching and teaching of "abstain," "thou shalt not," and "self-denial" is meaningless when children and youths are not taught to serve God, and to serve God by serving others, instead of expecting to be served. Note that service marked the difference between the generations in Judges 2. (Judges 2:7,10-13)

    Attempting to reach carnal people with carnal things can be dangerous and is not Biblical evangelism. It is inevitable that someone who supports trying to reach carnal people with carnal things will give the odd statistic of someone who was converted this way, but it is important to follow rules and not exceptions.

    Many Christian young ladies are no match for Satan's crowd that we bring in hoping they will convert, and many are being defiled because they let their guard down in an atmosphere that is supposed to be evangelistic and spiritual. Many youths are introduced to sexual immorality and substance abuse in their church youth group while their elders are hoping that youths will be converted and grow spiritually as a result of segregating youths from mature influences, replacing parental authority and respect for elders with peer dependence, and rewarding the rebels and delinquents instead of rewarding faithfulness.

    While we should not condemn all secular amusements and fun, and it is not wrong to have or provide recreation and fellowship, providing recreation and entertainment should not be the church's focus.

    If it is true that children and teenagers are building an identity and naturally seeking that identity from those around them, then we should be encouraging fellowship with mature influences. All humans young and old tend to seek an identity from those around them, to a geater or lesser extent depending on the individual, but inexperience tends to make one a bit more vulnerable. Older, mature Christians should be reminded to set an example and to mentor young people and new converts, and youths should be reminded of the value of fellowship with those who are older and wiser than themselves (especially of their own gender) and taught to respect their elders in general. (consider Proverbs 13:20; Titus 2:1-8; etc.)

    King Solomon raised up a fool who rejected the wise counsel of older men and heeded the foolishness of his young peers because he learned to respect them and trust their insight through regular fellowship. (I Kings 12:8) Contrast this with the example of Christ, who, though He was God in the flesh, enjoyed the fellowship of older men when He was young. (Luke 2:44-46)

    There is a principle in Hosea 4:6 that also contributes to losing a generation. What does it mean when God forgets something or someone?

    It is the Word of God that leads the lost to salvation and believers to sanctification and service, not secular amusements; for the unbeliever God's Word is convicting and for the believer God's Word is cleansing and empowering. United and prevailing prayer, and Bible preaching, teaching, and study is the need of the hour. In many a fundamental, evangelical church there is as much unrepentant promiscuity and substance abuse, among both young and old, as there is in any bar or nightclub while the church tries to convert the lost and edify believers with everything but the Word of God.

    Neglect and indifference toward the Word of God among professed believers is deplorable. We must emphasize respect for the Bible, respect for Bible truths and standards, and the importance of personal and family reading and study of the Bible.


    Comment (0)

    Sat, Apr 10th - 10:08AM

    Bleeding Pharisees




    When Christ walked the earth the Pharisees were the fundamental,ultra-conservative legalists of that day. (Matthew 16:6,12; Luke 12:1)


    Of the various kinds of Pharisees, I find the Bleeding Phariseesespecially interesting.


    The Bleeding Pharisees (also called Bruised Pharisees) walked around with their eyes closed to avoid the possibility of seeing a beautiful woman and then lusting or entertaining evil thoughts. They were always tripping over things and bumping into stuff, which is how they got their name.


    Sound familiar?




    Comment (0)

    Fri, Apr 9th - 12:13PM

    What Happened To Young Adults?



    In Bible times a person was considered a young adult at the age of thirteen. There was a time In America (and Europe) when a person was legally a young adult at 13 or 14 (depending on which State). Teenage marriage did not involve a high divorce rate and juvenile crime was not considered usual behavior. Up till a few decades ago a young lad could join the armed forces at fourteen (with parental consent of course), but this is no longer considered practical.


    Today we have a person called an adolescent; someone who is not physically a child but is not considered a young adult.


    What happened to young adults, and what led to the generation gap and Hippie movement that characterized the 1960s, and the youth culture of rebellion and decadence that continues today?


    Let's look at some of the societal and cultural trends that led to this:


    For most of America's history families and society in general were patriarchal, and adults had moral, religious, social, and moral responsibilities to provide for, discipline, and train their children (and care for elderly parents), and parents raised up their children to succeed them, and not to merely succeed. Over time government expansion and the Industrial Revolution were allowed to interfere with family relationships and responsibilities.


    With the Industrial Revolution came child labor laws, some of which made sense while others were absurd. The idea that chidren should not be taught to work and be responsible, and teenagers cannot or should not be expected to handle work and responsibility, became popular and accepted. We even have children's courts, or juvenile courts, to impress upon young minds that they are not fully accountable or completely responsible for their behavior.


    In the 1940s secular humanism had already been invading public schools, colleges, the media, politics, churches, and religious institutions for decades, and the evidence and symptoms were becoming very pronounced, and this continues today.

    With the prosperity following WWII came the popular notion that parents must make sure their children never do without anything and have everything their parents did not.

    In the 1940s a number of "experts" began teaching that it is wrong to use corporal punishment to discipline children, and that children should not be taught religious or moral values until they reach adulthood. These teachings became very popular even though these theories were directly contrary to Scripture and credible studies. (For example, studies reveal that eighty percent of the personality is developed before a child is six years old, and all or most of the personality is developed before the teen years). (consider Proverbs 22:6,15; 29:15,17; Isaiah 28:9)

    After WWII there arose a trend of giving teenagers a separate identity and segregating teenagers into a different class of people in both secular and ecclesiastical realms, thus making it common for youths to be peer-dependent instead of elder-dependent and replacing respect for elders with respect for youth and immaturity. (consider Proverbs 13:20; Isaiah 3:4,5; Malachi 4:6)

    All this led to a very large percentage of youths having firm beliefs and attitudes directly opposite of the values of the generation that survived the Great Depression and World War II.



    Further reading:

    Abolish Adolescence!
    http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell050198.html

    Childish Labor Laws
    http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060399.asp

    Enabling Adult Maturity
    http://home.earthlink.net/~mmales/yt-binge.htm

    Growing In Wisdom and Maturity
    http://www.beingvirtuouswomen.com/cms/bvw_shelf/musings/growing_in_wisdom_and_maturity.php


    How To Create Irresponsible Teenagers
    http://www.dennisfox.net/columns/teenagers.html


    Intergenerational Relationships
    http://homeschoolblogger.com/dinghome/299938/


    A Critique Of Youth Ministries
    http://www.soulcare.org/Education/Youth%20Ministry%20Critique.html


    The Church and Age Segregation
    http://www.calvarybiblechurch.org/calvary_review.aspx/2003/02/3




    Comment (0)

    Fri, Apr 9th - 12:09PM

    Freedom




    The differences of opinion about freedom revolve around the different concepts of freedom.

    We often hear small children say things like: "I can't wait till I grow up because then I can stay up as late as I want, eat whatever I want, go anywhere I want to go, and do anything I want to do." We find this amusing because we know that adult freedoms involve responsibilities which are unknown to a small child. We may also envy the freedom of children, having needs provided for without worrying about adult responsibilities.

    It is ironic that in one generation people will suffer and even die for self-government (adult freedom), and then later generations will willingly relinquish adult freedoms in exchange for a promise or agreement to give them what they want or the "freedom" to be irresponsible.

    True liberty is freedom to live responsibly. (James 1:25)

    How do would-be tyrants persuade people to relinquish there freedoms?

    There is a simple method to creating a police state that been used throughout history. (e.g., Nimrod, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, etc.)

    First, a crisis-type situation is utilized or created. The "crisis" is emphasized and propagandized till it becomes a great concern to a significant percentage of the population.

    Then the would-be tyrant and his accomplices or followers appear to come up with the best or most effective solution to the crisis (which may be imagined or insignificant) so many are concerned about. (Of course the "solution" just happens to increase government intrusion or eliminate safeguards against governmental abuse.)

    At this point the average citizen is so concerned with dealing with the crisis and finding or effecting a solution that he is willing to go along with what appears to be a good solution without considering and analyzing the potential effects and repurcussions of the methods used.

    For example, when Adolf Hitler persuaded the German people to give up their guns, few considered the possibility that the Gestapo might abuse its power.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDWcgnEPdEo&eurl=http://socialismdoesntwork.com/a-cartoon-about-the-dangers-of-socialism-from-50-years-ago/&feature=player_embedded

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm09PJNyBxQ


    Comment (0)

    Fri, Apr 9th - 12:06PM

    Science Versus Theory Of Evolution



    Atheism originates in the heart, not in the mind or intellect. (Psalm 14:1; 53:1)


    It takes more faith to believe the theory of evolution than to believe the Bible.


    There are many problems with the theory of evolution, but these stand out:


    -What scientific evidence is there that an uncontrolled explosion can produce something as intricate and ordered as the universe?


    -What scientific evidence is there that a chance combination or mixture of chemicals can produce a living organism?


    -What is the scientific evidence that a series of thousands of extremely fortunate events just happened to occur in the right sequence to change a one-celled organism into modern man and modern animals and plants?


    -How can a mutation result in a change from one species into another, since mutations take away from a genetic code but never add to it?


    You don't need expertise in creation science to debate evolution with an evolutionist. Simply insist that the discussion or debate be limited to facts and logic and then let him do most of the talking, except to note his deviation from facts: The theory of  evolution loses credibility without opinions and assumptions ("Most scientists believe ...," "We know that ...," "This or that happened so many millions of years ago ..., etc..).


    http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/is_evolution_science.html

    http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5494




    Comment (0)

    Fri, Apr 9th - 12:03PM

    Christian Worldview Versus Socialism



    The Christian worldview sees God as the present ruler of the earth and human government as ordained of God to protect the rights of the people and punish criminals, while socialism sees the individual as a mere servant of the state whose value is determined by his usefulness to the state and makes man (corporate man, the state) the standard of truth and absolute authority.

    Communism and fascism are both forms of socialism. Communism calls for the abolition of private property, so that all property belongs to the government. Fascism means that private ownership of property is allowed, but the government maintains full control.

    http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/biblical%20worldview%20of%20government.htm

    http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/principles_christian_civil_government.htm


    Comment (0)

    Fri, Apr 9th - 12:01PM

    The Bible Is Scientifically Sound



    Certainly the Bible contradicts numerous theories and opinions held by many scientists. But this does not disprove the Bible, it merely proves that scientists are human after all.


    When a scientist says that the Genesis account of creation is wrong or that the miracles of the Bible could not happen he is not stating a scientific fact, he is expressing an opinion.


    Studying and comparing the theory of evolution and the Genesis account of creation reveals that it takes far more faith (or credulity) to believe the theory of evolution than it takes to believe the Genesis account of creation or the miracles of the Bible.


    Not only is the Bible in harmony with true science, the Bible is scientifically accurate on matters that scientists discovered only at a later time. (Genesis 1:11,21,5; 9:4; Leviticus 11:6; 17:11; Job 19:20; 26:7; 28:2; 36:27,28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; 11:2; Isaiah 40:22; I Corinthians 15:39)


    This is why so many scientists who studied both sides of the issues insist that the Bible is true.



    Comment (0)

    Fri, Apr 9th - 11:59AM

    Nothing Is Really New, Just Revivals Of The Old




    While trends and technology change, truth and basic human nature do not. (Proverbs 33:11; Ecclesiastes 1:9,10)

    Perhaps modernism should be called something else, as the modernists (whether secular or religious) never manage to introduce anything that is genuinely new.

    The Twentieth Century provided many examples of ancient paganism being introduced as something new by changing titles and dressing: If a fruit looks, smells, and tastes like an apple it does not become an orange no matter how dogmatically you call it an orange.

    Consider socialism, which is often applied as communism or fascism; the difference between the two being that communism is a theory or system of ownership of all property by the state, and fascism allows private ownership of property while the state maintains control of property. Socialism makes man (corporate man, the state) the measure of all things and the standard of truth and is merely a modern version of ancient paganism.

    The New Age Movement is merely a revival of ancient paganism.

    The theory of evolution did not originate with modern science, it has been part of pagan religions and occultism for thousands of years.

    Humanism is a revival of the pagan concept of the godhood of man.

    Feminism is not new. The historic and prophetic books of the Old Testament mention this form of paganism corrupting God's people.

    The "new morality" is merely a revival of ancient pagan philosophy and licentiousness.

    More examples could be given, but these should suffice for now.

    It is ironic when modernists refer to conservatives as old-fashioned.



    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 8th - 12:13PM

    The Devil's Devices




    The devices that Satan uses to attack the truth and prevent a clear testimony of the truth on the part of God's people are illustrated in the account of how the Pharaoh dealt with Israel in Exodus.

    Satan tries to destroy the truth by persecuting God's people or keeping them in worldliness. The purpose behind enslaving the Israelites was to prevent them from leaving Egypt, which was a typeor figure of the world. (Exodus 1:10,11) The purpose behind increasing their burdens was to keep them from worshipping Jehovah.(Exodus 5:6-17) When Pharaoh did send Israel away he was sending them to a religious festival and not a permanent departure (the Israelites did not know when or how God would deliver them until ithappened), and the subsequent pursuit by Pharaoh and his army was to stop true worship by destroying God's people. (Exodus 3:18; 5:1-3; 12:31; 14:9; note that the Israelites camped at Pihahiroth at the close of the third day of their journey from Egypt as they had told Pharaoh, and from a natural viewpoint they would have went to the north of the Gulf of Suez for a permanent departure.)

    Satan imitates the truth and the works of the truth to make his servants appear to be the spiritual equals or equivalents of God's people. (Exodus 7:10-12,20-22; 8:6,7; Matthew 7:15-23; II Corinthians 11:3,4,13-15; II Timothy 3:5,8)

    Satan uses compromise, as demonstrated in the propositions submitted by Pharaoh to Moses after four successive plagues fell on Egypt.

    The first proposition was: You can worship your God as long as you do this in Egypt. (Exodus 8:25) In other words: We are willing toacknowledge Jehovah as a god, but you should be broadminded and recognise the claims of our gods as well, and we can worship our gods together. (I Kings 18:21; I Corinthians 10:21) The Devil offers this compromise because he knows that the witnesses of the truth of God sacrifice the power of their testimony when they make the truth which they represent merely one of many from which the choice is inconsequential.

    The second proposition was: You can leave Egypt to worship your God, but don't put a distance between yourselves and Egypt. (Exodus 8:28) Pharaoh offered this compromise because he knew that Israel could not accomplish anything by separating just a little way from Egypt. The Devil offers this compromise because he knows that Christians are ineffectine and not a threat to his kingdom if they only separate just a little way from the world and do not take any clear-cut and decisive positions. (Romans 12:1,2; II Corinthians 6:14,15; James 4:7,8)

    This was the compromise that helped make society so wicked before the Deluge.

    In Genesis 4:26 people in general were seeking God, but then in Genesis 6:7 God decided to destroy mankind. What happened?

    Instead of being a cleansing and illuminating influence on society, believers (sons of God) were worldly and marrying unbelievers and the resulting children naturally rejected God in favor of wickedness. (Genesis 6:2-6; Matthew 24:38; Luke 17:26,27)

    The third proposition was: You can go as far away from Egypt as you like to worship your God, but you must leave your children in Egypt. (Exodus 10:8-11) In other words: You separate yourselves from the world and worship your God, but let the Devil teach your children what they need to know about morals and religion. Go ahead and worship your God, but don't bother the children with devotions, Bible stories, moral guidance, doctrines, or church until they are grown and converted themselves.

    The fourth proposition was: You and your children can leave Egypt, but you must leave your property in Egypt. (Exodus 10:24-26) Inother words: You can acknowledge God's sovereignty over your person and your family, but not over your money and possessions. Don't make tithing and monetary offerings a part of your worship. (Matthew 6:21)

    Where the Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil, the context is dealing with apostacy, false teachers, and backsliding. (I Timothy 6:3-10,17-19)

    Refusal to compromise resulted in the defeat of the enemy, deliverance from bondage, and unbelievers becoming believers. This same principle holds true today.




    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 8th - 12:10PM

    Spiritual Warfare



    The New Testament books were each initially addressed to a Christian or a church and intended for all and were copied and distributed throughout Christendom, and the writings on spiritual warfare were initially addressed to Christians who were familiar with warfare and the military. We must assume that when the Bible speaks of warfare it is not referring to sports or games, it is referring to violent confrontations in which the objective is to conquer or destroy the enemy.

    During World War II many American GIs, with little or no experience with hand-to-hand combat, were sent on special assignments with less than 14 hours of training in hand-to-hand combat, and in many cases involving hand-to-hand combat did defeat Japenese soldiers who were trained in martial arts. How was that possible?

    The martial arts can give someone an edge in hand-to-hand combat. However, many techniques and programs that are effective in the controlled environment of a gymn or dojo are completely ineffective in a real world confrontation with someone who aggressively uses violence to destroy his opponent. In a typical real world confrontation time is a luxury and stress is a major factor. Also, relying solely on defensive measures makes one ineffective against an opponent who aims to destroy vital organs and break bones, or uses a deadly weapon.

    In war the outcome of a battle depends a lot on the preparation and motivation put into it.

    The effectiveness of a military unit in combat depends a great deal on teamwork. It is essential that soldiers get along with each other and look out for each other, which is why the armed forces emphasize teamwork in basic training.

    Among ancient Romans a body of soldiers formed an effective cover or screen called a Testudo by standing close together and holding shields over their heads or facing outward, and this was especially useful when undermining enemy defenses. (Can we relate this to united worship and united prayer?)

    It is impossible to anticipate every possible scenario, and preparing soldiers for any possible scenario is not the purpose behind training and training exercises. Stress tends to hinder or eliminate logic, and the purpose of training is to emphasize important principles and teach soldiers to function under stress and work as a team.

    We can relate all this to spiritual warfare in many ways: e.g., we should seek to hurt and defeat Satan's kingdom, not merely defend against. Also, even in modern warfare a soldier's safest and most effective position is facing the enemy, and it is noteworthy that the armor of Ephesians 6:13-17 primarily protects the front and is for fighting at close quarters.


    http://www.livingvinechurch.org/ds/q1001/q1001.html


    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 8th - 12:06PM

    Bloodguilt




    Suppose you were living in Germany in the early 1930s. What would you think of someone who claimed to be a Christian and then bragged that he voted for Adolf Hitler? What would you think of him if he said that he personally doesn't kill Jews but doesn't mind if public officials that he voted for practice racial genocide since they are doing things to benefit the economy? (Incidentally, this is exactly what happened in Germany. Evangelical Christians supported Nazism and then later found themselves in concentration camps with the Jews.)


    What about religious people here who shamelessly vote and even campaign for babykillers, while of course pointing out that they personally respect human life, or claiming that they would have opposed genocides of the past, such as the Nazi Holocaust, if they had been there?


    I am reminded of Proverbs 24: 11,12 and Matthew 23:29-31.


    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 8th - 12:03PM

    Does II John 10 Forbid Witnessing To Cult Members?



    This is a prerequisite for church membership, not a prohibition against witnessing to certain people.

    "House" means a local church or assembly of believers. (Romans 16:5; I Corinthians 6:19; Colossians 4:15; II Timothy 3:6; Philemon 2)


    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 8th - 12:00PM

    The Bible Does Not Contradict Itself



    It is inevitable that the Word of God will contradict the theories and sentiments of men, and it is easy for man to assume that something is wrong with the Bible because of what is wrong with man. (Psalm 33:10,11; Proverbs 19:21; Isaiah 55:8,9; Romans 8:7; I Corinthians 3:19; Galations 5:17)

    Most so-called contradictions are cleared up through further study of the Bible, such as the supposed contradiction between the promise to destroy Israel and the promise to preserve Israel. (Leviticus 26:44; Deuteronomy 28:20) The prophet Amos clears up the misunderstanding: God would destroy the kingdom of Israel and preserve the people of Israel. (Amos 9:8)

    Numbers used in Scripture often present problems, causing thinking people to look at a text of Scripture and note that the numbers given appear to be unrealistic or contradictory.

    It must be noted that the ancients often used round numbers in an approximate sense. We still do that to an extent, such as when someone says he just had a two week vacation or holiday when in fact he had been gone fifteen or sixteen days. For example, in certain contexts dealing with local government, "ten," "fifty," "hundred," and "thousand" were administrative units and not exact numbers, and in the Jewish army a regiment was called a thousand.

    In English we have many words with multiple definitions which depend on the context in which a word is used, and this was also true of ancient Hebrew and Greek. The English rendering of a word may not always be the only possible or correct translation, and a closer study of the context and setting is often needed. For example, the Hebrew word for "thousand" (eleph) also means "family" and is translated as "family" in Judges 6:15; the number of Israelites who crossed the Red Sea, and the size of the army of Israel, was probably much less than what is often assumed.

    Some apparent contradictions are due to misunderstandings of idioms. (e.g. Deuteronomy 5:3; Hosea 6:6; Matthew 9:13; 12:7) Foreigners always have trouble with idioms, and we are the foreigners where the Bible is concerned.


    Many apparent contradictions are just a matter of different points of view. Different writers portraying the same things can be expected to describe them differently. Police compare the different accounts of the same event to find similarities as well as discrepancies, because if different witnesses to the same event describe or word everything exactly alike this is a good indication that they conspired together to lie.

    Did Christ use the term kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven? Mark, Luke, and John quote Christ as saying kingdom of God while Matthew usually quotes Christ as saying kingdom of heaven. Christ and His Disciples spoke Aramaic and the four Gospels are written in Greek. The issue was not the exact words used but how to translate those words.

    When Christ rode into Jerusalem did the Jews cry hosanna or glory? (Matthew 21:9; Luke 19:38) The Jews probably used the Hebrew word hosanna. But Luke was writing for Greeks, and glory is what hosanna meant from a Greek point of view.

    When Christ met and healed blind Bartimaeus and his unidentified companion was Christ leaving Jericho or headed for Jericho? (Matthew 20:29;30; Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35) At that time Jericho was a double city, and the old Jewish city of Jericho was about a mile from the Roman city of Jericho. Apparently Matthew and Mark refer to the Jewish city of Jericho while Luke refers to the Roman city of Jericho.

    Why do the Gospel writers appear to disagree on the wording of the superscription of accusation nailed to the cross of Christ by Pontius Pilate? (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19) The superscription was written in three languages, and apparently one writer is giving an exact quote of the Greek inscription while the others are giving translations of the Hebrew inscription or the Latin inscription or possibly a mixture of the two. (John 19:20)

    What about the apparent contradictions in the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament? This misunderstanding is due to differences between ancient and modern literary customs.


    Today we use quotation marks to make a distinction between a direct quotation and an indirect quotation, and we use a row of dots to signify that words were removed in order to shorten a long quotation. But punctuation was not yet invented when the New Testament was being written.

    In many cases the writers combined quotation and exposition in one, This was following the literary customs of their day, and their method did have the advantage of using fewer words.

    First century Christians were accustomed to all this and were much more familiar with Scripture than most modern Christians and needed less explanation. Most modern Christians settle for trends, tradition, and assumption as their preferred forms of knowledge instead of reading and studying the Bible, and they treat each Bible verse as an isolated statement with no relation to its context and the whole Bible. (Psalm 119:130,140; Proverbs 2:3-6; 3:5-7; Isaiah 5:21; II Timothy 2:14,15)

    http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm


    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 8th - 11:54AM

    Bleeding Pharisees




    When Christ walked the earth the Pharisees were the fundamental,ultra-conservative legalists of that day. (Matthew 16:6,12; Luke 12:1)


    Of the various kinds of Pharisees, I find the Bleeding Phariseesespecially interesting.


    The Bleeding Pharisees (also called Bruised Pharisees) walked around with their eyes closed to avoid the possibility of seeing a beautiful woman and then lusting or entertaining evil thoughts. They were always tripping over things and bumping into stuff, which is how they got their name.


    Sound familiar?



    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 8th - 11:52AM

    Persecution Or Reaping?




    One can naturally expect opposition to the truth, so does opposition or persecution by itself always verify your doctrine or your spirituality? Not always.

    Often so-called persecution or opposition is merely reaping what was sowed. Let me share a few examples:

    A Christian who is selfish, dishonest, or spiteful may try to convince himself (or herself) and others that his spirituality is the only reason that anyone turns against him. (consider Proverbs 14:14; 17:17; 18:19,24; 27:10; Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31; Romans 15:1-2; James 2:8)

    Busybodies often like to believe that their spirituality is what turns people against them. (consider I Peter 4:14-15)

    Those who are belligerent or contentious about theories, opinions, man-made traditions, and preferences which they espouse as divine truths often like to assume that their spirituality is the only reason anyone opposes them or their message. (consider I Timothy 1:5-7)

    If a professed Christian is selfish, contentious, cold, or frigid toward their spouse, when their spouse becomes distant or abusive they may try to convince themselves and others that they are persecuted or suffering for the cause of Chist because their spouse is an unbeliever who opposes the truth. (consider Proverbs 5:18; 19:13; 21:9,19; 27:15; Ephesians 5:25,28,29; Colossians 3:19; I Peter 3:1-2)


    Comment (0)

    Wed, Apr 7th - 8:32AM

    Patriarchy




    While both genders are of equal value in the sight of God, they are designed for different roles and functions. It is generally bad on society and destructive to relationships when gender distinctions are ignored or confused. (I Corinthians 11:3-9)


    Replacing patriarchal marriage with egalatarian partnership creates dissatisfaction and frustration for both husbands and wives by denying a woman's natural need for a father-figure (leader, adviser, protector, provider, etc.) and a man's need to feel respected. Equals do not complement, they compete.There are cases of a wife being wiser and more intelligent than her husband, and there are women who are as capable of various jobs and responsibilities as men. But the issue is not who qualifies, the issue is obedience to the Lord's arrangement. In nature
    the only thing with two heads is a freak, and the same is true of the family. (Ephesians 5:23)


    Numerous movies and TV shows have portrayed patriarchy and other Christian values in a positive light and provided good examples of what husbands and fathers ought to be. (e.g., "Father Knows Best," "Leave It To Beaver," "The Andy Griffith Show," "Little House On The Prairie," etc.) But all too often Hollywood promotes feminism by associating patriarchy with abuse and oppression or depicting the husband/father in a family show as an inept boob who needs the leadership/headship of his wife, and even the children are often portrayed as wiser and more capable. Modern entertainment often presents men with bad examples which teach a man to be immature and emulate bad character and call that masculinity. The heart is trained and molded by what is continually fed into the mind and a lot of modern entertainment trains a woman's heart to prefer immature little boys (in the bodies of adults) of bad character over respectable Christian gentlemen, and this in turn affects men: young men are naturally prone to emulate that to which women are strongly attracted. The entertainment media also promotes feminism through talk shows and pop psychology.


    It is also true that many women become feminists because they were taught that way by their church and religious leaders, and in many cases were raised that way in a so-called Christian family.


    In many religious circles it is normal or even standard procedure to encourage young women to look and act masculine and assume masculine roles, teach them that respect for men and male authority is unimportant or unnecessary, teach young women to plan and prepare for everything but their domestic calling, encourage young women to deliberately delay marriage and motherhood for as many years as possible, and discourage single Christian gentlemen from romantic interest in young women they meet in church and Christian functions. Young people are even taught to prefer and seek an egalatarion partnership instead of Christian marriage. Even though all of this is contrary to Scripture, and the inevitable consequences are bad, this is usually made to appear spiritual or even beneficial. (Genesis 2:18; Deuteronomy 22:5; Isaiah 5:20-21; Romans 7:2; I Corinthians 11:3-15; Ephesians 5:22-24,33; I Timothy 2:9-15; 5:14; Titus 2:4,5; I Peter 3:1-6)


    While it is not wrong for a woman to have an education, and it is not a sin for a wife to have a job outside the home if her husband permits, becoming or being a good homemaker and mother should be her priority. (Proverbs 31:27; I Timothy 2:15; 5:14; Titus 2:4,5)


    The verses preceding I Timothy 5:14 mention oft-occuring problems involving young widows in churches, which is the reason given that younger women should marry. But instead of respecting Bible wisdom, all too often churches put feminist ideology above Scripture and teach young women to pursue everything but their domestic calling and teach them to assume masculine roles. (I Timothy 2:9-15; Titus 2:4,5) Then they wonder why so many young Christian women date and marry unbelievers (I Timothy 5:11), backslide and become immoral or extremely worldly (I Timothy 5:12), become spiritually unfruitful or unprofitable ("idle," I Timothy 5:13), or become tattlers and busybodies (I Timothy 5:13), even though the reasons and warnings are already written down plainly.


    Women have tremendous power or influence over men which they relinquish when they trade the complementary role for equality. Women civilize men through marriage, monogamy, and family, and it is very difficult for men to do this on their own without women. But many have become so accustomed to feminism and the feminist agenda that they do not realize that feminism degrades women.


    The myth promoted by feminists that male and female think and feel the same about sex is convenient for men but makes women more vulnerable to exploitation, abuse, and neglect. While each gender has just as strong a libido as the other and both genders need and desire sex and affection, they respond differently and their priorities tend to differ. As a general rule, women trade sex for affection and men trade affection for sex, and men tend to be more physical-oriented while women tend to be more relationship-oriented.


    Keeping abortion legal is important to liberals because an important part of the feminist agenda has been persuading women to degrade themselves by mimicking the sexual attitudes, behavior, and aggressiveness of men, instead of being the civilizing and stabilizing influence on men that they are designed to be. Legal abortion is more of a male convenience than a plus for women: it encourages women to be uninhibited and eliminates the responsibilities of fatherhood while leaving the woman physically and emotionally scarred. Legal abortion is more than a right to kill the unborn, it is the freedom of women to have sexual relations without commitment and with men with whom they do not want to have children. (Romans 1:26) Abortion is also a modern form of Devil worship: It is the sacrifice of a living child to the god of self, and who is the god of self, the god of the flesh? (Psalm 106:37,38)


    Birth control is important to liberals for the same reason. Birth control pills and devices are abortificients: They irritate the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized ovum is automatically aborted.


    Condoms are convenient for men but deny some female desires and pleasure. Why isn't the high failure rate of condoms widely publicized? Because publicizing the truth about condoms might encourage people to be sexually responsible instead of licentious, and might encourage a woman to wait for marriage and otherwise be careful to make sure a man is committed to protecting and providing for her and any resulting children before yielding her body to him.


    Birth control is a male convenience, not a plus for women: It encourages women to be sexually uninhibited and eliminates male responsibilities.


    Some wrongly assume that the importance placed on feminine virtue in Scripture meant that morality is not required of men, but the Bible did not give men license to fornicate.(Genesis 2:24; Exodus 22:16,17; Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:23,24,28,29; Proverbs 5:15-21; Hebrews 13:4; etc.)


    Why did the Bible attach so much importance to feminine virtue and an unmarried woman's virginity?


    Note that in Bible times it was so offensive for a woman to marry under the false pretense of virginity because this was grossly disrespectful to her parents, and note also that among the ancient heathens it was common for women to worship false gods and goddesses by practicing prostitution, and in heathen cultures a girl was often expected to lose her virginity through temple prostitution. (Deuteronomy 22:13,14,20,21) Also, an unmarried woman's virginity was especially valued and respected because the most binding and sacred covenants were those that were sealed or confirmed by the shedding of blood, and marriage is illustrative of Jehovah's union with the Jewish nation under the Law Covenant and ]Christ's union with His church. (Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 3:14; Hosea 2:19,20; Ephesians 5:23-32; also Exodus 24:3-8; Hebrews 9:18-20; 12:24)


    In the ancient world women were often used, abused, discarded, and replaced at will, and often regarded as mere chattels, and the low morals of heathen women was a big factor in this. When women are raised to the status of moral superiority over men this naturally compels men to respect women, while immodesty and promiscuity make women cheap and disposable and encourage abuse. (Proverbs 11:16,22; 12:4; 14:1; 31:10,11,28-30)


    Patriarchy is not greater than other Bible doctrines, but it is being actively attacked by both unbelievers and professing Christians as a major part of the attack on the family, and this has bred false doctrines and seduced many believers. (Isaiah 3:12)


    Have you been affected? You might be surprised. Try applying questions like these to specific beliefs and issues concerning gender roles and distinctions:
    -What does the Bible say about this? (Psalm 33:4,10; 119:105,130; Proverbs 2:6; 3:5-7; II Timothy 3:16)
    -What is the origin of this belief or teaching? (Psalm 146:3-6; Romans 12:2; Colossians 2:8)
    -What Bible truths or principles are involved? (II Timothy 2:14,15)
    -Was this true in the distant past and will this be true in the distant future? (Psalm 33:11; 119:89; Proverbs 19:21; Ecclesiastes 1:9,10; James 1:17)
    -Do you find it necessary to use the arguments of the world to defend or justify your beliefs or choices concerning gender roles and distinctions? (Romans 12:2; I Corinthians 1:20; 2:5; Colossians 1:9; 2:8)


    What does the Bible say?


    God designed and ordained the man to be the Lord's representative in the home and society. (I Corinthians 11:3-12; Ephesians 5:23-25; Joshua 24:15; II Samuel 10:12; I Kings 2:2-3; etc.)


    Both genders are made in the image of God and are of equal value as persons in creation and redemption. The man is the image and glory of God in terms of authority while the woman is the glory of man. God ordained distinct gender roles for man and woman, and patriarchy was established in the beginning before sin entered into the world and is reaffirmed in the New Testament. (Genesis 1:27,28; 2:18; Romans 7:2; I Corinthians 11:3,7-9; Ephesians 5:22-28; I Timothy 2:12,13; I Peter 3:1-6)


    The husband is the religious leader (High Priest) of his family, and both parents have an obligation to give their children religious education. (Ephesians 5:23-28; 6:4)


    Both genders are made in the image of God and are both called to exercise dominion over the earth. (Genesis 1:27,28) The God ordained sphere of dominion for a wife is the home and that which is connected to the home. As the helper and representative of her husband, this may include activity in the community. (Genesis 2:18; Proverbs 31:10-31; Titus 2:4,5)


    Even though an unmarried woman has more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, her exceptional situation of singleness should not redefine the social roles of men and women, and it is not fitting for women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion. (Genesis 2:18; I Timothy 5:14; etc.)


    Christians should proclaim patriarchy as an essential part of God's design for relationships and institutions. Marriage is sacred and children are a gift of God and Christians must oppose the anti-family/anti-reproduction/anti-life mindset of the society in which we live. (Genesis 1:28; Psalm 127:3-5; 128:3,4; Proverbs 24:11-12; Jeremiah 29:6; I Timothy 4:1-3; 5:14; etc.)



    http://www.albatrus.org/english/church-order/men-matters/society_doomed_hope_patriarchy.htm

    http://www.albatrus.org/english/church-order/women-matters/eve_again_listening_to_the_serpent.htm

    http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/s/schlafly/03/schlafly111203.htm

    http://www.albatrus.org/english/church-order/women-matters/reason_woman_was_created.htm

    http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=25%7C59%7C298

    http://www.albatrus.org/english/church-order/women-matters/order_of_creation.htm

    http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/Feminism/index.shtml

    http://www.albatrus.org/english/church-order/women-matters/jezebel_in_our_society.htm

    http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/ten-lies.html

    http://home.att.net/~creationoutreach/pages/unisex.htm

    http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/

    http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/birth_control.html



    Comment (0)

    Wed, Apr 7th - 8:23AM

    Hold Them Accountable




    All too many, even many Christians, think we should trust politicians. Many insist on trusting a politician if he professes certain beliefs and values, belongs to a certain political party, religion, fraternity, or appeals to selfish interests, & many will even become devoted followers of a politician because he makes eloquent or pretty speeches, even if he doesn't actually say anything.


    We are not supposed to trust politicians, we are supposed to hold public officials accountable. (Psalm 118:8,9; 146:3)




    Comment (0)

    Wed, Apr 7th - 8:19AM

    What Happened To America?



    What happened to our traditional Christian values? The decline of Christian influence opened the door for corruption and degradation of every sort.

    The New Agers (as they are now called) became extremely zealous in their efforts to deal with Christianity and bring down Christians and Jews, especially since WWII. Their efforts have included attempts to make evangelism a crime, legislation against Christian activities and Christian organizations, and attempts to require Christians to accept unbelievers, heretics, sexual perverts, and other infringements on doctrinal beliefs and standards within their organizations. They have manipulated news and entertainment media, religious radio programs and religious telecasts, and public education. (In the past, Christians were concerned about Communism, and rightly so, but failed to realize that Communism is merely an offshoot of the New Age Movement/Occultism.)

    Have they had any successes? Yes.

    In the ecclesiastical world Bible truths and Bible standards were increasingly seen as old-fashioned and irrelevant, and the Bible was widely denounced as mythology even in Christian circles, and the secular world followed this example.

    Men became either feminine or adopted a macho facade, both extremes being contrary to God's design for the man as the Lord's representative. (I Corinthians 11:3-12)

    Women became masculine and asserted their independence from men and the role God designed for them. (Genesis 2:18; Isaiah 3:12; Jeremiah 31:22)

    Rebellion of children followed that of wives, and homosexuality increased as people kept rejecting God's design for them. (Isaiah 3:9,12; Romans 1:24-32)

    Respect for elders was replaced by respect for immaturity. (Isaiah 3:4,5,12)

    The predominance of the pagan concept of man and government, which sees the individual as a mere servant of the state whose value is determined by his usefulness to the state, made excessive taxation, legal abortion, gun control, and religious intolerance become inevitable.

    The original form of Federal and State governments have been altered from those founded on Christian principles to governments based on socialism, which is a modern form of ancient paganism. Socialism makes man (corporate man, the state) the standard of truth and the ultimate authority, which puts it in conflict with God and those who believe that God is the standard of truth and the present ruler of the Earth, which is why socialism and religious freedom are incompatible.

    The USA joined and supports the United Nations, thus weakening our national sovereignty and making us subject and vulnerable to foreign power. (Note that since the United Nations began there has been more warfare and bloodshed than there was before the United Nations. Consider Isaiah 8:9-10)

    All of this and more was the result of declining Christian influence. As Christians compromised truths and principles to gain the love and acceptance of the world, they lost respect and influence.


    Comment (0)

    Wed, Apr 7th - 8:12AM

    The Abuse Of Women




    While making allowances for differences in customs between then and now, the Bible teaches principles and lessons that, if applied would prevent sexual abuse. The Bible taught respect for women and severely discouraged sexual abuse of women by applying principles that we would do well to apply today. (II Timothy 3:16)

    Consider a few examples:

    Applying principles of modesty could prevent a lot incest and adultery. (Leviticus 18:6-20)

    Some claim that the Mosaic Law condoned sexual abuse by not including a severe penalty for raping an unmarried and unengaged woman, and that the penalty for raping an unmarried and unengaged woman was marriage to the victim, according to their interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Is this correct? No, the purpose of Deurteronomy 22:28-29 was to protect unmarried women and discourage sexual abuse.

    The wording of Deuteronomy 22:28 makes it clear that the crime referred to is seduction, not rape. (compare Exodus 22:16-17) Even if the woman's father refused to allow a marriage, the man had to pay a fine to the woman's father of about eighteen troy ounces of silver, and note that inability to pay such a debt meant being sold into slavery and contempt of court was punishable by death. (Deuteronomy 22:29)

    Let's take another look at Deuteronomy 22:23-27, the verses preceding Deuteronomy 22:28. Note the wording of Deuteronomy 22:23, that there is no mention or implication of force or unwillingness which would indicate to witnesses that the woman needed protection. (compare Deuteronomy 22:25) The law required a trial for crimes (the local court was situated at the city gate); and a woman guilty of adultery might try to protect herself by claiming it was rape. (Deuteronomy 22:24; 16:18-20; consider: why was Tamar presumed innocent? -II Samuel 13:19,20) Deuteronomy 22:23 describes a meeting or encounter for consensual sex.

    It was not necessary to give an explicit penalty for rape because it was clear that the crime of rape carried the same penalty as premeditated murder. (Deuteronomy 22:26) Does the society in which we live recognize rape as being as severe as premeditated murder?

    Note also that the Bible does not pretend or imply that a young woman can be kept from attracting men or being attracted to men through legislation or tradition, but established safeguards and moral guidelines. (Song Of Solomon 8:8; etc.)Contrast this with some modern laws, intended to stop sexual abuse, that discourage gentlemen with good motives from romantic interest in an unmarried young woman but tend to offer her opportunity to be sexually active with reduced risk of disclosure or reprisal. (consider http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/5534/statutory-rape-laws-need-revision
    http://www.cyc-net.org/features/ft-rapelaws.html  http://truth1.org/s1-marryearly.htm )

    Why did the Bible attach so much importance to feminine virtue? Feminine virtue discourages the abuse of women. In the ancient world women were often used, abused, discarded, and replaced at will, and often regarded as mere chattels, and the low morals of heathen women was a huge factor in this. When women are raised to the status of moral superiority over men this naturally compels men to respect women, while immodesty and promiscuity make women cheap and disposable and encourages abuse. (Proverbs 11:16,22; 12:4)

    The Bible discouraged romantic relationships without the approval of a young woman's parents. Parental involvement in the lives of youths and the choice of a companion could prevent a lot of heartaches, abuse, and abusive relationships.






    Comment (0)

    Tue, Apr 6th - 11:50AM

    Directions To Lost People



    Note that Paul and Silas responded to the jailer's question by leading the jailer and his household to Jesus Christ. (Acts 16:30-32)

    Multitudes neglect the issue of salvation altogether, and multitudes of unregenerate feel assured of salvation, because of improper directions.

    All too often someone is assumed to be saved, even assured that he is saved, merely because of works and appearances.

    Many unregerate professors sincerely believe they are saved merely because someone told them they are saved. (consider Romans 8:15,16)

    For example, in many religious circles someone is assumed to be born again if he merely says a repeat-after-me prayer, affirms some basic truths (Remember: The Devil is so busy because he believes God's Word), and decides to live right; this does not necessarily mean that he was convicted over sin, that he genuinely repented, that he knows he cannot save himself, that he has a personal experience with Jesus Christ, or that he even knows which God and Savior to whom he should pray (consider II Corinthians 11:3,4). In many cases there was no genuine conversion, but merely a yielding to pressure from concerned friends or relatives, or an acting in accord with myths or misconceptions about God and salvation. When such people "backslide," losing what they never had, they are likely to assume that Christianity is vanity or meaningless.

    Preachers and lay members alike need to remember that while we all have an obligation to spread the Gospel, regeneration is an act of God (not man). We must be careful that we are directing people to genuine salvation.





    http://www.the-highway.com/Gospel_Martin.html

    http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/evangelism/gospel_and_evangelicalism_assessment.htm

    http://www.livingvinechurch.org/ds/q0603/q0603.html

    http://www.the-highway.com/Decisional_Regeneration.html



    Comment (0)

    Tue, Apr 6th - 11:43AM

    A Study Of Salvation




    Hell is prepared for the Devil and his angels, and in Matthew 25:41 the Greek word rendered angels means messengers. Who fits into that category? Those that know not God and do not obey the Gospel. (II Thessalonians 1:7-9)


    Salvation is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. (John 3:13-16; 17:3; Acts 2:21; 10:43; Romans 5:1-2,8-11; II Corinthians 5:17-18; Titus 3:5-6; I Peter 1:3; Hebrews 5:9; I John 5:20)


    A mere belief without genuine repentance is not saving faith. (Acts 3:19; also consider Psalm 34:18; 51:17; Isaiah 55:6-7; 57:15; 66:2)


    Faith and repentance can be described as the two sides of the same coin, as they are inseparable. Repentance is the turning from sin to God, and faith is the turning to Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) for salvation. (Acts 20:21)


    Jesus taught the necessity of repentance. (Mark 1:14-15; Luke 13:3)


    The command of repentance is universal. (Acts 17:30)


    The church has an obligation to preach repentance. (Luke 24:44-47)


    True repentance is a result of humbling oneself before God. (Psalm 34:18; 51:1-4,17; Isaiah 57:15; 66:2)


    Repentance is not a mere sorrow over sin or personal reformation. True repentance is turning from sin to God; the sinner must forsake as well as confess sin. (Isaiah 55:7; II Corinthians 7:10)


    Repentance is necessary for salvation; it is the effective agent for forgiveness and remission of sins through the power of the cross. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 11:18; 17:30-31; I Corinthians 1:17)


    A faith that does not produce changed attitudes and actions is not saving faith. (Matthew 7:15-21; Acts 2:41-42; James 2:19-26)


    Salvation is a personal experience with Jesus Christ and is through the finished work of Calvary, not the shed blood of Jesus Christ and additional supplements. (John 3:13-16; Acts 2:21; 10:43; Romans 5:1-2,8-11; I Corinthians 15:1-4; II Corinthians 5:17-18; Titus 3:5-6; I Peter 1:3;
    I John 5:20)






    Comment (0)

    Tue, Apr 6th - 11:36AM

    The New Birth



    Are John 3:5 and Acts 2:38 synonymous? Does the new birth occur at faith and repentance, or do water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Ghost with the sign of speaking with other tongues constitute the new birth as the UPC and other Oneness Pentecostal groups teach?

    (This is not a study of tongues and other spiritual gifts. That is another subject for another time.)

    B-o-r-n does not spell baptized. John 3:5 was a response to the supposition that the new birth could be wrought through physical means, such as childbirth. (John 3:4) There are always cases of people assuming that they are saved because they were born and raised in a certain religion or denomination, or saved through rituals and ceremonies, and this was true of many when Christ walked the earth. (John 1:12-13; 3:1-6) The new birth is a personal experience with Jesus Christ. (John 3:5-16; Titus 3:5-7)

    Water baptism identifies us with Christ in a symbolic sense. (Romans 6:3-5; Colossians 3:11-13) Note the word "likeness" in Romans 6:5.

    I Peter 3:21 says that water baptism satisfies the demands of a good conscience and is figurative (symbolic/declarative) of salvation. How can a figure be that of which it is a figure?

    Faith and repentance are inseparable; saving faith is the turning to Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) for salvation, and repentance is the turning from sin to God. (Acts 20:21) Repentance is the only Acts 2:38 step that is ever presented in a negative light in the New Testament, while water baptism and Spirit baptism are always presented in a positive light. (Luke 13:3; 11:13; Mark 1:16; etc.) The Greek words rendered "and" (Kai) and "for" (Eis) in Acts 2:38 have many possible meanings, so whether Acts 2:38 means that repentance or water baptism is the
    effective agent for the remission of sins depends on immediate context and the context of New Testament teachings, which indicates that repentance is the effective agent for the remission of sins. (consider Luke 24:47; Acts 2:21; 3:19; 17:30-31; 11:18; 26:20; I Corinthians 1:17; etc.)

    Wrong conclusions are inevitable when it is assumed that every spiritual experience mentioned in the New Testament, or that every blessing of the atonement, is a prerequisite for salvation. It should be noted that the Bible teaches a distinction between various works and ministries of the Holy Ghost, and not all blessings of the blood atonement are prerequisites for salvation. (e.g., healing, etc.)

    The disciples were already saved when the outpouring at Pentecost was yet future. (Luke 10:20; 11:13)

    Ananias addressed Paul (then Saul) as brother before Paul was baptized in water. Ananias acknowledged what Paul already had and built on that. (Acts 9:17-18; 22:12-16. Note that Acts 22:16 does not say that spiritual cleansing is a result of water baptism or of the baptizer calling on the name of the Lord.)

    Cornelius and his household received the Holy Ghost, which "the world cannot receive," before they were baptized in water. (Acts 10:43-48; 11:17-18; John 14:17)

    Aquila and Priscilla did not condemn or berate Apollos, but they built on what he already had. (Acts 18:24-28)

    The Ephesian believers were called disciples before they were baptized in water or spoke in tongues. Paul acknowledged what they already had and built on that. (Acts 19:1-6)

    Acts 2:38 is a truth, but Jesus is the truth. (John 14:6) While there is more to life in Christ than the initial experience, salvation is a personal experience with Jesus Christ and is through the finished work of Calvary. (John 3:13-16; Acts 2:21; 10:43; Romans 5:1-2,8-11; I Corinthians 15:1-4; II Corinthians 5:17-18; Titus 3:5-6; I Peter 1:3; I John 5:20)



    http://www.gotquestions.org/regeneration-Bible.html

    http://www.born-again-christian.info/born.of.water.htm

    http://www.bible-knowledge.com/regeneration-by-holy-spirit.html



    Comment (0)

    Tue, Apr 6th - 11:12AM

    Priorities




    "And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause? (I Samuel 17:29)



    In 1453 the troops of Mahomet II surrounded Constantinople, and while it was being determined whether the Balkans would be under Christian or Muslim dominion for centuries to come a local church council in the besieged city was busy discussing important issues, such as: What color are the holy virgins eyes? What gender are the angels? If a fly happens to fall in Holy Water is the fly sanctified or is the water polluted?


    It is possible that this is merely a legend, but my experience with religious people makes me tend to believe that it is probably true.


    If you were to peruse Christian magazines, listen to Christian radio, watch Christian television, and visit various churches you would observe that issues just as trivial are emphasized and debated often while important matters are neglected or ignored.


    The Christian community is often divided over whether it is important to evangelize or important to impact the culture around us for righteousness. This is not a problem of whether the Bible teaches one or the other, the Bible teaches both: Soulwinning is important and it is important to influence the society in which we live for righteousness; it is important to witness and it is important to take a stand on issues.


    Man is a natural-born sinner, inherently depraved; man is not a sinner because he sins, he sins because he is a sinner. It is not human government that is evil but rather the fallible humans that comprise human government, which is why Christian influence is essential.


    Christians are the salt of the earth and the light of the world. Salt cleanses, purifies, preserves, and makes people thirsty, and light dispels darkness. Christians are supposed to be a cleansing and illuminating influence on society, impacting society and culture for righteousness. (Matthew 5:13-16)


    Should we interpret the words of Christ in Matthew 6:9-11 to mean that Christ was promoting idleness and laziness? No, a good job should be considered the answer to prayers for basic necessities. Likewise, the exhortation to pray for all men and all that are in authority does not imply neutrality or pacifism concerning politics and community affairs; opportunities to vote and otherwise influence society and government and participate in public affairs should be considered answers to such prayers. (I Timothy 2:1-2)


    All too often Christians choose apathy and pacifism or liberalism as a result of replacing self-denial and spirituality with selfishness and materialism.


    Much of the apathy among so many Christians is the result of overemphasis on theories and speculations about eschatology.


    Many insist on interpreting every Bible passage to be a literal narration of endtime events, or twist and distort facts and Scriptures to make every current event appear to fit the mold of pet theories about the fulfillment of Bible prophecy, and base their plans, goals, and decisions on things they do not and cannot know. It is often argued that there is no time for Christians to be influencing or impacting the society in which they live because of an assumed nearness of the Second Coming, but it makes just as much sense to insist that Christians should not be evangelizing or doing anything to lead lost souls to salvation because of an assumed nearness of the Second Coming. (consider Acts 1:6-8)


    Those who study Bible prophecy to find a schedule of future events have missed the purpose of prophecy. Prophecy (even prophecies fulfilled long ago) teaches us about God, teaches us how God deals with nations and individuals, and teaches truths and principles that are eternal.


    Using theories about the fulfillment of Bible prophecy to justify apathy ignores the implications of the arguments being used to justify the apathy being promoted: The longer we keep a sinking ship afloat the more time we have to rescue the perishing.


    Regardless of when Christ returns, when He returns the redeemed will be judged concerning what they have been doing while He is not physically present. (I Corinthians 3:13-15; consider Luke 19:11-13)


    We must also remember that we are not called to be successful, we are called to be faithful. Too many assume that the merit of a goal or endeavor is determined by the chance of success instead of whether the goal or endeavor is right. Note that Samuel was commanded to protest a wrong (trying to replace God's sovereignty with a human king) while knowing that his protests would be unheeded. (I Samuel 8:9)


    Another excuse for apathy is the belief that Satan rules the earth and therefore everything must inevitably go from bad to worse. Nowhere does the Bible say or imply that God abdicated His throne and turned rulership over to Satan. The Devil rules in the hearts of unbelievers (the wicked world system), but God is the present ruler of the earth and all nations and peoples are called upon to obey Him. (I Chronicles 29:11; Psalm 2:10-12)


    After the children of Israel escaped Egypt, many complainers insisted on romanticizing the past even though they had freedom and free food and a better situation than what they left behind; even the mixed multitude, Egyptians, had it better. (Numbers 11:5,6)


    There is a good lesson there about the folly of romanticizing the past too much; the so-called "Good Ole Days" were not always good. When we talk about the modern decline of Western civilization many insist on romanticizing the past as though there was ever a time when everything and everybody was always good and could never be as good again.


    While many traditional values were good and should be preserved, not everything in our past was good. America started as the best country in the world and the best republic and has stayed that way, but America was never perfect and there have always been things wrong in America.


    The reason for the good aspects of America and the reforms or social improvements in American history has been a strong Christian influence and the predominance of Christian values and the Christian worldview. The reason for the decline of Western civilization is the steady decline in Christian influence on society and government. (Matthew 5:13-16; I Timothy 2:1-4; I Peter 2:11,12; etc.)


    Many insist that the Bible doctrine of separation means that Christians must be neutral concerning everything outside of church activities. But the separation taught in the Bible is separation unto God and from the sins of society (godly distinctions, conduct, and relationships within society), not isolation from society or neutrality concerning politics and community affairs. (Romans 13:1-7; Ephesians 5:3-11; I Timothy 3:7; I Peter 2:11,12)


    What should Christians take a stand on? Here are just a few examples:


    -The US Constitution. Limited constitutional government, local self-government, republicanism (representative government rooted in moral law), separation of powers, private enterprise, and individual freedom are Biblical concepts. (Psalm 11:3)


    -Morality & moral issues. Widespread immorality produces widespread chaos and lawlessness. (Proverbs 14:34)


    -The right of the people to keep and bear arms. (Luke 22:36) Private possession of firearms should be encouraged and not restricted, as this deters crime and prevents government from becoming a police state.


    -Military. It is important to keep the armed forces strong enough to defeat potential enemies in order to discourage potential aggressors and so that in the event of war the people are better protected. (Romans 13:4)


    -Patriarchy. Patriarchy is not greater than other Bible doctrines, but it is being actively attacked by unbelievers and professed Christians, and this has bred false doctrines, seduced many believers, and wreaked havoc in both church and society. Christians should be proclaiming patriarchy as God's design for the home, institutions, and society. (Genesis 2:18; I Corinthians 11:7-9)While both sexes are of equal value, they are designed for different roles and functions and each gender is better suited for their role. Equals do not complement, they compete. Replacing patriarchal marriage with egalatarian partnership causes frustration and dissatisfaction for both sexes by denying and depriving a woman's natural need for a father-figure (leader, adviser, protector, provider, etc.) and a man's natural need to feel respected. (Ephesians 5:22-33; I Peter 3:1-7) It is generally bad on society and destructive to relationships when gender distinctions are ignored or confused. The egalatarian socialism of feminism is a curse. (Isaiah 3:12; Jeremiah 31:22)



    -Family. Marriage is sacred and children are a gift from God, and Christians must oppose the anti-family/anti-life/anti-reproduction mindset of the society in which we live. (Genesis 1:28; Psalm 127:3; 128:3,4; Proverbs 18:22; 24:11-12; I Timothy 4:1-3; 5:14; etc.)


    -God-given Rights. Various rights are specified in our founding documents because they are taught in the Bible: Right to life (Exodus 20:13; Acts 17:25), liberty (II Corinthians 3:17), property/pursuit of happiness (Exodus 20:15; Ecclesiastes 5:18; Acts 5:3,4), freedom of religion (Joshua 24:15; I Kings 18:21; Acts 5:29), freedom of speech (Matthew 28:19,20; Mark 16:15; Acts 4:20), freedom of the press (Habakkuk 2:2), freedom of assembly (Hebrews 10:25), right to keep and bear arms (Luke 22:36), etc.. These rights are not spelled out, they are self-evident; the
    Bible makes it obvious that God wants people to have these rights.


    Regular prayer and personal Bible study will bring to your attention other issues on which we should take a stand.




    Comment (0)

    Mon, Apr 5th - 12:33PM

    Why I Disagree With Calvinism



    Calvin taught many important and true doctrines of Scripture, but Calvinism contradicts Scripture on a few points.
    God's election is unto a conditional salvation; God calls people by the Gospel, and they are saved through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth when they obey the Gospel. (II Thessalonians 2:13,14; Romans 8:28-30; I Peter 1:2)

    Christ is the supremely chosen servant. (Matthew 12:18; Luke 9:35; I Peter 2:4) The saints were chosen in Christ. (Ephesians 1:3,4) Christians have no claim to divine election except as they belong to Christ. (John 15:16; Ephesians 1:3-5; II Timothy 1:9; I Peter 1:2) Election is emphasized as for witness and service, and not primarily for privilege. (Exodus 19:3-6; Isaiah 49:6; John 15:16)

    Election is according to God's foreknowledge. In His foreknowledge God knew who would choose and accept Jesus Christ as Savior, and He predestined to justify and glorify them. (Romans 8:29,30; I Peter 1:2)

    Scripture makes it clear that it is God's will for all to be saved. (Matthew 22:14; John 12:32; Acts 17:30; I Timothy 2:3,4; I Peter 3:9) All men are being called through the Light, creation, and conscience. (John 1:9; Romans 1:19-20; 2:11-16; consider also Jeremiah 29:13; Matthew 7:7,8; Luke 11:9,10; Acts 10; etc.) The call to salvation is universal. (Isaiah 53:6; John 3:16-18,36; 4:42; Romans 5:18; II Timothy 2:3-6; 4:10; Titus 2:11; Hebrews 2:9; II Peter 3:9; I John 2:2)

    The argument that the whole world would be saved if Christ died for the whole world is also contrary to Scripture. While the blood atonement is sufficient to save the whole world, it is only efficient to those who believe. (John 3:16-18; 3:36; 4:42; Romans 8:32; I Timothy 2:5,6; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; I John 2:2; 4:14)

    Was it irresistible grace that saved Noah, or did grace bring salvation to Noah and his family? (Genesis 6:8; I Peter 3:20) The grace of God doesn't force people to be saved, the grace of God bringeth salvation. (Titus 2:11; John 1:12; 5:40; Acts 7:51; Revelation 22:17)

    What about perseverance of the saints? The Bible teaches the preservation of the elect. Born again Christians are preserved. (II Timothy 4:18; I Peter 1:5; Jude 1)

    The relationship between the sovereignty of God and the freewill of man is an important subject that everyone should study, but there is need for cautions:

    Human nature often leads Christians to spiritualize disobedience or try to justify disobedience with Bible "knowledge," such as using the election of God to dismiss the importance of supporting missions or saying things like "I only witness as the Spirit leads me." The sovereignty of God also means that we are obliged to obey His commands, including the commands to spread the gospel message and occupy till He comes.

    As in every area of Bible study, it is wrong for men to presume to know that which they do not and cannot know, such as who will or will not respond to witnessing efforts.


    http://www.wayoflife.org/database/calvinscamels.html

    http://www.wayoflife.org/database/hypercalvinism.html

    http://www.rockofoffence.com/calvin01.html


    Comment (0)

    Mon, Apr 5th - 12:28PM

    Because Mother Did It




    Over the years I have heard and read this story a number of times, so I don't know who originated it or if it is true, but it makes a good point:


    A man kept noticing that whenever his wife cooked a ham she would cut off a chunk of meat and throw it away before putting the ham in the oven. One day he asked her why she did that and she said her mother always did that and she assumed it was right. Later he asked his mother-in-law about this, and she said that she was simply doing like her mother. When he asked the grandmother the reason behind cutting off a chunk of meat, the grandmother said that she used to cut off a chunk of meat before putting a ham in the oven because back then she never had a roasting pan big enough for a whole ham.


    This sounds like many traditions, theories, and superstitions that are believed as divine truth and made into a criteria for acceptance or criticism without Scriptural basis. (Matthew 15:9; Romans 14:1-13; Colossians 2:8; II Timothy 3:16)





    Comment (0)

    Mon, Apr 5th - 12:25PM

    Premillennialism



    A big problem with premillennialism is it promotes apathy and pacifism; it encourages believers to withdraw from society and be neutral as a result of preoccupation with speculations about things they obviously do not and cannot know.

    The alleged signs of the second coming or signs of the endtimes have no Scriptural basis. Many Bible prophecies that are being applied to the second coming are fulfilled prophecies (e.g., Return from Babylonian captivity, destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, etc.). Many insist on interpreting every passage of Bible prophecy to be a literal narration of endtime events. Many twist and distort facts and Scriptures to make every current event fit the mold of pet theories about the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Many theories and predictions are the result of cross referencing unrelated passages of Bible prophecy. When someone makes a ministry of making predictions and one or some of his predictions prove to be correct it is often assumed that this means that he and his teachings are above scrutiny. This certainly is not rightly dividing God's Word. (II Timothy 2:15)

    For example, where does the Bible say that the establishment of the modern nation of Israel relates to the Second Coming? How is this the end or fulfillment of "the times of the Gentiles?" Yet this is one of the strongest arguments.

    Where does the Bible say that world conditions will or must continually get bad and progressively go from bad to worse before the Rapture? Yet this is one of the strongest arguments.

    What about Matthew 24? This is a prophecy about the end of the Jewish world which centered on Jerusalem and the temple (Destruction of Jerusalem 70 AD); consider the context and setting. (Matthew 24:1-3) Matthew 24:14 was fulfilled before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. (Romans 10:18; Colossians 1:6,23) Matthew 24:29 uses an Old Testament figure of speech for national disaster. (consider Isaiah 13:10; Ezekiel 32:7; Joel 2:10; 3:15) There were survivors of the destruction of 70 AD; over 97,000 were taken captive, many of whom were sold into slavery. (Matthew 24:22,40,41) Jerusalem wasdestroyed within the lifetime of those then living. (Matthew 24:34)

    Matthew 24:15,16 refers to the prophecy of the seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24-27. Calculating a day for a year (Ezekiel 4:6) means that 69 weeks (62 + 7) is 483 years,which would bring us to the year Christ was baptized and began His public ministry. (Daniel 9:25) Christ was crucified about 3 1/2 years later; in other words, "in the midst of the week" He was "cut off." (Daniel 9:26,27) "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression... ." (Daniel 9:24) Note that Stephen emphasized how Israel's response to God revealed character, and his death led to a persecution and a dispersal of Christians from Jerusalem. (Acts 7:51-53; 8:1-4) "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week... ." (Daniel 9:27) Cornelius was converted about four years after the crucifixion of Christ, and until his conversion the preaching of the Gospel was limited to Jews, Jewish proselytes, and Samaritans who kept the Mosaic Law. Before Cornelius became a Christian it had not been revealed that Gentiles were to be received into the church as Gentiles and did not have to first become Jews in order to become Christians. (Acts 10:1-48; 11:18) In 66 A.D., Roman forces surrounded Jerusalem and made a thrust up to the temple walls, and then withdrew for no apparent reason. Then the Christians fled to the mountains as instructed. (Matthew 24:16)

    What about II Timothy 3? II Timothy 3:1-13 is often considered a description of world conditions during the endtimes, but how could this be a description of future world conditions since the world (the wicked world sysytem) has always manifested such bad characteristics. Note the words "For men shall be...;" while Satan instigates this, the efforts of men to hinder the influence of the Bible and Christianity through persecution and church corruption (from within and without) throughout Christian history have been motivated by the carnal adamic nature of men. Note that the latter part of II Timothy 3 begins giving the antidote to the defection from the faith: Heresies became established doctrines throughout Christendom due tp widespread neglect and rejection of Scripture, and truths began to be restored as a result of believers rediscovering the Bible and putting the Word of God above the words of men. (II Timothy 3:14-4:4) The term "last days" in II Timothy 3:1 refers to the whole Christian era. (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:16-21; Hebrews 1:1,2; II Peter 3:2,3) "Houses" in II Timothy 3:6 refers to churches. (Romans 16:5; I Corinthians 6:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 2; II John 10)

    What about the book of Revelation? Consider: How can we put the Second Coming before the Millenium without doing violence to the connection between the nineteenth and twentieth chapters of Revelation? If Revelation 20:4 speaks of a literal bodily resurrection, then why did John specify that he "saw the souls?" What is the basis for insistence that the Millenium has to be a literal one thousand year period? (consider II Peter 3:8) Also note that, ironically, those who argue for a literal interpretation of every detail of Revelation do not themselves interpret everything in Revelation literally.

    When a minister points out that the Bible does not give signs to indicate that Christ will return at a predictable time or within a particular generation, some inevitably refer to II Peter 3:3-4 and imply that such denials are signs of the times. But note that II Peter 3:4 does not mention a denial of "signs," it mentions the denial of the "promise," and a denial that it is possible for man to know the time of the second coming acknowledges that the Lord will return.

    On the other hand, how many who have claimed to know when Christ will return have ever been right?

    Premillennialism says says that God is working through two distinct bodies of people, natural Israel and the Church, to fulfill His purposes concerning the Second Coming and the Millenium, and that the goal of the Church is to be raptured in a premillennial Second Coming, and God's plan for natural Israel is the establishment of an earthly kingdom after the Second Coming. This poses problems:


    -The Church is a continuing body in the Old Testament and the New Testament, and the New Testament Church is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy concerning Israel. (Acts 15:15-17; Romans 9:6-8; Galations 3:7,16-19,24-29; 4:21-31; Hebrews 12:22-24)


    -The Second Coming will bring the sudden destruction of the heavens and the earth, not the establishment of an earthly kingdom. (II Peter 3:10-12)

    Back in 1990 an issue of "Israel My Glory" included an article refuting postmillennialism, and the author used so many logic fallacies, baseless assumptions, and straw man arguments that I began suspecting that there may be some substance to the opposing arguments if he has to rely on emotion and assumption instead of Scripture and logic to prove his point. I began doing a detailed study of Daniel, Zechariah, and Revelation, using a Reference Bible and Bible Dictionary and frequently visiting the library to research the meaning of words, grammar, historical background, etc., and was thus led to reject dispensationalism. (II Timothy 2:14,15)

    When I began using the internet a few years ago I found out that a lot of conservative scholars hold the same viewpoint, based on belief in the Bible and study of God's Word.

    I have often wondered why so many premillennialists automatically label those who disagree as modernists, liberals, or heretics, and make their opinion a criteria for Christian fellowship or a measurement of spirituality, or assume that their opinion is above scrutiny.



    http://www.theologue.org/downloads/AWPdispensationalism.pdf

    http://reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Tribulation.htm

    http://www.gospeltruth.net/dispcox.htm

    http://home.flash.net/~thinkman/articles/dispen.htm

    http://www.the-highway.com/premilTOC_Venema.html

    http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/moses.html

    http://www.the-highway.com/articleFeb98.html

    http://www.wordmp3.com/files/gs/postmill.htm

    http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Last%20Things/Postmill_Boettner/contents.html

    http://www.wordmp3.com/files/gs/postmillu-turn.htm

    http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/default.asp?id=9

    http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/two_views_civil_government_puritanism_pietism.htm

    http://www.wordmp3.com/files/gs/matrix.htm


    Comment (0)

    Sun, Apr 4th - 12:45PM

    Doubtful Disputations



    By definition a cult is legalistic, but the problem is not limited to cults. Legalism has been a prevailing problem throughout Christian history.

    In the first century many Christians were assuming that their race, gender, religious or cultural background, or social status gave them some supposed superior spirituality . (Romans 10:12; also I Corinthians 12:12,13; Galations 3:28; Philippians 3:29; James 2:5)

    Because Christianity started as a Jewish religion, a sect of Judaism, and because of misapplication of Old Testament prophecy, the question of whether a Gentile could become a Christian without first becoming a Jew was one of the great issues of that time. The real issue was whether anyone can really be considered a Jew without first becoming a Christian, as the Church is a continuing body in the Old Testament and the New Testament and the New Testament Church is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy concerning Israel. (Acts 2:16-21; 15:15-17; Romans 2:28,29; 9:6-8; II Corinthians 6:16-7:1; Galations 3:7,16-19,24-29; 4:21-31; Hebrews 10:15-17; 12:22-24)

    Many Gentile Christians submitted to circumcision, not for the hygienic benefits, but to measure up to Jewish tradition and be accepted by their Jewish associates. (Galations 6:12,13) Many Jews submitted to an operation that restored a semblance of a foreskin in order to deny their Jewish background. (I Corinthians 7:18)

    Christians were unfairly judging one another on the basis of the observance or neglect of circumcision, the seventh-day Sabbath, Jewish holidays, dietary restrictions, and other aspects of the Old Covenant that separated or distinguished natural Jews from Gentiles. Those laws were based on principles and truths that did not change, but their application
    changed under the New Covenant. (consider Matthew 5:17; Romans 3:31)

    Like so many modern Christians, many clung tenaciously to their traditions, assumptions, and pet theories instead of studying and respecting the Bible as the final authority. (consider Proverbs 3:5-7)

    Priorities were confused. The church exists to exalt Christ in the world. As still happens today, instead of viewing sanctification as a means to an end, that is, preparation for service, holiness standards became an end in themselves.

    Because of background (upbringing, experience, etc.) an individual Christian naturally has various opinions and traditions concerning various areas of life, and this in itself is not wrong. But as a Christian grows in faith and wisdom he should see that, while some or even most of his ideas or theories may be right, at least some of his ideas or theories are unnecessary or even conflict with Scripture. As a Christian grows in faith and wisdom he must also expect to find that at least some of his ways and beliefs are wrong and should be discarded or forsaken. Both the anti-everything mindset and the anything-goes philosophy are wrong. (Ecclesiastes 7:16)

    This does not mean that it is wrong or sinful for a Christian to hold to various personal convictions or traditions. But he should be careful not to let personal opinions negatively affect relationships. (Romans 14:1,13,19; Ephesians 4:1-3; note that Romans 14 is not a denial of the need for standards and church discipline as some suppose, but is dealing with the importance or insignificance of debatable opinions and not Bible truths.)

    We are instructed to have a sacrificial attitude and an accepting attitude toward fellow believers. (Romans 14:16-19; 15:1-7)

    But all too often, conscientious differences of opinion and man-made measurements of spirituality are allowed to hinder Christian fellowship. (Romans 14:1-13) This is often due to a failure to distinguish between purity and maturity or between Bible truth and pet theories or personal preferences.(II Timothy 2:14-15; I Peter 2:2; II Peter 3:18)

    Examine yourself. Consider your responses to questions and issues like these:

    Are you unable to enjoy Christian fellowship with a Christian brother if his interpretation of a difficult and obscure passage of Bible prophecy happens to differ from your interpretation? What if he believes in the literal second coming of Christ but has a different belief about the time of Christ's return?

    What is your attitude toward believers who are divorced and remarried?

    What factors determine the propriety or sinfulness of two unmarried Christians of the opposite sex and like faith dating or marrying? (consider I Timothy 4:1-3)

    What factors determine the sinfulness or propriety of a secular amusement? (I Corinthians 7:31)

    Is it a sin to have a radio or television in your home?

    Is it a sin to celebrate religious holidays? (Romans 14:5,6)

    Is it a sin to go fishing on Sunday if this does not hinder church attendance and other obligations?

    Is it a sin to dine at a restaurant that happens to serve alcoholic beverages?

    The list of questions could continue, but these should suffice for now to help you see the point. Note that these are not questions about what you or your family would or would not do, nor does this mean that you should ignore any Scriptural principles or ignore practical considerations. It is possible to be tolerant without violating personal convictions. The Bible does not say we must always agree on every minor point or love everyone's ways, and we certainly are not called to change everyone to conform to personal preferences or pet theories, but we are obligated to get along with each other. (John 13:34-35; Colossians 3:12-15; I Peter 4:8-9)

    Look at this from the standpoint of evangelism: If an unbeliever asks you why you believe a certain way or why something is right or wrong, how would you explain this to him? If you cannot offer genuine Scriptural support for your assertion then you should consider that what you have could merely be an opinion.

    Try applying questions like these to specific beliefs and issues:

    What does the Bible say about this, and what Bible truths or principles are involved? (Romans 14:1; II Timothy 2:14,15; 3:16)

    What is the origin of this belief or teaching? (Romans 12:2; Colossians 2:8)

    How important or essential is this is relation to other matters? (Matthew 23:24; I Timothy 1:5-11)

    Was this true in the distant past and will this be true in the distant future? (Psalm 33:11; 119:89; Proverbs 19:21; Ecclesiastes 1:9,10; James 1:17)

    Preoccupation with disputable matters tends to detract from genuine causes for concern and plain teachings of Scripture. For example, few sins are as damaging or hurtful as malicious gossip, but rarely is anyone ever called on the carpet for malicious gossip.

    This also tends to make one hypersensitive to violations of his pet theories. All too often Christians make a fellow believer the object of hostility, resentment, insults, malicious gossip, or ostracism merely because of a violation of a pet theory or man-made measurement of spirituality. We are not obligated to always agree on every minor point or to love everyone's ways, but we are obligated to try to get along with each other.



    http://www.rbc.org/bible-study/strength-for-the-journey/2009/06/02/daily-message.aspx

    http://pastor.resourcesforyourministry.org/2009/09/25/the-weightier-matter-of-the-law/


    Comment (0)

    Sun, Apr 4th - 12:43PM

    Spiritual Gifts



    "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant." -I Corinthians 12:1


    "Follw after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy." -I Corinthians 14:1




    The above-cited words were initially addressed to a church that manifested spiritual gifts; the concept of spiritual gifts was not new to the first readers. But there were misconceptions and abuses that had to be dealt with, and this Epistle definitely has application today.


    Joseph's brothers were wrong to despise him and turn on him as they did, but also note that part of the problem was the pride and arrogance demonstrated by Joseph. (Genesis 37:5-11) Likewise, part of the reason for the opposition of many Christians to the Pentecostal movement in the Twentieth Century was the arrogance displayed by many (but not all) Pentecostals, and even now prejudices against Pentecostalism are often the result of negative experiences involving Pentecostals with wrong attitudes.


    New Testament references to Spirit infilling and/or Spirit baptism do not always include a reference to tongues-talking. There are different works and ministries of the Holy Ghost, and we err when we try to make every New Testament reference to the Holy Ghost or Spirit baptism or Spirit infilling refer to the same work or ministry, or insist that tongues-talking is always part of the experience. We should not assume that something which happened occassionally, according to the Book of Acts, must always occur. (consider I Corinthians 12:13; Hebrews 6:2; etc.)


    It is also a serious error to assume, as many (but not all) do, that sanctification, Spirit infilling, or manifestation of spiritual gifts makes a believer sinlessly perfect or that the Holy Ghost only uses believers who have attained sinless perfection. Pretending to be sinlessly perfect is spiritual blindness and self-deception. (Isaiah 42:19; Galations 6:1; I John 1:7-2:2) While this is not saying that holiness is unimportant, the New Testament is also clear that very imperfect people (such as the Apostles) possessed and exercised gifts of the Holy Ghost.


    We must also always remember that, while God keeps His promises, God is always sovereign. For example, New Testament references to tongues-talking do not indicate that God gives believers something that an individual can turn on and off like a light switch or a water faucet.


    The purpose of spiritual gifts is a sign for unbelievers and edification of believers. Pride, arrogance, and Holier-Than-Thou attitudes toward other believers hinder spiritual fellowship and tend to defeat the purpose. (Romans 12:3)



    Comment (0)

    Sat, Apr 3rd - 10:13AM

    A Few Words For Those Who Are Concerned About Christian Singles



    It is often assumed that a prolonged state of singleness means that a single Christian brought the situation upon himself (or herself), or that God is disciplining or punishing him for something. It should be noted that in many cases a prolonged singleness is the result of wise choices that should be commended instead of criticized.   
          
    One common myth is that God will provide a mate when a single Christian learns to be content with being single; this is comparable to telling a sick person that God will heal him when he learns to be happy that he is sick. We are all told to be content in our relationship with God in whatever state we find ourselves, but this does not mean we must prefer that state; can you imagine Christ or an Apostle telling a slave to decline an opportunity to legally secure his freedom from bondage if the opportunity arose?  
       
    Another myth is that prolonged singleness is evidence that it is God's will for that person to remain single. Prolonged singleness, and even having good morals, does not necessarily mean that a single Christian has the gift of celibacy. (Incidentally, where is the "gift of celibacy" found in Scripture?) 
       
    Still another popular myth, often perpetuated by married Christians, is that God is a divine matchmaker and has chosen one soulmate for everyone, and the secret to marital happiness is finding that soulmate. So instead of looking for their sole mate, many pursue an ideal that cannot become reality. Because of this myth many assume that any mutual attraction or a flood of strong emotions is evidence that they have found "the one," often in spite of very serious character flaws and religious incompatibility. Often after they marry and their unrealistic expectations meet reality they can't wait to divorce so that they can continue searching for "the one." Others forego marriage for years and decades, even declining numerous opportunities to marry extremely suitable prospects (even prospects that meet their own personal criteria or preference), believing that they will someday meet "the one."  

    I won't deal with this in-depth, but consider this: If the divine matchmaker theory was true, anyone marrying the wrong person would thus keep others from finding and marrying their soulmate, and the domino effect would eventually touch everybody. How is it possible that so many widows, who were happily married with their late spouse, went on to become happily married again? Why does God give guidelines on the choice of a mate that allow so much room for personal tastes and preferences within those guidelines? 
       
    It is not wrong for a Christian to have personal opinions and convictions. But it is important not to let debatable matters and conscientious differences of opinion hinder Christian fellowship or cause occassions for stumbling. (Romans 14:1,13,19; Ephesians 4:1-3; II Timothy 2:14,15) Let me share just a few examples that come to mind:

      Some years back I was acquainted with an unmarried Christian man then in his forties who was discouraged from church attendance for awhile because of unkind treatment and bad attitudes of church folks who found it offensive for him to be dating an unmarried Christian woman in her twenties. I remember hearing different versions of 'it's not right because he's likely to die first and leave her a young widow.' Ironically, they married and had three children together, and then she died leaving him a widower with children.
       
    I was in my early twenties when I was born again. I resolved from the start to be morally clean until marriage and to only marry a Christian, and for a few years hoped to eventually have a Christian wife and family. As time passed that resolve weakened and I decided against looking for a Christian woman, even declined opportunities to date (and possibly marry) nice Christian women, and then married an unbeliever, because I wanted to avoid conflicts and negative treatment. If you disapprove of an unmarried Christian man's romantic interest in your unmarried teenage daughter and he respects your wishes and authority, or if you disagree with an unmarried Christian man's honorable romantic interest in an unmarried Christian woman because she happens to be younger, older, or divorced, is this cause for hostility, resentment, insults, malicious gossip, or ostracism? No, but back then I came across numerous church folks who believe so. 
     
    The Bible clearly tells the unmarried to remain celibate until marriage and instructs Christian singles to marry only in the Lord and not to become unequally yoked. Advising Christian singles to look for an unmarried Christian of the opposite sex and like faith to marry and advising and encouraging them to decline and avoid opportunities to be matched with unsuitable prospects (unchurched, unbelievers, selfish, materialistic, immoral, etc.) is good advice.
     
    However, many married christians, though probably well-intentioned, are quite adept at offering worthless or meaningless advice and saying hurtful and insensitive things to
    Christian singles. Let me share just a few examples:
     
    "Celibacy should never be a problem for someone who really loves the Lord."
     
    "How can you feel lonely if you have Jesus?"
     
    "All you need is to devote more time to serving the Lord, helping others, etc.."
     
    "The Bible says it is wrong for an unmarried Christian to look for a mate." (Some try to offer New Testament support for this counsel. They should be advised to examine the Greek text of their proof texts.)
     
    "If you would draw closer to God this wouldn't be a problem."
     
    "It is not God's will for you to marry because ... ."
     
    "God apparently wants you to delay marriage as long as you can."
     
    "God is teaching you a lesson, and when you learn the lesson (whatever that lesson is supposed to be) God will give you a mate."
     
     "God will give you a mate when you learn to be content to be single, or when you are not looking for a mate."  
     
    Etc.. 
     
    Many married Christians do not understand the gravity of their words or the difficulties involved because many simply fail to realize that this is possibly the greatest challenge that a Christian single must face: Being a single Christian, remaining faithful, and following Bible guidelines carries the very real possibility of never marrying, and humans (whether male or female) are not designed to look forward to continual loneliness or perpetual celibacy.
     
    Opportunities to date or marry abound, and there is usually a wide selection of potential dates or mates from which to choose, IF one steps outside of Bible guidelines.
     
    Try to keep this in mind when dealing with Christian singles.
     
     



    Comment (0)

    Sat, Apr 3rd - 9:57AM

    Word Of God Or Theories Of Men



    How is it that cult members and liberal theologians sincerely believe obviously unscriptural and even antibiblical teachings even though they often appear to study more than most? The problem lies with what they respect as the final authority or the standard of truth. All too often attention is drawn away from God's Word and focused on theories of men, so that a religious leader, gifted teacher, or a pet theory is the authority. (I Timothy 1:5-7; II Timothy 2:15; II Peter 3:16)

    When someone puts the words of men above the word of God they naturally interpret passages of Scripture in relation to publications and human theories instead of interpreting Scripture passages in relation to context and the whole Bible. This is why arguments over proof texts often prove to be an exercise in futility

    If Christ deliberately bypassed the religious elite and highly educated to reveal truths to ordinary people, and the Apostles commended and encouraged personal study and discernment, then why should we assume that God intended for people of our generation to receive (without question or doubt) the Word of God as explained and interpreted by some religious elite claiming to have some special key to understanding Scripture that ordinary people don't have? If the Bible is the Word of God and the final authority, then why should we assume that God expects people of our generation to interpret Bible passages in relation to Christian literature or a theologian instead of interpreting Bible passages in relation to context and the whole Bible?

    Scripture itself is the key to the interpretation of Scripture. While there definitely is need for ministers and Christian books, and there are difficulties in the Bible, for the most part the Bible is self-interpreting and self-explanatory when one is familiar with its contents.

    Here is a simple way to test a teaching: Along with personally reading and studying the Bible, try applying questions like these to specific beliefs (which are considered to be truths or Bible standards) and issues:

    -What does the Bible say about this? (Psalm 33:4; Proverbs 2:3-6; 3:5-7; II Timothy 2:15; 3:16)

    -What is the origin of this belief or teaching? (Romans 12:2; Colossians 2:8)

    -How important or essential is this in relation to other matters, and what Bible truths and principles are involved? (Matthew 23:24; I Timothy 1:5-7; II Timothy 2:14,15)

    -Was this true in the distant past and will this be true in the distant future? (Psalm 33:10,11; 119:89,160; Ecclesiastes 1:9,10; James 1:17)


    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 1st - 10:50AM

    Leftism Is Antichristian & A Departure From Good Sense



     Have you noticed that liberal theories (e.g., evolution) tend to lose credibility without dogmatic assertions, baseless assumptions, empty rhetoric, or appeals to emotion, or if the proponent must stick to facts and logic?

    Have you considered that the leftist definition of 'separation of church and state' ultimately calls for the overturn of laws prohibiting murder, rape, theft, polygamy, and slavery, since those laws were based on Scripture and were the direct result of Christians impacting culture and pushing their views?

    Have you considered that freedom from religion is actually impossible and defies logic, since any system of beliefs and practices (including an atheistic belief system, such as humanism) fits the dictionary definition of religion?

    Have you noticed that those who insist that we cannot legislate morality usually insist that their morality be legislated, and have you considered that prohibiting the legislation of morality would actually mean the absence of laws (anarchy), since morals are principles or rules of behavior and a law is simply a principle or rule of behavior established in a community (city, state, nation, etc.) by some authority?


    Have you thought about the logical conclusions to the leftist arguments for abortion, birth control, euthanasia, socialized medicine, gun control, religious intolerance, etc.?




    http://www.albatrus.org/english/living/ourtimes/leftism.htm

    http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/church_&_state/separation_church_state_gone_too_far.htm

    http://www.albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/myth_separation_church_state.htm

    http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/The-Impact-of-Christianity

    http://www.albatrus.org/english/living/kingdom/kingdom_vs_socialism.htm



    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 1st - 10:44AM

    Myths About Sex & Marriage




    "Good understanding giveth favour: but the way of transgressors is hard." -Proverbs 13:15


    This is not being written to condemn anyone or provide pat answers for all situations. The purpose of this writing is to hopefully help someone avoid a lot of grief.


    Even in religious circles, numerous myths about sex & marriage which are destructive to lives and relationships and encourage immorality circulate among both young and old. We will look at just a few.


    Myth: Dating and marrying unbelievers and professed believers of bad or questionable character is a good ministry.
    Reality: This leads to compromising principles and values, which is especially dangerous since the purpose of dating is to seek romance and a relationship. (Proverbs 13:20; I Corinthians 15:33; consider Psalm 119:63) If this is an effective ministry or evangelism, why does the Bible warn against being unequally yoked? (II Corinthians 6:14-17) There is apparently no limit to the theories and man-made traditions regarding the choice of a date or a mate, so it may surprise many to learn that many of the factors often considered important or essential receive no mention in Scripture. The Biblical priority in the choice of a mate is religious compatibility. The Bible warns believers against intermarrying with unbelievers because this leads people (the believer, the resulting children, society, etc.) away from God. (Genesis 6:2-5;
    Deuteronomy 7:3-4; Joshua 23:11-13; Ezra 9:2,12-14; Nehemiah 13:23-27; Psalm 144:7,8,11,12; Hosea 5:7,10; II Corinthians 6:14-17)

    Myth: Fornication is harmless.
    Reality: Sex is always significant and there is no such thing as casual sex. (I Corinthians 6:15-20)


    Myth: All sex is sin or a necessary evil. (This teaching indirectly nullifies standards of sexual morality.)
    Reality: The Bible does not treat sex as sinful or a necessary evil. Sex is created by God and is both sacred and beautiful, which is the reason for moral standards. (Genesis 2:24; Ruth 4:13; Proverbs 5:18-21; Song Of Solomon 1:13; 5:4; 7:6-8; I Corinthians 7:2-5; Hebrews 13:4; etc.)


    Myth: Sex is the most important part of marriage. (This of course leads to other wrong assumptions.)
    Reality: It is the everyday getting along with each other that ultimately makes or breaks a marriage. (consider Amos 3:3)


    Myth: Male and female think and feel the same about sex.
    Reality: While each gender has as strong a libido as the other, and both genders need sex and affection, they respond differently. As a general rule women trade sex for affection and men trade affection for sex, and men tend to be more physically-oriented while women tend to be more relationship-oriented.


    Myth: An unmarried couple should fornicate in preparation for marriage.
    Reality: A couple can (and should) practice with each other after the wedding, but premarital sexual intimacy normally leads to selfishness, disrespect, and distrust after a couple marry.


    Myth: It is important or necessary for a woman to fornicate in order to keep her boyfriend or persuade a man to marry.
    Reality: It has become more difficult to persuade men to marry because they do not have to stop at the altar on the way to the bedroom. (Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?) If it is necessary for a woman to fornicate in order to keep her boyfriend or persuade him to marry, how does she plan to keep him during times of sickness or separation (business trips, military duty, etc.)? If a woman must fornicate in order to keep her boyfriend or persuade him to marry, she is better off without him. (Proverbs 14:9; 28:6)


    Myth: It is important or necessary for a man to fornicate with a woman before deciding whether to marry in order to see if there is sexual compatibility and if the woman is frigid.
    Reality: Modesty and chastity normally indicate good character and a restrained libido in a woman. Using sex to exploit or as a means to an end (getting her way, keeping her boyfriend, persuading a man to marry, etc.) easily leads to using sex as a means to exploit or torment her husband when she is married, and toying with other men. (Proverbs 11:22; 14:1; 31:10-12; I Corinthians 7:3-5)


    Myth: Sex is safe as long as you use a condom.
    Reality: Condoms have a high failure rate and the only safe sex is abstinence or a monogamous relationship.


    Myth: Dedicated Christians are immune to sexual immorality (and therefore don't need to be careful and avoid situations that are conducive to immorality).
    Reality: The Bible warns Christians about sexual immorality and other sins because Christians are not immune to sexual immorality or incapable of sin. (I Corinthians 6:18; II Corinthians 12:21; I John 1:8-2:2)This does not mean we must adopt an anti-everything mindset or condemn all secular amusements, as some insist. But there is need for caution and discernment.For example, some unmarried couples use the need to "talk" as an excuse to spend time alone together in a bedroom with the door closed, or to spend time alone in a car parked in a secluded area in the middle of the night, even though a private conversation is possible in a restaurant and other places that are not quite as conducive to immorality.(The irony is that if they really can spend a lot of time alone in these situations without doing anything wrong this would tend to imply that they don't have a mutual attraction.) It is self-delusional and morally dangerous to assume that morally compromising situations are harmless. (Isaiah 42:19; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 13:14; I Thessalonians 5:22)




    Perhaps you are reading this and struggling with guilt because you have been sexually immoral. You cannot change the past, but no matter where you have been or what you have done, Jesus wants to forgive you and He always wants to forgive more than we want to be forgiven. (Psalm 103:10-17)






    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 1st - 10:39AM

    Illicit Cohabitation



    The Bible does not say or imply that a mere sexual relationship constitutes a marriage, and it does not justify cohabitation without marriage. I Corinthians 6:16 is merely pointing out that sexual intercourse is always significant and there is no such thing as casual sex.

    While the Bible does not give an explicit description of a marriage ceremony, marriage (and divorce) have always required a formal and legal commitment. In Bible times marriages, divorces, and births were publicly made known and recorded in the official records of the community, which is why we have an accurate geneology of Jesus Christ. (consider Romans 13:1) Both Testaments teach that a couple are to already be married before cohabitation. (Genesis 2:24;Deuteronomy 22:13; Ephesians 5:31)

    http://www.bbc.edu/seminary/resparaksummer05living.asp

    http://www.brfwitness.org/?p=652


    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 1st - 10:36AM

    Does The Bible Condone Or Condemn Premarital Sex?



     It wasn't too long ago that premarital sex was universally understood to be a sin according to the Bible, and now many who understand that adultery is a sin question if the Bible actually prohibits sexual relations between unmarried people.

    Throughout history most women married in their teens and most mothers had their first child while in their teens, and then in the twentieth century it became increasingly common for women to delay marriage for far longer than what was normal and acceptable in Bible times. As a result of modern social and cultural trends many today fail to realize that most Bible prohibitions against sexual immorality refer to adultery because in Bible times sexual immorality was usually sexual relations with, and unfaithfulness of, a woman who was married (or betrothed) to another.

    Genesis 2:24 establishes the principle that marriage is sacred and sexual relations are to be restricted to marriage, and this principle is also restated in the New Testament. (Ephesians 5:31; etc.)

    Some attempt to use the Song Of Solomon to justify premarital sex, ignoring the very text to which they refer. Note that in the midst of poetic language about a relationship that leads to a honeymoon the author charges us three times (to paraphrase) not to excite love and passions until the time is ripe. (Song Of Solomon 2:7; 3:5; 8:4) The whole relationship takes place within the context of community approval and rejoicing, that is, marriage. Think about it: Is the community, in particular your friends, family, and church, likely to celebrate your secret illicit sexual liaisons and the possibility of unwed pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, destroyed trusts, ruined relationships, etc.? On the other hand, a married couple's sex life is ultimately a social benefit (commitment, responsibility, children, etc.). The Song Of Solomon is a portrayal of sex within the proper context.

    Hebrews 13:4 clarifies this even further by using two terms for immorality, one for sexual relations with someone other than one's spouse (moichos, adultery) and a term (porneia, fornication) that refers to any sexual union outside of marriage, to make it clear that all of this is condemned.

    Also consider Ephesians 5:1-3. Do you think premarital sex could at least be a hint of sexual immorality? Think about it.



    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 1st - 10:34AM

    Something For Teenagers To Consider



     Age does not necessarily mean maturity or immaturity.Since you are not physically a child it is natural for you to dislike being treated like a child and normal to desire to be accepted as a young adult. But regardless of whether it is fair or unfair, you are at an age where you must prove yourself to be accepted as a young adult.


    Consider this: If I were to describe someone who always demands his (or her) own way, constantly struggles to be the center of attention, never takes responsibility for his decisions and actions, must always be humored or pampered, is disrespectful toward his elders, etc., would you think I was talking about a mature adult or a small child? (I Corinthians 13:11)Now consider this: As your elders observe your overall attitudes and behavior, are they reminded of a mature adult or a small child?


    Here are a few points to keep in mind:


    Respect for elders demonstrates character, and you will never be too old to respect your elders. (consider I Timothy 5:1,2)Disrespect for elders is not a sign of growth or manhood. (Deuteronomy 27:16; Ephesians 6:2,3) What is your attitude toward your parents? What is your attitude when you disagree or when they are wrong? (Proverbs 1:8,9; 6:20-23; 15:5,20) How well you do or do not get along with adults (especially of your own gender) who are older and wiser than yourself says a lot about you in this, and fellowship with those who are older and wiser than yourself is beneficial. (Proverbs 13:20)







    Comment (0)

    Thu, Apr 1st - 10:32AM

    We May Be Confusing Necessity & Materialism




    I remember watching TV News one day with my grandmother in 1974 when it was reported that unemployment had exceeded the unemployment of the Geat Depression. My grandmother remarked that during the Great Depression (during which time she was a wife and mother) there was a genuine shortage of jobs available, but now the problem is too many married women put money, possessions, and prestige above being a housewife and mother. (Especially interesting since it was more difficult for a family to survive on one income during the Great Depression than now.)

    At the school library I looked up the statistics, and while I don't remember the numbers, I remember that the number of married women working full-time jobs far exceeded the number of unemployed people. Since then when I have heard reports of unemployment I have at times looked up numbers and noted the same story repeated, that is, the number of married women working full-time jobs exceeding the number of unemployed people.



    Comment (0)

    Back to Blog Main Page


    About Me

    Name: Arnold Saxton
    ChristiansUnite ID: ajsaxton
    Member Since: 2010-03-30
    Location: Muscadine, Alabama, United States
    Denomination: Independent Baptist
    About Me: It would be difficult to give all details so I will touch on just a few things. I was born in the Midwest & I have Southern ancestry so I sometimes get prejudice from both sides. Ex-Jehovah's Witness. (Disassociated myself 1985) Christian since 1987.... more

    April 2010
            1 2 3
    4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    11 12 13 14 15 16 17
    18 19 20 21 22 23 24
    25 26 27 28 29 30  
    prev   next
    Blog Roll
    GOOD WEBSITES TO BOOKMARK:
    A K Dart dot com - News & Information
    Against Dispensationalism
    Bible Research
    Bible Study Tools Online - Verses, Commentaries, Concordances, Verses, Parallel Verses
    BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY
    Christian Answers Network
    Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry
    Christian Book Distributors
    Christian Information Ministries
    ChristiansUnite.com - Christian Resources
    Confederate Crusader (YouTube)
    Creation Today
    Crosswalk - Christian Living Resources
    Faith & Heritage - Occidental Christianity For Preserving Western Culture & People
    Fallacy Detective
    Freedom Ministries - Pastor John Weaver
    Gospel Music Warehouse
    Grace Gems!
    Grace Online Library - Historic Baptist, Reformed & Puritan Resources
    GraceLife - Grace Focused Articles
    GunCite: gun control and Second Amendment issues
    INFOWARS.COM
    jeetfeet (Pastor John Weaver)
    KJIC 90.5 FM (Santa Fe, Texas) - Christian Music
    Ladies Against Feminism - Promoting Beautiful Womanhood!
    Life & Liberty Ministries
    Logical Fallacies
    Natural News - Natural Health News & Scientific Discoveries
    News With Views - News & Information
    NiceneCouncil.com - Biblical Worldview
    OnePlace.com - Free Online Radio Christian Radio Ministry Broadcasts
    Postmillennialism
    Priceless Woman Ministries
    Second Amendment Project
    SermonAudio - Library of free MP3 audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide
    StudyLight.org - Online Bible Study Tools and Resources
    Suppressed News - News & Information
    The Blaze - News & Information
    The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
    The New American - News & Information
    The Oak 90.9 FM (Lagrange, Georgia) - Christian Radio
    The Schwarz Report - A publication of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade
    TowerWatch Ministries - Jehovah's Witness and Watchtower Information Online
    Townhall.com - News & Information
    Witnesses For Jesus, Inc. - For Witness to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons (Latter-day Saints)
    WorldNetDaily - News & Information
    WSOF Christian Radio (Madisonville, Kentucky)
    - VARIOUS ARTICLES & BOOKS:
    A Call To End Christian Prohibition, by Marcus Pittman
    A Godly Man is a Lover of the Word! - by Thomas Watson
    Abolish Adolescence!, by Thomas Sowell
    Alcohol and the Bible, by Daniel Whitfield
    ALWAYS VICTORIOUS! THE EARLIEST CHURCH NOT PRE- BUT POSTMILLENNIAL - by F.N.Lee
    An Alternative Theology of the Holy Land: A Critique of Christian Zionism - Stephen Sizer
    An Examination Of Dispensationalism - by William E. Cox
    Basic Principles Of Christian Civil Government - by David McAllister
    Becoming Salt and Light, by Richard J. Krejcir
    Beware Of Philosophy - by Mike Ford
    Bible Explorer - Free Bible Software for Mac and PC
    Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Contemporary Collapse of Sexual Morals, By Peter Jones
    Biblical Worldview Of Government, by Rusty Lee Thomas
    Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, by Chris Good
    Born Of Water: What Does It Mean?, by Colin Melbourne
    But Is It In The Bible? - by Gary DeMar
    Calvinism in the Light of The General Tenor of Scripture - by Roy A. Hertzog
    CAN A DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MAN BE A PASTOR OR A DEACON?, by Douglas M. Hodge
    Childish Labor Laws, by Thomas Sowell
    Christian Rant: It’s None of Your Business, by Rev Brian Abshire
    Christmas, by Lorri MacGregor
    Church Youth Groups, by David Crank
    Climate Change: Back to the Future? - by Mark Alexander
    Confidence About the Earthly Triumph of Christ's Kingdom, By Dr. Greg Bahnsen
    Constitution of the Confederate States of America
    Contact Elected Officials
    Creation or Evolution – Does It Matter What You Believe? - by Mark McGee
    Criminalizing masculinity - by Paul Craig Roberts
    Cross or Stake? - by Paul Grundy
    DANIEL AND THE COMMAND TO “RESTORE” - by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
    DANIEL’S SEVENTIETH WEEK - by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
    Daniel’s Seventy Weeks - By Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
    DAVID AND DISPENSATIONALISM, by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
    Declaration of Independence
    Defense Of The Orthodox View Of The Second Coming Of Christ - by Mitchell Dick
    Did the Last Days start 1914?, by Paul Grundy
    Dispensationalism - A Summary, by William E. Cox
    DISPENSATIONALISM – CATEGORIZED SCRIPTURE LIST, by Nathan Pitchford
    Dispensationalist Beliefs - The Scriptures, by William E. Cox
    Divine Providence, by Donald Townsley
    Division & Unity - True vs False, by Chris Good
    Does a lack of men lead to liberalism? - by David Murrow
    Domestic Tranquility - by E. Carolyn Graglia
    Dominion Mandate - by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
    Don't Judge, Lest you Be Judged!, By Chris Good
    Don't Touch the Lord's Anointed!, by Chris Good
    Equality, Submission, And The Role Of Women - by Allan Turner
    Evaluating Premillennialism - by Cornelis P. Venema
    Eve Is Again Listening To The Voice Of The Serpent - by Sarah Moore
    Evolutionists Believe in Magic - by Gary DeMar
    Fallacies
    Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats? - by C. H. Spurgeon
    Fighting Back! A Handy Reference For King James Bible Believers, by James L. Melton
    Four Arguments Against Euthanasia Or Mercy Killing, by David F. Reagan
    Free to Decide: Confessions of a Former Calvinist - by Brandon Cox
    From Liberty To Legalism - by Timothy S. Morton
    Fundamental Doctrines of the Bible - By David Allen Reed
    Gender Roles: The Image of God and the Sin of Unisex - by Ken Clark
    Georgia State Flag - Saint Andrews Cross is a Christian symbol
    God's sovereignty and Man's Responsibility, by C.H.Mackintosh
    God's Willingness and Man's Unwillingness, by George Zeller
    Grieving or Quenching the Holy Spirit, by Chris Good
    Have the Charismatic Gifts Ceased?, by Matthew J. Slick
    Hermeneutics in the Book of Revelation, By Dr. Greg Bahnsen
    Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction, by Joseph P. Gudel
    Hopelessly Patriarchal, by Steve M. Schlissel
    HOW AND WHY ABRAHAM LINCOLN STARTED THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION TO PROTECT HIS OWN POLITICAL CAREER - By Frank Conner
    How Some Christians Contribute to Election Losses - by Gary DeMar
    HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
    HOW TO CREATE A MONSTER - By Lynn Stuter
    How To Identify A Dangerous Religious Group
    Human Depravity, by R.C. Sproul
    Impartation, Anointing, and Manifestation - - by Leonard Bay and Rev. Rafael D Martinez
    In Defense of the Confederacy - By Alexander Massa
    Is Birth Control Biblical?, by Tony Warren
    Is it Sinful for Women to Have a Career? - By David J. Stewart
    Is It The Will of God For Me To Marry Or Remain Single?, by Gillis Triplett
    Is The Pretribulation Rapture Biblical? - by Brian Scwertley
    Israel, Palestine and the Middle East - by John Piper
    Legalists and Legalism, by Chris Good
    Living Together - By Kenneth M. Gardoski
    Marriage: Blessing or Bondage?, by Mrs. Crystal Paine
    Marrying Young, by Scott Irving
    Materialism and the Believer, by David B. Curtis
    Men-Natural Leaders - by Alan Barron
    MESSIAH, GOVERNOR OF THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH - by Alexander M'Leod
    Millennial Views Debate
    Modernism and Biblical Inerrancy, by Brian M. Schwertley
    Moses Or Christ? Paul's Reply To Dispensational Error - by Charles D. Alexander
    Mothers At War: The American Way? - by Allan Carlson
    My Liberation From Feminism - by Carolyn McCulley
    Myths "Against" Postmillennialism
    No-Fault Divorce - Feminism's Crowning Achievement, by Rick Scarborough
    Not All of Israel is Israel by Greg Bahnsen
    Offend A Feminist: The Case For Repealing The 19th Amendment - by Robert Belvedere
    Old Testament Promises and New Testament Church - by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
    One Body, Many Parts (Purposeful Singleness) - By Fern Horst
    Paul's Theology Of Israel's Future: A Nonmillennial Interpretation Of Romans 11 - by Lee Irons
    Permanently Disqualified From Everything - by Ann Barnhardt
    Pledging Allegiance to the Omnipotent Lincolnian State - by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
    Postmillennialism: "In the days of these kings …" The Prophecy of Daniel - By Jay Rogers.
    Postmillennialism: Ezekiel’s Vision - By Jay Rogers.
    Postmillennialism: Of the increase of His government there shall be no end - By Jay Rogers
    Postmillennialism: Prophecies Regarding the Messianic Kingdom - By Jay Rogers
    Postmillennialism: Wishful Thinking or Certain Hope? - By Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D.
    Prophetic Speculation Out of Kilter and Hurting the Bible’s Authority, by Gary DeMar
    Psychology: The Trojan Horse - by Gil Rugh
    Pure Democracy Is Evil - by Steve VanHorn
    Quit You Like Men - by James Thornton
    Rapture and Resurrection, by Greg L. Bahnsen
    Reasoning with Jehovah's Witnesses - by Kevin Quick
    Rebellious Wives! - by David J. Stewart
    Reclaiming the Dominion Mandate - By Errol Naidoo
    Regeneration By Holy Spirit, by Michael Bradley
    Restoring Freedom, by Franklin Sanders
    Rethinking The Gift Of Singleness, by Debbie Maken
    Safe Sex?, by Rusty Wright, B.S.
    Scientific Patriarchy, by Daniel Shaddox
    Secession, State, and Liberty - Essays on the subject of secession
    Selma to Montgomery, 30 Years Later - by Marian Evans
    Separation of Church and State: has it gone too far? - by Mark Shelby
    SHALL ISRAEL BE RESTORED AS A NATION? - by Philip Mauro
    SHOULD CHRISTIANS SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM? - by Thomas Williamson
    Singles, Sex, & the Christian Community - by Rebecca Grace
    SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD, by Jonathan Edwards
    Solomon's Line on Premarital Sex - by John Thomas
    Some Reasons I Believe The Bible To Be The Word Of God, by R. A. Torrey Sr.
    Soul Mates Or Sole Mates? - by Gary Thomas
    St. Patrick A Baptist! - by Dr. L. K. Landis
    Ten Lies Of Feminism, by Sue Bohlin
    Ten Reasons Why I Believe the Bible is the Word of God - By Reuben Archer Torrey
    Testimony of an Ex-Feminist, by Linda Galloway
    The 14th Amendment Is Unconstitutional - by Judge L.H. Perez
    The Application Of The Scriptures: A Biblical Refutation Of Dispensationalism - by Arthur W. Pink
    The Battle Hymn of the Republic, What It Really Means - By Michael Dan Jones
    The Bible Doctrine Of Hell Examined - by Brian Schwertley
    The Blemished Bride, by Robert A. Wagner
    The Christian Divorce Rate Myth, by Glenn T. Stanton
    The Church and Culture, by Bill Crouse
    The Confederate Battle Flag: A Symbol of Racism? - By Charles Davidson
    The Connection Between Evangelism and Gender Issues, by Randy Stinson
    The Dangers of Feminism, By David J. Stewart
    The Difference Between A "Personal Attack" And "Discernment," by Terry Bowers and Rev. Rafael D Martinez
    The Doctrine and Practice of Marriage - by Rob Rayburn
    The Doctrine of Repentance In Salvation, by Dean Robinson
    THE EDUCATION OF MINORITY CHILDREN - by Thomas Sowell
    The Enemy Within, by Alan Barron
    The Eternal Security Of All Blood Bought Believers - by J. M. Carroll
    The False Separation Of Church and State - by Dennis T. Peacocke
    The Feminization Of Society - by Dennis Prager
    The First Blast of the Trumpet, by John Knox
    The Gospel and Evangelicalism. An Assessment. - by William Webster
    The Historical Setting of the Writing of Revelation, By Dr. Greg Bahnsen
    The Immorality of Liberals - Selwyn Duke
    The King James Version Of The Bible, by Steven Houck
    The Letter Kills, But the Spirit Gives Life, by Chris Good
    The New Testament Sabbath Day - by Tony Warren
    The Origin of Old-Earth Geology and its Ramifications for Life in the 21st Century, by Dr. Terry Mortenson
    The Person, Work, and Present Status of Satan By Dr. Greg Bahnsen
    The Pledge of Allegiance - A Short History, by Dr. John W. Baer
    The Premillennial Deception - by Brian Schwertley
    The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism, By Greg L. Bahnsen
    The Rapture Problem, by Chuck Baldwin
    The Right of Secession - by Gene H. Kizer, Jr.
    The Spoiling Of Christianity By Psychology, by David L. Brown
    The Triumph Of The Church: A Biblical Defense Of Postmillennialism - by William Einwechter
    The Two Resurrections: John 5:19-29 and Revelation 20:4-6 - By Aaron Orendorff
    THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
    The Use Of Tracts, by R. A. Torrey
    The Virgin Birth, by by Albion S. Gaunt
    The War Against Boys - by Thomas Sowell
    The Weightier Matter of the Law - by David Roper
    The [Prophecy] Matrix: Endtimes Virtuality - by Gregg Strawbridge
    Thoughts on female suffrage and in vindication of woman's true rights - by Madeline Vinton Dahlgren
    Thy Kingdom Come, by Kim Riddlebarger
    Tithing Is Biblical - by Kenneth Hemphill
    To Whom Does the Land of Palestine Belong? - by Thomas Williamson
    Toxicity Of Environmentalism - by George Reisman
    True Repentance Will Lead To Salvation, by Michael Bradley
    Understanding Feminists and Their Fantasies - by Phyllis Schlafly
    Unisex - by Jack Hyles
    Victorious Eschatology By Jay Rogers
    Watchtower Disfellowshipping: A Biblical Perspective - By Rafael Martinez
    What About Speaking In Tongues? - By Herb Vander Lugt
    What Are Leftists? - By: John J. Ray
    What is "optimistic amillennialism"? - By Jay Rogers
    What Is A Biblical Christian?, by Albert N. Martin
    What Is a Christian Nation? - by Frankin Sanders
    WHAT MANY CHURCHES AND THE S.P.L.C. HAVE IN COMMON - By Chuck Baldwin
    What were The Nephilims in Relationship to the Sons of God? -by Tony Warren
    What's Conservative about the Pledge of Allegiance? - by Gene Healy
    What's wrong with America having Anglo-Saxon heritage? - By Ed West
    When Hiring Married Women Was Unacceptable - by Laura Wood
    When Love Divorces Doctrine and Unity Rejects Truth - by Dr. John C. Whitcomb, Jr.
    When Prophecy Books Go Bad - by Gary DeMar
    WHEN WAS REVELATION WRITTEN? - by Greg L. Bahnsen
    When was the Book of Revelation written? - by Wolfgang Schneider
    Who Really Owns the 'Holy Land'? - By Robert L. Reymond
    Who Really Owns the Land of Palestine? - By Thomas Williamson
    Why Christians Should Have Nothing To Do With Snowmobiles, by Norman Street
    Why Cremation Is Unscriptural, by Paul P. Maher
    Why Doctrinal Preaching Declines, by Arthur W. Pink
    Why Does the Universe Look So Old?, by Albert Mohler
    Why Our Schools Teach Socialism, By Joe Larson
    You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists), by Dr. Fred C. Schwarz
    Zionism versus the Bible - by Thomas Williamson
    ~ VIDEOS:
    ~Anti-Intellectualism is Not Biblical. (Spurgeon/Kielar)
    ~Big Jim Hamill - Apple Tree Song NQC 1998
    ~Camp FEMA: American Lockdown - FULL MOVIE - 86 min
    ~Dispensationalism, is the rapture Biblical? - Tim Conway
    ~Dr. Morey: Hating your enemies
    ~Dr. Morey: What is worldliness?
    ~Drive Thru Church - NewSong Edit
    ~Evaluating the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation (Video)
    ~Fred and Kate Gholson leave "the Truth" in 1986
    ~Gods of the New Age - full length
    ~Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs - Updated 2010
    ~Is Theology your idol? - Tim Conway
    ~Mind Control Cults
    ~Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)
    ~Propaganda-Behind Big Media-WE are BEING LIED to in a BIG WAY by the TV! TURN IT OFF!
    ~Ron Paul exposes United Nations plan to destroy US (1990's?)
    ~SHOCKING DOCUMENTARY 1- False spirits invade the church - KUNDALINI WARNING - Andrew Strom -
    ~Silly Women
    ~So many Denominations, which one is true? - Tim Conway
    ~Tares and Wheat - by Bailey Smith (Audio sermon)
    ~Testimonies about 1975 from people who were Jehovah's Witnesses during the time
    ~The Battle With Sin: Who is the Greatest? - Tim Conway
    ~The Beast As Saint: The Truth About Martin Luther King Jr. (With CC: Duration 21 mins.)
    ~The Consequences of Feminism
    ~The Israel Lobby
    ~The Lesters - "He Didn't Throw the Clay Away" - 1992
    ~The Myth Of The Chosen People
    ~The Watchtower's False Teachings About Christmas Exposed!
    ~TomT.Hall - Me n' Jesus
    ~Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus by Alan Jackson
    ~Watchtower Circular Reasoning
    ~What A Friend We Have In Jesus - Alan Jackson
    ~What your 2nd Amendment right is all about
    ~Why Men Earn More 1 - The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap
    ~Witnesses Of Jehovah (1986 Movie)
    ~~1975 -What the Watchtower doesn't want you to know


    More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs



    Copyright © 1999-2019 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
    Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the