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!

Posts Tagged ‘Revelation’

The Twelve Songs Of Revelation

Posted by Job on April 4, 2011

Please study and meditate on these passages from the book of Revelation, and allow them to influence and inform your private praise and worship time.

1. 4:8

And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

2. 4:11

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

3. 5:9-10

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

4. 5:12

Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.

5. 5:13

And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

6. 6:1

And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

7. 7:10

And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

8. 7:12

Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

9. 11:15

And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

10. 11:17-18

Saying, We give thee thanks, O LORD God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned. And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

11. 15:3-4

And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.

12. 19:1-8

And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God: For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand. And again they said, Alleluia And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia. And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great. And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

If you wish to participate in this worship and praise truly and effectively, and also continue in this praise for eternity (as opposed to being banished to the lake of fire, where for all eternity there will be no worship or praise, but only great anguish, torment and sorrow) then repent of your sins and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ alone for your salvation! To do so, follow the instructions below.

Follow The Three Step Salvation Plan!

Scriptures taken from: “Interpreting Revelation: A Reasonable Guide to Understanding the Last Book in the Bible

Advertisements

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

A Question For Premillennial Dispensational Rapture Believers: Explain The Fifth Seal In Revelation!

Posted by Job on September 25, 2009

Revelation 6:9-11 reads

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

The Word of God for the elect people of God. Glory be to God.

For my premillennial dispensational brethren who believe in a pretribulation (or prewrath) rapture that spares the church from the time of sorrow, please explain this text. Who are those slain for the Word of God? Are they Christians? And when will these Christians be slain for their testimony? Does it refer to those believers slain in times past, whether in the Old Testament or at the time that Revelation was written? Or does it refer to believers slain during the great tribulation? (If so, how can any Christian stand under persecution, even martyrdom, without being emboldened by the Holy Spirit, which according to premillennial dispensational doctrine has to be taken from the earth along with the church? Please recall the difference between Peter and the apostles before the Comforter – cowering and fearful and running from their lives – and afterwards – bold and brave witnesses even unto death. As a matter of fact Peter himself went from being the worst – the one who denied Christ three times – to being the boldest. And how can anyone even be saved during the great tribulation without the work of the Holy Spirit? Recall: the Holy Spirit was indeed present during the time of the Old Testament saints. Indeed, the Bible states that the earth’s very existence cannot so much as even be sustained without the Spirit of God.) Or does it refer to believers slain during all ages, from the first (Abel) until the last before the return of Jesus Christ?

To interpret this passage with scripture, let us go to another one in Revelation that touches the martyrdom of the saints, which is Revelation 18:24. Please recall that this chapter refers to the fall of Babylon,  which since the Tower of Babel incident and particularly since the destruction of the temple in 586 has been used to symbolize people and systems that rebel against and oppose God and persecute His elect covenant people, and that Revelation extends this symbolism with personification, describing all that opposes God as a harlot (prostitute), which in this verse is called “her”:  And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. Now as much as I love my King James Version, allow me to quibble with their translation of “kai” to “and” in the phrase “and of all that were slain upon the earth.” Many times, “kai” is just used for emphasis, as an amplifier of degree or a focus of attention. This text should probably read:

“And in her [Babylon] was found the blood of prophets and of saints, indeed all [prophets and saints] that were slain upon the earth.”

However, if you go with the King James Version, which granted carries much more weight and authority than my own, and all which follow its tradition on that text, then “and of all that were slain upon the earth” simply means that in Babylon was the blood of every person that has been murdered, all innocent blood that has been shed. This means that the prior clause “And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints” means that “the prophets and saints” (a  New Testament idiom which refers to old covenant and new covenant believers) which means that the blood of Stephen and all other Christian martyrs ever since is contained in Babylon. So with reference to the elect the meaning is the same: the blood of everyone killed because of their faith in God is in Babylon.

So, if we interpret Revelation 6:9-11 with Revelation 18:24, when the fifth seal was opened the martyred souls viewed under the altar should very likely be interpreted to include every Christian martyr since Stephen. This would support the idea of a church that has always been under continuous tribulation. Such an interpretation would be consistent with, indeed fulfill the words of Jesus Christ in John 15:18-20.

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.

The Word of God for the people of God. Glory be to God.

Now one can hardly claim that those words were only aimed at the apostles. Those words are for all Christians for all time. So what basis is there for believing that there will be a rapture to save the church from a persecution that A) Jesus Christ said that we would face and B) Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit to empower us to withstand? Now this is not an endorsement of the historicist, preterist or amillennial position that there will be no seven year literal great tribulation. Instead, it is to say that if there will be such a seven year literal great tribulation, the church will be present for it just as it has been present for all other tribulations, the “lesser” tribulations.

Now the prewrath (and mid-wrath) rapture adherent does have Revelation 3:10, which reads “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth”, in his favor. However, that could be fulfilled in a number of ways, including 1) a place of refuge (which ironically rapture believers commonly propose will exist for those who will saved during the great tribulation … again these people will have to be saved despite the absence of a church to preach the gospel or a Holy Spirit to perform regeneration) or 2) death. Do not let the “death” option astonish you, but instead study the scriptures, especially the Old Testament but also in the New Testament. It is a consistent theme that death is a way of being preserved, saved, spared from times of great evil … to be absent from the troubles of this world and present with God! Perhaps the best example of this is the death of Abijah, son of the wicked king Jeroboam, who died according to God’s will so that he would not be corrupted by Jeroboam and also not share in their judgment in 1 Kings 14. A New Testament example: at the time that he wrote Philippians 1:20-26, Paul viewed death as being removed from the extremely trying circumstances that he was living and exchanging it for a better fate. In that passage Paul stated “to die is gain”, but it appears that the rapture adherents have transformed it into “to be raptured is gain.”

So, the idea that there must be a rapture in order for Christians to be spared martyrdom seems to be inconsistent with Biblical revelation. It is also an idea that only makes sense for Christians living in the west. Practically everywhere else in the world, Christians face persecution: marginalization, poverty, disease, imprisonment, death. There are two doctrinal systems that have the effect of promoting the idea western Christians should have no part in what Christians in Indonesia, China, Iran, Palestine (and Israel!), India and Mexico (where Roman Catholic/pagan syncretists are persecuting Protestants) by simple right of geography of birth: pretribulation rapture and covenant theology. Pretribulation rapture teaches that Christians not currently under persecution now will never have to face it, because persecution will only come to “the good parts of the world” (i.e. “Christian nations” or “western nations” or “non-socialist nations” … you know, what Glenn Beck was referring to) when the anti-Christ (which 8% of New Jersey residents regard Obama to be) takes over it.

Now ask yourselves … why is it that Christians can be persecuted in some places (including Israel … and read this too!) now without the anti-Christ, but it requires the anti-Christ to happen in others (especially America)? Or that the saints in other places (and times, including in the west … remember the 30 Years War and the Anabaptists?) are not spared persecution, but only the modern American saints are? Only the idea that contemporary western (especially American and possibly British!) Christians are somehow better than Christians living in other times and places, and this fact would be due to America having some special status before God as a unique elect covenant nation, giving us special status within the Body of Christ. Of course, the Bible makes it clear in the Roman and Corinthian epistles that there is no special group or people with a special status, special favor, or special standing before God in the Body of Christ, but instead that we are one Body. Further, the Bible makes it clear that those who are accounted greater according to rank or authority (not standing or value) demonstrate this through being servant roles that cause us to A) serve those who are of lesser rank and authority and B) endure even greater persecution than those who are of lesser rank and authority. So, even if America did have some special standing before God, instead of our being wealthy decadent privileged Laodiceans, we would be poor, oppressed and serving everybody else! If you deny this, read the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ!

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Keep in mind, the version in Luke reads “Blessed are the POOR!”)
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

The Word of God for the people of God. Glory be to God.

Now earlier I mentioned the covenant theologians, from whom the modern concept of the “Christian nation” originated. Covenant theologians believe – or at least believed – that people in “Christian nations” would or should be spared persecution only because in a church-state Christians would control the government, economy, military, police, and religion in a theocracy after the manner of Old Testament Israel. That is why such extreme theonomists and reconstructionists as Gary North and Rousas John (R. J.) Rushdoony deny that the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount apply to Christians, instead stating that it only applied to Jews living in that time. (Curiously, hyperdispensationalists believe the same.) While I believe the covenant theology position to be in error, this statement is aimed primarily at premillennnial dispensationalists.

So if America were this special, Christian nation, it would be marked by our poverty and service, not by our decadent delusions of religious nobility which makes us believe that we are somehow exempt from the sufferings of Christians living in Belarus or Namibia, or for that matter the Christians of the early church. After all, when Paul wrote his statement insisting that those in the Body of Christ were equals, the statements were direct AGAINST two groups of people: the Jewish Christians in the Roman church and the wealthy Christians in the Corinthian church. The Jewish Christians regarded themselves to be superior to the Gentile Christians because of nationality, and the wealthy Corinthian Christians regarded themselves as superior to the poorer believers because of their riches. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to tell both groups that they were wrong. So, then, how can we justify believing that a rapture will come and rescue us from the type of persecutions and deaths at the hands of Muslims that are going on all over the Middle East, Asia and Africa right now, such as the two million Christians that were killed in Sudan, many of whom were tortured, raped, doused with gasoline and set on fire, had their limbs chopped off, or were sold as slaves because they refused to renounce Christianity?

Ironically, the world, including the media, the activists, and the government of our own “Christian nation”, did their level best to ignore this genocide, choosing instead to focus on Muslims murdering other Muslims in Darfur. And let us not forget that the term for which the word genocide was originally invented and applied to, that of the Armenians by the Turks, is still not recognized as such by the U.N. or by the government of our “Christian nation.” It is still more ironic when you consider that the Armenian genocide happened in the same general area that the letters in Revelation were sent, in the Turkey region. That persecution kicked off what was the bloodiest period of Christian persecution in history, the 20th century, that saw 45.5 million Christians killed!

So if there were any geographical or political entity within the Body of Christ that had special status, it would be those Christians because of their poverty and persecution who would come first, not us . It is those to whom the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ were addressed, and premillennial dispensationalism completely rejects that truth for the belief that the rapture will save Christians not yet under persecution from ever having to experience it because the saints who have it easier are the ones who fulfill Revelation 3:10! Never mind that the rich church that was not facing persecution was Laodicea, and the church that Revelation 3:10 was addressed to was Philadelphia. Why was the promise of Revelation 3:10 given to the Philadelphians? It is in Revelation 3:8, which reads “I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.” The Philadelphia Christians were being persecuted, and similar to the Sudanese Christians, they refused to yield to the persecution by denying Jesus Christ. In other words, they refused to do the same as the apostle Peter did THREE TIMES before he was empowered by the Holy Spirit, yet dispensationalism teaches that this Holy Spirit will be taken away, and those converted during the great tribulation will have to face the greatest time of sorrows ever without it, and will yet somehow stand? How? Why? Because of their free will? Or because of their inherently good human nature untainted by original sin? Followers of Reformed/Calvinist believers in the rapture like John MacArthur and Albert Pendarvis (the latter’s bookstore sells the Scofield Reference Bible) have to answer these questions! In any event, those who claim that Revelation 3:10 refers to Christians being raptured to escape persecution have to deal with the fact that the text was in reference to a Philadelphia church that was enduring it!

Make no mistake. I believe in a bodily literal return of Jesus Christ which I believe will occur after a literal great tribulation which will include a literal and personal anti-Christ. However, I also believe that the church will endure this tribulation, and that we need to be preparing ourselves and those who will follow us in the faith for it in a manner that is consistent with scripture as opposed to believing that we – or our WESTERN descendants – will have an experience of escaping it that will be unique to Christians living in other times and places. At the very least, someone must explain why western Christians alone should enjoy this pleasure!

The Three Step Salvation Plan

Posted in Christian Persecution, Christian persecution America, Christian Zionism, Christianity, Christians United For Israel, church hypocrisy, church state, church worldliness, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

How Does Premillennial Dispensationalism And Covenant Theology Interpret The Parable of the Tenants In The Vineyard Matthew 21:33-44?

Posted by Job on August 26, 2009

The parable of the tenants of the vineyard of Jesus Christ is as follows.

Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

The Word of God for the people of God, praise be to God.

Now, this is a parable that should cause trouble to both covenant theology and premillennial dispensationalism. First, regarding covenant theology “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” has to point to a clear distinction, a clear demarcation between Israel and the church. Further, the fact that there were 12 apostles does so as well. The 12 apostles clearly supplant the original 12 tribes of Israel. It is the apostles and prophets that are called the foundation of the church, not the patriarchs of the 12 tribes, and even Moses is only included in the church’s foundation inasmuch as he is a prophet. Further, when Jesus Christ stated that he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist, whom Jesus Christ called the greatest of prophets (meaning greater than Moses) then the church age prophets would have been greater than the Old Testament prophets. Now, it is true that there is one people of God; one elect people, and further that everyone in this elect group was justified by the work of Jesus Christ. However, this group does not only include Israel and the church. It also includes Seth, Enoch, Noah, Job, Melchizedek, Jethro/Reuel, the Queen of Sheba, and many others that cannot be called “Israel” in any sense. Just as Job and the Queen of Sheba were most certainly not Israelites, having no part in the Sinai covenant or Abraham’s lineage, the Israelites are certainly not part of the church. Also: the Bible makes it clear that everyone who is in the universal, invisible church, the actual body of Christ, is born again and thus heaven bound. It is self-evident from scripture that every Israelite was not and is not heaven bound. Yet, covenant theology maintains that “Israel was the church of the Old Testament” because covenant theology was created to support the concept of the state-church where everyone in a given jurisdiction was initiated into by paedobaptism (infant baptism) as opposed to a confession of faith and subsequent believer’s baptism (which is the method that the Bible actually commands and gives examples of whereas there is not a single instance of paedobaptism recorded or commanded in scripture despite the best attempts of paedobaptists to claim that the command “believe and be baptized and you will be saved, you and your house” to the Philippian jailer justifies this doctrine, ignoring the critical “believe” portion of the formula which precludes sprinkling babies) and state church advocates openly acknowledged that not everyone in these churches was born again, that only the ecclesiola within the ecclesia (the hidden invisible smaller subset within the larger church) was going to heaven. Keep in mind: there was never any denial that the state church was one where people were joined to by compulsion (with death or banishment to those who refused) and was maintained not for political purposes but because of the belief that a single religion was necessary for political and cultural unity and stability, not for religious reasons. So, with the need to maintain such political-religious institutions, the notion that baptizing unregenerate and non-elect infants into the church was the same as circumcising non-elect Jews under the old covenant was a natural progression. However, once one actually obeys James 4, Romans 12:1-2, John 14-17 and learns from the typology of the sacrificial system (where it wasn’t even lawful to use tools to cut the stones for the altar or else the altar would be rendered ritually impure by the tools and the hands that used them … the seed of the “by the gracious work of God and not the works of men” doctrine) and removes the holy sanctified church from the unholy and defiled state and larger society, the whole “Israel is the church of the Old Testament” idea falls apart, and the concept of the theocracized government and culture with it.

Now for premillennial dispensationalism. The first servant rejected by the tenants was Moses, which happened when Israel refused to enter Canaan, choosing to believe the evil report over the good report of Joshua and Caleb. The second servant rejected by the tenants was Samuel when Israel asked for a king. Then Israel – or at least the northern kingdom – rejected the line of David. The subsequent servants rejected were the prophets who warned Israel of their apostasy and called them to repent, but ultimately were not heeded. And finally, Israel rejected the Son Jesus Christ. Now a key here is this portion: “When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.” Please note that while Jesus Christ did not emphasize their interpretation, He did not deny it either. Rather, He assented to it, and moved on to the main point that He was trying to make. Yet the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to recall and include this answer – which was in no way wrong – for a reason. The destruction of the wicked men who rejected the Son of God was a reference to the destruction of the Jewish temple and the nation in 70 A.D., a topic that Jesus Christ gave more detailed attention to in the Olivet discourse. (While I am not a preterist – whether partial or full – this is the portion of “this generation” of Matthew 24:34 and similar that was fulfilled in 70 A.D. Of the range of meanings of “genea”, it cannot mean “nation or race” for the Jewish nation will never be destroyed, and whether it means “age” or “generation” is of no consequence, as the Jewish age did come to an end at 70 A.D., and it happened within that generation, the people living in that time.)

And this brings us back to “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” What of the premillennial dispensationalists calling “replacement theology” an evil, anti-Semitic heresy? Who was the kingdom of God taken from but the Jews? Who was it given to but the church? In particular, this is a problem for the premillennial dispensational “Jewish millennium” doctrines, which states that after the church age ends, a newer, better Jewish age will begin with Jesus Christ ruling from the Jewish temple, the sacrificial system and priesthood reinstituted (which completely rejects or ignores virtually everything in the book of Hebrews), and all nations and people serving Israel. If the kingdom of God was taken from Israel, then the millennium will not be Jewish but Christian, and Jews will participate only inasmuch as they become Christians and join the church.

Premillennial dispensationalism, however, rejects this and states that the millennium will be one of Messianic Judaism (or what Messianic Judaism is fast becoming, see exhibit 1 and exhibit A, exhibit B and exhibit C and exhibit D and many more!) and not Christianity hence the true Messianic age. In that case, what does that make the church age? A type or foreshadowing of the Messianic dispensation? If that is true, what does that make Old Testament Israel? Premillennial dispensationalism makes Israel the center of God’s salvation-historic plan, and the church goes from the mystery planned but kept secret from the foundation of the world that the prophets spoke of whose true nature will not be revealed until the seventh trump sounds in Revelation to being a “make-work keep busy project” between the two Israel ages, and Christianity becomes an inferior and temporary – though suitable for Gentile purposes – form of the true eternal revelation and religion, which is Judaism. This rejects even the Suffering Servant songs of Isaiah, which states that rather than Israel being the center of God’s salvation-historic plan, the purpose and role of Israel in redemption was transferred to the Son of Israel Jesus Christ, which in these days is accomplished by the Body of Jesus Christ, which is the church.

Now of course, Paul the Benjamite did say that God has not cast aside His people and that all Israel will be saved after the times of the Gentiles are done. However, a contextual reading of Romans (and everything else that Paul wrote, not to mention everything else that Peter, James, John, Luke, Jude, the writer of Hebrews etc. wrote) makes it clear that all Israel will be saved by virtue of hearing the gospel, which means that all Israel joins the Gentiles in the church to form one new man. Premillennial dispensationalism does give a plausible explanation for why the millennium will be a Jewish one: the church will have been raptured. This allows premillennial dispensationalism to interpret the Kingdom of Heaven parables to refer to the Jewish nation during the millennium as opposed to the church age. (Seriously, that is what this system teaches. So, “the pearl of great price” under this system does not refer to either a man giving up everything – his old nature – to become saved or Jesus Christ’s lowering Himself and going to the cross to redeem the church, but rather the Jewish remnant during the great tribulation.) So, while it is possible that Paul’s prophecy “all Israel will be saved” will occur during the millennium, the idea that it will happen with the restoration of the Jewish kingdom directly conflicts with Jesus Christ’s statement that the kingdom was taken from the Jews and given to another nation (the church) and its fruits. Indeed, “all Israel shall be saved” will be counted as the fruits of the church.

The bottom line: Jesus Christ specifically stated that the kingdom was transferred from the Jews to the church, and this message was modeled by His choosing 12 apostles to replace the original 12 patriarchs of Israel, and it was repeated by the writers of the New Testament. Though the Bible does say “all Israel will be saved”, at no point does it say that the kingdom (meaning the focus of God’s economy, the people of God, the people that give God prayer, worship and praise that He accepts, and the people that God works through to carry out His purposes) would be transferred back to Israel. No scripture text that can be interpreted as claiming that the kingdom would revert from the church back to Israel can be found in either the Old or the New Testament, and no doctrine based on scripture can be formed to even explain why this will have to take place. Now the kingdom was taken from Israel first for their breaking the Sinai covenant terms in Deuteronomy (read first where Deuteronomy predicts that this will happen, and second where Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets state that the old covenant was broken and will be replaced) and second for their rejecting Jesus Christ. The new covenant will not be broken and the church will not and cannot reject Jesus Christ because of A) the promises of the new covenant and B) the church is Jesus Christ’s own Body and as such is indwelt by the Holy Spirit and God the Father, and no part of the Godhead can reject or be divided against Himself. So, the only way that the kingdom of God can revert back from the church to the Jews is the rapture of the church. With the church out of the picture (meaning out of the way) things can simply revert back to how they were in the Old Testament, right? Pardon me, but that would mean rejecting the cosmic effects of the incarnation, the cross of Jesus Christ, and the resurrection. Like time itself, salvation history only goes forward, it cannot go back. Moreover, the book of Hebrews describes the ultimate relevation of God to be through Jesus Christ by way of His incarnation, cross work, resurrection, and return. Premillennial dispensationalism makes the salvation of Israel during a second age of grace the ultimate revelation of God, and removes Jesus Christ’s own Body in order to facilitate it!

It really is no surprise that premillennial dispensationalism is so attractive to Messianic Jews who want to retain the essentials of their old system. It treats the church age as just an interstitial intermediary between the first Jewish age and the second Jewish age, and further one that happened not because it was God’s plan and the climax of His salvation plan all along, but only as punishment for the Jews for first failing to keep the Torah and second for failing to accept Jesus Christ. Once these errors are atoned for, things go right back to where they should have been all along! Further, premillennial dispensationalism re-instates the wrongheaded ideas about the millennium/Messianic age that Jesus Christ corrected! This is probably the one good point that the amillennialists do make: that the Jews in the time of Jesus Christ were expecting a political liberator and ruler who would usher in the Messianic age and institute a global Jewish theocracy and a time primarily for the benefit of Jews, not the God-man Saviour who would usher in an age of grace for the benefit of all nations. The Jewish religion still teaches the error of the Pharisees and Sadducees to this day, and premillennial dispensationalism – which includes most strands of Messianic Judaism – tells them that they are right about everything save the timing.

The core of premillennial dispensationalism is that God ceases dealing with His temporary vehicle the church and begins dealing with the Jews anew. However, unless premillennial dispensationalists can identify a part two of the parable of the tenants that describes when this will happen (and more importantly, how and why such a thing will happen in a manner that makes it consistent with New Testament doctrines and promises) this area of their doctrine is Biblically unjustified. Premillennial dispensationalism teaches that their doctrines concerning the millennium allows for the fulfillment of all the promises made to Abraham, David and Israel under the old covenant. However, in order to accomplish this, their doctrines require breaking the promises made to the church under the new covenant!

So, just as the parable of the tenants is very problematic for covenant theology by declaring an explicit distinction between the church and Israel, it is even more so for premillennial dispensationalism by explicitly proclaiming that with regards to their place in God’s economy, just as the the second temple could not match the glory of the first (for it did not include the ark of the covenant with the rod that budded or the tablets of the law), for the Jews the former things are no more, and their only place in the latter things (which are greater than the former because the latter is founded on better promises, bought with the Blood of Jesus Christ and hence incorruptible) will be inasmuch as their place is found alongside the redeemed and grafted in Gentiles in the church.

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Did Jesus Christ Appear To Hagar? If So, Why?

Posted by Job on June 18, 2009

Reading Genesis 16:7-14 makes me certain of it. “And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; F77 because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me? Wherefore the well was called Beerlahairoi; F78 behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.”

Now “the angel of the Lord” is a common term for the preincarnate Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. However, there are incidents in the Old Testament where references to angels – and other appearances of supernatural beings – are just that … angels (whether fallen or not). So, I came up with a system where if the supernatural being is worshiped i.e. Moses and the burning bush or Joshua on the plain of Jericho, then it is a theophany, an appearance of God in the Old Testament. However, if the supernatural being is not worshiped, then it is an angel. However, this is not foolproof, as Jacob apparently did not worship Jesus Christ, but wrestled with Him and demanded (?) to be blessed by Him, and we only know that it was God whom Jacob wrestled with because A) Jacob said so, B) God warned Jacob that day was breaking and that it was not meant for Jacob to clearly see His face and C) God refused to tell Jacob His Name upon Jacob’s request.

This appears to be a similar incident. In Genesis 16:10, the angel of the Lord states “I will multiply thy seed exceedingly …”.  The angel speaks in first person of an action that he will personally take, not in second person regarding an act of God, or of knowing the intentions of God (in contrast with, say, how Gabriel spoke of God’s actions to Mary in second person i.e. “and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David” in Luke 1:32). As obviously no angel has the power or authority to perform this deed, it had to have been God speaking to Hagar.

More evidence still? Genesis 16:13. “And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest me.” So this verse makes it plain: Hagar knew that she was speaking to God, and called God by Name. The Hebrew makes it more explicit: “qara shem Yĕhovah dabar ‘el ro’iy.”  Qara shem means “[She] called the Name.” Yĕhovah is Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH, or the Name of the Holy Trinity. “Dabar” means “word.” “Dabar” is what the apostle John translated directly into “Logos” in the prologue of the Gospel of John … “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In that verse and elsewhere in reference to God, “the Word” = “Logos” = “Dabar” = “Jesus Christ” are  interchangeable. So not only was it the God of Abraham that Hagar was speaking to, but Hagar knew that she was speaking to the God of Abraham, and – whether knowingly or not – by including “dabar” in her speech, actually addressed the Person of the Trinity that she was speaking to!

Still more evidence: “Wherefore the well was called Beerlahairoi” of Genesis 16:15. In Hebrew Beerlahairoi is  “Bĕ’er la-Chay Ro’iy”, which basically means “well of the Living One seeing me.” Or in other words, the well where God saw me.

Now the Geneva Study Bible notes on http://bible.cc seems to dance around the issue. Which is strange, because the idea that the Old Testament people knew of the Person and office of Jesus Christ is a major part of Calvinism. However, the Matthew Henry and John Wesley notes that appear on that same site arrived at the same conclusion as did I.

But neither of them deal with the obvious question: what was so special about Hagar (or more truthfully Ishmael) that there was an intervention on Ishmael’s behalf by way of a Christophany? And why was Ishmael the father of 12 tribes, just as Jacob (Israel) was? It is still more curious when you consider the type-antitype regarding Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac was the son of the free Hebrew woman, which generally means salvation and the people of God in scripture. Ishmael was the son of the slave Egyptian woman, with slavery representing bondage and Egypt representing sin in scripture. Also, Isaac represents the church because he was resurrected from the dead (meaning born to a barren womb). Meanwhile, Ishmael was conceived naturally. Isaac = son of God, the supernatural order where Ishmael = son of man, the earthly sinful order?

In a way, it recalls Adam and Eve, with the Godly line originating with Seth (type) and the evil line originating with Cain (antitype). And yes, just as Adam and Eve were the direct father and mother of both Seth and Cain (this isn’t an “obviously” sort of thing, because it would have been very possible for the ungodly line to have originated a generation or three from Adam and Eve), Abraham and Sarah were the father and mother of Isaac and Ishmael. So … Abraham was not just the progenitor, the ancestor of Israel and ultimately the church. He was quite literally the father of “many nations”, including the ungodly Ishmael line! (Incidentally, Israel was not the only Godly line that Abraham started … he also started the Midianite line, who apparently were Godly at least for a time, as Jethro, the father – in – law of Moses, was the Jehovah worshiping priest of Midian, and thus it was acceptable for Moses to marry Jethro’s daughter, and Miriam was punished for speaking against the marriage.)

Yet, just as God directly intervened to preserve the Ishmael line, He marked Cain to prevent him from being killed! So, Seth = Isaac = Jesus Christ = church. Cain = Ishmael = _______ = ______. Now precisely who or what is the opposite of Christ who persecutes – or will persecute – the church? (See Galatians 4 for more of this type/antitype involving Sarah/Isaac and Hagar/Ishmael, and for the direct statement that Ishmael and his seed persecutes the church.) Anyone want to fill in the blanks? It seems clear – to me anyway – that Ishmael and his line were intended for a prominent role in salvation history, and his being the father of a nation/people of 12 tribes plus the contents of Galatians 4 verifies this fact. So, the only mystery is A) who the descendants of Ishmael are (my guess … it isn’t the Roman Catholic Church or some new Roman Empire, nor is it the Jews, although nothing precludes Ishmael’s seed from using one or both) and B) what that role in salvation history will be.

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

New World Order Alert: Is The Vatican Going To Team Up With Israel Over Jerusalem?

Posted by Job on May 12, 2009

For those who are not familiar with Caroline Glick, she is very neoconservative and very Zionist. Here, she is stating that Israel should cease working with America and start pursuing a mutually beneficial relationship with Egypt (over Iran) and the Vatican (over Jerusalem). First Egypt: Iran sponsors the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a threat to Egypt’s fragile regime, which will become even more so once Egypt’s aging ruler leaves power. Egypt wishes to reduce Iran’s influence in order to make sure that the nation does not fall into the hands of jihadists. Second the Vatican: Glick asserts that the Vatican could be convinced that the only way to protect “Christian holy sites” in Israel and specifically in Jerusalem is to ensure that they remain in Jewish control and out of Muslim hands.

Now Glick has come out and stated that she opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state for at least two generations, and that during this time Israel should impose heavy measures to keep the Palestinian population subdued, and also take control of Palestinian schools and brainwash – excuse me educate – Palestinian children into hating everything Muslim and Arabic and turn them into pro – western Zionists. After this point, the Palestinians would either willingly desire to be ruled by Israel under terms that benefit Israel and stop demanding a state, or would accept a state that would be Israel’s puppet. In other words, Glick is willing to come out and publicly state what Israel’s neoconservative secular Zionists are usually unwilling to. (This is as opposed to Israel’s paleoconservative and/or religious Zionists, who openly or covertly simply wish to drive the Palestinians out of Israel.)

However, Glick is signaling that she – and the faction that she represents – may be willing to change their tune and give the Palestinians a state much sooner if the Vatican throws its considerable political muscle behind keeping all of Jerusalem in Israeli hands, and speaking out against Palestinian terrorism (which groups ranging from the secular and religious left to conservative Catholics to some Reformed Protestants are willing to pretend does not exist).

Now the majority of Palestinians and Israelis have long favored a two state solution. A dirty little secret is that elements in both the Palestinian and Israeli leadership claim to want a two state solution publicly while working to undermine it behind the scenes. If the Vatican is able to pick off the neoconservative secular Zionists like Glick, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Avidgor Lieberman, that would create a coalition with the moderate and liberal Israelis that would be big and powerful enough on the Israeli side to get it done. The only barrier, however, would be the Palestinians’ putting together a viable government that supports a two state solution and peace. We know that this isn’t Fatah/PLO, and it certainly isn’t Hamas. But it is something that bears watching.

The Vatican joining hands with neconservative Zionist Israelis is just about the last thing that I could have ever imagined happening, but it suits the interests of both sides. By supporting Israel, the Roman Catholic Church helps get past its role in the Holocaust, which badly hurts its image and ability to recruit and retain members in Europe. This will become a particular issue in the next few years when the Vatican elevates Pius XII, the pope who was in charge during the Holocaust to “sainthood.” And the Obama administration’s turning America’s interests in the Middle East away from Israel and towards Iran and Syria – and many believe that this could be a permanent change of policy that will persist no matter which party controls Washington – gives Israel no choice but to seek a new powerful ally. As the EU and Russia have been overtly anti-Israel for some time, it is basically the Vatican or nobody. 

Now as to the Christian Zionist element … I suppose that they will fall in line over this. Ever since the time of Billy Graham and particularly the rise of the religious right, evangelicals, especially dispensationalists, have not only become very friendly with the Vatican, but have actually followed its lead, sometimes knowing it but often not. Dispensationalists have taken school vouchers, faith – based programs, and other initiatives to funnel tax dollars into Roman Catholic dioceses as if it is their own agenda, and also got involved in the Terri Schiavo incident (one completely driven by the Roman Catholic governor of Florida Jeb Bush) and in the process of doing so advocated for the extrabiblical Roman Catholic traditional teachings on end of life issues. And how many Protestant evangelicals love having Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts on the Supreme Court (Kennedy not so much)? And let us be honest: the neoconservative publicity machine, whether it is magazines like the Weekly Standard and the National Review and talk radio … they aren’t dominated by evangelicals. They are dominated by Roman Catholics and neoconservative Jews. Conservative Christian Zionists such as the ones who support torture patronize that media and allow their political AND RELIGIOUS views to be shaped by them. So, if the Vatican and the secular neoconservative Jews (the religious Jews by and large won’t have anything to do with Christians) begin the full court press on talk radio and on the conservative websites that keeping Jerusalem and making Israel secure so the construction of the third temple can take place is all that REALLY MATTERS, then the John Hagee/Pat Robertson contingent (and the many far more respectable and mainstream fellow travelers of this doctrine i.e. those who supported the war in Iraq) will quickly fall in line.

But again, the major shoe that needs to drop for this to actually take place is a viable and (by all appearances) pro – peace Palestinian government led by a (and this would really really help) a charismatic leader to come about. Now that may be Obama’s job: to identify and train such a leader and put him in power (as our government has been known to do in the past … America trained both Usama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and put them in place, and did similar with the group that is now running Iran). 

Please see link to article where this gets discussed below:

Our World: Opportunity is knocking at Israel’s door

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

Will The Holy Spirit Be Taken From The Earth During The Great Tribulation?

Posted by Job on May 2, 2009

Many premillennial dispensational pastors teach that during the time of the great tribulation, the Holy Spirit leaves earth along with the church. Now consider this. As God is a spirit (John 4:24), the Holy Spirit is the presence of God. For God’s presence to be removed from the earth during the great tribulation or at any other times causes real problems, because God sustains and directs creation, which cannot operate without God’s presence and involvement. (The idea that God accomplished creation and left it to itself without His needing to operate, sustain, or otherwise be involved in it is theological liberalism at best and deism at worst.)

But apart from the larger question of precisely how creation will be sustained and operated for seven long years with God’s presence absent from it, there is the issue of salvation. Can anyone name a premillennial dispensationalist who denies that people will be saved during the tribulation? That would be very difficult, because Revelation does make reference to Christians that will be martyred after the time that according to this doctrine the church will have been raptured, and this is so for both the pre-tribulation and mid-tribulation rapture believers. First off, for this to even happen will mean that Jesus Christ’s promise concerning the Holy Spirit of John 14:16-18, that He will not leave us comfortless (meaning that the presence of God will never leave the church) would be broken. So … if John 14:16-18 can be violated, even for a time, then what secures John 3:16 and the other promises of God to the church? 

But again, back to salvation. The Bible explicitly teaches that the Holy Spirit is what accomplishes salvation. The Holy Spirit not only draws the sinner and convicts the sinner of unrighteousness, but the Holy Spirit actually accomplishes rebirth. This must be the case, for salvation is quite literally a miracle, and all miracles are the work of the Holy Spirit. No miracles cannot occur without the presence, moving and working of God. But if the Holy Spirit is removed from the earth, how can salvation occur? Who will draw sinners? Who will convict sinners of unrighteousness? Most important: who will perform the miraculous work of regeneration, of new birth? 

Recall what Jesus Christ told Nicodemus in John 3:5-8, which is that salvation, new birth, is impossible unless someone is born again, and born again can only occur by water and spirit, which is the Holy Spirit. But to repeat, if the Holy Spirit has been taken from the earth, how can the rebirth, the salvation that can only occur by the Holy Spirit occur?

There is only one explanation. It is the doctrine that salvation is not the work of the Holy Spirit, but rather of human decision, of free will. Now claiming that it is totally or completely free will is Pelagianism, or shall we say hyperArminianism. The mainstream orthodox free will doctrine is that the work of the Holy Spirit empowers a free will decision to accept or reject Jesus Christ. An extension of this is foreknowledge, which states that God from His timeless perspective knows in advance who will accept and reject Him, so He elects those who will – or in truth have already – elected Him, and places them in human history in situations where they will hear the gospel. (In other words, God loves us because we first loved Him.)

Now the free will doctrine which states that the job of the Holy Spirit is to empower human decision is necessary to reconcile decision soteriology with what the Bible actually says. However, we see that this really is merely a cover, an exterior. At the heart of this doctrine is that salvation is completely the work of human decision, and that the Holy Spirit is not necessary at all. That is why it is so easy for the very same free will Christians to declare that salvation is made possible by the Holy Spirit’s overcoming the effects of the fall long enough to empower man to make a free will choice to immediately turn around and assert that during the tribulation, the Holy Spirit is gone and yet people will still be saved!

This makes the work of the Holy Spirit to draw, convict, and actually accomplish new birth a mere technicality to free will salvation, an accessory if you will, that while very useful can be discarded if need be, such as during a crisis. And during the great crisis for humanity and creation that is the great tribulation, the presence of the Holy Spirit for those being saved is no more necessary than is the presence of a second lung or kidney. It is nice to have, but ultimately you can get along without it. After all, you still have the other lung or kidney, right? Well, it appears that with free will doctrine, one lung or kidney is God (the Holy Spirit) and the other lung or kidney is human initiative, human decision, human righteousness and self – worth, human works. It is interesting that in a crisis, God is the one which is declared to be superfluous, not truly necessary for life, and therefore sacrificed, while our human freedom, what is truly valued and important above all else, are the horns of the altar to which we hold fast to (see 1 Kings 2:27-34). Perhaps, then, life as a slave or in an authoritarian culture (please recall that Christianity was birthed in the authoritarian, fascist Roman Empire which had no respect for individual rights or freedoms except for that of a privileged few, and most early converts to the religion were noncitizens and slaves!) is better suited to creating a mindset conducive to Christianity than previously thought. After all, the Declaration of Independence was written by a deist, not a Christ.

According to all Biblical evidence including the words of Jesus Christ Himself, the idea that salvation can occur without the Holy Spirit is severe error, a rejection of a truth plainly taught in scripture, and also attributing the work of the Holy Spirit (salvation) to another, giving another credit for what God does. (However, it is not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the unforgivable sin, which Jesus Christ states is attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to Satan. Giving the glory for the work of the Holy Spirit to man is a sin, but quite different than attributing salvation to being the work of Beelzebub.) So is the idea that the church will be left without its Comforter, the Holy Spirit. So, what does that mean for this doctrine? 

I suppose that the rapture doctrine itself can be salvaged for those who choose to adhere to it. However, one simply cannot claim that there will be no Christians afterwards, as the Bible clearly contradicts it … saints will be martyred during the tribulation according to Revelation and the Olivet discourses.  One also cannot claim that the “tribulation church” or the “tribulation saints” will be there without the Holy Spirit, as Jesus Christ said that such a thing would never happen. And one cannot claim that the “tribulation saints” will consist of a single person born again while the Holy Spirit is removed. 

So, the only way to salvage the rapture doctrine is to abandon the claim that the Holy Spirit will be taken from the Earth during the great tribulation, or at any other time that the church will be on the earth or that people will be added to the church. While this is certainly possible, the question must be asked  A) where this “the Holy Spirit will be removed from the earth during the tribulation” doctrine came from and B) why it was embraced. Why did not these people, these great pastors, theologians, and eminent Bible scholars, simply ask: without the Holy Spirit how can anyone be saved and “how can any Christian endure daily life, let alone tribulation and martyrdom, without the ministry of the Comforter?”

Now the doctrines of God are supposed to be the head of all doctrines of Christianity and the focus of our faith. We are supposed to look at every doctrine and ask “How is God working in this? How does this glorify God? How does this accomplish God’s purposes? Where is God in this story”? That this “the Holy Spirit will be removed from the tribulation church” doctrine has been able to gain such unqualified support in huge swaths of evangelical Christianity shows that this is not the case. In it, God and His workings are not necessary to bring about conversion, to seal believers, to preserve them in the faith. Man is able to accomplish these things, to save himself, minister to himself, and persevere in the faith himself, without God’s help. Oh what a great, glorious, marvelous, fantastic, mighty to contemplate and behold, inherently virtuous thing this man must be! But if this was the case, then why did Adam, who knew not original sin, fall?

Instead, this shows that for so many premillennial dispensational Christians, the head of their doctrines are not the doctrines of God, but rather the doctrine of the rapture and the doctrine of human decision. Now the Gospel of John depicts the sin sacrifice of God’s own Word on the cross as the climaxing event of human history, the ultimate act of revelation and self – disclosure to creation. Premillennial dispensationalism, on the other hand, places the rapture of the church as the climax of human history, and the cross as merely being an event that leads to it. Why? Because the cross was about God, Jesus Christ. The rapture, meanwhile, us about the church. The cross is about people. Saved people, yes, but still people. The rapture is about US.

Which means, of course, that Christianity basically becomes about the desire to be raptured. Being raptured becomes our hope, our motivation, the main priority. And that explains so many of the strange actions in these last days. For example: our relationship with the Jews and Israel. The ingathering of Jews to Israel and the rebuilding of the temple is the main priority because of its importance to the rapture. So, Christians are required to deny the fact that Jesus Christ replaced Israel and fulfilled Israel’s mission in salvation and world events within Himself. Even further, Christians are required to pretend that modern Judaism is just another godless religion, no different from Islam, and pretend that there is any precious difference between a government and society  based around modern Judaism – a theocracy – and a similar Hindu or Muslim nation like India or Turkey. It has even reached the point where leading pastors can openly advocate dual covenant theology, that there a superior path to salvation for Christians and an inferior, harder, but still attainable and valid path of salvation for Jews, without causing a ripple of controversy. And it has reached the point where investing an incredible amount of resources to lending political and financial support to a theocracy who denies Christ and works to continue and further the denial of Christ by as many people as possible has taken priority over actually doing what Jesus Christ told us to do, which was the Great Commission. Again, where not one scripture can be honestly interpreted in a way that would command Christians to support the modern political state of Israel, the primary thing that Jesus Christ told us to do, evangelize, gets neglected. Why? Because evangelizing the world – the one thing that Jesus Christ actually said would bring about His return – is not as important as ingathering and protecting Jews in Israel, because obeying the commands of Jesus Christ has to take a backseat to getting raptured as soon as possible. So, given the choice between giving money to Israeli causes knowing full well that the Israeli charities forbid evangelizing Jews and also helping to rebuild the temple takes priority over obeying the commands of Jesus Christ by, say, making a concerted effort to evangelize the Palestinians. Why? Because though obeying God by evangelizing the Palestinians is nice and all, I would rather support the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (which adamantly opposes converting Jews to Christianity) and help breed heifers for the new temple (never mind that Hebrews stated that burnt offerings went away with Jesus Christ). Why? Because while obeying God is a good thing and all, supporting anti-missionary organizations and building a temple that rejects the work of Jesus Christ helps me by speeding up the rapture and getting me out of here faster, and pursuing my own interests takes priority over the commandments of God!

So, it is apparent: doctrines of man, and particularly of man’s inherent righteousness and ability to do good works apart from God, including pursue his own interests, and of the rapture,  which provides a doctrinal construct to pursue these things, are at the head of this particular strand of premillennial dispensationalism, and not the doctrines of God. So the question is: does this go as far as being another gospel? Is it another gospel?

This is a question that we must ask Reformed pastors who believe in the rapture as do Albert Pendarvis and John MacArthur. Such people state that salvation and perseverance of the saints are impossible without the Holy Spirit, that free will, human initiative, is impossible in these matters. If that is the case now, how can it be the case after the rapture? Reformed evangelical pastors emphasize grace. But how can the grace of God by which salvation and perseverance is only possible through the ministry of the Holy Spirit no longer be necessary after the rapture? Reformed evangelicals also assert sola scriptura. Well, can any sola scriptura Reformed evangelical who believes that the Holy Spirit will be removed from the earth and the tribulation church following the rapture show where it states or even implies in scripture where it is so? I dare say that the scriptures that Reformed evangelicals use to support cessationism, a doctrine about which I am very doubtful, make a much stronger case. 

Now my position is that the position that the church will be raptured, whether pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation, or post-tribulation (before the final bowl judgments) by itself is not. However, the position that the Holy Spirit will be removed from the earth during the great tribulation is another gospel, because it teaches that man can save himself and can persevere in the faith by himself without needing God to perform – or so much as even aid – either. That is a strong delusion, and from such a false gospel, I urgently beg, entreat, plead, and in the Name of Jesus Christ pray that you will turn away.

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

Amillennalism 10: The Beast

Posted by Job on April 15, 2009

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Regarding Barack HUSSEIN Obama Celebrating The Passover

Posted by Job on April 11, 2009

Perhaps you have heard of Obama holding and officiating over a Passover Seder recently. Now I honestly believe that for a born again Christian to participate in a Passover Seder in full view of the fact that the original passover pointed to and was fulfilled in the Passover Seder that was the Lord’s Supper and in the work and ministry of Jesus Christ is a great thing, something that I find much preferable to things related to Easter eggs and the rabbits that bring them. 

But what of the person who rejects Jesus Christ, as this Barack Hussein Obama clearly does, celebrating the Passover? Well … Obama ran with the Louis Farrakhan Nation of Islam crowd in his Chicago days, a fact that – similar to George W. Bush’s affiliation with the Skulls and Bones – people either seem to have conveniently forgotten, or the fact that we are now stuck with this person as president makes it OK. (Just as Bush’s having the same theological views as the liberal “Christians” that are ordaining homosexuals – that the Bible should not be interpreted literally, is not the final authority, and that all religions worship the same god – became “OK” with evangelicals who defend him to this day, even after Bush rammed through the bailouts that set the stage for HUSSEIN Obama to take over the banking and automobile industries and hand them over to the international interests, which of course these folks are now blaming on Obama alone.) Now as you may know, the Nation of Islam has the belief that Jewish wealth and power – which is held disproportionate to their numbers – has something to do with secrets of Jewish mysticism that they picked up in various places, including but not limited to Babylon. Farrakhan claims that Jews use their secret mysticism to gain benefits at other groups’ expense, especially black people whom Farrakhan claims are the rightful owners and originators of this knowledge, and which the Jews have used to displace blacks (and, er, Arabs, as Fard Muhammed, who trained Elijah Muhammed, was Arab) from their rightful place as leaders of world civilization.

So, we know that Obama does not celebrate the Passover  because of any beliefs that he legitimately holds (whether Christian or Jewish). He is not holding it for the same reason that, say, Calvinist – leaning Messianic Jews are. We know that Obama is not interested in winning Jewish votes or support at this point. So … is Obama holding a Passover seder to get his hands on some of this mystical power, kabbalah and similar? Consider this snippet to know that it cannot be counted out:

The Seder, it turns out, is a fulfillment of a vow that a small group of Obama campaign staff made during their Seder last year, on April 19.

Unable to go home for the holidays, the group of about 10 held an impromptu Seder in the basement of the Sheraton Hotel in Harrisburg, Pa., as the Obama campaign neared the end of its long primary campaign battle in the state.

Obama participated in the Jewish ritual, along with a few friends who were traveling with him that day. At the end of the ritual, after the traditional refrain “Next year in Jerusalem!” Sen. Obama and others in the group jokingly added, “Next year in the White House!”

I regard there to be a link between kabbalah and freemasonry that is stronger than the purported link between Islam and freemasonry (a claim that is made by Muslims and few else incidentally), even though the freemasons fervently deny it. Well, freemasons cannot deny that the actual, legal oath of office by Obama just happened to be taken below the picture of Benjamin Latrobe, the freemason architect of the United States capitol. Incidentally, religious right George W. Bush supporters, John Roberts participated in this, so you cannot deny whose side Roberts is on, or for that matter which side the man who appointed him is on. (On the Latrobe, no complaints from black history buffs who credit most of the things in Washington D.C. to Benjamin Banneker … Banneker was a freemason also.) 

So, this really makes me think that this Obama fellow is dealing with some very sinister and powerful things that not even the people who put him in office are aware of – or can control. Make of this what you will.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Will Obama Support The United States of Africa?

Posted by Job on February 2, 2009

DAKAR, Senegal — President Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya was named chairman of the African Union on Monday, wresting control of a body he helped found and has long wanted to remake in his pan-African image. His installation as the new head of the 53-member body resembled more of a coronation than a democratic transfer of power. Colonel Qaddafi was dressed in flowing gold robes and surrounded by traditional African leaders who hailed him as the “king of kings.” Colonel Qaddafi is an ardent supporter of a long-held dream of transforming Africa, a collection of post-colonial fragments divided by borders that were drawn arbitrarily by Western powers, into a vast, unified state that could play a powerful role in global affairs. He has repeatedly proposed immediate unity and the establishment of a single currency, army and passport for the entire continent. He pledged Monday to bring up the issue for a vote at the African Union’s next summit meeting, in July.

Qaddafi, as New African Union Head, Will Seek Single State 

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

Want To Work For The Anti – Christ Globalist Money System? Here Is The Company To Apply For!

Posted by Job on November 13, 2008

This is an actual advertisement targeted to college students forwarded to me by a ministry supporter. I regret that the graphics that were in the email do not show up correctly. I have used “@” to replace some information that would reveal the college that the sender attends, I bolded a section that shows that our government is behind this scheme, everything else is as I received it. By the way, the name of this company, Denarii, is a plural form of denarius, which was the currency of the Roman Empire in the time of Jesus Christ. (To you King James Version bigots like myself, it is commonly translated as “penny” in the New Testament.) Oh yes, and this “be a part of true change” business? Hope! Change! Obama! Classic. 

Sizzle Money

 

Be a Part of True Change!

 

Socially responsible & community-focused Denarii Payments, Inc.

searches for young, disciplined, & proactive individuals……

 

Candidates must:

 

  • Be critical thinkers
  • Be fluent in Spanish & English
  • Have an understanding of Hispanic customs
  • Attend a free SizzleMoneytm   Training Seminar
  • Pass the SizzleMoneytm Exam

 

Benefits:

 

  • Be part of an organization launching ground-breaking technology
  • Be part of a socially responsible company that puts people first
  • Work at your own pace
  • Attractive earning potential

 

VISIT US AT:

@@@@@ @@@, @@@ @@@@

11 a.m. – 3 p.m.

Information Session Every Hour

Conducting Interviews

 

About Denarii Payments, Inc.

Denarii developed SizzleMoneytm to respond to the demands of working families who need an easy-to-use safe and secure method of electronic commerce and money sharing.  SizzleMoneytm is a community-centric mobile financial serice that enables anyone to exchange funds and make retail purchases through our secure text messaging service.  SizzleMoneytm  works on any cell phone and on any cellular network in the U.S. Accounts are FDIC insured and have no minimum balance requirements and, more importantly, have no hidden fees.  Our modest transaction fees are “pay-as-you-go” charging only for what is used.  Our neighborhood iSizzle Representatives or local participating merchants are available to assist in opening new accounts and making additions for active SizzleMoneytm customers.

Visit www.sizzlemoney.com for more information.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

CNN’s Creepy Hologram: The Image Of The Beast That All Will Worship?

Posted by Job on November 8, 2008

CNN states that they have big plans for this technology.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Another Reason To Question Whether The Roman Catholic Church Is The Anti – Christ

Posted by Job on October 20, 2008

The fact that the reformers (and those who rejected Catholicism in times prior) frequently called the Roman Catholic Church the anti-Christ is often used to give theological and historical weight to people holding onto that view. While you will not find a bigger opponent of those that have cast aside the Bible for manmade tradition in order to facilitate their idolatry of images, the host of heaven, and humans (including “saints”, the pope, and “Virgin” Mary), I still have found the idea to be quite suspect. My prior reason for believing so is because the anti – Christ will deceive and lead the whole world. While thanks in large part to the new world order forces doing their best to promote religious pluralism, mysticism, syncretism and secular systems masquerading as religion (including liberation theologies of Barack Hussein Obama and Martin Luther King, Jr.) there is nowhere near the opposition to Roman Catholicism as there once was, chiefly among Protestants but also among other religions, we are nowhere near the day when the whole world will be deceived by and follow the so – called bishop of Rome, who has the same title, pontifus maximus, that Roman emperors such as Constantine held in their pagan state religion. (Constantine merely moved from being pontifus maximus in the prior pagan state religion to being pontifus maximus when the empire adopted “Christianity”, a fact which people who defend the decision of the church to acquiesce to Constantinism rarely mention. My suspicion is that Protestants tiptoe around this fact because Constantine called the Nicea ecumenical council that defended the truth of the divinity if Jesus Christ from Arianism. In doing so, they ignore the fact that even if any human had the spiritual standing to convene an ecumenical council Constantine certainly was not that human, a fact later borne out when Constantine called ANOTHER ecumenical council to adopt Arianism and immediately began persecuting people who believed in Jesus Christ’s deity. Constantine’s motives were political and military,  not religious. Even if Constantine did actually see a cross in the sky with the famous “in this conquer” slogan, it was a demonic deception in a pagan society that was utterly demonized. Protestants should be truthful enough to declare that nothing good came out of Constantinism and have enough faith to state that the true apostolic faith over issues like the deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity would have won out without needing a pagan state to call ecumenical councils whose edicts were imposed with the sword.)

Yet how far are we from the day that the whole world will follow the so – called bishop of Rome? It would require 1) a major theological move on the part of the Roman Catholic Church and 2) for the nations of the world who have suffered at the hands of Rome or who themselves have major religious objections to forget or abandon them. While both (or either) are certainly possible when God sends the spirit of strong delusion, the truth is that said delusion can cause the whole world to follow any institution or leader. So while that does not preclude the Roman Catholic Church, there is no reason to definitely say that it will be them when it could just as easily be some secular political leader or entity, or the leader of some now obscure eastern religious movement such as the Tibetan ones that are oh so popular among the left (keep in mind that jainism was equally obscure until first Ghandi and then Martin Luther King, Jr. popularized its tenets). 

So what of the position of the reformers and those similar? Well keep in mind that the reformers were adherents to amillennialism, whose first major exponent was Origen and which was cemented in the Constantine church (and ultimately a great many churches that splintered out of her, including not only the Roman and Orthodox Catholic churches but also many Protestant churches, especially the state and liberal churches) thanks to the work of Augustine. Though its modern adherents deny the extent to which it is true, amillennialism relies on allegorical interpretations of the covenant, prophetic, eschatological and apocalyptic passages of the Bible. (Otherwise, Origen’s theories that everyone, including possibly Satan and demons, would be saved and that there could be an endless number of falls of mankind and creation into sin requiring an endless number of redemptions throughout eternity; in other words there was no permanency to Jesus Christ’s work because as Origen was working from a naturalist pagan structure as opposed to a Jewish spiritual one – please read Why The Early Church Fathers Were Millennialists And Why The Gentile Church Quickly Rejected It For Sadduceeism and he Early Church Fathers: Amillennialism and Universalism, would have been impossible.)

Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that the amillennial reformers, who to one degree or another accepted an allegorical or nonliteral interpretation of not only the millennium but a great many other prophetic and eschatological concepts to give them a temporal meaning and fulfillment, believed in a literal beast, man of sin, anti-Christ, etc.

When you consider the dominionism aspect of amillennialism, this becomes even more so the case. Dominionist amillennials (and this incontrovertibly included Roman Catholics but Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, the Church of England, and all others who basically rejected a separation between church and state, advocated the right of the state to use violence and other measures to enforce church doctrines and accepted infant baptism as a method of initiation into the church – state system) believe that we are in an allegorized nonliteral millennium now where Jesus Christ is ruling the earth from heaven through the church, which happens through the transforming moral and cultural effect that the church has on societies as well as any influence that the church exerts on civil magistrates. 

With that view in place, “anti – Christ”, then, becomes anything that opposes the church’s dominion over the earth. In particular, it results in a false Christianity or a false church that takes dominion of the earth over the true church instead. Thus, when the reformers and like minded amillennialists spoke of Roman Catholicism being the anti – Christ, it was only in a nonliteral allegorical sense. Further, it was based on the Roman Church having the same position that the reformers wanted for their own churches. Make no mistake, the churches set up by the reformers were not merely spiritual and religious competitors, but also political, military, and economic rivals. The result was not only well over one hundred years of warfare between Roman Catholic church – states and Protestant church – states both calling each other anti – Christ for opposing each other’s desires for amillennial dominion of state and culture that was allegedly in the Name and to the glory of Jesus Christ in heaven but in reality was a violation of James 4:4 and a host of related scriptures that say that there is no marriage between sacred and secular, Christian and worldly. Now recall, this was something that God used the hard line of demarcation between holy and defiled in the Jewish law to teach the church … if the Jews could not even use tools to cut stones to build an altar for sacrifices because the tools were unholy and their touching the holy altar would defile it and make it unholy, what made them think that the church could come into such intimate contact with pagan cultures and adulterous rulers?!

And as a direct result of this worldview, both Roman Catholic AND reformation church – states persecuted Anabaptists and others who rejected infant baptism and the lack of separation between church and state. Consider this: the amillennial dominionists in the Roman Catholic and early reformation churches grotesquely misinterpreted such Bible events as Hagar’s being subjected to Sarah, the lord of the estate compelling people in the hedges and highways to come to the wedding feast, and Peter picking up two swords to coerce people into membership of “Christendom”, or the church – state in which membership was usually initiated by infant baptism. (Which is why it was called “Christendom”, or kingdom of the christened or infant baptized, as opposed to Christiandom, or kingdom of confessing Christians.) These abominations were institutionalized by Augustine at the very latest but almost certainly existed before then. The worst was the “two swords” when Peter (as always until his indwelling by the Holy Spirit) misunderstood the teachings of Jesus Christ and responded “here are two swords” in response to the words of Jesus Christ to which Christ, frustrated by their inability to understand and having His mind occupied with other things at the time (His very soon trip to the cross) replied resignedly “it is enough.” The dominionist allegorists claimed that Peter’s erroneous notion of believing that Jesus Christ was somehow speaking of a violent overthrow of the Roman Empire (and likely also the Pharisees and Saduccees if they resisted!) was correct in the sense that one sword of Peter referred to the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the second sword of Peter referred to the power of the state to compel people to (externally of course) submit to the former!

So, you had Catholics and reformers calling each other anti-Christ because they were both claiming that the other were wielding a false gospel sword and a false state compulsion sword. But please realize that both Catholic and Reformed states persecuted certain Anabaptists and other groups who A) rejected the notion of church states, B) rejected the coerced initiation into said states including but certainly limited to infants baptized by their parents and C) especially rejected the church’s getting the state to heavily fine, imprison, or even execute those who rejected their religious AND civil authority. This was why Reformers often persecuted and killed Anabaptists who agreed with them on every doctrinal point save those regarding the church using the coercive power of the state (or possessing such power and authority itself by having its own police and army), and particularly why many Reformed states followed the policy of Roman Catholics by making the rejection of infant baptism by getting rebaptized as adults (which is the origin of the term Anabaptist) which in addition to being an act of sincere religious dedication to the gospel was also public rejection of state church authority or dominionism a capital crime

This is, after all, why some scholars claim that Michael Servetus was burned (the Roman Catholic AND Reformed church states twisted yet another set of scriptures to justify the practice of burning heretics, and furthermore the typical method was to use green wood so that the victim would die very slowly, often over the course of hours!) was primarily initiated by the civil magistrates of Geneva for his opposition to infant baptism (making him a subversive to civil authority) rather than by Calvin over his rejection of Trinity. But make no mistake, Calvin fully believed in the right of the state to execute Servetus based on Calvin’s dominionist convictions (even if Calvin’s true motives were Trinity he nonetheless testified against Servetus in a proceeding where a city state considered him a political subversive based on his opposition to infant baptism, the primary method which people were initiated into Genevan citizenship, please realize that Calvin himself was never a Genevan citizen as he was never born or baptized there) and therefore fully participated. And keep in mind: where Servetus was the only heretic killed during Calvin’s tenure, many dominionism rejecters were imprisoned, expelled, or executed by other Reformed states. 

Note that while the Reformers did call Anabaptists heretics and frequently sought their suppression and persecution to the pain of death, they seldom if ever called them “anti – Christ.” Why? Because Anabaptists and similar had no designs on civil power, indeed they rejected it. (Please note that I am aware that certain Anabaptists did have designs on civil power and were willing to use subversion and violence to get it; Anabaptist was a wide, poorly defined category, and it was helpful to the cause of the rulers of Reformed states to associate all of their opponents with the subversive radicals who would violently take control over an area and then forcibly redistribute wealth and property.) So because certain Anabaptists rejected any claim on the second sword of Peter, the one which Augustine and those who came after (indeed including the reformers) claimed belonged to the true church – state, they were not a competing religious – civil power system, and hence were not a false or anti – Christ system competing for power. Instead, they were merely “heretics”, a religious system competing for souls, because of their rejection of “Christendom.” If they were “anti – Christ”, it was only due to their promulgation of doctrines that opposed not only the right but the theological imperative of the Reformation to set up church states, and also because their movements were drawing the Roman Catholic expatriates that the Reformation church states badly needed in their rival system with Rome. After all, if you are competing with earthly systems, it is all about having enough citizens to A) create capital for your economies – please note that Calvinism is credited with spurring the development of modern capitalism – and B) produce soldiers to fight in your armies. 

So, the next time you encounter someone that asserts that the Roman Catholic Church is the anti – Christ, see if that person is rejecting a literal interpretation of Daniel, 2 Thessalonians, Revelation, etc. in favor of an allegorical one and merely resents the Roman Catholic Church for having the huge numbers and political, cultural, economic, etc. influence, the second sword of Peter, that he wants for his own church, and by the way you had better believe which Islam also wants and which communists and Hugo Chavez socialists want as well. (Incidentally, Hitler and Mussolini wanted it also. With Hitler in particular, please consider the rumors of his “the spear of destiny” occultism but do so with a grain of salt.) In other words, someone who wants to exchange the Roman Catholic anti – Christ system for his own. 

Or it may simply be someone who is unaware of this history. If so, that person needs to be reminded of the awful history of both Catholic and Protestant dominionism. And that person also needs to be reminded that in these last days, Catholic and Protestant dominionists are now marching hand in hand, with the American and western religious – political movements (the religious right and the religious left, and by the way these movements even include people from other religions such as Mormons in the religious right and Muslims like Keith Ellison in the religious left, and Jews in both, and we have already mentioned the incorporation of doctrines of jainism – similar to Buddhism – in the religious left) leading the way. How ironic that so many of the politically affiliated evangelicals and fundamentalists who do interpret the prophetic, eschatological, and apocalyptic passages literally (with the appropriate hermeneutics of course!) and believe in a literal anti – Christ are at present supporting movements that are setting the world stage for the coming of the man of sin just as the amillennialists are. The two sides that are supposed to represent different doctrinal systems and in many cases believe themselves to be opposing each other (especially in the case of the religious right versus the religious left) are in fact being manipulated by those behind the scenes to work together! Well, when you consider that scripture prophesies that the anti – Christ will deceive the whole world, it is not a surprise, but instead may yet be a manifestation of it.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Will John McCain Finish George W. Bush’s Job In Implementing The Financial New World Order?

Posted by Job on October 20, 2008

A financial new world order?
Bush says reforms must improve, not fetter, the free market; Europeans hint at more robust intervention.

When President Bush hosts a world financial summit in the coming weeks, one of the least multilateral American presidents in decades will set in motion what could result in a full reordering of the global financial system.

The series of summits that Mr. Bush announced over the weekend at Camp David with European leaders at his side suggests a broad understanding among them: that the current crisis requires the kind of global regulatory reforms that have eluded major powers in the past.

Europeans especially are speaking of a “Bretton Woods II” that could do for financial markets what the 1944 summit at a resort in New Hampshire did for monetary policy.

But the call for a summit also underscores the degree to which a once go-it-alone presidency has shifted to embrace not only the necessity of international cooperation, but also a role of global leadership.

“Talk of a Bretton Woods II has been around to different degrees for 30 years. But the fact it is getting started with an outgoing administration and especially one that was at the center of a significant crisis between America and Europe, between America and the rest of the world, suggests the recognition that there is urgency in the air,” says Simon Serfaty, an expert in US-Europe relations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. “It also adds legitimacy to the coming process.”

That process, which is expected to stretch into next year and a new American administration, will get under way with a summit that Bush will host sometime after Nov. 4, the date of US elections, according to a statement issued Saturday by Bush, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and European Union Commission President José Manuel Barroso.

The initial summit is expected to be a kind of expanded Group of Eight meeting, assembling the leaders of the most industrialized nations and those of major developing economies like China, India, Brazil, and South Korea. (Please know that inviting developing nations is a major step to a truly global system, as the following step would be to invite the third world nations.) It would aim to assess the current global crisis and to come up with a set of principles of reform.

Actual agreements on reforms could come at subsequent summits, but the initial meeting would allow Bush to place his stamp on the process before leaving office, while also facilitating a continuity of American leadership.

Saturday’s meeting offered a picture of transatlantic unity, but that hardly means the road ahead will be discord-free. Bush says future reforms and new international regulations must improve but not fetter the free market, while European leaders hint at much more robust state intervention with tighter regulations. (Bush has to keep this pretense in order to retain conservative support, especially among evangelicals, for policies that they would never accept from an overt liberal like, say, Clinton or OBAMA. A reason why McCain would be useful. Then again, Obama would be useful in bringing America in line with Europe and getting the nonwhite, er, developing nations to go along too.)

Bush recognized the need for “regulatory institutional changes” but added, “It is essential that we preserve the foundations of democratic capitalism – commitment to free markets, free enterprise, and free trade.” (Speaking with a forked tongue. In an essentially global economy, there will be no more statutory or regulatory barriers between markets, enterprise, and trade between America and Brazil than there are between Alabama and Texas. Ironically, the very ENLIGHTENMENT principles that our oh so wise freemason and deist founding fathers came up with to govern interstate commerce within this own nation, which lest we forget was originally intended as a federalist contract between loosely affiliated largely independent and sovereign states … please recall that “state” actually refers to an individual sovereign political entity and subdivisions between a state are actually called “provinces” or similar … will work quite nicely for global commerce among member nation states – and city – states like THE VATICAN. Please recall that Rome before it became an empire was a city state. For the record, John Calvin’s Geneva, which is credited with inventing modern capitalism, was a city state as well. So despite the endtimes theories of many conservative evangelicals, the economic new world order need not be socialist or communist. It can be capitalist, or merely a union between capitalist and socialist economies just as our own nation has long been a union of more laissez faire economic states and states with heavy government subsidies, wealth distribution, and regulation.)

In response, President Sarkozy said, “The president of the United States is right in saying that protectionism and closing one’s borders is a catastrophe…. But we cannot continue along the same lines,” he added, “because the same problems will trigger the same disasters.”

Mr. Barroso was more succinct: “We need a new global financial order.”

Those words could send shivers through a White House that is suspicious of the current chorus of world leaders – European, Russian, and others less friendly to the US – who are hailing the current economic crisis as a moment to usher in a multipolar world. Bush indicated he seeks to maintain some degree of American stewardship over the financial reform effort when he politely declined the offer of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon to host the expanded G-8 summit at the UN in New York. (Again, can’t tip off the religious right. Please keep in mind that neither McCain or Obama will be beholden to the opinions of this group in any way.)

Among the issues the White House has indicated it would endorse for a reform agenda are rules for the international flow of investment funds, improved oversight of increasingly global financial institutions, and means of boosting the transparency of international financial transactions and markets. 

But European leaders have called for what sound like much deeper reforms. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, for example, has proposed a reorganization of the International Monetary Fund – a Bretton Woods institution.

Behind the European proposals is a sense that the financial crisis and America’s darkening economic prospects make this an opportunity for the European Union to play a bigger international role. Last week at the close of a two-day EU summit on the financial crisis, Sarkozy predicted that an international summit would take place before the end of the year because “Europe wants it, Europe demands it. Europe will get it.”

More than a show of unity with a declaration for a series of summits will be needed if the world is truly to come together to address the crisis, some observers note. “Unity of purpose is not found in a meeting or series of meetings. It’s found in purpose,” says Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. (Ah, the Rick Warren Purpose Driven Life language. How convenient. And how disconcerting that a generation of evangelicals is being brainwashed with the New Age doctrines of the new world order globalist Council on Foreign Relations member and pastor to the world’s biggest pornographer Rupert Murdoch in Rick Warren. Also, the “unity” thing is just recreating the tower of Babel so that the second Nimrod, the man of sin or the anti – Christ, can come on the scene.) “Whether that’s something the major players in this crisis can come together on remains to be seen.”

But Mr. Serfaty points out that the Europeans chose to engage the Bush administration, when just a few years ago the deep divisions over the Iraq war were disrupting such cooperation. (A key component to spotting people who are sold out to and working for Satan is their ability to manipulate you into thinking that you are in control when they are secretly calling the shots all along, as that is precisely how Satan works. By the way, who is the better manipulator in this race … McCain or Obama? I give it to Obama, but only by a nose.)

“Rather than seeing any kind of disconnect,” he says, “I think we should emphasize the fact the Europeans are doing what [the Americans] want them to do, in that they are coming together and taking a proactive approach to this crisis.”

So you see, no matter who gets elected, the anti – Christ globalist system is going to be implemented. Do not put your trust in Obama, McCain, or any other thing or person of this world! Instead, put your trust in Jesus Christ!

Follow the three step salvation plan today!

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

 
%d bloggers like this: