Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Archive for July, 2008


Posted by Job on July 31, 2008

Seriously people, is this what we are fighting for?

Federal judge says cross can remain on San Diego’s Mt. Soledad

ACLU says opponents may appeal the decision. The symbol is part of a federally owned war memorial
By Jia-Rui Chong, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 31, 2008
A controversial cross on Mt. Soledad in San Diego can stay as part of a federally owned war memorial, a federal judge ruled. (Translation: if the purpose of this cross was to honor Jesus Christ’s payment of sins of the world and His sovereign rule over the world, it would be unacceptable. BUT THE CROSS IS PERFECTLY FINE IF IT REPRESENTS THE POWER OF THE STATE, THE RULER OF THIS WORLD, SATAN!)

The court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily nonreligious messages of military service, death and sacrifice,” wrote U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns in his decision filed Tuesday. “As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is constitutional.” (Meaning that regular folks who did not die in service to state power … the cross has no meaning for them?)

An official with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents several of the plaintiffs in the case, including the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, voiced disappointment in the decision. Lawyers for the group had contended that including the cross in a government park violated the principle of the separation of church and state. (Godless atheists and Jews who reject Jesus Christ are 100% correct in this instance. They have everything to fear from the cross being co – opted as a symbol of state power. Go read your history books people, and no it all cannot be blamed on the Roman Catholic Church.)

“If you want to put a cross on your front lawn . . . we will be the first to defend you,” said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. (Liar. The next time that happens will be the first. Keep in mind: THESE ARE godless atheists after all. But the sad thing is that in this instance, it is the so – called Christians that are doing the greater evil by trying to use something pertaining to Jesus Christ to honor and promote the anti – Christ, thereby turning the cross of Christ into a pagan idolatrous symbol, just as Constantine did when he put the fish symbol on his soldier’s garments, and the Crusaders when they killed women and children while wearing crosses. To use anything pertaining Christianity to represent the state is a perversion, and abomination.) “When the government is sponsoring and endorsing the preeminent symbol of one religion, that’s when we have a problem.” (Again, he is wrong. If the government were to adopt a Wicca, Jewish, Muslim, or any other symbol for any other false religion, what is that to me? All governments are of this world. It is when a government tries to syncretize Christianity into its state pagan idolatry is when Christians should be concerned. Especially since such a government will persecute the actual faithful Christians while generally leaving the fake Christians alone. Again, read your history!)

He said his side is discussing further legal action. An appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is “clearly on the table,” Blair-Loy said. (Great. All we need is a national precedent declaring the cross of Jesus Christ to be a symbol of state military power that has nothing to do with God’s coming to earth as a man and overcoming sin, death, and the grave, and taking sitting on the right hand of the Father. The five Roman Catholic Supreme Court justices: Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas … will they vote to make the cross a symbol of the false notion of the sovereignty of man, a symbol that exalts itself against the rule of God? Will they turn the cross into another tower of Babel? Since Roman Catholics serve a human institution – their church – in the place of God anyway, I can guess what their answer will be.)

William J. Kellogg, president of the Mount Soledad Memorial Assn. and grandson of one of the American Legion members who dedicated the cross in 1954 (a fraternal organization in which lots of its members are also freemasons, what a surprise … you DID KNOW that one of the primary goals of freemasonry has always been to de – spiritualize Christianity and depict it in terms of secular things like culture, nationalism, values, community service etc. right? You know, the same agenda of the religious right ) was pleased with the verdict. The association was not named in the lawsuit, but did not want the cross removed.

“The decision was based on the fact that it is clear it is a veterans memorial,” Kellogg said. “That’s what our association is all about.” (So why not a statue of a soldier or a flag? Why pick the cross?) A cross has marked Mt. Soledad since about 1913 (was this during Woodrow Wilson’s World War I fascist propaganda campaign?) and the current concrete cross was dedicated in 1954 in memory of Korean War veterans, Kellogg said.

The lawsuits surrounding the cross began in the late 1980s when Philip Paulson, an atheist and Vietnam War veteran, sued the city of San Diego, which owned the Mt. Soledad property. In 2006, Congress passed a law taking the cross and the land on which it sits and giving it to the Department of Defense. (See how these things have a tendency of happening, turning this from a local dispute into something that the government could use to co – opt the cross by court fiat? Even if the freemasons did not plan it this way, it is very likely that their master Satan did.)

In his ruling Burns agreed that the cross is the preeminent symbol of Christianity, but said “it does not follow the cross has no other meaning or significance.” He pointed to the exhibits on public beaches, such as Santa Monica’s, where the group Veterans for Peace uses crosses in the sand to represent U.S. service members who died in Iraq. (As if there is no difference between private citizens making a display on public land, and the government sponsoring or owning a display. Any private citizen or church group can hold a religious service in a public park or arena at any time. It is THE GOVERNMENT that cannot hold or sponsor such a service. Burns is lying and knows it.)

The cross is also displayed “along with numerous purely secular symbols in an overall context that reinforces its secular message,” the judge said. (Holy things are not allowed to be displayed with or placed in context with sinful worldly things. That is an abomination.)

Although walls with other religious symbols, such as the Star of David, have been added to the Mt. Soledad display, they are dwarfed by the large cross, Blair-Loy said. “It is a 43-foot cross on one of the highest points in San Diego,” he said. “If the cross is not a religious symbol, I don’t know what is.” (The godless atheist is right! Now I have to admit: I myself refrain from using symbols as much as I can. I cannot make an airtight Biblical case for my position, for Judaism used plenty of symbols, and the early church carried those same symbols into early Christian worship. I am fine with that. Gentiles creating their own symbols, or incorporating pagan symbols into Christian worship … well let us just say that I am considerably LESS FINE with that. Still, for the overwhelming majority of Christians, the cross represents Jesus Christ. How ironic that so many Christians support the attempts of the state to co – opt and pervert the meaning of the cross and oppose the efforts of the perfidious Jews and godless atheists that would actually have the effect of preserving the spiritual and religious meaning of the cross! Look, the very reason why Christians fight these battles to begin with is because they want Christianity to continue to have a vital and positive effect on American culture; for American social, political, and moral character and institutions to reflect the Bible. Well, we know from the book of Acts that the way to turn the world upside down is with preaching and evangelism, not with “values education” in our government owned schools and certainly not with the government adopting the cross as a war symbol. The truth is that most people like this want to take the easy way out: they want a basically good and decent nation and people without doing the hard work of being ministers of the gospel that it takes to produce it. In this way, they reveal themselves to be interested not so much in the gospel of Jesus Christ as they are preserving our culture, our government, our institutions and values. For these people, the cross is in fact a secular symbol of government, culture, and history with no real religious or spiritual meaning. To these people, it especially does not represent atonement/propiation because they don’t see themselves as sinners. What, a sinner? Who me? I am a proud, patriotic, hard – working, tax – paying American! I’m no sinner! Those people over there who don’t share my culture and values … THOSE are the sinners! Seriously, people like this are political, cultural, ideological, etc. Pharisees who reject the true meaning of the cross. For them, the cross is basically the American flag. WHICH, OF COURSE, IS A VERY EASY MISTAKE TO MAKE WHEN MOST CHURCHES DISPLAY AMERICAN FLAGS IN THE PULPIT.

Now, I refuse to side with either side in this dispute. I cannot side with the godless evil ACLU or with the religious right in their determination to make Christianity a politico – cultural accessory and weapon. My only option – the only Biblical option – is to watch and pray and wait for Jesus Christ to return so that the stone that the builders rejected falls on both groups of Satanic idolators, crushes them both, and grinds them both into powder. In other words, the same basic position that I have for the McCain – Obama presidential race.


Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Lesson From Uzzah: Learn To Trust And Obey God Instead Of Trying To Help Him

Posted by Job on July 30, 2008


The Filth of Human Hands

Posted in Bible, Christianity | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Trinity versus Oneness: Relationship Between God The Father And God The Son

Posted by Job on July 30, 2008

Highly recommended by the IndependentConservative. From Youtube user Shazoolo.

Posted in Jesus Christ | Leave a Comment »

Knoxville Liberal Unitarian Church Shooter Jim Adkisson IS AN ATHEIST WHO HATES RELIGION!

Posted by Job on July 28, 2008

More here from WorldNetDaily, who beat me to the punch by 20 minutes (grr!) and GetReligion who beat me by 15 (grr grr!). Is that what the media is reporting? NO! They are reporting that Adkisson targeted this unitarian universalist church because Adkisson hates liberals in stories like this (see link). Also, CNN’s report is more of the same. From there, they allow people to presume that Adkisson is a fundamentalist Christian. Not because, mind you, that there is a pattern of fundamentalist Christians doing things like this. Do you know why? BECAUSE THERE ISN’T! The famous hate crime committers in America, the killers of people like James Byrd, Tina Brandon (Brandon Teena), and Matthew Shepard were not Christians. Timothy McVeigh was not a Christian. Neither is Eric Rudolph. No, it is the media and left wing types who do all they can to make you THINK that they are Christians. This includes, for instance, the JUDGE in Eric Rudolph’s trial, who from the bench admonished him for “breaking the law because of his faith.” The media actually frequently claimed that it was North Carolina fundamentalist Christians that helped Rudolph hide from and avoid the authorities for so long – that he was a hero among, you know, the Jesse Helms crowd, for his attacks on abortion clinics and homosexual night clubs – and when Rudolph set the record straight in interviews after his capture, THEY REFUSED TO REPORT IT!

But look here, buried in this USA Today item below – and it is not even in most other news outlets – is the truth:

“Karen Massey, who lived two houses from Adkisson’s home, told the Knoxville News Sentinel of a lengthy conversation she had with Adkisson a couple years ago after she told him her daughter had just graduated from Johnson Bible College. She said she ended up having to explain to him that she was a Christian. “He almost turned angry,” she told the newspaper. “He seemed to get angry at that. He said that everything in the Bible contradicts itself if you read it.” Massey said Adkisson talked frequently about his parents, who “made him go to church all his life. … He acted like he was forced to do that.” 

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the media to do much with this angle … and that is those who will even report it at al. Just like they didn’t report that Timothy McVeigh was an ATHEIST. Similar to founder of the hate group “World Church of the Creator” Matt Hale (whose follower murdered former basketball coach Rickey Birdsong in a rage over Hale’s being denied an Illinois law license), McVeigh rejected the Bible because it teaches that all people are equal. Eric Rudolph also rejected the Bible, and freely admitted that his decision to become a terrorist was influenced by anti – God philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche (of the “God is dead” fame)! Dylan Harris and Eric Klebold of Columbine? Atheists. Also, an extremely underreported item during the late 1990s was when an atheist walked into a Southern Baptist youth event in Texas and started killing people before committing suicide … his last words were “What you people believe is @#$%!” Despite being asked to do so by Congress, attorney general Janet Reno refused to even consider investigating it as a hate crime. (Reno’s department also sent out a memo claiming that people who went to church more than once a week … people just like the ones that this atheist murdered … were exhibiting extremist cult behavior and should be monitored by the federal government … when a stink was raised over the memo Reno’s justice department withdrew it.) And the teenage shooter of Ted Haggard’s former church in Colorado was a fellow that had rejected Christianity. 

The amazing thing is that even in this USA Today comment thread, you have tons of people attributing this fellow’s actions to Christianity. Why? Because of this same media. The oped columnists and news writers continually talk about THE POSSIBILITY of fundamentalist Christians being violent. These folks know full well that this only actually occurred in rare and isolated acts of violence against abortion doctors and clinics. I recall that when John Ashcroft – not a fundamental Christian mind you – was having his confirmation hearings for attorney general, one of the main reasons the media gave for opposing him was the idea that it would send a signal to violent pro – lifers that they could start back bombing clinics and killing doctors and women, and that Ashcroft would not prosecute them. The truth is that the last three cases of pro – life activists committing violence was in 1996 (the atheist Rudolph), 1993 (Pensacola, Florida) and 1992 (Buffalo New York). Even during the 1970s and 1980s incidents of violence were extremely rare, yet the news media and popular entertainment presented it as constant threats. 

And I did mention popular entertainment, correct? Movies, TV shows, and novels frequently present fundamental Christians as committing politically or religious motivated violence. Not only do several such come out each year, but we have had at least one horror movie featuring a fundamentalist Christian depicted as a serial killer (“Frailty”) and an X – Files episode depicting the same. There are tons of other examples … as a matter of fact killer Christians are practically a staple on the long – running “Law And Order” TV series, depicted almost as often as drug dealers, gang members, and mobsters. 

So after 30 years of being conditioned to view Christians as violent, it is no shock that people immediately jump to conclusions. Keep in mind: THIS IS DESPITE THERE BEING NO FACTUAL BASIS FOR THIS! There are no statistics backing this belief, there are also no sensationalized public instances of Christians going on violent rampages with political or religious motivations. There were a few loners in the pro – life movement two decades ago (legal trials PROVED that the criminals were not affiliated with the pro – life organizations, but they went ahead and bankrupted Operation Rescue and started prosecuting pro – lifers under the RICO statute anyway … please note that civil rights, gay rights, feminist, and other leftist agitator groups were NEVER prosecuted under RICO!), Klu Klux Klan related violence (and the KKK was much more of a fraternal and freemason outfit than an actual Christian one … WHAT CHRISTIAN WOULD BURN A CROSS?) and that is it. As evil as their crimes were, they do not constitute a basis for people to believe that Christians are prone to politically and religious motivated acts of violence (or other words, TERRORISM). But that is what the media and Hollywood want you to believe, and in the minds of most Americans, they have already succeeded.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 21 Comments »

Premillennial Dispensationalism Effectively Claims That The New Covenant Has Not Yet Arrived (Which Means We Are Still Under The Old)!

Posted by Job on July 27, 2008

Utterly lifted from Soli Deo Gloria.

Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow: Part (6)

The 6th essay by Grover Gunn on the topic of dispensationalism. Previous posts an be found here: Part (1) – Part (2) – Part (3) – Part (4) – Part (5) –

The New Covenant, Part One

Before discussing the new covenant, I would like to review the basic distinction between dispensationalism and Reformed theology.

This basic distinction revolves around the concepts of unity in reference to God’s people and continuity in reference to God’s program.

First, according to Reformed theology, the people of God in all ages are in union with Christ and are therefore together united in the universal church, which is the Body and Bride of Christ. According to dispensationalism, only those who are saved between the Pentecost of Acts 2 and the end time rapture are in the universal church.

In other words, Mary, the mother of Jesus, will be in the Bride of Christ, but Joseph her husband who died before Pentecost will only be a guest at the wedding of the Lamb. Also, John the Apostle will be in the Body of Christ in eternity, but not John the Baptist. According to dispensationalism, the Old Testament saints who died before Acts 2 are not to be made perfect together with the New Testament saints (compare Hebrews 11:39-40), but are instead to remain spiritually inferior throughout eternity, never being in the Body and Bride of Christ.

Second, according to Reformed theology, the New Testament church is a continuation of the Old Testament program and is directly rooted in the Old Testament covenants. According to dispensationalism, the New Testament church is a parenthesis in the program begun in the Old Testament, not a continuation of the program. They continue the Old Testament program in a future Jewish millennium that is a glorified extension of the Davidic national kingdom and the Mosaic ceremonial laws.


Let us now go on with our examination of the dispensational theory by looking at the dispensational teaching on the new covenant.

Since those twenty-seven books of Scripture that were written after the life of Jesus are named the New Testament or covenant, one would expect that all Christians would uncompromisingly acknowledge the Christian nature of the new covenant. Such an acknowledgment, however, is not easy or simple for the consistent dispensationalist. As it turns out, when the dispensationalist tries to bend Scripture to fit his system, the Biblical data on the new covenant is among the most stubbornly unyielding and uncooperative. Dr. Charles C. Ryrie says the following about dispensational interpretation of the new covenant:

Although the new covenant is one of the major covenants of Scripture, a clear statement of its meaning and of its relationship to the [dispensational] premillennial system is needed. Even among [dispensational] premillennialists there seems to be a lack of knowledge concerning this covenant.1

[Dispensational] premillennialists are divided into three groups as far as their interpretation of the new covenant is concerned. This does not evince weakness, for not one of the views contradicts the system.2

The classic passage on the new covenant is Jeremiah 31. Please take note:Jeremiah is an Old Testament prophecy, and dispensationalists teach that no Old Testament prophecy can refer directly to the New Testament church. Dispensationalists interpret Jeremiah 30 and 31 as referring to their futuristic tribulation period which is to occur after the rapture of the church and to their Judaistic millennium.3 The “time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7) is identified with the seven-year tribulation period, and the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 is viewed as a millennial blessing upon Israel. According to Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost:

This covenant must follow the return of Christ at the second advent.4

This covenant will be realized in the millennial age.5

Regardless of the relationship of the church to the new covenant as explained in these three views, there is one general point of agreement: the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 must and can be fulfilled only by the nation Israel and not by the Church.6

According to Dr. John F. Walvoord,

… the [dispensational] premillennial position is that the new covenant is with Israel and the fulfillment in the millennial kingdom after the second coming of Christ.7

The [dispensational] premillennial view, though varying in detail, insists that the new covenant as revealed in the Old Testament concerns Israel and requires fulfillment in the millennial kingdom.8

According to Dr. Charles C. Ryrie,

… it can be shown that the period of the new covenant is millennial.9

Also, Jeremiah’s new covenant prophecy is to be made “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31), and dispensationalists teach their strong dichotomy between Israel and the church.

In other words, what has a prophecy for Israel to do with the New Testament church in a direct and primary sense? Nothing, says the consistent dispensationalist. So, for the consistent dispensationalist, the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 must be for the Jewish millennium and not for the church age. For the new covenant to be fulfilled in and by the church would be to abrogate the new covenant with Israel and to alter its most essential meaning and intention.10 The significance of this point can be seen in the following quotation by Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost:

If the church fulfills this covenant, she may also fulfill the other covenants made with Israel and there is no need for an earthly millennium.11

According to Dr. Ryrie:

If the church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in the Scriptures, then [dispensational] premillennialism is condemned.12

We have seen that dispensationalists interpret the Old Testament data on the new covenant as referring solely to the nation Israel in a future millennium. When one comes to the New Testament data on the new covenant, this dispensational theory encounters some critical complications.

For example, in Hebrews 8:6-13, the inspired writer called Christ “the mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises” and then quoted extensively from the Jeremiah new covenant prophecy. In Hebrews 10:14-18, the inspired writer quoted from the Jeremiah new covenant prophecy in an argument for the discontinuation of animal sacrifices in the church age. This indeed is ironic, for the dispensationalist refers this Jeremiah new covenant prophecy instead to a Jewish millennium in which animal sacrifices are renewed!

In Hebrews 12:22-24, several Old Testament concepts, like Mount Zion, Jerusalem, the blood of Abel, and the new covenant, are applied directly to the Christian. In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul called himself and Timothy “ministers of the new testament.” As if to remove any doubt about which new covenant he was referring to, Paul in verse 3 mentions the Jeremiah new covenant concept of writing on human hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). When Christ inaugurated the Lord’s Supper, He said, “This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20). What did the Jewish disciples associate with this statement? Undoubtedly they related it to Jeremiah 31. What other new testament (i.e. covenant) were they aware of?

Surely you can now see that the consistent dispensationalist has a problem with the new covenant. According to a consistent application of basic dispensational assumptions and the dispensational hermeneutic, the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 is for Israel in a Jewish millennium, not for the New Testament church in the church age. Dispensationalists are divided among three suggested solutions to this serious problem in their system.

Let us begin by examining the theory most consistent with dispensational assumptions, the theory of Drs. Lewis Sperry Chafer and John F. Walvoord, the first two presidents of Dallas Theological Seminary. This theory asserts that there are two new covenants in Scripture, one for Israel and one for the church.

If a new covenant passage relates to Israel, then the passage is referring to the Jewish new covenant of the Jewish millennium. If a new covenant passage relates to the New Testament church, then the passage is referring to the Christian new covenant of the church age.

The following quotations by Drs. Chafer, Walvoord, and Pentecost respectively further explains the two-covenant view:

There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel, a “new covenant.” It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, where as the new covenant made with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two covenants — one for Israel and one for the Church — are the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between God’s purpose for Israel and His purpose for the Church.13

[Dispensational] premillenarians are in agreement that the new covenant with Israel awaits its complete fulfillment in the millennial kingdom. However, there exists some difference of opinion how the new covenant relates to the present interadvent age. …

The point of view that holds to two covenants in the present age has certain advantages. It provides a sensible reason for establishing the Lord’s supper for believers in this age in commemoration of the blood of the covenant. The language of 1 Corinthians 11:25 seems to require it: “This cup is the new covenant in My blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.” It hardly seems reasonable to expect Christians to distinguish between the cup and the new covenant when these appear to be identified in this passage. In 2 Corinthians 3:6, Paul speaking of himself states: “Our sufficiency is of God: who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant.” It would be difficult to adjust the ministry of Paul as a minister of the new covenant if, in fact, there is no new covenant for the present age.14

This view holds that there are two new covenants presented in the New Testament; the first with Israel in reaffirmation of the covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 and the second made with the church in this age. This view, essentially, would divide the references to the new covenant in the New Testament into two groups. The references in the gospels and in Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 10:29; and 13:20 would refer to the new covenant with the church, Hebrews 8:7-13 and 10:16 would refer to the new covenant with Israel, and Hebrews 12:24 would refer, perhaps, to both, emphasizing the fact of the mediation accomplished and the covenant program established without designating the recipients.15

This theory is a pristine and pure application of the dispensational dichotomy between Israel and the church, but it requires amazingly strained exegesis to reconcile it with the Scriptural data. A closer examination of the New Testament passages on the new covenant will naturally show the artificial nature of this two-covenant theory.

Some of New Testament data on the new covenant not only relates a new covenant to the church but also clearly relates the Jewish Jeremiah 31 new covenant to the church.

One such passage is Hebrews 8:6-13: – 6  But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7     For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8     For finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. …
13     In that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

According to the two-covenant interpretation, the “better covenant” of verse 6 is the church new covenant but the “new covenant” of verses 7-13 is the Jewish new covenant for the millennium. Proponents of this view point out that the text never specifically equates the “better covenant” with the “new covenant” of verses 7-13. This is supposed to be a strong argument from silence. They argue that the writer of Hebrews quoted the Jeremiah new covenant passage to prove that the Mosaic covenant was temporary but that he did not intend to leave the impression that the “better covenant” of verse 6 is the new covenant mentioned in the quotation from Jeremiah.16

According to the dispensational understanding of prophecy, the church age is an unforeseen parenthesis in the prophetic program between the sixty-ninth and seventieth of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9. Therefore it would have been impossible for Jeremiah to have foreseen the church new covenant. The new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah must take effect in the millennium after the yet future seventieth week (i.e., the tribulation), not in the unforeseen church age between weeks sixty-nine and seventy.

The two-covenant theory dispensationalists are correct that the author of Hebrews would not have taught a church fulfillment for Jeremiah’s new covenant prophecy if he had been a consistent dispensationalist. If, however, the author of Hebrews had held to the two-covenant theory, he could have avoided any confusion by calling the Mosaic covenant the first covenant, the church new covenant the second covenant, and the Jewish millennial new covenant the third covenant. The author of Hebrews instead in Hebrews 8:7 called the Mosaic covenant the first covenant and the Jewish new covenant the second covenant. Assuming the author of Hebrews was a two-covenant theory dispensationalist, we could speculate that he did not count the church new covenant in his calculations, even though he had mentioned it as the “better covenant” of verse 6, because of its parenthetical nature.

The new covenant of Jeremiah 31 is also quoted in Hebrews 10:14-18: – 14 For by one offering [God] hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15     Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16     This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17     And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18     Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Here the author of Hebrews is quoting the Jeremiah 31 new covenant prophecy as the climax of his argument for the discontinuance of the Levitical sacrifices in the church age and as a divine witness to us (i.e. to Christians, not to millennial Jews). Strangely, the two-covenant theory dispensationalists relate the above passage not to the church new covenant but to the Jewish millennial new covenant which will be in effect when, according to many dispensationalists, the Levitical sacrificial system will be reinstituted.

Dr. Walvoord explains that “the new covenant with Israel not only anticipated the abrogation of the law but also the end of Mosaic sacrifices as a basis for forgiveness.”17

Is he saying that the Old Testament Levitical sacrifices were a basis for forgiveness but that the millennial Levitical sacrifices will not be a basis for forgiveness? Then in what sense were the Old Testament sacrifices a basis for forgiveness? The blood of bulls and goats never took away sins (Hebrews 10:4). Dr. Walvoord himself, in defending millennial sacrifices, goes on to say, “The millennial sacrifices are no more expiatory than were the Mosaic sacrifices which preceded the cross.”18

Another interesting and relevant passage in Hebrews is Hebrews 12:22-24:- 22  But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23     To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24     And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

This passage is full of references to the Old Testament: Mount Zion, the sprinkled blood of sacrifice, the blood of Abel and the new covenant. Are we to say that in this context, the author of Hebrews was not referring to the new covenant spoken of in the Old Testament? Yet these verses also are addressed to the Christian and apply this new covenant to the Christian. Dr. Walvoord stresses that the word translated new in this passage is nea, a Greek word meaning recent. Therefore, he says, “Reference is apparently to the covenant with the church and not to Israel’s new covenant.”19 Dr. Walvoord is correct in arguing that the new covenant of Hebrews 12:24 applies to the Christian but wrong in arguing that this is not the same new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31.

Bernard Ramm has said that the interpretation of the book of Hebrews which does not apply the new covenant to the church, but which instead applies it to a Judaistic future, is an “oddity in the history of the exegesis of this book.”20 Elsewhere he has said,

The New Covenant is one of several items discussed in Hebrews all of which are realized in the Church and the present age. That Christ is our Moses, our Aaron, our Sacrifice, the strict literalists readily admit. To isolate the New Covenant and forward it to the millennium is to disrupt the entire structure of Hebrews.21

There are New Testament passages outside of the book of Hebrews that also show the error of the two-covenant theory.

For example, in 2 Corinthians 3:6, the apostle Paul called himself and Timothy “ministers of the new testament [i.e. covenant]” In this passage, Paul makes reference to the Jeremiah 31 concept of writing on human hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). In 2 Corinthians 3:3, Paul spoke of the Corinthian Christians as being human letters, “written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.” Paul then contrasted his ministry of the new covenant with the old Mosaic ministration that was “written and engraven in stones” (verse 7). This is an application of not just a new covenant but the Jeremiah 31 new covenant to the church and the church age.

Christ also mentioned a new covenant when He instituted the Lord’s Supper: “This is My blood of the new testament [i.e. covenant], which is shed for many” (Mark 14:24). Moses also had spoken of the “blood of the covenant” at the inauguration of the old covenant (Exodus 24:8). Surely the disciples would have recognized that Christ was instituting a second covenant to replace the Mosaic covenant, whose many types He was fulfilling. Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost has pointed out the following:

In its historical setting, the disciples who heard the Lord refer to the new covenant in the upper room the night before His death would certainly have understood Him to be referring to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31. … Since the disciples would certainly have understood any reference to the new covenant on that occasion as a reference to Israel’s anticipated covenant of Jeremiah, it seems that the Lord must have been stating that that very covenant was being instituted with His death . …22

This close association of the Lord’s Supper to Jeremiah’s new covenant with Israel may explain why E.W. Bullinger, the father of ultra-dispensationalism, taught that the Lord’s Supper is a Jewish ordinance that has no place in the Christian church.23

The two-covenant theory, the most consistent theory dispensationally, is the most difficult to defend Scripturally. Therefore, it has not received widespread acceptance among dispensationalists. For example, the popular dispensational writer Harry Ironside has said:

It were folly to speak of a new covenant with the Church, when no former covenant has been made with us. In the case of Israel and Judah it is different. They entered into the covenant of works at Sinai.24

John F. McGahey in his doctor’s dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary came to the following conclusion:

Consequently, it has been established that there is no warrant in Scripture for maintaining that there are two new covenants. It has been evident from this study that the theory of the two new covenants was born of controversy rather than strong exegesis. For it appears that it was manufactured to avoid the assumed conclusion that to relate the church to Israel’s new covenant necessitated that church fulfilling the promises given to Israel under that covenant.25

*to be continued

Dispensationalism: The New Covenant, Part One

*also see: Dispensational Pre – Tribulation Rapture Christians Will You Go To The Third Temple In Jerusalem And Pray?

End Notes

Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), page 105.
Ibid., pages 106-107.
H.A. Ironside, Notes on the Prophecy and Lamentations of Jeremiah “The Weeping Prophet” (Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1906), pages 146-166; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, pages 108-114; John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), pages 481, 183-184, 210-211, 258-259; J. Dwight Pentecost,Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), pages 120-121.
Pentecost, Things to Come, page 120.
Ibid., page 121.
Ibid., page 124.
Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, page 209.
Ibid., page 210.
Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, page 111.
Ibid., pages 105-106.
Pentecost, Things to Come, page 116.
Charles Caldwell Ryrie, “The Relationship of the New Covenant to Premillennialism” (unpublished Master’s thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1947), page 31. Quoted in William Everett Bell, Jr., “A Critical Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology” (dissertation, School of Education of New York University, 1967), pages 178-179. In Dr. Ryrie’s book The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, the word condemned is changed to weakened.
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 volumes (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 7:98.
Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pages 218-219.
Pentecost, Things to Come, page 124. Also, compare Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, page 214.
Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pages 216-217.
Ibid., page 217.
Ibid., page 312.
Ibid., page 218.
Bernard Ramm, “Christ and Aaron,” Eternity, 13:18, May 1962. Quoted in Bell, “A Critical Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology,” page 182.
Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook of Hermeneutics(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970), page 264.
Pentecost, Things to Come, page 126.
John B. Graber, “Ultra-Dispensationalism” (dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1949), pages 36-37. Mr. Graber defines an ultra-dispensationalist as “any student of Scripture who places two dispensations between Pentecost and the end of the church age” (page 6). These two dispensations involve “the Pentecostal apostolic church of the book of Acts and the mystery Pauline church of the prison epistles” (page 6). According to Mr. Graber, dispensationalists and ultra-dispensationalists use the same hermeneutic but differ only in the interpretation of certain passages. For example, ultra-dispensationalists believe that Joel 2:28-32 was fulfilled at Pentecost and dispensationalists do not. Since Joel 2 is a prophecy about Israel and since Joel 2 was fulfilled at Pentecost, the ultra-dispensationalist does not believe that the church age began at Pentecost because of the dispensational dichotomy between Israel and the church (pages 88-89). In its extreme form, ultra-dispensationalism teaches that the church was not formed until after Acts 28. This means that the only Scripture directly relevant to the church are those Pauline epistles written after Acts 28 (page 32). Mr. Graber makes the following statements:  

“… it is admitted by both premillennialists and amillennialists that the root of their difference lies in the method of Biblical interpretation. Such, however, is not the case in the systems of dispensationalism and ultra-dispensationalism. In the final analysis, the validity of ultra-dispensationalism must be examined on the basis of its exegesis of various passages of Scripture upon which the system claims to rest” (page 1).

“The distinction between dispensationalism and ultra-dispensationalism is not one of kind but one of degree” (page 7).

Ironside, Notes on the Prophecy and Lamentations of Jeremiah “The Weeping Prophet,” page 163.
John F. McGahey, “An Exposition of the New Covenant” (dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1957), page 262. Quoted in Bell, “A Critical Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian Eschatology,” page 189.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

All You Ever Needed To Know About The New Apostolic Reformation Deception

Posted by Job on July 27, 2008

The New Apostolic church movement

New Apostolic Reformation

The Third Wave New Apostolic Reformation

New Apostolic Reformation And Global Peace Plan

Herescope: Geographical Heresies of the New Apostolic Reformation

The “New Apostolic Reformation

The New Apostolic Reformation: some of its shapers and methods. They’re also targeting our youth.

The New Apostolic Reformation and its ties with Rome

Rick Warren Connections – Especially to the Ecumenical Third Wave

The New Apostolic Reformation What is it and where is it going

The Apostolic Reformation

A STRONG DELUSION – The New Apostolic Reformation

Posted in Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Prosperity Doctrine And The Old Testament

Posted by Job on July 27, 2008

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

On the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movements

Posted by Job on July 26, 2008

Some Reflections on the Pentecostal/Charismatic Movements, Part 1

by SharperIron at 12:00 am July 25, 2008. 203 views. Filed under: Charismatics, Pentecostalism Print This Post/Page

Note: This article is reprinted from The Faith Pulpit (January 2001), a publication of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary (Ankeny, IA).

by George Houghton, Th.D.

I. Their Distinctive

While there are many beliefs held by Pentecostals and Charismatics, the one which is held in common among them and which distinguishes them from others is the belief that the supernatural spiritual gifts evident in New Testament times ought to be practiced today, including tongues, miracles, healings, and prophecy.

II. Their Heritage

The modern Pentecostal/Charismatic Movements are of fairly recent origin. While certain phenomena might have been observed occasionally in the later 1800s, the movement itself did not begin until the early 1900s, with the first of three distinct waves.

A. The First Wave: Traditional/Classical Pentecostalism

1. Its History

The first wave began with the ministry of Wesleyan evangelist Charles Parham and his Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas. He assigned his students the study of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and asked whether tongues-speaking ought to be evidence of this work of the Spirit. His own conviction was that the two were associated, and he was strengthened in his position when, in early 1901, one of his students spoke in tongues.

W. J. Seymour, a black evangelist who studied under Parham in Houston, Texas, was invited by a Nazarene lady to speak at her church in Los Angeles. He accepted the invitation, but the church leaders did not accept his Pentecostal emphasis and locked the church doors so that he could not preach there. He and those who followed him moved to rented quarters on Azusa Street, and from there, in 1906, the Azusa Street Pentecostal Revival spread.

Because the Pentecostal message was not accepted by already-existing groups, new independent Pentecostal churches and denominations sprang up. In 1914 the Assemblies of God denomination was founded, and about the same time what is known today as the United Pentecostal Church was formed. Some of the more well-known Pentecostal leaders and evangelists were A. A. Allen, Oral Roberts (in his early days), and Aimee Semple McPherson.

2. Distinctive Views

Many of the early Pentecostals came from Holiness and Arminian backgrounds that emphasized one’s responsibility to turn from sin and one’s ability to choose to do what is right. They tended to hold to traditional evangelical doctrine, although a significant number of them denied the Trinity, emphasizing a “oneness” teaching of Modalism in which God is sometimes seen as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Holy Spirit.

The traditional Pentecostals often shared certain characteristics with fundamentalists—belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Christ, man’s sinfulness, Christ’s substitutionary death for our salvation, a dispensational and premillennial outlook on future events, and strict standards for holy and godly living—yet the two groups did not work closely with each other. This separation was due, at least in part, to differences over the issues of continuing revelation, the place of emotionalism in church meetings, the doctrinal basis for victory in one’s Christian life, and the validity and significance of the so-called supernatural sign gifts of the Spirit today. The Pentecostal conviction that the outward sign of Holy Spirit baptism was speaking in tongues was especially emphasized.

B. The Second Wave: The Charismatic Movement/Neo-Pentecostalism

1. Its History

In the mid to late 1950s, clergy and laymen from a number of major Protestant groups experienced a speaking-in-tongues phenomenon. Instead of leaving their Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, or Baptist denomination, they used the charismatic experiences as a means of renewal for themselves personally, their local church, and their denominational groups. The Full Gospel Businessmen’s Fellowship International, begun in the early 1950s, served as a bridge between the more traditional Pentecostalism of the first wave and those who would become a part of the second wave, including pastors and lay people from the mainline Protestant groups who were open to the Pentecostal phenomenon. Key leaders among this neo-Pentecostalism have been Oral Roberts (since the mid to late 1960s), Dennis and Rita Bennett, Pat Boone, Pat Robertson, the editors of Christian Life magazine, and David DuPlessis. The widely publicized ministries of Jim and Tammy Bakker with their PTL Club and Jimmy Swaggart—although all three were from traditional Pentecostal backgrounds—also greatly contributed to the spread of the second wave.

By 1966, some Roman Catholics at Duquesne University (Pittsburg) had been reading John Sherrill’s book, They Speak With Other Tongues, and David Wilkerson’s The Cross and the Switchblade. They were impressed with the power and results seen in these charismatic reports, and on January 20, 1967, a Roman Catholic theology professor at Duquesne spoke in tongues. By March of that year the phenomenon had spread to Roman Catholics at the University of Notre Dame and shortly thereafter to Roman Catholics at the Newman Center, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor). Kevin and Dorothy Ranaghan became spokespersons for the tongues aspect of the second wave.

2. Distinctive Views

Leaders from the first wave of classical Pentecostalism came out of backgrounds that involved basic traditional doctrines, and these teachings were carried over into their new movement. Many of the clergy who became a part of the second wave often had formal denominational education which was more liturgical and accepting of higher critical views of the Bible. This training would not have grounded them in the fundamentals of the faith as evangelicals and fundamentalists understood them. When these people accepted Charismatic views, they did not necessarily repudiate all that they had been taught in their formal ministerial training, nor did their lifestyle standards conform to those of the older Pentecostalism. In fact, major denominational leaders who were not attracted to Charismatic phenomena watched these neo-Pentecostals very closely in their respective groups, to see how it changed them attitudinally and doctrinally. What they found generally was that the Charismatic experience made these men more loyal to their denominational groups and traditions. The major change was an emphasis upon devotional experience, described in language borrowed from the more traditional Pentecostalism and Evangelicalism.

C. The Third Wave: The Signs and Wonders Movement

1. Its History

In the early 1980s the Vineyard Christian Fellowship movement began with the ministry of John Wimber in California. He believed that people would become convinced of the genuineness of Christianity by seeing miraculous signs and wonders from God more than by being convinced doctrinally. He not only practiced this belief in the church he pastored, but he also teamed up with missions professor Peter Wagner to teach and encourage its practice in the Signs and Wonders class at Fuller Seminary. Others who emphasized these signs and wonders include Christian psychologist and speaker John White, former Dallas Seminary professor Jack Deere, and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School faculty member Wayne Grudem. Support for this emphasis has also come from the ministries of such recognized Christian leaders as John Piper.

2. Distinctive Views

The movement’s supporters come from various evangelical backgrounds and do not necessarily want to be identified with traditional man-centered Pentecostal views. Some, in fact, have strong Calvinistic convictions. But all stress the presence of genuine signs and wonders from God today. Tongues-speaking is not emphasized as much as in the more traditional Pentecostal groups, but healings and especially the gift of prophecy are very prominent.

D. Other Contemporary Charismatic Emphases

Also present in more recent years are the ministries of several others who have a strongly charismatic approach and emphasis. These include those who emphasize a “health and wealth” gospel; the ministries of charismatic teachers such as Benny Hinn, Kenneth Hagin, and Kenneth Copeland; and the current ministries of Oral and Richard Roberts, John Arnott and the Toronto Blessing, Paul Cain and the Kansas City Prophets, and Rodney Howard-Browne and John Kilpatrick of the Brownsville Assembly of God Church and the Pensacola Outpouring Revival.

George G. Houghton, Th.D., serves as Senior Professor, Vice President for Academic Services, and Academic Dean at Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary (Ankeny, IA). He has earned the following degrees: B.A., Bethel College; B.D., Central Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary; Th.M. and Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary. He has served in the following capacities: faculty, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1967-73; faculty, teaching Bible, Theology, and History subjects, Faith Baptist Bible College, 1973-; Academic Dean, Faith Baptist Bible College, 1982-; Vice President for Academic Services, Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary, 1986-.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

New Ager Former Astronaut Edgar Mitchell Establishes Human Consciousness Institute (And Believes In Space Aliens)

Posted by Job on July 24, 2008

This proves that people will believe in ANYTHING except Jesus Christ. For them, it is all about entertaining every imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God that they can find as refuge from the truth.

In this link Mitchell describes his rejection of the Christian worldview of Sir Isaac Newton

This Is The Link To Mitchell’s Institute That Promotes Universal Human Consciousness

Here Edgar claims a government coverup over alien visitations

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments »

Rick Warren Sponsoring Political Panel With Unitarian Minister

Posted by Job on July 24, 2008

Saddleback Political Forum Co-Sponsored with Liberal Group

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Todd Bentley: When God Is Not Moving I Move God

Posted by Job on July 24, 2008

From Slice of Laodicea. 

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , | 19 Comments »

The State Is Coming After Your Babies: Pre-K Act (HR 3289) And Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343). AND THEY ARE BIPARTISAN RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

Posted by Job on July 24, 2008

By Chelsea Schilling © 2008 WorldNetDaily

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to debate two bills that could give the federalgovernment unprecedented control over the way parents raise their children – even providing funds for state workers to come into homes and screen babies for emotional and developmental problems.

The Pre-K Act (HR 3289) and the Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343) are two bills geared toward military and families who fall below state poverty lines. The measures are said to be a way to prevent child abuse, close the achievement gap in education between poor and minority infants versus middle-class children and evaluate babies younger than 5 for medical conditions.

‘Education Begins at Home Act’ – HR 2343

HR 2343 is sponsored by Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., and cosponsored by 55 Democrats and 11 Republicans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the Education Begins at Home Act would cost taxpayers $190 million for state home visiting plus “such sums as may be necessary” for in-hospital parent education.

While the bill may appear to be well-intentioned, Pediatrician Karen Effrem told WND government provisions in HR 2343 to evaluate children for developmental problems go too far.

“The federal definition of developmental screening for special education also includes what they call socioemotional screening, which is Mental healthscreening,” Effrem said. “Mental health screening is very subjective no matter what age you do it. Obviously it is incredibly subjective when we are talking about very young children.”

While the program may not be mandatory for low-income and military families, there is no wording in the Education Begins at Home Act requiring parental permission for treatment or ongoing care once the family is enrolled – a point that leads some to ask where parental rights end and the government takes over. Also, critics ask how agents of the government plan to acquire private medical and financial records to offer the home visiting program.

“There’s no consent mentioned in the bill for any kind of screening – medical, health or developmental,” Effrem said. “There are privacy concerns because when home visitors come into the home they assess everything about the family: Their financial situation, social situation, parenting practices, everything. All of that is put into a database.”

Effrem said it does not specify whether parents are allowed to decline evaluations, drugs or treatment for their children once they are diagnosed with developmental or medical conditions.

“How free is someone who has been tagged as needing this program in the case of home visiting – like a military family or a poor family?” she asked. “How free are they to refuse? Even their refusal will be documented somewhere. There are plenty of instances where families have felt they can’t refuse because they would lose benefits, be accused of not being good parents or potentially have their children taken away.”

When WND asked Effrem how long state-diagnosed conditions would remain in a child’s permanent medical history, she responded:

“Forever. As far as I know, there isn’t any statute of limitations. The child’s record follows them through school and potentially college, employment and military service.”

Effrem said conflicts could also arise when parents do not agree with parenting standards of government home visitors.

“Who decides how cultural tolerance is going to be manifested?” she asked. “There’s some blather in the language of the bill about having cultural awareness of the differences in parenting practices, but it seems like that never applies to Christian parents.”

Providing Resources Early for Kids’

The Pre-K Act, or HR 3289, is sponsored by Rep. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and cosponsored by 116 Democrats and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. Estimated to cost $500 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013, the bill provides funds for state-approved education. Government workers would reach mothers and fathers in the hospital after a baby has been delivered to promote Pre-K programs.

“They give them information about Child Care Resource and Referral Network so they can get the child into a preschool or daycare that follows the state standards and get the mom working as quickly as possible,” she said. “It’s always that sort of thing: It’s a list of resources, it’s intruding on parental autonomy and authority and it’s not necessarily accurate or welcome information.”

While parents may choose to be involved in preschool programs, Effrem said the Pre-K Act poses similar concerns about government trumping parents’ rights.

“Once they are involved, they don’t have any say over curriculum,” she said. “There’s plenty of evidence of preschool curriculum that deals with issues that have nothing to do with a child’s academic development – like gender, gender identity, careers, environmentalism, multiculturalism, feminism and all of that – things that don’t amount to a hill of beans as far as a child learning how to read.”

Effrem said the Pre-K Act extends a “really messed-up K-12 system” to include even younger, more vulnerable children.

“This is an expansion of the federal government into education when there really is no constitutional provision for it to do so.”

*Note: concerned individuals must get on their knees and pray to Jesus Christ our salvation!

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Obama’s Global Poverty Plan Sounds A Lot Like Rick Warren’s Global P.E.A.C.E. Plan!

Posted by Job on July 23, 2008

Obama bill: $845 billion more for global poverty ^ | February 14, 2008

Posted on Friday, February 15, 2008 6:41:30 AM by Man50D

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, “We can – and must – make … a priority,” said Obama, a co-sponsor.

It would demand that the president develop “and implement” a policy to “cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief” and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

“It’s not our job to cut global poverty,” said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. “These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot.”

Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could “result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States” and would make levels “of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.”

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion “over and above what the U.S. already spends.”

The plan passed the House in 2007 “because most members didn’t realize what was in it,” Kincaid reported. “Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require.”

(Excerpt)

Some Christian links on Warren’s plan:

Rick Warren’s Global Peace Plan

Global Peace – Comparisons

Rick Warren’s Global P.E.A.C.E Plan is Dominionism


Posted in Bible, Christianity, false doctrine, false religion, false teaching, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: